By Jim Green
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has released a "background information" document to justify the new reactor planned for Lucas Heights in southern Sydney. The only problem is that it's not very informative.
Critics of the proposal are calling for an independent investigation into alternatives, such as spallation sources. These instruments are safer than reactors, generate far less radioactive waste and could be suitable for both the main purposes of the new reactor — medical radioisotope production and scientific research.
A parliamentary research report released on September 10 concludes that: "It is clear that, in coming to a decision in principle to have a new reactor constructed in Australia, the government has not made a thorough, balanced comparison of the merits of spallation sources versus the reactor method for technetium production."
No dice, ANSTO asserts: "A spallation source cannot provide for bulk radioisotope production". Is ANSTO really completely unaware of a major research program in Belgium which indicates that a single spallation source could produce 15-20 times the Australian demand for molybdenum-99 (which decays to form technetium-99, used in 80-90% of nuclear medicine procedures)?
If ANSTO is unaware of this program, known as ADONIS, that is all the more astonishing since it was on the agenda at the 1995 "Nuclear Science and Engineering in Australia" conference hosted by ANSTO.
On the use of accelerators (including cyclotrons) as a safer, almost waste-free alternative method of producing Mo-99/Tc-99m, ANSTO quotes from the internet site of the University of California Chemistry and Agriculture Program. The quote appears to suggest that accelerator production of Mo-99/Tc-99m is not a viable option. ANSTO likes this quote so much it is printed twice in the "background information" document.
Yet the very next paragraph in the University of California internet site — which is not quoted by ANSTO — reads as follows:
"Accelerator technology has evolved rapidly over the last decade and produced a new generation of machines capable of operating with high reliability, multiple beams allowing for multiple targets, and high intensities. This new accelerator capability may allow for new methods to be developed for the large-scale production of radioisotopes."
ANSTO's failure to report this second paragraph is a blatant case of misrepresentation and selective quoting.
The plot thickens. Both of the above-mentioned paragraphs were originally published in a 1993 article by Dr Manuel Lagunas-Solar, the world's leading researcher into accelerator production of Mo-99/Tc-99m.
Lagunas-Solar's article concludes with the statement, "The feasibility of producing technetium-99m in large Curie quantities .... seems firmly established". Let's see this last quote in ANSTO's next attempt at an "information" document!
Lagunas-Solar tells me that if the Chemistry and Agriculture Program internet site is at all down-beat about the prospects for accelerator production of Mo-99/Tc-99m — which it is not to any significant degree — it is because the comments are outdated and fail to take into account the promising results from the second phase of the research program.
On the strength of that second phase, Lagunas-Solar says the research team "firmly believes that this process is highly attractive, achievable, and with no major technical difficulties for its eventual commercialisation".
ANSTO's comments on the potential to import a greater proportion of radioisotopes also leave much to be desired. The "information" document says, "The most frequently used radiopharmaceutical, Tc-99m, has a half life of six hours. It would not be possible to satisfy demand based on imports ..."
This is misleading. ANSTO is well aware of the widespread international trade in the parent radioisotope, molybdenum-99, which has a half life of 2.75 days and decays to form Tc-99m. Japan, the USA, the UK and many other countries are completely reliant on imported Mo-99/Tc-99m.
ANSTO says that one in three radioisotope shipments from overseas is delayed by at least 24 hours. Where this figure comes from is anyone's guess. In 1993 the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine said that delays with imported Mo-99/Tc-99m occur about twice a year — an acceptable situation.
Moreover supply of other radioisotope products from overseas is said to be excellent, with only very occasional delays of any consequence.
The South African Atomic Energy Commission, ANSTO's main supplier during routine shutdowns of the HIFAR reactor, claims that only 1/200 of its overseas shipments are delayed.
So where did ANSTO's figure of one in three shipments being delayed come from? Pulled out of a hat? A random number generator? ANSTO's supercomputer? I've written to ANSTO/ARI and am eagerly awaiting a copy of the report which substantiates this figure — if such a report exists.
ANSTO says, "No research reactor has ever adversely impacted its community." Crap. Research reactors raise the same range of problems and issues as power reactors, though generally on a smaller scale. These include public health and safety issues, environmental issues, weapons proliferation concerns, public accountability and so on.
Research reactor operators all around the world are struggling to deal with stockpiles of radioactive waste. It has reached a "crisis situation" according to a 1993 report in the Bulletin of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is not known for overstatement on such matters.
In India and Israel, research reactors have been used to develop nuclear weapons.
Around the world there have been four serious accidents involving multipurpose research reactors, and at least nine others involving "test", "prototype" or "experimental" reactors (i.e. research reactors by another name). At least three of these accidents resulted in loss of life. If death doesn't count as an "adverse impact" in ANSTO's scorecard, what does?!
All this highlights the need for a proper public inquiry which takes up the central issue — whether a new reactor is needed — as well as issues such as siting and environmental impact.
The federal government has an easy "out". It has said that a "stringent" assessment process will be established under the Environmental Protection Act 1974. One of the options under the act is a public commission of inquiry, which would be appropriate.
But it's much more likely the government will opt for a limited environmental impact statement, Ã la Hinchinbrook or Jabiluka, which will probably amount to little more than a bureaucratic whitewash and won't even consider whether Australia needs a research reactor in the first place.
ANSTO's executive director, Professor Helen Garnett, has said that a full inquiry would be a waste a money given that the 1993 Research Reactor Review examined the issues in some depth. However, the Research Reactor Review was unable to reach firm conclusions on most of the important debates, and it recommended that a public review be held at a later date.
Mainstream media reporting has been very ordinary. I had a reporter from the infamous Illawarra Mercury ask me exactly what these "ray-dee-toe-pieces" (radioisotopes) are — fortunately, the story didn't get past the subeditor.
The Sydney Morning Herald ran a story called "Phew ... only a reactor", arguing that Sutherland Shire residents ought to consider themselves lucky they're not getting a radioactive waste reprocessing plant and an airport at Holsworthy as well.
A Herald editorial argued that Lucas Heights was the wrong place to put the reactor. Not because the shire has 200,000 residents: the Herald thought the new reactor should go on the outskirts of Adelaide, so a waste reprocessing industry and a long-term waste repository could be established at Woomera.
This would be a "coordinated nuclear policy" and South Australians would "probably welcome" a reactor and a waste reprocessing industry, the Herald said.
As expected, the Liberal Party turncoats who have the numbers on the Sutherland Shire Council have backed away from the fight against a new reactor.
This puts even more pressure on the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre, which has set up an action group to fight the reactor proposal. If you can help, telephone Lyn Ward or Michael Priceman on (02) 9545 3077.