OPINION: All parties need to work cooperatively to foster understanding about the storage of waste from nuclear-powered subs.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has approved the preparation of a site at HMAS Stirling, near Rockingham, which will service and repair nuclear-powered submarines and store waste.
Additional approvals are required for construction and operation, but this first step has triggered debate from the public.
Rockingham Mayor Deb Hamblin is quoted in the ABC as stating that responses range “from very positive to vehemently opposed”, while also pointing out that “people see the value in Aukus to our city”.
Those opposed include one-time Greens candidate James Mumme, whose quoted concerns include community safety, radiation leaks, and the potential for Cockburn Sound to become a target for adversarial forces.
Local resident George Burns has concerns over the environmental impact, threats to endangered marine species, and the effect on the fishing industry.
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy sought to ease fears with his comments to the press during a recent visit to Perth.
“[The temporary storage is] akin to what occurs in 100 other sites around the country,” Mr Conroy said.
“Anywhere that has a hospital that deals with medical imagery that involves radioactive isotopes has exactly the same level of waste.”
This is not the view of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, which claims a key difference is the lifespan of the waste. In the case of hospitals, the association claims waste becomes similar to normal rubbish in a month or two. Submarine waste, on the other hand, requires isolation from the environment for 300 years.
MAPW made the above statements in a media release that has been shared by a councillor from the City of Rockingham, Dawn Jecks.
Ms Jecks has filed a notice of motion for the City of Rockingham ordinary council meeting this month, which calls for the City of Rockingham to be declared a nuclear-free zone.
It has several objectives.
- Oppose the building of nuclear power stations within the City of Rockingham.
- No uranium, nuclear waste or other associated materials to be stored or transported through Rockingham.
- The motion is not opposed to the “responsible use” of radioisotopes in hospitals as “the benefit to users outweighs the risks to the community at large”.
The motion goes on to reference: proposed visits of nuclear-powered submarines; Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine intentions and long-term waste commitments; and cites a lack of transparent information.
It also incorrectly refers to Mr Conroy as ‘defence minister’.
Ms Jecks has also made public posts on social media, adding further depth to this perspective, raising concerns about the long-term safety of the community.
Ms Jecks states that the Department of Defence is “mission focused … they do not have legislated requirements to protect public health from the impacts of radiation.”
I applaud Ms Jecks and other community members for their passion and action, it makes democratic systems thrive. I will note, however, that any inference that the Department of Defence does not have the best interests of the community firmly in mind is both naïve and insulting to the department and to the Australian Defence Force.
As for the fear over nuclearpowered submarines visiting or making Rockingham a target, it must be considered that 288 nuclearpowered vessels have spent a total of 1,842 days at Australian ports since 1960, according to a 2023 Australian Navy report.
The view that rejecting the temporary storage of waste from nuclear-powered submarines helps keep the community safe ignores significant developments and projections in the geopolitical landscape and is, again, insulting to the defence community.
In terms of the stated risk versus reward, the arguments by Ms Jecks assume, boldly, that protecting our communities does not require nuclear-powered submarine capability.
Fears are also driven by the assumption that storage cannot be performed safely.
The World Nuclear Association published a ‘myths and realities’ column that I recommend concerned members of the community read.
Members of the state government, including Defence Industry Minister Paul Papalia, have visited nuclear storage facilities in the UK. It is fair to assume Australia will benefit from best-practice examples and shared knowledge.
Both sides of this debate share a passion for safeguarding the community. We must foster understanding, dispel the myths, and work collectively to address the risks. Eliminating the unnecessary and underserved suspicion, while acknowledging the common goal, is a great starting point.
• Kristian Constantinides is general manager of Airflite and was the 2023 recipient of the Minister’s Award for Services to Defence Industry. The opinions expressed are purely his own.
