Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Heather Baldock’s sycophantic submission supporting nuclear waste dump for Kimba

Heather Baldock (Submission No 64) to Senate Standing Committee on Economics Re – Appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba  

As a long term local farmer of the Kimba district who has been very active in many local and regional community organisations, I am very excited by the opportunities that hosting the National radioactive low level disposal and intermediate storage facility would bring to our area. I was born here and have raised my family in this community, and I have family still living in the Kimba District including grandchildren.

I wish to address the Terms of Reference for this inquiry and am happy for this submission to be made public.

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

The financial compensation for the acquisition of land to be paid to the landowner, who voluntarily nominated property, is reasonable and a long way from excessive.

Calculations suggest that 4 x the land value for 100 hectares would be equivalent to about 10 years of farm production on that amount of land. So after 10 years the landowners would be losing out with this arrangement. For the two Kimba landowners it would not even cover their input costs for one cropping season.

There is also the intrusion of media and people from far and wide, not always in a friendly manner.

This underlines the fact that the landowners nominated their land, not for personal gain, rather as an opportunity for our community to diversify and increase employment in our low rainfall marginal farming area which is experiencing ongoing population decline.

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

a. The definition of ‘broad community support’ and b. How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage; a) I believe ‘broad community support’ is the majority (more than 50%) of the Kimba District supportive of hosting the National Facility, supplemented by the support of the majority of immediate neighbours to the proposed sites. Having said that, there is no precedent for broad community support for other ventures (business, exploration, social, tourism, mining etc) on private land.

b) To move to Phase 3 of the project there is the intention of holding another Electoral Commission managed vote for Kimba district residents. The vote to move to Phase 2 was arranged by the Kimba District Council at the request of Kimba people. The District Council extensively advertised the opportunity for locals who had vested interests and not enrolled to vote in Kimba council elections to apply to be included on the ‘CEO’s roll’. I would expect this option to apply for any future vote re the Waste Facility

An interesting point about the level of scrutiny that this particular land use has attracted is that there is no practice in our district of neighbours advising neighbours of, or of seeking their agreement to, any permanent or semipermanent changes in land use, infrastructure, commodities, farm practices, or moves to sell or lease land.

I don’t believe there is call for organisations, politicians, or individuals, or others outside of our district who don’t contribute to our local social and economic viability being considered in the ‘broad community support’.

  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;

While we have no Indigenous groups active in the Kimba district I am aware that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has been liaising with the Barngarla people and that leaders visited the localities of the two Kimba sites in March this year. I have not heard of any issues resulting from this visit.

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

    I strongly doubt that the Government’s Community Benefit Fund of $2million on moving to Phase 2 has influenced many people in their views. People publicly opposed, supportive, or keeping their own counsel, have seemed very keen to utilise the funding opportunity to support unprecedented social and economic benefits to our small rural community. The infrastructure and projects submitted to this Fund will be such that locals & visitors to Kimba will benefit. Many of these projects will also leverage employment opportunities when the successful projects are implemented.

I believe that people are only supportive of the NRWMF project if they feel firstly that the Facility poses no harm to their family’s and the district resident’s health or the environmental health of our region.

The economic and social benefits are secondary, albeit very attractive to have such benefits to our small declining community, heavily reliant on agriculture in a low rainfall area. The minimum $10million Community Capital Contribution, and other infrastructure and services that will be required as part of the project, will have influenced people’s consideration of the project. The NRWMF project provides a unique opportunity for our community to diversify its industry base, secure additional employment and services that the Government will need to provide in support of the Facility. Many in our community see this opportunity as very attractive and very supportive of the town’s long term sustainability.

There should be such benefits to any community prepared to make an informed decision to host a National Facility.

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 Kimba community has dedicated many months towards becoming informed about many aspects of the proposed Waste Facility. The wider Eyre Peninsula and even the state of SA have not had the same opportunities to become so learned. Therefore the community outside of Kimba is not in a position to make an informed decision as to whether Kimba should host a Facility.

Also the facility will have no impact on the wellbeing or lifestyles of wider communities. Kimba hosting a Facility would have no detrimental impacts on businesses in wider communities although it may be advantageous to some contractors outside of Kimba in the construction phase of a Facility.

Activists and politicians who have been using the NRWMF project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say in the vote of whether Kimba moves to Phase 3.

F) any other related matters.

The whole process from the time of the Federal Government advertising the opportunity for landowners to nominate land in early 2015 to now has been thorough with numerous chances for locals to become highly informed of the process, the opportunities, the science and the impacts.

We have had numerous experts, scientists, people who work in the industry, including speakers opposed, visit Kimba to support our information gathering. The Department of Industry, Innovation & Science (DIIS) regularly updates the community on progress via newsletters & Facebook. Locals have been encouraged to visit Lucas Height to further increase their understanding of the project. The DIIS has staffed an office and employed a local as the Community Liaison Officer for many months allowing easy face-to-face access to gain more information and have queries responded to. The Kimba community has become highly informed about the NRWMF project.

Prior to moving to Phase 2 of the Project to learn more about the proposed Facility and enable site characterisation to occur, we had a Kimba community vote instigated by the District Council of Kimba and managed by the Electoral Commission. This democratic process showed the very clear majority of 57.4% of the Kimba district in favour of moving to Phase 2. Politicians would be extremely pleased to gain that level of support in an election or any referendum they were supporting.

Since Kimba moved to Phase 2 the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has made 2 visits to Kimba. I have found meeting with them and reading their fact sheets to have been very enlightening and reassuring that we have an independent body as Australia’s highest authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety.

In conclusion I believe that the site selection process has been appropriate and very thorough in the Kimba community with all people able to gain considerable knowledge about many aspects of the NRWMF project and have any concerns addressed if they choose to engage in the process

Advertisements

July 13, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Jeff Baldock (volunteered his land) : the Kimba waste dump selection vote a matter for locals only.

Jeff Baldock Submission To : Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committee on Ecomomics Re-Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility From :- (Submission No.39)

I am a 60yr old, 3rd generation farmer from Kimba. Along with my wife, two sons, our daughter and their families including 7 grandchildren, we run our properties which produce cereals, legumes, oilseeds, sheep, meat and wool.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

A ) FINANCIAL COMPENSATION The compensation offered to the landowner for this project is in line with any other land sale in our area, that involves the purchase of a small portion of someone’s land to be used for a specific purpose.

B) BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT (i) The definition of “Broad Community Support”. (ii) How “Broad Community Support” has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.

I believe Broad Community Support is anything over 50% of the people, who reside in our district council area, along with Council support and clear direct neighbour support.

  1. INDIGENOUS SUPPORT I am unaware of any real interest being shown from the Barngarla group from our area, other than a small group visited the Kimba sites but declined an offer to meet with the landowners. You will need to refer to the dept. who have had contact with them.(D) COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM

    Being a small rural community that relies heavily on farming along with our ever shrinking population, means it is getting harder for the community to raise funds for projects/upgrades that need to be done for the various sporting and service clubs. The community benefit program will be a very welcome relief to the financial strain we all feel at times, however I don’t believe it would affect the way people will vote on the facility.

(E) WIDENING COMMUNITY VIEWS

I don’t believe people outside of the Kimba area should be involved in any vote on the process moving forward, as I don’t believe there will be any negative affect from this facility being built in Kimba. All the information sessions have been aimed at the Kimba community therefore I think it would be unfair to invite people outside this area to give an informed view. There is nothing to stop people outside the Kimba District Council area sending their views to the Minister or the Department, but they should not expect to be able to vote on the issue.

(F) OTHER RELATED MATTERS

In summary, I believe Kimba Residents have had every opportunity to fully understand this proposal. We have had visits from all types of experts in the fields of Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Safety, Geoscience, Waste Management and also activists from Friends of the Earth, Conservation Council and Medical Association for the Prevention of War. I have attended every session available to us.

The department has consistently asked everyone for suggestions of speakers with relevant expertise that the community may want to hear from. Anyone who claims they have not been ‘ informed’ has not been willing to be engaged in the process, which in my view has been extremely thorough.

Kimba is the only community that has participated in a proper vote conducted by the AEC, which showed a resounding 57.4% in favour from 88% of the community voting. This along with Council support and strong direct neighbour support, including unanimous support at one of the nominated sites, resulted in Minister Canavan , accepting both new nominations into Phase 2. Jeff Baldock (Napandee site nominator)

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Andrew Baldock (offered his land for nuclear waste dump) dismisses objections to the plan

Andrew Baldock  Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Economics Re – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (Submission no. 38)

I am a 4th generation farmer in the Kimba District with all 4 of my grandparents being from pioneering farming families of the district. I farm with my wife Dale and soon to be 4 children as well as my brother and his wife and children, my sister and her husband and children, along with our parents.

Our family has been involved in this process from the outset with our family nominating a parcel of land in the initial round of applications which failed to progress to the technical assessment stage due to a lack of neighbouring support. We have since offered up a number of parcels of land to the community renomination process of which one site “Napandee” was put forward to support the community in re-entering the NRWMF assessment process as a result of strong community and neighbouring support.

I am pleased to be able to provide 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 with particular reference to:

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

The financial compensation being offered to applicants is a one-off land purchase at 4 times the market rate for a 100ha parcel of land. I see this as being very fair and equitable and very much in line with any agricultural land sales for alternative use such as residential or industrial developments.

As nominated landholders we understand the site will be positioned on the most suitable 100ha portion of the nominated land holding. This is likely to have a considerable impact on the efficiencies of our farming operations and as a result quickly eroding any economic gain from the land sale.

This level of financial compensation is unlikely to be a driving factor for any nominating landholder especially in low value landholdings such as Kimba and Hawker. The 100ha site nominated equates to less than 1.4% of our farm operation, the sale of this land makes very little difference to our financial position. We see the siting of this facility in the district making a huge difference to the host 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;

I can only speak for the process in the Kimba community of which the community has been at the heart of the discussion from the very start of this process.

The idea of the community putting nominations forward for consideration come about as a result of a community consultation meeting held by local MP for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, who at the time was considering nominating his own farm. Our family attended this meeting which resulted in an overwhelming majority of attendees supporting local nominations into the process to give the community the opportunity to investigate the proposal further.

As a result of this early support for the concept a number of nominations were put forward by local landholders with two of those making the shortlist enabling the community to enter the initial community consultation process. This consultation provided a high level of community engagement with many opportunities for all interested parties to have their say. An extensive phone poll survey was also undertaken which showed a majority support to progress to the technical assessment stage across the district; however neighbouring support was low for the two nominated sites and as a result neither nomination progressed.

Following this decision there was a high level of disappointment amongst community members and as a result of community discussion a local community group investigated alternate sites within the community which would be suitable for renomination. There were a number of sites which were made publicly known about the possibility of nomination including engagement with neighbouring landholders and the local council. As a result, two sites “Napandee” and “Lyndhurst” were put forward for consideration to nominate to enter the NRWMF assessment process.

Once nominations were lodged for these properties the community was fortunate to have further community consultation and opportunities to express their views on the possibility of the Minister accepting these nominations into the technical assessment stage. This culminated in the council facilitating a very unique Electoral Commission vote resulting in an overwhelming majority of 57.4% support in progressing the nominations.

This level of broad community support as well as consideration of the views of neighbouring landholders, council engagement, views of interested individuals and groups not included in the voting region resulted in the minister being satisfied there is adequate support to warrant the nominations to progress to the technical assessment stage.

The local community as well as the broader community has opportunities to express their views on the proposal by means of community engagement and submissions on the proposal as the process runs and the local community has been assured another vote will be undertaken prior to the minister making a decision as to whether either site will progress to the licence application phase.

I believe that broad community support has been displayed throughout the process. There are many views that need to be considered with various weighting when considering the definition of broad community support. In theory anything over 50% should be considered as broad community. But when considering the views of those outside the district boundaries, the added weight of the neighbouring views etc. I think it needs to be left to the minister’s discretion as to what determines “broad community support” as there are to many variables to attempt to impose a mandated figure.

What has become very clear to me throughout this process is that no matter how well consulted, how robust the science is or how clear the consent from the local community is, the well established anti-nuclear movement will attack the process from another angle with no accountability for their claims.

Broad support can be shown in Kimba.  The District Council of Kimba has actively participated in the process and has openly supported the process through to phase 2. As requested by the people in Kimba they arranged an Australian Electoral Commission vote for registered voters in the Kimba electorate so that it was fair to all. They also invited other people who were not on the Kimba electoral role but had a vested interest in Kimba to apply for a vote.

 As per the NRWMF guidelines, direct neighbours support was very important. Of the two sites in Kimba there is 90% ‘direct neighbour’ support.

 An Electoral Commission vote held in June 2017, returned a clear majority 57.4% support in favour for Kimba moving to Phase 2 (the consultation stage) of the project. I have seen many indications that support has been maintained since that time.

  1. whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;I believe the community benefit program is a fair way of compensating the community for the disruption the nomination process has caused the community. This fairly modest level of community funding will ensure the nominated communities will have some lasting legacy projects for the good of the community, whether they host the project or not. Allowing for positive outcomes for communities having undertaken this process.

This level of funding is certainly not likely to influence people to support the project alone, the safety and integration of the facility along with the opportunities the siting of the facility presents, are the driving factors in people’s decision making

. d) 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 firmly believe that the main driving factor of any decision should be based on the outcome of a Kimba District Council boundary vote with extra consideration given to the sentiments of the immediate surrounding landholders.

This is the community which will be impacted by the siting of the facility and this is the community who has been thoroughly consulted on the facility. Those outside of the council boundary have had and should continue to have the opportunity to voice their opinions through means of consultation meetings with DISS as well as written correspondence. But to open the vote up beyond the council boundary would set a difficult precedence for any future development processes across the country.

It is very clear from the project brief and the science presented that this project will have no impact outside of the walls of the proposed facility apart from the economic and social benefit as a result of the construction works and ongoing employment and economic support.

a) any other related matters

I welcome the senate inquiry into this process as I hope it will provide assurity to all involved that the department and the minister’s office have gone above and beyond in their requirements to provide communities with information regarding the project and opportunities to voice their opinions regarding the proposal.

I can not imagine many other projects, government or privately run would have had the level of community engagement this has had. We have had a number of community votes so far including a full electoral commission vote just to consult as to weather the community is willing to discuss the project further. The process that has been run to date has been as thorough as I could imagine.

The reality is that you could run the process a hundred different ways and it will always be attacked by those opposed as a means to create division and distrust. I have the upmost confidence in the process that has been set out to measure community support.

I look forward to the findings on the enquiry

July 9, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Bev Baldock – another Submission completely happy with the Kimba nuclear waste project

Bev Baldock (Submission No. 72)  Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.   My name is Bev Baldock. I have lived and worked in the Kimba Community for many years, living and working on a farm for twenty years, small business for sixteen years. I personally have no issues with the site selection, which has been honest and open.

The financial compensation offered to the applicants for the acquisition of their land is minimal, but fair.

Overall, I am very comfortable that we have been given honest knowledge and feedback on this project. Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility which has been advertised extensively. We have had several community meetings, the opportunities to meet departmental members and experts in many areas of Nuclear.

I consider myself informed now and able to share my knowledge. It will be great to create new jobs which will bring economic benefits to Kimba. It could help bring more numbers for our school and keep the services that we still have as numbers are diminishing each year. Whatever the community may decide the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunities to learn, and make the right decision for our district.

I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.

If the rules are changed for measuring the community support to include more of South Australia, how can this be compared? E.g.: community consultation, public meetings, local government election.

We do not get a direct say in what takes place in neighboring communities and our state. This would set a precedent for future projects in South Australia where local communities don’t actually get listened to.

We have had visits from indigenous leaders, and to my knowledge there are no native title claims on district lands. We can still take care in what we do and try to make this project welcoming and inclusive for everyone and to look after heritage if they find it.

The benefit fund is a great bonus for Kimba, without this funding projects that have been submitted would not be possible. I have been involved in lots of projects for many years and this takes a huge amount of time to raise the dollars and reach our target. It is a great a fund to the betterment of the whole community whether the facility goes ahead or not.

Overall, the site selection process has been open, honest and fair. The proposed payments to landholders are fair. It’s our community, we have done the work, we have had the information, and we should be able to make our decision. Yours Sincerely, Bev Baldock

July 4, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Jeff Baldock looks to four times value of his land to host nuclear waste dump: others not so keen.

Opinion poll results 8 Jan 17 “3.30 pm – “NO vote is currently up to 76.75%

The Advertiser, South Australia is running an opinion poll –  Should a nuclear waste facility be built at Kimba? on their article
As choice of nuclear waste facility starts narrowing, people of Kimba are either excited or disgusted

[Ed note 12 Jan – at a later date, the “NO” vote jumped to 85%]

Jeff Baldock and family:  A Kimba nuclear waste dump on their property would be a bonanza for them

But what would it do for the market’s perception of South Australia’s farm produce?



January 8, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Jeff Baldock could make $$$s from #nuclear waste dump, but poses as community benefactor

a-cat-CANNote previous news item : In Kimba, farmer Jeff Baldock, one of the shortlisted applicants, volunteered to sell one square kilometre of his property for the facility in exchange for a premium price and a reported $10 million community fund. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/nuclear-waste-dump-in-kimba-goes-against-the-grain/news-story/5f1931dc52ffe2b46e8e7a3d7fd4cecf
— 
Fading Eyre Peninsula town looks to nuclear waste dump for a future http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/fading-eyre-peninsula-town-looks-to-nuclear-waste-dump-for-a-future/news-story/d02dd60bc73cab2b8ee3a3f5efb3bdc3  The Australian February 6, 2017  6 Reporter  Adelaide  Jeff Baldock, a third-generation farmer at Kimba, watches the Eyre Peninsula town 460km west of Adelaide declining as families move for work and schooling, but believes that if his land was chosen for an intermediate-level nuc­lear waste dump it would mean econo­mic salvation.

“It would basically guarantee Kimba’s future, it’s a 300-year prog­ram the federal government will be here for,” Mr Baldock said.

“If we don’t do something, I’m worried the school won’t be going to Year 12 by the time my grandchildren get there, and the hospital might be closed by the time we need it. We’ve only just secured a doctor; we don’t want to lose any more services.”

The federal government earmarked a cattle station at Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges as its preferred site last April, but Bruce Wilson, the head of the Industry Department’s resources division, said other sites would be considered until a final decision, which could be made late this year. Construction of the facility is likely to be completed in the early 2020s.

A second Kimba farmer also put his property forward last week, and both submitted formal applic­ations ahead of a French deleg­ation visiting Kimba and Barn­di­oota from Wednesday.

Among the delegation will be two mayors whose towns are near the Aube Disposal Facility in Champagne, the facility’s director and a representative of the French national radioactive waste agency. They will discuss safety concerns with residents, who have not previously supported the proposal.

“The facility we are proposing is for Australian low- and intermediate-level waste only, [REALLY?] and we will answer as many questions from as many perspectives as we can at these sessions,” Mr Wilson said.

Mr Baldock, whose family farms three properties, suggested a different site last year but neighbours were opposed. This time, all the adjacent property owners are supportive.

Mr Baldock said selecting a Kimba property would mean the federal government injected at least $10 million into the community and created 30 fulltime jobs. His own payment would be equivalent to a year’s worth of fertiliser costs, with the community benefiting more than his family.

Local funding could be used to boost services for the community’s ageing population, fix the pool which has been closed this year ­because of disrepair, and create jobs, agricultural research projects and economic opportunities.

Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said there had been some oppos­ition to hosting a dump last year, but an information campaign on the low risk involved was turning the tide. His council would also ask the Australian Electoral Commission to run a referendum for the 700 voters after a 60-day community consultation period ended.

“Certainly there is a group that is solidly opposed and that hasn’t changed, but the important thing to remember is this is a chance to get more information about the benefits to the community,” Mr Johnson said.

February 6, 2017 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Are there ANY members now on the Kimba radioactive dump community consultative committee?

At 7th February 2019, all positions on the Kimba radioactive dump community consultative committee are vacant.
Committee members  as in 2018 – the committee doesn’t seem to have been active since June 2018?
  • Allan Suter (Convener)
  • Dean Johnson (Deputy Convener)
  • Symon Allen.
  • Heather Baldock.
  • Jeffrey Frank Baldock.
  • Pat Beinke.
  • Randall Cliff.
  • Kellie Hunt.

February 19, 2019 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Mental health issues in Kimba community divided by nuclear waste dump proposal

Nuclear waste site selection process triggers mental health concerns, business boycotts and division, FOI documents reveal https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/foi-documents-show-kimba-divided-over-nuclear-waste-site/10807462  ABC North and West By Gary-Jon Lysaght   (FOI documents are attached on the original) Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal the Federal Government has been aware of potential mental health issues, from as early as 2017, caused by the search for a site to store the nation’s nuclear waste.The Federal Government is currently considering two sites at Kimba and one near Hawker for a facility that would permanently store low-level waste and temporarily store medium-level waste.

Kimba, a small town on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, has been divided on whether to support or oppose the facility. Some residents believe the facility could help bring much-needed business to the rural town, while others suggest it could damage the region’s agricultural reputation.

“Many of the opposed group have raised the issue of mental health in submissions and direct discussions,” the FOI documents, written in 2017, said.

They believe mental health issues are arising in Kimba due to the stress of being in this process.

“These issues have been raised with the Kimba doctor and counsellor.”

Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick obtained the Freedom of Information documents and hoped the concerns were a catalyst for change.

“In my view, that creates a very strong obligation for the Government to act,” he said.

“They’ve clearly known about this issue since 2017 and it is now time to ask the minister exactly what he is doing in relation to that.”

Industry, Innovation and Science Minister, Matt Canavan, is responsible for determining which site should be chosen for the facility.

“If anyone in Kimba advises they have concerns about their health, they can be referred to the Kimba Mental Health and Wellbeing Group,” a department spokesman said.  “Following a Community Benefit Program application, that group received funding of $30,000 for Healthy Mind Healthy Community workshops to improve resilience, mental health and wellbeing.”

Site selection process ongoing

The site selection process has been put on hold since traditional owners took the District Council of Kimba to court over a proposed community ballot on support for the facility.

The Barngarla Native Title Determination Aboriginal Corporation took the matter to the Federal Court because not all native title holders were included in the ballot.

A decision will be made on the court action this year, with Native Title holders claiming the ballot would breach the Racial Discrimination Act.

owever, an early technical assessment gave the Napandee property a score of 90, while Lyndhurst received 82.

“Both sites were ranked as ‘highly suitable’ by the initial desktop assessment,” the FOI documents said.

“This assessment involved a multi-criteria site assessment where the sites were evaluated against criteria of health, safety, security, environment protection, equity, economic viability, and stable environment.

“On balance, it is recommended that if there is a decision to proceed, both sites should be taken forward.

“If only one site is taken forward, it is recommended to be Napandee.”

This is despite a consultation in 2016, mentioned in the documents, found “that the Lyndhurst site was preferred by the community”.

“Given the perception it is ‘further out of town’ and on less productive land, but there is no strong basis for this assessment.”

Community divided

The documents also revealed that the Federal Government was aware of the “strong division” within Kimba that the site selection process was causing.

“It is unlikely community views will change significantly in the short to medium term, with a block of around 40 per cent persistently strongly opposed,” the documents said. “There is strong division in the town and this is expected to continue and may become more vocal in the short term.”

Jeff Baldock owns Napandee, the site indicated to be preferred by the Federal Government in the FOI documents.

“It’s been a very long process,” he said.

“When it first started out, there was probably a few things that could have been done better.

“But as it’s gone along, everyone’s had plenty of opportunity to find out what they want to know.”

Mr Baldock said there had been “vague references” to mental health concerns. (Below: Jeff Baldock and family) 

“But I’ve never actually spoken to anyone who feels particularly that way and I know that the department did have an open offer that they could contact them.”

Peter Woolford is Chair of No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or South Australia, an organisation against the facility.

He said there was no doubt that the site selection process had caused mental health concerns within the community.

“We’ve lost people from our community because of it,” he said.

“People I speak to are reluctant to go into Kimba much these days.

“It’s disappointing to say the least that if you went up the street and tried to have a conversation about the nuclear waste facility from people from opposite sides, you wouldn’t get much of a conversation.”

Boycotting businesses

Another section of the documents found there had been some cases of businesses being boycotted by locals if the owner either supported or opposed the facility.

“Business owners have noted that boycotting of businesses by the opposed group is occurring,” the documents said.

“While these claims may be exaggerated, this would appear valid and detrimental to the town.”

The ABC has also been told that those opposed to the facility were boycotting businesses that supported it.

It has also been told that up to 90 per cent of businesses at Kimba supported the facility.

Senator Patrick was concerned about the impact boycotting businesses could have on a town like Kimba.

“Kimba is a very small township and the last thing you want to have is animosity developing across members of the community,” he said.

“To the point where they simply won’t go and shop in a particular shop because of someone’s view on this issue.”

February 14, 2019 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Waste dump for Kimba- nuclear bonanza or nuclear sacrifice zone?

Coalition’s Kimba nuclear dump exploits local area and puts nation at risk https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalitions-kimba-nuclear-dump-exploits-local-area-and-puts-nation-at-risk,11717 Noel Wauchope 23 July 2018,

How is a small rural town to cope with a proposition that may transform the community by providing an economic boon or be a long-term curse?

This is the dilemma facing the towns of Kimba and Hawker, both in the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia.

Individual landowners offered their land to the Turnbull Government for a radioactive waste storage site and the Government’s National RadioactiveWaste Management Facility (NRWMF) team swung into action.

There’s quite a hurry on, about this. Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced that, on 20 August, there will be a local ballot to gauge community support for a nuclear waste dump.

Following that, said Canavan:

“The decision will be made in the second half of this year … We do not want this overlapping with a Federal election.”

Much can be said about this plan, not least that it contravenes South Australian law. One might ask, too, why the inquiry stipulates South Australia when the waste to be stored would have to travel 1,700 km from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney? However, the most notable immediate ramifications concern its impact on Eyre Peninsula rural communities. 

As one local resident put it:

‘Stress levels are through the roof for a lot of people within our communities. People are getting sick, and some are just sick and tired of hearing about it, with many wanting the dump to just go away!’

And in the words of another resident:

‘Before a nuclear waste dump came into our lives, people enjoyed cultural activities together … Today it isn’t like that, a once close family ruined and torn apart all because of a proposed nuclear waste dump that could be put on Adnyamathanha traditional lands, which will destroy our culture and … cause cultural genocide.’

Community division is obvious when one reads the submissions that local and Eyre Peninsula residents have sent to a Senate Committee of Inquiry. The Inquiry called for submissions, stipulating fairly narrow Terms of Reference (TOR), about the ‘Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia’.

Among the 40 supporters of the plan, most are local residents, enthusiastic about hosting the waste dump.

Repeatedly, their submissions include phrases like ‘no negative impacts’ and ‘comfortable and satisfied with the prospect of hosting the proposed nuclear waste facility’ 

 Numbers below in brackets refer to the submission numbers listed on the Senate website.
 
 John Hennessy( No 7), is   “bubbling with enthusiasm” for nuclear waste dump in Hawker. “Hawker has “ a once in a lifetime opportunity”  

 Jessica Morgan, (no.37) ” I have stood [at ANSTO] next to and touched the canister containing the intermediate level waste with my 9 month old baby in a carrier on my chest, feeling totally confident of my own safety and that of my child.”   

Annie Clements, (No 35) – happy to see nuclear waste dump “powering Kimba community into the future”.  

And here we come to another aspect of their support for the waste dump plan. It’s not just that Kimba might be “powered into the future”. It’s the thought that Kimba might not have a future unless it hosts the dump.

Again and again this argument appears in the pro nuclear submissions:

   This repository would ensure our towns survival   – Ian Carpenter.( No  3 )     

Kimba is struggling, population is declining,… we are in need of a life line …. The possibilities this facility could provide a small failing community is endless
  – Jodie Joyce (No 33)

this project  will ensure the long term viability of this small country town – Janice  McInnis, ( No 4 )  

   it will  save Kimba ” for many more generations to come– Melanie Orman (No 77)

A third, much repeated, theme in these submissions is that this matter concerns only the local community.

This is frequently expressed with the dismissal of the opinions of people outside the immediate area and also, at times, with downright hostility to those who oppose the dump:

‘People outside our area could be influenced by anti-nuclear scare campaigns and wild allegations that have no relevance to this facility.’ ~ Annie Clements (35)

‘Activists and politicians who have been using [this] project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say …’ ~ Heather Baldock (64)

Outsiders do not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc – Chelsea Haywood (No. 2)

‘We disagree that we need “broader community views” and the need to stretch the boundaries outside of our District Council. What is happening in our Community is exactly that: our community.’  As residents of Kimba for the last 43 years, plus ++ We see no reason that the rest of SA has a right to tell us what we can and can’t have. It is our back yard, not theirs.  ….. . It’s a shame we have to have this inquiry. ~ Margaret and Charlie Milton (34)

These three themes – enthusiasm for the project, distrust of critics,  and resistance to the involvement of outsiders, merge into a kind of strong local patriotism allied to trusting loyalty to the federal government, which has run a huge informational campaign in the towns.

 As to the 58 submissions opposing the plan, at least half come from residents of the Eyre Peninsula. As with the rest of the opponents, they do express a variety of arguments, but local submissions are most often concerned with the local area.

 Above all, they are dissatisfied with the community consultation process, and the lack of clarity about what is meant by “broad community support”. They want the wider community, Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, to be consulted, and, indeed they see the federal nuclear waste facility as a national issue.    They also do not believe that the project has Indigenous support.

 Readers of all 98 submissions can’t fail to notice that, on the whole, these 55 opposing ones have more comprehensive, detailed, and referenced writing, as compared with the pro nuclear ones. And this is certainly true of the very thoughtful and measured arguments of the farmers from the local areas concerned.

These raise some issues which are rarely mentioned on the pro-nuclear side:

  • concern about co-location of low and intermediate level wastes, especially the prospect of stranded “temporary” wastes, with no plan for final disposal;
  • transport dangers; 
  • seismic and flood dangers; 
  • impacts on agricultural markets and tourism; and
  • the fear that this waste dump would lead to a full-scale commercial importation of nuclear waste.

 Kay Fels,  a Flinders Ranges farmer.(No 63) ‘s submission is representative of the concerns of many others:   

our stock (sheep and cattle) may also be stigmatised by the proximity of the waste dump and our organic status compromised  Agriculture and tourist industries will  be jeopardised as the clean, green image of the Flinders Ranges is tarnished  .    The sites are located in an area where the underground water table is almost at surface level. This could lead to contamination of the underground water source, so vital to the region. The location is also on a piedmont plain and prone to flooding

Given that the proposal is to store low level waste in an above ground facility, and temporarily store intermediate waste in that same facility, it seems ludicrous that this is even considered given the geological and environmental features and risks involved.

The consultation phase was a tokenism with ANSTO telling us what will be happening, how safe it is and pushing the affirmative – not a true reflection of the community’s views and concerns. The consultative committee is a rubber stamp 

Many are strongly sceptical of the consultations held by the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS), and of the information campaign by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) . There is strong criticism of the nomination of Wallerberdina property by non-resident former Liberal Senator Grant Chapman, with close links to the nuclear industry. They also claim hypocrisy of DIIS in biased and misleading information, and dismissal and indeed, exclusion of critics. 

  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.”  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 – Leon Ashton (No 73)

there are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).  the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people.  –  Leanne Lienert (No. 50)

Sue Tulloch (no 32) makes a scathing criticism of the federal nuclear waste dump process and “shambolic “Barndioota Consultative Committee.  


Aboriginal voices are passionate, at the same time as providing factual information and references:

The Senate took a long time to publish this one – perhaps because they recognised it as the most important one? Regina McKenzie  (No 107) , a very well informed traditional indigenous owner of the selected are at Barndioota, focuses on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations  regarding those rights. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has ignored Australia’s commitment to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. DIIS has poorly assessed Aboriginal cultural heritage, and engaged inappropriate consultants.  –

In this article, I have avoided the wider arguments expressed in the submissions, including the ones from organisations on both sides of the argument.  Through studying 98 submissions, I have tried to get to the feelings of the communities involved – to what it must be like, to be part of a community caught in this dilemma.

 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.  – Philip Fels (No 84)

The mental health and well-being of communities is completely ignored in this process and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in future frameworks and guidelines. This process makes communities feel powerless – no support is given to those with opposing views, it is a process that is heavily favoured towards those pro-nuclear and when the rules keep changing to suit those in favour it really gives people a sense of hopelessness. Chloe Hannan,  Kimba :  (No. 61)

As an outsider, I can’t really gauge this social situation. But, whatever the outcome of the federal government’s plan, Kimba and Hawker communities will never be quite the same again



July 25, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Why some people want a nuclear waste dump in Kimba or Hawker, South Australia

As I’ve been going through 98 submissions to The Senate Inquiry  on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia , I’ve been able to learn some of the reasons why people support  the idea of the nuclear waste dump .   Almost every one of the the 40 supporting  submissions come from local residents,  several explaining that they have been very thoroughly informed by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, including tours of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.  4 submissions spent time praising DIIS and ANSTO  (Ashworth, P No. 52 , and Baldock B No 72 , Baldock H No 64 and ANSTO itself, No 58)

These are some points that came up as they answered the Term of Reference, especially  (f) Any related matters.

Survival of the town as reason to have the dump:  (submissions from Carpenter I No 3, Carpenter D No 1, Clements No 35 , Joyce, J, McInnis, J, Name Withheld, no 91, Stewart)

Opposition to misleading information from anti-nuclear activists (Joyce, J No 33, Koch, D No 75, McInnis, J No 4) 

Need for dump for nuclear medicine (DIIS No 40, SA ARPS No 41)

Dump will have no negative impact (Lienert, M and M No 53, Schmidt, D No 13)

Dump good for local business (Kemp No 88, SACOME No 69)

Dump important for necessary expansion of Lucas Heights, (Heard,B No 15)

Dump as beneficial to Australia,( Koch, K No 28)

Very opposed to outsiders having a say (Hennessy, J No 7)

Need detail on important financial benefits (Kimba District Council No 19)

Needless to say, these pro nuclear submissions were almost unanimously in favour of the 5 Terms of reference – i.e that the financial compensation was OK,  the project has “broad community support”. indigenous people satisfactorily consulted, Community Benefit Program is fine, and community support should not be sought beyond the local area.

The few pro nuclear submissions that did not address those TORs are from – ANSTO No 58, ORIMA No 108, Orman, M No 77, RDA Far North No 41, SACOME No 69) 

July 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

SCORING SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE COMMITTEE RE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE SELECTION

SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE COMMITTEE RE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE SELECTION

How the submissions scored on the first 6 Terms of Reference

NAME  and number on the Senate website

 

Financial compensation for land was OK Satisfied about broad community support Satisfied about indigenous support Satisfied about community benefit program Community support should mean  local only Added  related  matters
ANTI NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS FIRST
(ATLA).(No 42) No No No No strongly
Ashton 73 No No No No No Lack of trust
ACF 70

 

yes No No No No Wants wider Inquiry
ANFA 71 No No No No No Wants waste Inquiry
AHRC 60 No No No No No Predicts legal action
Bannon 85 No No No No No Hypocrisy of DIIS
Bangarla 56 No No No No No History of Aboriginal interaction
Bohr K 59 No No No No No
 

Cameron S 18

No No No No No
Cant B 49 No No No No No
CCSA 55 No No No No No Wants re-examination of waste plans
Cushway  6 No No No No No Conflicts of interest
 

Day 67

No No No No No
ENUFF 109 No No No No No Comprehensive criticism
EDF 43 No No No No
Fels D 76 No Seismic danger
Fels K 63 No Floods groundwater
Fels P 84 No Floods. conflict of interest
Fergusson 106 No No Hypocrisy. Conflict of interest
FLAG 73 No No No No No
FOE 86 No No No No No Want independent inquiry re wastes
Gaweda 54 No No No No No illegality
Glies 51 No No No No No Need judicial inquiry
Hannan 61 No Mental health
Hughes 57 No No No No No Flawed process
Hunt 80 No No No agriculture
IPAN 30 No No
Keri 8 No No Wants nuclear free
Lienert L 50 NO No No No Opposed to process, not necessarily to dump
Madigan 26 No No No No No History. illegality
Major 16 No No No No No Not on farming land
MKenzie K 78 No Aboriginal interaction history
McKenzie R 107 No In depth on Aboriginal interaction
MAPW 74 No Nuclear medicine
Mitchell 25 No Flawed process Intermediate wastes
Name Withheld 90 No No No No No Prelude to commercial waste import?
Name withheld 92 No No Tourism agriculture
Niepraschk 29 No No No No Lucas Heights best option
No Dump Allianc 45 No No No No No Dangers. Tourism
No Dump F Ranges No No No No No
No nuclear waste on agricultural land 46 No agriculture
Noonan 31 No No No No Wastes. Dangers .End the process now
Scott C 14 No No No Wastes. Agriculture
Scott T 44 No No No Illegality. Biased committees
Srs St Joseph 68 No No No No No Longterm effects
Stokes B No No No No No illegality
Taylor A 82 No No No No No Wastes. Lucas Heights best site
Thomas 36 No No No No Seismic flooding. Biased  info
Tiller J 9 No No No No No Biased committees
Tulloch B 87 No No No No Misleading info
Tulloch R 62 No No No Dishonest process
Tulloch S 32 No No No No Illegality. stranded wastes.
Wakelin B 23 No No No No justification for dump
Wakelin C 22 No No No No agriculture
Walker 20 No No No No Tourism. illegality
Wauchope No No No No No Why assumed S.A.?   Waste types
Wetherby 12 No No
Whittenbury 81 No No No No No
PRO NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS
Ashworth 52 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sits on fenc e. praises DIIS
ANSTO 58 Just praises itself
Baldock A 38 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Praises science. Criticises anti-nuclear
Baldock B 72 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Praises ANSTO etc
Baldock H 64 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Baldock J 39 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Barford 83 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Beinke 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Carpenter D 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Longterm survival of town. Attacks nuclear critics
Carpenter 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s survival .Heritage listing
Clements 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s future. Attacks anti nuclear people
Cliff 65 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
DIIS 40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nuclear medicine. DIIS activities
Harris 24 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hawker Community Devt Board 47 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Haywood 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Heard 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wants expansion of Lucas Heights
Hennessy 7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Very opposed to outsiders having  asay
Johnson 27 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Joyce 33 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensures town’s future. Criticises anti nuclear people
Kemp 88 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dump good for business
Kimba District Council 19 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Most interested in financial benefits
Koch D 75 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Criticises anti-nuclear people
Koch K 28 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dump benefit to Australia
Lienert M and M 53 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dump no negative impact
McInnis 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s future. Criticises anti nuclear people
Milton 34 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Morgan 37 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wastes OK
Name Witheld 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Name Withheld 89 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s future
Name Withheld 91 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s future
Orima 108 All about ORIMA
Orman 77 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s future. No negative impact
RDA Far North 41 Yes Unsure about community support
Schmidt 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No negative impact
SA ARPS 66 All about nuclear medicine. Seems Unaware of intermediate level wastes
SACOME 69 Yes Economic benefit to town
Stewart 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Taylor S 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ensure town’s future
Wells 48 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 

July 15, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

We must not leave nuclear waste decisions up to poorly informed Kimba residents

These people seem to have no grasp at all of the concerns of people worldwide about the effects of nuclear pollution on the environment and on future generations.

It is as if they have no understanding whatsoever of the risks to South Australia’s precious groundwater, to South Australia’s agricultural reputation, nor of the risks of transport accidents, terrorism, and the longterm situation of stranded radioactive trash.

Just consider these inane comments:

“the majority, we’re just so excited about the possibilities.  

“it’s a way of ensuring a future for his young children.”

“I think it’s far safer than my own farming industry”

Decision looms for SA town of Kimba divided over nuclear waste  The town of Kimba is struggling for economic growth. Some see nuclear waste as the industry that could help it prosper.  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/decision-looms-for-sa-town-of-kimba-divided-over-nuclear-wasteBy Rhiannon Elston, 13 May 18 

The small community of Kimba sits roughly halfway across the national highway stretching between South Australia’s east and west coasts.  Wheat is the main crop grown here, but mayor Dean Johnson

says it’s marginal farming land. “We’re very reliant on rainfall in our area,” he tells SBS News.

The town’s uncertain future is the reason some residents have thrown their support behind a plan to store the nation’s nuclear waste. Local small business owner and farmer Michelle Raynr and her husband have offered to sell a small parcel of their land to the government for a future radioactive waste facility.

“You kind of just dread to think what the town will be like in another five, ten years if it doesn’t happen,” she says.

It would be a permanent facility for Australia’s low-level nuclear waste, and a temporary site for intermediate level disposal.

Ms Raynr says not everyone has been supportive of her decision.  “It’s been a little bit disappointing, people’s reactions,” she says.“But the majority, we’re just so excited about the possibilities.”

Andrew Baldock is one who agrees. His parents have also offered to sell a piece of their land. He says it’s a way of ensuring a future for his young children.

“I’d really like to see something like this to help underpin the community, and perhaps, put us ahead of the other struggling towns in the region,” Mr Baldcock says.

“To me, it’s a lot less scary than the chemicals and the petrol, diesel and everything else that comes through our road here. I think it’s far safer than my own farming industry, to be honest.”

Radioactive waste is currently held across 100 different facilities. The federal government says it wants a central facility, housed in a community willing to support it.

Peter Woolford, Chairman of an anti-radioactive waste group in Kimba, wants the concerns of those who don’t support the project, to be heard.

“They’ve continually said they’re not going to impose it on a community, that it has to have broad community support, but I don’t think they have that in Kimba at all.”

The location for a national facility has been narrowed down to three sites, all in South Australia. Two are in Kimba, and the other is near Hawker, in the Flinders Ranges. The federal government says any facility would be constructed and managed under a strict regulatory framework.

Kimba local Graham Tiller believes any radioactive waste should be stored on existing government land.“There’s just no guarantees that land values won’t depreciate, or that grain won’t be devalued,” he says.

Tina Wakelin, another resident, says she agrees the site must go somewhere, but questions why it has to be in Kimba. “We must not be depicted as trying to stop nuclear medicine, that’s not the aim at all,” she says.“But a little town like ours should not feel responsible for all of Australia.”

Last month, the Resources Minister announced $4 million dollars in community funding grants for both Hawker and Kimba.

Mayor Dean Johnson says dozens of groups benefited from the cash injection.

“There’s the pony club… tennis courts, playgrounds, all sorts of things.”

Graham Tiller’s wife, Janet Tiller, says the money is not worth the impact of such a project.  “No amount of money’s worth the health and livelihoods and friendships that have been lost in the town,” she says.

A postal ballot will be held on August 20 to measure community support.

The final decision as to where the waste site will go rests with the Resources Minister, who is expected to make his choice by the end of the year.

May 14, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Kimba Economic Working Group on nuclear waste dump set up by Dept of Industry Innovation and Science

 National Radioactive Waste Management Facility 
12 APRIL 2018  A new group in the South Australian community of Kimba will be charged with investigating all economic opportunities and issues associated with a proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan today announced the members of the Kimba Economic Working Group, established as part of the Phase Two consultation process that is currently underway in the area.

“Together, the Phase Two community consultation and results of technical studies will help inform a decision on whether the Facility is located at one of the two volunteered sites in Kimba,” Minister Canavan said.

“Eight people from the Kimba area have been appointed as members, including farmers, Councillors and business owners, and people for, against and neutral on the proposal.

“David Schmidt, long-time Kimba resident and active local community member, has been named as the Group’s Chair.”

………The Kimba Group mirrors successfully established group around the Wallerberdina Station site, which is already developing a range of ideas on how local business could benefit from a Facility.The Kimba Economic Working Group will meet on about a monthly basis for the duration of the Phase Two consultation process.

Members of the Kimba Economic Working Group are:

April 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18

 

Well, the Senate Committee came up with a wishy washy support of the process for siting nuclear waste. They quoted extensively from the submissionss, but didn’t seem to have much of an idea of their own. Did they think that quoting the problem areas just let them off actually thinking about them?

The Greens, -Senator Hanson-Young, and Centre Alliance, Senator Rex Patrick contributed respectively – a Dissenting Report, and Additional Comments.

Coalition  Senators added a short Additional Comments –  nit=picking about the language in the Report, and saying that ex-Senator Grant Chapman had no conflict of interest in offering his land.

Analysing the submissions about nuclear waste plan, Noel Wauchope

Finally I have studied all 112 submissions, (with the exception of the 13 Confidential ones.)

Anti-nuclear submission number 58, and are in general, more thorough, and better referenced than the others.  Pro nuclear submissions number 40. Most of these are not comprehensive nor well documented, and tend to be repetitive .

Below are summaries, in alphabetical order of surnames, and each contains a link to the full submission to be found on this Antinuclear website.

The anti nuclear summaries are listed first.  Scroll below these – the pro nuclear summaries are then listed.

************************************************************************************************************
ANTI NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS

The Senate Inquiry  on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. has now 109  submissions published. 

Here are summaries of the submissions, listed alphabetically, as we go through them – first the summaries of those opposed to the process. 

  • Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA).(No 42)   Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association (ATLA) is the peak body for all matters relating to land, culture, heritage, language and native title for Adnyamathanha people.  ATLA has consistently and publicly opposed the dump plan  and several times voted against it. Primarily, ATLA opposed the dump because it would destroy the environment and with that the cultural and spiritual values of their people. ATLA is in partnership with IBA to purchase the Wilpena Pound Resort. (And this is an argument that might more readily be understood by stupid white males).  The Flinders Ranges, a world-class destination of beauty – will be ruined as a tourist destination, and employing mainly Aboriginal people, if the area becomes the place for a radioactive waste dump. Indigenous opposition to the plan has been disregarded: ATLA was not even approached until the project entered phase 2. The government has suspended federal environmental and Aboriginal heritage protections. The process is headed for the Federal government overriding the Aboriginal Heritage Act of South Australia.
  • Ashton, Leon.(No 73) Submission no. 79 Not 73 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.”He scrutinises the deception about Low Level Waste, when it’s clear that the facility is really for Intermediate Level Waste, and the conflict of interest in  Grant Chapman’s volunteering of his property. He explains the flawed nature of the community consultation process, and the threat to Flinders Ranges as iconic tourist location. He warns of forthcoming changes to “broad community support: as the deciding factor. 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
  • Australian Conservation Foundation. (No 70) .  Comprehensive and well documented. ACF finds that “the federal government has never proven the need for the project or adequately  explored alternative management options. In particular, the proposed approach to intermediate level waste management is clearly not consistent with international best practice” . Proposed facility is unlawful in South Australia.
    Narrow Terms of Reference “We request the Committee adopt a broad construction and consider the wider context to this important national interest issue.” Present Inquiry a result of Australia’s history of failed radioactive waste management. (listed here) Need for a new approach
    The planned national facility will not remove waste from hospitals or medical clinics, is not advancing the long-term disposal of intermediate waste and the claimed project benefits have not been adequately tested or proven.” Backs this with documentary evidence. Financial compensation in itself not unreasonable.  Community consent requires much wider community, and process was skewed. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina.
    Lack of government transparency. Plan for Intermediate Level Waste is not satisfactory. Uncertainty of project. Lack of trust in govt.
  • The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) (Submission No 71)Once again, Aboriginal groups lead the struggle against  injustice and pollution of the land. Financial compensation divisive  and unfair. “Broad Community Support” – not clear. 2017 “survey did not include the specific views of the Traditional Owners from the area who should have been consulted from the start.” “Adnyamathanha people, who are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site, clearly oppose” the waste dump project. Government providing misleading and biased information.  “The Flinders Ranges is an iconic tourism area, of high cultural and archaeological significance, a flood zone and subject to seismic activity. Wallerberdina is rich in Adnyamathanha history” The dangers of transporting  wastes. Threat to agricultural industry. Interim disposal may become permanent disposal. This submisison well documented and referenced.
  • .Australian Hu.man Rights Commission (sub No 60) predicts legal challenges that might stop nuclear waste dump plans for South Australia. “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”
  • The Azark Project -, Shire of Leonora and Goldfields Carbon Group (W.A.) (No. 110)  [Not anti-nuclear, but anti the selection process] all want the federal nuclear waste dump to be sited at Leonora. They are scathing about the selection process for Kimba and Hawker, S.A. “It seems that the selection of a site at Kimba is a predetermined decision by the federal government irrespective of the site suitability and the strong objections of a large community group which makes a complete mockery of the selection process.”                                                       They criticise the financial aspects as near bribery. They outline the process for Kimba and Hawker as lacking in any real knowledge or technical knowledge. By contrast, Leonora Shire conducted a 10 year investigation, with a detailed geological assessment, then wrote to the Department, with no response.                                                             A formal nomination, and further comprehensive letters resulted in a letter of rejection from Minister Canavan . The Department knew of the overwhelming suitability and superiority of the the Leonora site by world standards. The Department had pre decided on the S.A. sites, and stage-managed the entire process. “It is obvious that the federal government is using substantial and very costly means to overcome any opposition to its selection of a site which becomes part of the rather erroneous and in some instances quite deliberately misleading information provided to the respective communities”                                                            “As against this the Azark Project at Leonora can construct and commission a proper and highly efficient underground facility for less than $40 million with the advantages as to the suitability of the location and general features and that the facility would provide permanent and completely safe disposal of all levels of nuclear waste.” Leonora – a mining area, is obviously more suitable than an agricultural area                                                  Azark (Submission No 110) Attachment 1. Comparison between Leonora, Western Australia, site, and the South Australian sites now favoured for the nuclear waste dump. Leonora site, in contrast – is seismically stable, well above flood plain, no Aboriginal heritage issues, not agricultural or pastoral, suitable for underground waste storage.                     Azark (Submission No 110) Attachment 3 Leonora’s completed exhaustive sieismic surveys more intensive and informative than those planned for Kimba. More detail on rock status at Azark site. Environmental aspects. Transport system appropriate. More detail on why geologists and other experts chose this site as appropriate for a nuclear waste facility.            (Sub No 110) Attach 4. Short account ,with photos, states that the Kimba proposed model is adopted from the Spanish El Cabril Low Level Waste above-ground waste facility. Sceptical about the security especially re water leaking of this system. “This means that no trees with their roots will be allowed to grow for 300 years as the roots will rot under these conditions and the covering may well be susceptible to warrens and other digging by burrowing animals.   This will be just a big rubbish dump that will be there for ever and does not taken into consideration any seismic activity”
  • Greg Bannon  (sub no 85) demolishes the case for Kimba/Hawker nuclear waste dump, in a trenchant Submission.  He backs up his argument with references, in 13 attachments.  Here I will merely quote some important points:  “This is a National issue and a National problem. Small, remote communities, whether at Kimba, the Flinders Ranges or anywhere else, should never be expected to make the decision alone to accept the toxic by-products of one industry’s lifetime production.”“Nuclear Medicine: It was impressed on the community that a primary reason for the NRWMF is the need to dispose of Australia’s radioactive medical waste. DIIS is the only official source of information, some of which implies that procedures such as CAT scans, X-Rays, and cancer treatments require the  use of radioactive isotopes. Plain scans, X-Rays and a vast majority of cancer treatments do not use such isotopes.”“It is a genuine and valid concern that ILRW may become stranded at this facility for any number of reasons.”“ILRW has been the “elephant in the room” from the Day 1 of this process. The emphasis has been on Low Level Radioactive Waste and, even today, people in our community say “it is a low level waste dump”.Bannon gives reasons – flooding, seimic activity – why Barndioota should never have made it to the short list
  • Barngarla native title holders  (Sub No 56) do NOT support National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on their land – the nominated sites. They outline the chronology of consultation with Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. They conclude that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.
  • Bohr, Katrina. (Sub No 59)  Katrina Bohr is dissatisfied with the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s process for “Community Consultation”. She points out that Mr Frydenberg, Minister for Resources, publicly promised that wider views, (outside community zones) would be part of commitment to community consultation, but this is not happening. Indigenous opinion is opposed to the project. She touches on the issue of conflict of interest, regarding Grant Chapman, part owner of the proposed site at Barndioota.
  • Cant, Brian. (Sub no 49)  Brian Cant Elected member District Council of Kimba finds a fatal flaw in the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s push to get local Kimba and Hawker area residents’ agreement to hosting a nuclear waste dump –  no clear meaning of “broad community support”
  • Conservation Council South Australia – (No 55) No adequate case has been made for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. No nominations should be accepted until the report from this Senate Inquiry has been released.  Conservation SA believes that there is a strong case for extended interim storage at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor, particularly for the intermediate level waste created and already stored there.  They also question why all 3 sites selected are in South Australia – the State with specific legislation prohibiting nuclear waste dumping.  They are concerned about the financial aspects of the process, the vagueness around “Broad Community Support, Aboriginal opposition, and the lack of wider consultation. Opinions backed up with references.
  • Cushway, Gary. Gary Cushway (Sub no. 6) shows up the lack of indigenous support for nuclear waste dump. The ‘Community sentiment survey’ conducted by DISI in April 2016 recorded 3% support from the indigenous community for the Barndioota site to proceed to the next stage. He discusses conflict of interest due to the benefit money being offered, particularly in then case of the Flinders Ranges Council. ‘Broad support” calls for Sate and National State and National consultation, not just consultation with  a small local community area.
  • Day, Ellenor. ( No 67)  Ellenor Day is concerned about conflict of interest in Barndioota nuclear waste site volunteered by Grant Chapman. Stating the numbers surveyed, she finds that the basis for which the government is stating they have broad community support for Barndioota is flawed. The very few Aboriginal supporters of the plan do not represent all Aboriginal people in the region. The communities of Hawker, Quorn, Cradock and Port Augusta should be consulted. Day calls for transparency:  members of the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC)  are paid allowances to sit on that committee. This situation should be stated clearly in their submissions to the Senate.
  • Everybody for a NUclear Free Future – South Australian Chapter (no 109)  –ENUFF makes a powerful case, criticising “community consultation”, sham “Aboriginal involvement”, and the deception over “medical waste” as the purpose of the dump. This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry, that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative.  For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments.
  • Environmental Defenders Office. (Sub No 43)  The Environmental Defenders office shows up flaws in Department of Industry, Science and Innovation’s report on nuclear waste siting, to come to the conclusion that neither for Kimba nor for Barndioota is there “broad community support” for a federal nuclear waste dump. There is almost unanimous indigenous opposition to the Barndioota site. The conclude :   “All Australians should have the right to have a say on this issue. Furthermore communities along any transport routes need to be informed of the risks and consulted in relation to the proposed sites before any site is chosen. This is an essential part of ascertaining support for the project “.
  • Fels, Donald. (No 76)  Pastoralist Donald Fels says that the Huge Lucas Heights nuclear site of  450 hectares is the appropriate place for the storage of nuclear wastes, whereas Barndioota, South Australia, is an agricultural area, watger short and at risk of flooding and earthquakes.  The consultation process was not fair and equitable .
  • Fels, Kay (No 63)  Kay Fels is a Flinders Ranges farmer. Her submission shows strong local knowledge of the Barndioota area. She’s concerned at the conflict of interest in the volunteering of the site. She opposes this site for nuclear waste dump because of effects on agriculture and tourism. The groundwater there is almost at surface level, at risk of radioactive pollution. The area is flood prone, and the site is on a severe fault line. Fels is scathing about the blanket of pro nuclear propaganda, the token consultative process, the “rubber-stamping” Consultative Committee, and the waffly evasive answers given to critics.
  • Fels, Philip. (no 84) Philip Fels points out the lack of consultation with local Barndioota community in the nomination of the site proposed for nuclear waste dump. The Wilkatana Fault runs right up through this area, and and we have earth tremors weekly if not daily. The underground water table is at risk. Farming and tourism will be damaged by this project. “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.”
  • Fergusson, Dave. A Quorn resident disgusted (No 106) at the hypocritical nuclear waste dump site process by Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science. In a refreshingly personal story, Fergusson lambasts the land nomination of Wallerberdina Station by Ex-Senator Mr Grant Chapman.  He exposes the hypocritical sales pitch by the Dept to an uninformed rural community. Fergusson was evicted from Hawker Community Development Board (HCDB)and Barndioota consultative Committee (BCC) meetings – for asking difficult questions, and for being an outsider – a Quorn resident. He exposes the hypocrisy of promises about jobs created by the nuclear waste dumping
  • Flinders Local Action Group (no 73) Nuclear Waste Dump decision is a National matter – not just a local one. FLAG gives a detailed history of the inadequate and biased “community consultation” process. They question the financial aspects, and lack of public accountability for the money spent on propaganda for the waste dump, and the misleading use of “medicinal needs”to promote it. It should not be sited on Aboriginal land. It threatens the unique values of the Flinder scheme. ranges, environmentally, and as a tourist mecca.
  • Friends of the Earth spell it out (sub No 86) on why Australia needs an Independent Commission of Inquiry into Australia’s Nuclear Waste Management. They question the alleged need for an off-site centralised nuclear waste facility, and recommend Lucas Heights as the scientifically best and safest site for interim waste storage. They condemn government misinformation and lack of clarity on types of nuclear waste. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act is grossly undemocratic and disempowers Traditional Aboriginal owners in multiple ways. “Community Consultation” is inadequate. Financial compensation pathetic in the long term. The government’s claims about job creation are implausible. This comprehensive submission is fully referenced and surely cannot be ignored by the Senate Committee.
  • Gaweda, Leszek,    Leszek Gaweda  (sub No 54) sets out 8 grounds for opposing the nuclear waste dump siting selection process. He begins with the conflict of interest in the nomination of the Kimba site by  by ex Liberal politician Mr Grant Chapman, in Parliament was a strong supporter of a centralised nuclear waste facility. Best practice in the world for storage nuclear waste is to store it as close as possible to the production site (Lucas Heights in this case) not thousands of kilometres away. He points out that the local community is unaware that the majority of the wastes will be intermediate to high level, and that the minority – low level short-lived medical wastes – do not need a central specialised facility. Gaweda supports the Aboriginal resistance to the plan. Issues of groundwater pollution, flooding, and seismic activity make the area unsuitable for a nuclear waste dump. South Australia has already rejected nuclear waste dumping, with the Nuclear Waste Facility Prohibition Act 2000.
  • Giles, Mnemosyne – MNEMOSYNE GILES’ powerful submission (Sub No 51) exposes the deceit in the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF)  plan. If the Senate Inquiry is really petty-mined, perhaps they might discard this one as “irrelevant to the guidelines”.  That would be a desperate tactic to avoid the deceit and pro nuclear bias that Giles exposes. She questions the very premise on which the NRWMF is based. She recommends that this Senate Inquiry lead on to a full independent Judicial inquiry into Australia,s radioactive nuclear waste and whether we should keep producing it. You just must read this one. Here’s a little taste:

    BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT  Why is the definition of this only now being questioned? For an honest straight forward process it should have been defined at the outset. Leaving it vague has caused uncertainty, confusion, and ultimately angst and division in previously harmonious districts..Whoever decided that small remote townships should be targeted to become willing hosts for the most toxic waste ever produced, and to make a decision which would affect all of us and future generations for thousands of years? South Australian land and people have already suffered contempt and abuse from nuclear /military actions and we will not accept disenfranchisement now. Both State and Federal Govts. (lab and Lib), ape the Finnish with a mantra of “not imposing” on any unwilling community. But this is disingenuous. Finland is a nuclear nation reliant upon nuclear power, so a small local community can have some sense that it is acting in the public interest in hosting a dump. Most Australians do not want Australia to be further implicated in the nuclear fuel cycle:this is probably why we are not being asked about this dump, or given the relevant information. This is not democracy. Finland also has very different geology, with plenty of water and has an absolute veto on the transport of nuclear material across its borders (which we do not have).

    This is not a local issue but a National and a State one.

  • Hannan, Chloe.(Sub No 61)   Chloe Hannan: community mental health is a serious issue that is ignored in the nuclear waste dump site selection process. The Minister and the Department of Industry, Innovation & Science insisted that a nuclear waste dump would not be imposed on a community, but they did not set any clear target for ‘broad community support”. Just over 50% support is not good enough, and the process has left the community divided and feeling powerless. No clear information on the promised payments, which have been used to influence community consent, Hanan explains how the opinions of neighbouring communities have been ignored.  The changing rules around the process increases the mental distress of local opponents of the waste dump plan.
  • Hughes, Eddie. Eddie Hughes MP- Nuclear Waste Dump Site Selection Process is Deeply Flawed. (Submission No. 57) The trigger for the engagement process is at the heart of why this is a seriously flawed approach. The trigger for the Flinders Ranges site was totally centred on the action of one person. That person does not live in the region; he lives in Adelaide. He is an absentee landlord. This absentee landlord nominated Wallerberdina Station which is under a pastoral lease. The absentee landlord is Grant Chapman, a former Liberal Party Senator. The process adopted by the Federal Government did not call for communities to nominate a site; it called for individuals with land tenure to nominate sites, a bizarre approach which then left communities to react.  The nomination of Wallerberdina was marked and will always be marked by a complete lack of respect for the Adnyamathanha.  The nomination process in Kimba also centred on the actions of individuals and has also led to community division. Lucas Heights can easily accommodate the long-lived intermediate waste for decades to come. That is where the expertise is and that is  where the more serious waste is generated.  What has happened to date should become a case study in how not to do it.
  • Hunt, Darren and Kellie. (Sub No 80) Kimba farmers Darren and Kellie Hunt deplore the Australian government’s flawed process for selection of nuclear waste dump site. “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.               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.”
  • Independent and Peaceful Australia Network IPAN (SA) (Sub No 30) demands that the project receive 90% support from all communities involved. That includes communities along the nuclear waste transport path, those dependent on the underground water in the wider surrounding area, and indeed Sttae and national support. IPAN deplores the lack of transparency on the types of waste, and on the storage details. Aboriginal communities should receive the vservices and infrastructure that they need – not as a bribe for accepting nuclear waste.
  • James, Keri (No. 8) In a very brief submission, Ms James claims that the selection process is flawed. She questions indigenous involvement, wants wider Eyre Peninsula involvement, and “hopes for a nuclear-free future”. No details given
  • Lienert, Leanne (Sub No 50)  In a very thoughtful submission Leanne Lienert is not necessarily opposed to nuclear waste dump, but very critical of the process. She questions the logisitics and location of such a site and the long term effects on vibrant farming/rural communities. .. those buying up land are also the ones now edging to gain financially from this current waste facility proposal.. the big picture cost of transporting radioactive waste from all over Australia to a small rural community doesn’t seem to be discussed in the consultation! Lienert details the many ways in which this process has divided the community. The Eyre Peninsula and the State of South Australia are involved and need to be consulted.  There are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).  the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people
  • Madigan, Michele. (Sub No 26) 
    • Michele Madigan explains the dual nature of the government’s planned federal nuclear waste dump – i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and

    (ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).

    Sr Madigan puts the case for the ILW being stored at Lucas Heights, where all security processes are already in place, until an independent agency can investigate the matter scientifically, without political bias. She also clearly explains the problematic nature of processes used to procure “community consent” regarding the indigenous community in particular.

  • Major, Justine.  (No 16) Excellent one from Mrs Justine Major . Mrs Major is most concerned about the choice of farming land for a radioactive trash dump, and is very critical of the “community consultation” process.
  • McKenzie, Ken .(No 78)  Adnyamathanha tribal elder, Ken McKenzie, rejects pressure to agree to nuclear waste dumping at Wallerberdina. He has watched the government process, and the anguish that it has caused to his people. “We keep being told the dump may not be put on Wallerberdina Station if the community does not want it, but this has changed again as Mr Canavan said this will not necessarily be the deciding factor on his decision.” (Submission no. 78)
  • McKenzie, Regina. The Senate took a long time to publish this one(Sub No 107)  perhaps because they recognised it as the most important one? Ms McKenzie, a very well informed traditional indigenous owner of the selected are at Barndioota, focuses on on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations  regarding those rights. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) has ignored Australia’s commitment to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous  Peoples. DIIS has poorly assessed Aboriginal cultural heritage, and engaged inappropriate consultants. Potential conflicts of interests in Grant Chapman’s nomination of the Barndioota site, and Key Hawker community representatives have not been addressed.
  • McKenzie, Regina: attachment to Submission. Regina McKenzie Letter to Minister the Hon. Matthew Canavan. Here are some brief extracts:
    By ignoring the well-established Commonwealth Government consultation guidelines
    (available at www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/engage-early), it is our belief that
    the DIIS has caused significant reputational risk to the Commonwealth of Australia.
    Both the Native Title body (ATLA), and the relevant individual custodians for the project area
    have completely lost faith in the consultation process undertaken by the DIIS. The current
    program of Aboriginal community engagement for this project has all but collapsed and only
    non-relevant Aboriginal people remain on the consultative committee.
    In particular we note that the EPBC Act recognises the following three key documents as
    best practice for Aboriginal community engagement in Australia. These documents are
    particularly relevant to all projects that require approval by the Federal Minister for the
    Environment under existing EPBC Act processes:
    1. Commonwealth of Australia (COFA), 2016. Engage Early – Guidance for Proponents
    on Best Practice Indigenous Engagement for Environmental Assessments Under the
    EPBC Act’ (the Guidelines).
    2. Australian Heritage Commission (AHC), 2002. Ask First – A Guide to Respecting
    Indigenous Heritage Places and Values.
    3. Australia ICOMOS, 2013. Burra Charter and associated Practice Notes.
     
  • The Medical Association for Prevention of War (Sub No 74) calls for  for an independent inquiry into the production and management of Australia’s nuclear waste. They question THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT.  The proposed expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99 . The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply. There is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional long lived ILW generated. They deplore the misleading information provided to the rural communities now targeted for the nuclear waste dump.
  • Mitchell, Colin. (sub No 25)  Colin Mitchell’s powerful submission to the Senate finds the national radioactive waste selection process to be deceitful, with serious issues omitted. He recommens  a different process, run by an independent agency, not connected with ANSTO or ARPANSA.
  • Name Withheld (Submission No. 90) has serious concerns about the nuclear waste dump plan. “Taxpayer funded compensation above land value risks allegations of coercion.”  “Broad community support, in respect of radioactive waste management, must go beyond the immediate communities of Hawker and Kimba. ” “At the very least the communities through which radioactive waste will transit should be consulted.”  “
“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.”
  • Name Withheld (Submission No  92) Quorn resident.  Barndioota land volunteering unfair and conflict of interest? Dump would have negative effect on tourism. Transport danger. Concern about temporary storage of Intermediate Level nuclear wastes becoming stranded wastes. Barndioota a seismic area. Dubious about “broad community support”
  • Niepraschk, Anica. (Sub No 29)  Anica Niepraschk calls on the government to dismiss the Hawker and Kimba site nominations for nuclear dumping.  Ms Niepraschk investigated international processes for site selection, finding that c0-location with an existing nuclear facility [i.e. Lucas Heights] is the best option. She questions the genuineness of the community consultation, emphasises the opposition of indigenous people. In her attached report, she points out the undemocratic nature of the National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) selecting sites in States, despite all States having laws prohibiting this
  • No Dump Alliance.  (Sub No 45South Australia’s No Dump Alliance Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups, academics and concerned individuals. The Submission by South Australia’s No Dump Alliance clearly and powerfully covers the flawed process of “community support”, and states why the dump siting decision is a national matter, not just a local community one.  Aboriginal support would be crucial, but indigenous  people were not properly consulted, and in the main vehemently oppose the plan. With issues of safety/terrorism risks ignored, and “intermediate wastes” problems (stranded wastes) glossed over, the local community is not properly informed – more like bribed.  The supposed commercial value of the dump is far outweighed by the value of Flinders Ranges tourism .
  • No Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges‘ Submission [not yet published on Senate website] impresses with a strong critique of the nomination and selection process, and lack of social licence. Reminds of the importance of environmental impacts, and of Aboriginal cultural heritage.
  • NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Sub No 46)  local residents, farmers and business owners –  240 financial members consist mainly of people from Kimba and the broader Eyre Peninsula oppose nuclear waste dumping on farming land. The community consultation process has been flawed, divisive and lacks honesty, fairness and transparency. They recommend that the Minister sets a definite % for broad community support. They offer to consult with the Senate Committee of Inquiry, and to provide further consultation with a hearing. Their submission attaches 7 relevant documents.
  • Noonan, David. (Sub No 31)  In a thoroughly referenced submission, David Noonan puts a compelling argument for the Senate Committee to recommend that this nuclear waste site selection process should end now. A Store in SA is unnecessary given the safe option of Extended Storage at Lucas Heights …..This Inquiry should find no manifest need for a nuclear waste Store in SA other than Federal agenda. There is no Safety, Licensing or technical reason to bring these nuclear wastes to South Australia.  The plan would necessitate requisition of an Eyre Peninsula Port for decades of intended shipments of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste, first due from the UK in circa 2020-21. The wastes would be stranded, above ground, for 100 + years, but with no plan for permanent underground disposal. An immediate adjoining property to the proposed site is an Indigenous Protected Area. The committee should find that nuclear waste dump siting on  Adnyamathanha country in the iconic Flinders Ranges is inappropriate and must stop forthwith.
  •  Scott, Cameron, (Sub No 18)  Scott Cameron’s Submission to Senate finds process for selecting nuclear dump is misleading and faulty. I don’t believe it can be called a voluntary process when the nominator stands to receive a payment of four times the value of their land……The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage……., the affect that this could have on our exports hasn’t been taken into consideration at all….I have found them to be inconsistent and often misleading with their information…..I know that 2 Liberal party politicians were involved in land nominations both in Kimba and in Hawker and it would be interesting to see how many other Liberal associates have nominated around the country.
  • Scott, CameronSupplementary submission. Secrecy on  CSIRO  Waste and Storage Facility at Woomera. Information is now held by Department of Industry Innovation and Science or via the Kimba Consultative Committee. That Committee looks to be rigged by the Government to justify broad community support..
  • Christine Scott Submission No 14 Longterm Kimba resident.  Farming family. Deplores the division caused in the community because of this project.  “I strongly reject the presumption implied by the Government that one, or in Kimba’s case two individuals have the right to decide that: –(a) A nuclear dump can be placed in a grain growing area relying on export markets for its existence.(b) Can ignore their own State Law prohibiting such a dump.”“Regarding storing very long term Intermediate Level Wastes the decision is actually irreversible, surely broad community support should be at an absolute minimum 66%. This is the figure I understand is required for a constitutional change.”  She lists problems about the jobs promised, the type of waste, the unsuitability of Kimba, as compared with Lucas Heights for a nuclear waste storage location, the effect not only on agricultural land, but on overseas customers‘ perception of agricultural produce from  a nuclear waste dump area.
  • Scott, Toni.(Sub No 44)   Toni Scott. In a submission with detailed facts and figures, and 5 attachments,  asks the question – Will the government hound the Kimba and Hawker communities until they support nuclear waste dumping?  She explains the reality that there is NOT community support for the nuclear waste dump, and that the Department of Industry, Science and Innovation has given no clear definition of what they mean by “broad community support”. She recommends that community support would need to be at least 70%, and that residents of the Eyre Peninsula and communities along potential freight routes should be consulted. South Australians should have the opportunity to have their say on the State Legislation prohibiting the building of any Radioactive Waste Facilities within our state.  Local communities should not have to bribed with promises of health and communication services that they should be entitled to, anyway. She deplores the biased composition of the  Kimba Consultative Committee, and the appointment of an openly pro nuclear  Community Liaison Officer. She demands clarity on the planned facility, type of radioactive trash and financial aspects.
  • Sisters of St Joseph   Josephite Justice Office(No 68) find the Terms of Reference for Senate Inquiry on Nuclear Waste Dumping to be ‘grossly inadequate”. They point out the adverse financial risks of a nuclear waste dump set up in an agricultural area, the damage to tourism in the iconic Flinders Ranges. There is a lack of broad community support, and a disrespect for Aboriginal opinions and heritage. They ask the Senate to consider the long term consequences, for children, grandchildren and beyond.
  • Stokes, Brett. Brett’s submission was sent to the Senate committee in February 2018, but still not published. He focuses on the narrow scope of the Community consultations and on the illegality of the campaign for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia.  Hundreds of Australian have signed a letter concerning this illegality.
  • Brett Stokes’ appendices to his submission: Brett explains how the process towards a nuclear waste facility in South Australia has persistently been in breach of S.A. law. Section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 – prohibits spending public money to finance the pursuit of a nuclear waste facility
  • Taylor, Anna. ( No 82) Anna Taylor: Lucas Heights is the appropriate place, with the technology and expertise, for temporary storage of nuclear wastes. “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” “Community consultation” must include the Eyre Peninsula, all South Australians, and all populations along the transport route. The process was poor, and the people were not properly informed about the radioactive waste.
  • Thomas, Janette. (no 36)  Janette Thomas explains the biased nature of the “community consultations for Barndioota as the site for nuclear waste dumping. She notes the inadequate discussion of intermediate Level Wastes being included in this temporary dump – before there is any plan for their permanent disposal . She provides (in attachments) evidence of the seismic danger in the area, and also of flooding risks. She outlines the costs of this whole process of persuasion.
  • Tiller, Janet. (No 9) Janet Tiller has deep concerns over this  plan to dump radioactive trash on agricultural land. Also over the lack of inclusion of the wider community, with whole of Eyre Peninsula farming area at risk of losing  its “ Clean Green” image. And at the pro nuclear bias in the committee formed to manage the grant money.
  • Tulloch, Bob. (No 87) Bob Tulloch dissects Australian govt’s nuclear waste dump “community consultation” and finds it dishonest. Department of  Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) apparently aimed to change the boundaries, in order to  manipulate the outcome of  community surveys. It constantly used misleading vernacular – e.g. using phrase “65% not opposed, to imply 65% in favour. The financial incentives are unbalanced and questionable. He gives two telling examples of deceptive behaviour by DIIS, and shows up the waflly and misleading responses of Resources Minister Canavan.
  • Tulloch, Ruth. (No 62)   Ruth Tulloch finds  “community consultation” by National Radioactive Waste Management to be no more than  ” a huge, expensive marketing exercise “. She relates her personal experience of the process, from the original meeting at the Quorn Town Hall back in early 2016, through the phone survey, and many months of unsatisfactory consultations, with biased and inadequate information given. Questions to the French expert, about groundwater risks, seismic danger, flooding – were quickly shut down. she suggests  Lucas Heights as a suitable area for this temporary facility. She queries the validity of the coming vote on siting the waste dump – will it be “an ambiguous question that is written to get an outcome favourable for the departments Selection process”
  • Tulloch, Sue. (No 32)  Sue Tulloch’s scathing criticism of the federal nuclear waste dump process and shambolic Barndioota Consultative Committee. An untenable process, as former senator Grant Chapman, who does not live in Barndioota area, nominated his property, unbeknownst to those either next door to the Barndioota site boundary, or in the surrounding  areas. Barndioota survey was full of errors and unsubstantiated generalisations, questionable methodology and data obtained.  Responses to my personal communications and meeting with Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) were inadequate – my questions were not addressed. Shambolic role of the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC)  Public observers (myself and another) not especially invited as speakers by the DIIS, were very obviously not welcomed. After being told the whole days’ business could not proceed if we stayed,( an invidious position to be put in), we were individually, forcibly escorted out by the DIIS representative      What a farcical example of ‘ensuring the community is fully engaged! The BCC is  a marketing exercise to manufacture community consent. Wider Australian community should be consulted. Most South Australians are unaware.
  • Wakelin, Barry (no 23) Barry Wakelin (Submission no. 23) asks those very hard questions about the Kimba/Hawker nuclear waste dump plan. Here are a few of them: request the Australian National Audit Office to examine the use of taxpayers’ money at Kimba and Hawker for the purpose of “encouraging” the locals to see things the government’s way on nuclear waste.Any one who treated the government view with other than a YES was treated abysmally – and certainly with not one cent of taxpayer largesse to make the alternative case. It has been a disgrace to our democracy.Is it reasonable for the government to claim as has been made within the process, that Kimba can become a 300 year government supported town based on nuclear waste?the government moves their Campaign Office in to the Main Street, to promote the propaganda of the benefits of a dump, which no one else in Australia wants. – But there’s more!
  • Wakelin, Christine. (no 22)  Christine Wakelin is very sceptical of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce’s methods and plans, especially the propaganda about nuclear medicine. She questions the assumptions about “community support”, is concerned about the effect on the region’s agricultural economy.
  • Walker. Barbara. (no 20)  Barbara Walker highlights the damaging impact of the waste dump on tourism, the flawed opinion surveys, harmful effects on Aboriginal people, and the illgality of the nuclear waste dump plan.
  • Wauchope, Noel. (no 21)  Noel Wauchope Submission for the public good. Stresses importance of generalist, not just “expert” opinion being considered. Notes that, with no discussion, South Australia is already assumed to be the location for the dump. “Community support”must involve the wider South Australian and Australian community. Queries the type of wastes – Low Level and Intermediate Level being lumped together.
  • Wetherby, Ken and Carole. Ken and Carole Wetherby demand that Eyre Peninsula remain ‘clean and green’. (Submission No.12) They emphasise the unique ability of the area to remain isolated from polluting industries, bounded as it is by Spencers Gulf, the Nullarbor Plain and pastoral land to the north. Essentially the ‘community benefit program’ is a bribe and that is what it should be called.   the level of community support required for acceptance should be set at a 2/3 majority- then stick to this figure – don’t ‘waffle. The establishment of a radioactive waste management facility at Kimba will have an effect on the whole of Eyre Peninsula, not just the Kimba Council area and we should all be allowed to have our say.
  • Whittenbury, Holly. (no 81)   Holly Whittenbury on Nuclear dump siting- Aboriginal issues, tourism impact Ms Whittenbury strongly sees the siting decision as a State and National matter, not just a local one.  She highly values the opinions of  Adnyamathanha Indigenous groups, with their intrinsic connection to the land.  She warns on the tourism impact, and is strongly critical of the conflict of interest of nominations by white farmers, especially Grant Chapman.

**************************************************************************************************************

PRO NUCLEAR SUBMISSIONS

Ashworth, Peta. (No 52) Professor Peta Ashworth  School of Chemical Engineering University of Queensland, co-Chair of the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) carefully confines her discussion to exactly the Terms of Reference. She is impressed by theopen and transparent nature of the site selection process “and the way that the DIIS engages with “ affected stakeholders and communities “. She describes rather than comments herself on the process. Re financial compensation “ this offer was judged as fair by those volunteering their land.” In the NRWMF process:“There was a consistent view that the community should be limited to those in close proximity to the nominated site” . She skirts around the Indigenous question. “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.” Ashworth avoids expressing personal opinions, by regular use of the passive tense – “it was agreed” “ it is recognised”, “Indigenous people are considered”. She avoids making judgments, prefers giving sage social advice, but seems to conclude in favour of the process.

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)  (Submission No 58)  This submission does not address the Terms of Reference for the Senate Inquiry.  It is basically a hymn of praise to ANSTO itself – “its unique expertise to the production of lifesaving nuclear medicine” etc. It outline’s ANSTO’s strong involvement in providing information to the communities in Kimba and Hawker, on radiation and  radioactive materials. It has hosted many tours  of Lucas Heights (doesn’t say who paid for these, but probably the tax-payer) . Discusses Finland and Canada, and compares the NRWMF processes.  “In ANSTO’s view, the NRWMF site selection process is meeting or exceeding current international best practice across all aspects.”

Baldock, Andrew, (No. 38) Andrew Baldock (offered his land for nuclear waste dump) dismisses objections to the plan. He is sure that no-one would offer land just for the financial compensation. He outlines the history of the nominations and consultation process, and says that there will be another vote. AS to “broad community support” – he says “I think it needs to be left to the minister’s discretion as to what determines “broad community support”      What has become very clear to me throughout this process is that no matter how well consulted, how robust the science is or how clear the consent from the local community is, the well established anti-nuclear movement will attack the process from another angle with no accountability for their claims.” He is confident that the project will have no negative impact. “The reality is that you could run the process a hundred different ways and it will always be attacked by those opposed as a means to create division and distrust.”

Baldock, Bev. (Submission No. 72) Bev Baldock is comfortable with the information supplied by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and their experts. On community consultation – “I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.” She is very keen about the jobs and economic benefits that the project will bring to the community. (No facts, details or references supplied.

Heather Baldock’s sycophantic submission (No 64) supports nuclear waste dump for Kimba. Longterm farmer. I am very excited by the opportunities that hosting the National radioactive low level disposal and intermediate storage facility would bring to our area. “ Financial compensation OK. “‘broad community support’ is the majority (more than 50%) of the Kimba District supportive of hosting the National Facility, “ “I don’t believe there is call for organisations, politicians, or individuals, or others outside of our district who don’t contribute to our local social and economic viability being considered in the ‘broad community support’. “ Community Benefit Fund has not influenced many people in their views. Though Ms Baldock thinks that the waste dump will boost the local economy, she still thinks that any community prepared to host such a dump deserves such financial benefits. “The wider Eyre Peninsula and even the state of SA have not had the same opportunities to become so learned. Therefore the community outside of Kimba is not in a position to make an informed decision as to whether Kimba should host a Facility. Also the facility will have no impact on the wellbeing or lifestyles of wider communities. “ “Activists and politicians who have been using the NRWMF project as a vehicle for their anti-nuclear stance should not be entitled to any say in the vote of whether Kimba moves to Phase 3.“ Baldock can barely contain her enthusiasm for ANSTO

Baldock, Jeff. (No 39) This is a very straightforward submission. Jeff Baldock (volunteered his land) sees the Kimba waste dump selection vote as a matter for locals only. He avoids the question of indigenous support – referring readers to Minister Canavan on this. He find the Community Benefit Program to be “a very welcome” relief from financial strain. He confines his discussion to the selection process, which resulted in a 57% “yes” vote in the local community.  Unusually, for a pro nuclear submission, Baldock does acknowledge the visits from the environmental movement, opposing the dump. He concludes that only the Kimbal local should vote on teh site selection. “All the information sessions have been aimed at the Kimba community therefore I think it would be unfair to invite people outside this area to give an informed view.”

Barford, Shaun.  (Sub 83) Kimba hotel owner. Shaun Barford approves of Nuclear Waste Dump Siting Process, thanks the “caring” Federal Government.

Pat Beinke (submission No.17) is very pleased with all the guest speakers,and very happy with the financial aspects (sycophantic in tone, no facts given)

Carpenter, Denise. (Sub mission No 1) Financial compensation OK. Indigenous people are represented, Community Benefit Program hasn’t influenced people. Nuclear waste dump will “mean the long term survival of the town”. Community well informed by DIIS.“I find it interesting that broad community support is being considered -I have never known community support to be a consideration for other businesses, ventures, opportunities in SA ” “I believe that it is not necessary to involve wider community views – it does not affect them”
“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”

Carpenter, Ian. (No. 3) Ian Carpenter Hawker long term resident. Glad Hawker has this opportunity. Financial compensation not an incentive for people to offer their land. This Inquiry not needed. Some indigenous people oppose the dump, but “Broad community support was established” (no facts given). Sees no need for the nuclear waste dump to be seen as problematic – sees “no negatives” “This repository would ensure our towns survival”.” It will not affect the application for a World Heritage Listing in our area. “

Clements, Annie (No 35) . Annie Clements –  happy to see nuclear waste dump “powering Kimba community into the future”. She is “completely comfortable” with a nuclear waste dump. Following all the expert advice given, and the above 50% votes, it’ all go.  “People outside our area could be influenced by anti nuclear scare campaigns and wild allegations that have no relevance to this facility. There will be no negative impact from this facility on land adjacent to it, let alone outside the district.” They outline the history of the process toward a nuclear waste dump, with enthusiastic approval, and are very proud that they are so well informed by ANSTO. 

Cliff, Kerri and Trevor. ( No 65) Kimba Farming family, involved in community organisations.  They show a touching faith in Rowan Ramsey and the whole ANSTO pro nuclear propaganda.  “We have nothing but support for the proposal that one of these properties may become the successful host of the facility.” Financial compensation is OK. 50% vote is broad community support. Believe that Aborigines have had “a fair opportunity for input” As for consultation with Eyre Peninsula and wider community, Kerri says she has talked with many of them and they “have nothing but support for the project.” Confusion has been created by “a strong ‘fear’ campaign” .  “Eyre Peninsula and South Australia) will not be well informed enough to warrant a valid contribution to the discussion.”

Department of Industry Innovation and Science. (DIIS) (No. 40) Long submission with lots of annexures. Start by touting the importance of nuclear medicine., and disposing of low level medical wastes. Touches ever so lightly on intermediate level nuclear reactor wastes.  The history of searching for a dump site, and a reminder that “community engagement  and support” is not required by law: the decision is at the Minister’s discretion.  DIIS retains a permanent presence in the local community, and provides experts from ANSTO. “the department’s consultation process is open to receive submissions from any interested parties including from members of the public who reside outside the nominating communities.”

This submission is in essence a long story detailing the DIIS’ activities in the Fliners Ranges region, to develop community consent for the establishment of a nuclear waste dump .

Frank Harris (No. 24) (a bit more factual and detailed) spends some time touting his qualifications as a health physicist. States that the consultation is consistent with international best practice, quoting  Swedish Forsmark Repository. Waffles around the a question of “broad community support”.

Hawker Community Development Board (No 47) a staunch supporter of nuclear waste dump proposal. No problems with financial compensation. “Broad community support” involves just the local Hawker community, not outsiders. “The HCDB has been informed that the indigenous community hold a broad community support for the project ”  “. State-wide are more concerned about the state government piggy backing off the Federal facility and bringing in high level waste (this has been publicised numerous times as not being able to occur)”  “We are the ones that have looked at the potential benefits and negativity that the proposal brings and have chosen to support the proposal. State-wide lives will to continue as they currently are regardless of the facility occurring, whereas our lives have the potential to be enhanced.” “Our neighbours do not have to tell us if they are going to sell their house or rent it out to someone, so we fail to see how this is any different”

Haywood, Chelsea. (No 2) Chelsea Haywood Hawker Big community volunteer. Says only local residents should have a say “Outsidersdo not care if Hawker dies a slow death due to lack of employment etc”.There are no risks in the nuclear waste dump plan. Confident that the government will consider indigenous people – they’re “getting the best help possible” – but she is really quite vague on this. “Broad community should be held to the current area that is being used and could probably even be made smaller.”Opposes the S.A. State having any say. “If Barndioota is selected it will hold no impact whatsoever for Adelaide, the Limestone Coast or elsewhere.” Suggests that local people support the nuclear waste dump, but are intimidated into silence.

Heard, Ben Pro nuclear enthusiasm in Ben Heard’s submission (No 15) to the Senate. Posing as a great environmentalist, Heard downplays the importance of safety risks, confines community involvement to the immediate local community, glosses over the very toxic wastes included, and the fact that wastes will be stranded with no permanent dump planned.

Member of the Independent assessment Panel 2015-2016 seeking dump site. Non executive director of Bright New World. Wants expansion of Lucas Heights. Nuclear reactor.. Nuclear technologies improve human well-being- lists these benefits. No problem iwith financial compensation for land – have to pay 4 times over land value because alarm is attracted re nuclear.. Waffles on about “community Support” AEC vote of 57.4% of local residents and authorities to amount to “broad community support”.

Indigenous people – Aboriginal Advisory Committee and Bangarla people should be consulted, heritage surveys should be done. Community Benefit Programme “should be applauded” for “impacting community sentiment in a positive way” – will build trust.

District Council of Kimba boundary is an appropriate definition of community. Eyre Peninsula consideration is not appropriate.. He recommends several educational activities in information programme. Rest of Australia should not be consulted on siting choice. Must not :strip local communities of their agency” . Heard gives copious (22) references.

Hennessy, John (Sub No 7) , Hawker resident , is “bubbling with enthusiasm” for nuclear waste dump in Hawker. “Hawker has a great opportunity to become involved with the wonderful work ANSTO perform” “a once in a lifetime opportunity”  He comments on  apetition opposing the project, noting that most signatories come from outside Hawker. 

Johnson, Donna.  (No 27)  Donna Johnson is enthusiastic about the Kimba nuclear waste dump selection process. She very definitely believes that this is a matter for the local community only, not for Eyre Peninsula or the State. She is proud that the community is well informed by the experts from the NRWMF taskforce.  She believes that the process has been fair, that the “right” Aboriginal representatives are consulted, and the 50% plus one is sufficient to amount to broad community support. The project is for the community benefit, and the children’s future. Those who nominated their land did so solely for that reason.

Joyce, Jodie. (No 33) Jodie Joyce thinks that  the financial compensation offered to the land owners (four times the value of the land) is fair, and that those who volunteered their land were not motivated by the money. She gives a vague definition of “broad community support”. She says that Kimba is struggling, population declining, so “we are in need of a life line”. “ The possibilities this facility could provide a small failing community is endless with jobs, the infastructure and many beneficial health care related services.” Ms Joyce shows a touching faith in the Department of Industry Innovation and Science’s (DIIS)’s interaction with Aborigines, and Aboriginal support (but gives no evidence). Based on what sounds like a continuing blanket of propaganda from DIIS, and trips to ANSTO, she is confident that Kimba Community is the informed and only community to make the decision on siting the waste dump. She says that the community is NOT divided and that ” There is a handful of residents whom behaviour is subpar and I personally hope that they will keep their negative thoughts to themselves

Kemp, Lyn and Claire (No.88) This submission is a declaration of faith in the nuclear industry . They say that Information provided to community has been good. Financial benefit to land owners “has no bearing on any decision”.  We don’t need broader views outside the District Council of Kimba . “We can only see a positive outcome for our town. “ – jobs, “more essential town services “, good for business – “The town is struggling and the population is declining.”

Kimba District Council. (No 19) Kimba District Council seems mainly concerned about getting finances and services, in return for hosting nuclear wastes.   “Council remains of the view that its Local Government area represents the best reflection of the wishes of its community.”       “Kimba has been visited by  a multitude of experts..”  “Associate Professor Geoff Currie believed that Kimba was now one of the most educated communities in the country on radioactive waste….”  “Council would expect that the Australia Government would provide specificity on what financial and service benefits it will provide, and how these will be administered through the National radioactive waste Management Act (2012) before a final ballot occurs.”

Koch, Daryl (No 75)  Daryl Koch has “no  concerns for a radioactive waste facility being built either here in the Kimba district or elsewhere.”, having visited ANSTO. He puts the argument for “broad community support”, and advocates an AEC vote, with direct neighbour support and District Council support. He says he will vote Yes “when I am assured that the facility can be built to international best practice and that there will be no adverse effect to people, the environment and our livelihood.” ( a somewhat contradictory statement when one reads on). Koch is very impressed with the Department of Industry Innovation and Science, and with ANSTO. He is most definite that only Kimba residents should have a say, because a nuclear waste facility will have no negative impact on Kimba oe elsewhere. “Nuclear activists have been questioning the ‘process’ and spread false information but they have no interest in Kimba”

Koch, Katrina. “(no. 28) Katrina Koch is sure that the financial compensation is not extravagant, as indeed, agricultural use would bring in more. The was te dump will not affect the neighbours. She sees “broad community support” as involving the local Kimba residents. Neighbours’ support is 90%’, and “any number over 50% is an indication of support for the project”. She is vague about Aboriginal support.  “The nuclear waste facility will benefit the community and the country as a whole.”

Lienert, Matthew and Meagan –Matthew and Meagan Lienert (No 53) Kimba resident. Teacher, married to farmer. Approve of financial compensation to land offered for site. “broad community support” – waffle a bit here about wide collection of evidence for the Kimba district. They feel that the assessments with Indigenous community “satisfy all necessary laws and requirements “ Waffles about Community Benefit Program. “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.” “we do not believe that people have based their support or non-support on this program”. “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 “

 Community consultation should not be widened: “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 “ “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”

“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.”

McInnis, Janice (Sub No 4)  – a nuclear waste dump will ensure the future for Hawker town. The standard arguments – “Broad community support means it is supported by a majority of people who live and work in that community.” ” local Indigenous support has been sought and will continue to be sought in the same way.” I don’t believe that wider community views need to be taken into consideration as the project does not have a direct impact on them.” Anti nuclear arguments have ” been refuted by experts in the field.”

Milton, Margaret and Charlie. (N0.34) This yet another enthusiastic approval of the Kimba dump plan and the selection process. To them, the decision involves solely the local community. They view Kimba as pretty much a dying town, which will be saved by the dump. They base their confidence on their meetings with Rowan Ramsey, Matt Canavan, a team from France, and the ever present Department of Industry Innovation and Science. They list the benefits to the town, and conclude that “It’s a shame we

Morgan, Jessica.(no.37) Jessica Morgan  enthusiastically  endorses ANSTO and the nuclear waste dump plan for Kimba. This is another “act of faith”, in that she believes firmly in the plan (for the short term) as it will bring essential services, employment etc. ” I have stood next to and touched the canister containing the intermediate level waste with my 9 month old baby in a carrier on my chest, feeling totally confident of my own safety and that of my child.” Morgan thinks that the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is so different from a commercial nuclear reactor, that (apparently)  its wastes are nothing to worry about.  Unsurprisingly Morgan believes that only the narrowly defined local area residents should decide, and anyway she has “full confidence in the department deciding on the definition of broad community support.” Unusually, for such a pro nuclear stance, Morgan does recognise that some Aborigines are opposed to the dump. She shows a lack of understanding of the types of waste planned for this Kimba dump, saying  “someone living in Adelaide is already living near nuclear waste.”

Name Withheld ( Sub No 11) ” broad community support is majority rules ” ” the Eyre Peninsula and wider state should not get any say/vote in the matter ” ” My husband and I were fortunate enough to visit Lucas Heights, and all of our questions were answered thoroughly by experts and those who work with the waste. It would be nice to put the matter to rest, choose a site and build the facility now. ”  (No facts given)
Name withheld (No 89) Lifelong Kimba residents- another repetitive pro nuclear submission re nuclear waste dump siting. “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.”  “what is happening in our community is for our Community and only our community. It is our back yard no one else’s. “We can only see positive outcomes for our town ” “we feel the facility might be a lifeline for the town. The town is struggling. ” ” We don’t think this enquiry is required as we feel communities know what is best for them. “

Name Withheld (Submission No  91) Lifelong Kimba resident. Financial compensation is OK. Local community vote above 50% means broad community support. “this community is the most informed “ “We don’t appear to have indigenous concerns as we don’t have any active groups in the area. “ Wider community should not be involved. “exciting development for Kimba’ future “

ORIMA Research submission re nuclear waste dump siting- all about their survey methods (Submission 108)

Orman, Melanie (No 77) I try to be objective, but this one I find breathtaking in Melanie Orman’s naivety and enthusiasm for a Kimba nuclear waste dump – a kind of an act of faith!. She gives an odd and waffly definition of “broad community support”. As the Department of Industry Innovation and Science, and Minister Matt Canavan, visited, met many local people, and accepted the land nominations “I think this shows really clearly that there has been enough support for the community to participate in this next stage, no question” However, she does go on to give factual evidence for this community support. Ms Orman sees the nuclear dump as a job provider, that will save Kimba ” for many more generations to come.” Ms Orman writes as having an “educated opinion about this matter”, having visited ANSTO, and that “the decision should be that of the community of Kimba only”the community of Kimba will have the most educated evidence and findings to make the informed decision” “I do trust and believe that this facility will not have a negative impact of the community of Kimba”

Regional Development Australia Far North (RDA Far North)  (Submission No. 41) states that it maintains a neutral position”, but nevertheless, goes on to show that it is keenly interested in participating in any business programmes connected with the NRWMF and the Community Benefits program . It maintains a very wishy-washy attitude as  to  who should be part of. “broad community support” . However, its submission does provide some interesting insights:  “There are approximately 1,770 residing in the ‘broader community’ area, and this original survey result now only represents 16.5% of the population.”  “the views of the wider population who visit, pass through and stay in these areas could be considered in the overall picture as an element in a broad consultation process.”“whilst a Statewide viewpoint has a role, it should not be a deciding factor”

David Schmidt (No. 13) is  “comfortable and satisfied with the prospect of Kimba hosting a site for the proposed nuclear waste facility. After attending the many public meetings and information sessions and also visiting the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor sight I am completely satisfied that the waste repository poses no threats to our or any other community ”  ” a strong advocate in believing that only the District Council area should be able to vote on the establishment of a national radioactive waste facility at Kimba. This 100 ha facility will not impact on any other area”   (obsequious tone, no facts given).
South Australian Branch Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS)  (Submission No 66) confines its discussion to radioactive wastes coming from medical radioisotopes, and seems unaware that intermediate level wastes are also included in the nuclear waste dump plan. It recommends that, as well as local community opinions should be sought,  the process should include opinions of :

“1) South Australians who utilise radioisotopes in medicine, industry and research, particularly those who are responsible for management of waste radioactive materials

2) (where practicable) the many tens of thousands of South Australians from all parts of the community who have benefitted from diagnosis or treatment of life-threatening medical conditions using radioisotopes produced in Australia at the Lucas Heights facility.”

ARPS recommends  a centralised radioactive waste facility.” Any local community which accepts the establishment of a facility is providing a valuable service to the Australian community with minimal associated risk.”

South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy (SACOME).  (Sub no 69) In a very short submission, SACOME supports the plan for nuclear waste dump for Kimba or Hawker. SACOME views the site selection process as one that is “specifically relevant to those local communities identified as possible site locations”.    ” it is questionable as to whether wider community views have sufficient connection to the proposed facility to justify them being taken into consideration.” Seeming to look only at the short term SACOME  sees the nuclear waste dump as having “potential to create significant economic benefit to local communities.”

Robyn Stewart. (No. 10) “Whenever I have spoken to people elsewhere, I have found that most people get the low level repository confused with the high level facility that the State Government held a citizen’s jury on. Therefore, I feel the wider community beyond our council boundary would not have the knowledge to make an informed decision.” (No facts given)

Angelina Stuart (sub No. 112)  Angelina Stuart describes her Aboriginal backround, and deplores what she says are lies being told about dreamtime stories. “It’s a lie to say the stories and lore of the land would disappear if a facility was built on Wallerberdina. “ She appreciates the selection process and hopes for the Adnyamathanha people to work at the nuclear waste facility and to explain their culture to non indigenous people. She sees the project as providing jobs for her children and grandchildren

Taylor, Steven (Sub No 5) Steven Taylor believes in nuclear waste dump, as ensuring a future for Hawker. Financial compensation is OK. “In relation to neighbors complaining that they were not consulted is not an issue with the selection process. I as a home owner do not have to consult with my neighbors if I wish to sell my property, why should a land owner. ” “There are sections of the community that are against the proposal in the Hawker area and that is understandable but overall my understanding is that the broader community is in favor of this.” “from the information I have been given that there is a large indigenous  support for this project in the area.”  “ I do not believe that this should be a STATE view as this will have no impact on them that I can see.”
Wells, Dolores. (No 48)  Dolores Wells: nuclear waste dump will save Kimba’s future: Shame on Vocal Anti-Nuclear Critics! Wells’ children own Kimba farm. A nuclear waste dump will not discourage Wells from visiting Kimba. Financial compensation is OK. On indigenous support She is confident that “liaison with the Barngarla people has occurred” “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”

Yes to 45. (Sub no. 111)  Ian Carpenter, Chelsea Haywood, John Hennessy and Janice McInnis sent in another submission to the Senate, on 19 July – Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Facility They call themselves “Say Yes to 45 Jobs”.This submission consists entirely of criticism of, indeed an attack on, the Flinders Local Action Group (FLAG), (no mention of jobs, or any other aspect of the process)  . They claim that FLAG used deceptive means to oppose the nuclear waste plan for Wallerberdina. They criticise the FLAG survey, FLAG’s distribution of petition forms, and FLAG’s submission to the Senate. They criticise Flag’s criticising of the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC) and  DIIS personnel. “FLAG have no regard for the truth or scientific fact”. They single out Dr Susan Anderson. They include FLAG’s brochure, with survey questions. (I have not, so far, been able to copy this submission)

Pro nuclear enthusiasm in Ben Heard’s submission to the Senate. Posing as a great environmentalist, Heard downplays the importance of safety risks, confines community involvement to the immediate local community, glosses over the very toxic wastes included, and the fact that wastes will be stranded with no permanent dump planned.

April 8, 2018 Posted by | | Comments Off on SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18

Nuclear waste dumping decisions promoted as just a “local” issue – Australia unaware

How a planned nuclear waste dump in the tiny SA town of Kimba impacts us all, Independent Australia,  Should a remote farming community in South Australia be charged with the momentous decision of storing radioactive waste? Noel Wauchope reports.

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S drive for a national radioactive trash dump continues.

It is being depicted by the Federal Government and the media as not a national matter. Indeed, it’s now not even a State matter concerning South Australia. It is now portrayed as just a local matter for small rural areas such as Kimba — population 1,100.

However, an opinion poll in Adelaide Now showed strong rejection of the plan for a nuclear waste dump at Kimba.

Kimba is an agricultural area, most noted for bushfires (Kimba means “bushfire”), wheat farming and a giant statue of a galah.

At the moment, Kimba is well in the running to host the national radioactive trash dump. In 2017, a Kimba town vote favouring this was 396 to 294 in favour. Not an overwhelming endorsement from this small community, but enough to keep enthusiasm for the project going, seeing as the matter is apparently of little concern to the rest of the State or the nation.

How come that Kimba is such a likely place for the dump?

Australia’s nuclear lobby has for decades been pursuing its plan for importing nuclear waste. In more recent years, this nuclear push has also turned its focus towards a dump for Australia’s own nuclear waste. The Australian Government, directed by its statutory body Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), joined in this because ANSTO is obligated by contract to deal with the high-level waste returning to Australia from processing in France and the UK. This waste is currently stored in containers at Lucas Heights in Sydney……….

in 2018, ANSTO and the ever-persistent nuclear lobby are going for what appears to be a moderate aim — the same old “low level” nuclear waste dump that Howard sought in 1998. The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 stressed the idea that the selection of a site should be “consent-driven” — though, in fact, it gives the Federal Government extraordinary powers to override state/territory governments, councils, communities, traditional owners and, indeed, anyone else.

With the emphasis on landowners volunteering sites – and with financial inducements offered – rural South Australians were encouraged to come forward.

The Turnbull Government claimed it had:

‘ … widespread support from direct neighbours of the nominated properties.’

Farmer Jeff Baldock nominated his property – and will be paid four times its value – if his offer is successful. Wallerberdina Station, near Hawker, has volunteered. Both communities can expect $2 million in government grants plus a $10 million fund for community development for the chosen site.

No wonder that there’s enthusiasm for the project in this somewhat economically stressed area. However, strong opposition to the dump continues from traditional owners the Adnyamathanhapeople and from 204 paid-up members of the Kimba local group, No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District.

The process has been fraught with problems, starting with the problem of overriding South Australia’s law against setting up nuclear waste facilities.

Because the discussion has been confined to communities in the region, there is little input from experts other than those provided by ANSTO. Farming community members have been transported to Lucas Heights at ANSTO’s expense and given reassuring technical information on nuclear waste storage in canisters. ANSTO medical and nuclear experts have been running science lessons in schools and offering hopes of scholarships to ANSTO.

A very problematic area, indeed, is the fraudulent story about storage of “low-level medical wastes” being the purpose of the facility. The practice of nuclear medicine has in no way been adversely affected by the absence of a national repository and it won’t in any way benefit from the establishment of a repository thousands of kilometres away from Lucas Heights. The real need is to store the processed spent fuel rod waste returning to Lucas Heights from France and the UK. This is classified by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) as “high level” waste.

An equally problematic area is in the temporary nature of the planned waste storage. This long-lasting radioactive trash will require burial for its thousands of years of toxicity. Kimba – or whichever area ends up with this facility – is facing the risk of “stranded” nuclear waste.

An Adelaide Now article (no longer available online) quoted a local teacher, Meagan Lienert, assuring us that she has done the research and that the waste facility would not affect the local farming environment. This illustrates a major problem with the way that this issue is being pitched to the locals.

As food produce marketing expert Kristen Jelk discussed in community discussions last year on the South Australian Government site, ‘Your Say’ the perception of clean, green South Australia is all-important. The presence of a nearby nuclear waste dump would ruin that market.

Similarly, Kimba farmer Justine Major wrote to the Eyre Peninsula Tribune, concerned about the image of the local agricultural produce if the radioactive dump should go ahead.

While some in Kimba, including its Mayor, are keen for further investigation of the project as a promising boost for the local economy, are they aware of the irony in that Kimba was, in 2017 State winner of KESAB’s Sustainable Communities top town? This award honours the community that does the most to protect the environment and embrace sustainability.

They hope to go on to win the Australian title.

The Federal Government has set up consultative committees at the local level to advise on the radioactive waste facility proposal. Perhaps it is time for the rest of Australia to have a say. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/how-a-planned-nuclear-waste-dump-in-the-tiny-sa-town-of-kimba-impacts-us-all,11102

January 17, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment