Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Katrina Bohr: Submission to Senate- community views, indigenous support – and what about climate extremes?

Above – ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed Barndioota area for the site. 
Katrina Bohr – Submission to SENATE INQUIRY into the site selection process for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility , (NRWMF) Barndioota.
My name is Katrina Bohr. I have been a resident of South Australia for 32 years, having lived in regional South Australia for the last 22 years. Nuclear waste and the historical outcomes of radioactive damage has been an ongoing concern of mine for almost 50 years.

In the initial stages of the announcement for site selection at Barndioota, when Josh Frydenberg was Minister for Resources and Energy, a statement was issued from the Government.

‘The Australian Government will also take into account the views of others (outside community zones) as part of the commitment to broad consultation.’

The proposal for low and intermediate waste to be stored in South Australia affects not only myself, but also future generations. Unlike some respondents, I do not live in the Hawker region. Therefore, my views are not driven by benefits, but rather genuine concerns for peoples’ health, our environment, and our local Indigenous communities.

 B) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

i)                    The definition of ‘broad community support’
I believe the definition of ‘broad community support’ is defined as support given by the majority. Broad support should be determined when the consultation process has been conducted thoroughly and with all persons of interest. The consultation process should offer full disclosure for the proposed site selection process.

ii)                  How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
Determining Broad Community support at this stage has involved a number of methods.

              Surveys, Public Meetings, face to face meetings, a continual presence of Australian Nuclear and Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) employees, members of  the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science Agency (APRANSA) and a Heritage Assessment process.

              Rowan Ramsey’s June/July 2016 Grey Newsletter states that all all the feedback, including district surveys were considered by the  Minister to evaluate whether there was a realistic chance of ‘developing’ broad support. The word ‘developing’ almost implies an action to develop rather than consult.

             My understanding of on-going broad community support is for updated and collated material to be honest and transparent, and that all perspectives be disclosed. 

 C) How any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advantage stage;

There are local indigenous people who believe that they should have been consulted from the outset. This is due to Yappala Station (next door to the proposed site) having already been classed as a protected area. Yappala Station is heritage listed as an Indigenous protected area due to its cultural and environmental significance.

A South Australian Department of State Development spokesperson confirmed that there are three Aboriginal sites that fall within the Barndioota-nominated area. Two of the sites are cultural and the third is archaeological (NITV Posted 2016).

The local indigenous people needed to be involved in all aspects of the site selection process. From heritage assessment to cultural importance. Dreamtime stories and Songlines.

Traditional land owner and Elder Eunice Marsh speaks of their love for the land as love for family. Hookina Springs and the surrounding area is significant to the Adnyamathanha women.

When the Adnyamthanha Traditional Lands Association met at the end of March 2018, the vote for the NRWMF was overwhelmingly against.

  E) Whether wider (Eyre-Peninsula or State-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;

I believe that wider community views should be considered as the nuclear waste, and in particular, the intermediate waste from Lucas Heights in NSW will be transported through a number of corridors. Therefore, wider community consultation should be considered. 

Matt Canavan makes reference to a ‘wide’ consultation process to determine whether the site is suitable’-Transcontinental newspaper 22/11/2016.

As far as I am aware, there has been no wider community consultation to date. Wider community consultation could be conducted through relevant forums, surveys and information mail outs.

 F) Any other related matters

 In the fairness of disclosure, I have referred to the Australian Government Department of Business

                           Initial Business Case (revised) 2014 Page 29

                          ‘The Capital cost estimates for the project options are based on delivery

                           of given designs at a site in Central Australia’

The Business Case also refers to a Timeline where ANSTO is due to run out of space for low and intermediate storage. This is by 2018.

When in Parliament, Grant Chapman chaired the select committee that recommended the country’s low level nuclear waste be stored in a single facility-The Guardian 29/4/16.

Grant Chapman is part owner of the proposed site at Barndioota, and has made it quite public that he believed his land would be an ideal site for a NRWMF.

He served on three committees including Uranium mining and milling to Radioactive Waste from March 1995 to May 1997. The other from August 2000 to May 2001. Acting as Chair in the first two committees, where in !996 a decision was made to pursue a NRWMF.        There is evidence that there may have been a determination over the years by the Australian Government to establish the site at Barndioota.

Images: I am sending three images displaying the ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed area for the site.
Advertisements

April 11, 2018 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: