Antinuclear

Ruth Tulloch: “community consultation” by National Radioactive Waste Management – ” a huge, expensive marketing exercise “

I have found this whole process to be not much more than a huge, expensive marketing exercise by a government department desperate to force this facility on to a small outback community

The information that was being given out was also changing. It started as being a low level waste facility and maybe a small amount of temporary low-intermediate waste, to what we now know to be more about intermediate level waste to possibly higher grade waste.

If this facility is so safe and as low impact as claimed then why not place it nearer to Lucas Heights which would cause less cost in transportation, less chance of accidents en-route and easier access for workers etc.

Ruth Tulloch Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia  (Submission No. 62) 

 I have been a resident of Quorn for around 23 years and moved to this beautiful part of the state to get away from the congestion, smog and the increasingly impersonal city. I have been involved in the tourism and hospitality industry during my time in Quorn and believe I have a fairly good idea of what people expect to find when visiting The Flinders Ranges. Generally that is natural, un-spoilt and healthy environs to enjoy outdoor pursuits.

I am writing this submission as I am concerned about the lack of real consultation and information with-in the Quorn community.

I have tried to keep informed as best as I can regarding the siting of the Radioactive Waste Management Facility (Dump) in the Flinders Ranges area and am totally opposed to it as I believe it is the most inappropriate area to place such a facility on several grounds including; –

The way the process has been conducted and is being conducted

– (expenditure and marketing) – Not a suitable area – geologically etc – Aboriginal cultural sensitivities

 – How it would affect the image of the area i.e.; tourism and the clean, green agricultural image of South Australia and the local area.

 I went to the original meeting at the Quorn Town Hall back in early 2016 and was also included in the phone survey.

I was against the dump in that survey which was very confusing, as they would ask a question and then expect an answer on a variant scale for or against without my having any or very little background information as to what was being asked of me or the facility being proposed. I then went to the information meeting where they had glossy brochures and a power point presentation about how wonderful it would be to have a facility nearby. It seemed to be a purely PR and marketing exercise. I was not convinced and unfortunately (or fortunately for the Dept of Innovation, Industry and Science – DIIS) the SA government was also embarking on their own, now apparently defunct, investigation into a nuclear waste depository which made for quite a bit of confusion for many people, which by the way, still exists in the community.

The DIIS people then started having so called meetings in the Quorn Council chambers on a weekly basis whereby 3 or 4 representatives would come over from Canberra and sit in the office in case some-one wanted or happened to walk in and have a chat to them. I did venture in on a couple of occasions and found it at times quite intimidating with these experts ready to throw all their knowledge at me and assure me that all my questions or fears were basically unfounded and unnecessary with no basis to my doubts. I found this attitude extremely dismissive and often derogatory. They were also holding these ‘information sessions’ during office hours when most younger people are working and unable to get there even if they wanted to. A large percentage also work in Port Augusta (approx 40km away) so couldn’t even drop in during a lunch break etc.

This went on for many months at what enormous cost to the taxpayer? Also if they were compiling visitor stats then I would suggest that they may not be accurate, as many of the people who visited them went multiple times, like myself.

The information that was being given out was also changing. It started as being a low level waste facility and maybe a small amount of temporary low-intermediate waste, to what we now know to be more about intermediate level waste to possibly higher grade waste. This depends on who is saying what and what there grading perceptions are…… who should we believe????

DIIS then arranged for a French delegation to come out to assure us of how safe these types of facilities were and how the equivalent in France was operating.

I duly went to the meeting to find out more. Again it was during the day so the majority of the few people that were able to get there were of the older age bracket. During that meeting the head of the facility run by ANDRA (the French equivalent of ANSTO) made a presentation of their process. ANDRA specified that during their selection process there were four essential criteria for their site selection. They were:

Clay base as a natural barrier,

 Low risk related to natural environment,

Low seismic activity,

 Low risk of flooding

After his presentation I queried these points and asked if the site had a sand base, constant seismic activity, a sensitive natural and native cultural environment, prone to severe flooding events plus a natural and vital underground aquifer, – all the opposites to what he had stated as essential and which are present at the Barndioota site – would he place a facility there? His simple answer was NO!!! I asked a further couple of questions along this line of thought and also directed them to ( ) the DIIS rep and the discussion was immediately dismissed and firmly shut down as “we are not here to discuss that but to listen to the French delegation’s presentation.” In other words… shut up and don’t ask questions that we can’t or don’t want to answer!!!!!!

DIIS then set up the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC) as a liaison link to both Quorn and Hawker communities. I am of the belief that this is not the case as I have asked questions of members and on occasion either not had an answer or no answer or explanation has been forthcoming or they were not allowed to discuss issues.

On one occasion, a couple of people I know who visited one of the BCC meeting as observers – which I believe is normal public meeting procedure – were forced to leave the meeting with no plausible explanation as to why they could not stay.

Another concern of mine is the amount of taxpayer’s money that has been spent – in my view wasted – on this process. The cost of sending people from Canberra every week for months/year, the cost of various committees with paid members that have been formed for spurious reasons, the $2 million community grants, the cost of sending anyone who wants to go to Sydney to visit the Lucas Heights Facility to be assured “how safe it is” – which of course it is safe otherwise people wouldn’t be able to work there, plus NO-ONE would be given access to unsafe and or controlled areas any way!!!! I also believe there was an initial offer for expense paid trips to France to view their facility.

A perfect example of my comments is the forming of an Industry Working Committee (whose members are paid), who are in the process of organising ‘The Hawker Industrial Expo’ for May and in their promotion blurb state –

“This will assist the local community and businesses to better prepare for the potential arrival of the NRWM facility”.

A particularly biased statement!

The only contacts for this event are an events management company in Adelaide (who “specialise in Special Events, Conferences and Incentives for corporate, government and non-profit clients”) and the DIIS. More wasted money????

Considering a vote of the communities involved has yet to be undertaken to determine if this will go ahead or not, I find this arrogant and contemptible that it is even being planned this far out from a decision and it appears to already presume that the building of this dump will go ahead. Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 62 This, to me, smacks of bribery and a vast marketing campaign to ‘win over the locals’.

There has also been quite a bit of discussion around the facility providing new jobs for the area. Again this appears to be misleading as there is no information or guarantees as to how many jobs, who would be skilled for those jobs, would they be given to locals or just advertised to the general population, whether they would be full time part time etc etc etc…… Many questions to be answered and yet many loose or false promises provided.

We have also been constantly told that the facility would be run on ‘World’s Best Practice Principals’. Whilst this is somewhat reassuring in the short term, there are no guarantees that can be given re natural disasters happening or human error factors which are both more likely than not to happen in the long term. Plus DIIS are talking about long term as this waste has a very long half life (ILW) and even though it is supposed to be a temporary facility there are, at this stage, no plans for a permanent waste disposal facility. I understand this to be a critical requirement of having a license issued by ARPANSA.

Wouldn’t it be a more practicable and sensible idea to find a place for a permanent repository for all waste rather than shift it again some time in the future? As we now know, some of the radioactive waste that was dumped at Woomera (SA) some 20 years ago is now leaking and will need analysis and restoring which will take time and a great expense to re-secure and possibly transport again.

Lastly I would like to address the fact that DIIS has a belief that a majority of people in the area are for this ‘dump’ to progress. Again I believe this to be incorrect as nearly 100% of people I have talked to about this are against having it in the Flinders. They may not be going to meetings or jumping up and down in the streets for many, varied and legitimate reasons but they still care and are not in favour of it going ahead. I also Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 62 feel it divides the community making people less likely to discuss this issue in case they get into arguments with friends and or family.

In summary…I have found this whole process to be not much more than a huge, expensive marketing exercise by a government department desperate to force this facility on to a small outback community with no consideration for what is here and the likely loss of income that would surely follow from having a radioactive waste facility in what is a relatively pristine, clean, green, beautiful environment which is also on the verge of being placed on the World Heritage List. This would have an enormous impact on agriculture and tourism which are the main income streams for this area.

 If this facility is so safe and as low impact as claimed then why not place it nearer to Lucas Heights which would cause less cost in transportation, less chance of accidents en-route and easier access for workers etc. Also why were all the other offered sites so quickly dismissed as being unsuitable without the same processes that we are enduring???

 SA also has a law prohibiting any nuclear/radioactive waste facility and transportation of such waste through and in the state. Will this mean that the Federal Government will over-ride the wishes of the people of SA who very recently overturned any and all suggestions of a nuclear waste facility?

This should be a decision for all South Australians, and maybe all Australians, to decide not just a few hundred people in 2 small towns. After all it will affect the whole state and country for hundreds of years to come.

I have one last concern and that is regard to the proposed vote for consent to be put to the community sometime (this also varies) this year. Will it be a simple transparent question or like many surveys contain an ambiguous question that is written to get an outcome favourable for the departments Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission own purposes and will it be able to present an unbiased case that all residents can understand.

This submission is not so much about not wanting this facility in our/my backyard so to speak but rather the lack of suitability of the proposed site and the lack of respect, discussion and research by the people conducting the process (DIIS). I hope you have read this submission and take my concerns seriously. I appreciate the opportunity to make my feelings known.

June 9, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

Chloe Hannan: community mental health is a serious issue that is ignored in the nuclear waste dump site selection process

Chloe Hanan,  Kimba : Submission to Senate Inquiry: National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (Submission No. 61)

I have grown up in Kimba on our 3rd generation farm and have lived here for the majority of my 28 years. I choose to live, volunteer and raise my own family here in Kimba and I felt it extremely important to put a personal submission into the Senate Inquiry due to the negative impact the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process has had not only on my family but the Kimba community. I am also open to provide more information to the senate inquiry surrounding the process in Kimba if required.

I would like to make comment on the following Terms of Reference:

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;

Right from the very beginning of the process the Minister and the Department of Industry, Innovation & Science have all consistently stated that siting this facility needs ‘broad community support’ and that it will not be imposed on an unwilling community. However, there has never been a clear definition provided to the community apart from the Minister Canavan stating he would need 65% support which was quickly retracted and ignored once the vote in Kimba did not meet that target. Because there has been no definition or set target provided within this process guidelines it means that there is no accountability of the Minister and the Department. This makes a community feel powerless, especially when throughout the 210 days of community consultation that Kimba has endured, what is deemed as broad community support to progress through different stages of the site selection process keeps changing. I believe strongly that at a minimum 2/3rd majority of a community is needed for the siting of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to be considered. Especially due the longevity of such a facility – it cannot be just over half, as this is damaging to a community when people are put against people in such a heated debate.

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

I strongly believe these payments are deliberately used to influence community consent with the promise of jobs and money even though there is very little detail of the economic impacts of the facility. This should be upfront factual information, not provided later as you progress through the stages.

e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring The electoral vote in Kimba didn’t capture people that had properties just outside the boundary lines; however, these families have sent or do send their children to Kimba Area School, play sport for Kimba and shop locally; however they would not be eligible to vote even though they are active community members. These people were encouraged to write letters which would be considered by the Minister; however, these have never been mentioned by the Minister when making his decision when progressing Kimba to the next stage. I strongly believe that wider community support should be assessed especially concerning the two sites Lyndhurst and Napandee where it is clear that people in the neighbouring district council area are closer to the Napandee site than many living in the Kimba District Council area

f) any other related matters. The mental health and well-being of communities is completely ignored in this process and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in future frameworks and guidelines. This process makes communities feel powerless – no support is given to those with opposing views, it is a process that is heavily favoured towards those pro-nuclear and when the rules keep changing to suit those in favour it really gives people a sense of hopelessness.

June 6, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Katrina Bohr is dissatisfied with the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s process for “Community Consultation”

Katrina Bohr Submission to Senate Inquiry Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 59

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

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’-Page 60 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. ( these are added in an attachment on the original at  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions)

June 6, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Conservation Council South Australia: No adequate case has been made for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

In the case of the site nomination of Wallerberdina Station, the pastoral lease is held by an absentee landlord. It is of deep concern that this person can receive financial gain for the siting of a radioactive waste facility which will impact the local community that he is not part of.

To date, there is no definition of the boundaries of “community”, what proportion of a community must support the proposal to be regarded as “broad” or how it will be gauged.

It is a fundamental flaw of the guidelines and the process that these critical parameters have not been defined. They should have been clear before Phase 1 began.

Justification The current proposal for which site selection is already underway has not been justified. No adequate case has been made for the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The failure of the proponent to consider and review other management options means that justification of the proposal and the site selection process cannot be proven.

It is of deep concern that a site selection process has commenced prior to an investigation of the need for a site.

Conservation SA believes that there is a strong case for extended interim storage at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor, particularly for the intermediate level waste created and already stored there.

The three sites currently under consideration are all in South Australia. South Australia has legislation11 that explicitly bans the establishment of radioactive waste management facilities. There is a lack of clarity and disclosure about how this legislation will be considered in the site selection process.

The nomination process is still open. No nominations should be accepted until the report from this Senate Inquiry has been released so as to minimise any negative impacts on communities and ensure the best possible management of Australia’s most hazardous waste

Conservation SA Craig Wilkins Chief Executive RE: Submission to Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia (Submission No 55. Contains excellent references)

Conservation SA is an independent, non-profit and strictly non-party political organisation representing around 60 of South Australia’s environment and conservation organisations and their 90,000 members. Conservation SA is grateful for the opportunity to provide comment to the Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia.

We welcome the inquiry into “The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community”. Each of the Terms of Reference are addressed in turn below. Continue reading →

June 4, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Nuclear Waste Dump Site Selection: Leszek Gaweda points out the Conflict of Interest, and other negative factors

Leszek Gaweda Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No 54)

I am opposed to the current process on the following grounds:

1. Site Selection: Site nominated by ex Liberal politician Mr Grant Chapman. His nomination should never have been accepted on the grounds of conflict of interest.

Mr Chapman was a strong supporter of storing nuclear waste in Australia during his time as a senator, chairing a Senate committee into the subject and recommending a single national facility, a clear conflict of interest.

Best practice in the world for storage nuclear waste is to store it as close as possible to the production site (Lucas Heights in this case) not thousands of kilometres away.

2. Broad Community Support:Communities involved: Transport to the site about 2000km, it’s not just the immediate area that would be effected. In case of accident a large part of the country could become uninhabitable. People from the towns, communities along the route should be consulted.Does the community understand that majority of the waste to be stored there is intermediate to high level? Example Lucas Heights reactor and vitrified nuclear waste brought back from France is intermediate and high level waste as classified in France. This requires isolation from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.

   Majority of Low level is only dangerous for hours to days (max few weeks) and doesn’t require a specialised facility.

3. Aboriginal Communities‘It’s like getting news of a death’ Adnyamathanha woman Regina McKenzie said the local Indigenous community has been shattered by the announcement.Why haven’t the local Aboriginal community been consulted prior to the announcement? These people lived on these lands for 50,000 years in harmony with the environment and they deserve better.

   The nuclear strategists know that Maralinga wounded the Aboriginal people. It is still an open sore and just like vultures, they are still picking on the wounded. Politicians should be protecting the disadvantaged and instead they are supporting and encouraging this assault.

Adnyamathanha Native Title Representative Body (NTRB) known as ATLA.’

They go on to oppose nuclear activities on several counts, including the advisability of renewable energy development instead, and roundly condemn the waste dump proposal:

‘The push for a waste dump in SA keeps coming up repeatedly; we didn’t want it then and we don’t want it now…….Pressuring poverty stricken and isolated communities is unethical, and the public of SA have faced this issue several times in the last decade or more. Enough is enough.’ No means No

4. Water

Much of the region relies heavely upon aquifers to supply settlements, stations, fauna and top up dams.

Polluted water means no business, no food production, no communities just a toxic wasteland to be passed to the future generations.

5. Floods

This region is prone to heavy flooding. Nuclear waste should never be located where flooding occurs. Containment leaks can’t be guaranteed.

On the 14th of February 1955 a huge flood flowed down the Hookina creek only a stone throw away from the proposed Wallerberdina site and washed away a bridge. In the images below you can see the large concrete bridge pylons laying on their sides. The weight of these would be at least 80 tons.

Hookina Spring

“Australia’s first registered Adnya¬mathanha storyline runs 70km from Hawker to Hookina Spring through pastoral and indigenous lands between Lake Torrens and South Australia’s picturesque northern Flinders Ranges, where it is emerging as a battleline ¬between anti-nuclear activists and the federal government ”

She said the Adnyamathanha didn’t want the risk of contamination of groundwaters that fed mound springs on the floodplain where Ms McKenzie brought groups to camp, drink from the spring, and hunt and cook kangaroo in trad¬itional ground ovens and share stories. “We want to share the culture so we can promote this region to the world,’’ she said. “Nobody takes the Aboriginal belief systems seriously — it’s our belief system. I just wish that non-Aboriginal people will look and see the richness in our culture.’’ (Source: The Australian May 23, 2016)

Hopkins Spring is only a stone throw away from the proposed site

6. Seismic ActivityFlinders Ranges is the oldest mountain range in the world, the area selected is not seismically stable. In fact it is probably the most seismic area in the whole of Australia 7.7.Food production – Kimba

   About 4% of Australia’s land is suitable for agriculture and Kimba is in the 4%, this land must be given highest protection as our future food supply is paramount. If a nuclear waste dump was to be located in Kimba, its reputation as a clean and green supplier of food would be adversely effected.

   The perception that SA would be a nuclear waste dump would surely effect our clean and green image and price our agricultural products would attract.

   8.Summary

   Many locals don’t want industries such as tourism and farming threatened. Many traditional owners do not want cultural heritage sites and their spiritual connection to country put at risk.

   South Australians do not want their state turned into nuclear dump.

   This issue continues to cause deep division and stress in the affected communities where friends even families are divided and turn against each other.

   SA parliament passed the Nuclear Waste Facility Prohibition Act 2000. The object of this Act are “to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this state.

   It’s a real travesty of justice that such a proposal is being seriously considered in our beautiful tourist mecca Flinders Ranges and food bowl of our state Kimba.

June 4, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

MNEMOSYNE GILES’ powerful submission exposes the deceit in the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility plan

MNEMOSYNE GILES (citizen of South Australia) to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission 51)

 I submit that the process of selecting a site for a NRWMF has been fundamentally flawed by the fact that it has not been properly or publicly debated whether a NRWM F is an appropriate response to the problem of Australia,s radioactive waste. It is therefore premature to be selecting a site. The inappropriate campaigns of ANSTO and ARPANSA to find a site as soon as possible,(within one year it is suggested) , are part of the misguided nature of their task

 I therefore recommend that this Senate Inquiry lead on to a full independent Judicial inquiry into Australia,s radioactive nuclear waste and whether we should keep producing it. I recommend a moratorium on uranium mining should be held while a decision on what to do with the waste is made.

World wide there is no solution to the long lived ILW (Intermediate Level Waste), and this must be acknowledged and emphasised at all levels of discussion and public consultation. Instead of this the NRWMF site selection process has given the illusion that a National site would be a “safe”solution allowing the industry to continue.

1. CORRUPTION The Act 2012 that allows nominated private land to become nuclear radioactive dump sites, allowing State prohibition laws to be over-ridden, needs to be examined in connection with the possible corrupt volunteering of land, ………. I recommend an independent inquiry into how and why the National Dump process was initiated,and what interests,(including defence,may have been involved).

 An inquiry should ask :why is nuclear radioactive waste at present not better secured at sites such as Woomera where it currently is held? :how”safe” is any storage of ILW? :would one National site be “safer” than more smaller sites,considering that a National site provides a more definite military target and involves the hazards of transport.

2) COLLUSION   It needs to be explained how it came to be that the two campaigns for an International dump in S.A. And a National dump were run in parallel during the year of the NFCRC (Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission).

 I submit that there was communication and co-operation between State and Federal Govts.or other bodies to keep the two separate. The effect of the concurrent campaigns was to confuse the public : if it was designed to confuse , it succeeded :after the S.A. “Citizen,sJury” rejection of the International dump, most South Australians believed the threat of a “Dump” for S.A. was over.

 Now many South , Australians believe that this proposed National dump must be quite different, a smaller proposal,necessary for low level medical waste only. I perceive because I have talked to hundreds of people, handing out information leaflets to passers by on the streets of Adelaide, over the last two years. I submit that the separating of the National and International dump proposals has been and is a deceitful strategy. Well known and influential Richard Yeeles submitted to the NFCRC that a National dump was a good strategy to lead eventually to an International dump. So this strategy is well known to government and industry leaders. But the distinct possibility of a National dump leading to an International dump is never admitted to the public, (especially not to people at Kimba or the Flinders Ranges). This is collusion at a high level to deceive the public. If it is the blind leading the blind it is not good enough when so much is at stake.

3) DECEIT

I also submit that the presentation of medical waste as the main purpose of a National dump is deceitful. Other submissions I am sure will give details of the small proportion of waste which is medical, and the fact that nuclear reactors are not necessary for producing isotopes for medical treatment Nuclear contamination has caused innumerable cancers and will continue to do so. People in contaminated districts can not forget this, but further away people wonder where their cancer comes from.

 4) CONFUSION OVER LEVELS OF WASTE In the early stages of the ARPANSA National dump campaign people were led to believe that it was for LLW only. Even politicians seemed to need to have it explained repeatedly that ILW was to be “co-located”.An inquiry should look at bringing Australian definitions of HLW and ILW into conformity with international definitions.

5) BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT

 Why is the definition of this only now being questioned? For an honest straight forward process it should have been defined at the outset. Leaving it vague has caused uncertainty, confusion, and ultimately angst and division in previously harmonious districts..Whoever decided that small remote townships should be targeted to become willing hosts for the most toxic waste ever produced, and to make a decision which would affect all of us and future generations for thousands of years? South Australian land and people have already suffered contempt and abuse from nuclear /military actions and we will not accept disenfranchisement now. Both State and Federal Govts. (lab and Lib), ape the Finnish with a mantra of “not imposing” on any unwilling community. But this is disingenuous. Finland is a nuclear nation reliant upon nuclear power, so a small local community can have some sense that it is acting in the public interest in hosting a dump. Most Australians do not want Australia to be further implicated in the nuclear fuel cycle:this is probably why we are not being asked about this dump, or given the relevant information. This is not democracy. Finland also has very different geology, with plenty of water and has an absolute veto on the transport of nuclear material across its borders (which we do not have).

This is not a local issue but a National and a State one.

6) FINANCIAL BENEFITS

Small communities are easier targets for bribery and this has been shameless, and benefit to the local community is the most often cited reason for local acceptance. Public money has also been used to fund paid staff to have a constant pro- dump presence in town,and a “local project office” in Kimba. This use of funds means that the pro-dump people in town are supported and can be seen as pillars of the community, positive in attitude, while those against lack funds and support except from volunteers. The current ICAN tour of remote nuclear sites and the target dump sites of Kimba and the Flinders Ranges , is in response to this isolation. ARPANSA has not and does not intend to appear in Adelaide to explain what they are presenting to Kimba and the Flinders communities. I recommend that they should complete an  inventory of what is intended before people can be expected to consider the proposal

7) INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION

This is the most serious defect of the ARPANSA campaign. Target communities of Kimba and the Flinders Ranges are being asked to make a decision on a project that is not described or defined. Attached is an appendix of questions asked of ARPANSA . After a year most of these questions are still not answered satisfactorily .They are basic questions about the waste and the need for an

8) PERCEPTION OF “SAFETY”

All the local people who accept the dump proposal think that it is “safe”,although they do not know what it actually would or could be.(none of us do , it is an open ended process it seems). This is a result of ARPANSAs campaign to create a “perception “of “safety”, an example of which was their hosting of a French pro-nuclear delegation from the Aube. The mayor and others told locals at Kimba and the Flinders ranges how they felt comfortable living and producing near a nuclear waste store, and how tourists flocked to see it. No mention was made of France,s terrible problem with ist waste. When asked about the tritium that leaked(irreversibly) into the water system it was explained that this was only because the facility originally did not have a roof. So contamination and accidents belong to the past, and are not expected in the thousands of years of future storage.

9) MANIPULATION

“In its pursuit of a “willing community”within a year, ARPANSA is manufacturing consent in the same way as the S.A. NFCRC tried to do with its accompanying Road Show”, and the Citizens Jury. The techniques are quite usual nowdays but I submit they are inappropriate for major decision making. They include: -No genuine public meetings ie. No independent chair -Casual style consultation instead, with individuals usually addressed in ones or twos – -low attendance at ARPANSA consultations is normal, similar to roadshow”attendances -questions from the floor usually relegated to private discussion after the meeting.

In conclusion I submit that the site selection process shows pro-nuclear bias and avoids democratic scrutiny. Therefore an inquiry by the Senate into the process should not only condemn the process,but ask for a judicial inquiry into its inception and the basic assumptions it makes about Australia,s further nuclear involvement

. Mnemosyne Giles 2/4/2018

APPENDIX:

Further questions to ANSTO, ARPANSA & the DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, INNOVATION and SCIENCE (DIIS) from ENuFF (Everybody for a Nuclear Free Future SA) Continue reading →

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

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

There are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker). 

the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. 

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

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

While this money is a huge enticement, logically, the big picture cost of transporting radioactive waste from all over Australia to a small rural community doesn’t seem to be discussed in the consultation! If this waste is as safe as promised why is there a need to move it such long distances when it could presumably be located closer to the source with smaller facilities within each state or shared states?

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

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

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

Broad Community Support 

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

Eyre Peninsular and state wide considerations   

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

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

Other related matters

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

In conclusion, after following the progress of the consultation in the Kimba district over the last two years, I feel that there are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1.National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF)

Phase 1 Summary Report April 2016

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

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

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