Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Name Withheld (Submission No 92) fears Barndioota might end up stuck with Intermediate Level stranded nuclear wastes

Name Withheld (Submission No 92)To the Senate standing committee on Economics, re Selection Process for nuclear Waste Dump Site  Firstly I would like to thank the standing committee for the forum to express the communities thoughts on this process. I have been a resident of Quorn in the beautiful Flinders Ranges for the past thirteen years. I consider myself lucky to live in such a stunning and geologically fascinating natural environment.

 I would like to acknowledge that as a former resident of Woomera at the time when the current “temporary” low level nuclear waste was forced onto that community, that this current process is a significant improvement.

 However I still hold deep concerns and frustrations about this current process.
The fact that one person is able to offer a piece of land up for consideration and subject the whole community to this stressful process, is deeply unfair. The initial choice should come from the community as a whole, to undertake this process. One person should not be able to subject a whole community to such a divisive issue. Our communities are already under stress with the closure of the Leigh Creek mine and the Port Augusta power station. I also have concerns that in the Barndioota case, that the landholder has formerly been extensively involved with the Liberal party in the past. I consider that a conflict of interest that has undermined my trust in this process. 
This process has had a divisive affect on our communities. A divide has been creative between those that have concerns that are not being adequately answered, and those who think that this is an economic boom opportunity.
 I have not been able to ascertain the exact amount of jobs, nor if they are full time positions, that this facility would provide. Numbers range from 6 to 15. Not an economic boom. Nor has there been any guarantees that local business will be providing significant support to this facility.
This waste facility at Barndioota has the ability to have a negative impact on tourism, an industry that is our main employment sector, a multi-million dollar industry. The argument of examples of similar facilities in France is a weak one. It doesn’t accord for regional differences in the product we offer, and the type of tourist that are our customers. A large part out tourist industry has a clean, green sector. A radioactive waste management facility does not augment this image, and given our current situation, our communities can not afford any risk to the tourist industry. I don’t believe 6 to 15 jobs is worth the risk.
Roads and infrastructure is another concern, to relocate the waste to Banitooba would mean transporting it through such roads as the Pichi Richi Pass, or Horrocks Pass. Both windy and not substantial roads. Not ideal for transporting this type of waste safely. We are currently are experiencing a roo plague. It is an almost everyday experience that someone has an accident hitting a roo. I would hate to see the end result if a truck hit a mob of roo’s. Especially if it’s the waste from Woomera’s temporary facility which is now subject to an expensive million dollar clean up bill as that facility and waste was not adequately prepared. We are a regional area that does not have adequate roads and infrastructure to support this type of traffic. Again nor do I feel we have been reassured enough that this issue will be addressed, and money guaranteed to upgrade them to a safe standard.
Raising Woomera’s experience with their undetermined “temporary” low level nuclear waste storage, highlights the issue of the planned temporary storage of medium level nuclear waste at Banitooba. While I am personally satisfied with how this wasted has been processed and safely encapsulated, I am concerned about how long it will be temporarily stored at Banitooba. When  asked the question of how long would be the temporary storage of this medium level waste, it has not been answered. It is an unknown. I am not comfortable with that. It will become easier once here to turn a blind eye, and say we have no where else for it to go.
 The Banitooba site is also a concern. This area is in a seismic active area. That is how our beautiful Flinders Ranges was created. My understanding is that that this site is on a flood plane. I can not envision how nuclear waste, even low level stuff, would mix well with flash floods. Flash floods are a common yearly phenomena in our early summer season.
I was present at the first town meeting in Quorn early 2016. My impression from the head scientist was that the Banitooba site was not suitable for this facility. How it moved to be the only site up for second stage consideration for a long period of time, I can not understand. There has has been a considerable amount of money wasted furthering a process that is highly likely to fail. At a time when our Federal leaders are telling the Australian population that money is scarce, and using that to justify deep cuts to many services to health, infrastructure, etc. I can not believe the amount of money wasted on this process on a dubious site. It make no sense. It feels like it was the only option, so we’ll just push ahead
I am also not impressed with the constant assertion that there was broad community support based on a phone survey that was done in the very early stages, before the real details of this project were fully known and attitudes shifted.
While I personally can not speak on behalf of the traditional owners, I do believe that they are also deeply divided about the Banitooba facility.
 Again I would to thank you all for your time and the opportunity to voice my concerns. However I do not support this current plan for the Banitooba site
Advertisements

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Name Withheld (Submission No. 90) has serious concerns about the nuclear waste dump plan

Name Withheld (Submission No. 90) Inquiry into selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference to:

a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines Financial compensation for land acquired for the radioactive waste facility should be at current land value. Land owners have been invited to apply to sell their land for the repository.
Taxpayer funded compensation above land value risks allegations of coercion. 
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 Broad community support, in respect of radioactive waste management, must go beyond the immediate communities of Hawker and Kimba. 
At the very least there should be support from the whole South Australian community. A  central waste facility requires waste to be transported by road, rail, sea and air. At the very least the communities through which radioactive waste will transit should be consulted.
ii) how ‘broad community support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
 I am not aware of any process used to determine broad community support. To my knowledge provision of information the opportunity to vote on the proposed waste management site has been limited to the immediate Kimba and Hawker communities.
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 advancement stage;
 I have been told by Aboriginal people living in the Hawker area that the Adnyamanthna community is divided on whether a nuclear waste dump should be built on their land.
I am not aware of any process used to seek support from Aboriginal people in the Kimba area
d) whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment A report in the Eyre Peninsula Tribune (01/03/2018) states $2m is available through the Community Benefit Program. AusIndustry claims that ‘real and tangible benefits’ will be delivered. Without information on how applications will be assessed it is difficult to determine who will benefit and the nature of that benefit. It is possible the allocation of money to selected projects will greatly influence some individual’s and group’s support for the proposal
 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; The management of nuclear waste is a statewide issue, arguably a national issue. The impact of mismanagement of the facility, or a natural or manufactured disaster will be felt for a very, very long time and more broadly than within the local communities.
A report in the print media (10-11 March 2018) on the Fukushima disaster stated that remediation and clean up of that site was stalled with no anticipated completion date. The Chernobyl site remains a restricted (and contaminated) area. South Australia has had a royal commission into the nuclear power industry which gave qualified support to its development. Subsequently a citizens jury rejected the proposal to develop a nuclear power industry.
 In June 2017 then Premier Weatherill said (ABC news) that both major parliamentary parties need to support a nuclear waste repository in order for it to go ahead. As stated in b) i) above, a central waste repository requires waste to be transported from interstate (and probably in the future, overseas). transport by road, rail, sea and air means a large number of communities stand to be affected and should have a say in the decision to proceed.
f) any other related issues I have listened to members of both the Hawker and Kimba communities and heard how the nuclear waste repository issue has divided the communities. In small communities such divisions can be very destructive.
South Australia is proud of its clean, green reputation. That reputation is risked with the construction of a nuclear waste dump.
 My fear is the construction of a national nuclear waste repository is a precursor to becoming the centre for the world’s nuclear waste.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

ORIMA Research submission re nuclear waste dump siting- all about their survey methods

ORIMA Research Submission to Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia  (Submission No 108)

We are aware that a number of submissions have been made to the Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia which have been questioning or critical of the surveys ORIMA Research conducted for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.

