South Australia’s new Liberal Premier Marshall backs nuclear waste dump, despite community discord
SA Government indicates support for nuclear waste dump as communities remain split about proposal http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-23/sa-gov-backs-nuclear-waste-dump-amid-community-tensions/9262948
New Premier Steven Marshall made the comments this week after his cabinet was sworn in at Government House.
“That’s a federal issue. We need to be assured the host community is satisfied with that,” Mr Marshall said.
“The Labor Party has held the same position that we have.”
The Federal Government is looking to store low-level nuclear waste and temporarily store intermediate level waste at one of two locations near Kimba, or one at Barndioota, near Hawker, in the Flinders Ranges.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) held informal community consultations in both towns this week.
ARPANSA is the independent federal agency that would assess any application made by the Federal Government for a nuclear waste repository.
The ABC understands the Federal Government wants to make a decision on the location of the nuclear waste facility before the end of the year.
Kimba community split over proposal
Kimba local Audrey Lienert opposes the facility, but attended the ARPANSA session to gain further information about the process.
“It has split the community terribly,” Mrs Lienert said.
She said there was a common concern among those who did not support the facility at Kimba.
“If the word gets out that we’ve got nuclear here in our farming land, what [will] our market be overseas, and what will that do to our prices?”
But not all locals are against the proposal.
Lifelong Kimba farmer Trevor Cliff said the economic benefits could not be overstated for the small farming community of 600.
“Every country town is struggling with numbers. It’s hard to attract industry,” Mr Cliff said.
“To me, it’s something that can help the town employment-wise.”
He is convinced the facility and the transport of nuclear waste will be safe.
“I’m very happy to accommodate it here. I have no fear of the actual product.
“It’s well-contained, well before it gets to Kimba.”
He admitted the issue had been contentious, but disputed the town had been split.
“One of my best mates, he’s trapped on the no side and we talk about it,” Mr Cliff said.
“He can have his side, and I say my side — that’s democracy for you.”
Hawker locals battle over culture and economic growth
The Flinders Local Action Group (FLAG) comprises members who are against the facility being built in the Flinders Ranges.
FLAG member Greg Bannon said the group was strongly opposed to the potential Wallerberdina Station site near Hawker.
“That stretch of land between Lake Torrens and the ranges is totally unsuitable for something that will have to be managed for at least 300 years,” Mr Bannon said.
He pointed to further concerns from local traditional owners, the Adnyamathanha people, and regular seismic activity in the region as more evidence the site was poorly suited.
But Barndioota Economic Working Group chairman Malcom McKenzie said the potential for jobs could not be understated.
“If everything’s all safe to do I’m for that facility to go ahead because I want to see jobs for that region,” he said.
“I want to see opportunities for Aboriginal people and for the people of the area. And it’s a great opportunity I think we’re going to proceed with.”
ARPANSA’s role ‘informal’ for the momentARPANSA chief executive Carl-Magnus Larsson said the organisation would assess any application carefully.
“A facility will not go ahead unless we’re convinced it can go ahead and that protection of health and safety of people is taken care of,” Dr Larsson said.
He stressed recent meetings between the communities and ARPANSA had been informal because no official application had been lodged by the Federal Government.
He said if the agency were to receive an application, it could take between six and 12 months to decide whether to grant a licence for the facility.
A federal Senate inquiry into the process of site selection is ongoing, with submissions closing on April 3.
The findings of the inquiry are due in August.
Pro nuclear enthusiasm in Ben Heard’s submission to the Senate
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
Leave Lucas Heights nuclear waste AT Lucas Heights – Mark Parnell
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/
“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.
A powerful statement of warning against a nuclear waste dump for Kimba, south Australia
Heather Pepper 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
Busting the pro nuclear spin to regional South Australia, by the visitors from Lucas Heights
Roni Skipworth 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
Nuclear waste dump for South Australia? Deafening silence by politicians and journalists
MOSS, No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
“What is each party’s position when it comes to defending the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000?”
The single most important issue in the history of South Australia, as it has significant impact on our future generations, has been ignored by all parties as an election issue. South Australia has a law prohibiting the development of a nuclear waste dump, yet the Federal Government is currently making plans to override it and build a nuclear waste facility in the heart of our prime farming land in Kimba, South Australia and also the Flinders Ranges only 40km from Wilpena Pound. Which party will uphold this law and why hasn’t any party put it on the agenda for this election. Please don’t suggest it’s a Federal issue, because it’s not. A nuclear waste dump for South Australia is breaking one of our own existing laws so it is very much a State Government issue.
We heard Nick Xenophon, Steven Marshall and Jay Weatherill on the ABC Adelaidethis morning and thought some hard hitting questions would be asked but instead heard a continuation of the “Cat Fight” we have been hearing for some time now. I’m thinking we need another Laurie Oaks.
Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000
We kindly ask that you please share this post to assist broader support.
7 News Adelaide 9 News Adelaide Ten Eyewitness News Adelaide A Current Affair 60 Minutes Australia Wilpena Pound Resort – Flinders Ranges, SA No Dump Alliance No Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges Nuclear Free Adelaide – No Nukes HereFlinders Local Action Group: FLAG, Dr Helen Caldicott
David Noonan’s Submissions to Senate regarding Reprocessing Nuclear Fuel and Safety of Intermediate Level Wastes
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
“Broad community support” for a nuclear waste dump near Kimba should mean a national referendum
Steve Dale 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/
New York Times buys into ANSTO’s nuclear spin about Kimba?
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 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.
Protesters unite against nuclear waste in Port Augusta
https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/5271501/protesters-unite-against-nuclear/ Marco Balsamo
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.
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.
Best way to make submissions to the Senate Inquiry on Nuclear Waste Dumping
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
ANSTO spin and lies : Kimba nuclear fans shouted a visit to Lucas Heights
“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
South Australia election: Greens OPPOSE, SA Best nearly oppose, nuclear waste dump in SA: Labor and Liberal vacillate
“SA Best is pleased to provide the following response to … :level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility
Yes
Refer to SA-BEST environment policy.
11c. Actively support the state Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility
Yes
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Note: The Liberal response (as published) does not provide an answer to Q 11b:“The Greens have made the following commitments in response to … :
11a Categorically rule out the creation of an international high and/or intermediatelevel radioactive waste storage and disposal facility
Yes
Commit to further strengthen this legislation by removing the modified section
Labor: “Thanks for opportunity to outline our position. A detailed response to your questions is attached:level radioactive waste storage and disposal facility more https://www.ourfuturesa.org.au/scorecard
Federal govt cannot override South Australia law against nuclear waste dump
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.
Call for submissions to the Australian Senate Inquiry about the nuclear waste dump plan
Conservation Council SA Mara Bonacci, Nuclear Waste Campaigner, 1 Mar 18,
This is welcome.- 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.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 