❓ Hon Giz Watson inquires about applications for sea disposal of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) from 2001-2004, including volumes, storage, and suitability for mainland disposal. The answer details three applications involving disposal in sub-sea wells and at sea, confirming mainland storage was not used, testing was conducted, and landfill disposal was deemed unsuitable.
AnsweredQoN 1069Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regards to disposal of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), I ask -
(1) What applications were made to the Department of Industry and Resources in the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 for disposal at sea of quantities of NORM?
(2) What volumes and types of material comprised each of the applications?
(3) Was any of the NORM for which applications were made for disposal at sea, stored on the mainland prior to disposal?
(4) Was any of the NORM, for which applications to dispose at sea were made to the Department of Industry and Resources, tested to ascertain suitability of mainland disposal?
(5) If yes to (4), what category of landfill was considered appropriate and what were the associated costs for such disposal?
(1) What applications were made to the Department of Industry and Resources in the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 for disposal at sea of quantities of NORM?
(2) What volumes and types of material comprised each of the applications?
(3) Was any of the NORM for which applications were made for disposal at sea, stored on the mainland prior to disposal?
(4) Was any of the NORM, for which applications to dispose at sea were made to the Department of Industry and Resources, tested to ascertain suitability of mainland disposal?
(5) If yes to (4), what category of landfill was considered appropriate and what were the associated costs for such disposal?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
19 May 2005
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
22 days
2)Application #1 comprised of disposal down an abandoned sub-sea well (in the geological structure, not in the ocean) of 7 drums (200 L drums) of NORM contaminated barium sulphate scale recovered from an FPSO slops tanks, following maintenance work undertaken in 2000. The NORM had been stored on the FPSO since. Application #2 comprised of disposal down an abandoned sub-sea well (in the geological structure, not in the ocean) of approximately 410 L of NORM contaminated barium/strontium sulphate scale recovered from well tubing sections and some contaminated pump strings, following a well work-over on an offshore fixed platform facility. Application #3 comprised of sea disposal of less than 200 L of NORM contaminated barium sulphate scale in fine water slurry, collected from well tubing. Application was also made for offshore disposal of 30 pieces of 5-½ inch steel well tubing (<12 m long) with two pipe spools. This was in approximately 250 m of water depth. 3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
Application #2 comprised of disposal down an abandoned sub-sea well (in the geological structure, not in the ocean) of approximately 410 L of NORM contaminated barium/strontium sulphate scale recovered from well tubing sections and some contaminated pump strings, following a well work-over on an offshore fixed platform facility. Application #3 comprised of sea disposal of less than 200 L of NORM contaminated barium sulphate scale in fine water slurry, collected from well tubing. Application was also made for offshore disposal of 30 pieces of 5-½ inch steel well tubing (<12 m long) with two pipe spools. This was in approximately 250 m of water depth. 3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
Application #3 comprised of sea disposal of less than 200 L of NORM contaminated barium sulphate scale in fine water slurry, collected from well tubing. Application was also made for offshore disposal of 30 pieces of 5-½ inch steel well tubing (<12 m long) with two pipe spools. This was in approximately 250 m of water depth. 3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
Application #2 comprised of disposal down an abandoned sub-sea well (in the geological structure, not in the ocean) of approximately 410 L of NORM contaminated barium/strontium sulphate scale recovered from well tubing sections and some contaminated pump strings, following a well work-over on an offshore fixed platform facility. Application #3 comprised of sea disposal of less than 200 L of NORM contaminated barium sulphate scale in fine water slurry, collected from well tubing. Application was also made for offshore disposal of 30 pieces of 5-½ inch steel well tubing (<12 m long) with two pipe spools. This was in approximately 250 m of water depth. 3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
Application #3 comprised of sea disposal of less than 200 L of NORM contaminated barium sulphate scale in fine water slurry, collected from well tubing. Application was also made for offshore disposal of 30 pieces of 5-½ inch steel well tubing (<12 m long) with two pipe spools. This was in approximately 250 m of water depth. 3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
3) No. 4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
4) Yes, in all cases, samples of the NORM scale material were analysed. 5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
5) None of the NORM material was suitable for Class I to IV landfill disposal. As a result, associated costing was not required.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.