Australian news, and some related international items

South Australia is targeted for five nuclear dumps and high level waste processing

Noonan, DavidSA is targeted for five nuclear dumps and high level waste processing

Brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner

The Nuclear Royal Commission recommended SA pursue nuclear waste storage and disposal “as soon as possible” – requiring five waste dumps and a high level nuclear waste encapsulation processing facility.

 The Final Report Ch.5 “nuclear waste” and the Findings Report (p.16-20) are reliant on a consultancy “Radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities in SA” by Jacobs MCM, summarised in Appendix J.

SA is targeted for above ground high level nuclear waste storage, without a capacity to dispose of wastes, exposing our society to the risk of profound adverse impacts, potential terrorism and ongoing liabilities.

 The State government is in denial on the importance of nuclear waste dump siting by claiming social consent could be granted before we know what’s involved in siting up to five nuclear dumps across SA.

 Affected regions and waste transport routes are fundamental pre-requisites to transparency and to an informed public debate on potential consent to take any further steps in this nuclear waste agenda.

South Australia blanket

 First: a dedicated new deep sea Nuclear port is to receive waste ships every 24 to 30 days for decades, to store high level waste on site following each shipment, and to operate for up to 70 years.

The coastal region south of Whyalla and north of Tumby Bay is the likely location for this Nuclear port.

 South Australia is targeted for a globally unprecedented scale of high level nuclear waste shipments. Some 400 waste shipments totalling 90 000 tonnes of high level waste and requiring 9 000 transport casks are to be brought into SA in the first 30 year period of proposed Nuclear port operations.

This is in excess of the global total of 80 000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste shipped around the world in the 45 year period from 1971 to 2015, according to the World Nuclear Association report “Transport of Radioactive Materials(Sept 2015) and the Jacobs MCM consultancy (Feb 2016, p.152).

 Second: an above ground nuclear waste Storage facility is to take on approx. 50 000 tonnes high level waste before a Disposal facility could first start to operate in Project Year 28 (Jacobs p.5 Fig.3).

 SA is proposed to import high level waste at 3 000 tonnes a year, twice the claimed rate of waste disposal (Jacobs p.114), with storage to increase to 70 000 tonnes. The Store is to operate for up to 100 years.

 The Nuclear Commission budgeted to locate the waste Storage facility 5 to 10 km from the Nuclear port.

 The Nuclear port and above ground waste Storage facility are to be approved in Project Year 5, ahead of pre-commitment contracts for 15 500 tonnes high level waste in Year 6 and waste imports in Year 11.

South Australia needs to know the proposed region for siting the Nuclear port AND whether the nuclear waste Store is to be adjacent to the port (likely on Eyre Peninsula) or sited in the north of SA.

 Third: a Low Level Waste Repository for burial of radioactive wastes derived from all operations including final decommissioning of all nuclear facilities is proposed to be located in north SA. This Repository has a nominal waste burial capacity of 80 000 m3 of radioactive wastes (Jacobs p.144). This is some eight times the total scale of the proposed National Radioactive Waste Repository.

July 25, 2016 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia, wastes


  1. Reblogged this on Mining Awareness + .


    Comment by miningawareness | July 30, 2016 | Reply

  2. This can’t work simply because of fire hazard and hazard to aquifers. If you don’t live in Australia and look at the google map during a drought year, it looks ideal. If you look on the ground at fire hazard, importance of aquifers, it can’t work at all. It’s totally bizarre that anyone within Australia could think this plan could work!

    The US is trying to set up open air spent fuel storage in Texas and Utah, not even a building. Also burying the waste.

    But, there is plenty of nuclear waste to go around and plenty of countries like South Korea, Switzerland and Germany who want someone else to take their nuclear waste. Only South Korea was honest enough to say so. Same thing between the states and even within states, in the US. Idaho does research promoting nuclear with high paying jobs and low population in an arid, cool climate with granite, but they think that someone else wants their nuclear waste! Bernie Sanders is anti-nuclear but was fine with west Texas taking Vermont nuclear waste for burial. Not even a peep did he utter that burial was wrong.


    Comment by miningawareness | July 30, 2016 | Reply

  3. Reblogged, and Collins’ comments added…. Past time the citizens of all nations demand their right to a say in such abominations as this. One voice may be only a whisper, but a million voices is a roar that will be heard. If Australians take a good, long look at WIPP, HANFORD, FUKUSHIMA, CHERNOBYL then none will agree to this. No one in their right mind would who knows even a little about ionizing radiation and the never-ending danger of becoming a dump site. It’s always profit over human lives for the Big Nuke Boyz.


    Comment by wani47 | August 1, 2016 | Reply

  4. […] Nuclear Royal Commission recommended SOUTH AUSTRALIA (SA) pursue nuclear waste storage and disposal “as soon as possible” – requiring five waste dumps and a high level nuclear waste […]


    Pingback by AUSTRALIA, THE NEXT INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING SITE | Hemlock Tea Room | August 1, 2016 | Reply

  5. Look at the Nuclear Bomb Testing done by the UK in Australia “Silent Storm ” on Youtube Black Rain after each Test .the Radioactive Dust traveled over to New Zealand Affecting the Farms here Grass eaten by Sheep and cows .Strontium 90 in Milk and Butter .NZ School kids Given half a Pint (500 mls) of Milk per day Mon -Fri And Milk was 4 Cents a Pint at one stage Going up to 10 cents a Pint Bottle ..Meat inspectors made sure Cancer Growths were Cut out of the for Export and Local Consumption. So we Don’t Need to Risk it happening Again.


    Comment by Graham | August 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Do you mean this one? Silent Storm atomic testing in Australia.
      All about Hedley Marston. Also about Fukushima. It’s the only one that I could find.


      Comment by Christina MacPherson | August 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Yes that is the One but the Bit about Fukushima is Misleading as Atmospheric Radiation is more Harmful than water borne Diluted Waste ..


        Comment by Graham | August 7, 2017

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: