Chloe Hannan: community mental health is a serious issue that is ignored in the nuclear waste dump site selection process
Chloe Hanan, Kimba : Submission to Senate Inquiry: National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (Submission No. 61)
I have grown up in Kimba on our 3rd generation farm and have lived here for the majority of my 28 years. I choose to live, volunteer and raise my own family here in Kimba and I felt it extremely important to put a personal submission into the Senate Inquiry due to the negative impact the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process has had not only on my family but the Kimba community. I am also open to provide more information to the senate inquiry surrounding the process in Kimba if required.
I would like to make comment on the following Terms of Reference:
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’, and ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
Right from the very beginning of the process the Minister and the Department of Industry, Innovation & Science have all consistently stated that siting this facility needs ‘broad community support’ and that it will not be imposed on an unwilling community. However, there has never been a clear definition provided to the community apart from the Minister Canavan stating he would need 65% support which was quickly retracted and ignored once the vote in Kimba did not meet that target. Because there has been no definition or set target provided within this process guidelines it means that there is no accountability of the Minister and the Department. This makes a community feel powerless, especially when throughout the 210 days of community consultation that Kimba has endured, what is deemed as broad community support to progress through different stages of the site selection process keeps changing. I believe strongly that at a minimum 2/3rd majority of a community is needed for the siting of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to be considered. Especially due the longevity of such a facility – it cannot be just over half, as this is damaging to a community when people are put against people in such a heated debate.
d)whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
I strongly believe these payments are deliberately used to influence community consent with the promise of jobs and money even though there is very little detail of the economic impacts of the facility. This should be upfront factual information, not provided later as you progress through the stages.
e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring The electoral vote in Kimba didn’t capture people that had properties just outside the boundary lines; however, these families have sent or do send their children to Kimba Area School, play sport for Kimba and shop locally; however they would not be eligible to vote even though they are active community members. These people were encouraged to write letters which would be considered by the Minister; however, these have never been mentioned by the Minister when making his decision when progressing Kimba to the next stage. I strongly believe that wider community support should be assessed especially concerning the two sites Lyndhurst and Napandee where it is clear that people in the neighbouring district council area are closer to the Napandee site than many living in the Kimba District Council area
f) any other related matters. The mental health and well-being of communities is completely ignored in this process and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in future frameworks and guidelines. This process makes communities feel powerless – no support is given to those with opposing views, it is a process that is heavily favoured towards those pro-nuclear and when the rules keep changing to suit those in favour it really gives people a sense of hopelessness.
Katrina Bohr is dissatisfied with the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s process for “Community Consultation”
Katrina Bohr Submission to Senate Inquiry Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 59
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
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’-Page 60 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. ( these are added in an attachment on the original at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions)
Decades overdue Ranger Uranium Mine rehabilitation plan released The world is watching
Northern Land Council, 5 June 2018 The Northern Land Council and Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation welcome today’s public release of the Ranger Mine Closure Plan by Energy Resources of Australia. The plan is decades overdue and critical to the company meeting the objectives of rehabilitation.
The NLC and GAC, representing the Mirarr Traditional Aboriginal Owners of the mine site, will now review the plan and engage with stakeholders as part of the approval process. While not part of a public environmental impact statement process, the public release of the plan does provide the broader community with an opportunity to comment on the plan to the Australian government.
The Mine Closure Plan is of a very high level and even though Ranger’s closure is imminent, a significant amount of detailed planning and supporting studies remain outstanding. ERA and its parent company Rio Tinto must clearly demonstrate that they have sufficient resources devoted to mine closure to provide stakeholders with confidence that the objectives outlined in the closure plan can be met.
The Ranger plan remains unenforceable until it is approved by the federal Minister for Resources. The mine’s operational life must cease by January 2021, ahead of five years’ rehabilitation. The future of Aboriginal communities downstream of the mine and the World Heritage listed values of Australia’s largest national park are at stake.
ERA and Rio Tinto’s rehabilitation obligations include remediation of the site such that it can be incorporated in the surrounding Kakadu National Park. The final determination as to whether the area can be incorporated into the World Heritage area sits with the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, on advice from its expert advisory bodies the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
NLC contact: Martha Tattersall 0427 031 382 GAC contact: Kirsten Blair 0412 853 641
Malcolm Turnbull mouths platitudes about climate change, but his government has no clear policy on climate action
‘No doubt our climate is getting warmer,’ Malcolm Turnbull says, Despite the PM’s declaration, it is unclear how current climate policy will ensure Australia reaches its Paris commitment, Guardian, Katharine Murphy Political editor@murpharoo 4 Jun 2018 18.07
Ranger mine closure and rehab to cost $1bn
The $1 billion plan for the closure and rehabilitation of Australia’s oldest operating uranium mine has been released by Energy Resources of Australia… (subscribers only)
http://www.ntnews.com.au/business/ranger-mine-closure-and-rehabilitation-to-cost-1-billion/news-story/f86aa022ca5c700cf3264c7fe8d3abdd
A New Zealand broadcaster who’s even more ignorant than Australia’s ones!
Mark Richardson calls for nuclear-powered transport
How Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump differ on the meaning of “denuclearisation
How Kim Jong Un and Trump Differ on Denuclearization. Bloomberg , By David Tweed and Kanga Kong
Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un are preparing to meet face-to-face in Singapore on June 12, a prospect that seemed unthinkable just a year ago when the leaders of the U.S. and North Korea were exchanging insults and threats. The main topic will be denuclearization, but they appear to have different ideas of what that means and how long it might take. Overcoming those differences will be key to reaching a historic outcome.
1. What is the U.S. stance on denuclearization?
The U.S. wants to see “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula. Known in the arms-control world as “CVID,” this would involve dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program and stripping Kim of the ability to make nuclear bombs in the future.
2. What does denuclearization mean for North Korea?
North Korea in April committed to work toward “complete denuclearization,” without elaborating on what that meant. In 2016, a government spokesman called for “the denuclearization of the whole Korean peninsula and this includes the dismantlement of nukes in South Korea and its vicinity.” More recently, North Korea has framed its willingness to get rid of nuclear weapons in more of a global context, implying that it will do so in concert with established nuclear powers like the U.S., China and Russia.
3. Does the U.S. have nuclear weapons on the peninsula?
The U.S. hasn’t stationed them in South Korea since 1992, but it does provide a so-called nuclear umbrella that guarantees the safety of allies South Korea and Japan. Kim may ask the U.S. to remove the nuclear bombers it has stationed in Guam and cease patrols by its nuclear-armed submarines. The U.S. would be unlikely to agree to any measures that would leave its allies vulnerable.
4. What about the time frame for removing nuclear weapons?
Speed is crucial for the U.S. to avoid a lengthy process that provides sanctions relief for North Korea as well as time to advance its nuclear program even further. Even so, North Korea has made it clear it will not accept the so-called Libya model proposed by U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton under which the regime ships its nuclear arsenal out of the country in return for security guarantees and sanctions relief. ……….https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-04/how-kim-jong-un-and-trump-differ-on-denuclearization-quicktake
Growing risk of nuclear war crisis between India and Pakistan
Another nuclear crisis in the making? Great power competition and the risk of war in South Asia, BAS, Moeed Yusuf 5 June 18, In May 1998, India and, later, Pakistan conducted multiple nuclear tests to become the first pair to go nuclear in the post-Cold War era. Two decades on, these South Asian rivals remain locked in a deeply antagonistic relationship that constantly threatens to boil over.
In 2018, the chance of limiting human-induced global warming to less than 2 degrees is rapidly disappearing
Limiting global warming to 2 degrees now ‘aspirational’: scientists, https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/limiting-global-warming-to-2-degrees-now-aspirational-scientists-20180604-p4zjeb.htmlThe Age, By Peter Hannam, The chance of limiting human-induced global warming to less than 2 degrees is rapidly disappearing as carbon emissions again ramp up in China while reductions in the US and elsewhere stall, scientists say.
Data from the CSIRO’s Global Carbon Project indicates greenhouse gas emissions in China accelerated to 1.5 per cent growth last year. China is now responsible for about a third of the world’s carbon emissions.
“That was quite significant growth for China because we had seen almost three years of little or no increase,” the project’s director, Pep Canadell, told Fairfax Media.
Early indications are that 2018 could see an even larger rise, with China’s carbon emissions in the first quarter jumping 4 per cent alone, according to a Greenpeace analysis.
2017’s increase was partly caused by a revival of China’s reliance on heavy industrial growth to prop up the economy, and a drop in hydro electric generation amid poor rainfall, Dr Canadell said. This year’s growth, though, is also being spurred by a pick-up in the global economy.
Given China’s emissions are roughly double the next largest polluter – the US – and triple the European Union’s, its acceleration means there is a fast-diminishing chance that the rise in global average temperatures can be restricted to the range of 1.5 to 2 degrees, as agreed at the 2015 Paris climate conference.
“Most climate scientists think 2 degrees [compared with pre-industrial levels] to be aspirational,” said Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.
Even if emissions ceased globally, it is probable warming would still reach at least 1.5 degrees given the longevity of carbon-dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, he said.
With increasing evidence of extreme weather events even at the roughly 1 degree of warming so far – including compounding risks of bushfires, heatwaves and droughts – societies can expect impacts to worsen, Professor Pitman said: “The notion that 1.5 degrees is somehow safe is totally incompatible with the evidence.”
‘Not a pretty picture’
News in recent days that the Trump administration plans to bolster the ailing US coal-fired power industry by intervening in markets would worsen the global emissions picture.
The CSIRO’s Dr Canadell said while US carbon emissions had fallen for a decade, last year’s decline will likely be much smaller because of quickening economic growth at home and abroad.
The European Union, too, was likely to register a slower emissions drop. Australia, meanwhile, is on course to increase its carbon pollution for a fourth year in a row, a “remarkable” result for a rich nation, he said.
Bruce Nilles, a former head of the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign, who is visiting Australia, said President Trump’s “brazen efforts” to help coal in US would likely be stymied by a flurry of lawsuits from other energy suppliers.
The US had seen 266 coal-fired power plants shut or set closure dates since 2010, and these “were continuing at the same rate as during the last few years of the Obama administration”, he said.
Filling the gap were more than 10,000 megawatts of new wind and solar capacity each year, a process likely to continue as their technology becomes even cheaper, Mr Nilles said.
Aboriginal sovereignty – mere symbolism will never be accepted
Challenging the Great Divide in a David and Goliath struggle Sovereign Union – First Nations Asserting Sovereignty, by Ghillar, Michael Anderson
‘What is currently and actively going on without our Peoples’ full realisation
is the struggle between, on the one hand, grassroots Peoples and their leadership,
who are beginning to assert their pre-existing and continuing sovereign status
as linguistically based Nations, whose Countries are occupied
by the Australian/British colonialist administrators and, on the other hand,
the assimilated two-bob-mob conditioned by the colonised mindset
who are attempting to derail the sovereignty movement.
Only yesterday at Warmun, Turkey Creek, Kimberley Land Council
presenters were challenged by people asserting their sovereign position,
only to be told sovereignty was a ‘load of rubbish’ but this was
strongly refuted by Elders and the younger generations.
This situation at Warmun is developing fast.
‘The complex and grimy underbelly of Australia is gradually being exposed for the world to see.
Meanwhile in the international arena, diplomats under the instruction of the
executive Commonwealth government falsely pretend that Australia is an independent Nation.
The Australians sitting in the UN are there at the behest of Britain
and are mere puppets to the United States and Britain.
‘These puppets, in the guise of the Australian State,
hide the fact that there is a major struggle for sovereign title
to this island continent, now known as Australia, These colonial puppets
know they have no legitimacy while ever our sovereign First Nations continue
to exist and our Law if the Law of the Land, always was, always will be.
‘On this most recent journey to the Kimberley,
I was alerted to the very real fact of the enormous destruction and desecration
that is looming without our people knowing what is coming.
had an impact upon the government sitting in Canberra, because they were forced to realise that there
was NOT a true consensus on the proposed constitutional inclusion. The actual ‘Uluru Statement’
must have sent shock waves that propelled the government to abandon its enthusiasm for a referendum.’It is now clear that, because of the WALKOUT, the government became aware that the
leadership for this Constitutional inclusion had failed, because the grassroots people
saw through the con and did not want to be included in a racist colonial constitution belonging to Britain.
‘The impact that the WALKOUT had on those present created a situation that scared the organisers,
who clearly lost the complete overview of their original intentions, which the government know of.
The final document that was concluded came completely out of left field and
the government realised mere symbolism was never going to be accepted. … Continue reading
“Time to take control” of rooftop solar, industry says — RenewEconomy
New report from ENA and AEMO to look at orchestration of rooftop solar and battery storage, as NSW promises more trials to use distributed energy to lower costs.
via “Time to take control” of rooftop solar, industry says — RenewEconomy
NEG final draft due next week, reliability mechanism may never be triggered — RenewEconomy
Energy Security Board prepares to release National Energy Guarantee draft ahead of a critical meeting of energy ministers in August.
via NEG final draft due next week, reliability mechanism may never be triggered — RenewEconomy
Wind and solar farms face tough new connection hurdles — RenewEconomy
Rule changes proposed by AEMO in response to the grid’s rapid transition to renewables have sparked vigorous debate about what precautions are necessary, and what are just “gold plating” generation assets.
via Wind and solar farms face tough new connection hurdles — RenewEconomy
Queensland Govt considering funding $100m road for Adani mine #StopAdani #ClimateChange #auspol #qldpol — jpratt27
Queensland Government considering funding $100m road for Adani mine, documents show Exclusive by Josh Robertsonabout 2 hours ago The Palaszczuk Government is still considering covering the estimated $100 million upfront cost of road access for Adani’s Queensland mine, despite promising no taxpayer funds would go to the project. Key points: • Labor Government promised not […]
June 5 Energy News
Opinion:
¶ “Carbon ‘bubble’ could cost global economy trillions” • A rapid reduction in demand for fossil fuels could see global economic losses of $1 trillion to $4 trillion by 2035 according to a report. Energy efficiency and low carbon technology could cause the downturn, even if governments fail to take new steps to meet the Paris climate goals. [BBC]
Offshore oil rig (Photo: SPL)
¶ “Bailing Out the Coal Industry Will Hurt Consumers” • Donald Trump’s plan to subsidize money-losing coal and nuclear plants makes no economic sense and runs counter to the free market ideology of his party. It might make some plant operators very happy, but consumers will foot what could be an extraordinarily expensive bill. [New York Times]
World:
¶ Ireland saw a fall in carbon emissions last year “despite strong economic growth.” Analysis from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland reveals…
View original post 774 more words
Antinuclear 