Yes, Ben Heard is on the job, with this slick submission, in which he:
- enthuses over the Kimba region nuclear waste dump plan, while touting his own supposed environmental credentials as executive director of Bright New World, his membership of as a member of the Independent Assessment Panel – but all the same he stresses that he’s “an everyday Australian”. (not a mention that he works as a consultant for nuclear company Terrestrial Energy, and trips around the globe promoting nuclear power.)
- contends that nuclear waste is nothing special, really no different in safety needs from other kinds of industrial wastes.
- dismisses the idea that a nuclear waste dump in this agricultural reason would have any negative effects on the agricultural economics or reputation of the region.
- puts a long and unwieldy case for confining broad community support to just the immediate local community.
- reminds firmly that no stakeholder group has power of veto and goes on to waffle worthy statements about Aboriginal heritage etc.
- says that The District Council of Kimba is an appropriate definition of community in relation to these site nominations, and that citizens in wider areas do not need to be informed.
- State and National citizens do not need to take part in these decisions, which are best left to Parliament.
- minimises the importance of radioactive trash dumping- not much more important than household garbage collection.
- Glosses over the more toxic radioactive waste that will be included. Ignores the fact that with the planned “temporary” dump there is no prospect of a permanent dump being in place. Ignores the effect on the communities through which the radioactive trash will be transported
Extracts from Heard’s submission Continue reading →
March 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
1 Comment
Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA 20 Mar 18, “The real game here is Lucas Height’s nuclear waste. …. It’s been at Lucas Heights for decades, it can stay there. We don’t need to move it to South Australia” At least one of our politicians “gets it”. Marc Parnell on ABC radio yesterday. I know many people here don’t like the Greens. For those people, listen to the video below (last 2 minutes), write down his words and then send them to your favourite Labor/Liberal politician until they “get it” too. https://www.facebook.com/abcadelaide/videos/10160320509745604/
Here ya go, I transcribed what he said –
“Rather than looking for a site, we need to go back to first principles and say “what waste are we talking about?”, “where is it currently stored?”, “and is there a pressing reason to move it somewhere else?”. Now people talk about medical waste and hospital waste most of that ends up in landfill because it is very short lived radioactive isotopes.
March 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
ABC North and West 21 Mar 18 Don’t listen to them ! Nuclear waste stored in farm land areas or underground water areas will not be safe. The radiation will leak and enter the food chain.
They intend to store this waste in metal barrels above ground until scientists can come up with a feasible way to store it underground.
Remember South Australia had a huge conference and committee over this very issue and at the end it was a resounding No!
This information is all available on the government website unless the liberals have removed it. It was very interesting and extremely frightening reading. Just remember also that this waste will be shipped across Australia from all the other states who point blank refuse to have it stored in their states either by rail, trucks and ships!
Our roads are already a disgrace and a death trap with many of these routes that they will take going 
through little farming towns , can you imagine the fallout if there was an accident? The aim of the federal government has always been for South Australia to take not only Australia’s waste but also the worlds waste but couldn’t push this through under a labor government but now no matter what we the people say about this matter it’s going to happen and Turnbull and co are laughing all the way to retirement!
This mess will be with South Australians for thousands of years as that’s how long it will take o naturalise the waste to a harmless waste. Boy if you thought SA was the joke of the country before wait till this becomes a reality. https://www.facebook.com/northandwest/?hc_ref=ARR9p52A9mIR0O7YlgghLJngxi5oyS8ri4yZAnl1Gyx2tRtSXM_iMQaqCySvzM57kiQ&fref=nf&hc_location=group
March 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
ABC North and West 21 Mar 18, The very first meeting re Waste Dump in farmland of Kimba thru Rowan Ramsay’s idea to put on his land or in Buckleboo area a small railway siding, the old RAH came into the conversation. They told the audience the Hospital will be demolished since there are high Nuclear Wastage within from Nuclear Medicine eg masks aprons gloves clothing. The bricks n other building materials will be crushed n loaded in drums.
Since that idea collapsed as it would’ve been Conflict of Interest on Rowan’s side. Then these 2 new sites have come up on the table, my suspicion is these people who own the properties are friends of Rowan Ramsay. I live 79kms away from Kimba, 30kms from one property who has put their land up to be destroyed as it is closer to the Wudinna Shire boundary than Kimba itself.
These visitors from Lucas Heights are bullshitting us South Aussies as their lease is drawing to a close and need to move because of surrounding land being turned into residential and it’s been outgrown.
Now that Liberals are everywhere the fight to not have it in the sites earmarked is going to be harder with Rowan rubbing his hands together n pushing either sites in Kimba because in the end people only see the $$$$ signs instead of the destruction of Mother Earth, some of the best farmland in the Kimba Shire and the people who live and travel through Kimba.
I wonder what will happen when there is a leakage n contaminated areas as Kimba is situated in the middle of Aust between Sydney and Perth. What happens the area gets contaminated? Vehicles travelling on Eyre Hwy (a few years ago I did a Tourism Course and found out over 24 hour timeframe 1400 vehicles travel on Eyre Hwy) won’t be able to travel thru this area.
I would like to know where r the other sites around Australia where they have put there hands up to have a Waste Dump Site. Also it isn’t just up to the Community of Kimba or Hawker it is up to the residents of South Australia.
Typical Gov of State Federal and Local Council trying to isolate the decision. It is up to all of US https://www.facebook.com/northandwest/?hc_ref=ARR9p52A9mIR0O7YlgghLJngxi5oyS8ri4yZAnl1Gyx2tRtSXM_iMQaqCySvzM57kiQ&fref=nf&hc_location=group
March 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
MOSS, No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
16 Mar 18 You could be forgiven for thinking that even the journalists are too afraid to ask this question, the silence has been deafening.
March 16, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
two David Noonan Submissions to current Federal Parliamentary Inquiry by Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCT) Reprocessing Nuclear fuel – France (to report by 19 June) have been made public,
An ARPANSA Submission (23 Feb, 2 pages) “regarding the safety of intermediate level waste” has also been made public, at: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=0739bc51-9403-4490-b0ce-c8cc6ed074a2&subId=563939
See below url’s & extracts for DN sub’s & JSCT Inquiry homepage at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearFuel-France
D Noonan Submission (14 Feb): “Public Interest Questions, Scenarios and Consequences of ‘Reprocessing Nuclear fuel – France’ treaty actions & associated nuclear actions”
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=eab981b4-146d-4b66-aad9-59f64b275db0&subId=563627
… ANSTO is without a Plan B to address key public interest scenarios which demand answers:
· Reprocessing in France will not prove to be available throughout the OPAL reactor Operating License to 2057. At most, this treaty covers the first 2 of 5 decades of OPAL fuel wastes;
· AND the proposed above ground Store in SA for ANSTO’s nuclear waste will damage and divide community and fall over and fail just as prior attempts have in SA and in NT.
If the OPAL reactor is to continue to operate ANSTO must address required contingencies:
· Extended Storage of OPAL nuclear fuel waste on-site at Lucas Heights in secure cask storage. Lucas Height operates a Store for HIFAR nuclear fuel wastes with capacity to do so until availability of a final disposal option and can now set up to do so for OPAL fuel wastes;
· AND to have to manage ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes entirely with-in Australia through to final disposal. Sending OPAL nuclear fuel waste overseas for reprocessing is used as an excuse to produce a burden of further nuclear waste without capacity or answers for its disposal. …
my Supplementary Submission (28 Feb) provides further evidence on three key aspects:
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f42dce88-9ecf-44f0-8195-5e9e552de078&subId=563627
1. Reprocessing is not International Best Practice, is in decline, and may leave ANSTO stranded
… A key Reprocessing review for consideration by JSCT is: ‘Plutonium Separation in Nuclear Power Programs. Status, Problems, and Prospects of Civilian Reprocessing around the World‘ (IPFM, July 2015), see: http://fissilematerials.org/library/2015/07/plutonium_separation_in_nuclea.html
“France is currently the only country in the world that operates a commercial-scale spent fuel reprocessing plant.” (IPFM Report, Country Studies Chapter 3 France p.30)
… ANSTO should disclose the additional cost in Reprocessing compared to dry-cask storage
“The cost of spent-fuel reprocessing also is about ten times the cost of the alternative option for managing spent fuel, dry-cask spent-fuel storage.” (IPFM, Intro p.11)
2. Extended Storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste at Lucas Heights is a viable option
& Contingency to return OPAL reactor Reprocessed fuel waste to Storage at LHs
3. ANSTO failure to provide a disposal strategy for OPAL nuclear fuel wastes flouts best practice
March 14, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, reference |
Leave a comment
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia “The federal government has said that it will not choose any site without broad community support.” A statewide referendum is required for that – and maybe a national referendum to ask if Australian’s would prefer to find alternatives to its radioactive waste spewing reactor. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/
March 9, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
This New York Times author gives a fair coverage to the Kimba radioactive waste dump issue. But it’s misleading in 3 important ways, as if the author completely buys the nuclear lobby’s propaganda.:
- States that “The country has no nuclear power plants.” But fails to mention the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor [which is the source of the really important radioactive trash for Kimba]
- Fails to mention the fact that South Australia has a clear law prohibiting establishment of any nuclear waste facility
- Seems unaware of the huge distances (2000 km) involved, which would mean that the vast majority of medical wastes would no longer be radioactive, in transport from the main points of production and use.
A Farming Town Divided: Do We Want a Nuclear Site that Brings Jobs?, NYT, By JACQUELINE WILLIAMS, MARCH 7, 2018 “……… Now, as the federal government considers whether to build the site on one of these two farms in Kimba, this community of about 650 people finds itself divided and angry. The prospect of jobs and subsidies that the site would bring has split locals between those who want to preserve rural Australia’s way of life and those who say the glory days of farming are over…..
Despite the distances, locals say Kimba always had a strong sense of community, at least until the nuclear site was proposed. Some said the allure of millions of dollars’ worth of grants and subsidies that the government was offering the host community had blinded people to the risks.
March 9, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/5271501/protesters-unite-against-nuclear/
Members of the Flinders Local Action Group (FLAG) stood side-by-side with Adelaide-based group Don’t Dump on SA in Port Augusta to protest against a potential radioactive waste facility in South Australia.
The two groups, together with local Adnyamathanha and Barngarla people, joined forces on the Princes Highway ahead of the state election, highlighting their concerns to locals and passing traffic with signs and information packs.
With a large inflatable radioactive waste barrel and a lime green three-headed kangaroo on display, protesters made their disapproval of the potential facility in either Wallerberdina Station or Kimba very clear.
The protesters also encouraged locals to get involved by sending submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility.
FLAG member and Hawker general practitioner Dr Susi Andersson said the broader community needed to know about the issue.
“The federal government is treating this as an issue for the local people only, but many people visit and care about the Flinders Ranges and don’t want a dump there,” Dr Andersson said.
-
Parliament passed the Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 in order to “protect the safety and welfare of the people of South Australia” and the protesters encouraged locals to vote for parties who would defend this legislation.
The Greens scored a five-star rating in a scoreboard conducted by an alliance of environment and community organisations across the state.
The scoreboard was based on responses to a survey sent to the leaders of the state’s five parties, rating them on their commitment to stopping climate pollution, ramping up clean energy and protecting nature.
SA Best scored second-best with a three-star rating, while Labor scored two stars followed by Liberal with 1.5 stars.
The Australian Conservatives, who recently backed a nuclear waste facility in SA, did not respond to the survey.
March 9, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
There have been rumours that Senate Inquiry submissions are limited to 5-6 pages. This is not the case, if your submission is longer than 5 pages you need to provide a summary at the front of your submission. See suggestions below:
The best submissions:
- clearly address some or all of the terms of reference—you do not need to address each one
- are relevant and highlight your own perspective
- are concise, generally no longer than four to five pages
- begin with a short introduction about yourself or the organisation you represent
- emphasise the key points so that they are clear
- outline not only what the issues are but how problems can be addressed, as the committee looks to submissions for ideas to make recommendations
- only include documents that directly relate to your key points
- only include information you would be happy to see published on the internet.
Submissions that include complex argument, personal details or criticise someone may take the committee longer to process and consider.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/How_to_make_a_submission
| Is your submission long? Have you provided a summary of your submission at the front? |
|
| Have you provided your return address and contact details with the submission? |
|
| Have you made sure that your personal contact details are not in the main part of the submission? |
|
| If you do not want your submission published on the internet, have you made this clear on the front of your submission and told us why? |
Please read the terms of reference carefully before making your submission. The committee has resolved that it will only accept submissions strictly addressing its terms of reference, with a particular focus on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility.
Submissions close on 3 April 2018.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility
March 7, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
“Australia does not produce any high level waste.” [???] said Bruce McCleary, the General Manager of the National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce
[He also did not mention that these wastes for Kimba will be temporary, i.e. STRANDED WASTES]
ANational Radioactive Waste Management Facility:
Kimba locals welcomed to Australia’s nuclear facility Eleven members of the Kimba community were on site at Lucas Heights yesterday, to see first-hand Australia’s nuclear technology and radioactive waste management expertise.
The delegation to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) included people with a variety of views on Kimba hosting the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
It included four neighbours of the two volunteered sites in Kimba, and three members of the Kimba Consultative Committee (KCC), as well as other interested community members.
Patricia Beinke saw the OPAL multi-purpose reactor, where ANSTO stores low and intermediate level radioactive waste, and how waste is prepared for transportation.
“It was a much bigger campus and complex than I had ever envisaged. I read all the information that comes my way, but wasn’t expecting this scale,” Mrs Beinke, who is a member of the KCC, said.
“I just found the trip so good. The scientists and engineers spoke on a level that everyone could understand.
“I saw the reactor, and we had a great discussion about how the waste is prepared for transportation, including the processes it would go through before being sent to a national facility.”
Austen Eatts has property that neighbours one of the volunteered sites, and is opposed to the facility, but was pleased to have seen ANSTO’s campus.
“I have always had a reasonable idea of what happens at ANSTO regarding medicine and industry, and what they are doing there is very good actually,” Mr Eatts said.
“The waste has to be put somewhere. I am still of two minds about whether it should be located in Kimba, but I found the trip very informative.”
Mr Eatts stressed that he is against the idea of a facility anywhere in Australia that could store high level, imported waste from overseas – a proposition not being put forward by the Federal Government.
Bruce McCleary is the General Manager of the National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce, and said it was great to host people with a variety of views on trips such as this.
“Tours of ANSTO’s medicine manufacturing and radioactive waste facilities are a great information tool for communities considering if they want to host a radioactive waste industry,” Mr McCleary said.
“They are also a way of us establishing what questions the community still has, and for them to see and hear from experts who work with this material every day, first-hand.
“I can confirm for Mr Eatts – and anyone else who shares his concern – that the national facility will not hold international or high level waste, because it is for Australian waste only, and Australia does not produce any high level waste. [????]
“Our national facility needs 100-hectares for an above ground low-level waste disposal and temporary storage of intermediate-level waste, whereas an international high-level facility would need to be far larger and would require a deep underground facility in order to be safe and economically viable.”
For more project information: www.radioactivewaste.gov.au
March 7, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
SOUTH AUSTRALIA: OUR FUTURE: SCORECARD , 5 March 2018
All of the four party responses are signed by the leader and are dated 28 Feb 2018.
Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives
Note: The “Australian Conservatives” were invited to respond and did not provide any response.
“SA Best is pleased to provide the following response to … :
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility
Yes
11b Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA.
Refer to SA-BEST environment policy.
We do not oppose a low-level waste facility in principle, recognising the benefits of nuclear medicine and research and the need to dispose of this waste.
However, until such time as the federal government demonstrates full transparency around the consultation and selection process, SA-BEST would not be supportive.
We would use legislation in SA to block it if the process is not acceptable.
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Question 11c on the High level nuclear waste..
We support and commit the current legislation as it now stands.
My understanding is the modifications have already been put in place.
Yours sincerely
Nick Xenophon
“The Liberal Party of SA makes the following commitments in response to…
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility
Yes
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Other: The Liuberal Party supports the current Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Yours Sincerely
Steven Marshall MP
State liberal Leader
Note: The Liberal response (as published) does not provide an answer to Q 11b:
Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA.
“The Greens have made the following commitments in response to … :
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediate
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility
Yes
11b Actively oppose the federal government plan for a radioactive waste facility in SA.
Yes
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Yes. Done, Thanks to a Greens bill.
Yours sincerely
Mark Parnell MLC
Parliamentary Leader Greens SA
Labor: “Thanks for opportunity to outline our position. A detailed response to your questions is attached:
see p.36 of doc, extract:
“We have written to Turnbull government outlining our strong expectation around community support for any proposed facility, including a veto for the local Aboriginal community. …”
Hon. Jay Weatherill MP
Premier of SA
Note: The Labor response (as published) does not provide an answer to Q 11a:
March 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Cameron Scott, Submission to ARPANSA on draft Code for Radioactive Waste, 4 Mar 18 It needs to be stated in the Code for Disposal of radioactive Waste that the Federal Government can not override state legislation for building a national facility. The code needs to include a clause protecting farming land from becoming home to hazardous waste. Licensing should require communities to nominate land not individuals.
March 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Conservation Council SA Mara Bonacci, Nuclear Waste Campaigner, 1 Mar 18,
On 6 February 2018, the federal Senate referred an inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018.
This is welcome.
It is an important opportunity for you to have your say in Australia’s approach to radioactive waste management. The terms of reference can be found
here and information about writing a submission is
here. Submissions are due by 3rd April 2018. Please consider writing your own submission or alternatively, submit an online submission
here.
Some points to consider including are:
- A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
- The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
- The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
- The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
- The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.
It would be great to get as many submissions to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics as possible so collectively we can end this terrible process and get the federal government to finally take a responsible approach to radioactive waste management.
March 3, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/news/Greenpeace-finds-nuclear-waste-headed-to-Australia-classified-as-high-level-waste-by-France/ 1 December,2015,
Nuclear waste returning to Australia this weekend by ship from France has been classified as high-level waste by French authorities, contradicting Australia’s claims over its radioactivity, a Greenpeace report has found.
Greenpeace’s investigation also found the waste still contains quantities of plutonium – highly toxic even in small quantities – despite reprocessing by French state-owned nuclear company, Areva.
“The Australian government is downplaying the danger of this shipment, saying it is intermediate-level waste that isn’t harmful unless mismanaged. But we know it contains plutonium and is classified as high-level waste by the French authorities,” said Emma Gibson, Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Head of Programs.
“It’s clear on evidence the government is not being as straight as it can be about the nature of this shipment by insisting Australia only has intermediate-level waste. Australians have a right to know what is being stored in their backyard. The lack of transparency over this waste is highly problematic,” she said.
The nuclear waste was generated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and sent to France in 2001 to be reprocessed.
The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has revealed to Greenpeace that the waste has been classified as high-level (long-life) waste according to standards set by ANDRA, the French national radioactive waste management agency. High-level waste is ANDRA’s most severe nuclear waste classification.
Areva documents have also confirmed that the waste still contains low quantities of plutonium.
However ANSTO has classified the shipment as intermediate-level waste using an alternate classification system.
“The discrepancy is a significant concern as the French have much more experience of nuclear waste management than the Australians. We have written to Christopher Pyne, the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, asking him to clarify the exact nature of the waste,” said Ms Gibson.
She said the vessel carrying the waste – the BBC Shanghai – also has a worrying safety record and has been banned by a number of nations.
Official documents seen by Greenpeace show the BBC Shanghai has been detained by Australia, the United States and Spain in the past five years after failing safety inspections. The US has banned the ship from carrying government cargo, while 14 other nations have found deficiencies in the ship since 2002.
“The government is spending about $30 million to bring its nuclear waste back to Australia, but the management of this shipment has been a catalogue of mistakes and misinformation.
“American and Australian authorities have both detained this junkyard ship in the past two years after it failed inspections. While the US has banned it from carrying government cargo, the Australian government loaded it with tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste to transport around the world.
“The more you move radioactive waste around, the more you increase the likelihood of an accident which could spread radioactive contamination into the environment.
“The government is now saying Australia could be a nuclear waste dump for the rest of the world. Imagine the corners that could be cut when these dangerous shipments arrive regularly,” said Ms Gibson.
Endorsing Greenpeace’s report, Dr Helen Caldicott, veteran anti-nuclear advocate said:
“The fact France has classified this as high-level waste should send alarm bells ringing about what is actually coming back to Australia. The French have significantly more experience in handling nuclear waste than Australia does. That the two countries could have such different views on how dangerous this nuclear waste is should be a huge concern.
“There are enormously different safety regulations required for high-level nuclear waste compared with intermediate-level waste.
“Australia is conducting a dangerous radioactive exercise by transporting 10 tonnes of this high-level radioactive waste in a notoriously dangerous ship.”
The nuclear waste is due to be unloaded off the BBC Shanghai at Port Kembla in southern Sydney in the early hours of Sunday, 6 December. It will then be transported to Lucas Heights by road for interim storage.
March 2, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 