The status of two current federal processes related to radioactive waste and the Kimba plan
(i) In the latest federal budget around $60 million was allocated to ANSTO explicitly to upgrade their storage capacity for ILW. This approach fully aligns with the civil society call for ILW waste to be kept in extended interim storage at Lucas Heights prior to a final decision on future management options. This allocation is the focus of a current review by parliament’s Public Works Committee (see: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/ANSTOLucasHeights/Submissions ). There is no fixed reporting date but the direction to the Committee is to report “as expeditiously as possible”. The Committee is likely to hold at least one public hearing and to approve the planned expenditure and works will advance.
The Australian Consewrvation Foundation will be calling for this – and any future government – to use the breathing space provided by this extra capacity as the game changing circuit breaker in the waste debate.
(ii) ANSTO have recently made an EPBC Act referral around its plan to bring reprocessed spent nuclear fuel waste back from the UK to Lucas Heights: Referral: EPBC 2021/8998 – Return of Australian Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste from the UK, NSW
This ILW waste would travel by road, rail and ship from the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria in a purpose built 7m long, 3m high transport and storage container. The shipment would take place between December 2021 and July 2022. ACF’s view is that this material should be stored at ANSTO pending a final management option – it should not be double-handled and moved to Kimba in the absence of an agreed further plan.
Kimba nuclear waste dump consultation? WHAT CONSULTATION?
Kazzi Jai Fight to stop a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, 24 Aug 21,
Consultation? What consultation? Right from the very start the whole dump process has been a SHAM! It has been nothing but a PR exercise laced with bribe money singling out South Australia as the dump site for all of ANSTO’s Lucas Heights NSW nuclear waste over 1700 kms away!
This is nuclear waste from industrial production of nuclear isotopes the bulk of which is exported overseas!! – It has nothing to do with loved ones in hospital actually using diagnostic isotopes for which that waste is held on site at the hospital and then officially released into normal waste streams – on a “retain and decay” basis as they are licenced by ARPANSA. This practice will not change with or without a dump!
This current proposal is nothing but a cheapskate attempt by the Feds to shaft nuclear waste onto South Australia so that it solely becomes South Australia’s responsibility, liability and problem! And the proposal is for the PERMANENT DISPOSAL of LOW LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE in a TOTALLY ALL ABOVE GROUND DUMP!
This is NOT STORAGE. This means the waste is there FOREVER! Should there be leakage or contamination from the waste – too bad – since it’s for PERMANENT DISPOSAL site ANYWAY!The “temporary” tag-a-long Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste will be stored as dry storage – as “temporary” designates “dry storage”.
The “temporary” tag on it certainly has nothing to do with any commitment by the Feds to deal with it anytime going into the future! It will become STRANDED waste which again, will remain solely South Australia’s responsibility, liability and problem!
And this is slap bang in the middle of wheat fields! A place which has NO past or present history with the nuclear industry!
And to add insult to injury, ANSTO relinquishes all responsibility of the waste once it hits SA’s soil! It’s off their books and they effectively wash their hands of it – it is no longer their problem!
Now Jeff Baldock may be foolish and naive, but given he has put up THREE pieces of land for this dump, seems more to be chasing the money coming from sale of his land!
This has NOT been an “open and transparent” process by any means!
The OBVIOUS LACK OF CONSULTATION is but one part of this very FLAWED proposal- a proposal which has not changed in FORTY YEARS mind you – and needs to be scrapped and take back to the drawing board – dealing with the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste first and the Low Level Nuclear Waste can follow that – NO DOUBLE HANDLING! https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
Some uncomfortable questions for Sam Chard · General Manager, Australian Radioactive Waste Agency.
Why was Manager Chard nearly two years ago referring to Whyalla as a port for the transport of nuclear material?
Was this to pave the way for using Whyalla for transport of nuclear material for the proposed Kimba facility?
Had the Whyalla municipal administration been approached about the possible use of its port for transport of nuclear material?
Has Chard or someone else from the federal government approached or discussed possible transport arrangements for nuclear material with any transport or logistics contractors or consultants?
If so will Chard publicly and fully disclose the extent and details of the approaches or discussions including identifying the contractors or consultants?
Was the Whyalla municipal administration involved in these approaches and discussions?
Did any of the contractors or consultants point out that the transport proposals by the federal government were in breach of international standards and prescriptions and did not follow the recognised best practices with respect to the transport ingredient of those proposals?
In seeking this information Chard should be warned that parts of it are already known and hence she should be careful about the veracity of her responses and waive any claims of confidentiality
Presumably the parties seeking any form of judicial review would be able to seek this information as a pre-trial disclosure
Eight vital questions about Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and its nuclear wastes.
With respect to the new building being applied for by ANSTO, the extended storage of ANSTO’s Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste on-site at Lucas Heights is warranted – until there is an availability of a proper final disposal option for ALL of the nuclear waste which ANSTO produces and generates. This is the only way that Australians will accept shifting this nuclear waste anywhere other than leaving it safely on site!
What the proposed Kimba site is, put simply, is the last site standing, from a greedy nominator and a dubious selection process and a very flawed and out dated proposal!
Lucas Heights is the very best place for this waste currently. Until a proper solution is found for ALL of the waste ANSTO produces – trotting out the exact same proposal from forty years ago is not a solution.
The new Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at ANSTO Lucas Heights should be supported. And here are the reasons why. Kazzi Jai , Fight to Stop a Nuclesr Waste Dump in the Flinders Ranges, 15 Aug 21,
ANSTO’s Work Health Safety and Environment Policy includes the statement,
“We are committed to effective stewardship, the sustainability of our operations and to responsibly interact with the local ecology and biosphere, and to protect it. We will minimize our environmental footprint through the sustainable use of resources and by the prevention, minimization and control of pollution.”
Powerful words, but does ANSTO mean them?
Their current “stewardship” is to safely and securely deal with ALL the waste that they produce on site. The usage of the word “interim” (or “temporary” which was used in the past) simply refers to dry storage. In other words it does not make Lucas Heights a permanent disposal site for this waste. Other nuclear reactors around the world hold their nuclear site close to where it is generated – it makes good logical sense, because that means it can be monitored and is safe and secure.
The “sustainability” of their operations should include ANSTO’s (given their expertise in this field over the decades) continued stewardship of the waste they generate and produce on site.
It is a logical conclusion, since they were in fact, allowed the replacement reactor (now known as OPAL) to be constructed with the continued stewardship of the nuclear waste right there on site.
This means that the sustainability of ANSTO is, and remains, contingent on responsibility of generating this nuclear waste in the first place.
- Why is OPAL research nuclear reactor being touted as commercial one?
.ANSTO’s OPAL reactor is after all a research reactor – and that should be its main objective – research. But it is being used for more than that – it is being used for the industrial production of isotopes primarily diagnostic isotopes.
The OPAL reactor is currently used predominately for the production of what is termed in general terms nuclear medicine…. of which approximately 80% of its primary usage is for the production of Molybdenum-99 – which then decays to Technitium-99m (Tc-99m) – which is then used in diagnostic imaging in nuclear medicine. Not all diagnostic imaging in nuclear medicine uses Tc-99m.
This is as pointed out earlier, a commercial industrial production usage of the OPAL reactor.
We are told that our use of Technitium-99m in Australia is approximately 550 000 “available” doses a year according to ANSTO. We were told by Adi Paterson in 2017 Senate Estimates that Australia was using 28% of Technitium-99m generated by ANSTO, and the rest (72%) was exported overseas. At that stage, the export quantity involved equated to 1% of global demand of Technitium-99m. (5) But now ANSTO wants to increase their commercial production of export to 10 MILLION DOSES PER YEAR FOR EXPORT! That would make ANSTO one of the FOUR MAJOR PRODUCERS of Technitium-99m in the world!(6) But with increased EXPORT comes INCREASED WASTE PRODUCTION!
ANSTO cites COMMERCIAL SENSITIVITY regarding whether the production of Technitium-99m is viable or not – the public are not privy to the details of this information. But the Australian public are the ones SUBSIDIZING this COMMERCIAL VENTURE! Canada got out of isotope production simply because they could no longer justify the cost to their taxpayers!
But not all is doom and gloom! Canada have just released (December 2020) the approval of cyclotron-produced technetium-99m by Health Canada. (1)
ANSTO is also somewhat careful not to mention that they own PETTECH (which trades as PETTECH Solutions), which operates two medical cyclotrons for radiopharmaceutical production at the Lucas Heights campus. PETTECH has routinely supplied NSW hospitals as part of a state tender. In 2019 they sold it off to private company Cyclotek. (2)
Cyclotrons are also found in our major cities. In fact Australia has 18 cyclotrons according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2019 listing. (3)
Cyclotrons are usually found also in partnerships with imaging services. This is because cyclotrons are used generally with PET scans which allow very precise scans of many parts of the body to be achieved. The thing with cyclotrons is that they do not produce nuclear isotopes and therefore do not produce nuclear waste. Cyclotrons produce isotopes as required by demand.
The world is changing with regards to nuclear medicine. Cyclotrons are coming into their own right. The field of imaging and diagnosis doesn’t rely solely on one technology only. CT-scans, MRI -scans, Ultrasounds – all can be used in conjunction with PET or SPEC scans. And the cutting edge advancements in cancer treatment is now immunotherapy and nanotechnology. Even LINAC machines – the ones used in radiotherapy and do not use a nuclear source and therefore do not produce nuclear waste because they use a Linear Accelerator to produce a high density x-ray beam to treat cancers, may be superseded by proton therapy units which again use a specific accelerator to treat cancers on an atomic level with minimum disruption to normal cells. Minimizing the damage done to normal cells is becoming more and more important in treating cancers. This cannot be done with radioactive isotopes simply because there is no control with regards to their decay and release into normal tissue.
““We can get product from Sydney to Boston as efficiently as it can be shipped there from Europe,” Shaun Jenkinson, ANSTO Nuclear Business Group Executive boasted in 2014.
“With radioactive elements, time is of the essence. Technetium-99m has a half-life of just six hours, which means half of it will have decayed into something else in that time. This is why it is shipped as its precursor, molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 2.75 days.”, he went on to say
.ANSTO’s molybdenum-99 exports bring in over $10 million each year to Australia. This figure is set to triple after 2016, when its new $100 million nuclear medicine processing facility starts up, bringing with it 250 new jobs.” (4)
Mr Jenkinson, who now is CEO of ANSTO replacing Adi Paterson, was at great pains in 2014 to point out that ANSTO could get “product” from Sydney to Boston efficiently. How about the other way round? Our usage of “product” – namely Molybdenium-99 (decays to Tc-99m) is very small in Australia. It actually hasn’t changed all that much even before the advent of OPAL replacing HIFAR in 2007, and with cyclotrons, will probably decrease even more in usage, given advancement in technologies – which is naturally what happens in any field! Why shouldn’t we produce Technitium-99m on cyclotrons like Canada are now doing, or import what we need in Australia – something we do regularly anyway when OPAL is offline for maintenance or other reasons for shutdown. Is ANSTO possibly providing Molybdenium99 (Technitium-99m isotope) below cost price simply to remain a player in the global market, and being propped up by the Australian taxpayer?
Is there still a window of opportunity for such a massive commitment to produce up to quarter of the world’s global demand given that the demand just may not be there any longer?
2. And anyway, is Lucas Height’s medical isotope still a viable proposition?
But is Is it still a viable proposition given the expense already occurring with dealing with the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste generated by the industrial production of Molybdenium-99. In fact again in Senate Estimates Adi Paterson stated (as part of answers to questions) that increasing output of Molybdenium-99 will in fact increase generation of liquid Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste! (7)This is the liquid part of the production of Molybdenium-99 ….which in itself is classified as Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste. This is separate to the reprocessed spent fuel rods in TN-81 casks plus the Intermediate Level technological waste sent back as equivalent nuclear waste from France.
3.Is the expense of ANSTO’s Synroc process justified ?
Then we have the expense of putting the liquid intermediate level nuclear waste generated from the industrial production of Molybdenium-99 into solid form via a process only Australia uses – Synroc. Why has no other place in the world grabbed the technology using Synroc? Is it because it is too expensive to warrant using? Or is it because Synroc is no different to vitrification into glass which is already being used? Regardless, both techniques still require intact shielding of the final waste product – whether it be Synroc or glass.
4. Is tax-payer funded ANSTO accountable for the decisions they make?
All of these points made should be investigated, rather than rubber stamped by committees who say that “ANSTO is doing a great job” – without actually asking the hard questions, and making ANSTO accountable for the decisions they make.
5.Is it sensible to transport nuclear waste 1700km to a small agricultural community, far from the essential nuclear expertise
With respect to the new building being applied for by ANSTO, the extended storage of ANSTO’s Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste on-site at Lucas Heights is warranted – until there is an availability of a proper final disposal option for ALL of the nuclear waste which ANSTO produces and generates. This is the only way that Australians will accept shifting this nuclear waste anywhere other than leaving it safely on site! The current proposal is flawed in so many ways – the largest gaping flaw is the deliberate intention of transporting Intermediate Level Waste and Nuclear Fuel Waste over state border, over 1700 kms across Australia, into a small agricultural community which exports grain and sheep ….and which has NEVER had any past or current dealings with the nuclear industry EVER…and leave it there SIMPLY AS DRY STORAGE IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT IS HELD AT LUCAS HEIGHTS…without the SAME security, safety and monitoring expertise as Lucas Heights has right there on site at a moment’s notice!
Should there develop a problem with say the TN-81 cask, do you think ANSTO will want it transported back to Lucas Heights – back across 1700kms? Remember too, that the TN-81 casks have only a 40 year guaranteed manufacturer’s warranty. What will happen after 40 years, when in all likelihood the cask will need replacing? Where is the Hot Cell for dealing with this waste in any possible timeframe when a problem with the seal, or a crack in the shielding – the only thing actually enabling safe handling and storage – may develop? Where in the middle of a wheat field in the middle of Australia will the expertise be? It won’t be in Kimba! In fact it won’t be in South Australia! And in fact it won’t actually be ANSTO’s problem!!
What the proposed Kimba site is, put simply, is the last site standing, from a greedy nominator and a dubious selection process and a very flawed and out dated proposal! Read the AECOM report – which they take great pains to point out was preliminary at best – to find out more! Lots of mitigation required with the Kimba site! So much for dealing with this waste in the MOST SAFE way possible WITH NO EXPENSE SPARED, given that this waste is classified as requiring intact shielding to be handled safely and to stop possible contamination to the environment.
Nuclear Waste must be dealt with in the utmost safe conditions with no expense spared. Nuclear waste – this is classified by ARPANSA, so there is no subjective input into this classification – must be highly regulated when it comes to handling and dealing with it. And this also take into account classification as well as quantity. Low level nuclear waste has a classified life of 300 years to decay back to background levels. Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste has a classified life of 1000 years….and High Level Nuclear Waste 1000’s of years – much longer than any of us here today! Even 300 years for the Low Level Nuclear Waste in comparison is BEFORE European colonization of Australia – for that comparison to be put it into perspective!
6. Why the pretend urgency, when Lucas Heights can safely store the nuclear waste until 2060 or beyond?
ANSTO owns and manages approximately 500 hectares at Lucas Heights. Of that, only 70 hectares has been developed by ANSTO.The OPAL reactor has a lifetime of 50 years. It was commissioned in 2007. That takes us into 2060…and then even if it was the end of the use of the reactor, the spent fuel rods from the reactor must be kept ON SITE in the holding cooling ponds for a further 8-10 years BEFORE there is any chance of dealing with them. So there is no urgency to shift ANY of this waste until a proper solution is found to deal with ALL of this waste – Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste FIRST and the Low Level Nuclear Waste can follow that! Handled once only – no double handling! Double handling is definitely against International Best Practise!
7. How much Federal money goes to ANSTO, compared with other scientific research?
What would be interesting is to know how much the Federal Government injects into ANSTO budget every year since its inception! There are over 1000 staff employed at ANSTO. How much of the Federal science budget is used up by ANSTO? Is it at the expense of other sciences like CSIRO and other research endeavours not involving nuclear science?To include into the argument by ANSTO that the proviso of construction of the new Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste storage building at Lucas Heights is contingent on the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) is up and running, is disingenuous since the NRWMF hasn’t even been declared yet!…let alone licenced!
8. Is it alright for ANSTO to cease all responsibility for its nuclear wastes, once they are sent to Kimba?
And keep in mind, ANSTO will ONLY be a customer for this proposed dump. ANSTO will not play any part in its management or development, apart from perhaps on a consultative basis. There is no “stewardship” involvement of ANSTO with this NRWMF – they wash their hands and books of all responsibility of the waste THAT THEY PRODUCE once it lands at the gates of the NRWMF!
The proposal part for the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Fuel Waste is to leave it in the proposed TOTALLY ALL ABOVE GROUND NRWMF in INDEFINITE STORAGE which means it will be there essentially forever – in layman’s terms known as STRANDED or ZOMBIE WASTE – not to be dealt with any time soon in the future!
This is a forty year old proposal which has been dragged out yet again, WITHOUT ONE RED CENT SPENT on dealing with the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste properly at all! “Tag-a-long” does not equate to dealing with this waste properly!
It is simply making this a case of putting this waste “out of sight and out of mind”!
Lucas Heights is the very best place for this waste currently. Until a proper solution is found for ALL of the waste ANSTO produces – trotting out the exact same proposal from forty years ago is not a solution.
The indefinite Store for ANSTO nuclear fuel waste & ILW in South Australia IS UNTENABLE, as the CURRENT PROPOSAL by the Federal Government have put forward.
And that is why the additional Intermediate Level Nuclear Storage building must be allowed to be built at Lucas heights.
1. https://www.triumf.ca/…/cyclotron-produced-technetium…2. https://www.cyclotek.com/cyclotek-acquires-the-business…/3. https://nucleus.iaea.org/…/public_cyclotron_db_view.aspx4. https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/going-global-nuclear-medicine5. https://www.aph.gov.au/…/Industry/answers/AI-5_Ludlam.pdf6. https://www.aph.gov.au/…/Industry/answers/AI-6_Ludlam.pdf7. https://www.aph.gov.au/…/Industry/answers/AI-7_Ludlam.pdfAPH.GOV.AUwww.aph.gov.au
https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199
Minister Pitt – an expert in ”weasel words”, obscuring the truth about nuclear waste
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsaustralian-government-names-preferred-site-for-waste-facility-8991297?fbclid=IwAR2ff81oErRTHbzggGt3GeqqghFSYmbu6HPECUgpUbBPOmlbKf1Sx5Fg0OE
—
Napandee station, near Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been officially named as the preferred site for Australia’s domestically generated nuclear waste.
Note Minister Pitt’s declaration that waste classified as “intermediate” will only be stored “temporarily” and “sometimes”.
We’ve discussed the deceptive labeling of reprocessed spent fuel as intermediate level nuclear waste in this group before- other countries consider this substance to be high level nuclear waste.
Newcomers to this subject (ie. the general public) could be easily misled to believe that there is no spent nuclear fuel to be stored at the site through this wordsmithery.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt to declare Napandee farm, South Australia, as nuclear waste dump site
Pitt to declare nuclear site, Louis Mayfield, 12 Aug 21,
Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt intends to declare the Napandee area at Kimba the proposed site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
More consultation will be undertaken before the decision is made official, but it’s an important milestone in a long and arduous site selection process which began six years ago…….
“I have reviewed the relevant information, which has informed my decision to proceed in accordance with the Act. I am issuing a notice to declare Napandee, and will seek the views of those with rights or interest in the site.”
The intention to declare Napandee as the NRWMF site will kick-start the legislative process of the federal government acquiring the site for the purpose of hosting the facility.
………… A period of further consultation will now occur, with the Minister considering relevant comments ahead of deciding whether to proceed with declaring the Napandee site.
Next the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) will develop various detailed applications to relevant regulators. This process is expected to take a number of years to complete.
These applications will also include further consultations with community and Traditional Owner groups.
However the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) see the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights as a long-term solution for storing nuclear waste.
It comes as the federal government invest $60 million to extend the interim storage capacity for Intermediate Level Waste at the ANSTO site in southern Sydney
In a submission made to the Public Works Committee inquiry, the ACF argue that extended interim storage at existing federal facilities at ANSTO would be a “possible and prudent” option to explore.
“ACF maintains that Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) should remain securely stored at ANSTO until an agreed and evidence based long term management site and strategy is developed,” the submission read. https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/7382644/pitt-to-declare-nuclear-site/
Radioactive Dump ~ call for submissions ~ open until October 22nd 2021
Radioactive Dump ~ call for submissions ~ open until October 22nd 2021
“As part of the process of declaring a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, our department is collecting comment(s) from nominators of land and persons with a right or interest in the nominated land at Napandee, near Kimba in South Australia, as the preferred site for the proposed
facility.”
https://consult.industry.gov.au/arwa/nrwmf-site-declaration/
ENuFF[SA]
Office Admin
https://www.facebook.com/sanuclearfree/
Resource Minister Pitt’s intention to declare site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Samantha Chard, General Manager, Australian Radioactive Waste Agency at Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resource, 12 Aug 21, The Hon Keith Pitt MP, has given notice that he intends to make a declaration under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act). This declaration would confirm part of the land at Napandee as the site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
Under the Act, this consultation is a prescribed process with set timelines.
The intention is announced under section 18 of the Act. Persons with rights or interests are invited to comment on the proposed declaration by Friday 22 October 2021.
Comments can be made online at https://consult.industry.gov.au/arwa/nrwmf-site-declaration, and a comments form will also be available for download from the website. Comments can be posted to the address on the form.
Following the comments period, the Minister will consider any relevant comments in regard to his intended declaration. He may then ‘declare’ Napandee as site for the facility. Acquisition of the site to host the NRWMF by the Australian Government will occur at the time specified in that declaration.
Submission: Conservation Council of South Australia supports ANSTO’s proposal for a new Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights
ANSTO has highlighted the low technical risk, low comparative cost, achievable schedule, and low
organisational impact of adopting this option.
the Conservation Council SA recommends that the Committee support the ANSTO proposal for a new and modern facility within the waste precinct of ANSTO’s 70-hectare Lucas Heights site whilst the Federal Government undertakes a comprehensive examination of more appropriate long-term management options that generate genuine broad community consent
Craig Wilkins, Conservation Council of South Australia Dear Standing Committee
RE: Submission – ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW Inquiry 30 July 21,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the Committee’s consideration of an
extension to the intermediate level solid waste (ILSW) storage facility at the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Lucas Heights site.
The Conservation Council SA is an independent, non-profit and strictly non-party political organisation
representing around 60 of South Australia’s environment and conservation organisations and their
90,000 members.
The Conservation Council SA recognises that a durable solution to the storage of Australia’s expanding
ILSW is necessary to allow programs such as Australia’s nuclear medicine production to continue.
Australia has a clear responsibility to safely and securely manage radioactive waste.
As indicated in their submission to the inquiry, ANSTO possesses expertise and experience in storing
ISLW, as “ANSTO currently stores over 496 cubic metres of ILW from legacy activities, and generates
an additional five cubic metres per annum… [which] will increase to approximately fourteen cubic
metres per annum upon the commencement of operations of the new ‘Synroc’ waste treatment
facility.”
Federal Government attempts at securing community consent for a larger, more permanent ILSW site
in South Australia near either Hawker and Kimba have led to widespread community concern across
South Australia, and clear public opposition from Barngarla Traditional Owners. It has created deeply
divided and polarised communities in Kimba where consideration of an ISLW site has progressed much
further than at Hawker.
The Federal Government has promised not to impose a facility on an unwilling community.
Whilst a Government may be entitled to change their mind, imposing a ILSW facility upon a divided
community is a recipe for ongoing problems and community grievance. The well-documented longterm
environmental risks of the Kimba or Hawker proposals, including the double-handling required
for transport of the ILSW to such sites, are also of particular concern to the Conservation Council SA
and its membership.
It is for these reasons that the Conservation Council SA strongly supports ANSTO’s preferred option of
a new and modern facility within the waste precinct of ANSTO’s 70-hectare Lucas Heights site. ANSTO
has highlighted the low technical risk, low comparative cost, achievable schedule, and low
organisational impact of adopting this option.
Aside from extending Australia’s ILSW storage solution “by at least 10 years to 2037”1, adopting this
option will create a critically useful circuit breaker to the current tensions created during the Federal
Government’s recent pursuit of the ‘Kimba solution’ – a ‘solution’ that would need to be imposed by
the Government upon a divided and insufficiently supportive rural South Australian community, as
well as the broader, and widely unsupportive South Australian community.
In conclusion, the Conservation Council SA recommends that the Committee support the ANSTO
proposal for a new and modern facility within the waste precinct of ANSTO’s 70-hectare Lucas Heights
site whilst the Federal Government undertakes a comprehensive examination of more appropriate
long-term management options that generate genuine broad community consent .
Submission: Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) supports a new Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights
MAPW supports the construction of a new Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights.
MAPW strongly recommends:
• an open and independent review of nuclear waste production and disposal in Australia, and
• progressing a shift to cyclotron rather that reactor-based production of isotopes for nuclear medicine as rapidly as feasible.
Arguments that radioactive waste should all be at one site overlook the ongoing need for hospitals to store clinical waste. After nuclear medicine is used in a patient, the vast majority of the residual material and radioactively-contaminated equipment is stored on site while the radioactivity decays away. Within a few days, it has lost so much radioactivity that the material can go to a normal rubbish tip. There will always need to be multiple waste storage locations at sites which utilise radiopharmaceuticals.
Clean cyclotron production of Tc99m has recently been approved and is being implemented in
Canada. This should rapidly become the future of isotope production
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) 30 July21, Submission to the Public Works Committee regarding Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW.
SUMMARY
MAPW supports the construction of a new Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights. As noted in the ANSTO submission, there will be minimal expected impact on the community and ANSTO has excellent existing security.
This contrasts with the massive distress and community division in regional and remote communities that has been created by a succession of nuclear waste storage proposals.
This facility will be useful over a much greater timeframe if ANSTO’s rapidly expanding production of isotopes for nuclear medicine is reined in. This very heavily subsided export business has only a small minority of the radiopharmaceuticals produced being utilised in the care of Australians. There is no evidence whatsoever of more than minimal cost recovery. The burgeoning amounts of ILW produced will be a liability for Australians or many generations.
More reliable, safer, cheaper and much cleaner cyclotron production of technetium99m (Tc99m) has been shown to work and is being implemented in Canada. Japan, the USA, the UK and several European countries are all looking to implement cyclotron.
The proposed new ILW facility provides an opportunity to identify and implement world’s best practice ILW disposal options and update and reset nuclear medicine production tocleaner, cheaper and more reliable methods.
MAPW strongly recommends:
• an open and independent review of nuclear waste production and disposal in
Australia, and
• progressing a shift to cyclotron rather that reactor-based production of isotopes for nuclear medicine as rapidly as feasible.
Individual criteria will now be addressed.
Continue readingSubmission: Sisters of St Joseph South Australia Reconciliation Circle on “ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW”
We have noted in the federal budget the allocation of $59.8 million to ANSTO. The PWC Inquiry should consider that proposed indefinite storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and ILW in SA is untenable and compromises safety and security in SA. We respectfully remind the Committee that ANSTO’s premise to transfer ILW into indefinite storage in regional SA is contrary to International Best Practice (IBP) and does not comply with ARPANSA Committee advice.
Submission No. 5: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Michele Madigan, Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle 27th July 2021 Inquiry: “ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights,NSW” Public Submission by the Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle. The Sisters of St Joseph South Australia (SA) Reconciliation Circle and their AssociateMembers welcome the opportunity to make a Public Submission to the Inquiry: “ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW”
In summary: Our members see as key the need for the Public Works Committee to actively encourage ANSTO to modify their storage facility for Intermediate Level Waste to keep the nation’s highest level of radioactive waste – intermediate long lived waste – on site until the final deep geological storage site is ready to receive it.
Our members include those who have been involved since 1998 with the vexed question of the federal government’s determination to store the nation’s highest level radioactive waste – intermediate long lived radioactive waste- in above ground temporary storage, with no planned final site.
Since 2015, these and other more recent members have been concerned and have taken action about the federal government’s latest plan to transport such waste to either the Flinders Ranges SA or the Kimba region SA. In this we have had good cause to stand with boththe Traditional Owners: the Adnyamathanha in the Flinders Ranges and the Barngarla in the
Kimba region.
Of course as South Australians we are also speaking for ourselves and many other South Australians concerned with various worrying aspects of the present federal government’s plans, including the inherent safety issues of such dangerous waste for communities along thetransport routes (yet to be determined or at least yet to be publicly released.)
We have noted in the federal budget the allocation of $59.8 million to ANSTO. The PWC Inquiry should consider that proposed indefinite storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and ILW in SA is untenable and compromises safety and security in SA. We respectfully remind the Committee that ANSTO’s premise to transfer ILW into indefinite storage in regional SA is contrary to International Best Practice (IBP) and does not comply with ARPANSA Committee advice.
It is well known that the Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson former head of the regulator body ARPANSA has stated publicly on June 20th 2020 that ‘there is ample room at ANSTO for decades to come.’
Duty of Care As members of government the Public Works Committee will be well acquainted with the principle of ‘duty of care.’ Department officials seemingly have chosen an arbitrary number of 100 years for the proposed transported highly dangerous material to be left above ground with no definite contingencies to safeguard such.
Burden on Future Generations: Our members put it to the Committee that the present plans are simply ‘kicking the can down the road’ leaving a task for future generations that our present federal government is simply not willing to take on itself. And further that once transported and ‘stored’ there is no guarantee at all that the highly toxic material will not simply remain where it is.
Time frame. Clearly there are few Australians alive today who were born in 1921. One hundred years is beyond the knowledge of most of us. The fact that the ILW and other Lucas Heights material are by ANTSO’S own admission, toxic for an unimaginable 10,000 years, means that it is extremely irresponsible policy to be complicit or even advocating for such material to leave the direct care of ANSTO’s expertise and high security to be simply stored above ground on farming land, half way across the country from the nation’s nuclear experts.
ANSTO’S highly dangerous nuclear fuel wastes as well as their Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste need radiation shielding, safe expert handling and high security – and of course isolation from adults, children, animals and the environment lands and ground waters. This will not happen in the proposed above ground facility – even for 100 years.
Recommendation: We put to members of the Public Works Committee: that the present allocation of funding to ANSTO for safe and secure storage include the capacity to modify their storage facility to enable on site continuous storage of ANSTO’s own nuclear fuel waste and long lived intermediate level radioactive waste until such time as a permanent best practice underground final suitable storage site is found and
completed.
We thank you for receiving and noting oursubmission. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/ANSTOLucasHeights/Submissions
Submission Noel Wauchope: to Federal Inquiry into nuclear waste storage.
Noel Wauchope 27 July 21, To: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Inquiry: “ANSTO Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility Lucas Heights, NSW” Public Submission. I do not write as someone who is opposed to Australia having a plan for the permanent disposal of the nuclear wastes that are generated at Lucas Heights. Quite the reverse. Australia must face up to the necessity for such a plan.
However, ANSTO’s proposal for a temporary storage of these long lasting toxic wastes, at Napandee, South Australia, is NOT such a plan. As the licensing body, ARPANSA, has acknowledged, these highly hazardous nuclear fuel wastes can be safely and securely stored at Lucas Heights. Indeed ARPANSA has licensed this storage for at least 40 years to come. There is absolutely no need to trek this highly dangerous stuff for 1700 km to a small rural community, in a richly agricultural area – for so-called ”temporary” storage . At Napandee, they may well become ”stranded wastes”, while the necessity for permanent disposal remains ”a can kicked down the road”.
ARPANSA is still to consider the licensing application for the Napandee nuclear waste facility plan. ANSTO should not be able to continue with its process for the Napandee plan before this; ARPANSA Approval for proposed indefinite duration above ground nuclear fuel waste and Intermediate Level Waste storage in SA may not be granted.
Therefore, it is up to the Public Works Committee to require and confirm ANSTO public works that will comply with the Contingency to keep
Intermediate Level Wastes at Lucas Heights until a final disposal option is available.
It has not been made clear that there are really two separate proposals by the National Radioactive Waste Management for radioactive waste storage in South Australia
- for Low-Level Waste disposal facility in SA for an indefinite period.
- above ground nuclear fuel waste and ILW storage
ARPANSA will expect separate License Applications for these two proposals.
On transparency. ANSTO has been secretive about its plans regarding Intermediate Level Wastes. At least two significant reports to ARPANSA, required as part of
ARPANSA Licensing Conditions and due to the regulator by 30 June 2020, and ARPANSA’s reply, should be made available to the PWC, and publicly available.
On safety and security. As ARPANSA has noted, the double handling of Intermediate Level Waste in transporting it from one temporary storage to another temporary storage, is not consistent with international best practice. The safety and security problems of course also involve the communities en route, over such a long distance. Yet the NRWM taskforce has not engaged with these communities, surely that engagement must be a requirement for such a plan
On the undemocratic process. The National Radioactive Waste Management plan for this facility at Napandee rides roughshod over the rights of South Australians, who have had no say in this decision. It is an affront to South Australia, with its clear law prohibiting nuclear activitis. THe Eyre Peninsula region ‘s communities have had no say. Importantly, the traditional owners of the area.the Barngarla people, were eluded from the local vote, and are clearly against the dump plan.
On the hypocritical claim of ”medical necessity”. The publicity from ANSTO and from MInister Pitt has portrayed this facility as a ”medical necessity”, which it very obviously is not. As this submission primarily concerns the public works at ANSTO, I won’t go into that issue now. But it is pretty obvious to all but the somewhat brainwashed Kimba supporters of the plan, that the mostly short-lived medical radioactive wastes are dealt with at the local level, with no need for the elaborate centralised plan for Napandee. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/ANSTOLucasHeights/Submissions
Submission: AZARK PROJECT says that Kimba nuclear waste plan is completely unnecessary, and irrelevant to nuclear medicine.
national nuclear waste facility at Kimba the existence or otherwise of which will have no effect whatsoever on the production of nuclear medicine by ANSTO
the importance and use of nuclear medicine locally is significantly
decreasing as there is a general reluctance and reduction by modern medicinein using nuclear isotopes for medical purposes in preference to much safer means to diagnose and treat medical conditions which were previously the
subject of nuclear medicine.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Inquiry into the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility at Lucas Heights
SUBMISSIONS BY AND ON BEHALF OF AZARK PROJECT PTY LTD, Peter Remta 26 July 21
INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
A. The proposed increase in the nuclear waste storage capacity at Lucas Heights by constructing a new storage facility is a completely unnecessary and expensive exercise which is only perpetuating the government’s inappropriate plans for a waste management facility at Kimba.
B, Serious and urgent consideration should be given to the establishment of the underground nuclear waste facility at Leonora by Azark Project due to its international recognition and acceptance for its unsurpassed suitability and safety.
C. Several members of the Committee should be excluded from any participation in deciding the merits of establishing or funding of the facility for the additional storage since they have previously made ill-founded and unjustified statements praising the proposals for Kimba…….
Continue readingSubmission: Barry Wakelin – ”interim” storage of nuclear waste at Kimba is a poor plan, with no commitment to planning for a permanent solution
Despite assurances from responsible Ministers, that a permanent ILW site selection process decision is in train, there is no evidence that the Parliament is making any endeavour to fulfil that promise, particularly when it is recalled that the construction (in 2007) of the OPAL nuclear reactor was conditional upon that promise being kept ,which it is too apparent never happened.
Sumission No. 4 Public Works Submission – Barry Wakelin OAM, Kimba, S A, 23 Juy 21,
I present this submission as someone with 15 years of Federal Parliamentary Service: and as a former Public Works Committee member and citizen of Kimba observing the machinations of a proposed “temporary” site for ILW (Intermediate Level Waste at KImba.) Mainly, promoted as a Low Level Waste site by government representatives .
I was closely involved with the Woomera attempt at a nuclear waste site. The great thing about being free of party politics is the time to become better informed and to develop my own clearer, fairer and individual opinions.
Despite assurances from responsible Ministers, that a permanent ILW site selection process decision is in train, there is no evidence that the Parliament is making any endeavour to fulfil that promise, particularly when it is recalled that the construction (in 2007) of the OPAL nuclear reactor was conditional upon that promise being kept ,which it is too apparent never happened.
Small communities like Kimba and its 95% agricultural dependence, have no government guarantee against health and economic damage from a ILW nuclear waste facility.
The defacto international nuclear waste via the suggested sixfold increase in the ANSTO export of nuclear medicine is in conflict with South Australian government policy and should not be inflicted upon a small rural community which is ignored by policy enforcers.
The question must be asked: why should a community of 0.00004% of Australians be bribed or emotionally blackmailed by the government using taxpayers’ funds to bludgeon 400 people at $200,000 each, in to accepting a nuclear Dump on behalf of 25million Australians who predominantly say NO . Not least of all are
government organisations like the Department of Defence who say the nuclear waste is too dangerous to be placed on their land ,the size of Tasmania.
If it takes this much money from government to convince a small community to accept the government’s argument which only gives the country a”temporary” nuclear waste facility of very limited value it is a a sad waste of taxpayer’s funds.
A commitment to the search for a permanent disposal site for ILW has not occurred and considering
2037 is the timeline; it is reasonable to accept that a “temporary” storage will not be required due to the new facilities at Lucas Heights The nuclear reactor will always have some temporary ILW storage.
It is clear to me that there is a reasonable prospect over the next fifteen years to find a suitable site
for permanent disposal of ILW suitably geologically and seismologically.
It is a privilege to be able to offer from my long term involvement in this difficult issue a view on the
justice or otherwise, which has been inflicted upon my magnificent community for the past six years.
I offer my best wishes to the Committee for your considerations.
.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt and his bald-faced lies about the Leonora nuclear waste proposal
26 July Kazzi Jai on Whyalla Pitt lies
“Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt said the government did not receive detailed information to independently assess a site at Leonora, and couldn’t accept “unverified information” which could “cut short” the consultation and assessment process.”
This is the BIGGEST BALD FACED LIE Minister Keith Pitt has said yet!!
The current Leonora site proposal HAS been actively giving the Feds detailed information since 2017 I believe…..at EXACTLY the SAME TIME as Kimba was allowed to SUBMIT AGAIN into the mix after being taken COMPLETELY OFF the list in April 2016, after being deemed unsuitable!
Can’t have it both ways!
In fact ANOTHER site in Leonora Western Australia WAS in the mix back in 2015, as one of the SEVEN short listed sites deemed suitable by the Feds – by the then Josh Frydenberg as Minister at the time!
It was a different site in Leonora – but nevertheless, echoes the SAME SITUATION as Kimba in many ways!
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 