Antinuclear

Australia’s “Nuclear Archbishop” Dr Adi Paterson, graced Kimba with a visit

Dr Paterson visited Kimba on Friday with Carmelo Pesce, the mayor of the Sutherland Shire, which is home to the Lucas Heights reactor. According to the Eyre Tribune, the nuclear guru promised  “45 jobs [that] will vary from full-time work, to shift work and on-call.

May 5, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dump site decision an all-Australia matter , says Independent and Peaceful Australia Network South Australia

Stephen Darley – Co-ordinator, Independent and Peaceful Australia Network IPAN (SA) SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN South Australia  We wish to respond to your Terms of Reference in relation to the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawke in South Australia, noting that the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community.

Our first response is to query whether your committee has given cognisance of the results of the recent Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle held in Adelaide in 2015, where the Citizens Jury (representing citizens selected at random and given comprehensive, expert information), overwhelming voted that they wanted NO part of the nuclear cycle developed here. This included nuclear waste management facilities.

The SA government agreed to abide by this decision. Consequently we would like to know under what legislation the Commonwealth can now override this decision and welcome your response to this query.

We make the following comments in response to your terms of reference :

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

This is a vexed issue as we would prefer that this proposal does not proceed, but should it do so, we believe that an independent panel should recommend the appropriate compensation where required and no land should be compulsorily acquired without the full consent of the owner and the surrounding community agreeing to any facility placement in their vicinity.

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

It is imperative that the broadest possible support be obtained before proceeding further as this is a national project that could affect other States where waste material is transported from. Transport, whether by sea, rail or road, will be a major hurdle for the proposed project as many communities have actively campaigned against waste material being trucked or shipped through their community (ie the sustained Port Adelaide and South Australians opposition to earlier proposed nuclear waste facilities). Not only is safe transport a major concern, but also the water table being contaminated if a spill occurs or the facility is not secured safely underground. We have no details of the type of facility proposed but all proposed waste management facilities, even low and intermediate level nuclear waste are recommended to be stored in very stable rock at considerable distance underground. How can people make a decision when they have no details of the actual storage being proposed ? To ask people to consent to transport and storage of toxic waste (which could conceivably increase to high level nuclear waste at some future date) is disingenuous.

Citizens must have all the proposed site facts put before them so that they can make a well informed decision on how this could/would impact on their State and/or community.

We recommend that both local, state and nationwide support be sought with all the above pertinent facts on the proposed structure, transport and guarantee, including exactly what level nuclear waste would be housed, with a firm guarantee that this would not be increased over time. A response level of 90% YES vote would be appropriate to ensure this proposal does have wide, genuine support – perhaps a postal vote would be the way forward. This process should also be carried out by an independent body.

1. How broad community support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage. Our response is incorporated in the above recommendation.

   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;

   We believe it is paramount that the Australian government fully outline and commit to whatever level of nuclear waste material would ever be stored at these sites. There is talk of intermediate level waste (and perhaps even high level). These levels require very stringent and specific storage sites which we doubt are available at the areas selected ie stored in stable geological rock for thousands of years with no possibility of leaching into any water table – mindful that the Artesian Basin is close by which stores most of Australia’s underground water. Your proposal needs to cover all the levels of waste and how they will be stored in full compliance with international standards.

It is paramount that indigenous peoples, especially around the proposed sites, should be in agreement first, before proceeding to canvass wider state and national support. Our local knowledge and experience, doubts that this will occur as we are mindful of the sustained and successful campaigns opposing any nuclear waste facilities in South Australia in the past, especially the Kunga Juta Aboriginal Women’s successful campaign to stop nuclear waste facilities on their land in the 1990s. They remember the consequences of the Maralinga Tests which adversely affected many of their communities, so there is a strong resistance to any nuclear waste facilities. Their combined support for such a facility would need to be evident through signatures and spokespeople standing up publicly to support any proposal, before canvassing this idea further.

500. Whether and how the Government’s community benefit program payments affect broad community and indigenous community sentiment;

     We are not cognisant of the community benefits program but suggest that they should be disentangled from this issue, as any monetary or community program inducement would be seen as a bribe to ensure support for a nuclear waste facility. Indigenous people should be provided with all the community services they require, without tying them to this proposal.

e) Whether wider Eyre Peninsular or state-wide community view should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring,

As mentioned above it is imperative that such an important and long lasting project gets overall support from first the local indigenous people, then the local communities, South Australians and lastly Australians overall. All the salient facts need to be published and people invited to vote. This information should the fact that waste is currently being stored successfully on-site where it is subject to regular scrutiny. People would need to have all transport routes identified and a guarantee that this project will not escalate into high level waste from overseas being shipped and stored here.

The project should only proceed if it has an overall majority vote of 90% in favour as what is proposed, once begun can not easily be undone.

f) Any other related matters. As seen above there is a lot more information and project management work to be drawn up before this proposal should be taken any further. At the moment it seems in the “wish list” category but serious information and planning needs to occur before this proposal cam be taken further. The first matter to be solved being the right of the Australian government to override the SA legislation which opposes any nuclear waste facility here. We would appreciate your response on this matter.

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

Anica Niepraschk calls on the government to dismiss the Hawker and Kimba site nominations for nuclear dumping

I hereby call onto the Minister to dismiss the Hawker and Kimba site nominations and reconsider all options available, including co-hosting the radioactive waste management facility at an already existing nuclear site. 

Submission :  Anica Niepraschk Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission 29  In this  submission, I wish to point out the inappropriateness of the site selection process for a national  radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia.

In 2015, when the current voluntarist approach to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) was in its early phase calling for land nominations to site Australia’s low and intermediate level radioactive waste management facility, I conducted a study on international best practices for such siting processes. Please thoroughly consider my research findings in the attached  report. In my research, I found that a number of characteristics have internationally proven to be crucial for the success and integrity of a voluntarist approach. The NRWMP is lacking in most of these. Interestingly, in the cases I looked into, siting has only been successful in communities where a repository can be co-hosted with other nuclear facilities. These are communities with a nuclear history of some sort, such as hosting a nuclear reactor or intermediate storage facilities for radioactive waste.

Even when other communities had shown initial interest in hosting a radioactive waste facility, they ended their engagement in the siting process quite early on. This shows that it is much more likely for a repository to be hosted by a ‘nuclear community’, which partly roots in it already being familiar with the risks and benefits involved and thereby being much more comfortable to make an informed  decision. An already existing positive relationship with the respective nuclear operator can furthermore contribute to a community showing interest.

Australia currently has a limited number of nuclear activities and stores its radioactive waste materials in numerous intermediate storage places, most of them very small. Only the site of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s nuclear reactor and larger radioactive waste storage facility at Lucas Heights would reflect this experience. This is also where the majority of Australia’s radioactive waste is already stored. It would therefore provide the opportunity of simply improving on the current facilities and not having to transport the existing waste to a remote facility, thereby reducing risky and unnecessary transport of dangerous materials.

To be a truly voluntary process, community and public opinion has to be effectively taken into account by the respective decision making institutions and reflected in decisions. This means thatcommitments to not impose a repository on any community have to be observed. Showing respect towards informed decision-making necessitates providing local communities and the wider public with the necessary time and information. This is an essential factor to build trust towards the implementing agency.

Furthermore, a truly voluntary process acknowledges the role of the communities by engaging with them throughout the whole duration of the repository project. This should not be limited to the siting process but extend to the construction, operation and closure phases of the project. As the case of Belgium shows, communities can engage on issues such as the facility design and wider community implications e.g. facility monitoring and socio-economic projects. The early provision of information is essential, providing the community and wider public with the possibility to commission studies, reports and expert opinions. This encompasses an extensive assessment of environmental impacts and of alternative methods and siting options as major references to base a meaningful siting decision on for both the implementing agency and the community. These provisions enhance transparency and accountability and help build a more trusting relationship with the community. They raise the chance of a successful siting process as it is based on an informed decision and allows communities to feel more confident. Indigenous communities and Traditional Landowners play a central role in the siting process in some countries. Their consent and close engagement is critical in Australia where Traditional Owners are directly affected by the sites currently progressed. Furthermore, community engagement should also encompass neighbouring communities, which might be affected by the project.

A non-restrictive timeframe should be applied in siting processes, providing all stakeholders with sufficient time to make informed decisions. In the international case studies this has shown to require years. When the community feels comfortable to make a decision on the matter, a test of community support should be taken to establish its position. Similarly, the right-to-veto the government’s or operator’s siting decision should also provide the community with the final say on hosting a facility or not. In general, a community should be able to leave the siting process at any time if wished. As the UK example shows, this was one of the main factors communities wanted ensured when consulted on how to improve the siting process and has further proven to be a key feature of all the siting processes, making engagement really voluntary.

All the international examples enabled community engagement through providing funding to use according to their own needs to engage effectively on the issue. Additionally, some countries provide benefit packages for communities participating in the process and/or hosting the planned facility as a way to compensate for the efforts and risks associated and further drive local development, apart from the economic benefits already associated with the project such as employment, improved infrastructure and know-how. In case of any provisions in this respect, it is important that communication on funding or contributions is very clear from the beginning and that it does not compromise the position of the community on the issue and can be handled independently from nuclear operators or facility proponents.

In the case of Australia community engagement is completely carried out and funded by the National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) and aimed at supporting the understanding of the project, instead of providing room for engaging on the issue. This transactional approach does not allow for the community to engage in ways it finds meaningful.

The main concern regarding the continuation of the site selection process, however, is the community opposition, which has been apparent for both the Barndioota site near Hawker as well as Kimba.

In the case of Barndioota, the local Adnyamathanha community at Yappala station, just kilometres away from the site, has been very vocal in its opposition to the siting from the beginning. With this site, the government chose, after pursuing Coober Pedy from 1998 to 2004 and Muckaty in the NT from 2005 to 2014, to not only once again target an Aboriginal community but also a culturally highly significant site. The proposed property is part of a songline and hosts many cultural sites, including the beautiful Hookina springs, a sacred women’s site for the Adnyamathanha. The local community remains actively connected to the maintenance and preservation of the land and is documenting and preserving their culture and history through recording traditional heritage sites and artefacts and mapping storylines in the area. The proposal is seen as an attack on their cultural beliefs, history and heritage.

The terms of reference of this inquiry clearly note the Government’s statement that it will not impose such a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling community. If the government is serious about its voluntary intentions and wants to be successful in the siting of the facility, it is paramount not to proceed with the shortlisted sites at Hawker and Kimba as they very clearly do not fulfill the essential criteria of community support. Attempts to ‘convince’ the local community of potential benefits of hosting the facility should be avoided under all circumstances, and the informed decision, which communities have taken, respected.

I hereby call onto the Minister to dismiss the Hawker and Kimba site nominations and reconsider all options available, including co-hosting the radioactive waste management facility at an already existing nuclear site.   https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

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

Australia’s radioactive trash, and the history of failed attempts to set up a nuclear waste dump

Submission Appendix Anna Niepraschk   Wasting Time?  International lessons for managing Australia’s radioactive waste, Anica Niepraschk Discussion Paper July 2015 from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

In her paper Wasting time? International lessons for managing Australia’s radioactive waste, researcher Anica Niepraschk looks at how other countries  have approached this challenge and what lessons might help Australia move away from a search for an ‘out of sight –out of mind’ dump site in favour of a responsible and effective management regime

Overview: For over two decades successive Australian governments have floundered when faced with how best to handle Australia’s radioactive waste.  They consistently tried – and consistently failed to impose a!national dump site on unwilling communities in South Australia and the Northern Territory.

Now the federal government has a revised approached based on a foundation principle of volunteerism. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has called for  nominations from around the country and is soon to release a short=list of  possible sites where Australia’s low level waste can be buried and longer=lived  material stored above ground.

1 Introduction

Finding technically, geologically and socially accepted sites for the storage or disposal of all forms of radioactive wastes has proven an international challenge for decades. Many countries have chosen to engage in various voluntary siting processes after having failed to site facilities on solely technical and/or political grounds due to community opposition and public contest. Australia is the most recent country to develop a voluntary approach after the failure of earlier approaches to realise a site.

For two decades Australia has been trying to find a solution to the disposal and storage of its low and intermediate-level radioactive waste (LILW). Attempts to impose a national repository on communities in South Australia (from 1998 to 2004) and subsequently the Northern Territory (2005 to 2014) have failed amid Federal Court trials, leaving the Australian government needing to engage in a different approach to the challenge of siting a repository. Continue reading →

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

Contradictions and problems in the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce process

Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, Submission 29 – Extract from Attachment 1 Anica Niepraschk 

Arising challenges

Even though the current process is still in its early stages, it already either faces new challenges or has not yet dealt with older ones. Despite repeated calls by civil society organisations for an independent Inquiry into the full range of radioactive waste management options available, the government has instead continued its preferred option of a centralised radioactive waste facility. This leaves the current process vulnerable to criticism that the waste should remain at the sites where it is produced rather than being transported long distances through Australia, posing the risks of accidents on the way and the risk of an out of sight – out of mind approach in a remote area far away from expert oversight.

A continuing concern remains the federal government’s perception of urgency to solve the siting challenge, which is used as a justification for avoiding a more time consuming approach based on extensive consultation and consensus. Other countries have recognised that the provision of realistic timeframes is an essential condition in successful siting processes. The Australian government, despite the last 20 years of unsuccessful, rushed and pressured approaches, has again chosen to be bound by a rigid and self-imposed timeframe, trying to resolve the siting in around 18 months.

The current National Radioactive Waste Management Act (2012) is democratically compromised, as it provides for key legislation to safeguard cultural heritage and the environment as well as state legislation to be overridden in order to declare a site. SA, WA, Victoria and the NT all have state legislation in place prohibiting the storage or even transportation of radioactive waste from outside the state or territory. The federal government’s call for all Australian landowners to consider making a site nomination has failed to address this conflict of undermining existing laws and a ‘voluntary’ process.   https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Submissions

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

Christine Wakelin – very sceptical of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce’s methods and plans

I do not think that one of two small rural communities should feel that if they do not accept the radioactive waste, these [medical] applications will be forced to stop, as they have been told by Departmental Officials.

Christine Mary Wakelin- Submission to Senate Inquiry on selection process for nuclear waste dump siting

My name is Christine Wakelin and together with my husband, I am a longstanding landowner in the Kimba District. I was a Registered Nurse for over fifty years, much of which I was employed at our local hospital. I had, in this position supervised the administration of IV Chemotherapy and taken simple XRays. A close family member had treatment with Nuclear Medicine for the control of Neuro Endocrine Tumours.

The matters I would like to submit to the Senate Economics References Committee on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Kimba and Hawker are as follows:

• The  compensation to landowners for “volunteering”one hundred acres of land at four times the normal value makes the more remote rural areas of Australia more likely to be selected as the amount of land required, without significant buildings and improvements, is more easily found there than in more closely settled areas and prices at the selected rural sites will be significantly less.
• Cropping land such as offered at Kimba, is, in total, only approximately 4% of Australia’s land mass. Eyre Peninsula, which Kimba is part of, is an important grain, meat and wool exporter.
• To Volunteer, as defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary is doing something willingly without being paid for it. Being paid four times the value of the land does not meet this definition!
• The definition of “Broad community support” has been a very vexatious matter, varying from a two thirds district support to the majority of immediate neighbours supporting the sites. This has caused much anxiety within our community. It has been said that those against the selection of sites in the are only a “small vocal minority” but even with the incentive of the community benefit $2 million, 43% of people voted not to go onto stage two of the selection process.
• It is unclear how “broad community community support” will be defined when the selection process moves to the next stage, with Minister Canavan saying that there is no defined level of voter support from a further ballot. This has given further cause for concern from those apposed to the selection of a site in the Kimba Area.
• The selection of the two original sites in Kimba, following a suggestion by the local Federal member of a site on his farm, which was then withdrawn, caused significant apprehension and distress. There was immense relief when these two sites were rejected by the Federal Government, just prior to the 2016 Federal Election. The nomination of a further two sites soon after this time, has seen distress renewed and added scepticism of the whole process!
• Since the beginning of the two selection process, there have been many visits from Departmental Officers, several glossy information sheets and visits to ANSTO at Lucas Heights by many local residents, with all but two paid for by the Australian taxpayers. In addition are the ongoing costs of a Community Liaison Office and staff member. These are all to promote the siting of the NRWMF at either Kimba or Hawker. Those apposed to the sites in their area have received no financial support. This contrasts to the recent same sex marriage debate which saw funding allocated to both sides.
• The incentive of community benefits program and the $2 million /year that is offered, did, I believe, influence people to vote to go onto stage two of the selection process. Remarks such as “we may as well go onto stage two and get the money” were heard as a justification for voting to go further in the process. “We have to do something” was another reason for voting yes. It was ironical that Kimba had just been recognised as South Australia’s “most sustainable town”!
• The Community Benefits Program is designed, we are told, to overcome any community inconvenience. However no amount of money can compensate for the mental health wellbeing of the community which has been the affect on some community members, both those for and against the NRWMF proposals. I am closely linked only with the Kimba community but I understand the Hawker community has also had these concerns.
• The selection of the members of the Consultative Group must also come under scrutiny, with an apparent imbalance between those known to be for and against the site proposals. Who made the decision on the membership of the group and on what criteria?
• The Kimba District is part of Eyre Peninsula, a rich Grain, meat and fibre producing area. Much of our produce is exported, with benefits being passed on to the wider Australian community. Anything which has potential to affect our valuable industries must be given due consideration. Many on Eyre Peninsula say that their opinions should be considered also.
• We are told that the siting of a NRWMF Facility in our region “should not” affect our markets. This is very different from “will not” and remains a pivotal concern for many people.
• I am supportive and somewhat familiar with the use of Nuclear Medicine for the treatment and diagnosis of a variety of conditions. However I do not think that one of two small rural communities should feel that if they do not accept the radioactive waste, these applications will be forced to stop, as they have been told by Departmental Officials. Surely there is a wider community responsibility.
• Does the 2012 Legislation for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste have the power to overrule South Australian Legislation which currently does not allow the building of the NRWMF in South Australia or the transport of other than our own waste, in the state?
• Does this above legislation have the power to overrule the wishes of Aboriginal peoples of an area?

April 27, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australian Human Rights Commission predicts legal challenges that might stop nuclear waste dump plans for South Australia

 Radioactive waste dump in SA could be stalled unless indigenous people are properly consulted. http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/radioactive-waste-dump-in-sa-could-be-stalled-unless-indigenous-people-are-properly-consulted/news-story/65ddb77090da463024f0d217a0a075ff

THE construction of a radioactive waste dump in South Australia could be stalled by court challenges unless local indigenous people are consulted properly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned, Peter Jean, The AdvertiserAPRIL 25, 2018 

THE construction of a radioactive waste dump in South Australia could be stalled by court challenges unless local indigenous people are consulted properly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned.

The commission has intervened in the debate over potential locations for the dump after some Aboriginal groups complained they were not being fully consulted.

The Federal Government said it was working closely with indigenous people as it considers two sites near Kimba and one at Hawker as possible homes for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

But in a submission to a Senate inquiry, the Human Rights Commission said it was concerned that Adnyamathanha indigenous people near Hawker were unhappy with the consultation process.

“This situation requires immediate attention if the consideration of the site at Wallerberdina Station is to continue,’’ the commission said.

The “overwhelming and clearly expressed support of the affected indigenous group” would be required for the facility to go ahead, according to the commission.

The federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science told the inquiry that it was consulting indigenous people, and an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment had been conducted at the Wallerberdina Station site near Hawker.

The department said it would continue to work closely with traditional land owners to “preserve, protect and minimise the impact on indigenous heritage”

Legal challenges resulted in earlier plans for a waste dump in the Northern Territory being abandoned in 2014.

April 27, 2018 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment