Radioactive Wastes :

A Briefing Paper on the National Waste Dump

Introduction

There is currently a proposal for a national facility for the disposal of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste. This dump will be sited in a region of South Australia. Many believe that the wastes will come from hospitals and universities. However, 70% of the bulk of this waste will come from the Lucas Heights site run by the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). The majority of radioactivity destined for the site will, however, be contained in the more highly radioactive long-lived intermediate level wastes - from reprocessed spent fuel and from isotope production (and possibly in spent nuclear fuel itself) - which it is planned to place in the store at the site until such time as a deep geological repository is established.

Option 1 Almost half the spent nuclear fuel currently held at Lucas Heights will be returned to the US for storage/disposal. It is proposed that the remaining fuel rods, and that produced by the proposed new reactor, will be reprocessed overseas. This process separates the unused uranium from the fission products and plutonium - which will be returned as either long-lived intermediate level waste (LLILW) or as high level waste (HLW) for storage in a facility next to the national nuclear dump site.

ANSTO had based its spent fuel management programme on sending the spent fuel to Dounreay in Scotland. As Dounreay is now no longer accepting foreign spent nuclear fuel, the only remaining option is to send the fuel to Sellafield in England or La Hague in France. Current contracts with the UK and France state that the waste returned must contain the same amount of radioactivity as that contained in the spent fuel sent for reprocessing - a curie for curie deal. Further, the preferred option for the UK and France is to send back HLW from reprocessing. However, as ANSTO claims that the government will not accept HLW, this issue remains to be resolved. It is important to note that the only significant difference between LLILW and HLW is that the latter is heat-generating. LLILW contains many of the same radioisotopes as HLW, a number of which have long half-lives e.g. Plutonium-239 (24,000 yrs), Americium-241 (433 yrs).

However, regardless of the final form of the waste returned a considerable amount of radioactivity will eventually sent back to Australia in the waste residues from reprocessing. The EIS on the proposed new reactor (pp.10.15) notes that of the current spent nuclear fuel stockpile, fifty per-cent is to be sent overseas for reprocessing.

Half of the spent fuel stockpile at a June 1998 (1425) 712

Fuel arising for the remainder of 1998, approx. 17

Fuel arising from 1999-2003 185

Total 914

The above figures show the amount which would remain to be reprocessed and from which waste would be returned. Using figures supplied by ANSTO a rough estimate of the total amount of radioactivity in the waste can be given. In 1992, ANSTO wrote that the stockpile of 1500 fuel rods had a total radioactive inventory of 3,000,000 curies, which equals approximately 2,000 curies per fuel rod. Using an equivalence figures the waste returned would contain 1,828,000 curies. Dounreay has already been sent 264 fuel rods sent for reprocessing (150 in 1963 and 114 in 1996) from which waste also has to be returned. This would give an additional 528,000 curies, adding to the inventory of radioactivity returned, giving a total of 2,356,000 curies.

In addition to this there will also be the LLILW from the production of medical and industrial isotopes at Lucas Heights which is also destined for storage. This material also contains a considerable amount of radioactivity, as well as long-lived radioisotopes. If the new reactor goes ahead the isotope production will increase four-fold, with a corresponding increase in the amount of radioactivity in the waste. There are no figures for the amount of radioactivity which would be in the spent nuclear fuel from the new reactor except that approximately the same number of fuel rods, 37 per year, would be produced over an operating period of 40 years. Ultimately the spent fuel and/or waste from the second reactor would go for storage and, in theory, then be disposed of.

Option 2: If reprocessing contracts do not eventuate for the spent nuclear fuel stockpile (and future irradiated fuel rods) they might be sent directly for storage at the national nuclear dump site. Indeed, this option has been available for some time. In 1990 the NHMRC codes for the ‘disposal’ of radioactive waste created the option for storage when Category S waste was introduced (the ultimate disposal of which is not actually covered by any codes). As the EIS notes, in the unlikely event that "the overseas option (for reprocessing) should become unavailable it would be possible at short notice to take advantage of the off-the-shelf dry storage casks for extended interim storage at the national storage facility, pending renewed arrangements being negotiated for the reprocessing/conditioning or the fuel".(p. 10.18 EIS).

ANSTO, insists, however, that the spent fuel from the current reactor has to be reprocessed or conditioned and it is not suitable for direct disposal. ANSTO has also said that the fuel for the new reactor will be designed so that it can be stored long-term, but that this too would also have to be reprocessed or conditioned prior to disposal. ANSTO have said that they are not seeking a fuel type which would be suitable for direct disposal (the US Department of Energy is currently investigating non-conditioning direct disposal of the type of spent nuclear fuel currently used by the Lucas Heights reactor).

Option 3: Send the spent nuclear fuel for storage at the dump site and condition the waste there or condition the waste at Lucas Heights and send the resulting waste to South Australia for storage. ‘Conditioning’ means partial reprocessing, that is the dissolution of the spent nuclear fuel in acid, without separation of the uranium or plutonium. Conditioning in Australia is not an entirely unrealistic scenario. In its 1996 review of radioactive waste management ANSTO outlined following plan for spent nuclear fuel:

Since 1996 the ‘conditioning’ option was explored for the spent fuel at the Lucas Heights – and was soundly rejected. The local MP is adamantly opposed to such a proposal, as are the unions representing workers on site and the local residents. Whether such reprocessing/conditioning would necessarily take place overseas, or at the national nuclear dump site now becomes the key issue. There is certainly no guarantee that the spent nuclear fuel remaining, or that which will be created, will be reprocessed overseas. In April of this year ANSTO stated it was confident that the fuel rods would be reprocessed at Dounreay – an idea that had to be abandoned only weeks later.

Political pressures are being brought to bear on both Sellafield and La Hague to clean up their operations. There is ever-increasing pressure for the actual closure of both facilities coming from political parties, environment groups and affected populations. The idea that these reprocessing plants will be operating in ten or twenty years, let alone until 2043 when the proposed new reactor will close, is something which has to be discussed now. However, if such plants are open and if they take the spent fuel there is still the long-term issue of all the radioactivity coming back – for storage at South Australia.

Disposal

In theory both HLW and LLILW should ultimately be disposed of in a deep geological repository. Many national nuclear agencies have encountered major technical and financial problems, and political opposition, when pursuing such proposals. Only last year, the UK’s nuclear waste agency, NIREX, was forced to abandon plans to site an exploratory rock laboratory near the Sellafield reprocessing plant. That decision, made by the Conservative government, came after official inquiries concluded the proposal was unsound. The normally pro-nuclear regional authority, Cumbria County Council, also rejected the scheme. Having spent 14 years searching for a deep geological repository, and having spent $430 million, a nuclear waste site could not be found even in the ‘nuclear heartland’ of West Cumbria. Quite how long the higher-level wastes will remain stored in South Australia is, therefore, open to question. A the Department of Primary Industry & Energy has noted "the small quantity of Category S waste produced by Australia cannot presently justify the cost of constructing a geological disposal facility." Would the government establish a repository for direct disposal of spent fuel? In 1995 Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency noted:

"Direct disposal in Australia (of spent fuel rods). Direct disposal of spent research reactor fuel would raise significant policy and technical problems such as operation of deep geological repositories.
ANSTO – Conflict of Interest

There is a clear conflict of interest in ANSTO acting as an adviser to the government on the matter of radioactive waste disposal. ANSTO produces the bulk of radioactive waste for the Commonwealth – a government report from 1992 shows that ANSTO held 70% of the national total of low-level waste on site at Lucas Heights. ANSTO also produces the spent nuclear fuel and isotope wastes which contain the majority of radioactivity in Commonwealth wastes. Local residents and a number of politicians have expressed their concern at Lucas Heights remaining as the de facto national nuclear dump. In 1995 the Commonwealth EPA.

" Storage at Lucas Heights. Storage at Lucas Heights of HIFAR spent fuel has been safely carried out on site for over thirty years. However, continued accumulation of spent fuel at Lucas Heights defers the problem of eventual disposal, and invites opposition from local residents and local government." (emphasis added)

It is crucial to this debate to understand the political problems of keeping spent nuclear fuel, and other wastes, at Lucas Heights - particularly at a time when a new reactor is being proposed. Government agencies recognise this, and they also know establishing a deep geologic repository for the more radioactive materials or for spent fuel will also prove problematic. What then is the likelihood of building a final disposal facility elsewhere in Australia once a store is firmly established in South Australia?

About the author: Since 1980 Jean McSorley has worked as a campaigner on the nuclear industry in Europe, Australia and Asia. She was formerly coordinator of the Nuclear & Energy campaign in Asia for Greenpeace International. She holds a Master of Policy Studies from the University of New South Wales and is author of ‘Living in the Shadow, the Story of the People of Sellafield’ (Pan books, 1990). Contact mcsorley@compassnet.com.au. Tel (h) 02 9658 3265 or mobile 0417 662 720

Many thanks to Jean McSorley for supplying this article to SEA-US Inc.
Page last updated October 31, 1998.
Back to the SEA-US Front Page

Copyright © SEA-US 1998