You will note that the author has said nothing whatever about the site itself. However, it is 120 kms north of Tennant Creek so I assume we're talking about a bunch of desert.

Also please note that it will be built for the waste from the tiny Lucas Heights reactor, which is a dinky toy compared to the power reactors in Europe and North America. So we are not talking about much waste at all.. You will need some precautions, like locking the stuff up in concrete and sticking it on a concrete apron, then putting barbed wire around it to keep fools out..

Once you did that and stood in the centre of facility itself with a giger counter, would the counter show anything more than background radiation? Doubt it. Even the crews of nuclear submarines living cheek by jowl with whole working reactors don't get much more than background (unless its a russian sub, they've stuffed up the engineering badly and they have to fix it).

All that said I'm sure the traditional owners of the land have been terrified by wild tales into thinking that there must be some problem with the proposed facility. I don't think we should add to the misinformation.

The NT govt; can be bought off, and so can traditional owners.
Cancer and other ailment treatment needs a safe haven away from any risk of ground contamination what so ever, for their used products.
Mukaty is isolated and will remain so.
The site has been chosen for a good reason, and with lead lining, there should be no problem.

I question if it is true that the only waste Australia needs to make arraignments to store is medical waste from around the country and operational waste from the Lucas Heights reactor. Isn't there also an issue with some high level waste due to return to Australia from France as agreed when the uranium was originally sold to France? I think this waste is due to be returned in the next couple of years.
If we're selling uranium around the world then any moral high ground from which to insist that no waste will ever be stored on these shores has been seriously eroded. If we signed a contract, then we have contractual obligations.
I suggest Australia may be obliged to store nuclear waste, and if that is so, then why not use the old Maralinga testing site in South Australia? The Brits conducted nuclear tests there from 1955 to 1963. It is an area of extreme and remote desert, and it is already polluted. Some clean up has been done, but no one to my knowledge harbors any ideas of ever living there again.
If it is true that the Minister can now override any state or territory law that gets in the way, then any objections from Adelaide can be circumvented.
Wherever we store it, there will be Traditional Owners. Pay the rent.

halduell

Its true that the old Maralinga site would be good but there isn't much more radition there now than there is anywhere else in SA and NT..

Australia has lots of remote, desolate places where nobody goes. We should pick one and ignore the inevitable protests..

As for nuclear waste to be returned from overseas I don't recall such an arrangement, but if you have a reference I'm happy to be corrected.. If it is so then all the more reason to build the dump to take it..

There was a lot of sights checked out by drilling, and Mukaty had the best soil composition to be selected.
What ever happens, we had best get on with it. Every hospital is holding waste in lead lined cupboards, and could one day go missing.

Natalie, When "Labor promised to address radioactive waste management issues in a manner that would "ensure full community consultation in radioactive waste decision-making processes" was that before Rudd was elected?

It would only be fair to use Muckaty for medical waste from places like the Sydney's north shore, only if the medical services of Sydney's hospitals are available to the people in and around Muckaty.

If,as halduell states, there is a contractual reason for Australia to accept nuclear waste from the uranium that Australia sold - let those who profited most from the deal have it in their backyard

BNI part 1.There are a lot of comments I would like to respond to, I will try and keep it concise, and will spread my reply over a few posts due to the word limit…

AKA, The ALP's commitments to include 'community consultation' etc in radioactive waste management were made prior to election, and of course, prior to Minister Martin Ferguson having control of the waste portfolio. In opposition Senior ALP Ministers called the process introduced by Howard 'sordid', 'draconian', 'arrogant' and 'heavy-handed'. This approach has been little changed and further entrenched with Ferguson at the helm.

Curmudgeon, Yes, the Muckaty site is 120km north of Tennant Creek. It is part of the Muckaty Land Trust, designated Aboriginal Land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (1976) of which a portion is leased as a cattle station.Within the land trust there are many registered sacred sites for the seven groups that are recognised by the Land Commissioner as Traditional Owners.A bunch of desert yes,but one with multiple current land uses.

According the the Department's website, the Commonwealth has so far produced approximately 3820m3 of low (LLW) and short lived intermediate level waste and 435 m3 of long lived intermediate level waste. Accumulated each year is an extra 35m3 LLW and 3.5m3 intermediate level waste. ANSTO, which runs the reactor at Lucas Heights has acknowledged many times it has the room and capacity to store waste it produces onsite and a department official admitted the rationale behind a remote facility was political rather than scientific. I would certainly prefer the 'necessary precautions' Curmudgeon offered (concrete, barbed wire) to have 'minimal transport' and 'close to nuclear experts' added- which points clearly to Lucas Heights, not Muckaty or anywhere in the NT. Consider the many accidents on road and rail that have plagued the NT in the last few years, including the recent derailment on an Edith River crossing near Katherine. Chief Minister Paul Henderson said to a Senate Inquiry in 2010 " The Port of Darwin does not have the resource capacity (expertise or equipment) to respond to a radioactive incident."

BNI Part 2- Traditional Owners have made a decision to oppose the dump based on research, informed risk analysis and lived experience of this shoddy process unfolding over the last six years, which has caused great stress to the local community. Suggesting people have been tricked into 'foolishly' thinking nuclear waste is dangerous is both patronising and naive- if its safe then why must it be isolated (the concrete, barbed wire etc) from the environment and people for many thousands of years?

579, A 7:30 (ABC) story on Wednesday March 21 clearly exposed the argument that the Muckaty dump is needed for nuclear medicine waste as a 'furphy' (quoting nuclear radiologist Dr Peter Karamoskos). See http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/912387. Much of the waste produced and currently stored in hospitals (yes, in lead lined cupboards) has a half life of less than a week so certainly does not need to be driven for days to a remote storage facility only to decay for regular disposal a few days later.

Muckaty was 'chosen' as the only site to be further assessed because it is in the Northern Territory, which has less legislative powers than the states and because the ALP promised to repeal the first three NT sites proposed by the Howard government, Department of Defence bases at Harts Range, Mt Everard and Fishers Ridge.

579, A basic study comprising the four areas was done by Parsons Brinckerhoff but Muckaty is Ferguson's preferred site not based on science but again, politics. The area was 'nominated' by the Northern Land Council, but Traditional Owners have launched a federal court challenge saying this was done without their consent. Once the site is declared, then a more thorough environmental assessment will be done. Remember, the EBPC Act and Aboriginal Heritage Act are suspended during the site selection phase, putting the radioactive cart before the horse really…

BNI part 3-Hal the waste due to return from overseas reprocessing is the equivalent amount that Australia has sent overseas- spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactors. An amendment to Ferguson;s law (introduced by Senator Scott Ludlam), prohibits international waste from being stored at the facility. Australia does not currently accept and store waste produced from uranium sales though Australia is often touted as an 'ideal' and 'preferred' site for an international dump.An established domestic dump would be an enticing target for advocates wanting to add international waste to the list of imports. The highly radioactive, reprocessed spent fuel mentioned is due back to Australia from mid 2015- though it would be prudent and possible to at least ask for an extension on this until the house is in order so to speak…The Australian Greens introduced an amendment to establish an 'Independent Commission of Experts' to look at a range of waste management options (cf the flawed Muckaty model) but this was voted down by the ALP and Liberals, who are set to continue their ram-raid Decide-Announce-Defend approach.

Hal/Curmudgeon, Maralinga is a nuclear legacy site but also of high cultural significance for the Traditional Owners, who after having their land and communities bombed with impunity are suffering intergenerational and serious health impacts. The fact that Minister Ferguson now has the power to override any state or territory that would hinder the dump being built is no reason to shunt it from one impoverished community to the next until we either find an adequate sacrifice zone or a community 'nominates' in exchange for desperately needed funds. The extreme and 'absolute discretion' powers Ferguson has afforded himself need to be challenged, not acquiesced to.

Beyond Nuclear Initiative - there's a whole new article in those three comments of yours!

Curmudgeon
Apology for this late reply.
The waste coming back from France is what's left after they reprocess spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor. Under French law they cannot keep this, and it is scheduled to be returned here in 2015/16.
There's more if you Google it.