APPERLEY, Dr Miles, Head, Research Infrastructure, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [by video link]

HEMSLEY, Mr Ryan, Acting Chief of Staff, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [by audio link]

HIRTH, Dr Gillian, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [by video link]

JENKINSON, Mr Shaun, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [by video link]

LARSSON, Dr Carl-Magnus, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [by video link]

SCOTT, Mr James (Jim), Chief Regulatory Officer, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [by audio link]

Committee met at 10:02

CHAIR ( Senator Chisholm ): I declare open this hearing of the Senate Economics References Committee for the inquiry into Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability. The Senate referred this inquiry to the committee on 19 September 2019 for report by 2 December 2021. The committee has received 37 submissions, which are available on the committee's website. As this is a public hearing, a Hansard transcript of the proceedings is being made; however, the committee may determine or agree to a request to have evidence heard in camera. Information on procedural rules governing public hearings and claims of public interest immunity have been provided to witnesses and is available from the secretariat. I remind all media representatives listening to follow the media guidelines and any instructions of the committee secretariat. I would also like to advise witnesses that answers to questions on notice should be sent to the secretariat by close of business Friday 29 October 2021.

I now welcome representatives from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Thank you for appearing before the committee today. Dr Larsson and Mr Jenkinson, would either of you like to make an opening statement?

Dr Larsson : I do not wish to make an opening statement.

Mr Jenkinson : No thank you. I am happy to answer questions.

Senator KIM CARR: I would like to deal with regulatory issues in the government's announcement on the procurement and operations of nuclear submarines as part of the AUKUS arrangements. I ask officers from both agencies what they see as their role in the ongoing matters associated with these arrangements.

Dr Larsson : There are different models for the regulatory arrangements that can be applied to nuclear submarines. You might be aware that there are different models that are being used in the US and in the UK. At this point in time, it's really early days to speculate or to discuss what would be the suitable regulatory model for Australia. We have an 18-month period to put the arrangements in place. There will be discussions between different counterparts—government, Defence, ANSTO, ARPANSA, the safeguards office, ASNO—and that is going to be the time during which these arrangements are going to be worked out.

Senator KIM CARR: ANSTO, could you offer some advice to the committee, please?

Mr Jenkinson : Obviously we will leave the regulatory arrangements with ARPANSA in those major discussions. Our role, as we would see it, is obviously not only to support understanding of nuclear stewardship but to work closely with ARPANSA to ensure the knowledge across the two organisations can provide the information required for the taskforce.

Senator KIM CARR: You have some 300 engineers at ANSTO. That's correct, isn't it?

Mr Jenkinson : In the region of that, yes; that's about right.

Senator KIM CARR: And you currently work with ARPANSA in regard to nuclear ship visits?

Mr Jenkinson : We do participant in monitoring nuclear vessels to Australia, yes.

Senator KIM CARR: So you do have a role already in regard to nuclear vessels?

Mr Jenkinson : In monitoring, yes, that's correct.

Senator KIM CARR: I'm particularly interested to know, in the current legislative framework, what legislative requirements or changes would be required to undertake a regulatory framework of any of these options that have been floated publicly?

Dr Larsson : This may not be a direct answer to your question, because the 18 months that we have ahead of us are going to include discussions also on the legislative framework. In the ARPANS Act, which is the one that we are working under, there are some question marks that might need to be looked at, but I can't comment on the upcoming discussions about the legislation. This is something that would be, again, worked out during the 18 months.

Senator KIM CARR: Well, I appreciate that you can't say what's going to come out of those conversations but, Dr Larsson, you have already indicated that there are some matters that would need to be looked at. What are those matters?

Dr Larsson : There are clarifications that are needed—for instance, the definitions for nuclear power propulsion—and there are a number of other matters that need to be looked at.

Senator KIM CARR: In regard to the ARPANSA Act itself?

Dr Larsson : That would be in regard to the ARPANS Act, yes.

Senator KIM CARR: Would you say the same would need to be applied to the EPBC Act?

Dr Larsson : Possibly; that would be a discussion for the department of agriculture.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes, I understand that but you are the regulator of nuclear activities in this country and there are similar clauses in both acts, are there not?

Dr Larsson : That is correct. We have discussed the definitions and the reach of the act.

Senator KIM CARR: What changes to the ANSTO Act would be required?

Mr Jenkinson : At this stage, we are very early on in the taskforce, so we will be working through with the taskforce in the next 18 months any changes that are required in the ANSTO Act.

Senator KIM CARR: Can you identify changes that would need to be looked at now?

Mr Jenkinson : Not immediately.

Senator KIM CARR: Not immediately, I see. I will table, if I might, a document here that is a diagrammatical presentation of the operations of a nuclear submarine. I understand the secretariat has a copy of it; we can distribute it. I will hold it up so you can see it. It's just a simple description of the relationship between a reactor and the various other components of a vessel, which makes the point that the claims that you can have an enclosed system that's not touched for 35 years, which is not connected to any other part of the vessel, somewhat spurious. I put it to you: in any scenario involving the operations of vessels of this type, if we were to maintain any level of national interest on these questions, we would need at least two facilities onshore—one for training purposes, one for tests and evaluations. As the technology changes over the lifespan of a vessel, you need to be able to evaluate the full function and life cycle of the equipment. You would also need to be able to provide the necessary skills development, not just for the naval personnel but also for civilian personnel. In that scenario, that would require at least two installations onshore. Would that not require a very substantial re-write of the ANSTO Act, the ARPANSA Act, the EPBC Act and a host of other pieces of legislation that both of you would, I'm sure, be familiar with, at both a state and national level?

Dr Apperley : I will make a couple of remarks in answer to your question. Resolving back to the work of the taskforce over the next 18 months, they will be looking at what support functions and facilities are required. It is not at all certain whether additional shore-based systems will be required. We haven't fully identified all those shore-based systems that are going to be required.

Senator KIM CARR: I will come back to your answer there. But ARPANSA, the scenario I put to you, could you respond to that, please, Dr Larsson?

Dr Larsson : Yes, I see your point. However, at this point in time, I would not speculate about the facilities that are going to be needed in the future or the regulatory arrangements around those facilities. As I pointed out before, there is a fair amount of work that needs to be done over the next 18 months in order to clarify further. We are part of those discussions, as I mentioned, with ANSTO and Defence on those matters. But at this point in time, I would consider it premature to speculate.

Senator KIM CARR: It doesn't surprise me that you would say it's premature but I put it to you that in meeting our sovereign capabilities to be able to train our own people, maintain our own equipment, given the relationship between the reactor and the rest of the vessel and all the other systems that rely upon the power source in the vessel, you will need onshore facilities. Sovereign capability nonetheless would require that to be undertaken and, given that is stated to be the objectives of the program, that would currently be illegal under the current legislation, would it not?

Dr Larsson : Yet again, I think it will be hard to determine that question. I think that's something that—

Senator KIM CARR: Well, I could—

Dr Larsson : could be asked of the task force, which is going to appear in front of the committee—

Senator KIM CARR: I intend to put it to them, but you're the regulator.

Dr Larsson : Yes.

Senator KIM CARR: I think you would be more than familiar with your own act. I put it to you, in terms of the EPBC Act, that the establishment of a nuclear facility would be prohibited under that act and therefore would require a change in the legislation. As the regulator, surely you should be able to answer that question—am I correct or not?

Dr Larsson : I would refer to my previous answer around clarities. Your questions relate to the definition of a nuclear power plant in this case and other speculations.

Senator KIM CARR: That's right.

Dr Larsson : As you know, provisions in the act do not specifically address the kinds of facilities that we are discussing here.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes, okay. I think that you'd agree that section 140A of the EPBC Act and section 10 of your own act prohibit such activities, but that such activities will actually be required if we were to sustain a sovereign capability in terms of training and/or evaluation—and I would say that we need both—of the operations of a power plant of this type, and that they would have to be onshore.

Dr Larsson : The total facilities that are going to be needed would be a matter for the Department of Defence. As a general principle, I don't pre-empt regulatory decisions for any facility that I haven't even seen an application for.

Senator KIM CARR: Sure.

Dr Larsson : With regard to the prohibitions that you mentioned, there are clarities there and I think they can be dealt with—

Senator KIM CARR: I'll ask you another question. Currently, you're responsible for the regulation of monitoring equipment for mobile portable sources of radiation, are you not?

Dr Larsson : We do that under the arrangement with port monitoring, yes.

Senator KIM CARR: That's right. So even if there were a claim that we were to do all of this training and evaluation in someone else's country—we'd be at their beck and call—you'd still be responsible for the monitoring of all mobile portable sources of radiation onshore? Is that correct?

Dr Larsson : Yes—I can't really answer that question because, again, the question is hypothetical. I would need to look at the scenario and I would need to look at what kinds of licenses and authorisations are being sought—

Senator KIM CARR: Can you take that on notice?

Dr Larsson : based on the ARPANS Act and the regulations.

Senator KIM CARR: I see. Have you seen the agreement? Have you seen the proposals which are being advanced by the government?

Dr Larsson : Yes.

Senator KIM CARR: You have seen them?

Dr Larsson : Yes.

Senator KIM CARR: So you'll be able to take on notice the question that I've just asked you?

Dr Larsson : I can take that on notice.

Senator KIM CARR: You're leaving ARPANSA, aren't you? Do I have that correct?

Dr Larsson : That is correct. I am leaving ARPANSA in March next year.

Senator KIM CARR: In terms of your replacement, has there been any discussion with the board about making sure we have the necessary skills to be able to deal with this new situation?

Dr Larsson : ARPANSA doesn't have a board. ARPANSA has a CEO, which is myself—as you know. There have been substantial discussions within the organisation about the role that ARPANSA may take in relation to this.

Senator KIM CARR: Okay—

Dr Larsson : These are discussions which are based on speculation at this time.

Senator KIM CARR: Okay, well I—

CHAIR: Senator Carr—

Senator KIM CARR: I'll finish up with this, Chair. I apologise for getting that wrong with regard to the board at ARPANSA. You're in the Department of Health at the moment. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to actually be in the department of the environment given these changed circumstances to the whole agency? Has there been any conversation within the senior executive service of ARPANSA, given that matter?

Dr Larsson: Not to my knowledge. Looking internationally, organisations of this nature, like ARPANSA, are either in health departments or environment departments. Around the world you will find them in different places.

Senator KIM CARR: It's just that we are now moving away from regulation of our nuclear industry, which is predominantly in radiopharmaceuticals, into a whole new area. You'd think it would be appropriate for a conversation about also changing the direction, given the environmental issues which do arise because of the changed policy position that's being proposed.

Dr Larsson: That could be a discussion for the ensuing 18 months, and for the government to take a considered view.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Sorry, Chair, I took far too long. My apologies.

CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Carr. I will now hand to Senator Patrick.

Senator PATRICK: I just want to ask the parties whether they were consulted about the announcement that was made on 16 September prior to the announcement.

Mr Jenkinson : We were consulted in advance of the announcement regarding ANSTO's capability, what we do regarding nuclear stewardship and what support we would be able to give to Australia as this progresses.

Senator PATRICK: What was the date of that consultation? Was it immediately prior or some time prior, and over how long a period?

Mr Jenkinson : Our initial conversation started in March this year, and we had a number of consultations between then and the announcement.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. ARPANSA?

Dr Larsson: We were not consulted in a formal sense. We were given a brief. That was at the end of June or the beginning of July. That was provided to me and also the deputy CEO, Dr Gillian Hirth.

Senator PATRICK: Who provided that brief?

Dr Larsson: Vice Admiral Mead.

Senator PATRICK: In relation to a couple of questions that Senator Carr asked, there was sort of a comment that is something that might be looked at in relation to the task force. I just point out this is a different forum to the task force and, in actual fact, it is appropriate to answer questions from the Senate. So I wonder if it's possible for both organisations to take on notice which acts they believe would need to be changed, and you could put appropriate caveats on that. Just advise the committee of the acts that are likely to be changed and, in particular, where it's the ANSTO Act or ARPANS Act, where those changes might be required.

Dr Larsson: I'm happy to take that on notice, Senator.

Mr Jenkinson : We're happy to take that on notice.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you very much. I will just go to ARPANSA first in terms of naval ship visit approval. It's my understanding that Adelaide has never been approved for a naval ship visit. Is that correct?

Dr Larsson: Yes, that is correct.

Senator PATRICK: I presume you're going to work through some process to work out whether that is a possibility. Have you been asked to do that?

Dr Larsson: We have not been asked to do that. I would pass to Dr Gillian Hirth, who is managing this area at ARPANSA.

Senator PATRICK: Sure.

Dr Hirth : In relation to the plans and arrangements for the Visiting Ships Panel (Nuclear), as they stand at the moment, the request for any vessel to be present in a port in Australia would go through a three-step process. The first is a clearance by Navy who would assess the port for physical ability—that the infrastructure, the water depths and those physical characteristics of a port are suitable to receive the vessel type. If it gets through that stage, the second stage is then the radiological assessment which would be done by ARPANSA. The radiological assessment is done on the basis of a reference accident. The third stage is for the jurisdiction—in this case, South Australia. There would be involvement with the South Australian government, who take into account the socioeconomic impacts on their jurisdiction. That's the three-step process for port clearance in Australia.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. I note that this hasn't occurred, but, for example, Minister Birmingham mentioned the possibility of nuclear submarines being based out of HMAS Stirling. Clearly there would need to be submarines based full time in Adelaide. Are there any differences between a port visit versus a hosting of a nuclear vessel at a port for an extended period of time or permanently?

Dr Hirth : Obviously for the longer term, if there were to be a permanent presence, you would need to take into account the time and the location, and then look at the plans and arrangements that would need to be in place and any response capabilities to support a permanent siting. If you look at our existing installations in Australia, the OPAL reactor has plans and arrangements for emergency response that ARPANSA reviews and considers from a regulatory perspective. Once we know what needs to be assessed, we would then undertake that assessment process on the basis of any plans and arrangements provided by the operator or a responsible entity for that facility or reactor.

Senator PATRICK: Is there any difference between a visiting ship, obviously tied up alongside a wharf, and a ship that is on a hard stand in terms of how you might view a particular approval?

Dr Hirth : Again, you would need to consider the full picture in any regulatory assessment of what plans and arrangements you would need in place. Obviously if a ship is visiting it can be removed from the port if necessary if it's able to be moved, which is one of the steps within the existing arrangements. If it were on a hard stand you would need to understand the circumstances and the situation, the state of the reactor and all of those parameters, and make any decision on the basis of that information. Again, I can't speculate about what that information would be.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. I'll go to ANSTO. You said to Senator Carr that you've got about 300 people working at, presumably, Lucas Heights. I appreciate there are differences here because your reactor is, I understand, turned on for periods of 35 days or something like that, and then some maintenance takes place. I'm trying to get a feel for the statement that you can take a hands-off approach with the reactor. I want to get an understanding of how you might go about maintaining a reactor. What sort of requirements might exist for in-country work—things like core samples through to inspections, tests, pump change outs, the primary cooling loop versus the secondary cooling loop and those sorts of things. Is it fair to say that it's not realistic to simply say that it's plug and play, leave alone and doesn't require much involvement from people?

Mr Jenkinson : A clarification in response to Senator Carr around the approximate number of engineers on site: we have about 1,200 people at Lucas Heights and some more at Clayton campus. In terms of the reactor, we're talking about a different system here. The OPAL reactor at ANSTO is a multipurpose reactor used for research, the production of nuclear medicines and the testing of samples, and therefore the start of the reactor is very different. We of course have a system in place that is approved in terms of where we monitor that reactor over the period of its life, from policy through to initiating operations, asset management, ageing management and a whole program of activities that we have to perform inclusive of some significant shutdowns happening around the 10- to 12-year mark of the reactor. There's a whole set of plans and arrangements in place for how we look after that asset because of the sort of asset it is and the way we operate it for the work it needs to do.

Senator PATRICK: Okay, but you might at least have a better idea than someone like me as to the requirements of something like the S9G reactor. It's a genuine power reactor. My understanding, having been on these submarines, is that they do require interaction, they do require short-term maintenance, longer-term maintenance, core samples and those sorts of things. Do you have any knowledge of that at all?

Mr Jenkinson : We have staff on site with nuclear engineering capabilities, some with different backgrounds, that would have some knowledge of that. Part of our input to this will be to identify our capabilities and how we can support the task force going forward, and the skills development required to deliver against this project.

Senator PATRICK: How many people do you have directly maintaining that reactor, and how many people do you have operating the reactor in terms of shifts?

Mr Jenkinson : I would have to take on notice the specific numbers for you to come back and give you an idea of the shift arrangements—if I can do that?

Senator PATRICK: Yes.

CHAIR: I'm going to have to ask you to finish up.

Senator PATRICK: Sure.

Senator KIM CARR: Can I get a clarification from Mr Jenkinson? You have 300 engineers. You have over 1,000 personnel. Not all of those personnel are engineers, though—that's correct, isn't it?

Mr Jenkinson : That's correct. We've got researchers and operators who produce nuclear medicine.

Senator PATRICK: The burden of my question really goes to what it takes to maintain and operate a reactor in terms of personnel. I'd also like to understand what the acceptable experience levels are and how you get people to those experience levels. Noting what the chair said, maybe take that on notice.

Mr Jenkinson : Certainly. We can provide that to you.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

Mr Jenkinson : Thank you.

.