Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

South Australian MP Peter Treloar says “Kimba nuclear waste dump is a federal issue”, but he’s fine with it anyway

Kimba nuclear waste site OK with Member for Flinders ahead of proposed new electoral boundaries, ABC, ABC Eyre Peninsula, By Evelyn Leckie and Gary-Jon Lysaght 28 Aug 20

With proposed electoral boundaries changing for the Eyre Peninsula, local MP Peter Treloar is poised to take on a community that remains divided on hosting the country’s nuclear waste.

Key points:

  • Proposed electoral boundaries may lead to Kimba falling within the state seat of Flinders
  • Peter Treloar is poised to take on Kimba’s nuclear waste storage issues
  • The Kimba community remains divided on the region’s nuclear waste site

The Member for Flinders, whose electorate is slated to include Kimba after the redistribution, said although the nuclear waste dump was ultimately a federal issue, he had no problem with its proposed location.

“The Kimba community have decided themselves that they’re prepared to be accepting of that, so this process is playing out in the federal jurisdiction,” Mr Treloar said………

Earlier this year a cross-party parliamentary committee found “significant risk” that local Indigenous groups were not consulted about the nuclear dump to a standard required under international law. ……

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/flinders-member-weighs-in-on-nuclear-waste-in-kimba/12603022

August 29, 2020 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Australia’s Dept of Industry hiding the facts on choice of Kimba nuclear waste site

Kazzi Jai No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 22 Aug 20, 

DIIS: This is the statement we are going to hide behind. If we repeat it often enough people will just give up and stop questioning us…..surely?
It is a longstanding practice not to disclose information about the operation and business of the Cabinet, including if or when a matter went to Cabinet, as to do so could potentially reveal the deliberations of the Cabinet, which are confidential.”

FRIDAY NIGHT QUIZ QUESTION: How many times did the DIIS quote this EXACT SAME STATEMENT in their “Answers to Questions Notices” tabled recently for the Senate Inquiry?….more  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/

August 22, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Reject the racist, undemocratic National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 

National nuclear waste dump emergency

Voices are getting louder calling for the Federal government to abandon plans for a national nuclear waste dump near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia.  On the 11 June, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill is seeking to cement Kimba as the nuclear dump site through the House of Representatives. The draft legislation also removes rights of judicial review for Barngarla Traditional Owners and communities opposed to the dump plan. Importantly, Labor MPs and most of the crossbench spoke against the Bill, which is now the topic of a Senate Inquiry pending a Senate vote.  

In response, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation states: “It remains shocking and saddening that in the 21st Century, First Nations people would have to fight for the right to vote in Australia and that the Federal Government would deliberately remove judicial oversight of its actions in circumstances where the Human Rights Committee, a bipartisan committee no less, has considered the process flawed.’’

Please add your name to this online letter asking Senators to reject the racist, undemocratic National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill here

If you would like to contact Senators directly, you can find contact details here

Please add your name to an online letter to SA Premier Steven Marshall here or email Premier Marshall at premier@sa.gov.au

Watch & share: Barngarla Judicial Review Rights: point of no return

Watch NITV story: Barngarla continue fight against plan to dump nuclear waste on Country

Read ‘Much at stake for Barngarla Country’ Michele Madigan’s article in Eureka Street

August 20, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Conflict of interest in Kimba Community Liaison Officer’s connection to nuclear waste dump push

Kazzi Jai, Fight to Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 20 Aug, 20
 Seems Mayor Dean Johnson’s recent comment about “failing the pub test” has shown up more FLAWS in this WHOLE PROCESS…
How does a person secure the Community Liaison Officer job in Kimba, when they and their partner MANAGE the local pub in Kimba and their partner openly submits support for the dump – submission 83 of the previous Inquiry* !This fact was addressed in Submission 44 of the previous Inquiry*…..”The Community Liaison Officer was supposed to be a person with neutral views but to no surprise the Department employed a local who has been openly supportive of the facility. Community members who are opposed find it difficult to speak openly with the Liaison officer about their concerns.”

