Impressions of Senate hearings on nuclear waste dump Bill
We saw ANSTO, ARPANSA and the Department of Industry etc being grilled by Senators Rex Patrick, Sarah Hanson-Young and ALP Jenny McAllister.In Australian Senate Inquiry uncertainty grows over whether Kimba nuclear dump site is really needed
the day saw uncertainty grow over the need for the proposed Kimba site while there was a corresponding growth in clarity that there is no urgency re this decision. The govts plan might suit ANSTO but it is not Australia’s only option – and it faces growing scrutiny.
from Jim Green, 1 July 2020 , Yesterday, Tuesday June 30 , the Senate Inquiry into Minister Pitt’s planned amendments to the national radioactive waste laws to cement and secure Kimba as a Facility site took evidence in Canberra.
The Committee heard from Govt agencies and contractors and key themes included both the need for the planned new laws and, importantly, for the Facility itself – esp. around the double handling of Intermediate Level Waste from ANSTO’s Lucas Heights.
ANSTO – as ever, there was too much bluff and bluster and too many Dorothy Dixers – as invariably happens with them in Estimates – but there were some very interesting arisings:
- Confirmed there are ‘no safety concerns’ with current waste – although ‘we cannot say that in 40 or 50 years they (ANSTO’s waste stores) will be fit for purpose’ – clear acknowledgement that they could retain waste on site and four decades is more than enough for a credible review and a more integrated approach.
- Further, ANSTO has ‘proposals under development with government for pre-2027 construction of new storage’ for ILW waste
- Hardly credible that they did not know the general proportions of ANSTO origin waste at the proposed Facility (around 80% of total wastes, and more importantly, 95% of ILW)
- They see extended on-site storage as a ‘significant management challenge and significant financial cost’ and so want to both cost shift and physically waste shift. Again, this is ANSTO’s agency agenda – not a national imperative or Australia’s sole or best option.
- Odd claim that a delay in advancing Kimba would be ‘detrimental to our sense of ourselves’ however it would not be inconsistent with any international treaty obligations. No treaty or convention obligations require Kimba to be advanced in its current form – or at all. (also I would suggest that ignoring Traditional Owner opposition to the siting of a national radioactive waste facility poses a bigger threat to our national sense of self)
- No credible threat to secure access to nuclear medicine supply should Kimba be delayed – although there would be ‘some scenario’s’ where supply could potentially be impacted. This is a very significant reduction in ANSTO’s threat messaging and a long way from a pressing problem. As I understand the scenario referred to is that Kimba is not advanced and ANSTO has taken no steps to develop a contingency.
In summary Kimba is not essential for nuclear medicine nor is it essential for Australia’s compliance with international frameworks. ANSTO could extend interim storage at Lucas Heights but understandably would prefer to transfer both the waste and its continuing management cost to a non ANSTO purse and place. Not a good enough rationale for a deficient national plan.
ARPANSA
- ANSTO waste ‘can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come’ – absolutely critical point: there is no need to rush – we have time to develop a more credible approach.
- ‘International best practice is to store radioactive waste safely – current storage at the Lucas Heights site is fully aligned with international best practice’
- There will be distinct licensing applications required for the two waste streams – LLW and ILW (with no certainty that they will have a shared approval outcome)
Dept of Industry:
- Repeated reference to the ‘contentious’ nature of the siting decision
- Extremely deficient responses re the rational and process for the change in legislative decision making from Ministerial decision to legislative instrument. Some Senators not happy at Depts inability to answer basic process questions –it is very clear the rationale is to isolate against future legal challenge.
- Statement that decision to change the legislative basis of the siting was made sometime in 2019 – then a later statement that it was made by Minister Pitt (note: Pitt was sworn in 6/2/20)
- The Departments Sam Chard rear guard action was to state that the intent of the change was to enable Parliament ‘to test the merits of the action’ – that is long overdue – could we please do this as it simply doesn’t stack up
- Increasingly clear that the Dept is utterly adrift re Barngarla liaison – understandably as they simply do not want the Facility on their country – the Facility plan is heading for some pretty sharp rocks if it doesn’t change course.
Dept of Defence:
- strongly arguing against any siting on the Woomera Prohibited Area as this could reduce its functionality. Not at all keen.
- Hard pressed by Rex Patrick though about how credible is it to say ‘not possible’ for a 100 hectare Facility inside a site twice the size of Tasmania.
AECOM:
- Predictable defence of process, their expertise and kept referring to the restricted extent of their brief as the way to avoid any tricky questions (like Barngarla liaison)
- No tech or site reason why the Facility couldn’t be at Kimba
There were good efforts from Sarah Hanson Young, Rex Patrick and Labor’s Jenny McAllister to highlight and tease out issues.
In a nutshell I would say the day saw uncertainty grow over the need for the proposed Kimba site while there was a corresponding growth in clarity that there is no urgency re this decision. The govts plan might suit ANSTO but it is not Australia’s only option – and it faces growing scrutiny.
We now need to keep up the issue profile and the expectation on Labor and the cross-benches to oppose this legislation when it comes to the Senate and instead support a strategy that advances both human and environmental rights and responsible radioactive waste management.
Oppose Kimba nuclear waste dump plan – Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
|
No Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia https://www.sarahhansonyoung.com/no_dump
The nuclear waste dump site selection process is fundamentally flawed, has fallen short of international best practice and failed to secure the consent of Traditional Owners. The Federal Government has no mandate to situate a radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. The communities of Hawker and Kimba have been significantly impacted by the ongoing mismanagement of the site selection process. It is imperative that all stakeholders within transport corridors in South Australia, every community impacted by the potential thoroughfare of nuclear waste should be fully informed of the relevant costs and benefits, throughout the transport chain, and offered the opportunity to have their say on the proposal. The proposed double-handling of intermediate-level radioactive waste is not consistent with international best practice. Alternatives should be canvassed, including the suspension of the site selection process until a permanent disposal site can be identified. |
|
Radioactive Waste Facility Site – Woomera Amendment circulated in Senate
Senator Rex Patrick No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 25 June 20,
The process that led to Kimba being selected as the site was flawed from inception, has bitterly divided the community and ignored the views of First Nations people. Thankfully the process has been stopped and the Parliament has been asked to decide the site. The Government has asked the Parliament to choose prime farmland, I’m asking the Parliament to choose a remote desert Defence secured site (after consultation).
I circulated my Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA) amendment to the Senate yesterday. The Senate Economics Committee looking into the site selection will hold its first hearing on Tuesday in Canberra and then come to SA for a hearing. The Committee has also resolved to conduct a WPA site visit.
I encourage you to participate in democracy and make a submission to the Committee. You’ll find a link to it’s website in the comments. mre https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
The seriousness of mobility of radionuclides in developing the nuclear waste facility at Kimba. South Australia
has the government explained why the reprocessed nuclear waste has been reclassified by ANSTO from high level to intermediate on arrival in Australia ?
has anyone from the community and even the Kimba District Council ever sought any information as to the inventories and movement of the radionuclides in the intermediate level waste for above ground storage at Kimba?
The mobility of radionuclides is probably the prime and initial factor in determining the location and manner of nuclear waste management by storage and disposal
Although nearly thirty years old but still current the Code of practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992) prescribed radioactive waste hazards as:
The health risk to humans presented by radioactive waste depends upon the radionuclides present, the type of radiation emitted by the particular radionuclides, their concentrations, and their chemical and physical form. The hazard may arise from external irradiation of the body or internally as a result of radioactive substances entering the body by ingestion, inhalation or absorption through the skin. The radioactive waste specifically covered by this code may also present a long-term hazard to the environment and to future generations if disposal is not carried out in a responsible manner.
Even though the Code deals with disposal rather than storage the requirements for both are basically similar with the only difference being the retrieval of the waste as seen from the definitions in the Code being:
Waste disposal means the placement of radioactive waste in a structure and in a manner such that there is no intention of retrieval.
Storage means the emplacement of waste in a facility with the intent and in a manner such that it can be retrieved at a later time.
From this I trust that you understand the seriousness and importance of radionuclides mobility in the selection and development of the management facility at Kimba
IN VIEW OF THIS SOMEONE FROM KIMBA SHOULD FORMALLY IN WRITING ASK THE KIMBA DISTRICT COUNCIL THESE QUESTIONS
COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO:
THE SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
MINISTER PITT
MR ROWAN RAMSEY MP
ANSTO CEO PATERSON
BARNGARLA IF THOUGHT APPROPRIATE
EXCLUDE ARPANSA AS IT MAY BE COMPROMISING TO IT AND IT WILL IGNORE THE LETTER IN ANY CASE
Questions:
(a) whether there have been any discussions or arrangements regarding fire as a risk at the Kimba facility – had this ever been covered by the government in its presentations as one of the main reasons for underground burial of nuclear waste is to avoid any fire risks?
(b) has the government explained why the reprocessed nuclear waste has been reclassified by ANSTO from high level to intermediate on arrival in Australia ?
(c) has the community ever been informed of the radionuclides movement activity of the intermediate level waste to be sent to Kimba?
(d) what explanation was given as to the radionuclides movement and immobilisation in above the ground storage as opposed to geological burial?
(e) has anyone from the community and even the Kimba District Council ever sought any information as to the inventories and movement of the radionuclides in the intermediate level waste for above ground storage at Kimba?
Mysterious, manipulative and corrupt process whereby Napandee was selected for nuclear dump site
Name Withheld, National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 39 [Excerpt] “…..So we examine briefly the nomination process in Kimba. When the 28 nominations were received in 2015, the number were then by a mysterious and yet to be released process whereby 6 sites were ultimately deemed suitable by the Federal Government. This announcement occurred in early 2016 and after another round of processes which were just as mysterious, the two sites in Kimba and one site in Hawker were selected to go to the the next round.
But just as quickly as they were announced – Cortlinye (Current MP at that time and now Rowan Ramsey’s land) and Pinkawillinie (Jeff Baldock’s
land) in Kimba, and Barndioota (former senator Grant Chapman and Philip Speakman pastoral lease), suddenly it was noted that Rowan Ramsey’s nomination of Cortlinye was in direct conflict with Section 44 of the Constitution, so his land nomination was withdrawn. Pinkawillinie, which was Jeff Baldock’s nomination was not accepted as suitable because of lack of community support.
So that left Barndioota as the only candidate. That meant Kimba was taken completely off the list as a possible site announced April 29th 2016. And that should have been the end of it.
https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/3878053/kimba-not-going-nuclear/
Then following the Federal Election in July 2016, just a few months later, the portfolio of Minster of Resources was shifted from Josh Frydenberg and given to Matt Canavan. And then the goalposts for nomination were changed…. and suddenly Kimba was on the list again, with three different nominations – Napandee (Jeff Baldock’s land), Tola Park (Jeff Baldock’s land) and Lyndhurst (Brett and Michelle Rayner).
So effectively Jeff Baldock seemingly pursued this dump and the nomination process if you look at how many sites he submitted! And he became proactive by being an active member of the newly formed Working for Kimba’s Future (in 2016) AND one of the members of the Kimba Consultative Committee!
There was no apparent submissions required for these nominations in this “second intake” or at least it was not advertised! Many people in Kimba assumed that the previous ones submitted when Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie were nominated would be used for these two new sites of Napandee and Lyndhurst. Tola Park was not taken any further after the nominations were announced possibly because it had too many neighbours to deal with.
To bring the point absolutely to point – Jeff Baldock was intent on making this happen, by submitting his land, not once, not twice but three times! And inserting himself into the Working for Kimba’s Future Committee AND an active member of the Kimba Consultative Committee! Rowan Ramsey did not do this when nominating his land. Brett and Michelle Rayner did not do this when nominating their land. (And go to Hawker – Grant Chapman and peter Speakman did not do this when nominating their land – although granted they do not actually live in the area either!)
Why would you allow an OBVIOUS INVESTED PERSONAL INTEREST be on the Kimba Consultative Committee – where the members WERE SELECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT! And it gets worse than that – the required NUMBERS OF PEOPLE REQUIRED – 6 FOR, 6 AGAINST and 6 NEITHER – were not achieved for the committee when the selected names came back, and when questioned why this is so, were told that it didn’t matter because they were a non voting body. However that is not true as the Committee was used to decide the boundaries for the voting.
“5.20 Mrs Toni Scott outlined her concerns with the allocation of places to the Kimba Consultative Committee: Bruce McCleary…informed people at the meeting that the committee would consist of six people opposed, six people supportive and six people who are neutral. That was also again given to members of our group by the Minister—that that’s how the makeup of the committee would be. On the day that the committee was announced, we were extremely concerned that there were only four people who had expressed opposition who were actually on that committee…
Bruce Wilson took my concerns on board and told me that the makeup of the committee didn’t really matter because it’s a non-voting body.15 5.21 However, it does appear that the Kimba Consultative Committee (KCC) has
been asked to make at least on significant decision: We were told by Bruce McCleary that the KCC would be a non-decision making body. However, our concerns probably came to light a bit in the May meeting, when the KCC was asked to vote on whether we should request that the Minister consider altering the boundaries for the ballot.”
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanageme
ntfacility/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Wastemanagementfacility/report.pdf
Which leads to the use of the Local Government Act in the ballot process. It was not an accident of fortune that it was used to conduct the community ballot – as this meant that it could be used also to exclude Traditional Owners as well – particularly the Barngarla people in the case of Kimba.
“5.21 However, it does appear that the Kimba Consultative Committee (KCC) has been asked to make at least on significant decision: We were told by Bruce McCleary that the KCC would be a non decision making body. However, our concerns probably came to light a bit in the May meeting, when the KCC was asked to vote on whether we should request that the Minister consider altering the boundaries for the ballot.16 5.22 By contrast, Dr Susan Andersson explained how the Barndioota Consultative Committee had effectively been sidelined by DIIS and the Minister in relation to defining the boundaries of the community vote: …we spent hours deciding what community is and who will get the vote and whether that includes Quorn, whether outback areas get in and how broad this should be. We had an expert there to help us define community for two sessions. Plus it was on the agenda two or three times: you will get a vote; BCC will be inputting into what area gets a vote.
Then Minister Canavan arrived on his surprise visit and said, ‘The area will be this.’ At a BCC meeting we said, ‘Hang on, we haven’t had our vote yet.’ ‘Oh, haven’t you? You can still have your vote; we’ll listen to it.’ But he’d already made media and public announcements as to what the area was. The BCC had been working towards contributing to what defined the community.17”
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanageme
ntfacility/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Wastemanagementfacility/report.pdf
Although the Act as it stands requires consultation with Traditional Owners, freezing them deliberately out of the community ballot should not the intention of what is considered a right and Australian way of doing things in this day and age – given the scope and timeline of the nuclear waste being considered! Especially when the Local Government Act is only primarily used for Roads, Rates and Rubbish…and electing new council members!
Although the Barngarla people’s Native Title claim was determined on January 22nd 2015, their formal ownership occurred in June 2018, after first being lodged in 1996! Now when was the community ballot originally meant to be conducted for this dump? August 2018. This again is a reason why the Barngarla people are angry. When they conducted their very own ballot in 2019, through an independent ballot agent Australian Election
Company, after being denied one through the Council ballot with boundaries determined by the Minister, their results showed NO VOTES IN FAVOUR OF THE DUMP ON THEIR LAND – 209 eligible to vote, 83 voted NO 0 voted yes! So under Matt Canavan’s loose usage of figures, 100% NO and
0%YES.
But the real kicker are two other points. One that the Baldocks are now actively selling land with three neighbouring famers in Kimba in a large lot called the “Cunyarie Collection”, 9000ha as
advertised February 14, 2020 https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-businessjournal/
large-parcel-of-eyre-peninsula-cropping-land-on-the-market/newsstory/
74188105d449d5920685cdd74637780c
So much for all the media gab about it being good for the community! Actions speak louder than words!
And that the historical information about the announced site, as under the AECOM site study used some historical information from Jeff Baldock himself, who had had the land only for less than 10 years! “The soils at the site are a sandy loam on a relatively impermeable calcrete/silcrete layer at a depth of approximately 0.3m with no known localised flooding or water logging issues (source Jeff Baldock 22 Feb 2018). This is based on approximately 6 years on the property.” Page 72
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-
04/nrwmf_site_characterisation_technical_report_napandee.pdf
This is a flawed proposal from start to end. Having ONE person nominate their land is not the best way of dealing with nuclear waste. This is not considering the very best geological site for this waste.Nor the very safest site for this waste. Just a lottery for the landowner who would “win” the
nomination!
And the goal posts were forever changing. The neighbouring areas were farcical as the diameter of the inclusion zone became smaller and smaller…until it was only the immediate fence lines and have a road in-between and you’re not a neighbour! That is how the 100% neighbour figure was achieved. There were four immediate or direct neighbours to Napandee, but that became 3 after this ruling was used. And those 3 neighbours agreed with the site. The neighbour with the road in-between did not! https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4211af77-bacf-4cb7-b03c-
98ba573b179b&subId=565156
The Conservation Parks nearby Napandee (Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and also the Gawler Ranges National Park) were not allowed a say as “neighbours” as they are State owned…. as determined by the guidelines set up Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, with advice from Geoscience Australia, independent market research company ORIMA Research the Kimba Consultative Committee… “A neighbour cannot be the Crown in any capacity, a district council or any
other State or Commonwealth government body”
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/nrwmf-neighbour-sentiment-surveyguidelines.
pdf
Senate should reject Nuclear Waste Bill and recommend new consultation involving all Barngarla people.
Carol Faulkner National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 53 . I am totally opposed to any legislative change that would allow a radioactive waste repository to be built on Barngarla traditional land in South Australia. The Barngarla people were not properly consulted. The consultation breached aboriginal regional consultation guidelines in not including all Barngarla people in the consultation process. The limits imposed on the consultation represents a denial of natural justice for the Barngarla people.
The consultation was manifestly flawed by not including all Barngarla people. The Barngarlapeople have a deep connection to their land. The consultation process was flawed in setting an arbitrary government-imposed distance from the proposed repository for the purpose of consultation.The Committee should reject the Bill and recommend a new round of consultation involving all Barngarla people.
In a corrupt and undemocratic process, the Napandee nuclear waste decision has ignored environmental safety dangers
Neville Reid National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 55 I can not believe the Government has not realized how Poorly positioned the Kimba on Eyre Peninsula site proposal is if there is a major leak which there is every chance of it happening with the transporting of old waste containers made of copper concrete and lead full of High Level waste even if the Government thinks naming it intermediate some how make it safer is naive at best and hardly well thought out .
And then storing it above ground near major industrial centers and transport route’s Road and Rail and Export ports is such an ill conceived plan by the LNP, that only understands the needs of commerce but they are putting the whole SA Economy at risk.
A Major leak will shut down these centers as it travels on prevailing winds whichare predominantly from the North West/ South West Whyalla 110km East, Pt Pirie 140km East, transport will be cut through the Eyre Highway then a strong cold front would push it north east to Pt Augusta 160 km North East north south east and west and south to the Eyre Peninsula.
As each cold front and trough passes over the state it will affect the Eyre Peninsula, the Mid North, the Far North, York Peninsula it will make it to Adelaide on a hard blowing North Westerly. Point what these areas contribute to the SA economy if they were affected this state’s would shut down. Get weather maps of prevailing winds and show them it well drift on the wind to Adelaide as well.
I am prepared to help with collating this information with the help of your office ifneed be.I have worked on the waters in this state since I was 14 years old I am now 55 Iknow how the winds prevail in this state.If this dump must go ahead the most logical place to put it is somewhere remoteas possible and stable in the desert some where it cannot affect ground water willnot be affected by Flooding and is safe from any attempt of attack by air fromTerrorists, How could they think in a shed above ground is safe even if they incase it concrete it is still a target.
I do not believe one small town that has been bribed by the Government can make this decision for the whole state this is one of the most corrupt and undemocratic processes I have seen in this country you as members for the people in the Australian Parliament have a duty to prevent such a foolish plan for some one off payments for toxic imported waste look further into their plans there Please protect us My children their Children this is a 50,000 to 100,000 year legacy it must go underground in an ISOLATED PLACE!!!!!If any one would like to discuss any points I have made in greater detail please contact me.
Senator Rex Patrick provides Federal Parliament with another option for nuclear waste storage
|
Nuclear dump debate resumes, Stock Journal , QUINTON MCCALLUM, 18 Jun 2020, HOPEFUL: No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA secretary Toni Scott said the group were glad Rex Patrick had provided Federal Parliament with another option for the proposed radioactive waste facility.
SA Senator Rex Patrick’s move to allow the Woomera Prohibited Area to be selected as a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility has been welcomed by No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA secretary Toni Scott, who said it was good he had provided Federal Parliament with another option. “We believe this facility should be in the right place, not the only place that is nominated by an individual,” she said. “The government have looked into the WPA before and it has a lot of suitable attributes, with waste already there, federal security, road and rail access, as well as being remote and not on productive agricultural land. “We believe it’s likely the most suitable place in SA if our state really wishes to pursue the path of hosting a radioactive waste facility.” With a senate inquiry into the Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility ongoing, the dump’s location is still subject to debate, despite the federal government declaring Napandee, 20 kilometres west of Kimba, as the site in February. SA senator Rex Patrick has announced he plans to move amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Amendment Bill to allow for the nomination of land within the Woomera Prohibited Area as the site, rather than Kimba. “The Federal Parliament will be given a choice on whether the site should be on prime agricultural land on the Eyre Peninsula, in a community bitterly divided about it being built there, or in the remote and highly-secure WPA where a significant amount of low and intermediate level radioactive waste has been stored for more than two decades,” he said. Mr Patrick described the previous site selection process as “highly-flawed” and one that “pitched local against local”. He also said appropriate location prerequisites of 65 per cent community support, and support from neighbouring landholders and traditional landowners were never achieved. Mr Patrick said Woomera was the obvious choice for the site, being remote, having “enormous tracts of land that are not used for weapons testing” and already storing a significant amount of radioactive waste……..https://www.stockjournal.com.au/story/6796460/nuclear-dump-debate-resumes/?cs=4894&fbclid=IwAR0Q0ch76TbATXYQo5hKuI7fMl12p9Sn9VXBgBu0Dm4A3aZQ5HcHJKVKlMs |
|
|
ARPANSA sits on the fence regarding Napandee choice for nuclear waste dump
ARPANSA to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 86 (Extracts)
(…….“ARPANSA does not have specific comments on the Amendment Bill per se, as the Bill does not relate to thehealth and safety criteria that are core to any review and assessment under the ARPANS Act and Regulations. It is also premature for ARPANSA to comment on the suitability of the specified site at Napandee, near Kimba in South Australia. The site, the design of the facility and the plans and arrangements for managing safety will be considered in ARPANSA’s review and assessment of an application for a licence to prepare a site for the facility”… )
…. the IWS was designed and constructed as a contingency solution. The bulk of the activity in the repatriated waste is immobilised in a glass matrix and contained in a dual-purpose (transport and storage) TN-81 cask; and the remainder technological waste is made up of less active material in cemented form.
Additional ILW remains in the UK from reprocessing of HIFAR spent fuel, and is planned to be returned to Australia in 2022. Should the shipment take place at that time, the NRWMF will (again) not be available, which in all likelihood leaves Lucas Heights as the preferred (by ANSTO) option, and possibly the only feasible destination. ARPANSA is aware that the waste in this second shipment is likely to be immobilised and contained in a TN-81 cask with considerably less activity content than the first cask. ARPANSA expects an application from ANSTO for approval to make a change with significant implications for safety under section 63 of the Regulations10, supported by a revised safety analysis report and an updated safety case well in advance of the time the second shipment is intended to be loaded on a vessel for shipment to Australia.
8 A chemical process by which fissile material (uranium and plutonium) is separated from fission products for which no further use is foreseen and therefore considered waste; this waste is repatriated.
9 The CEO’s Statement of Reasons is at
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/regulatory/ansto/SOR operationIWS.pdf
10 Section 63 states a licence holder must obtain approval from the CEO before changing anything described in the application for the licence or modifying the controlled apparatus, controlled material or controlled facility described in the licence
Production of molybdenum-99 in the ANSTO Nuclear Medicine Facility (ANM). ANSTO received a licence to operate the ANM Facility on 12 April 2018. In the facility, molybdenum-99 (Mo-99; a fission product) is extracted from uranium plates that have been irradiated in the OPAL reactor. The immediate decay product of Mo-99 is technetium-99m (Tc-99m), used in the majority of nuclear medicine procedures.
in Australia and overseas. ANSTO was authorised to commence routine production for the domestic and international nuclear medicine markets on 24 May 2019.
The liquid residue from the Mo-99 extraction and purification process is classified as ILW. The storage tanks at the ANM can accommodate six years of Mo-99 production. ANSTO’s intention is to immobilise the radioactive substances in the liquid waste in an inert ceramic matrix in a planned facility at Lucas Heights known as the SyMo Facility. ANSTO received ARPANSA’s authorisation to prepare a site and construct the facility in 201411. Construction is under way and an application for a licence to operate the facility is preliminarily expected by mid-2021.
Implications of ILW generation and storage at Lucas Heights for the NRWMF. The licence decisions regarding the IWS were predicated on the fact that the intended storage facility (the NRWMF) was not available; that no alternative interim solution other than the IWS was feasible; and that there was some urgency as Australia was under obligations to enable repatriation from France before the end of 2015.
Furthermore, there was at the time of the decision no consideration given to disposal of ILW in the national plans, only to storage. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 198712 prevents disposal of waste at the ANSTO premises at Lucas Heights; this is supported by ARPANSA.
