These are the recommendations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia
Former Governor Kevin Scarce recommends go ahead for nuclear storage in SA The Advertiser, May 9, 2016 DANIEL WILLSSTATE POLITICAL EDITOR
“……..The recommendations
1. Simplify approvals for radioactive ore mining, ending the duplication at state and federal processes
2. Make more SA geophysical data available publicly to aid exploration.
3. Undertake more geophysical surveys areas where mineral prospectivity is high.
4. Commit to increased, long-term government spending to search for new mineral deposits.
5. Ensure the full costs of closing down radioactive ore projects are secured before mining starts.
6. Remove state and federal bans on uranium processing activities.
7. Promote commercialisation of more research at the SA Health and Medical Research Institute.
8. End a national ban on nuclear power so it can be used to cut Australia’s carbon emissions.
9. Develop a national energy policy that considers all technologies, including nuclear.
10. Work with the Federal Government to better understand available nuclear power options.
11. Pursue establishment of a used nuclear fuel waste storage and disposal facility in SA.
12. Abolish state laws preventing further taxpayer-funded investigations of the industry.
(Condensed from formal recommendations) http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/former-governor-kevin-scarce-recommends-go-ahead-for-nuclear-storage-in-sa/news-story/c320cdebf7f0b3bc745ecb447abf9aef
Federal and South Australian govts underestimating people’s opposition to nuclear waste importing?
Fight looms over SA nuclear dump 9 News, 9 May 16 Environmentalists are threatening the fight of a lifetime over a proposal for South Australia to host a high-level nuclear waste dump.
The state’s nuclear fuel cycle royal commission has called in its final report for SA to store the world’s nuclear waste in exchange for billions of dollars in revenue.
Royal commissioner Kevin Scarce on Monday said it could take up to 10 years to lock in public support for the proposed facility.
conservationists accused Mr Scarce of down-playing the risks of nuclear storage and 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. “It might include protests, it certainly will include boots on the ground. “This is a serious threat from a resourced and long-standing industry. We’re taking it very seriously.”
Premier Jay Weatherill said a nuclear dump would have “extraordinary” economic benefits but required broad community support, although this is unlikely to be sought through a referendum.
The government has promised to work with the state opposition and will outline its consultation process in coming days before deciding how to proceed by year’s end…..http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/09/03/34/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-findings-due
Both Labor and Liberal supporting South Australian nuclear waste dump importing
SA nuclear royal commission sets 10-year timetable MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 10, 2016
South Australians could be ready in 10 years to accept nuclear waste from overseas for storage, royal commissioner Kevin Scarce said yesterday following the release of his final report.
The report, released 14 months after Mr Scare’s appointment, made 12 recommendations. It said the state could “safely increase its participation in nuclear activities”, with a storage facility generating more than $100 billion over a 120-year lifespan.
But Mr Scarce said there would be “10 to 15 years, 10 years I hope, to get to a point where we’ll make a decision’’, with ongoing community support required and consultation to start as soon as possible through an independent agency.
“I would hope that if there’s strong social consent, we might get there faster,” he said. “We need to take the time to explain the steps, to explain the safety concerns.’’
At the same time, the agency should also determine general criteria for an appropriate dump site, he said.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said the commission’s findings had bipartisan support but required strong public approval. A community engagement process would begin “within days” to inform the government’s response by the end of the year…..
Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said both sides of politics would need to work together……http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-sets-10year-timetable/news-story/35c622dec6665e53850407ce47777041
Scarce Royal Commission Report urges nuclear waste dump – “as soon as possible”
Scarce urges SA nuclear waste dump – “as soon as possible”, INDaily, SENIOR JOURNALIST Tom Richardson, 9 May 16
South Australia will take a leap into the unknown with a nuclear future firmly on the agenda, after the release today of the final report of the Scarce Royal Commission. The report emphasises the “safety” of increased participation in the nuclear fuel cycle – with a high-level global repository for spent fuel now a viable prospect – and the “significant and enduring economic benefits” to the local community.
“SA can safely increase its participation in nuclear activities,” the report summary begins – before again re-emphasising that a nuclear waste dump could generate a potential “$100 billion income in excess of expenditure”.
That would include a $32 billion reserve fund for facility closure and ongoing monitoring.
However, given the significance of the potential revenue and multi-decade timeframes under consideration, the commission – headed by former Governor Kevin Scarce – concluded such an enterprise “must be owned and controlled by the State Government”, and the wealth “preserved and equitably shared for current and future generations of South Australians”……
“The commission’s firm conclusion is that this opportunity should be actively pursued, and as soon as possible.”…..
His report concluded that “the risk of an accident occurring that could breach a cask of used fuel and cause radiation to be released is very low”……..
It also urges the Government to remove state prohibitions on the licensing of further processing activities, “to enable commercial development of multilateral facilities as part of nuclear fuel leasing arrangements” – and to push for similar removals at a federal level.
In a sign of further nuclear expansion in years to come, the report also recommends pursuing the removal of federal restrictions on nuclear power generation – “to allow it to contribute to a reliable, low-carbon electricity system, if required”.
The commission report was – like its February missive – bullish about the economic benefits of a waste dump, with its modelling estimating such as facility would grow the gross state product by “an additional 4.7 per cent – or $6.7 billion – by 2029-30”, adding 9600 full-time jobs to the workforce. http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/05/09/scarce-urges-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-as-soon-as-possible/
Submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust show up 10 things wrong with its case
10 holes in the Royal Commission’s pro nuclear dump case, Independent Australia Noel Wauchope 9 May 2016, IT WOULD BE no surprise that South Australia’s questionable Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC) is recommending that Australia become the world’s nuclear waste import hub.
That has been the intended outcome from the beginning, when the Commission was set up, over a year ago.
The questionable integrity of the NFCRC was discussed in a submission by Yurij Poetzl over a year ago. Poetzl pointed out Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce‘s conflict of interest, as a shareholder in Rio Tinto, and as a member of the Committee for Economic Development In Australia (CEDA).
CEDA’s Policy Perspectives of November 2011 clearly supports and promotes the growth of South Australia’s nuclear industry. The Royal Commissioner selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the Commission’s Expert Advisory Committee. The Expert Advisory Committee had no involvement from health or medical professionals. Poetzl went on to list 22 significant questions that were not addressed in the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference.
Speaking in November 2014 at Flinders University, Scarce acknowledged being
“an advocate for a nuclear industry.”
This doubt is raised again, in the latest batch of submissions, which were published on the Royal Commission’s website on 2 May. In a submission that is neutral, not anti-nuclear, Gary Rowbottom notes that:
Mr. Scarce, in his delivery of the tentative findings, a mere day after the release of these findings, seemed to be critical of any comments made in opposition to deepening Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, often citing lack of evidence for viewpoints expressed.
there is a fair bit of evidence that the commission members themselves are in the majority, clearly quite pro nuclear. I am not happy at the lack of subjectivity that may have brought to the findings, particularly on the waste issue. Whilst Mr. Scarce did say that they did look at the negative sides of all the Issue papers, there is not much evidence of that in the Tentative Findings.
Kevin Scarce, would, I am sure, dismiss such criticisms as just “opinion” or “emotional”, “not fact-based” or “formed upon fear”.
The Royal Commission’s problem is that criticisms of its findings are fact-based.
The latest batch of submissions brings up many unanswered questions
1. Aboriginal rights……. ~ Anggumathanha Camp Law Mob, ……
2. Economics…….The Royal Commission’s Tentative Finding, that substantial economic benefits could be obtained at low risk from the storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel in South Australia, is not soundly based……. ~ Dr Mark Diesendorf,
…..The proposal is that we should accept waste before the repository has been completely built and tested. This proposal is so reckless, as to be negligent. We would face the very real risk of being left with high-level nuclear waste, and no technology to properly handle it. ~ Dr Andrew Allison
…..If this is such a great deal, how come no other country has grabbed it before now? ~ South Australian Greens…….
In the event of a disaster the Government (and therefore, the taxpayer) will be required to sort out the mess. ~ Graham Glover.3. Safety……We are asked in the Tentative Report to take these recommendations “on faith” given that the proposed high-level waste dump is not operational anywhere on earth — and, further, that the dump proposed for our state is twenty times larger than that planned (not actual) for Finland. ~ Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia
4. Transport dangers…… I do not accept that road transport from port to repository site will be perfectly safe, even on a dedicated purpose built road. ~ Paul Langley……..We are concerned at the obvious dangers of transporting overseas high level radioactive wastes into our state and country. ~ Catholic Religious South Australia
5. Climate change…..
Has the NFCRC incorporated the potential impacts of climate change on the ecology and geology the State? ….~ Trisha Drioli……. There is no analysis of the potential impacts on the environment into the future…….~ Mark Parnell
6. Health …. Factual evidence is given in this submission by Dan Monceaux
7. The legality of the Commission under question ……THE WASTE REPOSITORY PROPOSAL VIOLATES EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND AUSTRALIAN LAWS ~ Dr Andrew Allison
8. Lack of transparency…….there is no transparency. Local get-togethers do not equal public engagement. These are serious matters which are of national concern. ~ Anne McGovern
9. Impact on other industries ……The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings Report contains many generously overstated ambitions, almost no analysis of the environmental, tourism or agricultural consequences with its focus on narrowly supported economic benefits…. ~ Holly-Kate Whittenbury …….
SAWIA notes that its members have genuine concerns about the potential risks to the reputation of the South Australian wine industry in the event of a nuclear accident occurring on South Australian soil…..~ South Australian Wine Industry Association Incorporated
10. Deceptive spin about medical wastes… Even if the waste depot did only receive low level, medical waste, the facility would not be economically viable; medical waste, as described by physician Louise Emmett, only needs to be stored for such a short time that it would hardly make it to the waste facility for dumping, before it breaks down;‘In the vast majority of nuclear medicine practices the storage issue is not particularly current in terms of what we keep. It’s waste products have a short half life, up to eight days half life, so it would be difficult to take that long distances for storage.’ (Baillie, R. 2012.)
‘It is at best misleading and at worst a lie to claim that a large-scale nuclear waste repository such as what is being proposed would be solely justified to handle the minuscule amounts of nuclear medicine waste generated in Australia.’ (Parnell, M.2015.) ~ Holly-Kate Whittenbury https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/10-holes-in-the-royal-commissions-pro-nuclear-dump-case,8966
Today – Nuclear fuel cycle royal commission final report to be made public
Nuclear fuel cycle royal commission: Final report expected to reiterate support for dump, ABC News 9 May 16 By Daniel Keane The final report arising from South Australia’s nuclear fuel cycle royal commission is almost certain to leave crucial questions about possible future dump sites unanswered, an anti-nuclear spokesman says.
Key points:
- Final report to be made public after commissioner Kevin Scarce briefs Government
- Report expected to reiterate support for waste dump
- Bipartisanship by major parties could benefit Greens, political expert says
The report was handed down to the State Government on Friday, but its contents will not be made public until later today, after royal commissioner Kevin Scarce briefs State Cabinet.
Tentative findings released in February recommended the creation of a high-level waste nuclear dump that would store 138,000 tonnes of spent fuel from around the world, as well as a separate “above-ground interim storage facility”.
Friends of the Earth’s national nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said South Australia could end up with “the biggest waste stockpile in existence”, but said it was the interim storage site that could prove the greater security concern.
“The plan is to import the waste and store it above ground – perhaps on the Eyre Peninsula, perhaps somewhere further north – for some decades before they even begin to consider the option of ultimate disposal of this waste,” he said.
“The reason they’re configuring it that way is because it will cost so many tens of billions of dollars to build a nuclear waste dump that they simply won’t have those funds until they’ve imported vast amounts of waste in the first place.”……..
He said the interim report had ignored accidents, such as the closure of a New Mexico waste repository because of a chemical explosion in 2014.
“There was also no mention in the tentative findings report of the royal commission about a fire at a nuclear waste dump in Nevada in the US last year,” he said.
“There’s no mention of a nuclear waste dump in Germany where they’re in the process of exhuming 126,000 barrels of nuclear waste because of water infiltration and corrosion.”…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-09/nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-final-report-to-be-revealed/7394400
South Australian local community rejects nuclear dump proposal
Hawker locals reject nuclear dump proposed for Wallerberdina station at packed public meeting, ABC News AM By Natalie Whiting, staff, 7 May 16 Angry locals from a small South Australian community earmarked to host the nation’s first nuclear waste dump fear the project is a foregone conclusion, despite Federal Government assurances to the contrary.
Key points:
- Hawker locals fear Wallerberdina station nuclear dump proposal is “set in concrete”
- Landholders and traditional owners express anger at public meeting
- Local MP says many support the dump proposal
A fiery public meeting held in Hawker in the Flinders Ranges last night was the first chance for locals to express their concerns since nearby Wallerberdina station was announced as the Government’s preferred site.
The town has a population of about 300, and more than a third of that number packed into the local community hall.
Government representatives faced a barrage of questions from people opposing the dump, including traditional owners who fear important cultural sites will be put at risk, as well as other landholders. “I think we’re getting the wool pulled over our eyes, big time,” neighbouring property owner John Gill said. “I reckon it’s set in concrete now, and I could almost 90 per cent guarantee it’s going to go there.”
Local mayor Peter Slattery opened the meeting by telling those gathered it was “not a soapbox forum”, but emotions soon spilled over, with angry interjections from the floor.
“It’s a last link in the area where the footsteps of our ancestors were,” Adnyamathanha elder Tony Clarke said. “They walked this land, they lived in this land, they hunted in this land and they died in this land.”Adnyamathanha elder Enice Marsh held a sign protesting against nuclear waste as she addressed those gathered.
“The dreamtime that runs through [the area] is very strong. It’s alive and well,” she said. “That story belongs to my people and me.”
Strong local support for nuclear dump, MP says
The Wallerberdina cattle station near Barndioota is co-owned by former Liberal Party president Grant 
Chapman and was last week singled out from a shortlist of six potential waste storage sites across the country.
“There is a lot of support in this community for this facility, which is why it’s gone through to the next round,” local federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey said……..
The department will set up an office in Hawker and is recruiting locals for a community committee, and also plans to conduct an independent Aboriginal heritage survey.
The community will receive $2 million from the Federal Government as compensation, regardless of whether the facility is built……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-07/locals-reject-wallerberdina-nuclear-dump-at-hawker-meeting/7393082
Nuclear Commission Special this week – some other news, too
Nuclear dump investigation by Committee For Adelaide backs SA waste storage plan, ABC News, 6 May 16 By Nathan Stitt and Simon Royal An Adelaide team has returned from an overseas investigation of a nuclear fuel dump having concluded South Australia has an extraordinary opportunity to follow the same path.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that the science is safe (!!) ,” delegation leader Matt Clemow said. The former journalist and political adviser now heads up the Committee For Adelaide, a group of community and business leaders which promotes investment in Adelaide.
They visited Finland to investigate the handling of nuclear waste, visiting facilities which deal with low and medium-level waste. “The high-level [facility] is yet to be built (!!) alongside the site. We went into the facility 448 metres underground and were standing where the waste would be delivered into,” Mr Clemow said.
“It was a warehouse-type facility, largely computer-operated.” Mr Clemow said safety standards were high. “You essentially have a fuel rod which is put in a canister, which is then embedded into a type of clay which is scientifically proven to last hundreds of thousands of years (!!) ,” he said.
Mr Clemow said it remained vital the wider community became as convinced of the benefits as the delegation had been…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-06/nuclear-dump-investigation-committee-for-adelaide/7391554
Woman arrested in SA nuclear protest , 9 News 6 May 16 An anti-nuclear protester has been detained by security as South Australia’s nuclear royal commission handed over its final report.
The 65-year-old woman attempted to walk through the gates of Adelaide’s Government House shortly before Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce delivered his final report to Governor Hieu Van Le on Friday.Police said the woman had been reported for trespass and would be summonsed to face court at a later date….. The ceremonial handover marked the end of SA’s nuclear fuel cycle royal commission…….. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/06/03/46/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-report-due#BAvriHKbizdAMBy3.99
Locals at nominated nuclear dump site share concerns in fiery public meeting, ABC Radio AM Natalie Whiting reported this story on Saturday, May 7, 2016 ELIZABETH JACKSON: It’s been a week now since the Federal Government named a South Australian cattle station as the preferred site for its nuclear waste dump. Last night, the first public meeting since the announcement was held in the nearby town of Hawker – and it was at times a fiery event.
Government representatives faced a barrage of questions from people opposing the proposal, including several traditional owners who say important cultural sites will be put at risk.
It’s the start of an extended consultation period, but some locals are concerned that the waste facility is already a done deal, despite Government assurances to the contrary. Our reporter, Natalie Whiting, attended the meeting and filed this report from Hawker:……http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4457862.htm
Senator Scott Ludlam – jobs, economics, national aspects of Nuclear Royal Commission’s findings
SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM AUSTRALIAN GREENS SENATOR FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA – Response to the Tentative Findings of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
“………I would like to point to some research conducted by the Climate Institute that was done in collaboration with Ernst and Young and identifies that there is potential in South Australia to produce enough renewable energy to power 3,000,000 homes, remove pollution equivalent to 450,000 cars, and create close to 5,000 new jobs.
The report suggests that if a renewable energy industry were pursued there could be the creation of 5,178 new jobs including 1,300 permanent ongoing jobs, 2,688 jobs during construction and over 1,189 jobs in manufacturing.
It was very encouraging in December 2015 to see the South Australian Government release the “Low Carbon Investment Plan for South Australia” which looked at a $10 billion investment in low carbon energy – with the hope that by 2025 renewable energy would power 50% of South Australia and 100% by 2050ii . It seems that South Australia is making leaps and bounds, even without this significant investment. It was also encouraging to hear Premier Jay Weatherill’s commitment to renewable energy at the Paris climate summit. Being at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology suits South Australia. I welcome the commitment, enthusiasm and the exciting opportunities this presents to the state……..
While we welcome the preliminary finding that there are no prospects for nuclear power it is disturbing the preliminary findings ignore many serious and ongoing issues with the industry. While the economics are a clear barrier to nuclear power there are a range of safety issues that should be considered as well as suite of safeguards and proliferation considerations that do not appear to have been addressed by the NFCRC……..The world’s only deep geological repository that contains waste is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, USA. The Onkalo facility in Finland has been in the pipeline since 1983, and the total expected costs for the waste disposal is upward ofAUD $4.4 billion. The Sure facility in France is still under construction but earlier this year there was a collapse in the tunnel killing one worker and injuring and trapping another.
The WIPP facility, designed to contain radioactive waste for 10,000 years had a major radiological incident due to a chemical explosion within the first decade. 21 individuals received low level internal contamination; and there was a measurable leak of waste from the site discharged directly into the environment. The trial facility cost $19 billion to establish and will cost another half a billion to clean up after the 2014 radiation leak. The facility is still closed as the clean-up continues two years later.The preliminary findings of the NFCRC make no mention of the issues at WIPP or other facilities. This lack of consideration of real examples of waste management failures is a clear diversion from the fact based premise of the Royal Commission.Consideration of deep borehole waste storage also relies on optimism rather than evidence. There is no operating or trial deep borehole waste storage globally. There is one proposed trial in the US that will not be using radioactive waste.
The economic scenario put forward by Senator Sean Edwards to take International waste has been heavily criticised. Some of the issues with the Senator Edwards proposal identified by leading Australian economists include:• There is no plan for the management o fthe 56,000 tonnes of waste out of the 60,000 tonnes of waste proposed to be imported.
• There is no plausible case for the suggestion that another country would pay Australia US $lmillion per tonne to dispose of waste
- The proposal to convert nuclear waste into fuel for PRISM reactors is not warranted given that PRISM reactors don’t exist, and trials of PRISM reactors have been abandoned due to unacceptable risks
Over the last 30 years Australia has failed to come up with an acceptable solution for managing our own nuclear waste. The proposal to store international radioactive waste relies on Australia doing what other countries have failed to do since the inception of the industrial nuclear industry.
This issue is not just an issue for South Australia but has relevance for all Australians and for people globally. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Ludlam-Scott.pdf
Adelaide University questions the Nuclear Royal Commission’s attitude to Aborigines
Comments on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings of 15 February 2016 – University of Adelaide , Consent and the Siting of a Nuclear Waste Storage Facility By Mr John Podgorelec*, Dr Alex Wawryk and Dr Peter Burdon†
“……Given many Indigenous communites have already expressed opposition to a storage facility, potential conflict lies ahead. While the finding that free, prior and informed consent must be obtained is welcome, the question remains as to whether this will be followed by the existing, or future, governments. Although intended to guide government, the Tentative Findings arguably provide no strong assurance to communities. For example, they fall well short of making a finding that specific legislation be passed, or the Native Title Act be amended, to provide a right of veto over nuclear activities, including the storage of toxic wastes. ….
Michael Wallis-Smith examines indigenous, ethical, economic aspects of the Nuclear Royal Commission’s findings
SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION TENTATIVE FINDINGS, Michael Wallis Smith A sad little Submission to the Nuclear Royal Commission – from Terrestrial Energy
Response to the Tentative Findings of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – Terrestrial Energy
(Terrestrial Energy is a company marketing the not yet existent Generation IV nuclear reactors, such as , the Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR))
“……There is little in the Tentative Findings to reflect the exciting commercial and manufacturing opportunities available in advanced nuclear technologies. South Australia might be well-positioned to proactively engage with this sector yet it appears to have been overlooked.
Terrestrial Energy strongly disagrees with the statement that innovative, non-lWR designs will not be
available for the foreseeable future…….http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Terrestrial-Energy.pdf
Humphrey Hunt calls for a federal referendum on The Royal Commission’s nuclear waste import plan
Humphrey Hunt’s Hand- written submission – recommends that there should be a federal referendum on the question of importing nuclear wastes, and he warns of the dangers to prsent and future generations http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/Hunt-Humphrey.pdf
Nuclear Royal Commission: it is a National, not a State matter – Robin Foley
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Response – Robin Foley
Nuclear Royal Commission downplays the safety and environmental risks of importing nuclear wastes – Gil Anaf
Gil M Anaf Response To: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission 18 May 20161 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 