https://mastconfex.comAustralia’s nuclear regulator has approved a license to store waste from US, UK and possibly Australian nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling off Perth. The licence allows the Australian Submarine Agency to establish a ‘Controlled Industrial Facility’ to handle the waste of US and UK nuclear submarines that dock at HMAS Stirling Navy Base, Garden Island, in Western Australia.

The nuclear regulatory body, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) said in a statement the license is “intended” to cover low-level waste from US and UK nuclear submarines. However, the Australian Submarine Agency admitted in the June Senate Estimates hearings that the licence also covers intermediate-level waste.

ARPANSA received 165 public submissions concerning this licence application, many concerned over the lack of public information concerning the scope of the application, community impact and decision-making. The Albanese Labor government is currently in the process of seeking to pass legislation that can make anywhere in Australia a nuclear waste dumping ground with no public consultation or First Nations consent. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 also allows for the US and the UK to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia.

Senator David Shoebridge, Greens Spokesperson for Defence, said: “We are already seeing the toxic impacts of AUKUS with this move to store nuclear waste from US and UK nuclear submarines off Perth. The community overwhelmingly opposed this application and pointed out the lack of transparency and balance in the approvals process. It is remarkable that ASA failed to include in its public consultation material the fact that this license allows for the handling of intermediate-level waste. This waste is significantly more toxic than any other nuclear waste currently stored in Australia. While this licence was quietly pushed through, the Albanese Labor Government has stalled legislation in Parliament that would allow unlimited amounts of high-level nuclear waste to be dumped here. This ARPANSA licence looks like a rushed plan B from Labor to avoid the political damage from pushing its naval nuclear waste legislation while also trying to oppose Dutton’s disastrous civil nuclear plans.”

Senator Dorinda Cox, WA Senator and Greens spokesperson for First Nations, Resources, North Australia, Trade and Tourism, said: “As a First Nations woman, today’s approval of this licence devastates and angers me. It is shameful that although I stood with my community outside Minister King’s office in protest and the voices were clear, they did not want the storage of nuclear waste on their lands, this licence has still been granted. There has been no respect shown to the community and to Traditional owners who opposed this licence. I personally raised this lack of prior and informed consent at recent Estimates and was assured consultation would happen. Myself and the Traditional Owners of these lands are still waiting for the basic respect of a meeting to share our concerns and be consulted with. Today’s decision yet again silences our voices and is shameful. First Nations peoples have seen nuclear storage devastate their lands, waterways and communities before. This storage is costly and will destroy irreplaceable cultural heritage, including intangible heritage such as song lines and the local biodiversity. Why are the Labor government allowing this to take place in our waters alongside the silencing of First Nations voices again and at the risk and detriment of all Australians? This is shameful.”

APDR_Bulletin_728X90


For Editorial Inquiries Contact :
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net

For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net

Previous articleBundeswehr orders 70mm practice rockets for helicopters
Next articleSaab growing naval combat systems team in WA

15 COMMENTS

  1. It’s frankly embarrassing how backward and ignorant some Australian’s are to the concept of nuclear waste disposal.

    “the Albanese Labor Government has stalled legislation in Parliament that would allow unlimited amounts of high-level nuclear waste to be dumped here.”

    High level radioactive waste is finite. There are strict international controls placed on it’s creation, movement, storage and disposal. The dry cask storage for high and intermediate nuclear waste are incredibly safe and effective you could crash a jet fighter into one and it will still remain structurally sound.

    “This storage is costly”

    Dealing with thousands of tonnes of spent silicon semiconductors in solar panels and the toxic chemicals used to create them will be far more expensive.

    “and will destroy irreplaceable cultural heritage, including intangible heritage such as song lines”

    How? How will safe nuclear waste storage affect “song lines” where widespread deforestation and minerals mining in W.A have not?

    “and the local biodiversity.”

    Again. How? When the space required for high level and low level waste is insignificant compared to the space required by large scale solar projects currently in use.

    • I can assure you that the task of cutting up an 8,000 tonne nuclear-powered submarine and removing and storing between 300-500kg of weapons grade U235 is a complex, dangerous and expensive exercise. You say high level waste is finite – yeah, the half-life of U235 is 704 million years. This stuff will have to be guarded 24/7 forever to stop bad people getting their hands on it. The US is the most advanced nation in managing this and they have a vast government-owned facility in Idaho for Uranium storage; other less dangerous submarine parts are buried in large pits somewhere in Washington State. The UK has 22 decommissioned nuclear submarines tied up and rotting away awaiting eventual disposal. The situation in Russia is far worse. I keep circling back to something very fundamental – since the US has the infrastructure, why not return the submarines to them for disposal?

      • The UK’s 22 decommissioned subs are still there because of lazy governments just kicking it down the road for other governments until they are now being disposed of and as for Russia, well the state of Russia’s conventional fleet says enough about how they handle it. disposing of these subs is a small issue compared to the massive boost it gives to Australia’s naval power

      • I understand the complexity and do not dispute the technical challenges or costs involved but my comment was in reaction specifically Senator Shoebridge’s assertion that Australia would host an “unlimited amount” of high level nuclear waste and Senator Cox’s assertion that it “will destroy… the local biodiversity.”

        Plenty of reasons to oppose an Australian nuclear submarine program without having to resort to 70’s era fearmongering.

        • What is really funny is the Government spreading fear about civil nuclear power whilst at the same time telling Rockingham residents they have nothing to fear from the storage of spent reactors etc on Garden Island.
          Bowen say using nuclear power to generate power will destroy the environment.
          Conroy says that nuclear waste is nothing to be concerned about.
          Clearly no one is actually in charge

        • High-level waste will need to be stored in a separate, massively expensive facility somewhere. We are talking about U235 – bomb grade material – with a half life of 704 million years.

  2. The entire problem could have been avoided if the French offer of Suffren Class ( with a VLS added) had been taken. Using LEU makes it somewhat less controversial and safer than HEU But then that wouldn’t have pleased the U.S. or the Brits and we can’t have that can we.

  3. Some interesting comments, thoughts and opinions above.
    A couple of points I’d make regarding the benefits of using Submarine Reactors fueled with HEU (never requiring or designed to be refueled).
    My understanding is that these will, during their lifetime, generate significantly less spent fuel elements by volume regardless of the enrichment percentage. Thereby reducing the size of the task of secure storage provision. One fuel load, as opposed to three during their service life span per Boat.
    The task of refueling a LEU Reactor should not be underestimated, both from a cost and risk aspect. Whilst the process was refined by the developed Nuclear Submarine operating Nations, the chances of an issue occurring during the process still existed. Therefore, an HEU reactor requiring less ‘invasive surgery’ throughout it’s life has to be a good thing…right?

    Kym, you state that the “The UK has 22 decommissioned nuclear submarines tied up and rotting away awaiting eventual disposal”. With Triumph having just returned to Devonport for the last time and Swiftsure undergoing the first 100% (or pretty damn close to it) dismantling process of a Nuclear Powered Submarine in the World at Rosyth as part of the Dismantling Demonstrator Project, they now have 23 (16 of which are at Devonport, the rest at Rosyth). Preliminary work on three of the ‘R’ Class SSBN’s at Rosyth has also commenced, but it should be noted that all of the Boats that ended up there were defueled prior lay-up. Then the fourth ‘R’, Churchill and Dreadnought with her American S5W Reactor.
    I can, however, assure you that they can hardly be described as “rotting away”. They are afforded great care and are constantly monitored and inspected (including dry-docking for hull surveys)…..I used to walk past many of them regularly in a previous life before coming to Australia over twenty years ago.
    The can has certainly been kicked down the road by successive Governments, but now there is a clear path towards the full recycling of all the Boats. I believe Valiant will be the first to undergo the process at Devonport, once No. 14 Dock at the SRC is open for business as the dedicated dismantling facility there. She is one of four at Guzz that have been defueled. After those, the remaining five Swiftsure’s and the seven Trafalgar’s will follow, all of which still have fuel aboard. Then, following the last Vanguard Class SSBN LOP on HMS Vigilant and pending on-time in-service for HMS Dreadnought, No.9 Dock used for the LOP’s will be converted to dismantle the Vanguards.
    Considering the fact that the first RN Nuclear Powered Boat, Dreadnought, was decommissioned in 1980 and that there have then been regular decommissioning’s of RN Submarines from 1990 onwards, the delay has not been a good look. However, the extensive planning required to find the best solution couldn’t/shouldn’t have be rushed. That would be totally irresponsible…..note that it’s believed that the Russians have dumped at least ten complete Submarine Reactor Compartments into the Ocean, holding some seventeen Reactors, some of which were/are still laden with fuel.
    It will certainly be interesting when the plan for Australia’s Submarine Reactor’s is revealed when the Boats are decommissioned.
    I suspect that possibly, part of the ‘deal’ could require the return of the complete still-sealed Reactor Pressure Vessels to the Country of origin. We will see.
    Nigel
    (Note: Credit to the rather excellent ‘Navy Lookout’ for some of the above OSI)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here