Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High Level nuclear waste dump.
Briefing by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner 23 May 2023 https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Noonan-AUKUS-high-level-nuclear-waste-May-2023.pdf
The Federal ALP belatedly disclosed a pre-condition to AUKUS and to Australia’s purchase of existing US nuclear submarines is for Australia to keep the US subs military High Level nuclear waste forever.
This was kept secret in the federal election and only revealed to the public after an 18-month study.
The ALP is seeking to ‘normalise’ military High Level nuclear waste in Australia with simplistic claims
of ‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking on the liabilities in buying US nuclear subs & retaining the wastes.
Disposal of High Level nuclear waste is unprecedented at a global scale, with the US and UK having
proven unable to do so in over 60 years since first putting nuclear powered submarines to sea.
Minister for Defence Richard Marles MP has stated there will be ‘an announcement’ within a year on the management of High Level nuclear waste with a process to site a disposal facility, saying
“obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
Defence is reported to be working with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency to conduct a review
to identify potential nuclear waste disposal sites. The public have a right to know who’s targeted.
WA, Queensland and Victoria immediately rejected a High Level nuclear waste disposal site in their
States. The SA Premier said it should go to a safe ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
New Agencies are to be set up and at least three sets of federal legislation are to go to Parliament
that relate to facilitating the disposal of military High Level nuclear waste in Australia.
An Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) is to be set up by 1 July 2023, to absorb the current NuclearPowered Submarine Taskforce and manage nuclear submarines and supporting infrastructure and
facilities from acquisition through to disposal. Defence says the ASA is to: “enable the necessary
policy, legal, non-proliferation, workforce, security and safety arrangements”.
A new military nuclear regulator, the statutory Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety
Regulator is to be established. Both Agencies will report directly to the Defence Minister.
The current Reforming Defence Legislation Review proposes to take on Defence Act powers to
override State & Territory legislation to ‘provide certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities.
In public input to that Defence Review I made these Recommendations (April 2023, p.7 & Rec 6-7):
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High Level nuclear waste disposal,
policy, siting process, rights and legal issues.
Defence should commit to respect and to
comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29
provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or
disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
Defence must declare whether the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 will be
respected or is intended to be over-ridden to impose a Navy High Level nuclear waste
storage or disposal site on ‘remote’ lands and unwilling community in South Australia.
Integrity, transparency and accountability are key to any public confidence in government process.
However, this nuclear dump is likely to be imposed on community in SA or in NT, with override of
State legislation, compulsory land acquisition, and disregard for Indigenous Peoples right to Say No.
Both the AUKUS military nuclear dump and ANSTO’s dump imposition at Kimba are
untenable affronts to democratic rights and to Indigenous People’s rights in SA
Defence should now disclose associated policy plans for ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and long-lived
Intermediate Level Radioactive Wastes (ILW) to also be disposed at a proposed military High Level
nuclear waste disposal site, along side Navy nuclear wastes arising from buying US nuclear subs.
SA already faces federal imposition of a so called National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to
store ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes and ILW on agricultural land near Kimba, on Barngarla People’s
country in defiance of Barngarla clearly Saying No, and dividing community on Eyre Peninsula.
A suite of public interests are already at risk, see input to the Federal Environment Department on
Guidelines for an Environmental Impact process on the nuclear facility at Kimba (DN 23 March 2023).
For instance, see “Nuclear Waste Store siting at Kimba also targets the Port of Whyalla” (Feb 2020).
ANSTO is the predominant waste holder and future producer of both ILW and Low Level Waste, see a
Briefing: “National Inventory of Radioactive Waste shows the Kimba dump is ANSTO’s dump”.
There are alternatives: ANSTO can securely retain their nuclear wastes on site at Lucas Heights,
rather than impose double handling transport into indefinite above ground storage at Kimba.
Both nuclear waste dump plans trigger the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and
Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
Traditional owners must have a right to Say No to nuclear wastes. See “AUKUS nuclear waste dump
must be subject to Indigenous veto” (By Michelle Fahy May 2023): “Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s
poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are red flags for consultations over an AUKUS
nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts say government must establish an Indigenous veto right.”
The “Woomera Protected Area” (WPA) a large Defence weapon testing range in SA has already been
flagged by other State Premiers as a site for a military High Level nuclear waste disposal facility.
Most of the WPA is State owned Crown land and not Commonwealth owned Defence lands. Siting a
nuclear waste dump would be imposed through compulsory land acquisition & over-ride of SA laws.
Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
The Objects of this Act cover public interest issues at stake, to protect our health, safety and welfare:
“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment
of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”
Defence are already ignoring Aboriginal Heritage law and contravening protections in SA, see
“Defence bombing Indigenous site in Woomera” (20 May 2023). Defence is now further ‘angling for
exemption from State laws it admits serve important public purposes’
The SA Premier is yet to say if he will support an Indigenous right to Say No to an AUKUS dump in SA.
Both the proposed AUKUS military High Level nuclear waste dump and ANSTO’s dump at Kimba are
illegal under SA Law. Both nuclear dumps are an untenable affront to democratic rights in SA.
Aukus ‘expensive’ and not ‘easy to replicate’, Australian officials told foreign diplomats
Exclusive: Documents obtained by Guardian Australia show Australia attempted to reassure countries amid nuclear proliferation concerns
Daniel Hurst, Guardian 29 May 23
Australian officials have told foreign diplomats that the Aukus submarine plan is “expensive” and not “easy to replicate”, as part of an effort to play down concerns about the risks of other countries racing to do the same, a newly released tranche of documents reveals…..
Briefing notes obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws lay bare the arguments the government is using to defend and explain Aukus to foreign diplomats posted to Canberra………………………………………
China’s mission to the UN said in March that “two nuclear weapons states who claim to uphold the highest nuclear non-proliferation standard” – the US and the UK – “are transferring tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state”.
The new documents show that many of the answers given by Australian officials at the Aukus briefings aimed to reassure countries about nuclear non-proliferation issues.
The first assistant secretary of Dfat’s Aukus taskforce, Sarah deZoeten, told those in attendance that Australia would retain control of operational waste and spent fuel.
…………………………. Aukus is novel because it will be the first time a provision of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime has been used to transfer naval nuclear propulsion technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state……………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/aukus-expensive-and-not-easy-to-replicate-australian-officials-told-foreign-diplomats
China firmly opposes Japan’s discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into sea
Source: Xinhua, Editor: huaxia, 2023-05-30 https://english.news.cn/20230530/5bdd921cc81744ffbcfd0eb7b76dd09b/c.html
GENEVA, May 28 (Xinhua) — A Chinese delegate on Saturday expressed firm opposition to Japan’s unilateral decision to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea, when attending related discussions at the 76th World Health Assembly (WHA) held here.
Given the strong currents along Fukushima’s coast, the radionuclides will spread to waters worldwide in 10 years after a discharge, the delegate said, adding that this move is to shift the risks to all mankind, and is not Japan’s private matter, but a crucial issue affecting global public health.
Noting many countries and stakeholders have expressed serious concerns, the delegate urged Japan not to unilaterally discharge the nuclear-contaminated water before reaching an agreement with all parties.
In response to a Japanese delegate’s defense, the Chinese side said that the defense can be summed up as “the water quality is non-toxic and the discharge is reasonable,” but what the Japanese side said is completely untenable and they must give convincing answers to a series of questions.
The Chinese delegate raised three questions: First, if the nuclear-contaminated water is safe, why doesn’t Japan itself use the water? Why not use the water for domestic agriculture and manufacturing, or discharge it into domestic lakes? Second, is discharging the nuclear-contaminated water into the sea the only feasible solution? Third, what kind of long-term impact will such a discharge have on the world?
When it comes to the disposal of the nuclear-contaminated water, the Chinese delegate pointed out that Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has proposed five plans. The Japanese government’s expert committee has admitted that compared to such options as emitting the water into the atmosphere through vaporization, building new storage tanks and solidifying the water with cement, a discharge into the sea is the cheapest option with minimum risk of pollution to Japan itself.
Japan’s current choice is to save itself trouble and money by pushing the world to suffer consequences, the delegate said, emphasizing that such actions, which only serve the short-term interests of Japan but harm the common interests of all mankind, must be severely condemned and resolutely resisted, and that the Pacific Ocean is not a sewer into which Japan can dump nuclear-contaminated water.
In April 2021, Japan announced that it would discharge the polluted water from the Fukushima nuclear accident into the ocean. Many countries, including China, have expressed firm opposition, and Russia also expressed serious concerns at this WHA. However, Japan has disregarded the reasonable appeals and demands of the international community.
Sea level rise will “disappear” California’s famed beaches
California is known for golden sands and endless waves, but much of the
state’s famous shoreline could vanish in the future. That’s according
to a new study, which found that between 25% and 70% of California beaches
might be washed away by the end of the century, leaving only cliffs or
coastal infrastructure in their wake.
Guardian 27th May 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/27/california-beaches-erosion-2100-study
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 