Kimba nuclear waste dump – a total mishandling of the truth from Australian government.
|
IN DAILY – YOUR VIEWS – 25TH FEBRUARY 2020 Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges
 Leon Ashton, When will the Federal Government finally acknowledge publicly that their process to establish a nuclear waste dump has not worked.? All that they have done to date is to destroy the community bond which is the glue that holds any small community together.They have portrayed the dump to the key communities as a win-win for all.
This they can do easily because they have only told half the story. The good bits.
They have the money to do this as its taxpayers’ money. If the people of South Australia only delved a bit deeper into the nuclear issue, they would soon discover a total mishandling of the truth from our government.
A few unanswered concerns are:
1) Why won’t the department tell the people of Kimba what the CEO of Lucas Heights told the doctor from Hawker in May 2018 that we are lucky to now be receiving intermediate-level waste, because without it there are very little economic benefits to any community.
 2) The department will not tell the community how long the highly dangerous intermediate nuclear waste will be temporarily stored. There are no such plans in place at the present to permanently bury this waste as it is too cost prohibitive to do so. This could easily end up stranded for hundreds of years to come in the centre of Eyre Peninsula. If the government watchdog ARPANSA agrees that it is to remain at Lucas Heights, where does that leave the community.3) Why won’t Sam Chard (Your views, February 19) tell the communities that once legacy waste is collected and stored at the dump, then there will only be about two and a quarter containers annually of low-level waste delivered provided every one chooses to use the dump. This will never provide 45 jobs.
4. A parliamentary enquiry in 2004 in NSW acknowledged it was misleading to the public by ANSTO, rebadging the high-level waste being returned from France and England as intermediate waste.
If Australia has to have a single waste dump for our low and intermediate-level waste then all Australians need to be involved. Not just kept low key on the few hundred citizens that are at present bulldozed into the decision that needs a national answer. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
|
The Kimba nuclear waste dump will take a huge toll on the Murray River’s water
Annette Ellen Skipworth No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 25 Feb 20I spent some time as a remote road contractor and I learnt a little bit about roads and site works.
To take the weight of the truck load, a road has to be compacted to gain the strength to take the semi plus the load on the tray.
From asking questions and scouring internet sites, I have found out, the casks containing the high grade nuclear waste.. excuse me ..the intermediate nuclear waste are very very heavy.
It wasn’t advisable to use water that is very salty.. it rises to the top and makes the road slippery.
As Kimba’s only water supply comes from the precious Murray River, and the local underground water is salty and unusable.. where is the water needed coming from?
Whyalla urgently needs a policy to prevent becoming the radioactive trash port
“A question was asked to (Whyalla) council regarding potential use of the port for the transport of intermediate level waste. The response is on the council website under Council Meeting Minutes Monday 17/2/20. There is no current policy.
As a community we should have a policy. We should be standing up on behalf of the divided Kimba community and refuse the use of the port and surrounding roads and rail. It is the responsibility of the council to represent the community, not to bow down and take orders from the state government.” – Mr Andrew Williams.
Link source to Minutes: http://www.whyalla.sa.gov.au/…/council%20minutes%20-%20PUBL…
Bill in Aust Parliament names South Australia as the Nuclear Waste State
the Bill makes provision for the Federal gov. to pass Regulations to name and over-ride specific State Laws. For instance, it may be the case that the Federal gov. requires to pass a Regulation to name and over-ride the public interest protections in the SA “Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000”, and potentially to also do so regarding the SA “Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988”.
David Noonan, 24 Feb 20, Bill names SA as the Nuclear Waste State:
The Bill specifies South Australia as a nuclear waste dump state.
And specifies Napandee near Kimba as a Nuclear Waste Store – which effectively also targets Whyalla Port for multiple nuclear waste shipments.
The Bill has been to the HoRep’s and now goes to the Senate:
“to enable the decision about the location of the facility to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny”
(see the Bill Explanatory Memorandum Outline p.1).
For access to the doc’s and to speeches, and to Track the Bill – so as to receive e updates…
The Bill is expected to be Referred by the Aust Greens around Wed 26th Feb to a short Inquiry by the Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee. The Bill may go to a vote in Senate in the last week of May.
If the Bill is passed, the Federal gov. then instigates a Licensing process on the NRWM Facility by the nuclear regulator ARPANSA, and in parallel makes a referral for environment assessment of the proposed NRWM Facility under EPBC Act.
ARPANSA are expected to conduct separate Licensing processes for the above ground interim Nuclear Waste Store, and for the so-called Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. ARPANSA may require the Federal gov. to make separate Licensing Applications for the two types of waste facilities.
The Federal gov. can-not assume that both facilities will be approved by the regulator.
It is arguably likely that Licensing for the NRWM Facility, and in particular for above ground interim Nuclear Waste Store, should and will fail – leaving the amended Act stranded will a failed single specified site and no provision for consideration of any further siting elsewhere in SA or in other States / Territories.
However, the Bill is said by the Minister and the Department to provide ‘certainty’.
Notes on Bill:
The Bill names and specifies South Australia, and omits “the State or Territory”, for siting a NRWM Facility and to register acquired lands;
The Bill specifies Napandee as the NRWM Facility site and amends the 2012 Act to that effect as a single site;
The Explanatory Memorandum (EM, Outline p.2) says: “Additional land will not be able to be acquired to establish a second facility”;
The Bill “Notes on Clauses” p.22 states: “Once established, it is expected to be in operation for 100 years.”
The Bill “Notes on Clauses” p.14 claims: “there is broad support in the community for the project.”
The Bill strengthens the Commonwealth powers to use the 2012 Act to over-ride State laws and to impose the NRWM Facility on unwilling communities;
The Bill specifically asks Senators to vote to approve a set of powers to over-ride any State law (or other Cth law), Continue reading
Barngarla Aboriginal people take legal action against Australian govt’s planned Kimba nuclear waste dump
  Indigenous group fights on to stop SA dump https://www.9news.com.au/national/indigenous-group-fights-on-to-stop-sa-dump/d72f3453-28e8-4182-a9bb-6c9390098bf6?fbclid=IwAR3l91JVzBoJhkIhnf49 Feb 21, 2020 Native title holders on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula are continuing their court fight to stop the federal government establishing a nuclear waste dump near Kimba.
The government recently named a site on a local station as the location for the dump which will take Australia’s low to medium level nuclear waste material.
The government’s decision was informed in part by a ballot of local residents which supported the proposal.
But it’s that ballot that the Barngarla people are fighting in new Federal Court action.
They’re appealing against a court judgment last year that the council had not acted wrongly in excluding about 200 native title holders from the vote.
Counsel for the Barngarla, Daniel O’Gorman SC, told the court on Friday that their request to take part in the ballot should have been granted.
“They, therefore, are part of the community,” he said.
“This was a ballot of the community, the Kimba community. They are the native title holders of the land surrounding the sites in question.
“Therefore, we submit, they clearly had an interest in the ballot, they clearly had an interest in the dump and whether it goes ahead or not.
“Their mere standing as native title holders, warranted them being included as part of the community.”
The ballot ultimately returned about 62 per cent support for the dump, which then Resources Minister Matt Canavan accepted as broad community backing.
Those still opposed to the dump going ahead include some locals, environmental groups as well as indigenous communities.
Earlier this month, legislation to allow construction of the waste facility was introduced to federal parliament.
The underpinning laws allow for acquisition of land for the facility as well as a $20 million payment for the community to help establish and maintain the site which is expected to operate for at least 100 years.
The Federal Court’s ruling on the Barngarla appeal is expected to be handed down on a date to be fixed.
|
|
|
No, Mr Baldock, our children do not deserve this dirty, long-lasting, nuclear trash dump
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 21 Feb 20, People leaving, property values dropping, large tracts of land hitting the market, children’s heritage being sold and/or eroded, a once strong community now divided, people happier to shop outside their community, these are the trademarks of a dying town with poor opportunities.
An aggressive social cancer fueled by a desperate and ignorant nuclear embracing dichotomy trying to grasp the doctrines of the indentured servitude bound nuclear coterie with a vested interest spouting factoids will surely fail to attract new business and people to the region.
Meanwhile Andrew Baldock, nuclear profiteer, social axe man has continued to state “We are doing this for the children!”
Well Baldock my children, my children’s children’s children don’t deserve this. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
Correcting the propaganda: Australia’s nuclear medicine DOES NOT NEED a national radioactive waste dump
|
Commenting on the opinion piece: Kimba nuke decision dumps on Indigenous rights In Daily 21 Feb 20, Once again, Sam Chard (Your views, February 19) glosses over some of the less flattering details of the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
A lot of focus is given to the permanent disposal of the so-called ‘gloves and gown’ low-level waste. However, the proposal also includes the temporary above-ground storage of long-lived intermediate level waste. This waste will not be be safe after a half-life of 30 years (as with the low level waste). In fact, it will not be safe after 100 years when the facility is projected to close. This long-lived intermediate level waste is not currently ‘spread across 100 sites’. It is housed in one location in a purpose-built facility at Lucas Heights. This long-lived intermediate level waste is not currently ‘spread across 100 sites’. It is housed in one location in a purpose-built facility at Lucas Heights. There is no future plan, nor funding, to manage this waste in 100 years when the facility closes. The question that South Australians have to ask is; how our grandchildren are going to manage this waste long after the ‘community development’ fund is gone? – Megan Johnson The head of the federal government’s radioactive waste task force stated (Your views, February 19) that the planned national waste facility at Kimba is ‘critical to Australian nuclear medicine’, and went on to assert that ‘radioactive waste from nuclear medicine is currently spread over more than 100 locations across the country, at science facilities, universities and hospitals. It needs to be consolidated into a purpose-built facility, where it can be safely managed’. Sounds reasonable, but is it accurate? With minor exceptions, Australia’s waste from nuclear medicine is managed on a ‘store and decay’ basis. This means it is secured and stored at the site of use until it has decayed to a point where it can be disposed to local landfill. This material does not need any federal facility, and continuing access to nuclear medicine is not dependant on the planned national facility. The facility is related to nuclear medicine in as much as it is planned to house spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor, but not in relation to any need from clinics, Uni’s, hospitals or medical centres that use nuclear medicine. Perhaps the federal department could step up and list the one hundred sites that currently store radioactive material that will no longer need to do so should a national facility ever be built. No doubt they will claim they can’t do so because of security considerations, an explanation that sounds better than because there are few or no sites that need this. Radioactive waste lasts longer than any politician’s promise. Matt Canavan, who signed off on the contested Kimba plan at the start of this month, is now no longer a Minister – but the waste has up to another 10,000 years to go. We need to do better than to try and manage half-lives with half-truths. – Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation https://indaily.com.au/opinion/reader-contributions/2020/02/21/your-views-on-nuclear-waste-le-cornu-site-and-holden-demise/ |
|
Greens in the Senate will oppose bill to storage nuclear waste at Kimba farm
 Greens to oppose bill to storage nuclear waste at SA farm, Queensland Country Life, Jamieson Murphy@jamiesonmurph18 Feb 2020, THE government may have to negotiate with the Senate crossbench to get through legislation that will transform a South Australian farm into a nuclear waste facility, after the Greens declared their opposition to the bill.
The Kimba farm, which was voluntarily nominated and chosen after a four-year search, would store medical nuclear waste for 100 years. South Australian Senator and Greens nuclear spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young said her party would work to block the “offensive” legislation. “The federal government wants to dump on South Australia and we won’t leave it to the community of Kimba to hold the line on their own,” Senator Hanson-Young said. “It is wrong to say there is broad community support. Traditional Owners have rejected the proposal. Once again the Morrison government and [former Resource] Minister Canavan haven’t listened. “A government minister from Queensland thinks South Australia is the place to dump and it’s deeply offensive to the people of SA. “Every South Australian should be concerned this government is more interested in building a radioactive waste dump than they are in investing in renewable energy and our growing potential for green industry.” Labor resource spokesperson Joel Fitzgibbon did not respond to questions about whether his party would support the bill. The recently appointed Resource Minister Keith Pitt introduced the legislation to the House of Representatives last week – just two weeks after the Kimba site was announced – where the government will have the numbers to pass the bill. With the Greens opposing the bill in the Senate and Labor not stating its position, the government will need the backing of either the Centre Alliance or One Nation to carry the bill. A spokesperson for Mr Pitt said the new minister was “working with other parties to deliver the outcome”. “Minister Pitt wants bipartisan support on the National Radiation Waste Management Bill,” the spokesperson said. “This bill has been 40 years in the making and the establishment of a national radioactive waste facility is a national priority.” South Australian Energy and Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan said the federal legislation would override SA’s state legislation….. https://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/story/6635712/greens-to-oppose-bill-to-storage-nuclear-waste-at-sa-farm/?cs=4704&fbclid=IwAR17gRLqP-DpCp_Ya5UqDUHu0Tj7y3siBi04TWo1wktCu-ZqtuBRG-PVyaE |
|
|
South Australia’s grain exports could be at risk, if Kimba nuclear waste dump goes ahead
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 17 Feb 20,Keeping in mind the safe standard for radioactive contaminated food in Australia is 1200 becquerels, which fails to keep up with the safer standards of Japan at only 100 becquerels per kilo. Not only is Japans standards safer than ours but Australia’s grain export to Japan is about $646 million per year, and that could be in jeopardy if the program to turn Kimba into a radioactive dump proceeds.
