Nuclear

Friends of the Earth Adelaide > Nuclear

Critical mass in Canberra puts nuclear dump in doubt

September 17, 2020

Kimba radioactive waste plans faces challenge in parliament following release of Senate inquiry report
Plans for a nuclear waste dump in the South Australian outback could still be derailed as opposition against laws clearing its path run into opposition from multiple political players.  Michelle Etheridge, Regional Editor, The Advertiser, September 14, 2020
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/kimba-radioactive-waste-plans-faces-challenge-in-parliament-following-release-of-senate-inquiry-report/news-story/5f0c57845cb063a6eed2003673350f78
The Federal Government faces a challenge to pass its radioactive waste bill through Parliament, amid dissent from a Labor Senator, the Greens and Independent Senator Rex Patrick.
A Senate committee probe into the draft legislation paving way for a radioactive waste site at Napandee farm, near Kimba, has recommended it be passed. However, dissenting reports from Labor’s Jenny McAllister, Greens Senator Sarah-Hanson Young and Mr Patrick have raised a raft of concerns, including it preventing the community from seeking a judicial review of the site selection process.

 

Under the plans, the Government will store low-level waste at Napandee permanently, and intermediate level waste for several decades.
Senator McAllister said the traditional landowners, the Barngarla people, were worried the new legislation specifying the site would override their right to a judicial review that would normally apply if Resources Minister Keith Pitt declared the location.   She said the Government had given “no compelling reason” for the change.
Senator Patrick said the bill emerged because “the Government botched its own site selection process to such a degree that it would almost certainly have seen a site selected through a ministerial decision overturned on judicial review”. The Government wanted the Senate to “fix up its mistake”, he said, but it could not do that “without serving up the majority of the stakeholders … with a plate of Government-cooked injustice”.
A Kimba Council-run ballot found 62 per cent of respondents supported the waste facility in their region. The Barngarla people lost a court battle to be included, later holding their own vote, which rejected the plans.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt says the nuclear proposal will bring more than 40 jobs to the Kimba area. While many in the community have welcomed nuclear storage as a new industry, providing more than 40 jobs and a $31 million community funding package, others are staunchly opposed. They have cited worries including the impact on agricultural land, and double-handling of intermediate level waste.
Senator Hanson-Young’s report said most of the 105 submissions the committee received opposed the bill and the broader SA community deserved a say in the project.
Mr Pitt said the committee’s report put the Government “one step closer” to a storage site for nuclear waste – “a process which has been ongoing for four decades”.  “The individual dissenting report by Senator McAllister aside, I would like to acknowledge the largely bipartisan approach to the location and construction of this facility,” he said.
Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins and Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said the Senate split over the issue reflected broader community division. “This is completely at odds with Federal Government rhetoric of only proceeding with facility if there is clear majority community support,” Mr Wilkins said.
Senator Hanson-Young said the Senate inquiry showed the draft legislation was “a highly flawed bill”. “There are deep concerns that this bill blatantly seeks to prevent any right to judicial review of this process and sets in stone Kimba as the dump site against strong community opposition,” she said.

Adelaide FoE Notes, Clean Futures, Nuclear

Legislation banning nuclear power in Australia should be retained

March 11, 2020

Jim Green, Online Opinion, 27 Feb 2020

Nuclear power in Australia is prohibited under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. A review of the EPBC Act is underway and there is a strong push from the nuclear industry to remove the bans. However, federal and state laws banning nuclear power have served Australia well and should be retained.

Too cheap to meter or too expensive to matter? Laws banning nuclear power has saved Australia from the huge costs associated with failed and failing reactor projects in Europe and North America, such as the Westinghouse project in South Carolina that was abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$13.4 billion. The Westinghouse / South Carolina fiasco could so easily have been replicated in any of Australia’s states or territories if not for the legal bans.

There are many other examples of shocking nuclear costs and cost overruns, including:

* The cost of the two reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia has doubled and now stands at A$20.4 to 22.6 billion per reactor.

* The cost of the only reactor under construction in France has nearly quadrupled and now stands at A$20.0 billion. It is 10 years behind schedule.

* The cost of the only reactor under construction in Finland has nearly quadrupled and now stands at A$17.7 billion. It is 10 years behind schedule.

* The cost of the four reactors under construction in the United Arab Emirates has increased from A$7.5 billion per reactor to A$10-12 billion per reactor.

* In the UK, the estimated cost of the only two reactors under construction is A$25.9 billion per reactor. A decade ago, the estimated cost was almost seven times lower. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the project will amount to A$58 billion, despite earlier government promises that no taxpayer subsidies would be made available.

Nuclear power has clearly priced itself out of the market and will certainly decline over the coming decades. Indeed the nuclear industry is in crisis — as industry insiders and lobbyists freely acknowledge. Westinghouse — the most experienced reactor builder in the world — filed for bankruptcy in 2017 as a result of catastrophic cost overruns on reactor projects. A growing number of countries are phasing out nuclear power, including Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Taiwan and South Korea. (more…)

Adelaide FoE Notes, Climate, Nuclear

Radioactive Exposure Tour April 2020

March 11, 2020

For over 30 years Friends of the Earth has been running Rad Tours to SA so people can experience first-hand the social and environmental impacts of the nuclear industry.

South Australia has experienced British nuclear bomb tests, extensive uranium exploration and mining, and is currently being targeted by the federal government for a national nuclear waste dump. And some are still lobbying to turn SA into the world’s dump for high-level nuclear waste.

We will visit uranium mining and waste dump sites plus speak to communities affected by the industry. We will also visit some of the beautiful places in SA including the Flinders Ranges and Lake Eyre.

We prioritise places for people who are involved in anti-nuclear campaigning or who are interested in getting involved.

WHEN: April 10?18, 2020 (from Melbourne) or April 11?17 (from Adelaide)

COSTS: $650 regular, $900 solidarity, $450 concession.

CONTACT: Lavanya, radexposuretour@gmail.com, 0468 490 768

Please fill out this form if you’re interested in participating.

More info on the 2020 Radioactive Exposure Tour.

Info on previous Rad Tours

Adelaide FoE Notes, FoE, Nuclear

Dumplings not Dumps

November 25, 2019

Everyone likes dumplings, but no one likes dumps.

The Federal government is trying to impose a radioactive waste dump in South Australia, despite State legislation that makes them illegal, opposition from Traditional Owners and a truly flawed plan that’s done nothing but cost money and divide communities.

Please support the communities of the Flinders Ranges and Kimba by sending a submission to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.

Get friends, family and co-workers together, eat dumplings and say NO to nuclear waste in SA and host a “Dumplings not Dumps” session.

Better yet, if you’re in Adeliade, bring your laptop and write yours on the night while having a dumpling dinner.
Where: The Joinery, 111 Franklin St, Adelaide
When: 6pm – 8pm
Date: Monday 25th November
Faceboook event

 

dumpling noun

dump·?ling | \ ?d?mp-li?

Definition of dumpling

1.

  1. a small mass of dough cooked by boiling or steaming
  2. a usually baked dessert of fruit wrapped in dough

2

: something soft and rounded like a dumpling

especially : a short fat person or animal

  

dump noun

\ ?d?mp  \ dumped; dumping; dumps

Definition of dump

1

  1. an accumulation of refuse and discarded materials
  2. a place where such materials are dumped

2

  1. a quantity of reserve materials accumulated at one place
  2. a place where such materials are stored ammunition dump
  3. a disorderly, slovenly, or objectionable place
  4. an instance of dumping data stored in a computer
  5. often vulgar : an act of defecation —usually used with take

Write a submission to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science

  • Write submissions against the radioactive waste dump proposed for SA
  • All the info you need to write a submission is at www.foe.org.au/have_your_say
  • You can use this online proforma and either use the existing text or edit to suit or you can write your own submission
  • Submissions are due by 12th December 2019

Eat dumplings, have fun

Dumpling options: There are so many types to choose from – momos, wontons, ravioli, kreplach, pierogi, gnocchi, Jamaican patties, gyoza, knishes, empanadas, samosas and more.

  1. Cheat: Buy some from an asian grocery or supermarket and steam, boil or fry
  2. Really cheat: Go to a restaurant and have a “Dumplings not Dumps” session around the table
  3. Don’t cheat:  Make your own

Share

Take a photo and post with  #DumplingsNotDumps and email to mara.bonacci@foe.org.au

Nuclear, Old_Notes

Olympic Dam Alert: BHP propose a major new Evaporation Pond 6

October 29, 2019

from David Noonan:
Olympic Dam Alert: BHP propose a major new Evaporation Pond 6 for radioactive acid liquor wastes that will continue deaths of hundreds of birds each year

The federal government are inviting comments on BHP’s “Olympic Dam Evaporation Pond 6” EPBC Act Referral 2019/8526  (scroll down to Date of Notice 21/10/2019).

Public submissions are only open until cob Monday 4th Nov 2019, see info on how to do so at end of this e-mail.

Please consider making a brief submission, key Recommendations are provided below, along with a Background Briefing Paper and a feature press article “BHP vs Birds”.

For info see “Migratory Birds at Risk of Mortality if BHP Continues Use of Evaporation Ponds” a 3 page Briefing written by David Noonan for the ACF, Friends of the Earth and Conservation SA (30 June 2019)

see “BIRDS VS BHP: Evaporation ponds at BHP’s Olympic Dam mine are killing hundreds of birds” article in The Advertiser 10 July 2019

Hundreds of birds are dying each year after mistaking Olympic Dam’s evaporation ponds for wetlands. Environment campaigners want the miner to stop using them… 

A set of Key Recommendations on these issues to please make to the federal government: 

  1. The federal government must subject BHP’s Olympic Dam Evaporation Pond 6 Referral to a public environmental impact assessment process

The federal government must not just approve this major new Olympic Dam Evaporation Pond 6 on the basis of limited non-independent BHP referral documents. Federal responsibilities to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance require the rigor and transparency of a public environmental impact assessment process. BHP can-not be allowed to be the sole arbiter over continued and unnecessary deaths of hundreds of birds each year on Olympic Dam acid liquor evaporation ponds.

  1. BHP must stop the use of Evaporation Ponds in order to reduce mortality to protected Bird Species

The federal government should not approve or allow BHP’s proposed major new Evaporation Pond 6, which will contribute to the deaths of hundreds of birds at Olympic Dam.

The federal government should place Conditions to require that BHP: “must not construct Evaporation Ponds for the purpose of the expanded mine”; and to: “phase out the use of Evaporation ponds as soon as practical”.

This is consistent with the federal EPBC Act Assessment and Decision in Fauna Approval Conditions 18-21 (EPBC 2005/2270, Oct 2011) to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance in Listed Bird Species and the 21 Listed Migratory Bird Species found in the area, from mortality at Olympic Dam. These conditions must now be applied uniformly across the entire Olympic Dam operation.

The federal government must require BHP to prevent and limit impacts and mortality on Listed Bird Species protected under both the federal EPBC Act and the SA National Parks and Wildlife Act.

  1. BHP Olympic Dam operations should be assessed in its entirety with the full range of project impacts subject to public consultation

Given that copper-uranium mining at Olympic Dam is a controlled “nuclear action” and Matter of National Environmental Significance (NES) under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the integrity of environmental protection requires that the entire Olympic Dam operation be subject to impact assessment so that regulatory conditions can be applied “to consider impacts on the whole environment”.

This is consistent with a key Recommendation by the federal Depart of Environment (“Olympic Dam expansion assessment report EPBC 2005/2270”, Sept 2011, 7. Existing operation, p.62):

“… it is recommended that conditions be applied to the existing operation so that the entire Olympic Dam operation (existing and expanded) is regulated by a single approval under the EPBC Act”.

At a minimum, BHP’s Oct 2019 Olympic Dam Evaporation Pond 6 referral must now trigger a public environmental impact assessment which includes assessment of impacts of the associated “BHP Olympic Dam EPBC Referral 2019/8465 Tailings Storage Facility 6” (to be larger in area than the CBD of Adelaide AND to be up to 30 metres high at the centre of the tailings pile, around the height of a 10 story building) – that BHP applied for in June 2019 and on which the federal Environment Minister is yet to make a decision.

BHP should not be allowed to ‘game’ the EPBC Act Referral system with multiple partial and limited referrals to try and avoid the scope of a warranted comprehensive public assessment of cumulative environmental impacts.

Submit your comments by cob Monday 4th Nov 2019:

Please send your comments on this BHP EPBC Olympic Dam Referral and quote the EPBC Act reference number2019/8526 and the full title of the referral:

“BHP BILLITON OLYMPIC DAM CORPORATION PTY LTD/Mining/Roxby Downs/South Australia/Olympic Dam Evaporation Pond 6”

To Email: epbc.comments@environment.gov.au

Referrals Gateway
Assessment & Governance Branch
Department of the Environment and Energy

If you require further information contact the federal government Referrals Gateway on 02 6274 2496 or email epbc.referrals@environment.gov.au

See info on ‘How to make a submission’ at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/public-notices/assessment-help#referrals

And scroll down to: Invitations for public comment, Referrals.

Nuclear, Old_Notes