Antinuclear

Leanne Lienert not necessarily opposed to nuclear waste dump, but very critical of the process

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 Submission to Senate, re  National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia Submission  (Submission No. 50)   I wish to offer my thoughts to the process currently occurring within two regional areas of South Australia with an emphasis on the Kimba area. From the outset I wish to say that I am not opposed entirely to such a facility being built within South Australia – but I am extremely concerned about the process of consultation, the logisitics and location of such a site and the long term effects on vibrant farming/rural communities.

Financial Compensation  interestingly the offer of substantial money to individuals to offer up their land plus the supposed ongoing dollars is the driving force locally for the facility to be placed at Kimba. Kimba farming district, as all farms across the world, are being farmed by fewer people as technology and modern machinery changes farming practices. It also often means that individual farmers are buying up more and more land for their own needs as smaller farmers can’t compete. Interestingly those buying up land are also the ones now edging to gain financially from this current waste facility proposal. I read one article where a farmer who has offered his farm considers it will drought proof the Kimba District to have the $2 million dollars – This amount of money divided between those affected by a drought would be chicken feed where the costs each year to produce a crop is significant. This community is not poor – it is creative and community minded with little unemployment. Nowadays many young people gain a trade to supplement the farms where they live and work – and as happens across the world others gravitate to the cities

While this money is a huge enticement, logically, 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! If this waste is as safe as promised why is there a need to move it such long distances when it could presumably be located closer to the source with smaller facilities within each state or shared states?

“Broad community support” –how has it played out currently and will continue into the future I spent my childhood up until early adult years in this vibrant rural community where community participation, comradery, innovation and support has always been paramount. I still have a brother and his family on the farm plus my mother. I specifically know people who have been affected on both sides by this whole process and it is beyond me with the ongoing extent of the consultation that this disconnection and destruction of the community fabric has not been the deciding factor in saying this location is inappropriate on so many levels – socially, emotionally and mentally. It is sad that locally and politically at a Federal level that the lure of money (greed) has risen to hold such a high position in exchange for a totally altered community ethos!

This process has divided the community to such an extent that (people I know well)

• – sporting teams have been affected because people will not play with those of differing opinion.
• –  people have moved out of Kimba because they no longer feel comfortable in long term friendship groups who are now split by differing opinions
• – people do not patronise business who are known to have opposite views to each other e.g. supermarkets, coffee shop, cafe – a distrust of information given to support the facility
• – queries that there is too much wider information that has not been disclosed or has been misleading e.g. the locations were deliberately local farm names or Hundred names to disguise it not being at Kimba – such as Pinkawillinie, enticements to visit Lucas Heights in an attempt to ‘prove’ and market how safe it is while choosing to locate it so far away in a rural community, and also emotionally tagging people who are against it insinuating that they will have xrays or nuclear medicine treatments and are therefore hypocrites to not support it.
• – voting for the facility only included those in the Kimba District
• – interestingly a farmer who borders a proposed property and who is opposed to the waste facility idea is in the next council area and he didn’t get a say – I consider this an injustice. Even to the extent that he was told that it wasn’t ‘adjacent’ because it was across the other side of a dirt road – I wonder if the same person on a city block would think this was fair if a facility was built on a vacant block over the road from them!!
• – A person I know very well owns a sheep stud – he has chosen not to disclose his own opinion of the facility for a real fear that those with an opposite view will not by rams from his stud.
• – The need to remain neutral has caused some tensions between a son and mother (who is opposed to the facility) for fear he will be linked publicly to her views and it will reflect on his business and therefore affect those who patronise him.
• – The notion that many jobs will be created also doesn’t ring true
• – with a world of fly-in, fly-out employment it doesn’t seem logical that many jobs would be permanently located at Kimba. – I have heard locals say it will attract tourists!!
• – what would they see? How big will this facility actually be?
• – What is the impact to transport this type of waste such long distances through populated areas all across Australia to some tiny area on Eyre Peninsular?
• – again if it is so safe why haven’t areas much closer to the source of radioactive waste been considered? It doesn’t seem to make logical sense?

Broad Community Support 

• – what does this mean? Initially it was promised that any opposition to such a facility would mean it wouldn’t go ahead. The goal posts changed dramatically in a short space of time so that a vote with a slim majority of 2-3% meant the second round of consultation went ahead and if this continues it’s possible that as few as 300 people will make the decision for all of South Australia to have such a facility here. Is it a fair process if there is not a majority of at least 70:30 to allow this facility to go ahead especially in a decision that has an ongoing impact for many generations to come in terms of governance, changing definitions of “medium’ levels of waste, possible mishaps etc. Community Benefits Program
• – If community benefits programs were to eventuate I am wondering how this would happen constructively in a community divided by the process – will the damage created continue to foster antagonism in gaining support for initiatives?
• – Who would manage the money within the community and how would allocation of funds be decided? Would it be at a local level or would it become a political football?
• – How would such a small community have a voice in changing political processes into the future?
• – Would ‘medium level’ waste alter as the years go on? How would this be guaranteed and trusted?

Eyre Peninsular and state wide considerations   

– The wider implications of a radioactive waste facility being located within a vibrant grain growing area and its impact on a clean and green agricultural area cannot be dismissed.

This issue is not just for this productive region but all of the Eyre Peninsular and South Australia as a whole therefore the consultation needs to be widened and include both the region and the state in any final considerations. – I feel that the whole economic impact area needs some dialogue and debate because once this process begins it cannot be reversed. – In a country where the greatest population and food growing areas are positioned relatively close to the coast it doesn’t seem logical to locate such a facility in an area known for its quality and quantity of agricultural produce – there is a massive land mass that could be utilised instead of impacting on a small vibrant farming district.

Other related matters

I wonder why (and would like to see the reasons ‘why not’) places such as Leigh Creek (already exposed areas that could be covered within the open cut mine areas to the degree needed), Roxby Downs (already radioactive, with large areas that could house such a facility with easy access via rail or road), Woomera (where the government already utilises vast areas of land and with ready access) or even the Defence Force land at El Alamein near Port Augusta (where the area extends all the way to Iron Knob) – because once again it is promoted as being extremely safe.

In conclusion, after following the progress of the consultation in the Kimba district over the last two years, I feel that 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).

I also feel that the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. That it was considered (especially in the earlier parts of the consultation), this was one small, insignificant community who could be bluffed/lured into such a facility with money and would really have no idea about radioactive waste and probably wouldn’t care!

If South Australia decides to take on the responsibility of a radioactive waste facility then I hope that this enquiry can honour the true spirit that makes a rural community flourish and not set up processes that will continue to drive wedges between its people in the name of money. Please find a place that does not interrupt genuine people who lives are entwined with the land – whether that be our Aboriginal people, farmers or country towns.

June 1, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

No clear meaning of “broad community support” – the fatal flaw in Australian government’s push to impose a nuclear waste dump

Brian Cant Elected member District Council of Kimba, Submission RE: SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOCTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Submission no. 49) 
(b) How the need for ‘broad community support” has played and will continue to play a part
in the process

The definition of “broad community Support” has consistently been one of the most significant points of contention since the NRWMF project was announced, not just in Kimba, but from every corner of Australia.

One constant throughout the process has been criticism from both sides about a lack of clarity from the Department about how ”broad community support” would be defined, and subsequently measured, during the consultation process.

As a result, this uncertainty has exacerbated community angst on what was already an
emotive subject. It is possible that the community stress could have been either minimised or
avoided altogether had the Department identified defining “broad community support” as a
project priority from the outset.

May 30, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Submission: NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN KIMBA OR SA.SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.“To campaign against any nuclear radioactive waste management facility in South Australia’s agricultural land and in particular the District Council of Kimba” Toni Scott Secretary No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA (Submission No. 46)

The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA is a group of local residents, farmers and business owners opposed to building a Radioactive Waste Facility on prime farming land in Kimba. Our 240 financial members consist mainly of people from Kimba and the broader Eyre Peninsula.

We would like to thank the Senators that have given their time to investigate this process. Through our experiences with the process we conclude that the site selection process for the siting of a national radioactive waste dump is flawed, we have taken the time to outline some of our concerns and ask that you would consider our recommendations.

1. The definition of Broad Community Support has been inconsistent throughout the process. We recommend that the Minister sets a % for broad community support.
2. 2. We are strongly opposed to the siting of a Radioactive Waste Facility on Agricultural Land.
3. 3. The process is divisive and lacks honesty, fairness and transparency.

Members of the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA invite further consultation with your inquiry and would be happy to provide more information through a hearing.

ATTACHMENTS:

1.National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF)

Phase 1 Summary Report April 2016

2. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project Summary of engagement in the Kimba community December 2016 www.radioactivewaste.gov.au
3. Declaration of Results. Distric Council of Kimba. National Radioctive Waste Management Project Ballot
4. National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Phase 1 Summary Report. Kimba 2017
5. Attachment A. Objectives and Criteria
6. Code of Practice for the near surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992). Radiation health series No 35
7. Low – Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Facility Process Timeline NRWMF in Kimba

These attachments can be downloaded with this Submission No. 46 at    https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

May 29, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

South Australia’s No Dump Alliance sends a powerful submission opposing Federal nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges

The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.

 Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.

 “The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina”

There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.

the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.

No Dump Alliance submission into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility Introduction  .” Vince Coulthard, CEO of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association. (Submission No. 45) 

The No Dump 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 that formed in response to proposals to open South Australia up to international high-level nuclear waste importation and dumping. The Alliance also opposes the federal government’s continued push to establish a national nuclear waste dump and store in regional SA.

The No Dump Alliance supports local communities to voice their concerns, welcomes state government legislation that prohibits a nuclear waste dump in SA, and calls for a better process for the management of Australia’s nuclear waste. The No Dump Alliance welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to contribute this submission. The Alliance also encourages the Committee to hold hearings in the regional areas of Hawker and Kimba to hear firsthand from the communities on the front line. The Alliance also welcomes hearings in Canberra to consider the views of national and state stakeholders and groups. This is a national project and is of national concern.

Spokespeople for the Alliance include Vivianne McKenzie from the Flinders Ranges and Peter Woolford, No Radioactive Waste Dump on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA President and Jamie Newlyn from the MUA SA Branch.

The radioactive waste to be disposed and stored is both “low level” and “long lived intermediate level”. The latter must be managed safely for many thousands of years and current best practice to realise this is by deep geological disposal.

No Dump Alliance members have been closely involved with the current federal waste plan and process and concluded that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed and neither appropriate nor thorough. We maintain that the current project should be discontinued.

The following specifically addresses the terms of reference.

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

We believe that inviting private landowners to nominate their land for financial gain far in excess of the land value is a non- scientific way to determine a location for a national radioactive waste facility. We also believe that a single party nomination model cannot be credible considered to represent a ‘volunteer’ process.

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

 Since May 2015 the federal government and its DIIS representatives have consistently refused to define “broad community consent” in both public meetings and in writing. Members of our organisation have been told different definitions but none have been able to be confirmed in writing.

The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.

 A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community.

56. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage. The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process. A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.

The NRWMF Community Sentiment Survey purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district (Hawker, Quorn and Cradock) wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.

This telephone survey was incomplete and inadequate because it did not survey the entire population of the area and was biased because it only surveyed residents with landline telephones. The flawed survey only asked residents if they wanted to proceed to the evaluation of the site and not actually build a facility. Flinders Ranges council residents have not had an opportunity for a complete postal vote conducted by the AEC.

The Adnyamathanha people are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site and their representative body the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has repeatedly expressed clear opposition. The No Dump Alliance believes that it is critical that the views and position of the overwhelming majority of Traditional Owners are listened to and respected in relation to the appropriateness of a site.

A postal vote was held for the Kimba council region and resulted in a 56.6% positive result to proceed to Stage 2. This survey did not include the views of the Traditional Owners from the area who must be consulted and should have been consulted at the initial nomination.

 We believe that both survey results were influenced strongly by the offer of $2 million to be spent in the community, and that this was an intentional and deliberate inducement to sway the community opinion towards a positive result.

Despite seeking clarification, we have not been able to ascertain what the procedure and process will be to evaluate whether there is broad community consent should the government wish the project to proceed from Phase 3 to construction.

1. c) how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

The federal government has stated that no individual group will have a right of veto. The Citizen’s Jury into the former Weatherill state government’s international radioactive waste facility proposal found overwhelming support for the right of veto for Aboriginal people. Former Premier Weatherill wrote to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on 24 October 2017 outlining concerns about a national nuclear waste dump and store plan and recommending that local Aboriginal people should have the right of veto over any dump being built on their lands. The relevant quote from Mr Weatherill’s letter is as follows:

“I recently met with Traditional Owners of the Adnyamathanha community who expressed deep concern about the proposed site at Hawker, and the potential impacts on Adnyamathanha Cultural Heritage”…….” This engagement process was insightful and highlighted the need for a bigger conversation about how Aboriginal people want to be seen, valued and recognised and on ‘unfinished businesses from the past. In particular, Aboriginal people’s history with the nuclear industry demonstrates a need for significant healing. In recognition, the South Australian government committed to provide a local Aboriginal community with a final right of veto over any future facility proposed on their lands. I recommend that the Commonwealth Government now consider adopting a similar policy position as part of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process.”

 In the NRWMF community sentiments survey by Orima Research released in April 2016 it shows on page 60 of the report that 97% of Indigenous people opposed the facility at Barndioota.

 The Orima report did not table any views of Indigenous people in relation to support for the project to continue.

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA), composed of 23 different organisations and interest groups released a statement in May 2016 opposing a nuclear waste facility.

Recently on March 24, 2018 the ATLA board reaffirmed opposition with the passing of this resolution:

 “The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina

This is our land, our culture and we must have veto over this toxic waste being dumped in our country. Udnyus come and go but we will be here forever. We say NO to the waste dump, for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and many generations to come.”

In the 2016/2017 ATLA annual report stated: “The National Waste Dump continues to be an issue and ATLA remains totally opposed to the waste dump at Wallerberdina. ATLA has been treated very poorly in this whole process and it has been a real struggle to ensure our voice is heard.”

 The No Dump Alliance understands that ATLA was not approached or engaged until the NRWMF project was into stage 2.

Surveys are not assessing the views of Adnyamathanha people who live outside the region; with a significant part of the community living in Port Augusta and Adelaide.

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

 We believe that the government has linked the project to the promises of jobs and community grants as an inducement to deliberately influence community consent. We believe this is intentional and deliberate, and designed to sway the community into returning a positive result towards the project.

There have been many discussions and assertions by local residents that they have decided to be in favour of the facility by the mere fact that the government says it will bring jobs and money. This is despite scant detail being provided by the project proponent about the employment and economic impacts of the planned facility.

1. e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; and

The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.

 Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.

The community to be consulted for the Barndioota facility was originally designated at a 50km radius around the dump, which was then extended to include Quorn and the whole Flinders Ranges council.

 The community to be consulted for the Kimba facility was designated as residents of the Kimba council on the electoral roll.

The construction of a facility could have a significant impact on the reputation of either community, with a detrimental impact on the tourism and farming industries upon which the communities depend.

1. f) any other related matters.

The radioactive waste facility is intended to dispose and store both “low-level” and “longlived intermediate level” radioactive waste.

The facility is intended as an “interim” location for the “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste, as world’s best practice currently views deep geological disposal as the preferred management option. The waste would be stored above ground, as the current government does not have a site or a process to determine a site to build its final deep geological burial facility. There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.

Our members and colleagues have attended many of the federal government’s presentations and have found them biased and flawed towards focus on the “low-level” waste, and with no attention given to the extremely long-term risks involved in the storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste.

The presentations have also failed to acknowledge any terrorism risks of creation of a “dirty bomb” from the “intermediate” waste.

 We therefore believe that the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.

A decision this serious to accept the so-called “interim” storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste that has implications for the future security of South Australia and should not be solely or primarily made by the small community of people who currently reside in the districts of the Flinders Ranges and Kimba councils. Such an approach also deeply disenfranchises communities along the extensive transport corridors any such facility would require.

Conclusion

 The members of the No Dump Alliance maintain that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed, and neither appropriate nor thorough. We share the view held by many civil society groups  that the current project should be halted whilst a thorough national audit of radioactive waste is conducted with an independently assessed review of the range of options available to best manage Australia’s waste. Our members and spokespeople continue to witness and seek to highlight the high level of stress and pressure this plan is causing in the communities of Hawker and Kimba. In December 2017 the No Dump Alliance supported a ‘Don’t Dump on SA’ rally on the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide. Invited speakers made the following statements about support for the National Radioactive Waste Management Project:

 “I was the member of parliament that tried to get the last dump on the road at Woomera. The Kimba experience has taught me a very great amount. Quite frankly, the government and ANSTO cannot be trusted with this job. They cannot be trusted with the management of nuclear waste.” Barry Wakelin, former federal Liberal politician. “

Last year we voted as the Uniting Church in SA to stand in solidarity with the Adnyamathanha people in opposing the placing of a nuclear waste dump on their land. We are here today renewing our commitment to that solidarity and to join with you as fellow South Australians in this resolve.” Dr Deidre Palmer, former moderator Uniting Church (SA)

“The Flinders Ranges is not the right place for any nuclear waste facility. The purported benefits of this dump, if realised, will equal only 1% of jobs in tourism and just 2% of one year of tourism income for the Flinders Ranges and outback. Any drop-in tourism will wipe out any possible economic benefit. Everyone, including the government and ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), agree that the Flinders is not suitable for long term disposal of intermediate level waste, but that is where it will be stored until another site is proposed, accepted and built. This may take decades or centuries and may never happen. We are creating a toxic legacy for our children and grandchildren. Safeguards and legislation put in place today will be brushed aside when it’s convenient for future governments. This can never be the right place to bring intermediate level waste.” Dr Susi Andersson, Hawker resident and local GP. “

We stand with Traditional Owners of this land, we stand with the farmers of this land”. Jamie Newlyn, Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia SA Branch and No Dump Alliance spokesperson.

 “The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area, people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump

May 25, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment