Chapter 4
Radioactive Waste and its Disposal
4.1 Radioactive wastes may occur in gas, liquid or solid form, and are
characterised by high concentrations of radionuclide contamination. In
recognition of the hazards associated with such wastes, a rigorous monitoring
system covering the transfer, treatment, storage and discharge of radioactive
waste has operated at the Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre
since commencement of nuclear activities in the 1950s. [1]
4.2 The National Health and Medical Research Council Code of Practice
for the Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia (1992)
classifies Australia's radioactive waste into four categories of A, B,
C and S. [2] Radioactive wastes within categories A, B, and
C are regarded as low level and short-lived intermediate waste, as defined
by the IAEA Safety Guide on the Classification of Radioactive Waste,
and are suitable for near surface disposal. Category S waste, on the other
hand, is regarded as long-lived intermediate level waste and must be managed
either through storage in above-ground purpose built facilities or, alternatively,
in deep underground repositories.
4.3 The Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR), the Commonwealth
agency responsible for radioactive waste management policies, advises
that Australia generates less than 60 cubic metres of radioactive waste
annually. [3] Of this total, radioactive waste produced by ANSTO
currently is either stored at Lucas Heights, or in the case of a percentage
of spent fuel rods, eventually sent back to the country of origin for
reprocessing. As at mid 1997, low and intermediate level wastes and spent
fuel rods were stored at Lucas Heights, in the following quantities: [4]
| Waste Type |
Each Year |
Total Inventory |
| Low level solid waste |
150 drums* |
5000 drums* |
| Intermediate level solid waste |
1.5 cubic metres |
200 cubic metres |
| Intermediate level liquid waste |
300 litres |
6500 litres |
| Spent fuel |
37 elements |
1630 elements |
*200 litre capacity
4.4 The 1993 Research Reactor Review (RRR) concluded that interim storage
of radioactive waste at Lucas Heights conforms to world best practice
and is the safest short term storage arrangement. At the same time, however,
the RRR described the final disposal of high level wastes at an appropriate
site as a crucial issue to be resolved prior to any decision regarding
a new reactor. [5] The `high level wastes' referred
to by the RRR take the form of spent fuel rods, which in September 1997
the then Commonwealth Minister for Science and Technology announced would
be sent overseas for reprocessing. [6] While the reprocessed waste eventually will be
returned to Australia, DISR representatives advise that this waste would
take the form of solid, long lived, intermediate level radioactive waste.
They claim that the nature of the reprocessing waste therefore differs
from the high level liquid waste anticipated by the RRR in 1993.
4.5 In light of developments regarding both the management of spent fuel
rods and the nature of reprocessing waste to be returned to Australia,
the Howard Government determined that a storage facility designed to cater
only for low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive wastes would
be adequate for Australia. Accordingly, in February 1998, the then Minister
for Resources and Energy announced that a National Radioactive Waste Repository
would be established in the central north region of South Australia.
National Waste Repository
4.6 The National Waste Repository will take the form of a near-surface
repository for the disposal of Australia's low level and short lived,
intermediate level radioactive waste. [7] While South Australia's central north region [8]
of some 67,000 square kilometres has been selected as the location for
the repository, the specific site is yet to be determined but is expected
to be identified late in 1999. [9] Once the
site selection is finalised, it will be considered for the possible co-location
of a national storage facility for long-lived intermediate level radioactive
waste, which is the type of waste arising from the reprocessing of spent
fuel rods overseas.
4.7 DISR representatives advise that, once identified [10], the repository site within the central north
region of South Australia will be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Thereafter, should all approval processes be satisfied, it is anticipated
that construction of the national waste facilities would commence in 2000.
[11] In accordance with this projected timetable,
DISR representatives are confident that both the repository and storage
facilities should be operational:
… well before HIFAR is decommissioned, before the replacement
reactor is operational and the long lived intermediate level radioactive
waste is returned from the overseas processing of the HIFAR fuel rods.
[12]
4.8 The Howard Government's decision to support a near-surface waste
repository for low level and short-lived intermediate level waste contrasts
with the recommendation of the 1996 Senate Select Committee on the Dangers
of Radioactive Waste. The Select Committee had recommended that:
… a national above ground storage facility be established
which has the capacity to take low, intermediate and high level radioactive
waste. [13]
4.9 The above-ground storage option was favoured by the 1996 Senate Select
Committee in the belief that it would minimise risks of environmental
contamination and adverse effects on people. [14]
The fear that an underground storage facility could mean radioactive waste
is `out of sight, out of mind', and by implication inadequately managed,
was raised again in the course of this inquiry. In response, DISR indicated
that the underground repository would be subject to institutional control
for a period of between 100 and 300 years, at the end of which the facility
would not produce any radiation significantly above background levels.
[15]
4.10 Furthermore, DISR advised the Committee that a number of countries
have demonstrated that near-surface disposal of radioactive waste is safe
and effective. In 1997, near surface waste repositories for low level
and short-lived intermediate level wastes were either operational, or
in the process of being established, in over 30 countries. [16]
Nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights
4.11 Notwithstanding the Federal Government's announcement of a National
Radioactive Waste Repository, many critics of the new reactor proposal
expressed dissatisfaction with ANSTO's current nuclear waste disposal
arrangements and the fact that they will continue in the short-term. The
Sutherland Shire Mayor informed the Committee that he believes `…
spent fuel and what is going to be done with it is the major concern to
all residents'. [17]As a reflection of this concern, the Sutherland
Shire Council qualified its support of a new reactor with the following
conditions:
- assurances that Lucas Heights does not become a long term waste storage
facility;
- that a site for a national repository be identified in parallel with
the EIS;
- that the present waste be removed from Lucas Heights before the commissioning
of a new reactor; and
- that the Council maintain its complete opposition to a reprocessing
facility at Lucas Heights. [18]
4.12 The concerns of the Sutherland Shire Council are reinforced by the
findings of an independent study undertaken by Alan Martin Associates
at the Council's instigation. [19] The study estimates development of a radioactive
waste repository, as announced by the Government, to be a long term project
requiring a minimum of 15 years. Consequently, there is a danger that
the announced intention to develop disposal facilities may be used as
an excuse to persist with temporary or inadequate waste storage arrangements
at Lucas Heights. As the Alan Martin study observes, this poses a dilemma
for the Sutherland Council, in that:
It appears almost certain that spent fuel and waste will continue to
be stored at Lucas Heights in increasing quantities for the next 20
to 30 years and the storage arrangements should be considered in this
long term context. On the other hand, any significant investment in
the upgrading of storage facilities could reduce the commitment to development
of disposal facilities. [20]
4.13 In response to such concerns, ANSTO stresses that a number of initiatives
are well underway to ensure that waste management issues are resolved
before the replacement reactor commences operation. In addition to the
planning process for the national waste repository, ANSTO specifically
refers to a Waste Management Action Plan it has developed for the period
1996-2001. The plan addresses `legacy' issues which have arisen from the
accumulation of radioactive wastes at Lucas Heights and the need to refurbish
or replace existing facilities. Moreover, a number of specific elements
of the plan concern initiatives ANSTO will complete before commissioning
of the replacement reactor. These include:
- immobilisation of all existing intermediate level-wastes from molybdenum-99
production into Synroc. Synroc is an advanced ceramic composed of titanate
minerals with the capacity to immobilise the radioactive elements in
nuclear waste. It is an Australian invention which offers the highest
containment of this type of nuclear waste in accordance with best international
practice. After all existing wastes are processed, all future liquid
wastes (including those arising from the new reactor) will be immobilised
soon after they are generated, and without the need for interim storage.
- construction of a new state-of-the-art facility for treating ANSTO's
site wastewater;
- introduction of improvements to off-gas treatment in the radioisotope
facility to ensure that, notwithstanding increases in production of
molybdenum-99, airborne emissions of radioactivity will remain within
the existing safe limits for off-site radiological exposures;
- conditioning, as appropriate, of most of ANSTO's solid waste inventory
for disposal or storage in the national waste repository; and
- transportation of radioactive wastes from Lucas Heights to the national
waste repository. [21]
4.14 While acknowledging ANSTO's strategic initiatives under the Waste
Management Action Plan, the Committee notes the criticisms of a number
of inquiry participants regarding storage arrangements.
4.15 In its submission, the Sutherland Shire Council noted that its key
concern is that the decision to consider locating a replacement nuclear
reactor at only one site (Lucas Heights) in the absence of an established
management approach for future waste streams from the reactor:
… effectively condemns Sutherland Shire to remaining the defacto
repository for highly radioactive reactor spent fuel and other nuclear
wastes, and will probably in the longer term make the site a target
for processing/reprocessing of reactor spent fuel for encasement in
SYNROC. [22]
4.16 The most extreme of these criticisms came from Dr Helen Caldicott
who alleged:
… Lucas Heights is a high level radioactive waste dump. No matter
what anyone calls it, it is a high level radioactive waste dump, with
standards that would not apply anywhere around the world, except I suppose
in the most nefarious of facilities in America … the spent fuel
rods have been put in the ground in containers which are now leaking
and allowing water into them. That means that, if water gets in, water
gets out. [23]
4.17 ANSTO strongly refuted these and other claims concerning the adequacy
of its radioactive waste storage arrangements. Executive Director, Professor
Garnett, informed the Committee that ANSTO's waste management practices
currently are being accredited to international ISO 9000. [24] Furthermore, the RRR confirmed that ANSTO's interim
storage of radioactive waste conforms with world best practice and is
the most practical and safest short-term arrangement. [25]
4.18 ANSTO contended that high level waste is no longer a `crucial issue',
as described by the RRR, and that Lucas Heights cannot be described as
a high level waste dump. ANSTO's reasoning is that although spent fuel
rods are stored on-site, eventually they will be sent overseas
for reprocessing. However, while generally acknowledging the adequacy
of ANSTO's storage arrangements, the Committee notes that spent fuel rods
do need to be held for a number of years before they can be exported.
As indicated by the replacement reactor EIS:
ANSTO have made a commitment that spent nuclear fuel would be transported
off-site as soon as the constraints provided by cooling, radiation safety
and forming economical loads for transport allow. As a result, no spent
fuel would be stored on site for longer than nine years. [26]
4.19 Nine years is not an insignificant amount of time in the Committee's
view, and in accordance with this, the Committee therefore appreciates
the concerns of local residents regarding spent fuel.
Incidents at Lucas Heights
4.20 A number of inquiry participants referred to an incident in recent
years involving water penetration of spent fuel containers at Lucas Heights
as possible evidence of negligence in ANSTO's management of radioactive
waste. Professor Garnett acknowledged that such a problem had arisen,
but claimed that there had been no risk of leakage. The incident occurred
when rainwater penetrated a degraded top seal of a spent fuel storage
tube. The presence of the water was detected and appropriate modifications
were made to ensure that the problem could not re-occur. ANSTO emphasised
that the containment barriers around the storage facility prevented any
risk of leakage. This was supported by the Safety Review Committee which
concluded that there were no health or environmental consequences arising
from the incident. [27]
4.21 Another incident involved the 'dropping' of a fuel rod. Mr Morris
of the AMWU told the Committee that:
The information that we have obtained, through our own inquiries, was
that a fuel rod that was being retrieved from a dry storage in a flask
was being moved to allow any water that may have been in the fuel rod
to drip out away from the fuel rod while the fuel rod was inside its
transport flask. When they opened the door underneath the transport
flask, the rod dropped 300 millimetres. It did not fall out of the flask;
the majority of the fuel rod was still contained within the flask. When
the operators found that this was the case they immediately lowered
the flask onto the floor, completely covering up the fuel end. So it
never found the floor. It never burst open on the floor, as had been
reported in the press. The operators concerned were exposed to a minimum
amount of radiation. [28]
4.22 Mr Mathews of the AMWU also told the Committee of an incident when
gases were released into the atmosphere after an operator:
… inadvertently left a valve open. The gas went through the charcoal
filter and through the ventilation system, which set off an alarm. The
alarm indicated that there was active gas going up the stack. …
the safety people … checked the plant , found the fault and isolated
it. [29]
4.23 In relation to the fuel rod incident and the release of atmospheric
emissions Professor Garnett told the Committee:
I must say that, with the few events in February—the fuel rod
in a building, which was an issue with our own workers, and the issue
of the small atmospheric emissions which, as I have said, were reported
to ARPANSA, and I am sure ARPANSA can confirm that—we did not breach
any of our standards or emissions. They were not actually of radiological
consequence. [30]
4.24 This conclusion was supported by Dr Loy of ARPANSA who advised the
Committee:
We agree with the position that Professor Garnett took, that it was
of no significance in terms of causing damage to people, but it was
an illustration that maybe things were not being managed as well as
they could be in that context. That is why it is important to look at
these incidents, to do a very detailed analysis, to look at the root
cause of it to see whether it is something that is systematically going
wrong—in which case you obviously need to address it—or whether
it was just an act of God, as it were. It is important, even though
people were not harmed by the accident, to take it seriously and look
at it in some detail. That is certainly what ANSTO is doing and we will
review it. [31]
4.25 Notwithstanding the assurances of ANSTO and ARPANSA there is no
doubt that recent incidents at Lucas Heights Reactor have raised the concerns
of local residents. It is clear that ANSTO's management of these occurrences
could have been better. For instance, complaints were made, and highlighted
in the local media, that the Sutherland Shire Council was not informed
of the 'fuel rod incident' until five weeks after it had occurred on 1
February 1999. Further, this incident only became public knowledge after
details were leaked to the local media by an ANSTO staff member. This
was confirmed by Mr Howard Matthews, AMWU representative, [32] and by the Mayor of Sutherland Shire, Councillor
Kevin Schreiber. [33]
4.26 The Committee believes that relations between ANSTO, the Sutherland
Shire Council, and the community are in need of substantial improvement.
In particular ANSTO needs to be more conscious of its obligations to keep
the Council, and other relevant authorities, informed of any incidents
and activities which may impact upon the community or the environment.
The 'Community Right to Know Charter Relating to ANSTO' should be finalised
as soon as possible.
Issues associated with reprocessing
4.27 In announcing the Commonwealth Government's decision to proceed
with a replacement reactor at Lucas Heights, the then Minister for Science
and Technology noted that $88 million had been allocated for the export
of spent fuel rods for reprocessing overseas. [34]
The Government's intention is that Australia would enter an agreement
with the United States Government to repatriate 689 spent fuel elements
of US-origin, with no waste being returned. The remaining 1,300 spent
fuel elements from HIFAR operations would be exported for reprocessing
in France by COGEMA, [35] with wastes eventually
being returned to Australia in the form of intermediate level waste. [36]
ANSTO had previously contracted to send the material to Dounreay in Scotland.
During the course of the Committee's inquiry that facility ceased to be
available, leading to the COGEMA contract. This change in arrangements
for reprocessing spent fuel rods led to suggestions that ANSTO and the
Commonwealth may not be able to guarantee access to an overseas reprocessing
facility.
4.28 This possibility was discussed in the following exchange:
Prof. Garnett—You are probably aware that the minister has given
responses on this in the Senate a number of times. ANSTO, as a statutory
authority, has entered into an agreement with Cogema for reprocessing
the spent fuel from HIFAR, and that contract enables and allows for
the reprocessing of spent fuel from a replacement reactor. The contract
is a commercial contract, but it certainly allows for the removal of
the spent fuel, reprocessing and return of waste in the form of ILW
[intermediate level waste] to Australia.
Prof. Garnett—The contract is for the fuel from the existing reactor
and extends into the fuel from the replacement reactor.
CHAIR—Forever, if you like? For the life of the new reactor?
Prof. Garnett—It is certainly for all the fuel, and the statements
in the contract are for the replacement reactor.
CHAIR—Do you have any contingency plans if there is a closing
down of that plant, given that one has closed down already?
Prof. Garnett—I think it is a slightly different situation, with
all due respect. Dounreay was a particular plant with a particular focus.
It was initially there for handling certain kinds of waste. Cogema is
a very different operation. It is a commercial operation and, if you
have been travelling around France, you would have noticed that 70 per
cent of France's power is nuclear. The fuel from their power program
goes to the Cogema plant for reprocessing. Fuel from the Japanese plants
goes to either France or to another British facility, which is a commercial
facility. I honestly think that when you speak to the French they will
tell you that they do not expect to be replacing their nuclear power
infrastructure for 70 per cent of their electricity in the next 40 or
50 years and that they believe Cogema is there well and truly for the
long haul. [37]
4.29 In light of the Commonwealth Government's decision to export all
of Australia's spent fuel rods for reprocessing overseas, ANSTO argues
that disposal of high level radioactive waste is no longer a problem for
Australia. While wastes eventually will be returned to Australia from
France, they will be at the intermediate level only, and therefore suitable
for storage at the proposed national waste repository to be established
in regional South Australia. On ANSTO's analysis, the reprocessing arrangement
therefore appears to supersede the conclusion of the 1993 RRR that a national
high-level waste repository was an `inescapable concomitant of having
any kind of nuclear reactor'. [38] As set out in Chapter One, however, the Committee
believes that the conditions imposed by the Minister for the Environment
and Heritage in relation to waste disposal should be strictly observed.
Construction should not commence if strategies are not in place for the
long term management of nuclear wastes, including the identification and
proving of a repository site.
4.30 The Sutherland Shire Council was concerned not only about the need
to make the establishment of a waste repository a pre-condition for approving
the construction of the replacement reactor [39]
but also expressed its concern that wastes should not be stored at Lucas
Heights for more than five years. [40] Councillor Schreiber told the Committee that
he believed the waste issue will be the issue that will give the project
the 'green light' or the 'red light'. [41]
4.31 Dr Hardy, President of the Australian Nuclear Society, agreed that
waste disposal had been identified as a major issue. Dr Hardy referred
to the decision of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to make
construction of the replacement reactor conditional on a satisfactory
waste management plan. Dr Hardy accepted this approach believing it essential.
However Dr Hardy did not believe that the construction should be held
up while a final decision on a repository is made but rather that the
two processes should proceed in parallel. [42]
In 1993 the RRR had rejected reprocessing overseas as a viable method
for managing high-level radioactive waste. At this time, the RRR had argued
that world opinion was tending to favour the conditioning and direct disposal
of spent fuel rods in preference to reprocessing. [43]
Furthermore, reprocessing was seen as having associated problems, not
the least of which was the high-level liquid waste by-products that eventually
would be returned to Australia, let alone the questionable ethics of effectively
exporting a problem to be solved elsewhere.
4.32 Since 1993, however, ANSTO argues that the viability of overseas
reprocessing has developed significantly, and indeed has been instituted
as the standard international practice for managing spent research reactor
fuel. In support of this claim, ANSTO informed the Committee of a number
of countries now conducting reprocessing operations on a commercial basis:
- in 1996 the United States commenced a program to accept over 22,000
spent fuel elements from research reactors around the world. Multiple
shipments to the US already have occurred from 10 countries;
- facilities in France and the United Kingdom have concluded reprocessing
contracts with a number of research reactors and have made the clear
offer to provide future reprocessing services. [44]
4.33 While the commercial nature of such operations addresses concerns
that overseas reprocessing amounts to Australia `exporting a problem',
the true nature of the waste that ultimately will be returned to Australia
remains contentious. In respect of the waste [45]
that eventually will be returned from France, ANSTO submits that it clearly
meets the International Atomic Energy Agency criteria for intermediate
level waste. [46] However, the Sutherland Shire
Environment Centre argues that some countries, including the United States,
would classify such waste as high-level. Furthermore, the Environment
Centre informed the Committee that UK reprocessing contracts stipulate
that radioactive waste containing the same amount of radioactivity (as
that contained in the spent fuel sent for reprocessing) must be returned
to the country of origin. [47]
Thus, if Dounreay reprocesses 1300 fuel rods from Lucas Heights that
will mean the 2,600,000 curies – over 85% of the radioactivity
currently held in the spent fuel at Lucas Heights – will be returned
in a radioactive waste form to Australia. [48]
4.34 Regardless of definitions, the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre
states that the returned waste will require the same disposal method as
high level waste, namely a deep geologic repository. Yet ANSTO's intended
management strategy for this returned waste is the proposed above ground
national storage facility for long-lived intermediate level radioactive
waste possibly to be co-located with the National Waste Repository in
the central north region of South Australia. That the establishment of
this facility is yet to be confirmed, and in any case, is perceived by
the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre as merely an interim waste management
measure, leads to the criticism that:
… ANSTO have not guaranteed that they will get rid of the nuclear
waste that they currently have on site. There is certainly no guarantee
that they can get rid of any future spent nuclear fuel. I think it is
quite dishonest of them to give the impression that there are contracts
even for all the current spent nuclear fuel stockpile let alone future
stockpiles. [49]
4.35 In response to this concern, the Committee notes the reassurance
of DISR that above ground storage of radioactive waste has been demonstrated
by many countries to be safe and effective. Nevertheless the Committee
supports the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre in advocating that ANSTO
commit to removing all spent fuel from Lucas Heights at the earliest possible
opportunity that safety dictates. Concurrently, a commitment from the
Commonwealth Government to proceed with an appropriate storage facility
for intermediate level waste is essential to ensure that the radioactive
by-products of reprocessing can be safely managed.
Costs and nuclear waste associated with the decommissioning of HIFAR
4.36 A further issue associated with radioactive waste management is
the likely cost and waste levels arising from decommissioning of HIFAR
and, ultimately, also the proposed new reactor. While predictions regarding
the likely cost of decommissioning HIFAR varied widely in evidence to
the Committee, the actual decommissioning procedures appeared less contentious.
4.37 DISR representatives informed the Committee that HIFAR will be decommissioned
in accordance with a three stage approach practiced internationally. The
first stage of decommissioning involves the removal of spent fuel elements
which are returned to their country of origin after an appropriate period
of radioactive decay. Subsequently, in the case of HIFAR, the 10 cubic
metres of heavy water coolant will be removed, and the heavy water sold
or used in the new reactor if the selected design should require heavy
water as a moderator. As the final stage of the decommissioning process
ANSTO proposes a care and maintenance period of at least 30 years, before
the final decommissioning of HIFAR. [50]
4.38 Once the fuel and coolant is removed from HIFAR, ANSTO advised the
Committee that the vast majority of the remaining components will, after
30 years, be low level waste. The process of decommissioning a research
reactor, therefore, is much simpler and safer than is the case for power
reactors, as verified by the findings of PPK's environmental impact statement:
While decommissioning of a nuclear reactor would appear a complex process
because of the radiological considerations, overseas experience has
demonstrated that with proper planning and management decommissioning
can be carried out without adverse impact on either health or the environment.
[51]
4.39 The 1993 RRR also confirmed that technology exists for the safe
decommissioning of HIFAR, and that the processes favoured by ANSTO are
appropriate and consistent with international practice. [52]
This view is in stark contrast with Dr Helen Caldicott's position on decommissioning,
which suggests that the technical processes are poorly developed and therefore
potentially very hazardous. Dr Caldicott claimed:
… they are still experimenting with decommissioning reactors in
the United States. They have never done a big one; they have done a
few small ones. But it is extremely hazardous to the workers…we
are dealing with a problem that has not been resolved in the most sophisticated
country in the world dealing with the nuclear industry. This is an experimental
project with which very few people have had any experience. [53]
4.40 ANSTO strongly rejects Dr Caldicott's assertions, and informed the
Committee that decommissioning has become a well developed industry. In
1995 the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Cooperative Program on Decommissioning
alone listed 20 reactors, seven reprocessing plants, two fuel material
plants and one isotope handling facility undergoing routine decommissioning.
Furthermore, a recent report of the UK Government's Trade and Industry
Committee indicates that decommissioning of nuclear facilities has proven
cheaper and quicker than initially anticipated. [54]
4.41 On the subject of HIFAR decommissioning costs, the RRR endorsed
ANSTO's estimates that these were likely to fall within the range of $48-70
million, depending upon the specifics of the adopted strategy. However,
this estimate was challenged by a number of inquiry participants, who
alleged `creative accounting' on ANSTO's behalf. Dr Helen Caldicott submitted
that decommissioning costs could be as much as $70 billion. [55]
More moderate in its projections, yet nevertheless dissatisfied with ANSTO's
cost estimates, the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre cautioned:
If you look at the figures for decommissioning a nuclear plant, you
can at least double or treble them, because that has been the experience
in other facilities overseas, albeit some of them bigger facilities.
But there are a whole range of problems that come up…that do all
add substantially to final costs. [56]
4.42 The Environment Centre stressed to the Committee that in order to
assess the overall cost benefit of the new reactor proposal, it is essential
to evaluate the true magnitude of likely costs for decommissioning both
HIFAR and eventually its replacement, in addition to long term radioactive
waste management. Acting as a consultant to the Sutherland Shire Environment
Centre, Ms Jean McSorely urged the Committee to establish:
… what bond will be set aside and how much has been estimated
for the decommissioning of both of the reactors on site – all of
the planned decommission, and that means the current reactors plus the
radioisotope laboratories plus the molybdenum stock. Everything that
is on site, in theory, has to go. That is what the council wants and
that is what the people of the area want. Then you have to ask what
will be the cost of all the waste management storage and disposal for
the current reactor and the future reactor. [57]
Committee's conclusions regarding radioactive waste management
4.43 Whilst the Federal Government has recently announced that the site
for the low-level waste storage facility is located in the central north
region of South Australia, it has not yet determined precisely where or
what type of facility will be built to store the waste from Lucas Heights.
The Minister has indicated that 'a preferred repository site is expected
to be identified late in 1999' and that 'once a site is identified, the
repository proposal will be subject to full environmental assessment'.
[58]
4.44 The Committee strongly disagrees with this approach. The issue of
where the spent fuel rods and other waste at Lucas Heights should be stored
has remained unresolved for too long. Resolving this problem was identified
by the RRR as a 'crucial issue' and a solution 'essential'. [59] It should be resolved before any further decisions
are made or any work is commenced on a new reactor, no matter where it
is located. The continuing use of Lucas Heights as a storage facility
for high-level or intermediate level nuclear waste should cease.
Footnotes
[1] PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement
Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume
1/Main Report, p.10-4.
[2] See appendix3 for details of these classifications.
[3] Prior to 22 October 1998 the then Commonwealth
Department of Primary Industries and Energy was responsible for radioactive
waste management. Submission No.30, p.5.
[4] ANSTO booklet, Managing Radioactive Wastes
and Spent Reactor Fuel, p.5.
[5] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.216.
[6] Media Release, Minister for Science and
Technology, 3 September 1997.
[7] Information about the site selection process
is contained in a series of fact sheets produced by DISR and attached
at Appendix 6.
[8] This area encompasses the Woomera and Nurrungar
Prohibited areas, pastoral leases and some Commonwealth land.
[9] Media Release, Minister for Industry, Science
and Resources, 6 July 1999.
[10] Field investigations have commenced in
the central north region of South Australia. Test drilling will be conducted
at eighteen sites to determine their geology. Five sites will be chosen
against technical selection criteria. The site finally selected will be
subject to an EIS process.
[11] The Commonwealth has no formal agreement
with the South Australian government in relation to the proposed repository.
While discussions are occurring currently, final identification of the
preferred site will result in more formal negotiations.
[12] Evidence, p.E208.
[13] Senate Select Committee on the Dangers
of Radioactive Waste, No Time to Waste, Recommendation 17, April
1996, p.xix.
[14] Senate Select Committee on the Dangers
of Radioactive Waste, No Time to Waste, p.132.
[15] Evidence, p.E218.
[16] Submission No.30, p.6.
[17] Evidence, p.E31.
[18] Submission No.25, p.5.
[19] Submission No.25, Attachment B.
[20] Alan Martin Associates, Comments on
Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Issues, 3 March 1998, Submission
No.25, Attachment B, p.2.
[21] Submission No.29A, section 14, p.2.
[22] Submission 25, pp.10-11.
[23] Evidence, p.E164.
[24] Evidence, p.E240.
[25] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.216.
[26] PPK Environment & Infrastructure,
Replacement Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 1/Main Report, p.10-61.
[27] Submission No.29A, Section 13, p.4.
[28] Evidence, p.E267.
[29] Evidence, p.E267.
[30] Evidence, p.E365.
[31] Evidence, pp.E417-418.
[32] Evidence, p.E268.
[33] Evidence, p.E324.
[34] Media Release, Minister for Science and
Technology, 3 September 1997.
[35] COGEMA is a French Government-owned company
that operates two commercial power reactor spent fuel reprocessing plants
at the La Hague facility. See PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement
Nuclear Reactor – Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 3/Supplement, p.10-6.
[36] Evidence p.E367.
[37] Evidence p.E367.
[38] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.216.
[39] Evidence p.E328.
[40] Evidence p.E324.
[41] Evidence p.E328.
[42] Evidence pp.E342-3.
[43] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, pp.xxii-xxiii.
[44] Submission No.29A, Section 13, Spent
Research Reactor Fuel, p.1.
[45] Incorporated in borosilicate glass. See
PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement Nuclear Reactor –
Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3/Supplement,
p.10.8-9.
[46] Australia adopts the IAEA criteria for
the classification of spent fuel wastes, as published in Safety Series
No. 111-G-1.1, 1994, Classification of Radioactive Waste. The IAEA
indicates that `the lower value of about 2kW/m3 is considered reasonable
to distinguish HLW from other radioactive waste classes, based on the
level of decay heat emitted'. Below 2kW/m3 wastes are either intermediate
or low level wastes. The Dounreay cemented waste will have a heat rate
of 0.006 kW/m3. Submission 29A, Section 13 Spent Research Reactor Fuel,
p.1.
[47] Submission No.7a, Information concerning
the wastes which will be returned to Australia from spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing in Scotland, p.1.
[48] Submission No.7a, Information concerning
the wastes which will be returned to Australia from spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing in Scotland, p.1.
[49] Evidence, p.E54.
[50] Submission No.30, p.10
[51] PPK Environment & Infrastructure,
Replacement Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 1/Main Report, p.19-12.
[52] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.225.
[53] Evidence, p.E179.
[54] Submission No.29B, p.6.
[55] Evidence, p.E179.
[56] Evidence, p.E57.
[57] Evidence, p.E54.
[58] Media Release, Minister for Industry,
Science and Resources, 6 July 1999.
[59] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.xxii.