Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has released an EPBC Act ‘Impact Assessment Report’ (IAR) to address the environmental impacts of constructing nuclear submarines at Osborne, Port Adelaide. A deluge of documents — the 200-page IAR with 750 pages of appendices — have been released for “public consultation” running till 17 March. However, the IAR fails to provide answers to community’s “right to know” on nuclear submarine accident risks and radioactive waste storage facing Port Adelaide.

The proponent Australian Submarine Agency ruled a range of lead community safety concerns as “out of scope” of this Osborne assessment. The IAR says: “Information on potential sources of radiation has been provided to inform, however does not form part of the Strategic Assessment as these sources will be managed via separate environmental assessment processes and approvals as necessary.”

Impacts of commissioning and operation of the “power module” (the nuclear reactor) “is considered outside the scope of this assessment” ‒ that assessment is to be “held over” for a new non-independent military nuclear regulator that reports to Defence Minister Richard Marles. The military are to effectively take over public safety at Port Adelaide even though the federal Health Minister Mark Butler is the local MP.

Federal Labor is in denial over nuclear submarine reactor accident risks. The word “accident” does not even appear in the 200-page IAR. Even a visit by a nuclear-powered submarine to a port in Australia requires emergency response planning that sets evacuation zones for potential nuclear reactor accidents. It is at best inept to decide to impose nuclear sub reactor accident risks onto communities across Lefevre Peninsula and Port Adelaide while failing to conduct full impact assessments and limiting “public consultation” to only those aspects that suit Labor’s staged roll-out of the AUKUS nuclear sub agenda.

The management facility for radioactive waste at Osborne, and the disposal pathway for such radioactive waste, “is considered outside the scope of the Strategic Assessment”. Marles is already a year late on his own schedule to announce a “process” for managing AUKUS nuclear waste storage and disposal, due back in March 2024. The IAR radioactive waste management section says: “The facility is to be designed to have the capacity to manage radioactive material over the 50-year Strategic Assessment timeframe.” Thus, radioactive wastes may accumulate and remain ‘stored’ at Osborne for decades.

The IAR also misrepresents nuclear submarine reactor radioactive wastes to be stored at Osborne as “similar to those that occur in over 100 locations nationwide, including hospitals, science facilities and universities” and “similar to the waste generated by hospitals and research facilities around Australia”.

Emergency services workers have a ‘right to know’

SA emergency services workers — first responders, the police, fire, ambulance and hospital personnel — have a right to know what nuclear health risks they face. Federal emergency provisions apply in event of a nuclear sub reactor accident at Port Adelaide. The civilian Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency “Guide for Radiation Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations” and “Nuclear powered vessel visit planning” set out the studies and Emergency response measures that are to be put in place.

The ARPANSA Guide authorises very high ionising radiation dose exposures to emergency workers in tasking them to undertake “urgent protective actions” on site at a nuclear accident, at a dose of up to 50 milliSieverts (mSv). That is 50 times in excess of the recommended civilian maximum allowed dose of 1 mSv per year.

Affected members of the public within an “Urgent Protective Action Zone” of 2.8 km radius from the site of a nuclear sub reactor accident also face authorised high ionising radiation dose exposure of up to 50 mSv. In a “Reference Accident” the local population may face evacuation and may require “decontamination” and medical treatment.

A wider zone where “the surrounding population may be subject to hazards” is described as having a radius of several kms. ARPANSA also require studies of a local population out to 15 km from a nuclear submarine mooring.

Catastrophic conditions

In an even more severe AUKUS nuclear accident, federal provisions provide for civilian SA emergency workers to face “the development of catastrophic conditions”. Emergency workers and designated shipyard workers are then to be called upon to “volunteer” to risk dangerously high ionising radiation dose exposures of up to 500 mSv. The ARPANSA Guide states female emergency workers are to be excluded: “Female workers who might be pregnant need to be excluded from taking actions that might result in an equivalent dose exceeding 50 mSv”.

The ARPANSA Guide authorises “actions to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions” by civilian workers. “Category 1 Emergency workers” may “receive a dose of up to 500 mSv”, a dangerously high ionising radiation dose exposure that is 500 times the maximum allowed civilian annual dose. The ARPANSA Guide states:

“Emergency workers may include workers employed, both directly and indirectly, by an operating organisation, as well as personnel of response organisations, such as police officers, firefighters, medical personnel, and drivers and crews of vehicles used for evacuation. …

“Emergency workers undertaking mitigatory actions and urgent protective actions on-site, including lifesaving actions, actions to prevent serious injury, actions to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions that could significantly affect people and the environment, and actions to prevent severe tissue reactions. … They may also receive a dose of up to 500 mSv for life saving actions, to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions and to prevent severe tissue reactions.”

Federal and SA governments have a responsibility to be transparent over a required “Emergency Response Plan” for AUKUS nuclear reactor accidents. No government can claim to have a social licence for AUKUS nuclear subs while failing to inform affected community and affected workers of the nuclear accident and ionising radiation health risks they may face.

Further information is online.

https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-impact-assessment-report-ignores-nuclear-sub-risks-in-sa/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

SEE ALSO: 

https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1242_prn.pdf

Inventory of accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive material

THE FRENCH NUCLEAR SAFETY AUTHORITY 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents