Community trust requires public discussion and transparency
David Noonan 30 Mar 23
According to the Department of Defence, the process for selecting a site for high-level nuclear waste will include engaging with community and First Nations groups.
Community engagement expert, Professor Sara Bice from the Australian National University, says best practice consultation for something as controversial as nuclear submarines or high-level radioactive waste would ideally begin early, be transparent and involve public discussion about whether the technology is desired in the first place.
“We’re beyond the point where communities can have genuine consultation on this issue. Because the decision has already been made for them. The government has decided that this is a type of weaponry and defence mechanism that is going to occur within Australia. So, things like the nuclear waste sites […] will have to occur in order for AUKUS to proceed.”
The option of a site in outback South Australia has been floated by the Premiers of Victoria and Western Australia.
But Bice says there are implications of proposing a waste site in outback South Australia, given that state already went through a robust process – with a Royal Commission, public engagement and a Citizen Jury – to consider high-level waste in 2015 and 2016. That process concluded with 27 Native Title groups and the majority of the Citizen Jury rejecting the idea.
Re-opening the discussion of nuclear waste in South Australia suggests the expectation you might get a different outcome, she says.
“I think that’s a bit disingenuous, and it undermines the thing that we look for most when we talk about a social licence, which is trust.”
She says when large, controversial decisions are made without public discussion or consultation, it creates fear and conditions ripe for opposition and protest.
Nuclear safety agency silent on disposal of AUKUS radioactive waste
By Brian TooheyMar 21, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-safety-agency-silent-on-disposal-of-aukus-radioactive-waste/
At this stage there is little interest in how to dispose of the high level uranium waste from AUKUS SSNs, let alone put First Nations voices to the fore.
This is unlikely to change while the nation’s most prominent journalists see it as their job to promote the dominant military doctrine and boost the demonisation of China, while rubbishing inconvenient interlopers such as the former prime minister Paul Keating.
I recently asked Australia’s principal nuclear safety organisation, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), “What’s required to safely dispose of highly enriched uranium (over 90%) and for how long e.g. in stable underground rock formation?” Not a hard question you might suppose. However, the media officer replied, “ARPANSA is unable to provide a response in this instance”.
I then asked without success, “Why not?” This is a timid answer from an organisation supposed to provide the public and others accurate information on big issues in its field.
My question followed the defence minister Richard Marles’ announcement that Australia will take all the nuclear waste generated by the reactors in its newly acquired nuclear submarines which use highly enriched, weapons grade, uranium. Marles’ statement that the uranium waste would be kept “on” defence land shows he lacks a grip of what’s involved.
He’s not dealing with low-grade radioactive hospital waste that can be stored on the surface. At a minimum, the reactor waste will have to be kept deep underground, probably vitrified, and guarded for centuries. Marles says nothing needs to be done for 50 years. This will not be the case if Australia initially gets three to five second-hand US submarines whose high level waste will need to be dealt with much sooner.
Despite the US and the UK’s long experience with nuclear weapons, neither has a high-level underground nuclear waste repository. In these circumstances, Australia could easily be pressured into securing the waste created by the US and UK submarines’ nuclear reactors.
At this stage, it seems likely the burial site will be on land important to Australia’s indigenous population. Whatever happens, it is essential there is no repeat of the neglect of the indigenous people who were wilfully exposed to radiation during and after the British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 60s in Australia’s south and central desert areas. The case for getting nuclear submarines is already bad. They should be ruled out entirely if the indigenous population rejects the proposed waste burial sites, which need to be identified urgently, rather than at Marles’ leisurely timetable.
At this stage there is little interest in how to dispose of the high level uranium waste, let alone put indigenous inhabitants to the fore. This is unlikely to change while the nation’s most prominent journalists see it as their job to promote the dominant military doctrine and boost the demonisation of China, while rubbishing inconvenient interlopers such as the former prime minister Paul Keating. It doesn’t help either that they some are largely ignorant of the issues.
Many journalists put great faith in intelligence briefings from right wing ideologues and others about the alleged threat from China. They claim Keating can’t say anything of value because he hasn’t received an intelligence briefing in decades. On the contrary, this is a distinct advantage.
Keating’s detractors need to pay a lot more attention to the role intelligence played in the illegal invasion of Iraq. The recent 20th anniversary of the invasion, led by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, received little attention in Australia. This act of aggression was justified by concocted intelligence. Howard falsely claimed that at the time of the invasion his government “knew” Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Thanks largely to the much-disparaged weapons inspectors, Iraq certainly didn’t have any. Yet Howard falsely said they did and were “capable of causing destruction on a mammoth scale”.
Many Australian journalists now rely on purported intelligence and propaganda for their flimsy claims about Chinese acts of aggression, which barely rank alongside the death and destruction wrought by the US aided by Australia. Chinese journalists also rely excessively on government sources, but have almost no influence in Australia.
The White House, for example, engaged in a blatant act of propaganda when unveiling the plan for Australia to get nuclear submarines. It claimed, “For over 60 years, the UK and the US have operated more than 500 naval nuclear reactors . . . without incident or adverse effect on human health or the quality of the environment.” In fact, two US nuclear submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sunk during that period with the loss of all lives on board. Mainstream Australian journalists have not treated this as a staggering falsehood that should be condemned.
Mainstream journalists also have little grasp of other issues involving submarines. One recently claimed that Keating, who opposes Australia buying nuclear submarines, didn’t understand that conventional submarines have to go close to the surface to recharge their diesels by what’s called a “snorting”, a process, where they risk detection. This journalist seemed to have no awareness that modern conventional submarines greatly reduce this risk with Air Independent Propulsion, which uses hydrogen fuel cells to operate extremely quietly for at least three weeks. Using modern batteries can provide another three weeks, or more, of silent operation before charging the batteries in a safe location. They are also much cheaper than nuclear submarines which are detectable from a range of sources, including heat and the wake they leave on the surface at high speed. By the time Australia’s new nuclear submarines arrive around 2050 there is a high chance that advances in sensor technology and computing power will make them relatively easy to detect and destroy.
Although the public currently likes the idea of getting nuclear submarines, it doesn’t like the cost which Marles puts at $268 billion to $368 billion by 2055. The public may like it even less if they realise that the Virginia Class submarines of which we are still get up to five, have an appalling maintenance record. If we got eight, as originally intended, only two would be operationally available on average. Paying $368 billion to have two operationally available would be a scandalous result. Modern conventional submarines, such as German ones, have an exemplary maintenance record and cost about $15 billion for ten.
Spent Matters: The AUKUS Nuclear Waste Problem
March 19, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark https://theaimn.com/spent-matters-the-aukus-nuclear-waste-problem/
When Australia – vassal be thy name – assumed responsibilities for not only throwing money at both US and British shipbuilders, lending up territory and naval facilities for war like a gambling drunk, and essentially asking its officials to commit seppuku for the Imperium, another task was given. While the ditzy and dunderheaded wonders in Canberra would be acquiring submarines with nuclear propulsion technology, there would be that rather problematic issue of what to do with the waste. “Yes,” said the obliging Australians, “we will deal with it.”
The Australian Defence Department has published a fact sheet on the matter, which, as all such fact sheets go, fudges the facts and sports a degree of misplaced optimism. It promises a “sophisticated security and safety architecture” around the nuclear-powered submarine program, “building on our 70-year unblemished track record of operating nuclear facilities and conducting nuclear science activities.”
This record, which is rather more blemished than officials would care to admit, does not extend to the specific issues arising from maintaining a nuclear-powered submarine fleet and the high-level waste that would require shielding and cooling. In the context of such a vessel, this would entail pulling out and disposing of the reactor once the submarine is decommissioned.
Australia’s experience, to date, only extends to the storage of low-level waste and intermediate-level waste arising from nuclear medicine and laboratory research, with the low-level variant being stored at over a hundred sites in the country. That situation has been regarded as unsustainable and politically contentious.
The department admits that the storage and disposal of such waste and spent fuel will require necessary facilities and trained personnel, appropriate transport, interim and permanent storage facilities and “social license earned and sustained with local and regional communities.” But it also notes that the UK and the US “will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically”.
That’s mighty good of them to do so, given that both countries have failed to move beyond the problem of temporary storage. In the UK, the issue of disposing waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines remains stuck in community consultation. In the US, no option has emerged after the Obama administration killed off a repository program to store waste underneath Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. The reasons for doing so, sulked Republicans at the time, were political rather than technical.
Where, then, will the facilities to store and dispose of such waste be located? “Defence – working with relevant agencies including the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency – will undertake a review in 2023 to identify locations in the current or future Defence estate that could be suitable to store and dispose of intermediate-level waste and high-level waste, including spent fuel.”
The various state premiers are already suggesting that finding a site will be problematic. Both Victoria and Western Australia are pointing fingers at South Australia as the logical option, while Queensland has declared that “under no circumstances” would it permit nuclear waste to be stored. “I think the waste can go where all the jobs are going,” remarked Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. “I don’t think that’s unreasonable, is it?”
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Western Australia’s Mark McGowan, in furious agreement, suggested that a site “somewhere remote, somewhere with very good long-term geological structure that doesn’t change or move and somewhere that is defence lands” narrowed down the options. “[T]hat’s why Woomera springs to mind.”
South Australia’s Premier, Peter Malinauskas, insists that the waste should go “where it is in the nation’s interest to put it” and not be a matter of “some domestic political tit-for-tat, or some state-based parochial thing.”
When it comes to storing nuclear waste, parochialism is all but guaranteed. The Australian government is already facing a legal challenge from traditional owners regarding a 2021 decision to locate a nuclear waste site at Kimba in South Australia. The effort to find a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility intended for low and intermediate radioactive waste produced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation at Lucas Heights, New South Wales, took three decades.
According to members of the First Nations group opposing the decision, the proposed facility risks interfering with a sacred site for women. Dawn Taylor, a Barngarla woman and Kimba resident, told the ABC that, “The Seven Sisters is through that area.” She feared that the waste facility would end up “destroying” the stories associated with the dreaming.
The federal resources minister, Madeleine King, has stated with little conviction that a cultural heritage management plan “informed by the research of the Barngarla people” is in place. “There are strict protocols around the work that is going on right now to make sure there is no disturbance of cultural heritage.”
Local farmers, including the consistently vocal Peter Woolford, are also opposed to the project. “We just can’t understand why you would expose this great agricultural industry we have here in grain production to any potential risk at all by having a nuclear waste dump here.”
The Australian security establishment may well be glorifying in the moment of AUKUS, itself an insensibly parochial gesture of provocation and regional destabilisation, but agitated residents and irate state politicians are promising a good deal of sensible mischief.
Labor Premiers’ dispute over location for AUKUS nuclear wastes, – but planned Kimba waste dump is”now dead in the water”?
Mr Wilkins told ABC Radio Adelaide that the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump no longer made sense, and that any future site to store submarine reactor spent fuel should also accept waste that would have gone to Kimba.
“The proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump must now be dead in the water,” he said
Nuclear waste divisions intensify between Labor premiers over AUKUS submarine deal
ABC, 18 Mar 23
South Australia’s premier has hit back at suggestions from Labor counterparts that his state should take nuclear waste from the future AUKUS fleet, saying the decision on where the waste goes should be based on the “nation’s interests”…………….
Divisions within Labor ranks over AUKUS — including over its $368 billion cost, and its strategic aims and consequences — have become increasingly apparent since Paul Keating’s blistering attack on what he described as the “worst international decision” by a Labor government since conscription.
While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese yesterday rebuked Mr Keating, Labor premiers have since voiced opposition to accepting nuclear waste from the AUKUS subs in their states.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said yesterday it was not “unreasonable” to suggest that, since South Australia is gaining jobs, it should also accept the spent fuel rods when the submarines reach the end of their service.
“I think the waste can go where all the jobs are going,” he said.
West Australian Premier Mark McGowan voiced similar sentiment, suggesting South Australia take on a nuclear waste facility.
But while Mr Malinauskas said that the possibility of SA taking waste could not be ruled out, he rejected Mr Andrews’s claim that SA had a responsibility to take the waste because it was taking the jobs.
“No, because that implies that somehow that this isn’t a national endeavour,” he said……………………
Conservation Council of SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said discussion of a “short-term political stoush between state premiers” overlooked the major challenges involved in storing nuclear waste.
“We’re talking about waste that needs to be kept safe from humans for tens of thousands of years, basically beyond our civilisation, so this needs to be an incredibly well-considered decision,” he said.
“[There] needs to be a multi-billion-dollar project to house the waste.”
Mr Wilkins told ABC Radio Adelaide that the proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump no longer made sense, and that any future site to store submarine reactor spent fuel should also accept waste that would have gone to Kimba.
“The proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump must now be dead in the water,” he said………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-17/sa-premier-hits-back-at-nuclear-waste-claims/102109026
Nuclear dump to be built on Defence land
14 March, 2023, Judy Skatssoon
The government has confirmed it will build a high level nuclear dump to deal with waste from its nuclear powered submarine program but says the location is yet to be decided.
Dealing with high level waste on Australian soil is part of the $368 billion AUKUS deal announced on Tuesday, which will see Australia build and operate eight nuclear powered submarines over the next 30 years.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said during a press conference on Tuesday that a purpose-built facility will have to be built to deal with waste generated by the submarines.
He admitted the government is yet to decide where the dump will be located but said it would be ‘quite some time’ before that bridge is crossed.
“There will be a process that we will determine within the next 12 months for how the site will be identified,” Mr Marles said.
“That’s to say we won’t identify the facility in twelve months’ time, but we will set up a process within the next twelve months for how that will be identified. But we’ve got time. We’ve got time to get this right, we’ve got time to identify the facility.”
30-year timeframe for decisions
It would be about 30 years before the first of the nuclear reactors that will power the subs will have to be disposed of, he said.
“So that is the timeframe. We will, in the course of the next year, announce a process by which that site will be identified. We’re not about to identify right now. And there is plenty of time in which to identify.”
He declined to say whether South Australia, where the SSN-AUKUS submarines will be built, or WA, which will eventually be home to the nuclear powered fleet, would be the site of a dump.
However, he indicated it will be on Defence land.
“We are committing to the fact that it will happen on Defence land, be it current Defence land or future Defence land,” the minister said.
He told the ABC the location would need to be remote from populations and geologically stable.
“We’re actually blessed with large parts of the country where that’s possible,” he said.
Spent nuclear reactors
Spent nuclear reactors will produce the highest level of nuclear waste, but this won’t need to be disposed of until after 2050, he said.
The first of those will be from the Virginia Class submarines being procured from the US, which will start operating in the early 2030s, Mr Marles said.
“It’s a significant undertaking to deal with the reactors at the end of their life, and this will require a purpose built facility in order to do that,” he said.
“So that people are clear, we’re talking about the first reactor needing to be dealt with in the 2050s, so this is a long way into the future.
“But we need to be planning for that, and what we’ve made clear today is that within the year we will announce a process by which that place will be identified – so we won’t identify the place in a year, but we’ll announce the process for that and what that facility would look like.”
Mr Marles did not answer questions about how many kilos of highly enriched uranium would need to be disposed of, telling the ABC that information was classified.
Australia was focused on dealing only with it’s own nuclear waste, and not that of its AUKUS partners the US and UK, the minister said.
‘Send it to Woomera’: Premier McGowan cold on nuclear waste being stored in Western Australia
SMH, Hamish Hastie, With Paul Sakkal. March 16, 2023
Western Australia has nominated defence force land in the Woomera prohibited area in South Australia as the best location to store dangerous radioactive waste from Australia’s nuclear submarines.
The premier’s comments add to the growing headache the Albanese government faces over what to do with the spent nuclear reactors from the AUKUS deal submarines once the vessels begin producing them from the mid-2050s.
On Wednesday the leaders of Victoria, Queensland and South Australia all signalled they did not want a nuclear waste facility in their state.
When asked whether he would be happy with a nuclear waste facility set up in WA after a press conference alongside Defence Minister Richard Marles in Perth on Thursday McGowan responded: “no”.
Woomera is a large swath of defence land in the north west of South Australia used as a long-range weapons testing area, including for nuclear weapons, after the second world war.
……………………………. Marles said the government would begin a process to pick a site for the waste within the year and revealed he had “a chat” with McGowan about the issue. But he said it was still early days.
…………… On Wednesday South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas told ABC Radio the waste should be sorted somewhere safe but that didn’t mean it had to be in South Australia……………………
A spokeswoman for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said under no circumstances would the state become a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
WA has a nuclear waste dumping facility in the Goldfields that stores waste with low-level radioactivity including discarded medical imaging machines.
McGowan said this low-level waste was completely different to the radioactivity from spent nuclear reactors from submarines. https://www.smh.com.au/national/send-it-to-woomera-mcgowan-cold-on-nuclear-waste-being-stored-in-wa-20230316-p5csps.html—
Australia hasn’t figured out low-level nuclear waste storage yet – let alone high-level waste from submarines.
The Conversation, Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University, March 15, 2023
.”……………. nuclear submarines mean nuclear waste. And for decades, Australia has failed to find a suitable place for the long-term storage of our small quantities of low and intermediate level nuclear waste from medical isotopes and the Lucas Heights research reactor.
With this deal, we have committed ourselves to managing highly radioactive reactor waste when these submarines are decommissioned – and guarding it, given the fuel for these submarines is weapons-grade uranium.
Where will it be stored? The government says it will be on defence land, making the most likely site Woomera in South Australia.
What nuclear waste will we have to deal with?
Under this deal, Australia will not manufacture nuclear reactors. The US and later the UK will give Australia “complete, welded power units” which do not require refuelling over the lifetime of the submarine.
In this, we’re following the US model, where each submarine is powered by a reactor with fuel built in. When nuclear subs are decommissioned, the reactor is pulled out as a complete unit and treated as waste.
An official fact sheet about this deal states Australia “has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia”.
What does this waste look like? When Virginia-class submarines are decommissioned, you have to pull out the “small” reactor and dispose of it. Small, in this context, is relative. It’s small compared to nuclear power plants. But it weighs over 100 tonnes, and contains around 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which is nuclear weapons-grade material.
So, when our first three subs are at the end of their lives – which, according to defence minister Richard Marles, will be in about 30 years time – we will have 600kg of so-called “spent fuel” and potentially tonnes of irradiated material from the reactor and its protective walls. Because the fuel is weapons-grade material, it will need military-scale security.
Australia has no long-term storage facility
There’s one line in the fact sheet which stands out. The UK and US “will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically”.
This statement glosses over the tense history of our efforts to manage our much less dangerous radioactive waste.
For decades, the Australian government has been trying to find a single site for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. …………………………………..
The most recent plans to locate a dump at Kimba, on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is still bogged down in the legal system due to opposition by local communities and First Nations groups.
And we’re still dithering about what to do with the intermediate level waste produced by the OPAL research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. At present, spent fuel is sent to France for reprocessing while nuclear waste is now being returned to Australia, where it is held in a temporary store near the reactor.
This waste needs to be permanently isolated from ecosystems and human society, given it will take tens of thousands of years for the radiation to decay to safe levels.
Our allies have not figured out long-term waste storage either
But while Sweden and Finland are building secure storage systems in stable rock layers 500 metres underground, neither the UK nor the US have moved beyond temporary storage.
UK efforts to manage waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines is still at the community consultation stage. At present, high-level waste from sub reactors is removed and taken to Sellafield, a long-established nuclear site near the border with Scotland. But each submarine still holds around one tonne of intermediate level waste, which, according to the UK government, has to be temporarily stored until a long-term underground storage facility is built some time after 2040.
In the US, spent fuel and intermediate waste from nuclear submarines is still in temporary storage. ………. nuclear waste from their military and civilian reactors is just piling up with no long-term solution in sight. Successive administrations have kicked the can down the road, assuring the public a permanent geological disposal site will be developed some time in the future.
This should be concerning. To manage the waste from our proposed nuclear submarines properly, we’ll have to develop systems and sites which do not currently exist in Australia.
In 2016, South Australia’s Royal Commission on nuclear fuel suggested Australia’s geological stability and large areas of unpopulated land would position us well to act as a permanent place to store the world’s nuclear waste.
This hasn’t come to pass in any form. An almost intractable problem is that any proposed site will be on the traditional land of a First Nations group. Every site suggested to date has been opposed by its Traditional Owners.
What if we send the high-level waste overseas for processing and bring it back as less dangerous intermediate waste? It’s possible, given it’s what we already do with waste from the OPAL reactor. But that still leaves us with the same problem: where do you permanently store this waste. That’s one we haven’t solved in the 70 years since Australia first entered the nuclear age with our original HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. https://theconversation.com/australia-hasnt-figured-out-low-level-nuclear-waste-storage-yet-let-alone-high-level-waste-from-submarines-201781
Ocean discharge is the worst plan for Fukushima waste water — IPPNW peace and health blog
Japan may soon start dumping radioactively contaminated waste water from the Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, despite warnings from neighboring countries, marine scientists, and health experts. As soon as within a month or two, Japan could begin dumping into the Pacific Ocean 1.3 million tons of treated but still radioactively contaminated wastewater […]
Ocean discharge is the worst plan for Fukushima waste water — IPPNW peace and health blog
As soon as within a month or two, Japan could begin dumping into the Pacific Ocean 1.3 million tons of treated but still radioactively contaminated wastewater from the stricken Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant. Construction of the kilometer long undersea discharge tunnel and a complex of pipes feeding it commenced last August.
This cheap and dirty approach of “out of sight out of mind” and “dilution is the solution to pollution” belongs in a past century. It ignores the significant transboundary, transgenerational and human rights issues involved in this planned radioactive dumping, projected to continue over the next 40 years.
Concerns about Japan’s ocean dumping plans have been strongly voiced by China and South Korea, and by numerous Pacific island nations. Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs have severely criticised the plan, which has also been opposed by the United States National Association of Marine Laboratories and many regional and international health and environmental civil society organisations.
Australia bears a particular responsibility in relation to the aftermath of the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster, since fuel fabricated with uranium from Australia was in each of the Fukushima reactors which exploded. Yet my letters to the relevant Australian federal ministers on this matter have gone unanswered for seven weeks, and no evidence is publicly available that the Australian government has supported our Pacific neighbours in raising concerns about the planned discharge with its Japanese counterparts.
We are in the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-30). As Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Secretary-General Henry Puna reminded us in his piece in The Guardian on 4 January, in 1985 the Forum welcomed the then Japanese prime minister’s statement that “Japan had no intention of dumping radioactive waste in the Pacific Ocean in disregard of the concern expressed by the communities of the region.” The current plan is inconsistent with this commitment.
In a public event organised by the PIF in Suva on 18 January, Puna noted Prime Minister Kishida’s reassurance during Japan’s regular meeting with the Forum in July 2022 of the need to progress this matter consistent with international law and verifiable science. The Secretary-General reiterated his request on behalf of Forum members for postponement of the planned discharge in order to allow adequate consideration of alternative options and to engage in respectful and full evidence-based consultation with Pacific nations in planning the best course of action. His calls have been ignored.
The most authoritative independent scientific assessment of the planned discharge has been conducted by a five-member independent international scientific panel appointed by the PIF. The experts were unanimous in their conclusions and recommendations. Their main conclusions:
- TEPCO’s knowledge of the specific radionuclide contents of all the tanks is seriously deficient. Only roughly one quarter of the more than 1,000 tanks at the site have been sampled at all, and in almost all cases only nine or fewer of 64 total radionuclides are measured in the data shared with PIF. TEPCO’s assumptions of consistent ratios of various radionuclides across different tanks are contradicted by the data, with show many thousand-fold variation.
Sampling and measurements have been unrepresentative, statistically deficient and biased, and have not included the debris and sludges, which Japan has acknowledged are present in at least some of the tanks. Sludges and debris are likely to be most radioactive, particularly in relation to harmful isotopes like plutonium and americium.- More than 70% of the tanks which had gone through ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System), designed to remove most of the radioactive contaminants, will require re-treatment. For some isotopes, the levels after treatment are up to 19,900 times higher than the regulatory limits for discharge. There is no evidence confirming that even repeated processing through ALPS can provide consistently effective purification.
- There has been no adequate consideration of the behavior of radioactive elements in the ocean, with transport by ocean currents and organisms, accumulation in biota and sea floor sediments, or the behavior of organically bound tritium in an ocean environment. The seafloor off Japan’s east coast still contains up to 10,000 times the cesium concentration as before the disaster, before any planned discharge.
- Neither TEPCO nor the IAEA acknowledged or addressed the many serious scientific questions raised by the panel. For example, TEPCO reported that tanks sampled in 2019 contained tellurium-127, an isotope with a half-life of only 9 hours. This signifies either that accidental criticality with fission reactions are occurring on an ongoing basis in the molten reactor cores, which would be very significant, or that the measurements are wrong. However no satisfactory answers were provided. Indeed the IAEA cut off contact with the panel.
- Neither TEPCO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nor the Japanese Nuclear Regulatory Authority have properly considered several viable alternative approaches, including storage in purpose-built seismically safe tanks, possibly after initial purification, subsequent use in concrete for structural applications with little or no potential for contact with humans and other organisms, and bioremediation for some important isotopes such as strontium-90. All the proposed alternatives would have orders of magnitude less impact and avoid transboundary impacts.
The argument that the site is running out of room to store water is spurious. Contaminated water will continue to be generated for many decades hence, and there is plenty of nearby space available that will be unfit for other uses for a very long time and is already being used to store large amounts of contaminated soil from around the prefecture. There is in fact no urgency to begin ocean discharge.
The independent expert panel recommended unanimously that the planned ocean dumping should not proceed. Their overwhelming case, based on scientific evidence and the need to minimise transboundary and transgenerational impacts, is that new approaches and alternatives to ocean dumping are needed and are the responsible way forward.
This matter requires urgent attention. Construction of the pipeline through which the ocean discharge is planned to occur is well underway, and the discharge may commence as soon as this month. Given that the discharge is planned to continue over 30-40 years, reconsideration could still be undertaken even after ocean discharge commenced. However it would be far better if the planned discharge were postponed until better alternatives were properly considered and implemented.
Now is the time for the Australian government, scientists and citizens to join with our Pacific neighbours in calling on Japan to stop its irresponsible plan to use the Pacific Ocean as a radioactive waste dump.
