Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:00:01 to 2:13:54
Questioning explores the relationship between EPBC Act assessments and nuclear safety licensing for the Osborne construction site.
Topics: EPBC Act, Public safety
Speakers: Senator David Shoebridge, Michael Drake, Paul Daly, Unknown Speaker, Speaker 1, Interjection
Can you explain how your work as a regulator interacts with the assessment of projects under the EPBC? For example, there's an EPBC referral out for the HMAS Stirling work, and I think I've got the reference here. It's I think it was a 2024 referral. It says it's approved and waiting to be completed. Um how does your regulatory work interact with what's happening under the EPBC?
I'd say they're independent but but in in reality operate concurrently.
>> Yes.
>> Um so the license applicant for for any of these sort of large projects is effectively submitting license applications. Well, forgive me if that is the phrase for the EPBC simultaneously. Our assessment under our legislation is is isolated from um the ACP EPBC decision-making. Um of course, and as a matter of practicality, uh license applicants potentially use the same material evidence bases, but we assess them independently of each other.
>> So, um one of the difficulties I have is, for example, looking at that EPBC referral for Stirling, um which covers the same activities that you're considering licensing under ANPWSAR. given that there's an express exemption for naval nuclear propulsion technology, um under the EPBC Act, under the same legislation that established your authority, do you do you have any understanding um how the EPBC Act is is is assessing the project absent the consideration of the radiological risks or the like? Because yeah, it it it seems to exclude the radiological risks.
>> Uh Senator, our role is fundamentally fundamentally um focused on ensuring the nuclear safety aspects of of the license applications. Um so we assess that under our own framework. Um we are aware of concurrent license applications and other planning approval processes that are going through, but they are they are considered um independently.
>> All right. So, have you had um when you consider the licensing for HMAS Stirling, and um has that license uh licensing application completed now?
>> Uh Senator, um we have not. Um so the way we were established, the licenses that were are on foot currently for which is your painter. No subsequent license application has been made to us at this point for which is your painter.
>> What about for the facilities in Adelaide?
as you you are aware, we we have issued the license to for um the preparation of the site in Osborne.
>> Could I ask you then about the um the Osborne um assessment? again, there's there's a there's there's a parallel EPBC assessment, is that right?
>> Uh that was considered separately, yes.
Yes, it was. >> And again, they operated in parallel.
>> They did, and I believe the EPBC requirement was completed before our license assessment was.
>> Um the EPBC assessment um said has has the following provisions in it. I might just take them to you one at a time. Um it it said that the operations assessment and decommissioning of the submarines built at the Osborne SCY is considered out of scope of the strategic assessment and will be managed by a separate environmental assessment process and approvals as necessary. so, the operations assessment and decommissioning of the submarines wasn't considered by the EPBCA by the EPBC, probably in part because of the statutory exclusion. Um did your license um did your assessment consider the operations sustainment and decommissioning of the submarines?
>> No, it did not, Senator. So, under our legislation, we we license three types of activities: facility activities, material activities, and submarine activities. The license in which we have issued for Osborne relates to naval nuclear propulsion facility activities.
>> Relates for?
>> For facility activities, not submarine activities.
>> Um well, again, the that probably would explain why you haven't you didn't assess the if the the potential impacts from the reactor power module is that would that also explain that the EPBC Act the EPBC assessment says the reactor power module will be sealed and delivered to Osborne SCY for assembly into the nuclear propulsion system. The manufacture and delivery of the new reactor power module is considered out of scope of this strategic assessment. However, the assembly into the submarine is included. Um did you consider the environmental risks and the other um potential human risks from the um reactor power module?
>> Senator, we we we considered the uh nuclear safety risk regarding the activities that will be conducted in the facilities um which we licensed.
>> Does that include as the EPBC assessment did um the assembly of the reactor into a an Orcus submarine?
>> Senator, it goes to those expected activities which will include the construction of the submarine.
>> And so what what what were the risks a a a sealed reactor unit with potentially hundreds of kilograms of um weapons grade uranium in them? What were the risks that you were assessing of that?
>> Uh we're assessing the power module will come as a as a um
>> sealed unit.
>> Yeah, as a sealed unit. It will be loaded into the submarine. Uh we will ensure that the facilities uh are suitable for that activity to occur.
>> Well, what were the risks that you saw and you assessed from a uh a mobile nuclear reactor like that powered by weapons grade uranium? What were the risks that you were assessing?
>> Senator, we we we assessed general nuclear safety risks that those facilities are suitable for those activities to occur.
>> Did did you consider the impact on the neighboring community if there was a significant um incident involving one of those reactors?
>> Yeah, yeah, suitable plans and arrangements. Uh yes, Senator.
>> Yeah. Well, I assume a a um a serious meltdown of a reactor like that would require would require a a a wide-ranging evacuation and potentially put the local community at significant risk. Did you consider the prospect of that?
>> Senator, we considered the risks regarding the operation of those in line with the expected operations we see across our workers partners there. I I Mr. Day might be able to help you. >> I'll just
>> Did Did you I'll Well, specifically comes up. Did you consider the potential risk to the people at the facility and the surrounding communities if there was an act of aggression from a a foreign nation against it and led to a release of um damage to a reactor? Did you consider that impact?
>> I'm sorry. We we did consider radiological emergencies as part of that licensing. I'll just hand over to to Mr. Day.
>> Well, it's a it's a military facility, so it may be a military target. Did you consider the um the risk associated from it being a military target and potentially kinetic energy being applied um um by a military opponent and that causing a very significant um uh radiological risk. Did you consider
that?
>> All right. Good evening. My name is Paul Daly. I'm the Assistant Director General for Regulation and Licensing of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. I'd be very grateful if you could just repeat your question, Senator.
>> Did you consider the radiological risk coming from the the the the um the the very obvious um fact that this is a military facility um and a military facility containing a nuclear reactor or or more than one nuclear reactor um which is powered by potentially hundreds of kilograms of weapons-grade uranium. Did you consider the risk to people at the facility and the surrounding community if it came under a military attack and which led to a radiological incident? Did you consider that risk?
>> So, the first thing I'd say, Senator, is that the approach to licensing of facilities is a staged approach. So, this particular license that was assessed earlier on this year was for site preparation and the next stage after that is construction facility and after that is for the operation facility. How do we look at the initial stage for site preparation? We think about that facility over its life cycle of what it might be doing. So at the stage of site preparation, we do think about what materials might be prepared present later on. For example, the power unit is the URF. So in those early stages, the things we're thinking about are things like the emergency planning that might be required and therefore how that site needs to think about that emergency planning and that was part of our considerations.
>> but when you have a radiological incident, it's not just the site. You also need to consider the surrounding community, the ability to evacuate residents in the surrounding community. Did you consider any of that?
>> 100% as I may say. As you highlight, it's not just the site itself, but it's also the radius of influence that the emergency might potentially impact. One of the very strong things about our act is the the need for public consultation. So part of the aspect that we assessed in this license application is the work that had gone in by the license applicant not just to think about the impact on the site, but in the engagement with the communities around the site.
>> But no one I've heard from in the local community knows anything about what's intended in the instance of a very significant radiological incident. Nobody knows if there's an intent, if there's a a program in place to provide iodine. Nobody knows if there's a program in place to effectively evacuate residents. Nobody knows if there is even an intention to evacuate residents in the case of a serious ra-
>> Senator, if I can um Part of that emergency response is clearly working very closely with the the South Australian government who who uh will ultimately have responsibility for things like evacuations. Um where there are well-established existing process to evacuate people if they need to.
>> a well-established existing practice to evacuate Australians in the event of a radiological incident? I'm not
>> For for an event of an all-hazards emergency, Senator. Um and there is the Australian Radiological Emergency National Action Plan that is administered by ARPANSA.
>> Is there an historical incident you can identify where 30,000 people were evacuated in a moment of emergency from a from a um uh from surrounding an industrial facility? I'm not aware of any precedent. I'm not aware of any plans. I'm not aware and nor are any >> Senator, the plan the Australian
Radiological Emergency National Action Plan uh it is published and available. Um the the lead government coordinating agency is ARPANSA who is responsible for advising government on exactly those issues.
>> you I Do you mind just given the time, Mr. Dreyfus, might putting on notice um um where local residents can find what the plans are in the event there is a significant radiological incident and large-scale evacuations are required?
>> Absolutely, Senator.
Australia is the again going back to the EPBC assessment of Osborne. they said um Australia is committed to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste and the nuclear actor and this facility would be on defense land current or future. The facility is considered outside the scope of the strategic assessment and will be managed by a separate environmental assessment processes and approvals as necessary. Did you also exclude from your consideration for the license the disposal of the waste? The the radiological waste like the EPBC did?
>> Senator, the the facilities which we are licensed are
>> They'll have temporary storage of waste.
>> That is correct, Senator.
>> Did you consider the impacts from the permanent storage of the waste? Or What
>> And as as the evidence of the Australian Submarine Agency, the Australian Radiological Waste Agency is working on pathways for the long-term disposal of Australia's regular
>> So just just to be clear, you you in your licensing assessment you considered only the temporary storage of waste and the the risks associated from that in
>> Our licensing assessment includes a radioactive waste management plan assessment, Senator.
>> Yeah. But of course if if the efforts to find a permanent site aren't successful you'd have a very different risk assessment if it was a permanent waste facility at Osborne, wouldn't you?
>> Potentially so.
>> And you but you you you ran on the assumption that there will be a permanent site found at some point.
>> The government has been clear on its intention and defense is working with ARWA on that very issue, Senator.
>> All right. Thanks all for your assistance.
>> Any other questions for ANSTO? No?
>> No other questions for
>> Ah, you do. Hello. >> Senator Payne.
>> I'm glad that first question was