Muckaty still at risk of getting radioactive trash dump
Muckaty could still house nuclear dump, 9 News 20 June 14 Opponents of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory have won the battle, but perhaps not the war. The Northern Land Council has three months to nominate another site for Australia’s nuclear waste storage facility after abandoning the Muckaty site, following a seven-year battle with Aboriginal traditional owner groups who launched a Federal Court challenge against the NLC for what they said was inadequate consultation and a failure to obtain informed consent from all traditional owners.
The NLC settled with opponents of the dump midway through a trial that had travelled from Melbourne to Tennant Creek and Muckaty, and was due in Darwin next week. “The NLC have walked away without being held truly accountable,” said Gerry McCarthy, local member for the Barkly tablelands, of which Muckaty is a part.
He now hopes for a scientific approach to locating the dump, which previous reports said would suit conditions in the northwestern corner of South Australia.
“Science will prove this facility needs to go to the driest part of this continent, (with) a water table very deep and preferably contaminated by salt, and also an area of minimal infrastructure that provides access to what will be low to intermediate-level waste coming home from France shortly,” he said.
Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney told AAP that for 20 years, successive governments had tried to find a “remote and vulnerable community and a remote place to dump Australian waste”. He said the federal government needed “an open, inclusive, evidence-based assessment of the range of radioactive waste management options available” for responsible and effective long-term storage.
Clan members think the NLC capitulation is not the end of the matter, with Marlene Bennett saying they were “still feeling slightly apprehensive”…….. Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion told ABC he hoped for another nomination of a northern site at Muckaty, not susceptible to the conflicts of the first.
Mr McCarthy said the NT couldn’t refuse the dump, which “should never be forced on a community due to constitutional exploitation”.Spent nuclear fuel rods are due to be returned to Australia from France by mid-2015, and traditional owners are ready to continue their fight if Muckaty is circled again. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/06/19/10/05/land-council-abandons-muckaty-dump-push#g3vDwhQZgipFw5Th.99
Australia legally bound to take back Lucas Heights high level radioactive trash from France by late 2015
The case got going in Melbourne several weeks ago and then moved to Tennant Creek where, last Saturday, there was explosive evidence that went widely unreported
Australia’s first nuclear waste dump in limbo after Muckaty Station ruled out news.com.au 21 June 14, paul.toohey@news.com.au THE Federal Government always suspected a radioactive waste dump on Aboriginal land was too good to be true. Now their fears have been realised.
The Northern Land Council, after seven years heavily backing Aboriginal land at Muckaty station for the site of the nation’s radioactive waste facility, has withdrawn its nomination for the site in the midst of a Federal Court case.
The Muckaty dump site is dead. Some are celebrating, but Australia has a problem. It needs a dump, yet no state or territory wants it.
The Commonwealth would not — you would think — succeed in asking a regional neighbour to store our radioactive waste, in the way they store asylum-seekers on our behalf in offshore detention.
PUSH BACK: Muckaty Station plan dumped
THE WAR: Where to put Australia’s nuclear waste dump
Australia needs to find a home for reprocessed nuclear fuel rods that will be returned from France in late 2015, and something needs to be done about low-level radioactive waste currently stored in hospital car parks.
Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane has bravely expressed hope that another Aboriginal group from the Territory will now step forth to nominate their land, but it is doubtful the Commonwealth would want to risk another Muckaty.
The battle over the location of the dump, for all these years contained to the relative obscurity of the remotest parts of northern Australia, could well now shift to country towns in WA, Queensland, SA or NSW as the Commonwealth continues an urgent quest to locate suitable land.
They thought they had it covered in 2005 when the then chief executive of the NLC, Norman Fry, came up with a scheme to locate the dump on Aboriginal land.
The Commonwealth, startled but grateful for the proposal after they had earlier lost a case to locate the dump in SA, changed the law so that Aboriginal traditional landowners could nominate their land for the dump.
