Push for nuclear waste dump in Australia, but can it ever be safe?

Can nuclear ever be safe? Picture:AFP/EMMANUEL DUNAND

IT IS the cash cow that could put millions into South Australia’s coffers but now with the idea of building a nuclear waste dump in the state gaining traction, the question is: can it ever be safe?

Unfortunately this has yet to be proven. The problem so far has been public opposition to any plans for long-term storage facilities of high-level nuclear waste.

Not one country has successfully built a storage facility and only Finland has even granted construction approval for an underground site that will hopefully be operational by 2023.

Workers at the planned nuclear waste storage facility Onkalo at Olkiluoto in Finland. Picture: Posiva Oy.


Sweden is also close to approving a site but doesn’t expect to give the final tick-off until 2017.

But the fact that a waste facility has been so difficult to achieve also throws up a significant financial opportunity for South Australia, one that could bring in $5 billion a year to the struggling state.

Some also argue that the state has a moral responsibility to help develop a solution as it is a producer of uranium and benefits from its sale.

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission pointed out in its tentative findings that as part of the supply chain, Australia had a direct interest in preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, maintaining the security of nuclear materials and assisting other countries to lower carbon emissions.

So should we take a chance on nuclear?


The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission released its tentative findings on the potential for further mining, electricity generation and storage of nuclear waste in South Australia last week.

Although the commission found it would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant, it said South Australia did have certain attributes that meant it could offer safe, long-term disposal of used fuel.

This included the state’s geological structure, which allows for storage at an appropriate depth, the low levels of seismic activity, an arid environment in many areas and a stable political, social and economic structure.

“The storage and disposal of international used fuel and intermediate level waste in a South Australian location are likely to be technically feasible,” the report said.


Much of the enthusiasm for taking nuclear waste stems from the huge amount of money that the state could make from it.

Estimates suggest South Australia could generate $51 billion in profits during the life of the project. If other countries committed to the facility before it was constructed, the state could also avoid having to contribute much of the $145 billion required to build it.

Asia-Pacific countries including Taiwan, Japan and Korea, already have a stockpile of used fuel being kept in temporary storage. A “conservative” estimate of what Australia could charge for taking other countries’ waste was set at $1.75 million per tonnes heavy metal (tHM) of used fuel and reprocessed waste.

Last year there was about 390,000 tHM of this type of material in existence around the world. This was expected to grow to 1 million tHM by 2090.


If Australia was to take high level waste including used fuel, two separate facilities would be required:

• Firstly, an above-ground interim storage facility spread across between 2.5 and 4 square kilometres of land, to temporarily store purpose-built packages or ‘casks’ made of metal or concrete containing used fuel and intermediate level waste. These casks would weigh more than 100 tonnes and require cranes and heavy vehicles to move.

• Another separate underground facility with tunnels where specially designed canisters could be stored permanently. The size would vary based on the fuel and facility’s design.

A new secure port and railway would also need to be built to transport the sensitive material.

The interim facility could start taking used fuel 11 years after a decision on the project was made. It could then be transferred to the permanent facility, which would take about 28 years to build.

The planned nuclear waste storage facility in Finland involves inserting copper-clad metal canisters into holes in a tunnel network. Picture: Posiva Oy.



Australia Conservation Foundation national nuclear spokesman Dave Sweeney told news.com.au that radioactive waste management was extremely complicated.

“Not one country on Earth has a final disposal facility operating for spent nuclear fuel,” he said.

“For 70 years we have created spent nuclear fuel and in that 70 year period we have not been able to find or engineer a way for its disposal.

“If it was that easy or simple it wouldn’t be a problem ... I don’t think Australia has the silver bullet.”

Problems with disposing of nuclear waste, even low-level waste, which needs be stored for up to a few hundred years, have been illustrated in the US and France.

America’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was compromised when a drum of radioactive waste burst open in the underground facility. Most disturbingly, the rupture was blamed on someone putting the wrong type of kitty litter in the drum, possibly due to a typo in a policy manual.

The difficulty of designing a system that will remain foolproof for many hundreds of thousands of years is considerable.

The commission also noted the potentially disastrous impacts if something went wrong: “In the event of a major nuclear accident, adverse impacts on the tourism, agriculture and property sectors could potentially be profound.”

Ever since Japan’s Fukushima power plant disaster, many have lost confidence that the technology can be safe. But a United Nations report has since found no radiation-related deaths or acute diseases among the workers or the public. It also did not expect there to be a noticeable increase in cancer in the region.

In France, officials have recognised the potential for better technology and they have asked engineers to develop a repository that will allow the removal of waste in the first few hundred years at least, in case future generations find a better way to get rid of it.


But the commission recognised that “social consent” was more important than dealing with the technical issues when it came to waste disposal.

The proposed facilities in Finland and Sweden were the first in the world to gain community support, and are therefore the most likely to actually be built.

Others in Britain and the US have been blocked because of opposition and many of the failures have been blamed on community fears.

In 2010, US President Barack Obama ended plans to develop the Yucca Mountain repository because of public opposition, despite the $US9 billion already spent on developing the potential high-level waste storage facility.

Authorities in Germany are also trying to retrieve thousands of barrels of nuclear waste sealed in Asse II, a former salt and potash mine, which were put there without the public’s knowledge.

In South Australia there are some signs of increasing community acceptance, with an online poll of 5700 people in 2015 showing 43 per cent backed a nuclear waste dump.

There also seems to be support from both sides of politics. Labor Premier Jay Weatherill and Liberal federal Resources and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg are both encouraging debate over the state’s nuclear potential.


Mr Sweeney acknowledged there was a moral argument for Australia taking the waste, but this should be debated away from headlines about jobs and dollars.

“We would like to see a royal commission formed to produce a blueprint on how to exit the nuclear industry that also details what the best options are for waste,” he said.

“This is a major and growing problem and an unresolved environmental issue. There is no question it is unfinished business but we are concerned that it is being perceived as a business opportunity.”

He said reduction of nuclear waste should be the guiding principle, rather than finding a storage solution to enable more waste to be produced.

“We are concerned that the promise of the dollar sign is much shinier than the reality of the danger sign.”


The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission is currently taking submissions on its tentative findings, with a final report due for public release on May 6.


Nuclear negotiations0:58

South Australia could soon be home to the world's nuclear waste in a bid to boost the state's economy

The Disposal Dilemma18:00

Dateline looks at the opposing views over disposing of nuclear waste.

MORE IN Environment