342

8 THE COMMISSION IS DEAD, LONG LIVE ANSTO

8.1 Introduction

Bob Hawke was elected Prime Minister of Australia in 1983. The ALP remained the governing party until the general election in 1996. Hawke, however, would lose a leadership ballot to Paul Keating (b 1944) on 19th December 1991. The Hawke-Keating years left an indelible mark on Australian society and initiated changes in the nature of government funding of research that affected academic establishments, the CSIRO and the AAEC|XXXV". This period saw the dismantling of the AAEC and the establishment of a new organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Paul Keating was defeated in the 1996 election which was won by the Liberal Party under the leadership of John Howard (b-1939).

This chapter will focus on the period from 1983 to 1994. The Commission, during this period, would undergo a massive restructuring which included both name change, a new direction of research and naturally a new Act to govern this body. The chapter will not conclude when the Commission ceased to exist but will explore some of the early years of the new organisation, ANSTO, and the constant Government interference that continued to dog the organisation despite the changes.

8.2 The Commission in Limbo

Hawke won the 1983 election, engineered a double dissolution to win in 1984 and then repeated his victory in 1987. Each time Hawke won he did so with a

lxxxv" Changes in Australian economic policy during the 1980s are described in G.Maddox The Hawke Government and Labor Tradition' Penguin, Ringwood 1989 and P.Kelly 'End of Certainty' Allen and Unwin, St Leonards 1992

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 343 respectable majority, with the Australian Democrats or the Independents holding the balance of power in the Senate1. The change in government naturally led to a change to the minister responsible for the Commission; this new minister was The Right Honourable Peter Walsh who came into office on 11th March 1983. Labor Party policy concerning uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle, had changed dramatically during the years in opposition. In fact it was a complete reversal of its previous policy. Peter Walsh has suggested that this reversal had its roots as far back as 1974 for it was at this time that a small group of individuals, led by Tom Uren, had proposed an anti-uranium policy and a reversal of the previous Labor pro-uranium mining and pro-enrichment policies2.

The issue of uranium mining came to a head during the 1977 ALP Conference when a motion was moved and passed that the Labor Party would repudiate all uranium export contracts signed during the term of the coalition government. These contracts were signed and mines were being developed by 1980. The next ALP Conference was held in July 1982, but by this time two mines were already in operation and fulfilling export contracts. At this conference the ALP policy concerning uranium mining changed again, this time allowing for the continued operation of the two existing mines (Nabarlek and Ranger) and allowing for the new mine at Roxby Downs to be developed. This became known as the three-mine policy3.

The Commission continued to have changes in its make up. Professor Don George retired on 26th May 1983 and was replaced as Chairman of the Commission by Professor Max Brennan. Sir Bernard Callinan also retired and resulting vacancies were filled by Dr D.G. (Terry) Walker from 26th May and Dr J.G.Morris, Director, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital on 31st May4. Terry Walker had been a long time officer of the

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE Commission and had been a member of the team which received the Syme Prize in 1964.

Terry Walker, the new Commissioner, was appointed the Executive Officer of the Commission at this time. He reflected on this period: 'it was very difficult to know what the government wanted you to do. I mean, I know what they wanted me to do- not cause any trouble. But we had no direction on programs at all. I mean, we were slightly embarrassed ...we did survive; I'm surprised sometimes that we actually did. Because if you read the Hawke government- the Labor party platform at the election of the Hawke Government- you'll realise that they were going to close it down6. Walker continues 'but we were a bit fortunate that our first Minister,...decided that wasn't going to happen6. Peter Walsh was perhaps the only individual in the new cabinet who supported the Commission.

The new government, as had been the practice in the past, again wanted to revise the structure and research activities of the Commission and perhaps close the organisation down. Atomic energy was no longer seen as part of the Labor Party agenda and an organisation bearing that name was now an embarrassment to the new government. However, 'new Legislation governing the activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is being developed ...the planned introduction of this legislation was deferred pending the outcome of the Australian Science and Technology Council Inquiry into Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, which is under consideration by the Government'7. The report from the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) Inquiry into Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was presented to the Government in May 1984. The report stated that the function of ASTEC was

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 345

'to examine Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle and in particular, to consider issues which arise directly from that involvement. The nuclear fuel cycle involves a certain series of steps from the mining and milling of uranium ores, through the conversion of those ores into nuclear fuel and the use of that fuel in power reactors for electricity generation to reprocessing of spent fuel and disposal of waste6.

The ASTEC report made a number of recommendations some of which echoed the first Ranger Report and included the following:- ' That exports of Australian uranium should not be limited as a matter of principle but should be permitted subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime0,

'That Australian participation in stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in addition to uranium mining and milling should be permitted, where such participation promotes and strengthens the non-proliferation regime'10

That Australia take steps to ensure that nuclear material extracted for nuclear purposes from Australian ores after export would become subject to a safeguards agreement to which Australia is a party'11.

The recommendations of the ASTEC review did not reflect the views of the Labor Party or the wider community. The AAEC was at this time still involved with research on the nuclear fuel cycle. The Government was now faced with the problem that the ASTEC recommendations were contrary to the will of some of the more vocal members of the Australian community and its own party policy. The Commission was aware that it had to suggest useful and acceptable goals for its research. The Annual report of 1984 demonstrated this new approach by the Commission when it stated

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 346

'in the national interest the AAEC Research Establishment: • Pursues research objectives in areas of national priority • Provides expert technical advice on key nuclear issues... • Provides specialised facilities and services to the community... for research, medicine and the development of Australian industry • Contributes to the maintenance of Australia's position as a country advanced in nuclear science and technology...,12. The report continued with: 'applied research and development emphasises five priority areas: environmental science, waste management, medical applications of radioisotopes and radiation and nuclear technology. Increased effort in these areas has been at the expense of some previous activities, particularly uranium centrifuge enrichment research and development which is being phased out'13. The Commission, by this stage knew that its very existence was now in question and that it needed to establish its new direction in a framework which would be acceptable to or at least tolerated by the vociferous environmental lobby. Work on the nuclear fuel cycle was coming to an end despite the recommendations of the ASTEC report.

The development of the use of radioisotopes in diagnostic medicine had profound elfects on the Australian population. A patient could now undergo relatively non-invasive tests (ie if one considers an injection as non-invasive) which could accurately determine the presence of a malignancy or an abnormal function of an organ or gland rather than undergo exploratory surgery which may result in weeks or months of convalescence. The radioisotopes produced in HIFAR all required relatively long half-lives from a medical perspective, but new diagnostic techniques were being developed overseas which used radioisotopes with half-lives of a few minutes or even a

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE few seconds. One of these new techniques was the PE"rxxxv"1 scan which allowed a physician to view and record a functioning organ. Consequently, in 1984 the Commission has proposed the acquisition of a cyclotron facility to enable a much wider range of radioisotopes to be available in Australia'14.

The Commission was now under the protection of the ambitious Gareth Evans who became the new minister responsible for the Commission, following the 1984 elections. Perhaps it was Walsh's unwillingness to close down the AAEC that led to his transfer to another ministry. The issues of uranium mining and the export of Australia's uranium ores came into the public arena. The Labor Party had its three-mine policy for uranium mining but at the 1984 ALP Conference this issue would again be debated. According to Peter Walsh, 'the Left, which had vehemently described and denounced the 1982 decision as a pro-mining uranium policy, changed its mind, argued that the 1982 decision could only be honoured by blocking all exports and closing mines and made known its intentions to so move in 1984'15.

The factions which made up the Labor Party argued whether the uranium mines should be closed, or allowed to continue, and what was to become of all the uranium deposits known to exist but as yet undeveloped. It was during the 1984 conference that 'a fierce battle between the factions was resolved in a ... compromise allowing Ranger and Nabarlek to continue production and Roxby Downs to develop but blocking any further mines'16. The reason for allowing Roxby Downs to be developed was one of simple political expedience. The South Australian government in 1984 was led by the Labor Party and it was believed that, if the development was not allowed to proceed, then this could lead to the ALP losing office in that state. Economics in the

" PET stands for Positron Emission Tomography.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE form of employment opportunities and the desire to maintain power were the only principles governing Labor decisions.

The three-mine policy was again endorsed as Labor Party policy as the Olympic Dam Mine at Roxby Downs came into operation to honour the previously made export contracts17. Once the Nabarlek deposit had been mined out the policy reverted to a two-mine policy and this would be Australia's uranium mining policy until the Liberal Government was elected in 1996.

The membership of the Commission would continue to change as each term of appointment came to an end, 'Mr Woods... completed his term... on 10th April 1985 ...Mr B.J.Hill was appointed Deputy Chairman on 11th April 1985'18. Brian Hill was the Deputy Secretary, Department of Resources and Energy19. The Commission was reviewed yet again in 1985. The Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) was called back within months of submitting its 1984 review on the Commission. The focus of this second review was on the role of medium to high energy particle accelerators (ie operating in the 8-10 MeV range) and nuclear reactors in physics research. The report produced was entitled 'Nuclear Science and Technology in Australia'.

The legislation to replace the Commission with a different body was being written at the time of this second review by ASTEC. The Commission, at this time, was attempting to also change its research objectives to align more closely to what were expected to be the research directions of the new organisation. In short the Commission was fighting for its very existence. In its 1985 Annual Report the Commission noted that its research program had the following objectives;

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE • to pursue research objectives in areas of national interest • to develop and maintain specialised facilities and services to the community for research, medicine and industry • to contribute to the maintenance of Australia's competence in the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology • to promote information exchange between organisations and countries via collaborative research, personal training and publication of papers and reports • to aid international efforts aimed at development of acceptable methods for nuclear waste disposal, environmental protection and strengthening of safeguards under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty • provide expert technical advice to Government on key nuclear so issues .

This ASTEC report, when is was submitted in November 1985, turned out to be a double edged sword for the Commission. The report acknowledged that the Commission had 'a small group of internationally recognised experts'm the field of neutron scattering and that 'this core of expertise should be nurtured21. It also acknowledged that is was 'essential to maintain a nuclear reactor in Australia for research and the production of radioisotopes... that domestic production of radioisotopes should continue so that Australian patients can benefit from the diagnostic techniques of nuclear medicine22 and that 'by far the largest Australian centre of applied research using nuclear technology is the AAEC Lucas Heights Research Establishment23. The report finally noted that the Commission had 'not purchased a major item of new equipment costing in excess of $250,000 for the last 12 years24. The Report then went on to make its recommendations which included that funding be made available for 'a special research centre for high energy physics', that

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 350 funding be made available to establish a national accelerator research facility, that funding be made available 'to maintain and upgrade HIFAR25, and that 'it is important for economic, social, scientific and foreign policy reasons that Australia maintains a domestic competence in nuclear science and technology26. The ASTEC report appeared to support the Commission but the report also stated; ' The Minister for Resources and Energy has proposed that part of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 be repealed and replaced by legislation establishing an Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in place of the AAEC. ASTEC supports proposed changes in the legislation27.

The Lucas Heights Research Establishment appeared to have been saved but the Commission's days were now drawing to an end. At this time the Government had the attitude that funding from Treasury for research projects was to be curtailed and that if research was important then private industry would request and fund it. This meant that universities, CSIRO and of course the Commission would now be required to obtain a significant part of their research budgets from industry and consequently research would be of an applied nature, rather than pure research. The Commission's structure and organisation would not allow it to change its direction without amendments to the Act which now governed it. Terry Walker speculated that the reasons for the changes may also have been related to the political perspective on nuclear energy: 'there was a general feeling that the government was finding it difficult to explain to its constituents that they were spending all this money on atomic energy, and the policy was really against anything to do with that, apart from isotopes*8.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 351

The new act that was introduced by Gareth Evans in 1985 was for a totally new organisation. In fact the first part of the new Act was to disband the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and to replace it with ANSTO; The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. 'The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985 was introduced in the Senate on 6th November 1985. At 30 June 1986 debate in the Senate on this Bill had been adjourned, and the Bill had not been considered by the House of Representatives29. The Bill was of such low priority that it was allowed to languish for many months before it was finally passed in 1987. As the Act sat in the parliamentary precincts in a kind of limbo, another review into the Commission was started and this will be discussed in the next section.

The year 1986 was to be significant, not just for the Commission but for the future prospects of nuclear energy everywhere. The Commission's Annual Report simply stated the accident at the Russian nuclear power reactor at Chernobyl on 26th April 1986 had world wide repercussions...ao. The ramifications of this event still haunt the nuclear power industry today. An aging nuclear power reactor in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl had suffered an accident which resulted in clouds of radioactive dust floating over most of Europe, with the dust settling over the European countryside affecting most agricultural production. To further add to the problem, the Ukrainian authorities did not notify either their own local population or the neighbouring countries until some days after the cloud of radioactive dust had been detected over Europe. The ensuing scandal would tarnish every nuclear power producing authority. The environmental movement had all the evidence it would ever need to demonstrate the dangers of nuclear power.

The situation for the Commission at this time was one of uncertainty. The Act which would mean the end of the Commission languished in Parliament and

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 352 those involved in the leadership of the Commission were attempting to keep things running. The last chairman of the Commission, Max Brennan, recalled his impressions of the staff at this time of uncertainty and change; 7 think the overriding impression was the strength of the staff. Their ability to handle several major changes in policy and direction, as successive governments came and went ...the staff although they were hit hard, would bounce back and get started on doing something else31. The Commission was not allowed to rest, it was to endure yet another review.

Figure 8-1 The Last Commission P12 AAEC Annual report 1986

8.3 The Collins Review and the End of the Commission

The Review of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission under the Chairmanship of Professor Dick Collins was commissioned by the Minister of Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. Dick Collins was Professor of

Applied Physics at the University of Sydney at this time. Terry Walker claims

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 353 that he was responsible for having Dick Collins appointed as Chair of the Review Committee. According to Walker the Minister was having difficulties filling this position. A senior public servant, Alan Woods, (Woods had been Deputy Chairman of the Commission until his retirement from this position in 1985) contacted Walker asking for suggestions and Walker responded 'what about Dick Collins. Dick at that stage had been the NERDDC/***1* representative on the Synroc committee'32. Collins recalled that'/ received a telephone call in ... late 1985 or early 1986 from, I believe a Brian Hill of the then Department of Resources and Energy33. Brian Hill was, as mentioned in the previous section, a Commissioner of the AAEC as well, which leads to an intriguing question as to how much information was being related to the Chairman of the Commission at this time. Brennan, commenting on the Collins review, stated '/ don't think it was something that I had anticipated34.

Continuing with Collins' recollections 'he (Hill) was calling on behalf of Senator Gareth Evans ...and he talked to me about the government legislation to establish ANSTO and the desire to set up a committee of review of the Atomic Energy Commission prior to its becoming ANSTO. And he asked me if I would chair that35. The review was timed to coincide with the transition of the AAEC to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the review took three months to complete. It had two broad terms of reference, to assess whether current objectives, programs, organisation and staffing of the AAEC appear appropriate for ANSTO and, if not, to make recommendations to achieve necessary changes36.

Collins noted that Gareth Evens had introduced the legislation that would repeal the bulk of original Atomic Energy Act and at that time also introduced boom NERDDC stands for National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 357 supported the legislative guidelines in the Act. All that was required now was for the Act to be passed through both Houses of Parliament. The response to the review was extremely positive according to Collins: 'as things transpired the recommendations of the committee were extremely well received by the government, ...by the unions, by the staff and by the scientific community... The outcome of the review attracted very little criticism at all, which I think was good, because it gave us some feeling that we at least steered a reasonable path between the desire of the government to have the organisation evolve and the natural desire of the unions to preserve whatever they could of their history and benefits'49.

8.4 ANSTO Comes into Existence

The Atomic Energy Amendment Act 1987, which spelt the end of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, was the Act that repealed the Atomic Energy Act 1953 and was assented to on 13th March 1987. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Act 1987 was put before the Parliament and was assented to on the same day. ANSTO's First Annual Report noted that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) is a statutory body constituted by the ANSTO Act 1987. The Act, which came into force on Monday, 27th April 1987, established ANSTO as the successor organisation to the... AAEC originally under the Atomic Energy Act 1953. The AAEC was abolished under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Amendment Act 1987. At 30 June ANSTO reported to the Minister of Resources and Energy60. The Minister responsible for this new organisation was Senator John Button.

The functions of the new organisation were stated in the Act and were, in effect a restatement of the functions of the old Commission. The Act also

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 354 the ANSTO Act before he had even convened the Review Committee37. Collins and the committee assumed that since the 'ANSTO legislation had been introduced into the Parliament, the Committee accepted that the government was committed to the establishment ofANSTO38. This implies that the Collins Review was little more than a 'rubber stamp' of government policy. One could even be so bold as to say that the Review Committee was given not just the terms of reference but the answer that they were to return to the government, in the form of the ANSTO Bill. The Committee did, to its credit, interview a number of individuals who came forward, and reviewed a number of submissions that were presented to it.

The Review produced thirty recommendations which covered the entire structure and functioning of the new organisation. The review also made a number of observations which are in themselves worthy of note and discussion. The Committee noted that' the nature of the AAEC has changed substantially... this evolution has been accompanied by, and in a real sense caused by, a changed perception within the Australian community of the role that nuclear energy should play in our society ...the present programs of the AAEC are by and large consistent with the functions ofANSTO, as proposed in the draft ANSTO legislation. The Committee believes, however, that the organisational structure and many of the attitudes within the Organisation, have not similarly evolved, and are not appropriate to ANSTO... ANSTO should be oriented towards applied research and the practical application of nuclear techniques in Australia39. This seemingly new orientation towards applied research was not entirely new to the organisation. The development of radioisotopes and their applications can certainly be described as applied research; indeed most of the work that the AAEC had been doing since the beginning could be described as being applied research. The Collins review statement that the primary and interim objective ofANSTO should be the

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 355 encouragement and facilitation of nuclear science and technology in the areas which can most directly benefit; for example medicine, industry, commerce, agriculture and science140, was a statement of the nature of much of the research that had been undertaken by the Commission since its inception.

The Collins review was bold enough to assert that the 'more recent decisions leading to the AAEC's withdrawal from uranium exploration and development and uranium enrichment have tended to undermine attempts to re-establish a cohesive organisation^; and further noted that 'a continuing theme raised was the issue of the adverse impact which major and unnecessary changes, at least as perceived by staff, have had on the overall morale and operating efficiency of the Commission ... for example the decision to cancel the Jervis Bay nuclear power station ... the curtailment of the uranium enrichment work42 and ' the poor industrial relations record can be seen in part as a symptom of a wider problem referred to elsewhere in this Report and which relates to the general uncertainty and loss of direction created by the major shifts in program direction occasioned by Government policy changes over the years'43.

Nevertheless, the Collins Review also claimed that 'it is now generally recognised, however, that Australia's past scientific research has been too heavily directed towards fundamental work, at the expense of the application of research to particular problems'44 and that the Committee does have considerable concern that very little of the research program is seen by either the researchers or by the management of the AAEC to be terminating ... virtually all of the major research fields of the AAEC appear to be of a continuing nature. Whilst a few of the projects are relatively new, much of the work has been in progress for many years, even decades'45. This sentiment was contradicted by Doug Ebeling, one of a large number of engineers

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE employed by the Commission who, commenting on the nature of research carried out by the Commission, stated 'well it never was really pure research, ...It was applied research aimed at atomic energy. Under the old AAEC we were doing research specifically to improve reactor performance or design new reactors or discover new things about reactors to make them work better. So it was applied science all the time"46.

Collins observed that 'HIFAR is now operated as a national neutron facility and is used for production of radioisotopes and neutron beam research', these facilities are used 'by outside researchers through the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, AINSE47. The importance of HIFAR as both an instrument for research as well as a commercial manufacturing plant effectively saved the reactor from closure and made its continued use a necessity. Despite the calls from the environmental groups, HIFAR was now a protected species.

The Review Committee noted that three submissions received by the Committee addressed the possibility of the AAEC/ANSTO becoming involved in a technology park proposal to facilitate links with industry, including use by industry of the facilities at Lucas heights and transfer of technology. CSIRO supports this concept, and the University of Wollongong had suggested an association of appropriate sections of the existing AAEC and the lllawarra Technology Centre ...the idea of a technology park at Lucas Heights has considerable attractions forANSTC48. Doug Ebeling takes pride in having played a part in establishing the Technology Park which will be discussed later in this chapter.

The Collins Review Committee completed its work and produced its report which was presented on 3rd October 1986. The report, as expected,

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 358 stated categorically that 'the organisation shall not undertake research or development in the design or production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices'. This aspect of the Act is never acknowledged by those who are still convinced that Lucas Heights is involved in some clandestine weapons research program.

ANSTO was to be governed by a Board of Directors which 'shall consist of the Executive Director and not fewer than 2 nor more than 6 other members51'. The members of the board, other than the Executive Officer would be appointed by the Governor-General. These members of the Board would include a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman and there was the possibility of a staff member of the organisation other than the Executive Director who could be appointed to the Board. The new organisation did not start off with inexperienced members. The Members of the first ANSTO Board included the three AAEC Commissioners; Hill, Morris and Walker and two members of the Collins Review Committee; Fynmore and Meyer. The Chairman of the new organisation was none other than Dick Collins, the Chairman of the Review Committee.

A relieved Max Brennan recalled: 'the thing that did occur was that the legislation, being of relatively low priority as far as the government was concerned, kept bumping it down the list in terms of order in which legislation would be handled. And I think my term as Chairman was extended, probably a couple of times ...sol ended up being chairman for much longer than I had anticipated and in the end that got to be a little difficult because I was trying to be Head of Department, run a research program. I was Deputy Vice- Chancellor - yes Pro Vice Chancellor of Research at Sydney University, and by that time Deputy Chairman of the Higher Education

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 359

Commission. So there was actually a sense of relief, on my part, when the legislation was finally enacted62.

Terry Walker had the honour of being the last Executive Officer of the AAEC and the first Executive Officer of ANSTO. His appointment to ANSTO was to last only twelve months, until 12th May 1988. He was replaced by David Cook who would retain this position until 1994 when he and the rest of the ANSTO Board would be dramatically replaced. This will be discussed at the end of this chapter. The upper level of the Organisation remained relatively unchanged and one may ask what effect did this change have on those in the laboratories; in effect very little. According to Doug Ebeling 7 don't think the name change had any effect but it was the attitudes that came in that were rather different63. This attitudinal change would have its impact a little later when ANSTO started to establish itself.

The ANSTO Act was amended in 1992. This amendment allowed ANSTO to 'manage and store radioactive material and radioactive waste'. It also gave greater power to the Board by allowing the Board, not the Minister, to terminate the appointment of the Executive Director. The Amendment also gave greater powers to the Nuclear Safety Bureau, effectively making it a separate body from ANSTO but still answerable to the ANSTO Board.

The Act established a Nuclear Safety Bureau and a Safety Review Committee. This latter committee was a continuation of the AAEC Safety Committee. An advisory council, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Advisory Council, was established under the Act to review the performance of the new organisation. There was room in the Act to allow for the establishment of a number of other advisory committees which could be established at the Minister's discretion.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 360

Figure 8-2 ANSTO's 'Cuddly a' Logo P4 ANSTO Annual Report 1991

The Commissioners of the AAEC were working towards the smooth transition into ANSTO. One small aspect of this transition was related by Max Brennan: 'as the transition point came closer, we as a Commission thought it would be useful to set up things like a letterhead, and one of those things I think I and my colleagues ... can take credit for is the design of what I would describe as the 'cuddly a'... for ANSTO64. This 'cuddly a' was to become the logo for the new organisation. See figures 8-2 and 8-3. Qnsto

Figure 8-3 ANSTO Logo P2 ANSTO Annual Report 1987

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission now no longer existed. The purpose for which it had initially been established had also gone but its legacy of a trained cadre of experts in atomic energy and nuclear science was very much in existence. These individuals, many of whom had by now retired from the work force, were still active within the scientific community. They were the pioneers of what has become a number of different scientific disciplines which were not even dreamt of in the early 1950s. According to its last Chairman, Max Brennan, the 'Commission really had a very, very important role in maintaining Australia's influence in the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that was really a major contribution which the Commission made. ...in

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 361 addition to being on the Board, Australia was also quite well represented on expert committees, and with staff in the agencies. Now all of those things ... were opportunities to have significant input and influence65 into the IAEA.

8.5 A New Direction for the New Organisation

Dick Collins, as mentioned previously, was appointed the First Chairman of ANSTO. He was approached by Alan Woods who 'raised with me the matter of becoming Chairman of ANSTO66. Initially Collins was a little reluctant but he was persuaded; 'the committee had some ownership and I personally had some ownership of those recommendations and ...it would be a good formula to have the person who had been responsible for developing the recommendations responsible for implementing therri57.

Collins was faced now with presenting the review recommendations to the new ANSTO Board for adoption. It has already been mentioned that the ANSTO Board was made up of ex-AAEC Commissioners and ex-Review Committee members so there was an expectation that all would go smoothly. Collins recalls 'The recommendations of the review committee were accepted by the Board completely... with one exception, and that was the recommendation that we should implement a redundancy program. We didn't proceed with that because the then Executive Director, Terry Walker, was firmly of the view that a redundancy program tended to reward incompetence and he had a moral problem with that. So we didn't proceed with that recommendation, we did with all the others'58. The staffing issues did not go away. Collins continues; 'Subsequently, when David Cook became Executive Director, he introduced the redundancy program and RKtss Fynmore supported that very strongly because from his experience in industry he felt

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 362 that it was the only way that we could get numbers down and we could restructure the organisation69.

The scientists who had suffered from their projects being cancelled for no more legitimate reason than that a change in government had occurred, who had worked through their organisation being split and part of it taken over by CSIRO, who had endured restructure after restructure, were now faced with the ultimate indignity, redundancy. Regardless of how well such a program is orchestrated there are many who will carry the bitterness of such an experience for the rest of their lives. This bitterness is not just with those who find that they are now superfluous to the requirements of the organisation and effectively cast aside but is also with those who survive and then constantly feel that perhaps next time it will be them. Once organisations start to make their staff redundant it is very difficult to pick up and continue and it was especially difficult for an organisation that had been established along the public service guidelines of a 'job for life'. To those who had originally been employed by the Commission it seemed as if the rules of the game had changed half-way through.

Neil McDonald, who had been away on postings to Vienna and Paris, returned to Lucas Heights in August 1990 when the redundancy program was getting under way and observed that 'morale was absolutely rock bottom ... with hindsight... Cook did what he had to do, I think. The place needed... a broom being put through it, it just needed a whole new direction and focus. He was very ruthless about what he did, but then I guess he probably had to move ahead; he probably had to be that... and there was a lot of bitterness, there still is... there were a lot of skills lost60. McDonald also observed that 'some of our most dangerous critics out in the community are actually ex-

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 363

ANSTO employees or ex-AAEC employees, with enormous chips on their shoulder about the way they were treated61.

Dick Collins in his first Chairman's Report for ANSTO's first Annual Report stated: 'ANSTO... will have a strongly outward looking applications oriented philosophy. Its mission is to encourage and facilitate the utilisation of nuclear science and associated technologies in medicine, industry, commerce, agricultural science and the community at large62. This apparent change of direction meant that those in the laboratories had to find a different focus for their research; 'most people didn't know where to go. So everything stopped dead and everybody put on their thinking caps and said now how can we use our work. There's an industry out there that would be interested in our work. So people started to move out and ask questions in industry: is anyone interested63. This approach was reminiscent of the early days of the Isotope Group within the AAEC when Dr Gregory went out to industry selling them the use of radioisotopes. Industry was again interested and this was further supported with the establishment of a technology park.

The technology park was one of the recommendations coming from the Collins review. The concept of a technology park was relatively new to Australia and was based on an overseas model whereby industries were encouraged to be established close to research facilities. The scientists working within the research facility would build close links with industrial companies who could both support part of the research and then develop applications of this research. Work on the technology park started almost immediately: 'ANSTO is conducting a joint feasibility study with the lllawarra Technology Centre Ltd on the possibility of creating a technology park on land in the buffer zone. The feasibility study is due for completion by the end of 1987 and, subject to a satisfactory outcome, construction of the park and

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 364 incubator building could commence during 1988 . The following year ANSTO noted that 'a feasibility study by Coopers and Lybrand, for ANSTO and the lllawarra Technology Centre calls for 17 hectares of land adjacent to the Lucas Heights Research laboratories to be developed as a high technology manufacturing complex65. Finally in 1989 'detailed planning is well advanced for the development of a Business and Technology Park on the 17 hectare site between the northern perimeter of the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories and New lllawarra Road.m Today the part of the buffer zone between ANSTO and the main road is a large technology park, see figure 8-4-

Figure 8-4 Aerial View of Lucas Heights Showing the Technology Park between the Research Establishment (right) and the Main Road (left) Courtesy of ANSTO

One of the first announcements made by the new organisation was relating to a project suggested earlier by the soon to be defunct AAEC, 'on 19 August 1986 the minister for Resources and Energy announced a Federal Budget provision of $0.2 million for the first phase of a National Medical Cyclotron Facility to be owned and operated by the AAEC and located at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital67. This facility would allow for the new PET (positron

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 365

emission tomography) scans to be performed in Sydney. Further it allowed the organisation to have facilities off its research site and close to where they were needed and used. This facility would finally come into existence long after the demise of the AAEC: the opening of the National Medical Cyclotron and the associated PET facility, a joint venture between ANSTO and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney on 13 March 1992 marked a significant advance in nuclear medicine facilities in Australia68.

The laser enrichment work which had virtually ceased before the Commission ceased to exist managed to survive as 'a small research program on the enrichment of uranium using laser isotope separation technology... continued69. It was the isotope separation aspect of this work that kept it going until today. Some of this isotope separation work has now been taken up by a publicly listed company, SILEX. Many of those who were familiar with the original laser isotope enrichment project are somewhat sceptical about the SILEX process but it is said that SILEX has attracted substantial funding for its process from the US.

Some of the older projects were continuing, some new projects were developed and the staff were being radically changed. Collins and his Board had to make this new organisation functional and develop future strategies. This involved the development of a mission statement, a set of objectives, a formal management strategy and of course a client or customer base which would support the activities of the new organisation. Dick Collins in his 1988 Chairman's statement noted '... there is no doubt that community attitudes towards nuclear issues have been characterised by major shifts from original uncritical enthusiasm to strong opposition in more recent times'70. This public opposition to all things nuclear would now dog the new organisation. Collins felt that part of the public attitude had its roots in a 'behind the fence' mentality

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 366 that was perceived by many to have been established by the old AAEC. But, as has already been demonstrated, the senior staff of the AAEC had made many and concerted attempts to bring both the scientific community and the public onto the research establishment at Lucas Heights. Whatever the underlying cause for this public perception, it was not based on a 'behind the fence' mentality. The AAEC had held regular open days which had been attended by thousands of visitors. Collins was undoubtedly faced with the antinuclear feelings of some of the more vocal members of the community. It is a problem that is faced daily by ANSTO.

In 1988 a Corporate Plan was being developed and later that year the strategic plan of ANSTO was published. It outlined how it would 'optimise the peaceful uses of nuclear science for the national benefit™. Collins was performing his functions as Chairman of the Organisation extremely well. Within the next few years he would tie up a number of loose ends bequeathed to ANSTO by the AAEC. In 1988 the Annual Report noted that 'ANSTO owns property at 549 Gardeners Road Mascot which houses the Nuclear Safety Bureau. ANSTO also owns a complex of vacant buildings at 45 Beach St, Coogee which has been in the hands of the Department of Administrative Services since 1981 awaiting disposal action ...the land at Jervis Bay on the south coast of New South Wales, which was reserved for future use by ANSTO, has been relinquished'72. The final link with the AAEC past was severed when ANSTO stated 'Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd remained in voluntary liquidation throughout the year. Formal winding up of the company is expected in the 1989-90 financial year"73.

ANSTO was now attempting to find new research areas and was quite creative in doing so. David Cook as Chief Executive Officer stated 'ANSTO has purchased a Tandem Accelerator from Rutgers University in the USA at a

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 367 total cost, with support equipment, of$2.3million*4. This tandem accelerator*0 was being purchased second-hand for little more than the excavation, transportation and installation costs. It was announced that the accelerator will be used for the establishment of a national radio carbon dating service for applications in geology, oceanography Js. ANSTO, unlike its predecessor, moved very quickly on a project if it saw worth in it. Barely two years after the announcement of the purchase of the accelerator, ANSTO announced that '... the Australian National Tandem Accelerator for Applied Research (ANTARES)... was officially opened in September 1991 by the Minister for Science and Technology, the Hon Ross Free'76. The accelerator has not just brought in work from around Australia. By the late 1990s, with Claudio Tuniz as the Head of the ANTARES group, dating work was coming in from overseas as well.

: see Appendix 2

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 368

Figure 8-5 Transportation of the Tandem Accelerator to ANSTO through Sydney streets P30 ANSTO Annual Report 1989

The ANSTO Act provided for the establishment of a number of advisory committees. Collins saw to it that these program Advisory Committees were established. They were to meet twice each year and included the following:-

• Biomedicine and Health

• Environmental Science • Isotope Technology • Applications of Nuclear Physics • Advanced Materials

• Nuclear Medicine77.

Lucas Heights had become a hive of activity, changes were instigated and completed quickly. As has already been discussed, some of these changes

caused some angst amongst those who worked there and for others these

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 369 were challenges to be met and dealt with. The Board of ANSTO was itself in some flux as well. On 6th October 1987 Brian Hill retired. Brian Hill had been the 'government member" on the Board, Collins stated that the 'government member on the Board, clearly reported to the Minister, briefed the Minister, kept him informed and alerted the Minister to issues that might have political significance ...we were really very fortunate in the Government Board members... Brian Hill was the first one... and he was extremely good'78. Hill's position as Deputy Chair was taken over by Russell Fynmore from 11th December and the vacancy created on the Board was filled by Alan Godfrey. Terry Walker had left the Board when he was replaced by David Cook.

Senator Button had been replaced as the Minister responsible for ANSTO by Simon Crean, the Science and Technology Minister, in 1990, and the following year the responsible Minister is the Hon. Ross Free M.P., Minister for Science and Technology. Mr Free took over the Science portfolio in June 1991 from the Hon Simon Crean MP'79. These political changes would pale to insignificance in December 1991 when Paul Keating challenged Bob Hawke for the leadership of the Labor Party and won. Keating was thus Prime Minister of Australia without having faced the Australian electorate. The Federal Election held in March 1993 resulted in another Labor victory and Keating was now Prime Minister in his own right. The year 1993 would be a pivotal for ANSTO. Not even a decade old the Organisation would face its first major crisis.

John Morris and David Money had been appointed to the Board on 27th April 1990 and Alan Godfrey resigned from the Board on 31st August 1990. On 31st December Russell Fynmore retired both as Deputy Chairman and as a Board Member and was replaced in both positions by John Innes. The fluidity of the Board meant that while there was some stability there was always fresh blood

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 370 coming in with new ideas, new problem solving abilities and new ways of approaching matters. Despite all the positive appearances, a threat started to loom over the Organisation: the government yet again wanted to merge ANSTO with CSIRO. This issue would not go away and would ultimately lead to one of the more dramatic episodes in ANSTO's short history.

It looked as if things were back on track. ANSTO was busily organising its customer base and its research direction. The new management process was still being established and the financial arrangements by which the Organisation could retain any monies earned allowed it to plan its budget. Collins, in his Chairman's report commented that 'Government policies relating to organisational autonomy, budget continuity and revenue retention have been critical in permitting effective management and planning flexibility*0.

The Annual Report of 1993 indicated the first hint of crisis when Collins in his Chairman's report stated 'recent months have seen moves initiated to merge Ansto into CSIRO. I, and my Board, are opposed to this plan for several reasons*1. This simple yet strong statement led to the dismissal of not just the Chairman of the Board but the entire Board of ANSTO. How and why this happened is difficult to ascertain. The Government documents relating to these events will not be made public until 2023 and many of those involved prefer to remain silent. The first attempt to merge the Commission into CSIRO in 1981 failed and now there was another attempt. In the first instance, it was the Liberal Government which had tried to dismantle the fabric of the Commission, but now it was the Labor Government that was going to finally attempt to dismantle the Organisation.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 371

8.6 A Dismissal Chris Schacht took over the portfolio of Science and Technology from Simon Crean in 1993. Schacht, it appears, was not particularly well disposed to either the old Commission or to ANSTO; 'there were one or two Ministers like Schacht and a couple of others who really wanted to get rid of the place, and really had it in for the place*2. This opinion of the Minister is not isolated, it was shared by, amongst others, the Chairman of ANSTO, Dick Collins. It is perhaps best if the story of the dismissal of the ANSTO Board is told in the words of Dick Collins himself; '/ got on extremely well with all the Ministers except Schacht. The initial interactions with Schacht were very positive and I thought that we would have a similar good working relationship. He was the only Minister who actually asked to come to an ANSTO Board meeting. And he didn't say very much but he listened to our debates and I felt that that was very positive, I was very pleased that he had done that...

'Immediately after the Board meeting we started to get negative vibes. And they were in the form of criticisms of what the Board was doing. The essential content of the criticisms, as I recall, was that they thought the Board wasn't getting adequate information from the management, that the Board was rubber stamping things that the management put up to it; that the Board wasn't giving the management a hard enough time, that we had lost sight of the ball.

'Now we were really quite surprised to hear these things being said ...We Board members used to talk among ourselves, we'd had a practice of having one Board meeting a year out of Sydney, to actually go out and look at ANSTO's clientele and to present the ANSTO message and so it gives you a lot of opportunity to sit and chat when

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 372

you go away and have evenings together. And we all had independently fonried the view that if Boards and management were not pushing in the same direction then an organisation had problems. It was fundamental to Boards and management to have a shared view of where the organisation was going and what it was trying to do. Now that doesnt mean that we didn't have disagreements, though we would resolve these disagreements and then move forwards together.

7 always tried to avoid the situation where the board would be put in a position of having to turn down a significant management proposal. In other words if there was something that I thought the board was going to have a problem with, it didn't get to the board. I was quite determined that that would be the case because I had seen other boards where that didn't happen, and it ends up with two people pushing in different directions, the trust that you need to make things work disappears, and things fall apart.

'So if that was nature of the criticism then I would accept the criticism that the board and the management worked together very closely. But it was part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that the organisation functioned well.*3

Collins had believed that his strategy was the best approach for an organisation such as ANSTO in which its staff really had to work together to achieve the goals that it had set. Collins continues with the story; 'and all of a sudden everything changed. And it was like the organisation was being poorly run, the board was not properly informed, the direction of ANSTO was not correct. It was as if we went through this phase transition, and it seemed that nothing that we did

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 373

found favour with the Minister. Now we attempted to be accommodative of this; I think as the criticism grew, it became clear that a lot of it was personally directed at David Cook, who was the... Executive Director. It appeared to me and to several others, staff and Board members, that there was a personality conflict between David and Chris Schacht and probably his staff as well64.

The Board had been given the power to dismiss the Executive Director but chose not to do it since they had no grounds. Had the ANSTO Act not been amended in 1992, then perhaps this issue would never have arisen. But a personality conflict between the Minister and the Executive Director, even an Executive Director who was unpopular with his staff, as Cook was, is not sufficient grounds for dismissal. Collins never mentions this as a possibility and goes on to discuss the proposed amalgamation with CSIRO: 'Matters came to a head, I suppose, in 1993... when it became clear that the Minister, Chris Schacht, wanted to proceed with an amalgamation of ANSTO and CSIRO. He wanted to merge the two. And we were unprepared to be accommodating on this. We felt that there were very cogent arguments, very sound arguments, why the organisations should be separate. CSIRO shared our view. CSIRO didn't want us; they wanted bits of us, and we had had some difficult relationship with CSIRO ...but we had to live together. However on this one we were of a mind, and I spoke to Adrienne Clarke, who was the chairman of CSIRO, and she and I were completely of a mind that the idea of merging the two organisations was inappropriate... and we also felt that an organisation of the size of ANSTO was one that you could evolve,... and we demonstrated that we had evolved it very effectively, with a minimum of fuss. We never went out to criticise our

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 374

minister; we just got on with the business, and changed the organisation and we did that very effectively65. Perhaps this is where Collins and the ANSTO Board failed, they were not supposed to succeed. Perhaps the Government wanted to destroy the Commission and later ANSTO by making the staff endure unending reviews and changes.

Collins continues; 'Ultimately Schacht's proposal to amalgamate the organisations came up before Cabinet ...it was thrown out. Cabinet saw little merit in it. And that, I felt should have been the end of it, but, and I believe it was the same Cabinet meeting, there clearly was a discussion after the proposal had been rejected that impinged directly on me and the Board. And, as I recall, the way it happened was that Cabinet argued that ...if they weren't going to merge the two organisations, it would be useful to have them work more closely together. And in order to do that they would need to restructure the Boards. ...the idea was that they would need a new Board and would seek common membership between the ANSTO Board and the CSIRO Board. So whilst you wouldn't have one organisation, you would have two organisations with some commonality on the Boards. And so that was the argument that was put. And that was not an argument that had ever been debated, to my knowledge, as an option, as an alternative proposal to merge the organisations...

'... as it was put to me, by a public servant, who called me on the evening of that Cabinet meeting, called me at home. It was something that the Cabinet was proposing, but they recognised that if that were to occur the ANSTO Board would have to resign, and I was asked, on the

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 375

phone, how would I respond to a request to resign. It was not something that I had thought about. I had said in the debate that I wouldn't resign, and so I was put on the spot. I said that I would actually like time to discuss it with my Board, and they said we haven't got time and you have to let us know now how you would respond, right now. So I thought about it, I didn't rationalise it very clearly in my mind, but I said that I would agree to that if I was asked to resign ...

'The next morning I spoke with all the board members, and I told them what I had agreed to do personally, and they all agreed to do the same thing. John Innes ... was particularly upset about it, he saw that as a great slight. David Cook was exceedingly upset about it. He regarded that as a terrible thing to do to a group of people who had served the organisation so well66.

The entire Board of ANSTO resigned and was replaced by a new Board half of whom were also members of the CSIRO Board. David Cook not only lost his position on the Board but also his position as Executive Director of ANSTO. The new Executive Director was Helen Garnett who still holds this position. Chris Schacht did not remain in this Ministry for long. He was removed from his Ministry and replaced by Peter Cook who remained in this position until the 1996 election.

ANSTO survived this crisis and continues with its work today. Ministers and Governments have come and gone but the organisation still exists and many scientists and engineers who were recruited into the AAEC are still in the employ of ANSTO.

1 p273 Bolton 2 p32 Walsh, P. "Confessions of a Failed Finance Minister' Random House, Australia 1995 3 p33, 68 and 92 Walsh

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 4 p10 AAEC 31st Annual Report 1983 5 Walker interview with Binnie 2000 6 ibid 7 p9 AAEC 32nd Annual Report 1984 8 p1 ASTEC report 'Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle p5 ASTEC report 'Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle ' p13 ASTEC report 'Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle ' p13 ASTEC report 'Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle ! p10 AAEC 32nd Annual Report 1984 1 p11 AAEC 32nd Annual Report 1984 ' p11 AAEC 32nd Annual Report 1984 ' p92 Walsh | p252 Grey ' p658 Davison, G. Hirst, J. Maclntyre, S 1 p10 AAEC 33rd Annual Report 1985 ' p10 AAEC 33rd Annual Report 1985 20 p21 AAEC 33"* Annual Report 1985 21 p3 ASTEC Report 'Nuclear Science and Technology in Australia' Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra 1985 22 ibid 23 p17 ASTEC 1985 24 p8 ASTEC 1985 25 p4 ASTEC 1985 26 p8 ASTEC 1985 27 p6 ASTEC 19985 28 Walker interview with Binnie 2000 29 p11 AAEC 34th Annual Report 1986 30 p15 AAEC 34th Annual Report 1986 31 Brennan interview with Binnie 2001 32 Walker interview with Binnie 2000 33 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 34 Brennan interview with Binnie 2001 35 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 36 p1 Collins 'Review of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission' October 1986 37 p5 Collins Review 38 p6 Collins Review 39 p7 Collins Review 40 p12 Collins Review 41 p10 Collins Review 42 p31-2 Collins Review 43 p36 Collins Review 44 p21 Collins Review 45 p22 Collins Review 46 Ebeling interview with Binnie 1999 47 p26 Collins Review 48 p31 Collins Review 49 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 50 p8 ANSTO Annual Report 1987 51 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 52 Brennan interview with Binnie 2001 53 Ebeling interview with Binnie 1999 54 Brennan interview with Binnie 2001 55 Brennan interview with Binnie 2001 56 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 57 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 58 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 59 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 60 McDonald interview with Binnie 2000 61 ibid

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE "" p6 ANSTO Annual Report 1987 63 Ebeling interview with Binnie 1999 64 p16 ANSTO Annual Report 1987 65 p20 ANSTO Annual Report 1988 66 p14 ANSTO Annual Report 1989 67 p15 ANSTO Annual Report 1987 68 p21 ANSTO Annual Report 1992 69 p18 ANSTO Annual Report 1993 70 p5 ANSTO Annual Report 1988 71 p8 ANSTO Annual Report 1988 72 p41 ANSTO Annual Report 1988 73 p72 ANSTO Annual Report 1989 74 p13 ANSTO Annual Report 1989 75 p14 ANSTO Annual Report 1989 76 p11 ANSTO Annual Report 1992 77 p39 ANSTO Annual Report 1989 78 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 79 p11 ANSTO Annual Report 1991 80 p4 ANSTO Annual Report 1992 81 p5 ANSTO Annual Report 1993 82 McDonald interview with Binnie 2000. 83 Collins interview with Binnie 1999 84 ibid

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 378

9 CONCLUSION In making an assessment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission it is not justifiable to use terms such as success or failure. These terms are value ridden and vary according to time and place. What is a great success to one individual is a failure in the eyes of another. Further, to make such judgements one would need to set up some type of measure of success or failure. This can only be done on the basis of some set of values. Is an organisation that produces large numbers of publications a more successful organisation than one that does not? Is a successful organisation one which has a large export market? Is an organisation a failure if it costs the tax payer too much money? These questions are not the type of questions one should ask about the Commission because these do not form a valid basis from which to draw conclusions.

Many of the questions that Ann Moyal asked fall in to this category, 7s the AAEC a viable institution? Is it a White Elephant? Has it a rationale, and a future in the present age? Has it been accountable? Or has it evolved, expanded, reorganised, changed direction, consumed funds, used and produced talent, and ultimately marked time, behind closed political and administrative doors? Why have its work, its accomplishments and failures, not been subjected to public scrutiny?' The first three questions may have been valid in 1975 but in 2003, sixteen years after the organisation was abolished, these questions have little relevance. It has, however been demonstrated that the Commission has always been accountable both to its Minister and to Treasury who provided

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 379 the approval and funding for much of its research. The Commission did evolve during its lifetime, it certainly has used and produced talent but never marked time. The Commission always had a viable research program which it developed to the extent that government would allow it to. Ann Moyal's notion that the Commission operated 'behind closed political and administrative doors'was correct. The political and administrative doors may have been closed but as has been seen, the scientific community was well aware of the research that was being carried out at Lucas Heights and publications and conference presentations appeared regularly throughout the Commission's existence.

Moyal had prefixed these questions by asking three questions which were and are still relevant; 'How does an industrial nation go about framing a nuclear policy? How does a country with specific resources for the development of scientific research and development make its determinations about the allocation of a proportion of those resources to a major institution of training and research? Where are the policies and decisions made?' These questions are not only relevant but need to be addressed. This section will attempt to address these three questions and in so doing an assessment will be made of the contributions and the impact of these on Australian society.

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission lasted thirty-four years before it was abolished and replaced by another organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. An assessment of the Commission can be best made by looking at three distinct but overlapping communities in which the Commission made a contribution. These areas are;

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 380

the political community, both national and international the scientific community and the wider Australian community. The Commission interacted with the politicians both to obtain funding and to justify its projects. The politicians were responsible for establishing the Commission and justifying its existence. The scientific community worked within the Commission, had access to facilities at the Commission and acted as the conduit through which the work of the Commission was made known to the Australian people. The wider Australian community reflected the attitudes of the population on issues relating to nuclear science. These three communities have all benefited from the work done within the Commission.

9.1 The Political Community

The Commission came into existence and was governed by Acts of parliament. It received a substantial amount of its funding directly from Treasury and its officers regularly went to Canberra to justify their new funding demands. Every project that was commenced required additional funds from treasury to buy equipment, or land, or hire specialised staff or to send staff for training overseas. The Commonwealth Government controlled the allocation of Commission expenses. Politicians tend to be individuals who may be well educated but seldom in the areas of science or engineering. They rely on their advisors and bureaucrats to provide them with the information they require to make their judgements. Some of these advisors and bureaucrats are themselves not educated in the areas of science or engineering. The decision making process thus involves scientists presenting their requests in a manner that is most likely to meet with success. This has often meant that scientific reports and requests to government have been written in a manner which reflects the political issues of the day and not the scientific issues. Hence, the

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 381 decision making process may itself be flawed and will remain so until there is a concerted effort made to ensure that those individuals who are advising government departments and their political leaders have the necessary technical training to understand the issues.

The Commission had within its structure another safeguard for government. While not spelt out in the legislation, one member of the Commission was the Secretary of the Department which was responsible for the AAEC. In some instances these individuals had also been senior members of the Prime Minister's Department, for example McKnight, Timbs and Hewitt. Two of the Commission's Chairmen were also public servants; Stevens and Boswell. These individuals had the experience to understand how government and government departments functioned. Timbs also appeared to have maintained some contact with his public service colleagues and, as has already been discussed, had on at least one occasion used his contacts to undermine Baxter.

The Commission functioned under five different Chairmen; Stevens (1953- 56), Baxter (1957-72), Boswell (1972-75), George (1976-83), and Brennan (1983-87). All the Chairmen had some scientific training but Baxter, George and Brennan were senior and respected scientists in their own right. But it should be said that the most influential of all these was Baxter. Baxter attempted to nurture Prime Ministers and maintained close contact with all of them except McMahon. Three of the six Executive Officers of the Commission were also scientists; Alder (76-81) Butler (81), and Walker (81-88). The other three were public servants; McKnight (58-61), Timbs (61-73) and Cook (88-93).

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 382

The links between government and the Commission were clear. What role did the Commission play in the realm of government? The Commission was initially training scientists in the newest technological field of its day; nuclear science, in particular nuclear reactors. Nuclear fission has the potential of both producing large amounts of electrical power or of producing the most destructive weapons known. In the early 1950s Australia's politicians wanted both. Thefirst to expand and populate the continent and the second to protect the nation from armed incursions from foreign nations. Australia got neither. The Australian population grew through immigration and new industries were established but this was not done through the utilisation of nuclear energy.

Scientific knowledge, specifically in the area of nuclear science was seen as a commodity. Australia initially wanted to buy nuclear scientific knowledge by selling uranium to Britain. When this failed to achieve the desired objective, Australia then attempted to gain expertise in a specific area of nuclear science, the Beryllia Project, and use this knowledge to trade for other nuclear secrets. This again failed to get the results that Australia wanted but it did place Australia in a position of advantage in the South-East Asia and Pacific region.

The training program and the purchase and development of a research reactor also placed Australia in a unique position. At the inception of the newly formed United Nations, Australia was fortunate enough to be a member of the first Security Council. Hence it was one of the nations invited to participate in the establishment of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. Australia's delegation included individuals who knew about nuclear energy and could speak from this basis. This doomed organisation was replaced in 1957 by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 383

Australia was, in 1957, the most advanced nation in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of nuclear technology. This enabled Australia to become one of the founding members of the Agency and entitled it to a position on the Board of Governors of the Agency in Vienna. Further, Australia provided the Board of Governors with two of its Chairmen; Baxter and McKnight. Australia's position on this international body gave Australia more influence over international nuclear energy and science issues than it would otherwise have had. The present Commonwealth government sees this position as so vital to its international scientific standing that one of its stated reasons for maintaining a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, was to maintain its position on the Board of Governors of the IAEA.

Australia was tardy in signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the terms of the treaty those nations without nuclear technology would not be allowed to gain this technology. Australia only signed after it had developed and demonstrated knowledge of the technologies associated with nuclear reactors, production of uranium hexafluoride, uranium enrichment, and nuclear fuel fabrication. Australia is now in a position from which it can purchase these technologies if required at some time in the future. Australia has never developed any technologies associated only with the production of nuclear weapons. The Commission was the body that provided the research and development into the technologies that allowed Australia to take its place in the world community of nuclear technology. Australia has the resources, had the expertise, but did not have the government will to develop a nuclear power industry.

Australia has an estimated 27% of the world's recoverable uranium resources, making it potentially the world's largest supplier of uranium ore. However, Canada is the world's largest supplier of uranium ores. The reason is simply

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 384

Australia's restricted uranium mining policy and the fact that some of the richest deposits are located near a World Heritage Area. The government attitudes towards uranium mining varied according to who was the Prime Minister at the time. The 1950s and 1960s were periods in which uranium exploration was encouraged and mining development by companies supported. The 1970s saw three very different approaches to this question: McMahon continued the approach of his Liberal party predecessors but the Whitlam government had a different view. Whitlam wanted the government to be the beneficiary of the revenue of uranium mining to the extent that the Commission owned shares in a uranium mine. Fraser on the other hand wanted uranium mining in the hands of the mining companies and the commission divested itself of its shareholdings. Hawke and Keating were bound by the Labor Party policy on uranium mining which had established the two / three mine policy. The 1970s and 1980s were periods of instability for the Commission not only through the changing role in uranium mining. The public perceptions of the role of the Commission were also changing. This naturally meant that the politicians would start to review the role of the Commission.

Nuclear science was a technology that was developed during the wartime conditions of military secrecy. Since aspects of this technology were used to develop weapons, nuclear science as a discipline was not allowed to become part of the mainstream of scientific endeavour within Australia. Most scientific research in Australia, since the 1920s, was pursued either within universities or within CSIR and later CSIRO. Nuclear science required a separate organisation since at the time the CSIRO was seen as not providing the security necessary. These views came from the government sector not from the scientists. Over the years, several attempts were made to amalgamate the Commission with CSIRO. These attempts were always unsuccessful simply

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 385 because neither the CSIRO nor the Commission wanted such a merger. The Commission had developed its own culture and there were very strong moves within the Commission not to become part of a larger organisation where the entity of the Commission would be lost. Even after the Commission was abolished and replaced by ANSTO this attitude remained. The Commission and now ANSTO has a significant and unique place within the Australian scientific community that should not be lost through any form of amalgamation with the larger CSIRO.

The Commission was established at a time when nuclear energy was regarded as the answer to the world's energy needs. The technology required to establish nuclear power plants and their relative costs compared to coal fired power stations meant that nuclear power for Australia never became a reality. Once the govemment decided not to proceed with the power station at Jervis Bay the reason for establishing the Commission evaporated. To the credit of those involved with the Commission, the organisation redirected itself into other areas.

Australia's political leaders developed their policies on nuclear energy and uranium mining in an ad hoc fashion which was often contrary to the policies of the previous government. There were no considered, long term strategies developed concerning these issues. Those who suffered as a result of government policy were the individuals who worked for the Commission.

In response to Ann Moyal's questions; 'How does an industrial nation go about framing a nuclear policy? How does a country with specific resources for the development of scientific research and development make its determinations about the

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 386

allocation of a proportion of those resources to a major institution of training and research? Where are the policies and decisions made?' One can simply respond that Australia never framed a nuclear policy. The few insights that have been made available indicate that the decisions were not always made by those elected to Government or even to the bureaucrats who were to implement the policies of Government. Even the allocation of funds to an organisation such as the Commission appears to be made in an ad hoc fashion and was largely determined by the attitudes of Treasury towards the project to be funded.

It appears that what Australia needed, and still needs, is a bipartisan well- developed policy on nuclear energy, the uranium fuel cycle and uranium mining. Such a policy should be developed through submissions from a wide range of professional groups including scientists and engineers, mining company executives, lawyers, economists, as well as politicians. Once established this policy should be regularly reviewed but not substantially altered every time there is an election.

9.2 The Scientific Community

The Commission interacted with and was part of the larger Australian and international scientific community. From its earliest days, Commission scientists were involved, through their training, with the latest developments from overseas. These scientists would then return to Australia and train their younger team members. Scientists employed by the Commission were also involved in the wider scientific community through the publication of their research findings in peer-reviewed journals, their attendance at scientific conferences and the presentation of papers at these conferences and through

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 387 the more informal communications that occur within groups engaged in similar research.

Scientists involved in research activities in the Commission were encouraged to publish their findings and published papers were always listed in the Commission's annual reports. If one were to use the number of published papers as an indicator of research success then one could unequivocally state that the Commission was a successful enterprise. However, if one was to use this as the sole measure then one would be undervaluing the impact that the Commission had on the scientific community, hence statistics on the numbers of papers published per annum are not given in this thesis. The real impact that the Commission made on the Australian scientific community was through its many activities.

The Commission had established a number of undergraduate and later postgraduate scholarships. These scholarships provided promising students with funds to complete their education and, more importantly, with training and employment when they graduated. The Commission had established the Australian School of Nuclear Technology which trained scientists and technicians from Australia and South-East Asia. The Commission acted as an educational and training institution as well as a research institute.

The Commission was involved in the establishment of AINSE which provided university-based researchers access to the facilities at the Commission, especially, to the HIFAR neutron source and the accelerators. AINSE also offered scholarships to promising students. Some of these scholarships were in the form of summer or winter schools which gave these undergraduates access to the facilities within the Commission. Other scholarships came in the form of reactor or accelerator time. AINSE has provided students with grants

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 388 to assist with their research or to attend conferences. It also organised conferences. Finally, the most important function of AINSE was to provide links between the Commission and universities.

9.3 The Wider Australian Community

It would be relatively easy to simply state that the average Australian had received little benefit from an institution which was primarily established to develop nuclear power and which failed to deliver this form of power. However, many Australians have benefited from the establishment of the Commission and the work done at the establishment. This benefit has come from the use of radioisotopes that are regularly produced at Lucas Heights and have been produced there since HI FAR went critical.

The production of radioisotopes is now a major undertaking at Lucas Heights. These isotopes are produced for a whole host of applications in medicine, agriculture, industry and environmental monitoring. Many of these isotopes have short half-lives which means that they can only be made to order locally and delivered when required. Further, the Commission, and more recently, ANSTO have developed pharmaceuticals which are tagged with radioactive isotopes such as technetiun>99m. These radiopharmaceuticals have specific targets within the body and allow for a more accurate diagnosis of disease. The Commission had also developed the technetiunv99m generator that has allowed Australia to develop a large export market of this particular radioisotope. Australia is effectively the sole supplier of these isotopes in the South-East Asia and Pacific region.

The radiation services offered at Lucas Heights initially demonstrated that sterilisation by radiation was a viable process. This allowed small companies

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 389 to gradually establish commercial radiation sterilisation services. This service has had benefits not just in medicine where many wound dressings are sealed then irradiated but in agriculture as well. The fruit fly numbers are kept under control by releasing sterile male fruit flies into the environment, ensuring that these flies are unable to reproduce. The Australian honey industry has benefited from the irradiation of hives to eliminate such diseases as American Foul Brood which is a viral infection. Prior to the use of irradiation, hives infected with this virus had to be burnt.

The delivery of the tandem accelerator has allowed ANSTO to develop its isotope measuring service which is used to date anything from cultural artefacts to palaeontology samples and for identifying the origins of ground water. Since the early 1990s this service has been used by overseas museums as well as local organisations.

Finally the Commission, and more recently ANSTO, has opened its doors to thousands of high school students each year. School groups are encouraged to tour the Lucas Heights site and are given access to all the major facilities at the research establishment. The Commission began to have public open days which have continued since ANSTO was formed. These open days allow the public to visit all the facilities on the site. The Commission and ANSTO have also set up travelling displays which have shown the work carried out at Lucas Heights at venues such as agricultural shows and shopping centres.

The Commission and its successor ANSTO have played a significant role in the Australian community. They have brought benefits to a wide sector of the Australian population regardless of where they live or work. Most of the work of the Commission has not been secret but has been in the full view of the public through scientific publications and its open days. The little secrecy that

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 390 did take place was related to industrial secrecy rather than military secrecy. Through its influence and positive affect on many aspects of Australian life the Commission was a great success!

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 391

10 APPENDICES

10.1 Appendix 1: AAEC Commissioners and the ANSTO Board Members

This section lists the Members of the Commission, the Committees of the Commission and their member ship as well as the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the Commission. The last page of this section lists the membership of the ANSTO Board, the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the Organisation.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION BUSINESS SCIENTIFIC URANIUM MINISTER RESPONSIBLE OFFICER COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1953 MENZIES BEALE STEVENS BAXTER MURRAY Department of MURRAY ANDERSON Supply KRUTTSCHMITT RAGGATT 1954 MENZIES BEALE STEVENS BAXTER BAXTER MURRAY MURRAY BRAIN ANDERSON MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT MYERS RAGGATT OLIPHANT WHITE 1955 MENZIES BEALE WATSON- STEVENS BAXTER STEVENS BAXTER MURRAY MUNRO MURRAY ALLISON BRAIN ANDERSON (CHIEF BEGG MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT SCIENTIST) CARROLL MYERS RAGGATT COOMBS OLIPHANT GOODMAN WHITE HARMAN ANDERSON HEY HUNTER HOOKE LODER MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION BUSINESS SCIENTIFIC URANIUM MINISTER RESPONSIBLE OFFICER COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1956 MENZIES BEALE WATSON- STEVENS BAXTER STEVENS BAXTER MURRAY MUNRO MURRAY ALLISON BRAIN ANDERSON (CHIEF BEGG MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT SCIENTIST) COOMBS MYERS RAGGATT GOODMAN OLIPHANT HARMAN WHITE HEY ANDERSON HOOKE HUNTER LODER TITTERTON MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE STORREY 1957 MENZIES SPOONER WATSON- BAXTER RAGGATT BAXTER BAXTER MURRAY MUNRO MURRAY STEVENS MARTIN ANDERSON Department of (CHIEF ALLISON MYERS KRUTTSCHMITT National SCIENTIST) BEGG OLIPHANT RAGGATT Development COOMBS WHITE GOODMAN ANDERSON HARMAN HUNTER HEY TITTERTON HOOKE LODER MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE STORREY

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION BUSINESS SCIENTIFIC URANIUM MINISTER RESPONSIBLE OFFICER COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1958 MENZIES SPOONER MCKNIGHT BAXTER MCKNIGHT BAXTER BAXTER MURRAY WATSON- RAGGATT STEVENS MARTIN ANDERSON MUNRO MARTIN ALLISON MYERS KRUTTSCHMITT (CHIEF MURRAY BEGG OLIPHANT RAGGATT SCIENTIST) COOMBS WHITE GOODMAN ANDERSON HARMAN HUNTER HEY TITTERTON HOOKE LODERS MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE STORREY VERNON 1959 MENZIES SPOONER MCKNIGHT BAXTER MCKNIGHT BAXTER BAXTER MURRAY WATSON- RAGGATT STEVENS ANDERSON ANDERSON MUNRO MARTIN ALLISON HUDDLESTON KRUTTSCHMITT (CHIEF MURRAY BEGG HUNTER RAGGATT SCIENTIST) COOMBS MARTIN GOODMAN MYERS HARMAN OLIPHANT HEY SYKES HOOKE TITTERTON LODER WHITE MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE STORREY VERNON

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION BUSINESS SCIENTIFIC URANIUM MINISTER RESPONSIBLE OFFICER COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1960 MENZIES SPOON ER MCKNIGHT BAXTER MCKNIGHT BAXTER HUDDLESTON MURRAY DALTON RAGGATT STEVENS HUNTER ANDERSON (DIRECTOR) MARTIN ALLISON MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT DARGAN BEGG MYERS RAGGATT COOMBS OLIPHANT GOODMAN SYKES HARMAN TITTERTON HOOKE WHITE LODER MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE STORREY VERNON 1961 MENZIES SPOONER TIMBS BAXTER RAGGATT BAXTER HUDDLEST-ON MURRAY DALTON RAGGATT STEVENS HUNTER ANDERSON (DIRECTOR) MARTIN ALLISON MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT DARGAN BEGG MYERS RAGGATT COOMBS OLIPHANT GOODMAN SYKES HARMAN TITTERTON HOOKE WORNER LODER WHITE MCVEY MARSHALL MOORE STORREY VERNON

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 396

YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION BUSINESS SCIENTIFIC URANIUM MINISTER RESPONSIBLE OFFICER COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SAFETY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1962 MENZIES SPOONER TIMBS BAXTER RAGGATT BAXTER HUDDLEST-ON MURRAY SUNDERLAND ALDER MARTIN STEVENS HUNTER ANDERSON CUMMINS (DIRECTOR) DARGAN ALLISON MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS TIMBS BEGG MYERS RAGGATT COOMBS OLIPHANT GOODMAN SYKES HARMAN TITTERTON HOOKE WHITE LODER WORNER MCVEY KARMEL MARSHALL SUNDERLAND MOORE THOMPSON STORREY 1963 MENZIES SPOONER TIMBS BAXTER VERNON ALDER MARTIN STEVENS HUNTER ANDERSON CUMMINS (DIRECTOR) DARGAN ALLISON MARTIN KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS TIMBS BEGG MYERS RAGGATT COOMBS OLIPHANT GOODMAN SYKES HARMAN TITTERTON HOOKE WHITE MCVEY WORNER MARSHALL KARMEL MOORE SUNDERLAND STORREY THOMPSON VERNON

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 397

YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION URANIUM SAFETY ADVISORY MINISTER OFFICER COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1964 MENZIES SPOONER TIMBS BAXTER RAGGATT MURRAY SUNDERLAND UNTIL 10TH ALDER MARTIN ANDERSON CUMMINS JUNE, THEN (DIRECTOR) DARGAN KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS FAIRBAIRN TIMBS RAGGATT 1965 MENZIES FAIRBAIRN TIMBS BAXTER RAGGATT MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER UNTIL 9TH ANDERSON CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) MARCH KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS BOSWELL RAGGATT HOOKE FROM 16TH KEMP APRIL NORGUARD MARTIN RODERICK DARGAN SIMPSON TIMBS STREET WEICKHARDT 1966 MENZIES FAIRBAIRN TIMBS BAXTER MARTIN MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER DARGAN ANDERSON CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) BOSWELL KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS TIMBS RAGGATT HOOKE KEMP NORGUARD RODERICK SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT 1967 HOLT FAIRBAIRN TIMBS BAXTER MARTIN MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER BOSWELL KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS (DIRECTOR) TIMBS RAGGATT HOOKE KEMP NORGUARD RODERICK SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 398

YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION URANIUM SAFETY ADVISORY MINISTER OFFICER COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1968 GORTON FAIRBAIRN TIMBS BAXTER MARTIN MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER WARD ANDERSON CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) BOSWELL KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS DARGAN, RAGGATT HOOKE UNTIL JUNE KEMP ALDER NORGUARD FROM JUNE RODERICK TIMBS SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT 1969 GORTON FAIRBAIRN TIMBS BAXTER BOSWELL MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER ALDER ANDERSON CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) TIMBS KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS WARD HOOKE KEMP NORGUARD RODERICK SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT 1970 GORTON SWARTZ TIMBS BAXTER BOSWELL (until MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER 21st October ANDERSON CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) 1969) KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS ALDER HOOKE TIMBS KEMP WARD NORGUARD BOTT (from 1st RODERICK December 1969) SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 399

YEAR PRIME MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION URANIUM SAFETY ADVISORY MINISTER OFFICER COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE 1971 MCMAHON SWARTZ TIMBS BAXTER WARD MURRAY SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER ALDER ANDERSON CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) BOTT KRUTTSCHMITT D.STEVENS COOMBS TIMBS HOOKE KEMP NORGUARD RODERICK SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT 1972 MCMAHON SWARTZ TIMBS BAXTER WARD Uranium SUNDERLAND COADY ALDER (until 15th ALDER committee CUMMINS CONNOLLY (DIRECTOR) April 1972) BOTT disbanded D.STEVENS COOMBS BOS WELL TIMBS HOOKE (from 16th KEMP April 1972) NORGUARD RODERICK SIMPSON STREET WEICKHARDT

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE YEAR PRIME MINISTER MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION SAFETY OFFICER COMMITTEE 1973 MCMAHON (until SWARTZ (until 2 TIMBS BOSWELL WARD SUNDERLAND (until 2 December December 1972) until 7 February ALDER CUMMINS 1972) 1973 when position BOTT (until 11 D.STEVENS WHITLAM CONNOR is abolished January 1973) from from HEWITT (from 2-Dec 2-Dec 11-Jan 1972 1972 1973) Department of TIMBS (until 7 Minerals and February Energy 1973) 1974 WHITLAM CONNOR BOSWELL WARD SUNDERLAND ALDER CUMMINS HEWITT D.STEVENS 1975 WHITLAM CONNOR BOSWELL WARD (until SUNDERLAND 31 May 1975) CUMMINS ALDER (until D.STEVENS 31 May 1975) HEWITT MESSEL (from 5 December 1974) 1976 WHITLAM (until CONNOR (until Executive Officer GEORGE HEWITT SUNDERLAND 11-Nov 14 October 1975) ALDER MESSEL CUMMINS 1975) WREIDT(14 CALLINAN D.STEVENS October - ALDER 11-Nov 1975) FRASER ANTHONY

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE YEAR PRIME MINISTER MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION SAFETY OFFICER COMMITTEE 1977 FRASER ANTHONY ALDER GEORGE HEWITT SUNDERLAND Department of MESSEL CUMMINS Natural Resources CALLINAN D.STEVENS ALDER

1978 FRASER ANTHONY ALDER GEORGE WOODS (from STEVENS Depatment of 12 April 1978) ILBERY "rade and Resources MESSEL TELFORD AND CALLINAN KRISTER NEWMAN ALDER Depatment of HEWITT (until National 12 April 1978) Development 1979 FRASER ANTHONY ALDER GEORGE WOODS STEVENS AND MESSEL ILBERY NEWMAN CALLINAN TELFORD ALDER HARLEY 1980 FRASER ANTHONY AND ALDER GEORGE WOODS STEVENS NEWMAN (until 8 MESSEL ILBERY December 1979) CALLINAN TELFORD CARRICK (from 8 ALDER HARLEY December 1979) 1981 FRASER ANTHONY ALDER GEORGE WOODS STEVENS AND then BUTLER MESSEL ILBERY CARRICK then WALKER CALLINAN TELFORD ALDER HARLEY

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 402

YEAR PRIME MINISTER MINISTER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION SAFETY OFFICER COMMITTEE 1982 FRASER ANTHONY WALKER GEORGE WOODS STEVENS AND CALLINAN ILBERY CARRICK MESSEL (until TELFORD 4-Dec HARLEY 1981) ALDER (until 15-Jan 1982) BRENNAN (from 12 January 1982)

1983 FRASER (to 11 CARRICK WALKER GEORGE (until WOODS STEVENS March 1983) AND 26 May 1983) BRENNAN ILBERY HAWKE (from 11 ANTHONY BRENNAN (from WALKER TELFORD March 1983) (until 11 March 27 May 1983) (from 26 May HARLEY 1983) 1983) WALSH (from 11 MORRIS (from March 1983) 31 May 1983) 1984 HAWKE WALSH WALKER BRENNAN WOODS STEVENS Department of WALKER ILBERY Resources and MORRIS TELFORD Energy HARLEY 1985 HAWKE EVANS WALKER BRENNAN WOODS (until STEVENS 10 April 1985) ILBERY HILL (from 11 TELFORD April 1985) HARLEY WALKER MORRIS 1986 HAWKE EVANS WALKER BRENNAN HILL STEVENS WALKER ILBERY MORRIS TELFORD HARLEY FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 403

ANSTO BOARD

YEAR PRIME MINISTER CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE BOARD MINISTER OFFICER 1987 HAWKE BUTTON COLLINS WALKER HILL FYNMORE MEYER ROBINSON WALKER MORRIS 1988 HAWKE BUTTON COLLINS WALKER HILL (until 6 (until 1 May October 1987) 1988) FYNMORE COOK GODFREY (from 11 December 1987) MEYER MORRIS ROBINSON WALKER (until 1 May 1988) COOK (from 1 May 1988) 1989 HAWKE BUTTON COLLINS COOK FYNMORE GODFREY MEYER MORRIS ROBINSON SMALL 1990 HAWKE BUTTON COLLINS COOK FYNMORE GODFREY MEYER MORRIS ROBINSON SMALL 1991 HAWKE CREAN COLLINS COOK FYNMORE Then MEYER KEATING MORRIS MONEY (from 27 April 1990) GODFREY (until 31 August 1990)

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 404

YEAR PRIME MINISTER CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE BOARD MINISTER OFFICER 1992 KEATING FREE COLLINS COOK FYNMORE Department of (until 31 Science and December Technology 1991) INNES (from 31 December 1991) MEYER MONEY MORRIS 1993 KEATING SCHACHT COLLINS COOK INNES MEYER MONEY MORRIS 1994 KEATING COOK WARD-AMBLER GARNETT HOLLOWAY ASHE WILLIAMS GREGSON ADAM

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 405

10.2 Appendix 2: Nuclear Science Terminology

The matter which makes up the material universe is made up from elements which are the simplest pure substances. Each element has its own unique properties which govern the way in which each element inter-reacts with other elements. There are currently 92 naturally occurring elements and a small but slowly growing list of man made elements. The smallest entity of any element is its atom. Each atom may be regarded as a small solar system made up from a central nucleus which is surrounded by orbiting electrons. This is a simplistic view of the atom but for the purposes of explaining its behaviour it will suffice. The nucleus of the atom is made up from two types of particles; the neutron and the proton. The proton carries a positive electric charge and has a mass of 1.6726x10~21kg. The number of protons that an atom possess determines which element it is and is also referred to as its atomic number. The number of orbiting electrons is the same as the number of protons in a neutral atom. It is the number and positions (or energies) of the orbiting electrons that determines the unique chemical properties of each element. The electron has a mass of 9.11xl(T31&g and carries a negative electric charge equal in magnitude to that of the proton. The number of electrons surrounding the atom can vary, the atom can gain or lose electrons and thus become ionised. An ion is an atom that has either lost or gain one or more electrons. Positive ions have lost electrons while negative ions have gained electrons, lonisation can be produced by exposure to electric fields, charged particles or exposure to light, the latter is called photoionisation.

The neutron has a mass of 1.6749xl0~21kg and carries no charge. The mass of the atom, or the atomic mass, can be regarded as simply the addition of the number of protons and the number of neutrons within the atom. The number of neutrons that are found in an atom can vary. Atoms with the same

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 406 number of protons but differing numbers of neutrons are called isotopes. Every element has a number of sable isotopes with one isotope being the most predominant.

Hydrogen is the simplest element since its atoms usually contain only one proton. Deuterium refers to the hydrogen isotope which contains one proton and one neutron and tritium is the hydrogen isotope with two neutrons as well as a proton. Water is made up from one oxygen atom bonded with two hydrogen atoms. If the two hydrogen atoms are replaced by two deuterium atoms, the new substance is commonly referred to as heavy water.

Some naturally occurring isotopes are not stable and break apart by expelling another particle and a burst of electromagnetic energy. This natural breaking up of a naturally occuning isotope is called radioactivity. It was first observed in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. Subsequent studies on radioactivity showed that the unstable atom could expel either a large particle called an alpha ray or particle or a small particle called a beta ray or particle. An alpha particle is made up from two protons and two neutrons, so an atom expelling this ray would turn into an atom of the element with two less protons than its parent and a mass of four units less than the parent, ie an atomic number of two less and a mass number of four less than the parent. A beta particle is an electron which has been expelled from a neutron turning it into a proton thus changing the atom into one of an element with one more proton than the parent or an atomic number of one more than the parent but with no change to the atomic mass. The burst of electromagnetic energy is called a gamma ray. An atom releasing only gamma rays is simply releasing energy from its nucleus.

The three rays each have different properties as they pass through matter; an alpha particle is stopped by a few centimetres of air or a thin piece of paper. A

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 407 beta particle requires aluminium or a few tens of centimetres of air to stop them while gamma rays require lead or a meter of concrete to stop them. Some isotopes of large atoms such as uranium are unstable and release a series of alpha particles. This process is called radioactive decay and eventually produces a stable isotope. If it is achieved through the emission of alpha particles it is called alpha decay and if it is achieved through emission of beta particles it is called beta decay.

Since electrons, protons and alpha particles carry an electric charge, these moving particles may have their energies increased or be accelerated by the application of an electric or magnetic field or both. A device which increases the energy of the particles by such an application is called an accelerator. A linear accelerator allows these particles to be accelerated in straight line paths. A cyclotron requires a uniform magnetic field to move charged particles in spiral paths. The particles are accelerated by the application of a pulsating electric field which is alternated in phase with the orbital frequency of the charged particles thus accelerating them. An accelerator which uses both an electric field and a magnetic field to accelerate particles in a straight line path is called a tandem accelerator.

When a large atomic nucleus is bombarded by neutrons, it can initially absorb a neutron. It then becomes unstable and splits into two nuclei. This splitting process is called fission. Fission requires neutrons for the process to take place. Fission can produce two nuclei which are unstable and proceed to decay until they achieve stability. The fission process can be utilised to produce energy in a controlled manner; an uncontrolled fission reaction results in an explosion. Material that is used to achieve a fission reaction is called fissile. Not all large nuclei are fissile, for example the most common isotope of uranium, uranium-238 is not fissionable but the rarer isotope,

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 408 uranium-235 is. Uranium-238 can however be converted by the bombardment of this isotope by neutrons into plutonium-239 which is fissile. Materials which are not fissile but can be converted into fissile materials are called fertile.

Uranium enrichment is the process by which the fissionable isotope of uranium-235 is increased in concentration. This is achieved by separating the uranium isotopes by either the diffusion or by the centrifuge processes. These process form a cascade in which each successive separation results in a higher concentration of uranium-235. The uranium with a depleted amount of uranium-235 is called depleted uranium.

A klystron is a low power device which allows for the production of microwave radiation at specific wavelengths and was initially used in radar. It is a device based on a vacuum tube in which electrons are produced, channelled into a resonant cavity where they are bunched. These bunched electrons are fed into a transmission line and then an antenna where they produce microwaves at predetermined frequencies.

A magnetron is similar in principle to a klystron except that its resonant cavity is formed in solid material. It has a magnetic field applied axially causing the electrons to move in circular paths. This process allows for the production of high energy pulsed microwaves. Today these magnetrons are used in microwave ovens to provide the energy for cooking or heating food

Positive Void Coefficient refers to a water cooled reactor in which say an increase in steam bubbles increases the rate of reaction which in turn produces more steam bubbles leading ultimately to a runaway situation. An ideal reactor should have a negative void coefficient.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 409

10.3 Appendix 3: Nuclear Reactors

All nuclear reactors possess certain features in common; they all require fuel, cooling and in most cases some form of moderation to control the rate of reaction. They also require reflectors to return neutrons into the reactor and shielding to protect the environment and the workers at the nuclear reactor. What does vary from reactor to reactor is the power output that is required. The power output for a research reactor is very different from that of a power reactor. The following is a description of a generic nuclear reactor.

A nuclear reactor requires fuel which will allow the fission reaction to occur. The fission process is one in which uranium nuclei are bombarded with neutrons. These nuclei absorb these neutrons and in so doing become unstable and disintegrate forming two new nuclei of smaller mass than the original nucleus and at the same time releasing two or more neutrons and large amounts of energy. These neutrons then proceed to be captured by other nuclei which in turn fission. When this process continues without any further external input of neutrons it is called a chain reaction. A chain reaction can only occur when there is a certain minimum mass of fissionable material made available. This minimum mass is called the critical mass and in most cases amounts to just a few kilograms of fissionable material. Fissionable materials include the following; uranium-235, uranium-233 and plutonium-239.

The uranium isotope, uranium-235 is naturally occurring. Natural uranium is made up from 0.7% uranium-235 and 99.3% uranium-238. The uranium isotope, uranium-238 and the thorium isotope thorium-232 may be used to produce plutonium-239 and uranium-233, respectively. The process of producing these man-made or artificial isotopes is through the absorption of a

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 410 neutron and the subsequent beta emission by the parent isotope. Materials such as uranium-238 and thorium-232 are said to be fertile since they are used to generate fissile materials.

The reaction path for the production of plutonium-239 is as follows;

238rr , I .239,, 92t/+0n_>92(/

239rr v239». , <>

239 »r .239D, . <»

The reaction path for the production of uranium-233 is as follows;

™Th+ln->™Th

The fission process produces a number of radioactive isotopes, many of which have long half-lives, which are called the fission products. It is these products that constitute the waste from a nuclear reactor. Fertile material is often included in nuclear reactor fuel elements since this is converted into the fissile material inside the reactor and is burnt up in the fission process. For example HIFAR produces plutonium from the natural uranium in its fuel rods, but it also burns this plutonium up in the fission process.

Most nuclear reactors use a moderator to control the rate of reaction; the only exceptions to this are the fast breeder reactors. The function of the moderator is to slow down the fast neutrons released in the fission process. The best moderators are materials with low atomic mass with little tendency to capture neutrons. Such materials include water, heavy water or carbon. In the 1950s and 1960s both beryllium and beryllia were also considered but these materials proved to have some unsuitable properties when irradiated for

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 411 lengthy periods. The moderator and the fuel are usually referred to as the reactor core.

The coolant is the material that is pumped near, or through, or around the reactor core to remove heat. In many instances water or heavy water which is used as the moderator also acts as the coolant. In other cases the coolant can be liquid sodium, steam or gases such as carbon dioxide, helium or even air. The heat from the reactor is passed out into a heat exchange unit or directly to steam turbines which can then produce electricity.

Surrounding the reactor core is the reflector. This material reflects neutrons back into the fuel and hence back into the fission zone. The presence of the reflector means that the critical mass required to sustain the fission reaction can be reduced. The material that makes up the reflector depends directly on the type of reactor in which it is used. Some reflectors act as moderators as well, for example carbon.

The shielding is used to protect those working in the vicinity of the reactor from being exposed to radiation. The shielding surrounds the reflector and allows no radiation to escape from the reactor. The materials mainly used for shield include lead impregnated concrete several meters thick or, in swimming pool reactors, very deep water housed in a concrete tank.

Reactors may be classified into four main types; power reactors, research reactors, plutonium or military reactors and ship reactors. One cannot readily convert one type of reactor into another and designing dual purpose reactors can lead to inefficiencies related to one or both reactor uses.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 412

The following table is quoted from A.Pryor'Nuclear Reactors' which is to be published by ANSTO in 2003 and deals with the subject in depth;

Reactor Type Number now Typical (Thermal) Construction operating Power Level Plutonium Few 10 to 100 MW Natural uranium fuel. producer Large core with graphite or heavy water moderator. Low burn-upxa Research Approximately 10 to 30 MW Highly enriched fuel. reactor 200 Small core. Unpressurised 'swimming pool' Ship reactors About 250 ships Around 100MW Pressurised light but many are water reactor design now with 3.3% enriched decommissioned fuel. Power 435 Mainly ~ 3000 MW The dominant design reactors (1000 MW (345 reactors) is the electrical) pressurised light water reactor with 3.3% enriched fuel

XCI The term burn-up quantifies the exposure of the uranium fuel in a reactor and is measured in megawatt-days per ton of uranium. A megawatt-day is a measure of energy and is the equivalent of 8.64 xlO10 J. Burning 1 gram of uranium produces approximately 1 megawatt- day of heat.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 413

The reactors discussed in this work are listed below in order of appearance;

REACTOR DESCRIPTION BEPO British Experimental Pile used natural uranium fuel, graphite moderation and air coolant. It was located at Harwell. This was a research reactor.

GLEEP Graphite Low Energy Experimental Pile used natural uranium fuel, graphite moderation and air coolant. It was located at Harwell and was a research reactor. DIDO These used highly enriched uranium fuel and heavy water moderation and coolant. The first reactor of this type was constructed at Harwell and these were research reactors. HIFAR High Flux Australian Reactor uses enriched uranium fuel and heavy water moderation and coolant. It is located at Lucas Heights near Sydney and is a research reactor. NRX National Research Council's Experimental Reactor used natural uranium, heavy water moderation and ordinary water coolant. It was located at Chalk River in Canada and was a research reactor. CP-5 Chicago Pile 5 used highly enriched uranium, heavy water moderation and circulating heavy water coolant. It was located at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago and was a research reactor.

Advanced Gas Cooled This is similar to the Magnox reactors enriched uranium fuel, graphite Reactor moderation and carbon dioxide gas coolant. This is a power reactor.

Liquid Metal Fuel The Liquid Metal Fuel Reactor would use a metal such as bismuth as Reactor (LMFR) the solvent for both fuel and fertile materials. Graphite was used as the moderator and liquid sodium was used as the coolant. This was a power reactor High Temperature Gas These use a combination of natural uranium, enriched uranium and Cooled Reactor thorium fuel, graphite moderation and helium gas coolant. These were (HTGCR) power reactors. Magnox Reactors These used natural uranium clad in magnox as fuel with carbon dioxide gas coolant. Magnox is a magnesium, aluminium and beryllium alloy. This type of reactor was built at Calder Hall and was a power reactor.

Breeder Reactors These reactors can use some enriched uranium or plutonium to commence the fission reaction but the reactor core is surrounded by a breeder blanket of natural or depleted uranium which then is converted to plutonium. They use liquid sodium coolant but do not require moderation. These are power reactors. Pressurised Water These use enriched uranium fuel and pressurised water as moderation Reactor (PWR) and coolant. This type of reactor was initially used in submarines to supply power. Boiling Water Reactors These use natural uranium with some enriched uranium fuel, water (BWR) moderation and boiling water coolant. These are power reactors. Heavy Water Reactors; These use natural uranium with some enriched uranium fuel, heavy (HWR) water moderation and cooling. These are power reactors.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 414

Argonaut The Argonne Nuclear Assembly for University training reactor was a low flux reactor which used enriched uranium fuel dispersed in an aluminium matrix. It was designed to use either water or graphite moderation and water cooled. The prototype was built at the Argonne National Laboratory and was a research reactor. Swimming Pool These use uranium-235 fuel, water moderation and water coolant. The Reactor prototype of this reactor was built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Steam Generating The steam generating heavy water reactors used slightly enriched Heavy Water Reactor uranium fuel, heavy water moderation and light water cooling. These are (SGHWR) power reactors. CANDU Canadian deuterium uranium reactor uses natural uranium fuel, pressurised heavy water moderation and cooling. These are power reactors.

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 415

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY

11.1 PUBLIC A TIONS - Books AUTHOR TITLE PUBLISHER LOCATION YEAR AAEC Annual Reports 1953-1986 Alder, K. Australia's Uranium Opportunities P. Alder Warrawee 1996 ANSTO Annual Reports 1987-1994 ASTEC Australian Canberra 1984 "Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Government Cycle- Publishing Service ASTEC Nuclear Science and Technology inAustralia n Canberra 1985 Australia Government Publishing Service Attwood, B "In the Age of Mabo" Allen and Unwin St Leonards 1996 (editor) Bacon, G. (editor) Fifty Years of Neutron Diffraction Adam Hilger Bristol Barnett, D Minerals and Energy in Australia Methuen Australia North Ryde 1979 Beale, H. This Inch of Time Melbourne Melbourne 1977 University Press Beilharz, P. Transforming Labor Cambridge Melbourne 1994 University Press Bolton, G. The Middle Way, 1942-1995, Oxford University Melbourne 1996 Volume 5, The Oxford History of Press Australia, Second Edition Broome, R Aboriginal Australians, second Allen and Unwin St Leonards 1994 edition Brown, A The Neutron and the Bomb" Oxford University Oxford 1997 Press Bynum, W., Macmillan Dictionary of The HistoryMacmilla n and Co London 1981 Browne.E., of Science Ltd Porter, R. Cawte, A Atomic Australia 1944-1990 New South Wales Kensington 1992 University Press Clark, M The Old dead Tree and the Young Melbourne Melbourne 1987 Tree Green, 1916-1935, Volume 6, University Press A History of Australia Cockbum, S and Oliphant; The Life and times of Sir Axiom Books Adelaide 1991 Ellyard, D Mark Oliphant Collins "Review of the Australian Atomic Commonwealth Canberra 1986 Energy Commission'' Government Printei

Crisp, L.F. Chifley, A Biography Longmans 1963 Davison, G. Hirst, The Oxford Companion to Oxford University Melbourne 1998 J. Maclntyre, S. Australian History Press

Elliott, M editor Ground for Concern; Australia's Penguin Books Ringwood 1977 Uranium Mining and Human Survival ERA Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, 1980 Prospectus

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 416

Fox, R Ranger Uranium Environmental Australian Canberra 1976 Inquiry First Report Government Publishing Service Fox, R Ranger Uranium Environmental Australian Canberra 1977 Inquiry Second Report Government Publishing Service G.Maddox The Hawke Government and Labor Penguin Ringwood 1989 Tradition Gissing, P. The Fabric of a Conservative Style PhD Thesis, UNSW Kensington 1999 of Thought Glasstone, S. Principles of Nuclear Reactor Macmillan and Co London 1956 Engineering Ltd Glasstone, S. and Nuclear Reactor Engineering Van Nostrand Princeton 1963 Sesonske Company Gowing, M Britain and Atomic Energy; 1939- Macmillan and Co London 1964 1945 Ltd Independence and Deterrence; Macmillan London 1974 Gowing, M Britain and Atomic Energy Volume 1

"Jabiluka; The Battle to Mine The Text Melbourne 1994 Grey.T. Australia's Uranium" Publishing Company Hancock, I. John Gorton, He Did it His Way Hodder Sydney 2002 Hardy, C. Enriching Experiences, Uranium Glen Haven Peakhurst 1996 Enrichment in Australia 1963-1996 Publishing

Hardy, C. Atomic Rise and Fall Glen Haven Peakhurst 1999 Publishing Hecht, G The Radiance of France; Nuclear MIT Press Cambridge 1998 Power and National Identity after Massachuset WorldWar 11' ts Hewlett, R. and Atomic Shield 1947-1952, Volume Pennsylvania State University 1969 Duncan, F. 2, A History of the USAEC, University Press Park

Hewlett, R and The New World, 1939-1946, VolumePennsylvani a Pennsylvania 1962 Anderson.O 1, A History of the USAEC University Press

Kelly, P. End of Certainty; the story of the Allen and Unwin St Leonards 1992 1980s Kelly, P. November 1975; the inside Story ofAlle n and Unwin Sydney 1995 Australia's Greatest Political Crisis

Maclntyre, S The Succeeding Age, 1901-1942, Oxford University Melbourne 1993 Volume 4, The Oxford History of Press Australia Maddox, G. The Hawke Government and LaborPengui n Ringwood 1989 Tradition McKnight, D Australia's Spies and Their SecretsAlle n and Unwin St Leonards 1994

Millar, D editor The Messel Years; The Story of thePergamo n Sydney 1987 School of Physics and its Science Foundation within the University of Sydney 1952-1987

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 417

Moyal, A "Breakfast with Beaverbrook" Hale and Iremonger 1995

Pais, A Inward Bound Clarendon Press Oxford 1986 Pais, A. Neils Bohr's Times in Physics, Clarendon Press Oxford 1991 Philosophy and Polity Pringle.P. and The Nuclear Barons Michael Joseph London 1981 Spigelman.J. Pryor, A "Scientist from a Queensland Bush unpublished 2000 Town" autobiography Pusey, M. Economic Rationalism in Canberra Cambridge Melbourne 1991 University Press Reynolds, W Australia's Bid for the Bomb Melbourne Melbourne 2000 University Press Rife, P Lise meitner and the Dawn of the Birkhauser Boston 1999 Nuclear Age Rivett, R David Rivett; fighter for Australian The Dominion Nth 1972 Science Press Blackburn, Victoria Smyth, H. "Atomic Energy for Military Princeton Princeton 1945 Purposes" University Press Snow, C.P. The Two Cultures Cambridge Cambridge 1959 University Press Spaull, A John Dedman; A Most Unexpected Hyland House Sth 1998 Labor Man Melbourne Symonds, J.L. A History of British Atomic Tests in Australian Canberra 1985 Australia Government Publishing Service Walsh, P. Confessions of a Failed Finance Random House Australia 1995 Minister Weisman, J. Elements of Nuclear Reactor Design Elsevier Scientific Amsterdam 1977 Publishing Company Wigmore, L. Struggle for the Snowy Oxford University Melbourne 1968 Press "Uranium- Australia's Decision" Commonwealth Canberra 1977 Government Printer

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 418

11.2 PUBLICATIONS - Journals AUTHOR TITLE JOURNAL VOLUME YEAF Eberhardt, J.E., Multiphoton DissociationChemica l Physics 72 1982 41-49 Hoare, I.E., of some volatile Uranyl Johnson, D.A., Complexes. 1 The Knott, R.B., Phenomenon of Pryor, A.W., and reversible and Waugh, A.B. permanent dissociation

Eberhardt, J.E., Multiphoton DissociationChemica l Physics 72 1982 Hoare, I.E., of some volatile Uranyl Johnson, D.A., Complexes. 11 Knott, R.B., Frequency and Isotopic Pryor, A.W., and Effects Waugh, A.B.

Frisch, O. and The Discover of Fission'Physic s Today November 1967 Wheeler, J. Goldsworthy, M The Uranium EnrichmentProceeding s Australian 27-28 1999 85-8 Industry and the SILEX Nuclear Association October Process Conference

Jostsons, A "Synroc-Progress and Proceedings Australian 24-25 2001 45-9 Future Prospects" Nuclear Association October Conference

McQuillan, M. Beryllium Endeavour 20, No 77 1961 11-18 and Farthing, T. January Moyal, A The Australian Atomic Search 6, No 9 1975 365-384 Energy Commission: A September case study in Australian Science and Pryor, A "Personal memories of Australian Physicist Two Advanced Uranium Enrichment Projects at Lucas Heights in the Years 1972-1980"

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 419

11.3 ACTS OF PARLIAMENT

YEAR ACT TITLE 1946 ATOMIC ENERGY (CONTROL OF MATERIALS) 1953 ATOMIC ENERGY 1958 ATOMIC ENERGY 1973 ATOMIC ENERGY 1978 ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT 1978 1978 ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT (No.2) 1978 1979 ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT 1979 1980 ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT 1980 1980 ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT (No.2) 1980 1987 ATOMIC ENERGY ACT 1987 1987 AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION ACT 1987 1992 AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION ACT 1992

11.4 AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

AUTHOR TITLE URL Angyal, S Sir Philip Baxter http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/baxter.htm 1905-1989 Caro, D.E and Leslie Harold http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/martin.htm Martin, R.L. Martin 1900-1983

Minnett, H. Frederick George http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/whitefwg.htm and White 1905-1994 Robertson, R Newton, J. Ernest William http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/titterto.htm Titterton 1916- 1990 Reyner J. and Harold George http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/raggatt.htm Wark, I Raggatt1900- 1968 Weigold, E Mark Oliphant's http://www.science.ora.au/weinQold.htm Science White, F Richard Gardiner http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/casey.htm Casey 1890-1976

Watson- Stuart Thomas http://www.science.ora.au/academv/memoirs/butler.html Munro, C.N. Butler 1926-1982

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 420

11.5 AUSTRALIAN DICTIONARY OF BIOGRAPHY ARCHIVES

Breen, Harold Patrick 1893-1966 Stevens, Sir Jack Edwin Stawell 1896-1969 Beavis, Leslie Ellis 1895-1975 Dalton, George Clifford 1916-1961

11.6 NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA, Oral History Section

Interviewee Interviewer Date Library Refernce Number Sir Philip Baxter D.EIIyard 6th May 1980 TRC 777/7 Sir Marcus Oliphant A. Moyal December, 1992 TRC 2890

11.7 INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEWER INTERVIEWEE PLACE OF INTERVIEW DATE Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Keith Alder Warrawee 28th July 1999 Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Professor Max Brennan Adelaide 13th December 2000 Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Professor Dick Collins University of Sydney 17th December 1999 Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Doug Ebeling Pennant Hills 18th August 1999 Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Neil McDonald Epping 5th April 2000 Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Caudio Tuniz Lucas Heights 30th November 1999 Binnie, Anna-Eugenia Terry Wlaker Hurstville 22nd February 2000

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 421

11.8 NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA (CANBERRA)

SERES ITEM TTTLE A1067 (A1067/1) A46/2/3/14 FOREIGN RELATIONS ATOMIC ENERGY SPECIAL STUDY A1209 1961/1107 AAEC RESEARCH PROGRAMME A1209 1961/95 PART 1 CONTROL OF SALE AND DISPOSAL OF ATOMIC ENERGY MATERIALS A1209 (A1209/106) 1961/48 IAEA - BOARD OF GOVERNORS APPOINTMENT OF McKNIGHT A1209 (A1209/109) 1961/1282 STH ALLIGATOR URANIUM CONTRACTS A1209 (A1209/109) 1961/153 HARWELL SPECIAL ATOMIC ENERGY FELLOWSHIPS - POLICY A1209 (A1209/109) 1961/978 BAXTER'S VISIT OVERSEAS A1209(A1209/113) 1964/6175 PART A SAFETY MEASURES AT AAEC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT LUCAS HEIGHTS A1209 (A1209/128) 1961/1107 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ON AAEC RESEARCH PROGRAMME A1209 (A1209/128) 1961/259 AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTS SAFETY COMMITTEE A1209(A1209/23) 1957/4125 URANIUM NEGOTIATIONS WITH CDA FOR RUM JUNGLE AND ALLIGATOR RIVER ORE 1957 A1209 (A1209/23) 1957/4127 TRAINING OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL FOR ATOMIC ENERGY WORK A1209 (A1209/23) 1957/4196 PART 2 RADIUM HILL URANIUM A1209(A1209/23) 1957/4723 PART 1 AAEC ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANISATION A1209 (A1209/23) 1957/4726 AAEC REACTOR POLICY A1209 (A1209/46) 1968/9171 RELATIONS AAEC STAFF A1209 (A1209/71) 1983/74 PART 1 AAEC - APPOINTMENTS OF CHAIR, DEPUTY AND MEMBERS A1690(A1690/1) 1966/2036 ATOMIC ENERGY A1838 720/1 PART 5 AAEC INTERNATIONAL CONTROL AGENCY A1838(A1838/1) 559/1/24 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION A1838(A1838/1) 704/10 ATOMIC ENERGY A1838(A1838/1) 719/3/5 TIMBS VISIT OVERSEAS 1965 A1838 (A1838/1) 720/1 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA A1838 (A1838/1) 720/3/3 ATOMIC ENERGY AUSTRALIA POWER PRODUCTION A1838 (A1838/1) 720/3/7 NON DESTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS OF IRRADIATED REACTOR FUEL ELEMENTS A1838 (A1838/1) 720/4/6 PART 1 ATOMIC ENERGY AUSTRALIA EXPORT OF URANIUM AND OTHER NUCLEAR MATERIALS A1838(A1838/1) 720/5/1/2 PART 2 TRANSPORTATION OF HIFAR FUEL ELEMENTS A1838 (A1838/1) 720/5/1/2 PART 3 TRANSPORTATION OF HIFAR FUEL ELEMENTS A1838 (A1838/2) 719/1/4 PART 2 IAEA SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS A1838(A1838/2) 719/3/1 PART 4 IAEA AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION A1838 (A1838/2) 719/3/2 A.D.MCNIGHT APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL IAEA A1838 (A1838/2) 719/3/2 IAEA - APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL McKNIGHT A1838 (A1838/2) 719/8/75 PART 1 IAEA STUDY GROUP PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH REACTORS A1838 (A1838/2) 720/10/4/1 ATOMIC ENERGY - NATIONAL RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE A1838 (A1838/2) 720/3/1 ANNEX ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA - AAEC CIRCULARS AND REPORTS A1838 (A1838/2) 720/3/1 PART1 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA - AAEC CIRCULARS AND REPORTS A1838 (A1838/2) 720/3/1 PART1 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA AAEC CIRCULARS AND REPORTS A1838 (A1838/2) 720/3/2 PART 1 ATOMIC ENERGY - DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA RESEARCH, INCLUDING LUCAS HEIGHTS A1838 (A1838/2) 720/3/2 PART 1 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA - RESEARCH (INCLUDING LUCAS HEIGHTS)

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 422

A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/4 PART 2 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA - RADIUM HILL A1838(A1838/2) 720/4/5 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA - MARY KATHLEEN A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/5 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA - MARY KATHLEEN A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/5 ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA - MARY KATHLEEN A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9 PART 1 AUSTRALIA ATOMIC ENERGY - URANIUM ENRICHMENT A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9 PART 3 AUSTRALIA ATOMIC ENERGY - URANIUM ENRICHMENT A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9 PART 4 AUSTRALIA ATOMIC ENERGY - URANIUM ENRICHMENT A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9 PART 5 AUSTRALIA ATOMIC ENERGY - URANIUM ENRICHMENT A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9 PART 6 AUSTRALIA ATOMIC ENERGY - URANIUM ENRICHMENT A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9/1 PART 1 URANIUM ENRICHMENT - FRENCH FEASIBILITY STUDY A1838 (A1838/2) 720/4/9/1 PART 2 URANIUM ENRICHMENT - FRENCH FEASIBILITY STUDY A1838 (A1838/269) TS694/3 PART2 ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION AND EXCHANGE OF MILITARY INFORMATION WITH USA A1838 (A1838/278) 720/1 PART 1 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION A1838 (A1838/283) 720/1 PART 1 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION A1838 (A1838/346) TS694/4 PART 3 EXCHANGE OF MILITARY INFORMATION ON ATOMIC ENERGY WITH USA A1838 (A1838/365) 720/5/1/2 PART 4 TRANSPORTATION OF HIFAR FUEL ELEMENTS A1858 (A1858/370) 720/10/10 PART 2 IAEA PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN AUSTRALIA - OPERATION PLOWSHARE

A1945 (A1945/28) 186/1/19 SAFEGUARDS SCHEME A3211(A3211/21) 1966/5977 SGHW ATTACHMENT OF AAEC TEAM A3211 (A3211/21) 1967/6762 SGHW COORDINATING COMMITTEE AAEC COOGEE A3211 (A3211/21) 1970/8408 PART 1 AAEC URANIUM POLICY A3211 (A3211/21) 1972/7953 AAEC REACTOR PHYSICS FACILITY LUCAS HEIGHTS A3300 (A3300/7) 218 ATOMIC ENERGY - PROF OLIPHANTS MEMO A432 (A432/15) 1961/3320 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION - EXECUTIVE MEMBER A432 (A432/75) 1953/3039 PART 1 MINING FOR URANIUM A452 (A452/1) 1954/589 LIST OF APPLICATIONS FOR MINERAL LEASES FOR URANIUM MINING - NT A452 (A452/2) 1961/953 MINING OF THE RUM JUNGLE CREEK SOUTH URANIUM DEPOSITS A452 (A452/2) 1967/1340 AAEC RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME A461 (A461/8) M398/1/6 CSIRO ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE A462 (A462/8) 276/7/26 OPENING OF RUM JUNGLE A462 (A462/8) 276/7/30 MINING AND MINERALS - URANIUM AND RADIUM A463 (A463/17) 1957/6449 URANIUM MINING AND PROSPECTING - PRESS RELEASES AND CUTTINGS A463 (A463/67) 1961/7381 DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM LUCAS HEIGHTS ATOMIC REACTOR - POLICY A4940(A4940/1) C1289 AAEC - CAPITAL WORKS A4940(A4940/1) C1730 AAEC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT LUCAS HEIGHTS POLICY A4940(A4940/1) C1730 PART 1 AAEC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT LUCAS HEIGHTS POLICY A5619(A5619/1) C375 AAEC RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME A5619(A5619/1) C375 AAEC RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME A5619(A5619/1) C862 AUSTRALIA'S URANIUM RESOURCES - POLICY A5619(A5619/1) C862 AUSTRALIA'S URANIUM RESOURCES - POLICY A5799(A5799/15) Sep-48 DEFENCE COMMITTEE AGENDUM 9 OF 1948 A5799(A5799/15) 194/1946 DEFENCE REPRESENTATION ON ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE A5842 215 ACQUISITION OF LAND - LUCAS HEIGHTS A5842 (A5842/2) 215 JOINT UK/AUSTRALIAN WEAPONS PROJECT A5842 (A5842/2) 266 FUTURE OF SNOWY MOUNTAINS A5842 (A5842/2) 271 MARY KATHLEEN URANIUM CONTRACT A5868 279 JOINT COMMONWEALTH - STATE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 423

A5868 (A5868/2) 759 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WHOLLY COMMONWEALTH OWNED NUCLEAR POWER STATION A5869(A5869/1) 179 OPERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR AT JERVIS BAY A5869(A5869/1) 405 JERVIS BAY DEVELOPMENT A5869(A5869/1) 489 NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR AT JERVIS BAY: REVIEW OF TENDERS A5872(A5872/1) 162 A5873(A5873/1) 311 OPERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR AT JERVIS BAY A5954 (A5954/69) 1384/5 CABLEGRAMS ON ATOMIC ENERGY A5954 (A5954/69) 1385/1 ATOMIC BOMBS - MINING OF URANIUM IN AUSTRALIA A5954 (A5954/69) 1385/7 DEFENCE REPRESENTATION ON ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE A5954 (A5954/69) 1610/1 MCHINERY FOR DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT A5954 (A5954/69) 1662/1 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE A5954 (A5954/69) 2164/1 PRESS CUTTINGS - ATOMIC ENERGY - VISIT OF PROF OLIPHANT 1947 A5954 (A5954/69) 848/1 SECURITY OF SECRET DEFENCE DOCUMENTS A5954 (A5954/69) 2165/2 ATOMIC ENERGY - STATEMENTS BY PROF MESSEL A6456 (A6456/2) R207/012 EXCHCHANGE OF INFORMATION UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENCE AGREEMENT A6456 (A6456/3) R053/001 PARLIMENTARY QUESTIONS ON ATOMIC ENERGY A6456 (A6456/3) R124/015 ATOMIC PROVING GROUND - POLICY A6456 (A6456/3) R124/017 ATOMIC TESTS - MONTE BELLO A6456 (A6456/3) R190/008 EXCHANGE OF DEFENCE INFORMATION UNDER USAEC ACT 1954 A816 11/301/810 INDUSTRIAL ATOMIC ENERGY POLICY COMMITTEE A816 (A816/1) 11/301/594 ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE - DEFENCE REPRESENTATION A816(A816/1) 3/301/433 PART 1 COMMISSION FOR CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY A987 (A987/4) E1098 AAEC LUCAS HEIGHTS PROJECT A987 (A987/4) E1098PART2 AAEC LUCAS HEIGHTS PROJECT A987 (A987/4) E1098PART3 AAEC LUCAS HEIGHTS PROJECT

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE 424

12 PUBLICATIONS AND CONFERENCE PAPERS PRESENTED

12.1 Publications Binnie, A "Australia's Atomic Conspiracy Theory" in "Australasian Science" August 2001 Volume 22 Number 7 pages29-31

Binnie, A "Atomic Bombs and Conspiracy Theories" in "The Physicist" May/June 2001, Volume 38 Number 3 pages 54-8

12.2 Conference Papers Presented 2003 July 17-19 British Society for the History of Science Conference, York, paper entitled "Atomic Energy in Australia; a Brief History" has been accepted for presentation.

2002 July 4-6 Australian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science Conference, Sydney, paper entitled "One Reactor is Never Enough, One reactor is One Too Many" 2001 June 25-29 Australian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science Conference, Melbourne, paper entitled "Marcus Oliphant and the establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission" 2000 June 28 - 1st July Australian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science Conference, Sydney, paper entitled "A History of the AAEC and ANSTO"

July 5-9 Australian Historical Association Conference Adelaide paper entitled "Atomic Science in Australia"

August 3-6 Joint meeting British Society for the History of Science, Canadian Society for the history and Philosophy of Science and the History of Science Society, St Louis USA paper entitled "From Atomic Energy to Nuclear Science"

FROM ATOMIC ENERGY TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE