The Australian govt’s $31m nuclear bribe
Feds’ $31m nuclear sweetener, Whyalla News Louis Mayfield , 23 July 18 The federal government have injected more money into their Community Development Package, which will be available to the community selected as the future site for the nuclear waste management facility.
The value of the package has been tripled to $31 million, and is broken up into three separate programs:
- An $8 million Community Skills and Development Program, delivering grants over the four year licencing and construction period to maximise the community benefits from the construction and operation of the Facility.
- An increased $20 million National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Community Fund, to deliver long term infrastructure and development benefits to the community.
- Up to $3 million over three years from the Government’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) to strengthen Indigenous skills training and cultural heritage protection in the successful community.
Currently Kimba and Hawker remain in the running to be chosen as the location of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility – but their communities remain deeply divided on the nuclear issue.
-
Resources Minister Matt Canavan said the Community Development
Package would ensure the selected community has the skills in place to take advantage of the opportunities that will come with the facility.The waste management facility itself is expected to create at least 45 jobs…….
Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey said he had spent considerable time communicating with Minister Canavan regarding the structure and relevance of the financial package to Kimba and/or Hawker.……..Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick described the government’s announcement as ‘completely inappropriate and misguided’.
“As evidenced in recent visits to Kimba and Hawker by the Senate Economics Reference Committee, the communities are deeply divided over the issue,” he said.
“Throwing taxpayer money at them will just rub salt into already weeping wounds.”
Senator Patrick described the selection process for the nuclear waste facility as a ‘sham’.
“The Minister has stated that the site selection will only occur if there is ‘broad community support’, but refuses to state what ‘broad community support’ actually means,” he said.
“That’s like running a race and telling the participant that they don’t need to know where the finish line is and that officials will just tell everyone who has won the race.”https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/5543866/feds-31m-nuclear-sweetener/
Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey said he had spent considerable time communicating with Minister Canavan regarding the structure and relevance of the financial package to Kimba and/or Hawker.
South Australians do not want nuclear waste dump
South Australia rejects Liberal Government’s nuke waste dump
Australian Greens nuclear spokesperson Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has slammed the Liberal Government’s bribe to the Hawker and Kimba communities as they tries to find a home for their nuclear waste dump. Polling commissioned by the Greens shows that the majority of South Australians want to stop the nuclear waste dump from being built in their state.
“Resources Minister Matt Canavan should be ashamed of himself for trying to bribe the community in return for dumping radioactive waste on them. Putting money on the table, just weeks before the Kimba and Hawker communities vote on whether they want a nuclear waste dump in their front yard smacks of desperation and bribery,” Senator Hanson-Young said.
“Polling shows the majority of South Australians want our state to put a stop to this project. Nuclear waste is not welcome in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges, and the rest of the state is behind these two communities in their fight against this proposal.
“The tourism industry in the Flinders Ranges and South Australia’s export gain market is all at risk if this dump goes ahead, along with the destruction of sacred aboriginal land and special women’s sites.
“A lack of community consultation and transparency cannot be forgotten just because the Minister pulls out his chequebook.
“While the community is being offered at one off $31m bribe, the Government is keeping secret how much money the individual owners of the chosen site, including former Liberal Senator Grant Chapman will personally pocket. This is poor form, the neighbours deserve to know how much profit Mr Chapman and others will get from selling out the rest of the community.
“Why won’t the Government reveal how much their Liberal mate will pocket from taxpayers ahead of the community ballot next month?
On Saturday it was revealed the Lucas Heights nuclear waste facility was rife with safety hazards, and today, Matt Canavan is tripling the offer to pay a community off so he can dump nuclear waste out of sight, out of mind. This is despicable, contemptuous behaviour from a Minister desperate to find tick something off his to-do list.”
Senator Hanson-Young visited the Flinders Ranges and the community of Hawker on Friday. She spent time talking with local business owners and tourism operations and was taken on a site visit by the local aboriginal leaders.
“The Flinders Ranges community has been put through extreme stress through this long, divisive process. The Flinders Ranges is one of the jewels in South Australia’s tourism crown – that would be lost if it is turned into a nuclear waste dump,” Senator Hanson-Young said.
“The Flinders Ranges is a pristine, untouched wilderness. We should be investing in tourism which would benefit our whole state, not dumping radioactive waste in the middle of it.
“It is horrifying that the Federal Government is planning to build a nuclear waste dump on a sacred women’s site. The brave Adnyamathanha women fighting to protect this site are standing up for preserving thousands of years of cultural significance, and they must be listened to.
“The Greens stand with those fighting this nuclear waste dump plan and commend their bravery for standing up to the Government to stop it.”
Sham of ‘Broad Community Support’ for Kimba or Hawker for nuclear waste dump
YOU WANT A RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY, YOU JUST DIDN’T KNOW IT UNTIL NOW
The ‘Broad Community Support’ Sham Continues
Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick has described Minister Canavan’s announcement to triple the incentive package for the communities of Kimba or Hawker, if they vote in support of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in their local community, as completely inappropriate and misguided.
“The Minister just doesn’t get it,” said Rex. “As evidenced in recent visits to Kimba and Hawker by the Senate Economics Reference Committee, the communities are deeply divided over the issue. Throwing taxpayer money at them will just rub salt into already weeping wounds.”
“The process is becoming even more of a sham. Firstly, the Minister has stated that the site selection will only occur if there is ‘broad community support’, but refuses to state what ‘broad community support’ actually means. That’s like running a race and telling the participant that they don’t need to know where the finish line is and that officials will just tell everyone who has won the race.
“Next, the Minister stated to the media that ‘The Federal Government wants the entire process done and dusted by the end of the year,’ confirming that the federal election is setting the time frame and that Minister Canavan has already made up his mind.
“And now we see this,” said Rex. “Money being thrown at the problem with an ill-informed view that dollars can heal the division in the community.”
Centre Alliance understands the need for Australia to deal with its own low and intermediate nuclear waste. But forcing a Radioactive Waste Management Facility on an unwilling and divided community is not the solution.
“The Minister needs to bring the community along with him,” said Rex.
As a minimum threshold of support, the Minister must have:
· 65% vote in favour of the facility, and;
· Indigenous approval, and;
· Agreement from all of the immediate neighbours to the planned facilities
“The Minister should declare this minimum threshold before the vote. He should declare it right now.
“The Minister also needs to publish all technical reports and cost benefit analyses before the vote.”
According to Senator Canavan, Kimba and Hawker locals asked for a bigger bribe, to become a nuclear sacrifice zone
Multimillion-dollar incentive put on the table for town that takes on nuclear waste facility ABC RADIO ADELAIDE, 23 JULY 18 As debate rages over where Australia’s first permanent nuclear waste dump should be placed, the Federal Government has announced it will offer a $31 million package to the community which takes it on.
Two sites near Kimba and one near Hawker have been shortlisted to permanently hold low-level nuclear waste and temporarily hold intermediate-level waste.
However some concerned community members have likened the funding increase to “dangling a carrot” in front of the communities.
The new offer would include a $20 million community development package, $8 million to provide training and up to $3 million over three years for Indigenous skills training and culture heritage protection.
The Government had previously promised $10 million………
Funding likened to ‘dangling a carrot’
Aboriginal elder Regina McKenzie is a custodian of the Barndioota site — west of Hawker — and is a traditional owner of the land.
She said the proposal lacked cultural respect and believed the Government was trying to bribe the communities.
“It’s not a good spot, it’s very seismically active,” she told ABC Radio Adelaide.
“The culture issues are bad as well, they wouldn’t put a waste dump on the Vatican… the respect for Aboriginal beliefs and customs should come into it. “They’re dangling a carrot in front of the Hawker community, in front of the Kimba community.”
Senator Canavan said that after consultations with both the Kimba and Hawker communities, locals thought more incentive would be needed to get long-term support.
He said the hope would be that the $8 million would be a package of $2 million over four years as the facility was built.
Senator Canavan said the community vote in Hawker and Kimba on August 20 would be important in the Government’s decision, but it wouldn’t be the deciding figure.
“Can I just stress, this has been a grassroots process, it will not proceed without that community’s support,” he said.
“The views that matter now are not the Government’s or mine, it’s the views of the people on the ground there in Kimba and Hawker.
“Obviously we’d love to have support from both communities.” http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-23/government-increases-incentive-for-sa-nuclear-waste-facility/10024884?pfmredir=sm
Radioactive Waste Facility: Communities can’t be bought
23 July 18 This morning federal resources Minister Matt Canavan revealed his increasing desperation to find a site for Australia’s radioactive waste before the next election by announcing an increase in the incentive package for the chosen community from $10 million to $31 million.
The Minister has repeatedly stated that “broad community support” is needed in order to select a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).. However the Minister continues to refuse to detail what this means. Talking on ABC North and West radio with Paul Culliver today, Minister Canavan continued to avoid answering how this support would be measured.
Hawker GP and member of the Flinders Local Action Group Susi Andersson said “for many in the community it has never been about money. Tourists are stopping people in the street to say they won’t come back if Hawker hosts a dump. A 2% drop in tourism numbers would lose the region $8.5 million every year. A one off federal payment is not worthwhile”.
Peter Woolford, a farmer from Kimba and chair of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA said “Minister Canavan’s announcement this morning of a new community benefits package has no influence on our opposition to the proposed Kimba sites. We have always maintained that the NRWMF does not belong on agricultural land, and no amount of money changes that. Our federal government has a responsibility to find the right site, not just any site for this facility, and our support for siting it in Kimba cannot be bought”.
Nuclear Waste Campaigner at Conservation SA Mara Bonacci said “since Minister Canavan announced a community ballot on the federal waste plan the promises of jobs and dollars have tripled. We are concerned that much of this increase in funding would benefit the project rather than the community. $20 million has been allocated for infrastructure that communities should have regardless of whether they accept the NRWMF or not.”
Given that today’s announcement about tripling the economic incentive to the community comes just weeks before the community ballot to gauge community sentiment and after an increase in the purported employment benefits of the facility from 15 to 45 with no change to the actual proposal, it is clear that Minister Canavan’s desperation to find a site is driven by politics, not responsible radioactive waste management.
For comment: Kimba: Peter Woolford 0447 001 493 Conservation SA: Mara Bonacci 0422 229 970
Australian government ‘s $31 million bribe to Kimba or Hawker, South Australia to host nuclear waste dump
$31 million in incentives offered to SA community that hosts national radioactive waste repository Adelaide Now, 23 July 18 THE Federal Government wants to lock in support for a radioactive waste facility in rural South Australia by tripling the incentive package for the community that hosts the repository to $31 million.
As two SA communities prepare to vote on August 20 whether to support the radioactive waste management site going ahead, Resources Minister Matt Canavan will on Monday announce an increased community development package.
Two sites near Kimba and one at Barndioota, near Hawker, have been shortlisted for the facility to host low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste.
The Government had promised to spend in excess of $10 million on job-boosting projects in the district where the facility is built.
Senator Canavan said the Government was now willing to provide:
$20 MILLION to deliver long-term infrastructure projects.
$8 MILLION to train locals and businesses to benefit from the construction and operation of the facility.
UP TO $3 million over three years for indigenous skills training and cultural heritage protection.
“As well as a brand new industry with around 45 new jobs, this enhanced package will ensure the successful community is ready and able to take advantage of the benefits of hosting this facility both during construction and the lifetime of its operation,” he said.
Senator Canavan said the new package had been developed after consultation with the local communities on how best to support people and industries near the waste management dump.
Funds could be used to support agriculture, tourism or other industries the community wanted to prioritise.
The proposal for the radioactive waste dump has divided neighbours and families in the short-listed districts.
The Government wants to choose a preferred site before the end of the year.
The two shortlisted communities have already been rewarded with Government development grants worth a combined $4 million.
Senator Canavan said the host town would become a key part of the Australian “science ecosystem” providing new career pathways for young people.
He said it would have similar employment impact to defence centres elsewhere.
“What shipbuilding or aircraft bases do for some communities … the national radioactive waste management facility will do for its host town,” he said.
PUBLIC HEARING 2 August on National Radioactive Waste Dump Selection , Canberra
ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia PUBLIC HEARING Thursday 2 August 2018 Committee Room 2S1 Parliament House, Canberra Time Witness The program for this hearing has not yet been released https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Public_Hearings
Submissions to Senate: more people oppose a nuclear waste dump in Kimba or Hawker.
The 58 submissions to the Senate, opposing the plan for the process for selecting a nuclear waste dump site come from a variety of organisations and individuals, and include residents of Eyre Peninsula.
These are some points that came up as they answered the Term of Reference, especially (f) – Any related matters. (These submissions also generally gave full answers to the other 5 more narrow Terms of Reference)
Comprehensive criticism of the entire process. (ENUFF Submission no. 109) No justification for dump (Wakelin B No. 23) Why the assumption it has to be South Australia.? (Wauchope N. No. 21) Flawed process (Hughes No. 57) (Mitchell No. 25) Opposed to process, not necessarily to dump (Lienert L No. 50) End the process (Noonan, D No 31) Longterm negative effects (Sisters of St Joseph No. 68 )
Nuclear wastes. Wants re-examination of waste plans (CCSA 55 ) Intermediate wastes (Mitchell 25, Scott C 14 ) Prelude to commercial waste import? (Name Withheld 90 ) Dangers Waste types ( Noonan, D31 Wauchope N 21 ) Lucas Heights best site (Taylor A 82 ) stranded wastes (Tulloch S 32)
Issues of dishonesty – lack of trust (Ashton 73) Hypocrisy of DIIS (Bannon 85 Fergusson 106) Biased committees (Scott T 44) Biased and misleading information given (Thomas 36 Tiller J 9 Tulloch B 87) Dishonest process (Tulloch R 62 ) Conflicts of interest (Cushway 6 Fels P 84 Fergusson 106 )
Illegality of setting up nuclear dump – (Gaweda 54 Madigan 26 Scott T 44 Stokes B Tulloch S 32 Walker 20 )
Aboriginal issues well beyond the Term of Reference about this. Strongly Aboriginal In depth on Aboriginal interaction (ATLA No 42 MKenzie K 78 McKenzie R 107) History of Aboriginal interaction (Bangarla 56 )History. (Madigan 26 MKenzie K 78)
Floods groundwater (Fels K 63 Fels P 84 Thomas 36 )
Why some people want a nuclear waste dump in Kimba or Hawker, South Australia
As I’ve been going through 98 submissions to The Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia , I’ve been able to learn some of the reasons why people support the idea of the nuclear waste dump . Almost every one of the the 40 supporting submissions come from local residents, several explaining that they have been very thoroughly informed by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, including tours of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. 4 submissions spent time praising DIIS and ANSTO (Ashworth, P No. 52 , and Baldock B No 72 , Baldock H No 64 and ANSTO itself, No 58)
These are some points that came up as they answered the Term of Reference, especially (f) – Any related matters.
Survival of the town as reason to have the dump: (submissions from Carpenter I No 3, Carpenter D No 1, Clements No 35 , Joyce, J, McInnis, J, Name Withheld, no 91, Stewart)
Opposition to misleading information from anti-nuclear activists (Joyce, J No 33, Koch, D No 75, McInnis, J No 4)
Need for dump for nuclear medicine (DIIS No 40, SA ARPS No 41)
Dump will have no negative impact (Lienert, M and M No 53, Schmidt, D No 13)
Dump good for local business (Kemp No 88, SACOME No 69)
Dump important for necessary expansion of Lucas Heights, (Heard,B No 15)
Dump as beneficial to Australia,( Koch, K No 28)
Very opposed to outsiders having a say (Hennessy, J No 7)
Need detail on important financial benefits (Kimba District Council No 19)
Needless to say, these pro nuclear submissions were almost unanimously in favour of the 5 Terms of reference – i.e that the financial compensation was OK, the project has “broad community support”. indigenous people satisfactorily consulted, Community Benefit Program is fine, and community support should not be sought beyond the local area.
The few pro nuclear submissions that did not address those TORs are from – ANSTO No 58, ORIMA No 108, Orman, M No 77, RDA Far North No 41, SACOME No 69)
Nuclear high priest Dr Adi Paterson admits the REAL purpose of proposed South Australian nuclear waste dump
Tim Bickmore No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia. 16 July 18 “When I was speaking to Adi Paterson, who’s the CEO of ANSTO, I said, ‘I don’t really favour the intermediate-level waste coming here, because I worry about it becoming stranded waste if the political landscape changes.’
He said: ‘Why wouldn’t you want the intermediate-level waste? Without it, there’s no real economic benefit for the community.‘ So the CEO of ANSTO is telling me that, without the intermediate-level waste—and this will in the long run just be a low-level waste facility—there’s no economic benefit. “https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Cameron Scott – Kimba Consultative Committee rigged to justify “broad community support” for nuclear waste dump
Cameron Scott, Supplementary submission for the senate inquiry into the national radioactive waste facility siting process, Senate Standing Committees on Economics
Since my previous submission I have been trying to gain more information from CSIRO about the Waste and Storage Facility at Woomera. I have also asked them for their expert opinion on aspects of the facility using their international experience in Nuclear Facilities and processes. I have had direct contact with a Senior Principle Research Scientist at CSIRO who had previously presented to us when our Agricultural group went on a tour to ANSTO. During this Ag trip he told me that he would try and get me a tour of Woomera, since returning despite his efforts he was unable to gain access to the Woomera facility. He had been very forthcoming with his expert opinion and information until I was using the information he had giving me to question certain issues with the Department.
I have now been advised that if I want further information from CSIRO I will need to go directly to the Department of Industry Innovation and Science or via the Kimba Consultative Committee. It seems that the only expert opinions we are allowed to have are those who read off the Department script.
I would like to take this opportunity to recall a conversation I had with Bruce Wilson on this same Ag trip where he assured us that the Kimba Consultative Committee would be made up of people with equal numbers for and against the facility. After my recent conversations with CSIRO I am concerned that the international models which this KCC is based on, in countries such as Belgium the community committee were used in reporting community consent ie unanimous community support actually meant unanimous consultative committee support. I have always thought the Government had rigged this committee for a reason and I am very worried it will be used in reporting to justify broad community support.
Promoting Nuclear Waste Dump – the sole purpose of Hawker Community Development Board
Tim Bickmore No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia So, it would seem that apart from dump promotions the HCDB has no other 
purpose.
As the HCDB is now neutral in concern to the NRWMF until the formal vote is counted this page will now be going into recess until this has occurred. Future meeting dates will be advertised on ‘Get About’ Hawker and in the town Crier. See you all again in September
SCORING SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE COMMITTEE RE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE SELECTION
SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE COMMITTEE RE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE SELECTION
How the submissions scored on the first 6 Terms of Reference
| NAME and number on the Senate website
|
Financial compensation for land was OK | Satisfied about broad community support | Satisfied about indigenous support | Satisfied about community benefit program | Community support should mean local only | Added related matters |
| ANTI NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS FIRST | ||||||
| (ATLA).(No 42) | No | No | No | No | strongly | |
| Ashton 73 | No | No | No | No | No | Lack of trust |
| ACF 70
|
yes | No | No | No | No | Wants wider Inquiry |
| ANFA 71 | No | No | No | No | No | Wants waste Inquiry |
| AHRC 60 | No | No | No | No | No | Predicts legal action |
| Bannon 85 | No | No | No | No | No | Hypocrisy of DIIS |
| Bangarla 56 | No | No | No | No | No | History of Aboriginal interaction |
| Bohr K 59 | No | No | No | No | No | |
|
Cameron S 18 |
No | No | No | No | No | |
| Cant B 49 | No | No | No | No | No | |
| CCSA 55 | No | No | No | No | No | Wants re-examination of waste plans |
| Cushway 6 | No | No | No | No | No | Conflicts of interest |
|
Day 67 |
No | No | No | No | No | |
| ENUFF 109 | No | No | No | No | No | Comprehensive criticism |
| EDF 43 | No | No | No | No | ||
| Fels D 76 | No | Seismic danger | ||||
| Fels K 63 | No | Floods groundwater | ||||
| Fels P 84 | No | Floods. conflict of interest | ||||
| Fergusson 106 | No | No | Hypocrisy. Conflict of interest | |||
| FLAG 73 | No | No | No | No | No | |
| FOE 86 | No | No | No | No | No | Want independent inquiry re wastes |
| Gaweda 54 | No | No | No | No | No | illegality |
| Glies 51 | No | No | No | No | No | Need judicial inquiry |
| Hannan 61 | No | Mental health | ||||
| Hughes 57 | No | No | No | No | No | Flawed process |
| Hunt 80 | No | No | No | agriculture | ||
| IPAN 30 | No | No | ||||
| Keri 8 | No | No | Wants nuclear free | |||
| Lienert L 50 | NO | No | No | No | Opposed to process, not necessarily to dump | |
| Madigan 26 | No | No | No | No | No | History. illegality |
| Major 16 | No | No | No | No | No | Not on farming land |
| MKenzie K 78 | No | Aboriginal interaction history | ||||
| McKenzie R 107 | No | In depth on Aboriginal interaction | ||||
| MAPW 74 | No | Nuclear medicine | ||||
| Mitchell 25 | No | Flawed process Intermediate wastes | ||||
| Name Withheld 90 | No | No | No | No | No | Prelude to commercial waste import? |
| Name withheld 92 | No | No | Tourism agriculture | |||
| Niepraschk 29 | No | No | No | No | Lucas Heights best option | |
| No Dump Allianc 45 | No | No | No | No | No | Dangers. Tourism |
| No Dump F Ranges | No | No | No | No | No | |
| No nuclear waste on agricultural land 46 | No | agriculture | ||||
| Noonan 31 | No | No | No | No | Wastes. Dangers .End the process now | |
| Scott C 14 | No | No | No | Wastes. Agriculture | ||
| Scott T 44 | No | No | No | Illegality. Biased committees | ||
| Srs St Joseph 68 | No | No | No | No | No | Longterm effects |
| Stokes B | No | No | No | No | No | illegality |
| Taylor A 82 | No | No | No | No | No | Wastes. Lucas Heights best site |
| Thomas 36 | No | No | No | No | Seismic flooding. Biased info | |
| Tiller J 9 | No | No | No | No | No | Biased committees |
| Tulloch B 87 | No | No | No | No | Misleading info | |
| Tulloch R 62 | No | No | No | Dishonest process | ||
| Tulloch S 32 | No | No | No | No | Illegality. stranded wastes. | |
| Wakelin B 23 | No | No | No | No justification for dump | ||
| Wakelin C 22 | No | No | No | No | agriculture | |
| Walker 20 | No | No | No | No | Tourism. illegality | |
| Wauchope | No | No | No | No | No | Why assumed S.A.? Waste types |
| Wetherby 12 | No | No | ||||
| Whittenbury 81 | No | No | No | No | No | |
| PRO NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS | ||||||
| Ashworth 52 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Sits on fenc e. praises DIIS |
| ANSTO 58 | Just praises itself | |||||
| Baldock A 38 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Praises science. Criticises anti-nuclear |
| Baldock B 72 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Praises ANSTO etc |
| Baldock H 64 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Baldock J 39 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Barford 83 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Beinke 17 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Carpenter D 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Longterm survival of town. Attacks nuclear critics |
| Carpenter 3 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s survival .Heritage listing |
| Clements 35 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future. Attacks anti nuclear people |
| Cliff 65 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| DIIS 40 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Nuclear medicine. DIIS activities |
| Harris 24 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Hawker Community Devt Board 47 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Haywood 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Heard 15 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Wants expansion of Lucas Heights |
| Hennessy 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Very opposed to outsiders having asay |
| Johnson 27 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Joyce 33 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensures town’s future. Criticises anti nuclear people |
| Kemp 88 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dump good for business |
| Kimba District Council 19 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Most interested in financial benefits |
| Koch D 75 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Criticises anti-nuclear people |
| Koch K 28 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dump benefit to Australia |
| Lienert M and M 53 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dump no negative impact |
| McInnis 4 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future. Criticises anti nuclear people |
| Milton 34 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Morgan 37 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Wastes OK |
| Name Witheld 11 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Name Withheld 89 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future |
| Name Withheld 91 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future |
| Orima 108 | All about ORIMA | |||||
| Orman 77 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future. No negative impact |
| RDA Far North 41 | Yes | Unsure about community support | ||||
| Schmidt 13 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No negative impact |
| SA ARPS 66 | All about nuclear medicine. Seems Unaware of intermediate level wastes | |||||
| SACOME 69 | Yes | Economic benefit to town | ||||
| Stewart 10 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Taylor S 5 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Ensure town’s future |
| Wells 48 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Australia urgently needs and independent assessment of options regarding its nuclear waste management
Matt Canavan’s ‘urgent’ new nuclear waste dump: The devil is in the detail https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australias-nuclear-waste-the-devil-is-in-the-detail,11675
Rather than a hasty new nuclear waste dump, what is urgently needed is an independent and open assessment of the full range of options for managing Australia’s radioactive waste, writes Dave Sweeney.
IT IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM that has taken 60 years to make and will last 10,000 years, but according to Canberra, it will be sorted by Christmas.
Radioactive waste management has been a challenge for successive Federal governments, with communities across South Australia and the Northern Territory consistently rejecting plans for the dumping and storage of wastes in their region. Now the pressure is right back on regional South Australia, with a concerted Federal push to locate a site either near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, or Hawker in the iconic Flinders Ranges.
The plan sounds straightforward: take radioactive waste from around Australia to a central site, where low-level material would be disposed of and higher-level wastes stored, pending a final management decision.
But, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Or in this case, in the profound lack of detail.
Despite two years of promotional newsletters, shopfronts and drop-in centres, and publicly funded visits from pro-nuclear advocates, there remains a disturbing lack of clarity and deep concerns over the Turnbull Government’s plan and process.
Radioactive waste is a complex policy area. The stuff lasts a long time, poses a real management challenge and, understandably, raises community concerns. Responsible decisions are best based on the “T” factor: talk, time, testing and trust. Sadly, the current Federal push has failed to learn from this history and is replicating a failed formula.
Despite plenty of talk about the benefits of the plan, the Turnbull Government has actively and consistently refused to debate critics in an open forum, key project assumptions have never been independently verified or tested, and many community members, Aboriginal landowners and wider stakeholders do not trust the process. Further, time is running out with Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan recently announcing a siting decision will be made this year.
Soon, registered voters in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba District Council districts will receive a ballot in the mail asking if they support a national radioactive waste facility in their region. The Turnbull Government has been spending big and promising large, with job and community benefit estimates and assurances soaring since the ballot was announced.
The Government is working to localise this issue and present it as an economic opportunity for a small region, but this plan is a national issue with profound and lasting implications.
Around 95 per cent of the material planned to be moved to any new facility is currently managed at two secured Federal sites. Low-level waste that needs to be isolated for 300 years is currently at the Woomera defence lands in South Australia’s north. The more problematic intermediate level waste, that needs isolation for 10,000 years, is stored where it was made at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney
Both sites have the physical, technical and regulatory capacity to continue to store these wastes for many years, and the current sense of Federal urgency and pressure is being driven by politics and ANSTO’s corporate preferences, rather than by evidence or need.
In any discussion around radioactive waste management, a lot of airspace is devoted to the question of nuclear medicine. No one disputes either the importance or the need for secure access to nuclear medicine. The planned national radioactive waste facility is not expected to receive nuclear medicine waste from any hospital or medical clinic in Australia.
These wastes would continue to be managed at these multiple sites on the current “store and decay” basis. A national radioactive waste facility would take nuclear reactor waste from the process that generated the nuclear medicine, but not nuclear medical waste. Importantly, this means that a national waste facility is not required to ensure access to nuclear medicine.
Currently, Australia’s most serious radioactive waste is stored above ground at ANSTO. This makes sense, as the waste is already on site and Lucas Heights also has clear tenure, high levels of security and policing, the most advanced radioactive monitoring and emergency response capacity in the country, and it is the workplace of around 1,200 people.
The Federal Government plan is to move this material from this facility to one in regional South Australia with far less capacity and institutional assets.
There is no radiological protection rationale to move this material from extended above ground storage in Sydney to extended above ground storage with far fewer checks and balances in regional Sout Australia. The current Federal approach to the intermediate level waste is not consistent with international best practice and is merely kicking the can further down a less travelled road.
A Senate Inquiry is currently taking place into siting issues. This important and welcome initiative is no substitute for what is urgently needed — an independent and open assessment of the full range of options for managing Australia’s radioactive waste.
The current Federal plan is a retreat from responsibility, which is playing short-term politics with a long-term hazard. It is extraordinary that, after over six decades of making waste and two decades of sustained and successful community resistance to Federal siting plans, Australia has never had an objective review of management practises and options. We need this now.
Dave Sweeney works on nuclear issues with the Australian Conservation Foundation and was a member of the Federal advisory panel on radioactive waste. You can follow him on Twitter @nukedavesweeney.
More spent nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights reactor to go to France, returned later
France signs agreement with Australia on research reactor fuel reprocessing, JULY 9, 2018 Mycle Schneider
On 6 July 2018, the French Official Journal published a decree making formal a 23 November 2017 inter-governmental agreement for AREVA NC (now Orano) to reprocess at La Hague spent fuel from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) research reactor OPAL.
The reprocessing of OPAL spent fuel at the La Hague facility is foreseen to occur between January 2019 and 31 December 2034. The ownership of the extracted plutonium and uranium will be transferred to Orano. The plutonium is to be used in a civil reactor.
The reprocessing wastes are to be shipped back to Australia until 31 December 2035, unless the contract is extended for additional quantities of fuel. In that case, the very last date for waste return is 31 December 2040.
The quantity of spent fuel covered under the agreement and contract is “up to 3.6 tons.” Under a previous agreement, 0.236 tons of OPAL spent fuel have been reprocessed at La Hague by the end of 2014.
As of the end of 2017, of the 9,970 tons of spent fuel stored in the La Hague spent fuel pools, 99.6 percent was domestic power reactor fuel belonging to Électricité de France (EDF). The La Hague facilities have a licensed reprocessing capacity of 1,700 tons per year of spent fuel.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 