‘David and Goliath’: Kimba nuke waste fight heads to Federal Court
Stephanie Richards, 6 March 23, https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/03/06/david-and-goliath-kimba-nuke-waste-fight-heads-to-federal-court/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InDaily%20Lunchtime%20%206%20March%202023&utm_content=InDaily%20Lunchtime%20%206%20March%202023+CID_654499187b614fa7e1f09bd8ceb7100e&utm_source=EDM&utm_term=READ%20MORE
Barngarla Traditional Owners’ fight to stop a nuclear waste facility being built near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has reached the Federal Court, with the first substantive case hearing in Adelaide today.
They were supporting the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, which has applied for judicial review in an attempt to thwart construction of the federal government’s planned radioactive waste storage facility at Napandee near Kimba.
“We’re fighting against injustices that have been happening to the Barngarla people regarding this waste dump in Kimba,” Barngarla Traditional Owner Harry Dare told InDaily outside court.
“We’re actually fighting for a seven sisters and women’s dreaming site and we’re fighting for a vote in our local governance.
“The Australian Government has given back our Native Title, but they haven’t given us a voice in those Native Title areas, so we’re fighting for equality and for all of Australia to be nuclear free.”
The Napandee site was selected by the former Morrison Government, with then Resources Minister Keith Pitt saying the government had secured “majority support” from the local community after more than “six years of consultation”.
But Barngarla Traditional Owners opposed the project and argued they were not included in the consultation.
During today’s hearing, the Federal Court was told of how the decision to locate the dump at Napandee, near Kimba, played out.
After beginning the process to select the site through its administrative powers, the then Coalition Government changed tack and decided to legislate, partly to avoid delays through legal challenges.
However, when the legislation failed in the Senate, the government restarted the administrative process.
Counsel for the Barngarla told Justice Natalie Charlesworth that raised questions over whether Pitt, who ultimately named the Napandee location and who strongly supported the legislative approach, could properly carry out his administrative role.
“That, of itself, would excite a reasonable apprehension that the minister might be unable or unwilling to approach the matter with an open mind,” he said.
“Because, effectively, the decision had already been made.”
The court was also told that the Barngarla disagreed with the former government’s view that the dump had wide community support in Kimba and would also argue the decision on the dump was unreasonable given the lack of proper consultation with the Indigenous owners.
Given Pitt’s correspondence with the Barngarla people and his other statements, the impression that might arise was that consultation would largely amount to “matters around the edges”.
“In terms of identifying culture and the like in the implementation of the site, which had already been selected and to which the minister was committed,” counsel said.
With the case listed for several days, the federal government is expected to argue that much of the material to be relied on by the applicants is subject to parliamentary privilege.
The Barngarla launched their action in 2021 after being denied the right to participate in a community ballot to gauge local support for the Napandee site because many did not live in the Kimba council area.
The community ballot returned about 61 per cent in favour of the dump.
But when the Barngala conducted their own ballot among their community members, 83 voted no and none voted yes.
They argue they were denied the right to participate in a community ballot to gauge local support for the site, because many did not live in the Kimber council area.
Traditional Owner Linda Dare told protestors ahead of this morning’s hearing that the proposed location for the nuclear waste facility was near an important women’s site for the Barngarla people.
“It just seems to be that every time the government wants to put something it’s always around a women’s site,” she said.
“We need to fight as women around Australia to protect our sites.
“We need to say ‘no’ because it’s going to affect the waterways, not just in South Australia but everywhere.”
InDaily reported in September that the federal government was spending three times more than Barngarla Traditional Owners fighting the project in the Federal Court.
Information released to SA Greens Senator Barbara Pocock showed that between December and July, the government had spent $343,457.44 on legal fees.
That compares to the approximate $124,000 spent by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation over the same period.
The Native Title group estimates that the total cost incurred by the federal government would run into the millions.
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation chairperson Jason Bilney told InDaily the judicial review was a “David and Goliath battle”.
“But, we’re dedicated. It took us 21 years to win our Native Title, come out of Native Title six months later and we’re fighting a nuclear waste dump on our country,” he said.
“What does that tell you about truth telling, the Statement From The Heart or the Voice?
“Our Voice isn’t being heard, truth telling isn’t being told and they’re going to break the First Nations’ heart – Barngarla – and put it (the nuclear waste dump) on our country.”
Bilney said Traditional Owners expected the Federal Court would take months to reach a decision, with hearings scheduled each day this week.
“It could take a year, but we would like it to have it sooner than later,” he said.
It comes after the Barngarla Native Title group last month won a separate Supreme Court bid to overturn former Premier Steven Marshall’s decision to allow a mineral exploration company to drill at Lake Torrens in the state’s outback.
At the time, Bilney said the group was buoyed by the win as they continued their legal fight to stop the Napandee nuclear waste facility from going ahead.
South Australian Labor has long called for Barngarla people to have the right to veto the project, with Premier Peter Malinauskas previously saying that the state government had expressed its views to the federal government.
Barngarla women warn Kimba nuclear waste plan will ‘destroy’ sacred site, Dreaming stories
ABC North and West SA / By Nicholas Ward 5 Mar 23,
Banners that feature children’s art are being used to protest against a proposed nuclear waste facility on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.
Key points:
- The Federal Court case to stop a proposed radioactive waste facility at Kimba resumes this week
- A native title group says the national nuclear dump will destroy women’s Dreaming stories
- Children from across SA are creating art to protest the federal government’s site decision
At the Barngarla Community House in Port Augusta, the finishing touches are being added to the protest banners, which will travel with a group of Barngarla elders to Adelaide.
Their native title group has brought a case against the federal government to stop the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba.
The case is set to resume in the Federal Court this week.
Barngarla woman Linda Dare says the art contributions have been made by children of various cultural backgrounds.
