The site is on a headland close to critical nesting sites of the white-bellied sea eagle and the osprey.

Some people would argue that oil shale could be dumped somewhere else, but considering the volume of it, I cannot imagine 60 metre high dumps of spent shale stretching for kilometres around the area.

I submit to the Inquiry that: (a) PFAS production and use be eliminated or severely restricted where no alternatives exist (b) During a transition away from PFAS chemicals that products and services carry PFAS warnings (similar to those used to deter smoking) (c) Any toxic PFAS waste dumps conform to Australia’s National Environmental Management Plan and that any such toxic waste dump is located sufficiently far away from residential areas, primary industries, water resources and sites of significance to Australian Indigenous communities.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee will investigate and report on the appropriate and safe disposal of PFAS contaminated waste in South Australia, and in particular: (a) criteria for disposal of PFAS contaminated waste; (b) criteria for site selection (landfill engineering); (c) consequences of not having an appropriate pathway for PFAS contaminated waste disposal, including reference to case studies; and (d) any other related matters.

Burnside Council gave evidence that there are currently 235 beds on site (evidence, p. 16).

Here they are partially reliant on food wastes from town dumps as well as the resultant vermin that breed here.

In my performance review then, again, I asked: look, I need to do this ‘train the trainer’ course, otherwise what was happening wasn't legit, wasn't legal in my eyes and others.

Likely lack of broad social consent While the emotive nature of some of the antinuclear posts on the YourSay nuclear site have attracted derision and disdain from some quarters, I found many of them refreshingly honest and full of common sense, and clearly indicative of a lack of “broad social consent” as defined by the NFCRCR.