Nuclear Waste Dumps on AUKUS Nuclear Sub Program

Pete Comment

Australian governments have searched for a suitable permanent Low to Intermediate level nuclear waste dump site for 43 years (since 1980) if not longer. The many false starts with lack of success over thos 43 years is a definite measure of the unpopularity of most nuclear ideas in Australia. This includes the continued rejection by Australians of nuclear power/electricity reactors. Australia has only operated small nuclear medicine/experimental reactors and/or other small nuclear equipment since the 1950s.  

In a blow to the Australian Government's current hope to establish a future Low to Intermediate level nuclear waste dump near Kimba, South Australia, a court decision (see Article below) quashed it today.

It is quite likely the Australian Government intended to upgrade "Kimba" waste dump by the 2050s to take High Level nuclear waste from Australia's future decommissioned AUKUS  nuclear submarines. 

Australia's Spent Nuclear Fuel/Nuclear Waste Obligations

Australia is Party to the UN Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (“The Convention”). 

The Convention applies to many things, including spent fuel resulting from the operation of civilian and military (including submarine) nuclear reactors and to radioactive waste resulting from civilian and defence programs.

Australia’s obligations as a Party to The Convention are many, including “appropriate siting, design and construction of waste storage and disposal facilities”.

In the international nuclear industry the onus of storing spent nuclear fuel/nuclear waste falls to countries originating the fuel/waste. This becomes complex if the US or UK provides the AUKUS HEU placed in a UK or US built AUKUS nuclear submarine reactor that is then sold second hand or new to Australia. Who, then, is responsible?

Lack of Public Consultation For The Albanese Government's Nuclear Program 

The Australian public have never been permitted to vote for the Morrison Coalition or Albanese Labor Governments' AUKUS nuclear submarine program. No referendum on that. Is it therefore possible that, after Albanese has spent many $Billions of Australian taxpayers' money on these submarines, Australians will prevail upon a future Australian Government to cancel this submarine program! 

Australia is just a small-medium "power". Nuclear attack submarines (SSNs), that Albanese has signed us up to buy, are extremely expensive weapons that only Great Powers have been able to afford and justify. SSNs, to date, have been restricted to nuclear weapon powers. This is due to SSNs' main high-level warfare functions being to protect friendly nuclear armed SSBNs, while tracking and perhaps destroying enemy SSBNs. 

Put simply the highest goal of Australia's future SSNs would be to protect US and UK SSBNs while also tracking and perhaps destroying Chinese and perhaps Russian SSBNs. This would directly involve Australia fighting nuclear armed China and perhaps Russia, potentially with Australia as a combatant in a nuclear war.

Given this, Australian govenrments need to consult we the public on what we are signing up to in buying nuclear submarines for hundreds of billions of dollars.

ARTICLE

Australia's government owned ABC News reports July 18, 2023:

"Traditional owners win legal challenge to stop nuclear waste facility in Kimba"

Traditional owners on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula have won a legal challenge to stop the federal government building a nuclear waste facility near Kimba.

Key points:

• The federal government selected Kimba as the site for future storage of nuclear waste
• That decision was opposed by the Barngarla traditional owners, who challenged it in court
• The Federal Court today ruled in their favour, setting aside the government's decision

The federal government had planned to store low and intermediate level radioactive waste at the proposed facility.

Barngarla traditional owners applied for a judicial review in the Federal Court, arguing the facility would interfere with a sacred site.

They also said they were not properly consulted about the plan before it was approved in 2021.

The court this morning ruled in favour of the native title group, setting aside a federal government declaration made in 2021, and leaving the future of the project in severe doubt.

Justice Natalie Charlesworth made the decision in favour of the Barngarla people on the grounds there was apprehended bias in the decision-making process in selecting the site due to "pre-judgement"

"An artist's impression of the proposed nuclear waste storage facility near Kimba." (Supplied via ABC)
---

...MUCH MORE IN THE ABC ARTICLE.