I take this opportunity to thank Sam Chard for the contribution to our local news paper and to respond to the letter dated December 19, 2019 .
Instead of giving my thoughts and opinions on the subject of radioactive waste it would be beneficial if Sam could respond to a few questions I feel our community still needs the answers to and to better inform those outside of our community.
This would be much appreciated.
1. Your letter mentioned that permanent disposal of low level radioactive waste is consistent with international best practice.
Is secondary temporary storage of proposed intermediate level radioactive waste also consistent with international best practice?.
2. One of the guidelines of the Australian radiation protection and nuclear agency (ARPANSA) is to not have the siting of a radioactive waste facility on agricultural land.
Is there an expectation of flexibility in these guidelines?
3. Given ARPANSA are an independent regulatory organization how are they funded?
4. What other potential regulatory organizations are there and do they have varying guidelines?
5. Materials remaining after the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the definition from the United States of American nuclear regulatory commission (USNRC) and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) both state that this waste continues to remain high level radioactive waste and yet is classified as intermediate level waste in Australia.
Why is Australia's definition different?
6. Given that the current cost of consultation is now exceeding $55 million dollars, in your view could this be an outcome determining factor?
7. If SA state legislation making a site illegal can be overturned by the federal government and the regulatory organizations grant licenses etc and the minister determines the facility will go ahead, in your view is it not unreasonable for the community to determine an expiry of an allocated time period for the temporary storage of the proposed intermediate level waste?
Looking forward to your response Sam.
In direct relation to Sam's letter declaring the safe transport of radioactive waste I encourage everyone to please view the following link.
The proposed site for a nuclear repository at Barndioota has been rejected as a result of the ballot.
Unfortunately over 30% of eligible voters did not vote and the result was 47% for and 52% against.
The Kimba ballot was 61.58% in favour and the return rate was 90%.
Our area has missed an ideal opportunity for our towns to prosper into the future.
I wish your community all the very best and no doubt Mayor Johnson would be pleased with the return rate.
I hope that your area is chosen and that this is the opportunity for Kimba to move forward.
Letters to the editor
- Letters to be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. All submissions must include a name, address and contact number. (The address and phone number are not for publication.) The editor reserves the right to edit letters and not to publish them.