Antinuclear

The whole process of selection for a nuclear waste site prior to, and including this Bill is flawed.  This obviously National project has been treated as not even a State project, but just as one of concern only to a small local community.  As if no-one else  in the State, nor in the whole country were concerned, this amendment doesn’t just specify only South Australia –  it specifies just one site, Napandee, near Kimba, as an above ground nuclear waste store.

The planned waste facility is illegal under South Australian law.

In confining discussion to the local community, the federal government  not only plans to impose the waste dump on South Australia, but fails to consult the South Australian community, and indeed the Australian community, on the long transport of radioactive wastes, and the ports involved in this transport., – probably  Whyalla in South Australia, and probably Port Kembla in New South Wales.  And even in consulting the local community, the government made sure to exclude the Bangarla Aboriginal people, who oppose the waste dump, that threatens their traditional rights in the area.

Unnecessary imposition of stranded wastes The Bill establishes indefinite “temporary” storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes, and Intermediate Level Wastes – i.e Stranded Wastes.   It means unnecessary double handling of these wastes. It could mean a security and safety risk for the area for at least 10,000 years, and certainly does mean this for at least 100 years.

ANSTO has the space, the capacity, and the experienced staff for Extended Storage at Lucas Heights.

Damage to the local society and to the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural reputation.   It is already apparent that this issue has divided and damaged the Kimba community.  ARPANSA guidelines regarding agricultural land are completely ignored.  Here I can best illustrate this by quoting a comment on Your Say. It’s in relation to the 2016  S.A. Nuclear Royal Commission, but it’s applicable here, too :

Kristen Jelk, Your Say Last month I was in China promoting an Australian product that comes from SA which is pitched as a clean, green, environment. The full potential of the market in China for South Australian produce is immeasurable. From a Chinese consumers point of view, the environmental conditions where the product is sourced or grown, is pivotal to the choices made when purchasing.

Chinese consumers will pay top prices for products that are considered SAFE – produced where the source is known to be an unpolluted clean environment. Perception is everything, and if a consumer becomes aware that SA had developed a nuclear waste dump, then that perception of a safe environment will be shattered. It will not matter that the dump is in a desert, nor will it matter if the dump is considerable distance from prime agricultural land, nor will it matter if experts assure of safety standards.The perception that would prevail is that SA will be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. If this is a discussion over commercial viability verses environmental risks long term, then I would argue that the real cost of the dump being located in SA is the loss in the perception that SA is a “clean, green” state. Questions would be raised over validity of the safety of the states produce.

Science does not dispel the pervading distrust of nuclear waste storage. Impassioned long standing anti-nuclear supporters cannot be placated and therefore ongoing discourse over the proposed dump will just shine a brighter light on the discussion world wide. The long term impact on the revenue of export sales will, without doubt be affected.

To risk the potential of long term growth in export sales due to a short term vision on job creation,( which is questionable ) is not good economics. SA has the potential to be a renewable energy ambassador with exciting projects already in development. We have to think globally, not locally if we are to sustain economic growth based on the real tangible asset that we have, which is our environment.  http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report

So  many things wrong with the National Radioactive Waste Management’s process:

Pretense that it’s essential for nuclear medicine.  The so-called Intermediate Level Wastes, i.e. spent fuel rod wastes from Lucas Heights emanate from the nuclear reactor’s operation, and not from the (mostly short-lived radioisotopes from nuclear medicine).  The Kimba communityn was conned into the belief that they are somehow responsible for the ongoing production of nuclear medicine.

Wobbly language –  Definition of  ” immediate neighbours”  changed from one phase to the next. The term “broad community” support being determined by one minister’s definition.

 Landowner able to nominate without first consulting with community.

Community supporting members closer to the site than the township of Kimba not given a vote .

I write as an Australian, who lives in another state, not South Australia.  I think that it is unnecessary to transport dangerous radioactive trash for very long distances across and around our continent,  – and the whole thing based on one farmer volunteering his land (for a substantial payment),  – this national decision to be made really by one government Minister, with no consultation with the national public.

The “dual facility” – above ground higher level stranded waste storage, combined with the low-level waste permanent dump, is a bad idea, fraught with problems. The problems are not just for the local community, but for their descendants for generations, and also for all the communities along the transport route, including n other States.