Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Australian government successfully bribing Kimba community to host radioactive trash?

Looks like the bribery has been successful.   $2M approved for 33 Kimba projects, Eyre Tribune   Kathrine Catanzariti 16 Apr 18

Advertisements

April 18, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Visit of pro nuclear Resources Minister Canavan has strengthened Aboriginal opposition to nuclear waste dump

ATLA opposes UCG in Leigh Creek, The Transcontinental, Marco Balsamo , 16 Apr 18

April 18, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Kimba Postal Ballot – BUT the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility  Taskforce NOT truthfully informing people

Federal Science Minister Canavan this week announced a postal ballot August 20 of the so-called ‘local communities’ – Kimba & Wallerberdina – for the purpose of gaining consent towards furthering the NRWMF Site Selection process.

Informed consent requires both these electorates (& the wider Australian society) be fully appraised of all facets integral to any nuke dump.

Such would include these minimal requirements:
1.   Adequate time to digest & follow up the outcomes from the current Senate Select Committee Inquiry into the NRWMF Community Engagement Process.

2.   A complete knowledge of the actual nature, containment types, timings, duration & volumes of material destined for the facility – including a full & competent inventory of radioactive waste legacy holdings. For example: HIFAR decommissioned; ILW from all sources; CSIRO & DoD Woomera; DSTO Edinburgh; & SAGovt Radium Hill, amongst others.

Without such widespread understanding, any Poll result would lack competency, demonstrate a failure of administrative process & further exacerbate the existing community divisions created by the NRWMF Project deficient governance.

So far, the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility  Taskforce has focused almost exclusively upon ANSTO radiopharma production gloves & gowns @ Lucas Heights.

THE TASKFORCE NEEDS TO PRO-ACTIVELY FULLY APPRAISE EVERYONE BEFORE ANY CASTING OF BALLOTS

ENuFF[SA]
Office Admin
https://www.facebook.com/sanuclearfree/

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

Janet Tiller: deep concern at plan for radioactive trash dump on agricultural land- submission to Senate

Senate Inquiry Submission into the Nuclear Waste Site Selection Process , Janet Tiller                 I am deeply concerned and  upset that the Federal Government are considering Kimba as potential site for a Radioactive Waste Facility. Kimba has been a farming community since the land was starting to be cleared in the late 1800’s. We produce mainly Wheat, Meat and Wool and I am afraid if the Radioactive waste is stored anywhere in our community it could adversely affect the prices for our land and the Wheat, Meat and Wool (they can be very fickle industries).

I would also like to know what is the true definition of broad community support. We were advised it was 65 percent then after the vote to determine those for and against the facility, Matt Canavan the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science decided it would be 57 percent. Why? The vote was only for Kimba residents, farm owners and people that owned property in the community. The Dump could adversely affect more than just Kimba it could affect the whole of Eyre Peninsula with its “ Clean Green” image, a Radioactive Waste Facility won’t exactly fit in there.

A committee of 16 has been formed and their aim is to decide where the $2 million (now we are in the 2nd stage of the process) will be spent in the community. The committee was selected from applicants and said to be chosen from a broad selection of the community from Farming, Business, some for the RWF and some against. There are only 4 people on that committee of 16 that were against the dump, they won’t have a very strong voice will they? I look forward to your reply.

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

Nuclear Promotional Activities planned :Australia’s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science

Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Bruce Wilson,  9 April 2018.  The department has compiled the attached table of planned activities with indicative dates.

As explained in the department’s submission, provided on 3 April 2018, the process is beingundertaken closely with the communities. Accordingly, the milestones and precise dates of  activities will depend on community feedback and will be determined with community representatives. The timing of certain decisions within government are also the prerogative of the Executive and could be subject to change. For this reason, we have included a highlevel timeline of activities, with broad date ranges, to allow flexibility to respond to the needs of communities and executive government processes.

Table: Planned community consultation and activities and indicative dates to April 2019

Activity Topic Indicative timing

Information RWMF Governance Framework released Ql/2018

Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group established Ql/2018

Engagement- Quom-Work Experience Program – ANSTO Ql/2018

Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Ql/2018

Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Ql/2018

Information Wallerberdina Aboriginal Heritage Ql/2018

Information Monthly newsletters – Wallerberdina and Kimba Ql/2018

Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Q2/2018

Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Q2/2018

Consultation Barndioota Economic Working Group meets Q2/2018

Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group meets Q2/2018

Consultation ANSTO visits and consults Hawker and Kimba Q2/2018

Event Hawker Community Industry Expo Q2/2018

Event NRWMF Agriculture meeting Q2/2018

Information Monthly newsletters – Wallerberdina and Kimba Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Agriculture information Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Waste Acceptance Criteria Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Safety and Security Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Transport Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Site Suitability Assessment Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Facility design Q2/2018

Information NRWMF Infrastructure and enabling services Q2/2018

Information NRMWF Operation and jobs information Q272018

Consultation Barndioota Consultative Committee meets Q3/2018

Consultation Kimba Consultative Committee meets Q3/2018

Consultation Barndioota Economic Working Group meets Q3/2018

Consultation Kimba Economic Working Group meets Q3/2018

Information Senate Inquiry hands down report 14 August 2018

Event Communities vote Q3/2018

Site selection Community sentiment assessment 0.3/2018

Site selection Site Selection report Q3/2018

Site selection Minister gives notice of intent on preferred site Q4/2018

industry.gov.au

Industry House – 10 Binara Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601

GPO Box 2013 Canberra ACT 2601 ABN: 74 599 608 295

2

Site selection 60 Day consultation commences Q4/2018

Site selection Minister declares a site Q4/2018

Site selection Minister acquires the land Q4/2018

Milestone Detailed Business Case finalised Q4/2018

Consultation Regional Consultative Committee established Q1/2019

Milestone Public Works Committee Q1/2019

Consultation Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Q1/2019

approvals process

Consultation Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Q1/2019

Agency approvals process

industry.    https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Additional_Documents

April 14, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members of the Kimba Economic Working Group are:

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

Katrina Bohr: Submission to Senate- community views, indigenous support – and what about climate extremes?

Above – ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed Barndioota area for the site. 
Katrina Bohr – Submission to SENATE INQUIRY into the site selection process for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility , (NRWMF) Barndioota.
My name is Katrina Bohr. I have been a resident of South Australia for 32 years, having lived in regional South Australia for the last 22 years. Nuclear waste and the historical outcomes of radioactive damage has been an ongoing concern of mine for almost 50 years.

In the initial stages of the announcement for site selection at Barndioota, when Josh Frydenberg was Minister for Resources and Energy, a statement was issued from the Government.

‘The Australian Government will also take into account the views of others (outside community zones) as part of the commitment to broad consultation.’

The proposal for low and intermediate waste to be stored in South Australia affects not only myself, but also future generations. Unlike some respondents, I do not live in the Hawker region. Therefore, my views are not driven by benefits, but rather genuine concerns for peoples’ health, our environment, and our local Indigenous communities.

 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’
I believe the definition of ‘broad community support’ is defined as support given by the majority. Broad support should be determined when the consultation process has been conducted thoroughly and with all persons of interest. The consultation process should offer full disclosure for the proposed site selection process.

ii)                  How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
Determining Broad Community support at this stage has involved a number of methods.

              Surveys, Public Meetings, face to face meetings, a continual presence of Australian Nuclear and Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) employees, members of  the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science Agency (APRANSA) and a Heritage Assessment process.

              Rowan Ramsey’s June/July 2016 Grey Newsletter states that all all the feedback, including district surveys were considered by the  Minister to evaluate whether there was a realistic chance of ‘developing’ broad support. The word ‘developing’ almost implies an action to develop rather than consult.

             My understanding of on-going broad community support is for updated and collated material to be honest and transparent, and that all perspectives be disclosed. 

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

There are local indigenous people who believe that they should have been consulted from the outset. This is due to Yappala Station (next door to the proposed site) having already been classed as a protected area. Yappala Station is heritage listed as an Indigenous protected area due to its cultural and environmental significance.

A South Australian Department of State Development spokesperson confirmed that there are three Aboriginal sites that fall within the Barndioota-nominated area. Two of the sites are cultural and the third is archaeological (NITV Posted 2016).

The local indigenous people needed to be involved in all aspects of the site selection process. From heritage assessment to cultural importance. Dreamtime stories and Songlines.

Traditional land owner and Elder Eunice Marsh speaks of their love for the land as love for family. Hookina Springs and the surrounding area is significant to the Adnyamathanha women.

When the Adnyamthanha Traditional Lands Association met at the end of March 2018, the vote for the NRWMF was overwhelmingly against.

  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;

I believe that wider community views should be considered as the nuclear waste, and in particular, the intermediate waste from Lucas Heights in NSW will be transported through a number of corridors. Therefore, wider community consultation should be considered. 

Matt Canavan makes reference to a ‘wide’ consultation process to determine whether the site is suitable’-Transcontinental newspaper 22/11/2016.

As far as I am aware, there has been no wider community consultation to date. Wider community consultation could be conducted through relevant forums, surveys and information mail outs.

 F) Any other related matters

 In the fairness of disclosure, I have referred to the Australian Government Department of Business

                           Initial Business Case (revised) 2014 Page 29

                          ‘The Capital cost estimates for the project options are based on delivery

                           of given designs at a site in Central Australia’

The Business Case also refers to a Timeline where ANSTO is due to run out of space for low and intermediate storage. This is by 2018.

When in Parliament, Grant Chapman chaired the select committee that recommended the country’s low level nuclear waste be stored in a single facility-The Guardian 29/4/16.

Grant Chapman is part owner of the proposed site at Barndioota, and has made it quite public that he believed his land would be an ideal site for a NRWMF.

He served on three committees including Uranium mining and milling to Radioactive Waste from March 1995 to May 1997. The other from August 2000 to May 2001. Acting as Chair in the first two committees, where in !996 a decision was made to pursue a NRWMF.        There is evidence that there may have been a determination over the years by the Australian Government to establish the site at Barndioota.

Images: I am sending three images displaying the ferociousness of historical flooding near the rail lines in the proposed area for the site.

April 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Holly Whittenbury on Nuclear dump siting- Aboriginal issues, tourism impact, conflict of interest issues

Senate Inquiry Submission into the Nuclear Waste Site Selection Process Holly Whittenbury

My name is Holly Whittenbury and I come from the southern Flinders Ranges. I have grown up there, spending the first 18 years of my life in Peterborough, not too far from Hawker, one of the selected dump sites. I presently study Environmental Science and plan to return to the area to assist in conservation efforts of the southern Flinders Ranges. I foresee myself being apart of the Flinders Ranges for my entire life ahead; although I do not live within the area presently, the issues within the ranges concern me wherever I am. I disagree with key aspects of the selection process for the nuclear waste dump site for the following reasons

  •   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‟ ii) how „broad community support‟ has been or will be determined for each
  • 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;

Contrary to other pro-nuclear waste dump submissions, broad community support should include not just the residents within the Hawker township, but the wider surrounding area of Hawker, the state and the country.

The nearby Adnyamathanha Indigenous groups value the entire site proposed for the nuclear waste dump. Unlike Hawker residents, their spiritual home is not separated by nearly 40 kilometres. They are present in spirit and also physically through land rights beside and within the dump site location. The story-line of the Adnyamathanha people stretches 70 kilometres across the state along the ranges, their sacred birthing and healing site, Hookina Springs, lies within Grant Chapman‟s property of which they have rightful access to.

Whilst Hawker residents are separated, both physically and mentally from the proposed nuclear waste dump site, with Chapman himself declaring it is virtually wasteland, the whole area, but especially this site, is as sacred to the Adnyamathanha people as Mecca is to Muslims. To ignore or prioritise one community opinion over another is to degrade one community in favour of another. To degrade the local indigenous peoples views (who are closer in proximity to the site) in favour of the Hawker residents is to prioritise predominantly European society living in the township in European lifestyles with European law and worldviews. To claim that Indigenous consent has been gained despite the overt disagreement from the Adnyamathanha people over the waste dump site and their driving of protests which blocked the streets of Adelaide on North Terrace, is wilful ignorance in favour of nuclear fuel cycle industry and residents of non-Indigenous background. Here is a quote from Indigenous leader and outspoken critic of the waste dump, Enice Marsh, to demonstrate the obviously lack of consent and lack of consultation with the indigenous people:

“If we’re going to have that poison stuff here, even if it’s a low-level situation, it’s just absolute madness to put something like this near somewhere that’s so special,” she said.

“It’s everything; it’s a type of importance that you would never be able to describe.”

“The connection to this land for Adnyamathanha people is their culture, their customs; it’s their identity.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/traditional-owners-flinders-ranges-fears-on-nuclearwaste-dump/7195030

In addition, criticism of the dump site has been given loudly by Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association chair Vince Coulthard:

“The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area that people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump.” https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/south-australians-say-no-nuclear-waste

 Broad community support should also be sought state-wide; it is a state issue. The waste will either be trucked across the country through small towns or a port will be built to transport the waste first by ocean, then by rail or trucks on road. Despite the majority of the South Australian population living in Adelaide, The Flinders Ranges is an iconic totem of our state and dear to countless people, regardless of their place of residence. As stated, I am no longer living precisely within the Flinders Ranges area, yet my future depends on the area. I will return and my family still resides in Peterborough as they have done so since we first settled in Cavanaugh, north west of Dawson. My grandfather drove cattle and sheep through Horrocks Pass, just south of Hawker and the dump site, prior to the highway‟s construction. The land will always be important to many of us not necessarily physically present; broad community support needs to include those outside of the Hawker township.

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

In addition, the impact of the nuclear waste site on tourism within the Flinders Ranges should be evaluated independently and form part of state and national consensus. Presently, the Flinders Ranges is the third most popular visitor attraction (574,000 domestic visitors, 2.6 million visitor nights). It contributed 45% of tourism revenue in 2016 and employs 3,000 people directly and indirectly in the region. It therefore contributes significantly to the state economy and therefore likely affects the majority of the state‟s population in some way, even indirectly. Any reduction in this contribution to state economy (which is markedly more than what a nuclear waste dump would contribute) affects the entire state economically and has indirect consequences to many other businesses of towns surrounding Hawker in particular. My town, Peterborough, depends on tourism. It has been the town‟s only industry since the shut down of the railway industry decades ago, which saw the population of the town halve. The town depends on thriving tourism, largely bustling through its main street towards the Flinders Ranges. On weekends, in particular, the main street is full of caravans and off-road camper vehicles headed to the state icon north. The most successful businesses within the town are tourism based; hotels, motels, caravan parks, petrol stations, delis and the newsagency selling souvenirs touting the town as the „Gateway to the Flinders Ranges‟. How many other towns (Orroroo, Wirrabara, Melrose, Quorn, Yunta, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Jamestown and Terowie), would be severely affected by the site selection of the nuclear waste dump? All of these businesses would be affected; therefore, these people deserve a say in the site selection. It is impossible to say how far out a reduction of tourism within the Flinders Ranges would reach. Therefore, the entire state (and nation) deserves a say and their voices heard in regards to seeking consent on the site selection.

https://www.theflindersnews.com.au/story/4568617/ranges-tourism-boom/

  • whether and/or how the Government‟s „community benefit program‟ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

The payment of Hawker residents with a $10 million bribe does affect surrounding populations, including the Indigenous, significantly. The process of offering money to compensate or persuade a supposedly impoverished town (Hawker) to give consent despite Indigenous views disadvantages anyone who is not indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal values of European-based society. It is an inherently and blatantly biased process, given Hawker has been bribed with something that is only worthy in exchange for land of which others have spiritual and physical connection with and with something that could never be valuable in Indigenous culture. The thinking of the Hawker residents is truly unclear and motivated by financial support for their town. It is reprehensible that anyone, including the residents who have already made submissions, suggest that only their opinion counts in the selection and consent process of a nuclear waste dump. This will house the nation‟s (and perhaps eventually, the world‟s) nuclear waste. Their opinion is the most blighted and misguided of all individuals, given their own declared poverty and the bribe (“compensation”) offered to them. Here is a quote exemplifying this by Hawker Community Development board member Ian Carpenter:

“Like any small country council, we struggle for money to put into infrastructure and schools and nursing facilities,” he said.

“Admittedly, it’s not going to employ 100 people, but if it employs 20 in our area and creates traineeships for our people, then I think it’s a great idea.” traineeships for our people, then I think it’s a great idea.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/traditional-owners-flinders-ranges-fears-on-nuclearwaste-dump/7195030

Employing 20 people through the nuclear waste dump is NOT a good enough reason to omit the voices of the other > 1 million people within the state of South Australia. Our voices count also and are arguably more objective than the Hawker residents.

Nationally, opinions on the waste dump should also be heard. The waste will come from all over the country, from medical and other sources. The need to remove that waste, the transport of such waste and its eventual storage and where it is stored (hence the site selection process) should be considerate to all individuals‟ perspectives on the matter

. · 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;

  • any other related matters;

Indigenous support for the site should be overwhelmingly present if a site is selected to go ahead.

To have one, single person, who chaired a committee to establish a waste dump industry in SA in 1995, nominate his property as a potential site, is clearly a conflict of interest and completely bypasses the obtaining of any other consent from surrounding communities. It is reflective of the NeoLiberal system that Australia is presently under. We care more about cash, ‘industry’, tax cuts for major companies and figures at the end of spreadsheets than making real, responsible decisions and respecting the oldest living culture on this planet. The indigenous people of the area have described their stress at knowing their home and sacred site has been nominated as a nuclear waste dump for the nation.

The nomination by Grant Chapman with complete disregard for the rare freshwater spring, biodiversity, cultural storyline and indigenous community living beside his nominated property is nothing short of a continuation of forceful Colonialism. It is an Administrative Rationality which decides what is „good‟ for everyone else, despite never really placing itself in the shoes of its constituents, especially the Adnyamathanha people. His excuse was that the nearby town of Hawker is appreciative of the $10 million bribe that will go along with the nuclear waste site. In other words, the largely non-Aboriginal community’s consent, obtained through bribes that are only valuable in a society indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal, penny-counting thinking, can override Indigenous views. It is representative of our current priorising of European, Neo-Liberal thinking over Indigenous land values. It is unacceptable that, in a country which avidly nags its citizens to be more accepting of other cultures and demonstrate our so called ‘multiculturalism’, that it does not extend this to Indigenous welfare and their views on land management. They have stated their lack of consent loud and clear. Clearly, the nearby Indigenous custodians are suffering and outraged over the site selection. The nomination of the waste dump beside the beautiful Hookina Springs really is just another slap in the face to the very culture that we should actually be listening to as a nation.

April 11, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Scott Cameron’s Submission to Senate finds process for selecting nuclear dump is misleading and faulty

Scott, Cameron Submission to Senate Inquiry: Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia This process started for my family over 2 years ago when our neighbours nominated their property directly alongside our farm to host a National Radioactive Waste Dump. As soon as we were aware we began researching to learn as much about the waste and the facility to educate ourselves and form an opinion. It was clear from the beginning that we were not given all the information and we would need to find it ourselves.

I have had many concerns about the lack of transparency throughout this process and it has caused a lot of stress and anxiety among many members of our community.

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

This has been called a voluntary process, I don’t believe it can be called a voluntary process when the nominator stands to receive a payment of four times the value of their land. It is unclear what the value of their land actually is and information in relation to additional payments including access agreements has not been made available to the public.

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

Kimba was already removed from the process once after our first community Orima survey returned results of 51% not opposed to the facility. Minister Frydenberg declared there was strong opposition and not broad community support to go through to stage 2 of the process. Minister Matthew Canavan stated in the senate that he would need a figure in the vicinity of 65% to take Kimba through to the next stage. When I met with Minister Canavan at parliament house in October 2017 he confirmed that he had made this statement in the senate and it was touch and go for if he was going to take Kimba through to stage 2 with Kimba’s next vote returning results of 56% support for moving forward to stage 2. The Minister still hasn’t put a figure on what % he would require for the next community vote which I believe will be held this year. I believe broad community support should be 75 – 80%, this is a vote to host this facility permanently, it is not temporary it actually involves changing State Legislation which currently prohibits the development of such a facility anywhere in South Australia.

  1. Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentimentThe $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage. Throughout the process the Governments offered our community many bribes including better mobile phone and internet service, local television service, upgraded roads. As well we could have better Hospital and School Facilities. These are all things that all regional communities around Australia should be entitled to through the millions of dollars we pay in tax each and every year. We have also been told that if we were to host this facility we would become a ‘Federal Town’ whatever that means. I would have thought all towns across Australia should be treated equally with the same importance as a ‘Federal Town’

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 Eyre Peninsula is a very unique farming area that is separated from the rest of the state. All grain from Eyre Peninsula is delivered, blended and exported out of Lower Eyre Peninsula. Therefor Kimba’s grain is mixed with every other town’s grain on EP, the affect that this could have on our exports hasn’t been taken into consideration at all. Other towns on EP have had no consultation and the Minister has disregarded submissions from industry reps and broader EP residents that were made to him throughout the consultation process. It was stated on the Department of Industry Innovation & Science website that Submissions would be made public however they later changed their mind and never made them available for public viewing

f) Any other related matters. The Department of Industry Innovation and Science have continually claimed to be open and transparent with the Community however I have found them to be inconsistent and often misleading with their information. Throughout this process they have given out different information on the jobs and money attached to hosting the facility. They have adjusted the boundaries several times. At first we were told in a public meeting by Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey that neighbours would have right to veto, he in fact told me on the phone that if I didn’t want it then it won’t happen. This then changed to a vote for neighbours living within 10kms. Since this second round of nominations it started by separating the neighbours into 10kms and 5kms groups, this then changed to immediate neighbours only and people living less than 5kms if they don’t share a fence line they are not considered neighbours. This is quite different to Hawker where neighbours can be 30km away. The Department website states that there were originally 28 sites nominated around Australia and they were to be published. However these sites have never been released to the public. Living in a small country town and alongside a nominated site I have been accused by local business owners that they believe the reason why I am opposed is because I actually nominated my farm and missed out. This has caused me a great deal of stress all of which could have been relieved if the Department released the sites as they said they would. I know that 2 Liberal party politicians were involved in land nominations both in Kimba and in Hawker and it would be interesting to see how many other Liberal associates have nominated around the country.

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

Justine Major: Radioactive waste dump should NOT be on agricultural land -Submission to Senate

Both these documents show that the facility should not be located on agricultural land, and yet both nominated sites at Kimba are specifically located on farms. Directly next to farming country, and entirely neighboured by productive farms.

 Submission to Senate Inquiry: Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia by Mrs Justine Major I am a fourth generation farmer in Kimba, South Australia. I have a strong understanding of the project being put forward for consideration, and whilst am not against the idea of the consolidation of radioactive waste into one facility, I do not believe it needs to be located in a food producing region. Personally, this process has been one of ongoing stress, additional workload and a steep learning curve into the political machinations of an Australian Government project.

Please find following my response to the Terms of Reference of this Inquiry.

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;

The definition of ‘broad community support’ has been a moving target that has never been clearly defined in the Radioactive Waste Management Facility project. The hallmarks of a well developed project include the establishment of standardised measurable milestones that allow all stakeholders to have a clear understanding of the path being traversed as well as clear acknowledgement that these milestones have or have not been achieved. The constantly moving goal posts throughout this process has been an ongoing source of frustration to those of us trying to work within the Governments framework.

Despite numerous requests, the Government has continued to refuse to provide clarity around what factors would be included in their consideration when determining if broad community support had been achieved; what weighting each of the factors would contribute to this outcome, or what the required result in percentage terms was necessary to allow this process to proceed to the next stage

There has been an ongoing lack of clearly defined, factual, measurable targets that are defendable from both sides of the debate, accepted by both sides of the debate and not able to be influenced by the results put before it. The Minister advised that the vote would not be the only determining factor for progressing the Kimba site through to the second stage, however when looking at the statistics surrounding alternate factors it is hard to see where any other factor has been included. All media that I have seen surrounding Minister Canavans decision simply continued to reference the 57.4% in favour of progressing result of the vote. Based on the data included in the “National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Phase 1 Summary Report, Kimba 2017” showing the results of the community consultation on which the decision to progress to Phase 2 was made, written submissions received throughout this phase were seen to be 86% opposed to the facility. Had both factors been taken into consideration equally, there would have been 35.7% approval rating to this project. Should we even provide a 20% weighting to the written submissions and 80% weighting to the vote, the outcome would achieve a 48.7% approval. None of this comes close to being “broad community consent”.

Another area included in “broad community support” is supposedly the opinions of neighbours. In the first round of community consultation the definition of neighbour, was any property or person within a 10km radius. When the second round of community consultation occurred in December 2016 it was reduced to neighbours within a 5km radius, and at the time of the vote the definition of neighbour was those who immediately bordered the nominated parcel of land. This continuous shift in parameters appears to me to have occurred in order to reduce those included in the sample of neighbours, resulting the Department able to make the statement included in the “National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) Phase 1 Summary Report, Kimba 2017” that “Neighbour support around the proposed sites is strongly supportive”. This ongoing lack of defined measureables and the Ministers ability to make a decision as to what the pass mark is after the results have been declared is disingenuous.

D) Whether and/or how the Governments ‘community benefits program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

The removal of incentive payments would absolutely change the support levels found within a community. The idea of the Radioactive Waste Management Facility being sited in Kimba was promoted along the lines of “think what this money could do for us”. All the way through this process has been a money grab. There is anecdotal evidence of people saying that they would vote “Yes” to going through to the second round of this process in order to receive the $2M Community Benefit Funds, with the plan to say “No” at the next vote. They have no intention of wanting the facility located at Kimba, but think they are playing a game whereby they can “get $2M for nothing”.

There is speculation of strategies in play to prolong the Phase 2 process to ensure it pushes into the second financial year in order to gain a further $2M. For those of us who are against the location of this facility in the Kimba region, regardless of the funds thrown around, this is a difficult process. We are defending our position against the facility being located in our region, with genuine concern regarding our business and livelihoods, whilst community members are playing a game to access funding. I also believe that the $10M one-off payment included in the Act will be paid to the State Government has not been clearly highlighted throughout this process. Most people within the community believe the money will be coming to the community directly, with complete access to, and management of, the funds. When people discover this money is to be paid to the State Government, their opinion on the matter changes very quickly.

F) Any other related matters

The Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste provided by ARPANSA clearly states that the siting of a Radioactive Waste Management Facility should not be on agricultural land: “Section 3.1.29 (a) the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use.”

The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Nomination of Land Guidelines, November 2016 also clearly states in Attachment A, Section A8 under the Community Well Being Objective the criteria: “Is the site located within an area that is likely to be expanded upon for community or industrial use or for natural/agricultural use in the foreseeable future”. The weighting to this criteria when taking site selection into consideration according to the guidelines was stipulated as “High”. Both these documents show that the facility should not be located on agricultural land, and yet both nominated sites at Kimba are specifically located on farms. Directly next to farming country, and entirely neighboured by productive farms. That this part of the ruling is not being enforced is beyond me. It would be apparent to most people that under best practice the production of food should be separated from the production or storage of nuclear waste. That it is not the case in other countries does not provide adequate reason as to why Australia should lower their standards with regards to this. It is imperative that this part of the legislation is upheld and made mandatory, rather than being optional.

April 7, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Senate Inquiry on nuclear waste dump sit is still not publishing any anti-nuclear submissions

Gary See   Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 1 April 18 
The Senate inquiry selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia said that there would be a committee meeting at the end of March that would discuss certain submissions and whether or not they were acceptable to be considered in the inquiry. This doesn’t include the 5 submissions supporting the selection process already accepted.

March is now over and the deadline for submissions is April 3rd. I’ve not heard anything about my submission.

If I get a chance to resubmit a rejected submission I’d include the submission process for this inquiry in my evidence that the selection process isn’t being done well.https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/

April 2, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Federal Nuclear Waste Dump Siting IS A NATIONAL MATTER – submission to Senate

While this issue has huge impacts for the areas under current assessment in Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula and in Hawker in the Flinders Ranges – it is a proposal for a national waste dump and needs national attention and consideration

No Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia,  31 Mar 18 

What I wrote in the Senate Inquiry into the Waste Dump selection process:

Thank you for reviewing federal government plans for a radioactive waste facility in South Australia.

I come from the southern Flinders Ranges and have grown up there, spending the first 18 years of my life in Peterborough, not too far from Hawker, one of the selected dump sites. I presently study Environmental Science and plan to return to the area to assist in conservation efforts of the southern Flinders Ranges. It is my home regardless of whether I am physically present, and the connection to the land described by the wise and insightful Adnyamathanha people of the ranges resonates with me. I was therefore absolutely outraged to hear that my home had been nominated as a site for nuclear waste disposal.

To have a singular person, Grant Chapman, select the site on his property, without care or consultation with other surrounding communities, is undemocratic and unrepresentative of the wider area’s opinions and values. The waste dump will affect every locality in the mid north and northern areas of the state and perhaps elsewhere, such as along South Australian borders; the waste will be transported to the site, passing through towns and beside farming properties if trucked. Even more complicated issues exist if transported by sea to ports.

Potential accidents and their health and environmental consequences have the ability to spread to nearby locations through ground water and material within dust. None of these were even slightly touched on in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report for the international waste dump proposal, which contained many attempts to sugar coat the deal despite its own geological experts testifying to the significant earth quake activity present within the Flinders Ranges, the national dump site.

To have one, single person, who chaired a committee to establish a waste dump industry in SA in 1995, nominate his property as a potential site, is clearly a conflict of interest and completely bypasses the obtaining of any other consent from surrounding communities. I personally feel completely ashamed of being of European descent when such ideas are generated by the Neo-Liberal system that Australia is presently under. We care more about cash, ‘industry’, tax cuts for major companies and figures at the end of spreadsheets than making real, responsible decisions and respecting the oldest living culture on this planet.

I felt Regina and Vivienne McKenzie’s pain when they said they feel attacked; the nomination by Grant Chapman with complete disregard for the rare freshwater spring, biodiversity, cultural storyline and indigenous community living beside his nominated property is nothing short of a continuation of forceful Colonialism. It is an Administrative Rationality which decides what is ‘good’ for everyone else, despite never really placing itself in the shoes of its constituents. His excuse was that the nearby town of Hawker is appreciative of the $10 million bribe that will go along with the nuclear waste site. In other words, the largely non-Aboriginal community’s consent, obtained through bribes that are only valuable in a society indoctrinated into Neo-Liberal, penny-counting thinking, can override Indigenous views. It is representative of our failure to learn anything from the oldest and most successful living human culture throughout evolution. If only each of us had a little more love and empathy for the land, perhaps our country would be better off all over. In essence, it is unacceptable that, in a country which avidly nags its citizens to be more accepting of other cultures and demonstrate our so called ‘multiculturalism’, that it does not extend this to Indigenous welfare and their views on land management.

In a society pre-occupied with scientific evidence and proof, it seems strange that we cannot see the value in a culture that has thrived in Australia beyond ice-ages, sea level rises, climate changes and retains knowledge that only esteemed academics in geology manage to figure out with diggings, measurements and tests. The nomination of the waste dump beside the beautiful Hookina Springs really is just another slap in the face to the very culture that we should actually be listening to as a nation.

In addition, the nomination of Kimba, also, breaches all comprehension of a fair process. It is, once again, a single property owner and one vocal community member, pushing the nuclear waste agenda in the town, at the expense of everyone else’s views. Advocates for the waste dump declare that Hawker and Kimba cannot say no to the dump because they will only be re-locating the plans to another place (the anti-NIMBY claim), yet I do not see any city residents avidly supporting the facility be planted next to them and disregarding their neighbours’ views. Yet, ironically, they fail to realise that their wheetbix and other products depend upon the good agricultural practices of these rural areas. 100 years the waste could be stored above ground – does any one person have the right to say ‘YES’ on behalf of a community, a state or a country? No! No way.

To summarise, I have deep concerns about this plan including that;

• A single individual or property owner should not be allowed to nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump.
• The federal government have not made a clear or compelling case that we need a national nuclear waste dump in SA.
• The consultation process has been deficient and has caused division in our communities.
• The federal government plan lacks social licence or community consent. Traditional Owners have flagged concerns over cultural heritage issues.
• The project has not considered the full range of options to best advance responsible radioactive waste management in Australia. Australia’s worst waste should be dealt with better.

I do not support this current plan and welcome this opportunity to formally convey my concerns and opposition to the inquiry.

While this issue has huge impacts for the areas under current assessment in Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula and in Hawker in the Flinders Ranges – it is a proposal for a national waste dump and needs national attention and consideration.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/

March 31, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

Australian Senate Committee has published only the PRO NUCLEAR submissions. ?ignoring the others

The Senate Estimates Committee has published only 5 (very crummy and repetitive PRO NUCLEAR) submissions, although I know that they have received several anti nuclear ones . Why am I not surprised? Deadline is 3rd April   https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

March 28, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

South Australia’s new Liberal MP Dennis Hood will push for nuclear dump

Defecting Lib MP to push for nuclear dump
New Liberal MP Dennis Hood will agitate for the State Government to revive plans to store high-level nuclear waste in SA, after he abandoned Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives in a shock post-election move…. 

Joining the Liberals enhances Mr Hood’s chances of securing another eight-year term at the 2022 state election. The Conservatives had a poor showing at this month’s election and it appears unlikely their Upper House candidate, Rob Brokenshire, will be returned.

Mr Hood said his old party’s 3.5 per cent Upper House vote “is not going to get anyone anywhere”.

“If you want to stay with something that’s heading down that path, then pretty soon you will find that they have no members in parliament and no impact,” he said.

Mr Hood said still supported the expansion of nuclear industries in SA, despite Mr Marshall rejecting the proposal over fears it would expose taxpayers to high risk.

“One of the great things about the Liberal Party … is it is okay for individual members to disagree on policies,” Mr Hood said. “I do support a nuclear waste repository in SA. “I will support the party position.

“That doesn’t mean that I won’t agitate internally for that position. In fact, I will.  http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sa-election-2018/australian-conservatives-south-australian-upper-house-member-dennis-hood-to-join-liberals/news-story/98314affd5cba34c71ea63b0654543b0

March 27, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Submission for the public good – to Senate Inquiry on nuclear waste dump selection

Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Economics “Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia “

My name is Noel Wauchope. I am a former school teacher, having taught science in secondary schools. I have a long term interest in nuclear issues. I would say that I am a generalist, rather than a specialist in a scientific field. I believe that this generalist approach is an advantage in examining and communicating about a nuclear waste dump proposal. All too often, even very well educated people are intimidated by the technical jargon of experts on nuclear technology, and thus become reluctant to form their own opinion.

I note the specific terms of reference that we are encouraged to address, and I deplore the fact that they, and the title of this Inquiry, are already begging the question – by stating “in South Australia”.

Already we are all supposed to accept without question the proposition that South Australia is the location for the federal nuclear waste dump – done and dusted!

SUMMARY

My main concern is in addressing  b the concept of “broad community support”. The Inquiry ‘s brief for this appears to  be confined  to the Kimba and Hawker people. The establishment of a nuclear waste facility at Kimba or Hawker will involve transport of radioactive wastes through the region, and will have ramifications for its economy, agriculture and tourism. The local communities have not been properly informed, and pretty well brain-washed with the myth that the nuclear waste dump is a “medical necessity”.  The nature of the wastes, lumping together Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) and Low Level Wastes (LLW) is a messy and confusing plan, and its real meaning has not been explained to them. The safety problems with waste canisters have not been discussed. These local communities are not aware of their future in hosting “stranded wastes” – as there is no existing plan for the permanent burial of the very long lasting ILW wastes.

The involvement of indigenous people by the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been inadequate, and the idea that they support the plan is simply not believable, in view of the poor survey practices carried out, and the clear opposition of leading Aboriginal organisations.

e Eyre Peninsular , state-wide and nation-wide community views should be considered.

Related matters include South Australia’s law prohibiting nuclear waste facilities,  best practice for managing nuclear wastes, publicity and media coverage, and a responsible approach to radioactive waste management, and  Australia- wide decision-making.   Continue reading

March 26, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics, reference | Leave a comment