THE construction of a radioactive waste dump in South Australia could be stalled by court challenges unless local indigenous people are consulted properly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned, Peter Jean, The AdvertiserAPRIL 25, 2018
THE construction of a radioactive waste dump in South Australia could be stalled by court challenges unless local indigenous people are consulted properly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned.
The commission has intervened in the debate over potential locations for the dump after some Aboriginal groups complained they were not being fully consulted.
The Federal Government said it was working closely with indigenous people as it considers two sites near Kimba and one at Hawker as possible homes for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste.
But in a submission to a Senate inquiry, the Human Rights Commission said it was concerned that Adnyamathanha indigenous people near Hawker were unhappy with the consultation process.
“This situation requires immediate attention if the consideration of the site at Wallerberdina Station is to continue,’’ the commission said.
The “overwhelming and clearly expressed support of the affected indigenous group” would be required for the facility to go ahead, according to the commission.
The federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science told the inquiry that it was consulting indigenous people, and an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment had been conducted at the Wallerberdina Station site near Hawker.
The department said it would continue to work closely with traditional land owners to “preserve, protect and minimise the impact on indigenous heritage”
Legal challenges resulted in earlier plans for a waste dump in the Northern Territory being abandoned in 2014.
April 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
No nuclear waste groups stand together, https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5362658/no-nuclear-waste-groups-stand-together/ 24 Apr 18
No nuclear waste dump groups from Kimba and the Flinders Ranges came together in Port Augusta last week in response to the recent announcement by federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan that a community vote for a planned national radioactive waste management facility would begin on August 20.
The groups discussed shared concerns and committed to increase their efforts against the plan including through an open debate featuring the federal department, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Traditional Owners and public policy and health professionals.
People at the meeting included Adnyamathanha community members, representatives from Kimba, Hawker, Whyalla and Quorn along with members of the Flinders Local Action Group and No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA.
Peter Woolford from Kimba said the “flawed federal process” was failing the communities.
“Minister Canavan is fast-tracking a plan that does not have broad community support”.
The groups committed to highlight community concern and opposition to the federal plan ahead of the August vote and urged residents in the wider region to stand up and speak out.
Former federal member for Grey Barry Wakelin said it was a national issue, “not something that a regional community should be left to deal with”.
“The current federal plan lacks evidence and poses a threat to our existing industries – we need a better way,” Mr Wakelin said.
“This has been a productive meeting and it is heartening to see regional South Australians stepping up to the challenge, taking action and working together.”
April 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, opposition to nuclear, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia – Submission From: Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation ICN 8603 : 3 April 2018
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) is the prescribed body corporate for the Barngarla native title holders as defined in the Barngarla Determination of Native Title made by the Federal Court in Croft’ on behalf of the Bamgar/a Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (N0 2) [2016] FCA 724 (SAD 60/11/998) on 23 June 2016.
We attach a map [on original]of the Barngarla Determination Area, as Schedule I. It clearly shows that the Barngarla are the native title holders for the two nominated sites near Kiinba, namely the Lyndhurst and Napandee nominated sites.
BDAC believes that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.
We hold this view given the lack of contact by the Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department) from the outset. The chronology of consultation is contained in our letter to the Department of 21 February 2018 (which is attached [on original] along with all other correspondence as Schedule 2), for the sake of ease of reading we reproduce a version of it below:
On 7 April2017, three months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, Barngarla made contact with the Department. Prior to this letter, the Department had made no contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders of the area.
Notwithstanding this complete lack of contact, the Department was asserting that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area. Therefore, the Barngarla letter of 7 April2017 sought to correct the Department and indicated that Barn aria needed to be engaged with. Barngarla further indicated that the failure to consult to date was unacceptable.
On 4 May 2017, Barngarla received a pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce Wilson (the date April2017 had been crossed out with May inserted). The letter contained three general paragraphs and did not in any way address the Barngarla’s concerns.
On 10 July 2017, Barngarla sent a response to Mr. Wilson, requesting s ecific information on the following:
ll proposed activities, which the Department seeks to undertake for the purposes of the proj’ect, ‘what protocols, if any, the Department intends to apply in respect of Aboriginal Heritage; and Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission any assessment that the Department has undertaken in respect of the impact of the proposal on Aboriginal Heritage in the Bamgar/a Determination Area.
On 14 August 2017 (originally dated 11 August, with the 11 crossed out and replaced with a hand written 14), Barngarla received a particularly uriconstructive letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary. We do not repeat it here, but a longer description of this letter i contained in our letter of 21 contained in our letter of 21 February 2018.
Barngarla responded to the 14 August 20171etter, on 13 October 2017, providing the Department with all of the information (that the Commonwealth already had) indicating the status of BDAC, and Norman Waterhouse’s role as the Solicitors for Barngarla.
Barngarla did not receive a response to their letter of 13 October 2017. The next item of correspondence we received was a further pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary, dated 31 October 2017, confirming the Solicitor for Barn arla’s a arent “nomination” for the Kiinba Consultative Committee (although Mr Llewellyn-Jones himself did not nominate for this Committee). It is obvious from reviewing the correspondence, that this letter was not a response to any of the letters sent by Bamgarla and was just a misaddressed pro forma letter of no substance.
Bamgarla received no further correspondence from the Department in 2017
Barngarla finally received a letter on 20 February 2018, congratulating BDAC for its status as a PBC (somewhat out of date, given that this had occurred approximately one year earlier) and advising that the Department would like to present to the BDAC Board. However, this letter.
Did not address any of the substantive matters raised by Barngarla on 7 A in 2017 or, O July 2017; in particularit does not answer how the Department could assert a lack of any Barngarla Aboriginal heritage given that there had been no discussions or engagement with Barngarla;
Did not answer the express questions put to the Department on 10 July 2017; and ,
Suggested that the first consultation with Barngarla should occur some 14 months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, even though the Department had been making representations about the Barn aria and Aboriginal heritage during this time.
It is Barngarla’s position that the entire consultation process has been completelyl inappropriate and, in most cases, has involved being copied into pro forma correspondence, which is not relevant to any of the issues raised by Barngarla.
As can be seen above, BDAC has repeatedly contacted the Department to address Barngarla heritage concerns as the traditional owners in the Kiinba area. Correspondence was instigated by BDAC, not by the Department. Again, as indicated above, Barngarla’s most recent letter to the Department on 21 February 2018 provides a chronological outline of BDAC’s communication with the Department. All relevant correspondence is enclosed with this submission.
The correspondence largely speaks for itself, and so forms part of this submission. Most concerning, apart from the Department not having made contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders for the area, was the Department’s assertion that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area surrounding Lyndhurst and Napandee. ‘ This assertion was made without any consultation with these traditional owners. Further, Barngarla have repeatedly asked, on three separate occasions, for the Department to provide the basis of this assertion, which the Department has failed to do. It is not the case that there is no Aboriginal heritage in the area. Given the complete inactivity of the Department to engage with Barngarla, BDAC retained out of its own funds, the services of Dr Dee Gorring to conduct a heritage assessment of the area. This took place on 27 February 2018 to 3 March 2018. Preliminary conclusions from Dr Gorring indicated that there are a number of sites that have been identified surrounding the site of Lyndhurst and spanning across to the site of Napandee.
Accordingly, as per terms of reference:
The Department has not even engaged with Barngarla to establish whether there is any relevant Indigenous support for the NRWMF. Therefore, in respect of the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (c), the need for Indigenous support has so far not played a part in the Department’s site selection process at all in respect of the sites near Kiinba.
The Barngarla are not aware of the Government ‘community benefit program payments referred to in the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (d). These have therefore had no impact upon the sentiment of the Barngarla Community.
However, irrespective of any community benefit package, Barngarla would not support the NRWMF in the area. This indicates that the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (b) have not been met; there is no ‘broad community support’ in respect of the NRWMF from Barngarla.
The proposed NRWMF does not have the support of BDAC nor does the NRWMF have the support of the broader Barngarla Community.
As seen above, there has been no appropriate consultation process. The approaches made by BDAC have been rebuffed by a combination of meaningless pro forma correspondence, bureaucratic tangents, and obfuscation, which has resulted in a contrived consultation process completely lacking in transparency.
April 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Effectively it is about relocating Australia’s worst radioactive waste from above ground interim storage at a purpose built and heavily secured and resourced facility in Sydney to above ground interim storage at a far less resourced facility in regional SA. There is no compelling public health or radiation management rationale for this approach.
It is definitely not something that should be foisted on a community area/state/through transport route communities at the behest of a local land/leaseholder.
The national radioactive waste facility is in two parts
(i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and
(ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).
Submission by Michele Madigan To The Economic References Senate Committee Inquiry – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference(s).
I submit that the present method/process of selection for the site for Australia’s long term intermediate radioactive waste and to a lesser extent for the nation’s low level radioactive waste is not only inappropriate but has grave implications for present and future generations:
*of local communities *for all South Australians *and indeed all Australians – in particular those national communities along any proposed transport route.
I note, as does the Senate Committee, that the Federal Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. This condition of willingness is indeed world’s best practice. Whether or not its present process and reported results accurately reflects the reality of such unwillingness in the South Australian proposed sites is discussed below. Continue reading →
April 23, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Paul Waldon –No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
If government can’t show that it can cleanup, or even finance a $30 million cleanup of 9,8000 leaking rusty barrels of radioactive waste abandoned at Woomera, what reason would any adroit person have to believe that the government’s $10 million incentive package to manage a radioactive dump in Hawker or Kimba is nothing more than a 79 cents a week contract to abandon high grade waste under the guise of being called intermediate waste, for the next 244,000 years of its hazard.
April 22, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Submission by Barbara Walker Senate Economics References Inquiry – National Radioactive Waste Management FacilityIntroduction:
My name is Barbara Walker. My husband and I bought a home in Quorn fifteen years ago, retiring to the peace and tranquility of the magnificent Flinders Ranges. We are both active volunteers within our community. I served as a volunteer lifeguard/supervisor at the Quorn swimming pool for nine years and am also a volunteer at
the Platform Gallery in Port Augusta. I am a member of the Flinders Local Action Group – a group of concerned citizens protecting the Flinders Ranges and against a pending nuclear
waste repository.
My husband is a regular volunteer for several local clubs and community fundraising events.
He is also an organiser for an annual military veterans retreat and a volunteer radio operator
for the VKS-737/RFDS Radio Network.
Through our network of friends and radio contacts we have always encouraged people to
visit the iconic Flinders Ranges. Many travellers visit us while travelling through Quorn and
most are horrified after discovering a nuclear waste repository is pending for the Flinders
Ranges.
A nuclear waste facility will adversely affect tourism within the Flinders and outer regions.
Many travellers from Australia and abroad have said they will not return if a waste dump is
located in the Flinders Ranges.
The prospect of a nuclear waste repository has also caused much division and ill health
within our local communities.
The Flinders Ranges is the home of the Adnyamathanha people who coincide with tourism
operators and local pastoralists in showcasing the marvels of the Flinders Ranges.
The question of broad community support:
I believe the Orima survey was flawed and inconsistent with broad community views and
opinions. Orima survey phone calls were made but only to some fixed home phones. These days most
people use mobile phones. Mobile phone users were not surveyed.
Orima offered small incentives in the form of supermarket vouchers to some indigenous
respondents. Proof of this is written in the Orima survey, headed “Interview Method”. Why
was this necessary? Would this be classed as a bribe?
In my opinion a better way to survey people would be through the postal system, canvassing
the whole community by using a simple democratic process. Perhaps using the AEC would
have been a better and fairer solution, and in doing so, every community member would
have a voice.
South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 states it is illegal to
have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia, in which case, the whole of South
Australia has already said a clear NO to the storage of nuclear waste, and if that were to be
changed by Government, all South Australians should be asked for consent.
At our own expense, Flinders Local Action Group also conducted a survey. It was posted to
the people living in Hawker, Quorn and Cradock. People were simply asked for a YES, NO
or UNDECIDED vote regarding storage of nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges. Flinders
Local Action Group then asked if the results could be opened and scrutinized by the CEO of
the Flinders Ranges Council. FRC kindly obliged and final results showed 79% of the
respondents were against having a nuclear waste repository in the Flinders Ranges.
The consideration of Indigenous support:
The consideration of indigenous support is an important factor within the Flinders Ranges
and the wider community. Any support for a nuclear waste repository would firstly have to be
given from the Adnyamathanha community because, in the case of
Wallerberdina/Barndioota, a nuclear waste repository on that site would be invasive to their
culture. Intrusion would cross cultural songlines and disturb artifacts, sacred sites and the
Hookina – The Hookina is a culturally important place for Adnyamathanha women.
Adnyamathanha families from Hawker and surrounding areas have been severely affected
by this controversial process. It has caused great heartache, division and ill health for many
people. Families and friends are feeling torn apart by the long and ongoing processes from
ANSTO and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Community Benefits Program:
Another example of division. Many think the Community Benefits Program is divisive and
creates an impression of bribery. Some businesses needing monetary assistance,
regardless of their ‘for’ or ‘against’ opinions, are happy the money has been offered and
therefore feel it is up for the taking. Others refuse to apply as they regard it as bribe money.
Some people in the community were selected for paid positions, and part of their role is to
reassure people that a nuclear waste repository would be a positive enhancement to the
Flinders Ranges – jobs, tourism and Federal money. A few of these people have used their
positions as a license to bully community members who are not in favour of a nuclear waste
dump. I suggest in future jobs like these need to be screened and monitored regularly if
people are to receive Federal funding for this kind of employment.
Small vulnerable communities would be best served if community benefits were given in
constructive growth projects, like tourism and small business, not a nuclear waste repository
that offers minimal employment and destroys tourism and cultural heritage.
Wider Community Views and conclusion:
Wider community views should always be considered regarding the storage of nuclear
waste. Most people would agree there needs to be a single repository for a low level nuclear
waste facility somewhere in Australia but it is fundamentally important to find the right place.
The Flinders Ranges is not the right place.
The intermediate nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights should stay where it is. The Lucas
Heights storage facility is purpose built for safety and has ‘state of the art’ security with plenty
of storage availability for years to come. Why move it to a place that has massive floods, frequent earthquakes and sometimes 50+ degree days in summer?
April 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry,
that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative. For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments,
ENUFF argues that “the Taskforce has not properly nor fully informed either the wider public; nor their arbitrary ‘local community’ cohort; nor the State Government; &, it would appear, not even their own Federal Minister – about the whole radioactive waste regimen. Instead they almost only & exclusively accentuate & promote Australian usage of medical radioisotopes. ”
The community consultation methods have been inadequate and unfair. There is no scientific need for Lucas Heights nuclear wastes to be transported to rural South Australia, and medical wastes amount to only a tiny fraction of the radioactive wastes planned for the S.A. Dump.
Stirling North and Leigh Creek residents would be affected, but were excluded from the consultation. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association were NOT consulted prior to the Wallerberdina preferred site announcement , contrary to UN endorsed Indigenous Rights.
In surveys run by Flinders Local Action Group a clear majority voted “no” to the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the area .
Scrutiny of the Barndioota Consultative Committee NRMWT survey reveals questionable and biased methodology and results.
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s communications and publicity have been deceptive with its pretense that the waste is predominantly medical Low Level Wastes, ignoring Intermediate Level Waste volumes intended for ‘temporary’ storage
Given the prime-facie maladministration ans deficiencies described above, ENuFF calls for a judicial inquiry into the NRWMF ‘s processes.
ENuFF-SA Submission 1 to the Senate ERC NRWMF Inquiry (not yet published on the Senate website)
CONTENTS Page 2 Acronyms 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary 6 History 8 Contemporary Action 9 Wallerberdina 16 Indigenous appraisal 19 Correspondence with the Taskforce 22 Afterword 25 Bibliography
In order to determine whether or not maladministration &/or negligence has any bearing upon the community consultation process, ENuFF asks the committee to recommend a judicial inquiry into the performance of the NRWMF Taskforce…..
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continue reading →
April 20, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
Looks like the bribery has been successful. $2M approved for 33 Kimba projects, Eyre Tribune 16 Apr 18
More than 30 projects in the Kimba district will share in $4 million from the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Community Benefit Program.
Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced the successful projects near Kimba and Wallerberdina Station near Hawker on Wednesday, with 33 out of the successful 45 projects located in Kimba.
The successful projects include big projects such as a new palliative care wing at the Kimba Hospital, and smaller projects like air-conditioning in the Kelly Pioneer Memorial Hall.
The projects vary from new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure, community projects, feasibility studies and trials.
Mr Canavan said the two communities, which were being consulted about hosting the facility, were invited to submit projects that “deliver social and economic benefits to their area”.
“Two million dollars for each community is a significant investment, designed to help offset the time and resources they are devoting to the detailed consultation program underway,” Mr Canavan said……..
- “Beneficiaries include local sporting clubs, community organisations, and projects focussed on everything from tourism to health, agriculture and mobile phone coverage. ……
-
“Two sites in Kimba and one at Wallerberdina Station volunteered to host the facility, and are currently in a detailed community and technical assessment process.
“The Community Benefit Program is a key part of the process.”…….
https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5336162/2m-approved-for-33-kimba-projects/?cs=5806
April 18, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
ATLA opposes UCG in Leigh Creek, The Transcontinental, , 16 Apr 18
The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has declared that “enough is enough”, voting unanimously against underground coal gasification (UCG) in Leigh Creek and the proposed radioactive waste management facility near Hawker.
ATLA CEO Vince Coulthard said it is time to “heal this area, not fill it with poison”.
“We don’t want the dangerous gasification project at Leigh Creek and we don’t want the toxic nuclear waste dump either,” he said.
“Our country has had enough, it is time for healing, we don’t want any further destruction at Leigh Creek.
“This is a very important Muda (spirituality) and the desecration of this site has to stop.”……….ATLA’s vote against a nuclear waste dump at Barndioota comes after a recent visit to the site by Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan.
The Minister declared that a postal vote would commence on August 20 to measure the community support for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility.
April 18, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Federal Science Minister Canavan this week announced a postal ballot August 20 of the so-called ‘local communities’ – Kimba & Wallerberdina – for the purpose of gaining consent towards furthering the NRWMF Site Selection process.
Informed consent requires both these electorates (& the wider Australian society) be fully appraised of all facets integral to any nuke dump.
Such would include these minimal requirements:
1. Adequate time to digest & follow up the outcomes from the current Senate Select Committee Inquiry into the NRWMF Community Engagement Process.
2. A complete knowledge of the actual nature, containment types, timings, duration & volumes of material destined for the facility – including a full & competent inventory of radioactive waste legacy holdings. For example: HIFAR decommissioned; ILW from all sources; CSIRO & DoD Woomera; DSTO Edinburgh; & SAGovt Radium Hill, amongst others.
Without such widespread understanding, any Poll result would lack competency, demonstrate a failure of administrative process & further exacerbate the existing community divisions created by the NRWMF Project deficient governance.
So far, the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce has focused almost exclusively upon ANSTO radiopharma production gloves & gowns @ Lucas Heights.
THE TASKFORCE NEEDS TO PRO-ACTIVELY FULLY APPRAISE EVERYONE BEFORE ANY CASTING OF BALLOTS
ENuFF[SA]
Office Admin
https://www.facebook.com/sanuclearfree/
April 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
Senate Inquiry Submission into the Nuclear Waste Site Selection Process , Janet Tiller I am deeply concerned and upset that the Federal Government are considering Kimba as potential site for a Radioactive Waste Facility. Kimba has been a farming community since the land was starting to be cleared in the late 1800’s. We produce mainly Wheat, Meat and Wool and I am afraid if the Radioactive waste is stored anywhere in our community it could adversely affect the prices for our land and the Wheat, Meat and Wool (they can be very fickle industries).
I would also like to know what is the true definition of broad community support. We were advised it was 65 percent then after the vote to determine those for and against the facility, Matt Canavan the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science decided it would be 57 percent. Why? The vote was only for Kimba residents, farm owners and people that owned property in the community. The Dump could adversely affect more than just Kimba it could affect the whole of Eyre Peninsula with its “ Clean Green” image, a Radioactive Waste Facility won’t exactly fit in there.
A committee of 16 has been formed and their aim is to decide where the $2 million (now we are in the 2nd stage of the process) will be spent in the community. The committee was selected from applicants and said to be chosen from a broad selection of the community from Farming, Business, some for the RWF and some against. There are only 4 people on that committee of 16 that were against the dump, they won’t have a very strong voice will they? I look forward to your reply.
April 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Bruce Wilson, 9 April 2018. The department has compiled the attached table of planned activities with indicative dates.
As explained in the department’s submission, provided on 3 April 2018, the process is beingundertaken closely with the communities. Accordingly, the milestones and precise dates of activities will depend on community feedback and will be determined with community representatives. The timing of certain decisions within government are also the prerogative of the Executive and could be subject to change. For this reason, we have included a highlevel timeline of activities, with broad date ranges, to allow flexibility to respond to the needs of communities and executive government processes.
Table: Planned community consultation and activities and indicative dates to April 2019
Activity Topic Indicative timing
Information RWMF Governance Framework released Ql/2018
Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group established Ql/2018
Engagement- Quom-Work Experience Program – ANSTO Ql/2018
Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Ql/2018
Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Ql/2018
Information Wallerberdina Aboriginal Heritage Ql/2018
Information Monthly newsletters – Wallerberdina and Kimba Ql/2018
Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Q2/2018
Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Q2/2018
Consultation Barndioota Economic Working Group meets Q2/2018
Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group meets Q2/2018
Consultation ANSTO visits and consults Hawker and Kimba Q2/2018
Event Hawker Community Industry Expo Q2/2018
Event NRWMF Agriculture meeting Q2/2018
Information Monthly newsletters – Wallerberdina and Kimba Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Agriculture information Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Waste Acceptance Criteria Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Safety and Security Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Transport Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Site Suitability Assessment Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Facility design Q2/2018
Information NRWMF Infrastructure and enabling services Q2/2018
Information NRMWF Operation and jobs information Q272018
Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Q3/2018
Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Q3/2018
Consultation Barndioota Economic Working Group meets Q3/2018
Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group meets Q3/2018
Information Senate Inquiry hands down report 14 August 2018
Event Communities vote Q3/2018
Site selection Community sentiment assessment 0.3/2018
Site selection Site Selection report Q3/2018
Site selection Minister gives notice of intent on preferred site Q4/2018
industry.gov.au
Industry House – 10 Binara Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601
GPO Box 2013 Canberra ACT 2601 ABN: 74 599 608 295
2
Site selection 60 Day consultation commences Q4/2018
Site selection Minister declares a site Q4/2018
Site selection Minister acquires the land Q4/2018
Milestone Detailed Business Case finalised Q4/2018
Consultation Regional Consultative Committee established Q1/2019
Milestone Public Works Committee Q1/2019
Consultation Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Q1/2019
approvals process
Consultation Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Q1/2019
Agency approvals process
industry. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Additional_Documents
April 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
1 Comment
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
12 APRIL 2018 A new group in the South Australian community of Kimba will be charged with investigating all economic opportunities and issues associated with a proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan today announced the members of the Kimba Economic Working Group, established as part of the Phase Two consultation process that is currently underway in the area.
“Together, the Phase Two community consultation and results of technical studies will help inform a decision on whether the Facility is located at one of the two volunteered sites in Kimba,” Minister Canavan said.
“Eight people from the Kimba area have been appointed as members, including farmers, Councillors and business owners, and people for, against and neutral on the proposal.
“David Schmidt, long-time Kimba resident and active local community member, has been named as the Group’s Chair.”
………The Kimba Group mirrors successfully established group around the Wallerberdina Station site, which is already developing a range of ideas on how local business could benefit from a Facility.The Kimba Economic Working Group will meet on about a monthly basis for the duration of the Phase Two consultation process.
Members of the Kimba Economic Working Group are:
April 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Nuclear waste from Australia’s only reactor ready to be 
dumped http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-12/nuclear-waste-from-australias-only-reactor-needs-to-be-removed/9643428 By Michelle Brown
Ten years worth of nuclear waste from Australia’s only reactor will be exported for reprocessing in a secretive high-security operation later this year.
Key points:
- The spent fuel rods will be reprocessed in France, then returned to Australia
Australia’s only nuclear reactor is located at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s south- The timing and route of the operation are a closely guarded secret
Spent nuclear fuel waste from the Open-Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) reactor will be taken to a French facility, then return Down Under for storage.
The OPAL reactor — located at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s south — has a radioactive “core” about the size of a bar fridge and produces radioisotopes for industrial and medical use, including cancer treatment.
It is operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
Over the past decade, spent fuel rods have filled up a storage pond that sits aside the reactor, which is 
the size of a small swimming pool.
The rods are now due to be sent to France’s La Hague plant sometime in the middle of the year, but the date and route to the port remain confidential.
The La Hague plant deals with almost half of the spent fuel reprocessing from the world’s light water reactors.
It is the 10th time ANSTO will export nuclear waste and the first time for a decade.
The other nine times involved waste from ANSTO’s older High-Flux Australian Reactor, which was decomissioned in 2007 after 50 years of service.
Nuclear waste a controversial topic
There are approximately 100 nuclear waste storage sites around Australia.
Several Sydney councils have banned the transport of radioactive material within their boundaries.
The process has also been the subject of protest campaigns by organisations including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
ANSTO Chief Nuclear Officer Hef Griffiths said spent fuel has been transported for reprocessing since the 1970s.
“In that time we estimate there’s been about 250,000 shipments like this worldwide,” he said.
“The safety record is pretty impeccable.”
Mr Griffiths said the casks used to hold the spent fuel assemblies are “designed to withstand the impact of a fully laden F-16 fighter jet crashing into it without any release”.
Jim Green, National Nuclear Campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said transporting spent nuclear fuel was not without incident.
“There are numerous documented examples of problems transporting spent fuel,” he said.
“In Germany and France in the 1990s there were serious contamination incidents which led German chancellor Angela Merkel to suspend the transport of nuclear fuel between the two countries.
“It’s dishonest for ANSTO to be claiming there’ve been no incidents of any consequence involving spent fuel transport,” Mr Green said.
April 12, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, safety, wastes |
Leave a comment
Port Kembla a possibility for secret nuclear shipment https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/5338205/port-kembla-a-possibility-for-secret-nuclear-shipment/ 12 Apr 18
Spent nuclear fuel may be heading to Port Kembla later this year as part of a top-secret operation.
In the middle of this year, spent fuel rods from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facility at Lucas Heights will be sent to France to be reprocessed.
The rods will have the unused uranium and plutonium removed and used over the course of several years [ed note: used for what?]
Once all useful material has been removed, the waste will then returned to Australia for storage.
Sending the rods to France will involve the rods being transported by road to a nearby port and then loaded onto a ship.
The exact details of the operation – including the port, delivery route and dates – will not be made public until after the rods arrive in France.
Port Kembla would be an option for the secret shipment – both it at Port Botany have previously been used to ship nuclear waste in and out the country.
The last time nuclear rods or waste was known to go through Port Kemblawas in December 2015.
Under cover of darkness, a 95-tonne forged steel container carrying nuclear waste was lifted off a ship at Port Kembla and onto the back of a truck and driven through Wollongong’s streets to Lucas Heights.
Roads along the route were closed and hundreds of police were involved in the operation.
Then Ports Minister Joe Tripodi said the nuclear convoy passed through “without incident” but a worker at the port claimed one of the containers holding the fuel roads hit the side of the truck as it was being loaded onto the ship.
Regarding the upcoming removal of the fuel rods, Lucas Heights’ OPAL reactor manager Dave Vittorio said they will be stored in secure casks.
“These casks are purpose-engineered to safely transport this type of material without risk to people or the environment,” Mr Vittorio said.
“Even a jet plane strike could not penetrate them.”
This would be the 10th time spent nuclear fuel has been exported from Australia.
April 12, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 