Napandee still the targeted site for nuclear waste? South Australia’s radioactive nightmare.
The Senate’s nuclear waste dilemma, Pearls and Irritations, By Noel Wauchope, Jun 27, 2021 ”……….. Australia’s obligations mount – to have some credible plan for long term management of its nuclear waste from its present Opal, and previous HIFAR nuclear reactors.The new amendment made this very significant change – and a real career-on -knife edge situation for Keith Pitt. Instead of specifying Napandee as the site for – let’s face it – just another temporary nuclear waste dump – the Bill now says that a selection is to be made from one of the listed sites. …
Well this seems to boil down to just one site anyway……… after all the promotional activity, and significant funding already granted to Kimba, it looks as if Napandee is still the targeted site….
Legal challenges to this site selection ? …….. the first consideration will be the Barngarla Native Title Owners………. [There] are farmers, local residents and business leaders, who are asking the government for funding for an independent review and assessment of the dump project. Up till now, information on the project has been confined to government and ANSTO promotion of the dump as a ”medical necessity” for Australia.
Then there are residents of the wider Eyre Peninsula, who have had no say in the Kimba decision. There are the various communities whose residents are likely to object to having radioactive waste transported through their area. There’s South Australia, too, which has clear laws prohibiting the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in that State, the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
But even those who have no ”local” interest in this project have been raising objections, with that rather old-fashioned motivation – the greater good. Thirteen of Australia’s top non government organisations rejected the Napandeed plan and the original Act as deeply flawed There were many submissions to the Senate Committee’s Inquiry into the plan, raising well-argued doubts about economic problems with the plan, about geological unsuitability of the location, environmental risks, and the likely outcome of Kimba being burdened with ”stranded wastes”
It is an issue of national concern, but it has been pitched by the government as a matter only for the 824 eligible voters of the Kimba Shire.
Looking at this in the wider and historical context, the plan is not so new. The federal government and ANSTO have been aiming for years to transfer the responsibility of the reactor wastes to some distant location, preferably out of New South Wales. ANSTO, under the recently departed CEO Dr Adi Paterson had grand plans for expanding its operations, to build a marketing empire for medical radioisotopes, This is a dubious plan, as now these isotopes are being produced in a safer, more practical way, using non nuclear cyclotrons.
A greater dream, (or perhaps nightmare) lies behind the nuclear lobby’s push for a radioactive waste dump. It’s the idea, promoted by the company PANGEA, in 1999, of Australia becoming the importer of international nuclear waste – the world’s nuclear waste hub. PANGEA has been reborn as ARIUS, with the same dream. In 2016, that dream was pushed by the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Commission, which failed to convince South Australians. Two Citizens Jury processes rejected the plan, and the South Australian Premier Steven Marshall announced that it was definitely axed.
There’s still more. The dream of plutonium and other end products of nuclear reactors coming to Australia was tied to the aspirations for an Australian nuclear future, first with the goal of the full nuclear fuel cycle, with advanced nuclear reactors, small nuclear reactors, thorium reactors, (that need plutonium to kick-start the fission process), nuclear submarines, nuclear-propelled spacecraft and so on……..
[Ed. note – the Bill was passed by the Senate on 22nd June]
Australian Conservation Foundation Nuclear Free Campaigner David Sweeney said “The return of legal review is important but it is extraordinary that the Minister ever thought its removal was reasonable,” Mr Sweeney said.“A day in court is a fundamental right and to seek to remove this was deeply flawed – as is the government’s wider plan.”
The ACF along with other peak environmental, health and community organisations, has spelt out its objections in a document on its website, stating that the plan for the Kimba waste dump is unnecessary and deeply flawed. More importantly, they are calling for what is instead really needed . They demand a properly funded and expert independent review of Australia’s radioactive waste management, based on evidence and global best practice.
https://johnmenadue.com/the-senates-nuclear-waste-dilemma/
First Nations and Farmers condemn the federal government’s selection process for nuclear waste dump
Barngarla criticise Kimba waste site process, Port Lincoln Times, Louis Mayfield JUNE 24 2021 Members of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) have launched a scathing attack on the federal government’s process of selecting a site near Kimba to establish a radioactive waste dump.
A joint statement released by the First Nations corporation and the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group outline several issues with the government’s consultation process.
In the media release the two bodies claim that the government has “completely and utterly miscarried” the site selection process by not allowing First Nations people to vote in the community ballot.
“The simple fact remains that even though the Barngarla hold native title land closer to the proposed facility than the town of Kimba, the First Peoples for the area were not allowed to vote,” they said.
“They prevented Barngarla persons from voting, because native title land is not rateable. They did not allow many farmers to vote, even though they were within 50km of the proposed facility, because they were not in the Council area.
“They targeted us, because they knew that if they had a fair vote which included us, then the vote would return a “no” from the community.”
The results of the Kimba community ballot demonstrated a “majority support” for the federal government’s proposed nuclear facility, with 61 per cent voting in favor of the dump.
Further criticism was directed at a lack of consultation with communities that will be affected by the transport of nuclear waste to the facility.
“Those communities, where the waste will be transported through, have had no right to have a say. South Australians more broadly have had any rights to have a say,” they said………..
Minister Pitt said the specific transport routes from radioactive waste storage locations around Australia would be determined once a decision has been made on a site for the facility.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 was passed by the Australian Parliament on Tuesday……….
After a 60-day period period, the Minister can then declare a site and acquisition of a site by the government for the purpose of hosting the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
This story Scathing attack on radioactive waste process first appeared on Whyalla News. https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/7312689/scathing-attack-on-radioactive-waste-process/?fbclid=IwAR0bdbcqMq8QRGHYeBnwFNFlKHydpL-QEX8AfcaRdvjRxdJvOl2xOxDnDCs
Senator Rex Patrick explained how the government’s nuclear waste process was a botched job.
there were a number of people who were quite close to the facility who were unable to express their view in the vote because they lived outside the council area—the voting area—so they were excluded. Lots of people were excluded from the vote. We ended up with a completely flawed process.
Senator McAllister did a fantastic job drawing out in the committee stage that this bill, as it originally entered the Senate, was about ousting the jurisdiction of a court to deal with a botched process. This bill now, as a ruse, says that it’s about maybe three sites, again, when we know the government is going to select Napandee. That’s what’s going to happen as a result of this.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) Senate 21 June 21, (18:26): I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I want to go back a bit in history so that the chamber’s aware of how we got to where we are today, because the bottom line is that this bill is a bit of a ruse, a facade. I need to ground that properly in order for people to understand exactly what I’m talking about.
We’ll go back to 2012, the bill where we’re seeking to establish a national radioactive waste management facility. I might point out that I’m in favour of such a facility. I think we need a facility. We do need to take responsibility for our own radioactive waste. In terms of the safety aspects and the philosophy,………….
Firstly, the concept behind the whole process is fundamentally flawed. Instead of selecting the best site for a facility in Australia, we kind of had a raffle and said, ‘Who wants to have a site in their backyard?’ or ‘Who wants to have a site on their land?’ Of course people put up their hand, but that’s not the best way to select the best location. It’s like trying to say, ‘Let’s build a highway, and we’ll go out and see who wants to have their house knocked down to have the highway run somewhere.’ That’s not the way in which you tackle a project. You work out the best route and then you deal with the issues along the way. That’s not what we’ve done in this process. We’ve just said, ‘Anyone who wants to stick up their hand, we’ll have a look at your property and see if it fits.’ It’s not the best way to do it.
……….what we should have done is look around the country and ask, ‘Where is the best site? What are the best characteristics for a site for a radioactive waste management facility?…..
Continue readingSenator Hanson-Young outlined the shambles that the nuclear waste siting process has been
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That’s why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don’t see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is.
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That’s why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don’t see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is.
This has been a disgraceful process, and still the South Australian community are left in the dark. How is this going to be transported? How often are we going to have trucks and ships full of nuclear waste coming into our state, coming into our towns? What are the people of Whyalla meant to do—not to mention the towns and communities where this dump is built?
We’re not going to. We’re going to fight this. We want a proper process. We want independent expert advice, not special favours from national ministers, and we want our state’s reputation for having a clean, green, food, wine and tourism industry protected. It’s only the Greens who are standing up for this in our state of South Australia.
HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) Senate 21 June 21, (12:28): I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Managemn Greens and my constituents in South Australia, who, of course, are outraged that once again we see the two big parties working together to dump on our state.
This is an example of what happens when Labor and Liberal get together: they’ve got more votes on the eastern seaboard than they do in South Australia, so they dump on SA. That’s what they’re doing here today.
Continue readingSenator Rex Patrick explained why the Woomera prohibited area would be a more suitable site for a nuclear waste dump
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) Senate 21 June21, (19:50): I think Industry did make inquiries to the Department of Defence. In a two- or three-page submission, they sought to rule that out. You’ll be aware that the committee that examined this piece of legislation took a trip to Woomera and had a look at the site. I note in your speech in the second reading debate you said that Woomera was not suitable; it’s a test range. Just to inform you, Minister—you may already know this—Woomera is 13 per cent of the area of South Australia. It is twice the size of Tasmania. It’s beyond comprehension that anyone would accept from the Department of Defence the idea that you can’t fit a facility there. It is a massive area. If you look to the north-eastern corner of the Woomera prohibited area, you will find there’s a uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It’s something like 20 or 30 kilometres inside the WPA. There is a community that clearly doesn’t have any particular issue with radioactive material, noting that their livelihoods depend on that. I’m sure you’ve been up there, as I have, to Roxby and the Olympic Dam.
I also heard during your speech in the second reading debate the idea that we were going to mix a radioactive waste site with a missile firing range. This has all been dealt with by the committee. The Department of Defence advises that, whenever they conduct a missile firing, they have a safety template. So they lay out the area for which there is a danger so that if a missile, aerial vehicle or drone goes rogue it will actually most likely land in that particular safety template. The Department of Defence provided the committee with an overlay map of all of the safety templates that have been used since 2014, and there are massive areas of the Woomera prohibited area that, in actual fact, do not overlap with any test sites. It’s an area that is remote. It’s not on prime agricultural land. There is quite a thick study that shows that it’s quite feasible. It’s done all of the geological work and all of the safety work. On the idea that you can’t find a location there, this is Defence defending Defence land like no other. This is the department that came to the government in 2009 and said, ‘Let’s have a $12 billion Future Submarine project,’ and then that project got estimated up to $50 billion and then grew to $89 billion and now we have to pay an extra $10 billion to extend the life of the Collins class in order to get it to the point where it can last until the future submarines arrive sometime after 2035. This is the same department you’re talking about. It’s clearly incompetent in relation to these sorts of projects.
Any person could reasonably go up to Woomera, have a look at the sites and have a look around the airfield up there. You’ll see that there are ammunition areas and fuel storage areas, all of which are manageable from an aircraft perspective well away from the range. We’ve got the road to Roxby Downs that’s a stone’s throw from the airfield. It’s never been shut, under the various rules. There’s lots and lots of space up there. You’ve got a list of three sites that appear to be face-saving sites. Why wouldn’t you simply accept the possibility that Woomera is not a bad facility? Remember, at the start of this we ended up with the three sites that you have named in your table, in the amendments, by asking people whether they’d want to have their land as a radioactive waste management site—not by looking and asking, ‘What’s the best place to put it?’ but simply, ‘Who wants to have one—which landowner wants to sell their land at four times the market rate to have a facility?’ So they can move on and go somewhere else and leave behind a facility.
I’ve got an amendment on the sheet, and that amendment includes consultation with Indigenous parties and indeed the community. It beggars belief that the government doesn’t want to add another potential site where there could well be broad community support, where in the past proper studies have been done that say that this can go
there. It’s a government that seems to be scared of the Department of Defence and takes a two- or three-page submission to rule out something—afraid of the brass, afraid of the shiny uniforms—and basically takes at face value what they’ve said yet doesn’t listen to the community in Kimba and what their concerns are. That doesn’t seem to matter.
I’m left flabbergasted as to why it wouldn’t be considered, particularly in circumstances where there are two radioactive waste sites up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. Hangar 5 has 10,000 CSIRO drums sitting there that will have to be moved at cost. Koolymilka has defence waste that includes intermediate-level waste. That’s somehow managed to survive for 20 years—longer, actually—without causing interruption to the operations up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. So, I wonder, Minister: how do you reconcile the fact that we’ve had radioactive waste up there since the 1990s, yet Defence have been able to operate perfectly well with the two facilities that we have up there? I wonder whether you can reconcile that.
Senator PATRICK: I don’t mean to ambush you, Minister, but I have two amendments on the table that look at Woomera as a site. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question to ask, noting that in your second reading speech you said that a radioactive waste site is not consistent with the operations at Woomera, when in fact we’ve had radioactive waste stored at Woomera since about the mid-nineties. It may well be that it will continue to be stored there, because the waste at Koolymilka is not suitable to be shifted, in which case the whole thing becomes a bit of a shambles with Defence saying, ‘We can’t have it here,’ knowing full well that it’s going to stay there. That’s the burden of my question. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that question, noting I have a couple of amendments on the table that look at Woomera, which you’re knocking out for what appears to be quite shallow reasons. If you’ve gone through the process completely—not you personally, Minister—if the department has gone through the process or the minister has gone through the process properly, when that advice came back from Defence you would think that you might have challenged some of it, particularly to get an understanding of whether or not that waste will go to, presumably, Kimba. Maybe we can start with hangar 5. Hangar 5 has 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste that is stored very close to the range head. Perhaps you can say whether it’s the intention that that material, noting it’s in a pretty perilous state—I know CSIRO is working to tidy that up—go from hangar 5 at Woomera to the new facility? ………….
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:04): In some sense, the question is as much about Woomera as it is about Kimba because if the circumstances are that you can’t store that particular type of waste—as I said, there are small amounts of plutonium stored there—then, in fact, you’re going to be in a situation where you have a facility at Kimba, presumably, but you still have a radioactive waste storage area in the very place that Defence says it can’t exist, because it’s not consistent with their operations. I wonder if that question was ever asked of Defence in order to test their assertions in relation to the claim that you can’t put this waste there. Is it the intention of the government to close the Koolymilka site at Woomera and in what time frame?
Senator Pauline Hanson was scathing in condemning the government’s nuclear waste siting process
No-one has seen a list of the radioactive waste materials to be stored in the national radioactive waste facility, opening the real possibility of mission creep over time. There is no safety case. The minister says it will be safe. How would he know?
The proposed cost of this above-ground radioactive waste dump site is estimated to cost about a third of a billion dollars, all of which will have been wasted because it’s a temporary solution. I am annoyed. The hard decision, which is the permanent dump site, has been kicked down the road like a can instead of being picked up and dealt with.
Is the movement of radioactive waste minimised for public safety by keeping the dump site close to the site of production? No. Large volumes of radioactive waste will be transported hundreds of kilometres by road into South Australia, contrary to section 9 of South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. Has the government resolved the conflict with section 8 of South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act
Where is the Marshall government in South Australia on this issue? Its silence is deafening. The next state election in South Australia is on 19 March 2022. Premier Marshall has said nothing and has not repealed South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. I note that the 2021-22 budget provides South Australia with $3.4 billion in new commitments, compared with $2 billion for Queensland and $377 million for Tasmania. Has the federal government bought the Marshall state government? I will let the voters in South Australia work that one out for themselves.
Is the proposed dump site near Kimba a geologically stable area? No.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation) Senate, 21 June 21, (18:51): I rise to speak to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. One Nation will never support the removal of judicial review from legislation. This position means One Nation has and will continue to resist pressure from the government to legislate a site in Kimba in South Australia for radioactive waste management. One Nation will always stand up for the freedoms past generations have passed on to us.
In the next 12 months there will be a general election to elect a new federal government. If Australians act like sheep, voting for the two parties and their sidekicks who want to take away their judicial rights, they are going to get wolves in government. If the two big parties had their way, a radioactive nuclear waste facility would now be under construction on the Eyre Peninsula in the middle of prime cropping land in South Australia. Just four per cent of the land in South Australia is suitable for wheat, barley and canola, but the government wants to use the prime land to build a radioactive waste facility. Up until recently, Labor agreed to the removal of judicial review in relation to site selection for a national radioactive waste storage facility. Now they champion judicial review? I ask: what grubby deal has Labor done with government to get this bill through the Senate? No wonder voters are leaving Labor and turning to One Nation.
The government has ticked every wrong box to arrive at its decision to impose a national dump site for radioactive waste on unwilling communities in South Australia.
Continue readingWithin weeks, Minister Keith Pitt is expected to declare Napandee, (Kimba, South Australia) as nuclear waste dump
Nuclear waste dump site in SA to be declared within weeks after bill passes federal parliament. Adelaide Now, 22 June 21,
A nuclear waste dump site in SA will be declared within weeks – with Kimba’s mayor welcoming the breakthrough.
A nuclear waste dump site in South Australia will be formally declared within weeks, after legislation passed parliament on Tuesday.
Federal resources minister Keith Pitt confirmed he would name a location for the radioactive waste storage facility soon after the “significant step forward” in parliament.
A revised bill with a shortlist of three sites passed the Senate late on Monday night with Federal Labor’s support, and was approved by the House of Representatives just after midday on Tuesday.
Kimba mayor Dean Johnson welcomed the bill’s passage as “great news”.
Napandee farm near Kimba is widely expected to be declared the location, after being named the preferred site in February 2020.
But it could quickly face a new legal challenge from the local Indigenous community……
Federal resources minister Keith Pitt confirmed he would name a location for the radioactive waste storage facility soon after the “significant step forward” in parliament.
A revised bill with a shortlist of three sites passed the Senate late on Monday night with Federal Labor’s support, and was approved by the House of Representatives just after midday on Tuesday.
Kimba mayor Dean Johnson welcomed the bill’s passage as “great news”.
Napandee farm near Kimba is widely expected to be declared the location, after being named the preferred site in February 2020.
But it could quickly face a new legal challenge from the local Indigenous community………
The opposition had refused to back the original Bill over concerns that naming the site in legislation, rather than by a ministerial decision, would prevent the possibility of a future legal challenge.
Nuclear waste Bill passed. This is what will happen next
Katrina Bohr , Fight to Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 26 June 21,
Following the news that the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been passed by the Parliament of Australia, we’ve received lots of questions about what will happen next
The Bill will now be recommended to receive Royal Assent, which is the process where the Governor General assents to the Bill, after which it becomes an Act of Parliament.The Minister may then review information relevant to the 3 shortlisted sites: Wallerberdina, Lyndhurst and Napandee that were listed in the Bill. As part of the Minister’s review, he will consider previous feedback received through community consultation processes, including the level of community support that each site received. He will also consider technical, social and economic assessments of the sites. The Minister may only select one site, and has the option not to select a site.
The community that lives and works in the vicinity of the Wallerberdina Station has made it clear that it does not broadly support the facility being located there, and the Government has not changed its position—it will not impose a facility on an unwilling local community.Once he has reviewed relevant material, the Minister may issue an ‘intention to declare’ a preferred site for the facility. This is done by issuing a notice detailing the proposed declaration and inviting nominators and persons with a right or interest in the land to comment.
Comments will be invited for a period of no less than sixty days, after which the Minister will consider relevant comments and may then choose to make a declaration under the Act, which finalises the acquisition of the site for the facility.Further information on the process: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00626 The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020: https://bit.ly/3gSegt more https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
Australian Parliamentarians misled by Minister Pitt’s lies about nuclear medicine.
25 June 21, Contrary to Pitt’s information to the senators the legislation makes no reference to or distinction between ILW and LLW waste
His completely disingenuous claim that the facility at Kimba is needed for continued supply for medical has been strongly and knowingly rejected by numerous experts in nuclear medicine as the hospitals and clinics and institutes using nuclear medicine destroys the resulting waste themselves since most of it is low level with a very short half life
From some enquiries and general market research the government’s facility at Kimba would be lucky to get 10% of all the waste resulting from nuclear medicine in Australia
In any case while there are well be over 100 locations in Australia they do not store nuclear waste since most of it is disposed of within a matter of days after it has been produced
How naive are our parliamentarians to blithely accept this misleading information without any proper expert inquiry of an issue of such major importance to the whole of Australia
Senator Hanson Young gave clearest explanation of the issues around the government’s nuclear waste Bill
25 June 21, Senator Hanson -Young gave most lucid and logical exposition of the important and little recognised facts regarding the government’s proposals for a nuclear – radioactive to use the government’s terminology – waste management facility
She was the only senator to speak about the technical issues of the proposed facility who did not reprise the disingenuous and nonsensical threats about the effect on nuclear medicine if the proposed facility was not established at Napandee
What is more her comments covered fundamental aspects of nuclear waste safety and management that appear to have been either wilfully or through sheer ignorance omitted from any consideration or debate of the government’s proposals
ALSO – it was a very poor reflection on our parliamentary system when the rather understandably emotional speech by Senator Lidia Thorpe was met with a shout of “bullshit” from the public gallery by a senior member of the House of Representatives who should have known better
Even if not to everyone’s liking there was nothing in her speech to deserve that description which may be far more appropriate to all that has been said by the ill-mannered shouting member over the past five years.
Australian government pushes to remove the ban on nuclear power – UK’s Daily Mail
Why the government’s push to finally drop the ban on nuclear power in
Australia could be one of the most important decisions in a generation. The
federal government is reportedly considering a move to lift the ban on
nuclear energy to help reduce carbon emissions while providing reliable
power. According to The Australian, ministers from both the Liberal and
National parties have discussed taking the policy to the next election,
which is due by May.
Daily Mail 23rd June 2021
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9715061/Push-remove-ban-nuclear-energy-Australia.html
Morrison government bringing push for nuclear energy as an election issue
Morrison ministers lay the groundwork for nuclear energy election plan. The Australian 23 June 21, The option of taking a proposal for nuclear power in Australia to the next election has been considered in cabinet-level discussions as pressure grows within the Morrison government to prepare for a nuclear energy industry.
The top-level political and policy discussions including Liberal and Nationals ministers involved the argument that the moratorium on nuclear energy could be lifted in the decades ahead ….
Politically, the option of the Coalition adopting a policy of future nuclear energy was considered too dangerous without bipartisan support from the ALP.Before attending the G7 summit in Cornwall, Scott Morrison publicly said nuclear power was not an option in Australia unless there was bipartisan support for lifting the moratorium. The cabinet-level discussions were not part of a formal cabinet submission but traversed the politics and strategy of taking advantage of a shift in public opinion about the role of nuclear energy in reducing carbon emissions.
……… the Morrison government has included considering the latest modular nuclear reactor technology as part of its “energy road map” to create affordable, reliable energy…
Politically, the option of the Coalition adopting a policy of future nuclear energy was considered too dangerous without bipartisan support from the ALP.Before attending the G7 summit in Cornwall, Scott Morrison publicly said nuclear power was not an option in Australia unless there was bipartisan support for lifting the moratorium. The cabinet-level discussions were not part of a formal cabinet submission but traversed the politics and strategy of taking advantage of a shift in public opinion about the role of nuclear energy in reducing carbon emissions.
……… the Morrison government has included considering the latest modular nuclear reactor technology as part of its “energy road map” to create affordable, reliable energy…
Resources Minister Keith Pitt forced to back down – now must allow legal scrutiny of the ill-advised Kimba nuclear dump plan.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt has been forced to abandon moves to quash legal scrutiny of a federal plan for a national radioactive waste facility near Kimba in regional South Australia.
“More than a year after he began his push to make the choice of location immune from legal challenge, Minister Pitt has had to restore this fundamental democratic right in a move that passed the Senate last night,” said ACF nuclear free campaigner, Dave Sweeney.
The Minister’s backflip to break this year-long stalemate further highlights the federal government’s piecemeal and politicised approach to radioactive waste management.
“The government has failed to demonstrate there would be any public health or radiological benefits in moving Australia’s most problematic radioactive waste from its current secure storage at Lucas Heights to a location with fewer assets and much less protection at Kimba.
“The Kimba plan shirks the hard and long-term questions. Minister Pitt is not advancing a comprehensive solution, he is merely kicking a radioactive can down a dirt road.
“There are many reasons why the Lucas Heights facility, run by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), is the best place for our worst waste until a lasting and credible waste management solution is identified.
“Lucas Heights has secure tenure, a 24/7 federal police presence, the best radiation monitoring and response capacity in Australia and around 95% of the waste is already there.
“Importantly, ARPANSA, the federal nuclear regulator, has confirmed storage at ANSTO is secure, consistent with global best practice and can safely remain ‘for decades to come.’
“The revised approach reintroduces Wallerberdina in the Flinders Ranges as a potential waste facility site, showing the government is making policy on the run and has little understanding about how damaging this plan is to community cohesion.
“In December 2019 former Minister Canavan said the Flinders Ranges was no longer being considered as a site. It is a profound failure that 18 months later it is back on the list.
“This is not a Telstra tower. Australia’s first purpose built national radioactive waste facility deserves the highest level of scrutiny – not a highly politicised approach.”
Premier Marshall must enforce South Australia’s legislation prohibiting nuclear waste dump.
21 June 2021 ‒ Friends of the Earth Australia
By accepting amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill, the federal government has today abandoned its year-long attempt to shield its plan for a national nuclear waste dump in SA from judicial review. A vote on the Bill is expected this afternoon or tomorrow and the Bill is expected to pass.
Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: “The Morrison government’s disgraceful efforts to override the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners to the proposed nuclear dump will be challenged in the courts and politically. Barngarla Traditional Owners are expected to launch a judicial challenge.
“Friends of the Earth welcomes SA Labor’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of nuclear projects in this state.
“Premier Steven Marshall’s support for a nuclear waste dump that is unanimously opposed by Barngarla Traditional Owners is unconscionable, crude racism and Friends of the Earth calls on the Premier to support Traditional Owners ‒ and all South Australians ‒ instead of shamefully falling into line behind his federal colleagues.
“The SA Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act was an initiative of the SA Olsen Liberal government to prevent the imposition of an intermediate-level nuclear fuel waste dump in SA. The state legislation was strengthened by the Rann government in 2002. Premier Marshall should fight Canberra’s push to dump nuclear waste on SA and to override state legislation, as did Premier Olsen and Premier Rann.
“The SA Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act mandates a state Parliamentary inquiry in response to any attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump on SA and the Premier should initiate that inquiry immediately.
“Repeated claims that most of the nuclear waste is medical in original are dishonest. Claims that 45 jobs will be generated are deeply implausible. The dump will likely be the thin edge of the wedge; indeed several Coalition Senators today linked the looming passage of the Amendment Bill to the development of a nuclear power industry in Australia.
“Measured by radioactivity, well over 90% of the waste is long-lived intermediate-level waste that the federal government wants to store above ground at Kimba until such time as a deep underground disposal facility is established. No effort is being made to find a location for such a facility so this long-lived waste would remain stored above ground in SA ad infinitum.
“Intermediate-level waste should be stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site until a suitable disposal facility is available. The Morrison government’s plan to move intermediate-level waste from secure above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to far less secure storage at Kimba is absurd and indefensible.
“The Howard government had to common sense to abandon plans to co-locate intermediate-level waste with a repository for low-level waste, and Premier Marshall should insist that the Morrison government do the same.
“South Australians fought long and hard to prevent the Howard government turning SA into the nation’s nuclear waste dump. We fought and won the campaign to stop the Flinders Ranges being used for a national dump. We fought and won the campaign to stop SA being turned into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump. And now, we will fight until the Morrison government backs off.
“South Australians have greater ambitions for our state than to be someone else’s nuclear waste dump,” Dr. Green concluded.
Contact: Dr. Jim Green 0417 318 368
Nuclear waste storage facility legislation passes Senate.
– The Advertiser 21st June 2021, The Federal Government is now expected to name Kimba as the site of the facility after a key vote in Canberra. A nuclear waste dump set to be built in South Australia has cleared a major hurdle, with a shortlist of sites passing the Senate on Monday night.
Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt is now required to name a site, which is expected to be Napandee farm, near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.Mr Pitt said: “This is an historic moment for our country that will pave the way for a critically important piece of national infrastructure.”He said while the bill has been amended, the Government would not be placing the facility in a community that does not provide broad support for it.
Wallerberdina voted against the facility in 2019, and is not expected to be the site.After months of deadlock, Labor agreed to back the Bill after the government last week proposed changes that would name three possible sites for the facility instead of specifying Kimba.The opposition had refused to back the original Bill over concerns that naming the site in legislation, rather than by a ministerial decision, would prevent the possibility of a future legal challenge.
Labor senator Murray Watt said the amendments were a “good compromise” that allowed for a potential judicial review but also acknowledged the work that had been done to shortlist three sites.Lyndhurst, in northeast SA, Kimba, and Wallerberdina, in the Flinders Ranges, are listed as the three possible sites.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young accused the major political parties of joining to “dump on South Australia”.She said community consultation for the sites had been a “debacle” which treated the traditional owners “terribly”. Labor consulted with the Kimba region’s traditional owners, the Barngarla people, before backing the Bill.The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation was opposed to the Kimba site, but Mayor Dean Johnson last week said the community just wanted a decision.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 