There’s a lot of interest in this, with not just Aboriginal kids and not just older people, but people of all ages and cultures who have been involved,” Ms Dare said………………..
Nuclear waste at women’s Dreaming site
Dawn Taylor, a Barngarla woman, grew up in Kimba and she said the proposed facility would interfere with a sacred site for women.
“The Seven Sisters Dreaming is through that area,” Ms Taylor said.
“A lot of people don’t know about this feminine sister Dreaming.
“But the Seven Sisters Dreaming means a lot to all of us as women, in each tribe, throughout the country.”
Ms Dare said the Seven Sisters story had been handed down for generations.
She fears the waste facility will “destroy those stories” that she has grown up with.
She has spoken to Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King to urge her to block the facility from going ahead.
“I actually spoke to [Ms King] when we met with her not long ago in Kimba, woman to woman, that she could actually be the one to say no to this,” Ms Dare said.
Site preparation works underway at the site are expected to take up to two years before construction on the radioactive waste facility can commence.
The matter to block its construction returns to court on Monday. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-05/barngarla-women-protest-against-nuclear-waste-at-kimba/102053982
Traditional owners fight to stop SA nuclear waste dump
Peth Now, Tim Dornin, AAP, March 6, 2023
Issues with the decision-making process and questions over consultation have been raised by traditional owners in their court bid to block the federal government’s plans for a nuclear waste dump on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula.
The case for a judicial review brought by the Barngarla people opened on Monday, with the Federal Court in Adelaide told of how the decision to locate the dump at Napandee, near Kimba, played out.
After beginning the process to select the site through its administrative powers, the then coalition government changed tack and decided to legislate, partly to avoid delays through legal challenges.
However, when the legislation failed in the Senate, the government restarted the administrative process.
Counsel for the Barngarla told Justice Natalie Charlesworth that raised questions over whether former resources minister Keith Pitt, who ultimately named the Napandee location and who strongly supported the legislative approach, could properly carry out his administrative role.
“That, of itself, would excite a reasonable apprehension that the minister might be unable or unwilling to approach the matter with an open mind,” he said.
“Because, effectively, the decision had already been made.”
The court was also told that the Barngarla disagreed with the former government’s view that the dump had wide community support in Kimba and would also argue the decision on the dump was unreasonable given the lack of proper consultation with the Indigenous owners.
Given minister Pitt’s correspondence with the Barngarla people and his other statements, the impression that might arise was that consultation would largely amount to “matters around the edges”.
“In terms of identifying culture and the like in the implementation of the site, which had already been selected and to which the minister was committed,” counsel said.
With the case listed for several days, the federal government is expected to argue that much of the material to be relied on by the applicants is subject to parliamentary privilege.
Before Monday’s hearing began, members of the Barngarla community and their supporters gathered outside the court, vowing to continue the fight no matter the result of the court proceedings.
“If it goes against the government, they are going to appeal it. If it goes against us, we are going to appeal it,” Elder Harold Dare said.
“We are going to appeal it as long and as hard as we can.
“It’s not just about the Barngarla, it’s about all of Australia and ultimately the world.
“We’re fighting for the protection of a sacred Aboriginal women’s site. It’s about the respect we are showing to our women’s sites.”
“We’re fighting for the protection of a sacred Aboriginal women’s site. It’s about the respect we are showing to our women’s sites.”
The Barngarla launched their action in 2021 after being denied the right to participate in a community ballot to gauge local support for the Napandee site because many did not live in the Kimba council area.
The community ballot returned about 61 per cent in favour of the dump.
But when the Barngala conducted their own ballot among their community members, 83 voted no and none voted yes……. more https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/traditional-owners-fight-to-stop-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-c-9947910
ANSTO Chief blowing hot air on radioactive waste
17 February 2023
The chief executive of Australia’s Nuclear Science Technology Organisation (Ansto), Shaun Jenkinson, admitted yesterday there was no evidence to support his claim last year that the production of nuclear medicine would stop if the proposed radioactive waste dump in South Australia did not go ahead.
Under questioning by South Australian Greens Senator Barbara Pocock, at a Senate Estimates hearing, Mr Jenkinson said there was “no specific analysis about at what point production of nuclear medicine would stop.”
Jenkinson claimed in November last year that Ansto would not be able to keep producing nuclear medicine once the waste management facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney reached capacity.
Pressed on the issue at the Estimates hearing yesterday, the Ansto head said, “If there was to be a delay in (building the new waste dump) we would be seeking approval for additional on-site storage until such time as a national waste management facility was ready and so we’re doing that.
“Its an iterative process we do that every year,” he said.
Commenting outside the hearing Senator Pocock said it was “disingenuous for Mr Jenkins to make alarming claims that could cause distress to people who rely on nuclear medicines, such as cancer patients, simply to support the Government’s case for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.”
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney, accused Jenkinson of causing unnecessary concern to vulnerable people in order to support the case for a radioactive waste dump in South Australia, when he made the statement.
Senator Pocock earlier quizzed the Australian Radioactive Waste Authority (ARWA)about how much the Federal Government was spending fighting a court case brought by Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the proposed site saying that “in the midst of a campaign to give First Nations Australians a voice in matters that concern them, the Government surely should be listening to the Barngarla Native Title holders on this issue.”
ARWA also confirmed that the option for safe storage of intermediate level waste, including new waste, exists for years into the future at the current radioactive waste management faciltiy at Lucas Heights and that there are no obstacles to further upgrades to increase capacity there.
—
Kimba’s “brand” – up till now – praised as Agricultural – but could change to The Nuclear Dump – if the government’s planned facility goes ahead.
Greg Bannon, InDaily, 1 Feb 23, It seems ironic to read that the Kimba District Council is searching for a new brand beyond nuclear waste.
Anyone who has followed this issue of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) over the last seven years would know that Kimba has nominated a total of four sites. The first two, along with 23 others Australia-wide, were put up as part of a national invitation to landholders in 2015. Those two were abandoned in 2016, after the Kimba community voted against the proposal.
Members of the community, led by the Council who were unhappy with that decision, applied to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) for another chance to get the dump, and two new sites were nominated under the Department’s revised guidelines. One of those sites, Napandee, was announced by two previous Coalition Ministers responsible for the decision. DIIS set tight, restrictive guidelines to better control who was considered eligible to in favour of or against the NRWMF. The guidelines were different for the two communities, Flinders Ranges and Kimba, originally vying to be chosen as “host” site.
Minister Matt Canavan originally named Napandee the national winner before resigning to the back bench ahead of the 2019 federal elections. His successor, Keith Pitt, tried to expedite the process by relinquishing Ministerial discretion in favour of having Napandee named in the legislation. If passed, this would have extinguished any legal challenge to the decision. The Bill passed the Lower House but stalled in the Senate due to the Government’s lack of numbers, after which Minister Pitt reverted to the original Ministerial decision to let the Napandee site progress.
Court action by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) caused a 12 month halt to the process. A major point of their grievance is that their voice was excluded from the community voting process. A higher court ruling, due in March, is still pending but meanwhile the Adelaide-based Australian Radioactive Waste Agency is pressing ahead with “site characterisation” work. This seems quite a contradiction considering that the new federal Labor Government is committed to legislating a First Australians’ voice nationally, but using its legal powers to fight the Barngarla’s.
Among the reams of propaganda material in support of this nuclear waste facility has been the claim that it would provide a new “industry” for the district. It would be totally unrelated to and independent from agriculture. Originally it promised 15 jobs, before this promise was tripled to 45 including associated tourism and security.
It has never been convincingly explained how 15 jobs became 45 apart, from the fact that the site will temporarily house Australia’s most toxic nuclear waste, intermediate level (needing 10,000 years management), alongside permanent disposal of low level material, which will only need to be managed for 300 years.
It is not hard to see why there is call for the town to be seen as something beyond nuclear. The community has been and still is seriously divided by this issue. If this dump goes ahead there, Kimba will be known forever as the home of Australia’s first national radioactive waste facility. How can something that requires security and management for so long be separated or covered up?
The Kimba district does have many other attractions. The recent harvest has been one of the best, producing high quality grain for the local market and for export. There are such huge areas of Australia that are not suitable for this type of agriculture. https://indaily.com.au/opinion/reader-contributions/2023/02/01/your-views-on-a-sa-towns-non-nuclear-image-and-more/?fbclid=IwAR0tmjuuJuyxrjR8ZP85mfegUCBRxCirHAOg1VPH8faccPAyUBdHwEfp
Media keeps mum about earthquake near planned nuclear waste dump.
Kazzi Jai, Fight to stop a nuclear waste dump in South Australia 20 Jan 23
Port Augusta had a magnitude 3.2 earth tremor Sunday morning with epicentre near Port Paterson and not a peep in the media!
It was just below 4.0 (and above)which is considered an earthquake …
Only Geoscience Australia officially recorded it.
So, surely there should have been noise about it in the media….or is it just “selective” news these days?
Port Augusta isn’t that far from Kimba…and we’ll remember the greedy landowner commenting once that the nuclear dump would only “bounce up and down” in the event of SEISMIC ACTIVITY!!
Don’t know about anyone else…but concrete and steel drums bouncing up and down results in cracking of concrete and possible breaching of steel drums (steel and concrete interfaces results in concrete corrosion …not to mention the corrosion caused by interaction of radiation emissions contained within)!
Not SAFE AT ALL considering this dump is meant to FULLY CONTAIN this nuclear waste from the environment FOR 300 YEARS!!!
….IN A FLOOD PRONE AREA!!!!
Greens Senator Barbara Pocock ‘s reminder that the Kimba nuclear waste storage has no longterm plan for removal of that waste to permanent disposal
Yesterday’s visit to Kimba by Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King failed to acknowledge the fact that the proposed radioactive waste dump at Kimba includes temporary storage of intermediate level waste which must await a long term solution.
We Greens are standing with the Barngarla Native Title holders in their legal battle to halt the waste dump and with farmers in the region who don’t want to jeopardise the export of their crops to European markets.
1.This month.
Zoom webinar – “Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange.”
April 7th at 11:30 am PST / 2:30 pm EST
Nuclear Winter: The Environmental Consequences of a Nuclear Exchange”
Join us for an informative webinar with renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Brian Toon, as he discusses the environmental risks and global impacts of a nuclear war. Despite the potential damage caused by the blast from even small nuclear weapons, many countries continue to invest in and expand nuclear arsenals. Professor Toon will provide a scientific assessment of civilian fatalities, agricultural failures, climate concerns, and complications with food supply that would follow any international nuclear conflict. We need to plan how to prevent nuclear conflict and avoid catastrophe. Politicians and military planners must be made aware of global climate and agricultural complications that would ensue. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from, and engage in, this vital conversation
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 