The CEO of ARPANSA, therefore, imposed a condition on the licence to operate the IWS which requires ANSTO to provide plans for the final management of the waste held in the IWS: “the licence holder must submit to the CEO, no later than 30 June 2020 and in a form acceptable to the CEO, plans for the removal of waste stored in the facility.”
Likewise, the CEO included a condition in the licence to operate the ANM Facility that requires ANSTO to report by 30 June 2020 on, inter alia: plans for storage and disposal of the ILW, and contingency plans should one or several components of the ILW management system not eventuate or fail. This condition complements the condition issued with the IWS licence.
ARPANSA is aware that some stakeholders have interpreted ARPANSA’s decisions regarding the IWS as a requirement for relocation of the waste stored in the IWS, even suggesting that there is an urgent need for relocation. This is not correct. ARPANSA has not raised safety concerns regarding storage of waste at the IWS. ANSTO seems to share this view. ANSTO has indicated to ARPANSA that the mandatory recertification of the TN-81 casks every 10 years can be carried out at the IWS; and in response to a request for identification of contingency measures in the short to medium term, ANSTO Identified the following:
Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal optionRetention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of the NRWMF for storage
……..Regarding the ILW planned to be processed in the SyMo facility, ARPANSA anticipates that information on storage, including whether this would involve the NRWMF, is included in the forthcoming report developed by ANSTO, in compliance with the condition issued with the operating licence for the ANM facility.
Radioactive Waste at Woomera
CSIRO holds just under 10,000 drums of waste at the Woomera Prohibited Area. CSIRO currently estimates that less than 200 of these barrels would require management at a future NRWMF. These 200 barrels are estimated to be LLW, with no ILW currently detected. These drums are undergoing characterisation work to improve the inventory of waste held. ARPANSA has been monitoring CSIRO’s characterisation work since 2016. This includes environmental monitoring of radiation levels. CSIRO is developing a pilot program to test new methods to manage their waste, however, this will require ARPANSA’s approval prior to implementation.
Radioactive Waste at ARPANSA
ARPANSA has custody of approximately 68 m3of radioactive waste, being legacy waste from activities carried out by the ARL and its predecessors at a time these organisations were involved in production of radiopharmaceuticals. The waste will be kept in safe storage until such time it can be safely disposed of in a suitable facility.
About half of the waste is stored at ARPANSA’s premises in Melbourne, comprising 137 x 220 litre steel drums (i.e. approximately 30 m3). Most of these drums are filled with building material contaminated with radium. This material was recovered from the decontamination and subsequent demolition of the former Commonwealth Radiation Laboratory (one of ARL’s predecessors) in Melbourne. About 27 m3 could be considered LLW, with the remaining three m3 considered ILW due to its radium content.
The waste at the Defence site comprises 76 x 220 litre steel drums (i.e. approximately 15 m3) and 42 x 540 litre High Integrity Containers (i.e. approximately 23 m3). Much of this waste is a mixture of disused
medium-lived radioactive material (cobalt-60, cesium-137 and strontium-90) and long-lived laboratory waste from the operations of the ARL and the Materials Research Laboratory. There are also a number of drums and containers enclosing consumer materials recovered from the public, such as watches and compasses with radium dials and luminous paints containing radium. About 27 m3 could be considered LLW, whereas about 11 m3 could be considered ILW.
ARPANSA’s requirements for a licence application for the NRWMF
The requirements ARPANSA places on an applicant for a licence for a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility are in accordance with the ARPANS Act and Regulations, regulatory guides and ensures that international best practice is considered.
The licence requirements are extensive and can be found in the ARPANSA Regulatory Guide: Applying for a Licence for a Radioactive Waste Storage or Disposal Facility, REG-LA-SUP-240L v3.1 January 2019. In addition, any disposal facility for solid radioactive waste should meet the requirements set out in nationally agreed Radiation Protection Series (RPS) C-3 Code for Disposal Facilities for Solid Radioactive Waste 2018……
Kimba community unaware that Australia’s medicine does not need nuclear reactor
even ANSTO is using cyclotrons for generating imaging isotopes! And we actually have imaging/cyclotron partnerships set up in almost every major city in Australia….do not produce nuclear wastes.……..(expanding nuclear production) so that ANSTO can become one of the major players in the global export market. Where was this information in the glossy handouts given to Hawker and Kimba?
Name withheld. to Senate Committee on National Radioactive WasteManagement Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 39 Excerpt
“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”…according to the DIIS – “Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework April 2018”page 7
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-
04/australian_radioactive_waste_management_framework.pdf
And what about the requirement of the diagnostic isotope for Australians? It is afterall in our best interests to maintain this? This is an interesting question. In Senate Estimates Adi Paterson in 2017 stated…. ”As we submitted to the question on notice, currently approximately 28 per cent of molybdenum-99 produced by ANSTO is used domestically. Approximately 72 per cent of Mo-99 produced by ANSTO is exported, meeting a global need for access to life-saving nuclear medicines.” https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%
2Festimate%2F0493150c-8738-423c-a856- 9cb37d9e9073%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F0493150c-8738-423c-a856- 9cb37d9e9073%2F0000%22
He then goes on to say later at the Senate Estimates, “The research use of isotopes predominantly takes place in our Camperdown facility, where we produce flourine-18, carbon-15 and oxygen-11.