A group from Muckaty, north of Tennant, duly proposed their land, in exchange for $12.2m (of which only $200,000 has so far been paid). But there were constant questions as to who the proper traditional owners were…….. http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australias-first-nuclear-waste-dump-in-limbo-after-muckaty-station-ruled-out/story-fn5fsgyc-1226961714663
Ray Aylett, Muckaty cattle station manager supports nuclear waste siting there
Muckaty manager will support second nuclear waste nomination ABC News 20 June 14 The manager of Muckaty cattle station says he doesn’t care where a nuclear waste facility is put on the property, because it will mean more infrastructure. The Northern Land Council (NLC) has withdrawn its original nomination of a small section of Muckaty Station, 600 kilometres north of Alice Springs, as the site for Australia’s first nuclear waste dump.
But the NLC has not ruled out the possibility of making a second nomination on behalf of Traditional Owners from the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust.
The Federal Minister for Industry, Ian McFarlane, has given the NLC three months to come up with a second nomination, and says it could possibly be an area on Muckaty known as the ‘Northern Site’.
The station manager of Muckaty, Ray Aylett, says while it’s not up to him, he would support a second nomination……Ray Aylett is currently in a dispute with the Northern Land Council about his licence on the property, saying he was given an eviction notice to be out by this month.
A tender for a grazing licence on the property was advertised late last year, but Mr Aylett says he doesn’t know where the process is up to.
The NLC is yet to respond to ABC Rural’s request for clarification on the status of the property’s lease. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-20/muckaty-nomination-support/5537722
Muckaty nuclear waste dump plan has been scrapped!
Natalie Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Initiative, 19 June 14 Some fantastic news today- the Commonwealth Government has committed not to pursue plans for a national radioactive waste dump at Muckaty, 120km north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory!
Lawyers from Maurice Blackburn Social Justice Practice have just announced the exciting development in Melbourne and a delegation of Muckaty Traditional Owners travelled to Alice Springs for a press conference that has just concluded.
The announcement comes mid-way through the Federal Court trial examining the process under which the nomination of Muckaty was made by the Northern Land Council and accepted by the Commonwealth Government in 2007.
Two weeks of the trial were completed with hearings in Melbourne, Tennant Creek and on country at Muckaty outstation. The Northern Land Council and Commonwealth Government have agreed to settle with the Applicants by committing not to act on the proposal or nomination, so the hearings scheduled for Darwin (June 23-July 4) have been cancelled.
A blog of the court proceedings is online at www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com/blog and photos posted atwww.beyondnuclearinitiative.com/photos
This campaign has followed the successful campaign by the Kupi Piti Kungka Tjuta to stop a nuclear dump in SA and been built from the ground up in Tennant Creek with help from supporters across the NT. Over the last 7 years, the community has marched in Tennant Creek every year, hosted trade union delegations, written songs and poems, made films and toured photo exhibitions. People have travelled tirelessly around the country to build awareness and support, having conversations over cups of tea in regional areas and walking the corridors of Canberra Parliament House to lobby Ministers.
The community used the May 25 rally and media attention on the federal court proceedings to reiterate they would continue campaigning until the dump was stopped- including blocking the road if needed.
So the deadly news is now public – please tell everyone that together we dumped the Muckaty plan! Traditional Owners and the broader community in Tennant Creek are very excited and relieved and looking forward to a big celebration in the coming few weeks.
We will then set about collating photos, footage and other materials from the campaign, so stay tuned for the call out to copy and/or send these to the Arid Lands Environment Centre for archiving.
There is a lot more to say but we are still all a bit shocked and processing the news so will send more updates and reflections in the coming week.
Media release from today is attached.
I was asked to finish this note with a huge thanks to everyone who has been part of this campaign and supported the Muckaty mob to be heard- every action, letter, conversation, trip to Tennant, fundraising gig and movie night has helped bring about this victory!!
Muckaty will be nuclear free!
The greedy few will benefit from nuke waste dumping, at the cost of Aboriginal land and culture
Dennis Matthews, 17 June 14 Little has changed from the days when the Federal Government tried to locate the dump in SA.
They denied it was a dump, it was a “repository”. We won that battle.
They claimed it was for only low level waste. We won that battle by publicly asking them where the short-lived intermediate waste was going to go, Nick Minchin unashamedly admitted that it was going in the low level dump. The reporter doing the interview was noticeably taken aback by that admission.
They kept stressing volumes rather than amount of ionising radiation. We stressed that it’s not the volume or mass of the waste that is dangerous it’s the amount of ionising radiation.
The Kupa Piti Kunga Tjuta were so strong and got both Australian and International awards for their determination in the face of attacks by the Government-industry complex. The Kunga-Tjuta had experience with ionising radiation through the fallout from the British nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga.
The anti-dump campaign stressed that the waste should be left where it is and looked after by the experts at Lucas Heights – if those experts didn’t want it there then they shouldn’t make it in the first place.
Those who benefit most from Lucas Heights want the costs picked up by those who benefit least.
Bob Hawke happy to have nuclear waste imported, dumped on Aboriginal land
Australia should be nuclear dumping ground, says Bob Hawke Dump nuclear waste in Australia says former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke: “The one thing this country ought to do is have the disposal of nuclear waste in remote areas.” Australian Times, By Estelle Vosloo on 5 June, 2014 In an address to the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, Bob Hawke said Australia’s remote areas should be used as a nuclear dumping ground for the rest of the world.
The former Labor prime minister elaborated on his statement while speaking to members of the Australian Press Club, at an event marking their 50th anniversary. Former Liberal prime minister John Howard also spoke at the event……..
Currently approximately 80% of the waste produced at Lucas Heights, Australia’s only nuclear reactor, comes from the production of nuclear medicine items like containers, gloves, plastic and equipment.
Friends of the Earth (Australia) stated that, “Any used fuel is currently stored in permanent storage facilities in France, the UK and the US but will be returned to Australia in 2015 as intermediate-level waste.
It is argued that Australia has a responsibility to accept waste arising from the processing of uranium exports. However the larger share of the responsibility lies with the countries that make use of Australian uranium,” their statement says.
“Moreover while uranium mining companies arguably ought to take some responsibility for the waste arising from their exports, it is not clear that that responsibility lies with Australia as a whole,” they say, adding that uranium is being mined on Aboriginal land without their consent and that the waste will again be dumped on Aboriginal land. http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/news-from-australia/news-in-australia/australia-should-become-nuclear-dumping-ground-says-bob-hawke.htm
Muckaty Court Report Day 3 – When is a nuclear waste dump not a nuclear waste dump?
Muckaty Court report Day 3- June 4 when is a dump not a dump? By Padraic Gibson Beyond Nuclear Initiative, 5 June 14 “…...Mr Merkel handed up to the court two anthropologist reports completed by the NLC specifically for the waste dump nomination in 2006. Mr Merkel argued there were differences between the first report, prepared exclusively by the NLC anthropologists, and the second, which had been both “heavily edited” and “rewritten” by NLC principal lawyer Ron Levy, despite his signature being absent…….
More significant than an argument about who has primary responsibility however, is the emphasis in the original report on shared responsibility for sites across Muckaty by all clan groups. Mr Yarrow argued that this fundamental principle that underpins the land grant had been abandoned by the NLC in their nomination of the site on Muckaty……
Despite the focus of the legal proceedings on the alleged misconduct of the NLC, from the perspective of the campaign against the Muckaty dump, the Commonwealth submissions provided an important reminder that the central problem here is the discriminatory actions of the government in targeting impoverished Aboriginal communities for some of Australia’s most toxic industrial waste.
The genesis of the Muckaty dump nomination is the Commonwealth push to establish a waste dump on Aboriginal land. The court heard evidence of Commonwealth representatives starting to attend full council meetings of the Northern Land Council in late 2005, to pitch the idea of a dump to Aboriginal land owners……..
As Traditional Owners have consistently pointed out – if this stuff is so safe, why do you want to put it so far away from the cities?
The second ideological argument put strongly by the Commonwealth, both in their submissions to court and in their presentations to Traditional Owners during consultations, is that the waste dump is needed to allow for the continued operation of nuclear medicine in Australia. This argument has been comprehensively rebuffed by health professionals, such as Dr Michael Fonda from the Public Health Association, who has highlighted the cruelty of making Traditional Owners, who live in communities that suffer from developing world health conditions, feel guilty that somehow their opposition to a waste dump would be an impediment to others receiving health care.
See for example the short video: Nuclear Furphies and Political Follies……..
No mention was made about provisions in the 2005 Radioactive Waste Management Act which stipulate that the Commonwealth will not hand back any land that had been contaminated. This also ignores the fact that the “low level” waste is set be buried, with no intention of recovery.
The nature of the waste dump then, is shaping up to be a central issue in the case……..
In my discussions with Muckaty Traditional owners over the last seven years, key witnesses relied upon by the Commonwealth have strongly rejected the assertion that they ever consented to the waste dump, or ever said the decision should rest with the narrow family group in question. Next week they will have a chance to be heard directly, as the court relocates to the Northern Territory for hearings both at Muckaty itself and in Tennant Creek http://beyondnuclearinitiative.com/muckaty-court-report-day-3-june-4/
Lawyer for Norther Land Council accused of ‘doctoring’ anthropologists’ report about proposed nuclear waste dump site
Indigenous land owners accuse lawyer of manipulating nuclear waste storage report June 4, 2014 – Jane Lee Legal Affairs Reporter for The Age A lawyer who was key to the Howard government’s plan to store nuclear waste on indigenous land has been accused of manipulating the legal process required to ensure its approval.
Traditional owners from four indigenous clans are challenging the Ngapa clan’s 2007 nomination of Muckaty Station for the dump site in the Federal Court in Melbourne. The owners, including Aboriginal elders, argue they did not consent to the nomination, were not consulted on the agreement reached and were misled on the government’s proposal for the nuclear storage site.
Ron Levy was then the chief legal counsel for the Northern Land Council, which was set up to help indigenous people in the Northern Territory acquire and manage traditional lands. Mr Levy will be called as a witness later in the five-week case before Justice Anthony North.
Ron Merkel, QC, for the traditional owers, told the court on Thursday that Mr Levy “personally edited” anthropologists’ views in a Council report which concluded that only the Ngapa Lauder clan owned the site. Mr Levy also wrote a new section in the final report, reflecting his view that the Land Commissioner could depart from judges’ previous decisions on land claims, “if relevant material was before the commissioner.”
Mr Merkel said that he did this “(so) that the Lauder Ngupas would be recognised by the Northern Land Council as the only traditional owners of the site so their consent could be secured.” The site nomination could then “jump a hurdle” of having to consult in more detail about about the plan with other clans, he said………..
Mr Merkel told the court on Tuesday that Mr Levy, who controlled the consultation process, also failed to tell the full Northern Land Council or traditional owners about the only up-front $200,000 payment given to traditional owners for the site nomination or the terms of their agreement.
But he later told the federal goverrnment that he had all traditional owners’ full consent.
Mr Merkel said there was no explanation for this “unless … Mr Levy had a plan from the outset about how to achieve the end result and he did”. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indigenous-land-owners-accuse-lawyer-of-manipulating-nuclear-waste-storage-report-20140604-39jk8.html#ixzz33nhZjp26.
Time that Northern Territory’s Chief Minister Adam Giles came clean about nuclear wastes
GILES NEEDS TO COME CLEAN ON NUCLEAR DUMP STANCE http://territorylabor.com.au/giles-needs-to-come-clean-on-nuclear-dump-stance/ Gerry McCarthy , 4 June 2014 Local Member for Barkly, Gerry McCarthy, today called on the Chief Minister, Adam Giles, to stand alongside Territory Labor and other Territorians who do not want a nuclear waste dump in the Territory.“Territorians are adamant that they do not want a Nuclear Waste Dump at Muckaty Station,” Mr McCarthy said.
Mr McCarthy said Adam Giles needs to come clean to Territorians about where he stands on the issue.
“It has been alleged that Adam Giles is an ardent supporter of a having nuclear waste facility in the Territory,” Mr McCarthy said.
“By his silence it appears the Chief Minister does support the proposed nuclear waste dump at Muckaty. “Territory Labor and many Territorians are concerned about the risk of potentially dangerous nuclear waste that will be transported on our roads, rail and through our ports to reach the proposed facility.
“The Chief Minister needs to assure Territorians that he will not stand by and let the Federal Government turn the Territory into a nuclear waste dump.”
The Member for Barkly said representatives of traditional owners against a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty were in the High Court in Melbourne currently trying to end the 7 year struggle to establish the first purpose built nuclear waste dump facility in the Territory. The High Court hearings will collect evidence in Tennant Creek and Darwin later this month. Media contact: Cathryn Tilmouth 
0427 500 667
Australia needs a new and independent approach to radioactive waste management
Comment: Australia’s radioactive waste management on trial Australia has never had an independent examination of the best way to manage our nation’s radioactive waste. It’s time for that to change. By Dave Sweeney 28 MAY 2014– “…….Internationally the industry thinking has been evolving to a series of approaches that seek to achieve both the isolation of the waste and inclusion of the community.
In a 2006 report, an expert UK committee on radioactive waste management stated:
“It is generally considered that a voluntary process is essential to ensure equity, efficiency and the likelihood of successfully completing the process. There is a growing recognition that it is not ethically acceptable for a society to impose a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling community.”
The current Muckaty plan and process is at sharp odds with this common sense and common decency approach.
It is also in conflict with Australia’s international obligations under the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples which explicitly requires that “states shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
It is the end result of over two decades of non-transparent and non-inclusive policy making that has been determined by unaccountable departmental representatives and driven with various degrees of enthusiasm by a chain reaction of successive politicians.
Unlike most comparable nations, Australia has never had an independent examination of the best way to manage our nation’s radioactive waste. A dedicated, open and expert National Commission into responsible radioactive waste management would help address a long standing federal policy failure.
The process behind the Muckaty plan will soon be examined by the Federal Court but what is missing and needed is to put Australia’s radioactive waste management on trial.
It is time for a new approach — one that reflects and is informed by best practise, sound science and respect — a public National Commission into responsible radioactive waste management.
As a nation we need to move from the flawed and failed push to find a vulnerable postcode for a dumpsite to a credible process that actively explores the range of management options and which one ticks the most boxes.
Dave Sweeney is the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaigner. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/05/28/comment-australia-s-radioactive-waste-management-trial
Background to the Federal Court case on the proposed Muckaty radioactive wastes dump
Comment: Australia’s radioactive waste management on trial Australia has never had an independent examination of the best way to manage our nation’s radioactive waste. It’s time for that to change. By Dave Sweeney 28 MAY 2014 IT IS A LONG WAY FROM THE LORE OF THE WORLD’S OLDEST CONTINUING CULTURE TO THE LAW COURTS OF MELBOURNE BUT A STORY THAT STARTED YEARS AGO IN CENTRAL AUSTRALIA WILL SOON BE THE FOCUS OF A MONTH LONG FEDERAL COURT TRIAL SEEN BY MANY AS A TEST OF BOTH AUSTRALIA’S SOCIAL CONTRACT WITH ITS FIRST NATION PEOPLE’S AND COMMITMENT TO RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.In May 2007 the Northern Land Council nominated an area of land on a pastoral station called Muckaty around 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory as a site for a national radioactive waste dump.
The proposal was advanced through a commercial in confidence agreement between the NLC, an Aboriginal clan group and the then Howard government that saw the group “volunteer” an area of the shared Muckaty Land Trust for the burial and above ground storage of radioactive waste in return for federal payments, promises and a “package of benefits” worth around $12 million.
The dump plans lack of transparency, inclusion and scientific or procedural rigour left the majority of Aboriginal land-owners without any awareness of or ability to input into the process or the plan.
Like all things nuclear, this is an issue with shelf life and now after years of sustained community opposition a Federal Court trial is set to explore the unresolved issues of ownership, consultation and consent at hearings in Melbourne, Tennant Creek and Darwin throughout June.
Critics maintain that the dump plan fails two fundamental tests: it has explicitly excluded and marginalised Aboriginal landowners from decision making processes and power and it is based on an approach to radioactive waste management that is increasing at odds with international industry best practise and sound thinking.
The Federal Court’s focus will be the question of consent and control, and these concerns are of pivotal importance. Shared title for the Muckaty lands was only formally granted to Aboriginal people fifteen years ago and now many are saddened and angry that access to this area could be lost for centuries to come through a secretive process and without their knowledge or consent. Further, it is unreasonable and unconscionable for any government to play the politics of carrot and stick with some of the nation’s poorest people in order to find a remote place to dump some of the nation’s nastiest industrial waste.
The need to responsibly manage the serious and long term environmental and human risks posed from any industrial waste is a clear test of a mature society. When that risk involves the unique properties of radioactive waste then the need is magnified and multiplied.
Radioactive waste is a serious environmental management challenge. The material is often hot, always hazardous and extremely long-lived. Current problems at waste facilities in the US and elsewhere highlight the complexity of the issue and no nation on earth currently has a safe, final disposal facility for high level radioactive waste. This issue demands and deserves genuine attention but for too long been mismanaged by successive politicians seeking a short term ‘fix’ to a long term threat……. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/05/28/comment-australia-s-radioactive-waste-management-trial
Northern Territory Chief Minister’s secret support for Territory nuclear dump
Territory and National environment groups have called for NT Chief Minister Adam Giles to come clean on his secret support for a Territory waste dump in the wake of revelations by former-Prime Minister Bob Hawke made public today. Mr Giles has previously refused to state his position on the controversial proposal to dump Australia’s nuclear waste at Muckaty, 120 kms north of Tennant Creek until the matter had been settled in a Federal Court trial due to start in June.
Former-PM Minister Bob Hawke has claimed that Giles is “an ardent supporter” of an international dump for high-level nuclear waste in the Territory. The news is an unwelcome announcement to Muckaty Traditional Owners, the Barkly community and Territory health, environment and trade union groups on the eve of a mass community rally in Tennant Creek on May 25.
Lauren Mellor, Nuclear Free NT Campaigner at the Environment Centre NT, said: “The Chief Minister should be fighting Canberra’s plan to make the Territory Australia’s waste dump, not secretly promoting the Territory as the world’s nuclear dump.”
Dr Jim Green from Friends of the Earth said: “The plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump on the Territory is a national disgrace. The Chief Minister cannot even demonstrate that the Territory can safely manage a uranium mine, with processing at Ranger suspended following a serious industrial accident last year.”
Natalie Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Initiative convenor said: “The Muckaty proposal does not have scientific basis, or social licence to go ahead. Muckaty was not short listed in a national site selection study and people across the Territory have been campaigning against the dump for almost 9 years, since the first proposed sites were announced. We call on Chief Minister Giles to publicly state his position on this important issue so his constituents across the Territory are clear where he stands.”
A community rally in Tennant Creek is planned for May 25, marking 7 years since the Muckaty site was nominated by the Northern Land Council. The Federal Court trial will begin on June 2 with hearings in Melbourne, Tennant Creek and Darwin.
Muckaty Traditional Owners and NT environment, health and trade union groups have launched a television advertising campaign calling for waste dump plans to be scrapped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDcliZ_EHLY
For media comment please call:
Lauren Mellor, Environment Centre NT: 0413 534 125
Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth: 0417 318 368
Natalie Wasley, Beyond Nuclear Initiative: 0429 900 774 (Tennant Creek)
St George & Sutherland Shire relieved that radioactive trash will go from their area to Northern Territory
Federal Budget 2014: Radioactive waste funding relief St George & Sutherland Shire Leader May 17, 2014 THE federal budget provides $22.6 million to develop detailed design options for a national radioactive waste management site at a location outside Sutherland Shire.
This is the first firm indication that the Coalition government will press ahead with plans for a permanent nuclear waste storage.
It is expected to be welcomed by Sutherland Shire Council, which opposes plans for a temporary storage site to be built at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas Heights.
It is thought the federal government is considering several sites in the Northern Territory……The allocation of $22.6 million over three years for the design of the permanent nuclear storage site comes under the federal Department of Industry budget.
ANSTO also received a $654 million, four-year funding allocation under the budget.
This includes $76.6 million over five years for the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights — Australia’s only nuclear research reactor…….http://www.theleader.com.au/story/2282157/federal-budget-2014-radioactive-waste-funding-relief/?cs=1255
Synroc a radioactive waste storage method rejected in USA, France, but to be used in Australia
Synroc is not a disposal method. Synroc still has to be stored. Even though the waste is held in a solid lattice and prevented from spreading, it is still radioactive and can have a negative effect on its surroundings.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
Australia Synroc plant construction approved by regulator, Nuclear Engineering, 15 May 2014 by Will Dalrymple, Australia’s nuclear regulator has approved siting and construction of its proposed Synroc intermediate-level waste treatment plant at the ANSTO campus in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire.
Synroc is an Australian invention that immobilises radioactive waste in a durable solid rock-like material. In September 2012, ANSTO announced plans for the cutting-edge Synroc plant, which will be co-located with an export-scale nuclear medicine manufacturing facility…….This week’s Australian federal budget also included $22.6 million to develop detailed design options for this national waste facility, which will be located outside of the Shire.
The decision this week by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) came after an expert assessment, including a public consultation process, and enables ANSTO to site and construct the Synroc facility.
Construction of the Synroc plant is scheduled to start in 2015 and be completed by the end of 2017. Further approvals will be required before the plant is made operational. http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsaustralia-synroc-plant-construction-approved-by-regulator-4267988
Westinghouse out of unviable Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, and into lucrative Nuclear Decommissioning
Westinghouse backs out of Small Modular Reactor market Enformable Nuclear News Lucas W Hixson http://enformable.com/2014/02/westinghouse-backs-small-modular-reactor-market/Danny Roderick, President and CEO of Westinghouse announced that the nuclear firm is backing off of research and development of their Small Modular Reactor design. The Westinghouse design is a scaled down version of the AP1000 reactor, designed to produce 225 MWe, which could power 45,000 residential houses.
In December, the firm was passed over for a second time by the United States Department of Energy’s SMR commercialization program. Roderick clarified the issue and noted that it was not the deployment of the technology that posed the biggest problem – it was that there were no customers. “The worst thing to do is get ahead of the market,” he added
According to Roderick, unless Westinghouse was capable of producing 30 to 50 small modular reactors, there was no way that the firm would return its investment in the development project. In the end, given the lack of market, and the similar lack of federal funding, Westinghouse was unable to justify the economics of small modular reactors at this point.
Westinghouse was working with St. Louis-based Ameren, which had indicated its desire to build a new reactor near the State’s only existing nuclear reactor – the Calloway nuclear power plant, if a federal investment could be secured.
Westinghouse will focus its attentions on its decommissioning business, which is a $1 billion dollar per year business for the firm – which is equivalent to Westinghouse’s new reactor construction business, and rededicate its staff to the AP1000 reactor design.
Analysts are monitoring how the companies who did receive funding from the Department of Energy perform as they evolve. Source: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazett
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 