A plan for South Australia to take on 13 percent of the world’s nuclear waste and turn it into billions of dollars in economic benefit is viable. That’s one of the takeaways from a glowing interim report Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission delivered this month, estimating the plan could mean AUS $5 billion in annual state revenue over a 30-year period and $2 billion annually after that.
Introduced in 2015 as “the nuclear opportunity,” South Australia Sen. Sean Edwards’ plan would tap into Asia’s market for nuclear fuel disposal services. As proposed, South Australia would take ownership of about 60,000 tons of waste at about $1.4 million per unit. Edwards claims there’s a way to completely recycle the material while generating zero-carbon electricity.
Based on a “conservative baseline price,” the commission estimated total revenue at more than $257 billion and total costs at $145 billion. The tentative findings, delivered this month ahead of the final report due in May, say the plan could create 1,500 full-time jobs during construction over a 25-year period, and more than 600 jobs once operations begin at the storage and disposal site.
The facility, which could open in the late 2020s, would include an above-ground interim storage facility housing casks and an underground repository equipped with tunnels for canister storage. Potentially taking waste from countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, 100-year capacity is estimated at 138,000 tons of heavy metal waste units and 390,000 cubic meters of intermediate-level waste.
As Australia separately looks to develop its first permanent storage site for low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste, the federal government is currently exploring a shortlist of six locations. That list encompasses Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie, and Barndioota in South Australia; Sallys Flat in New South Wales; Hale in the Northern Territory; and Oman Ama in Queensland.
Prior to the commission’s findings, the Australia Institute, a Canberra think tank, released its own report, dismissing Edwards’ plan as an “impossible dream.” In a 20-page report released this month, the Institute argued that Edwards’ proposal fails to address 90 percent of the imported waste, claiming only 4,000 tons of the 60,000 tons can be recycled. Author Dan Gilchrist called the plan a Catch-22, as Edwards assumes no other entities will compete for waste disposal projects in Asia.
“With no mature nuclear power or waste industry, holding no monopoly on the technologies needed, and far from potential markets, there is no reason to think that Australia would have a competitive advantage,” Gilchrist wrote. “There is no reason to think that Australians will accept 56,000 tonnes of waste with no costed long-term solution.”
The commission’s interim report does list a number of concerns with Edwards’ plan, including disruption to Aboriginal heritage and land; nonproliferation and security; and radiation risks.
“Any new nuclear facilities in South Australia would need to be designed and operated in a way that ensures the regulatory limits are not exceeded and that any human exposure is as low as reasonably achievable,” the interim report states. “The greater the risk, the greater the level of engineered barriers, automation of processes and protective work practices required.”
While the commission emphasized that the interim reports makes no recommendations, it suggests setting up a state wealth fund to deliver community benefit through excess revenue from the proposed project. Assuming profits accrue at a compound rate of 4 percent, and that 50 percent of interest income earned annually remains in the fund, it would grow at more than $6 billion annually for more than 70 years, amassing about $445 billion before waste deliveries cease, according to the report.
The report emphasizes that siting such a facility would require sophisticated planning and consent-based decision-making. Additionally, any storage and disposal contract would require agreements between customer countries and both state and federal governments. Furthermore, because South Australian law prohibits storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, legislative amendments would be required and a regulatory framework would need to be put in place.
Also included in the commission’s long list of positives is the region’s underlying Archaean geological structure, which allows for an appropriate depth for disposal; low seismic activity; and arid environment. The commission is expected to hold a series of public meetings leading up to the release of the final report on May 6, when representatives will decide whether to move forward with any plans.
