DOCSLIB.ORG

The Legal Regime for the Road Transport of Uranium Oxide in Western Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Legal Regime for the Road Transport of Uranium Oxide in Western Australia YELLOWCAKE ROAD: THE LEGAL REGIME FOR THE ROAD TRANSPORT OF URANIUM OXIDE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA EMILY BELL BACHELOR OF LAWS / BACHELOR OF CRIMINOLOGY MURDOCH UNIVERSITY This thesis is presented for the Honours degree of Bachelor of Laws of Murdoch University, 2017. WORD COUNT: 19,620 (Excluding footnotes, bibliography and appendices) DECLARATION I, Emily Bell, declare this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content, work which has not been previously submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. ii COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I acknowledge that a copy of this thesis will be held at the Murdoch University Library. I understand that, under the provisions of s51.2 of the Copyright Act 1968, all or part of this thesis may be copied without infringement of copyright where such a reproduction is for the purposes of study and research. This statement does not signal any transfer of copyright away from the author. Signed: ………………………………. Degree: Bachelor of Laws / Bachelor of Criminology Thesis Title: Yellowcake Road: The Legal Regime for the Road Transport of Uranium Oxide in Western Australia Author: Emily Bell Year: 2017 iii ABSTRACT Uranium is a contentious and emotive commodity. Attitudes towards uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle have, overall, been negative. Distrust of the nuclear industry and misunderstandings about the level of risk posed by the transport of uranium oxide (also known as yellowcake) has influenced a policy ban prohibiting uranium exports from Western Australian ports. Western Australia has a nascent uranium industry, with four major projects at various stages of government approval. When these mines commence production, producers will be forced to truck the uranium oxide by road to either Port Adelaide or Port Darwin for export. This thesis analyses the issues facing Western Australian producers as a consequence of the export ban. The current regulatory regime exposes Western Australian producers to three governments, five regulatory agencies, and at least seven different approvals and permits. The radiation protection schemes in each jurisdiction varies, so a consignment of uranium oxide is subject to different requirements between the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. Further, different versions of the Code for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material operate around Australia, compounding legislative discrepancies. This thesis considers that the current regime is overly complex, overlapping and out- of-date with international best practice, and considers broad reforms to harmonise the legislation governing the transport of uranium oxide. It argues that multiple regulators and different legislative requirements impose significant financial burdens and compliance costs on Western Australian producers. These differences also threaten the integrity of the overall goal of radiation protection to protect the health and safety of people from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. Further, Australia’s inability to remain up-to-date with international developments affects contractual relationships with overseas uranium consumers and may induce shipment denials. iv GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my supervisor, Professor Kate Lewins, for her guidance, insightful comments, and support throughout the course of this thesis. I also wish to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support and understanding. I especially wish to thank Matilda for volunteering to proof-read, and to Jon and Basil for their emotional support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration ...................................................................................................................ii Copyright Acknowledgement ...................................................................................... iii Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iv General Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations and Defined Terms ............................................................................... ix Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................... xii I Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 A A Complicated Regime.............................................................................................. 4 B The Problem ............................................................................................................... 6 C The Solution? ............................................................................................................. 7 D Structure of this Thesis ............................................................................................. 7 II The Port Problem ............................................................................................... 9 A Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9 B The Policy Ban ........................................................................................................... 9 C Hazards of Uranium Oxide..................................................................................... 10 1 Transport Risks ..................................................................................................... 10 2 Radiological Risks ................................................................................................ 13 3 Chemical Risks...................................................................................................... 15 4 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 15 D Factors Influencing the Policy Ban ........................................................................ 16 1 Political Factors ..................................................................................................... 16 2 Social Factors ........................................................................................................ 18 3 Economic Considerations...................................................................................... 22 E The Way Forward? ................................................................................................. 23 F Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................... 25 III An Overview of the Legislative Scheme ......................................................... 27 A Introduction ............................................................................................................. 27 B Division of Regulatory Power ................................................................................. 27 C Applicable Laws for the Transport of Uranium Oxide ....................................... 29 1 Radiation Protection .............................................................................................. 29 2 Environmental Protection...................................................................................... 30 3 A Note on Dangerous Goods ................................................................................ 31 vi 4 Non-Proliferation .................................................................................................. 32 5 Exports .................................................................................................................. 33 D Practical Effects of the Legislative Scheme ........................................................... 33 E Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................... 35 IV A Comparison of the Radiation Protection Legislation of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia ....................................... 37 A Introduction ............................................................................................................. 37 B Australian Attempts to Achieve Uniformity in Radiation Protection Laws ...... 37 1 ARPANSA ............................................................................................................ 38 2 National Directory for Radiation Protection ......................................................... 39 C Comparing Radiation Protection Legislation ....................................................... 40 1 Definitions ............................................................................................................. 40 2 Licensing ............................................................................................................... 43 3 Dose Limits ........................................................................................................... 46 4 Reporting Obligations ........................................................................................... 48 5 Other Obligations on Carriers and Consignors ..................................................... 50 6 Criminal Offences and Penalties ........................................................................... 51 D Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................... 53 V The International
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019
    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Report 46 March 2020 www.parliament.nsw.gov.au LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Standing Committee on State Development Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Ordered to be printed 4 March 2020 according to Standing Order 231 Report 46 - March 2020 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on State Development. Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 / Standing Committee on State Development. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2020. – [xiv, 150] pages ; 30 cm. (Report no. 46 / Standing Committee on State Development) Chair: Hon. Taylor Martin, MLC. “March 2020” ISBN 9781920788599 1. New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council—Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2018. 2. Uranium mines and mining—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 3. Nuclear industry—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 4. Nuclear energy—Law and legislation—New South Wales. I. Martin, Taylor. II. Title. III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on State Development. Report ; no. 46 622.349 (DDC22) ii Report 46 - March 2020 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Table of contents Terms of reference vi Committee details vii Chair’s foreword
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Uranium in Australia
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Vestergaard, Cindy Research Report Governing uranium in Australia DIIS Report, No. 2015:11 Provided in Cooperation with: Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), Copenhagen Suggested Citation: Vestergaard, Cindy (2015) : Governing uranium in Australia, DIIS Report, No. 2015:11, ISBN 978-87-7605-762-6, Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), Copenhagen This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/144725 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Friends of the Earth, Australia; the Australian Conservation Foundat
    Submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Friends of the Earth, Australia; the Australian Conservation Foundation; and the Conservation Council of SA Contacts: Dave Sweeney (Australian Conservation Foundation) Craig Wilkins (Conservation Council of SA) Cat Beaton (Conservation Council of SA) Jim Green (Friends of the Earth) CONTENTS: Page List of Recommendations 5 Issues Paper #1: Exploration, Extraction and Milling Questions 1.1 to 1.6: Uranium industry 8 Question 1.7: Uranium demand 10 The status and trajectory of nuclear power 10 Nuclear power growth forecasts 12 Ageing reactors 19 The global uranium industry 21 Australia's uranium industry 23 Arkaroola − serious failure of SA government oversight 28 Corporate governance at Beverley 28 The 2005−07 uranium bubble 31 Question 1.8: Public and worker health hazards Radiation and health 32 Radon 35 Leukemia 35 Uranium, radiation and health 37 Olympic Dam whistleblower 38 Polonium exposure at Olympic Dam 40 Uranium companies promote radiation junk science 41 Case study: the Chernobyl death toll 43 Question 1.9: Traditional Owners Introduction 46 Maralinga 46 The proposed repository in SA 51 Dumping on Muckaty Traditional Owners 56 The uranium industry and Aboriginal people 57 1 Question 1.10: Uranium mining − environmental risks Introduction 60 Olympic Dam 61 In-situ leach uranium mines 69 Question 1.11: Past uranium industry practices 74 Question 1.12: Uranium economics 77 Export revenue 77 Jobs 78 Royalties 79 Subsidies 80 Tax arrangements 80 Question 1.13: Negative
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Uranium in Australia
    DIIS REPORT Cindy Vestergaard Governing Uranium in Australia DIIS Report 2015:11 DIIS REPORT DIIS . DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 1 DIIS REPORT 2015:11 © Copenhagen 2015, the author and DIIS Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS Østbanegade 117, DK 2100 Copenhagen Ph: +45 32 69 87 87 Fax: +45 32 69 87 00 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.diis.dk Layout: Allan Lind Jørgensen ISBN 978-87-7605-762-6 (pdf ) DIIS publications can be downloaded free of charge from www.diis.dk This report is part of the larger global 'Governing Uranium' project led by DIIS which is made possible by support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Cindy Vestergaard, Senior Researcher, International Security [email protected] 2 DIIS REPORT 2015:11 Contents Abbreviations 4 Acknowledgements 6 1. Introduction 7 2. Uranium Production in Australia 8 2.1 Operating Mines 10 2.2 Mothballed Mines 14 2.3 Mines Approved 16 2.4 Government–Industry Collaboration 18 3. History of Uranium Production in Australia 20 3.1 Path to Responsible Supplier 24 3.2 Australia and Nuclear Power 31 4. Australian Regulation Today 33 4.1 Australia’s Uranium Exports and Safeguards 38 4.2 Australia–India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement 44 4.3 Uranium Security 50 5. Conclusion 53 Figures Figure 1. Australia Uranium Production 1945–2014 9 Figure 2. Total World Production by Country 1945–2013 10 Figure 3. Recent Production from Uranium Mines 16 Figure 4. Total Uranium Production from Closed Mines in Australia 23 Figure 5. Countries with which Australia has (or is negotiating)
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Friends of the Earth, Australia; the Australian Conservation Foundat
    Submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Friends of the Earth, Australia; the Australian Conservation Foundation; and the Conservation Council of SA Contacts: Dave Sweeney (Australian Conservation Foundation) [email protected], 0408 317 812 Craig Wilkins (Conservation Council of SA) [email protected], (08) 8223 5155, 0417 879 439 Jim Green (Friends of the Earth, Australia) [email protected], 0417 318 368 CONTENTS: Page List of Recommendations 5 Issues Paper #1: Exploration, Extraction and Milling Questions 1.1 to 1.6: Uranium industry 8 Question 1.7: Uranium demand 10 The status and trajectory of nuclear power 10 Nuclear power growth forecasts 12 Ageing reactors 19 The global uranium industry 21 Australia's uranium industry 23 Arkaroola − serious failure of SA government oversight 28 Corporate governance at Beverley 28 The 2005−07 uranium bubble 31 Question 1.8: Public and worker health hazards Radiation and health 32 Radon 35 Leukemia 35 Uranium, radiation and health 37 Olympic Dam whistleblower 38 Polonium exposure at Olympic Dam 40 Uranium companies promote radiation junk science 41 Case study: the Chernobyl death toll 43 Question 1.9: Traditional Owners Introduction 46 Maralinga 46 The proposed repository in SA 51 Dumping on Muckaty Traditional Owners 56 The uranium industry and Aboriginal people 57 Question 1.10: Uranium mining − environmental risks 1 Introduction 60 Olympic Dam 61 In-situ leach uranium mines 69 Question 1.11: Past uranium industry practices 74 Question 1.12: Uranium
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand Resources, Production and Demand
    A Joint Report by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency U ranium Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand Uranium 2020: Resources, Resources, Production and Demand NEA NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY A Joint Report by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand © OECD 2020 NEA No. 7551 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.
    [Show full text]