Archive for the ‘Federal waste dump’ Category

David Noonan: No sound reason for ANSTO’s nuclear reactor wastes to go to Kimba South Australia as STRANDED WASTES

May 12, 2018

The proposed above ground Store in SA is primarily for ANSTO nuclear wastes

It is axiomatic that site selection at Kimba will require requisition of an Eyre Peninsula Port for decades of intended shipments of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste, first due from the UK in circa 2020-21.

The SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (2016) concluded that terrorist attack scenarios are conceivable during the transport of nuclear fuel wastes & that if a cask was lost at sea and was irrecoverable the radioactivity that escapes is expected to affect thousands of cubic km of seawater.

ANSTO has produced irradiated nuclear fuel wastes & Intermediate Level Wastes at Lucas Heights for 60 years without any nuclear waste disposal capacity (or even a program to do so) and intends to continue this mal-practice for another 40 years under an OPAL reactor Operating License up to 2057.

It is an untenable fact that the proposed nuclear fuel waste Store in SA is intended to operate “above ground for approx. 100 years”, however responsible management of ANSTO irradiated nuclear fuel wastes requires isolation from the environment for 10,000 years.

A Store in SA is unnecessary given the safe option of Extended Storage at Lucas Heights

This Inquiry should find no manifest need for a nuclear waste Store in SA other than Federal agenda. There is no Safety, Licensing or technical reason to bring these nuclear wastes to SA.

the Federal Minister holds a draconian discretion under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWMA) to over-ride both Federal and State Aboriginal Heritage Acts.

Ending the process now is far preferable to “a final right of veto” which forces Aboriginal people through to the end of a divisive demanding site selection process that is harming their community.

An immediate adjoining property to the proposed NRWMF siting in the Flinders is an Indigenous Protected Area, a part of the National Reserve System that is supposed to be under Federal protection. AND the proposed sites and the broader area are part of a precedent registered Story

Line, values that must be respected, under the protection of the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988

However: the Federal Minister holds a draconian discretion under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (NRWMA) to over-ride both Federal and State Aboriginal Heritage Acts.

This ERC Inquiry should recognise that Aboriginal people’s ‘voice must be heard and their consent is essential’ as a core part of “broad community consent” and make a Finding that NRWMF siting on Adnyamathanha country in the iconic Flinders Ranges is inappropriate and must stop forthwith.

 

David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St. Independent Environment Campaigner . Submission to Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry “Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in SA” (Submission No. 31)

RE: Flaws in site selection process, inappropriate indefinite storage floats best practice, failure to follow essential Nuclear Safety Committee advice, and serious threat to human & cultural rights.

Dear Secretary Please accept this public submission & consider my request to appear as a Witness at this Inquiry

This submission focuses on the “appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process” & associated matters for the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).

Specifically: on inappropriate Siting of a proposed indefinite above ground Store for primarily ANSTO irradiated nuclear fuel wastes & long lived Intermediate level reactor wastes in regional SA.

An Executive Summary and a few public interest & Safety Questions for this Inquiry to consider under your Terms of Reference are provided – along with an offer to expand on points raised.

Over the last two full years the Federal government has solely targeted regional communities in SA to site the nuclear waste Store & associated required nuclear Port and waste transport routes.

In doing so, the Federal process is unacceptably inadequate (rather than thorough) in failing to follow essential advice of the Nuclear Safety Committee to the regulator ARPANSA (NSC advice to the CEO, Nov 2016) on the NRWMF: for transparency in decisions and for “The ongoing requirement to clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along transport routes.”

My submission to the Minister (May 2017) on his decision under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 to assess two sites near Kimba as potential sites for the proposed NRWMF raised a range of issues that have not been thoroughly addressed since (see Attachment 1).

I request opportunity to appear as a Witness to provide evidence at a Hearing of this Inquiry, and was a Witness as an individual on nuclear waste issues at the SA Parliament Joint Committee Inquiry on the Findings of the Nuclear Royal Commission, held in 2016. (more…)

Advertisements

Sisters of St Joseph say: Terms of Reference for Senate Inquiry on Nuclear Waste Dumping are ‘grossly inadequate”

May 10, 2018
Others however do not consider that the financial risks are adequate. Their concerns  have been articulated in community discussions:
• The loss of value to the spectacular tourist lands of the Flinders ranges
• The damage to farming country near Kimba
• The harm to below surface water tables
• The adverse effect on the prices of livestock and crops, caused by proximity to radioactive waste
• The adverse effect on the prices of land adjoining the site
• The fear that the Commission’s case for a nuclear making a profit is based on inflated estimates of the income and deflated estimates of the costs and risks
The sites near Kimba are in a productive agricultural region. This is in conflict with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Code of Practice on radioactive waste, which states that radioactive waste disposal sites should have “little or no potential for agriculture” 

The question for all of us must be faced. What sort of planet will our children, grand children and great grand children inherit, if this land is used in the way proposed by the Government?

Josephite Justice Office, North Sydney NSW 2060,  Submission to Senate Inquiry SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Contact Jan Barnett rsj  (Submission No. 68)

INTRODUCTION
This submission is presented on behalf of the Josephite Justice Office, a ministry of the Congregations of the Sisters of St Joseph. The Sisters of St Joseph and our Associates (numbering approximately three thousand women and men) were founded in the mid-nineteenth century by Mary MacKillop and Julian Tenison Woods to work with those suffering from poverty and social disadvantage. We educate, advocate and work for justice, for earth and people, especially those pushed to the margins.

We commend this Inquiry into the siting of national radioactive waste management facility (NRWMF) at Kimba and Hawker. It is particularly encouraging to note that the Government has stated unequivocally that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. The controversy surrounding the siting of a NRWMF in any area of Australia over recent years indicates the strength of feeling and the contradictory evidence being argued. It is our belief that until these arguments can be resolved, then even the specific terms of reference nominated for the Inquiry will be grossly inadequate.
Given that context, this submission will nonetheless address the terms of this Inquiry, focussing on both the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process at this stage.

PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION

Six specific terms of reference have been named by the committee:

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

 2. how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
a. the definition of ‘broad community support’, and
b. how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
Submission 68

3. 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;

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

5. 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;
and
6. any other related matters.

THE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION OFFERED TO APPLICANTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND UNDER THE NOMINATIONS OF LAND GUIDELINES

The two sites being actively considered are Barndioota, near Hawker in the iconic Flinders Ranges, and two sites on farming land near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.

A number of residents who have been offered compensation believe that the amount is satisfactory. Others however do not consider that the financial risks are adequate. Their concerns  have been articulated in community discussions:
• The loss of value to the spectacular tourist lands of the Flinders ranges
• The damage to farming country near Kimba
• The harm to below surface water tables
• The adverse effect on the prices of livestock and crops, caused by proximity to radioactive waste
• The adverse effect on the prices of land adjoining the site
• The fear that the Commission’s case for a nuclear making a profit is based on inflated estimates of the income and deflated estimates of the costs and risks

THE WAY THAT THE NEED FOR ‘BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT’ HAS PLAYED AND WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY A PART IN THE PROCESS, INCLUDING:
• The definition of ‘broad community support’, and
• How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

There is a clear need for broad community support. Consultation has occurred, but as has been acknowledged, only across a small sample of people and communities. The
positioning of a radioactive plant is of broad community concern and necessitates comprehensive community support – defined as support of those living in the immediate

area, but also of the wider community whose lives and reputation will be affected by the placement of the plant. How this can be determined at each stage of the process is questionable, given the current tensions in the areas concerned.

• Communities in both Kimba and the Flinders Ranges have highlighted the damage and division the plan has caused among families and life-long friends

• The sites near Kimba are in a productive agricultural region. This is in conflict with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Code of Practice on radioactive waste, which states that radioactive waste disposal sites should have “little or no potential for agriculture”
• The current attitude of ‘not in my back yard’ across the wider Australian community indicates a lack of broad community support, which needs to be tested across South Australia
• There is no doubt that the location of Ansto at Lucas Heights affects the purchasing price of land and the standing of the suburb in the minds of people considering where they might live
• The deep fear that there could be a failure of protection for residents continue to concern residents, despite assurances that radioactive waste facilities are designed with numerous layers of protection.
WHETHER AND/OR HOW THE GOVERNMENT’S ‘COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM’ PAYMENTS AFFECT BROAD COMMUNITY AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY SENTIMENT; 
Questions have been asked as to whether the degree of backing for the ‘community benefit program’ comprises support for the project itself or support for the funding. Regardless of such motivation however, community support is questionable, and Indigenous community sentiment is negative.
• The site in the Flinders Ranges is on Adnyamathanha country and many Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners are opposed to the possible plant and concerned that the dump will negatively impact on their country
• The Flinders Ranges is a world-renowned destination. The Sisters of St Joseph believe that many South Australians are concerned about the potential negative impact on this spectacular land, sacred to the Indigenous People and beloved to many other Australians, an impact that outweighs any community benefit program and any financial package and jobs being offered by the federal government
THE WAY THAT THE 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 
The siting of a NRWMF at Kimba and Hawker is seen by many Indigenous Australians as a lack of respect for the First Nations Peoples and their land. Aboriginal communities in South Australia suffered British nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and continue to suffer health and social impacts from these tests. The proposed facility is seen as further disregard and destruction, a permanent imposition on country, people, laws, environment and culture. Past experiences indicate that Indigenous support will be difficult to receive, and that at each advancement stage, further polarisation of both Indigenous and other communities will occur. From Elders in the South Australian communities to young people now speaking out, many generations are resistant of a NRWMF.
 WHETHER WIDER (EYRE PENINSULA OR STATE-WIDE) COMMUNITY VIEWS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND HOW THIS IS OCCURRING OR SHOULD BE OCCURRING
There is no doubt that broad and much wider community views should be taken into consideration. The siting of the facility in South Australia affects not only the communities of Hawker and Kimba, but also the surrounding areas, and indeed the whole of the state and beyond.
 • It is known that ultimately, in spite of every precaution, there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and that any exposure can result in negative health outcomes. Exposure can occur at any stage of the process • Risks could arise in the vicinity itself or along the transport corridors
 • The polarisation of the communities of Hawker and Kimba has been replicated more broadly across South Australia in the lead-up to the state election, indicating the necessity for significantly more comprehensive consultation
 • The long delay in reaching a decision regarding an appropriate site is indicative of the failure to reach consensus on this issue
 • It is clear that the waste disposal problem has become a major challenge for Government. Cautious and careful consideration is needed if indeed the next stage of this process is to be managed successfully
CONCLUSION 
The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia continues to be questioned despite Government assurances. It remains reassuring to note that the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. The polarisation of the community indicates that there remain significant concerns on the part of local residents, as well as across the broad community of South Australia.
Finding a solution to this current dilemma is not the work of a single discipline or a single group or a single political strategy. Its solution lies as much in scientific data as it does in the ongoing consultation of communities, as much or more in a love land as it does in our instinct for self-preservation or profit.

The question for all of us must be faced. What sort of planet will our children, grand children and great grand children inherit, if this land is used in the way proposed by the Government?

Indigenous anger at Australian govt toting indigenous man across the land to promote nuclear waste dumping

May 6, 2018

Vivianne C McKenzie Shame on ANSTO and DIIS bringing yura to speak about waste dump in Wallerbidina. Who gave welcome to yartah? Did the Adnyamathana peoples give permission for them to have meeting on yartah?

Heather Mckenzie Stuart Disrespectable man shame on him!

 Katrina Bohr This is wrong on so many levels. Once again-No respect.

Roni Skipworth So this guy from Darwahl tribe in NSW didnt ask permission to come on to your Ancestors Lands.  That seems very disrespectful as having good Indigenous friends they used to explain to me the Indigenous Law was ‘Didnt matter where one wanted to travel in other parts of Australia,they needed to go the that destination’s Elders to ask permission to enter into their Lands’. Like those from Adnyamathanha Country who wanted to travel to Lucas Heights would out of respect go to the Elders of the Darwahl Tribe to ask permission to step onto their land. I feel that Indigenous Laws once very strong amongst Australia’s Indigenous are being lost in today’s world. Also I feel that is why some Indigenous Children run amuck as they are lost and living in a White Society under the White Laws have lost their way  .

 Heather Mckenzie Stuart He didnt ask. He come with Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and Department of Industry Innovation and Science on Taxpayers money to have dinner at the Hawker Social Club where there was a function with invited guests.

No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia,  6 May 2018    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/

Heather Mckenzie Stuart  Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 5 May Why is ANSTO and DIIS bringing a yaninjanha yura from Darwahl tribe in NSW to Hawker in the Flinders Ranges, making trouble saying urdnus are the only ones protesting against the proposed nuclear waste dump at Barndioota and are using yuras?

We go to protests and we will keep going to protests we will stand against the vartani. Anyway who gives that man the right to come here and talk in Adnyamathanha country, Wilyaru mirus and Adnyamathanha artuyani yarta. This is our ancestors lands, he has no shame we wouldnt go and talk in his yarta about his country. Dont come here pushing a nuclear waste dump on us, keep the poison in your country. You ANSTO and DIIS keep that yura in his country and let him dribble his rubbish over there in NSW. Hands off our sacred sites and stay in your yarta!! Ps his cultural consultancy means nothing to us, he want to stay at Lucas Heights.

Anica Niepraschk calls on Australian government to dismiss the inappropriate Hawker and Kimba nuclear waste site nominations

May 2, 2018

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 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.

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 generala 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

Wasting Time?  International lessons for managing Australia’s radioactive waste: Anna Niepraschk

May 2, 2018

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  | AUSTRALIA – NATIONALFederal nuclear waste dumpLeave a comment Edit

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

73 submissions published to the Australian Senate on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Dump site

April 30, 2018

The Senate Inquiry  has now published 73 submissions. (We don’t know how many there are that are “confidential”.

I am going through them, not at this point able to estimate how many pro-nuke how many anti-nuke.

For several weeks, the Senate site published only 5 submissions. All were pro nuclear, and looked as if they were dictated by the same person. Their major argument is that the decision on siting the nuclear dump is a matter only for the local Kimba or Hawker community.

At 14 April The published submissions  included 11 pro nuclear, 7 anti nuclear , one “sort of neutral” (Kimba District Council) ,  But REMEMBER – some submissions are not to be published. You can bet that Holtec and other nuclear businesses will have sent in their submissions.

I will be publishing significant submissions on this website.

Latest submissions that I have studied.

  • Anica Niepraschk calls on the government to dismiss the Hawker and Kimba site nominations for nuclear dumping.  Ms Niepraschk investigated international processes for site selection, finding that c0-location with an existing nuclear facility [i.e. Lucas Heights] is the best option. She questions the genuineness of the community consultation, emphasises the opposition of indigenous people. In her attached report, she points out the undemocratic nature of the National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) selecting sites in States, despite all States having laws prohibiting this.
  • Colin Mitchell’s powerful submission to the Senate finds the national radioactive waste selection process to be deceitful, with serious issues omitted. He recommens  a different process, run by an independent agency, not connected with ANSTO or ARPANSA.
  • Christine Wakelin is very sceptical of National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce’s methods and plans, especially the propaganda about nuclear medicine. She questions the assumptions about “community support”, is concerned about the effect on the region’s agricultural economy.
  • Australian Human Rights Commission predicts legal challenges that might stop nuclear waste dump plans for South Australia
  • Barngarla native title holders do NOT support National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on their land – the nominated sites. They outline the chronology of consultation with Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. They conclude that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.
  • Michele Madigan explains the dual nature of the government’s planned federal nuclear waste dump – i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and

(ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).

Sr Madigan puts the case for the ILW being stored at Lucas Heights, where all security processes are already in place, until an independent agency can investigate the matter scientifically, without political bias. She also clearly explains the problematic nature of processes used to procure “community consent” regarding the indigenous community.particularly

  • Barbara Walker highlights the damaging impact of the waste dump on tourism, the flawed opinion surveys, harmful effects on Aboriginal people, and the illgality of the nuclear waste dump plan
  • ENUFF makes a powerful case, criticising “community consultation”, sham “Aboriginal involvement”, and the deception over “medical waste” as the purpose of the dump. This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry, that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative.  For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments.
  • Janet Tiller has deep concerns over this  plan to dump radioactive trash on agricultural land. Also over the lack of inclusion of the wider community, with whole of Eyre Peninsula farming area at risk of losing  its “ Clean Green” image. And at the pro nuclear bias in the committee formed to manage the grant money.
  •  Holly Whittenbury on Nuclear dump siting- Aboriginal issues, tourism impact [not yet published on Senate website] Ms Whittenbury strongly sees the siting decision as a State and National matter, not just a local one.  She highly values the opinions of  Adnyamathanha Indigenous groups, with their intrinsic connection to the land.  She warns on the tourism impact, and is strongly critical of the conflict of interest of nominations by white farmers, especially Grant Chapman.
  • Started with this excellent one from Mrs Justine Major . Mrs Major is most concerned about the choice of farming land for a radioactive trash dump, and is very critical of the “community consultation” process.
  • Scott Cameron’s Submission to Senate finds process for selecting nuclear dump is misleading and faulty. I don’t believe it can be called a voluntary process when the nominator stands to receive a payment of four times the value of their land……The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage……., the affect that this could have on our exports hasn’t been taken into consideration at all….I have found them to be inconsistent and often misleading with their information…..I know that 2 Liberal party politicians were involved in land nominations both in Kimba and in Hawker and it would be interesting to see how many other Liberal associates have nominated around the country.
  • No Nuclear Waste Dump in Flinders Ranges‘ Submission [not yet published on Senate website] impresses with a strong critique of the nomination and selection process, and lack of social licence. Reminds of the importance of environmental impacts, and of Aboriginal cultural heritage.
  • Noel Wauchope Submission for the public good. [not yet published on Senate website] Stresses importance of generalist, not just “expert” opinion being considered. Notes that, with no discussion, South Australia is already assumed to be the location for the dump. “Community support”must involve the wider South Australian and Australian community. Queries the type of wastes – Low Level and Intermediate Level being lumped together.

Pro nuclear enthusiasm in Ben Heard’s submission to the Senate. Posing as a great environmentalist, Heard downplays the importance of safety risks, confines community involvement to the immediate local community, glosses over the very toxic wastes included, and the fact that wastes will be stranded with no permanent dump planned. https://antinuclear.net/submissions-to-senate-inquiry-18/

Legal cases could stymie the Australian government’s push to dump nuclear waste on rural South Australia

April 27, 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, 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.

Where to put Australia’s worst nuclear radioactive trash? – Lucas Heights is still the best option

April 25, 2018

Effectively it is about relocating Australia’s worst radioactive waste from above ground interim storage at a purpose built and heavily secured and resourced facility in Sydney to above ground interim storage at a far less resourced facility in regional SA. There is no compelling public health or radiation management rationale for this approach.

It is definitely not something that should be foisted on a community area/state/through transport route communities at the behest of a local land/leaseholder.

The national radioactive waste facility is in two parts

(i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and

(ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen site for promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).

Submission by Michele Madigan To The Economic References Senate Committee Inquiry – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

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

I submit that the present method/process of selection for the site for Australia’s long term intermediate radioactive waste and to a lesser extent for the nation’s low level radioactive waste is not only inappropriate but has grave implications for present and future generations:

*of local communities  *for all South Australians  *and indeed all Australians – in particular those national communities along any proposed transport route.

I note, as does the Senate Committee, that the Federal Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. This condition of willingness is indeed world’s best practice. Whether or not its present process and reported results accurately reflects the reality of such unwillingness in the South Australian proposed sites is discussed below. (more…)

Barbara Walker – nuclear waste dump would damage tourism, split community and is illegal in South Australia

April 23, 2018
Submission by Barbara Walker Senate Economics References Inquiry – National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Introduction:
My name is Barbara Walker. My husband and I bought a home in Quorn fifteen years ago, retiring to the peace and tranquility of the magnificent Flinders Ranges. We are both active volunteers within our community. I served as a volunteer lifeguard/supervisor at the Quorn swimming pool for nine years and am also a volunteer at
the Platform Gallery in Port Augusta. I am a member of the Flinders Local Action Group – a group of concerned citizens protecting the Flinders Ranges and against a pending nuclear
waste repository.
My husband is a regular volunteer for several local clubs and community fundraising events.
He is also an organiser for an annual military veterans retreat and a volunteer radio operator
for the VKS-737/RFDS Radio Network.
Through our network of friends and radio contacts we have always encouraged people to
visit the iconic Flinders Ranges. Many travellers visit us while travelling through Quorn and
most are horrified after discovering a nuclear waste repository is pending for the Flinders
Ranges.
A nuclear waste facility will adversely affect tourism within the Flinders and outer regions.
Many travellers from Australia and abroad have said they will not return if a waste dump is
located in the Flinders Ranges.
The prospect of a nuclear waste repository has also caused much division and ill health
within our local communities.
The Flinders Ranges is the home of the Adnyamathanha people who coincide with tourism
operators and local pastoralists in showcasing the marvels of the Flinders Ranges.
The question of broad community support:
I believe the Orima survey was flawed and inconsistent with broad community views and
opinions.  Orima survey phone calls were made but only to some fixed home phones. These days most
people use mobile phones. Mobile phone users were not surveyed.
Orima offered small incentives in the form of supermarket vouchers to some indigenous
respondents. Proof of this is written in the Orima survey, headed “Interview Method”. Why
was this necessary? Would this be classed as a bribe?
In my opinion a better way to survey people would be through the postal system, canvassing
the whole community by using a simple democratic process. Perhaps using the AEC would
have been a better and fairer solution, and in doing so, every community member would
have a voice.
South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 states it is illegal to
have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia, in which case, the whole of South
Australia has already said a clear NO to the storage of nuclear waste, and if that were to be
changed by Government, all South Australians should be asked for consent.
At our own expense, Flinders Local Action Group also conducted a survey. It was posted to
the people living in Hawker, Quorn and Cradock. People were simply asked for a YES, NO
or UNDECIDED vote regarding storage of nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges. Flinders
Local Action Group then asked if the results could be opened and scrutinized by the CEO of
the Flinders Ranges Council. FRC kindly obliged and final results showed 79% of the
respondents were against having a nuclear waste repository in the Flinders Ranges.
 
The consideration of Indigenous support:
 
The consideration of indigenous support is an important factor within the Flinders Ranges
and the wider community. Any support for a nuclear waste repository would firstly have to be
given from the Adnyamathanha community because, in the case of
Wallerberdina/Barndioota, a nuclear waste repository on that site would be invasive to their
culture. Intrusion would cross cultural songlines and disturb artifacts, sacred sites and the
Hookina – The Hookina is a culturally important place for Adnyamathanha women.
Adnyamathanha families from Hawker and surrounding areas have been severely affected
by this controversial process. It has caused great heartache, division and ill health for many
people. Families and friends are feeling torn apart by the long and ongoing processes from
ANSTO and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
 
Community Benefits Program:
Another example of division. Many think the Community Benefits Program is divisive and
creates an impression of bribery. Some businesses needing monetary assistance,
regardless of their ‘for’ or ‘against’ opinions, are happy the money has been offered and
therefore feel it is up for the taking. Others refuse to apply as they regard it as bribe money.
Some people in the community were selected for paid positions, and part of their role is to
reassure people that a nuclear waste repository would be a positive enhancement to the
Flinders Ranges – jobs, tourism and Federal money. A few of these people have used their
positions as a license to bully community members who are not in favour of a nuclear waste
dump. I suggest in future jobs like these need to be screened and monitored regularly if
people are to receive Federal funding for this kind of employment.
Small vulnerable communities would be best served if community benefits were given in
constructive growth projects, like tourism and small business, not a nuclear waste repository
that offers minimal employment and destroys tourism and cultural heritage.
Wider Community Views and conclusion:

Wider community views should always be considered regarding the storage of nuclear
waste. Most people would agree there needs to be a single repository for a low level nuclear
waste facility somewhere in Australia but it is fundamentally important to find the right place.
The Flinders Ranges is not the right place.

The intermediate nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights should stay where it is. The Lucas
Heights storage facility is purpose built for safety and has ‘state of the art’ security with plenty
of storage availability for years to come. Why move it to a place that has massive floods, frequent earthquakes and sometimes 50+ degree days in summer?

Top submission to Australian Senate on Inquiry into Nuclear Waste Dump Site Selection

April 21, 2018

This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry, that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative.  For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments,

ENUFF argues that “the Taskforce has not properly nor fully informed either the wider public; nor their arbitrary ‘local community’ cohort; nor the State Government; &, it would appear, not even their own Federal Minister – about the whole radioactive waste regimen. Instead they almost only & exclusively accentuate & promote Australian usage of medical radioisotopes. ”

The community consultation methods have been inadequate and unfair. There is no scientific need for Lucas Heights nuclear wastes to be transported to rural South Australia, and medical wastes amount to only a tiny fraction of the radioactive wastes planned for the S.A. Dump.

Stirling North and Leigh Creek residents would be affected, but were excluded from the consultation. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association were NOT consulted prior to the Wallerberdina preferred site announcement , contrary to UN endorsed Indigenous Rights.

In surveys run by Flinders Local Action Group a clear majority voted “no” to the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the area .

Scrutiny of the Barndioota Consultative Committee NRMWT survey reveals questionable and biased methodology and results.

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s communications and publicity have been deceptive with its pretense that the waste is predominantly medical Low Level Wastes, ignoring Intermediate Level Waste volumes intended for ‘temporary’ storage

Given the prime-facie maladministration ans deficiencies described above, ENuFF calls for a judicial inquiry into the NRWMF ‘s processes.

ENuFF-SA Submission 1 to the Senate ERC NRWMF Inquiry (not yet published on the Senate website)

CONTENTS Page 2 Acronyms 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary 6 History 8 Contemporary Action 9 Wallerberdina 16 Indigenous appraisal 19 Correspondence with the Taskforce 22 Afterword 25 Bibliography

In order to determine whether or not maladministration &/or negligence has any bearing upon the community consultation process, ENuFF asks the committee to recommend a judicial inquiry into the performance of the NRWMF Taskforce…..

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Contrary to NFCRC best practice principles i, iii, iv, viii, xi quoted above [on original] ; the Taskforce has not properly nor fully informed either the wider public; nor their arbitrary ‘local community’ cohort; nor the State Government; &, it would appear, not even their own Federal Minister – about the whole radioactive waste regimen. Instead they almost only & exclusively accentuate & promote Australian usage of medical radioisotopes.

• Contrary to i, iii, iv, vii, xi; the Taskforce applied peremptory community consultation eligibility parameters. For example, democratic participation involved comparative telephone surveys which excluded & discriminated against those not having a home or business landline. Thereby denying procedural fairness

• Contrary to ii, vi, vii, x, xii; the Taskforce allowed 95 anonymous people – having negligible connections to the proposed site living over 20 kilometres away from Wallerberdina (= Barndioota) & with the majority 40k+ – to veto the interests of 75 aboriginal people & the immediate neighbours.

• Contrary to i, vi, vii, xii; the Taskforce conflated a flawed configuration for the Barndioota ‘immediate community’. What views regarding further consultation were in the initial stages provided to the Department, & by whom?

• Contrary to i, vii, xi; the Taskforce acted deficiently because there was no parity of consideration between the respective short list sites. The statistical samplings were adjusted on a case by case basis allowing the disparate inclusion of highly populated regional service centres at some places but not others. There was not a level playing field, therefore any decisions based upon comparative statistical analysis are invalid.

Contrary to vii, xii; the Taskforce applied ‘special treatment’ to establish each aboriginal respondent’s local indigenous status during the survey process. Given the fact that indigenous people were specifically targeted, was the modus operandi deficient? Did government agents picket local stores querying the ethnicity of passers by? Did Orima employees attend at specific addresses such as aboriginal community centres or housing precincts? How was ‘local aboriginality’ established & anonymity maintained?

• Contrary to xii; the Taskforce employed Mr Zaheer McKenzie.

• Contrary to i, vi, vii; the Taskforce excluded Stirling North from the Barndioota survey cohort. What follows is commentary on the background behind these contrary indicators.

HISTORY13

  1. The current Commonwealth Government effort to establish a nuclear waste dump in regional South Australia is largely predicated upon the Feb 5th 1992 judgement in the New South Wales Environment Court: finding that although Lucas Heights was the ‘safest site in Australia’; it determined against the use of Lucas Heights as a national radioactive waste storage site14 . There is no scientific, technical, engineering, safety nor security reason why Lucas Heights cannot hold such material.
  2. 2. That court decision was not predicated upon the locally generated ‘medical waste’: but mainly against the storage of 2010m3 shipped to Lucas Heights from Fisherman’s Bend in Victoria. This material was then moved to Woomera late 1994 early 199515 – for so-called ‘temporary’ storage whilst a national facility was being identified. Concurrently an additional 30m3 Dept of Defence holding (including plutonium) requiring long-lived ILW protection was also placed ‘temporarily’ on Woomera 23 years ago.
  3. 3. THUS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A NATIONAL FACILITY REMOTE FROM LUCAS HEIGHTS WAS NOT INITIALLY BASED UPON ANSTO GENERATED MEDICAL WASTE. Indeed, best practice would require ANSTO waste containment as near as practical to source, ie @ Lucas Heights.
  4. As late as July 2002, the two Woomera holdings amounted to about 60% of the total LLW & sl-ILW inventory; another >35% of the national inventory was ANSTO generated & held at Lucas Heights; whilst >5% (including ALL hospital waste) was from civil/academic use (distributed nationwide, mostly in the eastern states). There is an additional annual increase of about 40m3 – plus up to 2500m3 from reactor decommissioning – 80% contained within NSW. The radioactive waste resulting from Australian use of medical isotopes constitutes a minimal overall fraction which could easily be stored indefinitely at Lucas Heights. Nearer to the source of production & usage in an already existing secure purpose built facility that requires no expansion of risky transport across the country Refs at bottom of p.6
  5. dunno what 5 is
  6. 6. In 1999 it was presumed by Federal agencies that a national radioactive waste facility would be close to operational by 2005 – the projected commission of the Lucas Heights OPAL reactor – & this understanding was integral to ARPANSA’s approval to build it.
  7. 7. By 2001 however, ANSTO amended their OPAL specs to stipulate 2025 return of reprocessed OPAL fuel as the critical date – completely ignoring the already existent 400m3 & the ILW return due in 2015. In 2002 ARPANSA approved construction after being informed by the Govt that the LLW facility would be operational around late 2003.
  8. 8. By 2004, with no national facility in progress, the ANSTO ‘authority to operate’ application dropped any specific dates regarding Lucas Heights waste transfer – effectively disabling the 1993 regulatory framework. OPAL proceeded without ANSTO specifying long term waste management.
  9. 9. In 2006 ARPANSA issued the OPAL operating license. ANSTO expanded it’s Lucas Heights waste holding capacity in 2007 & 2009; then again in 2013 for storage of processed fuel (ILW) returned from France in 2016. More capacity is planned post-2019.
  10. CONTEMPORARY ACTION 10. It can be reasonably surmised that 25+ years of frustrated attempts to establish a national radioactive waste facility by successive Federal Governments (of both political persuasions) is exacerbated by a systemic administrative failure to fully inform or properly engage with the people & the State Governments.
  11. 11. The Department has a past history of skewing the deck in regard to radioactive management: ‘’Our senior Government source ………. tells how the benefits of a reactor’s role in nuclear medicine were deliberately overstated…… So, it was reduced to one point, and an emotional one at that. ‘ 17
  12. 12. The farce continues with the perpetual deceitful ‘nuclear medicine saves Aussie lives’ indoctrination: whilst the community is also expected to accept the ‘temporary’ above ground storage of Intermediate Level Waste – which the Taskforce would have us believe predominately results from reprocessing the fuel rods used in radioisotope production. However, a previous 1999 Departmental report demonstrates this to be false: ‘’…… long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste from reprocessing of spent fuel from both HIFAR and a replacement research reactor should amount to no more than several tens of cubic metres. This would only represent a small proportion of Australia’s current inventory of long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste. “’ 18
  13. 13. Falsehoods coupled to divisive warranting of the opinions & perceived interests of an arbitrary poorly defined ‘local community broad support’ – but not others – thereby denying Procedural Fairness & corrupting any social consent.
  14. 14. The Taskforce seeking such consent for ‘temporary19’ storage of processed spent fuel & to provide de-facto endorsement for the triple expansion of ANSTO’s radioactive exports – not for Australian health benefits but in a lame attempt to band-aid ANSTO’s drain on the public purse.
  15. 15. The community, which actually includes all Australians, is being held hostage by a wolf [being the poorly advertised 85% bulk volume of waste] in sheepskin [>15% = Australian medical isotope usage] & expected to subscribe to unknown engineering holding unspecified volumes of undisclosed poisons indefinitely – AND also only Barndioota & Kimba so-called locals get any say…… Get real.
  16. 16. Whilst the AEC may have smeared a veneer of authenticity, the Kimba ballot ‘to proceed the site selection process’ was invalid because a significant proportion of the ‘yes’ vote was based upon the Taskforce presenting a false perception to the constituents. Namely that most of the radioactivity generated by the proposed facility will be LLW derived from Australian hospital use of radio-pharmaceuticals. WRONG WRONG WRONG… References at end of page 8
  17. Wallerberdina 17. In April 2016 Wallerberdina was the singular location20 selected from six shortlisted sites: & just months later that decision was described as “controversial” in the 45th Parliament Briefing Book of July 201621. ENuFF & others have grave reservations about the ‘Phase 1’ administrative process which resulted in Barndioota becoming the preferred locality.
  18. 18. We now direct your attention to the methodology used by the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Project (NRWMFP). Orima Research22 was contracted to conduct a multi-State survey23 of 5 communities24 in Feb/Mar 2016 – principle mode was the asking of set questions25 via computer assisted telephone cold calling.
  19. 19. The Barndioota entitlement to be heard was constricted to a 50k radius & also included those Flinders Ranges District Council (FRDC) residences & businesses who happened to be listed in a sanctioned telephone directory: “The sample frame of mobile and landline telephone numbers was provided by SamplePages…….. The geo-targeted sample was primarily composed of landline numbers, as there is very limited availability of mobile numbers that can be geo-targeted.“ 26
  20. 20. According to the latest figures, many Australians (nearly 30%) only possess unlisted mobile phones27 – so a substantial number of the so-called ‘locals’ were arbitrarily excluded simply because they did not posses a home / business fixed phone. They were denied Procedural Fairness.
  21. 21. Such methodology is further discriminatory because ownership of a home or business telephone account is statistically directly related to socioeconomic status & to age. There were 5 districts surveyed nationally, did the Taskforce consider the per capita demographic of phone ownership in each cohort before making its Barndioota decision?
  22. 22. Until tested, it can be argued that there may be comparatively less diversity/divestment of home phone ownership in the Barndioota precinct due to number of demographics, including: remoteness; a higher aboriginal population; greater transient workforce; greater mobility; socioeconomics; family reasons; age, or personal choice Refs at bottom of p.9
  23. 23. Those that do have home or business phones would mainly constitute the comfortably established, & the ‘random’ access to such does not truly represent any ‘local community’ as a whole. Also, whilst a telephone may be physically located within a certain zone this does not guarantee that anyone who answers it is a permanent member of the ‘local community’.
  24. 24. According to the survey cohort parameters28, the ‘Barndioota’ adult population was 1,331: the number of available phones was 266, 228 responded; from which 146 people were interviewed resulting in 65%29 = 95 people who were not opposed to furthering the investigative process & 51 against. Overwhelmingly derived from FRDC landlines. Note that Wallerberdina Station lies barely within the extreme & remote NW corner the FRDC30 .
  25. 25. Nationally, each of the 5 survey precincts had different geographical parameters applied – thereby further muddying any comparative statistics. For example, the ‘Hale’ precinct was expanded to include the whole of Alice Springs; ‘Sally’s Flat’ sampling inflated to swallow both Bathurst & Mudgee, whilst ‘Oman Oma’ – simply within a 50k radius.
  26. 26. This conflation justified in order to: “… include or exclude population centres in the surrounding area in accordance with the views of the immediate communities as provided to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in the initial stages of the consultation period. “ 31 .
  27. 27. Regarding Barndioota, what ‘ views ‘ were ‘ in the initial stages .. provided’ to the Department – & by whom? Define ‘ immediate communities ‘. Is that what the rest of us would call locals? I ask that this Senate Committee make publicly available the full details regarding this Taskforce claimed survey initiatory cause.
  28. 28. None of the General Population Barndioota survey sample (146) lived within a 20k radius of the proposed site & 106 lived more than 40k away32 . The survey does not tell us how far away the 95 unopposed lived, but the whole FRDC is approx 100k long + 45 wide with Barndioota located at the much less populated north-western extremity. Of 77 aboriginal people personally interviewed (face to face, not by phone), 75 were against further process33 . Refs p.10
  29. 29. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, & Statistics” 34. The Community Sentiment Surveys Report (CSSR) selectively presents the gathered data in such a way as to give false appearances in order to shed a ‘positive’ light. The CSS page 2 Headline Banner “Overall Support” Chart EXCLUDES DATA collected from the 77 Barndioota indigenous respondents & there-by deceptively presents a 65% FALSE POSITIVE – when in fact the Barndioota total aggregate data [Gen Pop + Neighbours + Indigenous + Business] actually generates a 52% NEGATIVE outcome. Neither ‘Overall’ nor ‘Support’.
  30. 30. This demonstrates that the Taskforce wrongfully excluded indigenous responses in order to present a false positive ‘broad community support’. Such maladministration may constitute a denial of natural justice, be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 2012, & conceivably attributed to apprehensions of bias35 .
  31. 31. ENuFF contends that the Taskforce acted negligently in selecting Wallerberdina by conducting a comparative telephone survey of the different nominations without considering the exclusion & discrimination which home or business phone ownership necessarily imputes. The Taskforce then uses that flawed cohort to justify 95 people living over 20 kilometres away (& the majority 40k+) having negligible connections to the proposed site to negate the wishes of 75 aboriginal people, many of whom live & associate immediately adjacent. Wrong & doubly discriminatory. There is also no parity of consideration when other sites statistical samples were modified to include large regional service centres.
  32. 32. What exactly is ‘local community’? The NRWM Act36 does not define nor use that term. The Taskforce accepted theoretical statistical modelling which rendered each of the 5 ‘local communities’ with different prescriptions for geographical extent & population size.
  33. 33. ENuFF contends that action was deficient & renders a worthless statistical outcome. That the Taskforce so-called ‘local community’ engagement in the site selection process is not prescribed by the NRWM Act but was based upon unproven a priori presumptions not corporeal – therefore rendered administratively & legally irrelevant.
  34. 34. The Department spends big bucks in the latest inclusive fashion – but ends up wearing no clothes. 35. Before this fiasco, how many of the Barndioota ‘local community 146’ identified as ‘Barndiootans’ …. & how many of those could name others as Barndiootans? Zero. Of the 146, how many had even heard of Wallerberdina Station before the Chapman nomination? Precious few p. 11refs
  35. 36. ENuFF also believes that the various survey determined ‘local community’ parameters fail the ‘reasonable person test’, i.e what would the average individual regard a ‘local community’ to be? Those living within a relatively small named locale immediately springs to mind.
     37. Local council districts are government precincts & may NOT be generally regarded as ‘local community’: their demographic more readily understood as a cooperative association of many ‘local communities’; often administratively expressed as Wards having their own elected representatives.
     38. Reasonable folk would also agree that the nearer you live to any proposed radioactive waste facility the more likely you are to oppose it. The survey also indicates such37. Inflating the geographical boundary therefore necessitates including a greater percentage of those less likely to object. The reasonable presumption that ‘local community’ = ‘living nearby’ does not apply in the case of Wallerberdina.
    39. Reasonable folk would understand that if you didn’t live near a radioactive dump & were offered monetary or other benefits for supporting the construction of said dump then you would be more likely to consent than if there were no incentives.
    40. Annually, the Department dangles a $2 million sweetener into the whole FRDC pond38, with promises of $10 million39 to come. Not only that but also: “Other community support will include significant supporting infrastructure needed to support the facility, such as access to a stable and reliable communication system, including mobile phone reception and broadband internet. Roads may need to be upgraded to a suitable load standard.”
     41. Whether or not such ‘infrastructure’ would ever actually eventuat te is moot, because apart from the spuriously claimed “… strongest support was in this site …. The minister said the Barndioota site excelled based on its geological settings, technical capability and access to transport – it is close to a railway line.“ 41 Given that a heavyweight rail line already exists & is intended for use, then there would be minimal need for road upgrades; & communications proximal to the remote facility would provide negligible wider benefit (since hardly anyone lives nor commutes within mobile phone tower range of the proposed site).
     42. Proposed use of the existing rail corridor also introduces indicative ‘local community’ criteria not included within the Taskforce survey. The railway extends from Stirling North in the south up to Leigh Creek in the north. Distance wise, Stirling North lies within the same geographical scope as  the FRDC – so why were Stirling North residents excluded? Would Leigh Creek residents be affected?  refs p 12
    43. The Stirling North ‘local community’ has an equal or greater direct association with the site & transport corridor than 99% of FRDC people; as a whole they would be subject to greater risk than most FRDC residents (the only exceptions being immediate neighbours & aboriginal people), & more likely to benefit from associated jobs & business opportunities.
    44. However, ENuFF & others have also expressed many times that this issue is much greater than any ‘local community’; whilst nationwide a multiplicity of aboriginal organisations & individuals are opposed to radioactive waste facilities upon their traditional lands42 .
     45. As to other ‘local community’ criteria, it is reasonable to presume that local indigenous land councils would be involved, & The Act does stipulate that relevant aboriginal land associations be included – but only in the Northern Territory. In the case of South Australia & Barndioota, the ‘Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association43 are the peak body.
    46. ATLA were NOT consulted prior to the Wallerberdina preferred site announcement: “I’m surprised and disappointed that we havent been consulted before the announcement was made, once again it appears the traditional owners have been overlooked. The support for this is mainly coming from the non-Aboriginal community, who will generally be in our country for a few of generations, but for us this is our land forever and we have a cultural duty to protect it.“ 44. ATLA opposes siting the facility at Wallerberdina: “the bottom line is we don’t want this dump and people need to start listening to us, the traditional owners!” 45 .
    47. Also consider UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People) endorsed by the Australian Government:       “Article 29 2 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. Article 32 1 Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. 2 States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. Article 35 Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities. “ 46 .  refs p 13
    48. So, in Phase 1 the nomination of Wallerberdina was controversial & contrary to UN endorsed Indigenous Rights: whilst the Departmental actions for determining Barndioota as preferred site were based upon false presumptions & redacted data biased toward a positive outcome; thereby wrongfully deficient.
    49. Phase 2 then followed, with the following stated Departmental objectives: “• Heritage and technical assessment. • Establish a community consultative committee. • Engage a Community Liaison Officer. • The community to provide input into design. • The Government to seek broad community support for hosting the facility.” 47
     50. The Taskforce again seeking ‘broad community support’ by milking a distorted community cohort: but by now rumblings are occurring with FRDC citizenry dissatisfied with the failure of the telephone survey to fairly sample the population
    . 51. Residents then organised themselves into the ‘Flinders Local Action Group’ (FLAG48), & amongst other things, conducted their own survey: “FLAG undertook a community survey in two parts in the region between September and November 2016 asking the question “Do you want a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility established at Wallerberdina Station / Barndioota?” In both surveys, a clear majority voted “no” to the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the area, with 92% voting against it in Survey 1 and 79% in Survey 2.“ 49
    52. The FLAG Survey Report also remarked that: “The siting of A National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is an issue of huge national importance. So is it fair that our small community is being asked to make such a serious decision based on limited and, we believe, misleading information?“ 50. Note the reference to ‘misleading information’, a view which ENuFF & others also hold51 .
     53. Phase 2 also saw the Taskforce implement the Barndioota Consultative Committee (BCC) whereby a panel of FRDC residents were incorporated into a group which are meant to regularly meet in order to provide an information disseminating interface between the Department & ‘local community’. But as far as ENuFF can ascertain, there are no active protocols to ensure there is a regular meaningful flow of information or authenticated feedback between the BCC & the wider ‘local community’.
     54. Meanwhile, in June 2017, even the BCC question the Taskforce notion of ‘local community’ parameters: “Friends and family outside are part of one’s community…… Smaller towns north of Hawker and Wallerberdina Station are more connected to Hawker than those in the south…… Action Item 3: BCC members will consider the outcomes of the conversation about the definition of the Barndioota community, and re-visit the issue at a future meeting. “refs p 14
    55. The BCC again in October 2017: “It was mentioned that Quorn has been included in the definition previously and if they were removed then that could create further tension between the towns. A member mentioned that the question was ‘what do we see as a community’ and it has been mentioned previously that the Hawker community does not include Quorn. In the previous  discussion there was a strong view the Quorn should not be included.“ 53
    56. The question asked above “.. what do we see as a community’ …“ & the Hawker v Quorn contention demonstrates a number of things: a a divisive outcome from the Taskforce process; b no unequivocal determinant of ‘local community’; c a presumption by some BCC members that Hawker has greater claim upon ‘local community’ status.54, & d Stirling North – whose residents would be most affected – is again unrepresented & totally ignored.
    57. Not only are there divisions within the ‘local community’ but also there is a barrier between the BCC & the rest of the populace. Given past failure of the BBC to enter constructive dialogue & exchange information with the wider community; a group of locals wishing to become better informed attended the BCC December 2017 meeting but were ejected.
     58. Representations were made by FLAG to both the BCC & NRWMFT seeking redress & clarity upon the closed door policy; “What possible grounds can there be to eject two community members who made the effort to attend to listen and observe the proceedings? A reasonable conclusion would be that the Committee was preparing to discuss something that they did not want the community to know ……” 55 .
     59. As to BCC noting that the old Hawker Council District could become the sole parameter for ‘local community56’, even the NRWMFT acknowledges that “ Hawker …. would be unlikely to provide all the necessary services required for construction and operation of the facility due to its size …… The nominated block is relatively remote with nearby residences far away in comparison to other sites, ….Some services required …. would likely need come from Quorn or Port Augusta. ” 57. Again, no mention of the Stirling North rail terminal. In that same report (p12), the NRWMF also erroneously claims “… the community consultation process demonstrated unambiguous overall general community support ….“. Unambiguous? BS  refs p 15
    60. Since post-facto there is no consensus for defining ‘local community’; & the on-going process for validating the same or some other ‘local community’ parameters generates division; exclusion; coupled to the Taskforce failure to properly liaise outside the BCC camera: then there has been a negligent & maladministrative breakdown in procedural fairness.                                              Whilst here-in we have made much ado about NRWMFT shenanigans regarding their local community Trojan Horse, ENuFF, as previously stated numerous times; holds the position that locating a national radioactive suppository is the business of the whole country – not just those victims chosen to scapegoat all users of radio-pharmacopoeia.
    INDIGENOUS APPRAISAL
    61. Apart from the Taskforce Phase 1 Campaign taking flak from the wider civil society & FRDC residents in particular; the Taskforce also had an overwhelmingly failure of approval from the indigenous people – which Phase 2 systematically set out to undermine.
    62. ENuFF contends that the Taskforce misused information garnered by their illegitimate imperious survey conventions to wrongfully embark upon a campaign to subvert the overwhelmingly negative determination against their proposed dump by the Barndioota connected aboriginal population.
     63. Let us further scrutinise the Barndioota survey methodology & results. The general FRDC survey was conducted through computer assisted cold phone calls – whilst aboriginal people were polled face-to-face. Incognito could reasonably be expected from the first remote contact method; but with one-on-one interviews anonymity is much more problematic.
     64. Indeed, given the nature of aboriginal society & a more personal process, then at least some, if not all, individuals would have been identified by name – even if only in order to ratify them as eligible participants.
     65. If remaining anonymous is a right expected & experienced by the general populace – but is not enjoyed by members of the aboriginal community, then there may be a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 Section 1058 .
     66. ‘ For the purpose of Authentication’ is not a valid exception – since contextually the general populace cold-calling does not actually establish whether or not respondents were eligible. Whilst the telephones may be physically located within the designated precinct, anybody who happened to be present – regardless of permAnent residency – could answer such & be counted.  Refs p 16
    67. The Taskforce survey also describes engaging with the aboriginal community using the statistical ‘non-probability intercept method ‘ 59. As far as ENuFF can ascertain, no further details have been released regarding how the so called ‘intercept method’ was applied; but this data gathering technique is generally experienced at places like shopping malls where people are randomly approached by clip-board wielding operatives & asked a set of questions.
    68. The Senate Committee needs to discover how the Taskforce ascertained validity & anonymity in establishing ‘local indigenous’ identity during the survey process. Given the fact that indigenous people were specifically targeted, was the modus operandi deficient? Did government agents picket local stores querying the ethnicity of passers by? Did Orima/DIIS employees stake out specific addresses such as aboriginal community centres or housing precincts? How was ‘local aboriginality’ established?
     69. ENuFF hold that it is reasonable to assume that during Barndioota Phase 1 the Taskforce (&/or Orima) compiled a list of aboriginal names & addresses which in Phase 2 were specifically targeted. This is clearly indicated from Taskforce agents door knocking aboriginal residences in Port Augusta – outside the Barndioota survey precinct. Such also flies in the face of the NRWMF claiming that “Individual’s survey responses will remain anonymous and be treated as confidential“ 60
    70. Such a surmise is further indicated by the employment of Zaheer McKenzie61 (ZMc) as the NRWMF Taskforce, Barndioota Community Engagement Officer. ZMc has Kuyani Adnyamathanha descent indigenous to the local area. He raises cattle on Cotabena Station which is adjacent to the proposed Wallerberdina site.
    71. ZMc is also registered as a Director (since 2014) & current Contact Person for the ‘Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation’ (VYAC), with a membership list that has been publicly available62 since 2008. From the VYAC Rule Book63, “ The corporation aims to: (a) Address the land acquisition and management (including Native Title) needs of descendants of Malcolm and Ruth McKenzie on their respective traditional lands. “ VYAC has been recognised by the Taskforce as 1 of only 2 incorporated aboriginal associations having direct interest in the dump proposal. Cotabena was included in the CSS under the ‘Neighbours’ data-set. refs p 17
    72. The employment of ZMc can therefore be perceived as the Taskforce gaining political leverage inside both the local & broader aboriginal community by intruding within pre-existent corporate governance processes. That would be contrary to the UNDRIP principle of self determination; & ZMc’s stipend potentially construed as a monetary incentive that curries favour.
    73. Due diligence requires that the Department must be aware of not only the direct aboriginal interest within the Wallerberdina environs, but also of ZMc’s direct pivotal position within the corporate governance regimen. The issue of his employment has been raised with the Department64 .
    74. The Taskforce is also aware that a number of ZMc’s aunties (some of whom reside on YGP as neighbours to the proposed site) are spokespersons in the anti-dump campaign, whilst his father has publicly advocated strong pro-dump views on many occasions.
    75. ENuFF contends that the Department acted wrongfully & divisively by appointing ZMc as engagement officer because it places him in an influential but compromising position with potential conflicts of interest. Any communications between the Department & the VYAC puts ZMc in the unique & powerful position of being able to manipulate, filter, delay, influence &/or determine information flow between the Department & the aboriginal community – & vice-versa. ENuFF is not saying that such is occurring – only that there is no apparent safeguard to prevent it.
     76. A better option would have been for the Department to consult ATLA seeking their endorsement of a proper candidate; & the same could be said for the aborig inal people having input within the Departmental Heritage Assessment of the proposed site.
    77. Further to that, the NRWMF Taskforce has recently appointed Malcolm McKenzie (Tiger) to the position of Barndioota Economic Working Group co-Chair. Tiger is ZMc’s pro-dump father who lives outside the FRDC precinct (Davenport, Port Augusta); who also appears as a VYAC representative in the Heritage Assessment Group of the NRWMF Taskforce65 .
    78. No doubt father & son converse about the best means to further any ambitions either may hold. This Senate Inquiry should sanitise any whiff of nepotism & wrongful interference within aboriginal decision making processes by the Taskforce. Refs p 18
    CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TASKFORCE
     79. A written complaint66 was lodged to DIIS on June 4th 2017 – which was answered on the 4th July 2017 by Bruce McLeary67, General Manager (GM) of the NRWMF Taskforce. Our concerns were not appeased by that 2 page response.
    80. In his correspondence dated 04 July 2017, General Manager NRWM Taskforce Bruce McCleary writes: “The Commonwealth is committed to the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility as an important element in appropriately managing waste created from Australia’s use of nuclear technologies in medical, research and industrial activities“. Note that he has identified 3 streams of radioactive waste [medicine – research – industry] resulting from Australian use that necessitates building the proposed dump.
     81. The NRWMF Project media releases; public sessions, & other community engagements focus almost entirely upon the medical aspect – emphasising the application of radio-isotopes in Australian hospitals. The community engagement exercise is most apparently a promotion of nuclear medicine & NOT concise informative descriptions of radioactive waste streams produced or held by any & all sources Australia wide. The case to be met is not being fairly delivered.
    82. The Taskforce broadcasts minimal information about the type, amount, & location of facility bound radioactive wastes; including that % which SPECIFICALLY RESULTS FROM ACTUAL AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL USAGE.
     83. According to ANSTO Waste Projects & Strategic Planning Manager Kapila Fernando: “ANSTO holds about 50 per cent of the radioactive waste in Australia, and 85 per cent of the waste ‘stream’ is directly associated with this nuclear medicine manufacturing program – including the fuel used to power the reactor, the machines used in medicine production, and the gloves and gowns used in the manufacture or administration processes – the cycle to produce radionuclides produces nuclear medical waste.” 68
    84. When questioned by (then) Senator Scott Ludlam (Senate Economics Legislation Committee Session May 2017); ANSTO CEO Adi Paterson informed us that last financial year 80% of ANSTO’s diagnostic medical isotope production consisted of Molybdenum 99. Of which only 28% was used in Australia whilst 72% was exported69 .
    85. Let’s do the medical waste maths: – (50% x 85%) = 42.5 % of the national radioactive waste results from medical isotope production. Currently (72% x 80%) = 57.6% of that comes from Mo99 exports: which in future will triple, but currently stands at (57.6% x 42.5%) = only 24.5% of the total radioactive waste accumulation from all sources results from Australian radio-pharmaceutical use. REfs p 19
    86. Therefore, of the current Australian radioactive waste inventory, only 18% (42.5%-24.5%) results from actual national use of medical isotopes: & not all of the 18% requires containment in the proposed facility. ONCE THE W.A.C. HAVE BEEN FORMALISED THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM AUSTRALIAN USAGE OF MEDICAL ISOTOPES NEEDING LONG TERM CONTAINMENT WOULD LIKELY BE 15% OR LESS OF THE TOTAL INVENTORY.
     87. The ‘medical isotopes save Australian lives’ mantra is being used as an emotional ploy to leverage community acceptance of any & all the 80-85% of non-local use medical radioactive waste70 . “…… it is possible that the waste from the ultimate decommissioning of the first reactor at Lucas Heights could amount alone to about 30 percent of the total volume of material to be managed in a national repository … But this is another reality Canberra has constantly sought to evade.” 71 Mr Richard Yeeles, ex-BHP Executive; former Premier’s CoS, & current adviser to State Opposition Leader Stephen Marshall
    88. Bruce claims that the NRWMF Project acts “… consistent with international best practice in the selection and development of radioactive waste facilities.”: but any ‘consistency’ is selective; ie only to the extent that such ‘best practices’ are perceived to suit ANSTO/ARPANSA’s evacuation of the Lucas Heights waste accumulation ASAP – & to help facilitate the Moly99 export expansion. For starters, IAEA ‘best practice’ requires radioactive waste be contained as close to the source of production as practicable, NOT thousands of kilometres away.
    89. Further proof of failure to fully comply to international best practice can be demonstrated by South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill telling ABC Radio Adelaide Evenings listeners (28 June 2017) that the federal dump was for low level hospital waste. He is not the only one uttering such delusions. Best practice requires that all stakeholders be fully informed about the nature of that which is proposed.
     90. The Premier’s utterances indicate either a disturbing level of ignorance – or subterfuge, which is unlikely. Either way, the fact that such disinformation can be spread by the top man tells us that there has been a failure of the NRWMF Project communications with the State Government.
    91. International best practice requires all tiers of government be properly, accurately & fully appraised about the nature of what is being proposed. Whilst the NRWM Act 2015 may allow the Commonwealth to over-ride State legislation, this does not mean that there should be minimal interaction between the two tiers, nor mean carte blanche roughshod rule. 92. Under such legislative circumstances, best practice in fact requires GREATER efforts to share intelligence – since a fair & proper procedure depends upon full disclosure of the pertinent details. If our State parliamentarians (& other authorities) remain in the dark & make erroneous public statements then this is bound to unduly influence community perceptions. REfs p 20
    WHILST THE COMMUNITY SUFFERS FALSE NOTIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BECOME BASED UPON WRONGFUL DIRECTION.
     93. If the NRWMF Project was a private corporation then they would be hard pressed to defend against Section 18 “misleading or deceptive conduct” from the ‘Competition & Consumer Act 2010’72. The ‘Public Service Act 1999’Section 10 does however apply73 .
    94. Consider, for example the blatant falsehood published July 13 2017 on the NRWMFP website. This fiction is contained within the Foreword of the authoritative Federal Government’s “Kimba Phase 1 Summary Report”: “Australia has approximately 5,000m3 of radioactive waste, of which around 85 per cent is low level waste (LLW) and the remainder intermediate level waste (ILW). The vast majority of this radioactive waste is associated with the production of nuclear medicine ….” 74
     95. MINISTER CANAVAN GOT IT WRONG . Of the approx 5,000 cubic metres, about 40% is industrial research material barely contained within the leaking drums held by CSIRO at Woomera – currently being re-mediated at a cost of $30 Million75 .
     96. With the official & sanctioned provision of such misleading restrictive guidance into an inhibitory community engagement process, Procedural Fairness cannot occur & informed social consent is also impossible.
    97. Not only has the Taskforce failed to meaningfully engage with the SA Premier by not providing transparency to his Government; but it also appears that this Federal agency has also been negligent by not fully briefing their own Federal Minister. So, through the lack of proper cognisance the disinformation distribution is widespread & poses as authoritative. To ENuFF this seems a deliberate strategy; & we can easily imagine a directed campaign orchestrated from senior administrative level.
    98. In his July 4 correspondence, the GM acknowledged “….. that you have communicated on a number of previous occasions with the Department setting out your concerns about the process“. Bruce is probably referring here to numerous public comments made on the NRWMF Facebook Page76 since October 4th 2016.
    99. Despite the stated claim to “…. answer questions and provide information to local communities …“; we have found that on many occasions the FB page response to questions are far from satisfactory – or nonexistent: whilst the question format is preponderantly ‘Dorothy Dixer’ style promotion of radiopharmaceuticals.7  Refs p 21
    100.There is also a propensity for the FB page to delete valid comments without explanation. Examples can be provided should the Committee require that. More recently (2018), the FB page has been reduced to notifications only with no follow up responses to queries.
     101.Bruce says (p2 [6]) that after the technical review, DECISIONS will be made & THEN there will be a general public opportunity to contribute within ARPANSA’s licensing process. But common law natural justice formalised as the principle of Procedural Fairness requires the capacity of related parties to have input PRIOR TO DECISIONS BEING MADE.
    102.On the 4th of August 2017 a rejoinder78 to the Taskforce was sent – elucidating further aspects of perceived deficiencies in the community engagement process. That expansion has been incorporated within this Senate Committee Submission. Six months later, on the 5th Feb 2018, Rebecca Mouthan (RM), newly installed Manager Site Selection, responded79 .
     103.RMs approach was not to address the substantial & specific complaints but to reduce the whole to 3 banal generalisations of her own making, thereby avoiding provision of any significance: stating she was unable to provide further information & that no further response would be forth coming. Total subterfuge & not good enough.
    104.The claim made by both BM & RM that “.. decisions about the type of waste to be stored at the facility are yet to be made ..” 80 is pure sophistry. They are avoiding the issue of transparency & full disclosure by pinning their laurels upon the fact that ARPANSA is still developing the ‘code of practice’ – & so the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) is yet to determined. Putting the yet to be built cart before the champing at the bit horse.
    105.However, in 2014 the Department contracted Jacobs SKM to produce the ‘Long Term Management of Australia’s Radioactive Waste – Initial Business Case ‘ 81. That document is not only a foundation scaffold for the Taskforce, but it also provides inventories of Commonwealth radioactive waste specifically requiring storage at a national facility. The WAC will be made to suit. 106.From the J-SKM Report we know that in 2014 the Commonwealth held 4048.28m3 of LLW & 551.5m3 of ILW. 65m3 of ILW arrived in 2015 & another 65m3 of ILW is pending >2020; PLUS another 500m3 ILW due in 2024, & another 195m3 >2059. Annually there will be 31m3 of LLW generated & 7.5m3 ILW82 . refs p 22
    Nowhere in the Taskforce community engagement will you find any descriptions of the existing, future & on-going ILW volumes intended for ‘temporary’ storage – yet the community is expected to blindly endorse that intent. The ILW will contribute by far the greatest radioactivity at the proposed facility The proposed storage method of the ILW, incidentally, does not constitute IAEA Best Practice. Flying in the face of NRWMF claimed ‘best practices’.
    AFTERWORD
    107.ENuFF enters dialogue with the Senate (& Taskforce) after consulting & being informed by other South Australians. We also keep abreast of related current events & undertake documentary research. ENuFF would also point out that there are also other NGOs (to which ENuFF is not party) that hold similar views to those expressed here-in83 .
    108. In discussions with others, ENuFF has found that interest & concern is widespread & much more broad than the Department’s constriction to an arbitrary poorly defined ‘local community’. There is a greater public interest regarding Taskforce attempts to locate the NRWMF.
    109.Others have also publicly expressed such a view: “Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said radioactive waste was a national issue that demanded the highest level of inclusion and scrutiny. “All Australians have a right to be involved to help make sure that this difficult issue is given the best possible consideration,” he said. “What is planned is a national radioactive waste facility so while local community consultation is useful, an evidence based, national conversation is essential.” 84 [our underline]
    110.The Taskforce repeatedly publicises the pervading motif that ANSTO produces radioisotopes to benefit the health of ALL Australians; that approximately 50% of us will receive medical treatment using OPAL generated radiopharma. With such universal application of welfare then surely also applies an Australia wide ubiquitous obligation to be accountable for any liabilities.
    111.There is persistent regular promotion by the Department of ANSTO’s ‘nuclear medicine production for Australian usage’ despite such being a minor fraction (>18%) of the current radioactive waste inventory; whilst there has been no substantial public presentation or iteration by DIIS regarding the remaining approx 70% by volume of existing waste from other origins. Rfs p 23
    112.It is readily apparent to ENuFF that the ongoing promotion of the ‘Nuclear Medicine Saving Aussie Lives’ concept – to the detriment of most other pertinent content – is a deliberate ploy by a Taskforce intent upon inducing a sense of moral obligation upon hearts & minds of their culled geographically isolated victims. We regard such action to be wrongful, deceitful, deficient & negligent.
    113.In effect, the Taskforce actions render the so-called ‘local communities’ of Barndioota & Kimba into potential radioactive waste Scapegoats of the Nation – pushing them to make secure the accumulating demons excreted from the bowels of ANSTO’s Medical Isotopia: the current residents (& subsequent unborn generations) to be custodians unto time immemorial. Meanwhile what has not been exposed to proper ‘local community’ scrutiny, the other 70% of the radioactive iceberg, shall be quietly loaded & shipped as well. The Taskforce has not illuminated anything much of those other what where when & hows.
    114.Thus by subterfuge is placed upon the local communities involved an implied ethical responsibility to accept the whole nation’s hidden radioactive waste for the greater good. However, It is grossly unfair to abnegate the responsibility of us all based upon the opinions of a culled few that consign to succeeding generations the heavy burden of bearing the Nation’s toxic legacy – no matter how willing any contemporary community.
    115.Not without at least first seeking a more broad consensus that conferring such an onerous obligation for centuries is acceptable. Those select few would become responsible for committing many future generations to a poisonous heritage. A legacy of being the National Scapegoats. I, for one, do not consent to that. “ Clearly, initiative at a community level is to be welcomed and supported, but not if, in the process, the sense of wider social obligations and interdependencies are dissipated. “ 85
    116.Having characterised ‘local community’ demographics ostensibly (but not universally) based upon [50k perimeter + local council district], the Taskforce then engaged with those divisions – in particular one nominated site at ‘Barndioota86’ (then later two others at Kimba).
    117.The elephant in the room is of course what to do with the re-processed spent fuel (& other ILW). This was supposed (promised in ’98-’99) to be resolved before OPAL became operational – but nada. The current proposal is to indefinitely co-locate it wherever any national LLW dump shall happen to be. Refs p 24
    118.Since Phase 2 site suitability analysis is based upon LLW; temporary surface storage of ILW for an indefinite period without ILW specific fail-safe (subterranean in stable rock) is problematic because of the potential for widespread environmental contamination87 . Will the ongoing local community engagement process allow for a veto of colocation? No. That decision has already been made without any ‘local community’ or public input – again denying Procedural Fairness.
    119.ENuFF contends that thus far the Taskforce community engagement administrative processes for the Barndioota & Kimba nominated sites have been corrupted by disinformation at many levels, rendering a miscarriage of justice. People have been duped into supporting a process to determine the viability of storing Medical Waste derived from Australian Use, whereas in fact that is only the tip of a radioactive iceberg.
    120.The site selection process for the National Radioactive Waste Suppository has fragmented previously harmonious communities. People stop looking each other in the eye; neighbours no longer converse; businesses are boycotted & custom denied; harsh words said, physical threats enacted & blame apportioned. Families divided. Some say that after the Departmental Taskforce has departed, & no matter which way the radioactive penny drops, previously good relationships may never recover. Is that an acceptable outcome from Federal Governance?
    121.Given the prime-facie maladministration & deficiencies described above, ENuFF calls for a judicial inquiry into the NRWMFP.
    Finally 2 pages of bibiography