In the first summit meeting between the leaders of the United States and North Korea, Donald Trump met with Kim Jong-un, on June 12, 2018, in Singapore. The two leaders smiled warmly, posed for cameras as friends, shook hands, and Trump spoke in glowing terms of admiration about Kim at the news conference.
Donald Trump alienates America’s allies, raising the question “Should Australia get its own nuclear weapon?”
“The irony of the North Korean denuclearisation deal could be that everybody else decides to go nuclear. If it fails and Kim remains in power and countries doubt our commitment, then what’s to stop Japan or South Korea or Australia going nuclear?”
Trump triggers talk of Australia going nuclear, SMH, By Peter Hartcher
Should Australia develop its own nuclear weapons? It seems an outlandishly radical thought for such a safe country to consider. But a former adviser to Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop thinks it’s an idea whose time is fast approaching.
In his book Why Australia Slept, launched this week, Peter Hendy says that Australia needs to consider nuclear weapons because “if we could financially afford them, [they] would secure an even more independent foreign policy” for the country.
Hendy, a former Liberal federal MP, former head of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and now a consultant, is not the first to raise this delicate subject. The way things are going he won’t be the last.
Three former deputy secretaries of Australia’s Defence Department – strategists Hugh White, Paul Dibb and Richard Brabin-Smith – have mooted the idea in the past year. Till these most recent months, it’s been something of a taboo topic in respectable circles.
One big reason? Australia already has the protection of the United States nuclear umbrella. Under this system, the US pledges that if anyone should launch a nuclear strike on one of its allies, Washington would retaliate against the aggressor.
So to suggest that Australia now needs its own atomic arsenal is to suggest that there has been a fundamental breakdown in trust. In short, that the US alliance is dead. Continue reading
Philip Fels: a farming family saddened at community disruption, due to unwise Barndioota nuclear waste dump site selection
Philip Fels Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 84
To the Senate standing committee on Economics, Regarding the proposed nuclear waste facility at Barndioota near Hawker S.A.
As a family which has lived and worked the land very near to the proposed nuclear waste facility for more than 130 yrs we are very strongly against this facility going ahead for some of the reasons which we will try and point out in the text following.
The site in question shouldn’t have been allowed to be nominated by a person or persons with out any consultation with people whom this may directly effect considering they have only owned the property for a short time and have never lived or worked on the property or are ever likely to.
The land in question is one of the most unstable areas in Australia and we have earth tremors weekly if not daily and the Wilkatana Fault runs right up through this area.
As the soil structure is very porous and their is no granite bedrock in this area seepage or leakage into the local underground water table and then ultimately Lake Torrens is a very real risk.
As well as sustainably farming Merino Sheep and beef cattle for a very long time we also have a successful tourism business which we have been running on the property for 50 yrs which we fear will be severely impacted.
Our biggest worry of this process is the detrimental effect it will have and is already having on the local community as a whole.
Along with my family we have never seen an event in this area cause so much angst and division in a once very proud close knit community which was the envy of many other communities.
It saddens us greatly that somebody or bodies can come into a community for such a short time and cause such social stress which will only compound if this facility goes ahead.
Thank you if you took the time to read this and act on any of the concerns we have because they are real !!
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) agreement with IAEA on enhanced protection for uranium workers
IAEA and Australia’s Regulatory Body Strengthen Cooperation to Enhance Radiation Protection of Uranium Mining and Processing Workers https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-and-australias-regulatory-body-strengthen-cooperation-to-enhance-radiation-protection-of-uranium-mining-and-processing-workers ,
Kim and Trump can continue to hold the world hostage under threat of nuclear annihilation
The scary truths about Trump’s nuclear summit https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/15/the-scary-truths-about-trump-s-nuclear-summit/ In which Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un compared the size of their nuclear buttons. Violet BlueWorld is on track to exceed 1.5C of warming – leaked UN draft report
Guardian 15th June 2018 The world is on track to exceed 1.5C of warming unless countries rapidly implement “far-reaching” actions to reduce carbon emissions, according to a draft UN report leaked to Reuters. The final draft report from the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) was due for publication in
October. It is the guiding scientific document for what countries must do to combat climate change.
Human-induced warming would exceed 1.5C by about 2040 if emissions continued at their present rate, the report found, but countries could keep warming below that level if they made “rapid and far reaching” changes.
Under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, almost 200 countries signed up to limit global temperature rises to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C. Climate scientist and Climate Analytics director Bill Hare said the draft report showed with greater clarity how much faster countries needed to move towards decarbonisation under various temperature situations and that the impacts of climate change greatly increased between 1.5C and 2C of warming.
Necessary actions include making the transition to renewable energy, powering the transport sector with zero carbon electricity, improving agricultural management and stopping deforestation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/15/leaked-un-draft-report-warns-of-urgent-need-to-cut-global-warming
Accelerating Sea Level Rise is Being Driven by Rapidly Increasing Melt From Greenland and Antarctica — robertscribbler
From 1993 to the present day, global sea level rise has accelerated by 50 percent. And the primary cause, according to recent research, is that land glaciers such as the massive ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are melting far faster than they have in the past. (Assessment of factors involved in the presently increasing […]
June 15 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “NRDC, 19 Other Groups Challenge EU’s Mistaken Climate Decision” • EU policymakers agreed on a new Renewable Energy Directive that failed to fix Europe’s broken bioenergy policies. The decision to continue to label the indiscriminate burning of wood as “carbon neutral” undercuts the EU’s climate targets. [Natural Resources Defense Council] ¶ “Nuclear Power […]
Here’s what went down at the Trump-Kim summit — The Pantsuit
Basically, they took some plandids and didn’t make a lot of progress
via Here’s what went down at the Trump-Kim summit — The Pantsuit
Solar and wind could provide 60% of UK power without jeopardising reliability, study finds | Solar Power Portal — Renewable Energy Tariff UK
https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/solar_and_wind_could_provide_60_of_uk_power_without_jeopardising_reliabilit Solar and wind could provide 60% of UK power without jeopardising reliability, study finds Liam Stoker Solar could play a pivotal role in a future energy system without jeopardising security of supply, a new report has revealed. The report, produced by consultancy Vivid Economics in partnership with Imperial College academic Marko Aunedi, has analysed […]
Sunny days ahead in Mayo with investment in community solar — RenewEconomy
A Men’s Shed group, sporting clubs and a local radio station are among organisations in Mayo benefitting from the Turnbull Government’s $5 million Solar Communities Program.
via Sunny days ahead in Mayo with investment in community solar — RenewEconomy
Anna Taylor: Lucas Heights is the appropriate place, with the technology and expertise, for temporary storage of nuclear wastes
Anna Taylor Submission to Senate on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission No 82
Introduction I live on the Eyre Peninsula and have deep concerns about this plan, including site selection, community consent, and the consultation process which lacks transparency and is fundamentally flawed. I do not support this current plan and welcome this opportunity to formally convey my concerns and opposition to the inquiry.
The Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. Myself and many locals believe the storage of intermediate level nuclear waste will affect tourism and primary industries. The issue continues to cause deep division and stress in the affected communities. Many Traditional Owners do not want cultural heritage sites and their spiritual connection to country put at risk.
After 70 years of the nuclear industry the federal government has no plans for a permanent solution of the long-lived intermediate-level waste. ‘Interim’ aboveground storage in SA could stretch to 100 years or more, this is not acceptable. The current project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia
The federal government has not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA. Australia must take responsibility for this waste; we must minimize future waste production and have a transparent approach to the future safety of intermediate level waste.
SITE SELECTION
I believe that
a) the process of site selection should be based on finding a permanent solution that is best suited to the safe management of this most Hazardous waste, with minimal transportation.Without expansion Lucas Heights has the knowledge and expertise to manage this waste for decades to come until a permanent (not a temporary storage facility) solution is found. Operations at the Lucas Heights site are licensed for a further three decades, which has the highest concentration of people with nuclear expertise and radiation response capacity in Australia. ANSTO and ARPANSA have publicly identified storage at ANSTO as a credible and feasible option
b) A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump. .
COMMUNITY CONSENT Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
Finding a solution rather than a location should begin with the government up holding its commitment to State community consent. I believe that the definition of broad community consent is extremely important and does not just belong to the people of one town adjacent to the proposed site but to a “broad” area as the term implies. The safe management of Australia’s nuclear waste is not only relevant to all of the Eyre peninsula / Flinders ranges population but too all South Australians and all populations along transportation routes. So far broad community consultation to the broader community has been non-existent. Consent within the communities is marginal but the site selection process has continued to the next stage regardless. This is extremely questionable, how can the community trust a process that does not listen to its results? I think its fair to say 57% community support in Kimba is not broad and should not have progressed further. We must clarify what percentage is acceptable for such a hazardous waste and this must not be the main factor in advancements of stages. This issue is an issue for all Australians and singling out a small community to deal with waste of this magnitude is ridiculous.
The South Australian community have already said no and raised enough concern back in 2002 when our state government passed the “ Nuclear Waste Prohibition act 2000” legislating protection to Sa from: A) The storage of nuclear waste (other than South Australia’s waste) B) A ban on the transportation of nuclear waste from interstate or overseas for the purpose of sending it to a national waste dump in this state.
I believe a failure of the National Waste Management Project has been to fully inform local communities about the facts of the intermediate level waste; where it is, how much of it there is and how radioactive it is. The public information campaign has been dishonest scare mongering, misleading to say the least. Linking the need for centralized radioactive waste storage facility with the production of isotopes for nuclear medicine is misleading. It is vital to provide accurate information to communities if you are genuinely looking for informed consent. Proponents claim that most of the waste planned to be stored in a national repository is from medicine, specifically medical radio isotopes, however measured by radio activity the figure is just 10-20%.*(1). The absence of a dump hasn’t harmed nuclear medicines and the establishment of a national dump won’t help nuclear medicine. There are new technologies to embrace,superseding nuclear medicine, such as making isotopes using cyclotrons that produce no long-term waste
I live near but outside the boundary for community consent and my conversations at the local community liaison office in Kimba have been unprofessional, misleading and not formally acknowledged.
COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAMME The community benefit programme is questionable, verging on bribery creating further division in small communities .Its is an appalling approach to offer money (instead of transparent information) in return for a product that is poisonous to life for greater than your lifetime let alone hundreds of generations. I believe there should be no more taxpayer’s money spent on a site selection process that is flawed.
TRADITIONAL OWNERS
Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues. This must be recognized and acted on. The Barndioota site near Hawker has significant cultural values to the Adnyamathana peoples, this must be acknowledged and respected and ruled out of any more consideration.
ADVANCEMENTS OF STAGES Any advancements of stages of these site selections seems inappropriate whilst the proposal is for a “interim” solution that could stretch to a hundred years. This approach is not the safest management of Australia’s most long lived waste. The government needs to review future nuclear waste production with a commitment to reduce and phase out the creation of more nuclear waste.
Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues. This must be recognized and acted on. The Barndioota site near Hawker has significant cultural values to the Adnyamathana peoples, this must be acknowledged and respected and ruled out of any more consideration.
SUMMARY
The current project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. The waste can and should remain secured and monitored at Lucas Heights until a dedicated public review of the full range of options for waste management is carried out. I believe we need an expert open and independent inquiry into the full range of options. Nuclear waste management requires the highest quality decision-making and information. We must start afresh on planning and establishing the best way to deal with this highly toxic waste.
References:
*(1) Nuclear Medicine and the National Dump Site, Jim Green Med Sci. (Hons) PhD, Jan 2018 10 more questions about Australia’s nuclear waste. Nov 2017.
Dr Margaret Beavis and Dr Peter Karanoskos, Medical Association for Prevention Of War-Health professionals promoting peace.
The case for a revised approach: Extended interim storage and option assessment, Dave Sweeny
Kimba farmers Darren and Kellie Hunt deplore the Australian government’s flawed process for selection of nuclear waste dump site
Darren and Kellie Hunt SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No 80)
We are farmers in the Buckleboo district of Kimba, where we live with our three young children. We are both active members of the Kimba community and have been dismayed at the ongoing division and stress this proposal had caused amongst community members.
We feel the process that has brought us to this situation has been flawed and unfair, and we thank the Senate for their willingness to consider this issue.
Concerns we have include the lack of definition of what constitutes Broad Community Support, the use of financial incentive to coerce the community and the lack of consideration given to the potential implications to our agricultural industry.
a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
Clearly, the landholders who have volunteered their land are the only persons to directly and personally benefit from this proposal. We understand that they will receive 4 time the value of their land for the section that is acquired, however it has not been made clear exactly how this value will be determined. Also, we understand that the nominators are receiving compensation for access to their land during the site evaluation phase, however information on the value of these payments have been kept from the public. If this process is to be ‘fair and transparent’ as the Department have insisted it is, we believe that this information should be available to the community.
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
- One of our greatest concerns regarding this process has been Ministers refusal to clearly define the term “broad community support’. As arguably the most important aspect in finding a suitable site, and certainly the biggest hurdle the Government have faced in their bids to date to do so, the unwillingness to clearly explain what they consider both ‘Broad’ and “Community” has created confusion and caused an escalating lack of trust towards the Minister and the process. It is very apparent that the reasoning behind the lack of clear definition is to allow the Minister to effectively ‘move the goal posts’, as was clearly evident when Kimba was accepted to phase two following our June 2017 vote.
- Having stated in the senate that he would require a number in the vicinity of 65% of the community voting to progress with the proposal, Minister Canavan chose to push Kimba into phase two of the process with a supporting vote of 57%. This result is subjective to the number of people who chose to participate in the vote, in actual fact those in support represented 49.94% of those within the community eligible to vote.One of the reasons the Minister given for his refusal to quantify broad community support is to enable him to accept opinions given from those who are ineligible to vote, via submissions. Prior to the June vote, 396 submissions were received both from the community and outside. The phase 1 summary report states that of the 112 local submission 86% were opposed. The remaining 294 submission were not given consideration in the report. Despite these results, Minister Canavan determined that broad community support existed in Kimba to progress the proposal to phase 2
We do not feel that Kimba should have continued to phase two after the vote as there was no clear indication of broad community support, merely proof that our community so divided in opinion on this issue. We believe strong consideration should be given to who has the right to vote, and if we are to continue to a further ballot, a definitive number must be provided prior as to what percentage of the overall community must be supportive for the proposal to progress. We believe this should be at least an absolute majority of 67% (of all eligible voters)
- 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 advancement stage;We feel that the traditional land owners must be consulted and heard in this decision making process. We have not been aware of any consideration given to the Bungala people in the Kimba process at this stage.
- Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;The community benefits program was not a part of the initial package, and was announced prior to the 2017 Kimba vote, labelled ‘disruption money’. Clearly, the Minister was aware that this process has caused stress and division within communities, and felt that additional financial incentive would help to garner support. Unfortunately, no amount of ‘compensation’ can repair the damage that has been done and the division that we are forced to face on a daily basis.
f) Any other related matters.
We strongly believe that the facility is not suitable for Agricultural land. The storage of nuclear waste in a food growing region in a country which had as much un-arable land as ours makes no sense. The perception of the proximity of the nations nuclear waste to our productive land has the potential to adversely impact our commodity prices and land values and these are unacceptable risks to our business.
Clearly consideration has been given to potential impacts on agriculture as the draft ARPANSA’s Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste selection criteria includes ‘The immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use’.
This process has caused immeasurable contention and division within our town. The Department has upheld that they are running a fair and transparent process, and that everyone’s opinions are valid and will be respected. However, they have clearly put much effort into convincing those opposed to change their views. On a recent trip to Lucas Heights Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 80 (fully taxpayer funded and clearly orchestrated to demonstrate the safety of the facility) I was asked by our Community Liaison Officer if “we have managed to change your mind yet, now that you know there is nothing to fear”. This clearly sums up the objective of the department’s current presence in Kimba and the interest they are taking in our concern
Leon Ashton lays bare Australian govt hypocrisy, double-talk, lies , in its process for selecting nuclear waste dump site
I am not against having a LLW facility in Australia. I am against the way in which DIIS have gone about finding a quick fix for something that will affect all South Australians for centuries to come. It should not be up to a small council area to overrule our Prohibition Act 2000, if we are to vote for something of such national importance. I would have thought that after having had something like 35 attempts over some 25 years to find a suitable location, that DIIS would have been able to involve public consultation a lot more honestly
It is a fine line between informing a community and bribing a community. And to what end ,? I strongly suggest that before any community has to endure what Hawker, Quorn and Kimba twice now is going thru, that a much higher percentage of community support be obtained. IE 80 -85% and this would include all traditional custodians and neighbours.
My problem is a complete lack of trust with DIIS in the way in which they have treated ordinary people from Quorn, Hawker and Kimba (both the first and the second time around). The proven “flawed” survey results, the terrible anguish that has been placed on the traditional custodians of this land, the countless unpaid hours of research to try to establish the actual volumes of legacy low-level waste at hospitals around the country compared to the volumes of intermediate level waste to be “temporarily “ stored at the chosen site.
Leon Ashton Submission to STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICSSENATE ENQUIRY SUBMISSION FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No. 79)
My name is Leon Ashton I live at Quorn with my wife on a small 12 acre holding we bought in 2009, intending to have a peaceful life in between doing contract work on the Nullarbor Plain and up to Alice Springs.
In December 2015 I first received knowledge that Wallerberdina Station had been put up for consideration for a nuclear waste dump to be built there.
I attended an information gathering meeting in the Quorn council chambers and was told by the people who came over from Canberra that this would be a low level only facility. This was also told to the people at Hawker. See attachment A. extract by political reporter Jane Norman, and was shown photos of similar facilities, both in France and in England, however, they said these two facilities housed an amount of intermediate level waste (ILW) as well as low level waste (LLW).
The next meeting was in the Quorn Town Hall in February 2016. It was then announced, because a member of the public raised the question, that there could possibly be a small amount of ILW stored there, but only on a temporary basis. It wasn’t until much later, when the LLW and more dangerous ILW temporarily stored at Woomera, started leaching out into the surrounding area, that DIIS employees said this will all be, once safely packaged up (29 million dollars’ worth) sent to the new waste facility. Our low-level facility is fast becoming a temporary intermediate waste facility.
MR GRANT CHAPMAN
I also struggle with the fact that an ex-Senator from South Australia, Mr Grant Chapman, also ex deputy chairman of the Board of Directors at Lucas Heights and co-owner of Wallerberdina Station, could put up his property as a protentional nuclear waste dump site, with no consultation whatsoever with anyone in the surrounding area. He was also quoted as saying, in a newspaper, that it is okay also if they want to put a high-level waste dump there as well. (See Attachment B – on original) To this day he has not appeared anywhere in a public meeting to explain his actions to his neighbours or the traditional custodians. He has never lived on this property. He is the absent landlord. Is this in keeping with “world’s best practice”? In the many meetings I had with DIIS staff at Quorn in 2016, I was told yes, this part of the process could have been done much better and they would do it differently now Kimba has nominated two more potential sites. This is the second time Kimba has been divided as a community. The process that is being carried out competing one community against another in a bid to “host the facility” is causing irreparable damage to the people who are both for the dump and against it.
THE NEED TO DETERMINE BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT
In April 2016, a community sentiment survey was completed by DIIS through a company called ORIMA Research. This 205-page detailed report can be accessed on line. I attended another information gathering meeting at Quorn council chambers in April 2016, along with several other residents, to voice our concern. A member of our group voiced their concern at how the community survey was conducted and the methodology behind it. We all then heard a senior DIIS member tell us, yes, the community survey was flawed in some places, however we will still be going ahead with the next stage, into Phase 2, i.e. more information giving sessions to the public and looking at cultural and geological site compatibility.
I had, in April 2016, during my regular information gathering, monthly meetings, with DIIS staff, obtained a copy of the community survey conducted by Orima Research and spent the next 9 months trying to understand it. No one I approached could understand it either. I was trying to determine how 65% of the community were accepting of finding more information on the proposed facility, when almost all people I spoke to were totally against putting a dump in the Flinders Ranges.
I finally found a person who is a Registered Psychologist and has studied university level statistics along with survey research during her 40-year career who, after three days studying the Orima Survey book, gave me the results of her findings. (See Attachment C – Informal Comments on the ORIMA Research Findings – on original ). As you can see, these comments identifies serious flaws and cast significant doubts on the validity of the survey.
In October 2016, our now formed group, Flinders Local Action Group, conducted our own survey by mail, to residents in Hawker and Quorn, asking people if they would want a national radioactive waste facility built on Wallerberdina station. The results obtained were that 87% of forms returned were against a dump. We ensured that the survey forms returned were opened and scrutineered in front of a J.P. I might add that the survey that FLAG conducted was at no cost to the tax payer what so ever and none of us had done anything like this before. (See Attachment D – Survey from Flag – on original).
DISUNITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES
I have written many letters to The Minister for The Environment and Northern Territory, outlining the fact that there definitely is a lot of disunity, both here and in Kimba. Most of the traditional custodians are united in their stand against this facility, however, the ones who are in favour are causing huge disruptions to their own families where 1/ Stress and harassment has caused people to be flown by RFDS to Adelaide with life threatening ailments and 2/ Threats have been made to other family members at one or two o’clock in the morning advising them to change their attitude and support the waste dump. 3/ There have also been phone calls to these people saying that if they change their mind and vote for the dump, then houses and vehicles could be bought for them.
When the May newsletter from DIIS was distributed around Quorn ,Hawker and Kimba, it was said by the Viliwarinah Yura Aboriginal Community chair how the community views the project ( see attachment E extract from May 2017 DIIS newsletter ) It says the majority of our community would like the facility to go ahead and at a recent special meeting VYAC held a ballot for the project and 85% of members who voted were in favour .This information sent to the public to boost public support was grossly misleading. Out of the total of one hundred and one eligible VYAC members who could vote,only 28 voting members attended a meeting at Port Augusta. Out of the 28 people who attended, 13 members left leaving 10 people to vote in favour, three to say no and two to abstain. This does not make 85% of the Viliwarinha Yura people who are in favour. I also advised the Minister that in Quorn, Hawker and Kimba, people who were once mates, now would cross the streets rather than talk to one another.
Please find below the response I received back from Matt Canavan dated 27 May 2017.
[ “I understand there are a range of views within the community and the government encourages respect for all opinions. In my visit to the region and thru feedback from my department, I do not share your view that there is disunity in the area, or a need for assistance to support the community because of division.“ ] Mr Canavan could not possibly share my view because the people who were opposed to putting the waste dump in this area were told they could not have any time with him at all to discuss concerns face to face as he was too busy.?
Does this appear to be in keeping with “world’s best practice”.
TOURISM IN THE REGION
The information which is being given by DIIS almost makes us feel obligated as citizens, that it is our duty to accept a waste facility in our backyard. We are informed constantly that we have had or will have at some point in the future, a procedure involving nuclear medicine.
The problem I’ve struggled with is why put it here in South Australia when SA in 2016 was cited as the 5th best place to visit for tourism in the world and then four weeks later, the Flinders Ranges (the area where the site is proposed) was acclaimed as No. 10 most popular tourist destination in the world. These references came from The Times newspaper and The Lonely Planet Tourist Guide. Why would we jeopardise a 300 million dollar annually, tourist industry in the Flinders Ranges and Outback ( Quoted from Tourism SA 2015 ) by “hosting” a nuclear waste dump almost in the heart of it? Does this sound as if it is “world’s best practice”? When these questions are raised with DIIS, the response is always, we believe it will make the Flinders Ranges more of a tourist attraction and if tourist numbers do decline in years to come, then we will start an advertising campaign. Really !!
I have responded by saying once it is put there, it is too late. Tourists DO NOT come to the Flinders Ranges other than to see the “untouched” beauty of this iconic, ancient, natural landscape. The people of Kimba are also struggling as the Eyre Peninsula is trying to promote the region as a clean green environment for agriculture, tourism and aquaculture. From 2010, RDAWEP Regional Development Australia Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula have endorsed this policy .
FUTURE EMPLOYMENT
We are informed by DIIS that there will be at least 15 full time job equivalents at the waste facility and yet when we look at every other industry, they are so tightly regulated, especially in areas of danger, it is only a matter of time before robotics also take over positions in this facility. This is the way of the future, so why would we trust people who are verbally telling us that we have nothing to worry about, the jobswill be there. I might add, that since January 2016, there have been at least five, possibly six key staff members from DIIS who have either left the Department or moved onto other positions. This does not allow continuity to the people they speak with and does not inspire confidence in what they are telling us. For example, I asked an employee of DIIS when they came to Quorn for the monthly gathering, what would DIIS do if the SA government citizens jury won the vote against having a HLW (high level waste) dump in South Australia. The employee told me DIIS would honour the SA Prohibition Act and walk away from it all. The next month I was told this would never happen and the Federal Government would overrule the Prohibition Act and carry straight on, as they have done. The employee who told me they would walk away, no longer works in that department.
We are now hearing news that changes could be made to the voting area. If the voting area could be reduced in size, it may increase the chances of a more favourable decision for the facility to go ahead. DIIS has said since 2016, a facility would not proceed unless it had “Broad Community Support”. We are now informed this will not necessarily be the deciding factor. Does this appear to be in keeping with “world’s best practice”?
ARPANSA have a guideline for prospective nuclear waste dump sites in Australia. The first three pre-requisites are 1. No seismic activity 2. Not flood prone and 3. Must have broad community support. Wallerberdina ticks all the boxes for where NOT to put it. I have stated before in writing that ANSTO are possibly the best people in the world to manage the waste storage at Lucas Heights.
My problem is a complete lack of trust with DIIS in the way in which they have treated ordinary people from Quorn, Hawker and Kimba (both the first and the second time around). The proven “flawed” survey results, the terrible anguish that has been placed on the traditional custodians of this land, the countless unpaid hours of research to try to establish the actual volumes of legacy low-level waste at hospitals around the country compared to the volumes of intermediate level waste to be “temporarily “ stored at the chosen site. Also, other creditable proven facts on the geology, seismic and flood plain area. See attachment F ( Geological and Environmental Implications of a nuclear waste disposal site in the Barndioota area ) We now know that the facility will be one to temporarily store ILW, not what I was told back in January 2016. We also know that this ILW will be temporarily stored above ground until a HLW facility is chosen either in Australia or overseas sometime into the millennia. We have been told that the cost to permanently find a site for ILW to be buried deep below ground would be massive and to do this by itself would be cost prohibitive. If no HLW site is chosen by us, as we don’t have HLW in Australia, then we will be leaving a hell of a mess for our future children to sort out.
OUTCOMES TO DATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
I am not against having a LLW facility in Australia. I am against the way in which DIIS have gone about finding a quick fix for something that will affect all South Australians for centuries to come. It should not be up to a small council area to overrule our Prohibition Act 2000, if we are to vote for something of such national importance. I would have thought that after having had something like 35 attempts over some 25 years to find a suitable location, that DIIS would have been able to involve public consultation a lot more honestly. The massive cost to the taxpayer to find a “ willing community to host a waste facility ”.It is a fine line between informing a community and bribing a community. And to what end ,? I strongly suggest that before any community has to endure what Hawker, Quorn and Kimba twice now is going thru, that a much higher percentage of community support be obtained. IE 80 -85% and this would include all traditional custodians and neighbours. I don’t feel that there will ever be a 100 % of community support for such a contentious issue however, if there was genuine feeling to have a” low level waste “ facility , [ no bullying .no bribes. No lies or manipulation.] then if the region as a whole felt it was a good thing to have, then I too would support it. There will never be a harmonious spirit within a community when 65% is used as a percentage of people who want the dump. Even if it was a genuine 65% The people of Quorn, Hawker and Kimba have seen first-hand how a marginal percentage can ruin lives and friendships forever.
It is for the above reasons that I believe DIIS need to scrap their prospective low-level waste dump locations and have a complete rethink in conjunction with other associations to try and rebuild a level of trust for what they are putting to the public before entering into public consultation.
Why is nuclear industry puppet – Matt Canavan not considering Leonora , Western Australia, as nuclear waste dump?
Nuclear site selection process questioned https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5467944/nuclear-site-selection-process-questioned/ Kathrine Catanzariti 14 June 18
Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick (left) has called the site selection for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility “an absolute sham”, claiming Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matthew Canavan ignored a potential site at Leonora in Western Australia.
Mr Patrick, who introduced the senate inquiry into the site selection, made the claims on Wednesday following a visit to Leonora.
He said Mr Canavan “is determined to rush to select one of the South Australian sites.”
“Minister Canavan needs to more properly engage the proponents of the proposed site near the central WA mining township of Leonora or risk the whole selection process being confirmed as an absolute sham”, Mr Patrick said.
“I already hold enough concern in the selection process to have initiated a Senate Inquiry into it, but after visiting the Leonora site, I am convinced it is becoming a farce.”
Mr Patrick likened the lack of understanding of ‘broad community support’ to a running a race where participants are told they do not need to know where the finish line is.
The Leonora site was nominated in August last year, but Mr Canavan did not consider it due to the advancement of the sites in Kimba and Hawker.
Mr Patrick said that lead him to believe that a South Australian site was a “done deal”.
“It appears as though the new site is a ‘faster runner’ in the race, but won’t be allowed to participate because the Minister is determined to rush to select one of the South Australian sites despite there being a divided community.”
However, Mr Canavan said the government would not progress detailed assessment of other nominations until the results of the votes in the two South Australian communities were known. “We have well advanced proposals from three sites in South Australia, one near Hawker and two near Kimba,” he said. “These communities have been involved in extensive consultation and discussion about the site selection.
Next month each of the two communities will be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want to proceed with the nomination.
The government will not be progressing detailed assessment of other nominations until the results of the votes in the two South Australian communities are known.
No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA president Peter Woolford said it was important Mr Canavan made the right decision.
“…if there is a site on offer that meets all criteria, exhibits broad community support and is not on agricultural land, we believe he should be giving it serious consideration,” he said.
“We look forward to Minister Canavan’s explanation as to why he does not deem the Leonora proposal suitable for further investigation.”
The Kimba community will undertake the final vote on the facility in August.
Antinuclear 