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/

June 28, 2021 Posted by Christina MacPherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

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?…..

June 28, 2021 Posted by Christina MacPherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Senator 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. 

June 28, 2021 Posted by Christina MacPherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Senator 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. I_{t’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?

June 28, 2021 Posted by Christina MacPherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment