TL: RADWASTE IN AUSTRALIA
SO: Greenpeace International [GPI]
DT: September 29, 1993

Australia: Updated 29th September 93

There are currently 2 research reactors in operation in Sydney,
New South Wales (2).

A document was leaked from the Energy Research and Development
Council in October 1991 which showed that moves are underway
behind the scenes to try and increase the number of reactors.
The report, submitted to the Transport, Energy Use and Energy
Production Committee, claimsed that nuclear could become a
necessary component of the national energy mix (5).

**19th May 1992**
Greenpeace Australia today gave details of negotiations between
the Australian National Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) and the Indonesian government in evidence to the foreign
affairs sub committee of the Australian Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

Detailing hitherto secret negotiations concerning the possible
construction of up to 12 reactors, Greenpeace also highlighted
the use of "draconian" anti-subversion laws in Indonesia to
stifle opposition and public debate.

**June 23rd 1992**
The Senate has passed a bill which will allow nuclear waste to
be imported into Australia. ANSTO will be able to operate
outside the controls of state, territory and local government
environmental law (10).

The Federal Government has held an inquiry into plans by ANSTO
to site a second reactor at Lucas Heights, Sydney. The proposed
reactor would be as much as 3 times the present HIFAR type,
which currently produces medical isotopes. ANSTO want the
reactor to operate until at least 2050. The announcement of the
plans in July 1992 was met by a storm of protest from the 50,000
local residents who live within a 5 Km radius of the site (11).

The report of the inquiry, published in August 1993 (17), has
said that any decision on the reactor is dependent on finding a
suitable location for high level waste. It also points out that
it is currently impossible to decommission the HIFAR reactor,
such that the only option available was to maintain the 35-year-
old reactor, and put off any further decision on a replacement.
***********************************************************
L/ILW
-----
It is proposed to develop an above ground engineered facility
for these wastes.

L/ILW wastes are located at a number of sites in Australia, with
roughly 50% of them at Lucas Heights, in Sydney (9). This
includes 536 m3 of drummed solid wastes and material from the
HIFAR reactor experiments.

The remainder is stored at some 50 different sites around the
country. In total there are some 3,300 m3 of waste, which
increases at the rate of approx. 60 m3 per year (12).
The stored waste includes 17 m3 at St Mary's (?State), which
ANSTO was prevented by court order in February 1992 from moving
to Lucas Heights. There are also 80 m3 at Lidcombe (?State) and
smaller amounts at various defence establishments in Victoria,
South Australia and Queensland.

There are also large quantities of material produced from
monazite sand processing.

In 1989, Northern Territory expressed interest in hosting a
shallow repository, following government appeals for volunteers.
A study, completed in 1989, supported the idea, but estimated
the cost at $5600 per m3. By 1991, Northern Territory had
decided that it no longer wanted to proceed.

Consequently, a Draft Code for the Disposal of Low and
Intermediate Level Waste was produced for comments and
criticisms, with an original closing date of 15th October 1991
(subsequently extended to 29th May 1992). The Code states that
it is assumed that any facility would be constructed in a
relatively remote, arid region (4).

In the meantime, Western Australia has developed a site at Mt
Walton East, near Kalgoorlie, as an "integrated waste disposal
facility", limited to waste generated within that state (13). It
was originally planned that this would also include 7000 tonnes
per annum of thorium hydroxide from a proposed rare earth
facility, but this has since been abandoned. Some 500 tonnes of
organochlorines have also been dumped at the site to date.

**June 1992**
The Federal Government has launched a site selection study to
identify those areas of Australia which may be potentially
suitable for locating a repository. A report will be published
in the Autumn, outlining the site selection criteria used, and
inviting public comments.

**September 1992**
The NSW Land and Environment Court has instructed ANSTO to
remove more than half of the waste stored there within 3 years,
or as soon as a national repository is available. It was after
this decision that the Federal Government made ANSTO exempt from
State planning and environmental laws, but has promised that the
waste will still be moved (12).

**7th October 1992**
After a week's delay, the discussion paper on repository siting
criteria (14) has been published. Using the selection criteria
described in the paper, several areas of arid outback land have
been highlighted as potentially suitable. These include several
areas of Western Australia, Roxby Downs in South Australia,
Broken Hill in NSW and in the Tanami Desert in Northern
Territory (15).

The report used criteria such as rainfall, rocktype, distance to
rail/road, population density etc. to home in on possible areas.


HLW
---
At present, there is little HLW in Australia, mainly spent fuel
from the Lucas Heights HIFAR reactor, currently stored on site.

A dry-store is currently under construction in Tasmania, to
house small amounts of various isotopes from medical and
research sources.

A study of the feasibility of establishing a repository in the
Northern Territory was completed in April 1989, It is under
consideration by the State government, although they have since
rejected the idea of a LLW site (1).

In August 1991, a consortium of Australian companies was
reported to be studying the feasibility of developing a
national, or even international, repository for high level
waste, with the wastes

being immobilised in an artificial glass called SYNROC, which
was developed by an Australian geochemist, AE Ringwood, in the
1970's.

The partners are CRA Ltd, Western Mining Corporation, Energy
Resources of Australia Ltd, Broken Hill Pty Ltd, ANSTO and the
Australian National University in Canberra. (The licence on
SYNROC is actually held by an Adelaide Consulting firm, Nuclear
Waste Management (NWM))

It is suggested by the consortium that the SYNROC technology, if
adopted, could be used to encapsulate spent fuel and HLW from
abroad, for disposal in an Australian repository (3).

The possibility of collaboration on a project for deep disposal
at Chelyabinsk in the USSR has also been discussed by the consortium.

A copy of the Synroc Study Group's Progress report, dated August
1991, has been obtained by Greenpeace (6). 

The SSG has identified 5 separate ways in which SYNROC could be
commercialised, with "varying economic benefit for Australia".


These are;

1. licencing of SYNROC overseas

2. participation in overseas plant(s) using SYNROC

3. establishment of an international reprocessing plant in
Australia with immobilisation oh HLW in SYNROC and return of
waste to customers

4. establishment of an integrated spent fuel management industry
outside of Australia with international participation

5. establishment of an integrated spent fuel management industry
in Australia with international participation, and with disposal
of waste on an Australian territorial site either on the
mainland or offshore

This is one of the few proposals worldwide at present to include
an offshore option.

The report suggests that such "3rd party" involvement would form
part of a "future phase" of the SSG's Group's work. It also
notes that some aspects of the present Study have been carried
out even though they are "currently precluded by Australian or
overseas government policies".

Whilst estimating that the financial gains to be made from spent
fuel disposal are huge, citing figures in the order of
US$100-200 billion to the end of this century, the report also
concludes that Australian participation in spent fuel management
would give Australia "significant additional influence towards
the strengthening of the international nuclear non-proliferation
regime".

Finally, a major conclusion of the report should also be
included here;  "SYNROC is only usable for immobilisation of
liquid HLW. Its use therefore requires prior construction of a
reprocessing plant...direct disposal..makes no use of SYNROC."

In April 1992, Australia signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with China. The agreement is between ANSTO and the China
National Nuclear Corporation and is initially for 3 years. It is
planned that ANSTO will assist the Chinese in setting up a plant
to produce SYNROC, which will then be used to immobilise defence and
commercial high level wastes. This would be the first commercial
operation involving SYNROC (7).

The inventor of SYNROC, AE Ringwood, has suggested that a
possible repository concept could include disposal in deep (2-4
Km) shafts, depth depending on whether plutonium were included. 

The SSG is very keen on importing some liquid HLW so as to be
able to take development of the proposal further. The next step
is seen as raising capital overseas to enable a full scale trial
production plant to be developed in Australia, at an estimated
cost of A$2-300 million (13). Discussions have already taken
place with Tokyo Power, and utilities in Korea.

It has also emerged that the Adelaide consulting firm, Nuclear
Waste Management (NWM), which has had the development licence
for SYNROC since 1985, has entered into various agreements and
understandings with the former Soviet Union, to develop pilot
plant facilities at the Mayak reprocessing centre at Chelyabinsk
in Russia. These appear to have survived the breakup of the
USSR. Indeed, in 1990, they were suggesting up to 15 plants may
be built.

Various meetings have been held over the last 2 years, with the
last known one in April 1992. In a document concerned with that
meeting (16), the following statement was made: 

"In March 1991, an agreement was signed between Mayak, the Green
Lawn (Moscow) Association and the Australian company, NWM. The
Agreement involves creation of a joint company in Austria for
commercial utilisation of the Synroc technology to be tested and
finalised jointly at the pilot plant. Such a plant would be
fully integrated into the present infrastructure at Mayak, which
would reduce the project cost and speed the project's
implementation.

"The project received the support of the Ministry of Sciences of
Russia, at its council sitting on 16th April 1992. This took
place at the request of the Russian Government as the result of
the Green Lawn Association having asked President Yeltsin for
financial (rouble) support for the Synroc plant feasibility
study. The Ministry of  Sciences of the Russian Federation is
expected to submit its positive conclusion on the project to the
Government (Mr E. Gaidar) before 1.5.92. The Ministry support is
particularly important, since the Synroc issues were discussed
at the council sitting in the existing vitrification technology
context, and the Mayak enterprise is one of the strong
supporters of parallel development of the Synroc technology.
 
"Visit of experts from England and Australia to Mayak is planned
for 16th May 1992 to agree details of the project at the
enterprise's premises. June of this year might be a realistic
time for commencing work on the feasibility study. The Russian
partners will have got the necessary authorising documents and
be technically and financially equipped (for covering costs on
their side). This would allow to complete the feasibility study
over a 6-12 months period. The Mayak enterprise is interested in
commencing the work on feasibility study as soon as possible, as
the conversion process at Mayak requires quick re-orientation of
its activity."
 
Total cost of the project is estimated at US$150 million.

It is unclear what the current state of the project in Russia
is. However, on the final day of the hearing on the replacement
reactor, in June 1993, ANSTO admitted that agreements had also
been signed with several other countries to examine the
potential of SYNROC.

Those countries were: America, for military waste,Japan,China
and South Korea.

The SYNROC patent apparently expires in 1996, and there are
suggestions that the Japanese will then move to develop a plant
as well.

The Reactor Siting Review Committee said in its report in August
1993 that decommissioning of the HIFAR reactor could not take
place until a high level waste repository has been developed.
The report recommends that site selection begin immediately so
as to locate potential locations for a facility (17).

Sources:
-------
1. NEA Nuclear Waste Bulletin (as dated).
2. IAEA Bulletin 4/1990.
3. Reuters via Greenbase 6/8/91.
4. Greenpeace Australia 15/10/91.
5. Greenpeace Australia Press Release, 18/10/91.
6. SYNROC Study Group Progress Report. August 1991.
7. The Australian, 7/4/92; Reuters via Greenbase 9/4/92
8. Canberra Times 19/05/92 and Greenpeace Press Release.
9. Information from FOE Australia, 16/06/92
10. web.greenleft.news, via Greenbase 26/06/92
11. Telegraph Mirror (Sydney), 17/08/92
12. Sydney Morning Herald, 17/09/92
13. Greenpeace Australia, September 1992
14. Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia, Federal Energy
Ministry, 07/10/92
15. The West Australian, 08/10/92
16. Letter from Professor Nicolai Babaev, Director of Russian
Ministry of Atomic Power and Industry, April 1992
17. The Age (Melbourne) 0/08/93