Executive Summary and Recommendations
A New Reactor –The Government's Decision
On 3 September 1997 the Minister for Science and Technology announced
that a new Research Reactor would be constructed at Lucas Heights at a
cost of $286 million.
The proposed Reactor will replace the existing High Flux Australian Reactor
(HIFAR), which is due to be shut down around 2005. [1]
The Minister also announced that firstly, the reactor
… will meet the strictest international nuclear safety standards
and its construction will be subject to a stringent environmental assessment
process under the Environmental Protection Act 1974, which will be open
to public comment.
Secondly he announced that
The Government has decided not to establish a reprocessing facility at
Lucas Heights or anywhere else in Australia. Instead, $88 million has
been set aside to remove spent nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights and
meet the costs of reprocessing offshore. [2]
It is noteworthy that in the Minister's media release, and in all the
documentation from ANSTO, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology
and during the EIS, the terminology used is a 'replacement' reactor rather
than 'new' reactor. This contrasts with the terms of reference of the
Research Reactor Review, (RRR) conducted in 1993 which was established
by the then Government to consider, inter alia:
Whether, on review of the benefits and costs for scientific, commercial,
industrial and national interest reasons, Australia has a need for a new
nuclear research reactor. [emphasis added] [3]
Throughout this report the Committee prefers to use the term 'new' reactor
rather than 'replacement' reactor as it more accurately reflects the significance
and impact of the Government's and ANSTO's proposal. Under the proposal
the Lucas Heights facility will encompass three reactors, namely the existing
MOATA (shut down in 1995 and currently being decomissioned [4]),
the current HIFAR and the proposed new reactor, together with a range
of other facilities operated by ANSTO and the CSIRO.
The Senate Committee Inquiry
On 2 October 1997 the Senate referred the matter of the proposed new
reactor to the Senate Economics References Committee for Inquiry.
The terms of reference required the Committee to inquire into and report
on whether a new reactor should be built at Lucas Heights or some other
site in Australia, with particular reference to
(a) the suitability of building a new reactor in a densely populated
suburban area of Sydney and the impact on the environment of the Sutherland
Shire community of a new reactor on the Lucas Heights site;
(b) the availability of alternative technologies to generate neutrons
for medical, scientific, mining, industrial and other uses;
(c) 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 new reactor; and
(d) whether the issues raised by the 1993 Research Reactor Review have
been satisfactorily addressed in the context of the decision to proceed
with a new reactor at Lucas Heights.
On 7 December 1998 the Senate re-adopted the reference to the Economics
References Committee.
Details of the inquiry process are set out in the section Conduct of
the Inquiry.
The 1993 Research Reactor Review (RRR)
The 1993 Research Reactor Review (RRR), conducted under the chairmanship
of Professor Ken McKinnon, is an important starting point for this Committee's
consideration of the issues and arguments surrounding the Government's
decision to construct the new reactor.
This review, which is discussed at length in Chapter 6, did not finally
determine the question as to whether or not Australia needed a new reactor.
Rather, it concluded as follows:
Recommendations
In essence, the Review proposes:
- keep HIFAR going;
- commission a Probabilistic Risk Assessment to ascertain HIFAR's remaining
life and refurbishment possibilities;
- provide an additional $2 million per year for scientists to gain access
to international advanced neutron scattering facilities;
- commence work immediately to identify and establish a high level waste
repository;
- accept the financial implications of the fact that neither the current
nor any new reactor can be completely commercial;
- accept in consequence that any decision on a new reactor or other
neutron source must rest primarily on the assessed benefits to science
and Australia's national interests; and
- make a decision on a new neutron source in about five years' time
when the relative arguments relating to spallation sources, cyclotrons
and reactors might be clearer, and when Australia's scientific neutron
scattering performance is more evident.
Conditions
If, at the end of a further period of about five years,
- a high level waste site has been firmly identified and work started
on proving its suitability
- there is no evidence that spallation technology can economically offer
as much as or more than a new reactor
- there has been no practical initiation of a cyclotron anywhere worldwide
to produce technetium-99m
- there is good evidence of strong and diverse applications of neutron
scattering capability in Australian science, including many young scientists,
and a complex of industrial uses
- the national interests remains a high priority
it would be appropriate to make a positive decision on a new reactor.
The most suitable site would need to be identified.
If any one of these onerous requirements is not met, either a negative
decision, or a decision to delay further, would be indicated. [5]
Further, in respect to logistics and siting, the Review stated:
20.1 If a decision were to be made to construct a new reactor, it would
not necessarily best be placed at Lucas Heights. An appropriate site would
best be decided after exhaustive search, taking into account community
views.
20.2 Apart from Lucas Heights, for which there were both strong proponents
and strong opponents, Kalgoorlie has advanced claims as a future site
for a new reactor. Any siting decision should be based on criteria similar
to those developed by the National Resources Information Centre with an
additional range of economic and scientific criteria. [6]
The Review therefore envisaged a further comprehensive investigation
of the various issues before any final decision was made. It stated that:
The review should now be wound up and if, at some later stage, a new
reactor is envisaged, it should be assessed by a new panel possibly operating
within the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.
[7]
In particular, on the critical issue of nuclear waste disposal the Review
stated:
17.2 A crucial issue is final disposal of high-level wastes, which depends
upon identification of a site and investigation of its characteristics.
A solution to this problem is essential and necessary well prior to
any future decision about a new reactor. [emphasis added] [8]
The Committee finds that the issues raised by the 1993 Research Reactor
Review have not been satisfactorily addressed. The Government's decision
was announced without any real attempt to address the issues raised in
the Research Reactor Review. Further it ignored the properly considered
findings of the Review and instead, relied largely on the vested interests
of ANSTO and those involved in, and dependent on, the nuclear industry.
The Need for a Public Inquiry
The failure by the Government to carry out the inquiry envisaged by the
Research Reactor Review, its failure to properly investigate alternative
sites to Lucas Heights and to take into account community views, and its
failure to resolve the issue of the disposal of waste produced and stored
at Lucas Heights, makes the decision both premature and open to ongoing
controversy.
The Committee believes that a full public inquiry, as provided for
in the EPIP Act (and which was the basis of the Research Reactor Review),
should have been conducted prior to any final decision to build a new
reactor. Such an inquiry could have finalised the work undertaken by the
Research Reactor Review and would have given greater credibility to the
eventual outcome.
Whilst the Committee notes that the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) has approved the decision to construct the new reactor at Lucas
Heights, the Committee proposes that a public inquiry, similar to the
Research Reactor Review, be conducted into the Government's decision.
There is still sufficient time for such an independent inquiry to be
conducted, given that a great deal of evidence has already been assembled
in the EIS process. Further, such an inquiry will allow for a broader
consideration of all the issues, and greater community input, than was
available during the EIS.
The Disposal of Waste
As noted in the Research Reactor Review a solution to the final disposal
of the nuclear waste from Lucas Heights is a crucial issue. It is also
crucial to the attitude of the Sutherland Shire Council. This issue is
discussed in Chapter 4.
The Committee notes that whilst the Government has nominated a site for
a low level above ground nuclear waste repository, they have not resolved
the issue of where the waste from Lucas Heights will ultimately be stored.
The low level waste site will not be suitable for storage of the fuel
rod waste from Lucas Heights even if it is re-processed overseas and returned
as intermediate level waste (which is the Government's current proposal).
The Committee believes that the finding of the Research Reactor Review
that 'a solution to this problem is essential and necessary well prior
to any future decision about a new reactor' is still a relevant pre-condition.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends (1) that this issue be further considered
by the proposed public inquiry and (2) that no new reactor be constructed
until a permanent site for disposal of the Lucas Heights nuclear waste
is determined.
Should Lucas Heights be the site for a new Reactor?
The decision by the Government to locate the new reactor at Lucas Heights
is primarily based on the fact that this is the site of the current HIFAR
Reactor and consequently, any alternative site would involve greater expenditure.
The Lucas Heights site is supported by ANSTO because it has operated there
for over 40 years, has a permanent workforce, and has been shown to be
a safe, reliable and convenient site for activities associated with the
reactor, such as the production of medical isotopes.
The Committee understands that it is logical for ANSTO to support the
existing site. However the fact that this is the current site of Australia's
only nuclear reactors does not mean that it must inevitably be the site
for any, or all, future reactors. Such facilities have a lengthy period
of operation and subsequent de-commissioning and therefore it is appropriate
that detailed consideration should be given to other potential sites.
When the Lucas Heights site was chosen nearly fifty years ago the area
was regarded as reasonably remote from Sydney with little, if any, surrounding
population. That is not the situation today. The reactor, whilst still
largely surrounded by bushland, is located on the edge of a large and
densely populated part of Sutherland Shire. Indeed it is recognised as
one of the fastest growing areas of Sydney.
It is extremely doubtful that this site would be chosen today as a greenfields
site for a nuclear reactor or nuclear storage facility. The fact that
the area already contains a reactor and that residents have been prepared
to settle in the area is not a reason to simply impose a further reactor.
Rather, a proper analysis of the merits of the Lucas Heights site and
alternative sites should have been undertaken before any decision was
made. Indeed the Research Reactor Review envisaged that the site of any
new reactor 'would best be decided after exhaustive search, taking into
account community views'.
This has not occurred.
During the inquiry the Department of Industry, Science and Technology
stated that they had considered alternative sites in a number of states
but they were not as suitable as Lucas Heights. When requested to provide
details of specific sites the Government claimed that it was cabinet-in-confidence
and refused to release the details.
The Committee is concerned and disappointed that such information
was not made available to the Committee particularly having regard to
the recommendations of the Research Reactor Review.
Further, this internal departmental consideration appears to have been
a modelling exercise against generic criteria rather than a detailed consideration
of specific sites. The process was conducted prior to the preparation
of the draft EIS and was not reviewed in the EIS.
These factors can only lead to the conclusion that alternative sites
have not been properly considered as recommended by the Research Reactor
Review. Certainly there has not been an 'exhaustive search' and the only
site subject to the EIS is Lucas Heights.
If Australia is to have a new reactor then alternative sites to Lucas
Heights must be properly considered. Such analysis should include the
potential economic benefit of locating the reactor in a less populated
regional area. This analysis should be undertaken by the proposed Public
Inquiry.
Community Attitudes
It is not possible to determine from evidence presented to the Committee
or the EIS the precise attitude of the community to a new reactor. Various
interpretations of a survey conducted on behalf of ANSTO have been presented
to the Committee to support alternative points of view.
It is also argued that the fact that people have been prepared to build
homes and settle in the area near the reactor indicates support for the
new reactor. However it is equally possible that people are prepared to
accept the presence of the reactor within their area (given that it was
there first) but still wish it was somewhere else. Also, acceptance of
the status quo does not mean support for a new reactor.
The Committee recommends that a detailed survey of community attitudes
be undertaken to more accurately reflect the views of the residents of
the Lucas Heights area. Further that, in accordance with the recommendations
of the Research Reactor Review, the views of local communities be taken
into account when determining the location of any future reactor.
The Committee also recommends that the Community Right to Know Charter
Relating to ANSTO be finalised as soon as possible in an effort to improve
relations between ANSTO, the Sutherland Shire Council and local community
groups.
Alternatives to a New Nuclear Reactor
The potential for other alternative technologies, such as cyclotrons
and spallation sources instead of building a new reactor is discussed
in Chapter 5.
Given the large amount of public expenditure involved (at least $300
million plus recurrent costs for 40 years or more) the Committee would
have preferred to have had more evidence on the benefits of spending such
funds on other scientific and medical areas of research rather than new
reactor.
Whilst this should also be further considered in a Public Inquiry
the evidence presented to us does not lead us to conclude that either
cyclotrons or spallation sources can provide a complete alternative to
a new reactor at this point of time.
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.
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.
Health
The Committee notes that some residents and community groups expressed
concerns about potential health and environmental risks. These issues
were similarly addressed in the Report of the Research Reactor Review.
Whilst the Committee appreciates that the presence of such activities
in local communities can raise concerns, it notes that no evidence was
presented to the Committee to cause it to reach conclusions different
from those reached by the Research Reactor Review.
Footnotes
[1] PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement
Nuclear Research Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Vol 1/Main Report, p.vi.
[2] Media Release, Minister for Science and
Technology, 3 September 1997.
[3] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction,
Report of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia August
1993, p.xii.
[4] PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement
Nuclear Research Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Vol 1/Main Report, p.19-5
[5] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia August 1993,
pp. xiv-xv.
[6] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction,
Report of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia August
1993, p.xxiv.
[7] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia August 1993,
p.4.
[8] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction,
Report of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia,
August 1993, p.xxii.