These are cyclotron-based isotopes which are used for different types of clinical development of new imaging techniques, for developing new drugs and understanding the biological function of human living systems. That is a research cost for the production of those isotopes. There are small
amounts of isotopes whose inclusion into clinical trials we support. We do that under a very careful set of rules that ensures that should those clinical trials be successful we will be able to sell into the market the isotopes we produce that have supported the clinical trials. We have very good protocols on that which are very clear. We also sometimes undertake trials with stable isotopes, which are sourced from different jurisdictions. These are not radioactive isotopes, but with our careful tracing capabilities we can make use of those isotopes as well.”
So, even ANSTO is using cyclotrons for generating imaging isotopes! And we actually have imaging/cyclotron partnerships set up in almost every major city in Australia. For example Adelaide has one set up in the SAHMRI building. The thing about cyclotrons is that the isotopes are generatedon site, and do not have a distance factor involved and do not produce nuclear reactor quantities of nuclear waste!
And just for those interested, there are now advancements being made in immunotherapy and nanotechnology which means that patients can now receive treatment in a way which does not disrupt normal cells as a consequence. Immunotherapy is genetically modifying your own cells and
then reinjecting them into you to fight the cancer cells specifically. And nanotechnology is a way of specifically directing chemotherapy drugs specifically to cancer cells. Scott Morrison has injected almost half a billion dollars into Victoria to aid in this cutting edge technology. And neither involve nuclear reactors. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/nanocrystals-could-change-the-waycancer-
is-treated/7079958
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-to-become-globallifesaving-
cancer-treatment-hub-under-budget-boost/newsstory/
7e6e0880ddac37973d1588c56c13a064
But getting back to the quantities of Molybenum-99 produced by ANSTO. Only 28% is used by Australians. This is for 550,000 doses produced per annum. And 72% is exported. Now, ANSTO has a brand new ANM building which they are intending to use to generate 10 MILLION DOSES PER
ANNUM, so that ANSTO can become one of the major players in the global export market. Where was this information in the glossy handouts given to Hawker and Kimba? With higher production of course comes higher levels of nuclear waste. It is one of the reasons why Canada exited the global
market scene because it was too expensive for their own taxpayers to continue to subsidize.
“Scheduled to be turned on just next year, once the ANM Project is fully operational, Australia will go from producing 550,000 doses of medicine a year to more than 10 million doses a year.“Our medicine production will increase exponentially. We’ll be producing enough medicine to meet more than a quarter of world demand,” said ANSTO CEO Dr Adi Paterson.” https://anstoprod.
cd.pnx.com.au/news/four-million-nuclear-medicine-doses-produced-and-going-strong
The ANM Project received operational licence by ARPANSA in late 2018.So for people like our MP’s to say that we all as Australians use the medical isotopes and therefore are responsible for the nuclear waste generated runs a bit hollow when we are actually propping up a major player in an export market!…..”
Kimba farmer, neighbouring Napandee, stands firm against nuclear waste dump on agricultural land
Confidential Submission. National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 37 Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment
I am a farmer residing and working on a cereal crop and sheep property near the nominated site Napandee, within the Kimba District Council region. I have a good understanding of the project and I remain strong in my opposition to the siting of a Radioactive Waste Management Facility on agricultural land. Please find following my response in relation to the site selected.
The site selection process declared that the location should not be on agricultural land. The Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste provided by ARPANSA clearly stated that the siting of a Radioactive Waste Management Facility should not be on agricultural land:
“Section 3.1.29 (a) the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use.”
The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Nomination of Land Guidelines, November 2016 also clearly stated in Attachment A, Section A8 under the Community Well Being Objective the criteria: “Is the site located within an area that is likely to be expanded upon for community or industrial use or for natural/agricultural use in the foreseeable future”. The weighting to this criteria when taking site selection into consideration according to the guidelines was stipulated as “High”
Both these documents show that the facility should not be located on agricultural land, and yet the nominated site at Kimba is specifically located on a farm. Directly next to farming country, and entirely neighboured by productive farms.
That this part of the ruling is not being enforced is beyond me. It would be apparent to most people that under best practice the production of food should be separated from the production or storage of nuclear waste. That it is not the case in other countries does not provide adequate reason as to why Australia should lower their standards with regards to this.
It is imperative that this part of the legislation is upheld and made mandatory, rather than being optional. The increased focus globally on the production and storage of food shows that society values a clean green source of food highly and the scrutiny around this is ever increasing.
Lack of Broad Community Support. The requirement for broad community support has never been defined which has created chaos and confusion throughout the process. Neither the definition of community, nor the term “broad” were explained prior to any research being undertaken, so any suggestion of support or otherwise has been clearly manipulated to ensure the required outcome is achieved. The constantly moving goalposts throughout this project has been an obvious undertaking, so that opposition is selectively removed. The division and angst created through the district is genuine and has had devastating effects. It has bred an attitude of bullying and intimidation, resulting
in a strong feeling of mistrust throughout the community.
Project of Best Practice. I note that a recent development project of significant size occurring on the Eyre Peninsula has secured an Aboriginal Land Use Agreement (ALUA) showing genuine commitment to working with the Barngala people in an inclusive manner. It provides evidence that the Barngala people are not opposed to development within their region, and for the Australian Government to not be able to achieve a similar agreement with the Barngala people should be a significant red flag process to trample over the opinions of both the Barngala people and the South Australian people. In
the attempts of best practice, ensuring that the South Australian law prohibiting the storage of nuclear material is upheld (not overridden) and that the unanimous opposition shown by the local indigenous community is acknowledged (not overridden) this site should have been removed as a contender. While overriding these things is possible, it clearly does not support the attitude of a “best practice” approach.
If the government was genuinely focussed on best practice, there would be a good explanation as to why the Leonora, WA site has been continually disregarded. I can only feel that there is a political agenda being pushed here, rather than a genuine effort to find a permanent solution.
Is Napandee another Maralinga?
Kim Mavromatis Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges, 15 June 20,
The similarities between Napandee and Maralinga are frightening.
Government -owned Woomera a better site than agricultural land, for nuclear waste dump
|
Senator pushes Woomera instead of Kimba for waste facility, Port Lincoln Times, Jarrad Delaney , 12 June 20, South Australian senator Rex Patrick will push for the Woomera Prohibited Area to be the location of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility instead of land near Kimba. The Centre Alliance senator has announced he will move amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Bill, which would allow the Minister for Defence to nominate a site in the prohibited area. This comes as the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill passed through the House of Representatives on Thursday.
The bill was tabled in February to formally name Napandee, near Kimba as the site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia Keith Pitt said it was an important milestone for the establishment of the facility.
However Mr Patrick said the bill was now before the Senate Economics Committee which is expected to report on July 31, although this could be extended. He said the act was based on volunteerism, as no site could be considered as a potential location for a radioactive waste management facility without the voluntary nomination of that site and agreement of persons with relevant rights and interests. “The Federal Parliament will be given a choice on whether the site should be on prime agricultural land on the Eyre Peninsula in a community that is bitterly divided about it being built there, or in the remote and highly secure Woomera Prohibited Area where a significant amount of low and intermediate level radioactive waste has been stored for more than two decades,” he said. Mr Patrick has pointed to a 2002 study which identified sites for a low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste repository at three sites. These are located within the prohibited area near Koolymilka, about 20km east of Woomera and about 50km northeast of Woomera. Mr Patrick said there were already two radioactive waste storage facilities inside the prohibited area, one CSIRO building (Hanger 5 at Evetts Field) and one defence bunker (Koolymilka). “My amendment will, instead of selecting Kimba as the site, allow the Minister for Defence to nominate a site in the Woomera Prohibited Area,” he said. “If the Minister can’t find a suitable site somewhere within that 12.7 million hectares of desert, then she’s not looking hard enough. “My proposed amendments will require the Minister to consult with affected parties, including First Nation’s people, before making her decision as to the preferred Woomera site.” Mr Patrick said he would not seek to amend the community funding being directed at Kimba by the bill. However Mr Pitt said suggestions of a site in the Woomera area could be used for the facility was not practical due to the increase in Defence Force training activities that would limit access to the area……https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/6788596/senator-pushes-woomera-for-waste-facility/ |
|
Town of Kimba depicted as failing, desperate to have nuclear waste dump for its survival
|
Waste dump gives bush town ‘secure future’ https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6789645/waste-dump-gives-bush-town-secure-future/?cs=9397 Finbar O’Mallon 11 June 20
A South Australian regional town desperately needs to become the site of a nuclear waste dump to stop the town’s decline, its federal MP says.
Government chief whip Rowan Ramsey’s dreams for his hometown on the Eyre Peninsula are one step closer to reality as the bill cementing the site passed the House of Representatives. “The project will be a game changer for Kimba. It will offer a secure future,” the Liberal MP told parliament on Thursday.
Native title holders have unsuccessfully gone to the courts to block the facility. Environmental advocates are concerned the bill has major holes, while Labor wanted the government to let a Senate committee review the proposal.
Government chief whip Rowan Ramsey’s dreams for his hometown on the Eyre Peninsula are one step closer to reality as the bill cementing the site passed the House of Representatives. “The project will be a game changer for Kimba. It will offer a secure future,” the Liberal MP told parliament on Thursday.
Native title holders have unsuccessfully gone to the courts to block the facility. Environmental advocates are concerned the bill has major holes, while Labor wanted the government to let a Senate committee review the proposal.
The local native title holders tried to have the proposal thrown out by the courts in March. Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation claimed some votes on whether to support the facility had been excluded. The ballot returned about 62 per cent support for the dump. While native title rights don’t exist at the Napandee property site, the bill allows the government to override nearby rights holders and not seek permission to build access roads on their land. Under the bill, the Kimba farm would become Australia’s number one nuclear waste dump, with the facility expected to store radioactive refuse for 100 years. A one-off $20 million community fund would help establish and maintain the site. Mr Ramsey said it would create 33 local permanent jobs. He painted a picture of a town in decline, with a shrinking population, no permanent doctor and even the loss of three of its four footy clubs. “Survival of our towns will require something new, something outside the square,” Mr Ramsey said. “I’m convinced 100 other communities around Australia will look at Kimba and ask, ‘Why didn’t we put our hand up?'” |
|
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 