A federal senate committee which inquired into the plan for a new nuclear research reactor in the southern Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights has slammed the proposal in a report released on May 23.

The majority report of the committee is a joint production of the Labor Party and the Democrats. The Democrats also wrote a minority report, taking a more critical line on the reactor project than the Labor Party, and a minority report from Liberal and National Party senators restates the government's support for a new reactor.

On the alleged need for a research reactor in Australia, the committee concluded that "... no conclusive or compelling case has been established to support the proposed new reactor and ... the proposed new reactor should not proceed."

The committee found that "the decision to build a new reactor was taken without a detailed investigation of Australia's present and future scientific and medical needs". It was not convinced that logistical difficulties constitute a serious obstacle to the importation of radioisotopes, and also noted the expanding medical and scientific applications of alternative technologies such as cyclotrons.

On the foreign policy agenda driving the Coalition government's plan for a new reactor, the committee found that "... the justification for the new research reactor solely on national interest grounds is not strong where national interest is defined on purely 'security' and non-proliferation grounds." The committee said the government's argument that a new reactor is required to facilitate nuclear disarmament and the implementation of nuclear safeguards is "tenuous".

The committee went on to say, "The argument for the new research reactor on national interest grounds is more convincing when all areas of nuclear technology are considered, including its role in the region as an educational, research and training centre. The Committee believes, however, that this reason alone is not sufficient to justify the new research reactor. If the reactor is to go ahead, then the main considerations in establishing the need for a reactor must be its place as a research tool providing a neutron source for Australian researchers and products for industry, the health care system and the potential impacts on the environment."

The committee recommended that before the government proceeds any further with the project it should establish an independent public inquiry into the alleged need for a new nuclear reactor and related issues such as funding for both medical and scientific research in Australia. The government rejected that recommendation on the same day the senate report was released.

Secrecy

The senate committee was particularly critical of the Coalition government and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) for their secrecy. It said, "The Committee is highly critical of ANSTO's attitude which seeks to make a parliamentary committee subordinate to the whims of a government agency and prevents that committee from exercising its responsibility to scrutinise the executive. The Committee therefore appreciates the frustration experienced by the Sutherland Shire Council and members of the public who have experienced a similar attitude."

The report also states, "The Committee is highly critical of ANSTO's approach to providing documents. Its attitude seems to stem from a culture of secrecy so embedded that it has lost sight of its responsibility to be accountable to the Parliament."

Even Liberal and National Party senators conceded that point, accepting "... that ANSTO could have been more helpful in providing certain less commercially sensitive information to the Committee and could have been more willing to seek a compromise when sensitive material was involved."

The committee recommended that Senator Nick Minchin, the minister for industry, science and resources, should be censured for his refusal to comply with an order of the senate to table various documents relating to project including the reactor contract between ANSTO and the Argentinean company Invap, and the spent fuel reprocessing contract between ANSTO and the French company Cogema.

The committee recommended that the Australian National Audit Office "consider examining the tender and contract documents for the new reactor" with a view to determining whether documents sought by the committee and the senate should be made public; whether the cost estimate for the reactor is accurate; and whether, during the tendering process, ANSTO ensured that there was adequate and appropriate independent verification and validation of the tenderers' claims.

Waste

The committee expressed numerous concerns about the failure of ANSTO and the federal government to put in place plans to manage radioactive wastes arising from the existing HIFAR reactor or the planned new reactor.

Arrangements for spent fuel are particularly tenuous. ANSTO has a contract with the French company Cogema to reprocess spent fuel from the HIFAR reactor, and the contract also has provisions covering spent fuel from a new reactor. However, Cogema's medium- to long-term future cannot be assured giving mounting political pressure to end reprocessing in Europe.

In March, a French court prohibited the unloading of a shipment of ANSTO's spent fuel at a French port. While the decision was overturned on appeal, and the spent fuel was transferred to Cogema's plant at La Hague, further court action is underway. Greenpeace France is awaiting the judgement of a French court as to whether Cogema's storage of spent fuel from ANSTO is legal under the provisions of the 1991 Waste Management Act which seeks to prevent La Hague being used as a DE FACTO waste storage site. ANSTO and the federal government hope that reprocessing wastes will not be returned to Australia for at least 10-15 years. Regardless of the outcome of the current court case, Cogema does not yet have the licenses required to reprocess spent fuel from ANSTO.

For the new reactor, ANSTO plans to use a uranium-molybdenum fuel type, but this fuel type is still under development. If the reactor project proceeds and the uranium-molybdenum fuel type is not yet available, ANSTO plans to use a uranium-silicide fuel as an interim measure. It is far from certain that Cogema could or would reprocess silicide spent fuel. The ANSTO/Cogema contract specifically precludes reprocessing of silicide spent fuel, although ANSTO claims to have subsequently obtained an in-principle agreement from Cogema to reprocess silicide spent fuel.

A back-up plan for silicide spent fuel - sending it to Argentina for 'processing' - is still more tenuous. This would generate a political controversy and, most likely, legal challenges, in Argentina. One basis for a legal challenge would be Argentina's constitution, which prohibits the importation of radioactive waste - unsurprisingly, ANSTO's claim that spent fuel is not radioactive waste is not universally accepted.

Moreover, Invap has admitted that there are no facilities to process spent fuel in Argentina despite ANSTO's statement in October 2000 that "Invap has satisfied ANSTO that they already have the basic facilities and technology that would be required should processing by Invap be needed." In fact, Invap has no processing facilities, while the Argentinean nuclear agency CNEA only has partly-constructed, partly-operational experimental processing facilities at the Ezeiza Atomic Center.

Because of the uncertainties surrounding spent fuel, the senate committee recommended that ANSTO prepare and fully cost a contingency plan for spent fuel conditioning and disposal within Australia, fully describing the technologies which would be used.

Even if ANSTO is able to send spent fuel overseas for reprocessing (or similar processes called processing or conditioning), the resulting wastes will be returned to Australia and there is no store to receive this material. The government is stalling on this issue, and does not plan to announce a site for a store for long-lived intermediate-level wastes (LLILW), including reprocessing wastes, until late 2002 at the earliest.

In 1998 and 1999, the federal government was attempting to fast-track plans for an underground dump for low-level nuclear waste in South Australia. However, planning for an underground dump for low-level waste has also been stalled, with the government deciding to hand-ball this problem to the next government.

In 1998, the government said it planned to begin construction of the dump in the year 2000. The current timetable is for a draft environmental impact statement to be released in 2002, with construction probably not beginning until the following year. With several polls indicating that 86-93% of South Australians are opposed to the dump, it remains doubtful whether the dump will ever be built.

Labor Party obfuscation

Although the Labor Party endorsed the majority report of the senate committee, it has not committed to stopping the reactor project if it wins the federal election later this year. Nor does the senate report commit the Labor Party to establishing an independent public inquiry into the project if it wins government.

Labor's public statements on the reactor have been contradictory. Environment spokesperson Nick Bolkus said in a March 16, 2001 media release, "Labor today stepped up its calls on the Government to abandon plans for a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights". In January 2001, Bolkus sent a letter to the People Against a Nuclear Reactor Campaign group in which he says, "A Labor Government will subject the contract to the closest scrutiny with a view to attempting to stop the construction of a new nuclear reactor." Industry spokesperson Carmen Lawrence said in a January 22, 2001 media release that the "the Federal Opposition repeats its calls on the Government to scrap plans for the construction of a $326 million new reactor at Lucas Heights" and recommended investing instead in "innovative technologies for a cleaner, greener future".

On the other hand, Labor was embarrassed by a report in the March 28 Sydney Morning Herald which said that Labor's science spokesperson Martyn Evans had admitted telling the Argentinean ambassador that Labor had "never been in the business of simply cancelling contracts". In 1999, federal Labor MPs endorsed a report of the federal parliament's Public Works Committee which concluded that "that a need existed to replace HIFAR with a modern reactor". In 1998, a letter from then Labor deputy leader Gareth Evans to ANSTO was released in which Evans said that Labor's stated policy of opposing the construction of a reactor at Lucas Heights (but not necessarily elsewhere) was due to "the realities of politics in an election year, and in particular our need to win [the federal seat of] Hughes".

Bolkus said in the March 17, 2001 Sydney Morning Herald, "We [a Labor government] will closely scrutinise the contract and the legal commitments and make an economic assessment ... but obviously we'll be looking ... to see how to get the Australian people out of it. ... If we found we have to pay $200 million in damages [to Invap] or something, it's a pretty hard decision." Cancelling the reactor contract would require payment to Invap and its sub-contractors for work already carried out plus penalties for breaking the contract - the total would probably be between $50-70 million if the contract was cancelled early- to mid-2002.

If elected, Labor will also assess the political costs of pursuing or cancelling the reactor project. The next government will also have to deal with the growing stockpile of spent fuel and other radioactive wastes - a problem which will be far more difficult to resolve if a new reactor is built.

The senate report can be downloaded at <http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/lucasheights_ctte>.