Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

The seriousness of mobility of radionuclides in developing the nuclear waste facility at Kimba. South Australia

has the government explained why the reprocessed nuclear waste has been reclassified by ANSTO from high level to intermediate on arrival in Australia ?

has anyone from the community and even the Kimba District Council ever sought any information as to the inventories and movement of the radionuclides in the intermediate level waste for above ground storage at Kimba?

The mobility of radionuclides is probably the prime and initial factor in determining the location and manner of nuclear waste management by storage and disposal 

Although nearly thirty years old but still current the Code of practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992) prescribed radioactive waste hazards as:

The health risk to humans presented by radioactive waste depends upon the radionuclides present, the type of radiation emitted by the particular radionuclides, their concentrations, and their chemical and physical form. The hazard may arise from external irradiation of the body or internally as a result of radioactive substances entering the body by ingestion, inhalation or absorption through the skin. The radioactive waste specifically covered by this code may also present a long-term hazard to the environment and to future generations if disposal is not carried out in a responsible manner.

Even though the Code deals with disposal rather than storage the requirements for both are basically similar with the only difference being the retrieval of the waste as seen from the definitions in the Code being:

Waste disposal means the placement of radioactive waste in a structure and in a manner such that there is no intention of retrieval.

Storage means the emplacement of waste in a facility with the intent and in a manner such that it can be retrieved at a later time.

From this I trust that you understand the seriousness and importance of radionuclides mobility in the selection and development of the management facility at Kimba

IN VIEW OF THIS SOMEONE FROM KIMBA SHOULD FORMALLY IN WRITING ASK THE KIMBA DISTRICT COUNCIL THESE  QUESTIONS

COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO:

THE SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

MINISTER PITT

MR ROWAN RAMSEY  MP

ANSTO CEO  PATERSON

BARNGARLA IF THOUGHT APPROPRIATE

EXCLUDE ARPANSA AS IT MAY BE COMPROMISING TO IT AND IT WILL IGNORE THE LETTER IN ANY CASE

Questions:

(a) whether there have been any discussions or arrangements regarding fire as a risk at the Kimba facility  – had this ever been covered by the government in its presentations as one of the main reasons for underground burial of nuclear waste is to avoid any fire risks?

(b) has the government explained why the reprocessed nuclear waste has been reclassified by ANSTO from high level to intermediate on arrival in Australia ?

(c) has the community ever been informed of the radionuclides movement activity of the intermediate level waste to be sent to Kimba?

(d) what explanation was given as to the radionuclides movement and immobilisation in above the ground storage as opposed to geological burial?

(e) has anyone from the community and even the Kimba District Council ever sought any information as to the inventories and movement of the radionuclides in the intermediate level waste for above ground storage at Kimba?

June 22, 2020 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: