By Jim Green
SYDNEY — In September 1997, when the federal Coalition government announced the decision to build a new nuclear reactor in the southern Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights, a "stringent" environmental assessment was promised. Instead, the government-initiated environmental impact statement (EIS) is a sham.
The draft EIS was written by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the proponent of the project. It gave a glowing report.
Now comes the next phase of the sham: the EIS will be reviewed by the federal government, which has already made an in-principle decision to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. Funding of more than $300 million has already been allocated.
Almost 900 submissions were sent to the federal environment department commenting on the draft. About 98% of the submissions opposed the reactor.
Many submissions commented on the inadequacy of ANSTO's waste management "plan". The previous plan fell through when the Dounreay plant in Scotland stopped accepting contracts to reprocess spent reactor fuel. ANSTO claims there are alternative overseas re-processors, but no contracts have been signed.
The US Department of Energy is likely to accept about one-third of the existing fuel stockpile, but a shipment in April was held up by maritime workers at Port Botany who refused to load it. Because of a law which forbids such material being stationary for more than two hours (presumably for security reasons), it was necessary to drive around Sydney for some time with the toxic fuel rods.
Eventually, the rods were loaded by NSW police! The police superintendent was reprimanded for breaching the police commissioner's guidelines on industrial disputes, and the Commissioned Officers' Association later apologised to the Maritime Union of Australia.
If a new reactor is built, dealing with the spent fuel could be even more of a problem than dealing with the existing stockpile. ANSTO acknowledges that no facility in the world is routinely re-processing the low-enriched uranium fuel type planned for the new reactor.
The executive director of ANSTO has said that Lucas Heights would be an "appropriate" place to build a re-processing plant.
Even if it is possible to ship the spent fuel overseas, the resulting waste will be returned to Australia for "interim storage".
To this end, the federal government is trying to force remote communities in the Billa Kalina region of South Australia to accept a radioactive waste dump, but the campaign against it is gathering strength. The campaign recently forced the SA Labor opposition to pass motions opposing the planned dump.
Several former ANSTO employees made EIS submissions critical of the reactor plan. The most important was from Murray Scott, who worked at ANSTO from 1967-81. Scott argued:
"The most publicly appealing rationale for a replacement reactor is the provision of medical radioisotopes ... But of all the programs associated with the replacement reactor this operation also carries the greatest risk, the greatest potential for massive contamination release and the most significant future weapons proliferation potential."
Producing medical isotopes involves processing irradiated uranium targets. It is essentially the same as the re-processing of spent fuel rods.
Scott comments on concerns that ANSTO will re-process its spent fuel on site: "The reality is that there is already a substantial irradiated uranium processing operation at Lucas Heights with all the hazards that implies, including the storage of intermediate level liquid radioactive waste in ammonium nitrate solution, which carries the risk of chemical explosion".
The campaign against the reactor has not been dampened by the EIS farce, or by the re-election of the Howard government. So far, the campaign has been mainly local, but it must be fought nationally if it is to be successful.
If you can help, contact People Against a Nuclear Reactor at (02) 9545 3077 or PO Box 595, Sutherland 2232. Information on the Lucas Heights struggle is posted at <http://avoca.vicnet.net.au/~seaus/>