No Dump Alliance – anti-nuclear advocacy group launched
Advocacy group protests against high-level nuclear waste dump in SA, saying it poses great health, environment and financial risks http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/nuclear-dump-protesters-warn-of-cultural-genocide-in-sa/7419406 May 16, 2016 Erin Jones The Advertiser
A NEW advocacy group will lobby against a high-level nuclear waste dump being built in SA.
The No Dump Alliance group launched on Monday and already has the support of several groups, including the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation, the Maritime Union of Australia and SA Aboriginal Congress.
The group formed after the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission earlier this month recommended the state urgently pursue the opportunity of a nuclear dump.
The No Dump Alliance believes the proposal shows a lack of respect for traditional owners, who opposed the dump and said it could pose significant health, environment and financial risks.
Candice Champion is a Adnyamathanha woman from the Flinders Ranges who said a nuclear storage facility could pose many risks to her community.
“As a young Adnyamathanha woman my family will be affected by this nuclear dump, which is bringing about a lot of anxiety and mental health issues to my family and community,” Ms Champion said.
“These places are of quality and significance to me and people continue to discount the Adnyamathanha voice which is frustrating and disheartening.
“We want to be able to invest in our future generations and be able to pass something over that is important and pristine, not something posing any risks.”
SA Aboriginal Congress chairman Tauto Sansbury said the group must have a united front and it was not just an “Aboriginal fight” to protect the land.
“This will be a united front to protect SA and make sure it continues to grow from other opportunities, apart from being the international dumping ground,” Mr Sansbury said.
“I believe we’re going to win this because this is not just about an Aboriginal fight … it’s everyone’s fight.”
The State Government will use a jury of 350 randomly selected South Australians to make recommendations to it in November on whether to proceed with the plan for a nuclear waste dump.
The jury was part of a six-step process to unfold over the next seven months, culminating in a firm Government position being outlined to State Parliament.
Premier Jay Weatherill has previously stressed the project could not proceed without broad political and community support.
Nuclear “Citizens’ Juries” and new South Australian campaign “Nu-Clear”
( an unfortunate title for the nuclear lobby – “Nu-Clear” – all too close to the UK’s incisive anti-nuclear publication NuClear News )
Citizens’ juries to consider SA’s nuclear future, The Mandarin, Citizens’ juries show potential as a way for governments to take the heat out of contentious issues, with evidence-informed consideration of contentious policy by regular people having the ability to reshape often staid debates.
So as South Australia is tossing up whether to create a nuclear waste dump to take spent fuel from around the world, the state government has decided to convene two citizens’ juries to consider the future of the nuclear fuel cycle in the state…….
Premier Jay Weatherill says the citizens’ jury deliberations will help South Australians have an “informed discussion” about the nuclear fuel cycle, based on the body of evidence presented in the royal commission report.
The work of the citizens’ juries and other consultation processes “will play a key role in informing the decisions we make”, he stated yesterday:
“I know that some people are worried about safety and the environment whilst others see the economic opportunities. This is why before the government decides, we want South Australians to understand the choices and to be able to put their perspective on this issue.”
Deliberations will begin next month, when a group of about 50 South Australians will be asked to identify the key questions that need to be considered during the debate.
Invitations will be sent this week to 25,000 randomly selected citizens seeking an expression of interest for their participation in the jury, with members selected by an independent, non-political organisation.
Later, in October, a second citizens’ jury of about 350 people will be convened to evaluate the feedback from the state-wide consultation and weigh up the choices and options on the important issues raised by the royal commission.
In November, this second jury will produce a report summarising the community’s position for the government to consider in its response to the royal commission’s report by the end of the year.
New agency to ‘facilitate’ debate
The government will introduce a range of other consultative measures to help it come to a decision.
An independent advisory board to guide the consultation process will soon be appointed, and a state government nuclear fuel cycle agency established to help facilitate the discussion.
A campaign titled “Nu-Clear” was launched on Tuesday to promote discussion and encourage people to explore the facts on the nuclear fuel cycle, with advertisements to be run on radio, television, print and social media.
Citizens are able to comment on the royal commission report on the state’s YourSAy consultation website.
The key questions identified by the citizens’ jury will guide a number of community consultation activities from July, which will include meetings held across the state, as well as social media engagement, information centres and a free call 1800 service.
A specific program of Aboriginal engagement will also be undertaken across SA with the guidance of Aboriginal community leaders. http://www.themandarin.com.au/64738-64738/
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill sounding like an old style Liberal!
Jay Weatherill: governments lost the art of talking to people, The Mandarin by
David Donaldson 18.02.2016 Democracies get into trouble when the judgement of experts supplants listening to the people it is supposed to represent, says South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill.
In an op-ed for DemocracyRenewal, Weatherill says the use of experts — “scientists, specialists in particular fields of knowledge and bureaucrats who come up with ‘rational’ answers to issues that they decide are the problem the community should think about” — is important, but if overzealous can disenfranchise people and create distrust in government……..
“Rather than being a threat to established institutions and reform, our Citizens’ Juries have demonstrated that the involvement of citizens in public decisions enables change and helps to restore faith in the political process. Independent evaluation has shown that the cynicism and suspicion people had felt towards government decreased as a result of being involved in the citizen jury process, with a strong interest in participating again.” http://www.themandarin.com.au/56739-jay-weatherill-governments-lost-art-talking-people/
Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resources Management Board – response to Nuclear Royal Commission
The Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resources Management Board – reponse to Tentaive Findings of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
A referendum might be held to decide on nuclear waste import plan
Daniel Wills: Voters’ nuclear reaction can avoid meltdowns in future May 13, 2016 The Advertiser
EVERY South Australian has been assured they can join a grand debate over a high-level nuclear waste dump for the state, but it’s no certainty that voters will get to directly decide.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s final report this week included a strong call for the state to urgently pursue the opportunity and usher in a golden era of new wealth for SA.
Premier Jay Weatherill is holding fire until the end of the year. The State Government’s formal position is that its mind is not made up, and a combination of statewide consultation and two citizens’ juries made up of average people will help chart the course to be taken from here.
But ultimately, he’s indicated the final decision will be taken by the Cabinet, Government and 69 members of State Parliament who are put in place to make decisions on behalf of all.
The prospect of a referendum, which could be held concurrently with the 2018 state election and would effectively offer every South Australian a direct say on what would be an irreversible decision, is not being ruled out at the highest levels either major party.
If it were to occur, the electoral dynamics in two years’ time would be dramatically altered………
if a simple change to an Act of Parliament is all that’s required for a future government in coming decades and centuries to shift course, South Australians have reason to be wary.
A business case penned by Jacobs & MCM for the commission shows the state would be swimming in cash for 75 years, and then serious bills would start rolling in for the next 50……..
It’s easy to imagine a future where short-term politics triumphs over today’s best intentions…..
The next six months — with two citizens’ juries and a statewide consultation process — will shake out some of these questions and may even formally recommend a nuclear referendum…… http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/daniel-wills-voters-nuclear-reaction-can-avoid-meltdowns-in-future/news-story/fae428aedd70a823c06302bf15b92289
Electoral suicide for Labor? The nuclear waste dump plan.
from “Sanity” “Mr Weatherill is understood to be favouring a political decision taken without the delay and additional hassle of a referendum.” Sorry Jay, but it is reasonable to go to the “hassle of a referendum” when the the decision has such a significant impact upon our state and citizens.
Tom Koutsantonis threatened the Liberal party with a referendum on the issue (a nuclear waste dump in SA) so it would be beyond hyporitical (even for a politician) for him not to require one now.
Daniel, could you publish the results of the ‘Advertiser -Galaxy’ poll here too?
Earlier this week a survey of ‘AdelaideNow’ readers gave the following results:
Are you in favour of a nuclear waste dump in SA?
No: 61.04% (1,648 votes)
Yes: 35.63% (962 votes)
Undecided: 3.33% (90 votes)
Which indicates certain electoral suicide for any party that allows SA to become a nuclear dump.
Citizens’ Juries can be a valuable guide in nuclear decision-making
The role of Citizens’ Juries in decision-making on nuclear waste importation, Online opinion, By Noel Wauchope 13 May 2016 On May 10th South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill announced the process by which the state will decide whether or not to host a global nuclear waste import industry, as recommended by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
The first step will be to set up a “Citizens’ Jury” of 50 participants randomly selected from 25,000 invitees statewide, to be followed later by another one of 350 participants.
I think that Weatherill might have mistaken his terms here, as a Citizens’ Jury, by definition, means a group of 10 to 12 participants. The Weatherill plan sounds more like a “Deliberative Poll”, which involves a much larger group.
A properly constituted Citizens’ Jury can be a valuable process in participatory democracy. The group of 10 or 12 people serves as microcosm of the public. …… The process depends on having the oversight of a neutral but well informed advisory panel. Questions need to be framed in a way that does not risk influencing the response. Transparency is important, and complete audio or video recordings of all jury hearings should be publicly available, although the actual jury room deliberations should be private.
The citizen jury process can be an empowering one for the participants, and, as long as it is perceived to be fair and transparent, can be a valuable democratic option for assessing public opinion. It also has the advantage of being cost-effective.
The “Deliberative Poll” method is potentially another very useful form of participatory democracy. It is a lot more expensive, and more complicated. The biggest disadvantage of the Deliberative Poll method is probably its cost. Wikipedia notes:
“Imagine how much money is needed to pay for the trips, the hotel and the food for each participant, hiring the research crew and moderators, booking a venue, etc. Additional costs can include paying for participants’ compensation so that people that are randomly selected can put aside their duties to attend the events (i.e. hiring someone to milk a participant’s cow and providing child care”
Some critics insist that funding for either of these processes should not come from on single body.
“Multiple sources of funding help to ensure that the jury’s organisers are not seen as having a financial interest in producing a verdict that supports the interests of a single funding body. To maximise the scrutiny they provide, the two or more funders should have somewhat opposing interests regarding the subject likely to be under discussion.”……
In Japan, in 2012, a Deliberative Poll formed the guide to government decision-making. The Japanese government used the Center for Deliberative Democracy’s Deliberative Polling method to both inform participants and allow them to influence policymakers about the public’s will with regard to energy production issues. As a direct result of the deliberative polling process, Japan’s national government pledged to have zero percent dependency on nuclear energy after 2030. (This decision was overturned by a later government).
The South Australian government’s decision to start with a participatory democracy process is a welcome one, provided that it is done fairly and properly. Neither a Citizens Jury nor a Deliberative Poll can be a substitute for a fully democratic process like a referendum, but either could be a valuable contributor to a wider process of decision making. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18230
South Australian govt will decide on nuclear waste import, but let citizens talk about it anyway
Premier Jay Weatherill Thursday, 11 May 2016 Community views critical to our State’s nuclear future Olympic Dam for nuclear waste? BHP does not agree
Have these people read BHP’s Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission?
BHP clearly states that it doesn’t want to have any involvement in storage or disposal of nuclear waste:
“Irrespective of whether storage or disposal is preferred, BHP Billiton considers that either option would be inconsistent with our core business of mining and the production of high quality copper and associated by-products at Olympic Dam.” – http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
Olympic Dam mooted as nuke dump site The area around BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam site has been raised in informal discussions within government as a prospective site for a future high-level nuclear waste dump, InDaily can reveal. INDAILY, Tom Richardson, 12 May 15, While a decision on whether to proceed with an international nuclear repository – as strongly recommended by this week’s Scarce Royal Commission final report – won’t be made until November at the earliest, it’s understood the viability of the Stuart Shelf region of the Gawler Craton, much of which is covered by the Olympic Dam indenture agreement, is “a question that’s been asked” in State Government circles.
The discussions also raised the prospect of an approach to Oz Minerals, whose Prominent Hill operation is around 130km northwest of Olympic Dam…….
It’s understood the Rann Government approached BHP in its first term to canvas using Olympic Dam for a low-level state repository, a suggestion the company declined.
It has since maintained that stance, unsurprisingly given the relatively low financial return of such an enterprise, saying in February that it had not been shortlisted for the national waste repository for low and intermediate level waste “and we expect this process to run its course”……http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/05/12/olympic-dam-mooted-as-nuke-dump-site/
Nuclear dump site for a culturally and archaeologically significant area!
Can citizen’s juries make decision on Australia importing global nuclear wastes?
Citizen’s council to steer SA nuclear waste decision MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 11, 2016
A system used to decide “tricky policy issues” such as how South Australians manage unwanted dogs and cats will be set up to decide the state’s nuclear future.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said a citizen’s jury of 50, chosen from 25,000 “everyday South Australians’’ in a similar way to how a jury is chosen for a criminal trial, will be formed next month to pose key questions raised by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission into the state’s further involvement in the nuclear industry.
A second jury of 350 would seek community feedback and report to the government by September, before a decision on a dump is made by November. Including an advertising campaign, the process would cost $1 million, Mr Weatherill said…..
The Premier said it would be impossible to proceed with recommendations, which included expanding uranium mining and considering nuclear power, without strong community support. “This is going nowhere if it is going to be the subject of political controversy,” he said……
“No serious investor will co-operate with us, no international partner will want to be part of entering into what is a long-term, extraordinarily expensive set of investments if they don’t think the community is going to be able to deliver on them.
“This is a test of our democracy. Can we have a mature and reasoned debate about this issue and come up with a wise judgment,“ he said.
The government has recently used citizen juries on issues of dog and cat management and cycling laws, saying it develops independent views not dominated by lobbyists and activists.
But the nuclear question was “clearly a very significant decision to entrust to this process,’’ said University of Adelaide political analyst Clement Macintyre.
“It means that the decision is arms’ length from the government, and potentially politically safer for them,’’ he said.
Mr Weatherill’s openness to a nuclear dump has clashed with Labor’s national platform, which is strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste. However, he said political consensus had to be achieved at state level before taking the question nationally. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/citizens-council-to-steer-sa-nuclear-waste-decision/news-story/20e35875865926c8d1746ed9a55174b5
Long haul for South Australia nuclear waste dump project, and serious risks
Australians face big decision on nuclear waste dump, news.com.au MAY 10, 2016 ….. ” it’s not going to be an overnight fix for the state’s budget problems. A permanent facility would take 28 years to build, and this construction could only start once local residents were on board. The commissioner has suggested it could take 10 years to get this approval.
Even if an interim facility was built to take used fuel while the permanent version was under construction, this would still only be operational 11 years after a decision on the project was made.
SAFETY ASPECTS
Used nuclear fuel, stored as a solid ceramic in metal cladding, generates heat and is highly radioactive and dangerous.
According to the commission, radiation levels reduce quickly during the first 30 to 50 years of storage and the most radioactive elements decay within 500 years. But less radioactive elements in nuclear fuel do require storage and isolation for at least 100,000 years.
The commission noted that the most serious consequences of disturbing nuclear fuel were linked to potential exposure to radiation.
And certainly nothing focuses the mind like considering the wasteland of Chernobylor Fukushima………
the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, even low-level waste, which needs be stored for up to a few hundred years, have been illustrated in the US and France.
America’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was compromised when a drum of radioactive waste burst open in the underground facility. Most disturbingly, the rupture was blamed on someone putting the wrong type of kitty litter in the drum, possibly due to a typo in a policy manual.
A WAR BEGINS
Conservationists have accused the commissioner of downplaying the risks of nuclear storage and have threatened to ramp up their campaign against the dump.
“We’ll be increasing our profile, our presence and our concerns,” Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney told AAP……..
Invitations will be sent this week to 25,000 people seeking an expression of interest in being part of a 400-person jury that will consider the state’s approach…….
Treasurer Scott Morrison said the Federal Government would work constructively with SA to address any issues arising out of the Royal Commission…….
#NuclearCommissionSAust bizarre attack on renewable energy
In its final report, the commission draws from the usual nuclear play-book on renewables: that wind and solar can’t do the job, that other renewable energy technologies are untested, and that renewables will require expensive and additional back-up power.
So far, South Australia has got to 50 per cent wind and solar without the need for any additional back-up power. Indeed, there is still surplus capacity.
Royal Commission wants rules changed on nuclear power in 
Australia http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/royal-commission-wants-rules-changed-on-nuclear-power-in-australia-28210 By Giles Parkinson on 10 May 2016 The Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has concluded that nuclear power generation is not a commercially viable option for Australia, and won’t be until the 2030s – if at all, but it still wants governments to repeal laws that ban nuclear generation.
The main findings of the Royal Commission centred around the creation of a nuclear waste dump, despite widespread criticism of the move. That recommendation will be reviewed by the South Australia government over the course of the year.
But on the same day that the last coal-fired power generator in the state was closed down, the commission has also argued the case for nuclear, saying it “might” be needed post 2030.
The Royal Commission seems to accept that nuclear power is not just too expensive, but too big to fit into the South Australia market, and it would be too risky for the state to build “new generation” technology, such as the “generation IV” reactors often promoted in nuclear circles.
Yet, further into the report, it expresses support for small modular reactors, despite the fact that this technology will likely be even more expensive, due to reduced economies of scale, and forms part of the “new generation” technologies because the first of its kind are not likely to appear within the next decade.
The commission gives some bizarre interpretations in the state of the market, Continue reading
Paragraphs in the Royal Commission report that deserve scrutiny
Michelle Drummond, South Australia, 11 May 16 After reading the summary of the report I wanted to highlight a couple of points that I see as being important, and worth consideration. Firstly it seems obvious to me that the dump is actually the wedge to introduce the rest of the Nuclear industry into Australia.
It is interesting that the opening statement highlights that being involved in Nuclear activities brings environmental, social, financial and safety risks.
In the next paragraph they talk about the 120 year life span of the project and ignore that there is still another 99,880 years to maintain the safety of the dump.
In paragraph 3 it is firmly stated there needs to be agreement by the South Australian Community (Citizens Jury now offered as the method for reaching agreement I have found that it is open to abuse, unless everyone is well informed across the topic.)
Paragraph 6 states that the government needs to pursue simplification of both state and federal legislation in regards to uranium mining.
Paragraph 8 is all about expanding mining, and exploration and removing barriers. At the end of this paragraph it was pleasing to see the idea that mining companies should be held financially responsible for remediation and decommission.
Paragraph 11 discusses the removal of legislation so that Australia could reprocess waste as well as storing it.
Paragraph 13 states that Nuclear power should not be discounted based on safety.
No national referendum on nuclear waste importing? Just shonky “citizen juries”
Citizen juries to weigh SA nuclear dump https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/31561735/citizen-juries-to-weigh-sa-nuclear-dump/
AAP on May 10, 2016 South Australians will be asked to take part in citizen juries to help decide whether the state should host a high-level nuclear waste dump.
A jury of 350 voters will be asked to produce a report in November outlining the community’s views on the proposed dump and other nuclear issues, with the government to outline its decision by year’s end.
The government will also launch an advertising campaign encouraging people to “explore the facts” on the nuclear fuel cycle, Premier Jay Weatherill told reporters on Tuesday.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 