Friends of the Earth condemns shameful Radioactive Waste Management Bill, offers positive alternatives

May 29, 2020
the Bill “would enable native title to be extinguished, without the consent of the traditional owners”
Long-lived intermediate-level waste: Measured by radioactivity, long-lived intermediate level waste currently stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site in NSW accounts for an overwhelming majority (>90%) of the waste destined for the nuclear waste facility in SA.

Friends of the Earth,. to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 54 

The National Radioactive Waste Management (NRWM) Amendment Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Further, the existing Act is deeply flawed and should be repealed.

The proposal to proceed with the nuclear waste facility despite the unanimous opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners is unconscionable and must not be allowed to stand. Shamefully, the federal government excluded Barngarla Traditional Owners from a ‘community ballot’ held in 2019. Therefore the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation initiated a separate, confidential postal survey of Traditional Owners, conducted by Australian Election Company. This resulted in 100% of respondents voting ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear facility. If the results of the two ballots are combined, the overall level of support falls to just 43.8% of eligible voters (452/824 for the government-initiated
ballot, and 0/209 for the Barngarla ballot) ‒ well short of the government’s benchmark of 65% for ‘broad community support’.

There is no consent from Barngarla Traditional Owners let alone free, prior and informed consent. The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Act systematically disempowers and dispossesses Traditional Owners, and the Amendment Bill worsens the situation and strips Traditional Owners of their legal review rights. Legal advice in a Feb. 2020 report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights notes that the Bill “would enable native title to be extinguished, without the consent of the traditional owners”, and it raises further concerns about the Bill’s intention to permit the acquisition of land for an access route without any Parliamentary oversight or right of appeal.
The Act, the Bill, and the proposed nuclear waste facility are all inconsistent with the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) has said that Australia’s historically “racially discriminatory land practices have endured as an acute impairment of the rights of Australia’s indigenous communities”. Imposing a nuclear waste facility on Barngarla Country will clearly exacerbate the problems identified by the CERD Committee
In 2017, the CERD Committee expressed concern “about information that extractive and development projects are carried out on lands owned or traditionally owned by Indigenous Peoples without seeking their prior, free and informed consent” and recommended that Australia “ensure that the principle of free, prior and informed consent is incorporated into the Native Title Act 1993 and in other legislation as appropriate, and fully implemented in practice”.
The Senate Committee should recommend rejection of the NRWM Amendment Bill, and rejection of the proposed nuclear waste facility, in light of the clear opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners. The Senate Committee should also recommend that the government follow the advice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to “ensure that the principle of free, prior and informed consent is incorporated into the Native Title Act 1993 and in other legislation as appropriate, and fully implemented in practice”.
It should be noted that the willingness to override the rights and interests of the Barngarla Traditional Owners is opposed by the SA Labor Party. The SA Labor Party argues that Traditional Owners ought to have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of the nuclear industry in SA, stretching back to the British atomic bomb tests. That position dates from 2017, if not earlier. In 2017, then Premier Jay Weatherill wrote to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recommending that the federal government adopt the policy of allowing a right of veto by affected Traditional Owners in relation to the planned national nuclear waste facility.
Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the announcement regarding the Kimba site.1 The SA ALP State Conference on 13 October 2018 endorsed a resolution which pledged to support Traditional Owners in the Kimba region in their struggle to prevent a national nuclear waste facility being constructed on their country. The 2018 State Conference resolution further
committed the SA Labor Party to “support communities opposing the nomination of their lands or region for a dump site, and any workers who refuse to facilitate the construction and operation or transport and handling of radioactive waste material destined for any contested facility or sites including South Australian Port communities.”
The federal government’s willingness to override the rights and interests of Traditional Owners, and to strip them of further rights (including legal appeal rights) through the NRWM Amendment Bill, makes for a sad contrast with the situation in Canada. Earlier this year, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation voted against plans for a nuclear waste repository near Lake Huron after a lengthy consultation period. The Canadian government then announced that it will respect the decision and will no longer target the site.2
Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the announcement regarding the Kimba site.1 The SA ALP State Conference on 13 October 2018 endorsed a resolution which pledged to support Traditional Owners in the Kimba region in their struggle to prevent a national nuclear waste facility being constructed on their country. The 2018 State Conference resolution further
committed the SA Labor Party to “support communities opposing the nomination of their lands or region for a dump site, and any workers who refuse to facilitate the construction and operation or transport and handling of radioactive waste material destined for any contested facility or sites including South Australian Port communities.”

Illegal under SA law: The proposed nuclear waste facility is illegal under South Australia’s
Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act, introduced by the SA Liberal Government in the
year 2000 and strengthened by the SA Labor Government in 2002. The federal government is expected to take the draconian and unacceptable step of using regulations to specifically override the SA Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act. South Australians are opposed to the proposed nuclear waste facility: a 2015 survey found just 15.7% support for a nuclear waste dump, and a 2018 survey found that those who strongly agreed with stopping the dump outnumbered those who strongly disagreed by a factor of three (41:14).

1 https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6454080/state-labor-party-weighs-in-on-nucleardebate/?
cs=1538
2 https://phys.org/news/2020-02-tribal-vote-nixes-radioactive-storage.html

Breaching NH and MRC siting guidelines: Only 4.5% of South Australia is arable land. It is of deep concern that a radioactive waste could be allowed to jeopardise the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. Indeed the government’s proposal is a clear breach of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s ‘Code of Practice for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia’ which states that “the site for the facility should be located
in a region which has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”.

Long-lived intermediate-level waste: Measured by radioactivity, long-lived intermediate level
waste currently stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site in NSW accounts for an overwhelming majority (>90%) of the waste destined for the nuclear waste facility in SA. There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim abovegroundstorage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee has indicated that it is not consistent with international best practice.
 
It beggars belief that double-handling ‒ and the movement of long-lived intermediate-level waste from a site with greater safety and security provisions to a site with lesser provisions ‒ is even being contemplated. This absurd situation demonstrates the incompetent handling of this matter by successive ministers and departmental officials over many years. The Senate Committee should recommend that portfolio responsibility for this matter is shifted
from Industry, Innovation and Science to another minister and department (e.g. health) who might do a better job.
The existing 2012 Act is flawed
Friends of the Earth Australia wishes to emphasise that not only is the NRWM Amendment Bill deploy flawed, the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWMA) is undemocratic in many respects. The Act should either be repealed or radically amended to remove clauses which disempower Australians and in particular First Nations.The current Bill does the exact opposite..

A 2017 report released by Friends of the Earth Australia points to serious problems with the NRWMA.

Monash University fifth-year law student Amanda Ngo ‒ is posted at www.nuclear.foe.org.au/nrwma

The NRWMA gives the federal government the power to extinguish rights and interests in land targeted for a radioactive waste facility. In so doing the relevant Minister must “take into account any relevant comments by persons with a right or interest in the land” but there is no requirement to secure consent from Traditional Owners.

Aboriginal Traditional Owners, local communities, pastoralists, business owners, local councils and State/Territory Governments are all disadvantaged and disempowered by the NRWMA.
The NRWMA goes to particular lengths to disempower Traditional Owners. The nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even if Aboriginal owners were not consulted and did not give consent. More precisely, the NRWMA states that consultation should be conducted with Traditional Owners and consent should be secured ‒ but that the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even in the absence of consultation or consent.
The NRWMA has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect the archaeological or heritage values of land or objects, including those which relate to Indigenous traditions. The Act curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important site-selection stage. The Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land acquisition for a radioactive waste facility. The NRWMA has been criticised in both Senate Inquiries and a Federal Court challenge to an earlier federal government attempt to impose a national radioactive waste facility at
Muckaty in the Northern Territory.
The NRWMA also puts the federal government’s radioactive waste agenda above environmental protection as it seeks to curtail the application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A senior government official told a public meeting in Hawker in 2016 that the NRWMA is based on ‘world’s best practice’. In fact, the legislation systematically disempowers local communities and Traditional Owners and weakens environmental protections. It needs to be radically amended or replaced with legislation that protects the environment and gives local communities and Traditional Owners the right to say ‘no’ to radioactive waste facilities.
Some positive proposals
Previous, failed attempts to establish a Commonwealth radioactive waste facility (repository and store) assumed the need for off-site, centralised facilities. This assumption continues  with the current project configuration. However, a closer examination indicates both that this assumption may not be warranted and that there are major information gaps that need to be addressed before informed decisions can be made.
An important, preliminary task is to establish an accurate and up-to-date inventory of Australia’s radioactive waste stockpiles. That must include consideration of the nature and adequacy/inadequacy of current storage conditions, and the nature and adequacy/inadequacy of institutional control. Serious consideration of those issues is necessary if informed decisions about future waste management options are to be made, yet successive Governments have largely ignored these issues and information on waste inventories is superficial and unhelpful. The government should adopt a more nuanced approach which may allow it to make progress in a contested public policy area where previous governments have failed. This approach would involve:
(i) Differentiating waste that needs to be moved vs. waste that does not need to be moved, consistent with the net-benefit clause in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act – the ARPANS Act. This in turn would require a more detailed inventory than has been compiled to date and consideration of issues (detailed in a 2014 briefing paper3 co-authored by Friends of the Earth) such as the number of legacy waste sites and
the adequacy/inadequacy of existing storage sites. The failure to actively address these basic issues has worked against progression to the resolution of this contentious public issue in recent decades.
(ii) Differentiating waste arising from the operations of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) from non-ANSTO waste. ANSTO is quite capable of managing its own waste, at least in the medium term. Permanent disposal of ANSTO waste should be explored and addressed in subsequent decades, keeping in mind
that ANSTO is likely to be operating at its current site for many decades to come.
Importantly, the current national facility proposal at Kimba explicitly does not seek to dispose of ANSTO’s most problematic radioactive wastes.
(iii) Differentiating low level radioactive wastes from long-lived intermediate-level waste. Plans to move intermediate-level waste from Lucas Heights (and elsewhere) to an above-ground store co-located with the low-level waste repository, and then to an unspecified site at an unspecified later date, make no sense from a policy perspective and
they significantly raise public-acceptance obstacles. The current co-location proposal would mean double handling i.e. transport to the interim national store then future transport to a currently non-determined disposal site. Such an approach would be likely fail the net benefit test that ARPANSA would need to apply in response to any license application
With a detailed inventory completed, thorough consideration of all waste management options is required. That work should be carried out by a dedicated National Commission or comparable public inquiry mechanism. A detailed discussion on how that Commission might be constituted and the issues it might address is contained in the 2014 briefing paper.4 For ANSTO waste, ongoing storage at Lucas Heights needs consideration. Relevant government agencies (and others) have acknowledged that ongoing radioactive waste storage at Lucas Heights is a viable option:
• Andrew Humpherson, ANSTO: “Lucas Heights is a 70-hectare campus with something like 80 buildings. It’s a large area. We’ve got quite a number of buildings there which  house radioactive materials. They’re all stored safely and securely and all surrounded by  a high-security perimeter fence with Federal Police guarding. It is the most secure facility we have got in Australia.”6
• Dr Clarence Hardy, Australian Nuclear Association: “It would be entirely feasible to keep storing it [radioactive waste] at Lucas Heights …”7
• Then ARPANSA CEO John Loy: “Should it come about that the national approach to a waste repository not proceed, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to devise an approach to final disposal of LLW from Lucas Heights, including LLW generated by operation of the RRR [Replacement Research Reactor]. In the meantime, this waste will
have to be continued to be handled properly on the Lucas Heights site. I am satisfied, on the basis of my assessment of the present waste management plan, including the license and conditions applying to the waste operations on site, that it can be.”8
• Department of Education, Science and Tourism: “A significant factor is that ANSTO has the capacity to safety store considerable volumes of waste at Lucas Heights and is unlikely to seek the holding of frequent campaigns to disposal of waste holdings generated after the initial campaign.”9
• Dr Ron Cameron, ANSTO, when asked if ANSTO could continue to manage its own waste:
“ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that. I think we’ve been doing it for many years. We have the capability  and technology to do so.”5
3 Friends of the Earth, Beyond Nuclear Initiative, Australian Conservation Foundation, November

2014, ‘Responsible Radioactive Waste Management in Australia: The Case For An Independent
Commission Of Inquiry’, https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Responsible-Radioactive-
4 Ibid. proposing double handling. With a detailed inventory completed,

6 September 2008,
7 ARPANSA forum, Adelaide, 26 February 2004,

8 April 2002, Decision by the CEO of ARPANSA on Application to construct the Replacement Research
Reactor at Lucas Heights. Reasons for Decision”, p.30.
9 Application to ARPANSA, 2003, Vol.iii Ch.9 Waste – Transfer and Documentation p.5.

Maurice Blackburn: nuclear waste Bill Amendment is against natural justice, excludes Aboriginal community and concerns

May 28, 2020

 

the proposed bill removes the right of judicial review and greatly narrows the review rights of an administrative decision, after the site selection process is underway.
The removal of a fundamental right should only be considered in extreme circumstances,
such as in the case of an emergency. It is clear that the expansion of land for the site is not an emergency, and such, the removal of further review mechanisms is at odds with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Maurice Blackburn and Co.  Submission to the Economics Legislation Committee, National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]   Submission 76

“……………  Maurice Blackburn is concerned with several amendments proposed in this bill which appear to remove and erase engagement with the Aboriginal community from the site selection process.
We note that the Bill repeals the definitions relevant to Aboriginal people and associated entities. We are concerned that any nomination process will not sufficiently engage with Aboriginal communities. Irrespective, we would also submit that the removal of key definitions as they relate to Aboriginal people send a concerning message to those communities.
 
In particular, we are concerned that at no point during the nomination process were the proposed amendments flagged to the community. This is deeply concerning as it is at odds with the Commonwealth’s overarching policy objective of dealing with waste management practices in an open and transparent manner. As highlighted above, the unexpected changes to the legislation have the ability to undermine trust in the Commonwealth and have the very real chance of being perceived as unilateral decision making by the Commonwealth to the exclusion of Aboriginal communities.
Further, we are concerned with the amendments proposed in Part 6C. Specifically, the wording in subsection 34G(4)(a), which states that a person who is conducting activities may do so if that person takes all reasonable steps to cause as little detriment and inconvenience, and does as little damage. However, we note that this is a general provision and does not
include any protection or consideration for cultural heritage or the protection for Aboriginal culture as part of this section.
While we note that Part 6C is of a transitional nature and replicates section 11 of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth) (the Act), we submit that the lack of consideration for Aboriginal cultural heritage is an oversight and that this should be explicitly included in section 34G.
Further, while sections 34GA and 34GB are also transitional and replicate current provisions in the Act, we are concerned that the Bill simply replicates these provisions and does not include any explicit protection of consideration of Aboriginal culture or heritage. This is concerning to our clients and other Aboriginal communities (particularly the Barngarla
community) and reinforces a perception that the Commonwealth does not take Aboriginal culture and concerns seriously.
THE BILL: EXPANSION OF ACQUISITION OF LAND/PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS Maurice Blackburn is concerned that the amendments proposed in Schedule 1, Part 2. Sections 19A and 19B, which allow for regulations to prescribe additional land for the expansion of the facility and all-weather access respectively, are contrary to the interests of natural justice. Of key concern, it is deeply concerning that the bill, in its proposed form, removes the right of judicial review.
While we note that Part 6C is of a transitional nature and replicates section 11 of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (Cth) (the Act), we submit that the lack of consideration for Aboriginal cultural heritage is an oversight and that this should be explicitly included in section 34G.

Further, while sections 34GA and 34GB are also transitional and replicate current provisions in the Act, we are concerned that the Bill simply replicates these provisions and does not include any explicit protection of consideration of Aboriginal culture or heritage. This is concerning to our clients and other Aboriginal communities (particularly the Barngarla
community) and reinforces a perception that the Commonwealth does not take Aboriginal culture and concerns seriously.

The addition of section 19C in its proposed form purports to provide for procedural fairness, but it is limited in scope and does not prescribe any real requirements to the Minister to meaningfully consider community views or submissions.

The requirement that the Minister must invite any person who has a right or interest to the land to comment and to take into account those comments is a broad concept. It is not clear who will have a right or interest in the land. In our experience Native Title Holders and Traditional Owners are often excluded from consultation and community is often given a narrow interpretation. As we have seen from the community ballots conducted by the Flinders Ranges Council and the Kimba Council, many Native Title holders were precluded from voting in the ballot. This provision, and whether members of the Aboriginal community may comment is left ambiguous.

The requirement that the Minister must ‘take into account any relevant comments’ under subsection 19C(1)(b) is vague and does not prescribe any requirements for the Minister. It does not require the Minister to do anything with the comments or take any action, and minimises the community engagement and consultation paramount to any additional
acquisition or expansion of land.

We submit that the proposed provision places a proactive requirement on the Minister to:
1. Publish any relevant comments on a public forum; and
2. The Minister publish a response showing the consideration given to these comments.

Further, section 19C(4) provides that:
“This section is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the
natural justice hearing rule in relation to the following:

(a) a decision about the making of regulations under subsection 19A(1);
(b) the Minister’s decision whether to make an instrument under subsection 19B(1)”.
Maurice Blackburn considers such an exhaustive provision to be draconian in nature, as it limits the ability for community members to challenge and appeal the decisions of the Minister, and submit that this be reconsidered.

In its current form, the proposed bill removes the right of judicial review and greatly narrows the review rights of an administrative decision, after the site selection process is underway.
The removal of a fundamental right should only be considered in extreme circumstances,
such as in the case of an emergency. It is clear that the expansion of land for the site is not an emergency, and such, the removal of further review mechanisms is at odds with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

We submit that section 19C be amended to include meaningful community engagement and mechanisms to challenge and appeal the regulations and decisions by the Minister that accordance with Natural Justice. We propose that this take the form of a mandatory request for submissions from the relevant community and a public response by the Minister within a specified timeframe.

Finally, in recognition of the special connection Aboriginal people have with the land, this provision should make it clear that members of the Aboriginal community are included in this  process irrespective of whether they are local residents or title holders.

Australia’s Inquiry into Nuclear Waste Amendment Bill will consider only the TECHNICAL matters – (forget your Submission!)

May 27, 2020
Noel Wauchope 27 May 20 It looks like the Senate Committee inquiring into the Bill to amend the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 will limit the scope of their inquiries to mainly technical and scientific information. This will be done for two reasons.
The first reason is to bolster ANSTO’s position for getting all the licences for the facility at Napandee as described in ARPANSA’s submission since there are strong and real doubts that ANSTO will not succeed in getting them.
This would make the whole selection process a futile and unnecessary exercise without a result. We all know that this cost millions of dollars.
The second reason is that by concentrating on the technical factors the Committee will be able to avoid dealing with the more emotive questions based on the differences within the community, the outcome of the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and the destroying of Native Title and other matters. The result is that many of fine submissions to the Committee will now be simply ignored as they do not include technical data.
What hope does the general community have?

Australia’s Radioactive Waste Bill Amendment slyly paves the way to import international nuclear waste

May 26, 2020

Bob and Sue Tulloch ( Flinders Local Action Group ) to Senate Inquiry on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 72 

There is a lot of misinformation about the Federal Government’s proposed National
Nuclear Waste Management Facility at Kimba. Information has been with held from most Australians via a deliberate, discriminatory voting process, with only two South Australian communities ( Hawker / Quorn and
Kimba ) allowed to vote, (1300 citizens) a process that has so far failed them.

Do our law makers understand WHAT they are voting for?
This is NOT, just mainly a low level nuclear waste dump for hospital gloves and gowns. Two dumps co-located are planned. The second, a temporary storage facility, for far more dangerous intermediate level waste. This will include reprocessed spent fuel rods, used in the nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights, being returned to Australia from
France and the UK. Waste needing serious isolation from humans and the environment for 10,000 years. It is the temporary storage of this ILW, that worry people.

Case for keeping ILW at Lucas Heights
World’s best practice for dealing with Intermediate Level Waste, or High Level waste as classified in France and the UK, is permanent, deep underground burial. There are currently no plans for this to happen in Australia. There is also no time limit set for the storage of this waste, to be placed ‘temporarily’ in an above ground shed at Kimba, if moved from its current modern safe, secure storage facility at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights complex.

It is well documented that the cost of establishing a permanent, deep underground disposal facility for Australia’s relatively low volumes of ILW, is prohibitive. Unless the Australian Government is planning to subsidise the cost of establishing a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility at Kimba, by importing nuclear waste from overseas,
one must question the economical rational to relocate ILW to a second, temporary storage facility at, huge expense to the Australian tax payer.

Australian Nuclear Waste Law
Ref. Protecting Authority, Burying Dissent: An Analysis of Australian Nuclear Waste Law – Angela
Morsley. 2016
 This paper considers the Australian legal framework for a national nuclear waste repository. The paper argues that the current law protects the Commonwealth’s decision- making in relation to a repository site, at the expense of ‘the place for
public participation in the development of the land’, conservation of Aboriginal heritage and environmental impacts, legitimate protections that under the proposed changes to the Act will be even more eroded.

n 2010 the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the NRWMA not be enacted unless mandatory provision was made for a Regional Consultative Committee. Closer analysis reveals that the RCC
has no power or influence over a Ministerial declaration, it’s function being merely to ‘facilitate communication’ between the host community and the Commonwealth’.
….. ‘Consultation may be provided for under the NRWMA, but there is no evidence to suggest that it has anything other that a tokenistic place within a legal framework that positions site selection as an almost inevitable outcome of nomination, supported by Ministerial fiat, rather than broadly sought public consent.’

The South Australian Parliament has legislation in place under the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 to prevent the construction of such a facility and the transportation of radioactive waste through the state. The proposed
amendment to the NRWNA to nominate the Napandee site near Kimba as the‘relevant land’, will exclude all state legislation from regulation of all activities associated with the NRWMF. ARPANSA’s Code of Practice for the Safe Transport
of Radioactive Materials, is merely a code of practice and not a statute, is unenforceable in regards to the transportation of radioactive waste through South Australia.

Australia’s Future Nuclear Industry Involvement
Questions about nuclear power generation in Australia, future lucrative ‘fuel leasing’ plans involving an Australian Nuclear Fuel Industry as detailed in the following government reports, and the role a ILW storage facility at Kimba will play, need
clarification and public disclosure.
Australia’s Uranium – Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world
A case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources for the Inquiry into
developing Australia’s non-fossil fuel energy industry. November 2006

Final Report and recommendations of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
May 2016
Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia;
Report of the inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia; Dec 2019
A report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment & Energy.

The proposed amendments to NRWM Act, 4A, specifically, refers to ‘radioactive waste’ to be replaced with ‘controlled materials’ (ref ARPANSA Act 1998 ‘controlled material means any natural or artificial material, whether in solid or liquid form, or in the form of a gas or vapour, which emits ionizing radiation spontaneously’), and removal of the words ‘domestic origin’, can allow future operations of the storage facility to encompass nuclear power and nuclear fuel leasing industries as detailed in the Dec 2019 ‘Not without your approval’ report.

For these reasons, more scrutiny on this proposal should be obligatory, and a genuine national discussion implemented. Information supplied to the communities of Hawker/Quorn, Kimba did not include these possibilities, and ballot results obtained from 1207 votes does NOT therefore represent an honest national conversation.

To pass the proposed amendments to the NRWM Act now, would be irresponsible and premature to say the least.

This week’s nuclear news Australia and beyond

May 25, 2020

Can’t keep up with the pandemic news – I hope you can.

One thing, though. Beyond Nuclear has pointed out the significance of the floods in Midland, Michigan, where they do have one nuclear research reactor, but fortunately no commercial ones.  They warn on ” the almost impossible challenge of evacuating people to safety during simultaneous catastrophic events.” The floods bring together the climate, pandemic, and nuclear dangers all in one area.

Public attention is not on this one. BUT, the 2020 Review Conference of a landmark international treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), is due soon, though postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is also at risk.  It’s under the radar, while everyone worries about COVID-19 and climate, – but the danger of nuclear weapons use is escalating, as Donald Trump unravels the treaty system that is aimed at preventing nuclear war.  He also wants USA to hugely increase its nuclear weaponry.

Some bits of good news – Maasai Nature Conservancy Asks For Help To Fight Pandemic—And 100,000 People Answer.  World’s Most Endangered Primate Population Triples After 17 Years of Careful Conservation

AUSTRALIA

NUCLEAR

National Radioactive Waste Dump PLan. Peter Remta: Misleading and inaccurate information provided by authorities on National Radioactive Waste Management.  The false economics promised by the government’s National Radioactive Waste Management plan.  Napandee is geologically and geophysically unsuitable for Australia’s nuclear waste dump.  Australian Law on radioactive waste to be changed in order to prevent any judicial review!.

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) under scrutiny – fact checking.

Some more submissions to the Senate on National Radioactive Waste Bill:

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors included in Morrison govt’s energy plan?.

Australian govt and ERA squabble over monitoring of Ranger uranium clean-up.

CLIMATE  Australia, and other countries – deaths from global hatinge are being underestimated .  Australian government’s climate and post-Covid policy is a sop to the fossil fuel industriesNational Coordination COVID-19 Commission – a fossil fuel mates’ rort of staggering proportions.

Morrison’s lack of transparency is undermining green recovery, Coalition’s Technology Investment Roadmap: Poor policy in practice. Leaked plan for huge gas subsidies– Coalition’s ‘grey’ baseline and credit scheme could pay companies to increase emissions. The Morrison government manipulates, to paint the coal industry as “clean” and “renewable”

MPs sayLeading doctors in Australia (over 180 of them) want Australia’s Australia’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) made stronger, not weaker.  Minerals Council of Australia keen to keep Australia’s environmental law the same, (or make it even worse)

RENEWABLE ENERGY. Greens pitch Green New Deal, 100% renewables target for post-Covid recovery. Huge 2GW of wind, solar and storage to deliver green future for Queensland industrial hub.

INTERNATIONAL

A moment of reckoning – when coronavirus meets climate change Coronavirus: How to prevent a new nuclear arms race – and future pandemics.

The danger to children of low level nuclear radiation has been underestimated.

The international nuclear weapons raceComprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty at risk, due to Donald Trump’s accusations ?

ANTARCTIC. Antarctic krill threatened by warming waters – climate change’s danger to the marine ecosystem.

UK. Ministry of Defence’s poor management of contracts for nuclear infrastructure projects. Sellafield’s safety dilemma– risk of coronavirus versus risk of nuclear accident.   Britain will have to decide whether it wants nuclear power stations funded — and powered — by China. Doubts on the funding of Britain’s £18bn Sizewell nuclear plan.  Move to prevent dumping of Hinkley radioactive mud on the South Wales coast.  Shinfield residents urged to look out for update from nuclear weapons facility.

JAPAN.  Time that Japan faced up to the folly of its nuclear fuel cycle dream.

NORTH KOREA. Kim Jong-un Moves to Increase North Korea’s Nuclear Strength.

USA.

EUROPE. A mistaken idea, to put U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland.

INDIA. Climate: Cyclone Amphan disaster in India, Bangladesh.

SAUDI ARABIA. Saudi Arabia’s push for nuclear power – a nuclear weapons danger.

CANADA. Bruce Power and the Ontario Government ordered come clean on the cost of nuclear power.

SOUTH KOREA. South Korea risk of power disruption, as nuclear spent fuel builds up, with storage shortage.

NORWAY.  Dismantling of Norway’s nuclear research reactors – up to 25 years, about $billion

Peter Remta: Misleading and inaccurate information provided by authorities on National Radioactive Waste Management

May 23, 2020

Peter Remta  – submission to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020   [Provisions] Submission 65

“………. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill simply repeats many of the
inaccurate and misleading comments and information provided by the Department of Industry Innovation and Science and ANSTO  to the communities of the initially accepted sites in South Australia since the beginning of the nomination process under the existing legislation.

………I must stress that the serious and unacceptable manner in which quite inaccurate information has been disseminated on behalf of the government on such an important issue both now and during the nomination and selection process has only caused more concern and community dissension and I suggest will lead to a greater general apprehension of starting a nuclear industry in Australia

Explanatory memorandum assertions :
1. While the concept of a single and purpose-built nuclear waste facility is a desired objective as outlined at the start of the explanatory memorandum it will be difficult to achieve as is now proposed.

To begin with it is wrong to say that this facility will support nuclear science and technology since it fails to meet the safety prescriptions for a facility of that nature.

It is also wrong to link the provision of nuclear medicine to the proposed storage and disposal of waste at the facility as the various entities generating waste from medical and research activities will continue relying on their own disposal methods and will not necessarily use a government run business for that purpose.

2. Most importantly it is a totally false and misleading proposition to suggest that the failure to establish the facility as proposed by the government will somehow lead to a reduction in nuclear medical services and treatment and the government should quickly correct that serious misconception since this has been a rather distressing concern for the community at Kimba and generally. It is therefore disingenuous to give that impression that this will be a central
facility for all nuclear waste in Australia.

3. While existing waste is held in numerous locations around the country there is no legal or other requirement that this waste would be disposed of at the facility and it is therefore disingenuous to give the impression that this will be a central facility for all waste in Australia.

4. The reference to meeting with the international obligations under the Joint Convention4 ignores the safety code requirements promulgated some 12 years later under which it would be very difficult to establish the proposed
facility.

5. The suggestion of acquiring additional land for such things as all weather road access is only another example of the intrinsically unsuitable nature of the chosen site and the lack of planning and the necessary technical knowledge for construction of the facility.

6. The process of identifying a suitable location being a 40 year effort again shows the inability of the government or simply ignores that the current process in a proper manner only began after 2012 under the existing legislation.

7. To suggest proper and successful consultations with community members is a test of normal intelligence having regard to the strong and spirited opposition to the facility from the outset by the community generally and the fact that a concerned Aboriginal group has litigated its opposition to an appeal to the Federal Court5 and may now resort to a referral to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

8. The financial aspects of the government’s proposals lack frankness and justification when it has been claimed variously that the amount so far spent in selecting the site is $55 million or $85 million over the past five years but with a constant refusal to provide any details as to how that money has been spent or applied.

Surely there should be proper public disclosure of this quantum of expenditure when compared to the usual outcry where there is only a fraction of that amount involved if there is no reasonable explanation given. Moreover this should be gauged against the persistent refusal of the government to pay for an independent assessment and scrutiny of its
proposals by the members of the Kimba community who oppose the facility.

9. The statement as to compatibility with human rights is again with respect rather nonsensical when the government was incapable of holding a proper and valid ballot (albeit through the District Council of Kimba) which totally ignored the inclusion of an opposing argument contrary to the recognised and applicable principles of human rights. That ballot and the previous one as well as some claimed community surveys failed to meet the principles of informed consent which places a high standard of compliance on both the government and the District Council.

This becomes even worse by excluding the Aboriginal peoples from the ballotIf the government were genuine then it should hold another ballot with a more appropriate and wider base for voting and with the prior provision of all pertinent
information including the arguments or case against the facility. This goes back to providing a proper assessment and scrutiny of the government’s proposals by the opposing members of the Kimba community which has never been the case.

Regrettably the compatibility statement is more prescriptive in its content instead of actually dealing with the facts of the situation and circumstances that occurred and which have been presented in the statement in a most favourable light for the government. when under the most basic of constitutional and democratic rights they
should have been included in that process…………

Sections on NAPANDEE    FINANCIAL ASPECTS  INFORMATION, BALLOTS, and INFORMED CONSENT  LEGAL ACTIONS  MANAGEMENT of FACILITY  INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS   TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT [these will be published here separately, later]

…. CONCLUDING COMMENTS aand RECOMMENDATIONS
The content of this submission has more than adequately described the inappropriate
nature and features of Napandee as the chosen site for the government’s national
nuclear waste management facility which will in reality be most difficult to overcome.

This relates purely to the physical nature of the site and its location and has nothing
to do with the political and constitutional aspects of the inquiry into the Bill.

In addition there are the social and legal aspects of the choice of Napandee which in
themselves create significant problems that will not be easily solved despite the
claims by the government.
In light of this it is inexplicable why the government through the Department and
ANSTO has ignored the potential underground facility at Leonora in Western
Australia which does not have any of these problems and is in fact regarded by all
standards and requirements as one of the best sites internationally for the permanent
disposal of nuclear waste.

SUBMISSIONS – RECOMMENDATIONS
IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED that the Committee in accordance with the
referral to it by the Senate on 28 February 2020 and based on the information in this
submission should:

(a) advise against the passing of the National Radioactive Waste Management
Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020
and recommend its withdrawal from the government’s legislative programme;

(b) advise the withdrawal and further pursuit of Napandee as the site chosen for the
establishment of the national radioactive waste management facility as
contemplated under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012;

(c) if so required by the circumstances recommend to the government that it does
everything possible to enable the community of Kimba (or at least those opposed
to the establishment of the facility) to obtain a full and comprehensive attitude towards the establishment of the facility with the ballot to include as potential voters all residents and others having an affinity to Kimba whether
residents or ratepayers or otherwise;

(d) if also required by the circumstances recommend to the government that it and
the District Council of Kimba hold another ballot to gauge the community’s

attitude towards the establishment of the facility with the ballot to include as
potential voters all residents and others having an affinity to Kimba whether
residents or ratepayers or otherwise

(e) recommend that the government and any other parties involved with arranging
and conducting the ballot present to the eligible voters prior to their voting with full
and proper information in favour of and against the issues and questions to be
decided by the ballot so as to comply with the principle of informed consent of the
voters for the validity of the ballot; and

(f) provide to the government and the responsible minister any other appropriate or
relevant information and advice resulting from the referred inquiry.
assessment and scrutiny of all aspects of the government’s proposals for the
facility to be at the cost and completely independent of the government;

Australian Law on radioactive waste to be changed in order to prevent any judicial review!

May 21, 2020
Declaration and Legislation of Selected Site
At the time the Minister announced that the Napandee site had been identified, we were surprised and
confused that this decision was not declared as per the requirements of the Act. It is now clear that the reason
for this is the Ministers decision to amend the Act to specify the selected site. This is extremely concerning to us,
as it is our understanding that the decision to directly legislate the selected site will effectively remove the
opportunity for any judicial review of the site selection, and there appears to be no other justification to do so.
(as reported at the Kimba Consultative Committee meeting 23rd February 2020) is that 2789
submissions were received in total, and that, in total, 94.5 of these opposed the siting of the facility in Kimba.
These appear to have been all but ignored in the Minister, in favour of multiple survey results from the same
focus group living or operating businesses based within the District Council.
The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee submission to Senate Committee onNational Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 80  
The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee was established in 2016 to represent
the members of the Kimba, Eyre Peninsula and SA community who are opposed to the siting of the National
Radioactive Waste Management Facility on Farming land in South Australia.
As both a committee and individuals we have been heavily involved in the 5 year process the Federal
Government has undertaken to site the National Radioactive Waste Facility in Kimba and we would like to thank
the Committee for their time and efforts in undertaking this inquiry.
As the Senate Committee would be well aware, the process which led to this point has been long and arduous,
particularly for those who do not support the siting of the facility in the Kimba district. We have had no goal or
prize in sight, only the onerous task of proving our opposition.
The proposal has caused, and continues to cause, significant division within our community, which has been
fuelled by the actions of the Department in their quest to establish support for the facility. There are many
examples of how this is process has been unfair and wrong, and we appreciate the opportunity to put forward
some important facts from our perspective.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The finding by former Minister Matthew Canavan that broad community consent for this facility exists in Kimba,
a basis on which this Bill rests, is tenuous at best. The path that the Federal Government took to making this
finding has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises, and is now completely lacking
justification at its conclusion for the decision made.

Read the rest of this entry »

Australian govt should dump its nuclear waste plan, and adopt the Canadian one

May 19, 2020

I would like to draw the committee’s attention to the Canadian leading example which has
empowered communities to self-nominate for assessment in a long-term process called
“Adaptive Phase Management”2 ensuring trust is being gained in communities prior to any
final site selection for radioactive waste disposal in a deep geological repository over a long
established timeline.

I could not support the proposal as it stands.

The Kimba District Council has not done its due diligence to request an an independent risk analysis for the people it
represents

Sue Woolford SUBMISSION TO SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
RE: Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site
Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]  Submission No 91

I would like to put forward my personal views on how acceptance of this Bill would be doing
an injustice to the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.
I am critical of this current process but not the value of nuclear medicine and the need to
find the right long term solution to benefit all Australians. I have advocated for a fair and
transparent process that instils trust in the public domain and believe that the National
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 and this Bill need to have proper assessment to
deliver to all Australians a morally and legally acceptable Act with lessons learnt.

The government department responsible have initiated a consultation and site selection
process under the current Act but have not truly engaged meaningfully with all
stakeholders. Standards have not conformed alongside the principles of the International
Association for Public Participation1 (IAP2) and the spectrum of public participation which is
used internationally.

I believe if more of these principles were applied to provide objective information and listen
to feedback then the key challenges to site the nations radioactive waste into a central
location with community confidence would be taken to a new level of credibility and
assurances. My submission deals with finding the right solution instead of a second rate
option in my hometown.

Currently, I don’t believe the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 has
allowed for the best and safest sites to be voluntarily put forward. The extinguishment of
Native Title holder’s rights and the Commonwealth having the authority to override states
and territories has only confirmed that the Australian example is inconsistent with world’s
best practice and is an abominable act that takes away rights of review to ensure a fair and
transparent process……….    https://antinuclear.net/2020/05/19/sue-woolford-recommends-the-canadian-model-for-selecting-a-nuclear-waste-facility-site/

Nuclear,Climate, and of course, Coronavirus News

May 18, 2020

There’s  no avoiding coronavirus news, and it changes all the time.  The focus has shifted to”post – virus”, though it is not clear that it is “post” now, or even within 2020.  At present, New Zealand and Vietnam are looking like shining success stories.  The secret of their success? –  strategic testing, aggressive contact tracing and effective public communications campaigns. That last point -all important -that everyone, down to small kids, understands the basic story, the national plan and what they need to do.  Planning needs to be national, and then, international.

Who knows whether the post-Covid-19 period will move towards a cleaner and more humane world, or back to “business as usual” or worse?     Meanwhile the non-stop news cycle takes its toll, and of course, being news, it’s all bad.   It’s probably good to (a) take lots of breaks from the news, and (b) follow good news.  Some examples:

  • The IEA says greenhouse gas emissions will fall by more than 8% this year, the largest annual decrease ever recorded. NPR
  • A decade ago over 40% of the UK’s electricity came from coal. This week, it clocked up its first full coal free month since the advent of the power grid in 1882. Gizmodo
  • Sweden has closed its last coal-fired power station two years ahead of schedule, becoming the third European country to exit coal. Independent .
  • Freshwater insect species have risen by 11%, possibly due to efforts to clean up rivers and lakes. Science

You can find good news at FUTURE CRUNCH, and at GOOD NEWS NETWORK.

AUSTRALIA

The torture that awaits Julian Assange in the US.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley will not support protection of Murray-Darling river systems

NUCLEAR. The push to weaken Australia’s law regulating the uranium industry, in the review of Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.  New South Wales Deputy Premier John Barilaro got it so wrong about Britain and small nuclear reactors.

Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Plan:   Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) question government’s plan for nuclear waste dump near Kimba, South Australia.  13 top Australian non government organisations say that the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan is illogical.     Cameron and Toni Scott: brief but compelling critique of National Radioactive Waste Management.  Marty and Rachel Yates: the wrong nuclear dump process- individuals nominate their own land for their own personal gain.

CLIMATE. New climate models suggest that Australia could reach 7C temperature rise by 2100. A Covid-19 Green Recovery for Australia. Australia listened to the science on coronavirus. Imagine if we did the same for coal mining.   How the Murdoch press defended fossil fuel industry while Australia burned. Experts warn of growing fossil fuel influence in Prime Minister Morrison’s Covid-19 response .   Cheap electricity is back, and the next casualty will be a coal fired generator.

RENEWABLE ENERGY. Australian investors play key role in huge 690MW solar and battery project – America’s largest.  UNSW solar researcher wins global award, as funding remains in doubt. Tesla big battery recoups cost of construction in little over two years.  Balancing act: Tesla battery system earns university nearly $74,000 in 3 months.

Australia’s reputation as solar leader under threat if ARENA funding not extended. Tasmania unveils action plan to reach 200 per cent renewablesQueensland urged to unlock $36bn renewable investment boom in lead-up to election.  Australia is uniquely placed to be able to reinvigorate manufacturing through renewable energy.

INTERNATIONAL

Latest climate models suggest global heating could be worse than we thought. Killer heat and humidity already with us.   Covid-19 highlights risks of doing nothing on global heating.    Water loss in northern peatlands threatens to intensify fires, global warming.

How much radioactive waste is stored on our planet?

The race to nuclear suicide continues despite Covid-19 crisis.  $73 billion world spent in 2019 on nuclear weapons, half of it by USA.  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty– its promise and its failure.

THE ATOM: A LOVE AFFAIR – nuclear dream to global nightmare.

USA.

JAPAN.  3600 working in Nuclear power plants in Japan – concerns raised over coronavirus. Worker infection halts anti-terror project at Genkai nuclear plant.  Rokkasho nuclear reprocessing, a pointless effort , to postpone coping with plutonium trash.  Korean navy to study impact of Fukushima Daiichi’s radioactive water leakOnagawa 2 upgrade faces further delay.  Fukushima Daiichi buildings pose safety risks.  The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and Civil Actions as a Social Movement.

UK.

CANADA. ‘Small Modular Nuclear Reactor’ entrepreneurs trying to revive dangerous ‘plutonium economy’ dream. Investigative journalismNuclear waste plan divides South Bruce community.

RUSSIARussia proposes 3 year extension of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start-3): USA silent.    Raising dangerously radioactive Russian submarines from the bottom of Arctic oceans.

NORWAY. Nuclear fraud in Norway could affect nuclear safety in other countries.

FRANCE. Coronavirus affecting France’s nuclear reactors’ safety and output. French government tries to downgrade radiation risk, avoid compensating Polynesian victims of nuclear testing.

SOUTH KOREA. South Korea, Germany to bolster ties in transition towards renewable energy.

IRANIran’s Nuclear and Military Efforts in the Shadow of Coronavirus and Economic Collapse.

UKRAINE. How an innovative  community overcame Ukraine’s nuclear trauma.

SOUTH AFRICA. South Africa’s nuclear waste problem– why plan to increase it?

GERMANY. Radiation leak at nuclear research reactor.  As Germany transitions to renewables, massive nuclear cooling towers are demolished.

PAKISTAN. Nuclear war between India and Pakistan very unlikely.

Wrong nuclear waste dump process: individuals nominate their land for personal gain

May 14, 2020

The current process where individuals nominate their own land for their own personal gain and then seek community support is completely backwards and does nothing but cause angst and divide communities.

We recommend the Committee:

Withdraw or reject the Bill on the grounds that neighbour support has not been met. The 100%
direct neighbour support is based on just two landowners as the majority of the land
surrounding the Napandee site is owned by the nominator themselves. Almost half of the
neighbours within the 5km radius to this site remain opposed. This does not constitute broad
neighbour support.

As farmers and neighbours to the selected site, it is of deep concern that radioactive waste could
be allowed to jeopardise Kimba and the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. The entire Eyre
Peninsula is very proud of its clean and green image, however, if a nuclear waste dump is
constructed in Kimba, no matter which way you look at it, the Eyre Peninsula will never be able to
lay claim to this image again. Clean and green does not go together with nuclear/radioactive
waste.

Marty & Rachel Yates – to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 90

We are very close neighbours to the Napandee site and are active members of the Kimba
community where we continue to live, farm and raise our young family. We are third generation
farmers and completely devastated with the news that Napandee has been selected as the site to
host the National Radioactive Waste Management facility (NRWMF) because this means the
facility will be forced upon us. We would never ever choose to live near a radioactive waste dump.

Our small country town has been targeted since 2015 when Rowan Ramsey initiated the proposal
that his property in Kimba could host the national radioactive waste facility. Since then, our once
close knit community has been torn apart by a flawed process that has been designed to divide
and conquer with the promise of jobs and money. The damage caused by this process is real and
will be lasting.

It has been extremely difficult and stressful five years for us. We have done our utmost to
request a fair, open and transparent process but instead have been presented with a very one
sided affair where the goal posts have constantly moved.

We were neighbours to the original nominated site at Cortlinye which was removed, along with
Pinkawillinie, from the process in 2016 due to lack of community support. To our dismay, a group
of locals did not accept this decision and in early 2017 proceeded to nominate two more sites in
Kimba. One called ‘Napandee’ and one called ‘Lyndhurst’. Despite being told by the Department of
Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) that this would never come back to Pinkawillinie, it did,
because Napandee is located in the Hundred of Pinkawillinie. We now find ourselves even closer
neighbours to the Napandee site than we were to Cortlinye. We have continually stated our
opposition as neighbours but because we don’t share a fence it feels like we don’t really matter.

As farmers and neighbours to the selected site, it is of deep concern that radioactive waste could
be allowed to jeopardise Kimba and the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. The entire Eyre
Peninsula is very proud of its clean and green image, however, if a nuclear waste dump is
constructed in Kimba, no matter which way you look at it, the Eyre Peninsula will never be able to
lay claim to this image again. Clean and green does not go together with nuclear/radioactive
waste.

Only 4.5% of South Australia is arable land. There is so much unproductive land in the whole of
Australia that would be a more suitable option than farming land to store radioactive waste. This
is where the current process falls down because it only allows nominations from volunteer
landowners so even though there may be better options out there, this process won’t allow them
to be considered because they have not volunteered.

We find it staggering that Kimba was allowed to re-enter the process after initially being removed
due to lack of community support but the Leonora nomination was not accepted even though they
say they are able to provide a final deep burial site for Australia’s most toxic waste which would
completely remove the need to double handle the waste and save many tax payer dollars. Read the rest of this entry »