Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Is Napandee, (Jeff Baldock’s property) near Kimba the govt’s chosen site for expanded nuclear waste dump?

Federal Government denies claims it has a preferred site for radioactive waste storage in South Australia, Advertiser, 8 July 19,

A Kimba property is allegedly the frontrunner for a future nuclear waste dump, a source claims – but it’s disputed by the Federal Government which says no favoured site has been picked.

The Federal Government says it is yet to select a favoured site for its proposed radioactive waste facility, rebuffing claims that a Kimba property is the frontrunner.

A spokesman for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science also says the Government is not bound to wait until a court case on the issue is finalised before selecting the best place for the contentious development.

A source close to the project has claimed the waste storage site is now likely to be at least 60 per cent bigger than previously envisaged.

The Government is considering three sites for the radioactive waste facility – two near Kimba and one near Hawker.

A Kimba-based consultative committee is due to meet next month to discuss the project.

The source believes Napandee – a property 25km northwest of Kimba – is the Government’s preferred site and next month’s meeting will discuss revised requirements for the proposed waste site.

“There’s a rumour getting around town that Napandee is the one they’ve chosen and it seems to align with this revelation over the last week that they suddenly have to increase the size of the land from 100ha to 160ha or 170ha,” the source said.

“Whoever gets the site is going to get 70 per cent more money because it’s a bigger parcel.

“They’ve always said that there would be cropping and agricultural trials at the (land) that’s not being used for the buildings. Apparently now the safety regulator has said that is not going to happen.”

Various stakeholders The Advertiser spoke to believed there would be little progress on the project until after a legal challenge was complete.

The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation took Kimba Council to court in January over its plan run a community ballot to determine the level of support for the dump, arguing it was discriminatory.

Napandee owner Jeff Baldock said the Kimba community was awaiting the court ruling.

“There’s not much happening – obviously things are still ticking along quietly in case it happens,” Mr Baldock said. (Baldock and family at left)

Once a court decision was made “we can get our vote and get on with it”, he said.

Kimba chief executive Deb Larwood said the community was “in a holding pattern” until the case was finalised.

A spokesman for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said community ballots were suspended last year because of the court challenge, but the department was also aware “the community would like to see a decision as soon as possible”.

The Government was not required to wait until the court process was complete.

“The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 provides the (Resources) Minister (Matt Canavan) with discretion to make decisions in relation to nominations and site selection,” he said.

“That said, it has been stated consistently that if there is no broad support for the facility then it will not be imposed on a community.”

The Government had no strict definition of “broad support” for the proposed site, which would measure at least 100ha.

That would be determined by a range of factors, including submissions, feedback from the community in meetings, conversations with neighbours and “the results of any ballot if one proceeds”.

The spokesman said it had been agreed the site could include “community-led agricultural research and development” but the exact nature of this was yet to be determined.

 

Advertisements

July 9, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

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

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

Some caustic comments on Minister Canavan’s closed nuclear waste dump meeting in Hawker S.A.

These comments refer to both the article above and to the one discussed at  https://antinuclear.net/2019/08/17/nuclear-waste-kimba-committee-even-discussed-transitioning-out-of-the-site-selection-process/

Raised eyebrows amongst anti-nuclear campaigners ….only? How about maybe the rest of the communities as well??

Also, last time I looked Kimba and Hawker were not islands!! Nope – they are DEFINITELY part of South Australia too!!! And ALL of South Australia will be affected by this National Nuclear Dump!

This is MEANT TO BE “AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS” so we have been told….When will we HAVE THAT???

Shan’t hold my breath!!…….DISGRACEFUL!!

Noel Wauchope Jeff Baldock’s Kimba property is allegedly the frontrunner for a future nuclear waste dump. No wonder this man is prominent at this meeting, happy with the progress and his financial prospects. Better than farming, hey?

Doug Potts The man who offered land owns both sites. I’m not sure if it’s free hold or lease. But why are they pushing, showing, brainwashing for these site especially when one is in a known sciesmic active area with floods as well. Also a West Australian site has said yes we would like this no interest is shown. Sadly the whole thing stinks like yesterday’s nappies!

August 20, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste: Kimba committee even discussed transitioning out of the site selection process

Life after nuclear decision discussed, Eyre Tribune, Rachel McDonald  16 Aug 19, 

August 17, 2019 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Federal court rules against Aboriginal group who wanted inclusion in nuclear waste dump ballot

Federal Court dismisses bid to stop ballot on nuclear storage facility near Kimba, ABC,  By Candice ProsserClaire Campbell and Sara Garcia  12 July 19, A South Australian Aboriginal group has lost a bid to stop a council ballot on whether a nuclear storage facility should be built on the Eyre Peninsula.

Key points:

  • The Kimba District Council planned to hold a vote to gauge support for the waste dump
  • Representatives of the Barngarla people were excluded from the ballot
  • They argued it contravened the Racial Discrimination Act, but the Federal Court dismissed the application

The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation launched legal action against the District Council of Kimba, arguing it contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by excluding native title holders from the ballot.

The council planned to hold a vote to gauge community support among its ratepayers for having radioactive waste stored in their area, after the Federal Government shortlisted two sites near Kimba as possible locations for the facility.

A third site in Hawker, near the Flinders Ranges, has also been shortlisted.

The native title holders won an injunction to halt the ballot last year, while the legal challenge was being heard.

Justice Richard White ruled that no contraventions of the Racial Discrimination Act had been established, and dismissed the application.

SA Greens leader Mark Parnell said he was disappointed with the court’s decision.

“Here we are in NAIDOC week, celebrating Aboriginal culture, and the court has determined it is not a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act to deny traditional owners a vote on whether a nuclear waste dump can be built on their land,” he said.

“Clearly in this country we have a very long way to go before we achieve anything like reconciliation.

“The Aboriginal traditional owners have legitimate rights over this country, yet they’ve been denied a right to vote on whether a nuclear waste dump can be built.

“The Federal Government is obviously keen to get their project up but they only want to ask people who are going to say yes.”

In a statement the Barngarla people said they respected the Federal Court’s decision, but said their lawyers were considering an appeal.

“The Barngarla respects the decision of the Federal Court, as the court has to interpret complicated legislation,” the statement read.

“However, more generally we consider it sad that in the 21st century we are required to take legal action to allow us to have the right to vote on the major decision of the day.

“This case has been about standing up for the right of Aboriginal people to vote on important issues which affect their rights.”……….

 

Landholder Jeff Baldock [at left] has volunteered a portion of his property in Kimba for the proposed facility and said he welcomed today’s decision.

“Now hopefully we get to have our democratic vote … if there’s nothing else that gets in the road,” he told ABC News………

The proposal has the community divided, with Kimba resident and former Liberal MP Barry Wakelin also opposing the facility. …….

The latest Federal Government proposal is to build a single facility in regional South Australia for all of the nation’s waste. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-12/bid-to-stop-ballot-on-nuclear-storage-facility-in-sa-dismissed/11302852

July 13, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, legal | Leave a comment

To 9 July Nuclear and Climate News Australia

The TV mini-series “Chernobyl” has reminded the world of something that the insurance industry fully understands: even if the probability of a nuclear accident is very small, the consequences of a nuclear accident are very big.

Two current events highlight the risks of nuclear disaster:

14 sailors died in a heroic effort to avert a planetary catastrophe, in a fire accident on a Russian nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea.

 Earthquakes in Southern California raise anxieties about the safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station. The Quake That Could Make Los Angeles a Radioactive Dead Zone. What are the risks at closed San Onofre during a big earthquake?

AUSTRALIA

NUCLEAR.

CLIMATE. Australia now emitting record greenhouse gases.

RENEWABLE ENERGY Victoria rooftop solar rebate in hot demand, with July quota filled in just days. Victorian wind farm to power massive new recycling plant.

The raid on journalist’s home by armed federal police.

INTERNATIONAL

Far from stopping climate change – nuclear reactors are being stopped by climate change.

Special UN meeting to discuss Iran: Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany try to keep nuclear deal.

United Nations warns that climate crisis disasters are happening at the rate of one a week and work is urgently needed to prepare developing countries for the profound impacts. Rich countries are not immune.

Renewable energy racing ahead, close to beating nuclear power.

 

July 9, 2019 Posted by | ACTION, Christina reviews | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dump proposal divides rural communities in South Australia

Why is this writer accepting the nuclear lobby line that ibtermediate level wastes would be stored at Kimba or wherever for only “a few decades”   ?

Does she not know that there is no plan for final disposal of the wastes, and that they are most likely to be stuck at Kimba or wherever for hundreds of years?

 

Will Australia finally get a national nuclear waste facility? ABC, 28 Mar 19, 7.30 , By Angelique Donnellan   For 40 years Australia has sought to centralise its nuclear waste, but the question of where to put it remains unanswered because of bitter division.

Key points:

  • The Federal Government wants to store the nation’s nuclear waste in South Australia
  • Three sites have been shortlisted, two in Kimba and one in Hawker
  • The proposal has divided both communities

……… The Howard government dropped its proposal after it lost a fight with the South Australian Labor government in the High Court……

n 2007, a property called Mukaty Station in the Northern Territory was put forward to host the nuclear waste facility.

The plan was abandoned, again because of legal action, this time by the area’s traditional owners.

Tightknit communities divided

The current proposal has three sites in regional South Australia shortlisted — two in Kimba, five hours north-west of Adelaide, and one in Hawker, near the Flinders Ranges.

Landholder Jeff Baldock has volunteered a portion of his property in Kimba for the proposed facility, which would store low-level nuclear waste for up to 400 years, and intermediate-level waste for a few decades before that is moved to another location.

“Kimba is no different to any other small rural community where we have a shrinking population,” Mr Baldock said.

“It’s just a good opportunity for us to find another industry which doesn’t rely on agriculture.

“I don’t seriously think there is any risk of this having an effect on our crops [or] livestock.”

But Kimba resident Barry Wakelin is not so sure. Despite being a federal Liberal MP when the Howard government pushed for a national nuclear waste facility in the early 2000s, Mr Wakelin now opposes one near his town.

And is it a waste facility or a dump? Even what it is called has caused a rift.

Local business owner and teacher Meagan Lienert said she expected it to be a well managed “high-class, world-class facility” and “very different to a dump”.

“What the hell are they talking about? Everyone knows what a nuclear dump is. It’s rubbish,” Mr Wakelin said.

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association is one group taking legal action.

They are the traditional owners of land around Hawker.

Regina McKenzie said her people had been unfairly excluded from a community vote on the dump and claimed preparatory work at the site had desecrated a sacred women’s area.

“I know they need a site, but not here. Don’t impact our sites, don’t impact our culture, don’t impact us,” Ms McKenzie said.

“I love my country and I don’t want to see a waste dump on it.”

The issue is further complicated because some members of the Adnyamathanha support the facility, including Regina’s brother, Malcolm McKenzie.

“I’m supporting this because our culture can co-exist with economic development,” Mr McKenzie said.

Adnyamathanha woman Angela Stuart backed the facility because she wanted more opportunities for young Aboriginal people.

“We need a change. I’m sick of seeing young people drinking and wasting their lives away on alcohol and drugs,” she said.

“There might be a chance out there even if one person gets a job.”

The Native Title holders around Kimba, the Barngarla people, are taking legal action.

It is unclear when the Federal Court will hand down its judgement in that case.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/will-australia-finally-get-a-national-nuclear-waste-facility/10903498

March 30, 2019 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