Antinuclear

Aboriginal land and nuclear waste dumping: A critically important Submission to Senate from Regina McKenzie

Ed note. This submission has an important attachment – a  letter – which will later be published on this site

Regina McKenzie Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia  (Submission No.107)

This independent submission addresses the following key points of the Terms of Reference of the Australian:  Senate Economic Reference Committee inquiry (2018) into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site.  selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South  Australia:

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

1. f) any other related matters.

My name is Regina McKenzie and I am an identified (Aboriginal) Kuyani traditional owner for the area of land   currently subject to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project (NRWMFP) at Barndioota, South Australia. I have extensive cultural knowledge of this portion of Adnyamathanha country and have  been working collaboratively with non Aboriginal specialist for well over ten years to investigate and report on  this area. Some of the projects that I have worked on in my cultural interest area include:

• Numerous archaeological investigations with a number of Australian universities;
• Palaeontology investigations with Flinders University, South Australia;
• Aboriginal heritage investigations for NRM projects with multiple State Government agencies;
• Archaeological investigations for SA Power Networks;
• Archaeological training programs with the Heritage team of the South Australian Department of Premier  and Cabinet, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (DPC AARD) (now Department of State
• Development Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation – DSD AAR);
• Cultural heritage management planning for the Commonwealth Government’s Indigenous Protected Area  (IPA) program.
• The development of large area cultural mapping protocols for the SA State Government;
• The translation and spatial mapping of one of my Nation’s ancestral story lines that includes the  nominated NRWMFP area in Barndioota.

The reference committee should understand that the Adnyamathanha People are an historical conglomeration of multiple and individually identified Aboriginal tribal Nations, each of which has its own cultural interest area. The Adnyamathanha people, as a whole, hold native title over much of the Flinders Ranges and this is managed by a prescribed body corporate on behalf of all traditional groups by the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA). I would also like to note that only individual people, not organisations, can hold cultural knowledge and be considered as traditional owners (there is case law in South Australia to this affect). It is also vital that the committee appreciate the difference between Aboriginal cultural heritage laws and obligations (whether they be State or Federal), and Native Title laws, rights and interests. My submission is focussed on the cultural heritage rights and interests of identified traditional owners and the State/Federal obligations for those that wish to investigate /or harm Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Many of my concerns with the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation process for the NRWMFP in Barndioota have been summarised in a recent letter to Minister Canavan (see Attached) [ed. note: This letter will be published on this site, as a separate post] . I would appreciate if the committee accepts the attached letter as part of my submission. I note that despite repeated requests to Minister Canavan’s office, I still have not received a response to this letter and many questions remain unanswered and concerns unresolved. I believe that these questions and concerns must be addressed for the DIIS consultation process to be considered effective.

In addition to my questions and concerns detailed in the attached letter, I would appreciate some clarification on the following:

1. Australia’s commitment to Article 29.2. of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous  Peoples which notes:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

I would appreciate some clarification on the Australian Government’s or the the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) position on this United Nations charter and how it applies to proposed  developments on traditional Aboriginal lands and lands that contain significant cultural value to relevant Aboriginal people.

The DIIS, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, took no steps during the nomination and shortlisting process to secure either the free, or the prior, or the informed consent of the Indigenous peoples who have significant cultural ties to the NRWMFP area in Barndioota. To the best of my knowledge, the DIIS believed that the Commonwealth Government did not need to consult with Aboriginal people in Barndioota because the proposed project area was not subject to Native Title. This was stated to myself and my sister when we first called the DIIS to enquire about the project after we heard about it on ABC news. This was also repeated by DIIS representatives at their initial public meetings in Hawker.

Importantly, and from an Aboriginal cultural heritage perspective, ATLA and the relevant cultural custodians of the Barndioota area have repeatedly advised the DIIS that they do not support the siting of the NRWMFP within our traditional country.

2. The DIIS initially confused Aboriginal cultural heritage obligations with Native Title constraints and only consulted with affected Aboriginal people after repeated requests for information from myself and my sister

3. The Aboriginal cultural heritage investigations undertaken to support the Barndioota NRWMFP have not been undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth Government’s best practice requirements for investigating and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage (see attached letter). Importantly, this failure to adhere, recognise or use the Commonwealth best practice guidelines has led the DIIS to:

• Consult with inappropriate Aboriginal people who do not hold cultural information for Barndioota, and
• Completely ignore the significant cultural/gender restrictions associated with the NRWMFP area, and
• Alienate relevant culturally appropriate people from participating in the NRWMFP assessment, and
• Not have access to vitally important cultural information associated with the NRWMFP area.

These factors alone have made the DIIS Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment ineffective,  inappropriate, and incomplete. This significantly flawed consultation process needs to be completely abandoned as soon as possible because it has caused significant mental health issues within our broader Aboriginal community and continuing lateral violence within our immediate family. The NRWMFP Aboriginal consultation process has left me feeling ostracised within my own family and I find myself constantly witnessing aggressive, misogynistic and culturally inappropriate behaviour from a select few who have been validated through the DIIS Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment process.

4. The DIIS has failed to abide by their own governance guidelines that they established for the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultative committee. There have been too many instances of aggressive and inappropriate behaviour that have not been recorded or addressed.

5. The DIIS has inappropriately engaged a cultural heritage consultancy:

• Against the wishes of both ATLA and the relevant cultural custodians of the NRWMFP area,
• Without presenting any tangible proof that the consultancy has/can record the intangible values associated with large area cultural sites to a level that is similar to, or better than, that developed by DPC AARD,

• Without developing the scope of work for the assessment with ATLA and the relevant cultural custodians of the NRWMFP area,

• Without informing ATLA or the relevant cultural custodians of the agreed scope of work between the DIIS and the consultancy for the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment

6. The nomination and short-listing process of the Barndioota NRWMFP site failed to acknowledge the unique and intrinsic Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the associated cultural landscape. Many of these values have been documented by the State Government through extensive cultural mapping and archaeological investigations, and acknowledged by the Commonwealth Government for the neighbouring IPA program. Importantly, the failure to acknowledge the values of this cultural landscape also extended to a failure to recognise and acknowledge the nominated traditional custodians of the land subject to the NRWMFP area. These custodians are well known to DPC AAR who hold the contact details for the custodians of all of our recorded sites.

7. Ministers Frydenberg and Canavan have both issued seperate commitments that no Aboriginal cultural heritage will be harmed through this project. The DIIS has been informed of the extensive archaeologyand all-encompassing intangible values associated with the NRWMFP area, and the impossibility of situating the NRWMFP and its associated road/power infrastructure without harming Aboriginal cultural heritage which includes our cultural beliefs, lore and customs. Could the committee please clarify the DIIS’/the Commonwealth Government’s understanding of what Aboriginal cultural heritage means and how the DIIS intend to avoid/not cause harm, particularly to our system of lore, custom and belief. We believe that this is a major constraint for the NRWMFP and that valuable public funds could have been saved if the relevant Ministers honour their commitments and resolved this matter early in the project.

8. During Phase one, the DIIS never undertook any formal Acknowledgement of Country, and has never requested a formal Welcome to Country from any Adnyamathanha elder for any of the meetings held in Hawker.

9. Retired Liberal Senator Chapman’s nomination of the Barndioota site has never been questioned either in the context of any potential political conflict of interest, or for his prior engagement in the Federal Senate and his involvement in past Senate committees who were tasked to investigate the establishment of above ground Nuclear waste facilities nearly two decades ago. We have been assured that the nomination of the Barndioota site is not related in any way to the current Liberal government or to the ex Senator’s prior profession. I would like this matter to be assessed in a transparent way.

10. Key Hawker community representatives who support the NRWMFP in Barndioota have long term relationships with, and have worked for Wallerbedina Station for many years. This potential conflict of interest needs to be identified and acknowledged in a transparent manner.

June 23, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

Community Benefit Programme – essential (?bribery) part of push for nuclear waste dump for Flinders Ranges

Projects near possible nuclear sites receive funding,   SA sites earmarked as possible nuclear waste facility sites have received $4 million in funding for various community projects Stock Journal 11 Apr 2018, 

June 22, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

A Quorn resident disgusted at the hypocritical 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

June 20, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 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.

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)   

Continue reading →

June 20, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 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.

3. 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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)

100. 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.

500. 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 Christina Macpherson | 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

Leon Ashton Submission to STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS

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.

June 15, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 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 

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick (left) has called the site selection for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility “an absolute sham”, claiming Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matthew Canavan ignored a potential site at Leonora in Western Australia.

Mr Patrick, who introduced the senate inquiry into the site selection, made the claims on Wednesday following a visit to Leonora.

He said Mr Canavan “is determined to rush to select one of the South Australian sites.”

“Minister Canavan needs to more properly engage the proponents of the proposed site near the central WA mining township of Leonora or risk the whole selection process being confirmed as an absolute sham”, Mr Patrick said.

“I already hold enough concern in the selection process to have initiated a Senate Inquiry into it, but after visiting the Leonora site, I am convinced it is becoming a farce.”

Mr Patrick likened the lack of understanding of ‘broad community support’ to a running a race where participants are told they do not need to know where the finish line is.

The Leonora site was nominated in August last year, but Mr Canavan did not consider it due to the advancement of the sites in Kimba and Hawker.

Mr Patrick said that lead him to believe that a South Australian site was a “done deal”.

“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.”

However, Mr Canavan said  the government would not progress detailed assessment of other nominations until the results of the votes in the two South Australian communities were known. “We have well advanced proposals from three sites in South Australia, one near Hawker and two near Kimba,” he said. “These communities have been involved in extensive consultation and discussion about the site selection.

Next month each of the two communities will be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want to proceed with the nomination.

The government will not be progressing detailed assessment of other nominations until the results of the votes in the two South Australian communities are known.

No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA president Peter Woolford said it was important Mr Canavan made the right decision.

“…if there is a site on offer that meets all criteria, exhibits broad community support and is not on agricultural land, we believe he should be giving it serious consideration,” he said.

“We look forward to Minister Canavan’s explanation as to why he does not deem the Leonora proposal suitable for further investigation.”

The Kimba community will undertake the final vote on the facility in August.

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