Here is what the Community Liaison Officer job was meant to entail: Job Description……”The Community Liaison Officer will represent a project, through consultation activities including meetings with members of the public, information sessions, and presentations. The Officer must possess local knowledge and be of an approachable demeanor to ensure meaningful engagement with all interested community members.”

Desired Skills and Abilities:…..”Ability to be approachable by all members of the Kimba community, regardless of their views on the Project, to provide information about the Project in a professional and independent manner.”

This really in fact comes as no surprise, given what actually happened in Hawker at the SAME time with THEIR Community Liaison Officer! – Submission 109 of previous Inquiry*

*Senate Committee Inquiry on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Dump Site, August 2018 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

Submissions – Parliament of Australia      https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556

August 20, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

17 August: The Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry- Public Hearings go Secret

 

This is my impression of events

The public hearing on August 3. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2Fa4d64368-7fea-4fb0-b04e-5e0ea529799a%2F0000%22
The Senators asked for documents, (relating to the selection of Napandee, and in view of the Amendment meaning no judicial review of that decision).
The heavily redacted documents were supplied at some absurd time, like 20 minutes before the hearing.
The Department of Industry requested that these documents be discussed at the next (public) hearing, on 17 August
11  a.m – 1.30 pm. – to be held in private. That was accepted (Why?)
Now all mention of this meeting has vanished from the Parliament website. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RadioactiveWaste/Public_Hearings 
I read today a news item of a Council Nuclear Hearing in UK, where it was decided to hold the public hearing in private.  At least in the UK, the public even gets to know that the private public meeting is on –  the Australian public remains blissfully unaware.  

August 17, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Christina reviews, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry gets vague and incomplete answers from Department of Industry

It is difficult to understand why important legislation now before Parliament should include or involve information that cannot be publicly disclosed as this is completely counter to the open and uninhibited nature of parliamentary business and the inquiry committee would at the very least be given a summary of the suppressed information which could then be dealt with by the privileges committee.

If it is being suggested that legal privilege is needed with respect to a judicial review preventing the development of the facility then surely this must be part of the legislative process in dealing with the bill since one of the central issues is eliminating any rights of judicial or administrative review

 

Peter Remta, 13 Aug 20, My comments on some of the written answers by the department to the questions put on notice at the Senate committee hearing on 30 June 2020.

SENATE COMMITTEE INQUIRY – NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (SITE SPECIFICATION, COMMUNITY FUND AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2020

Answer to Question by Senator Hanson-Young:
Question: What does ANSTO understand is the proportion of your waste that would make up what is stored at the Kimba site?
Answer:
As per the Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework dated April 2018, it is anticipated that the wastes resulting from ANSTO’s operations anticipated that the wastes resulting from ANSTO’s operations and nuclear medicine production will account for approximately 78 per cent* of all wastes that would be managed at the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility(NRWMF).

*This figure is subject to revision as more information becomes available…….

Answers to Questions 4, 5 and 6 by Senators McAllister and Patrick:
From the rather vague and incomplete answers to the specific questions posed by Senator McAllister it appears that the bill for amending the present legislation was hastily put together with little time for proper planning.

It is easier to fully quote the parts of the department’s answer:

Over the life of the program the department has briefed respective Ministers on risks to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility development associated with judicial review.

On 31 July 2019, the department provided a brief to the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the Hon Matthew Canavan, which also noted the potential to specify a site in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act).
On 20 August 2019 the Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act).

On 21 and 22 August 2019, at community forums in Kimba and Hawker, Minister Canavan indicated that Parliament would have a role in the site selection decision making process.

On 30 September 2019, the Prime Minister responded to the Minister’s letter of 20 August 2019. On 17 October 2019 and on 4 November 2019, the department provided further briefs to the Minister on potential amendments to the Act.

On 8 November 2019, the Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking policy authority to develop legislative amendments.

The answer then went on to say that it was the practice not to disclose information about the business of the cabinet and that certain sensitive information contained in some documents to be given to the committee on a confidential basis which would not be in the public interest to reveal and has therefore been redacted

It is difficult to understand why important legislation now before Parliament should include or involve information that cannot be publicly disclosed as this is completely counter to the open and uninhibited nature of parliamentary business and the inquiry committee would at the very least be given a summary of the suppressed information which could then be dealt with by the privileges committee.

If it is being suggested that legal privilege is needed with respect to a judicial review preventing the development of the facility then surely this must be part of the legislative process in dealing with the bill since one of the central issues is eliminating any rights of judicial or administrative review

The forums on 21 and 22 August last year only dealt with ensuring that the government’s grants would be paid direct to the communities and not the state  government as this was a major concern to the members of both communities,

To protect their position Minister Canavan undertook to enshrine the the grants payments to the communities through appropriate legislative action but there was nothing along the lines suggested by the department’s answer.

From the totality of all that has been said or done by the department and ANSTO it is quite clear that they want to pursue their own means of identifying an appropriate site and method for the permanent disposal of the local intermediate level waste. Continue reading

August 15, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Kimba area locals point out the unsolved problems of nuclear waste transport to Napandee

Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia, 11 Aug 20

You know what “fails the pub test”? The concern by AECOM that the nuclear waste might actually go through Kimba! Too bad the other towns it WILL go through!

Noted disadvantages are that waste might pass close to Kimba … (after actually coming through a number of other locations)

Katrina Bohr The Napandee site is referred to as central South Australia. Got that wrong for starters. This assessment indicates that the proposal is for ILW to be either shipped or transported by rail from the east. The Maritime Workers Union have stated opposition to transporting nuclear waste.
Jenny Bourne If they rail to Port Augusta they’d have to unload by crane in the middle of town!! Right outside many homes. Certainly both road and rail would involve transporting through Port Augusta.
  • Annette Ellen Skipworth Thats a lot of road to upgrade to take the weight of the canisters ..
    Loads of Murray water..
    Who is paying to upgrade the roads..
    Government or local council and the maintenance of said roads.. 100 years i believe to dump will operate..
    Roni Skipworth Criterion 2 what hogwash to rail the Waste from Port Lincoln. Still has to go to Kimba Silos as we don’t have a RAILWAY SYSTEM ANYMORE being closed down by Viterra last year n all grain movement is trucked along our 3 local highways on dirt roads all over EP.
    Looks like no one has worked out the transport side of things yet and why should we the locals who like using these dirt roads to get from A to B put up with these Trucks fucking them up so we can’t use or then not allowed cos of the Dump

August 11, 2020 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Problematic selection of “community” in decision to site nuclear waste dump at Kimba. South Australia

Kazzi Jai  Fight To Stop A Nuclear Waste Dump In South Australia 9 Aug 20 

There’s something that has been bothering me for some time…..This is a copy of a table from page 9 of the Phase 1 Document released in April 2016 by the Minister at that time Josh Frydenberg. Even with the “service towns” included for some of them – and of those, some of them DEFINITELY OUTSIDE the so called 50 km radius of the sites….doesn’t it seem interesting that the LEAST POPULATED SITES remained those IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA!

It was ULTIMATELY decided by Matt Canavan, as Minister, that Kimba would only have its Council boundary as the community ballot area, and not have the 50km radius involved at all!

And remember during all of this that the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was running AT THE SAME TIME – March 2015 to May 2016!

No wonder people thought that the nuclear dumps were one in the same! And they had thought it had ALL been dealt with when the Citizen’s Jury came back with an over two-thirds majority (70%) saying NO MEANS NO!https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/

 

August 10, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Call for public release of ANSTO Nuclear Waste Reports and ARPANSA’s Response

To: The Secretary, Senate Standing Economics Legislation Committee of Inquiry  National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020   economics.sen@aph.gov.au

RE: David Noonan Supplementary Public Submission No.6.1

Call for public release of ANSTO Nuclear Waste Reports & ARPANSA’s Response; the Department fails test of transparency; and Concern over EPBC Act amendments to affect NRWMF assessment

Dear Secretary

Please consider matters raised in this Supplementary Submission, following my Public Submission No.6. in February 2020.

  1. Important ANSTO ILW nuclear waste reports due to ARPANSA by 30 June must be made public ASAP – along with the ARPANSA response, to provide for proper public scrutiny in this Inquiry.
  2. The Department has failed the test of transparency in its treatment of public submissions.

Note: Attachment of the Department’s redacted copy of my submission, to show the extent of redactions made, in blacking out over 50 public source quotations, without a proper basis to do so.

  1. Concern over proposed rushed changes to the EPBC Act to affect assessment & approvals of the NRWMF.

First: There are public interest concerns the scope of EPBC Act “whole of environment” nuclear action assessments will be replaced by new National Standards based on ARPANSA Codes, with limited “graded” assessments and use of pro-nuclear industry standards of IAEA origin.

Second: It should be no surprise that a Bill to amend the EPBC Act transfers EPBC Act assessment and approval of the NRWMF over to ARPANS Act Licensing.

Recommendation of this Supplementary Submission on assessment and approval of the NRWMF:

This Inquiry should investigate and report on the potential impact of pending changes to the EPBC Act on assessment & approval of the NRWMF, as flagged for introduction in a Bill in late August.

The Committee should call for EPBC Act “whole of environment” assessment of the NRWMF to be retained. The Committee should oppose potential transfer of EPBC Act environmental assessment of the NRWMF over to ARAPNS Act Licensing, Codes and Guides and limited “graded” assessment.

In Conclusion: The Committee must at a minimum reject the Bill’s proposal to legislate for specified siting of the NRWMF, and therefore of unnecessary less safe and more insecure imposition of above ground indefinite storage of ILW, at Napandee near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia.

Rights to Judicial Review and Procedural Fairness must be retained for public interest reasons.

Please feel free to contact regarding any aspect of this public submission, by Mobile, Text or E-Mail.

Yours sincerely

Mr David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.

Independent Environment Campaigner and Consultant (ABN Sole Trader)

davidnoonanxs1@yahoo.com.au

 

August 6, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Napandee nuclear waste dump – potential impact on the neighbouring Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and Gawler Ranges National Park


Kazzi Jai  No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia 5 Aug 20  Not sure if this is relevant or not…but someone (not me, but wish I did) actually accessed FOI regarding the IMPACT or POSSIBLE IMPACT on the neighbouring Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and Gawler Ranges National Park with respect to the proposed Napandee site….and here is the DIIS reply…

Remember that these two parks, although neighbouring in the absolute sense of the definition, were not allowed to put in submissions against the nuclear dump being situated as a neighbour as they are State Owned, and it was decided by DIIS that they could not make a submission.

https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/…/200220-disclosure…
Actually…thinking along those lines…as they are State Owned…shouldn’t the PEOPLE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA then have a justified say in this dump as VALID DIRECT NEIGHBOURS using the DIIS paradigm? Because these Conservation and National Parks BELONG to the PEOPLE of South Australia!

Oh…that’s right….”Ever Shifting Goalposts”!
https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/…/200220-disclosure…  more  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/

August 6, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Vital questions for Senate Nuclear Waste Committee – on NOMINATIONS, EXPERT EVIDENCE, RADIONUCLIDES, RESET INITIATIVE

The following are some brief extracts from Peter Remta’s Additional submission

HOW DID THE NOMINATIONS COME ABOUT   ?……..the government has persistently refused to provide true copies of the nominations claiming personal confidentiality.

This is a puerile excuse as the prescribed nomination form (being attachment B to the government’s own nomination guidelines issued in November 2016) specifically provides that a nominating landowner by its nomination confirms consent to the public disclosure of the nomination

For this reason your committee should request the Department to produce to it for public examination the nominations for Napandee and Lyndhurst and this should quickly establish the veracity of the claims as to the  nomination and selection of those sites…..

WHY IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE NOT HEARING EXPERT EXTERNAL EVIDENCE?  As it appears that your committee is drawing to the conclusion of its enquiry
I still ask why it has not availed itself of hearing from internationally renowned experts on the management of nuclear waste as I previously suggested………

WHY IS THE COMMITTEE ACCEPTING “EVIDENCE” FROM UNQUALIFIED PERSONS WITHOUT INFORMATION CONFIRMING IT? I am staggered by what was accepted as undisputed evidence by not necessarily qualified persons and without any attempt to gain further information or confirmation.

About agriculture The first of these is how the establishment of the facility at Napandee will give rise to agricultural and scientific research locally without any information to support that claim.

This becomes even more nonsensical when viewed in the light of the most recent protests by agricultural communities in European countries as to the presence of nuclear waste production and disposal……

About jobs. The other is the number of jobs arising through the establishment of the facility and now the new agency based in Adelaide as the numbers suggested are completely outside of the realm of reality.,,,,

WHY NO AUTHORITATIVE AGENCY LIKE  AMERICA’s RESET INITIATIVE?  While there are several examples that your committee should have studied perhaps the most apt at present is the United States of America initiative and experience known as the Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management – Strategies and Policies but for brevity is referred to as the Reset Initiative…… Reset is an effort to untangle the technical, administrative and public concerns in such a way that important issues can be identified,understood and addressed”………….

none of this has occurred with the selection of Napandee……

WHY THE SILENCE ON RADIONUCLIDES? Through a safety case, an implementer reveals its understanding of the management and repository site and how it expects the radionuclides to behave in the repository over long periods of time………….  One important aspect of the risk and safety of storage and disposal of nuclear waste included in the Reset relates to the radionuclides activity of the waste.

Again and despite my raising it previously there has been pointed silence in both the submissions and the personal evidence to your committee of the radionuclides inventories in the intermediate level waste which rather strangely is not known to ARPANSA.

Th Reset Initiative explains that most of the radionuclides in nuclear waste will decay away during the first 1,000 years of management but some will persist for tens of thousands to over one million years…….

It is therefore very difficult to understand how the government has chosen Napandee for its facility before and without any study of the site with regard to the radionuclides and the type of waste as this is the most preliminary and important factor in seeking a suitable location.

The results of the study should also determine the style and nature of the storage and disposal of the nuclear waste.

NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PLAN  FIRST – NOT “SUBSEQUENT PLANNING”  This is something that cannot be cured by so-called subsequent planning and engineering and according to the expert advice should be a determining factor in rejecting the ultimate licence applications for Napandee………

In conclusion the importance and relevance of the Reset Initiative are best gauged by the suggestions that the Reset will be adopted with appropriate variations by IAEA as a principal part of its standards and codes relating to nuclear waste management which by treaty obligations would then become Australia’s prescribed standards.

August 4, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Brief note on today’s Senate Committee hearing about the Nuclear Waste Bill, including a damaging admission

The hearing ended early

Ha ha. Just when it might get interesting – the Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill decided to hold the rest of the “Public” Hearing – in secret! At the request of the Dept of Industry.
The Senate Committee has decided to deal with this later in the week, given the documents were only given to them 20 minutes ago with questions previously put on notice. So stay listening – more to come later in the week!
The most important issue  discussed?   –  legislation removes possibility of judicial review of the Napandee decision.  Mayor Johnson admitted that the District Council knew that the reason for this removal was so that the whole matter would be quickly settled: “We do not want to spend next 10 years of our life debating this”The admission by the mayor is certainly damaging as it could be regarded as a further breach of te duty of care by the District Council to the community

Listening to the Kimba pro nuclear dump people, it seems clear that their motivation is to “ensure Kimba’s future”. One must wonder why all the other drought affected agricultural towns in South Australia have not clamoured to have the dump?

August 3, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Doubts that a Kimba nuclear dump will really bring jobs to the area

Kimba jobs a hot topic, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield, 29 July 20,

Debate has ensured over the federal government’s promise of bringing 45 jobs to Kimba with the establishment of a nuclear dump at Napandee, after the latest Senate inquiry revealed there is no legislative requirement to continuously staff a low-level radioactive waste facility.

The Senate Inquiry into the federal government’s Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) met on Tuesday, with Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick reading the following statement from ARPANSA:

“There is no explicit requirement in the ARPANSA or ANSTO legislation or guidance that prescribes that a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility requires continuous presence of staff for either security or safety purposes.”

Senator Patrick was questioning the agency over whether the NRWMF at Kimba could be run remotely.

“They’re effectively saying that there’s nothing that prevents that from happening, as long as they satisfy particular criteria,” he said.

The federal government has long promised that the facility will create 45 jobs, and while Senator Patrick does not dispute the idea that the jobs will be available, he doubts they will last.

“The CEO of the site may end up being repatriated back to the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency in Adelaide, and I think some of the other roles may be pulled back and the site will turned into a remote facility two or three years down the track,” Senator Patrick said.

“Kimba locals should look at how the government is willing to shift 700 submarine jobs from Adelaide to Perth on a political whim.

“Having seen federal and state government services evaporate from country towns time after time, we know governments can’t be trusted to keep their promises.

“The writing is on the wall, and the wall hasn’t even been built yet.”

Senator Patrick believes this will be a likely course of action for the government because it’s a way to trim costs and achieve savings.

“They will look at those ARPANSA rules and say ‘this is not a bad option,'” he said……. https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/6855823/kimba-jobs-a-hot-topic/Debate/?fbclid=IwAR0KJkx1ynVTY_3MxehtRridHdfIu0G5eJYhurXHE6eunG7AdtHgbst2IOs

August 1, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

ABC Radio interview focusd on Kimba nuclear waste dump plan

Evenings With Peter Goers  ABC radio pm ABC Radio South Australia  30 July

Peter Goer first interviewed Keith Pitt, Minister for Resources.    Pitt was confident about the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan.  He stressed that it is essential for Australia’s medical care.  He claimed strong community support for the plan, and said that it “meets all the technical requirements”. ” My advice is that the temporary waste can’t stay at Lucas Heights.”  “The Kimba facility is a critical national infrastructure”  “Necessary for people who receive cancer care”.

Peter Goer :  “Strange that you have approved this new Adelaide agency whiled the matter still being discussed in the Senate.

Keith Pitt:  “It will take time to put together the necessary team. It will take overseas and domestic research”.

Goer:   “Have you read all the submissions to the Senate Inquiry?

Pitt avoided the question, and returned to the medical theme –  “2 out of 3 of every Australian  will utilise that type of technology, will need the Lucas Heights reactor”

 Goer:  It’s the temporary storage of ILW  [Intermediate Level Waste] that worries people.

Pitt: ” Very small amounts.  If we accept that we want to use nuclear medicine, then we must manage the by-product”

 

Peter Goer then interviewed Eddie  Hughes, Labor federal member from South Australia

Hughes. We’ve had 3 separate Ministers. Sites that were nominated were all in the seat of Grey.  First Rowan Ramsey offered his land – conflict of interest? Then another Liberal politician offered his land, did not consult local community, nor Aboriginal groups.

Aboriginal community- Barngarla not eligible to vote.They conducted their own vote, unanimoously against.

Not essential for a  nuclear waste facility to be at this location.  Medical waste doesn’t need to be transported to a national facility.

Goers.    ILW [Intermediate Level Wastes) we are leaving that problem to our grandchildren.

Hughes. The ILW.  This process should have been discussed broadly, including Aboriginal community.

Senate Inquiry going on,, but govt is pushing ahead with this plan, Kimba is not necessarily the solution

Calls. Bob from mid-north  said that the vast majority of medical waste is very short-lived. There are also nuclear materials used in industry, universities. At Woomera there are 44 gallon drums rotting, materials transported from Fishermens Bends. Legacy waste from the cold war. Ws don’t know what is in it.

Goers – concern that this might led to importing nuclear waste.

Hughes – I don’t imagine this. Facility at Kimba is above ground, not suitable for deep geological disposal.

Jay Weatherill’s government gave  space for Aboriginal people, gave power of veto. In the present case Barngarla people have been treated with contempt.

Goers. Kimba known as a nice little town. Will become known as the “dump town’

Hughes. I understand that people see the business  activity. But I don’t think that 45 jobs will eventuate.  Some overseas dumps have much smaller number of workers.

Goer. Rural communities are shrinking. Has Kimba been bribed?

Hughes. A lot of money has been put on the table for facilities – a big effort to get people onside. Sad that the only way a town can get the needed services is to offer itself for a nuclear dump.   Federal govt hasn’t addressed the far more important issue of shortage of doctors across regional South Australia.    Medical treatment will continue whether or not the dump goes ahead

Goers. Rowan Ramsey has the view that the local people are the best educated about this. Keith Pitt has a similar view. Seems to be a distrust of anyone who’s not local to Kimba.

Hughes. This is a South Australian issue. Very arrogant to say that only local people can have an opinion.  Liberal govt ruled it out, and that legislation still stands.  We need to go back and look at this whole process.  Both those in favour or against this plan agreed that we need to deal  with radioactive wastes in a responsible way.

Many texts received.  –  Reconciliation with Aboriginals – only lip service.  Medicalisotopes can be made with cyclotrons – nuclear reactor not necessary. ANSTO could have promoted synchrotons  producing isotopes for Australian use.- instead opted for building an export business from Lucas Hreights nuclear reactor.

 

August 1, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste for Napandee: transport, double handling, safety? Should South Australians get a vote on this?

Jobs, safety and transport in the spotlight in Senate committee probe of Kimba waste plan,  Michelle Etheridge, Regional Reporter, The Advertiser, July 28, 2020

Concerns about maritime workers facing safety risks and the Kimba community losing jobs promised for the local area have been raised before a Senate committee probing plans for a radioactive waste site.

Under the Federal Government’s project, low-level radioactive waste would be stored permanently at farming property Napandee, near Kimba, with intermediate-level waste stored there for several decades.

No long-term plan for intermediate-level waste has been set out – an issue raised by speakers during Tuesday’s committee meeting, which is looking into legislation the government says paves the way for the storage site.

Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) secretary Jamie Newlyn said the Government should eliminate double-handling of the waste, also citing concerns for Whyalla-based members.

“Whyalla port has been considered … to take nuclear processing waste,” Mr Newlyn said.

“What they’re handling is 130-tonne casks of intermediate-level waste. That presents a massive risk.” A 2018 Federal Government technical report on Napandee said there was potential to ship waste from Port Kembla, NSW, to “port locations such as Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln”.

Senator Rex Patrick also questioned whether the 45 long-term jobs promised to Kimba would stay there, now a Australian Radioactive Waste Agency has been announced for Adelaide.

A Kimba Council vote last year found 62 per cent of respondents supported the plan. Traditional landowners voted against it in a separate ballot.

Napandee owner Jeff Baldock said it was “time to accept the decision by the people of Kimba and move forward”.

“(The project) … has the potential to provide a lifeline to our community for decades to come,” Mr Baldock said.

Agriculture would benefit from the plan, he said, through a planned research and development centre.

Mr Baldock said it would also provide a much-needed new industry for the region.

This followed automation in farming and withdrawal of government agencies, which had led to a declining local population.

Wesley Schmidt, of Kimba-based Agsave Merchandise, said opposition to the project was coming from a “vocal minority”.

“We’re currently facing the third year running of drought conditions in Kimba. It’s more important than ever to establish another industry in our district,” he said.

Former Grey MP Barry Wakelin, based in the town, said the area had much to lose from picking up “something that nobody else in Australia wants”.

“Many people have said, why can’t we have an SA vote, at least, about this,” he said.

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney said: “In the absence of a clear, long-term approach for intermediate level waste, the best place to store this is at ANSTO (Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, in NSW).”

The Senate committee will report back by August 31.

A spokesman for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency said the Government would consult on transport options with communities near potential routes and transport operators.

“The newly created Australian Radioactive Waste Agency will lead the separate process to site a facility to permanently dispose of Australia’s intermediate level waste,” he said.

He said the 45 jobs included security, administration, environmental monitoring and health and safety roles.

“The facility will need these onsite roles to ensure that the facility is managed safely and securely.”  michelle.etheridge@news.com.au

July 30, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment