BY JIM GREEN
A Senate inquiry into the plan for a new nuclear research reactor in Sydney has heard evidence about a string of problems and scandals surrounding the project.
The federal government and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates the Lucas Heights nuclear plant in southern Sydney, appear to be on the defensive. Numerous government departments were enlisted to make submissions in support of the proposed reactor and to give evidence before the Senate inquiry.
Several dozen doctors and medical organisations signed form letters arguing that a new reactor is required for isotope production. Their letters contained numerous factual errors, stemming from the fact that doctors have no direct involvement in radioisotope production and most have little or no knowledge of the subject.
The inquiry heard evidence from numerous critics of the plan for a new reactor, including Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, and the Sutherland Shire Council.
Some of the most interesting submissions came from nuclear engineers — including some previously employed at ANSTO such as Alan Parkinson.
In his submission, Parkinson said he is pro-nuclear and has no concerns about the construction of a new reactor at Lucas Heights. However, he provided detailed, first-hand evidence to substantiate his claim that the Department of Industry Science and Resources (DISR)record in project management and its lack of understanding of radiation and other technical subjects, as demonstrated publicly in recent months, leaves very much to be desired.
Safe as houses?
The Senate inquiry heard from Daniel Hirsch, the former director of a nuclear policy research program at the University of California and currently co-chair of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, an independent oversight body for the US Department of Energy. Hirsch is visiting Australia at the invitation of the Sutherland Shire Council.
Hirsch disputes ANSTO's dismissal of the possibility of an accident in which coolant (or water) would be lost thus exposing fuel rods. He said that at least half a dozen loss-of-coolant accidents have occurred around the world. He said he was astonished to find that the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed new reactor took place in the absence of a reactor design.
An October 31 media release from ANSTO falsely claimed that three independent peer reviews of the draft EIS for the replacement research reactor "... confirmed that the reference accident assumptions and outcomes, were appropriate".
In fact, the review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said full justification for the selected Reference Accident is not included in the EIS. The review by Parkman Safety Management said, "As no specific design has yet been chosen, it is not possible for a full and detailed safety assessment to be undertaken at this stage". And the review by CH2M Hill said "Because these details have not yet been finalised for the proposal, it is not possible to develop a detailed quantitative assessment of accident hazards and risks at this stage".
Hirsch stressed the point that the trivialisation of safety risks actually increases the risks: "... a blind belief that no serious harm can occur, no matter what goes wrong with the reactor, no matter how serious the operator error; produces a markedly increased risk, as any review of past nuclear accidents will demonstrate."
Further safety concerns derive from the lack of nuclear expertise at Lucas Heights, the widely predicted cost blow-out associated with the reactor project, and poor management/staff relations (a "permanent war-footing" according to one ANSTO scientist).
Collins-class reactor
The choice of the Argentinian company Invap to build the proposed new Lucas Heights reactor was "risky" according to Tony Wood, who likened the choice to the Collins submarine fiasco, "where we again chose to forsake experienced vendors in favour of the new boy on the block".
Siemens, the German company which competed for the reactor project but lost, said in its Senate submission that Invap was the least experienced of the four short-listed tenderers. Siemens said the Australian government had allocated too little funding and that only a "highly subsidised" offer could comply with all performance and safety specifications and still come in within budget.
Technicatome, the losing French tenderer for the reactor project, said in its written Senate submission that ANSTO's assessment of tenders was "mainly based on scientific calculations, and not on proven experience as asked by the tender documentation".
Numerous concerns about the operations of Invap were raised by Dr. Raul Montenegro, Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the National University of Cordoba, in his written submissions to the inquiry and during his phone link-up with the senators. Montenegro's concerns span Invap's experience, safety and performance records, and Invap's ability to fulfill agreements it made during the reactor contracting process in relation to spent reactor fuel.
Waste
Part of the reasoning for Invap's selection is likely to relate to promises made about spent fuel. It may be necessary to use silicide fuel in the proposed new reactor until an alternative fuel type is available. Siemens said in its Senate submission, "It has been suggested to [Siemens] at the formal debriefing meeting that the successful tenderer has mitigated the risk to ANSTO should more than approximately two cores be required."
One of the possibilities for spent fuel from the proposed new reactor is that it would be sent to Argentina for conditioning and then returned to Australia as long-lived intermediate-level waste for indefinite storage. However, Argentina's constitution precludes the importation of radioactive waste. Invap may (or may not) be able to circumvent the constitution by defining spent fuel as something other than radioactive waste. Another difficulty is that Argentina does not have the facilities to condition spent fuel.
Secrecy
Montenegro has received four letters from Invap threatening legal action and urging him to stop disseminating comments "injurious" to Invap.
Open debate is also being stifled in Australia. In October, the Sydney Morning Herald was told by ANSTO that it would cost $7099.78 to obtain two pages of information about the tender decision-making process following a freedom of information application. Greenpeace was told by ANSTO that it would have to pay $6,809.25 for 22 pages of information and that almost 1300 pages of information relevant to the reactor contract would not be made available at any price.
The Senate inquiry is expected to continue into next year. The general line to be adopted by Labor, Liberal and the Democrat senators can be predicted with some confidence, and there is little doubt that the federal government will ignore Labor and Democrat recommendations.
A shock may come for Labor when it is next in government. The day before the reactor contract was signed in July, Labor environment spokesperson Nick Bolkus said the ALP might be able and willing to cancel the reactor contract when next elected to government. This struck many as political opportunism, especially in light of the infamous letter from former Labor deputy leader Gareth Evans to the executive director of ANSTO in which he admitted that Labor's pretence of an anti-reactor policy was based on nothing more than "the realities of politics in an election year".
It is now widely believed that the reactor contract could indeed be cancelled and with minimal financial penalties payable to Invap. Labor might be able to cancel the contract, but would it be willing?