Earthquake sends tremor through Kimba’s proposed Nuclear Waste Dump Site
Today’s Cleve 3.1M Earthquake sends tremor through Kimba’s proposed Nuclear Waste Dump Site
Are there ANY members now on the Kimba radioactive dump community consultative committee?
At 7th February 2019, all positions on the Kimba radioactive dump community consultative committee are vacant.- Allan Suter (Convener)
- Dean Johnson (Deputy Convener)
- Symon Allen.
- Heather Baldock.
- Jeffrey Frank Baldock.
- Pat Beinke.
- Randall Cliff.
- Kellie Hunt.
Mental health issues in Kimba community divided by nuclear waste dump proposal
Nuclear waste site selection process triggers mental health concerns, business boycotts and division, FOI documents reveal https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/foi-documents-show-kimba-divided-over-nuclear-waste-site/10807462 ABC North and West By Gary-Jon Lysaght (FOI documents are attached on the original) Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal the Federal Government has been aware of potential mental health issues, from as early as 2017, caused by the search for a site to store the nation’s nuclear waste.The Federal Government is currently considering two sites at Kimba and one near Hawker for a facility that would permanently store low-level waste and temporarily store medium-level waste.
Kimba, a small town on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, has been divided on whether to support or oppose the facility. Some residents believe the facility could help bring much-needed business to the rural town, while others suggest it could damage the region’s agricultural reputation.
“Many of the opposed group have raised the issue of mental health in submissions and direct discussions,” the FOI documents, written in 2017, said.
They believe mental health issues are arising in Kimba due to the stress of being in this process.
“These issues have been raised with the Kimba doctor and counsellor.”
Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick obtained the Freedom of Information documents and hoped the concerns were a catalyst for change.
“In my view, that creates a very strong obligation for the Government to act,” he said.
“They’ve clearly known about this issue since 2017 and it is now time to ask the minister exactly what he is doing in relation to that.”
Industry, Innovation and Science Minister, Matt Canavan, is responsible for determining which site should be chosen for the facility.
“If anyone in Kimba advises they have concerns about their health, they can be referred to the Kimba Mental Health and Wellbeing Group,” a department spokesman said. “Following a Community Benefit Program application, that group received funding of $30,000 for Healthy Mind Healthy Community workshops to improve resilience, mental health and wellbeing.”
Site selection process ongoing
The site selection process has been put on hold since traditional owners took the District Council of Kimba to court over a proposed community ballot on support for the facility.
The Barngarla Native Title Determination Aboriginal Corporation took the matter to the Federal Court because not all native title holders were included in the ballot.
A decision will be made on the court action this year, with Native Title holders claiming the ballot would breach the Racial Discrimination Act.
owever, an early technical assessment gave the Napandee property a score of 90, while Lyndhurst received 82.
“Both sites were ranked as ‘highly suitable’ by the initial desktop assessment,” the FOI documents said.
“This assessment involved a multi-criteria site assessment where the sites were evaluated against criteria of health, safety, security, environment protection, equity, economic viability, and stable environment.
“On balance, it is recommended that if there is a decision to proceed, both sites should be taken forward.
“If only one site is taken forward, it is recommended to be Napandee.”
This is despite a consultation in 2016, mentioned in the documents, found “that the Lyndhurst site was preferred by the community”.
“Given the perception it is ‘further out of town’ and on less productive land, but there is no strong basis for this assessment.”
Community divided
The documents also revealed that the Federal Government was aware of the “strong division” within Kimba that the site selection process was causing.
“It is unlikely community views will change significantly in the short to medium term, with a block of around 40 per cent persistently strongly opposed,” the documents said. “There is strong division in the town and this is expected to continue and may become more vocal in the short term.”
Jeff Baldock owns Napandee, the site indicated to be preferred by the Federal Government in the FOI documents.
“It’s been a very long process,” he said.
“When it first started out, there was probably a few things that could have been done better.
“But as it’s gone along, everyone’s had plenty of opportunity to find out what they want to know.”
Mr Baldock said there had been “vague references” to mental health concerns. (Below: Jeff Baldock and family)
“But I’ve never actually spoken to anyone who feels particularly that way and I know that the department did have an open offer that they could contact them.”
Peter Woolford is Chair of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or South Australia, an organisation against the facility.
He said there was no doubt that the site selection process had caused mental health concerns within the community.
“We’ve lost people from our community because of it,” he said.
“People I speak to are reluctant to go into Kimba much these days.
“It’s disappointing to say the least that if you went up the street and tried to have a conversation about the nuclear waste facility from people from opposite sides, you wouldn’t get much of a conversation.”
Boycotting businesses
Another section of the documents found there had been some cases of businesses being boycotted by locals if the owner either supported or opposed the facility.
“Business owners have noted that boycotting of businesses by the opposed group is occurring,” the documents said.
“While these claims may be exaggerated, this would appear valid and detrimental to the town.”
The ABC has also been told that those opposed to the facility were boycotting businesses that supported it.
It has also been told that up to 90 per cent of businesses at Kimba supported the facility.
Senator Patrick was concerned about the impact boycotting businesses could have on a town like Kimba.
“Kimba is a very small township and the last thing you want to have is animosity developing across members of the community,” he said.
“To the point where they simply won’t go and shop in a particular shop because of someone’s view on this issue.”
Contrary to what ANSTO says, nuclear waste returning to Australia IS High Level Waste (HLW)
Gary See Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/,
Scotland’s Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) clearly state that it considers radioactive waste generated at Sellafield in England, and heading to Australia, to be vitrified High Level waste, despite what ANSTO call it. https://www.gov.scot/…/0038…/00389151-pdf/govscot%3Adocument
Steve Dale To think politicians and the nuclear people here got together to deliberately deceive the Australian public – to call what other countries calls “High Level Waste” something else. It’s the same toxic, corrupt thinking that brought us Maralinga. At left is a picture of High Level Waste from a UK document – looks (and is) the same as the stuff they have at Lucas Heights (same link)
from here:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/…/radwaste.pdf
Kimba District Council excluded Bangarla Aboriginal people from vote on nuclear waste dump site proposal
Traditional owners left out of dump vote https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5878759/traditional-owners-left-out-of-dump-vote/?cs=9397, Kathryn Bermingham , 30 Jan 19, A South Australian council did not consider native title holders when deciding who should vote on a proposed nuclear waste dump, a court has heard.
Kimba District Council chief executive officer Deborah Larwood gave evidence at a Federal Court hearing between the council and the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on Wednesday.
She said there was never any discussion about including traditional owners in the poll until after that decision was made, when the council received a letter from the Barngarla people.
“There was a lot of issues that would arise if the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation went outside of the guidelines to be allowed to vote,” she said. “It (would have) then opened up: should we be letting all other owners who are non-ratepayers have a vote?”
Two sites near Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula, have been short-listed as potential locations for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, while a third is near the Flinders Ranges town of Hawker.
The Kimba vote was stalled last year after the Barngarla people won an injunction in the South Australian Supreme Court, where the case was then referred to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Lawyer Dan O’Gorman, for the Barngarla people, again argued on Wednesday the ballot was in contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act.
He said the breach occurred because the council chose to use the eligibility guidelines established under the Act – it was not compelled to do so.
Also called to give evidence on Wednesday was Bruce Wilson, principal advisor to the National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce.
Mr Wilson said the ballot was a “tried method that had community understanding and integrity” after a similar vote was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission on behalf of the council in 2017.
“That process was run, that worked well… it was agreed by ourselves and the council that they would use that method in the second ballot for that reason,” he said.
Courageous indigenous appeal to Scotland to stop sending nuclear waste – stop indigenous cultural genocide
Last ditch aborigine appeal to Scotland to stop nuclear waste transfers to Australia, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17391290.last-ditch-aborigine-appeal-to-scotland-to-stop-nuclear-waste-transfers-to-australia/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR3r2Lqdv0V66rc7I8PrKJme4mkAsIx2Wtd5bv-Vy_XeT1i3GOgi_Mr By Martin Williams @MWilliamsHT 29 Jan 19, SOME of the Aborigines who live in and around a sacred burial place in South Australia can still remember the clouds of poison that were the result of Britain’s nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s.
About nuclear wastes: Ignorance, incompetence and hypocrisy of Dan van Holst Pellekaan, South Australian Minister for Energy and Resources
Meetings with Minister Pellekaan and the DIIS, Anti-Nuclear Coalition of South Australia, 
January 2019
Report back from ANC members’ meetings with SA Minister for Energy and Resources, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, on Nov. 14, and with two bureaucrats from the DIIS (Department of Industry, Innovation & Science).
This second meeting was held in Adelaide at the Department of Industry, Innovation & Science (DIIS) offices on November 28. Ms Sam Shard the GM for the NRWMFT (National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce) fielded all questions, and Wendy (no one heard her surname), Head of Policy, who only spoke once throughout the hour-long meeting. Requests for meetings with federal Minister Canavan (delegated to his department’s officials) and his SA counterpart, Minister Pellekaan, were made several months ago, and both only came about as a result of persistent efforts.
In this summary, the NRWMF (National Radioactive Waste Management Facility)=the dump.
Pellekaan Meeting: In his initial response to the ANC’s request to meet – first declined – Pellekaan outlined his government’s support for a national dump, “in one central, secure location” for LLW (low level waste) the justification being that such waste resulted from “life-saving medical procedures and research”. Notably, he omitted any reference to the planned ‘temporary’ storage of ILW (intermediate level waste).
(Last year on talkback radio, then, Premier Weatherill, similarly, omitted any mention of co-location of the very long-lived ILW at a national dump.)
Pellekaan and his leader’s support for a national dump (“one dump is better than many”) are predicated entirely on there being a willing host community. He wouldn’t, “refuse a dump to a community that gave its broad support”.
During the half-hour (only) meeting the emphasis from five ANC participants was on his omission to mention the co-location of the ILW (he did say that he had talked about it on radio). Also, on the significance of a radioactive dump for all South Australians, not only the two small communities targeted for a dump. On the latter point, Pellekaan argued that, if the wider community were to prevent a willing local community from hosting a dump it would disenfranchise local people(!) It was pointed out to him that it is South Australians, in general, who are being disenfranchised by the federal government’s strategy.
Regarding the ILW, Pellekaan was not overly concerned about the temporary storage, considering it would be just as safe at a rural SA location as at Lucas Heights, saying, “It has to be stored somewhere”.
Other questions and comments were about the classification of radioactive waste; the regulator’s (ARPANSA) licensing arrangements, about which he said that he was, “not across the detail”; the longevity of the ILW and the implications of the SA Nuclear Waste (Prohibition) Act.
He downplayed any special role he might have as either the responsible SA Minister or as the Member for Sturt, the electorate in which a national dump could well be located, emphasising that it would not be his decision, but a cabinet decision.
Regarding the South Australian legislation, he considers that at least, in part, it would have to be altered to allow the dump. This was not seen in any way as a hindrance because legislation can be enacted and repealed, if the parliament wishes.
In summary, Pellekaan follows faithfully the federal government’s arguments for the dump. His apparent lack of knowledge about High Level Waste (HLW) and Intermediate Level Waste (ILW); the length of time the ILW could remain stored above ground at the ‘interim’ site; the lack of any permanent plans for its disposal, or facilities and technical expertise for dealing with radioactive hazards at an interim dump is deeply troubling and unacceptable.
Note: Ally apologises for inaccurately stating in the prepared questions to put to Pellekaan that the ARPANSA licencing arrangement for the temporary storage of ILW at Lucas Heights is conditional on it being transferred to a permanent site. This is not the case. However, what it does say is, “The NRWMF will cater for the long-term above ground storage (approximately 100 years) of Intermediate Level Waste including the waste processed in France and the United Kingdom.”https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/comment/iws/IWSO-LA-WCP-WasteContingencyPlan_ Final_ARPANSA.pdf
Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) Meeting: Four people from ANC met with two departmental bureaucrats (see above) for an hour – not a minute more. Unfortunately, no full set of notes was taken. This report is based on notes taken by Mnem Giles, Colin Mitchell and Ally Fricker. Getting into the commonwealth offices in Franklin St was farcical with security having difficulty establishing who qualified as bone fide visitors, and negotiating with a boss up on the thirteenth floor to allow a fourth person to attend. Another five people remained on the street with placards and leaflets. A press release was sent out. The main entrance door was locked and only unlocked after we departed the building.
Mnem presented Sam Chard with a submission to the Senate Standing Committee from WILPF as requested by Ruth Russell. It was explained who WILPF is.
NOTE: Sam Chard’s comments are not always direct quotes. They are highlighted in red to make it clearer when it is her comments.
Sam Chard was the only person who responded to our questions. We established very quickly that we had not come to hear the government’s PR; that we were quite familiar with it. Head of Policy Wendy … commented only once saying that a permanent national dump for the intermediate waste would require two decades to plan.
The questions and comments attached were largely followed. We emphasised our request for the DIIS to hold a public meeting in Adelaide to inform politicians, media and public (who remain very confused) about the full plans for the national dump.
Response: The state is aware of the details and all the information is on-line.
It was also stressed that a national radioactive waste dump is an issue of national significance, not only an issue for locally targeted communities. (There is little likelihood that an Adelaide meeting would occur without follow up with a formal letter from the ANC and persistent demands to DIIS, the Minister and other relevant agencies.)
Chard agreed that a national dump was an issue of national significance because 1 in 2 people in Australia need nuclear medicine.
Other Issues Raised: 1. The lack of transparency at the Barndioota Consultative Committee meeting held at Quorn on the previous day (Nov 27) NO observers were allowed to attend, even after several had signed the usual request to sign confidentiality statements!
Response: This is entirely at the Chairman’s discretion and to allow free and frank discussion. The reason for the cancellation of the Kimba meeting (due on Nov 28) was because of it being “harvest time”, not because of the Barngarla legal challenge, as people inside the committee meeting at Quorn were told.
- Disposal of DoD (Department of Defence) waste.
Response: it is not wanted at Woomera for “operational reasons”, which would be classified. Re the quantity and location of DoD waste, the document, Australian Radioactive Waste Framework April 2018, was distributed to everyone, and referred to throughout the meeting, but this document fails to give any detail about what activities created the waste in the first place. Chard took on notice further questions relating to DOD waste stored at Woomera.
- Illegality of a national dump in SA: Response – Once land is acquired by the commonwealth, the federal Act (2012) would override the SA Act prohibiting a nuclear dump. Note this differs from Pellekaan’s response.
- Still after decades of planning, there remains no full inventory of waste intended for a national dump.
Response: A new ARPANSA document is now available which discusses the possible acceptance criteria for a national dump, but no further information, apart from the Framework document available (at the meeting). The first phase of acceptance criteria is available on the web.
- DIIS document titled,National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Lucas Heights Sydney 2017 says, about long-term disposal of waste at Lucas Heights, “ . . .it’s not allowed. ANSTO’s Lucas Heights campus is only licenced . . . to store waste on a temporary basis, and on the condition that a plan is developed by the end of the decade for final disposal pathway for its waste.” (Our emphasis) It was pointed out that this was unambiguous. Response: There was no elaboration. ARPANSA document,Information to Stakeholders (May 2017) notes that temporary storage of ILW at a national dump ‘could be in excess of 100 years.’
Response: this is not correct. We responded in which case, ARPANSA should be corrected. Response: 100 years refers to the LLW only. ILW would only remain at an interim location for a couple of decades, or up to 30 years, or up to 40 years – 40 years is, conveniently, the approximate lifetime of the TN81 steel containers in which the reprocessed spent fuel is packaged.
- What facilities would be available at a temporary dump for re-packaging the TN81 containers?
Response: Waste entering the dump would be checked, but there are no plans for re-packaging facilities. The waste would not be there for long enough to require them. There are also, as yet, no facilities at Woomera for re-packaging any of the CSIRO waste currently stored there that might require
- These would need to be established.
- Co-location of LLW and ILW in other countries:
Response – There are models overseas for this. Where is it occurring? Response – Would take on notice. It was pointed out that the LLW and ILW stored permanently at Aube, France was not the equivalent of the co-location planned in SA because French classification of ILW is not the same as Australia’s, and definitely does not include reprocessed spent fuel. Response – Don’t know the specifics of Frances’ arrangements.
- Storage of ILW at Lucas Heights: Response -It’s in a dedicated facility. It is only there on a temporary basis; it’s quite safe there. Storage at a national dump would be the same as at Lucas Heights.
- Difference between French and Australian classification of the returned reprocessed spent fuel:
Response – The French have now changed their reference to HLW and brought the classification into line with Australia’s requirements. France now agrees with Australian authorities.
- Future availability of reprocessing facilities in France and any alternative arrangements: Response – Would take on notice.
- Commercial in confidence re the business case for the expansion of medical radioisotope production at Lucas Heights: Response – the expansion is for the export business (therefore commercial?)
- Classification of spent fuel: Response –Spent fuel from a nuclear power reactor is HLW, but from a research reactor it is ILW – there is a significant difference between ILW and HLW. A request to explain the difference was taken on notice.
- Permanent disposal of ILW, no site, no plans and no technology on the horizon: Response: That entity not yet defined.
- Permanent disposal of waste, ‘too dangerous’ to leave at Lucas Heights: ALP Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, Kim Carr, spoke to Susan Craig and said that this was the reason why waste had to be removed to another interim site. Response: DIIS could not comment on this.
Formal minutes taken by DIIS staff were requested and an undertaking to forward them to ANC was made. Mnem followed this up and was told the minutes were being ‘cleaned up’. Mnem said we would prefer them as they were recorded. As with minutes from the Minister Pellekaan meeting, we are still waiting . . .
Thanks to Mnem for persisting with the arrangements for this meeting with DIIS, and the people who waited outside, and to Kate who distributed many leaflets.
Both Liberal and Labor keep mum about South Australia nuclear waste issue
Susan Craig Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 18 Jan 19,
Federal Labor tell us the nuclear waste is TOO DANGEROUS for Lucas Heights, NSW, “we’ve got to get it out of there because it’s too dangerous to have it in densely populated metropolitan Sydney.
Federal Liberal tell us it’s PERFECTLY SAFE. It’s confounding that a post code can change the risk level of nuclear waste!
Both Scott and Bill are on the same bus. They refuse to make this an election issue. South Australians need to get on our own bus and demand that this issue be brought out into the open.
The current plan for a nuclear waste dump for South Australia is dangerous. Intermediate level nuclear waste is 100% fatal, after exposure life expectancy is around 4 – 6 weeks, it’s radioactive for 10,000 years and it will be stored above ground in a tin shed. It’s time for a cohesive, intelligent worlds best practice plan be developed to keep all Australian’s and our environment safe, now and into the future.
ANSTO nuclear waste will compromise safety and security in South Australia
ANSTO nuclear waste to compromise safety and security in SA, https://www.foe.org.au/ansto_nuclear_waste_to_compromise_safety_and_security_in_s
a David Noonan, 17 Jan 19 The federal government intends shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel waste to be imposed through Whyalla or Port Pirie to go onto indefinite above-ground storage at a nuclear dump site at either Kimba or Hawker ‒ all of which is illegal under state law in South Australia.
Two shipments of reprocessed nuclear waste ‒ arising from the 
reprocessing of fuel irradiated in research reactors operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) ‒ are intended in the first two years of nuclear store operations in SA. A shipment is due from Sellafield in UK in the early 2020s, and ANSTO plans a shipment of nuclear waste that was reprocessed in France then shipped to ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site (south of Sydney) in 2015.
Some 100 B-Double truckloads of federal government Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) ‒ predominantly ANSTO waste from Lucas Heights ‒ are also to be trucked into SA in the first four years of nuclear store operations in SA.
SA communities face decades of potential accident and terrorist risks and impacts from ongoing ANSTO nuclear waste transports, with all of the next 40 years of ANSTO reactor waste also to be shipped and trucked to SA for indefinite above-ground storage.
The federal nuclear regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), states that nuclear fuel wastes and other ILW require radiation shielding and require isolation from the environment for over 10,000 years. Yet the current plan is to store this waste in SA in a fancy shed for indefinite storage described as “interim” and as “long term above-ground storage (approximately 100 years)”.
After 60 years, ANSTO still has no nuclear waste disposal capacity, while ANSTO’s nuclear waste production is set to increase to more than double waste stockpiles over the next 40 years.
The government’s April 2018 ‘Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework’1 reports total ILW at 1,770 cubic metres (m3), with 95% by volume arising as federal government wastes.
The federal government plans to produce a further 1,960 m3 of ILW over next 40 years, with 95% (1,850 m3) arising from ANSTO’s reactor operations – all to be trucked into SA for indefinite above-ground storage at either Kimba or Hawker.
All of these federal government nuclear waste plans face serious obstacles and community opposition. They are illegal under state law in SA; are in breach of formal advice of the Nuclear Safety Committee to the federal regulator ARPANSA2; and do not represent International Best Practice.
The import, transport, storage and disposal of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes were prohibited by the SA Liberal government in 2000; then in 2002‒03 the incoming SA Labor government extended the legislation to cover other radioactive wastes. Yet the federal Coalition government intends to override state law to impose nuclear wastes onto SA.
Advice provided to the CEO of ARPANSA by ARPANSA’s ‘Nuclear Safety Committee’ in Nov. 2013 states that:
“International best practice points to the need to have in place a policy and infrastructure for final management and ultimate disposal of waste before activities generating waste commence.”
“[T]he dual handling and transport process associated with interim storage does not represent international best practice”
“Dual handling also has implications for security.”
More recently, in Nov. 2016, the Nuclear Safety Committee advised the CEO of ARPANSA on the “ongoing requirement to clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along transport routes” and the Committee said that such engagement is “essential”.3
However, in an arrogant, flawed process, the federal government named port cities in SA as required ports to take shipments of nuclear waste in a report4 posted on the internet but failed to even inform the targeted communities and their local councils.
The story broke on Southern Cross TV on Aug. 6. The next day the ABC quoted Port Pirie’s Mayor saying Council was “blind-sided” by the federal government position to potentially require Port Pirie as a nuclear waste port. On Aug. 9 the story ran on p.1 of the Whyalla News, with the Whyalla Mayor saying Council won’t accept this.
Communities in Whyalla or Port Pirie ‒ and in Port Augusta which was named on a number of potential required nuclear waste transport routes ‒ face “complete shutdown” in transport of nuclear wastes through their cities but have been excluded from having a say by this federal government.
The federal Coalition government must stop this untenable nuclear waste threat to compromise safety and security in SA and accept extended storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and ILW at Lucas Heights.
As the alternate federal government, the ALP is yet to say what they may do if elected in 2019.
More information: www.nuclear.foe.org.au/noonan
References:….
- www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/sites/prod.radioactivewaste/files/files/Australian%20Radioactive%20Waste%20Management%20Framework.pdf
- www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/nsc/nsc_iwsadvice.pdf
- www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/nsc/nrwmf-stakeholder-engagement.rtf
- https://prod-radioactivewaste.industry.slicedtech.com.au/sites/prod.radioactivewaste/files/60565376_NRWMF%20Site%20Characterisation%20Technical%20Report_Wallerberdina_20.07.2018_FINAL_Optimized.pdf
Published in Chain Reaction #134, December 2018. National magazine of Friends of the Earth Australia. www.foe.org.au/chain_reaction
Matt Canavan’s ‘urgent’ new nuclear waste dump: The devil is in the detail
|
Matt Canavan’s ‘urgent’ new nuclear waste dump: The devil is in the detail https://www.foe.org.au/canavans_nuclear_waste_dump – Dave Sweeney, December 18 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 soon be sorted. 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 federal 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 federal Government has actively refused to debate critics in open forums, key project assumptions have never been independently verified or tested, and many community members, Aboriginal landowners and wider stakeholders do not trust the process. Time is now running out on Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan’s long stated plan to make a siting decision this year. This timeline won’t be met ‒ largely due to legal action initiated by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. The Barngarla Traditional Owners have sought legal redress over their exclusion from the community ballot planned to assess public opinion in the Kimba region, arguing that this breaches the Racial Discrimination Act. Despite this delay the Minister still hopes to push ahead with the plan before the 2019 federal election, expected in May. The federal 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. The federal nuclear regulator the Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Agency has repeatedly confirmed that there is no urgency to move the waste from ANSTO. 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’s 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 South 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. 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 Published in Chain Reaction #134, December 2018. National magazine of Friends of the Earth Australia. www.foe.org.au/chain_reaction |
|
Proposed nuclear waste dump in Flinders Ranges – an urgent issue for South Australians, and all Australians
“We do not have a position on the sites in South Australia for a NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE facility. However, we do have a position on LUCAS HEIGHTS, (NSW). We need to get the nuclear waste out of there because it’s TOO DANGEROUS to keep the nuclear waste in densely populated metropolitan Sydney.”
Extract from “Economic Priorities Document”. South Australian Government.
“South Australian food, wine and beverages are world class and our unique regions, products and the CLEAN, GREEN ENVIRONMENT that they come from provides the COMPETITIVE EDGE required to secure and maintain PREMIUM status in our markets of choice.”
I have endeavoured to engage our State politicians on both sides for over a year now, to publicly speak to the people of South Australia on this issue, yet their silence is confounding and shameful. The nuclear waste proposed for South Australia is for both low level and intermediate level. Exposure to intermediate level nuclear waste, is 100% fatal with life expectancy of 4 -6 weeks. It will remain radioactive for 10,000 years. The Federal Government are targeting KIMBA in our farming land and The Flinders Ranges in the heart of tourism. The Flinders Ranges site will be just 10kms from Wilpena Pound! The waste will be stored for up to 100 years, above ground in a tin shed in one of the most seismic areas in Australia and prone to regular severe flooding. The floods waters in 1989 entered Spencer Gulf.
All South Australian’s need to be involved and told the truth about the Federal Government’s proposal for our state, as it will go beyond tarnishing our reputation that so many South Australian’s have worked hard for, but more so this proposal is both immediately and transcendingly dangerous for all Australians.
This decision is so catastrophically wrong it demands to be challenged by all of us, including our politicians. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
Doubt about what happens to spent nuclear fuel rods within casks
Derek Abbott Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 13 Jan 19, Something that is never discussed about dry cask storage (before it is transferred into a repository canister) is that the fuel rods have been emitting alpha particles for 40 years in the dry cask. The nuke enthusiasts who don’t understand physics naively think those alpha particles are impotent. They say “a piece of paper can block an alpha particle.” True but misleading.What actually happens is that alpha particles do indeed get blocked and don’t go far within a fuel rod, but they get converted to back to helium. [Remember an alpha particle is a helium nucleus anyway].So you get helium bubbles building up inside the fuel rod. Over 40 years this can fracture the fuel rod into pieces. So transferring the rods into a repository canister may not be possible. Because no one has actually opened up a bunch of old dry casks to get the rods into a repository yet, there isn’t much experience on exactly how much alpha particle damage affects the rods. I’m not sure there has even been a proper study of this. I am searching and will post it here if I find a study. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/
ANSTO’s duplicity on what is or is not “High Level” nuclear waste
Anthony Clark Isn’t High Grade reclassified to Intermediate radiation, in order to calm the multitude?
After this stuff is sent overseas for ‘processing’ it returns as ‘waste’.
So either they have to be honest about high level waste being generated in Australia or accept that Australia is accepting waste that is generated overseas.
If it isn’t called waste when it leaves Australia and is called waste when it returns, it’s hard to argue that it isn’t ‘waste generated overseas’.
Jillian Marsh to lull the uneducated into thinking ‘its just hospital grade waste and quite harmless’ and to justify government endorsement of a plan to turn our country into the world’s dumping ground …. Happy New Year? i think not if that’s what the people of this nation are supporting. absolutely crazy https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
Pangea, reborn as ARIUS, waiting in the wings for the Australian govt to privatise a nuclear waste dump
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges, PANGEA was leaked to the Australian Media in 1998. Although it has since changed its name to ARIUS in 2012, it still remains active, as shown clearly by the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle recently, and the very heavy push for an International Nuclear Dump by invested interests.But South Australia said NO MEANS NO!
There is no doubt in my mind that this is the ENDGAME.
The fact that this current proposal by the Federal Government does not address the Intermediate Waste final disposal AND that the Intermediate Waste will be part of the dump – as “temporary storage” has all of the hallmarks of a Claytons INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR DUMP. …..All it needs is a stroke of a pen, PRIVATIZATION, and WHAM, BAM – THERE YOU GO! https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
STAND UP TO NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP BULLIES
The Federal Liberal Govnt Nuclear Waste Dump Process is subjecting people to intimidation, insults, threats and bullying.
The Federal Liberal Govnt process has been appalling and is feeding the bad behaviour of pro nuclear waste dump bullies.
The Federal Liberal Govnt nuclear waste dump process has fractured the communities in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba regions (near the proposed nuclear waste dump sites) and has encouraged intimidation, insults, threats and bullying.
Pro nuclear waste dump bullies have also come to my facebook page and insulted me and insulted my facebook friends because we express views they disagree with.
Pro nuclear waste dump bullies can insult me as much as they like, but it wont change the Facts :
A Radioactive Nuclear Waste Dump facility study in 2005 conducted by URS Australia for the EPA (SA) and SA Govnt, found the Flinders Ranges and Eyre Peninsula regions unsuitable for a low level Radioactive Nuclear Waste dump, let alone intermediate level nuclear waste – which the Federal Liberal government have obviously ignored.
The Flinders Ranges proposed nuclear waste dumpsite near Hawker, is on a floodplain, 5.5kms from the nearest ranges, 6.5 kms from extensive natural springs and 3 kms from Hookina Creek.
The Flinders Ranges and Outback contributed $425 million in tourism to South Australia in 2017 and projected $452 million in 2020 (SATC regional profile). How will establishing a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges affect tourism??? – Will the one off payment of 30 million carrots (20 million carrots to become available after the dump is established) compensate for lost tourism numbers and revenue???
The Flinders Ranges proposed nuclear waste dump site is in a seismically active region, on a floodplain, that flows into Lake Torrens – remnants of past major flooding and seismic activity are obvious.
The Eyre Peninsula proposed nuclear waste dump sites, near Kimba, are on farmland and next to Lake Giles Conservation park.
The Eyre Peninsula farming region contributes a third of all the grain grown in South Australia, worth $1.7 – $2 billion annually to South Australia – why would you even contemplate establishing a nuclear waste dump on farmland ??? – and if there is a nuclear waste accident – what then ???
Recent ABC News : “Lucas Heights facility fails modern nuclear safety standard, independent review finds”. ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Org), the organisation that manages the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor facility near Sydney, the same organization that will manage the National Nuclear Waste Dump facility, was found to have a culture of “make do and mend”.
The Federal Liberal govnt propose to transport radioactive nuclear waste thousands of kms, from all over Australia, to a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia. Not only will South Australians and all future generations be burdened with the nuclear waste dump for eternity, so will communities along the transport route. And just like 99% of South Australians, those communities along the transport route will have no say. Spencer Gulf cities will become nuclear waste dump transport central, with radioactive nuclear waste being transported several times a week (for the first 4 years) to the proposed nuclear waste dump, through Spencer Gulf ports, roads and rail.
There was nothing scientific about the way the proposed sites were chosen – land owners were asked to nominate their properties for a nuclear waste dump and get paid 4 times what the property owners say the property is worth – and no need to consult with neighbours or the community. And the cattle property owner at the proposed site in the Flinders Ranges (long term lease) is an ex Federal Liberal president (doesn’t live at the property), who chaired a failed attempt in the 90’s to establish a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
Even after 30 years, high-level nuclear waste is still 10,000 times more radioactive than uranium ore and will take 10 million years to get to the same radioactivity as uranium ore.
No Respect – No Trust : How can we trust a Federal Govnt that keeps on stabbing their leaders (prime ministers) in the back????
Why on earth would the Federal Liberal govnt want to dump nuclear waste (intermediate-level and low-level) in the Flinders Ranges, on a floodplain, in a seismically active region, bordered by natural springs, in an iconic tourism destination, or on Eyre Peninsula farmland, near Kimba and next to Lake Gilles Conservation Park?????
Each state should establish their own low-level Nuclear Waste Dump and the intermediate-level and high-level radioactive nuclear waste produced at the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor should stay on the grounds at Lucas Heights until a permanent solution can be found. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 