Facts On How Holtec Spent Nuclear Fuel Canisters Are Substandard And Should Not Be Used, Parked, Or Buried Anywhere – Comment By July 30th, 11:59 PM ET — Mining Awareness +
Comment By Jul 30 2018, at 11:59 PM ET, ID: NRC-2018-0052-0058 on Holtec’s spent nuclear fuel facility in New Mexico: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NRC-2018-0052 Documents here: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/hi/hi-app-docs.html The Holtec spent fuel casks are huge, as can be seen in the photo below, but only one half (1/2) inch thick. And, yet, Kris Pal Singh’s Holtec spent fuel canister-casks […]
The Holtec spent fuel casks are huge, as can be seen in the photo below, but only one half (1/2) inch thick. And, yet, Kris Pal Singh’s Holtec spent fuel canister-casks lack the continuous monitoring of pressure, temperature and radiation which its thicker German competitor CASTOR has. Holtec’s canisters are welded shut and lack removable lids, so that spent nuclear fuel cannot be checked or removed without destruction of the canister.Welded shut and with no monitoring systems, India born and raised Kris Singh’s Holtec and France’s Areva spent fuel canisters stand in stark contrast to the German CASTOR which have two removable lids and where a “pressure sensor continuously measures pressure in the gap between the primary and secondary lid“, and the “system is wired to [the] Main Dosimetry Control Room“. There is a temperature sensor for continuous surface temperature monitoring, too. See “Operational Experience of Castor 440/84 Casks in Dukovany NPP” by Stanislav Kuba, 14th International Symposium on the Packaging and Paper # 022 Transportation of Radioactive Materials (PATRAM 2004), Berlin, Germany, September 20-24, 2004. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/37/088/37088667.pdf
As explained, below, not only is Holtec NOT the best standard available, but it fails to follow the requirements of the US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board – that is, it is substandard (below the NWTRB standard, as well as below any common sense standard).
Waste dump for Kimba- nuclear bonanza or nuclear sacrifice zone?
Coalition’s Kimba nuclear dump exploits local area and puts nation at risk https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalitions-kimba-nuclear-dump-exploits-local-area-and-puts-nation-at-risk,11717 Noel Wauchope 23 July 2018,
How is a small rural town to cope with a proposition that may transform the community by providing an economic boon or be a long-term curse?
This is the dilemma facing the towns of Kimba and Hawker, both in the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia.
Individual landowners offered their land to the Turnbull Government for a radioactive waste storage site and the Government’s National RadioactiveWaste Management Facility (NRWMF) team swung into action.
There’s quite a hurry on, about this. Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced that, on 20 August, there will be a local ballot to gauge community support for a nuclear waste dump.
Following that, said Canavan:
“The decision will be made in the second half of this year … We do not want this overlapping with a Federal election.”
Much can be said about this plan, not least that it contravenes South Australian law. One might ask, too, why the inquiry stipulates South Australia when the waste to be stored would have to travel 1,700 km from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney? However, the most notable immediate ramifications concern its impact on Eyre Peninsula rural communities.
As one local resident put it:
‘Stress levels are through the roof for a lot of people within our communities. People are getting sick, and some are just sick and tired of hearing about it, with many wanting the dump to just go away!’
And in the words of another resident:
‘Before a nuclear waste dump came into our lives, people enjoyed cultural activities together … Today it isn’t like that, a once close family ruined and torn apart all because of a proposed nuclear waste dump that could be put on Adnyamathanha traditional lands, which will destroy our culture and … cause cultural genocide.’
Community division is obvious when one reads the submissions that local and Eyre Peninsula residents have sent to a Senate Committee of Inquiry. The Inquiry called for submissions, stipulating fairly narrow Terms of Reference (TOR), about the ‘Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia’.
Among the 40 supporters of the plan, most are local residents, enthusiastic about hosting the waste dump.
Repeatedly, their submissions include phrases like ‘no negative impacts’ and ‘comfortable and satisfied with the prospect of hosting the proposed nuclear waste facility’
Numbers below in brackets refer to the submission numbers listed on the Senate website.
John Hennessy( No 7), is “bubbling with enthusiasm” for nuclear waste dump in Hawker. “Hawker has “ a once in a lifetime opportunity”
Jessica Morgan, (no.37) ” I have stood [at ANSTO] next to and touched the canister containing the intermediate level waste with my 9 month old baby in a carrier on my chest, feeling totally confident of my own safety and that of my child.”
Annie Clements, (No 35) – happy to see nuclear waste dump “powering Kimba community into the future”.
And here we come to another aspect of their support for the waste dump plan. It’s not just that Kimba might be “powered into the future”. It’s the thought that Kimba might not have a future unless it hosts the dump.
Again and again this argument appears in the pro nuclear submissions:
This repository would ensure our towns survival – Ian Carpenter.( No 3 )
Kimba is struggling, population is declining,… we are in need of a life line …. The possibilities this facility could provide a small failing community is endless – Jodie Joyce (No 33)
this project will ensure the long term viability of this small country town – Janice McInnis, ( No 4 )
it will save Kimba ” for many more generations to come– Melanie Orman (No 77)
A third, much repeated, theme in these submissions is that this matter concerns only the local community.
This is frequently expressed with the dismissal of the opinions of people outside the immediate area and also, at times, with downright hostility to those who oppose the dump:
‘People outside our area could be influenced by anti-nuclear scare campaigns and wild allegations that have no relevance to this facility.’ ~ Annie Clements (35)
‘Activists and politicians who have been using [this] project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say …’ ~ Heather Baldock (64)
Outsiders do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc – Chelsea Haywood (No. 2)
‘We disagree that we need “broader community views” and the need to stretch the boundaries outside of our District Council. What is happening in our Community is exactly that: our community.’ As residents of Kimba for the last 43 years, plus ++ We see no reason that the rest of SA has a right to tell us what we can and can’t have. It is our back yard, not theirs. ….. . It’s a shame we have to have this inquiry. ~ Margaret and Charlie Milton (34)
These three themes – enthusiasm for the project, distrust of critics, and resistance to the involvement of outsiders, merge into a kind of strong local patriotism allied to trusting loyalty to the federal government, which has run a huge informational campaign in the towns.
As to the 58 submissions opposing the plan, at least half come from residents of the Eyre Peninsula. As with the rest of the opponents, they do express a variety of arguments, but local submissions are most often concerned with the local area.
Above all, they are dissatisfied with the community consultation process, and the lack of clarity about what is meant by “broad community support”. They want the wider community, Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, to be consulted, and, indeed they see the federal nuclear waste facility as a national issue. They also do not believe that the project has Indigenous support.
Readers of all 98 submissions can’t fail to notice that, on the whole, these 55 opposing ones have more comprehensive, detailed, and referenced writing, as compared with the pro nuclear ones. And this is certainly true of the very thoughtful and measured arguments of the farmers from the local areas concerned.
These raise some issues which are rarely mentioned on the pro-nuclear side:
- concern about co-location of low and intermediate level wastes, especially the prospect of stranded “temporary” wastes, with no plan for final disposal;
- transport dangers;
- seismic and flood dangers;
- impacts on agricultural markets and tourism; and
- the fear that this waste dump would lead to a full-scale commercial importation of nuclear waste.
Kay Fels, a Flinders Ranges farmer.(No 63) ‘s submission is representative of the concerns of many others:
our stock (sheep and cattle) may also be stigmatised by the proximity of the waste dump and our organic status compromised Agriculture and tourist industries will be jeopardised as the clean, green image of the Flinders Ranges is tarnished . The sites are located in an area where the underground water table is almost at surface level. This could lead to contamination of the underground water source, so vital to the region. The location is also on a piedmont plain and prone to flooding
Given that the proposal is to store low level waste in an above ground facility, and temporarily store intermediate waste in that same facility, it seems ludicrous that this is even considered given the geological and environmental features and risks involved.
The consultation phase was a tokenism with ANSTO telling us what will be happening, how safe it is and pushing the affirmative – not a true reflection of the community’s views and concerns. The consultative committee is a rubber stamp
Many are strongly sceptical of the consultations held by the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS), and of the information campaign by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) . There is strong criticism of the nomination of Wallerberdina property by non-resident former Liberal Senator Grant Chapman, with close links to the nuclear industry. They also claim hypocrisy of DIIS in biased and misleading information, and dismissal and indeed, exclusion of critics.
‘
I am not against having a LLW facility in Australia. I am against the way in which DIIS have gone about finding a quick fix for something that will affect all South Australians for centuries to come. It should not be up to a small council area to overrule our Prohibition Act 2000, if we are to vote for something of such national importance.” My problem is a complete lack of trust with DIIS in the way in which they have treated ordinary people from Quorn, Hawker and Kimba – Leon Ashton (No 73)
there are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker). the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. – Leanne Lienert (No. 50)
Sue Tulloch (no 32) makes a scathing criticism of the federal nuclear waste dump process and “shambolic “Barndioota Consultative Committee.
Aboriginal voices are passionate, at the same time as providing factual information and references:
The Senate took a long time to publish this one – perhaps because they recognised it as the most important one? Regina McKenzie (No 107) , a very well informed traditional indigenous owner of the selected are at Barndioota, focuses on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations regarding those rights. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has ignored Australia’s commitment to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. DIIS has poorly assessed Aboriginal cultural heritage, and engaged inappropriate consultants. –
In this article, I have avoided the wider arguments expressed in the submissions, including the ones from organisations on both sides of the argument. Through studying 98 submissions, I have tried to get to the feelings of the communities involved – to what it must be like, to be part of a community caught in this dilemma.
Our biggest worry of this process is the detrimental effect it will have and is already having on the local community as a whole. Along with my family we have never seen an event in this area cause so much angst and division in a once very proud close knit community which was the envy of many other communities. – Philip Fels (No 84)
The mental health and well-being of communities is completely ignored in this process and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in future frameworks and guidelines. This process makes communities feel powerless – no support is given to those with opposing views, it is a process that is heavily favoured towards those pro-nuclear and when the rules keep changing to suit those in favour it really gives people a sense of hopelessness. Chloe Hannan, Kimba : (No. 61)
As an outsider, I can’t really gauge this social situation. But, whatever the outcome of the federal government’s plan, Kimba and Hawker communities will never be quite the same again
Kimba’s nuclear waste dump is planned to facilitate DOUBLING of nuclear wastes in Australia
The Department has provided some updated info on estimated Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) volumes – set to double – and on the claimed period of proposed operations of the above ground ILW Store.Scotland could help Australia deal with its nuclear waste
As Gary Cushway points out, under current arrangements, the waste produced in the reprocessing of spent Australian nuclear fuel which was sent to Dounreay in the 1990s will stay at Dounreay; the vitrified waste produced at Sellafield is only being sent to Australia to fulfil a contractual agreement. If the transfer from Sellafield was halted, and the waste currently stored at different locations in Australia was kept where it is, the case for a national radioactive waste management facility in Australia would be drastically eroded.
Cushway believes that the Scottish Government could cancel the 2012 joint waste substitution policy and come to an arrangement with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) regarding management of the reprocessed Australian waste at Dounreay.
At the very least, more pressure should be put on the UK Government to stop the transfer of waste until its final destination is known.
Can Scotland help stop nuclear waste being dumped on Aboriginal land? At the very least, more pressure should be put on the UK Government to stop the transfer of waste until its final destination is known. Scots are yet to fully reckonwith the role that we played in the brutal colonisation of Aboriginal Australia, but the Scottish Government now has an opportunity to offer meaningful solidarity to Aboriginal communities who are still fighting to protect their land and culture.
Linda Pearson @Pearson_LM Linda Pearson, anti-nukes activist and Common Weal policy officer, explains how nuclear waste due to be transferred from the UK to Australia could be dumped on Aboriginal land, and what role the Scottish Government could play in preventing another act of racist disregard of Australia’s indigenous population in what is a long and brutal history of discrimination
APPROXIMATELY 10,000 miles from Scotland in South Australia, Aboriginal traditional owners are fighting against plans to build a nuclear waste dump on their land. It is the latest phase in a struggle to protect land and culture which has lasted over 20 years. Continue reading
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
Nuclear sacrifice bribe – no guarantee that it will all go to the towns hosting nuclear waste dump
Media breakdown is that an extra 20 million is going to whoever hosts the dump, on top of the 10 
million already promised.
The 20 million is to deliver long-term infrastructure projects.
In my opinion this amount was already allocated.
In the Federal government’s Business Case for the waste dump, these numbers are already part of their estimations.
There is no doubt the promise of infrastructure is to sustain their facility.
This is manipulation by the government due to the pending postal vote.
Annette Ellen Skipworth The 10 million is going to go to the state government not the local government …and they dont have to spend it in the local area
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/
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 