GOVERNMENT SENATORS' MINORITY REPORT
Report by Senator the Hon Brian Gibson, Deputy Chair and Senator Grant
Chapman
1.1 Government Senators record their dissent from the sections entitled
'executive summary and recommendations', 'conclusions and recommendations'
and from the findings, conclusions and recommendations in the body of
the majority report.
1.2 Government Senators are of the view that the Government should proceed
immediately with the construction of a replacement reactor for the now
antiquated HIFAR reactor currently operating at Lucas Heights. Government
Senators are further of the view that Lucas Heights is the most suitable
location for what is, despite protestations to the contrary in the majority
report, a replacement reactor for the soon to be decommissioned HIFAR.
1.3 The major finding and recommendation of the majority report is that
the Government should have conducted a full public inquiry prior to any
final decision to build the replacement reactor. In the view of Government
Senators, such an inquiry would have served no useful purpose and would
have been an unwarranted expenditure of taxpayers' money. The case for
building a replacement reactor and locating it at the current Lucas Heights
site has been examined exhaustively and well established. The time for
further procrastination is past.
New reactor or replacement reactor?
1.4 The majority report labours the point of whether the proposal under
consideration is to construct a new reactor or a replacement reactor.
The Government has made it clear that the reactor to be constructed at
Lucas Heights is to be built because the existing reactor, HIFAR, is at
the end of its operational lifespan, cannot continue to operate without
major refurbishment and should be replaced with a more modern facility.
While there must be a period of parallel operation as the replacement
reactor is commissioned, it is not and has never been the Government's
intention to operate two reactors on the site in the longer term. The
proposed reactor will replace the old and can accurately be described
as a replacement reactor.
Should a replacement reactor be built?
1.5 Government Senators note that the majority report falls short of
endorsing the construction of a replacement for HIFAR, preferring instead
to avoid the issue by suggesting that a further investigation is required
to determine the issue. However, it is significant that the majority is
prepared to acknowledge that there are significant benefits associated
with nuclear science in Australia.
1.6 Chapter two of the majority report comprehensively canvasses the
utilisation of neutron science and technology in Australia. Clearly, there
are significant applications in nuclear medicine, industrial research
and development and the environment (for example, the use of radioactive
isotopes for tracing pollutants and irradiation for control of insect
pests). There are also acknowledged national interest and security benefits,
and benefits to scientific research and higher education in Australia.
1.7 It is indisputable that there are some people within the community
who are unwilling to acknowledge these benefits. For example, Dr Jim Green,
in his evidence to the Committee, attempted to denigrate the importance
of nuclear science in medicine. As quoted in para 2.12 of the majority
report, Dr Green described the medical case as a 'beat up'.
1.8 The Government Senators do not doubt the sincerity of critics such
as Dr Green. However it has to be said that the weight of evidence
received by the Committee did not support their views.
Should the reactor be built at Lucas Heights?
1.9 The decision about siting of the replacement reactor is complex and
requires the careful consideration of a number of factors. The primary
factor is environmental impact, which encompasses community health and
safety. The Government has considered carefully whether the replacement
reactor should be built at another location. In making this assessment,
it has assessed the possible risks to the local community.
1.10 The environmental impact assessment process has been exhaustive,
rigorous and independently scrutinised. As a result of this process, the
Government has concluded that there are no environmental reasons preventing
the granting of Commonwealth approval for the replacement nuclear reactor
at Lucas Heights. The Government has judged that the risks to the community
of operating at the current site are negligible.
1.11 The current HIFAR reactor and the smaller (and now decommissioned)
MOATA have operated safely at Lucas Heights for four decades, with no
discernible adverse effect on the surrounding community. Indeed, the RRR,
on which the majority report draws heavily, reached a similar conclusion,
concluding that there are no safety, health or community risks associated
with HIFAR. [1]
1.12 Further, the three independent peer reviews of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed replacement research reactor,
which were commissioned by Environment Australia, made similar findings:
On the basis of the available written information, discussion with
key parties as well as the brief site visit, it can be concluded that
the site for the proposed reactor has no negative characteristics which
would make it unacceptable from a nuclear or radiological safety point
of view. [2]
The report concludes that the Risks and Hazards assessment for the
EIS has been carried out using currently accepted methodologies and
internationally verified computer codes. The Reference Accident has
been selected and analysed in detail, and is judged to be appropriate
for bounding any fault that can occur on a well designed reactor system.
[3]
In Summary, Ch1M HILL concludes that radiological impacts of the proposal,
as described in the DEIS, are minimal and of no significance to the
public. All discharges are well below regulatory limits, as would be
expected for a modern pool reactor. [4]
1.13 Finally, the Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Works unanimously found that the replacement reactor proposal presents
very little risk to the community:
… the Committee believes, based on the evidence, that all known
risks have been identified and their impact on public safety will be
as low as technically possible. [5]
1.14 The replacement reactor, while of higher power than HIFAR, is an
inherently safer design. The replacement reactor will be a pool-type reactor,
in which the reactor core is held in a pool of water at least six feet
deep. Instead of highly enriched fuel like that used to fuel HIFAR, the
replacement design will use low enriched uranium fuel. The already very
high safety margins that exist can be expected to improve further. As
noted by the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill:
The additional reviews have concluded that the new reactor will produce
less emissions than the existing aging facility and the levels of radiation
emitted will be many times less than normal background levels in Australia.
[6]
1.15 As the safety of the proposal has been established, other factors
may also be considered in the siting decision. Economic considerations
are clearly important.
1.16 The majority report observes that if this was a greenfields project,
Lucas Heights would not have been chosen as the site to construct a reactor.
However, Lucas Heights is not a greenfields site. Lucas Heights is in
fact a long established, highly developed scientific and industrial establishment
of which the reactor facilities are only a part.
1.17 If the replacement reactor were to be sited at another location,
it would be necessary also to relocate the very significant infrastructure
associated with the reactor. The Committee received evidence that a comprehensive
study had shown that this option would have more than doubled the cost
of the project:
At the end of the day those criteria, which include health and safety
issues, showed that the minimum additional cost of moving to a greenfield
site would have more than doubled the cost of the project. There was
also the issue that this would have had us maintaining two nuclear sites
in Australia. Lucas Heights … would still have been used to handle
material from the cyclotron and would have been an active site because
it would have been going through a cooling down phase with a view to
decommissioning in 30 years time. [7]
1.18 Remaining at Lucas Heights also has a number of other significant
advantages. These include the ability to make use of the experienced personnel
who are resident in the area and avoid disrupting the existing distribution
arrangements for radiopharmaceuticals.
1.19 Government Senators consider that it is clear that the decision
to locate the replacement reactor at Lucas Heights is soundly based, responsible
and by far the best possible option.
1.20 Government Senators therefore record their disagreement with the
recommendation of the majority report that 'alternative sites be properly
and fully investigated by an independent public inquiry'. [8]
Alternative technologies to a replacement reactor
1.21 The Committee's terms of reference required it to examine the availability
of alternative technologies to generate neutrons for medical, scientific,
mining, industrial and other uses. Further, the Committee was asked to
consider the safety, cost, viability and effectiveness of alternative
technologies such as cyclotrons and spallation sources compared with the
long-term commissioning, operation and decommissioning of a replacement
reactor. The Committee deals with these issues in Chapter 5 of the report.
1.22 Government Senators consider that the Committee's examination of
these issues is fair and balanced and accordingly do not consider that
the arguments about these technologies need to be extensively re-examined
in this minority report. Government Senators agree with the majority conclusion
that 'the evidence presented to us does not lead us to conclude that either
cyclotrons or spallation sources can provide a complete alternative to
a replacement reactor at this point of time'. [9]
1.23 However, Government Senators cannot agree with the other majority
conclusions about alternative technologies. In particular, Government
Senators do not agree with the majority conclusions that:
5.37 However it may be that funding for a package of such measures,
combined with the importation of medical isotopes, is an alternative
long term option to the proposed investment in a single reactor.
5.38 The Committee supports the approach adopted in the Research Reactor
Review that these issues need to be thoroughly investigated by an independent
panel prior to any final decision.
1.24 It was clear from the evidence given to the Committee that none
of the suggested technologies presents a viable alternative to a replacement
reactor at the present time or in the foreseeable future.
1.25 The Government Senators are more inclined to agree with the assessment
of the Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering who advised that:
… in making a major investment of this type it is wise to choose
technology which has a long track record of proven reliability. The
balance of opinion is that the alternative technologies have not yet
reached the stage where they are sufficiently mature for serious consideration
by Australia in this context. [10]
1.26 Evidence by Dr Hardy of the Australian Nuclear Association is also
pertinent:
All I can say is that we have looked at these issues and we try not
to do it with a vested interest – that is, because we are a nuclear
association, we must push reactors. That is not the case. If the majority
of our members thought these cyclotrons and spallation sources would
really come into the marketplace in five to 10 years and were guaranteed
to produce the goods, we would have said so. We do not believe that.
I have to say that the Academy of Science, the Academy of Technological
Science and Engineering, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear
Medicine and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Physicians
in Nuclear Medicine all agree. [11]
1.27 While some witnesses to the inquiry were keen to propose importation
of isotopes as an alternative to local production, the evidence received
from other sources indicated that there are difficulties associated with
this course of action. In particular, it is apparent that there are problems
associated with:
- radioactive decay of short lived products;
- unsuitability of some products for importation; and
- delivery delays.
1.28 The Committee questioned Professor Helen Garnett, the Executive
Director of ANSTO, about the importation of radioisotopes when HIFAR has
to be shut down for maintenance. She advised that:
A few of them that can be imported will be, but they cannot all be
imported. Some do not become available and we import some at a very
considerable cost because they are decayed very significantly by the
time they arrive. However, the nuclear medicine fraternity is advised
in advance of the problems and, with difficulty, they accommodate them.
Last time we had a major shutdown, 33 per cent of the deliveries arrived
in a form that was unusable or they were late. [12]
1.29 Chapter 2 of the Committee's report comprehensively covers the importance
of radioisotopes and radiopharmaceuticals to modern medical treatment,
industry and science. As noted in para 1.2 of the majority report, ANSTO
predicts that nearly every Australian will receive medical treatment involving
reactor-produced radiopharmaceuticals at some stage in their lives; and
further, in para 2.6, that it has been estimated that the Australian demand
for radiopharmaceuticals would increase at about 14 per cent per annum
during the next ten years. Government Senators consider that it would
be irresponsible to place Australia's increasing reliance on reactor based
products at risk by relying on imported radioisotopes.
The waste issue
1.30 It was clear during the Committee's inquiry that the continued presence
of spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste on the Lucas Heights site
is a source of major concern within the Sutherland Shire. Government Senators
acknowledge the gravity of community concern about this issue.
1.31 However, Government Senators remind the Senate of the conditions
imposed by the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill,
when he gave environmental clearance for the construction of the replacement
reactor. The Minister's conditions of approval are reproduced in full
at Appendix 5 at the end of the Report. Conditions 26 and 27 are of particular
relevance:
26. Reactor construction should not be authorised until arrangements
for the management of spent fuel rods from the replacement reactor have
been demonstrated to the satisfaction of ARPANSA and the Minister for
the Environment and Heritage.
27. The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and the Minister
for Health should give timely consideration to strategies for the long
term management and eventual permanent disposal of Australia's long-term
intermediate-level nuclear wastes, and associated issues.
1.32 Government Senators note that the Government has taken two important
initiatives to address the issue. These include:
- allocating $88 million for the removal of spent fuel rods from Lucas
Heights for reprocessing overseas; and
- setting in train the establishment of a national waste repository
in a remote area for the storage of intermediate and low level nuclear
waste.
1.33 Government Senators are satisfied that arrangements for the satisfactory
management and disposal of spent fuel rods and nuclear waste are now well
in hand. While agreeing with the majority conclusion that the continuing
use of Lucas Heights as a storage facility for high-level or intermediate
nuclear waste should cease, Government Senators disagree with the majority
findings in paragraph 4.44 that the Government's approach in identifying
a preferred waste repository is incorrect.
Issues identified by the 1993 Research Reactor Review
1.34 Chapter Six of the majority report examines issues identified by
the research reactor review (RRR). The majority relied heavily on differences
between the Government's approach and those proposed in the RRR to justify
their arguments about the adequacy of the Government's decisions about
the replacement reactor.
1.35 It should be noted that like Senate Committees, the RRR was an advisory
and recommendatory body, and its recommendations were not binding on either
the current or previous Government. It is up to the Government of the
day to make decisions on the basis of the most current information available
to it. It is also an established prerogative of Governments to seek advice
from whatever sources they deem most appropriate.
1.36 Nonetheless, Government Senators note the conditions identified
by the RRR as prerequisites for proceeding with a replacement reactor
largely have been satisfied. The prerequisites identified by the RRR were:
1. A high level waste site had been firmly identified and work started
on proving its suitability.
As noted previously in this Government Senators' report, the Government
has identified a general area within remote South Australia as a repository
for the storage of intermediate and low level waste. Following reprocessing
of the spent fuel rods, Australia's nuclear waste will fall into internationally
accepted definitions of intermediate and low level waste.
2. There was no evidence that spallation technology could economically
offer as much or more than a new reactor:
The majority report agrees that this is the case.
3. There had been no practical initiation of a cyclotron internationally
to produce technetium-99:
There is some disagreement on this point but the majority was unable
to report of any situation where a cyclotron had been initiated for such
a purpose.
4. There was good evidence of strong and diverse applications of neutron
scattering capability in Australian Science, including many young scientists,
and a range of industrial uses:
It is well established that there is a range of industrial uses. Government
Senators note that in the draft EIS, PPK stated that there was good evidence
of strong and diverse applications of neutron scattering capability, including
among many young scientists. ANSTO evidence reinforces this view, however
Government Senators acknowledge that there is some diversity of opinion
about the strength of nuclear research in this country.
5. It remained in the national interest as a high priority.
This is one area where there are clear differences of opinion between
the majority report and Government Senators. Government Senators note
that the Department of Foreign Affairs, a key Government agency in assessing
the national interest, was of the view that national interest reasons
for a replacement reactor not only remain a high priority but, in some
respects, have become a more important and pressing consideration than
in 1993. [13]
The majority report, however, believes that this is a matter for its
proposed full public inquiry. Government Senators record their dissent
from this view.
Conclusions
1.37 Government Senators are of the view that the Government should immediately
proceed with the construction of a replacement reactor for the HIFAR reactor
currently operating at Lucas Heights.
1.38 Government Senators support the Government's assessment that Lucas
Heights is the most suitable location for the replacement reactor and
agree with the Government's and other assessments that the risks to the
community and the environment of building the replacement reactor in this
location are minimal.
1.39 While not discounting the future potential alternative technologies
such as cyclotrons and spallation sources, Government Senators do not
consider that there is persuasive evidence that these technologies currently
offer a viable alternative to commissioning a replacement for HIFAR.
1.40 Government Senators consider that the issues raised by the 1993
Research Reactor Review have been satisfactorily addressed. Government
Senators nonetheless acknowledge community concerns about the ongoing
presence of spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste at Lucas Heights and
urge the Government to continue its pursuit of a solution to this issue
as soon as possible.
Senator the Hon. Brian Gibson
Deputy Chair
Senator Grant Chapman
Footnotes
[1] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.xiii.
[2] International Atomic Energy Agency 1998
[3] Parkman Safety Management 1998
[4] Ch1M HILL 1998
[5] Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Works, Report relating to the Replacement Nuclear Research Reactor,
Lucas Heights, NSW, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1999,
recommendation 4.144, p. 85.
[6] Media release, 30 March 1999.
[7] Evidence, p. E14.
[8] Majority report, para 3.111.
[9] Majority report, para 5.36.
[10] Submission No.24, p.3.
[11] Evidence, p.E.146.
[12] Evidence, p. E.237.
[13] Majority report, para 6.27
|
