Australian news, and some related international items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Nuclear high priest Dr Adi Paterson admits the REAL purpose of proposed South Australian nuclear waste dump

Tim Bickmore  No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia. 16 July 18 “When I was speaking to Adi Paterson, who’s the CEO of ANSTO, I said, ‘I don’t really favour the intermediate-level waste coming here, because I worry about it becoming stranded waste if the political landscape changes.’

He said: ‘Why wouldn’t you want the intermediate-level waste? Without it, there’s no real economic benefit for the community.‘ So the CEO of ANSTO is telling me that, without the intermediate-level waste—and this will in the long run just be a low-level waste facility—there’s no economic benefit. “

July 16, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Cameron Scott – Kimba Consultative Committee rigged to justify “broad community support” for nuclear waste dump

Cameron Scott, Supplementary submission for the senate inquiry into the national radioactive waste facility siting process, Senate Standing Committees on Economics

Since my previous submission I have been trying to gain more information from CSIRO about the Waste and Storage Facility at Woomera. I have also asked them for their expert opinion on aspects of the facility using their international experience in Nuclear Facilities and processes. I have had direct contact with a Senior Principle Research Scientist at CSIRO who had previously presented to us when our Agricultural group went on a tour to ANSTO. During this Ag trip he told me that he would try and get me a tour of Woomera, since returning despite his efforts he was unable to gain access to the Woomera facility. He had been very forthcoming with his expert opinion and information until I was using the information he had giving me to question certain issues with the Department.

I have now been advised that if I want further information from CSIRO I will need to go directly to the Department of Industry Innovation and Science or via the Kimba Consultative Committee. It seems  that the only expert opinions we are allowed to have are those who read off the Department script.

I would like to take this opportunity to recall a conversation I had with Bruce Wilson on this same Ag trip where he assured us that the Kimba Consultative Committee would be made up of people with equal numbers for and against the facility. After my recent conversations with CSIRO I am concerned that the international models which this KCC is based on, in countries such as Belgium the community committee were used in reporting community consent ie unanimous community support actually meant unanimous consultative committee support. I have always thought the Government had rigged this committee for a reason and I am very worried it will be used in reporting to justify broad community support.

July 16, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Promoting Nuclear Waste Dump – the sole purpose of Hawker Community Development Board

Tim Bickmore  No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia  So, it would seem that apart from dump promotions the HCDB has no other purpose.

As the HCDB is now neutral in concern to the NRWMF until the formal vote is counted this page will now be going into recess until this has occurred. Future meeting dates will be advertised on ‘Get About’ Hawker and in the town Crier. See you all again in September

July 16, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment



How the submissions scored on the first 6 Terms of Reference

NAME  and number on the Senate website


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


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

Cameron S 18

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

Day 67

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


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

The Australian Government’s frenzied plan for a nuclear “sacrifice zone” in Kimba or Hawker, South Australia- theme for July 18

Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced that on 20 August, there will be  a ballot to gauge community support for a nuclear waste dump near one of the small towns of Kimba and Hawker, about 450km north of Adelaide. The vote will be confined to the residents in the immediate local area.

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

Indeed they don’t!  Heck! This nuclear garbage dump idea is a National matter. But Canavan, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, ANSTO, ARPANSA, and the rest of the nuclear lobby, are pitching it ONLY to the small farming communities of Kimba and Hawker, and resolutely keeping the rest of us in blissful ignorance.

Trekking Lucas Heights’ highly radioactive nuclear reactor wastes for 1700 km across Australia – to become a “temporary , i.e. stranded waste dump, is a dangerous idea. And unnecessary – Lucas Heights has the necessary space, technology, and expertise.

Nuclear medicine itself,  short-lived hospital radioactive wastes, do not need this. Hypocritically, the government  tells the Kimba and Hawker people that it’s a “medical necessity”  they’ll be Australia’s heroes. AT WHAT PRICE – now and for future generations?

A Senate Inquiry will report on this on 14 August. Too late to make a difference.  Read many brilliant submissions to this Inquiry, posted on this website. Summaries of these, with links to full submissions are at SUBMISSIONS TO SENATE INQUIRY 18.

