Australian government’s nuclear waste plans unacceptable – Dr Margaret Beavis
 Long-term impact of quick nuclear dump fix https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2021/02/23/long-term-impact-of-quick-nuclear-dump-fix/Legislation to set up a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is being debated by federal parliament. Margaret Beavis argues that both the site selection process and storage plans for long-lived intermediate nuclear waste are unacceptable.
Today, the government is planning a Senate vote to lock in moving highly radioactive nuclear waste to Kimba. This bill will deny any judicial oversight or review, despite major flaws in the proposal. However there is no rush to find a home for Australia’s nuclear waste. The federal nuclear regulator, ARPANSA, has been crystal clear; the nuclear waste at the ANSTO Lucas Heights reactor can stay there safely for decades. Claims that moving the waste is urgently needed to continue nuclear medicine in Australia are patently false. As a GP, I use nuclear medicine and ongoing access is necessary. Other arguments that we need to consolidate nuclear waste at one site are misleading, given hospitals will be handling waste for as long as there is nuclear medicine. Hospitals currently manage their own nuclear medicine wastes on a ‘delay and decay’ basis on site; after use in a patient, the waste very rapidly loses its radioactivity. After a few months the vast majority is safe enough to go to a normal rubbish tip. There will always be multiple sites. Many South Australians would be unaware that this proposed “temporary storage” of nuclear waste in Kimba is a second-rate cheap solution. World’s best practice requires deep geological disposal, which costs a lot more. Countries such as Finland have spent over 40 years researching locations and properly involving communities. They are only now building a deep geological repository, at a cost of over A$5 billion In contrast, the Kimba plan will cost shift onto future generations, who will be left to do the job properly at great expense. Indeed, whilst the government promises to move the waste yet again some decades hence, there are no plans whatsoever for proper longer-term disposal. It is highly likely to end up stranded at Kimba and a significant liability for South Australians. In addition to the dodgy storage proposal, there are many other flaws. The big ones include: four years of a misleading government marketing campaign, a deciding vote using a biased sample of residents and a complete disregard of profound opposition by the Traditional Owners. The site selection process has been poor. The community has endured several years of very one-sided marketing, and remains deeply divided on the issue. Low-level waste has been the major focus thoughout, yet the elephant in the room is the intermediate waste that is radioactive for over 10,000 years. The community vote was based on town boundaries, which biased the sample towards businesses who may profit from the facility. It excluded farmers who are closer to the site than the township. At the alternative Hawker site last year, a much less biased vote with a 50 km radius was used, and the waste was clearly rejected. This current proposal also rides rough shod over the clear opposition of the traditional owners. In April 2020 the Federal Parliament’s own Joint Committee on Human Rights found the National Radioactive Waste Management Act does not sufficiently protect the Barngarla’s rights and interests. The Federal Government admits its proposed legislation will deny farmers, Traditional Owners and other interested parties a right to a judicial review. Indeed, the legislation is designed to do just that. This bill locks in a second-rate process for a second-rate facility that will be a major future liability for South Australians. Highly radioactive intermediate level nuclear waste is going to be with us for a very, very long time. There is plenty of time to do it right. We need a proper disposal plan, not moving the waste unnecessarily to a temporary store and leaving it for our kids to pay for. This waste is highly radioactive for millennia. If this legislation passes, it will come back and haunt South Australians for generations to come. Margaret Beavis is a GP and vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. |
|
Kimba radioactive trash Bill stagnates in the Senate, as Right-wing media extols nuclear power
Resources Minister Keith Pitt and Australia’s nuclear schills must be getting a bit desperate. The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 keeps on not getting itself discussed in the Senate.
This could be because (a) it’s likely to be defeated, or (b) if passed, there will be a successful court action opposing it, or (c) the plan would not meet the required international safety standards.
I’m betting on (d) – the Senators just don’t know wotthell to do about it.
Meanwhile Australia’s the prevailing media, the Murdochracy,and commercial media is in a frenzy, in their anxiety about Australia’s huge need to embrace nuclear technology.
