May 23, 2023

Labor Rushing Bill Exempting SSN Reactors from Environmental Protections

Australia's green left website comes up with some excellent articles, like this one:

"Labor rushes through a bill to exempt AUKUS nuclear submarines from environmental protections

Issue 
FacebookWhatsAppMessengerTelegramTwitterRedditEmailint

Image: Green Left with a BAE Systems image of a design for an AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine.

Labor has a bill before parliament which, if passed, would exempt nuclear plants on nuclear-propelled submarines from two other important laws — the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 aims to insert a paragraph into these two laws to exempt “a naval nuclear propulsion plant related to use in a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine” from the “requirements” of each of them when they refer to “nuclear power plants”.

This is not only alarming, it is illogical to make a distinction between controls and protections on a nuclear plant providing power to propel conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines and a land-based nuclear power plant: it is still a nuclear power plant.

In fact, a nuclear power plant on a submarine needs the same, or more, protection requirements as a nuclear power plant on land.

The uranium which will be used in the proposed SSN (a hull classification system denoting nuclear-powered submarines) is enriched to the level used in nuclear weapons.

It is more dangerous to the naval staff than conventional uranium-fired nuclear power plants, as they live and work in very close proximity to the nuclear power plant powering the submarine.

When docked in a port, residents living nearby are exposed to the toxic impact of possible radiation leaks from the submarine’s nuclear power plant.

If passed, the amendments to exempt a nuclear power plant on board a nuclear-propelled submarine from the safety requirements of these two Acts amount to a betrayal of naval staff operating the submarines and the wider public especially those living close to the ports servicing these lethal weapons.

Members of parliament have never been given an opportunity to discuss or vote on joining the trilateral AUKUS security treaty which allowed for the nuclear-powered submarine technology is to be transferred to Australia.

It has never been given an opportunity to discuss the decision to buy and/or acquire nuclear-propelled submarines.

Here is one — possibly the only — opportunity for MPs to voice their opinion on one aspect of the nuclear-propelled submarine aspect of AUKUS.

The Senate has referred this dangerous bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. It will report by June 9.

It was only introduced and read on May 10 and submissions to the inquiry close on May 26. The government is clearly trying to get its dangerous amendments through with as little discussion as possible.

You can send your opposition submission here.

There are many reasons this bill is irresponsible and must be opposed.

1. The AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines are to be deployed in a hunter-killer role, and would be subject to enemy attack. A torpedo attack on a nuclear-powered submarine would release toxic radiation from the power plant and its enriched uranium fuel: this toxic pollution would remain for generations to come.

2. It is authoritarian to minimise public and parliamentary discussion about such a move.

3. It is irresponsible because the AUKUS nuclear-propelled submarines depend on US technology to be built as well as for their maintenance and operation.

4. This means that Labor’s alignment to US foreign policy will have to be maintained to gain and maintain access to this technology. This means Australia loses the ability to make decisions in the best interests of its people.

5. It may well draw Australia into a US war against China, which will lead to economic distress not just for us but the nations and peoples of the Indo-Pacific region.

6. Australia is not under military threat from China, or any other country; it does not need nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarines — designed for forward deployment.

7. The huge cost — $368 billion [Australian dollars] with substantial blow-outs expected — means less ability to address serious social needs including public housing, hospitals, education, nurses and teachers and transitioning to renewable energy.

[Submissions to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 [Provisions] close on May 26. Make yours now here. Bevan Ramsden is a long-time peace activist. He edits the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network’s monthly e-publication Voice.]"

7 comments:

Richo said...

Thats about as disengenuous an article as it comes. Water is a superb moderator of neutrons thats a scientific fact and the few submarines that have been lost due to accidents (not involving propulsion failure) there is no discernable increase in backround radiation ie: USS Scorpion. HEU powered reactors do not use weapons grade uranium thats a fact HEU would require further reprocessing to make it weapons grade, another fallacy by the hand wringing lunatic left, but hey don't let the facts get in the way of hysteria.

Scott said...

Pete

The latest US Congress progress report for the Virginia SSN program includes specific discussion about the provision for AUKUS Virginias.

See page 18. If this gets passed and becomes law under the current US Congress (with Republican majority) that is very encouraging for stability fo supply to the RAN in my view.
https://news.usni.org/2023/05/23/report-on-virginia-class-attack-submarine-program-11#more-103155

Lado said...

Hi Pete
Wrong ideaI if you need N power (Civil or Nuc) you need to be transparent relying on independant civilian authorities in the permanent audit functions from design , construction , operation and decommissionning.Only way to alleviate public concerns and keep politcial goodwill
The problem obviously is that these authorities keep adding safety mesures and inspection for the last 20 years, sometime ridiculous , not always however ,( to justify one's existence like any bureaucraties)This is the main reason behind the huge delays /costs over run in novel civilian N plants in France or Finland for instancemi(vs China for exactly the same units).Similar trends in drugs approval for instance BTW

Theres is no other way however

It is clear that a N sub in an harbour should be subjected to identical precautions as a civilan N generator.This the best way to ensure its long term acceptance but also basically the maintenance of safety

A N plant operator fells, while biking to the cafeteria.."Incident ay the N plant" in the Press!
Conversely which investor would put its money in a non audited firm!


Pete said...

Thanks Scott

"Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress May 19, 2023, Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32418"

at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23821307-rl32418-1

From page 14 to 19 indeed covers the AUKUS submarine issue in considerable detail.

RL32418 mainly covers 3 to 5 Virginias for Australia. 3 to 5 is already providing the US broad discretion of as little as 3 Virginias. This might not preclude the possibility of the US delivering a moored Los Angeles class vessel for training in 2033. 10 years is a long time in alliance and changing USN requirements for SSNs conditions.

This is part of why Albanese and Marles say AUKUS involves "risks".

Page 18 talks of just 2 Virginias (so far):

"Issues for Congress Authorization for Transfer of up to Two Virginia-class SSNs to Australia in the Form of a Sale One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD’s AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA sent to Congress on May 2, 2023, including the requested authorization for the transfer of up to two Virginia-class SSNs to the government of Australia in the form of a sale, with the costs of the transfer to be covered by the government of Australia. In considering this issue, Congress may consider several factors, including but not limited to the following:..."

But yes, if the US DOD’s AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA gets passed by the current US Congress (with its Republican House majority) that would be very encouraging for the RAN.

Though if Trump wins in November 2024 - there is a President who may persuade Congress to amend laws made during the years of a Biden Administration.

Regards Pete

Pete said...

Hi "Lado" at 5/24/2023 4:30 PM

You cover a huge number of broad issues: nuclear safety and transparency etc.

Where you claim "It is clear that a N sub in an harbour should be subjected to identical precautions as a civilan N generator."

Certainly a surfaced SSN entering or leaving the future Australian East Coast Nuclear Submarine Base of Port Kembla would follow standard nuke sub practice of

mounting a General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) or 2 in the fin/sail to ward off threats be they protesters or other civilians.

A heavily armed patrol boat/launch would also escort such a surfaced nuclear sub.

Also in the small Port Kembla dock areas the public will note guards carring Assault Rifles 24/7 (UK best practice) around the moored nuke subs.

Also if a ship in the congested Port Kembla maritime area slams amidships into a uke sub by mistake or on purpose (if Chinese directed)

these all differ from land based reactor security concerns and conditions...

Unlike international best practive of building nuke sub bases in isolated inlets (eg. at Faslane, Scotland or Kings Bay Georgia, USA) for public safety and security our Government is proposing a Port Kembla East Base in an already highly populated area. Already this area has close by commercial ship and smaller boat movements.

Companies, unions and local government hope to build a large shipping container terminal in the same Port Kembla location or nearby.

But hey, if a nuke sub base is so safe and viable, why not build it at Fleet Base East, Sydney Harbour?

Anonymous said...

Machinegun on Royal Navy nuclear submarine when surfaced to/from port
authorised for use on civilians
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdmcZ2wHTBP68_yes_bmXbfkn0Ohd8TXXxk0aZEEW7yOe-WvF1oUlBLQr42t0UDrlfa6k&usqp=CAU

and on US Navy nuclear submarine https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4c6f126dc5deae8ec1515d79007810a1.webp

Pete said...

Thanks Anonymous at 5/25/2023 9:22 PM

For the photos of machineguns mounted on a:

"Royal Navy nuclear submarine when surfaced to/from port"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdmcZ2wHTBP68_yes_bmXbfkn0Ohd8TXXxk0aZEEW7yOe-WvF1oUlBLQr42t0UDrlfa6k&usqp=CAU

and on a "US Navy nuclear submarine"

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4c6f126dc5deae8ec1515d79007810a1.webp

Governments could claim other navy vessels permanently mount machineguns to "ward off terrorists who would do the vessel harm."

But the diiference is machineguns are intentionally and temporarally placed in bracket holes when surfaced nuclear subs enter and leave port. The RAN would probably assess the main "threat" in Australia would be civilians, maybe protesters wanting to block or board the sub.

Photos of anti-civilian machinguns on nuclear subs entering or leaving the future Port Kembla Base wouldn't go down well on social or mainstream media.

Regards Pete