New nuclear reactor madness
By Jim Green
On September 3, the federal government announced plans to build a new nuclear research reactor to replace the ageing HIFAR reactor. The new $300 million reactor will be operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Like the HIFAR, it will be located at Lucas Heights, in the southern suburbs of Sydney, nestled snugly among the 203,000 residents of Sutherland Shire.
The federal minister for science and technology, Peter McGauran, said that the proposal will be subject to a "stringent" assessment process under the 1974 Environmental Protection Act.
This will almost certainly be a bureaucratic whitewash. It will probably consider only second-order issues such as siting, rather than the central issue — whether Australia actually needs a reactor.
The new reactor will be used for scientific research, to produce medical isotopes and for some commercial projects to recover a fraction of the costs.
But the government wants a new reactor mainly for strategic political reasons — maintaining nuclear expertise for intelligence and security purposes, maintaining Australia's place on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and so on.
The number one sales pitch is the production of radioisotopes for "life-saving" nuclear medicine. McGauran didn't mention that, drawing on a 1993 study by the Australian Radiation Laboratory and taking into account the growth in nuclear medicine since then, 144 Australians subjected to nuclear medicine procedures this year will die from cancer as a result of the radiation received.
Nor did he mention that nuclear medicine accounts for just 6% of diagnostic imaging procedures and is under increasing pressure from X-radiology (59%), computerised tomography (17%) and ultrasound (17%).
As well, domestic cyclotrons could supply a fair proportion of Australian demand for radioisotopes — much more safely than a reactor and with hardly any radioactive waste — while other radioisotopes could be imported.
The government has also decided to send 700 highly radioactive spent fuel rods to the USA (where they may or may not be reprocessed). The remainder of the 1600 fuel rods at Lucas Heights will be reprocessed at the Dounreay plant in Scotland.
This decision may be less disastrous than building a reprocessing plant to trial the "Synroc" waste immobilisation technology.
However, the fuel rods will be transported through Sydney and over vast expanses of ocean. The potential for accident or sabotage is a real concern. And, of course, not a lot of people in Scotland or the USA want Australia's radioactive waste.
After reprocessing in Scotland, the waste will be returned to Australia and sent to our imaginary radioactive waste repository.
In some countries, this waste would be classified as high level and would require deep geological disposal. Not in Australia — the government and ANSTO have said it will be classified as intermediate level and will therefore be suitable for long-term disposal in an above-ground repository or shallow burial.
The worldwide trend is away from reprocessing in favour of direct disposal of radioactive waste in long-term repositories. Reprocessing is the only way to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, and for that reason it has been scaled down or discontinued in several countries.
In fact, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in 1995 that reprocessing is "contrary to sound non-proliferation principles". Not any more, it seems.
What to do with the spent fuel from the new reactor? Neither the government nor ANSTO has the faintest idea.
The government's announcements met vocal opposition from green and anti-nuclear groups, and from residents in the Lucas Heights region.
The Sutherland Shire Environment Centre has set up an action group to fight the proposals. Sixteen local councils have expressed opposition.
The Sutherland Shire Council played a crucial role in stopping plans for a new reactor in 1993. But the council is now dominated by Liberal members who have gone soft on the reactor proposal. State and federal Liberal politicians holding seats in the region also appear to be backing away from the fight to stop the reactor.
Greens Senator Dee Margetts has given notice of a motion to establish a Senate committee to investigate the case for a reactor and alternatives.
On September 4, ANSTO was embarrassed when a box of radioisotopes fell off the back of a truck. Then ANSTO and the NSW Environmental Protection Agency had a public brawl, each claiming the other is responsible for regulating transport of radioactive materials.
ANSTO's PR machine was also kept busy by revelations that a number of "airtight" tubes containing spent fuel rods have been breached by water, and a number of fuel rods have corroded as a result.
The Sutherland Shire Environment Centre is the focus of the opposition to this madness. It needs as much help as it can get. Ring Lyn Ward or Michael Priceman on (02) 9545 3077.