Australia is not prepared for AUKUS nuclear submarine’s radioactive waste

The Guardian has produced a report regarding concerns about what will happen to nuclear waste from Australia’s planned nuclear submarine fleet.

This, the piece argues, may become a serious problem in the future as Australia is entirely responsible for the waste at the end of life of these subs under the agreement.

Under the AUKUS deal, Australia is set to receive about eight nuclear-powered submarines that will use highly-enriched uranium as fuel. This decision was made to enable the subs to operate for longer without needing to refuel within their planned lifetimes.

However, this kind of uranium is generally considered “military grade,” meaning it could, in theory, be used to produce nuclear warheads.

Regarding quantities of waste, Freedom of Information (FOI) released documents from the Australian government explain that each reactor compartment and components are “roughly the size of a four-wheel drive.” Such components would typically be classified as intermediate-level radioactive waste, which is still dangerous but easier to shield and store.

The documents go on to explain that spent nuclear fuel would be “roughly the size of a small hatchback.” This would tend to comprise the high-level waste, the dangerous stuff that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. However, the exact amount of high-level waste is officially classified.

No clear plan for AUKUS waste

The waste generated by this kind of fuel is also highly radioactive and will remain so for millennia once decommissioned. This waste, called high-level waste (HLW), will require safe and secure storage to not only protect the environment, but also prevent potential theft and use as nuclear weapons.

It is important to note that the vast majority of waste from nuclear power facilities tends to be low-level (LLW) or intermediate-level (ILW). These tend to include items such as soil, rubble, scrap metal, paper, and spent protective clothing, as well as components like graphite blocks from the reactor.

This waste can generally be easily handled and stored, typically only requiring storage in special drums or boxes filled with cement, which can be safely stored above ground.

The stuff people are really worried about is very small in volume, but tends to produce lots of heat and radiation, therefore needs active cooling and shielding for many, many decades (theoretically permanently).

As The Guardian explains, the treaty explicitly places this responsibility on Australia’s shoulders for the storage, security, and eventual disposal, which lies solely with Australia, and it cannot export the waste.

Critics have also pointed out that the seriousness of these mismatches in terms of timeframes with regard to the environmental risk and political cycles in the country.

Political decision-making works on 4-5-year cycles, but the waste remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Critics say this is “kicking the can down the road” to future generations.

This, they argue, could be a problem as any talk around nuclear waste tends to be, sadly, highly politically charged. Australia has already failed multiple times to establish even a low-level waste facility due to public and Indigenous opposition.

Nuclear submarines – a “Trojan Horse”

No site for AUKUS waste has been identified to date, and no costings have been made. The government’s plan for the future is, they argue, also particularly vague.

Other nations, like the UK and the US, have also not really found a permanent solution to this for their existing and decommissioned nuclear-powered naval assets.

The UK still has 23 decommissioned subs sitting in dock, and the US keeps over 100 retired reactors in an open trench in Washington state. Australia, however, currently has no facility for high-level nuclear waste at all.

The Guardian explains that Finland is the only country actually building a permanent deep-geological repository, and it’s taken them 40+ years to get this far.

Beyond cost and security risks, some see the deal as a backdoor way to expand nuclear capabilities in Australia, with potential environmental and geopolitical downsides that far outlast any benefit from the submarines.