Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

A Quorn resident disgusted at the hypocritical nuclear waste dump site process by Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science

Dave Fergusson Submission TO THE SENATE STANDIN COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS SENATE ENQUIRY SUBMISSION FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Submission No 106)

My name is Dave Fergusson. I grew up in Port Adelaide and from the moment I learnt to drive I have been coming up to Flinders Ranges for camping holidays and for work ever since until I decided to move to Quorn about sixteen years ago. I am absolutely disgusted at the way in which this push by the Department (DIIS) to find a site for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been conducted from day one. Please find below a few of my reasons.

1/ Land nomination of Wallerberdina Station. The first that I heard of a waste dump being proposed in the Flinders Ranges was when I was in Adelaide Hospital in December 2015. After making several enquiries as to where it was to be proposed to be built it was found to be an Ex-Senator from South Australia, Mr Grant Chapman who co-owned this property Wallerberdina. This man has not ever lived in the area nor on the property and was a deputy chairman on the Lucus Heights Waste Management Board back in the late nineties. He did not consult with any of his neighbours about his nomination of this station to get away from the designated use of the land. IE. Pastoral. Had he have been establishing a tourist venture or a quandong farm on his property, this could have been put down to an oversite on his behalf. But a nuclear waste dump !!!. Even the aboriginal people whose connections to this area go back for thousands of years were not consulted. When I spoke to DIIS in 2016 I was told it was purely coincidence that Mr Chapman just happened to have all this information regarding a NRWMF and had nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of the property.!!!

2/ The Need To Determine Broad Community Support During the early consultation days when the DIIS staff would come over here, it appeared as if they were not able to answer any of my more pertinent questions and would fob me off. There appeared to be a light feel to the sales spin and if we didn’t hurry up, then someone else could end up getting it. No one I talked to could understand why any one would want to put a waste dump in the Flinders. As no notes were ever taken at these informal meetings there would have been no record of names of who would attend or what their concerns were, especially if the concern was asking deeper and more meaning full questions.

When the radioactive waste at Woomera was discovered leaching into the ground, DIIS staff glossed over it saying this is why we need a NRWMF. If it’s at Woomera leaking all over the place and DIIS, ANSTO, CSIRO and ARPANSA, all Government departments, know of its existence then how can we be sure it’s not going to happen again? These Departments and the people who manage them are the ones that we have to put our trust in that they are managing the radioactive waste to the best possible standards. The leaking drums of unknown radioactive strength, some low, some intermediate and some with toxic chemicals are still sitting on site today on top of a concrete pad even though it was reported two years ago. This information has been suppressed to the public by the media and television.

The general public barely know this stuff exists, it will all be swept up and bought to the NRWMF wherever that may be. I don’t believe this is an issue for the communities of Hawker, Quorn and now Kimba to have to decide if we want it or not. It has already been seen that the people don’t want it. So why are they still pushing saying that transparency and openness is paramount!!!

3/ Disunity within the community What has become very noticeable is the fact that this process is splitting communities and families apart. Some who are just driven by the money can not see that waste is forever, money and our lives are not. If this goes ahead it will open up a pandora’s box. Last December 2017 I drove up to a public meeting at Hawker organised by the Hawker Community Development Board (HCDB)and DIIS for them to display several leading doctors to talk on the wonders of nuclear medicine and the life saving procedures that it produces. I waited until the presentation was over and as there were no comments from the public, I stood to ask one of the Doctors a question. I was then told by the convenor that I was not allowed to ask any questions as I did not live in Hawker. So much for openness and transparency. It was a public meeting for members of the public to attend. The Doctor asked me at the close of the meeting what my question was but I was too upset to go further with it. The senior DIIS member there also said afterwards, that it was the HCDB who chaired the meeting and as a result DIIS could not intervene. It is just another example of what I and many others are trying to say that we are being fed just the right amount of information to make us all want to have the NRWMF. They don’t want to listen to professors and doctors of geology who have worked and taught student’s geology in the area saying the proposed location is on a major fault line.

I have been evicted three times now from the Barndioota consultative Committee (BCC) meetings. These are meetings that are supposed to be run by the BCC to inform the general public of whatever information that DIIS want distributed, and concerns that the public have, to be made known to the DIIS. I have always been as unobtrusive as possible and only wished to observe. However, on three occasions it has been DIIS staff who have escorted me out. The openness and transparency just does not appear to be there.

4/ Jobs for the future It has been reported that last Friday, at a talk and dinner function, organised by DIIS at Hawker that an additional thirty new jobs will now be established at the NRWMF. This dinner was by invitation only and the selected few, were able to listen and hear the CEO of ANSTO announce the decision by the minister to create another thirty jobs. This is on top of the fifteen jobs already known about since 2016, to manage exactly the same waste that was coming into the NRWMF the week before the dinner function!!!!. I find this announcement insulting to our intelligence. Watch any documentary on our future and they all say the same thing. Robotics and A.I. will be our future. Its here now in the mining industry. One show on commercial television said “40% of Australian jobs could disappear within the next fifteen years due to robotics and artificial intelligence in the work force.” I wrote this down from the show to put it in here. Also, in the Worksafe book, it states that due to climate change within the next ten years that most outside jobs will be done robotically.

I would like to say thank you to Senator Rex Patrick for giving the concerned public a chance Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 106 to voice our opinions on this issue. Because I struggle to put my own words down on paper, I would sincerely like to be able to have the opportunity to talk at a Senate Hearing either here, at Adelaide or Canberra. I

Advertisements

June 20, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Bob Tulloch dissects Australian govt’s nuclear waste dump “community consultation” and finds it dishonest.

It is an easier proposition, supported by the legal framework, to work with small, isolated    and vulnerable communities that can be easily manipulated, than to conduct an open an transparent site selection process that engages the broader community. 

The constant vernacular of the whole siting process is deliberately ambiguous. For example the  use of the phrase ‘65% not opposed’, is often perceived as 65% of the community support the  facility.

Is the Barndioota Consultative Committee just a rubber stamp for the Dept’s attempt         to manufacture community consent?  
There has been a constant flow of incentives handed out by the Dept, to the Indigenous and non  Indigenous communities.
Through out the site selection process our communities have had to endure the Government’s  disregard of community dissent and resulting social division by an unjust, unbalanced process. 

Bob Tulloch to Senate Standing Committee on Economics  Submission for ‐ The selection process for a national radioactive waste  management facility in South Australia  (Submission No. 87)   

My name is Bob Tulloch and I have resided in the Flinders Ranges area for over 40 years. I am a  self employed business person and together with my partner Sue, operated the successful Bush  Bakery at Copley for 20 years which developed into an iconic tourist destination.  I acknowledge  the need for a national repository, but oppose and question the Government’s rationale, to  establish a repository in one of Australia’s major tourist destinations, the Flinders Ranges.
Summary  
The subject of this submission focuses on the apparent aim by the Department of  Industry,  Innovation and Science (the Dept.) to change the current boundaries, in an attempt to  manipulate the outcome of the next community survey, that will be used to determine ‘broad  community support’ for a facility to be established at the Barndioota site. This submission also  focuses on the use of incentives to target local Indigenous community votes, the questionable  distribution of community grants, provides examples of miss leading information  and in doing  so, covers the following terms of reference;

Continue reading

June 20, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Resources Minister Matt Canavan lying to South Australians on nuclear waste. Does he think that we are all fools?

Barb Walker  Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 19 June 18 

I’ve just listened to another snow job on ABC 891 and then repeated on ABC 639. Senator Canavan is not telling the truth. He also contradicted statements he made in ‘The Australian’ newspaper this week.

Mr Canavan, your nuclear waste dump does NOT have 65% community support. He has used a figure from a dodgy phone poll that was conducted well over 2 years ago in the Flinders Ranges. Incidentally, that poll only consulted a small percentage of people on fixed phone lines – asking if they would like more information about the process of hosting a nuclear waste facility and so on. Hardly grounds to spruik 65% support, Mr Canavan!

This has been a flawed process every step of the way.

Senator Rex Patrick states, and rightly so;
“RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE SELECTION = A SHAM”

Here in the Flinders, we have been fighting this proposed dump for over 2 years. 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 and many wanting the dump to just, go away!

The Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), has stated they will not give a licence to build a nuclear waste facility where there is no community support. Why then are the facts being twisted to suit Mr Canavan? He is still spruiking “hospital waste”. Does he think he is talking to fools? Our communities have done extensive research and we are well informed. Perhaps we know more than he does? 

Doesn’t he realise the implications of the ILW sitting in the Flinders for hundreds of years with no forward plans of future repacking and deep underground disposal. Lay your plans on the table, Senator Canavan. Let’s hear it.

If we were to hide valuable information by twisting the truth to suit an outcome that will effect communities for hundreds, if not thousands, of years we would all lose our jobs and probably finish up in jail.

Senator Canavan, if the August vote swings to a ‘NO’ vote will that be seen by you as just, “community sentiment” or does NO actually mean NO ? https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/

June 19, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dumping would destroy Adnyamathanha traditional land and cultural heritage

Heather Mckenzie Stuart Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 19 June 18 

Just thinking, the proposed nuclear rubbish dump been forced upon us and the rest of the Adnyamathanha people is like imperialism. It is an economic, political dominance over us.
We as traditional owners have not heard of or seen any report of the so called cultural heritage assessment that was done upon our traditional lands, so I believe and see that as tokenism, because the wider community of Adnyamathanha people weren’t involved or weren’t consulted in a proper manner and it looks like we will never get to see the cultural heritage report.
So why is there so much secrecy on the cultural heritage report because at the end of the day, we are the Adnyamathanha people and its our traditional land and cultural heritage, our overall a big part of our cultural stytem our Muda that will be destroyed.
It will be total cultural genocide, so please dont destroy our culture our Muda by ripping out the pages of our story lines just for a nuclear waste repository. Listen to the first sovereign people, the Adnyamathanha of the Flinders Ranges, because we know the end of the story and the consequences that the Muda will bring, please respect it as we dont want mankind to suffer today, tomorrow and in the years to come.
Leave the poison nuclear waste at Lucas Heights or wherever it is around the world today, we dont want it on and in our yarta its muntha, no good! Hopefully oned ay, but at the moment it is only a big dream, our knowlege of our yarta and of the Dreaming, our people will be accepted, respected and embraced by all non Aboriginal Australians as true history and sovereign people of the northern Flinders Ranges and surrounding areas so please dont put a nuclear waste dump on our yarta.
painting done by Regina McKenzie 6 yrs ago about Yurlus Dreaming tracks and where he went. This one depicts the a part of the tracks area where Yurlu went, but unfortunately now this area destined for a nuclear waste repository which will destroy the story and Dreaming tracks storyline and songs. 
 I want to stress, that I dont hate anyone regardless of race creed or colour all I want is for us as all Adnyamathanha people a tribal nation to be listened to by DIIS so that they dont destroy our cultural beliefs, our heritage our stories of creation of this land and where it goes. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/

June 19, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

USA nuclear authorities rename nuclear waste to make it sound safer: so do Australia’s

Paul Waldon  Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 18 June 18
The American Department Of Energy’s (DOE), June 4th 2018 proposal to re-label (reclassify or rename) Hanford’s highly radioactive tank waste so it will not have to comply with the time consuming requirements of treating or disposing of such waste.
And if the DOE gets their way, high level radioactive waste “residue” will become “Waste Incidental to Reprocessing,” or WIR. This also means, radioactive waste in Hanford’s leaky tanks will only be cemented or grouted over, and will continue to purge its dangerous contents into the neighbouring Columbia river.
America’s irresponsible attempt to reclassify high grade radioactive waste is reminiscing of Australia labeling high grade waste as intermediate, and for those people that can’t remember it was only on the eve of WIPP’s inauguration that the residents of Carlsbad were adroit to the fact that radioactive waste to be accepted was of a greater classification at their unseen backdoor than indicated coming through the documented front-door. 

So is Australia building a backdoor for waste abandonment? https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/

June 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Need for an Independent Commission of Inquiry into Australia’s Nuclear Waste Management – FOE Submission

Friends of the Earth , Contact: Jim Green B.Med.Sci.(Hons.) PhD National Nuclear Campaigner ‒Australia SUBMISSION TO SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES ON ECONOMICS Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Friends of the Earth Australia  www.nuclear.foe.org.au/waste(Submission No. 86)

(Ed note. This copy of this submission does not include the copious references which are provided on the original at the Senate website. )

CONTENTS 

  1. Introduction
  2. The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the nominations of land guidelines
  3. How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process
  4. How any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process
  5. Whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment
  6. 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
  7. Any Other Related Matters ‒ Alleged Need for a Dump and Store
  8. Any Other Related Matters ‒ Long-lived Intermediate-level Waste
  9. Any Other Related Matters ‒ Need for an Independent Commission of Inquiry
  10. Introduction

Friends of the Earth Australia (FoE) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to this inquiry and would welcome the opportunity to appear at a hearing of the Senate Committee.

This submission comments on terms of reference (a) to (e).

Comment is also provided on several issues under term of reference (f) ‘any other related matters’.

In this introduction we wish to draw attention to two vital issues: the grossly deficient National Radioactive Waste Management Act, and the alleged need for a central waste facility. National Radioactive Waste Management Act We wish to emphasise gross deficiencies in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act (NRWMA), the federal legislation governing the nuclear waste management process.

The NRWMA is grossly undemocratic and it systematically disadvantages Aboriginal people. There is little point in seeking to improve processes under the NRWMA when the overarching legislation is itself deeply flawed. Conversely, significantly amending the NRWMA would be a logical starting point for resolution of intractable waste management issues. For those reasons, consideration of this issue should be central to the Committee’s deliberations.

It is noteworthy that in defending the government’s decision to oppose this Senate Inquiry, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister said the government is assessing three sites in SA “following a voluntary and fully transparent, community-driven process, consistent with the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.” 1 Yet the government itself implicitly acknowledged serious flaws in the process by significantly amending it (for example compare the initial and subsequent nominations of sites near Kimba). Deficient processes have arisen from deficient legislation and the logical starting point to resolve the situation is to amend the legislation.

The NRWMA gives the federal government the power to extinguish rights and interests in land targeted for a radioactive waste facility. The Minister must “take into account any relevant comments by persons with a right or interest in the land” but there is no requirement to secure consent. Traditional Owners, local communities, pastoralists, business owners, local councils and State/Territory Governments are all disadvantaged and disempowered by the NRWMA.

The NRWMA disempowers Traditional Owners in multiple ways, including:

  • The nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even if Aboriginal owners were not consulted and did not give consent.
  • The NRWMA has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect the archaeological or heritage values of land or objects, including those which relate to Indigenous traditions.
  • The NRWMA curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important site-selection stage

. • The Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land acquisition for a radioactive waste facility.

The NRWMA also puts the federal government’s radioactive waste agenda above environmental protection as it seeks to curtail the application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The NRWMA needs to be radically amended or replaced

Further deficiencies in the NRWMA are discussed in a briefing paper written by Monash University fifth-year law student Amanda Ngo in 2017. Her paper, ‘National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012’, is posted at http://tinyurl.com/nrwma-2017 and we urge Committee members to read the paper.

The alleged need for a centralised site and the absurdity of moving intermediate-level waste from Lucas Heights to a store adjacent to the planned repository.

Much of the discussion around nuclear waste management in Australia assume the need for a centralised, remote waste management site. Yet successive governments have failed to demonstrate the need for a centralised site. This contradiction is most acute in regards to long-lived intermediate-level waste (LLILW) (including spent fuel reprocessing waste) currently stored at Lucas Heights.

Plans to move LLILW from Lucas Heights (and elsewhere) to an above-ground store colocated with the repository for lower-level wastes, and then to an unspecified site at an unspecified later date, make no sense from a policy perspective and they significantly raise public-acceptance obstacles. At best, the current co-location proposal would mean double handling i.e. transport to the interim national store then future transport to a currently undetermined disposal site. Such an approach would fail a net-benefit test (as required under the ARPANS Act) as it would involve a net increase in public health and environmental risks. The government plans to increase public health and environmental risks, and increase public acceptance obstacles, for no logical, defensible reason whatsoever. The current Coalition government should revert to the policy of the previous Howard Coalition government and separate the processes for managing LLILW and lower-level waste.

Even if the Senate Committee is unwilling to systematically investigate the claimed need for a centralised repository and co-located LLILW store, the Committee should at the very least explore the absurd proposal to transport LLILW from Lucas Heights to a co-located store and thence to a disposal site which could be located in any of Australia’s states or territories.

Sites other than those in SA.

Sites other than those in SA (Flinders Ranges and Kimba) have progressed towards formal nomination ‒ in particular, Leonora (WA) and Brewarrina (NSW). We urge the Senate Committee to consider submissions from local people and groups in those areas. Those sites are not further discussed in this submission but other submissions will alert the Committee to glaring process errors, such as a community survey initiated by the Brewarrina Council which made no mention of the words ‘radioactive’ or ‘nuclear’. 2.

The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the nominations of land guidelines.

The federal government is offering $10 million for hosting the radioactive waste management facility. The facility will operate for approximately 300 years. Thus the compensation amounts to about $33,000 per year, i.e. next to nothing. The $10 million would likely be spent in a matter of years ‒ so for decades and centuries the local community would have to deal with the risks and problems associated with the facility, with no compensation.

There has been discussion about states/territories paying for the use of the national radioactive waste facility but details are vague and it is inconceivable that that could amount to anything more than a negligible revenue stream given that total national radioactive waste generation amounts to approx. 45 cubic metres annually according to the federal government (40 cubic metres of low-level waste and 5 cubic metres of intermediatelevel waste).2

The government’s claims about job creation are implausible and we urge the Senate Committee to say so clearly in its report. From 1998-2004, the Howard government stated that there would be zero permanent jobs at its proposed national repository site near Woomera. When attention later focused on the Muckaty site in the NT, successive governments said there would be six security jobs at the site and no other permanent jobs. Work would be available when waste was transferred to the facility, but there was no expectation that it would involve locals, and waste transfers to the site were only anticipated infrequently (once every 3‒5 years).3

The current government position is that “at least 15 full-time equivalent jobs will be needed to operate the facility.” 4 It is plausible that there might be 15 jobs in the initial stage as waste holdings are transferred to the site, processed/packaged and disposed of (or stored in the case of LLILW). However, it is implausible that 15 permanent jobs would be maintained beyond that initial phase given that waste transfers to the site would be low-volume and infrequent (once every three to five years). Annual generation of 45 cubic metres of waste could not sustain 15 jobs ‒ the claim is absurd and the government should be held to account by the Senate Committee for raising false expectations.

  1. 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.

Minister Matt Canavan suggested 65% as the marker for ‘broad community support’ but then continued with the Kimba sites even after an AEC survey determined that support fell considerably short of that level at 56%.

There seems little point in assessing the level of community support and opposition when the government simply shifts the goal-posts to suit its political purposes. This issue will arise again with the government’s plan to formally survey local public opinion around nominated sites in August / September 2018 Continue reading

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

Philip Fels: a farming family saddened at community disruption, due to unwise Barndioota nuclear waste dump site selection

Philip Fels   Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 84

To the Senate standing committee on Economics, Regarding the proposed nuclear waste facility at Barndioota near Hawker S.A.

As a family which has lived and worked the land very near to the proposed nuclear waste facility for more than 130 yrs we are very strongly against this facility going ahead for some of the reasons which we will try and point out in the text following.

The site in question shouldn’t have been allowed to be nominated by a person or persons with out any consultation with people whom this may directly effect considering they have only owned the property for a short time and have never lived or worked on the property or are ever likely to.

The land in question is one of the most unstable areas in Australia and we have earth tremors weekly if not daily and the Wilkatana Fault runs right up through this area.

As the soil structure is very porous and their is no granite bedrock in this area seepage or leakage into the local underground water table and then ultimately Lake Torrens is a very real risk.

As well as sustainably farming Merino Sheep and beef cattle for a very long time we also have a successful tourism business which we have been running on the property for 50 yrs which we fear will be severely impacted.

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.

 It saddens us greatly that somebody or bodies can come into a community for such a short time and cause such social stress which will only compound if this facility goes ahead.

Thank you if you took the time to read this and act on any of the concerns we have because they are real !!

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

Anna Taylor: Lucas Heights is the appropriate place, with the technology and expertise, for temporary storage of nuclear wastes

Anna Taylor Submission to Senate on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission No 82

Introduction I live on the Eyre Peninsula and have deep concerns about this plan, including site selection, community consent, and the consultation process which lacks transparency and is fundamentally flawed. I do not support this current plan and welcome this opportunity to formally convey my concerns and opposition to the inquiry.

The Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. Myself and many locals believe the storage of intermediate level nuclear waste will affect tourism and primary industries. The issue continues to cause deep division and stress in the affected communities. Many Traditional Owners do not want cultural heritage sites and their spiritual connection to country put at risk.

After 70 years of the nuclear industry the federal government has no plans for a permanent solution of the long-lived intermediate-level waste. ‘Interim’ aboveground storage in SA could stretch to 100 years or more, this is not acceptable. The current project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia

The federal government has not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA. Australia must take responsibility for this waste; we must minimize future waste production and have a transparent approach to the future safety of intermediate level waste.

SITE SELECTION

I believe that

a) the process of site selection should be based on finding a permanent solution that is best suited to the safe management of this most Hazardous waste, with minimal transportation.Without expansion Lucas Heights has the knowledge and expertise to manage this waste for decades to come until a permanent (not a temporary storage facility) solution is found. Operations at the Lucas Heights site are licensed for a further three decades, which has the highest concentration of people with nuclear expertise and radiation response capacity in Australia. ANSTO and ARPANSA have publicly identified storage at ANSTO as a credible and feasible option

b) A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump. .

COMMUNITY CONSENT Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

Finding a solution rather than a location should begin with the government up holding its commitment to State community consent. I believe that the definition of broad community consent is extremely important and does not just belong to the people of one town adjacent to the proposed site but to a “broad” area as the term implies. The safe management of Australia’s nuclear waste is not only relevant to all of the Eyre peninsula / Flinders ranges population but too all South Australians and all populations along transportation routes. So far broad community consultation to the broader community has been non-existent. Consent within the communities is marginal but the site selection process has continued to the next stage regardless. This is extremely questionable, how can the community trust a process that does not listen to its results? I think its fair to say 57% community support in Kimba is not broad and should not have progressed further. We must clarify what percentage is acceptable for such a hazardous waste and this must not be the main factor in advancements of stages. This issue is an issue for all Australians and singling out a small community to deal with waste of this magnitude is ridiculous.

The South Australian community have already said no and raised enough concern back in 2002 when our state government passed the “ Nuclear Waste Prohibition act 2000” legislating protection to Sa from: A) The storage of nuclear waste (other than South Australia’s waste) B) A ban on the transportation of nuclear waste from interstate or overseas for the purpose of sending it to a national waste dump in this state.

I believe a failure of the National Waste Management Project has been to fully inform local communities about the facts of the intermediate level waste; where it is, how much of it there is and how radioactive it is. The public information campaign has been dishonest scare mongering, misleading to say the least. Linking the need for centralized radioactive waste storage facility with the production of isotopes for nuclear medicine is misleading. It is vital to provide accurate information to communities if you are genuinely looking for informed consent. Proponents claim that most of the waste planned to be stored in a national repository is from medicine, specifically medical radio isotopes, however measured by radio activity the figure is just 10-20%.*(1). The absence of a dump hasn’t harmed nuclear medicines and the establishment of a national dump won’t help nuclear medicine. There are new technologies to embrace,superseding nuclear medicine, such as making isotopes using cyclotrons that produce no long-term waste

I live near but outside the boundary for community consent and my conversations at the local community liaison office in Kimba have been unprofessional, misleading and not formally acknowledged.

COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAMME The community benefit programme is questionable, verging on bribery creating further division in small communities .Its is an appalling approach to offer money (instead of transparent information) in return for a product that is poisonous to life for greater than your lifetime let alone hundreds of generations. I believe there should be no more taxpayer’s money spent on a site selection process that is flawed.

TRADITIONAL OWNERS

Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues. This must be recognized and acted on. The Barndioota site near Hawker has significant cultural values to the Adnyamathana peoples, this must be acknowledged and respected and ruled out of any more consideration.

ADVANCEMENTS OF STAGES Any advancements of stages of these site selections seems inappropriate whilst the proposal is for a “interim” solution that could stretch to a hundred years. This approach is not the safest management of Australia’s most long lived waste. The government needs to review future nuclear waste production with a commitment to reduce and phase out the creation of more nuclear waste.

Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues. This must be recognized and acted on. The Barndioota site near Hawker has significant cultural values to the Adnyamathana peoples, this must be acknowledged and respected and ruled out of any more consideration.

SUMMARY

The current project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. The waste can and should remain secured and monitored at Lucas Heights until a dedicated public review of the full range of options for waste management is carried out. I believe we need an expert open and independent inquiry into the full range of options. Nuclear waste management requires the highest quality decision-making and information. We must start afresh on planning and establishing the best way to deal with this highly toxic waste.

References:

*(1) Nuclear Medicine and the National Dump Site, Jim Green Med Sci. (Hons) PhD, Jan 2018 10 more questions about Australia’s nuclear waste. Nov 2017.

Dr Margaret Beavis and Dr Peter Karanoskos, Medical Association for Prevention Of War-Health professionals promoting peace.

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

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

Kimba farmers Darren and Kellie Hunt deplore the Australian government’s flawed process for selection of nuclear waste dump site

Darren and Kellie Hunt  SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No 80)

We are farmers in the Buckleboo district of Kimba, where we live with our three young children. We are both active members of the Kimba community and have been dismayed at the ongoing division and stress this proposal had caused amongst community members.

We feel the process that has brought us to this situation has been flawed and unfair, and we thank the Senate for their willingness to consider this issue.

Concerns we have include the lack of definition of what constitutes Broad Community Support, the use of financial incentive to coerce the community and the lack of consideration given to the potential implications to our agricultural industry.

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

Clearly, the landholders who have volunteered their land are the only persons to directly and personally benefit from this proposal. We understand that they will receive 4 time the value of their land for the section that is acquired, however it has not been made clear exactly how this value will be determined. Also, we understand that the nominators are receiving compensation for access to their land during the site evaluation phase, however information on the value of these payments have been kept from the public. If this process is to be ‘fair and transparent’ as the Department have insisted it is, we believe that this information should be available to the 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

  1. One of our greatest concerns regarding this process has been Ministers refusal to clearly define the term “broad community support’. As arguably the most important aspect in finding a suitable site, and certainly the biggest hurdle the Government have faced in their bids to date to do so, the unwillingness to clearly explain what they consider both ‘Broad’ and “Community” has created confusion and caused an escalating lack of trust towards the Minister and the process. It is very apparent that the reasoning behind the lack of clear definition is to allow the Minister to effectively ‘move the goal posts’, as was clearly evident when Kimba was accepted to phase two following our June 2017 vote.
  2. Having stated in the senate that he would require a number in the vicinity of 65% of the community voting to progress with the proposal, Minister Canavan chose to push Kimba into phase two of the process with a supporting vote of 57%. This result is subjective to the number of people who chose to participate in the vote, in actual fact those in support represented 49.94% of those within the community eligible to vote.One of the reasons the Minister given for his refusal to quantify broad community support is to enable him to accept opinions given from those who are ineligible to vote, via submissions. Prior to the June vote, 396 submissions were received both from the community and outside. The phase 1 summary report states that of the 112 local submission 86% were opposed. The remaining 294 submission were not given consideration in the report. Despite these results, Minister Canavan determined that broad community support existed in Kimba to progress the proposal to phase 2

We do not feel that Kimba should have continued to phase two after the vote as there was no clear indication of broad community support, merely proof that our community so divided in opinion on this issue. We believe strong consideration should be given to who has the right to vote, and if we are to continue to a further ballot, a definitive number must be provided prior as to what percentage of the overall community must be supportive for the proposal to progress. We believe this should be at least an absolute majority of 67% (of all eligible voters)

  1. How any need for indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;We feel that the traditional land owners must be consulted and heard in this decision making process. We have not been aware of any consideration given to the Bungala people in the Kimba process at this stage.
  1. Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;The community benefits program was not a part of the initial package, and was announced prior to the 2017 Kimba vote, labelled ‘disruption money’. Clearly, the Minister was aware that this process has caused stress and division within communities, and felt that additional financial incentive would help to garner support. Unfortunately, no amount of ‘compensation’ can repair the damage that has been done and the division that we are forced to face on a daily basis.

f) Any other related matters.

We strongly believe that the facility is not suitable for Agricultural land. The storage of nuclear waste in a food growing region in a country which had as much un-arable land as ours makes no sense. The perception of the proximity of the nations nuclear waste to our productive land has the potential to adversely impact our commodity prices and land values and these are unacceptable risks to our business.

Clearly consideration has been given to potential impacts on agriculture as the draft ARPANSA’s Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste selection criteria includes ‘The immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use’.

This process has caused immeasurable contention and division within our town. The Department has upheld that they are running a fair and transparent process, and that everyone’s opinions are valid and will be respected. However, they have clearly put much effort into convincing those opposed to change their views. On a recent trip to Lucas Heights Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 80 (fully taxpayer funded and clearly orchestrated to demonstrate the safety of the facility) I was asked by our Community Liaison Officer if “we have managed to change your mind yet, now that you know there is nothing to fear”. This clearly sums up the objective of the department’s current presence in Kimba and the interest they are taking in our concern

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

Leon Ashton lays bare Australian govt hypocrisy, double-talk, lies , in its process for selecting nuclear waste dump site

I am not against having a LLW facility in Australia. I am against the way in which DIIS have gone about finding a quick fix for something that will affect all South Australians for centuries to come.  It should not be up to a small council area to overrule our Prohibition Act 2000, if we are to vote for something of such national importance. I would have thought that after having had something like 35 attempts over some 25 years to find a suitable location, that DIIS would have been able to involve public consultation a lot more honestly
 
It is a fine line between informing a community and bribing a community. And to what end ,? I strongly suggest that before any community has to endure what Hawker, Quorn and Kimba twice now is going thru, that a much higher percentage of community support be obtained. IE 80 -85% and this would include all traditional custodians and neighbours.
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 (both the first and the second time around). The proven “flawed” survey results, the terrible anguish that has been placed on the traditional custodians of this land, the countless unpaid hours of research to try to establish the actual volumes of legacy low-level waste at hospitals around the country compared to the volumes of intermediate level waste to be “temporarily “ stored at the chosen site.
Leon Ashton Submission to STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS
SENATE ENQUIRY SUBMISSION FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No. 79)
My name is Leon Ashton I live at Quorn with my wife on a small 12 acre holding we bought in 2009, intending to have a peaceful life in between doing contract work on the Nullarbor Plain and up to Alice Springs.
In December 2015 I first received knowledge that Wallerberdina Station had been put up for consideration for a nuclear waste dump to be built there.
I attended an information gathering meeting in the Quorn council chambers and was told by the people who came over from Canberra that this would be a low level only facility. This was also told to the people at Hawker. See attachment A. extract by political reporter Jane Norman, and was shown photos of similar facilities, both in France and in England, however, they said these two facilities housed an amount of intermediate level waste (ILW) as well as low level waste (LLW).
The next meeting was in the Quorn Town Hall in February 2016. It was then announced, because a member of the public raised the question, that there could possibly be a small amount of ILW stored there, but only on a temporary basis. It wasn’t until much later, when the LLW and more dangerous ILW temporarily stored at Woomera, started leaching out into the surrounding area, that DIIS employees said this will all be, once safely packaged up (29 million dollars’ worth) sent to the new waste facility. Our low-level facility is fast becoming a temporary intermediate waste facility.
MR GRANT CHAPMAN
I also struggle with the fact that an ex-Senator from South Australia, Mr Grant Chapman, also ex deputy chairman of the Board of Directors at Lucas Heights and co-owner of Wallerberdina Station, could put up his property as a protentional nuclear waste dump site, with no consultation whatsoever with anyone in the surrounding area. He was also quoted as saying, in a newspaper, that it is okay also if they want to put a high-level waste dump there as well. (See Attachment B  – on original) To this day he has not appeared anywhere in a public meeting to explain his actions to his neighbours or the traditional custodians. He has never lived on this property. He is the absent landlord. Is this in keeping with “world’s best practice”? In the many meetings I had with DIIS staff at Quorn in 2016, I was told yes, this part of the process could have been done much better and they would do it differently now Kimba has nominated two more potential sites. This is the second time Kimba has been divided as a community. The process that is being carried out competing one community against another in a bid to “host the facility” is causing irreparable damage to the people who are both for the dump and against it.

THE NEED TO DETERMINE BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT

In April 2016, a community sentiment survey was completed by DIIS through a company called ORIMA Research. This 205-page detailed report can be accessed on line. I attended another information gathering meeting at Quorn council chambers in April 2016, along with several other residents, to voice our concern. A member of our group voiced their concern at how the community survey was conducted and the methodology behind it. We all then heard a senior DIIS member tell us, yes, the community survey was flawed in some places, however we will still be going ahead with the next stage, into Phase 2, i.e. more information giving sessions to the public and looking at cultural and geological site compatibility.

I had, in April 2016, during my regular information gathering, monthly meetings, with DIIS staff, obtained a copy of the community survey conducted by Orima Research and spent the next 9 months trying to understand it. No one I approached could understand it either. I was trying to determine how 65% of the community were accepting of finding more information on the proposed facility, when almost all people I spoke to were totally against putting a dump in the Flinders Ranges.
I finally found a person who is a Registered Psychologist and has studied university level statistics along with survey research during her 40-year career who, after three days studying the Orima Survey book, gave me the results of her findings. (See Attachment C – Informal Comments on the ORIMA Research Findings  – on original ). As you can see, these comments identifies serious flaws and cast significant doubts on the validity of the survey.
In October 2016, our now formed group, Flinders Local Action Group, conducted our own survey by mail, to residents in Hawker and Quorn, asking people if they would want a national radioactive waste facility built on Wallerberdina station. The results obtained were that 87% of forms returned were against a dump. We ensured that the survey forms returned were opened and scrutineered in front of a J.P. I might add that the survey that FLAG conducted was at no cost to the tax payer what so ever and none of us had done anything like this before. (See Attachment D – Survey from Flag – on original).
DISUNITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES
I have written many letters to The Minister for The Environment and Northern Territory, outlining the fact that there definitely is a lot of disunity, both here and in Kimba. Most of the traditional custodians are united in their stand against this facility, however, the ones who are in favour are causing huge disruptions to their own families where 1/ Stress and harassment has caused people to be flown by RFDS to Adelaide with life threatening ailments and 2/ Threats have been made to other family members at one or two o’clock in the morning advising them to change their attitude and support the waste dump. 3/ There have also been phone calls to these people saying that if they change their mind and vote for the dump, then houses and vehicles could be bought for them.
When the May newsletter from DIIS was distributed around Quorn ,Hawker and Kimba, it was said by the Viliwarinah Yura Aboriginal Community chair how the community views the project ( see attachment E extract from May 2017 DIIS newsletter ) It says the majority of our community would like the facility to go ahead and at a recent special meeting VYAC held a ballot for the project and 85% of members who voted were in favour .This information sent to the public to boost public support was grossly misleading. Out of the total of one hundred and one eligible VYAC members who could vote,only 28 voting members attended a meeting at Port Augusta. Out of the 28 people who attended, 13 members left leaving 10 people to vote in favour, three to say no and two to abstain. This does not make 85% of the Viliwarinha Yura people who are in favour. I also advised the Minister that in Quorn, Hawker and Kimba, people who were once mates, now would cross the streets rather than talk to one another.
Please find below the response I received back from Matt Canavan dated 27 May 2017.

[ “I understand there are a range of views within the community and the government encourages respect for all opinions. In my visit to the region and thru feedback from my department, I do not share your view that there is disunity in the area, or a need for assistance to support the community because of division.“ ] Mr Canavan could not possibly share my view because the people who were opposed to putting the waste dump in this area were told they could not have any time with him at all to discuss concerns face to face as he was too busy.?

Does this appear to be in keeping with “world’s best practice”.

TOURISM IN THE REGION

The information which is being given by DIIS almost makes us feel obligated as citizens, that it is our duty to accept a waste facility in our backyard. We are informed constantly that we have had or will have at some point in the future, a procedure involving nuclear medicine.
The problem I’ve struggled with is why put it here in South Australia when SA in 2016 was cited as the 5th best place to visit for tourism in the world and then four weeks later, the Flinders Ranges (the area where the site is proposed) was acclaimed as No. 10 most popular tourist destination in the world. These references came from The Times newspaper and The Lonely Planet Tourist Guide. Why would we jeopardise a 300 million dollar annually, tourist industry in the Flinders Ranges and Outback ( Quoted from Tourism SA 2015 ) by “hosting” a nuclear waste dump almost in the heart of it? Does this sound as if it is “world’s best practice”? When these questions are raised with DIIS, the response is always, we believe it will make the Flinders Ranges more of a tourist attraction and if tourist numbers do decline in years to come, then we will start an advertising campaign. Really !!
I have responded by saying once it is put there, it is too late. Tourists DO NOT come to the Flinders Ranges other than to see the “untouched” beauty of this iconic, ancient, natural landscape. The people of Kimba are also struggling as the Eyre Peninsula is trying to promote the region as a clean green environment for agriculture, tourism and aquaculture. From 2010, RDAWEP Regional Development Australia Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula have endorsed this policy .

FUTURE EMPLOYMENT

We are informed by DIIS that there will be at least 15 full time job equivalents at the waste facility and yet when we look at every other industry, they are so tightly regulated, especially in areas of danger, it is only a matter of time before robotics also take over positions in this facility. This is the way of the future, so why would we trust people who are verbally telling us that we have nothing to worry about, the jobswill be there. I might add, that since January 2016, there have been at least five, possibly six key staff members from DIIS who have either left the Department or moved onto other positions. This does not allow continuity to the people they speak with and does not inspire confidence in what they are telling us. For example, I asked an employee of DIIS when they came to Quorn for the monthly gathering, what would DIIS do if the SA government citizens jury won the vote against having a HLW (high level waste) dump in South Australia. The employee told me DIIS would honour the SA Prohibition Act and walk away from it all. The next month I was told this would never happen and the Federal Government would overrule the Prohibition Act and carry straight on, as they have done. The employee who told me they would walk away, no longer works in that department.

We are now hearing news that changes could be made to the voting area. If the voting area could be reduced in size, it may increase the chances of a more favourable decision for the facility to go ahead. DIIS has said since 2016, a facility would not proceed unless it had “Broad Community Support”. We are now informed this will not necessarily be the deciding factor. Does this appear to be in keeping with “world’s best practice”?

ARPANSA have a guideline for prospective nuclear waste dump sites in Australia. The first three pre-requisites are 1. No seismic activity 2. Not flood prone and 3. Must have broad community support. Wallerberdina ticks all the boxes for where NOT to put it. I have stated before in writing that ANSTO are possibly the best people in the world to manage the waste storage at Lucas Heights.

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 (both the first and the second time around). The proven “flawed” survey results, the terrible anguish that has been placed on the traditional custodians of this land, the countless unpaid hours of research to try to establish the actual volumes of legacy low-level waste at hospitals around the country compared to the volumes of intermediate level waste to be “temporarily “ stored at the chosen site. Also, other creditable proven facts on the geology, seismic and flood plain area. See attachment F ( Geological and Environmental Implications of a nuclear waste disposal site in the Barndioota area ) We now know that the facility will be one to temporarily store ILW, not what I was told back in January 2016. We also know that this ILW will be temporarily stored above ground until a HLW facility is chosen either in Australia or overseas sometime into the millennia. We have been told that the cost to permanently find a site for ILW to be buried deep below ground would be massive and to do this by itself would be cost prohibitive. If no HLW site is chosen by us, as we don’t have HLW in Australia, then we will be leaving a hell of a mess for our future children to sort out.

OUTCOMES TO DATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

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. I would have thought that after having had something like 35 attempts over some 25 years to find a suitable location, that DIIS would have been able to involve public consultation a lot more honestly. The massive cost to the taxpayer to find a “ willing community to host a waste facility ”.It is a fine line between informing a community and bribing a community. And to what end ,? I strongly suggest that before any community has to endure what Hawker, Quorn and Kimba twice now is going thru, that a much higher percentage of community support be obtained. IE 80 -85% and this would include all traditional custodians and neighbours. I don’t feel that there will ever be a 100 % of community support for such a contentious issue however, if there was genuine feeling to have a” low level waste “ facility , [ no bullying .no bribes. No lies or manipulation.] then if the region as a whole felt it was a good thing to have, then I too would support it. There will never be a harmonious spirit within a community when 65% is used as a percentage of people who want the dump. Even if it was a genuine 65% The people of Quorn, Hawker and Kimba have seen first-hand how a marginal percentage can ruin lives and friendships forever.

It is for the above reasons that I believe DIIS need to scrap their prospective low-level waste dump locations and have a complete rethink in conjunction with other associations to try and rebuild a level of trust for what they are putting to the public before entering into public consultation.

 

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

Why is nuclear industry puppet – Matt Canavan not considering Leonora , Western Australia, as nuclear waste dump?

Nuclear site selection process questioned https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5467944/nuclear-site-selection-process-questioned/ Kathrine Catanzariti  14 June 18 

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

Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick exposes wider flaws in the Australian govt’s targeting of South Australia as nuclear waste dump

Senator Rex Patrick has shown up the hypocrisy of the Federal Government in its expensive frenzy to foist a nuclear waste dump on rural South Australia. And in instigating the Senate Inquiry into this process, has set in motion the discrediting of the whole National Radioactive Waste Management Facility sham.

However, the propaganda by Western Australian private company Azark is not reliable, either. There is indigenous opposition to nuclear waste dumping in the Leonora region,Western Australia.  Western Australia’s Labor government may not support Azark’s low level waste dump plan, may have its own plan for WA.s radioactive waste. This WA private offer is for low level waste disposal and is not for the Fed govt proposed above ground 100 year Store for 10,000 yr nuclear fuel wastes and long lived intermediate level wastes.

This  exposes Federal govt’s plan to have two dumps in one, to “co-locate” a long lived waste Store’ along side a low level disposal site. It exposes their priority to dump Federal govt owned long lived nuclear wastes at an above ground “stranded wastes” dump in regional South Australia.

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

South Australian site selection for a national radioactive waste facility is a “sham”, as Western Australian private project is revealed

South Australia nuclear waste site a “done deal: claims Senator Rex Patrick https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/sa-nuclear-waste-site-a-done-deal-senator-rex-patrick/news-story/08524bb4dc5004f467462b1591a55b1f, The Advertiser, Erin Jones, Regional Reporter,   June 13, 2018 

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick told The Advertiser the decision to establish a low-level facility at one of two sites in South Australia appeared to be a “done deal” following the revelation.

In August, Azark Project made a nomination to include the commercial operation of an underground storage facility, near the remote central mining town of Leonora, north of Kalgoorlie.

The South Australian senator, who visited Leonora, said the proposal appeared to have “considerable support” and unlike the two SA sites near Kimba and Hawker, did not need taxpayer funds to proceed.

“Resources Minister Matt Canavan needs to properly engage the proponents of the proposed site near Leonora or risk the whole selection process being confirmed as an absolute sham,” he said.

“It appears as though the new site is a ‘faster runner’ in the race, but won’t be allowed to participate because the Minister is determined to rush to select one of the South Australian sites despite there being a divided community.”

Azark Project chairman George Gear said the WA site had no environmental, land rights or water issues, and the proposal had support of the 2900 people in Leonora Shire.

Mr Gear said he had no confidence in the specially-formed government taskforce considering sites for the waste facility, given Leonora was not on the table.

“Apart from this being a superior site located in a mining area and in solid rock, this wouldn’t cost the taxpayer any money as it’s a private company that will build this,” Mr Gear, a former minister in the Keating government, said.

“The taskforce to date has either spent or committed $40 million and they haven’t finalised the project.

“Azark has completed all of its due diligence at its own cost and has offered to make it available to the taskforce — this invitation was not accepted.”

Mr Gear said Azark Project had decided to pursue the plan on its own, but was expected to meet Mr Canavan in Perth, today.

The Government is expected to decide in coming months whether to build the waste facility in SA, after a final ballot of Kimba and Hawker districts, on August 20.

Mr Canavan has previously said “broad community support” would be needed for the waste facility to go ahead — although no arbitrary figure has been provided.

The two-year site selection process has divided both communities — those in favour believe it would create economic opportunities, while those opposed say it will jeopardise industries.

The district where the waste facility is located would be rewarded by the government with a $10 million community fund to spend on local projects.

Both districts were already benefiting from a $4 million grants fund as a reward for being involved in the site selection process.

Senator Patrick this year successfully pushed for a Senate inquiry into the site selection process used for the national waste facility and an outcome is expected only days before the ballot, on August 14.

In a submission to the inquiry, Kimba’s mayor said more information on financial rewards and jobs was needed before the community voted in the ballot.

Mr Canavan did not respond to questions before deadline.

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

Medical Association for Prevention of War – an urgent need for an independent inquiry into the production and management of Australia’s nuclear waste.

The Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) Sue Wareham OAM MBBS Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH President Secretary Submission to Inquiry into the Selection Process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

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

We will address the key issue of “Broad community support”, as we believe the information provided to communities has been misleading. It is not possible to have genuine community consent and a truly “willing community” based on inaccurate and incomplete information.

We will also raise concerns regarding “related matters”, addressing plans to massively increasing the future production of nuclear waste in Australia. There has been very poor process, information and community consultation about this issue also, and it will significantly impact on the community selected for the NRWMF due to markedly increased levels of long lived intermediate level waste being produced for the next 40 years.

The Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) works for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and the prevention of armed conflict. We promote peace through research, advocacy, peace education and partnerships. Our professional not-forprofit organisation has branches across Australia, and works globally through the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Nuclear waste is toxic material that can last for millennia, and despite billions of dollars of research over many decades there are still no safe long term solutions. As an organisation we support the creation of a Federal facility, but the current process is unacceptably flawed.

In summary our concerns are:

REGARDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT

1) The NRWMF process as it stands is very divisive. Repeated, highly damaging processes imposed on previously cohesive communities are causing significant harms.

  1. Considerable amounts of persistently misleading information have been and continue to be presented to communities. Incorrect and incomplete information does not result in genuine consent or community support.
  2. In particular, despite many statements to the contrary, there is clear failure to observe international best practice standards for long lived intermediate level waste (ILW) management. There is no disposal plan whatsoever for ILW, which needs to be isolated from the ground water and the environment for 10,000-100,000 years, leaving the problem with many future generations of the affected community.
  3. RELATED MATTER: THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT
  1. The expansion will create 40 years of significantly increased production of ILW.
  2.  There is a lack of demonstrable “Net benefit” for the Australian community. The proposed expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. Independent NEA/OECD economic modelling finds only 10-15% cost recovery of isotope manufacture when there is genuine inclusion of all costs.
  3. ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99 . The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply.
  4. 4) Again, there is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional long lived ILW generated. The current NRWMF process is just “kicking a highly radioactive can down the road”.

    Both processes are unacceptably flawed.

    MAPW urges

     Recognition that currently the information provided to communities is riddled with so much misinformation it calls into question the underlying validity of any community consent process.

     A halt to the current NRWMF process until such time as world’s best practice is followed. There is sufficient capacity at the Lucas Heights facility, once regulatory approvals are met, to store LLW and ILW well into the next decade.

    Cessation of expansion of nuclear medicine for export, and a phase out of exports, until there is demonstrated, publicly available, clear analysis of cost/benefit and plans for appropriate disposal of the substantial amount of ILW this process will generate.

     Transparent evaluation of “net benefit” to the Australian community. This as a whole must underpin the process, and be based on cradle to grave impacts of production.

    In closing, it is clear there is an urgent need for an independent inquiry into the production and management of Australia’s nuclear waste.

    Dr Beavis would be happy to appear before the committee if that would assist the inquiry. She is a GP with strong interest in public health issues, and teaches at the University of Melbourne in the areas of medicine, global health and nuclear waste.

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

Government assessment of proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump area is a farce

Regina McKenzie Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA 12 June 18 The cultural assessment is a sham, just another token gesture by the Federal Government to tick a box, RPS failed to do a full cultural walk through and find the cultural significance of the area, they did not survey all Adnyamathanha people, to find the ones with the cultural knowledge of the area, they only did small pockets of area, also for the holes that were dug, no tests pits were done, only just standing watching a front end loader dig, no sieving whatsoever,

I suggested this but no, also hole for the water from drills was dug without a archaeologist present and a grader over a sandhill, no walk through no archaeologist in sight, they ran over marked heritage , a grindstone and dumped waste outside of work area , this assessment is a farce, no one listened , its just all tokenism, and all the underarm dealings behind closed door with the fanatical yes blacks , sounding a lot like insider trading to me.  https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/

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