Earthquake rocks planned area for nuclear waste dump Eastern Eyre Peninsula
Earthquake rocks Eastern Eyre Peninsula https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5500632/earthquake-rocks-eastern-eyre-peninsula/?cs=1825 Kathrine Catanzariti Eyre Tribune, 2 July 18 Kathrine Catanzariti
Eastern Eyre Peninsula was rocked by a 3.7 magnitude earthquake on Sunday morning.
At 11.57am, an earthquake occurred north east of Cleve towards Mangalo, at a depth of 10 kilometres.
According to Geoscience Australia, the earthquake could have been felt by people up to 47 kilometres away.
Did you feel the shake? Did you receive any damage? Let us know!
Bev Baldock – another Submission completely happy with the Kimba nuclear waste project
Bev Baldock (Submission No. 72) Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. My name is Bev Baldock. I have lived and worked in the Kimba Community for many years, living and working on a farm for twenty years, small business for sixteen years. I personally have no issues with the site selection, which has been honest and open.
The financial compensation offered to the applicants for the acquisition of their land is minimal, but fair.
Overall, I am very comfortable that we have been given honest knowledge and feedback on this project. Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility which has been advertised extensively. We have had several community meetings, the opportunities to meet departmental members and experts in many areas of Nuclear.
I consider myself informed now and able to share my knowledge. It will be great to create new jobs which will bring economic benefits to Kimba. It could help bring more numbers for our school and keep the services that we still have as numbers are diminishing each year. Whatever the community may decide the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunities to learn, and make the right decision for our district.
I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.
If the rules are changed for measuring the community support to include more of South Australia, how can this be compared? E.g.: community consultation, public meetings, local government election.
We do not get a direct say in what takes place in neighboring communities and our state. This would set a precedent for future projects in South Australia where local communities don’t actually get listened to.
We have had visits from indigenous leaders, and to my knowledge there are no native title claims on district lands. We can still take care in what we do and try to make this project welcoming and inclusive for everyone and to look after heritage if they find it.
The benefit fund is a great bonus for Kimba, without this funding projects that have been submitted would not be possible. I have been involved in lots of projects for many years and this takes a huge amount of time to raise the dollars and reach our target. It is a great a fund to the betterment of the whole community whether the facility goes ahead or not.
Overall, the site selection process has been open, honest and fair. The proposed payments to landholders are fair. It’s our community, we have done the work, we have had the information, and we should be able to make our decision. Yours Sincerely, Bev Baldock
Does the Australian Federal Govt have the power to impose a nuclear waste dump?
The Minister claims a need for this dump is generated by civilian radioisotope production & not from military use – therefore it cannot be legitimised under auspices of the S.51(vi) Defence umbrella.
there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
ENuFF-SA Examining 
Commonwealth Power to Enforce Nuke Dump – part 1, 4th July 2018
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW
- The 2015-16 $10+ million South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found that: “The construction or operation of a facility for storage and disposal of nuclear waste, along with the importation or transport of nuclear waste, is unlawful in South Australia”. The amendment or repeal of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) would therefore be required prior to any substantive progress being made in further developing any proposal.
- “ 1 The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA)2 must be amended or repealed PRIOR TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS towards developing a radioactive waste facility in this State. 2.
- Portions of The Act which prohibit the establishment of nuclear waste storage facilities include:
S.8 against the construction or operation of such;
• S.9 making it illegal to import or transport nuclear waste, &
• S.13 “No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility”
S.13.1 also provides such prohibition “Despite any Act or law to the contrary ….”
- The newly elected Liberal Premier Steven Marshall has previously categorically stated: “A Marshall Liberal Government will not support the building of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia.“ 4 : & in answer to a February 2018 Election Survey the South Australian Liberal Party responded: “The Liberal Party supports the current Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000“ 5 .
- 4. To date (June 2018) the NRWMF-T has expended $40+ million of taxpayers PUBLIC MONEY towards: not only encouraging ‘local communities’ acceptance for a nuclear waste storage facility within South Australia; but also financing active on-site preliminary works deemed essential to constructing said facility. Clearly & brazenly contrary to State Law.
- 5. It would appear that the NRWMF-T has failed to investigate nor even consider any implications arising from the current prime facie unlawful nature of their actions. Numerous sham ‘community consultation’ medleys; Taskforce presence in the field, & radiopharma promotions. Myriad ANSTO propaganda tours of Lucas Heights; French des visiteurs; community grants; ORIMA & AECOM contracts, & etc.. costing tens of millions. All done without first establishing any legal foundation.
