Community discussion: safety

The Citizens’ Jury identified that topics such as health, geology, seismicity, terrorism, transport and looking at potential impacts on flora and fauna are important for South Australians to discuss. Tell us which areas associated with the safety of a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility are most important to you, and why?

Comments closed

Steve Charles

08 Sep 2016

As reported in the press today, the reality of nuclear facilities is that they are already falling apart and are a danger to the environment. See: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/nuclear-facilities-bad-conditions-photos/index.html
Despite all the assurances from the SA Government, the same will happen here if SA becomes the world's nuclear waste dump. The facility would needs to contain the high level waste safely for 10,000 years, and the article above shows what has already happened in the US in just 50 years. Do you really believe that our government would be any better? The people of SA would be crazy to support this project. It is total folly and we are being misled by a few fat cats who are going to get very rich from this project.

Greig Ebeling > Steve Charles

12 Sep 2016

The facility will be build to contain the high level waste safely for > 100,000 years, it is part of the engineering brief, so no problem there. Similar facilities are already being build in Finland and Sweden. The world needs a means to resolve nuclear waste management, we have the technology, why shouldn't Australia play an instrumental part in global ecology protection.

Christopher Huckel > Steve Charles

13 Sep 2016

Greg using your expertise in logic then shouldn't the world send all the waste to these facilities in the northern hemisphere rather than spreading this toxic legacy into the Southern Hemisphere.

Steve Charles > Steve Charles

13 Sep 2016

Greig, Mankind does not have the ability to build anything that can last 100,000 years and never will. This nuclear waste dump will be designed to slowly disintegrate over just a few hundred years and release its highly radioactive contents into the surrounding rock in the hope that it will not contaminate anything. This is not a legacy we should be considering for the future generations in SA.

Greig Ebeling > Steve Charles

13 Sep 2016

Christopher, I don't see your logic. North vs South Hemisphere? We all live on one planet. We shipped the uranium from our mines in the Southern Hemisphere, so it makes sense to manage the waste here also, considering Australia has the perfect geology.

Greig Ebeling > Steve Charles

13 Sep 2016

Steve, obviously you are not skilled in understanding the engineering of such repositories. There are some really smart people working on this. If you have the skills and experience to question their work, I am certain they would be interested in your input. Otherwise, why do you think your negative and uneducated opinion matters?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Steve Charles

16 Sep 2016

Hi Steve, thanks for your comments. We appreciate all input into the discussion as it is indeed an important one about our future. There are two things to note as related to your comments; firstly, should it get to the point where any activity should proceed, the Royal Commission found that all activities would be subject to stringent regulation to ensure they are safe, secure and safeguarded. Details about regulatory bodies can be found in the 'Fact Sheet's section here on our website.

Secondly, the Commission drew on research and key learnings from a number of countries who are currently in progress with developing Geological Disposal Facilities. It found that GDFs are a highly sophisticated engineering operation, managed via a multi-barrier system which is a permanent, passive technique, removing the need for future generations to manage the waste. You can find out more here: http://bit.ly/2aTlgkL (copy and paste)

David Mackinnon

05 Sep 2016

Just some initial pointers to test whether I can post. I have a longer term view and mistrust in the long term viability of our economic system and stability of our society, both based on false parameters. High level waste lasts till the next civilisation discovers it.

David Mackinnon > David Mackinnon

05 Sep 2016

It works! I meant the the basis and long term viability of economic system. In other words we get stuck with the stark reality of the worlds waste and no way to manage it or keeping it from damaging future generations for an unimaginably long time

adrian hill

05 Sep 2016

Sorry maybe there is a risk. I was just making point that if there was no risk the public will still make a connection.

tom mccarthur > adrian hill

05 Sep 2016

Fair enough, you make a good point.

adrian hill

04 Sep 2016

Safety isnt what we should be worrying about
Our brand is more at risk. We want to be known for our great food and wine. While there is not risk at all the waste will reach anywhere near our food chain, we know the how the media can paint a city. I'm concerned that SA will be rebranded as the waste dump state which could affect our tourism. It wouldnt bother me if we could redraw the boarders so the area is not our state. Could it be an independant state like canberra? Or do we name a town where the dumping will occur and push the name of that town rather than associate with SA....google 'snowtown'.

adrian hill > adrian hill

04 Sep 2016

ps i dont mean dump it in snowtown, just illustrating how a town can be know for something

tom mccarthur > adrian hill

05 Sep 2016

How can you say there is not risk at all the waste can reach our food chain. How can you possibly make a statement like that?

Greig Ebeling > adrian hill

12 Sep 2016

France is known for food and wine, and they have 80% nuclear electricity capacity, and built their whole fleet in 15 years.

adrian hill > adrian hill

12 Sep 2016

Interesting. Didnt realise. Do they accept nuclear waste from other countries? If so then i suppose our image will b fine. Cheers for the info

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > adrian hill

16 Sep 2016

Hi Adrian, as Greig has mentioned above, the Report found there was no compelling evidence that nuclear activity in SA would adversely affect other sectors such as tourism and agriculture, aquaculture or viticulture provided those facilities were operated safely and securely. This conclusion was reached by the Royal Commission based on the experiences of countries such as France and the USA who have significant involvement in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle yet have world-leading industries as mentioned above

Martin Vizjak > adrian hill

20 Sep 2016

I agree with Adrian that there is a very high risk to our brand and the response from the Consultation Team above is very short sighted as they are just using the short time span of experience (<50 years) with other countries despite the fact they should be assessing the risk over 100,000+ years. From a statistical view the sample size used in the report is too small given all the variables that can influence the outcomes in 100,000+ years.

adrian hill > adrian hill

20 Sep 2016

So is france the leading country for recieving the worlds nuclear waste? I guess no comission/report can predict the future and its all we have to compare. I know the project will go ahead as i know we need the money and we have the spare space. I just want the marketing department to seperate brand sa from this. If it means focussing on the name of the town - or create a new simple named town that people associate, rather than SA. Just want us to be careful. Not saying you are not. If our brand is damaged its hard to repair it. All the best.

Debra Woolford

02 Sep 2016

I am really concerned about the idea of nuclear waste being dumped anywhere into SA I understand that there is a need to dump this waste but isn't there enough deserted islands out there in this world that can handle this issue, I pray that this never comes to SA for the future generations to follow and so on

Craig Gordon

01 Sep 2016

I have a question relating to sea transport and geology.
When I stopped at a "Know Nuclear" stand recently the person I spoke to mentioned that with 10km's of the coast lost cargo would be retrievable.. but past that it wouldn't be accessible/safe/whatever to bring the waste back to the surface.
She wasn't quite sure how to answer my follow up question though.. (her expertise was physics, not geology).
My (limited) understanding is that unlike continental crust, which is stable, oceanic crust is constantly being subducted into the core of the earth into the mantle... I understand the rate of this is slow.. but I was wondering how that process might relate to any high level waste that was lost at sea?

Ben Duffield

31 Aug 2016

I'm now requesting (rather confidently, but not arrogantly) that no-one bump this post down until our Premier, Mr Jay Weatherill himself satisfies the 10 points I laid out in my 7th August post.
That's right Mr Weatherill, I'm calling you out.... You want a discussion, lets have it....

Marc Thomas

31 Aug 2016

I wonder what Fukushima thought about their safety? I'm pretty sure they were confident it was safe.

YQ Chen

31 Aug 2016

NO NO NO to nuclear dump

Sam Sminci

30 Aug 2016

After readying many "discussions" (which were starting to sound like little b*tch#s fighting in the playground) a number of people on here stating facts and figures but why at the end of the day would you want the rest of the world dumping their waste here? For the money?? And fancy saying things to people "if they had cancer" that's not the issue is it? We use it then we take care of it! I love Australia and I don't want it to be a nuclear waste dump not now nor in the future! And all you experts wouldn't you really think it's better to not stock pile this **** here in one location where for now we're still pretty clean country and great place to be!

Sam Sminci

30 Aug 2016

I can't believe that the Government would entertain the idea of the dumping of nuclear waste here or anywhere in Australia!! They don't even consider building a nuclear power plant. Then they want dump highly hazardous waste for profit. Let these big corporations whom have profited from the use come up with a better way of disposing it... Nothing good comes from dumping waste such as this in our CLEAN ground..
We're meant to be getting greener aren't we!!
Get to know nuclear REALLY! When really all your saying is lets profit from burying everyone else's waste here. Do we throw our TRASH away in other countries? And would they say ok if we asked? I don't won't my kids and their futures having to worry about such a problem that shouldn't be considered! Tell them to use all those potential billions to dispose of it better !!

tom mccarthur

29 Aug 2016

All the Govt info on earnings is really sketchy. The wording is such as There could be potential earnings of 445 billion over 70 years which amounts to a little over 6 billion a year. Those two words "could" and "potential" are disclaimers really so there is no guarantee. Just how big a number would 6 billion be in 30 to 50 years ,a pittance I would say. 600 full time jobs? Doing What? Wages would have to be in the vicinity of 40 million a year. The Govt has not put any info out about what the plans are if there is spillage or an accident. If there is supposed to be open debate then it is the Govt duty of care to inform us of plans if things go pear shaped. I would have to come to the conclusion that if there is no info out there for what to do in the not so unlikely chance of spillage then the Govt has no plan or they don't want us to think about it.

Mark Lambert

27 Aug 2016

Yes...if it is "so safe" then why is the world prepared to spend a fortune on burying it somewhere other than their own backyards. Disgraceful that our greedy government would even contemplate such a potentially devastating thing as this just for money(greed). The economic state of our country is in no way, shape or form, so dire that it needs to resort to these low levels just for money. There is no moral reason for them to be doing this. Shame on our government!!!

Manuv Suri

21 Aug 2016

This is a short sighted attempt by government to earn easy cash as they have missed out on royalties from mining like some of the other states. Any minor incident will have a devastating long term impact well beyond the short electrol cycles and we will will have to pay pretty much forever.

Christopher Huckel

18 Aug 2016

Scroll down and read Ben Duffield's honest appraisal of the government. After reading his post I would suggest contacting your local member of government about stopping this insane proposal it will have more of an impact than this forum.

Steven McColl

17 Aug 2016

SYSTEM ACCIDENT
Source: Wikipedia, 'Probability and Risk', AS4360.

A system accident is an "unanticipated interaction of multiple failures" in a complex system.
The complexity can either be technological or organizational (or both).

A system accident can be very easy to see in hindsight, but difficult to see in foresight. Because ahead of time, there may be to many possible action pathways to seriously consider them all.

[These accidents often resemble devices in the way that small errors of judgment, flaws in technology, and insignificant damages combine to form an emergent disaster].

System accidents were described in 1984 by Charles Perrow.
Charles Perrow is an emeritus professor of sociology at Yale University. Charles is the author of several books.

Charles Perrow's major theme is the impact of large organizations upon society, who termed them as 'normal accidents', as having two main characteristics;

(1) Interactive complexity,
(2) Tight coupling (cascading failures).

The system accident approach with human reliability and the ‘Swiss cheese model’ is now widely accepted in aviation safety and healthcare.

The 'SWISS CHEESE MODEL' represents the concept where slices or layers of holed Swiss cheese are placed face to face. And it represents the likelihood of any one of the holes in each of every slice; lining up perfectly - (just like a joint probability).

A simple example of a JOINT PROBABILITY:
The likelihood of encountering a rainy day may be 40% (joined with the likelihood of leaving an umbrella at home the same day maybe 10%).
Therefore the likelihood of getting wet would be 0.4 x 0.1 = 0.04 (4%).

****

LARGE COMPANY ORGANISATIONAL SIZE: Once a company organization increases beyond a certain size, with many employees, the following specialization, backup systems, double-checking, detailed manuals, and formal communication, then the employees can too easily recourse to protocol, habit, and "being right."

The narrative thread of what is going on can be lost.

.
.
REAL WORLD ACCIDENTS almost always have multiple causes, and not just a single cause that could have prevented the accident at the last minute.

It is the mark of a dysfunctional organization or poor management;

* To simply blame the last person who touched something or,
* To simply blame the employees.
* To simply 'judge a book by its cover'.

The processes of formalized organizations are often largely opaque. Charles Perrow calls this 'incomprehensibility'.

- There is an aspect of an animal devouring its tail, in that more formality and effort to get it right can make the situation worse.
- Too much organizational rigmarole involved in changing conditions in a system, then de-sensitizes employees).
- Hence the less receptive employees become, and less likely to report changes within a system.
- The more emphasis on formality, the less likely that employees and managers will engage in real communication.

.

And new additional rules can actually make a situation worse by;
(A) Adding another layer of complexity,
(B) Telling employees or students not to think, but instead simply to follow rules (discouraging people from going back to first principles).

.

Some examples of system accidents;
* Apollo 13 1970,
* Three Mile Island 1979,
* ValuJet 592, Everglades 1996,
* Aviation accidents
* Space Shuttle disaster in 1986.

.

Some relevant Australian references;
* AS4360: Risk management
* AS4804: Occupational health and safety management
* WHS Act & regulation.

Also risk and likelihood are not the same thing.

Christopher Huckel > Steven McColl

27 Aug 2016

Steven scroll down and read Ben Duffield's post try to learn from his years of experience and knowledge because unlike yourself he is putting the future population above any personnel short term gain.

Greig Ebeling > Steven McColl

12 Sep 2016

We have aviation and auto accidents, but we don't stop flying or using cars. we learn and get better. Even with all of the nuclear accidents to date, nuclear power still has a lower mortality rate (/kWh) than rooftop solar. And todays nuclear is a lot better than the tech from 50 years ago.

Christopher Huckel > Steven McColl

12 Sep 2016

Greig let's run with your infantile analogy of aviation and auto accidents can you name one aviation or auto accident where the government of the day had to evacuate the population and have been unable to clean up the site I will use Fukushima Daichi as my point in case I can't wait to see what you come up with please respond promptly I could do with a good laugh.

Greig Ebeling > Steven McColl

13 Sep 2016

Aircraft and auto accidents account for the deaths - yes DEATHS - of >1000 and >1,250,000 respectively! Per year! That doesn't include injury (eg paraplegic, quadreplegics, permanent brain. How many people died due to the Fukushima nuclear accident? Three! How many died due to radiation? Zero! Yet nobody argues against cars and planes, but you say nuclear is so dangerous, we need to dispense with a reliable, low emissions technology that supplies 17% of the world's electricity. All because of the failure of a 50 year old technology in extraordinary circumstances. So whose argument is "infantile"? Please respond with your argument, I could do with a good laugh.

Christopher Huckel > Steven McColl

17 Sep 2016

Greig you are not even a South Australian resident........

Christopher Huckel

16 Aug 2016

Nothing about this insidious plan to turn Australia into The Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump is safe it's extremely dangerous and something we do not need to be contemplating now or ever if you care about your family and their future health and wellbeing contact your local member of parliament now.

Greig Ebeling > Christopher Huckel

12 Sep 2016

So leave the waste for someone else? Where is your sense of responsibility for global ecology?

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

12 Sep 2016

Greig it's not some coombah ya bang the drum and let's all save the world use your brains and take a look at what's happening in the real world and let's protect what we have.

Greig Ebeling > Christopher Huckel

13 Sep 2016

Thanks Christopher, that's exactly the point that I am making. There is over 50 years of nuclear waste around the world, a lot of it mined and milled here in Australia. It needs to be dealt with, it's not going away. So let's knuckle down and fix the problem ... for future generations ... to protect what we have.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

17 Sep 2016

Greig spend some time in Fukushima.

Alec Stolz

13 Aug 2016

With regard to safety, we are asked to trust the opinions of nuclear scientist and engineers.
These are the same people who assured the residents of Fukushima that building a nuclear reactor in their town was safe. They specifically took into account the risk of seismic activity and declared it an insignificant risk.
We now know this decision led to a disaster that means thousands of people can never return to their homes and will cost billions of dollars and tens of years of work just to contain. The experts got it wrong as experts so often do.
Todays experts are saying they have learnt from this and they will bury the waste in a seismically stable region.
That is all very well, but all they have really done is address one of the thousands of adverse scenarios that could have occurred in such a complex project. What about all the other outcomes that were rejected as "unlikely" by the engineers and environmental impact specialists? These will just be ignored until the next accident and then that specific problem patched up.
We cannot accurately predict the technical, safety, political and economic outcomes for such a projects as there are thousands of variables leading to probably millions of different possible scenarios over the thousands of years of such a project. For many projects this does not matter too much , but when it comes to radioactive materials, even if 99% of these scenarios gives us a safe outcome, we have a 1 in 100 chance of causing serious harm to ourselves and our ancestors.
The nuclear industry has been trying to develop safe waste disposal for over 50 years without success. This includes countries like the USA and Japan that have well funded scientific/industrial sectors. I believe we will need a lot more evidence before we can make an informed decision about the proposed project in SA. I certainly think the assurances provided so far are very shallow and come from a sector who seem not to understand science or statistics at all well, and who have a poor track record.

Jasper Winter

11 Aug 2016

Hi, my name is Jasper and I'm a high-school student attending a local Adelaide institution. For my senior year assessment I'm conducting an investigation into the implementation of nuclear storage facilities in South Australia and more specifically researching the seismic impact on such facilities. My question is: How important is seismic activity in assessing a suitable environment for holding nuclear waste and how is it factored into the decision process? At what depth and magnitude do earthquakes become a hazard/safety risk?
Sorry if this is not the right area for this question and thanks in advance.

Aaron Morley > Jasper Winter

11 Aug 2016

Wow, how detailed do you want your report to be?

What makes an earthquake do it's damage is quite complex, lots of variables (in no particular order - I'll you assess these for your project perhaps).

For example Christchurch was mostly damaged by liquefaction - notably this isn't likely to be a concern for the waste repository site.

Geology is critical, very hard bedrock (as found in central Australia) is much more stable during the shake than say ground made primarily of sediment as you find closer to the coast - this is why eastern South Australia and eastern Australia in general are a poor choice. Central to north western SA, eastern WA and southern NT are the primary areas of good bedrock in Australia (actually they are world class rockage). Something like the SA museum or Adelaide Uni Geology department (Tate museum) probably have samples of the rock dating back 4.5GA or so for you to look at if you're interested in holding some of the oldest 'stuff' on the planet.

Distance to the epicentre, generalisation, but the closer the epicentre the worse the outcome, typically, the energy in the vibration drops off ('damping' about second year uni maths) fairly rapidly with distance. Sometimes this isn't quite the case, sometimes weaker geology can cause more significant damage to occur in further away locations if there is 'better' geology closer to the epicentre. Living on a mountain of hard rock that has a quake centred near it might just be safer than living by the river or lake below, further from the centre - see Christchurch as to why.

You'll need some sources, so have a hunt around:
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/hazards.html
https://www.cals.uidaho.edu/disaster/quake/earth.html

Don't forget to have a look at the section on seismology in the NFCRC report.

Good luck with the project.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jasper Winter

15 Aug 2016

Hi Jasper, thanks for getting in touch with your questions. We can see Aaron has assisted with some information on this topic.

Seismic activity was something in which the Royal Commission certainly investigated - it recommended that any site where a Geological Disposal Facility was located should be seismically stable and not near active fault systems, for example, in the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Flinders Ranges. We would encourage you to have a read on pages 89-90 of the Royal Commission’s Report for more information and wish you all the best with your project.

Ben Duffield > Jasper Winter

15 Aug 2016

Brooke, et al
An attempt to slip the premise..... To move the argument to be about the best storage solution, hoping to 'bump' the sleepy sheeple straight onto an argument about 'how' and completely skipping the 'should we' phase. Immoral and very sneaky.. This isn't sales Brooke. This is about peoples lives......
Remind me, on which page does the Royal Commission acknowledge and recommend that 'No facility is the safest option'?

No Acquiring, No shipping, No processing.... = Zero Harm & No dying. Anything else is inferior safety.

Make no mistake people there is no 'if' in this proposal. It is an 'when' and 'how many' (people & animals will be killed and poisoned) proposal.

Christopher Huckel > Jasper Winter

15 Aug 2016

Brooke is paid by the government to push the government Agenda.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jasper Winter

16 Aug 2016

Hi Ben, what we are trying to do through this consultation phase is provide enough information for the community to be able to make a decision and provide feedback. The 'should we' is exactly what we are encouraging people to discuss, however in order to understand the findings and recommendations of the report to arrive at a decision, we also need to provide context on how this might be done.

There has been no decision made about nuclear in South Australia - the Government will be providing a response to the Royal Commission Report at the end of the year which will be informed by the Citizens' Jury and broad community feedback through the state-wide engagement program.

Claire Catt

10 Aug 2016

Yes Mr. Weatherill we are getting the facts! 138'000 tonnes of high level and 200'000 tonnes of medium level toxic nuclear waste from all over the world to be stored above ground, likely forever, again of course, on Aboriginal land. The scale is truly extraordinary.
This waste is to be kept from all forms of life for hundreds of thousands of years.
The project is given a period of 120 years - but the danger persists pretty much forever. How does that work?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Claire Catt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Claire, thank you for joining the conversation. The Royal Commission recommended that the waste is stored in an interim above-ground facility until time when a deep geological disposal facility (GDF) is constructed. With 60 years of global research and development, there is international consensus that a GDF is the safest permanent technique to store high level waste. You can find out more here (copy and paste): http://bit.ly/2bh0sre

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

15 Aug 2016

Thankyou Claire keep up the good work it upsets the government when you refuse to swallow their rhetoric isn't that so Brooke.

Malgo Schmidt

08 Aug 2016

Thank you, Ben. Australia would be voluntarily making herself a target for any enemies that our govenment has been busily creating since 2001. It has become even more eager recently, to provoke Indonesia, Russia and China. To be safe in Australia we would first need to get rid of the Australian Government.

Ben Duffield

07 Aug 2016

This post will also appear under economics as economics and safety are intrinsically linked.

I have expert qualification and nearly thirty years real world experience in maintaining complex machines, mechanical engineered systems and highly critical plant and building infrastructure assets.
Currently I am responsible for the South Australian Govt’s 2nd most critical asset. The following observations and opinion however, reflect upon my entire career experience, from both the public and private sector..

During my career I have experienced and dealt with many incidents relating to the plant/assets in my care that were both foreseen and un-foreseen. However they were all attributable to a common collective of causes and they always resulted in a loss of continuous service delivery.

I will list the contributing factors in order of influence from greatest to least contribution:
1. Economics – A reluctance or inability to spend money either as capital investment in initial build or on an ongoing basis in the form of maintenance costs.
2. Politics – In the age of economic rationalism, political effects consistently divorce relevant qualified commentary from governance and all decisions are measured on either short term economic effect (see 1) and/or short term public relations effects. Decisions are taken only with respect to the taxation system, budgets, free market rationalism, return on investment or the tenure (enduring responsibility) of the person taking the decision. IE The politicians, lawyers, economists and finance personnel have been handed the purse strings and predicate every decision on economic factors, (which directly links with their primary role/function as typically this is all they are qualified and often aware to do). They are quiet simply incapable of making a balanced (and therefore good) decision and are often under immense political (career) pressure. Ironically people would considerate it most inappropriate for labourers, tradesmen, scientists, engineers, clinicians, teachers, policemen etc etc to be making decisions in isolation of other disciplines and yet most don’t bat an eye lid when yet another accountant or lawyer is handed ultimate power in decision making about multi-disciplinary fields of endeavour. (It’s a ridiculous situation brought about by the Global banking cartel and the indoctrination of the GDP being the penultimate measure of success of a society, however I am digressing….).
3. Legal or Liable deference – These days it’s often called ‘risk management’. But it’s not a genuine concern with risk to people, property or service delivery, but a desire to mitigate risk to the bottom line or the ability of the organisation to make profit for the shareholder or to avoid litigation. A deliberate undertaking to shift (avoid) all responsibility. This can be evidenced in such things as vacuous and facile risk assessments, SOPs and the practise of utilising contracted services. All of which are fundamentally designed to transfer responsibility to the undertaker. I can appreciate the legal benefit to these activities but they are detrimental to reliable and consistent service delivery (see 6 below).
4. Sub-standard manufacturing – As per 1 above, economic rationalism has brought upon us the age of sub-standard manufacturing. Taking designed obsolesce to new heights. It’s now taken for granted that hardware will fail after EXACTLY 13 months of use. It is incredibly sad for humanity and absolutely devastating to the environment that now in this age where we have the ability to build the most efficient and amazing things that could endure and be serviceable for up to 100 years or more, that we have the global consumer economy, indoctrinating our children to be good little consumers, selling our environmental future for a few bucks now and exploiting human beings through cheap labour. It has aided in removing the ideals of quality, patience, service, care and even grace & honour from our society and replaced them with “get in, get out and get paid” (as quoted to me by a contractors, sub-contractor) or worse still the pirate philosophy of “Take what you can and give nothing back”…..
5. Failure of automation and/or computerised systems – Networked automation systems and business management tools are vulnerable to hardware failure (see 4 above) or software failure (bugs or corruption due to either malicious attack for insider or hacking or the un-intentional corruption by error or omission). Happens a lot more often than most people realise.. A lot more……
6. In-appropriate skills employment/allocation – As per 1, 2 and 3 above, economic rationalism and dilution of law and accountability has brought us the age of the un-skilled worker doing the work that skilled workers used to undertake. Trades recognition Australia, Skilled migrant visas, the tactic of one licenced tradesman supervising up to twenty labourers doing licenced work (I have witnessed this personally), ‘self-accreditation’, ‘self-certification’ and unqualified and inexperienced administration staff employed to administer the application of technical tasks like preventative maintenance, construction, design and clinical management programs etc. This has become the norm’ via economic necessity (see 1 and 2 above) and is not the exception.
7. Operator (human) error – We’re all human, you can apply the classical risk mitigation strategy (elimination, substitution, engineering, standard operating procedures, etc etc but people will always make mistakes. Lack of training, skill, expertise, supervision etc. (see 1, 2 and 6 above)
8. In-appropriate design – The design does not suit the intended purpose properly and creates the environment for work arounds or un-fair wear or mis-use (see 7 above, 9 and 10 Below) This can occur due to error, oversight, change of use (see 9 below) but most commonly occurs during the design and construction phase due to a phenomenon called “cost down” or “cost management”> This always means ‘Pervert the design to suit the budget’. Often the process is so lengthy and political that the final design is somewhat of a ‘Frankenstines monster’ imitation of the original design intent and will not serve its intended purpose effectively, let alone well. It may check all the paperwork KPI boxes etc, but may not translate to an effective built environment at the coal face. REMEMBER THIS> The sale is always made on design A, but design A is never built……
9. Not used as intended – The need or requirement changes and so the organisation attempts to re-employ an asset in a function (Use) for which it was not intended (designed/built) . (see 8 and 7 above) A perversion of employment/function that inevitably must produce (and will further cultivate) an environment of compromise and limited performance aspiration/KPI’s. This inherently results at best in a culture of ‘That’s the best we can do’ and ‘we can’t do any better’ mitigating the defeated from their ideal responsibility to outright ‘Institutionalised or systemic failure’, whereby the environment is so manifestly inappropriate that the business model that has been frankenstined together, even executed perfectly, cannot satisfy the objective.
10. Malicious action – You can apply the classical risk mitigation strategy (elimination, substitution, engineering, standard operating procedures, SECURITY etc etc) but if a person has the desire to effect an act of vandalism, misuse or terrorism then there is potential for them to effect a negative impact on continuous service continuity. This is particularly exacerbated if that person has inside knowledge of or access to that organisations infrastructure/assets etc.

I have shared this knowledge with you as I want you to consider the above and some more points below when formulating an opinion about the SA Govts desire to establish a Nuclear Waste re-processing and storage facility (dump) in SA.

Further to my points above you may have read the ‘for’ and ‘against’ columns in the paper recently where the ‘For’ advocate asserted (amongst other reasonable geological considerations etc) the argument that it would actually be wise to re-locate the entire worlds high level nuclear waste to this one location so as to prevent it falling into the ‘wrong hands’. Sounds reasonable - until you consider that in order to prevent THE ENTIRE WORLDS nuclear waste falling into the ‘wrong hands’, we would have to define exactly what the ‘wrong hands’ are and we would have to be able to guarantee that the governing body of Australia didn’t become the ‘wrong hands’, either through normal political process, invasion, civil war, Da-wa, etc for anywhere (depending on the source referenced) from, 500 to 5,000 years.. We have had two world wars in the last one hundred years, either of which could have resulted in Australias sovereignty changing. Going by history that means that in a best case scenario in order for this waste to have achieved benign status before our storage commitment can collapse our current political system will have to survive, ten (10) more world conflicts, combined with the end of the antibiotic age, peak oil, climate change, over population, peak food, peak water and then population collapse. Stable geopolitical conditions? They can’t get it right now….. I’d suggest at this point that the greatest security of nuclear waste will actually be achieved by disseminating into as many small repositories as possible, so should a breach occur the damage will be limited (relative to this flawed proposal). Indeed concentrating all of the waste into one spot could create a previously non-existent intention to target, capture, control , acquire the entire repository for nefarious use..

Would SA be considering this proposal if it’s economy hadn’t tanked? Are the Vics trying to steal this one from us?
Has this ever been done anywhere else?
Will providing a global dumping ground for nuclear waste discourage or encourage countries from its continued use?
Has SA’s economy been manipulated, manoeuvred and maligned by global corporate collusion to ‘help us’ arrive at this ‘nuclear economic solution’? ……
Of course it has.. It’s been in the pipeline for 20+ years. From what source did Jay receive the Nuclear economy idea/recommendation?
Has he already capitulated SA on your behalf, without asking your permission?

Do we have the moral right to make such a dangerous commitment that extends well beyond our lifespans and enslaves and burdens many future generations?
Has the government and nuclear industry acted immorally by developing a public education package that by its overuse of dollar signs in its happy pictures and use of modest and highly contentious statistics from Fukushima and Chernobyl etc, seeks to weight the economic component of this proposal favourably and underplays the horrific, miserable reality of radiation sickness? What would any sane, rational person reply when asked what the weightings should be for considering the merits of a proposal such as this? Wouldn’t they reply 100% safety, economic considerations should not even be considered or discussed until safety can been guaranteed. And yet they lead with the money and the frankly irrelevant opinion of economists everytime….
Has the government detailed to you it’s countermeasures, the cost of such countermeasures and the effectiveness (or un-effectiveness) of such countermeasures should a:
• Leak occur,
• A large explosive device is detonated within the facility,
• A significant amount of product is stolen from the facility,
• The facility falls under the control of a terrist or foreign force,
• A disgruntled employee sabotages the facility causing a chain reaction of a magnitude that makes Fukushima look like a practice run.
• The government goes broke and cannot maintain the facility
• The country is invaded by a foreign enemy and the facility is threatened or targeted.
• Can you find the answers and more importantly the guarantees you need in here?> http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/

Ponder this….
After some years of operation a serious exothermic reaction (explosion) occurs within the facility, the facilities structure is now severely compromised and the critical cooling plant has failed. Millions of hectares of SA are rendered un-inhabitable for generations. The governments commissioner investigates and determines that the governments contractor was basically insolvent and had been cutting corners and falsifying its operating and maintenance documentation. The facility now weakened and disintegrating, is at risk of total and catastrophic destruction. The whole thing could blow again big time, but this time with a weakened structure the explosion wont be directed or controlled. The engineers don’t know what will happen because it wasn’t designed for this. Personnel and robots cannot go within 5000 metres of it to effect containment, let alone repairs or cleanup due to the amount of radiation present. It doesn’t matter though, because it wasn’t the govt’s fault, it was the contractors. - Sounds outrageous right? All of the contributing elements of this scenario can be found in just two real life incidents, Fukushima and the Gladstone munitions factory in SA… .

Those proposing this are suffering from greed, hubris, conceit, ignorance and arrogance.

In light of my RELEVANT experience with maintaining critical infrastructure assets I implore you in good faith and as a parent to oppose the establishment of any centralised Nuclear storage or any high level reprocessing facility anywhere in AUSTRALIA.

Christopher Huckel > Ben Duffield

07 Aug 2016

Thankyou Ben

Annemarie Pugsley > Ben Duffield

13 Aug 2016

Thankyou Ben. I raised a few of these questions at a public consultation and was promptly handed survey form to take home. You have provided me with some answers and reaffirmed some of my questions. The government 'event' was merely a 'promotional event' to hand out glossy and expensive brouchures. It was quite difficult to locate and disappointing.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Ben Duffield

27 Aug 2016

Thank you Ben. I learned a lot from your post, much appreciated.

Sam Sminci > Ben Duffield

30 Aug 2016

Hey Ben,coming from a high risk background I agree with your evaluation but what a mouth full. It seems that this "get to know page" isn't really going to prevent this happening but more of a group therapy session for us to vent our anger and concerns that this is absurd proposal(and you would have to be a moron or personally benefiting from this to say yes!) gets accepted. Like many others I also think that this have your say is like applying for a position that's already FILLED! Let's hope not but it sure sounds like it as there's not much happening to prove otherwise?

Steve Dale

06 Aug 2016

After the spent fuel has sat in the interim dump for decades - how is it moved to the underground dump? The containers proposed by the NFCRC (Holtec) are only thin metal containers (half inch thick, some maybe 5/8th inch thick). Sure the transport containers are sturdy, but the Holtec containers are thin and much criticised even within the USA (eg. sanonofresafety.org). Such containers are not suitable for underground storage - but how do they open these fragile, Helium pressurised containers and move them to more suitable containers? We don't have the deep water fuel pools they have in the USA that is required to open these containers.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Steve Dale

15 Aug 2016

Hi Steve, thanks for joining the discussion and sharing your views. To clarify, disposal canisters are large metal casks - their interior is made of nodular graphite cast iron, with a copper exterior. The copper exterior is 5cm thick with the purpose of protecting the insert and the fuel assemblies from corrosion. Extensive experimental and theoretical studies of the copper overpack have been undertaken to assess and demonstrate its corrosion resistance for hundreds of thousands of years, under a range of conditions. You can find out more here (copy and paste): http://bit.ly/2aTlgkL. In regards to the transfer of material from transport cask to a disposal canister, this activity would be undertaken in an encapsulation plant on the surface of a site for a geological disposal facility. If you are interested in more information about this process, please email us at info@nuclear.sa.gov.au and we will provide you more details.

Christopher Huckel

05 Aug 2016

Let Australia vote on this important issue that's the safest option of all but to allow a vocal minority who are In favour of Dumping the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste onto South Australians to be able to shout down the majority of those on these forums is disgraceful.

Naomi Commandeur > Christopher Huckel

06 Aug 2016

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-06/radioactive-could-seep-from-cold-war-military-base:-scientists/7696750

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

06 Aug 2016

Thanks Naomi just the a snippet to what has been Dumped and covered up around the world that is slowly coming to light.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

06 Aug 2016

The 'nuclear waste' in Greenland is not the primary concern there, the bigger issue, VASTLY more dangerous than any radiation is going to be the polychlorinated biphenyls, (which are never from an environmental source Christopher) and the large volume of distillate fuels.

The people of Greenland, and those is the colder parts of the world ought to be (and would be) more concerned about biphenyls than a bit of reactor coolant.

Once again though, this issue is of an attitude from nearly 60 years ago, nothing like a facility that would be built today, I fully expect such an operation to be specifically prohibited here, and incidentally, it already is, and will continue to be.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

07 Aug 2016

Aaron the fountain of knowledge spews forth again more best case scenarios and warns us of worse dangers than allowing the world to turn South Australia into a Nuclear Waste Dumping Ground I'm not sure about others on this forum but I for one am sick and tired of the 2 individuals jumping on everyone's posts as though they are somehow better informed and are so far up themselves they actually think their opinions have to shouted out on everyone's Posts get a life guys.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

11 Aug 2016

Well, state your case Christopher, tell us why we should be more worried about the coolant than the PCBs... Off you go!

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

11 Aug 2016

Come on Christopher, I only post regurgitated information, you've seen it before, therefore you have to know why something like that coolant would be more dangerous to life than the PCBs.

Give us a regurgitated anwser as to why the PCBs are better to have about the place.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

13 Aug 2016

Noticed you didn't jump on Ben Duffield's Post Aaron still licking your wounds from the economics discussion mate let me encourage you to get in the ring and swing (type) Aaron.

Greig Ebeling > Christopher Huckel

12 Sep 2016

So Christopher Huckel, what do you propose to do about waste. Leave it where it is? Forever? Is that responsible? Or should we be at least trying to solve the problem, with best Australian engineering know-how, and the best place in the world, geologically and politically.

Si Coulls

05 Aug 2016

Dear Moderator, I think you need to consider blocking Steven McColl. He is rude and patronising and impacting everyone else's input.

Christopher Huckel > Si Coulls

05 Aug 2016

Moderator paid by the government the government is pro nuclear waste dump mmm but they will tell us the moderator is impartial yet is being paid by a proponent in favour of this proposal yes it doesn't pass the smell test something is rotten within but that's my opinion.

Mark Pawelek > Si Coulls

05 Aug 2016

Let me guess. Steven McColl is not one of the anti-nuke bullies who want to censor their opponents. Why are anti-nukes so keen on censorship? Is it because they're too lazy to even bother trying to win a debate based on facts?

Christopher Huckel > Si Coulls

05 Aug 2016

Why are the Pro Nuke-bullies so keen to undermine our Democratic values people have fought and died to protect these values that they seem so keen to undermine instead of calling for a referendum on this important issue they continue to undermine our Democracy.

Steven McColl > Si Coulls

07 Aug 2016

Mark I admire your willingness to work with the hypocritical.

And why does a certain 'anti-nuke greenie' happily use the following language:

.

,

,

,

***************************************************

"Put the TOXIC waste at fucashima.. Chernobyl. They are already contaminated with no population at the moment and for many years to come... And to your other comment go fck your self."

********************************************

Steven McColl > Si Coulls

07 Aug 2016

Mr Couls, has already admitted to the ongoing South-Australian bi-partisan support for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC) proposal from both Liberal and Labor State Governments.

Must be frustrating.

.

.

Mr Couls I have a couple of questions for you:

- Why do you choose to ignore the fact, that Australia already has a 20MW reactor and that there is nothing wrong with it?

.

- Mr Couls why is it that Australia's 20MW reactor also uses the same fuel in all U.S. and U.K. Navy submarines?

No idea.

.

- And Mr Couls what type of fuel is used in Australia's 20MW reactor?

No idea.

*****

Mr Coulls I am not rude, but I take great exception at people like yourself,
who take for granted the very things that I provide,
who choose to remain entirely ignorant on the subject of nuclear energy.

So take a look in the mirror before you criticize others - thank you.

Christopher Huckel > Si Coulls

10 Aug 2016

Blah Blah Blah just more of the same self opinionated Propoganda from Steven McColl majority of participants on all discussions are tired of these Jokers jumping on everyone's posts and pretending they know what's best for all Australians remember they are the minority and will always be the minority.

Aaron Morley > Si Coulls

11 Aug 2016

Still zero facts from you Christopher?

Christopher Huckel > Si Coulls

11 Aug 2016

Actually Aaron your opinions are in the minority and that is a fact you can take to the bank.

Aaron Morley > Si Coulls

11 Aug 2016

At least my opinion is informed, rather than be based on a misunderstood fear.