Submission re National Waste Dump Bill: Flawed process: the pretense that this National issue is just a Local issue
 Noel Wauchope, 26 Mar 20, Flawed process: the pretense that this National issue is just a Local issueThe whole process of selection for a nuclear waste site prior to, and including this Bill is flawed. This obviously National project has been treated as not even a State project, but just as one of concern only to a small local community. As if no-one else in the State, nor in the whole country were concerned, this amendment doesn’t just specify only South Australia – it specifies just one site, Napandee, near Kimba, as an above ground nuclear waste store.
The planned waste facility is illegal under South Australian law.
In confining discussion to the local community, the federal government not only plans to impose the waste dump on South Australia, but fails to consult the South Australian community, and indeed the Australian community, on the long transport of radioactive wastes, and the ports involved in this transport., – probably Whyalla in South Australia, and probably Port Kembla in New South Wales. And even in consulting the local community, the government made sure to exclude the Bangarla Aboriginal people, who oppose the waste dump, that threatens their traditional rights in the area.
Unnecessary imposition of stranded wastes The Bill establishes indefinite “temporary” storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes, and Intermediate Level Wastes – i.e Stranded Wastes. It means unnecessary double handling of these wastes. It could mean a security and safety risk for the area for at least 10,000 years, and certainly does mean this for at least 100 years.
ANSTO has the space, the capacity, and the experienced staff for Extended Storage at Lucas Heights.
Damage to the local society and to the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural reputation. It is already apparent that this issue has divided and damaged the Kimba community. ARPANSA guidelines regarding agricultural land are completely ignored. Here I can best illustrate this by quoting a comment on Your Say. It’s in relation to the 2016 S.A. Nuclear Royal Commission, but it’s applicable here, too :
Kristen Jelk, Your Say Last month I was in China promoting an Australian product that comes from SA which is pitched as a clean, green, environment. The full potential of the market in China for South Australian produce is immeasurable. From a Chinese consumers point of view, the environmental conditions where the product is sourced or grown, is pivotal to the choices made when purchasing. Chinese consumers will pay top prices for products that are considered SAFE – produced where the source is known to be an unpolluted clean environment. Perception is everything, and if a consumer becomes aware that SA had developed a nuclear waste dump, then that perception of a safe environment will be shattered. It will not matter that the dump is in a desert, nor will it matter if the dump is considerable distance from prime agricultural land, nor will it matter if experts assure of safety standards.The perception that would prevail is that SA will be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. If this is a discussion over commercial viability verses environmental risks long term, then I would argue that the real cost of the dump being located in SA is the loss in the perception that SA is a “clean, green” state. Questions would be raised over validity of the safety of the states produce. Science does not dispel the pervading distrust of nuclear waste storage. Impassioned long standing anti-nuclear supporters cannot be placated and therefore ongoing discourse over the proposed dump will just shine a brighter light on the discussion world wide. The long term impact on the revenue of export sales will, without doubt be affected. To risk the potential of long term growth in export sales due to a short term vision on job creation,( which is questionable ) is not good economics. SA has the potential to be a renewable energy ambassador with exciting projects already in development. We have to think globally, not locally if we are to sustain economic growth based on the real tangible asset that we have, which is our environment. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report So many things wrong with the National Radioactive Waste Management’s process: Pretense that it’s essential for nuclear medicine. The so-called Intermediate Level Wastes, i.e. spent fuel rod wastes from Lucas Heights emanate from the nuclear reactor’s operation, and not from the (mostly short-lived radioisotopes from nuclear medicine). The Kimba communityn was conned into the belief that they are somehow responsible for the ongoing production of nuclear medicine. Wobbly language – Definition of ” immediate neighbours” changed from one phase to the next. The term “broad community” support being determined by one minister’s definition. Landowner able to nominate without first consulting with community. Community supporting members closer to the site than the township of Kimba not given a vote . I write as an Australian, who lives in another state, not South Australia. I think that it is unnecessary to transport dangerous radioactive trash for very long distances across and around our continent, – and the whole thing based on one farmer volunteering his land (for a substantial payment), – this national decision to be made really by one government Minister, with no consultation with the national public. The “dual facility” – above ground higher level stranded waste storage, combined with the low-level waste permanent dump, is a bad idea, fraught with problems. The problems are not just for the local community, but for their descendants for generations, and also for all the communities along the transport route, including n other States. |
|
|
National Radioactive Waste Management must come clean. Kimba is the start of continued high level nuclear waste dumping
Eyre Peninsula Tribune, March 4th 2020 , GARY CRUSHWAYI write in response to a recent letter (Happy to answer questions raised, Letters to the Editor, February 20) from Sam Chard of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
A radioactive waste dump will NOT unite the Kimba community
Paul Waldon This Is Not Progress!
The socially, economically and environmentally blind radioactive waste embracing Mayor of Kimba is now calling for unification in a community that he helped divide, while proclaiming extra services for the dying towns hospital that may prove to be unattainable. He ignorantly goes on to imply that only a radioactive dump will give birth to upgraded communication network for the town.
Meanwhile the ignorant farmer come nuclear profiteer has falsely touted opportunities for the town of Kimba, a town now in decline, where property values are falling, people are vacating and its own people are driving outside the region to shop.
We have heard a speaker for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science continually claim a “strong level of information,” if so why haven’t they answered questions pertaining to the lack of consultation regarding the determination of transport routes, availability of resources, training, infrastructure emergency preparedness, response and risk management for potential incidents during any shipment, this is but a few issues the DIIS have failed to address.
And let us not forget that Kimba’s unemployment @ 2%, minus those too old, too young, unable to work due to restraints and those opposed to the dump, makeup a number that could be a quarter of that 2%, which is likely to be insufficient to manage a radioactive dump.
The half full ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights which has seen recent upgrades costing the taxpayer millions of dollars is the most logistical centralized site for a radioactive dump when based on volume of waste per kilometer.
Court dismisses Aboriginal group’s appeal to stop the Kimba nuclear waste dump
Court rules against bid to stop nuke dump,https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6677900/court-rules-against-bid-to-stop-nuke-dump/?cs=9397&fbclid=IwAR25qIOzDiqg20vLhGNb5YS9iUwZJX39yQ3yV5iM_5U86kKJaMUTasN3Slc, Tim Dornin , MARCH 13 2020 -Native title holders on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula have lost a court bid in their continuing fight to stop the federal government establishing a nuclear waste dump near Kimba.
The government recently named a site on a farming property as the location for the dump which will take Australia’s low to medium-level nuclear waste material.
But the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, the native title holders of the region, argued that their 200-strong community had been unfairly excluded from the ballot on their basis of the Aborginality.
They appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court against a single judge’s decision to uphold the District Council of Kimba’s earlier move.
But the full court dismissed their appeal on Friday.
“It is not correct to say that BDAC’s members were excluded from the ballot,” the court ruled.
“Membership of BDAC was not a characteristic that disqualified any person from the franchise. Rather, the effect of the resolutions was that possession of native title rights and interests was not included among the various qualifying criteria.”
The court found the original decision by a single judge was correct in that it concluded that anyone who fulfilled one of 14 criteria could take part in the vote, irrespective of a person’s race.
“Similarly, the classes of persons who were excluded from the franchise included persons who were Aboriginal and persons who were not,” the appeal judges said.
In his argument, counsel for the Barngarla, Daniel O’Gorman SC, had told the court that their request to take part in the ballot should have been granted.
“This was a ballot of the community, the Kimba community. They are the native title holders of the land surrounding the sites in question,” he said.
“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.
Legislation to allow construction of the waste facility is before the 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. AT TOP https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6677900/court-rules-against-bid-to-stop-nuke-dump/?cs=9397&fbclid=IwAR25qIOzDiqg20vLhGNb5YS9iUwZJX39yQ3yV5iM_5U86kKJaMUTasN3Slc
A nuclear waste dump for Eyre Peninsula conflicts with the Strategic Plan for the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Region – 2017-2027
Susan Craig shared a No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
The dangers of so called intermediate level nuclear waste, include the devaluation of the region’s agriculture
Bev Spriggs Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 10 Mar 20, The dangers of so called intermediate level nuke waste, – it is considered high level waste in the countries that want us to take it. Mr Baldock will be astonished to learn of the devaluation of his crops and the rest of his land and that of his neighbours once that poison comes to town. As for the 45 job creations….that may happen during construction, then they will disappear and there will only be 8 to 10 jobs to caretake the facility. The 31 mill promised for the community will happen once only, when it is gone there will be no more. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
Greens Senator Hanson-Young calls for Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry to meet in Whyalla, South Australia
 Nuclear bill referred to inquiry https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/6653019/nuclear-bill-referred-to-inquiry/?cs=1550&fbclid=IwAR3AvrninZlnLmX8r79QDkQopkBb5hXoWhguw106lCyiisCDdmWMy714MPM, Louis Mayfield 27 Feb 20,
The formal process for the federal government’s push for a nuclear waste dump in Kimba will be put under the microscope by the Senate Economics Committee, with a Greens Senator calling for hearing in Whyalla. On Thursday the Greens announced they would be referring the government’s legislation for the Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility to a Senate Inquiry for ‘scrutiny of the laws and the process that led to this point’. South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young requested that the committee organise a public hearing in Whyalla and a visit to the federal government’s chosen site for the facility at Napandee.
“I have requested a hearing in Whyalla because it shouldn’t be left to the suits in Canberra to decide, anything less would be offensive to the communities involved,” she said. Senator Hanson-Young also claimed the site selection for the facility had been ‘dodgy from the start’.
“It’s ripped small communities apart and Traditional Owners have vehemently objected to the proposal,” she said. “It’s clear there isn’t broad community support for a nuclear waste dump in Kimba, despite what former Minister Matt Canavan would have everyone believe.”
“Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln and every town living along potential transportation route, should have been consulted and given an opportunity to have their say,” she said. “The Greens aren’t leaving it to the community of Kimba to hold the line on their own. A Senate Inquiry will give the entire proposal the scrutiny it needs.” The committee has resolved to report on the legislation in June, submissions to the committee are now open and will close at the end of March. |
|
Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained
| Jim Green, Online Opinion, 27 Feb 2020, https://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20758&page=0
Nuclear power in Australia is prohibited under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. A review of the EPBC Act is underway and there is a strong push from the nuclear industry to remove the bans. However, federal and state laws banning nuclear power have served Australia well and should be retained.
There are many other examples of shocking nuclear costs and cost overruns, including: * The cost of the two reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia has doubled and now stands at A$20.4‒22.6 billion per reactor. * The cost of the only reactor under construction in France has nearly quadrupled and now stands at A$20.0 billion. It is 10 years behind schedule. * The cost of the only reactor under construction in Finland has nearly quadrupled and now stands at A$17.7 billion. It is 10 years behind schedule. * The cost of the four reactors under construction in the United Arab Emirates has increased from A$7.5 billion per reactor to A$10‒12 billion per reactor. * In the UK, the estimated cost of the only two reactors under construction is A$25.9 billion per reactor. A decade ago, the estimated cost was almost seven times lower. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the project will amount to A$58 billion, despite earlier government promises that no taxpayer subsidies would be made available. Nuclear power has clearly priced itself out of the market and will certainly decline over the coming decades. Indeed the nuclear industry is in crisis ‒ as industry insiders and lobbyists freely acknowledge. Westinghouse ‒ the most experienced reactor builder in the world ‒ filed for bankruptcy in 2017 as a result of catastrophic cost overruns on reactor projects. A growing number of countries are phasing out nuclear power, including Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Taiwan and South Korea. Rising power bills: Laws banning nuclear power should be retained because nuclear power could not possibly pass any reasonable economic test. Nuclear power clearly fails the two economic tests set by Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Firstly, nuclear power could not possibly be introduced or maintained without huge taxpayer subsidies. Secondly, nuclear power would undoubtedly result in higher electricity prices.
Former US Vice President Al Gore summarised the proliferation problem: “For eight years in Too slow: Expanding nuclear power is impractical as a short-term response to climate change. An analysis by Australian economist Prof. John Quiggin concludes that it would be “virtually impossible” to get a nuclear power reactor operating in Australia before 2040. More time would elapse before nuclear power has generated as much as energy as was expended in the construction of the reactor: a University of Sydney report concluded that the energy payback time for nuclear reactors is 6.5‒7 years. Taking into account planning and approvals, construction, and the energy payback time, it would be a quarter of a century or more before nuclear power could even begin to reduce greenhouse emissions in Australia (and then only assuming that nuclear power displaced fossil fuels).
Water consumption of different energy sources (litres / kWh): * Nuclear 2.5 * Coal 1.9 * Combined Cycle Gas 0.95 * Solar PV 0.11 * Wind 0.004 Climate change and nuclear hazards: Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to threats which are being exacerbated by climate change. These include dwindling and warming water sources, sea-level rise, storm damage, drought, and jelly-fish swarms. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum states. “I’ve heard many nuclear proponents say that nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming. It needs to be reversed: You need to solve global warming for nuclear plants to survive.”
By contrast, the REN21 Renewables 2015: Global Status Report states that renewable energy systems “have unique qualities that make them suitable both for reinforcing the resilience of the wider energy infrastructure and for ensuring the provision of energy services under changing climatic conditions.”
To give one example (among many), the National Radioactive Waste Management Act dispossesses and disempowers Traditional Owners in many respects: the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste dump is valid even if Aboriginal owners were not consulted and did not give consent; the Act has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect archaeological or heritage values, including those which relate to Indigenous traditions; the Act curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important site-selection stage; and the Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land acquisition for a radioactive waste dump. No social license: Laws banning nuclear power should be retained because there is no social license to introduce nuclear power to Australia. Opinion polls find that Australians are overwhelmingly opposed to a nuclear power reactor being built in their local vicinity (10‒28% support, 55‒73% opposition); and opinion polls find that support for renewable energy sources far exceeds support for nuclear power (for example a 2015 IPSOS poll found 72‒87% support for solar and wind power but just 26% support for nuclear power). As the Clean Energy Council noted in its submission to the 2019 federal nuclear inquiry, it would require “a minor miracle” to win community support for nuclear power in Australia. The pursuit of nuclear power would also require bipartisan political consensus at state and federal levels for several decades. Good luck with that. Currently, there is a bipartisan consensus at the federal level to retain the legal ban. The noisy, ultra-conservative rump of the Coalition is lobbying for nuclear power but their push has been rejected by, amongst others, the federal Liberal Party leadership, the Queensland Liberal-National Party, the SA Liberal government, the Tasmanian Liberal government, the NSW Liberal Premier and environment minister, and even ultra-conservatives such as Nationals Senator Matt Canavan.
Australia can do better than fuel higher carbon emissions and unnecessary radioactive risk. We need to embrace the fastest growing global energy sector and become a driver of clean energy thinking and technology and a world leader in renewable energy technology. We can grow the jobs of the future here today. This will provide a just transition for energy sector workers, their families and communities and the certainty to ensure vibrant regional economies and secure sustainable and skilled jobs into the future. Renewable energy is affordable, low risk, clean and popular. Nuclear is not. Our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive. More Information * Don’t Nuke the Climate Australia, www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org.au * Climate Council, 2019, ‘Nuclear Power Stations are Not Appropriate for Australia – and Probably Never Will Be’, https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/ * WISE Nuclear Monitor, 25 June 2016, ‘Nuclear power: No solution to climate change’, https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/806/nuclear-power-no-solution-climate-change Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia. |
Barngarla Aboriginal Corporation lobby Senators- to oppose Bill to set up Kimba nuclear waste dump
|
Native title holders will travel to Canberra to lobby senators against the dump, saying they were excluded from community vote on the facility, Guardian, Sarah Martin Chief political correspondent @msmarto, Wed 26 Feb 2020 03.30 The government is pushing ahead with the legislation, despite the ballot being challenged in the federal court by the Barngarla native title holders, who were excluded from the vote because they are not ratepayers. Jason Bilney, chairman of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, said the 200 local native title holders were excluded from the Kimba community ballot despite repeated requests to both the council and the federal government to be included. The corporation is challenging the ballot in the federal court, claiming their exclusion is a breach of the racial discrimination act. The full court of the federal court heard the matter last Friday. “It is a simple truth that had we, as the first people for the area, been included in the Kimba community ballot rather than unfairly denied the right to vote, then the community ballot would never have returned a yes vote,” Bilney told Guardian Australia ahead of a visit to Canberra next month. “Many of our people were born in Kimba, and we have significant native title land near the proposed facility. This native title land allows us to live on and use the land. However, because it is not rateable, we were excluded from the Kimba community ballot on a technicality,” he said. The Barngarla claim the Coalition’s bill has been introduced to make it impossible to challenge the decision to locate a facility at Kimba, even if the court appeal is successful, effectively removing the protections of the Race Discrimination Act. “These amendments would entirely remove any court oversight, right in the middle of existing federal court proceedings. This would entirely deprive any protections for our people,” Bilney said. The group is expected to meet with crossbench senators in Canberra in the current session of parliament, explaining their concerns about the ballot process and pushing for the legislation to be blocked. Centre Alliance has already expressed reservations about supporting the legislation, saying Canavan had not been upfront about what constituted “broad community support” before the results of the ballot were known. “No one goes into a vote without understanding what the pass criteria is,” SA senator Rex Patrick told Guardian Australia. “I support the need for a national facility, but it should only be located where there is broad community support.” Labor discussed the party’s position regarding the legislation in a caucus meeting on Tuesday, with MPs resolving to wait until the bill had been considered by the senate economics committee and until the federal court decision had been handed down. A final decision will then be considered by the shadow cabinet and caucus and will also go through the First Nations caucus committee. Labor’s shadow industry minister, Brendan O’Connor, is expected to outline the party’s concerns when debate gets under way in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, but told MPs that there was a need for Australia to establish a national radioactive waste management facility. ….. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/26/south-australia-nuclear-waste-dump-could-face-roadblock-in-senate
|
|
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/
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
CoVid 19/Nuclear Dangers:
Arnie Gundersen & Maggie Gundersen of Fairewinds
Call Out Safety Issues, Refueling Lies
This Week’s Covid19/Nuclear UPDATE:
- Arnie Gundersen & Maggie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education go through how truly impossible the nuclear industry’s “safety” claims truly are, as well as various ways the nukesters are lying, manipulating, and positioning themselves for tax credits, fee waivers, and more.
- A news roundup of nuclear industry manipulations to get tax credits, fee waivers, delayed maintenance, and, oh yes, stimulus package money.