Legally; fiscally; morally, & administratively negligent
FEDERAL LAW “Commonwealth Legislative Powers”
The Constitution confers the power to make laws on the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws is limited to particular subjects. Most of these subjects are listed in sections 51 and 52. They include defence; external affairs; interstate and international trade; taxation; foreign, trading and financial corporations; marriage and divorce; immigration; bankruptcy; and interstate industrial conciliation and arbitration.” 6
- Amongst other dubious claims, Minister Canavan would have us believe that Federal Legislation allows him to run roughshod over State Law. But does the Emperor actually wear any clothes?
- 7. The previous South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill in 30 January 2018: “ Asked if the state government would pursue a High Court case against the Turnbull government if a national facility were approved in South Australia, Mr Weatherill said: “We would have to explore our options to see what steps can be taken.” “ 7 .
- 8. One of those steps would be to query whether Federal Parliament had Constitutional Authority to impose radioactive waste upon a State which had specific laws prohibiting such. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution describes the various Powers of the Federal Parliament, & there are 39 such capacities – none of which relate to things radioactive8 : whilst Section 118 obligates the Commonwealth to recognise & respect the public Acts of the States.
- To make things perfectly clear, included as Appendix 1 is the whole Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: we challenge anyone to demonstrate how Canberra can legally impose Commonwealth owned radioactive waste upon any State whose Legislation prohibits such – S.51. (xxvi) actually says that Federal Parliament needs to respect State Legislation. Prime facie there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
- 10. The knowledge that the Feds don’t have Constitutional Power to dump radioactive waste upon the States is not rocket science & is not a new revelation. Continue reading
Katrina Koch happy with the Kimba nuclear waste dump selection process
Katrina Koch (Submission No. 28)- Kimba SA Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines .
Ms Koch is sure that the financial compensation is not extravagant, as indeed, agricultural use would bring in more. The waste dump will not affect the neighbours.
b) On community support.
“To define community – it is the people that live here in the Kimba district. “ the main thing about the current process to date in Kimba is that it is open, transparent and everyone gets to have a say “
She is happy with the processes, involving the District Council of Kimba, and the Australian Electoral Commission vote. As regards neighbours –
“Of the two sites in Kimba there is 90% ‘direct neighbour’ support.” “I truly believe that any number over 50% is an indication of support for the project “
She considers that indigenous leaders will support the project, though she is vague about this. The Bangarla people should be consulted in the same way as for any mining project.
“ Traditional owners have not expressed opposition to the project. “
A town vote unanimously decided to move into Phase 2 (the consultation stage) Ms Koch is very happy with the Community Benefit Fund.
“The nuclear waste facility will benefit the community and the country as a whole.”
Donna Johnson – enthusiastic about the Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Selection Process
Donna Johnson Senate Standing Committees on Economics Subject: Submission on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No 27) Regarding a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines; she believes that compensation offered is appropriate. She knows the people who nominated their land, and believes that their offers were made solely for the community benefit.
On (b) community support, She believes that a 50% plus 1 vote for a site is adequate, and that neighbour support should be ‘factored in’ for the ultimate decision. While the early surveys were inadequate, Ms Johnson believes that
‘Australian Electoral Commission poll provided surety, independence and an indisputable final result. I support the AEC vote and that process as a whole; it was beyond reproach. ‘
She is confident that the department has listened to our community and will help the community come to an informed decision.
On c) indigenous support, Ms Johnson believes that the process has been satisfactory –
“The Department should keep reaching out to the right spokespeople for the traditional owners to get this information.”
Ms Johnson is concerned for the economic future of the community’s children. She is enthusiastic about the plan ;
“The Community Benefits Program is breathing new life into our community and is an appropriate recognition for the journey and commitment that has been made by Kimba and its people in this search that is in the best interests for ALL Australians. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country with facilities such as ANSTO’s Lucas Heights and its nuclear reactor providing life saving diagnosis and treatment options for vulnerable Australians. I understand more than one in two Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Make no mistake, this is a very noble cause with benefits for our entire nation.”
On e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;
“I support the AEC vote and that process as a whole. A change of boundaries after an initial voting result would destroy the integrity of the process.
“The boundaries used for that vote were fair, and it is entirely appropriate that those living in our community should be those who get a vote on this. If this potential facility were to come to our District it would have nothing to do with a fisherman in Port Lincoln nor anyone behind a desk in Adelaide. It affects those living in the Kimba District and it is a decision for those people alone.”
Ms Johnson is proud that “Our community has made a significant investment in learning, researching and meeting experts to form considered and knowledgeable views” – and compares it to the rest of the State, which has not bothered to learn about the Nuclear Waste Management Facility plan.
“There is no grounds for them to now have influence over our choice to vote on an opportunity that can deliver higher sustained employment and important economic diversity for our community.”
- f) any other related matters
The result of the AEC vote is clear demonstration of the maturity of the Kimba community. The education and information that has been provided has increased as we all learned together of the intricacies of radioactive waste and its safe use, transport, storage and disposal. It must be noted the final result showed a 57.4% YES vote for our community to take another step in ths process and receive more information and closer consideration.
Uranium industry in Australia – stagnant at best – Department of Industry
Dept of Industry, Energy Quarterly, June 2018
Predicts stagnant production/export of Australian uranium over the next few years.
Expects growth from Olympic Dam, no new mines, doesn’t even mention Ranger.
Uranium exploration almost non-existent: “Only $1.9 million was spent on uranium exploration in the March quarter 2018: a drop from an already-low level of $2.9 million spent in the December quarter. Uranium exploration is now largely confined to South Australia, tailing off in all other states.”
“Community Consent: for nuclear waste dump site? Minister Canavan further muddies the waters
Katrina Bohr No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia When asked 
in Question time,Matt Canavan said ‘Submissions and views of people that live outside the formal regions, with an interest, will also be part of broad community consent.’
The elusive “broad community consent” continues. yes https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Voting in Flinders Ranges Council is open to a broad range of people
Voting in council elections is open to a broader range of people than state and federal elections.
The voters’ roll for council elections consists of two components – the House of Assembly (State) roll, and the council supplementary roll.
If you are on the State (House of Assembly) electoral roll you will automatically receive a voting pack in the mail in late October 2018.
If you are not enrolled on the House of Assembly roll you may be eligible to register on the council supplementary roll if:
You have been resident at your current address for one month and are not on the State Electoral Roll;
You are a sole owner/occupier of rateable property;
You are NOT an Australian Citizen but you have been a resident at your current address for one month;
You are a landlord for rateable property;
You are an organisation/business owner or occupier of rateable property; or
You are a group of owners or occupiers of rateable property.
To register for Council’s Supplementary Voters Roll please download the appropriate form from Councils website here: http://www.frc.sa.gov.au/election
Analysing the pro nuclear submissions about nuclear waste dump plan
Just started on this – but so far, the quality of these submissions is indeed markedly poorer than in the anti nuclear submissions. I have previously briefly summarised the first 4 pro nuclear submissions (all remarkably similar), and also the cleverly manipulative one from Ben Heard.
Pat Beinke (submission No.17) is very pleased with all the guest speakers,and very happy with the financial aspects (sycophantic in tone, no facts given)
Robyn Stewart. (No. 10) “Whenever I have spoken to people elsewhere, I have found that most people get the low level repository confused with the high level facility that the State Government held a citizen’s jury on. Therefore, I feel the wider community beyond our council boundary would not have the knowledge to make an informed decision.” (No facts given)
Brett Stokes challenges the ABC to investigate the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility project.
ANSTO, as part of normal operations, manufacture and release radioactive poisons into the air.
These radioactive poisons are known to cause miscarriages (and other problems).
ANSTO give no warnings of these “controlled emissions” and justify this by claiming that they are not a health hazard – this claim is based on dodgy seventy year old data from Japan plus a bunch of dodgy number crunching.
Australian women suffer many many thousands of “unexplained” miscarriages (and many Aussies get “unexplained” cancer dementia etc etc).
And this is not the only dodgy aspect of ANSTO’s operations – the reactor is not needed at all for medicine – as in Canada, cyclotrons can be used to produce the required isotopes safely and reliably and without creating problematic “radioactive waste”.
ANSTO are using the lie that “nuclear medicine requires a nuclear waste dump” as a central part of the taxpayer funded bribery and deception program called the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility project.
The taxpayer funded National Radioactive Waste Management Facility project is illegal under South Australian law and is clearly a “foot in the door” for the (now decades old) nuclear industry campaign to make South Australia a nuclear waste repository as per the dodgy recommendations of the dodgy Scarce Royal Commission.
I encourage you to look in to this horror story of taxpayer money funding nuclear fanatic traitors.
Hypocrisy in Australia – our truly awful climate policy
Australia’s history on climate policy is so awful it makes the NEG look like a victory https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/06/28/energy-this-is-what-success-looks-like-in-a-fractured-polity/ Australia is headed for a fifth-best climate and energy policy — and we’ll be told it’s a triumph. Bernard Keane, Politics editor If, as seems more likely than not at this point, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg manages in the next three months to bring the states and territories on board for the his National Energy Guarantee (NEG) proposal and secure both federal Labor and joint party room support, the headlines will be glowing about his achievement. He’ll be the new golden-haired boy of the government, his leadership credentials burnished, the man who delivered us from a decade of policy paralysis on energy and climate action.
The plaudits will be well-earned, if only for Frydenberg repeatedly enduring the silliness of fossil fuel advocate and rabid coal-seam gas opponent Alan Jones. But they’ll in effect be celebrations of a profound policy failure, Australia’s worst since John Howard lied us into the Iraq War.
For a short while (two years), Australia had a high-quality climate action policy, one that lowered our emissions while having a minimal impact on inflation. That was abandoned in 2014 when the Abbott government repealed the Gillard government’s carbon-pricing scheme. Gillard had also taken some tentative steps to addressing the relentless gaming of the electricity market by participants — especially state-owned distributors — which were, in retrospect, entirely inadequate. We’d have to wait several more years for a government to take real action to stop the gaming.
The carbon pricing scheme, which was by no means perfect, was “replaced” by a kind of joke policy, a back-of-the-envelope idea devised in a hurry by Greg Hunt after Malcolm Turnbull was rolled in 2009, in which the government would hand billions to corporations and farmers to undertake energy efficiency projects they would have done anyway, or plant trees and otherwise conjure “soil magic”.
More sensible figures within the Liberal Party hacked this idiot policy back until it eventually appeared briefly as a $3 billion handout program that wasn’t renewed. That left the Renewable Energy Target, investment by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation — which Abbott was desperate to abolish — and various state renewable energy targets as Australia’s climate policy — even as the Abbott government signed itself up a hard commitment to reduce emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels.
But Abbott had an informal policy, too, one of relentlessly demonising renewable energy, which drove a 90% fall in renewable energy investment. Malcolm Turnbull’s ascension to the prime ministership changed this dynamic. Indeed, there’s a fair argument that Turnbull’s primary contribution to energy policy as Prime Minister has been his signalling that the war on renewable energy that had been launched by his predecessor was over. Renewable energy investment has surged since he became Prime Minister, such that we’re on track to comfortably beat the Renewable Energy Target for 2020. It’s the one positive in climate-energy policy — to the extent that we actually have any “policy” other than the remnants of former government’s targets, state government one-out commitments and an energy market regulatory framework that’s in recovery phase from the over-optimism of neoliberal policy design.
After being tempted by an emissions intensity scheme, which was strongly backed by business and backed by the opposition, Turnbull backtracked from that under pressure from the right. The subsequent Finkel Review recommended a Clean Energy Target, which Turnbull was initially keen on, but again was forced to abandon under pressure from the right. Then came the National Energy Guarantee, effectively a requirement for retailers to back on-demand (not baseload) power, with a figleaf of emissions reductions thrown in.
Julia Gillard’s carbon-pricing scheme was never perfect, but if that was the closest to best policy we got, an emissions intensity scheme would have been second best policy. A renewable energy target, or a Clean Energy Target a la Finkel, would have been third best. To the extent that a NEG pitched at Australia’s woefully low Paris Accord targets slows the surge in renewables investment, it will be clearly fourth best in policy terms. But the Nationals and some of the Neanderthal faction Liberals like Abbott want to make the NEG worse by tacking on government intervention (because that worked so well with Soil Magic) in the form of billions in funding for state-controlled coal-fired power, because the private sector won’t ever touch coal again.
That would give us fifth-best policy — and be portrayed as a remarkable political achievement. That says a lot both about the government and the media.
Restoring Kakadu to its former glory (now that uranium mining is finished)
Kakadu at a crossroads: Traditional owners welcome call to restore park to its former glory http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/kakadu-at-a-crossroads:-traditional-owners-tourism/9921510 By Felicity James
Nuclear enthusiast Matt Canavan keen to quickly wrap up waste dump site in Flinders Ranges
“I would be chuffed if we can find a solution, we’re very close, we have two communities in South Australia that have voted in favour of considering a site.
“In a couple of months time, they will vote again on whether to accept our detailed proposal.
“I’m quietly hopeful, but it’s now in the communities hands.
“If we can’t find a site for low-level waste… the idea that we build a full-blown nuclear power reactor’s probably a pipe-dream.”
He tells Ben the reason government hasn’t acted on nuclear is that Australia has such easy access to other resources.
“We have cheap coal or gas, or we have in the past… so we haven’t probably needed to look for the alternatives as much as some other countries have been forced to do.
“We are the world’s largest producers of uranium but we don’t have any nuclear power plants here.”
Delay in production of Technetium-99m (Tc-99m) at Lucas Heights
Fault at Lucas Heights nuclear reactor halts production of medical isotope, Guardian, 28 June 18
Spokesman says no safety risk but there are fears patients could face delays in cancer diagnosis “….. production of the most commonly used isotope in nuclear medicine was halted at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney’s south.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Ansto) usually produces about 10,000 doses a week of Technetium-99m (Tc-99m), which is used to diagnose a variety of heart, lung and musculoskeletal conditions, as well as cancers.
An Ansto spokesman said production was temporarily suspended on Friday “after a mechanical fault was identified with a piece of equipment”. There was no safety risk due to the stoppage, he said………https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/28/fault-lucas-heights-nuclear-reactor-halts-production-of-medical-isotope
Brett Stokes shows how plans for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia have breached S.A. law
Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. – No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear
waste storage facility
13. Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, no public money may be appropriated,
expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity
associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State.
Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
8. A person must not construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility.
Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear
waste storage facility
9. A person must not—
(a) bring nuclear waste into the State; or
(b) transport nuclear waste within the State,
for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility in the State
Brett Stokes – Appendices to Submission to Senate on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
Appendix A
Breaches of s13 of the NWSF(P) Act 2000:
During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of nuclear waste importation, in particular the “Business Case” prepared by JacobsMCM for Kevin Scarce (Attorney General’s Department tender AGD 027852).
This “single-quote” Business Case document has been criticised because it was prepared by people with vested interests.
This “single-quote” Business Case document contains economic predictions which have been challenged by UniSA economists Barbara Pocock and Richard Blandy and by many others.
These economic predictions have been promoted as “facts” by Kevin Scarce and associates.
The amendment to s13 in early 2016 did not allow “spruiking” for nuclear waste importation, said Mark Parnell MLC.
– “The law now says that the Government can use public money to consult the community but they’re not to use public money for promoting or designing or even buying land for a nuclear waste dump.” – Mark Parnell MLC, April 2016
Many people have spoken out about the biased information and processes involved with the public funded Nuclear Schools Engagement Program, the public funded KNOW Nuclear advertising campaign, the public funded Your Say Nuclear advertising campaign and the public funded Nuclear Citizens Juries.
Therefore s13 has been breached during 2016 by participants in the Nuclear Schools Engagement Program, the KNOW Nuclear advertising campaign, the Your Say Nuclear advertising campaign and the Nuclear Citizens Juries.
The Nuclear Schools Engagement Program involved indoctrination of young children who were not all fooled:
“Listen to us more rather than spend days like today talking to us. Answer questions that deal with the negatives. Many questions were dodged by the experts.” Mt Lofty/Bridgewater Primary School.
“The day has provided an opportunity to find out more about nuclear storage in SA, but we feel as though the information has been biased and pro-nuclear” Streaky Bay/Ceduna.
“It was great to be given the opportunity and it was informative but all information has been very bias toward pro-nuclear. The other side needs to be heard!” Cleve Area School and Cowell Area School.
Appendix B
Threats and conspiracy to commit offences prohibited under s8 and s9 of the NWSF(P) Act 2000:
Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia.
Detailed plans for importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia were produced in the “Business Case” prepared by JacobsMCM for Kevin Scarce (Attorney General’s Department tender AGD 027852).
These plans were then promoted by Kevin Scarce and associates.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
