Chapter 1
Background to the new reactor proposal
1.1 Australia's only nuclear reactor, HIFAR [1], has been operating at Lucas Heights, on the southern
fringe of Sydney, since the 1950s. Although the first experimental programs
of HIFAR were related to power reactor design, from the late 1960s HIFAR
was progressively adapted to serve more as a multi-purpose reactor with
broad research applications in the field of nuclear physics and nuclear
chemistry. [2] HIFAR is managed by the Commonwealth
agency, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO),
and is used for the production of neutrons for various scientific, medical
and industrial purposes.
1.2 At one time ranked with the best of the world's research reactors,
HIFAR has been used by Australian scientists across a range of disciplines
encompassing physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. Neutron science
is recognised for its contribution to industrial research and development,
nuclear medicine infrastructure, and Australia's national interest in
respect of nuclear non-proliferation. However, it is believed that Australian
advances in these fields are increasingly hampered by HIFAR's age and,
by contemporary standards, relatively unsophisticated technology. Now
forty years old, HIFAR's neutron beam science capability and flexibility,
production capacity and operating efficiency are judged as being at the
lower end of the performance range of research reactors. [3]
According to ANSTO and the Department of Science, Industry and Resources
(DSIR), Australian scientists increasingly are seeking work opportunities
offshore, involving the more powerful reactors operating in other countries.
Yet, Australian demand for radioisotopes is projected to rise, particularly
with respect to medical and industrial applications. For example, on current
trends, ANSTO predicts that nearly every Australian will receive medical
treatment involving reactor-produced radiopharmaceuticals at some stage
in their lives. [4]
1.3 Thus, in response to demand from ANSTO for an upgrading of Australia's
nuclear research and isotope production capacity, the Howard Government
announced in September 1997, that it would fund a $286 million new reactor
to be built at Lucas Heights. In contrast to HIFAR, the proposed new reactor
would be a `pool' type, in which the core of the reactor is at the bottom
of a pool of water at least six feet deep. In addition, the reactor would
produce a higher neutron flux than HIFAR, would have flexible core and
irradiation facility arrangements and would use low enriched uranium fuel.
[5] The new reactor would be anticipated to
operate from 2005, after which time the process of decommissioning HIFAR
would commence.
1.4 According to ANSTO and DISR, the site of Lucas Heights was chosen
over a number of other possible locations across Australia, mainly on
the economic grounds that the necessary physical and operational infrastructure
was already in place, and therefore would not entail the great expense
of developing a greenfields site. Furthermore, although the population
and urban development of the Lucas Heights region has increased significantly
since the 1950s, the Government judges any possible risks associated with
reactor-based research to be negligible, and therefore inadequate to prevent
continued use of the current site. This position is supported by the findings
of the major Research Reactor Review of 1993 which concluded that
there were no safety, health or community risks associated with HIFAR.
[6] However the review did attach a number of conditions
which it believed should be met before any decision was made about replacing
the existing reactor. Principal amongst these was that a high level waste
site had been identified and work started on proving its suitability.
Although the Government believes that it is no longer necessary for the
site to be 'high level' given that only medium level waste is to be stored,
it is still the case that the review's finding about identifying a waste
site is critical to the new reactor decision. The Minister for the Environment,
Senator the Hon. Robert Hill, also placed a number of conditions on his
approval of the replacement of the reactor following the EIS process.
Those conditions are set out in Appendix 5.
1.5 Condition 26 sets out the need for ARPANSA and the Minister for the
Environment and Heritage being satisfied about arrangements for the management
of spent fuel rods from the new reactor before construction can be authorised.
Condition 27 requires the Ministers for Industry, Science and Resources
and Health to give consideration to strategies for the long term management
and eventual permanent disposal of Australia's long term intermediate-level
nuclear wastes. The Committee believes that these conditions fall well
short of the recommendation of the Research Reactor Review which called
for the waste repository to be identified and work commenced on proving
its suitability prior to the commencement of construction. The Research
Reactor Review is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.
1.6 The actual design and specifications of the new reactor will be devised
by ANSTO, together with major users of the reactor which include the 36
Australian universities offering nuclear science based programs. The end
result, according to ANSTO, will be:
… a state of the art facility of purpose-driven design, providing
the high degree of research and isotope production flexibility necessary
to meet Australia's requirements for the 21st century. It will incorporate
modern instrumentation and enhanced experimental access, high intensity
neutron beams, cold, and possibly hot neutron sources, capability for
increased radioisotope range and higher production levels, and increased
irradiation capability for analyses of industrial, mining and environmental
samples. [7]
1.7 In conjunction with its plans to proceed with construction of a new
reactor, the Government announced that it had budgeted $88 million for
removal of spent nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights for reprocessing
overseas. [8] Given that plans are also underway for development
of a National Radioactive Waste Repository in South Australia, the Federal
Government appears confident that it can manage both current and future
radioactive wastes produced in Australia. Nevertheless, a number of critics
of the new reactor proposal are sceptical of proposed waste management
arrangements in light of shortcomings in Australia's radioactive waste
management to date. The issue of waste disposal is discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 4.
1.8 Furthermore, while the Australian science and medical community generally
supports a new reactor, various aspects of the proposal have proven particularly
contentious for other inquiry participants, including residents of the
Sutherland Shire, in which Lucas Heights is located. The health and environmental
impact of establishing a new reactor in the highly populated area of Lucas
Heights is of particular concern to local residents, many of whom believed
that once HIFAR eventually was decommissioned, nuclear activity in the
region would cease. Despite epidemiological studies indicating that the
health of Sutherland Shire residents has not been affected by proximity
to a nuclear research reactor [9], some in the
community fear longer-term consequences. Dr Green told the Committee that:
It could well be true that the incidence of cancer and other pathologies
in this region is similar or even better than other roughly equivalent
regions. … Just because a specific study does not show an impact,
it does not mean that there is no impact. … What we do know is
that all radiation has an impact on human health and that ANSTO does
allow the release of radiation. … We know that ANSTO is having
some impact on the health of local residents; it is almost impossible
to say what that impact is. It should also be borne in mind that we
are not just talking about cancers; we are talking about a whole plethora
of pathologies. [10]
1.9 In addition, the question of alternative technologies to a new reactor
was raised by various inquiry participants, both on the grounds of minimising
nuclear activity and its associated hazards, and investing scarce science
funding in the best possible technologies to take Australia through to
the 21st century. Spallation sources and cyclotrons were advocated by
a number of nuclear opponents and at least one eminent practitioner in
the field of nuclear medicine. Furthermore, the possibility of importing
radioisotopes, and undertaking scientific research overseas, was suggested
as another alternative to the construction of a new nuclear reactor in
Australia.
1.10 The Government instigated an environmental impact assessment of
the proposal pursuant to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals)
Act 1974. Commencing late in 1997, the consultants PPK Environment
& Infrastructure Pty Ltd were contracted to undertake the necessary
evaluation, and released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
in August 1998. The Committee was told at hearings held in Sutherland
Shire and in submissions that the processes followed by the government,
ANSTO and consultants conducting the EIS were less than satisfactory.
In particular local residents told the Committee that they were either
not informed about what was occurring or were unable to attend meetings.
The consequence of this was a lack of confidence in the findings of the
EIS and a feeling that the outcome of the process was predetermined. These
matters and the EIS process are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
It is perhaps significant that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
included two conditions in relation to consultation by ANSTO with the
local community when setting out approval conditions. These are points
24 and 25 set out in Appendix 5.
1.11 In accordance with guidelines prepared by Environment Australia
(the Commonwealth Environment Department), the environmental impact assessment
addresses all aspects of the proposal, including the physical, biological
and social context; management of nuclear waste; issues associated with
decommissioning; and range of alternatives to the new reactor itself.
1.12 The general conclusion of the draft EIS is that the cumulative impacts
of the proposed new reactor would be small, particularly if certain environmental
management initiatives outlined in the EIS were adopted. [11] Three independent peer reviews, commissioned
by Environment Australia to provide independent technical reviews on different
aspects of the proposal and the Draft EIS, subsequently endorsed, with
some qualifications, the general methodology and findings of the draft
EIS [12]. These are discussed more fully in
Chapter 3.
1.13 On 18 January 1999 a Supplement to the Draft EIS was completed and
lodged with Environment Australia. The Supplement was intended as:
… an important step in the overall environmental assessment process.
It reviews submissions received and provides the proponent's response
to issues raised in the public review period. The Supplement and the
Draft EIS together represent the Final EIS and are the culmination of
the environmental assessment process undertaken by the proponent, ANSTO,
in keeping with Commonwealth environmental legislation. [13]
1.14 The Supplement concluded that, having studied issues raised in the
public submission process and considered new information arising since
the Draft EIS, 'in ANSTO's view, the findings of the Draft EIS and hence
the findings of the Final EIS are unchanged from the Draft EIS'. [14]
1.15 On the basis of the Final EIS, Environment Australia prepared an
Environment Assessment Report on the Proposed Replacement Nuclear Research
Reactor at Lucas Heights for the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.
On 30 March 1999 the Minister announced his decision that 'there are no
environmental reasons preventing the granting of Commonwealth approval
for the replacement nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights … subject to
a number of conditions'. [15] See Appendix 5.
1.16 On 3 May 1999, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources
announced he had accepted the Minister for the Environment's recommendations
and that 'the implementation of these recommendations will ensure the
replacement reactor at Lucas Heights is built and operated in accordance
with best international practice'. [16]
Footnotes
[1] HIFAR is the acronym for High Flux Australian
Reactor.
[2] PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement
Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume
1/Main Report, p.3-10–3-11.
[3] Submission No. 29, p.7.
[4] Submission No. 29, pp.5-6.
[5] PPK Environment & Infrastructure, Replacement
Nuclear Reactor – Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume
1/Main Report, p.vii.
[6] K R McKinnon, Future Reaction, Report
of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of Australia, August
1993, p.xiii.
[7] Submission No. 29. p.8.
[8] Media Release, Minister for Science and
Technology, 3 September 1997.
[9] The 1993 Research Reactor Review
found that the health of the people of the Sutherland Shire is normal
and compares with another equivalent shire and NSW as a whole. Future
Reaction,: Report of the Research Reactor Review, Commonwealth of
Australia, August 1993, p.205.
[10] Evidence, p.E317.
[11] PPK Environment & Infrastructure,
Replacement Nuclear Research Reactor, Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 1/Main Report, p.xxvii.
[12] Reviews were conducted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency; Parkman Safety Management; and Ch1M Hill. Details
of the reviews are discussed Chapter 3.
[13] Overview of the Supplement to the Draft
EIS for the Replacement Nuclear Research Reactor, p.1.
[14] PPK Environment & Infrastructure,
Replacement Nuclear Research Reactor, Supplement to Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Volume 3/Supplement, p ES-20.
[15] Media Release, Minister for the Environment
and Heritage, 30 March 1999.
[16] Media Release, Minister for Industry,
Science and Resources, 3 May 1999.