Why we need to flick the switch and embrace nuclear power -THE AUSTRALIAN 23 February
Wise warning to Australian government to withdraw embarrassing Nuclear Waste Dump Bill
Peter Remta, 21 Feb 21, to Senator Slade Brockman
I am aware that the Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been listed in the Senate’s order of business for Tuesday 23 February but with respect suggest that this a completely futile exercise on the part of your government and the responsible minister
The bill will not be passed because of the unwavering opposition by the crossbench and any preceding debate could be extremely embarrassing for your government because of the untoward and disingenuous information previously put out by Pitt and his department and its agencies being raised by the opposing senators
If Pitt then falls back on the existing legislation he will be subject to administrative and judicial and now because of the High Court decision earlier this month in the New Acland Coal case(1) will be completely stopped with his proposals if the opposing community at Kimba start their legal action since their situation is one real and not just apprehend bias as in that case
Should that litigation ensue then practically all written material held by the government in all its guises will be fully disclosed through the litigation procedure of discovery
From my limited personal knowledge of some of that material it will prove extremely embarrassing and your government will not be able to claim any privilege to prevent its disclosure
This is the view of several senior lawyers including some retired superior court judges but ask the attorney should you have any doubts
Perhaps the most pertinent aspect of the whole situation is the proposal for Kimba will in any event fail to get any of the necessary licences as ARPANSA is already being criticised for not carrying out its proper regulatory functions with respect to ANSTO and as a result the licence applications will be subject to an overseas peer review which will completely remove the licensing process from your government and its agencies
In any case ANSTO is already under a cloud due to its dismal performance and awkward responses at the Senate estimates hearing on 29 October 2020 which will I understand be subject to further extensive questioning and explanations
Please bear in mind that I was the source of the information for the questioning senators and the further questions to be asked due to the complete inadequacy of the responses by ANSTO to the notified questions(2)
I therefore suggest that you and Dean Smith as the government whips withdraw the bill before it becomes a further embarrassment to your government in a possible election year
With kind regards
Peter Remta
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inv v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No.B34/2020
(2). SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates
Hansard THURSDAY 29 OCTOBER 2020
Senator Abetz pages 11 to 13 and Senator Carr pages 5 to 11
Australian Government could face an unwinnable legal case if Senate passes the Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Bill
sources outside of the government.
5. The government has been notified in writing that its concept for one national centralised facility has been badly planned and not anywhere as safe as claimed – in fact the government and its entities have been asked to withdraw their claims and express the concerns of the holders and the contractors but have refused to do so.
Refuting claims about the ”medical necessity” for Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump
It is Absolute nonsense that the facility at Kimba is critical to nuclear medicine.In what specific and fully explained way is the Kimba facility critical?
Nuclear medicine requirements in Australia are already being catered for adequately under present conditions and if additions are necessary they can be achieved without Kimba.
How can the consolidation be achieved since the federal government has no legal rights or control over the waste held at the various locations throughout Australia?
Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources but is now head of the recently established Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA)
In its rush for Kimba nuclear dump, Australian government tries to remove rights to legal recourse
|
Jodie van Deventer’s recent comment clearly identifies “our obligation as a society to dispose of our waste responsibly”. Sadly this much needed responsibility is missing from the federal governments stalled push to advance a national radioactive waste site near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula. Right now, the federal government is seeking to change the rules and remove fundamental democratic rights and protections by denying concerned and affected citizens a day in court. The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It should not be lightly jettisoned, especially on an issue with such significant implications and impacts as radioactive waste. Despite multiple requests, Barngarla Native Title holders were explicitly excluded from the consultations and remain actively opposed to the planned waste facility. To further remove their rights – and the rights of others – is unfair, unnecessary and unjustified. This is not simply a low-level waste facility. Many state and national civil society groups, Aboriginal and professional groups, the SA Upper House, state Labor and unions share concerns and oppose the government’s approach. A key concern is that it will not result in credible long term management, especially of intermediate level waste. The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It should not be lightly jettisoned, especially on an issue with such significant implications and impacts as radioactive waste. Despite multiple requests, Barngarla Native Title holders were explicitly excluded from the consultations and remain actively opposed to the planned waste facility. To further remove their rights – and the rights of others – is unfair, unnecessary and unjustified. This is not simply a low-level waste facility. Many state and national civil society groups, Aboriginal and professional groups, the SA Upper House, state Labor and unions share concerns and oppose the government’s approach. A key concern is that it will not result in credible long term management, especially of intermediate level waste. The right to independent legal recourse is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It should not be lightly jettisoned, especially on an issue with such significant implications and impacts as radioactive waste. |
|
Legal aspects of KIMBA COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
KIMBA COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO National Radioactive Waste 
Management Facility
The decision by the High Court in the New Acland Coal case (1) was delivered only on Wednesday of last week but it is already creating a stir
In applying the rationale of that case to the Kimba situation the very marked difference is that its community members opposing the nuclear waste facility which is apparently made up of several groups including the Barngarla people suffered a much greater disadvantage than the objectors in the New Acland case as there was a real and actual bias at Kimba and not just an apprehension of bias
This view has been expressed by several lawyers including retired judges to whom I spoke and it should be a very strong and decisive outcome which will mean that the government’s proposals for Kimba will be totally aborted
The other aspect of any litigation as to the Kimba situation is that all the information given by the government will now become subject to detailed scrutiny which will show up the the disingenuous statements by Pitt and the public servants involved including ANSTO and even ARPANSA
The same will apply to all the documents including internal minutes and notes which were either not previously disclosed or else highly redacted as they will have to be produced fully without the availability of any claim of privilege
I imagine that besides Pitt and Canavan being personally embarrassed it will make the government look silly and sneaky in its actions
I understand that the Kimba opponents are already considering an initial application to the Court to have their own impartial scrutiny and assessment of the government’s proposals to be paid for by the government
No wonder that lawyers are already queuing up to take this case on for the objectors as it should be an easy one with prolonged notoriety and no doubt with ultimately substantial costs against the government
Eat your heart out Erin Brockovich!
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No. B34/2020 Judgment: 3 February 2021
Woomera site not chemically suitable for radioactive trash. Neither is Kimba.
Paul Waldon– 8 Feb 21
The importance of maintaining a reducing chemical environment summarized by the authors of a MIT report as follows:Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Bill yet again postponed in the Australian Senate
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia 6 Feb 21, High Court ruling a helpful precedent for opponents of Kimba nuclear dump
Peter Remta. 4 Feb 21, The High Court’s decision in the New Acland Coal Mine case (1) delivered by Justice James Edelman on Wednesday and based on the principle of “apprehended bias” should give great heart to all the community members in Kimba opposing the government’s proposed nuclear waste facility.
The background of the appeal is that a Queensland community group known as Oakey Coal Action Alliance and representing more than 60 local residents and landholders who opposed the proposed expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine on the basis that it would destroy otherwise productive agricultural land appealed to the High Court to stop the expansion.
In its unanimous decision delivered by Justice Edelman the High Court ruled that due to the way the original hearings had been conducted leading to previous decisions made by earlier courts favouring the coal mine expansion had been affected by apprehended bias with the result that the Action Alliance had not “had its day in court” and that it had not had the opportunity to present all of its arguments.
The rationale of the decision based on the principle of “apprehended bias” as stated by Justice Edelman in delivering the Court’s decision was that
“these matters are insufficient to justify the highly exceptional course of this court refusing a rehearing for a party whose hearing was decided other than independently and impartially. Indeed, it cannot be said that Oakey Coal Action has “had its day in court” or had lost all of its grounds before an independent and impartial tribunal”.
The Action Alliance had been represented by the Environmental Defenders Office on the appeal to the High Court and the Kimba community members opposing the nuclear waste facility should immediately seek the assistance of the Public Defender on the basis of that appeal.
(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inv v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors
High Court Case No.B34/2020
This description of the appeal is partly based on the report in RenewEconomy by Michael Mazengarb on 3 February 2021
https://reneweconomy.com.au/author/ michael-mazengarb/
Additional reading:
The litigation against the New Acland Coal Mine involved a major and lengthy hearing in the Land Court of Queensland, followed by judicial review, a subsequent appeal and High Court challenge the history of which is extremely well described on the website of Environmental Law Australia .
This website is a free public service provided by Dr Chris McGrath, LLB (Hons), BSc, LLM, PhD, a barrister in Queensland practising in environmental law and an Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Queensland.