Continue reading

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Name Withheld (No 91) – simplistic pro nuclear submission re nuclear waste dump plan

Name Withheld (Submission No  91) toSenate Standing Committees on Economics Re- Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility I have spent all my 60 plus years schooling, socialising and volunteering in the community of the Kimba district. I have spent all my working life in agriculture starting as a farm employee both on “the family farm ” as well as on neighbours farms, before owning and managing the farm business along with my wife. I value the strength and functionality of our community and have a strong will to see this prosper into the future.

(a). The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines
The financial compensation offered to applicants is reasonable I believe. If it’s 4 times market value I calculate it would equate to about 10 years of lost production, ie after 10 years the applicant would be financially worse off. This is hardly overly generous in my view. One hundred hectares of farming land in this district is not a very big percentage of a farm unit, so is not a very big loss of total agricultural area. Most farm units are 2,000 – 5,000 hectares in this area.
(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. i. 
My view is that if the majority of community members eligible to vote on this subject are in favour, that is broad community support. 50 + 1 is a majority. I don’t see that going outside the immediate area for decision is relevant as the benefits of the project are primarily to the immediate community, and if it is not to go ahead the community outside ours will lose out on nothing.
Our local community members have had a lot information brought to them from outside agencies with both the positive and the negatives of this facility being built here so are probably much more informed than people outside the community.
ii. Public consultation began early (despite what some say) with the local MP Rowan Ramsey advertising through local press and a letter drop to the householder through the postal system, of a public meeting in Kimba on 29/04/2015 to discuss the idea of him nominating his family’s farm to host the National Radioactive Waste Facility. (Copy of letter drop/flyer attached). He was later advised that it would be a conflict of interest for him to be attached to a nomination for such site. Approximately 45 people attended this meeting and the resolve was that there was little concern to such proposal. I think there were 4 or 5 nominations submitted following this meeting. None of those strongly opposed now attended this meeting to express concern.
I understand there will be another poll soon to gauge people’s acceptance and I think the same community boundary should be used, ie we use the same electoral roll as last poll. As I stated previously, this community is the most informed to make this decision for our community.
 (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 advancement stage;
We don’t appear to have indigenous concerns as we don’t have any active groups in the area. Despite this I understand that the Department of Innovation Industry and Science have had consultation with this sector.
(d) whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment:
 The “community benefit program” has not made any payments to the community as yet, but both those for and against have put in applications to this fund which may suggest those against can see the economic benefits also.
(e). Whether wider EP or statewide community views should be taken into consideration and if so how this is occurring or should be occurring. This is a matter for our community to decide and not the wider community. We don’t get ourselves involved in other areas concerns and neither should we. Most concerns people have had have been quelled and I think a lot of the problem now is that outside activist groups have sensationised perseived issues about the project to make headlines.
(f). Any other related matters 
Our council have supported staying in the consultation process and enter into phase which has been vindicated by the community vote held during 2017, which was 57.4% in favour of keeping in the process. This can be extrapolated to show that well over 60% were not opposed when including those who did exercise their right to vote. This may well have increased now as more people learn more about the benefits that this facility can bring.
 A lot of the negative argument is based on comparing this proposed facility to that of nuclear bomb sites such as at Maralinga and the World War Two bombings in Japan or even the Tsunami that damaged the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. This is quite absurd to compare such events with a waste facility.
The Kimba Community has benefited from some two years of enlightenment and education on the safety and operations of such a facility and I look forward to us having the opportunity to move to the next stage of this exciting development for Kimba’ future. It has the potential to add to our current declining population through the economic benefit gained from a considerable ” Community Benefit Fund” and the addition of a significant number of Commonwealth funded local employees and the infrastructure that will come with this project.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Name withheld (No 89)- another repetitive pro nuclear submission re nuclear waste dump siting

Name Witheld To: Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committee on Economics economics.sen@aph.gov.au Subject: Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility – (submission no 89)

 We have been residents of Kimba all our lives. We were born here, went to school here, married and have two young sons also born and raised in Kimba.
We are happy to provide the Committee with this submission relating to the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba.
 Personally, we have no objection to hosting a national radioactive waste facility on the two sites that have been nominated for selection in our Kimba District. The process seems to have been fair, information has been good, which leads us to feel we are making the right decision for our Community.
As young parents we feel the need for the community to broaden its horizons so that our children get the best schooling possible and, in future years, the employment opportunities needed to keep them in the area we love.
We have had ample time to avail ourselves of information about this facility, and if we need more information there is an office based in the town which is staffed two days a week. The staff from The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in this office are always happy to chat and provide information to answer our questions.
 There has been numerous meetings, several town meetings, and a French Delegation visited Kimba to give insight into living near a nuclear facility. There have been several meetings with Departmental members, some community members have had meetings with Minister Canavan, and there have been several opportunities for funded trips to ANSTO to learn more about waste storage.
Overall, there has been ample media coverage, newspaper, social media radio and television.
 We don’t know what the community will decide in the end. We have had a vote to decide whether more information was required and we voted in favour of that. We needed the chance to learn more.
There has been talk of broadening the boundaries for a vote but what is happening in our community is for our Community and only our community. It is our back yard no one else’s. We are residents here. We all have our opinions and feelings on this matter but have always been a close community and feel it always will be.
 We can only see positive outcomes for our town 
 New jobs: This, might not be many, the talk is 15, but that may bring families with children and what a bonus for our school to have an influx of children. Plus empty houses in the town, what a bonus for them to be sold or rented.
  The need for more essential services in the town: hospital, doctor (which we are struggling to keep, already on the lookout for a new one as the current doctor leaves at end of March) dentist (which we do not have). We need to keep the services we have but it is a struggle to do so
.  We might get improved https://vimeo.com/258662100.
  The $2,000,000 Benefit Fund was a real bonus for the community. Anyone can submit a submission for funding. There are so many things we need that are not going ahead because of lack of funds, and now a lot of them will.
As long-term residents who don’t want to leave the district all we can see is opportunity for our town and ultimately, we feel the facility might be a lifeline for the town. The town is struggling. The CFS, The SES, The Ambulance Service all struggling for members because of declining population.

We are aware there is another location (Hawker), that is also being looked at. We should be able to decide what is best for our community ourselves, and so should they. We don’t think this enquiry is required as we feel communities know what is best for them. Everything has been open and above board in this process.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Dolores Wells: nuclear waste dump will save Kimba’s future: Shame on Vocal Anti-Nuclear Critics!

Dolores Wells. Submission to Senate standing committee on Economics Re – Proposed Radioactive Waste Management Facility

My husband and I lived, worked and began our family in Kimba over 45 years ago and we still regularly visit Kimba to stay with family on their farm at Cortlinye (north of Kimba). This farm has been in the family for 3 generations and is currently owned by our son-in-law and our daughter. Any decision to grant the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to the Kimba district will not discourage or negatively affect our future visits to our family. I give my permission for this submission to be made public and would be available to speak with the Senate Committee to answer further questions on the Kimba processes with particular reference to:

a). the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines.

I believe the financial compensation offered is not excessive and would be only a small percentage of future earnings from cropping and mixed farming and is in fact only a piece of an overall farm holding. No farmer would be a willing party to a perceived health risk for his family or future livelihood.

Over 45 years ago when my husband worked as Stock and station agent in Kimba it was a thriving country town and it is now in dire need of another industry to “drought proof” and ensure the continuation of this wonderful rural community. We have observed the trend of the small farmers struggling to survive (with the high cost of machinery, chemicals etc) and the larger farmers increasing their holdings while some smaller farmers are forced from their family homes.

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

  1. the definition of ‘broad community support ‘ I believe broad community support has been demonstrated in this instance by ** The majority vote solicited through the Electoral Commission vote involving all local or invited vested interest registered voters ** Direct neighbour support from the two locally selected sites in the Kimba district
  2. ii) how ‘broad community support ‘ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; The status quo must remain to maintain the integrity of the process
  1. 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;

Consultation with indigenous groups is an integral component of any new initiative in this state and it is my understanding in this instance that liaison with the Barngarla people has occurred, the recognised original custodians.

  1. whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and indigenous community sentiment;I see the ‘community benefit program’ and the resulting payments in similar light to mining company incentivising when they are considering new mining sites, political parties incentivising prior to elections and I feel reasonably confident that Kimba individuals and families would not be blinded by financial issues to the detriment of their own and their families present and future health and safety. They will only vote yes when they believe they are free from issues associated with radiation.

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; and

My husband and I currently reside in Adelaide and we wanted to offer our support to the Kimba community via this submission. However, we firmly believe that the residents of Kimba should be the sole decision makers on this issue and the result should be decided by a majority vote of over 50 percent (Continuing the integrity of the whole Kimba related process)

f). any other related matters

Media interest in the Kimba district appears biased and we read about and get deeply upset at the behaviour of a minority of people who manage to voice their opinions rather loudly. On our visits to see our family we see increasing tourist interests with admiring visitors loving the silo painting, the free R V park, beautiful sporting areas and other evidences of civic pride. The people who talk loudest are boycotting and not supporting local businesses and are negatively impacting on this wonderful little community and local businesses. Shame on them! I look forward to the findings on this Enquiry. Yours sincerely, Delores Wells

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Shaun Barford approves of Nuclear Waste Dump Siting Process, thanks the “caring” Federal Government

Shaun Barford.  Submission to Senate Committee on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Dump Site. (Submission no. 83) 

I write with regards to the senate inquiry into the site selection process for a national waste management facility in Kimba, South Australia.

 I am a local business owner and operate the Kimba Gateway Hotel located in the centre of town and have intently followed the process since this opportunity first came about in 2015. To date, I have found the process to be both appropriate and thorough and sincerely appreciate the time and resources dedicated by the Federal Government in providing the opportunity to become better informed across all aspects of this subject.

Our community has been offered the opportunity to:

  • Attend multiple public information sessions hosted by industry professionals
  • Meet with people from the Department weekly to discuss the facility· Read newsletters and other factual information distributed in our letterboxes
  • Visit the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to see how they manage and store waste safely and gain a better understanding of our own Nuclear Industry

The team from Canberra have gone to great lengths to provide the factual information to the community and continue to do so as we move through phase two. It is clear the process has been designed and implemented to provide a considered approach in informing and addressing the concerns of our local community. To acknowledge the possibility of disruption Kimba has received two million dollars for local projects that will significantly benefit our entire community.

I remain supportive of this opportunity and thankful for the caring and informative approach shown by the Federal Government thus far

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Kerri Cliff shows a touching faith in Rowan Ramsey and the whole ANSTO pro nuclear propaganda

Kerri and Trevor Cliff Submission to Senate Inquiry re Selection Process  for Nuclear Waste Dump Site. (Submission No. 65)  I have lived in Kimba for the past 34 years as part of a family that has farmed in the district for 100 years and am proud to see our children continuing that tradition into the fourth generation. I live on our family farm which is currently cropping over 4,000 hectares annually, with my husband, son and full-time and part-time employees. We are fortunate to still have his parents take an avid interest in our business (and this issue) in their declining years. Our home is only 8km from one of the two Kimba sites and we also farm land within 12 kilometres of the other site. We have nothing but support for the proposal that one of these properties may become the successful host of the facility.

We are passionate about our community and are involved with a number of community organisations and are pleased to hereby submit information to the inquiry on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) site selection process in Kimba SA. I give my permission for this submission to be made public and would be available to speak with the Senate committee to answer any further questions on the Kimba process.

The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference to:

We are very proud to see the Kimba community embracing the challenge of participating in the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility. I acknowledge that there are people in our community who do not want to see the facility developed in Kimba. We applaud the process for giving everyone in the community the opportunity to have their say with a vote to that end before a suitable site is chosen.

 Various Federal Governments have been trying to find a suitable location for managing Australia’s radioactive waste to the international standard for the past 30 years. However, this particular effort has engaged directly with individuals and their communities that are willing to at least progress through the process to establish community support (or not), beginning with the nominations of the sites themselves being completely voluntary.

 We were first made aware of the project when our local Federal Member for Grey Mr Rowan Ramsey advertised a public information session. Although interested, we had a prior commitment that evening and chose not to attend as we had no major concerns with the idea of hosting a Radioactive Waste facility in our area. In particular, we trusted that Mr Ramsey had already done his own research on the proposal and would not be bringing the idea to the community if he thought it would be in any way detrimental to the people or businesses here.

On hearing of the first two nominations we were excited to see Kimba people voluntarily putting their hand up but disappointed to hear of the reactions and behaviour of some people. Sadly, that included some bullying and aggression towards the two families. We felt this intimidated many people who would have perhaps been otherwise interested in finding out more information for themselves. We sense this situation has eased somewhat, however believe some people in our community are still somewhat reluctant to publicly share their views about the project. Those decisions, to respond in a bullying way, are personal decisions. They reflect individual decisions, they don’t reflect this process or our community.

 Following on from this, I was extremely disappointed that at least one of the two Kimba sites initially nominated did not make it through to the next phase and Hawker was the only site to progress. However, having heard the Minister at the time of making that announcement say he was still open to further nominations I felt there was hope for us to proceed further. I felt strongly that Kimba was missing out on an opportunity to introduce a new industry that brought jobs and security and was completely unrelated to agriculture. From here, I found other people who had similar views and we proceeded to contribute what we could in a non-threatening manner, towards informing people of our community what the project was about, seeking other interested parties to offer land and engaging with the process to get the two current nominations back on the Minister’s table.

I am proud to have taken the time to inform myself, my family and where possible my community – on the process, project and the potential for Kimba’s benefit to participating – through my involvement with the Working for Kimba’s Future Group

Although the process has been challenging for our communities, I strongly believe the free access to information from the Department, numerous experts (both from ANSTO and independent) and guest speakers gave the people of Kimba confidence to vote in favour (57.4%, with 80% of the vote returned) of seeking more information by continuing in the process.

  1. a)the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

 I don’t believe the compensation offered to landowner applicants is at all significant, nor do I believe it was a strong reason for them to offer land for consideration. 100ha is a very small parcel of land in the broad acre scheme of farming in the Kimba District. If that land was continued as farmland the landowner would directly benefit, however this would be a very small part of the landowner’s overall program.

As a National Radioactive Waste Facility, this small parcel of land would, over a very short space of time, be vastly more productive and economically viable given the jobs associated with the facility and its construction for the community, than its entire lifetime in agricultural production (for the landowner). The overall benefit to the community far outweighs the small recompense offered to the landowners. I believe that greater benefit is the reason they have put forward their land in the Kimba area.

  1. 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 must recognise the fact that as with any controversial major project, there needs to be allowance for shifts in public opinion. As we live in a democratic society, the very act of allowing our community to vote is a very true reflection of democracy. The 57.4% majority yes vote with about 80% eligible voter participation in Kimba reflected a vibrant and informed community. I firmly believe that support for the project has been at the very least maintained. I am confident that due to the high-quality information being presented to the community and the terrific access we have had to information, that support will be increased over time.

 I believe the use of the term broad community support was the most appropriate in this project instance as the communities engaging in the process are all vastly different in makeup. In the democratic place we live, anything over 50% is considered a majority significant enough to elect governments. I believe a definitive number % would not allow the Minister to take into account a diverse range of contributing factors such as the support of neighbours to the facility etc. It is simply not a black and white issue and we elect our government representatives to make informed decisions based on all of the presented information.

and ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

Our local District Council received many deputations, letters and direct conversations with councillors and from there chose a vote of people within the council boundaries as being the fairest way of determining community support. I support their choice of a vote which was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. Although some felt they ‘missed out’ there was also an option for people who had a vested interest (e.g. business) in Kimba to register for 1 vote that was publicised to the wider community.

  1. 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 advancement stage;

 I believe it is important for the Indigenous community to play a part in the site selection process. Although the Indigenous population differs greatly between Kimba and Hawker, I believe there has been fair opportunity for their input to the process, as there has with all residents of the two communities. I hope this continues.

  1. d)whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

 I feel this program is a fair and just contribution to the communities who have been committed to going through the process, whatever the final outcome. We need to reflect that this process has been underway for 30+ years, has a direct impact on community and is a project of national and long-term significance. I don’t believe that people’s opinions on hosting the facility, for the most part, will be changed given the payments made from the community benefit fund (yet to be allocated in Kimba). People voted to continue the discussion for the long-term benefit of jobs and attracting new people and industry to the Kimba community.

  1. 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 strongly believe that only the communities potentially hosting the facility should have direct input to the process. I have found by talking to many people outside of my community, that they are not necessarily aware of the project, don’t have the information (although freely available to them) and have nothing but support for the project. I am aware that a strong ‘fear’ campaign has created confusion about the actual project both within our community and outside. I believe the communities directly involved should be the one’s making the choice to host the facility or not and feel that without an extremely long and intensive education program, outside communities (both Eyre Peninsula and South Australia) will not be well informed enough to warrant a valid contribution to the discussion. We don’t get to have a say on most major developments such as mines etc that are not within our local boundaries and I don’t see this project as any different.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Department of Industry Innovation and Science Submission to Senate, (with emphasis on “medical” nuclear wastes)

Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS)  Radioactive Waste Management TaskforceSubmission to the Senate Inquiry into the Site Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility

(This submission has a supplementary submission, that I have been unable to copy. The supplement outlines the continuing consultation process.  The Kimba Council and Flinders Ranges Council will hold community votes from 20 August 2018, run by the Australian Electoral Commission. The supplement has copious attachments copied from the website of the National Radioactive waste Management Facility.)

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Background………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Response to the Terms of Reference ……………………………………………………………………………… 9

  1. a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………………. 9
  2. b) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
  3. i) The definition of ‘broad community support’, and…………………………………………………… 10
  4. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
  5. 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 advancement stage…………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
  6. d) Whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment………………………………………………………… 12
  7. 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……………………………… 15
  8. f) Any other related matters………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

Annexure 1 – Site Selection Process ……………………………………………………………………………….. 17

Annexure 2 – Additional publicly available documents …………………………………………………………. 21

Annexure 3 – Summary of community consultation …………………………………………………………….. 25

Annexure 4 – Summary of consultation with Indigenous members of the community ……………….. 28

Annexure 5 – Examples of technical considerations …………………………………………………………… 30

Annexure 6 – Chronology of site selection process ………………………………………………………………

Executive Summary

The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (‘the department’) is pleased to make the following submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into:

The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community.

Australia, through its people, communities and businesses, has benefited enormously from nuclear research activities and the production of nuclear medicine over the past 70 years. With these benefits comes a responsibility to safely and securely manage the associated radioactive waste products.

Internationally, the approach to managing radioactive waste has evolved from one focused on short-to-medium term storage to one based on a full life cycle approach ensuring that waste is minimised and then stored and disposed of safely and securely. Currently radioactive waste is held in over 100 sites across Australia, with over 80 sites identified in South Australia alone. Many of these sites have not been constructed for long term waste management.

The Australian Government (‘the Government’) is modernising its approach to radioactive waste management, and a major part of this process is to establish a central National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (‘the Facility’) to permanently dispose of the Government’s legacy and future streams of low level radioactive waste along with waste holdings of other entities where these meet the Facility’s acceptance criteria. The Facility will also store, on an interim basis, our relatively modest holdings of intermediate level waste. Australia does not produce or store any high level radioactive waste, and any such waste would not be accepted at the Facility.

The process of finding a suitable site for the Facility, which began in the 1970’s, is complex with a suite of technical, economic, environmental, social, indigenous culture and heritage activities taking place over an extended period of time. While the department would be pleased to discuss any aspect of the process with the Committee, the focus of this submission is on the points explicitly referenced in the inquiry’s terms of reference.

The authority and broad process for finding land to establish the Facility is defined under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act (2012) (‘the Act’). The Act prescribes the minimum set of steps that must be followed by the responsible Minister (‘Minister’) in selecting a preferred site. To be selected, a site must be voluntarily nominated by freehold landowners, Crown leaseholders, or body corporates that hold native title.

The Minister may then consider accepting a nomination and instruct the department to undertake relevant technical assessments before selecting a single preferred site. At each stage the Minister is only required to consult with, and take into account, comments from the nominator and persons with a right or interest in the nominated land.

The Act itself does not prescribe a requirement for general community engagement or support in selecting the site. However, the Government has consistently said that the location of the Facility should have broad support in the hosting community. Continue reading

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Matthew and Meagan Lienert – another declaration of faith in nuclear industry, ANSTO, ARPANSA, DIIS

Matthew and Meagan Lienert (No 53) Submission Senate Inquiry  Re – Inquiry on the selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia

My name is Meagan Lienert and I write to you as a long term resident of Kimba SA. After moving to Kimba 21 years ago as a school teacher, I married Matthew Lienert, a grain and sheep farmer and we own property at Buckleboo (around 38km North of Kimba) and on the Eyre Highway (around 18 km west of Kimba). We also own a local Engineering business in Kimba and I teach at the school part time. We are happy for our submission to be published and also willing to talk further to the committee if necessary.

We feel we have a good knowledge of the area and the people within the local and wider community. We are very passionate and active volunteers supporting many groups and sporting bodies in executive positions or as members, which also allows us to speak to a wide range of ages and groups within the community.

Our support of a site near Kimba for the Low to Intermediate Radioactive Waste Storage Facility has derived from wide research, exploration and listening to a range of views and experts. It was only once we felt assured that this facility would be safe in the immediate and long term future, that we made our decision to support the nominations to move into round 2 of the process.

The community has had a lot of opportunity to find out relevant and accurate information if we have wanted to. We strongly support a fair and transparent process and believe the government have done their best to ensure this over the past 3 years that Kimba has been involved. The following addresses the terms of reference that we believe shows this.

a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines.

The financial compensation that is clearly stated under the Nominations of Land guidelines is appropriate for the search for a location and purchase if the site goes through to stage 3 of the process. It is necessary to be able to provide the landowner with compensation for the possible loss of production, although the amount received would be extremely low in comparison and also to compensate any inconvenience or interruption to the landowner’s practice/business. In addition, these landowners are providing an opportunity of a lifetime to our communities and region and we know that the compensation being offered has no influence on their decision to nominate their land.

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

  1. The definition of ‘broad community support’, and We understand broad community support to be about assessing all the information gathered from a wide range of sources on the views and opinions of the facility moving forward to the next stage of the process. This information as a collective of evidence will then be used to determine if a majority of the community are in support of the facility. We and many others we have asked have never been given a percentage of a vote or types of submissions as a guideline of ‘broad community support’ as claimed by some people. Broad community support must take into account those that will be mostly impacted in any way and should be based on evidence.ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; Broad community support is based on a collection of evidence gathered from assessing as much information on the views and reasons for those views. This evidence is from a wide range of groups and individuals including key stakeholders such as neighbours, local businesses including farming enterprises, as well as the local council, relevant local service clubs and also the whole local community. This evidence could be gathered through all of the following combined: formal and informal chats with departmental staff whilst in Kimba; a whole Kimba District council electorate formal vote; written evidence/submissions from key stake holders; and other evidence deemed necessary and relevant by the minister.
  1. 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 understand that the necessary assessments have been and are being carried out in accordance with relevant laws to assess any Native Title Claim or relevant land use applications of the sites nominated in the Kimba area and that these assessments satisfy all necessary laws and requirements to ensure a thorough and appropriate process.

    d) Whether and /or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment.

To provide more information in relation to this point of reference we feel it is important to talk about how people have formed their opinions at different stages.

The community benefit program was not something that we found out about until well after the first announcement in our community. Our first thoughts were to find out about the proposed facility, what it was, what it would store, how safe it was and how land around Kimba came to be nominated. We were aware that others in the community seemed to form their decision to be against the proposal for Kimba based on their previous knowledge of the word ‘nuclear’ and based their opinion on evidence from many historical events that had no relevance to such a facility. The negativity that derived from this spread quickly which is often normal in a small community. This was before many people could research the proposal and what it actually meant, especially to receive information from the government which clearly explained the facility and the search for this Australia wide. From our discussions in the community many against at this stage have since found out more and their support is now evident but not always public due to fear of upsetting those against.

Those with an open mind and wanting to know more investigated first then formed their opinion and not without many questions being answered first. The first questions people asked included: Number one was will it be safe for the land and people? What is a waste storage facility? What will be held in it? Why does Australia need a facility?

Our point is that the fact that there was a ‘community benefit program’ was not a major contributing factor for majority of people forming their opinions. Yes the ‘community benefit program’ has been a welcome injection of funds to our community at this stage (as the final decision of allocation of funds is still being made), and it along with other activities in the community over the past 2 years is creating a feeling of hope and a more positive future for Kimba. We are a proactive community working together for continuous improvement but to be able to access funds such as this for a wide range of projects and create other opportunities for a more sustainable future then this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

It is a fact that if and when people are against change in society and other issues, they are the most vocal with the loudest voices and others can fear to be heard. They will also look for reasons why people do not agree with them and in this case the accusation by some that people are bribed and ‘only in it for the money’ is insulting and incorrect.

Therefore, we believe although the community benefit program is a welcome addition to the process we do not believe that people have based their support or non-support on this program.

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; and If we were to bring any new industry to the local community then we would only talk about it in our community and same should be the case in this situation. It is important to recognise that this facility is safe and will be regulated by ARPANSA with the sole purpose to ensure the facilities safety and protection of the people and the environment. Therefore, with the fact sheets and information from the government, ARPANSA and ANSTO that is accessible to all, there is no reason to be concerned and the decision to either go ahead or stay the same should lie solely with the community in question only.

The local communities directly involved are the ones that have been provided with continuous and accurate facts and information sessions in a variety of ways including written print, face to face discussions, a public presentation, private meetings with members, information sessions with relevant experts, an information session and question and answer from members from France, plus opportunities for Kimba locals to visit ANSTO in Sydney.

A concern has been presented by people against this facility to others on the Eyre Peninsula or wider South Australia, that it could affect the sale of agricultural produce because of the perception of ‘Radioactive’ near our grain or stock producing areas. This is also coming from people who know that the facility is safe and that there will be NO contamination. We believe this promotion of the ‘fear of perception’ has sparked the request to involve the wider Eyre Peninsula in a vote for or against the facility near Kimba.

But our point is that instead of using our time and money on raising a perceived concern about ‘perception’ we could all collectively work together and prove to the wider communities, state and nation as well as the buyers of produce, that the facility will be safe and there is no reason to be concerned or o use the facility to effect prices or sale of produce.

Therefore it has been proven that there will be no negative impact on the Kimba region, Eyre Peninsula or wider and therefore the decision should only be left up to the district council of Kimba. The decision should be left to the people that live here, work here, bring their families up here and that have a true knowledge and care for the community, its people and its future.

f) Any other related matters.

The opportunity that our community has had in this process has been varied. From our perspective it has been very beneficial and extremely positive. It has forced the whole community to look at our current situation, where we have come from over the past, the significant changes for the good and the bad and has also generated a greater interest in the future of the community and how everyone can contribute.

The process is new and different to anything we have been involved with as a community and it has presented each of us with challenges and sometimes confronted our knowledge and past beliefs. But at all stages it has been very open to the public and extremely informative.

Like when change occurs in any workplace, group or community there is some resistance and many questions and this is normal. There is always a mix of opinions and beliefs and people can only base this on the information they want to access and search for. Respect has had to play a large part in this process to respect each other’s opinions and rights to access information in different ways.

In the long term we recognise that all members of the community are doing what they feel is right for the community and based on the facts that we have extensively looked at and the knowledge that we have gained we know that this opportunity if pursued could secure the future of Kimba for many generations.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Lyn and Claire Kemp declare their faith in a nuclear waste dump for Kimba

Lyn & Claire Kemp (no 88) Submission To; Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committee on Economics re Proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility

We have been a resident in Kimba since 1959 and 1945 respectively. We are happy to provide the committee with this submission relating to the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in the Kimba District.

We have no objection to the hosting of a Radioactive Waste Facility on either of the sites chosen.

We think the process has been very fair and the information that has been made available to the residents has been good for the community.

The additional financial benefit to the land owner is minimal and has no bearing on any decision. Considering the government needs land for this project, this seems fair to us.

The community has had ample time to learn and discuss any issues about this facility with the staffed Office in the main street of Kimba.

There has been town meetings with our M.P. and delegations from overseas giving us an insight into what is involved and it is clear that there is no risk or impact on the farming industry at all neither locally or in the surrounding areas. I disagree that we need “broader community views” and believe we have no need to stretch boundaries outside the District Council of Kimba.

We can only see a positive outcome for our town.

  1. New jobs will be a start and fill some of the empty houses in Kimba.
  2. 2. We will receive more essential town services (Doctor) which our town has been struggling to keep over the last few years.
  3. 3. It will give an opportunity for existing businesses to expand and hopefully encourage new business into the town.
  4. 4. Improved internet and phone services.
  5. 5. The Benefit Fund is already in the process of being submitted and a number of facilities will benefit. The town is struggling and the population is declining. Our belief is twelve months after the Facility is built people will have forgotten it is there.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Peta Ashworth: vaguely supportive on Selection Process for Nuclear Dump Site

Professor Peta Ashworth School of Chemical Engineering University of Queensland Submission to Senate Re: Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

As co-Chair of the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) engaged by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DOIIS) to provide advice on technical and community engagement considerations for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF), I am pleased to provide this submission to the Senate Inquiry (6th February, 2018 – 14th August, 2018).

(The first part of this submission describes the work of the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP)

I have focused my response, based on each of the parts within the TOR which requests commentary about:

The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community…”.

I believe the open and transparent nature of the site selection process conducted by the Department was, and continues to be, appropriate and extremely thorough. This is clearly evidenced by all of the relevant information being made available and accessible on the Department’s website. It is also worth noting, the time and effort spent by departmental officers to engage with shortlisted communities from the outset of the process, was exemplary. This includes providing information and facilitating further information collection at the communities request. In many ways, their efforts represent a new way for governments to proactively engage with affected stakeholders and communities on such complex issues and are consistent with international best practice for community engagement.

A response to each of the specific Parts a – f referred to by the Senate Committee are detailed below:

a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

The website and nomination process clearly states the successful property owner of the land selected for the NRWMF site would receive four times the value of the land (DOIIS, 2018). Given the significance of the NRWMF to Australia and our obligation under the ‘joint convention agreement’ with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (DOIIS, 2016a. p.3), a payment that is above market value appears appropriate, fair and reasonable. The fact that 28 volunteer nominations were initially received by the Department provides additional evidence that this offer was judged as fair by those volunteering their land.

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

While many definitions of community exist, in the NRWMF process:

There was a consistent view that the community should be limited to those in close proximity to the nominated site, and those that are likely to be directly affected by the proposal. This included nearby townships which would provide an economic or social base for the facility and its workers.” DOIIS, 2016a. p.8

Hence, boundaries were drawn for each community based on consultation by the Department with a range of local stakeholders for each of the sites. At all times the Department has consulted, and continues to consult, with local host communities to ensure the definition of community remains appropriate and relevant. A prime example of this is during the two consultation periods for Kimba. In consultation with the local community the preferred definition of community changed from “‘within a 50km radius’ of both sites”

(DOIIS, 2017, p.8) to “the community boundary be defined as ‘the Local Government Area of the District Council of Kimba.’”(DOIIS, 2017, p.9). Such a reflexive process helps to build trust in the community as it allows them an opportunity to provide direct input into the process.

  1. how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage

The need for ‘broad community support’ has always been a high priority of the site selection process. Within the criteria developed as part of the site selection framework and the MCSA, the criterion “Is there evidence of potential community support or opposition for the facility?” was given the highest weighting of 14.5% by the IAP (GHD, 2015. p.37). This clearly reflects its importance. However, it was agreed that this criterion could not be assessed through the usual MCSA process. Instead, it needed to be done in conjunction with potential host communities and affected stakeholders once they had time to consider all of the information about the NRWMF process.

Additionally, it was agreed that a combination of qualitative (observations, written submissions, face to face meetings and other engagement activities) and quantitative (surveys, polls) data would be required to inform the final decision making of the site selection process. The IAP cautioned that any insights in relation to community sentiment emerging from surveys, should be treated with care and only used in conjunction with all of the other information gathered through the consultation process.

For the Phase One process, initially a 120 day consultation period was undertaken. This resulted in the Barndioota site at Wallerberdina Station near Hawker being selected. With the subsequent nomination of two additional proposed sites in the Kimba region, Napandee and Lyndhurst, a further 90 day consultation period was undertaken by the Department in the Kimba area. This culminated in a poll being conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on behalf of the Kimba District Council. The results showed that 57.4% of those polled supported moving to provided all available qualitative and quantitative information to the Minister to assist his decision making process of whether ‘broad community support’ to move to Phase Two existed in both circumstances.

Continuing the consultative and inclusive approach to community engagement and monitoring the ongoing sentiment in both communities the Department has utilised a number of mechanisms. These include, but are not limited to: the establishment of the Barndioota Consultative Committee and the Kimba Consultative Committee in each respective region to allow community members to be independently represented and raise local concerns with the government; recruitment of two Community Liaison Officers who live and work locally within Hawker or Kimba; and access to a number of experts who can provide more information about the NRWMF and answer questions that arise throughout the ongoing consultation. Phase Two (DOIIS, 2017). It is my understanding, the Department

  1. 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;Considerations for Indigenous support has played, and continues to play, an important part in the process. While Indigenous people are already considered as a key stakeholder group in the community definition, cultural heritage considerations were seen as additionally important. This was reflected in the MCSA under Community Well-being in the criterion “Is the site located in an area where development may impact culture and history?” (GHD, 2015, p. 37). This criterion was weighted by the IAP as a priority at 10% as part of the site selection process. It is my understanding that the Adnyamathanha people, who manage the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area neighbouring Barndioota, are working with the Department to assist in their undertaking of a cultural heritage assessment as a critical part of Phase Two.

Like other parts of the community, it is recognised that within the Adnyamathanha people, different individuals hold diverse views about the value of a NRWMF existing in their community. Some remain opposed while others are more positive, hoping for increased opportunities for training and employment for those living in their local community. The Department remains committed to ensuring the Indigenous people have a voice, with officers of the Department participating in local cultural training, to ensure their ongoing engagement and liaison with the local Indigenous people is at all times culturally sensitive. There is also an Indigenous representative included on the Barndioota Consultative Committee. By chance, the local Hawker Community Liaison Officer happens to be an Indigenous person. While this was not the reason for his recruitment into the position, it does provide another avenue for ensuring those from the Indigenous community feel comfortable when engaging with the NRWMF process. It also provides another conduit for Indigenous sentiment to be communicated to the Department.

  1. whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;In relation to whether the “‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment” it is difficult to make an objective judgement in the absence of any independent research. A desktop review, by ter Mors, Terwel and Daamen in 2012, identified that little empirical work to examine the effectiveness of host community compensation in increasing community acceptance for a project, existed. However, their subsequent empirical research suggests that compensation can help build support for a project, but the likelihood of this doing so will be impacted by how closely, or adversely, the beliefs of the project proponents reflect the beliefs of the community members (Zaal, et al., 2014).The IAP held the view that a community benefit fund was appropriate, in recognition of the fact that, like many other proposed developments, the NRWMF process has provided some disruption to the daily lives of those living in the potential host communities. The fact that the ‘community benefit program’ is run as a competitive process, and all applications are considered by the Consultative Committee in each respective community, it helps to facilitate the fair distributed of the benefits package in an open and transparent process. Such considerations of distributive and procedural fairness are critical for building a social license to operate for any project and therefore seems appropriate in this circumstance (Moffat and Zhang, 2014).

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; and

The definition of community in response to Part b (i) is directly related to this Part e. At all stages it was felt that those living in close proximity to the proposed location are those most likely to be affected by the siting of the NRWMF and therefore their views should be prioritised in the site selection process. Similarly, those communities also stand to potentially benefit from the process if the project is to go ahead. Therefore, it is my view the highest priority should be to continue to consult with locally affected stakeholder groups. While it is unlikely the wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views would be considered as part of the site selection process, these communities are being kept informed as all information about the process is made available on the website. However they and every other Australian need to be informed of our obligations to the IAEA to ensure we can continue to utilise ANSTO for the production of nuclear medicine and further research.

f) any other related matters.

Finally, as a social scientist who, has been investigating public attitudes towards a range of energy generation technologies that are also not without controversy, it is important to reflect on the effectiveness of the site selection process of the NRWMF to date. In my experience, whenever a new technology with perceived high risks is presented to a community, there will be a mixed response in the local community (see for example: CSG:Gallois et al., 2016; CCS; Ashworth et al., 2015; Wind: Hall, Ashworth & Devine-Wright, 2012). Some community members will staunchly oppose, others will remain positive and even more are likely to sit on the fence and just wish for someone to make a decision. Regardless of such a divide, it is important to ensure a process for engaging in discussion can take place within a community without fear of reprisal.

This is particularly important in regional Australia where the changing nature of farming practices has seen many of the smaller farms being purchased and amalgamated into larger farms. This has meant that many local farming families who once resided in Australia’s small country towns have moved away. This, in turn, has put pressure on local businesses making it harder for them to be profitable based on a reduced demand for specific services. Therefore, the opportunity to host a NRWMF provides hope for some living in Hawker and Kimba to find an alternative revenue stream and keep their communities alive.

There is no doubt that bi-partisan support for the project will be critical to the success of finding a host site for the NRWMF and will also help communities move forward in their deliberations. Finding a suitable site has a long and fraught history in Australia that both political parties have tried to solve unsuccessfully for many years. I believe it is worth recognising that the voluntary process developed as part of the 2012 Act, and used for this process is unique. It provides an excellent example of Australia’s innovative approach to finding a solution to this complex issue. I believe the Department’s continued engagement with communities to ensure them a voice in the process should help the respective potential host communities to openly decide if they wish to continue along the proposed phases or not.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Denise Carpenter -in Hawker, anti-nuclear information has been refuted by experts

Denise Carpenter    Submission to Senate Inquiry on site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.

I personally have no issues with the site selection process used in our area (Hawker). The following information is supplied in support of my opinion.

• The land acquisition request was advertised in newspapers and everyone had the opportunity to put their land forward. The fact that neighbours have complained that they were not consulted is trivial as I would not consult with my neighbours if selling or renting my property.

• The financial compensation offered to applicants for their land is minuscule – 3 times current land value for the land acquired. In the case of Barndioota it is an area of only 100 hectares on a 25000 hectare property. • Community support is an interesting aspect of this proposed repository. The site is remote to ‘adjoining neighbours’, to the closest towns and is not visible from the closest sealed road. The repository will no doubt have many positive implications to the towns in its proximity. The local community has had ample opportunity to avail themselves of any information they need to make an evaluated decision. I find it interesting that broad community support is being considered as I can only see positive outcomes for the community which acquires the repository. I have never known community support to be a consideration for other businesses, ventures, opportunities in SA.

• The indigenous people are actively involved in this process, as members of the community, as landowners of an adjoining property and are represented on various committees which are looking at the proposed repository. Their traditional beliefs are being considered at each level.

• I don’t believe the community benefit program has affected the sentiment of the people in our area. Successful applicants have come from a diverse sector and comprise of groups that are both ‘for’ and ‘against’ the repository.

• Wider community views. I believe that it is not necessary to involve wider community views – it does not affect them either way and I can only see positive outcomes for the local community involved including jobs, retaining and hopefully increasing essential town services (school, hospital, sustain and encourage new local businesses).

• The opportunity for a small country SA town to have such a facility come to their area can mean the long term survival of the town, rather than the demise of another country community.

• I am comfortable with the information available from various sources, public meetings, Internet, local people on committees, Internet, face to face discussions, availability of guest speakers, radio interviews, newspapers, displays etc. Overall, people who are positive about the proposed repository, after researching information available, are in favour because of the benefits it offers. They, including myself, tend to be accepting of the proposal and are not vocal, nor do they influence others.

It is my opinion that people opposed to the proposal are a vocal group and have been known to be giving out information which can, and has, been refuted by experts. I hereby give my permission for my submission to be published on the net and it does not have to be kept private. I can be contacted as per the above details.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Ian Carpenter: nuclear waste dump would ensure survival of Hawker

Ian Carpenter. Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No.3)

I wish to make comments on the inquiry re the proposed nuclear repository in SA, in Hawker area more specifically.

As a long term resident of Hawker and having had two tourism businesses in Hawker, I am glad that the opportunity has arisen for Hawker to be considered as a location for a national repository

Re the land acquisition process. I am happy that this was well advertised and that the financial compensation for the area of land required is nominal and can’t be seen as an incentive for any landowner to offer part of their property.

I really can’t see why an Inquiry has been instigated as initially the community supported the idea and this was reflected in a ballot. Some of the local aboriginal people, the Adnymathanha, have voiced their opinions against it, but others have stated that they are in favour of it. Broad community support was established and heritage assessments, geological reports and cultural beliefs are all being taken into consideration.

The community benefit program has been embraced by people both for and against the repository as it has been seen as an opportunity to acquire financial assistance to enhance the services/businesses and employment opportunities in our area. I don’t believe people are ‘shallow enough’ to let this program influence their thoughts on the repository.

State or Australia wide community views should not be considered as the location of the repository will have no affect on their wellbeing, businesses or lifestyle.

We currently have a nuclear reactor operating at Lucas Heights and this has not deterred people from living and working there. In fact it has proven a tourist and financial attraction to them. There are uranium mines operating in SA. One of these, Beverly, is in our area and an in-situ leaching method is being used for extraction, which involves the injection of sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, which is trucked in, and then the concentrate is trucked to Port Adelaide for shipping. There are no objections to this mining operation, so I cannot see any negatives in having a world best practise waste repository established here. The proposed site is remote to our town, is not visible from any recognised roads and will offer employment both onsite and for Hawker and Quorn businesses.

I trust that common sense will prevail and people who are currently vocal against the proposal seek more information, which is freely and widely available, to give them a better understanding on the benefits and safety measures in place.

The benefits for our towns and surrounding areas are obvious and far outweigh the negative suggestions being mooted by some people. This repository would ensure our towns survival and it is my understanding that such a repository will not affect the application for a World Heritage Listing in our area.

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Chelsea Haywood sees nuclear waste dump as saving Hawker from a slow death

Chelsea Haywood. Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

My name is Chelsea Haywood and I purchased my house in Hawker 13 years ago. I lived in Waubra Victoria when the windfarm was in its proposal stage and was actively involved in the process of community education. I have 2 young children t1 that attends the school here, and the other just started pre entry at Kindy. Both my husband and myself work and devote a lot of our time to the community.

I am secretary of the Hawker Community Development Board, Chair of the Flindersfest Committee, Active on the Swimming Pool Committee while supporting my husband who is a volunteer ambo, on the EWG and BCC (both consulting committees for the project) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

the definition of ‘broad community support’ [she puts this in red]

broad community support should be kept to those that will be affected should this proposal move forward. By this I mean that there is no need to involve the entire state as it will not impact on them either way should the project go ahead or not. Those in the local area “Hawker” can already see the benefits such a facility can have for our area. Where as those from outside the area are concentrating on the stereo type the word nuclear brings to the state, while ignoring the broader picture, they do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc as it has no direct impact on themselves or their homes. The Government needs to talk more to those in Hawker and understand their support for the proposal as at the moment only the minority are being heard due to the yelling

how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; [her red]

Remembering that I have children that may well have grandchildren here one day I wanted to make sure that it would be safe before even considering the idea Before moving onto round one I received a phone call asking for my thoughts on the said proposal. As I had spent the time to educate myself on the risks that such a site could pose I saw no need to oppose the proposal. Shall we continue to stage 3 and it is put to a formal vote I still will not be opposing as there are no risks to be found. I suggest that using a formal voting system such as what was used at Kimba would be more beneficial as people can vote without fear of repercussion

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; [her red]

Local Indigenous have been involved since the announcement of the proposal. I believe that if you want to take a stance on their behalf you need to talk to more than just a couple from the area and also check on what their response was a few months ago. I am more than happy to provide you with quite a few names of those that are for the project. Currently they are getting the best help possible from the Government to be able to collate their history with DNA and age testing, GPS marking of sacred sites so as to protect them for years to come with out this project this would never be documented for generations to come. Any problems found while surveying the sites geographically and historically which be taken into consideration when they decide on a final site.

whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment; [her red]

The benefit program was set up to help with the impact that the proposal has had on our district. So far we have people come from overseas to hold rallys against the proposal without a thought that maybe the district does want this. We have had state members visit the town and disregard any local problems (that have not stemmed from this) due to the minority yelling the loudest. Also people that are against the site have still applied for grant funds and succeeded without changing their stance on the proposal. The small injection of funds into the community has helped us to get things done that would otherwise take years of baking sales and fundraisers. This shows that the money other than assisting where required has not impacted on anyones thoughts on the proposal.

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 [her red]

Why should the entire state be given the option to vote into something that will have absolutely no impact on if it is to not go ahead, where as it has a massive impact on my community. Broad community should be held to the current area that is being used and could probably even be made smaller. If this site is to go ahead Quorn will still keep their tourism and the travellers through the town, they also have a greater population that is more diverse than Hawker.

This has the possibility to save employment in the town which is currently on the down fall and bring with it more families, which in turn boosts our available services. If Barndioota is selected it will hold no impact whatsoever for Adelaide, the Limestone Coast or elsewhere. IF you wish to give the entire state a say in the project I believe that everything that is then put forward to occur anywhere in this state should go to a statewide vote and cannot occur with out majority rules

This inquiry is supposed to be about the ‘site selection’ process, yet not one term of reference reflects this. If the site selection is the issue, surely your terms should reflect this and not how everything is impacting the local indigenous and the federal government ‘buying’ support.

As it stands my view on the site selection process was well handled. There was no need to get 300+ communities hopeful by alerting all towns of the properties tendered. We received notification once it was dwindled to 5 properties and straight away the government had an open door policy when it comes to questions and learning more about the proposal. There are many in the community that are for the proposal but due to hearing what happens if you are vocal have remained quiet. Similar things happen in districts when it comes to other proposals as well eg. Windfarms, Big Batteries. You will always have people against the proposals that yell the loudest so they can be heard, but when people dig a little deeper in a community they find that there is a lot more support to be found, they just don’t feel the need to yell and Hawker is the same at the moment. I would like to invite any of the Inquiry committee members to come and spend some time in Hawker (not just with the against group) and see exactly how much support is out there

July 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment