Ex-Lib senator Sean Edwards backed by nuclear dump supporters The Australian, MICHAEL OWEN, 12 Jan 17 A high-powered group of South Australians, angry over the abandonment of bipartisan support to study a nuclear waste repository, are backing a push by former Liberal senator Sean Edwards to enter state parliament.
Mr Edwards, who lost his seat at last year’s election after being bumped down his party’s ticket, is an outspoken advocate of South Australia playing a greater role in the nuclear fuel cycle……
South Australians are due to go to the polls in March next year, with a redistribution putting the Liberals in the box seat.
The Australian understands Mr Edwards is set to nominate for preselection for the seat of Frome, a traditionally Liberal electorate seated in the industrial city of Port Pirie and the agriculture areas of Clare and Gilbert valleys, where the former senator owns a wine business…..
Several of those understood to be backing Mr Edwards were among a group of 21 who last month signed an open letter urging politicians to continue to explore a nuclear waste dump.
Adelaide Crows chairman Rob Chapman, Coopers brewery chief Tim Cooper, former Cricket Australia chairman Creagh O’Connor and industry chief Robert Gerard were among the signatories. Mr Gerard has donated more than $1 million to the Liberals. Dr Cooper donated $22,000 to the party in 2014-15…… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/exlib-senator-sean-edwards-backed-by-nuclear-dump-supporters/news-story/7825d323332eb36c6577cee2357c940a
When home owners consider installing rooftop photovoltaic (PV) electricity generators they are faced with up-front costs.
By comparison, electricity supplied through the grid by large scale electricity generators is provided at no up-front cost to the consumer. The consumer eventually pays the generators’ up-front costs (plus interest) through quarterly bills over a period of several years.
The solution to the problem has been known for several decades – provide a level playing field by having PV up-front costs financed by either an electricity service provider or government with the costs plus interest being recovered over time through the usual quarterly bill.
Such a simple arrangement would not only make rooftop PV competitive (including for rental properties) with grid electricity but would also make energy conservation measures, such as double glazing, more competitive.
DCNS Opens New Australia-Based Office to Support Country’s Submarine Replacement Project http://blog.executivebiz.com/2016/12/dcns-opens-new-australia-based-office-to-support-countrys-submarine-replacement-project/on: December 22, 2016 France-based naval shipbuilder DCNS has established a new headquarters for its Australian subsidiary that will design the future submarine of Australia’s navy as part of an intergovernmental agreement between the two countries.
DCNS said Wednesday its Adelaide Future Submarine Facility is scheduled to begin operations in early 2017 and will support activities such as the transfer of technology from France to Australia, development of a supply chain and design of a shipyard in Adelaide.
“This facility, and our local Adelaide workforce starting with 50 people in 2017, marks the beginning of our relationship as part of the community,” said Herve Guillou, DCNS Group chairman and global CEO.
The Australian government selected DCNS in April to provide design services for the country’s estimated $38.7 billion SEA 1000 Future Submarine Program.
Marise Payne and Jean-Yves Le Drian, respective defense ministers of Australia and France have signed an agreement that establishes a framework for the two countries on the development of the Australian navy’s fleet of submarines.
Ellenor Ziggy Day-Lutz , Fight to Stop Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges, 19 Dec 16, Just shared this info in another group and thought some of you might be interested – it’s about the Australian government’s sample size that they used to make the statement that “The nomination at Barndioota in South Australia demonstrated strong overall support (65 per cent of those surveyed) for moving ahead to Phase 2” (in their Phase 1 Summary Report released earlier this year).
Any people interested in reading the full results of the government’s consultations can find the info here: http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/…/NRWMF%20Community%20Se…
They phoned 228 people, 59 refused to be surveyed and contact couldn’t be made with a further 56. So 113 households were surveyed, and in total 146 responses were received. Yep, 146 survey responses out of the 1702 population of the Flinders Ranges Council area to come up with that statistic of 65% supposedly demonstrating strong support for the waste dump. This included 38 people from Hawker and 106 from Quorn (and 2 from other areas around Barndioota). They also surveyed Neighbours, Indigenous people and Businesses, but these were reported separately and aren’t included in the 65% statistic I’m talking about.
In their own document the government said there is a high margin of error for consultations around the Barndioota site. Even they got confused, because on page 68 they say it was +/-10% and on page 100 they said it was +/-9%.
Brenton Barnes The study was outsourced to Orima research and is nothing special. But what’s important is how the government interprets and uses this information. They cherry picked data excluding Aboriginal and neighbours. One small section of this group 35% opposed therefore 65% didn’t oppose. But to use this small sample size and cherry picked data to then go and promote this as “strong overall general community support” is just simply dishonest and misleading. A few of us did petitions around Hawker and Quorn and got about 40% of these two towns physically signing no, just done by me and a couple of others. This latest survey was hardly supporting the dump. Ramsey offering his land in Kimba was a conflict of interest, yet Chapman* is not?
*Grant Chapman Former Liberal Senator https://antinuclear.net/2016/04/29/nice-little-bonanza-for-former-sa-liberal-senator-grant-chapman-in-choice-of-nuclear-waste-dump-site/
WHAT I SENT
I totally agree with Chris Kenny (Sunday Mail, 11/12/16) when he writes “Climate change has dumbed down the public debate. Otherwise intelligent people are reduced to incoherent slogans” and some people “are too busy with emotional outbursts and virtue signalling to consider the basics.”
Using derogatory adjectives to describe policies and outcomes does little to further intelligent debate. Some facts would be helpful, especially if they are correct.
Three events in 2016 contributed to what Kenny emotively describes as an “energy basket case”. None of these events can be attributed to ensuring that 40 percent of SA’s electricity is “clean and green” yet Kenny leaves us in no doubt that he thinks being clean and green is part of the nasty “tunnel vision” that is “leading SA into a dark place”.
Rather than “clean and green” being the culprit, the three events were directly related to the privatisation of the electricity industry in SA and Victoria and to the formation of a national electricity market.
WHAT THEY PRINTED
SEVERAL events this year contributed to what Chris Kenny emotionally describes in his column as an “energy basket case”. None of these can be attributed, as he says, to ensuring that 40 percent of SA’s electricity is “clean and green”.
Rather than “clean and green” being the culprit, the events were directly related to the privatisation of the electricity industry in SA and Victoria and to the formation of a national electricity market.
My attempt to reply to Kenny’s extensive accusation that climate change activists are only being emotional was totally lost in the Sunday Mail’s edited version of my letter.
Comments on Preliminary Report SOUTH AUSTRALIAN SEPARATION EVENT, Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
The “separation event” was the disconnection of the Heywood interconnector into South Australia.
The following uses the same headings as the AEMO preliminary report.
A short-circuit in a Victorian 500 kV (kilovolt), alternating current (AC) transmission line connected to the Heywood Victorian-SA interconnector resulted in the SA electricity network being disconnected from the Heywood interconnector.
At the time of the “incident” the Victorian electricity network was highly vulnerable to disruption. One of the two circuits served by the Heywood interconnector had been taken out of operation for maintenance. To make matters worse, one of the circuits supplying the Alcoa aluminium smelter at Portland was also out of service. Like all aluminium smelters, the Portland smelter had a very heavy electricity demand (about 480 MW).
The vulnerability of the Victorian electricity network meant that the SA network was also vulnerable to an abrupt loss of 230 MW. Nevertheless, no measures had been put in place to immediately replace power supply from Victoria in the event of disconnection from the Haywood interconnector. As with the SA state-wide blackout two months earlier, there was more than sufficient generating capacity available in SA but it was not on standby.
A short circuit in the remaining transmission line in Victoria to the Heywood interconnector resulted in SA and the Portland smelter being disconnected and the shutdown of two wind farms in Victoria.
The “incident” in Victoria, together with inadequate contingency plans resulted in the loss of 230 MW to SA, BHP’s Olympic Dam project losing 100 of its 170 MW for 3 hours, Portland smelter being disconnected for 4½ hours and disconnection of two wind farms (Portland generating 3MW, and Macarthur generating 4MW) in Victoria.
2. Pre-event Conditions
“Immediately prior to the incident there were two planned outages.”
Use of terms such as “incident” and “event” is reminiscent of the nuclear industry’s avoidance of terms such as “failure” , “accident”, and “meltdown”.
“Planned outage” refers to deliberate disconnection of parts of the system for maintenance or repairs. Such deliberate disconnections should be permitted only if they do not expose the system to serious disruption and only if there is sufficient backup in case of a fault developing in the remaining parts of the system. For SA no backup was put on standby in the case of SA being disconnected to the Heywood interconnector.
One of the “outages” referred to was that one half of the Heywood supply to SA (a 500 kV busbar) was out of service. This left SA and Victoria vulnerable to a fault developing in the remaining half of the Heywood supply. The other “outage” was the Heywood to Portland 500 kV transmission line servicing the Alcoa aluminium smelter.
Both outages were given permission by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
These two decisions left the aluminium smelter vulnerable to a fault developing in the remaining half of the Heywood transmission line in Victoria. There was no backup plan for maintaining supply to the smelter in this contingency.
At the time, SA was importing about 240 MW from Heywood in Victoria.
“A single phase to earth fault occurred on the Morabool-Tarrone 500 kV transmission line causing the line to trip out of service.” In other words, there was a short circuit in the only remaining transmission line in Victoria to the Heywood interconnector.
“It is believed that the line tripped as a normal response to this type of fault”. The short circuit caused the transmission line to Heywood to be disconnected (trip).
The short circuit was caused by the breaking of an electrical cable. The reason for the cable breaking was not known to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
The “trip” of the transmission line left the Portland smelter still connected to SA, the power flow reversed so that instead of 240 MW into SA from Victoria there was 480 MW from SA to Victoria to supply the Portland smelter. A control scheme then disconnected the smelter from SA.
5 Operation of SA when Islanded
Islanded means that SA was on its own as far as power supply was concerned, in particular, it means that it was not receiving power from Victoria. In fact, SA was still receiving about 220 MW through the high voltage, direct current (DC), Victoria-SA, Murraylink interconnector.
The “Black System” referred to by AEMO is what is more commonly known as the South Australian state-wide blackout. AEMO also refers to it as “the event”. The AEMO report contains considerable technical jargon and use of acronyms. Constant referral to a list of terms and abbreviations at the beginning of the report is necessary.
AEMO Executive Summary
According to the executive summary, the SA blackout was “initiated by the loss of three transmission lines involving a sequence of faults in quick succession”. These electricity transmission lines are the high voltage power lines that feed into the low voltage distribution system that services homes and many small to medium businesses.
The damaged transmission lines were in the mid-north of SA.
The sequence of faults led to many wind turbine electricity generators in the mid-north initially trying to continue to generate. Within 7 seconds, these initial attempts to “ride through” the problems caused by transmission line damage were followed by wind turbines deliberately shutting down (tripping), or decreasing their output, in order to protect them from serious damage. This caused a decrease of power generation by about 460 megawatts (MW). Prior to the transmission line damage, the total generated grid power available to SA was about 1830 MW. Domestic, off-grid, solar photovoltaic power was about 50 MW.
Although it seems reasonable that wind turbines should have an ability to shut down to protect against serious damage, according to the report “AEMO was not aware of the protective feature of these generating units”. Consequently, AEMO had not taken steps to replace the lost power in such a situation.
The loss of about 460 MW of generating capacity resulted in an attempt to import extra power through the Heywood, high voltage, alternating current (AC), connector with Victoria. Such connectors between states are essential for the operating of an electricity market. Without interconnectors there would be no National Electricity Market (NEM). Continue reading
- Taiwan will not pay SA to accept high-level nuclear waste if that requires investing in waste storage and disposal infrastructure.
- Taiwan would not send nuclear waste to Australia unless and until a repository is built and operating.
- Taiwan would not send nuclear waste to Australia in the face of widespread public opposition.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, said: “Taiwan’s power utility Taipower states clearly and repeatedly that Taiwan will not pay for nuclear waste storage and disposal infrastructure in SA. Yet foreign investment in that infrastructure is central to the state Labor Government’s plans. Preliminary and exploratory studies could cost up to $2.4 billion and Premier Jay Weatherill must now come clean on whether he intends to gamble billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on this project.”
Taipower’s statements are directly at odds with statements made by Martin Hamilton-Smith. Opposition treasury spokesman Rob Lucas is quoted in this morning’s Advertiser saying that Hamilton-Smith “stands condemned for misleading everyone” about Taiwan’s views.
Dr Green continued: “Taiwan would not send nuclear waste to Australia unless and until a repository is built and operating. Yet the Final Report of the Royal Commission clearly states that unless nuclear waste is imported prior to the establishment of a repository, the project would not be profitable.” [See p.300 of the Royal Commission’s Final Report.]
“Taiwan will not send nuclear waste to Australia in the face of widespread public opposition. A clear majority of South Australians oppose the nuclear waste dump plan. A statewide consultation process found 53% opposition compared to just 31% support. A recent poll commissioned by the Sunday Mail found just 35% support. Two-thirds of the Citizen Jurors rejected the dump plan ‘under any circumstances’. The Premier himself has acknowledged the ‘overwhelming opposition of Aboriginal people’.
“It is unlikely that any country would send nuclear waste to SA in the face of widespread public opposition and overwhelming opposition from Aboriginal people. It is unlikely that any country would pay for waste storage and disposal infrastructure in SA. It is unlikely that any country would send waste to SA in the absence of a built, operating repository. The Labor Government’s plan fails on all three counts.
“South Australians opposed to the dump will be spoilt for choice at the March 2018 election with the Liberal Party, the Nick Xenophon Team and the SA Greens all opposed to the Labor Government’s plan to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump. The Premier should have the good sense to swallow his pride and to dump the dump before he puts the Labor Party in an unwinnable position leading up to the state election,” Dr Green concluded.
Opposition treasury spokesman Rob Lucas said Mr Hamilton-Smith “stands condemned for misleading everyone” about Taiwan’s views
Taiwanese energy firm rejects Martin Hamilton-Smith’s claim it would help set up SA nuclear waste dump Daniel Wills, State political editor, The Advertiser 14 Dec 2016
TAIWAN’S state-owned energy company has bluntly rejected Investment and Trade Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith’s claim the country would consider paying to help set up a nuclear waste dump in SA, saying in a letter that it “hereby declares this is a false information”.
Just days after Premier Jay Weatherill’s citizens’ jury last month overwhelmingly dumped on plans for nuclear storage in SA, amid concerns about trust, Mr Hamilton-Smith insisted he had met with Taiwanese officials who expressed a “clear message” of interest in investment.
“There’s clearly a demand and our neighbours may be in a position to put hundreds of millions, if not billions, into infrastructure and then paying to dump waste on an ongoing basis,” he said.
However, correspondence from state-owned power company Taipower and the country’s Atomic Energy Council to government party MP Su Chih-Feng rejects Mr Hamilton-Smith’s claim.
While they note there was a meeting with Mr Hamilton-Smith on November 10, Taipower says his spin of the events in Adelaide three days later was “a false information”.
The translation from Mandarin to English was done by a Taiwanese NGO and provided to The Advertiser by antinuclear activists Friends of the Earth Australia. It states Taipower was interested in using a dump which had been established, but not paying to help set one up. Continue reading
Queensland’s largest solar farm plugs into the grid a month early The 20 megawatt plant in Barcaldine is one of first in the country to be funded by Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 14 Dec 16, Queensland’s largest operating solar farm has plugged into the national electricity grid and is set to generate enough power for almost 10,000 households by the end of 2016.
The Barcaldine remote community solar farm, in the state’s central west outback, connected to the national electricity market on Wednesday, more than a month ahead of schedule.
The early delivery of the 20 megawatt plant, one of the first in the country to be funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, was evidence of the growing speed and proficiency of big solar developers, said Arena’s chief executive, Ivor Frischknecht.
It is to be followed by a dozen new large-scale solar farms to be built across Australia by the end of 2017, which would ramp up national solar capacity to enough power for 150,000 average homes.
Those plants – six in Queensland, five in New South Wales and one in Western Australia – would be the fruits of an Arena funding program expected to “unlock almost $1bn in commercial investment and boost regional economies”, Frischknecht said.
The Barcaldine plant developer, Elecnor – one of a number of Spanish companies invested in Australian solar – is a transnational corporation with interests from gas and rail to aerospace. Elecnor was backed by $22.8m in funding commitments by Arena and $20m in loans from the federal government’s “green bank”, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
Barcaldine’s mayor, Rob Chandler said the project, which features 78,000 solar panels, had “enthusiastic supporters” in a local community that saw “the great benefits it can bring to outback communities like ours”.
“If it’s one thing we have a lot of it’s sun so it’s great to see it being harnessed to power the electricity grid.”
Frischknecht said: “As well as generating clean energy, the project is demonstrating how project developers can monetise network benefits and ultimately how solar farms can improve network efficiency and reliability at the edge of the grid.”…… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/14/queenslands-largest-solar-farm-plugs-into-the-grid-a-month-early
South Australian Government enters historic discussions with Aboriginal nations The World Today By Caroline Winter http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/south-australia-enters-historic-treaty-discussions/8120162
“South Australia is making history, with the State Government entering treaty discussions with Aboriginal nations to help address past injustices.
“The Government has set aside $4.4 million over five years to support the treaty process and the appointment of an independent commissioner for treaty.
“At this stage it is unclear what the treaties will cover or whether compensation will be included,
but South Australian Indigenous leaders said the process would set a positive course for the future. … ”
SA set for Indigenous treaty talks ‘South Australia could have up to 40 treaties after
an announcement was made in Adelaide on Tuesday morning.’https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2016/12/14/sa-set-indigenous-treaty-talks?cid=inbody:challenges-ahead-for-victorian-treaty-negotiations Madeline Hayman-Reber Source: NITV News 14 December 2016:
““Treaty is an important step towards addressing the wrongs of the past.
The fact that so many Aboriginal people to this day face such significant disadvantage remains the greatest stain on our society,” Mr Maher said. “This marks the first time that a state has committed to individualised treaties for Aboriginal communities, and comes off the back of yesterday’s announcement in Victoria of plans for a statewide treaty. … “
Sundrop Farms produces healthy, sustainable food in the middle of the Australian Desert, without using pesticides, fossil fuels or fresh water.
The scarcity of food resources in many parts of the world is one of the major population threats. Agricultural lands deplete continuously, as climate change and inappropriate agricultural practices cause intense soil degradation and nutrient deficiencies. Desperate farmers continue to add enormous amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, while wasting millions of gallons of fresh water for irrigation. Many even feel obliged to opt for growing genetically modified crops with questionable health benefits, but which are apparently resistant to certain factors and can result in high yields.
Sundrop Farms, a modern agricultural company, has set a task to show that healthy, organic food can be produced everywhere. Their aim is to bust the myth that genetically modified foods, toxic pesticides, and large sums of money are the only solution to…
View original post 320 more words
The Federal Government has selected South Australia for their national nuclear waste dump – saying that Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges is their only option.
This is on top of the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission promoting South Australia as the World’s high level radioactive waste dumping ground.
Constructing a nuclear waste dump in SA is currently illegal and the Greens want it to stay this way. We ask:
• Is this the best our State can aspire to?
• Is the damage to our State’s reputation worth it?
Radioactive waste is not only dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, but its storage can never be 100% foolproof.
Last year in the US, a barrel of nuclear waste stored underground at an intermediate waste site in New Mexico ruptured, exposing 22 workers to radiation and costing an estimated $500 million to remediate.
Exposure to radiation can cause serious health problems – including cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and cataracts – and if it enters the soil can contaminate our food and water.
Add you voice and sign the petition below to call on the South Australian Government to enforce our laws and stop nuclear waste being dumped in SA.
We the undersigned residents of South Australia, call on the Weatherill Labor Government to enforce the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, to prevent a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. signatures:http://sagreens.markparnell.org.au/no_waste_dump_for_sa So the current count is 25 to 1833?
12 Dec 16 Australian nuclear lobbyists have had remarkable success in making themselves famous internationally, which is probably their main aim. . Barry Brook set this off, with a thin veil of environmentalism covering his dedication to the nuclear industry, in Brave New Climate. He got a heap of well-meaning environmentalists to sign up to a pro nuclear letter.
Now Ben Heard has gone a step further, with HIS nuclear front group – Bright New World. He’s got 25 important people to sign up to a pro nuclear campaign for South Australia. As with Brook’s disciples, some of these people seem quite altruistic and disconnected with the nuclear and mining industries.
Others do not:
Dr Ian Gould: chairing South Australia Energy and Resources Investment Conference 23-24 May 2017 Adelaide, geologist with 40 years experience in the minerals industry in diverse and senior positions, mainly within the CRA/Rio Tinto Group, current Chancellor of the University of South Australia and was awarded an AM in the 2011 Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to mining.
David Klingberg is a South Australian businessman, civil engineer and former Chancellor of the University of South Australia. director of ASX listed companies E & A Ltd and Centrex Metals Ltd. Klingberg is chair of a technical sub-group working on the Australian Government‘s National Radioactive Waste Management Project.
Dr Leanna Read is South Australia’s Chief Scientist, Expert Advisory Committee of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in South Australia.] Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,[which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014.. Read is also the Chair of the South Australian Science Council.
Stephen Young director or Chairman on a number of companies including ,Electricity Trust of South Australia, Australian Submarine Corporation ,The University of Adelaide ,E&A ltd and its Subsidiaries.
Mr Jim McDowell Chancellor of the University of South Australia Jim McDowell is currently Chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and non-Executive director of a number of private and listed companies. He advises the Federal Government in a number of areas of Defence and Defence Procurement. He is a member of the First Principles Review of the Department of Defence and is currently on the Expert Advisory Panel for the Future Submarine. Formerly CEO OF BAE Systems Australia, the nation’s largest defence contractor.
Michael John Terlet Primary qualification in Electrical EngineeringNon Executive Chairman of Sandvik Mining and Construction Adelaide Ltd, a Director of Australian Submarine Corporation Pty. Ltd. Served as the Chief Executive Officer at AWA Defence Industries, Chairman of SA Centre for Manufacturing, Defence Manufacturing Council SA (MTIA)
Graham Douglas Walters AM, FCA Mr. Graham Douglas Walters, AM, FCA, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Minelab Electronics Pty Ltd. Mr. Walters serves as Chairman and Director at Minelab International Pty Ltd.
David Noonan dissects the draft ARPANSA Information for Stakeholders on nuclear radioactive waste facility
Effectively this is the same draconian situation that existed under the earlier Commonwealth
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 introduced by the Howard government to override State and Territory interests to protect community health, safety and welfare from the risks and impacts of nuclear wastes and to nullify Federal laws that protect against imposition of nuclear wastes.
Revised ARPANSA “Information for Stakeholders” should address the following:
The nuclear fuel waste Store in the Flinders Ranges is intended to operate for approx. 100 years.
The ARPANSA “Information for Stakeholders” fails to be transparent and is not fit for purpose.
ARPANSA must inform the public on the proposed licence period for this nuclear fuel waste Store.
ARPANSA should also publicly acknowledge the Contingency that the proposed nuclear fuel waste Store may be at a different site to the proposed near surface Repository in the Flinders Ranges.
The proposed above ground Store in our iconic Flinders Ranges is unnecessary as the ANSTO’s existing Interim Waste Store (IWS) at the Lucas Heights Technology Centre can manage reprocessed nuclear fuel waste on contract from France and from the United Kingdom over the long term.
The ANSTO application for the Interim Waste Store was conservatively predicated on a 40 year operating life for the IWS, and ANSTO has a contingency to “extend it for a defined period of time”.
ANSTO also has a contingency option for the “Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal option” – which does not involve a Store in the Flinders Ranges.
The Lucas Heights Technology Centre is by far the best placed Institution and facility to responsibly manage Australia’s existing nuclear fuel waste and proposed waste accruals from the Opal reactor.
The Interim Waste Store (IWS) at the Lucas Heights Technology Centre can conservatively function throughout the proposed operating period of the Opal reactor without a requirement for an alternative above ground nuclear fuel waste Store at a NRWMF in the Flinders Ranges or elsewhere.
It is an inexplicably omission or an unacceptably act of denial for ARPANSA to fail to even identity or to properly explain Australia’s existing nuclear fuel wastes and proposed further decades of Opal reactor nuclear fuel waste production in the “Information for Stakeholders”.
Australia’s nuclear fuel wastes are by far the highest activity and most concentrated and hazardous nuclear wastes under Australian management, and must be distinguished from other waste forms. Continue reading