Dr Bandazhevsky’s study came with the added problem of finding children of Belarus free of contamination, there was also a health cluster in children now recorded and known as Chernobyl heart, a condition of multiple holes in the heart, due to radioactive exposure.
History of Australia’s govt move towards importing nuclear waste
If the “low level” storage facility goes ahead in Kimba, it would only be a matter of time before it became a facility storing medium and high level waste creating untold risks for human life, Indigenous culture and heritage, flora and fauna, and agriculture. It must be stopped.
TERRA NUCLEAR https://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2020/1902/05-nuclear.html?fbclid=IwAR0oOmAw7IIbs9dERT6aUM6gKTG4eIIco6iEycpzr58GHwyPomOVyGh2jak Anna Pha,16 Feb 2, Last week, the then Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced the site for an international nuclear waste dump on farmland in South Australia. The decision comes after two decades or more of wrangling over where to locate the facility.
The land is at Napandee in Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula and is owned by a farmer who offered it to the government. He is set to receive compensation well above market value.
“The facility has broad community support in Kimba, but I acknowledge there remains opposition, particularly amongst the Barngarla People and their representative group,” Canavan said in a press release.
He omits to mention that the Barngarla People were excluded from a local vote on the question.
In addition, the opposition is not confined to the Barngarla People who fear the pollution of their land and waters, as well as the damage to their culture and sacred sites. Environmental and other groups as well as many individuals have not given up. They are determined to fight it to the end.
Denial of Danger
Just as the government refuses to acknowledge the dangers of inaction over climate change, Canavan plays down the deadly risks associated with radiation; “I am satisfied a facility at Napandee will safely and securely manage radioactive waste and that the local community has shown broad community support for the project and economic benefits it will bring.”
This is a hollow claim, which he cannot back with practice. How can anyone claim such a facility would be safely and securely managed for thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of years that it would take for the radioactive material to breakdown?
The minister cannot make any guarantees. In particular, as the plan is to hand the facility over to the private sector to manage, the risks and cover-ups become far more likely and serious Continue reading
Australian government pushes on with nuclear dump, tramples on indigenous rights
 Kimba nuke decision dumps on Indigenous rights, https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2020/02/13/kimba-nuke-decision-dumps-on-indigenous-rights/ The federal government’s decision to place a a nuclear waste storage site at Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula turned deaf ears to the opposition of the area’s native title holders, argue Jim Green and Michele Madigan.
The federal government recently announced that it plans to establish a national nuclear waste ‘facility’ near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula. It will comprise a permanent dump for low-level nuclear waste, and an ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate-level waste. Shamefully, the federal government has decided to move ahead despite the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners, native title holders over the area. The federal government refused a request from the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) to include traditional owners in a community ballot held last year. So BDAC initiated a legal action protesting their exclusion. The court case is ongoing and an outcome is expected soon. BDAC also engaged the Australian Election Company to conduct a confidential postal ballot. Not a single Barngarla Traditional Owner voted in favour of the dump. BDAC wrote to the government calling for the dump proposal to be abandoned in light of their unanimous opposition, and stating that BDAC will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it being imposed on Barngarla Country against their will. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act systematically discriminates against Australia’s First Nations. For example, the nomination of a site for a nuclear dump is valid even if Aboriginal traditional owners were not consulted and did not give consent. And the Act has sections which nullify or curtail the application of laws such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, and the Native Title Act 1993. The federal government recently announced that it plans to amend the Waste Management Act. While the Act is sorely in need of an overhaul, the planned amendments aren’t those that are needed. Clauses in the Act that dispossess and disempower traditional owners will remain untouched. The SA Labor Party argues that traditional owners ought to have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of the nuclear industry in SA, stretching back to the British atomic bomb tests. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the recent announcement regarding the Kimba site. Compare that to the federal government, whose mind-set seems not to have advanced from the ‘Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’ clause in the Constitution Act 1900. As Barngarla Traditional Owner Jeanne Miller says, Aboriginal people with no voting power are put back 50 years, “again classed as flora and fauna.” The current debate follows a history of similar proposals ‒ all of them defeated, with traditional owners repeatedly leading successful campaigns. In 2004, after a six-year battle, the Howard government abandoned plans for a national nuclear waste dump in SA. The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta ‒ a senior Aboriginal women’s council ‒ congratulated the government for belatedly getting their ‘ears out of their pockets’. In 2016, the plan to import high-level nuclear waste from around the world was abandoned after a Citizens’ Jury noted the lack of Aboriginal consent and concluded that “the government should accept that the Elders have said NO and stop ignoring their opinions.” And last year, the federal government abandoned plans for a national nuclear dump in the Flinders Ranges, a plan that was fiercely contested by Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners. SA Premier Steven Marshall is rightly proud of his record promoting the growth of renewable energy in SA. And he’s proud of his significant role in putting an end to the plan to import high-level nuclear waste from around the world. So where will the Premier ‒ whose portfolio includes Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation ‒ stand on this latest nuclear controversy? He needs, as the Kungkas put it, to get his ears out of his pockets and to respect the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla First Nation. Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia. Michele Madigan is a Sister of St Joseph who has spent the past 40 years working with Aboriginal people across SA. |
|
Nuclear waste dumping: as the Baldock family sells farming land, is the agricultural market for Kimba now stuffed up?
As the Baldock family anticipates the establishment of a nuclear waste dump on Jeff Baldock’s land, they now sell a large chunk of their farming land, along with three other farming families that have made the same decision. (Reported in The Advertiser , 14 Feb 2020)
It looks as if they are getting out fast, before the dirty nuclear waste news is widely known.
And here are some of the many comments on Facebook:
James Shepherdson It is actually about roughly 20ks from the site and has only just been added to the other land for sale. Read into it what you will , but if he’s planning to stay he’s sure sending the wrong message with this move .As far as being approachable, been there done that and got jumped on by council and the gov department and were accused of bullying . this will go down in history as the most undemocratic process in this country
K Bruun I can’t – but at the same time ‘can’ – believe this. I am amazed at how planned this has been. There must be something sociopathic about these people. I still don’t understand how Baldock could spend his nuffield scholarship learning how to keep families on farms together, yet does this. What is the psychology behind people like this? They have effectively harmed their entire community.
Kazzi Jai Paul Waldon “It was sheer elation when I heard,” Baldock says. “I’m 
very, very excited about what lies ahead for Kimba. It gives me a great feeling of relief. I’m quite excited to have it on my property and see it develop, to have our kids around it and see some opportunities close to home.”
The Saturday Paper February 8th -14th 2020
Noel Wauchope Perhaps the Baldocks and others look to a “healthy”economic transition for Australia from an agricultural country to the world’s quarry and waste dump.
Media coverage of Kimba nuclear waste dump is found wanting
|
Marc Daniel, Commenting on the story: Kimba nuclear dump laws hit parliament So much misinformation in this article. It does not have broad community support. The voting pool was narrowed to 800 and the vote was won by 70 votes. That’s not broad support. It’s a manipulated outcome. Then the actual figures ‘vanish’ and they talk of percentages and broad support. ” ‘I thank the people of Kimba, Hawker, Quorn and surrounds, Traditional Owner groups, the Kimba District and Flinders Ranges councils and the Outback Communities Authority for their participation in this process,’ Pitt said today.” They took the Kimba traditional owners to court to specifically exclude them from the poll. Funny how the first site was offered by the sitting Liberal member Rowan Ramsey, and this was only withdrawn when someone pointed out the conflict of interest so blatant but unrecognised by him. It’s actually against the laws of South Australia, a law that was given broad discussion and brought in by the SA Rann Government, now to be overridden by federal law. 45 Jobs. Maybe, but that’s during construction. Maybe. They promise 25 in operation, but who can trust that figure when any new process built in a modern era can be fully automated. Maybe 2 security guards on the gate if its not remotely monitored from a capital city somewhere. Where is the nearest hospital and medical services? Kimba has none. How will it get there? None have been consulted about this, especially in Whyalla, the port that a report nominates as the shipping point. This article has taken the Government’s “facts” and failed to examine any of them. Its not reporting, its propaganda. Marc Daniel https://indaily.com.au/opinion/reader-contributions/2020/02/14/your-views-on-a-city-stadium-nuclear-dump-and-planning-reform/ |
|
|
|
Kimba nuclear dump laws hit parliament. In Daily 13 Feb 20Draft laws to turn a Kimba farm into a national nuclear waste facility have hit federal parliament, only weeks after the site on SA’s Eyre Peninsula was announced.
Resources minister Keith Pitt said today legislative amendments had been introduced to parliament to “support the delivery” of the facility, at Napandee near Kimba. …… [Pitt goes on to put the “medical “argument for the waste dump – not a word about spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor] Under this Government, decisive action has been taken to finally provide a facility where we can consolidate existing and future radioactive waste stream.” The Bill would also enable the establishment of a $20m community fund to help deliver on federal commitments to Kimba, which Pitt said “broadly supports” the facility. Kimba was chosen after a four-year process and is expected to be a nuclear waste dump for 100 years. About 45 people will be employed at the site, which the government says will store low-level waste permanently and intermediate-level waste temporarily. Environmental and indigenous groups oppose the dump, but a recent poll conducted around Kimba returned a 62 per cent vote in favour of the facility. A site near Hawker was ruled out after a community survey found minority support. Native title has been extinguished at the Kimba site, but the government insists it wants to protect indigenous cultural heritage and work with the Aboriginal community near the facility. “I thank the people of Kimba, Hawker, Quorn and surrounds, Traditional Owner groups, the Kimba District and Flinders Ranges councils and the Outback Communities Authority for their participation in this process,” Pitt said today. The draft laws will be considered by a parliamentary committee so stakeholders can give feedback. https://indaily.com.au/news/2020/02/13/kimba-nuclear-dump-laws-hit-parliament/ |
|
Controversial legislation for Kimba nuclear waste dump is tabled in Federal parliament
Nuclear legislation on the table, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield 14 Feb 20 The federal government’s goal of establishing a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) at Napandee, Kimba is a step closer after key legislation was tabled in the Parliament on Thursday.
The controversial National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will be subject to much scrutiny from the Senate crossbench and other stakeholders.
“It is wrong to say there is broad community support. Traditional Owners have rejected the proposal. Once again the Morrison Government and Minister Canavan haven’t listened,” she said.
“Whilst the decision by 62% of the community to back the facility being built must be respected, so too must the views of those who were under the impression that the facility would not go ahead without ‘broad community support’,” he said.
The bill will also allow the government to establish a $20 million Community Fund for Kimba, promising to support long-term infrastructure and development priorities for the town……. https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/6629280/nuclear-legislation-on-the-table/?fbclid=IwAR0Q46EnPyGMac0c6shR7o_dhPh5BQBhWwkN1FuCaq6zwJi_6lfc2qjS0SA
Whyalla is targeted for nuclear waste shipments and should have a right to refuse untenable plans.
Whyalla is targeted for nuclear waste shipments and should have a right to refuse untenable plans.
Napandee Nuclear Store site nomination also targets Whyalla Port: Nuclear Brief (Feb 2020) by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner
Amidst rising controversy, a Federal Minister has nominated Napandee near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula as a Nuclear Store to take reactor fuel wastes and long-lived wastes from Lucas Heights.
The “Site Characterisation Technical Report: Napandee” (DIIS, July 2018, Proximity to ports p.150) named Whyalla Port to take shipments of nuclear fuel wastes, in the event Napandee is named as a Nuclear Store. Two shipments of reprocessed nuclear fuel wastes, in 130 tonne TN-81 casks, are intended within the first two years of operations of a Nuclear Waste Store at Napandee (p.152).
Some 100 x B-double 50 tonne loads of Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) are also intended in the first four years of Nuclear Store operations at Napandee (p.152). The Report (p.157-158) states:
“It may be possible to have these containers shipped from Port Kembla to ports such as Whyalla”
However, the Federal government has conspicuously failed to consult the SA community on plans to impose multiple shipments of nuclear waste across SA, including potentially through Whyalla Port.
This flawed practice is in continued breach of advice of the Nuclear Safety Committee (NSC) to the nuclear regulator ARPANSA (Nov 2016) on the NRWMF, on transparency in decisions, stating:
“The ongoing requirement to clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along transport routes.” With the NSC stating that: “Such engagement is essential…
” Eyre Peninsula, Whyalla and transport route communities have so far been denied a say on these Federal nuclear waste plans and now face potential serious reputational risks and material impacts.”
The Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework (DIIS, April 2018, p.4) reports total Intermediate Level Wastes at 1,770 m3 – with 95% (by volume) arising as Federal government wastes.
The Federal gov. plans to more than double Intermediate Level Wastes to produce a further 1,960 m3 over next 40 years, with 1,850 m3 (95%) of that arising from ANSTO Lucas Heights operations.
All these nuclear wastes are intended to go to Napandee for up to 100 years above ground storage.
Proposed indefinite above ground storage of nuclear fuel wastes at Napandee may compromise safety and security in SA and contravenes Nuclear Safety Committee advice. The NSC has stated dual handling in transport associated with interim storage “does not represent international best practice” and raises “implications for security”. These federal nuclear plans are also illegal in SA.
The previous SA State Liberal government prohibited the import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear fuel wastes and reprocessed wastes under the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”
ARPANSA states these nuclear wastes require isolation from the environment for 10 000 years.
Nuclear waste can pose serious Safety, Accident and Security Risks:
“In the event of a major nuclear accident, adverse impacts on the tourism, agriculture and property sectors could potentially be profound.”
SA Nuclear Royal Commission: Tentative Findings, Risks and Challenges, Impacts on other Sectors (Feb 2016, p.28)
Key questions on safety and security in nuclear fuel waste transport and storage remain unanswered (see D Noonan submission to Minister Canavan, p.11-12). These wastes must not be allowed into SA.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities “Briefing: Nuclear security concerns – how secure is the UK civil nuclear sector?”
(NFLA, May 2016) highlights key security threats including the risks from potential malicious attack on a nuclear waste transport or on a nuclear waste storage site. NFLA (p.8) cites the views of nuclear engineer Dr John Large on safety as at the heart of its concerns:
“Movement of nuclear materials is inherently risky both in terms of severe accident and terrorist attack. Not all accident scenarios and accident severities can be foreseen; it is only possible to maintain a limited security cordon around the flask and its consignment; … terrorists are able to seek out and exploit vulnerabilities in the transport arrangements and localities on the route; and emergency planning is difficult to maintain over the entire route.”
NFLA Recommendations (p.15) call for real discussion on the aftermath of a nuclear security incident given the major emergency response issues that arise. That belated debate is yet to be heard in SA.
SA is arguable unprepared for the consequences of nuclear fuel waste accidents or security events. Hundreds of Police were required for security at a 2018 nuclear waste shipment out of Port Kembla.
Whyalla is targeted for nuclear waste shipments and should have a right to refuse untenable plans.
In “Nuclear port potential” (Whyalla News, 3 rd August 2018, p.1) the Mayor said Federal gov. plans to use Whyalla’s port for nuclear waste: “would require significant community consultation”, noting:
“In the past Whyalla has opposed any nuclear or radioactive shipping in this region”.
DIIS’s Napandee Site Characterisation Report refers to potential “occurrences of complete shutdown” (p.154) in Iron Triangle Cities during nuclear waste shipments. This is unacceptable.
These are fundamentally State issues and the SA public have not given consent to proposed nuclear waste transport and storage. Under the leadership of Premier Steven Marshall the SA State Liberal government has a responsibility to protect the public interest and to uphold the law in our State.
The Marshall gov. must protect all SA regional communities and reject a Nuclear Waste Store in SA. For further Information, see: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/waste
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
Nuclear Power in Australia | FYI
of the week
The Industry Push to Force Nuclear Power onto Australia
EVENTS
27 February – Wayville, Adelaide Nuclear Waste in South Australia ‒ What do we know?
more at Action Australia
Victorian Government INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROHIBITIONThe submission closing date is Friday 28 February 2020. more – https://antinuclear.net/2019/11/07/victorian-government-inquiry-into-nuclear-prohibition/
Climate Action (Nuclear has no role)- theme for February 2020
Germany’s Climate Action Plan: step-by-step to a liveable future. Nuclear power is of course completely excluded
