Chapter 2
Current uses of Neutron Science and Rationale for a New Reactor
2.1 Neutron science and technology is used in a wide range of medical,
scientific, and industrial contexts. In particular, the Australian Academy
of Science notes that Australia's current research reactor, HIFAR, has
been used successfully in:
- production of radioactive isotopes for industrial and medical purposes;
- production of high flux neutron beams for diffraction and other scattering
experiments; and
- training of a research community in nuclear science and engineering.
[1]
2.2 In addition, the Committee recognises that local knowledge and research
in the field of neutron science supports Australia's national interest
by facilitating contribution to nuclear non-proliferation negotiations.
2.3 However, in recognition of limitations arising from the aged HIFAR
technology, three major scientific reviews of recent years have supported
the need for a new reactor, subject to certain conditions. The Australian
Science and Technology Council Review of Major National Research Facilities
(1992); the Research Reactor Review (also known as the McKinnon
Review) (1993); and the ANSTO Strategy Review (1994) all identified
the general merits of a new reactor for Australia, although not necessarily
located at Lucas Heights.
2.4 In keeping with these findings, evidence to the Committee's inquiry
stressed the likely benefits to Australian medicine, science and industry
arising from the more sophisticated nuclear research capacity of the new
reactor. Discussion of the key applications of neutron science and likely
benefits of the new reactor follows. [2]
Nuclear medicine
2.5 The potential benefits of the new reactor to the field of nuclear
medicine was one of the strongest themes of evidence presented to the
Committee by those supporting a new reactor. Radiopharmaceuticals form
the basis of nuclear medicine, and are used in the two major areas of
diagnostics and therapeutics. According to ANSTO, the diagnostic area
is at a mature stage of development, whereas the therapeutic area is still
comparatively in its infancy. [3]
2.6 The Department of Family and Community Services [4] estimated in 1997 that the Australian demand for
procedures requiring radiopharmaceuticals would increase at about 14 per
cent per annum during the next ten years. The bulk of these radiopharmaceuticals
will be derived from reactor-produced radioisotopes, and will cover both
diagnostic and therapeutic uses. [5]
2.7 In diagnostic medicine, radiopharmaceuticals are used to provide
information through imaging of the physiological functions of the body
and indicating when these are changed by the onset of disease. The Australian
and New Zealand Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine (Inc) (ANZAPNM)
advises that the most frequent application of nuclear medicine services
relates to heart disease and cancer, the most common causes of death in
Australia. In addition, isotope imaging is considered an integral and
essential modality for the investigation of a range of conditions including:
- unexplained bone pain;
- bone and joint infection;
- occult bony fractures and sports injuries;
- life threatening pulmonary emboli;
- renal disease in childhood;
- renal hypertension; and
- differentiating between various forms of hyperthyroidism. [6]
2.8 Nuclear therapy, on the other hand, provides effective pain relief
from metastatic bone pain and the treatment of bone marrow disease and
thyroid-related diseases. ANSTO argues that nuclear therapeutics has a
distinct advantage over other therapies in that it can eliminate cancerous
cells without harming healthy cells:
Other therapies, such as chemotherapy and external beam radiation,
affect both non-cancerous and cancerous cells, resulting in greater
pain, longer recovery time and higher treatment costs. [7]
2.9 Thus, in conjunction with offering great scope for improved diagnostic
and therapeutic techniques, nuclear medicine has the potential to reduce
health care costs. Specifically, ANSTO notes that nuclear therapy has
the capacity to shorten treatment times and be performed on an outpatient
basis.
2.10 The ANZAPNM echoes this view, stressing the benefits both to quality
of health care and cost effectiveness offered by nuclear medicine. The
Association is a strong advocate of an upgrade in Australian nuclear research
technology arguing that nuclear medicine is vital for maintaining the
highest standards of health care. Indeed, the Association warns of the
serious repercussions of not installing a new reactor, owing to the absence
of advanced nuclear medicine studies in Australia. Negative impacts could
include the use of tests with a lower diagnostic accuracy, and patients
being subjected to more invasive procedures involving greater cost and
risk. An increase in imaging studies may also occur, exposing patients
to greater radiation doses from CT scans and x-rays, and forcing imaging
costs to rise due to the utilisation of more expensive high-tech modalities
such as CT or MRI scanning. Ultimately, in the Association's view, the
net result would be:
- increased costs in terms of non-imaging health dollars;
- increased patient morbidity; and
- longer time to arrive at the appropriate diagnosis. [8]
2.11 The Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine and the
South Australian Government join ANZAPNM in stressing the strong clinical
imperative underpinning the need for a new reactor. For example, as a
result of a steady increase in the use of nuclear medicine in South Australia,
two-thirds of current nuclear medicine outlets in that State have been
established since 1990. The Hon. Dean Brown MP, South Australian Minister
for Health, submitted that increased usage of nuclear medicine has stemmed
from real growth in clinical demand, not test substitution, as all alternative
imaging modalities are widely available. [9]
2.12 However, despite evidence of strong demand for nuclear medicine
in Australia, a number of inquiry participants suggested that the medical
basis for a new reactor was exaggerated. Dr Jim Green of the Department
of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, described
the medical case as a `beat up' by ANSTO and the Government, and claimed:
I know of federal politicians and current ANSTO staff who are prepared
to say in private, though not in public, that medicine is a trivial
issue with respect to the replacement reactor. [10]
2.13 Paediatrician, Dr Helen Caldicott reinforced this view, noting that
the wide use of magnetic image resonancing and CAT scans was leading to
the situation where, she alleges, the nuclear medicine industry is `sort
of dying a natural death'. [11]
2.14 Another view was expressed by Professor Barry Allen who told the
Committee that he had:
… absolutely nothing against the reactor in terms of safety …
[or] in terms of its proposed location at Lucas Heights. [12]
The question is a scientific question of what Australia would be better
off with–and I am actually not sitting here advocating a spallation
source. There is a whole range of expensive and cheap accelerators and
other types of facilities–not necessarily nuclear–where this
money could be spent and where it would have a much bigger impact. [13]
Industrial applications of neutron science
2.15 Research reactor operations contribute to a wide range of industrial
research and development, specifically within the field of mining and
minerals processing. Key industrial uses include gauging applications
and industrial radiography; neutron activation analysis; use of radioactive
tracers; non-destructive evaluation; silicon irradiation, radiation technology
and materials applications. [14]
2.16 Within the field of mining and minerals processing, HIFAR is used
by ANSTO in research and development on ore processing and environmental
chemistry, particularly in respect of uranium and rare earth ores. In
its submission, ANSTO notes that conservative estimates indicate that
its activities generate gross economic benefits to the minerals industry
of around $90 million annually. [15] Yet, in the absence of a fully functional domestic
reactor, the South Australian Government argues that major companies such
as Western Mining Corporation would be forced to import a wide range of
isotopes, “with a probable reduction in reliability and promptness,
leading to increased costs.” [16]
2.17 The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) also
stresses the economic benefits likely to arise from the proposed new reactor.
Representing a number of companies engaged in uranium mining and exploration,
AMEC argues that all developed, and even some less developed, countries
maintain research reactors for scientific purposes, and therefore:
To properly compete in global terms, Australia must not be left behind
with an aging facility such as HIFAR. [17]
2.18 In its environmental impact statement of the replacement reactor
proposal, PPK Environment and Infrastructure notes significant industrial
ramifications should Australia decide not to proceed with a replacement
reactor. In particular, PPK warn that in the absence of a replacement
reactor, Australia would lose its domestic source for neutron activation
analysis, transmutation doping of silicon and fission track applications.
Moreover:
If Australia effectively opted out of nuclear science and technology
by not proceeding with the proposal, new locally developed ideas and
products would eventually dry up as would the benefits of technology
diffusion which is sustained by these developments. [18]
Environmental applications of neutron science
2.19 Although the possible environmental impact of research reactors
is one of the fundamental reasons for which they are opposed, ironically,
reactor based research contributes to the understanding of environmental
processes and, in turn, can assist in solving major ecological problems.
Pollution control, for example, has been enhanced through the use of custom
produced radioisotopes which trace the movement of pollutants from their
source, through the environment and the food chain. In addition, ANSTO
notes the value of radiotracer studies for monitoring coastal zone processes,
such as changing landforms due to erosion, and the transportation of sediment
into river systems and estuaries.
2.20 Irradiation is another field with significant environmental application,
as demonstrated by the sterile insect technique, which has been used in
Australia to control fruit fly infestations. Small amounts of radiation
are used to sterilise hundreds of millions of Queensland fruit flies each
year, which according to ANSTO, saves Australian fruit growers as much
as $5 million annually. [19]
2.21 However, opponents of the replacement reactor proposal dispute that
it will offer genuine environmental benefits. For example, Dr Jim Green
of the University of Wollongong argued that:
It is inconceivable that the environmental benefits of a new reactor
would outweigh the environmental costs (emissions, waste etc). [20]
2.22 In further support of this position, Dr Green argues that a large
majority of environmental projects undertaken by ANSTO actually do not
make use of HIFAR, and the likely environmental benefits of a replacement
reactor are overstated.
National interest and security benefits
2.23 In addition to the scientific and industrial benefits of nuclear
research undertaken at HIFAR, successive federal Governments have judged
the knowledge arising from this work as vital to Australia's national
strategic interest. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
argues a vital link between nuclear capability and participation in international
nuclear safeguards and non-proliferation activities. According to DFAT,
ensuring Australia's strategic environment remains free of nuclear weapons
proliferation requires a capacity to comprehend, anticipate and influence
nuclear developments in our region and beyond. This process requires local
nuclear expertise as an independent means through which to monitor regional
developments and analyse their implications for Australia's national security
and economic interests.
2.24 Local nuclear capability has assisted Australia in holding a position
on the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors since 1957,
and as such, contributes to the strengthening of international nuclear
safety standards. DFAT emphasises the importance of this, given Australia's
position as a major exporter of uranium, and location in a region experiencing
increasing growth in nuclear power generation. In the words of the First
Assistant Secretary of the DFAT International Security Division:
In the area of nuclear safety, with strong potential growth in nuclear
power generation in Asia and ongoing shipments of radioactive wastes
throughout our region, it is strongly in our national interest to ensure
that international safety standards are rigorous and that these standards
are universally accepted and applied. By their very nature, international
safety standards are highly technical and cannot be assessed by laymen
in a very detailed way. A practical working knowledge is needed and
the department relies heavily on informed advice from ANSTO and also
the Nuclear Safety Bureau, in particular, to ensure that Australia's
interests are protected in these areas. [21]
2.25 However, while the importance of Australia's role in nuclear safeguards
and non-proliferation negotiations is widely accepted, the question of
whether such involvement necessarily requires local nuclear capability
is open to serious question. Indeed, some inquiry participants have contended
that through prolonging and promoting the use of nuclear technology, Australia
may be adding to proliferation problems rather than truly addressing them.
[22]
2.26 A former participating member of the Committee, Senator Dee Margetts,
raised a concern about what she saw as a possible conflict of interest
within official nuclear fora, both domestic and international, which deems
that only a certain type of expertise or experience bestows authority
on nuclear matters. Referring to the difficulty of obtaining membership
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Senator Margetts observed:
…if you have to have six years experience in a reactor to get
on to first base, then the International Atomic Energy Agency has built
in a perpetuated conflict of interest. First of all, they are saying
that the only people with expertise they are interested in are those
people whose bread and butter is in maintaining the industry. Secondly,
I believe they are saying that the only knowledge that is worth having
in that regard is those people who are in the industry who do not have
that other kind of expertise – perhaps medical or other scientific
expertise – and who can in fact read papers and visit establishments
as well as anybody else. [23]
2.27 Notwithstanding concerns regarding the culture and possible bias
of the IAEA, it is widely accepted that it is in Australia's interests
to retain a seat on the IAEA Board of Governors. In its environmental
impact statement on the proposed replacement reactor, PPK Environment
& Infrastructure notes that loss of this influential position would
undermine Australia's role in ongoing development of nuclear safeguards
policy. Proceeding with a new reactor therefore is argued to be vital
for Australia to maintain its international standing on nuclear issues
and continue to make maximum contribution to regional nuclear technical
cooperation programs. PPK argues that a decision by Australia not to proceed
with a replacement reactor would not influence the decisions of other
countries in the region to embrace nuclear power and other aspects of
nuclear technology. On the contrary, such decisions largely are led by
desires to improve living standards in a greenhouse conscious world, and
by concepts of national development. [24]
2.28 However, the Committee does not accept that having a nuclear reactor
or nuclear capacity is a necessary condition for either a seat on the
IAEA or to have international influence.
2.29 Australia has been able to play a significant role over many years
in promoting nuclear non-proliferation and establishment of a nuclear-free
Pacific without having any nuclear capacity. Indeed not possessing a nuclear
capacity may enhance Australia's independent status in the international
arena.
Benefits to scientific research and higher education in Australia
2.30 According to ANSTO and DISR, there are strong research links between
HIFAR and Australian universities, with around 15 per cent of PhD candidates
in the physical sciences and engineering at Australian universities utilising
reactor technology as part of their research. [25] A number of submissions highlighted the importance
of ongoing nuclear research capacity in Australia, and stressed the likely
opportunity costs arising from failure to upgrade research technology.
As noted by Mark Sonter, a South Australian consultant on health, safety,
environment and radiation protection:
The HIFAR reactor has provided training for two generations of nuclear
science and engineering specialists, and an essential high flux reactor
source for research and analytical works, and an industrial scale production
facility providing radioisotopes inside and outside Australia; its presence
has supported a high level of international technical training and has
added to Australia's standing and credibility as a voice in international
radiation technology and safety, and non-proliferation forums. [26]
2.31 The South Australian Government argues a similar case, stressing
the importance of nuclear research capacity for the development of Australian
science and industrial technology. In arguing for a more sophisticated
Australian research reactor, the South Australian Government cites the
work of the Ian Wark Research Institute located at the University of South
Australia, which currently is undertaking a study of colloidal phenomena
and surface structures. Utilising neutron based techniques in both these
areas, the South Australian Institute is gaining valuable insight into
chemical processes. [27] Based on this, and
other promising research, the South Australian Government argues that
the proposed replacement reactor would enable a considerable widening
of the base of neutron applications within Australia.
Small angle neutron scattering can be applied to the study of the evolution
of small particles in solution, while reflectometry focuses on the study
of the structure of interfacial layers. Both techniques have many applications
directly to Australian industry. For instance the former has been applied
to the study of aluminium hydroxide crystal formation – a crucial
step in the process of producing alumina from bauxite ore. The continuing
improvement of the efficiency of this process is of great importance
to the Australian economy. [28]
Economic benefits
2.32 In undertaking its cost-benefit analysis of a new Australian reactor,
the 1993 Research Reactor Review found that benefits could exceed
costs, only if high values were assigned to the science and national interest
arguments in favour of the replacement reactor. In the Review's words:
If HIFAR, or any replacement reactor, were required to balance income
and expenditure solely through commercial activities, it would not be
viable. [29]
2.33 An Access Economics report commissioned by ANSTO in 1997 attempted
to quantify the economic benefits arising from an indigenous neutron source.
[30] Although based on the operations of HIFAR,
and with only limited projections of economic benefits likely to arise
from the proposed replacement reactor, the study found substantial gross
economic benefits likely to continue in the future. According to the report,
to date the greatest economic impact of an indigenous neutron source has
been in the mining sector where there is an estimated annual gross economic
benefit in the order of $100 million or more. Thereafter, the general
contribution to infrastructure and industries other than mining is estimated
at around $25 million annually, for each sector, and in the case of health,
approximately $10 million annually. [31] In
total, Access Economics predicted gross economic benefits from selected
ANSTO activities could reach an annual average of $140 to $230 million,
as against ANSTO's total annual expenditure of approximately $91 million
in 1996-97.
2.34 While noting the difficulty of accurately measuring the economic
benefits of industrial or medical research and development, the Committee
acknowledges the very broad range of innovations originating from nuclear
science and technology. A few examples cited by the Australian Nuclear
Association include:
- maintenance of the safety and structural integrity of buildings, aeroplanes,
cars, roads and bridges;
- maintenance of the health and quality of foods and beverages;
- reduction of the cost of energy exploration and production, and increasing
energy efficiency; and
- controlling and abating air, water, chemical and solid waste pollution.
[32]
2.35 Similarly difficult to quantify, yet equally as important, is the
national interest benefit arising from the success of nuclear non-proliferation
activities to which Australia has contributed. As acknowledged by the
1994 Defence White Paper, and subsequently, Access Economics' evaluation
of the economic benefits of an indigenous neutron source:
… to the extent that Australia's contribution to nuclear non-proliferation
fora has reduced the risk of regional countries acquiring nuclear weapons,
there is probably a substantial economic pay-off from this activity
– in the form of reduced defence expenditure, and the avoidance
of the catastrophic and social impact of nuclear conflict. [33]
2.36 As a further advantage for Australian national interests, DFAT argues
that Australia's export trade in uranium is likely to benefit from the
technical expertise and credibility afforded by a replacement reactor.
According to the Department:
… a technical knowledge of the nuclear fuel cycle and related
issues, such as nuclear safeguards, is an essential underpinning to
Australia's uranium exports and nuclear cooperation policies. Safeguards
and non-proliferation policies provide assurances that Australian uranium
is not diverted from its intended civil purpose, thereby facilitating
the realisation of the economic benefits of the trade. [34]
2.37 South Australia, as a producer of uranium oxide for export to global
markets, echoes this argument, stressing the need for excellence in nuclear
science and technology if Australia is to remain a responsible supplier
of uranium for nuclear power generation. [35]
2.38 At the local level of the Sutherland Shire, economic implications
of the replacement reactor also will be significant. According to ANSTO,
reactor operations at Lucas Heights are estimated to inject more than
$40 million annually into the local economy [36],
in addition to generating significant employment opportunities. The Sutherland
Shire Mayor told the Committee that:
There is a possible workforce out there of 700 people at ANSTO. We
do not know exactly how many of those live in the shire, but there is
a workforce of some 700 people at ANSTO. That is without the secondary
industry and the suppliers of other articles to ANSTO. ANSTO are a good
corporate citizen; they try to spend money, acquire as much of their
stationery as possible and so forth within the shire. [37]
Footnotes
[1] Submission No. 21, Attachment A submission
by the Australian Academy of Science to the Research Reactor Review (Revised
for the Senate inquiry), February 1998, p.3.
[2] Drawn from Submission No. 29, Attachment
A, Applications and Benefits of Neutron Science and Technology,
p.29.
[3] Submission No. 29, Attachment A, p.30.
[4] Formerly the Department of Health and Family
Services, until 22 October 1998; Commonwealth of Australia Gazette
- Special, Administrative Arrangements Order, 22 October 1998.
[5] Submission No. 29, p.29.
[6] Submission No. 9, p.5.
[7] Submission No. 29, p.29.
[8] Submission No. 9, p.6.
[9] Submission No. 26, p.1.
[10] Evidence, p.E116.
[11] Evidence, p.E178.
[12] Evidence, p.E98.
[13] Evidence, p.E103.
[14] Submission No.29, Attachment A, p.31.
[15] Submission No.29, Attachment A, p.31
[16] Submission No.26, p.2.
[17] Submission No.15, p.1.
[18] PPK Environment & Infrastructure,
Replacement Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 1/Main Report, p.4-23.
[19] Submission No.29, Attachment A, p.31.
[20] Submission 1B, p.5.
[21] Evidence, p.E149.
[22] Submission 7C, Attachment: The New
Reactor: National Interest & Nuclear Intrigues, p.3.
[23] Evidence, p.E158.
[24] PPK Environment & Infrastructure,
Replacement Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 1/Main Report, p.4-22.
[25] Submission No.29, p.32.
[26] Submission No.3.
[27] Submission No.26, p. 2.
[28] Submission No.26, p. 3.
[29] K.R. McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.141.
[30] Access Economics, Assessing the Benefits
of an Indigenous Neutron Source, Canberra, February 1997.
[31] Access Economics, Assessing the Benefits
of an Indigenous Neutron Source, Canberra, February 1997, p.4.
[32] Submission No.11, p.13, quoting from the
article The Untold Story: Economic Benefits of Nuclear Technologies,
produced by Management Information Services Inc., Washington DC, 1996.
[33] Access Economics, Assessing the Benefits
of an Indigenous Neutron Source, Canberra February 1997, p.1.
[34] Submission No. 27, p.5.
[35] Submission No. 26, p.2.
[36] ANSTO – Answers to questions placed
on notice by Senator Stott Despoja, May 1998, p.2.
[37] Evidence, p.E44.
|