Resource Minister Pitt should withdraw the Bill as the process for a Kimba nuclear waste dump has failed
George Gear , 30 Jan 21, Reports have said that there is a possibility of a federal election this year. This means clearing the decks of issues that have the potential to embarrass the government or be a distraction.
One of these is the radioactive waste site at Kimba in SA.
The selection process for the radioactive waste facility project has now been going on for over 4 years.
The government’s bill to site the facility in Kimba will not pass the senate.
The proposed Kimba facility will not get a license to operate a radioactive waste facility as it does not meet
International Atomic Energy Agency standards of burial below ground. Australia is a founding member of the
IAEA. Their standards are our standards.
The minister will not declare Kimba because of the litigation that would follow will add years to the project. The
Barngarla traditional owners have been sidelined from the decision and will litigate. They have the resources to
do it with assets of $300M according to their Adelaide lawyers.
This will still be an issue at the next election unless it is settled. It is a major factor in SA where the government
has marginal seats. Press reports have opposition to the plan in SA at 70%.
Minister Pitt, in February, should announce that he respects the fact that the senate will not pass his bill and he
has decided to withdraw it. The cross bench have actually given the government a “get out of jail free” card. The
senate is now in control of the issue. I say that the government should take back control in the way I have
suggested.
At the same time he announces that negotiations with another nominee in the self selection process has begun.
Leonora did nominate in the process. No names at this point……..
The trouble with the process to date is that it hasn’t followed the science. The PM and Premiers did this with the
Corona Virus. The outcome is positive and they were all rewarded. The waste facility is not being ruled by science
which says that the waste has to be buried underground “at depths of twenty to hundreds of metres.” This
standard has been established by scientists.
The starting point should have been talking to the regulator to confirm the standards need to get a licence to
store the waste. This still hasn’t been done and has been left to the end of the process. Imagine if the bill had
passed the senate and the proposed facility on application to the regulator ARPANSA was refused a license. The
press would have had a field day at the governments expense.
The Australian government’s Radioactive Waste Bill does not meet required IAEA standards
Peter Remta, 30 Jan 21, National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill2020 I understand that Minister Pitt has brought on the bill for debate in the Senate on Thursday 4 February 2021 as he has been threatening the opposing senators that if the bill fails to pass it will become a trigger for the federal government to call early election by means of a double dissolution.
establishment of the facility at Napandee which will only show up the inefficient and disingenuous conduct of the government and its agencies such as ANSTO and even ARPANSA.
*****
Below is the email message I sent out yesterday which includes in red my suggested draft for an amendment to the Labor
Party’s proposed amendment to the bill The effect of this draft is to require such strict compliance with the codes and standards prescribed by the International Atomic Energy Agency that would be possible for the government to continue with establishing the facility
*****
3A Section 4Insert:
Joint Convention means the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, done at Vienna on 5 September 1997, as amended and in force for Australia from at any time and includes without limitation the Safety Standards established or adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency which provide the fundamental principles,requirements and recommendations to ensure nuclear safety for the purposes of among other things giving full effect to the Joint Convention.
Kimba nuclear waste dump issue is in limbo in the Australian Senate
Resignation of Dr Adi Paterson from Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation- Australian government keeps mum.
2020-2021 Budget estimates – Parliament of Australia more https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
- Some examples of government answers to Senators’questions.
Sen Kim Carr” (Question No 85) : “Did Dr Paterson resign or was he asked to resign by the ANSTO board?
ANSWER. “There was no correspondence between the ANSTO Board and the Minister about Dr Paterson’s performance.”
The nuclear dump for Kimba propaganda continues in 2021, (and jobs for the boys)
Kazzi Jai, Fight to Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 22 Jan 21,1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
26 Feb – 24 April The Image is not Nothing (Concrete Archives) is a group exhibition that explores the ways in which acts of nuclear trauma, Indigenous genocide and cultural erasure have been memorialised by artists and others. It comes as the result of research by curators Lisa Radford and Yhonnie Scarce whose fieldwork has encompassed sites of significance including Auschwitz, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima, Maralinga, New York, Wounded Knee and former Yugoslavia.
*********************
*******************************
—
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
