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.