The Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) rejects Nuclear Waste Bill, discusses transport dangers
the proposal to move long-lived intermediate-level waste (ILW) from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site….exposes communities to unnecessary risks, and it exposes workers (including MUA members) to unnecessary risks. .. and raises “implications for security”… the considerable distances involved create a whole additional level of risk.
MUA policy is that our members will not be involved in moving nuclear waste. The toxicity
of the waste is severe.
The Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 19 The Maritime Union of Australia (SA branch) recommends that the Senate Committee rejects the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 (hereafter the NRWM Amendment Bill).
The Bill is designed to advance a fundamentally flawed radioactive waste management process which should be put on hold until such time as a comprehensive independent inquiry is held to investigate all options for managing radioactive waste
powers to override Commonwealth and state laws.
in SA. The proposed nuclear waste facility is illegal under South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act. Instead of respecting that state legislation, the Federal Government intends to override it and the NRWM Amendment Bill outlines a regulatory mechanism to override SA law and thus to undermine democratic rights.
scrapped in light of the opposition of Traditional Owners. The Committee should also draw
attention to, and strongly reject, proposed amendments in the NRWM Amendment Bill
which would further disempower Traditional Owners, including by stripping them of appeal
rights.
notes that the Bill “would enable native title to be extinguished, without the consent of the
acquisition of land for an access route without any Parliamentary oversight or right of
appeal.
with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) in 2017 expressed
concern “about information that extractive and development projects are carried out on
lands owned or traditionally owned by Indigenous Peoples without seeking their prior, free
and informed consent” and recommended that Australia “ensure that the principle of free,
prior and informed consent is incorporated into the Native Title Act 1993 and in other
legislation as appropriate, and fully implemented in practice”.
Government intends to proceed without the consent of Traditional Owners and to amend
legislation to override their rights and interests.
State Conference on 13 October 2018 (noting that the targeted site in the Flinders Ranges is
no longer under consideration):
challenge that requires the highest level of transparency and evidence and that the current
federal approach to site a national waste facility in regional South Australia is strongly
contested.
regions of South Australia in their current struggle to prevent a nuclear waste facility
being constructed in their region.
• Calls for full transparency, broad public input and best practice technical and
consultative standards during the current site nomination and selection process.
remote site for radioactive waste to be disposed (low level) and stored (intermediate
level) to the exclusion of all other waste management options.
• Reaffirms its support for the civil society call for the extended interim storage of federal
wastes at federal sites pending a broad independent inquiry that examines all options for
future responsible radioactive waste, transport and storage and management.
• Commits to support communities opposing the nomination of their lands or region for a
dump site, and any workers who refuse to facilitate the construction and operation or
transport and handling of radioactive waste material destined for any contested facility or sites including South Australian Port communities.”
The Department’s July 2018 “Site Characterisation Technical Report: Napandee” (p.150)
names Whyalla Port to take shipments of nuclear fuel reprocessing waste.1 Two shipments
of reprocessed nuclear fuel wastes, in 130 tonne TN-81 casks, are intended within the first
two years of operations of an ILW store, with many more over subsequent years and
decades. The Department’s report also proposes 100 x B-double 50 tonne loads of ILW in
the first four years alone (in addition to hundreds of loads of low-level radioactive waste)
and it flags the option of shipping ILW from Port Kembla to an SA port such as Whyalla
(p.157-158): “It may be possible to have these containers shipped from Port Kembla to ports
such as Whyalla.”
from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the
Kimba site. The proposed double-handling (once to the Kimba site, then at some unspecified
time to a disposal site) makes no sense whatsoever, it exposes communities to unnecessary
risks, and it exposes workers (including MUA members) to unnecessary risks. Further,
ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee has stated that dual handling in transport associated
with interim storage “does not represent international best practice” and raises
“implications for security”
more time a truck is on the road the greater the chance of an accident. International best
practice is the shortest distance possible for waste transportation to a permanent storage
site.
facility is available. ANSTO has better safety and security arrangements than could possibly
apply at the Kimba site; there are no legal or regulatory impediments to ongoing storage at
Lucas Heights; and storage at Lucas Heights avoids the unnecessary risks associated with the
proposed double handling.
of the waste is severe. Even if the chances of an accident were small, there would
potentially be very significant, negative consequences for members in the vicinity. On this
basis our refusal to handle nuclear waste is easily defensible-and arguably required- under
the nationally harmonised Workplace Health and Safety laws.
targeted port towns such as Port Kembla or Whyalla. This is a long-standing breach of advice
from ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee which stresses the “essential” requirement to
“clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along transport routes” in its
Nov. 2016 report.3
for an ILW disposal facility would need to satisfy the regulator that safe containment can be
demonstrated over a period of “not be less than 10,000 years.4 Yet the Federal Government has made no progress towards disposal of ILW and instead proposes unnecessary and
unacceptable movement from above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to less secure aboveground
storage at Kimba.
secure is the UK civil nuclear sector?” highlights security threats including the risks from
potential attack on a nuclear waste transport or on a nuclear waste storage site.5 The
briefing paper cites nuclear engineer Dr. John Large, who stated:
“Movement of nuclear materials is inherently risky both in terms of severe accident and
terrorist attack. Not all accident scenarios and accident severities can be foreseen; it is only
possible to maintain a limited security cordon around the flask and its consignment; …
terrorists are able to seek out and exploit vulnerabilities in the transport arrangements and
localities on the route; and emergency planning is difficult to maintain over the entire route.”
conceivable during the transport of nuclear fuel wastes, with the potential scenario for
rocket attack on the transport of nuclear fuel waste reported as having the greatest
potential to cause a release of radiation.6
assurances of transport safety are not supported by real-world experience. Incidents and
accidents are commonplace, and in some cases the consequences are severe.
poor track record of the shipping company used by the Federal Government to ship spent
nuclear fuel from Australia to France for reprocessing and to ship reprocessing waste to
Australia. Problems have included losing cargo overboard, failing to follow basic navigation
rules, failing safety inspections, and exploiting workers.
TRANSPORT RISKS
THE COMPANY SHIPPING NUCLEAR WASTE TO AUSTRALIA….. [copious examples and references]
No comments yet.
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] has again postponed the date for their report from 31 August 2020 to 14 September 2020.
You can still send Submissions to them on that same page. Read Public hearings transcripts : the latest (28 August) is now available.
of the week
Committee for Future Generations
https://climatetippingpoints.info/
Join my fight to free Julian Assange and stop US extradition
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/julianassange/
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
EVENTS
WEBINARS – Details at YELLOWCAKE COUNTRY http://www.ccwa.org.au/yellowcake_country_webinar_series
30 September – Webinar – Uranium and Nuclear Power Wednesday 5.30 pm (AWST) 7.30 pm (AEST)
18 November – Webinar – Maralinga to Mulga Rock the Spinifex Story Wednesday 5.30 pm (AWST) 7.30 pm (AEST) |
No nuclear waste dump in South Australia
ACT NOW: NO PLACE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE https://www.conservationsa.org.au/no_place_for_nuclear_waste?fbclid=IwAR24tyFotCN96nobPpPuhGCqBMlW8zjPixIzmEj8ud8b_J7tRigzlXLpjJc
https://www.change.org/p/release-julian-assange-from-belmarsh-prison-before-covid-19-spreads
Antarctica Nuclear Power Plant Cancer Disaster on Day 1 Say Navy Shipmen
Antarctica nuclear reactor caused many cancers. Several countries insisted the US to clean up the nuclear waste via treaty. 5 On Your Side Investigation in March 2011 revealed at least “438 malfunctions from 1964 through 1972.” Our report found “leaking water surrounding the reactor” as well as “hairline cracks in the reactor liner” and prompted two federal hearings that upheld our report’s findings. The plant was eventually shut down and dismantled in 1972, but in the decades that followed, repeated cancer claims for service-connected disability filed by veterans were routinely turned down or ignored by the Veterans Administration. “There is no question that the water was contaminated,” said Wilborn, who was granted a service-connected disability after a hearing before the Board of Veterans Appeals. The appeals board also found that Wilborn’ s exposure was “grossly underestimated” and “evidence strongly suggests that others may have been exposed to higher levels” as well. Source Ron Reagan http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-ne…
McMurdo has attempted to improve environmental management and waste removal over the past decade in order to adhere to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed October 4, 1991, and entered into force January 14, 1998. This agreement prevents development and provides for the protection of the Antarctic environment through five specific annexes on marine pollution, fauna, and flora, environmental impact assessments, waste management, and protected areas. It prohibits all activities relating to mineral resources except scientific. A new waste treatment facility was built at McMurdo in 2003, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo…
Leave a Reply