Port Kembla a possibility for secret nuclear shipment https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/5338205/port-kembla-a-possibility-for-secret-nuclear-shipment/ 12 Apr 18
Spent nuclear fuel may be heading to Port Kembla later this year as part of a top-secret operation.
In the middle of this year, spent fuel rods from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facility at Lucas Heights will be sent to France to be reprocessed.
The rods will have the unused uranium and plutonium removed and used over the course of several years [ed note: used for what?]
Once all useful material has been removed, the waste will then returned to Australia for storage.
Sending the rods to France will involve the rods being transported by road to a nearby port and then loaded onto a ship.
The exact details of the operation – including the port, delivery route and dates – will not be made public until after the rods arrive in France.
Port Kembla would be an option for the secret shipment – both it at Port Botany have previously been used to ship nuclear waste in and out the country.
The last time nuclear rods or waste was known to go through Port Kemblawas in December 2015.
Under cover of darkness, a 95-tonne forged steel container carrying nuclear waste was lifted off a ship at Port Kembla and onto the back of a truck and driven through Wollongong’s streets to Lucas Heights.
Roads along the route were closed and hundreds of police were involved in the operation.
Then Ports Minister Joe Tripodi said the nuclear convoy passed through “without incident” but a worker at the port claimed one of the containers holding the fuel roads hit the side of the truck as it was being loaded onto the ship.
Regarding the upcoming removal of the fuel rods, Lucas Heights’ OPAL reactor manager Dave Vittorio said they will be stored in secure casks.
“These casks are purpose-engineered to safely transport this type of material without risk to people or the environment,” Mr Vittorio said.
“Even a jet plane strike could not penetrate them.”
This would be the 10th time spent nuclear fuel has been exported from Australia.
April 12, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes |
Leave a comment
Above – ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed Barndioota area for the site.
Katrina Bohr – Submission to SENATE INQUIRY into the site selection process for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility , (NRWMF) Barndioota.
My name is Katrina Bohr. I have been a resident of South Australia for 32 years, having lived in regional South Australia for the last 22 years. Nuclear waste and the historical outcomes of radioactive damage has been an ongoing concern of mine for almost 50 years.
In the initial stages of the announcement for site selection at Barndioota, when Josh Frydenberg was Minister for Resources and Energy, a statement was issued from the Government.
‘The Australian Government will also take into account the views of others (outside community zones) as part of the commitment to broad consultation.’
The proposal for low and intermediate waste to be stored in South Australia affects not only myself, but also future generations. Unlike some respondents, I do not live in the Hawker region. Therefore, my views are not driven by benefits, but rather genuine concerns for peoples’ health, our environment, and our local Indigenous communities.
B) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
i) The definition of ‘broad community support’
I believe the definition of ‘broad community support’ is defined as support given by the majority. Broad support should be determined when the consultation process has been conducted thoroughly and with all persons of interest. The consultation process should offer full disclosure for the proposed site selection process.
ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
Determining Broad Community support at this stage has involved a number of methods.
Surveys, Public Meetings, face to face meetings, a continual presence of Australian Nuclear and Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) employees, members of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science Agency (APRANSA) and a Heritage Assessment process.
Rowan Ramsey’s June/July 2016 Grey Newsletter states that all all the feedback, including district surveys were considered by the Minister to evaluate whether there was a realistic chance of ‘developing’ broad support. The word ‘developing’ almost implies an action to develop rather than consult.
My understanding of on-going broad community support is for updated and collated material to be honest and transparent, and that all perspectives be disclosed.
C) How any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advantage stage;
There are local indigenous people who believe that they should have been consulted from the outset. This is due to Yappala Station (next door to the proposed site) having already been classed as a protected area. Yappala Station is heritage listed as an Indigenous protected area due to its cultural and environmental significance.
A South Australian Department of State Development spokesperson confirmed that there are three Aboriginal sites that fall within the Barndioota-nominated area. Two of the sites are cultural and the third is archaeological (NITV Posted 2016).
The local indigenous people needed to be involved in all aspects of the site selection process. From heritage assessment to cultural importance. Dreamtime stories and Songlines.
Traditional land owner and Elder Eunice Marsh speaks of their love for the land as love for family. Hookina Springs and the surrounding area is significant to the Adnyamathanha women.
When the Adnyamthanha Traditional Lands Association met at the end of March 2018, the vote for the NRWMF was overwhelmingly against.
E) Whether wider (Eyre-Peninsula or State-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;
I believe that wider community views should be considered as the nuclear waste, and in particular, the intermediate waste from Lucas Heights in NSW will be transported through a number of corridors. Therefore, wider community consultation should be considered.
Matt Canavan makes reference to a ‘wide’ consultation process to determine whether the site is suitable’-Transcontinental newspaper 22/11/2016.
As far as I am aware, there has been no wider community consultation to date. Wider community consultation could be conducted through relevant forums, surveys and information mail outs.
F) Any other related matters
In the fairness of disclosure, I have referred to the Australian Government Department of Business
Initial Business Case (revised) 2014 Page 29
‘The Capital cost estimates for the project options are based on delivery
of given designs at a site in Central Australia’
The Business Case also refers to a Timeline where ANSTO is due to run out of space for low and intermediate storage. This is by 2018.
When in Parliament, Grant Chapman chaired the select committee that recommended the country’s low level nuclear waste be stored in a single facility-The Guardian 29/4/16.
Grant Chapman is part owner of the proposed site at Barndioota, and has made it quite public that he believed his land would be an ideal site for a NRWMF.
He served on three committees including Uranium mining and milling to Radioactive Waste from March 1995 to May 1997. The other from August 2000 to May 2001. Acting as Chair in the first two committees, where in !996 a decision was made to pursue a NRWMF. There is evidence that there may have been a determination over the years by the Australian Government to establish the site at Barndioota.
Images: I am sending three images displaying the ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed area for the site.
April 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Senate Inquiry Submission into the Nuclear Waste Site Selection Process Holly Whittenbury
My name is Holly Whittenbury and I come from the southern Flinders Ranges. I have grown up there, spending the first 18 years of my life in Peterborough, not too far from Hawker, one of the selected dump sites. I presently study Environmental Science and plan to return to the area to assist in conservation efforts of the southern Flinders Ranges. I foresee myself being apart of the Flinders Ranges for my entire life ahead; although I do not live within the area presently, the issues within the ranges concern me wherever I am. I disagree with key aspects of the selection process for the nuclear waste dump site for the following reasons
- how the need for „broad community support‟ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: i) the definition of „broad community support‟ ii) how „broad community support‟ has been or will be determined for each
- 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;
Contrary to other pro-nuclear waste dump submissions, broad community support should include not just the residents within the Hawker township, but the wider surrounding area of Hawker, the state and the country.
The nearby Adnyamathanha Indigenous groups value the entire site proposed for the nuclear waste dump. Unlike Hawker residents, their spiritual home is not separated by nearly 40 kilometres. They are present in spirit and also physically through land rights beside and within the dump site location. The story-line of the Adnyamathanha people stretches 70 kilometres across the state along the ranges, their sacred birthing and healing site, Hookina Springs, lies within Grant Chapman‟s property of which they have rightful access to.
Whilst Hawker residents are separated, both physically and mentally from the proposed nuclear waste dump site, with Chapman himself declaring it is virtually wasteland, the whole area, but especially this site, is as sacred to the Adnyamathanha people as Mecca is to Muslims. To ignore or prioritise one community opinion over another is to degrade one community in favour of another. To degrade the local indigenous peoples views (who are closer in proximity to the site) in favour of the Hawker residents is to prioritise predominantly European society living in the township in European lifestyles with European 
law and worldviews. To claim that Indigenous consent has been gained despite the overt disagreement from the Adnyamathanha people over the waste dump site and their driving of protests which blocked the streets of Adelaide on North Terrace, is wilful ignorance in favour of nuclear fuel cycle industry and residents of non-Indigenous background. Here is a quote from Indigenous leader and outspoken critic of the waste dump, Enice Marsh, to demonstrate the obviously lack of consent and lack of consultation with the indigenous people:
“If we’re going to have that poison stuff here, even if it’s a low-level situation, it’s just absolute madness to put something like this near somewhere that’s so special,” she said.
“It’s everything; it’s a type of importance that you would never be able to describe.”
“The connection to this land for Adnyamathanha people is their culture, their customs; it’s their identity.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/traditional-owners-flinders-ranges-fears-on-nuclearwaste-dump/7195030
In addition, criticism of the dump site has been given loudly by Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association chair Vince Coulthard:
“The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area that people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump.” https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/south-australians-say-no-nuclear-waste
Broad community support should also be sought state-wide; it is a state issue. The waste will either be 
trucked across the country through small towns or a port will be built to transport the waste first by ocean, then by rail or trucks on road. Despite the majority of the South Australian population living in Adelaide, The Flinders Ranges is an iconic totem of our state and dear to countless people, regardless of their place of residence. As stated, I am no longer living precisely within the Flinders Ranges area, yet my future depends on the area. I will return and my family still resides in Peterborough as they have done so since we first settled in Cavanaugh, north west of Dawson. My grandfather drove cattle and sheep through Horrocks Pass, just south of Hawker and the dump site, prior to the highway‟s construction. The land will always be important to many of us not necessarily physically present; broad community support needs to include those outside of the Hawker township.
- the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
In addition, the impact of the nuclear waste site on tourism within the Flinders Ranges should be evaluated independently and form part of state and national consensus. Presently, the Flinders Ranges is the third most popular visitor attraction (574,000 domestic visitors, 2.6 million visitor nights). It contributed 45% of tourism revenue in 2016 and employs 3,000 people directly and indirectly in the region. It therefore contributes significantly to the state economy and therefore likely affects the majority of the state‟s population in some way, even indirectly. Any reduction in this contribution to state economy (which is markedly more than what a nuclear waste dump would contribute) affects the entire state economically and has indirect consequences to many other businesses of towns surrounding Hawker in particular. My town, Peterborough, depends on tourism. It has been the town‟s only industry since the shut down of the railway industry decades ago, which saw the population of the town halve. The town depends on thriving tourism, largely bustling through its main street towards the Flinders Ranges. On weekends, in particular, the main street is full of caravans and off-road camper vehicles headed to the state icon north. The most successful businesses within the town are tourism based; hotels, motels, caravan parks, petrol stations, delis and the newsagency selling souvenirs touting the town as the „Gateway to the Flinders Ranges‟. How many other towns (Orroroo, Wirrabara, Melrose, Quorn, Yunta, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Jamestown and Terowie), would be severely affected by the site selection of the nuclear waste dump? All of these businesses would be affected; therefore, these people deserve a say in the site selection. It is impossible to say how far out a reduction of tourism within the Flinders Ranges would reach. Therefore, the entire state (and nation) deserves a say and their voices heard in regards to seeking consent on the site selection.
https://www.theflindersnews.com.au/story/4568617/ranges-tourism-boom/
- whether and/or how the Government‟s „community benefit program‟ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
The payment of Hawker residents with a $10 million bribe does affect surrounding populations, including the Indigenous, significantly. The process of offering money to compensate or persuade a supposedly impoverished town (Hawker) to give consent despite Indigenous views disadvantages anyone who is not indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal values of European-based society. It is an inherently and blatantly biased process, given Hawker has been bribed with something that is only worthy in exchange for land of which others have spiritual and physical connection with and with something that could never be valuable in Indigenous culture. The thinking of the Hawker residents is truly unclear and motivated by financial support for their town. It is reprehensible that anyone, including the residents who have already made submissions, suggest that only their opinion counts in the selection and consent process of a nuclear waste dump. This will house the nation‟s (and perhaps eventually, the world‟s) nuclear waste. Their opinion is the most blighted and misguided of all individuals, given their own declared poverty and the bribe (“compensation”) offered to them. Here is a quote exemplifying this by Hawker Community Development board member Ian Carpenter:
“Like any small country council, we struggle for money to put into infrastructure and schools and nursing facilities,” he said.
“Admittedly, it’s not going to employ 100 people, but if it employs 20 in our area and creates traineeships for our people, then I think it’s a great idea.” traineeships for our people, then I think it’s a great idea.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/traditional-owners-flinders-ranges-fears-on-nuclearwaste-dump/7195030
Employing 20 people through the nuclear waste dump is NOT a good enough reason to omit the voices of the other > 1 million people within the state of South Australia. Our voices count also and are arguably more objective than the Hawker residents.
Nationally, opinions on the waste dump should also be heard. The waste will come from all over the country, from medical and other sources. The need to remove that waste, the transport of such waste and its eventual storage and where it is stored (hence the site selection process) should be considerate to all individuals‟ perspectives on the matter
. · how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
- any other related matters;
Indigenous support for the site should be overwhelmingly present if a site is selected to go ahead.
To have one, single person, who chaired a committee to establish a waste dump industry in SA in 1995, nominate his property as a potential site, is clearly a conflict of interest and completely bypasses the obtaining of any other consent from surrounding communities. It is reflective of the NeoLiberal system that Australia is presently under. We care more about cash, ‘industry’, tax cuts for major companies and figures at the end of spreadsheets than making real, responsible decisions and respecting the oldest living culture on this planet. The indigenous people of the area have described their stress at knowing their home and sacred site has been nominated as a nuclear waste dump for the nation.
The nomination by Grant Chapman with complete disregard for the rare freshwater spring, biodiversity, cultural storyline and indigenous community living beside his nominated property is nothing short of a continuation of forceful Colonialism. It is an Administrative Rationality which decides what is „good‟ for everyone else, despite never really placing itself in the shoes of its constituents, especially the Adnyamathanha people. His excuse was that the nearby town of Hawker is appreciative of the $10 million bribe that will go along with the nuclear waste site. In other words, the largely non-Aboriginal community’s consent, obtained through bribes that are only valuable in a society indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal, penny-counting thinking, can override Indigenous views. It is representative of our current priorising of European, Neo-Liberal thinking over Indigenous land values. It is unacceptable that, in a country which avidly nags its citizens to be more accepting of other cultures and demonstrate our so called ‘multiculturalism’, that it does not extend this to Indigenous welfare and their views on land management. They have stated their lack of consent loud and clear. Clearly, the nearby Indigenous custodians are suffering and outraged over the site selection. The nomination of the waste dump beside the beautiful Hookina Springs really is just another slap in the face to the very culture that we should actually be listening to as a nation.
April 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Marshall still open to nuclear power, IN Daily, 11 April 19 Premier Steven Marshall says establishing a nuclear generation industry in South Australia is not on his “short-term” radar but it could “come back onto the agenda further down the track” as he considers “every option to ensure we have lower energy prices”.
Marshall today embarked on his third regional tour since seizing office at last month’s election, visiting the South-East seat of Mount Gambier where Liberal-turned-Independent MP Troy Bell is a firm advocate for nuclear power.
Marshall and Bell broke bread this morning, their second face-to-face meeting since election day.
Bell quit the party after being charged with dishonesty offences following an ICAC investigation. He is pleading not guilty in an ongoing court case.
Marshall told InDaily he was “looking forward to a close working relationship with all the crossbenchers”, and that Bell was “the duly elected member for Mount Gambier and as such I’ll be treating him with respect”.
“I’ve always worked with Troy Bell… it’s quite obvious we share a lot of common aspirations for the people of the South-East,” he said.
One of those aspirations could yet be the establishment of a nuclear generator after Marshall last year flagged his interest in considering the industry, despite Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce rejecting it as a commercially viable option “in the foreseeable future”.
“There will be a time when it may become viable, and desperate times call for desperate solutions – and we are in a desperate situation,” Marshall told media in February 2017.
Bell, who spearheaded the Liberals’ South-East fracking moratorium before he left the party-room, is a strong advocate for nuclear power and told InDaily he was “absolutely happy to lead the discussion” about establishing a local 
industry.
Asked if he would advocate for a nuclear generator in the South-East, he said: “A small modular one – yes definitely.”…..
Bell said he was “very interested” in the nuclear option, insisting that “with modern technology and advancements there’s more discussions that need to be had in that space”.
“The problem is nobody wants it in their backyard,” he said.
……….Marshall told InDaily today nuclear power was “not on the short-term agenda of the Government”.
“We’ve got a very robust plan for energy [and] we’re already well on the [record] for saying we want to be neutral on that issue,” he said……https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2018/04/11/marshall-still-open-nuclear-power/
April 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Record temperatures forecast as unseasonable heatwave hits southern Australia, ABC News , 10 Apr 18, By Camron Slessor Record-breaking temperatures will continue in southern parts of Australia this week, with Adelaide set to cop the brunt of the heat today.
Temperatures have peaked in the mid-30s in Adelaide and an April heatwave record looks set to be broken in the state capital.
Extreme heat in early April is not abnormal, but with 34 degrees Celsius in Adelaide on Sunday, 35C forecast for today and 33C on Tuesday, a significant record is in danger………
Heatwave to move from SA to Victoria
Looking further across southern parts of the country, Mr Bass said the heatwave would continue to test records across the border, with temperatures to soar this week in Victoria and parts of New South Wales……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/record-temperatures-forecast-as-heatwave-hits-southern-australia/9625868
April 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Coalition told to rewrite foreign donations bill in unanimous report
Joint standing committee on electoral matters says Turnbull government should remove contentious elements of bill, Guardian, Paul Karp, 9 Apr 18,
The Turnbull government should rewrite its foreign donations bill to narrow the definition of political expenditure and make it less likely to harm advocacy by civil society groups, the electoral committee has recommended.
In a unanimous report released on Monday, the joint standing committee on electoral matters sought to preserve the consensus to ban foreign political donations by calling on the government to strip out more contentious elements of the electoral funding and disclosure bill . GetUp characterised the report as a major backdown and argued the bill is unworkable but the Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, the chairwoman of the committee, told Guardian Australia it could be passed with adoption of mostly minor changes.
Major parties close to deal on charities and foreign donations. In the majority report, the Coalition and Labor members recommended political expenditure should be defined as spending “to influence voters to take specific action as voters, so as not to capture non-political issue advocacy”.
The changes would allow higher reporting requirements to be imposed on campaigning groups such as GetUp while making it less likely they will capture charities and not-for-profits campaigning on issues such as increasing foreign aid or protecting the Great Barrier Reef.
It recommended dumping new proposed categories of third-party campaigners and political campaigners in favour of a new register for groups attempting to influence voters.
Joining the register could be done voluntarily but would be mandatory for organisations with significant political expenditure, which the report suggests would be the $13,500 threshold that triggers the requirement to submit a return to the Australian Electoral Commission.
The committee recommended the requirement for organisations to seek statutory declarations from political donors be reconsidered.
t also wants the government to reconsider changes to the definition of “associated entity”, which could see campaigning organisations classified as related to political parties merely if they agree on policy matters.
In a minority report, the Greens senator Lee Rhiannon took a harder line that the bill may infringe the freedom of political communication and recommended that issues-based advocacy should be explicitly exempted from the definition of political expenditure.
The GetUp national director, Paul Oosting, said the report was an acknowledgement the bill was unworkable and noted the report did not explicitly recommend passage of the bill…… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/09/coalition-told-to-rewrite-foreign-donations-bill-in-unanimous-report
April 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Scott, Cameron Submission to Senate Inquiry: Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia This process started for my family over 2 years ago when our neighbours nominated their property directly alongside our farm to host a National Radioactive Waste Dump. As soon as we were aware we began researching to learn as much about the waste and the facility to educate ourselves and form an opinion. It was clear from the beginning that we were not given all the information and we would need to find it ourselves.
I have had many concerns about the lack of transparency throughout this process and it has caused a lot of stress and anxiety among many members of our community.
a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquision of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
This has been called a voluntary process, I don’t believe it can be called a voluntary process when the nominator stands to receive a payment of four times the value of their land. It is unclear what the value of their land actually is and information in relation to additional payments including access agreements has not been made available to the public.
c) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process,
Kimba was already removed from the process once after our first community Orima survey returned results of 51% not opposed to the facility. Minister Frydenberg declared there was strong opposition and not broad community support to go through to stage 2 of the process. Minister Matthew Canavan stated in the senate that he would need a figure in the vicinity of 65% to take Kimba through to the next stage. When I met with Minister Canavan at parliament house in October 2017 he confirmed that he had made this statement in the senate and it was touch and go for if he was going to take Kimba through to stage 2 with Kimba’s next vote returning results of 56% support for moving forward to stage 2. The Minister still hasn’t put a figure on what % he would require for the next community vote which I believe will be held this year. I believe broad community support should be 75 – 80%, this is a vote to host this facility permanently, it is not temporary it actually involves changing State Legislation which currently prohibits the development of such a facility anywhere in South Australia.
- Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment; The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage. Throughout the process the Governments offered our community many bribes including better mobile phone and internet service, local television service, upgraded roads. As well we could have better Hospital and School Facilities. These are all things that all regional communities around Australia should be entitled to through the millions of dollars we pay in tax each and every year. We have also been told that if we were to host this facility we would become a ‘Federal Town’ whatever that means. I would have thought all towns across Australia should be treated equally with the same importance as a ‘Federal Town’
e) Whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so how this is occurring or should be occurring; The Eyre Peninsula is a very unique farming area that is separated from the rest of the state. All grain from Eyre Peninsula is delivered, blended and exported out of Lower Eyre Peninsula. Therefor Kimba’s grain is mixed with every other town’s grain on EP, the affect that this could have on our exports hasn’t been taken into consideration at all. Other towns on EP have had no consultation and the Minister has disregarded submissions from industry reps and broader EP residents that were made to him throughout the consultation process. It was stated on the Department of Industry Innovation & Science website that Submissions would be made public however they later changed their mind and never made them available for public viewing
f) Any other related matters. The Department of Industry Innovation and Science have continually claimed to be open and transparent with the Community however I have found them to be inconsistent and often misleading with their information. Throughout this process they have given out different information on the jobs and money attached to hosting the facility. They have adjusted the boundaries several times. At first we were told in a public meeting by Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey that neighbours would have right to veto, he in fact told me on the phone that if I didn’t want it then it won’t happen. This then changed to a vote for neighbours living within 10kms. Since this second round of nominations it started by separating the neighbours into 10kms and 5kms groups, this then changed to immediate neighbours only and people living less than 5kms if they don’t share a fence line they are not considered neighbours. This is quite different to Hawker where neighbours can be 30km away. The Department website states that there were originally 28 sites nominated around Australia and they were to be published. However these sites have never been released to the public. Living in a small country town and alongside a nominated site I have been accused by local business owners that they believe the reason why I am opposed is because I actually nominated my farm and missed out. This has caused me a great deal of stress all of which could have been relieved if the Department released the sites as they said they would. I know that 2 Liberal party politicians were involved in land nominations both in Kimba and in Hawker and it would be interesting to see how many other Liberal associates have nominated around the country.
April 9, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Luke Pearson: The language of blame, responsibility and accountability
Luke Pearson
‘Aboriginal people are over-represented in most of the negative statistics
and under-represented in most of the positive ones.
‘This is the fundamental reality underpinning government programs like ‘Closing the Gap’.’
‘ … There is a clear interplay between the choices we make and the
policies and practices within the society we live.
‘Understanding this relationship is crucial to finding solutions for creating the kind of society we want to live in.
It is easy to say ‘do the crime, do the time’, but when people are ‘doing time’ for unpaid fines,
then there must also be some acknowledgement that we have effectively made poverty a crime.
‘Or when non-Aboriginal people are given less prison time (or none at all) for the death of Aboriginal people
than Aboriginal people are given for failure to pay fines, then we must
acknowledge that our system is fundamentally broken, and that
laying sole responsibility on the ‘choices’ of Aboriginal people
will do nothing to address these systemic problems. …
‘Why do we talk only of ‘Closing the Gap’ instead of Aboriginal empowerment or self-determination?’
Read more of Luke Pearson‘s insightful, relevant, important & comprehensive discussion:
indigenousx.com.au/the-language-of-blame-responsibility-and-accountability/
April 8, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL |
Leave a comment
Prolonged SA heat could break records, Herald Sun Caitlin Guilfoyle, Australian Associated Press, April 7, 2018
A total fire ban has been issued for parts of South Australia amidst a wave of warm weather that could break records.
Above-average temperatures are expected through the weekend until Tuesday and that is “most unusual” at this time of year, Bureau of Meteorology duty forecaster Peter Webb says.
“I think three days over 33 in a row would be a new record, if it happens,” he told AAP on Saturday.
“Prolonged heat like this is pushing the boundaries.”
Temperatures are expected to reach up to 40 degrees in the far west, while the mercury will likely climb into the high 30s in northern parts of the state……http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/heat-wind-leads-to-total-fire-ban-in-sa/news-story/a7446a9b478d413f0c013deb78cf7bbd
April 8, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Both these documents show that the facility should not be located on agricultural land, and yet both nominated sites at Kimba are specifically located on farms. Directly next to farming country, and entirely neighboured by productive farms.
Submission to Senate Inquiry: Selection process for a national radioactive waste 
management facility in South Australia by Mrs Justine Major I am a fourth generation farmer in Kimba, South Australia. I have a strong understanding of the project being put forward for consideration, and whilst am not against the idea of the consolidation of radioactive waste into one facility, I do not believe it needs to be located in a food producing region. Personally, this process has been one of ongoing stress, additional workload and a steep learning curve into the political machinations of an Australian Government project.
Please find following my response to the Terms of Reference of this Inquiry.
B) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including; a. The definition of ‘broad community support’, and b. How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
The definition of ‘broad community support’ has been a moving target that has never been clearly defined in the Radioactive Waste Management Facility project. The hallmarks of a well developed project include the establishment of standardised measurable milestones that allow all stakeholders to have a clear understanding of the path being traversed as well as clear acknowledgement that these milestones have or have not been achieved. The constantly moving goal posts throughout this process has been an ongoing source of frustration to those of us trying to work within the Governments framework.
Despite numerous requests, the Government has continued to refuse to provide clarity around what factors would be included in their consideration when determining if broad community support had been achieved; what weighting each of the factors would contribute to this outcome, or what the required result in percentage terms was necessary to allow this process to proceed to the next stage
There has been an ongoing lack of clearly defined, factual, measurable targets that are defendable from both sides of the debate, accepted by both sides of the debate and not able to be influenced by the results put before it. The Minister advised that the vote would not be the only determining factor for progressing the Kimba site through to the second stage, however when looking at the statistics surrounding alternate factors it is hard to see where any other factor has been included. All media that I have seen surrounding Minister Canavans decision simply continued to reference the 57.4% in favour of progressing result of the vote. Based on the data included in the “National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Phase 1 Summary Report, Kimba 2017” showing the results of the community consultation on which the decision to progress to Phase 2 was made, written submissions received throughout this phase were seen to be 86% opposed to the facility. Had both factors been taken into consideration equally, there would have been 35.7% approval rating to this project. Should we even provide a 20% weighting to the written submissions and 80% weighting to the vote, the outcome would achieve a 48.7% approval. None of this comes close to being “broad community consent”.
Another area included in “broad community support” is supposedly the opinions of neighbours. In the first round of community consultation the definition of neighbour, was any property or person within a 10km radius. When the second round of community consultation occurred in December 2016 it was reduced to neighbours within a 5km radius, and at the time of the vote the definition of neighbour was those who immediately bordered the nominated parcel of land. This continuous shift in parameters appears to me to have occurred in order to reduce those included in the sample of neighbours, resulting the Department able to make the statement included in the “National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Phase 1 Summary Report, Kimba 2017” that “Neighbour support around the proposed sites is strongly supportive”. This ongoing lack of defined measureables and the Ministers ability to make a decision as to what the pass mark is after the results have been declared is disingenuous.
D) Whether and/or how the Governments ‘community benefits program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
The removal of incentive payments would absolutely change the support levels found within a community. The idea of the Radioactive Waste Management Facility being sited in Kimba was promoted along the lines of “think what this money could do for us”. All the way through this process has been a money grab. There is anecdotal evidence of people saying that they would vote “Yes” to going through to the second round of this process in order to receive the $2M Community Benefit Funds, with the plan to say “No” at the next vote. They have no intention of wanting the facility located at Kimba, but think they are playing a game whereby they can “get $2M for nothing”.
There is speculation of strategies in play to prolong the Phase 2 process to ensure it pushes into the second financial year in order to gain a further $2M. For those of us who are against the location of this facility in the Kimba region, regardless of the funds thrown around, this is a difficult process. We are defending our position against the facility being located in our region, with genuine concern regarding our business and livelihoods, whilst community members are playing a game to access funding. I also believe that the $10M one-off payment included in the Act will be paid to the State Government has not been clearly highlighted throughout this process. Most people within the community believe the money will be coming to the community directly, with complete access to, and management of, the funds. When people discover this money is to be paid to the State Government, their opinion on the matter changes very quickly.
F) Any other related matters
The Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste provided by ARPANSA clearly states that the siting of a Radioactive Waste Management Facility should not be on agricultural land: “Section 3.1.29 (a) the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use.”
The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Nomination of Land Guidelines, November 2016 also clearly states in Attachment A, Section A8 under the Community Well Being Objective the criteria: “Is the site located within an area that is likely to be expanded upon for community or industrial use or for natural/agricultural use in the foreseeable future”. The weighting to this criteria when taking site selection into consideration according to the guidelines was stipulated as “High”. Both these documents show that the facility should not be located on agricultural land, and yet both nominated sites at Kimba are specifically located on farms. Directly next to farming country, and entirely neighboured by productive farms. That this part of the ruling is not being enforced is beyond me. It would be apparent to most people that under best practice the production of food should be separated from the production or storage of nuclear waste. That it is not the case in other countries does not provide adequate reason as to why Australia should lower their standards with regards to this. It is imperative that this part of the legislation is upheld and made mandatory, rather than being optional.
April 7, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Nationals rule out nuclear power ‘madness’ Echo Daily April 6, 2018 | by The Echo
The NSW Nationals have ruled out plans for building a nuclear power station on the north coast in the face of mounting pressure to do so ‘once and for all’.
Labor candidate for the seat of Ballina, Asren Pugh, made the call in the wake of the recent attendance at a US nuclear industry conference by NSW Nationals leader and Deputy Premier, John Barilaro.
But Mr Barilaro’s spokesman told Echonetdaily there were ‘absolutely’ no plans for such plants on the north coast nor nuclear energy ‘anywhere in NSW’.
However, the spokesman said Mr Barilaro’s views ‘are not representative of the party’s position or the NSW governments’.
‘Nuclear energy is banned under federal law,’ the spokesman said.
On Tuesday during a radio interview, Mr Barilaro said that premier Berejiklian was “open minded” to nuclear power in NSW.
But the deputy premier’s spokesman said the Nationals did not support the idea of nuclear power in NSW, and that Mr Barilaro was ‘expressing his personal views, in the interests of sparking a conversation about the prospects and environmental benefits of nuclear energy’.
Mr Pugh said Mr Barilaro not only participated in the US conference but was a key speaker, billed as one of the ‘Biggest Names in Nuclear’.
He said that since returning to Australia from the International SMR and Advanced Reactor Summi, in Atlanta, Mr Barilaro ‘has been spruiking nuclear power right across NSW, claiming that it could be a reality within 10 years’.
‘When the Nationals leader started this madness, most people thought it was just an April Fools joke, but this is now getting serious,’ Mr Pugh said. ‘There are no circumstances in which our community on the North Coast want nuclear power here. ‘Nuclear power is unsafe, dangerous and leaves a legacy of toxic waste to our children and our children’s children.
‘Our community doesn’t want a discussion about nuclear power on the North Coast, or anywhere in NSW. I am calling on the Nationals MPs from across the North Coast to stand up for our community and say no.
‘I am asking for a clear commitment to a nuclear free North Coast,’ Mr Pugh said.
Mr Barilaro’s spokesman said the deputy premier’s position on nuclear energy ‘is his own. It is not the position of the Nationals or the NSW Government’……….https://www.echo.net.au/2018/04/nationals-push-nuclear-power-north-coast-madness/
April 6, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, politics |
Leave a comment
South Coast nuclear option ‘makes no sense’: Mike Kelly http://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/5325720/nuclear-not-a-real-option-says-mp-kelly/ 5 Apr 18,
The stretch of coastline between Merimbula and Bermagui has been earmarked as having the potential to host a nuclear power station.
In a study by the Nuclear for Climate Australia group published on its website, the Far South Coast is among 18 proposed sites or “areas of interest” in NSW.
Eden-Monaro MP Mike Kelly, a vocal supporter of renewable energy investment in the electorate, said while he understood potential benefits, the study “makes no sense whatsoever”.
“The way I look at it, we haven’t solved issues around disposing of the waste, and risk issues,” Dr Kelly said.
“The results can be catastrophic.”
Dr Kelly said Jervis Bay has long been looked at as a nuclear site, even as recently as by prime minister John Howard.
“If we were going to move down that road, we would’ve had to in the 1960s,” he said.
“Why do it if you have the opportunity to avoid it?”
Nuclear for Climate Australia states the reactor would “have potential if included with other power plants built at East Gippsland, the Snowy or Jervis Bay”, would be cooled in sea water, and would require an “extensive grid upgrade” and a port upgrade at Twofold Bay.
“The big issue is they [nuclear power plants] require water, and our rivers don’t have enough, which means you need the coastline, and where on our coast would you want one?” Dr Kelly said.
“Development would take 20 years, and in that time we have every available renewable energy resource here in Australia, which will transfer to cheaper power, especially with the Snowy Hydro announcement.
“For our region there’s real benefit in becoming a hub for research and development, and even manufacturing components.”
April 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, politics |
Leave a comment
We are locked into an arms race that no one wants to happen, global researchers warn
A CHILLING letter claims the world is on the cusp of opening a dangerous Pandora’s box — and there is no going back. http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/we-are-locked-into-an-arms-race-that-no-one-wants-to-happen-global-researchers-warn/news-story/fc6dfa060c66ed876beb79d1b7530cc6 Nick Whigham@NWWHIGHAM 5 Apr 18
The boycott comes in advance of a meeting next Monday in Geneva, Switzerland, of 123 member nations of the United Nations discussing the challenges posed by lethal autonomous weapons. Twenty-two of those nations have already called for an outright and pre-emptive ban on such weapons.
The open letter announcing the boycott against the South Korean university said autonomous weapons are the “third revolution in warfare” and warned about letting the genie out of the bottle.
“At a time when the United Nations is discussing how to contain the threat posed to international security by autonomous weapons, it is regrettable that a prestigious institution like KAIST looks to accelerate the arms race to develop such weapons,” the letter said.
“We therefore publicly declare that we will boycott all collaborations with any part of KAIST until such time as the President of KAIST provides assurances, which we have sought but not received, that the Center will not develop autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control,” the researchers said.
“If developed, autonomous weapons will be the third revolution in warfare. They will permit war to be fought faster and at a scale greater than ever before. They have the potential to be weapons of terror. Despots and terrorists could use them against innocent populations, removing any ethical restraints. This Pandora’s box will be hard to close if it is opened.”
Professor Walsh organised the boycott which involves researchers from 30 countries and includes three of the world’s top deep learning experts, Professor Stuart Russell from the University of California, Berkeley, who authored the leading textbook on AI and roboticist Prof Wolfram Burgard, winner of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, the most prestigious research prize in Germany.
“Back in 2015, we warned of an arms race in autonomous weapons,” Professor Walsh said in a statement alongside the letter. “We can see prototypes of autonomous weapons under development today by many nations including the US, China, Russia and the UK. We are locked into an arms race that no one wants to happen.
“KAIST’s actions will only accelerate this arms race. We cannot tolerate this.”
Professor Walsh has long campaigned against the development of autonomous weapons.
He has previously travelled to speak in front of the United Nations in an effort to have the international body prevent the proliferation of so-called killer robots with the ability to think for themselves.
Speaking to news.com.au last year he said “the arms race is already starting.”
He believes it’s no longer a question of whether military weapons are imbued with some level of autonomy, it’s just a matter of how much autonomy — which poses a number of worrying scenarios, particularly if they fall into the wrong hands.
“They get in the hands of the wrong people and they can be turned against us. They can be used by terrorist organisations,” he warned.
“It would be a terrifying future if we allow ourselves to go down this road.
April 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Three local sites identified as possible nuclear power stations https://www.lakesmail.com.au/story/5318455/munmorah-eraring-vales-point-identified-as-possible-nuclear-reactor-sites/ 3 April 18 Eraring has been identified as a possible future site for nuclear power by the Australian Nuclear Association.
YASMIN Catley is calling for Premier Gladys Berejiklian to rule out nuclear power in NSW.
The Member for Swansea’s comments came after it was revealed the Deputy Premier John Barilaro was on a taxpayer-funded trip to the US where he attended the International SMR and Reactor Summit, in Atlanta, on March 27.
The NSW Nationals leader has on previous occasions called for nuclear power to be “part of the debate” about the state’s future energy mix.
Mr Barilaro was an invited speaker at the summit and billed on its website as one of the “biggest names in nuclear”.
While in the US he also met with representatives from NuScale and U-Battery, his office said.
These companies are “developing Gen IV reactors which will possibly be available mid 2020s, as well as the US Department of Energy to get an insight in relation to the Government’s approach to new nuclear technology,” a spokesperson for his office said.
“This was an opportunity to learn and gain knowledge about the sector.”
Ms Catley pointed to a 2016 map produced by the Australian Nuclear Association which identified two sites in Lake Macquarie and one site at the Central Coast – Eraring, Vales Point and Munmorah – which could be potential nuclear power plants.
However, Mr Barilaro’s office said he had not considered locations for any future nuclear power sites.
The Australian Nuclear Association’s Robert Parker said the Lake Macquarie and Central Coast sites were among many his organisation had identified across Australia.
The local sites’ suitability was due to existing power generation infrastructure, population density, access to cooling water, road and transport infrastructure, and an existing skilled workforce, Mr Parker said.
He stressed his organisation were proponents of small modular reactors, not large reactors.
The organisation would like to see 18 reactors operating in NSW by 2040.
“It’s impossible for them to have meltdown issues like at Fukushima,” Mr Parker said.
Ms Catley has called on the Premier to rule out nuclear power in NSW. “The Central Coast has a long history of being the powerhouse for NSW, but nuclear is not the way forward,” Ms Catley said.
The Member for Lake Macquarie Greg Piper said while he did not support nuclear power in Lake Macquarie, “Mr Barilaro should not be shut down if he believes it’s something that should be looked at.”
“But the people of Lake Macquarie would have a meltdown.”
April 4, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, politics |
Leave a comment
Premier Berejiklian ‘openminded’ to nuclear energy, deputy premier says 2GB, BEN FORDHAM, 3 April 18 Premier Gladys Berejiklian is “openminded” to nuclear power in Australia according to Deputy Premier John Barilaro.
Mr Barilaro has touched back down in Australia this week after visiting the US to push new nuclear technology in our state.
After meeting with American companies who are building the world’s first small modular reactors, he says this is the way of the future.
April 4, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 