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

Australia urgently needs and independent assessment of options regarding its nuclear waste management

Matt Canavan’s ‘urgent’ new nuclear waste dump: The devil is in the detail,11675 

Rather than a hasty new nuclear waste dump, what is urgently needed is an independent and open assessment of the full range of options for managing Australia’s radioactive waste, writes Dave Sweeney.

IT IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM that has taken 60 years to make and will last 10,000 years, but according to Canberra, it will be sorted by Christmas.

Radioactive waste management has been a challenge for successive Federal governments, with communities across South Australia and the Northern Territory consistently rejecting plans for the dumping and storage of wastes in their region. Now the pressure is right back on regional South Australia, with a concerted Federal push to locate a site either near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, or Hawker in the iconic Flinders Ranges.

The plan sounds straightforward: take radioactive waste from around Australia to a central site, where low-level material would be disposed of and higher-level wastes stored, pending a final management decision.

But, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Or in this case, in the profound lack of detail.

Despite two years of promotional newsletters, shopfronts and drop-in centres, and publicly funded visits from pro-nuclear advocates, there remains a disturbing lack of clarity and deep concerns over the Turnbull Government’s plan and process.

Radioactive waste is a complex policy area. The stuff lasts a long time, poses a real management challenge and, understandably, raises community concerns. Responsible decisions are best based on the “T” factor: talk, time, testing and trust. Sadly, the current Federal push has failed to learn from this history and is replicating a failed formula.

Despite plenty of talk about the benefits of the plan, the Turnbull Government has actively and consistently refused to debate critics in an open forum, key project assumptions have never been independently verified or tested, and many community members, Aboriginal landowners and wider stakeholders do not trust the process. Further, time is running out with Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan recently announcing a siting decision will be made this year.

Soon, registered voters in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba District Council districts will receive a ballot in the mail asking if they support a national radioactive waste facility in their region. The Turnbull Government has been spending big and promising large, with job and community benefit estimates and assurances soaring since the ballot was announced.

The Government is working to localise this issue and present it as an economic opportunity for a small region, but this plan is a national issue with profound and lasting implications.

Around 95 per cent of the material planned to be moved to any new facility is currently managed at two secured Federal sites. Low-level waste that needs to be isolated for 300 years is currently at the Woomera defence lands in South Australia’s north. The more problematic intermediate level waste, that needs isolation for 10,000 years, is stored where it was made at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney

Both sites have the physical, technical and regulatory capacity to continue to store these wastes for many years, and the current sense of Federal urgency and pressure is being driven by politics and ANSTO’s corporate preferences, rather than by evidence or need.

In any discussion around radioactive waste management, a lot of airspace is devoted to the question of nuclear medicine. No one disputes either the importance or the need for secure access to nuclear medicine. The planned national radioactive waste facility is not expected to receive nuclear medicine waste from any hospital or medical clinic in Australia.

These wastes would continue to be managed at these multiple sites on the current “store and decay” basis. A national radioactive waste facility would take nuclear reactor waste from the process that generated the nuclear medicine, but not nuclear medical waste. Importantly, this means that a national waste facility is not required to ensure access to nuclear medicine.

Currently, Australia’s most serious radioactive waste is stored above ground at ANSTO. This makes sense, as the waste is already on site and Lucas Heights also has clear tenure, high levels of security and policing, the most advanced radioactive monitoring and emergency response capacity in the country, and it is the workplace of around 1,200 people.

The Federal Government plan is to move this material from this facility to one in regional South Australia with far less capacity and institutional assets.

There is no radiological protection rationale to move this material from extended above ground storage in Sydney to extended above ground storage with far fewer checks and balances in regional Sout Australia. The current Federal approach to the intermediate level waste is not consistent with international best practice and is merely kicking the can further down a less travelled road.

A Senate Inquiry is currently taking place into siting issues. This important and welcome initiative is no substitute for what is urgently needed — an independent and open assessment of the full range of options for managing Australia’s radioactive waste.

The current Federal plan is a retreat from responsibility, which is playing short-term politics with a long-term hazard. It is extraordinary that, after over six decades of making waste and two decades of sustained and successful community resistance to Federal siting plans, Australia has never had an objective review of management practises and options. We need this now.

Dave Sweeney works on nuclear issues with the Australian Conservation Foundation and was a member of the Federal advisory panel on radioactive waste. You can follow him on Twitter @nukedavesweeney.

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

More spent nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights reactor to go to France, returned later

France signs agreement with Australia on research reactor fuel reprocessing, JULY 9, 2018 Mycle Schneider

On 6 July 2018, the French Official Journal published a decree making formal a 23 November 2017 inter-governmental agreement for AREVA NC (now Orano) to reprocess at La Hague spent fuel from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) research reactor OPAL.

The reprocessing of OPAL spent fuel at the La Hague facility is foreseen to occur between January 2019 and 31 December 2034. The ownership of the extracted plutonium and uranium will be transferred to Orano. The plutonium is to be used in a civil reactor.

The reprocessing wastes are to be shipped back to Australia until 31 December 2035, unless the contract is extended for additional quantities of fuel. In that case, the very last date for waste return is 31 December 2040.

The quantity of spent fuel covered under the agreement and contract is “up to 3.6 tons.” Under a previous agreement, 0.236 tons of OPAL spent fuel have been reprocessed at La Hague by the end of 2014.

As of the end of 2017, of the 9,970 tons of spent fuel stored in the La Hague spent fuel pools, 99.6 percent was domestic power reactor fuel belonging to Électricité de France (EDF). The La Hague facilities have a licensed reprocessing capacity of 1,700 tons per year of spent fuel.

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

Taxpayers pay up for Kimba and Hawker residents to be “nuclear-educated” at Lucas Heights

$350k of flights to get nuclear reactions 
Taxpayers have coughed up nearly $350,000 to fly 225 Kimba and Hawker residents to Sydney to learn about nuclear waste, new figures reveal…(subscribers only)

Nuclear waste debate soars to nearly $350,000 in tax-payer funded trips   – the Australian (subscribers only)

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

Planned nuclear dump sites – Access denied to Barngarla Native Title Representative Body.

Everybody For A NUclear Free Future, 14 July 18, After claiming there was no aboriginal heritage issues at the proposed Kimba suppositories, DIIS denies entry to Barngarla Native Title Representative Body.

“We wrote to the department on 21 February requesting access for sites, for the purposes of that assessment being carried out, and advising that the DAC would contact the department after that assessment had been complete for the purpose of working a way forward for these consultation processes. The department advised that they couldn’t provide access to the sites. You’ve been provided a redacted version of the report. The material that was provided following our initial submissions—I think that was only provided to you in the last few days—is somewhat compromised, but it has identified that there are nine confirmed sites and nine potential sites that are affected.

As part of that assessment team, which included some of the DAC board members here. Mr Brandon McNamara, who’s a Barngarla elder, invited the department to come along to a board meeting on 3 March and that invitation was declined. There were also statements made to the assessment team that the engagement of Dr Gorring to carry out the assessment was premature, which we find quite surprising. If the department has already issued statements that there’s no heritage and not provided information about what heritage assessments of its own it has made, to then make a comment that for Barngarla to carry out its own heritage assessments was premature is a bit surprising.”;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F3b50aa48-41ab-4efe-92b1-1be895dcca94%2F0003;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F3b50aa48-41ab-4efe-92b1-1be895dcca94%2F0000%22

Office Admin

July 14, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Advancing responsible radioactive waste management in Australia.

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF Briefing note: March 2018


Radioactive waste management in Australia has been a contested, divisive and ultimately non-productive area of public policy for decades. The timing and circumstances are now conducive for adopting a revised approach that is more likely to advance responsible national radioactive waste management and agreed and lasting outcomes.

This approach to responsible radioactive waste management in Australia is founded on not imposing any federal facility on an unwilling community, acting in a manner consistent with both existing state and territory laws and leading international industry practise and ensuring high standards of extended federal interim storage at the two secured sites where the majority of the waste is sited pending an inclusive and robust examination of the range of long term future management options.

Scale and current context:

Australia holds around 4250 cubic metres of low level radioactive waste and 655 cubic metres of longlived intermediate level waste. Around 95% of this material is currently stored at two secured Federal sites. Nearly all of Australia’s intermediate level waste is held where it was created at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) Lucas Heights nuclear reactor facility in southern Sydney. This material is Australia’s highest level radioactive waste and is the most significant management challenge. Most of the low-level waste is at the Defence Department’s Woomera site in South Australia.

The National Radioactive Waste Management Project:

The current preferred federal plan involves the emplacement and covering of containerised low-level radioactive wastes and the above ground storage of long lived higher level waste at a single regional or remote site. There is no intention to recover the low-level material – it would be disposed of in-situ.

There are plans to remove the higher-level waste for deep geological disposal at a location yet to be determined after a period of between 20 to 100 years. The current approach to intermediate level waste management is not best international practice. Instead it is based on unnecessary transport and doublehandling and replacing above ground interim storage at ANSTO for above ground interim storage at a far less resourced regional facility.

Since April 2016 South Australia has been the only region under active consideration as a site for a federal radioactive waste facility. Three sites, one at Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges and two near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, are under consideration. All sites are contested and there is considerable Aboriginal and wider community concern, opposition and division. Existing SA legislation, the Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, makes the federal plan unlawful in SA. While the federal government could override any state legislative road-blocks doing so would be inconsistent with leading practise for facility siting and open to clear procedural and legal challenge.

The employment and economic opportunities provided by the federal radioactive waste plan are modest. There would be some short-term fencing and construction work and there are plans for twelve to fifteen (fte) security and maintenance jobs, an interim ‘disruption’ payment of two million dollars for community programs in the affected regions and a ‘community benefit fund’ of no more than ten million dollars (with no clear guidance on where, when or how the federal government would allocate this money).

Previous federal attempts over many years to impose a radioactive waste dump on multiple sites in regional South Australia and the Northern Territory have all failed.

The case for a revised approach: Extended interim storage and option assessment:

Leading civil society organisations including environment, public health, Indigenous and trade union groups all support an expert, open and independent Inquiry into the full range of radioactive waste management options.

Radioactive waste remains a concern for thousands of years and its management demands the highest quality decision making and information. Enhanced and extended interim storage at current federal facilities offers a policy circuit-breaker and, coupled with an options review, is the best way to identify and advance lasting and responsible radioactive waste management.

Extended interim storage, particularly at Lucas Heights given this site is already home to the most problematic wastes, is prudent and credible as:

ANSTO is already both the continuing producer of and home to virtually all of Australia’s higher level radioactive waste

 ANSTO has certainty of tenure, a secure perimeter and is monitored 24/7 by Australian federal police

 Storing the waste at ANSTO means the waste will be actively managed as operations at the site are licensed for a further three decades. It also keeps waste management on the radar of the facility/people with the highest level of nuclear expertise and radiation response capacity in Australia

 After community opposition and Federal Court action ended an earlier proposed waste site at Muckaty (NT) ANSTO constructed and commissioned a new purpose built on site store dedicated to housing reprocessed spent nuclear fuel waste which returned from France in late 2015. This Interim Waste Store has a conservative design life of forty years, its license is not time limited and it has (if required) regulatory approval to store these reprocessed wastes ‘until the availability of a final disposal option’.

 Extended interim storage at ANSTO helps reduce any political pressure to rush to find a ‘remote’ out of sight, out of mind dump site and increases the chances of advancing responsible management

 Storage at ANSTO has been previously identified as a credible and feasible option by ANSTO, nuclear industry lobby group the Australian Nuclear Association and, most importantly, the federal nuclear regulator, the Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

There is no regulatory or radiological impediment to extended interim storage at Lucas Heights. ANSTO’s facility is prohibited from becoming a permanent disposal site, however there are no comparable constraints on it as a site for extended storage.

Importantly, this approach also provides the ability to have a circuit breaker in this long running issue in the form of an evidence based and open review of the best long-term management options.

Nothing about the nuclear industry, especially nuclear waste, is clean or uncomplicated but extended interim federal storage – coupled with a wider robust public review of the full range of longer term management options – is the approach that is most likely to advance and realise lasting and responsible radioactive waste management in Australia.

July 13, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, reference | 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

Hawker Community Development Board a staunch supporter of nuclear waste dump proposal

Hawker Community Development Board Inc  (Submission No. 47) to Senate Committe re Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Dump (Subnission No.47) Chairperson Janice McInnis Secretary Chelsea Haywood Treasurer Evelyn de Jong

The Hawker Community Development Board (HCDB) is a community representative organisation that aims to promote the town of Hawker and the surrounding district encouraging tourism, progress and the preservation of items relating to the physical, social and cultural heritage of South Australia. Also acting as a conduit to the local Council and Government Agencies The following is the HCDB response to the Waste Management Facility inquiry

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

Regardless of where the repository is to be built it is only fair that the land owner been compensated accordingly for the land that is taken to be used. It is no different to a person receiving compensation, so a highway can be widened, or an over pass built on what was their property .

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

  1. the definition of ‘broad community support Broad community support means that most residents in the area considered the community are supportive of the project proceeding. The area considered community is not the entire state of South Australia nor the entire Country. This is a decision to be based on those that will be impacted the most if the facility does or doesn’t go ahead
  2. ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage:

    Moving forward onto the next stage will mean another community district vote will occur. The best way to truly ascertain the community support is to hold the vote with the electoral commission, this would allow residents in the area to vote without fear of recourse while ensuring it is the actual community voting and not outsiders

  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:

    The HCDB has been informed that the indigenous community hold a broad community support for the project and can see the potential benefits the project holds for them should the project proceed. However, we believe that this is something best discussed by the government agencies responsible for the project with all the local indigenous in the community area as opposed to a select few

    D) whether and/or how the Government community benefit program payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment.

To date with round 1 of the program nearing full completion there has been no change in the people’s sentiment toward the proposal. Community groups both for and against applied for grants and succeeded however this has not swayed anyone’s decision to jump the ‘fence’. In round 2 once again people for and against have applied for grants but as the money is yet to be allocated we cannot judge the outcome at this stage.

Consensus among the community is that the community benefit program has assisted in the district getting some needed projects completed that may not otherwise occur.

It has always been publicised that the funds are being offered as a form of compensation to the area for any disruption that has occurred and may occur in the future while Barndioota is still being considered.

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;

At the end of the day the only people that will be truly affected by the repository going ahead or not is those local to the areas in question. State-wide are more concerned about the state government piggy backing off the Federal facility and bringing in high level waste (this has been publicised numerous times as not being able to occur) People in other areas will also not see their employment levels change, new residents moving into bringing families, more school teachers employed, and more hospital staff and so on. We are the ones that have looked at the potential benefits and negativity that the proposal brings and have chosen to support the proposal. State-wide lives will to continue as they currently are regardless of the facility occurring, whereas our lives have the potential to be enhanced.

Anything Else Our small country town that has been dwindling for years has the potential to harness this project and grow into the future. Those that have complained about the selection process seem to have forgotten that over 360 properties had been originally nominated and to have offered the idea as a potential life saver for the district so early in the process may have caused more heartache and problems than necessary. Our neighbours do not have to tell us if they are going to sell their house or rent it out to someone, so we fail to see how this is any different

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

Christine Scott rejects nuclear waste dump proposal – it’s against South Australian law, and will damage agricultural industry

Christine Scott Submission No 14 Subject: Senate enquiry into site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility

To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter as a concerned member of the Kimba community. I reside in the township of Kimba and have a son, his wife and three young children living and working on the farm which has been in our family for over 100 years, and which is situated approx 17kms from our town centre.

In the 50 years I have resided in the Kimba district (coming here as a teacher in 1968) I have never before witnessed such a divided and hurting community. Before the selection process began I would have described our community as united and supportive of each other and the local businesses. Now many farmers are looking to buy their merchandise only from businesses that support their viewpoint on whether or not there should be a nuclear waste dump in Kimba, even preferring to shop out of town for farm goods, food and groceries than give their financial support to people who they feel have betrayed them and the whole agricultural export industry on which the existence of this town depends.

Resentment runs high towards those farmers who “volunteered” their land for the dump, when that “volunteering” comes with an incentive of 3 times the value of their land plus the original value. From my understanding a volunteer is someone who gives of their time, services or possessions for free, but these farmers are seen to be benefiting at the disadvantage of others.

I strongly reject the presumption implied by the Government that one, or in Kimba’s case two individuals have the right to decide that: –

(a) A nuclear dump can be placed in a grain growing area relying on export markets for its existence.

(b) Can ignore their own State Law prohibiting such a dump.

The present government, would no doubt argue that it is not just two individuals offering their land.They would say that 56.7% of the community are in favour as a result of a local council vote and thatthis shows “broad” community support for the nuclear dump to be placed in agricultural land.That 56.7% is considered to be broad community support is puzzling when 65% support was required at Hawker.

What is the figure representing broad community support? Surely when you are considering intermediate waste with a life of up to 1000 years, meaning that it could affect many, many, many generations to come, and that once the waste is “dumped” it will most likely not be shifted – so the decision is actually irreversible, surely broad community support should be at an absolute minimum 66%. This is the figure I understand is required for a constitutional change.

I have attended many “information” sessions over the time our town has been enduring this destructive process and my confidence in the process has decreased considerably: –

(Ed.   I was unable to copy the rest of this):   Here she lists problems about the jobs promised, the type of waste, the unsuitability of Kimba, as compared with Lucas Heights for a nuclear waste storage location, the effect not only on agricultural land, but on overseas customers‘ perception of agricultural produce from  a nuclear waste dump area.

July 12, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

John Hennessy – bubbling with enthusiasm for nuclear waste dump in Hawker

John Hennessy Submission (No 7 ) on : Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

 I am a Hawker resident and business owner. I believe the site selection process was correct, I acknowledge it may have been carried out any number of different ways, but that does not imply something improper with the process implemented. What is really impressive is the extensive consultation which has taken place since day one. All residents have had the opportunity to gather information and express their concerns over a period of almost two years.
Hawker has a great opportunity to become involved with the wonderful work ANSTO perform, which in turn makes a significant contribution to Australia’s first class health system. We in Hawker will proudly share a sister city type relationship with Lucas Heights, which will allow our children and grandchildren openings into Sydney employment prospects. I am bubbling over with enthusiasm for this project; it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a small community to obtain a massive injection of investment which will provide an increase in employment and business activity for many years to come. It will guarantee the future of our town.
The terms of reference segment I wish to specifically address is, whether the local or state wide community views should be taken into consideration. I believe the way this has played out to date is not in our community’s best interest. The no campaign has yet to come up with factually correct and relevant reasons not to build the repository; if they did I would change my mind. However they are very good with slogans, some shout them, some print them, worse some even print abuse. The net result is the intimidation of some local peace loving people into a position of silence. It is right to have the negativity of such detractors contested.
 I would like to draw your attention to a Facebook petition addressed to the Police Commissioner, requesting action be taken to enforce the law including the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (prohibition) Act 2000. It is doubtful the dubious prospect of police taking action against the Commonwealth would be taken seriously by many people; however it is a worthwhile indicator of where our project’s adversaries come from. As at 30th January 2018, the petition had 539 signatures, all bar 2 had a postcode. The table shows how the signatories are broken down geographically:
signatories signatories Interstate 160 29.7% Adelaide to 200km radius + Mt Gambier 281 52.1% Port Augusta, Port Pirie to Burra 18 3.3% Flinders Ranges Council 4 0.7% of which Hawker has 2 0.4% North of Hawker 4 0.7% Eyre Peninsula 47 8.7% of which Kimba has 12 2.2% Signed twice 23 4.3% Unknown 2 0.4% Total 539 100%
In fairness the petition would exclude some people opposed to the project who can see the folly of the petition intention; nevertheless the results are consistent with what many people in Hawker already know. That is, there isn’t much opposition coming from Hawker, yet there is massive resistance coming from distant places. How can the optimism of little Hawker compete with this bombardment? The petition as appears on Facebook is copied below  (on original)

July 12, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment