Archive for the ‘Royal Commission’ Category

Senator Scott Ludlam’s very inconvenient questions on Australian government’s nuclear waste plan

June 13, 2017

Assuming that the long-lived intermediate-level stuff does go to the sites that you are busy characterising at the moment, how long is it envisaged that it actually stays there before it gets taken somewhere else?

Mr B Wilson: We cannot give a definitive answer on that because we have not commenced a process to identify a permanent disposal solution for the long-lived intermediate-level waste—

Senator LUDLAM: Ouch!

if the really dangerous intermediate-level stuff is to be stored there you cannot tell them how long it is meant to be there for

so we kind of do not really know what is going on there or how long it is meant to be there for.

ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, Department of Industry – RADIOACTIVE WASTE  1st June 2017

 Full Transcript here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/e3ddf88b-3e9c-4546-9d90-8f646689a98c/toc_pdf/Economics%20Legislation%20Committee_2017_06_01_5134.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Senator Canavan: I have been to Hawker and I am going there again tomorrow, and I would like to put on record my thanks to many in the Hawker community who engage in this process. Some have certainly changed their mind as they have come to have more understanding of it. I think you have probably been to Lucas Heights, and it I think it makes a big difference to people when they see it. There is a lot of misinformation spread about this, and we are trying to engage with people in a genuine way in good faith to give them the information to make informed decisions.

Senator LUDLAM: Who is spreading this information, Senator Canavan?

Senator Canavan: I hear it from time to time. I do not have any particular allegations to make about individual groups here, but you do hear lots of information from time to time about the potential danger of this material. But, of course, as you would probably know, much of the low-level waste is stored safely at Lucas Heights, a place where people go to and from work every day. 

Senator LUDLAM: That begs the question of why it needs to move. ..….

Senator LUDLAM: Staying in South Australia: has there been any consideration at all—this is for the department or the minister, whoever wants to take this one on—of the tension between the proposed national radioactive waste facility and the existing South Australian legislation, which would be the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000? The tension between the fact that your entire project is presently illegal under South Australian law: what is being done about that?

Mr B Wilson: We are certainly aware of the South Australian prohibition under their law. However, the National Radioactive Waste Management Act that we operate under overrides South Australian law. 

Senator LUDLAM: And that is it? You are just going to squash them? Or are there discussions progressing with the South Australian government?….

Senator LUDLAM: Is the department, or you, Senator Canavan, or any of the federal agencies or other actors in communication with the South Australian government environment or heritage departments, or representatives of any body, actually, in relation to the tension between the two acts?

Senator Canavan: I have raised it with the South Australian government. They have indicated that they may seek to make changes. I am not aware of the status of that at the moment. Obviously, they have their own process, which is a separate to ours, on radioactive waste. Certainly, the issue has been raised. Mr Wilson is also right that we are confident that is not a barrier to this project. But Mr Wilson will be giving you that.

Mr B Wilson: We engage—I would have to characterise it as infrequently—with the South Australian government. It is more in the line of updating where we are. We have not had any recent engagements. They are certainly very well aware of the prohibitions under their law about what the South Australian government and its officials can do in this space….

When I said that the National Radioactive Waste Management Act overrides South Australian law, that is the fact. But what we are trying to do in the development of this project is to develop it and act in a way that is consistent with requirements under other South Australian legislation. For instance, in terms of Indigenous heritage protection and other aspects. While we are not necessarily bound by those laws we want to act in a way that is consistent with them.

Senator LUDLAM: With waste that is as dangerous as this, I am very glad to hear it! Is the department still accepting site nominations?

Senator Canavan: The government remains open to further nominations, as we announced on selecting the Hawker site last year. But the ones we have announced are those that we are proceeding with at this stage.

Senator LUDLAM: Wallerberdina and two at Kimba. (more…)

Advertisements

Nuclear propagandist Ben Heard caught out in shoddy misinformation on nuclear waste importing plan

February 4, 2017

heardben

The only way to avoid gambling hundreds of millions or billions of SA taxpayers’ dollars would be in the wildly improbable scenario that potential client countries would take that gamble.

Taipower clearly states that it would not consider sending waste to another country unless and until that country has developed a repository. Yet the economic case developed by Jacobs and MCM collapses if revenue (and waste) is not received before construction of a repository.

Finally, Mr Heard’s promotion of fast breeder reactors is beyond stupid….. Most of the countries that invested in fast breeder reactors have given up, deciding not to throw good money after bad. Last year, Japan decided to give up on the Monju fast breeder reactor, a fiasco that will cost Japanese taxpayers A$17.3 billion in construction, operation and decommissioning costs despite the fact that the reactor rarely operated.

The Royal Commission completely rejected proposals advanced by Heard and others for ‘advanced fast reactors’, noting in its final report that such reactors are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future; that the development of such a first-of-a-kind project would have high commercial and technical risk

Friends of the Earth Australia has today written to all Members of the SA House of Assembly and Legislative Council, and SA political representatives in the Federal Parliament, responding to the latest round of misinformation from those proposing to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump.

——————————————————————————–

To: Members of the SA House of Assembly and Legislative Council

From: Jim Green
National nuclear campaigner
Friends of the Earth, Australia     Feb. 3, 2017

EXPOSING THE LATEST MISINFORMATION FROM THE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP LOBBY

Dear Members of the SA House of Assembly and Legislative Council,
The Advertiser has today run an article including false claims from nuclear lobbyist / uranium industry consultant / PhD student Ben Heard that Jay Weatherill’s plan to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump could be pursued without the need to gamble hundreds of millions or billions of dollars with no guarantee of any return on the investment.

Mr Heard is quoted saying that the “notion of high upfront cost to South Australia is a persistent and deliberate lie first peddled by deceitful environmental groups and now, sadly, taken up by the Liberal Party.”

In fact, the necessity of gambling hundreds of millions or billions of dollars ‒ without the slightest guarantee of any return on the investment ‒ is clearly spelt out by Jacobs, the economics consulting firm commissioned by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

Jacobs Project Manager / Consultant Tim Johnson told the SA Joint Select Committee that “total expenditure prior to the decision to proceed” is likely to be from around A$300 million to in excess of A$600 million, depending on the timing of the decision to proceed. (Letter to Joint Standing Committee, 5 July 2016.)

Dr Johnson told the Joint Select Committee that the project entails very significant economic risks: “It isn’t a risk-free process to go into this. There is a very significant risk.” Yet the nuclear waste dump lobby persist with the fabrication that the project can be pursued without economic risks.

Jacobs noted the potential for initial outlays in the billions in its report for the Royal Commission: “Under the cash-flow assumptions of the baseline, where no revenues ahead of delivery are assumed (a deliberately conservative assumption), there is an initial outlay of A$2.4 billion (real) in net terms.” (Jacobs, Paper 5, sec 4.4, Cash flow profile for the baseline, p.205.)

Any suggestion that the nuclear waste dump project could be a quick fix for the SA economy were dispelled by the Royal Commission’s report, which stated (emphasis added): “Careful characterisation over several decades is required to confirm the suitability of the geological conditions.”

The only way to avoid gambling hundreds of millions or billions of SA taxpayers’ dollars would be in the wildly improbable scenario that potential client countries would take that gamble. If anyone needs any convincing as to the improbability of that scenario, it came late last year in correspondence from the Taiwanese government’s energy and nuclear agencies. As Daniel Wills reported in The Advertiser: “TAIWAN’S state-owned energy company has bluntly rejected Investment and Trade Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith’s claim the country would consider paying to help set up a nuclear waste dump in SA, saying in a letter that it “hereby declares this is a false information”.”

Taipower clearly states that it would not consider sending waste to another country unless and until that country has developed a repository. Yet the economic case developed by Jacobs and MCM collapses if revenue (and waste) is not received before construction of a repository. The Final Report of the Royal Commission states (p.300) (emphasis added): “Figure J.8 also demonstrates that a facility configuration scenario is viable only with the establishment of a surface interim storage facility capable of accepting used fuel prior to construction of geological disposal facilities. Configurations 3 and 4, which did not include interim storage facilities (see Table J.1), did not generate profits because of the delay in receiving waste and associated revenues.”

Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council is clearly sensitive to SA public opinion, pointing to the Citizen Jury’s rejection of the proposal and noting that: “Without the understanding and support from Australian … nuclear waste storage cannot be developed.”

The nuclear waste dump lobbyists are hanging on to the ludicrous proposition that potential client countries will gamble hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on a waste dump plan that is:
* Opposed by three political parties in SA (Liberals, Greens, NXT) and by many within the ALP.
* Opposed by a majority of South Australians (e.g. 31% support vs. 53% opposition in the SA Government’s statewide consultation process; and a November 2016 poll commissioned by the Sunday Mail found just 35% support.)
* Opposed by a vast majority of Aboriginal Traditional Owners on whose land the high-level nuclear waste dump would necessarily be located. (The SA government’s Community Views Report said: “There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.”)
* Rejected by two-thirds of the 350-strong Citizens’ Jury “under any circumstances”.

Taiwan has clearly stated that it has no intention of gambling vast sums of money on a nuclear dump in SA and it is equally improbable that any other potential client country would do so. In which case South Australians would need to gamble hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on a project with no guarantee of any return on the investment.

Late last year, Mr Heard had to correct a statement falsely claiming that most South Australians support the high-level nuclear dump plan and he begins 2017 with another falsehood. He should have the decency to apologise to the Liberal Party and to environment groups for his latest falsehood and slander. Interestingly, the statement falsely claiming that most South Australians support the high-level nuclear dump plan was endorsed by SA’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Leanna Read. Shamefully, the state’s chief fact-checker didn’t bother to check her facts.

Mr Heard also conveniently ignores real-world experience with nuclear waste projects:
* Estimates of the clean-up costs for a range of (civil and military) UK nuclear sites including Sellafield have nearly doubled from a 2005 estimate of £56 billion (A$91.6 billion) to over £100 billion (A$163.6 billion)
* In 2005, the French government’s nuclear waste agency Andra estimated the cost of a deep geological repository at between €13.5 and €16.5 billion (A$19.0‒23.2 billion). In 2016, Andra estimates the cost of the repository at between €20 billion to €30 billion (A$28.1‒42.2 billion). As with the UK, the latest French estimates are nearly double the earlier estimates.
* Between 2001 and 2008, the estimated cost of constructing the Yucca Mountain high level nuclear waste repository in the USA and operating it for 150 years increased by 67%, from US$57.5 billion to US$96.2 billion (A$75.1 billion ‒ $125.7 billion). Yucca Mountain was abandoned – so the USA wasted US$13.5 billion (A$17.6 billion) and still doesn’t have a repository.

The Nuclear Economics Consulting Group report commissioned by the SA Joint Select Committee concluded that the nuclear waste import project could be profitable under certain assumptions but the report then raises serious questions about most of those assumptions. The NECG report notes that the Royal Commission’s economic analysis didn’t even consider some important issues which “have significant serious potential to adversely impact the project and its commercial outcomes”; that assumptions about price are “overly optimistic” and if that is the case “project profitability is seriously at risk”; that the 25% cost contingency for delays and blowouts is likely to be a significant underestimate; and that the assumption the project would capture 50% of the available market had “little support or justification”.

Finally, Mr Heard’s promotion of fast breeder reactors is beyond stupid. For all the rhetoric about Generation IV fast breeder reactors, and the US$100+ billion invested worldwide, only five such reactors are operating worldwide (three of them experimental) and only one is under construction (in India). Most of the countries that invested in fast breeder reactors have given up, deciding not to throw good money after bad. Last year, Japan decided to give up on the Monju fast breeder reactor, a fiasco that will cost Japanese taxpayers A$17.3 billion in construction, operation and decommissioning costs despite the fact that the reactor rarely operated.

The Royal Commission completely rejected proposals advanced by Heard and others for ‘advanced fast reactors’, noting in its final report that such reactors are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future; that the development of such a first-of-a-kind project would have high commercial and technical risk; that there is no licensed, commercially proven design and development to that point would require substantial capital investment; and that electricity generated from such reactors has not been demonstrated to be cost competitive with current light water reactor designs.

The sorry saga of South Australia’s nuclear waste dump plan – Michael West

November 23, 2016

“By removing this tricky “back end problem” of where to store the waste Australian taxpayers can really assist foreign investors to make more money”

It’s not simply a matter however of digging a best-of-breed hole with the taxpayer bearing 100 per cent of the cost – and sanctioned by a cost-benefit analysis focused on benefits but not costs.

The nuclear dump proposal probably couldn’t have got where it is today without the helpful influence of UCL Australia, the “international campus” of the University College London, which is located in Adelaide.

This university campus was started in 2008 with helpful funding from BHP (Olympic Dam – the world’s largest known deposit of uranium in South Australia) and Santos.

west-michaelVisit Australia, home of the world’s nuclear waste dump! http://www.michaelwest.com.au/visit-australia-home-of-the-worlds-nuclear-waste-dump/  “Come visit Australia, home of the world’s nuclear waste dump!”

It’s got a ring about it, no doubt about that. Imagine the tourism potential, imagine the premium prices our agricultural produce would fetch! We would be the envy of the global community. Yet this visionary proposal by South Australian premier Jay Weatherill is being white-anted, shot down by naysayers, people who have little understanding of the benefits of hosting the world’s high-level nuclear waste.

Thankfully Rupert Murdoch’s quality newspaper, The Adelaide Advertiser, has thrown its wisdom and authority behind the shrewd plan for the state’s glowing future.

There is still some conjuring of consent to be done though. Despite the Premier and his crack cabinet holding a Royal Commission which recommended the waste dump; and despite expert’s advice in the guise of the Jacobs report, the naysayers have kept their dastardly campaign afoot.

They even alleged this Jacobs report was somehow lacking in independence just because it was written by paid advocates of the nuclear industry.

Pressing ahead intrepidly in the face of this vile cynicism by the enemies of progress, the government then held “citizens’ juries”, where hundreds of South Australians got together, heard expert advice, and discussed the proposal. While it is true that the overwhelming majority of citizen jurors, 70 per cent, voted “no”, it was only because they were subject to a campaign of misinformation.

In their hearts, they really wanted it.

So it was that Premier Weatherill, still braving the chill winds of dissent,

abandoned the frivolity of the citizens’ juries, and vowed to hold a referendum, declaring, “The best way forward is by putting the decision in the hands of the people”.

It will only cost a few million more of taxpayers money – on top of the $10 million for the Royal Commission and the $14 million before that for consultation. Then once the people enjoy a baseline confidence in the brilliance of the project, the $145 billion of taxpayers’ money can be spent digging a world-class hole.

“By removing this tricky “back end problem” of where to store the waste Australian taxpayers can really assist foreign investors to make more money”

It’s not simply a matter however of digging a best-of-breed hole with the taxpayer bearing 100 per cent of the cost – and sanctioned by a cost-benefit analysis focused on benefits but not costs.

The highly independent Royal Commission found the nuclear waste facility would deliver a $100 billion gross profit, or $51 billion in present day dollars, after the $145 billion spent on the state-of-the-art hole.

Such is the cost of the hole though that it would not have to be dug right away. The Royal Commission recommended importing the toxic waste first, getting some income from foreign waste-dumpers and then financing the cost of the very large hole with the proceeds.

The radioactive waste therefore could be stored above ground in an “interim facility”. Assuming no other country competed on price, Australia would not even have to spend money storing the waste safely underground for 200,000 years, roughly the same time as known human history; we could just chuck the stuff on a big concrete slab in the desert, thereby creating significant employment opportunities for concreters. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

The benefits don’t end here however. On page 121 of the Jacobs MCM report for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, it says:

“The advantages of an international solution to an emerging nuclear programme will include:

“The removal of the ‘back end problem’ will definitely reduce the perceived risk for potential investors in a new nuclear programme or a debt provider for a mid-project refinancing”.

Ah hah! So another key benefit of stepping up as the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump is that Australia can help the international nuclear industry get some new projects off the ground. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the industry has had terrible setbacks.

By removing this tricky “back end problem” of where to store the waste Australian taxpayers can really assist foreign investors to make more money.

The nuclear dump proposal probably couldn’t have got where it is today without the helpful influence of UCL Australia, the “international campus” of the University College London, which is located in Adelaide.

This university campus was started in 2008 with helpful funding from BHP (Olympic Dam – the world’s largest known deposit of uranium in South Australia) and Santos.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/UCL_Australia

Along with its pro-nuclear types such as Alexander Downer and Martin Ferguson – fans of the magnificent nuclear waste proposal – UCL has many other nuclear industry connections and has also played a strong role in advocating for fracking and coal seam gas.

Now UCL appears to have done its job, whatever that was, as it announced last year it would close the campus.

Key Findings of South Australia’s Nuclear ‘Community Views Report’.

November 14, 2016

community-consultation

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency, November 2016, ‘Community Views Report’.

http://assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2016/11/11/09/37/34/0c1d5954-9f04-4e50-9d95-ca3bfb7d1227/NFCRC%20CARA%20Community%20Views%20Report.pdf

Jim Green, 13 Nov 16  Page 19: The report states: “Over thirty per cent (31%) of South Australians interviewed in the three rounds of telephone surveys supported the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from other countries in the state, while 53% opposed the proposal and 16% were unsure or didn’t know enough.”

Page 18: The report distinguishes ‘representative feedback’ (participation in telephone surveys and focus groups by random selection) from self-selected feedback (feedback forms, online survey, conversation kit). In the representative feedback (4016 people), 43% of people supported or strongly supported continuing to explore the nuclear waste dump proposal, while 37% were opposed or strongly opposed. In the self-selected feedback (4499 people), 64% of people opposed or strongly opposed continuation, more than double the 29% who supported or strongly supported continuation.

Adding the figures together (which the report does not do):

1727 + 1305= 3032 people support continuing to explore the proposal

1486 + 2879 = 4365 people oppose continuing to explore the proposal

Page 34: Within the structured channels of feedback forms and telephone and online surveys, 198 people who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander provided feedback. In terms of support for continuing to explore the establishment of a nuclear storage facility for international waste in SA, 34% of Aboriginal people in the representative sample (total 56 people) were supportive and 50% were opposed, compared to 16% supportive and 73% opposed in the self-selected feedback (total 138 people).

Combining the figures (which the report does not do):

Support continuing to explore the proposal: 19 + 22 = 41 people

Oppose continuing to explore the proposal: 28 + 101 = 129 people

The report states (page 9): “Many [Aboriginal] participants expressed concern about the potential negative impacts on their culture and the long-term, generational consequences of increasing the state’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle. There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.”

Page 22: How confident are you that nuclear waste can be transported and stored safely?

Confident or very confident 20%

Not confident or not at all confident 70%

In four places the report produces survey results regarding what the next steps should be. In all cases the most common response was that the nuclear waste dump proposal should be stopped. In three of the four cases, stopping the proposal was vastly more popular than the second most common response:

p.23: 28% stop the proposal vs next most common response 7%

p.26: 18% stop the proposal vs next most common response 17%

p.29: 25% stop the proposal vs next most common response 8%

p.31: 28% stop the proposal vs next most common response 8%

Page 24: Self-selected feedback channels showed that confidence that the government would consider community views in its decision was low at 20%, with 70% not confident.

Page 28: Asked about confidence in government’s ability to regulate any new nuclear industry activities in South Australia, 43% of the representative sample (total 4016 people) said they were not confident, compared with 38% who were confident. Of the self-selected feedback (total 3330 people), 74% were not confident and 18% were confident.
Combining the figures (which the report does not do):

Confident: 1526 + 599 = 2125

Not confident: 1726 + 2464 = 4190

Page 30: On the question of confidence that a nuclear waste disposal facility would bring significant economic benefits to SA, 66% of the people who submitted online

Nuclear Royal Commission relied on biased economic evidence

November 5, 2016

scrutiny-on-wastes-sa-bankrupt

“Such a dump could easily lose money instead of being a bonanza.”

Critics argue Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission skewed by advocacy group’s evidence, ABC 3 Nov 16  by Stephen Long  “…….Claims that building a radioactive waste dump would give a massive boost to the South Australian economy rely on a report co-authored by members of an advocacy group for international nuclear storage “solutions”.

A royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has urged South Australia to develop a facility for the disposal of international used nuclear fuel and waste, arguing it could provide “significant and enduring economic benefits to the South Australian community”.

It based its finding on a “viability analysis” conducted for the commission that found that a nuclear waste dump could “generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure” over the life of the project, or a $51 billion benefit in today’s dollars.

That analysis was co-authored by Charles McCombie and Mr Neil Chapman, the president and vice president of ARIUS, the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage. The association’s role is to “promote concepts … for storage and disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes” and to “act as an advocate for international and regional storage and disposal options”.

Its motto is: “The world needs nuclear power — nuclear power needs multinational facilities”.

As well as co-authoring the viability analysis, Dr McCombie and Mr Chapman wrote the safety analysis that the royal commission relied upon.

Advocates’ advice tainted analysis: critics

Critics argue that using leading members of an advocacy group to assess the viability and economic benefits of building a nuclear waste dump gives rise to a clear conflict of interest and taints the analysis.

“I think it is really disappointing and I think Australians should be asking fundamental questions about the independence of the economic analysis on which this entire case, on which this entire royal commission, rests,” Barbara Pocock, an economist and research professor at the University of South Australia, told the ABC.

Professor Pocock, who is a member of Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia, said the royal commission appeared to rely entirely on the “viability analysis” for its recommendation of a nuclear waste facility.

“All the economists who have replied to the analysis in that report have been critical of the fact that it is a ‘one quote’ situation.

“We haven’t got a critical analysis, we haven’t got a peer review of the analysis, which appears to have come from an interested source,” she said……..

Its modelling assumes that South Australia will receive $1.75 million per tonne for taking spent nuclear fuel and intermediate radioactive waste and command half the available market, though it says it would still be viable with a lower price and market share.

Critics describe the price forecasts as heroic, and the assumption that the forecast price would not bring rival facilities into market as puzzling.

“The forecast profitability of the proposed nuclear dump rests on highly optimistic assumptions,” Richard Blandy, professor of economics at the University of Adelaide, told the citizens’ jury last week.

“Such a dump could easily lose money instead of being a bonanza.”……… http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/radioactive-waste-dump-would-boost-sa-economy-commission-hears/7991170

South Australian government’s clear conflict of interest in its nuclear waste import plan

October 20, 2016

Scarce thanks experts 1

Malgo Schmidt, from Your Say site  16 Oct 2016  “……..There is no independent Nuclear Regulator in Australia and SA has a conflict of interest

The nuclear dump plan proposes sitting a Nuclear port and an above ground high level nuclear waste storage facility in Project Year 5 – before potential nuclear waste contracts in Year 6′ This depends on assessment and approval by an lndependent Nuclear Regulator- that does not exist in Australia’
The current Federal nuclear regulator would requiré legislative amendments before it could claim to ‘regulate’ lnternational nuclear wastes. SA is disqualified from doing so by clear conflict of interest’
This senate can block any nuclear dump legislation up to the next Federal Election ALP, Greens and the Xenophon team can together block any pro-dump legislation in the senate
Four key themes in community concern over international nuclear waste dumping:
It is quite clear that there are 4 key concerns that have to be dealt with collectively. Failure to pass any of these tests should stop further consideration of a Nuclear Dump. They are:
1. safety of workers and community throughout the nuclear waste supply chain.
2. Flawed Economic assumptions
3. Aboriginal veto
4. Environmental and inter-generational concerns, risks and impacts

Safety is compromised by import of nuclear waste long before any disposal capacity

The Nuclear Commission proposed import of nuclear waste in Project Year 11′ four years ahead of an agreed licensed disposal site and some 16 years ahead of any potential waste disposal capacity
SA faces the threat of a Nuclear port receiving nuclear waste ships every month for decades
Reality check analysis shows there is No Profit in Nuclear waste

South Australians are being misled by inflated revenue claims, untenable assumptions including globally unprecedented scale of dump plans and under reported nuclear waste costs & liabilities’
Nuclear dump plans are prone to fail- like Yucca Mountain in the USA, and end in debt not profit.

Future generations – importing international nuclear waste is an irrevocable decision
The nuclear waste would be here forever and remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years’ our children will have no say in this decision hgt be left with this liability into the future ‘
The Campaign needs to mobilise mainstream community to oppose nuclear waste dumps

Countering the Premier’s nuclear waste agenda requires mobilising SA community’ working through the steps in who? when? where? and How? to engage groups across society on these issues’
We can all contribute to protect SA from nuclear dumping and build strength in our community’  For further info see:www.foe.org.au/import-waste & http://www.nodumpalliance.org.au/

Nuclear Citizens Jury South Australia. These are the Recommended Witnesses

October 12, 2016

Citizens' Jury scrutinyThis is a full list of witnesses chosen by the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury on October 9th and invited to be witnesses for the next Nuclear Citizens’ Jury on 29 October.

Here I have endeavoured to shed light on the likely evidence of each, according to the following code :

GREEN = Anti-nuclear waste dumping, Yellow – doubtful on waste importing,  ORANGE=Neutral – Uncertain, about waste dumping, BLACK = I don’t know, PINK = probably pro waste dumping , RED = Pro nuclear waste dumping

  • I ran into a spot of bother with the many Aboriginals recommended. As far as I can tell, they are all opposed to importing nuclear waste, except Parry Agius .  Some of the most prominent Aboriginal persons are: Kevin Buzzacott,  Karina Lester, Vivienne McKenzie,  Enice Marsh.  
  • Some pro nuclear people might be opposed to the dump plan, so I put those in pink. 

 

Nuclear Citizens Jury Two: Witness work

WITNESSES CHOSEN BY JURY AND INVITED FOR THE 29th

 

 

No      List Ref               Name                                                  Votes              Theme

1              123      Richard Dennis                                      96                 Economics

2             121       Professor Richard Blandy                    54                Economics

3            128       Professor Barbara Pocock                   45                 Economics

4            179        Professor Brian Cox                             45                 Safety

5            166        Hon Nick Xenophon                            44                Trust

6             56         Paddy Crumlin                                                34                  Safety

7                1         Timo Aikas                                             34                   Safety

8                4        Professor Rodney Ewing                                  31               Safety

9           168         Dr Karl Kruszelnicki                                       30              Safety

10          116         Dr Simon Longstaff                                          29             Trust

11              5          Robert J Halstead                                           27             Safety

12            19          Dr Jim Green                                         25              Safety

13              9          Dr Carl Magnus‐Larsson                     25            Safety

14            162         Ian Hore‐Lacy                                       22            Economics

15              49       Professor Tilman Ruff, AM                  22             Safety

16              53         Frank Boulton                                                  21            Safety

17           188         Someone from the Attorney Generals Department to provide advice on the legislation that will be required to be developed/changed. DemocracyCo seeking advice on who.   Trust

18             124         Assoc. Professor Mark Diesendorf    20             Economics

19                 7          Dr Andrew Herczeg                                      20             Safety

20              42         Dr Ian Fairlie                                          19             Safety

21             137         Hon Mark Parnell, MLC                      18             Economics

22              39         Dr Margaret Beavis                               18             Safety

23             119       Assoc. Professor Haydon Manning               17            Trust

24            122          John Carlson AM                                   16          Economics

25           200         Dr Benito Cao                                                  16        Economics

26             18           Professor David Giles                                    16       Safety

27            115           Steven McIntosh                                           16          Trust

28              2              Dr Ian Chessell                                            14          Safety

29              34          Professor Sandy Steacy                                14             Safety

30              69          Gill McFadyen                                                11                 Consent

31              74            Dave Sweeney                                       10              Consent

32            104           Bob Watts                                                        9             Consent

33            76            Ross Womersley                                             8             Consent

34            72            Dr Gerald Ouzounian                                    7            Consent

35             73            Dan Spencer                                                      6              Consent

36          126           Tim Johnson                                          7 Economics Invited to provide info on the Royal Commission economic modelling after 20+ requests on Information Gap Cards Dotmocracy Results ‐ 25 plus a few extras to allow for availability Top 6 from Consent ‐ as Gill is unavailable.

Nuclear Citizens Jury Two: Witness work

ABORIGINAL WITNESSES ALREADY INVITED ON THE 29TH (more…)

Doubts about impartiality of South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens’ Jury

October 9, 2016

Citizens' Jury scrutiny

I have not been watching today’s  Citizens’ Jury Two Livestreaming and Video.  However, these a-cat-CANsessions are available for viewing. I saw at the agenda – See the agenda here – that the gathering was to be opened by Premier Jay Weatherill, and Kevin Scarce, former chief of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.

Unlike may other critics of the nuclear industry, I have some faith in the process. I did think that DemocracyCo ran the first Citizens’ Jury meetings well, and the jury members asked intelligent questions.  The problems were:

  1. The whole premise was not really a jury situation in any sense. The jury were told that they were not to make a decision (the essential brief of any real jury). They were told to produce a ‘Summary of the Nuclear Fuel cycle Royal Commission’s Report.
  2. The witnesses were not always well informed, and some were both ignorant and biased. They were chosen at an early stage by the jury members, who clearly did not then have access to  impartial and well informed experts.
  3.  Members of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission were far too prominently present and vocal. Greg War and Chad Jacobi made sure to dazzle all with their pro nuclear knowledge, whenever it looked as if criticism of the nuclear industry was coming up.

This new Citizens’ Jury has been given a loaded question to consider:

“Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?”

So – much as I admire DemocracyCo’s the group management efforts, and real attempts at fairness, I am not optimistic about the outcome of this Citizens’ Jury 2.  I think it will boil down to another delaying tactic by the Weatherill government, to keep the State guessing – while behind the scenes, the nuclear lobby gets on with its preparations for nuclear waste importing to south Australia.

Stuff that the nuclear lobby doesn’t want the Citizens’ Jury to hear – South Australia

October 9, 2016

scrutiny-on-wastes-sa-bankrupt

As the South Australian Government’s second nuclear “citizens’ jury” gets underway this weekend, it’s essential that participants aren’t denied important facts about global nuclear waste, says Mark Parnell MLC, Parliamentary Leader of the SA Greens.

Here are eight inconvenient truths that the citizens’ jury needs to hear:

1.       The much-heralded Finnish underground nuclear waste facility (visited by the Premier recently) does NOT yet have a licence to accept nuclear waste, will not open for at least six years and has been three decades in planning.  It is also 20 times SMALLER than the facility proposed for SA by the Royal Commission.

2.       The nuclear industry is without peer in terms of cost blow-outs and time over-runs.  This is likely to eliminate any anticipated profit for South Australia – which is the sole rationale for the proposed SA dump.

3.       According to the Royal Commission’s own consultants, it could cost South Australia more than $600 million before we even know whether the project is viable.

4.       The main client countries anticipated to send nuclear waste to South Australia, including South Korea and Japan, are already exploring domestic solutions to their nuclear waste problem and are not considering overseas solutions.

5.       The world’s only operating underground nuclear waste facility, in New Mexico, USA, closed in 2015 following a chemical explosion brought about by human error.  It is still contaminated and yet to re-open.

6.       The most advanced nuclear nation on Earth, the USA, is yet to come up with a permanent solution for waste from its nuclear power plants.  The proposed underground nuclear dump in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been stalled by community opposition and may never go ahead.

7.       Whilst it may be the best idea so far, nobody knows if deep geological disposal of nuclear waste will work in the long term, because it has never been done before.

8.       South Australia is not unique in its geology and has regular earthquakes of magnitude 4 and above.

Without all the facts, the citizens’ jury can’t possibly make an informed decision.

NOTE: Mark Parnell MLC is a member of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee that is investigating the Royal Commission’s findings. Mark and other Committee members recently returned from inspecting nuclear waste facilities under construction in Finland and France, as well as failed facilities in the United States.

South Australia Nuclear Citizens’ Jury – look out for the Witness List

October 9, 2016

citizen jury

I say “Look out for the witness list, because for citizens’ jury 1, the big weakness was in
the witnesses – some of whom were clearly ignorant and biaseed. This was particularly apparent in the appalling way they covered (up) the question of ionising radiation and health.

October 8th and 9th Citizens’ Jury Two Livestreaming and Video

See the agenda here.  Note these two important sections  on Sunday 9th:

3.45pm  Working afternoon tea – witness selection

4.15pm Defining the witness list

Citizens’ Jury Two will be held over two weekends in October and one weekend in November. The original 50 members of Citizens’ Jury One will be supplemented by an additional 300 South Australians to answer the question: Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?

The Jury will deliberate on the question using both the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report and first Citizens’ Jury report, with feedback from the community consultation and expert witnesses also used as important inputs.

The unedited and unchanged jury report will be presented to the Premier and tabled in the South Australian Parliament. The report will play a vital role in informing the State Government’s response to the Royal Commission’s Report later this year.

Dates for Citizens’ Jury Two are 8/9 October, 29/30 October, 5/6 November 2016.