Should there be another nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights?
| Siting another reactor at Lucas Heights http://ssec.org.au/our_environment/issues_campaigns/nuclear/info_sheets/1997_oct_1a.htm |
| Even if we assume that Australia does need a third nuclear reactor, is Lucas Heights the best site? There are numerous and compelling reasons why it is not.
1. It’s not remote Lucas Heights was selected in 1955, as a site for Australia’s nuclear industry for the very reason that it was remote from population. Now, 40 years later, it is surrounded by houses, on the edge of Australia’s largest city. This is no longer in a good site for a nuclear reactor! 2. It’s not been the subject of a proper site-selection process The most recent search for a dump for low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste has taken 4 years and has considered criteria such as low rainfall, freedom from flooding, stable hydrology, freedom from cyclones, tectonic, seismic or volcanic activity, as well as socio-economic, ecological and land-use factors. Selection of a site for a nuclear reactor – its production of high, medium and low level waste- should be at least as stringent as that for a low level waste dump! The McKinnon report said that “If a decision were made to construct a new reactor, it would not necessarily best be placed at Lucas Heights. An appropriate site would best be decided after exhaustive search and taking into account community views. Any siting decision should be based on criteria similar to those developed by the National Resource Information Centre (in its search for a low level waste dump) with an additional range of economic and scientific criteria.” (1993 Research Reactor Review 20.1-2.) 3. It’s the easiest option ANSTO maintains that “The relocation of infrastructure and personnel to a new site would significantly add to the costs of a new research reactor.” (Website) This is no justification for building a reactor at Lucas Heights! According to leaked memo to Peter McGauran on the Relocation of the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, “the political fallout from either the refurbishment of the old reactor or the construction of a new one would be of the same order.” The real reason that Lucas Heights was seen by the Federal Government as being the best site was that it knew that no other community in Australia would accept it. It also believed that the Local Council would be compliant as would the surrounding population 4. It does not comply with public opinion ANSTO’s recent public opinion poll – commissioned at a cost of $40,000 of taxpayers’ money – found that 83% of Sutherland Shire people surveyed thought that a new reactor should be in a “remote location”. This is consistent with this Centre’s 1992 poll which found that 81 % people felt that a new reactor should be away from population centres. The Commonwealth has ignored this finding. 5. It is a health and safety risk to the local population According to ANSTO “The annual dose of radiation received by any member of the public living near ANSTO as a result of authorised emissions from the site is currently less than one-100th of the amount permitted by the National Health and Medical Research Council and by NSW Government regulations. A modern research reactor would not produce more than those levels…” (Website) Regulations or not, there is no proof that this (or any) level of radiation is safe. There are neither medical records nor diagnostic tests to assess the effects of radiation on the local population. Apart from obvious cancers and leukaemia – which can take decades to develop – more subtle health or genetic problems could be caused such as impaired scholastic performance, visual impairment or reproductive problems. The NSW Health Authorities have avoided their responsibilities and declined to carry out health studies. They say that one “would not be warranted”. Current scientific studies in the UK suggest that even radiation exposure less than 1mSv may be harmful and could be poisoning the human gene pool (New Scientist Oct. ’97) Yet we are daily subjected to routine emissions of radioactive gasses from the nuclear plant at Lucas Heights! There is no insurance to cover the public against risk of a nuclear accident. Commercial insurance companies will not insure against radiation or nuclear accidents because they “would not have enough funds to cover claims” . (NRMA Insurance letter.) In the event of such an accident claims would have to be made against the Commonwealth Government. The NSW Government and the local Council may also be liable for damages and they are uncertain of their position. 6. Lucas Heights a potential disaster area In 1994 and 1997 disastrous bushfires struck the area. In the most recent calamity Barden Ridge, the suburb closest to ANSTO, was evacuated at the height of the fire. Eleven houses in the next suburb of Menai were destroyed. At the same time the ANSTO staff were locked in, unable to telephone their families. The official reason was that staff were held back on police advice. For several days the only road connecting the site was blocked to through traffic. This is hardly the perfect site for Australia’s only nuclear reactor! |
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sells out on climate policy, in effort to save his job
Turnbull dumps emissions from NEG in final act of capitulation, REneweconomy
Right-wing in Liberal Coalition causing Turnbull to again weaken climate action
Malcolm Turnbull plans more changes to energy policy amid pressure from within Coalition, ABC News, By Jade Macmillan , 20 Aug 18 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has outlined further changes to his national energy policy amid increasing pressure from within his own party.
Nuclear has left its run too late: a response to Ian Hore-Lacy
ETHOS, 14 August 2018 | Robert Farago “………… Nuclear as the solution? There are a number of unresolved problems around nuclear power and questions of whether nuclear energy can grow quickly enough to solve our climate change problem. I will just list some of these problems with a sentence each:
- Weapons proliferation – enriching Uranium for civilian nuclear energy programs can lead to fuel being diverted and further enriched for nuclear weapons programs.
- Safety – although less deaths have been recorded from nuclear power than from coal mining, nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have shaken the confidence of citizens to have nuclear reactors near their homes and food sources.
- Waste – although we have generated nuclear waste for 70+ years we still don’t have a solution. Nuclear waste needs to be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years, longer than settled agricultural society has existed.
- Decommissioning – cost estimates vary wildly and it’s particularly technically challenging and expensive after nuclear accidents.
- Water use – like thermal coal generators, nuclear needs large quantities of water for cooling, making droughts and heatwaves a problem.
- Capacity – if we moved to a large portion of our global electricity generation to nuclear power, will there be enough Uranium to fuel them?
- Timeliness – can we move quickly enough to a majority nuclear electricity future and meet our global emission reductions?
Malcolm Turnbull caves in to climate denialists – again
Malcolm Turnbull dumps plan to legislate Paris emissions targets, ABC News, By political editor Andrew Probyn and Melissa Clarke , 17 Aug 18
Resources Minister Matt Canavan is deceptive in his statements about “Low Level “nuclear waste
Greg Bannon, Quorn 16/08/2108
Senator Canavan introduces the concept of nuclear energy into the debate on radioactive waste storage, (The Advertiser, 15/08/2018) but refers only to low level waste.
He does not mention the long-lived intermediate level waste. In April, he announced that this would also be stored at the facility. His Department admits there are no plans for its disposal at this stage, only moving it from current temporary storage, to park it temporarily near Hawker or Kimba for several decades.
People in both communities, including the Traditional Owners have said “No”.
Nuclear power generation is another matter entirely. The Scarce Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle rejected nuclear power generation two years ago. The Citizens Jury even rejected the Commission’s recommendation to investigate storing nuclear waste in South Australia. The Senator’s Department vehemently denied any connection between their waste facility and the Scarce Commission’s investigation. The Senator’s reference to nuclear energy seems strange timing.
Nuclear stooge Senator Matt Canavan deplores delay in decision on nuclear waste dump
Note the Advertiser makes the mistake of saying its only for low level waste.
Federal Industry Minister Matt Canavan says Australia can’t have a serious debate about nuclear energy until a radioactive waste dump is built, Peter Jean, Senior Federal Political Reporter, The Advertiser,
Senator Canavan made the comments after lawyers for the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation launched legal action to try to prevent a community vote on radioactive waste going ahead in the Kimba district next week.
Kimba and Hawker district residents are scheduled to vote on whether they’d be willing to accept a low-level radioactive waste facility in their local areas.
A hearing on the Barngarla application to stop the Kimba vote will be heard in the Supreme Court today.
The Barngarla group argues that members who are native title holders in the Kimba District but don’t live there should be permitted to vote on the waste dump proposal.
Senator Canavan said the Barngarla people were entitled to take their concerns to court.
He said discussion about the establishment of a nuclear power industry in Australia wouldn’t get off the ground unless the nation found a way to manage low-level radioactive waste, including by-products of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney.
“If we can’t find a long-term repository for our low-level waste – which we produce from a reactor that produces nuclear medicines, not power – we have no hope of building a nuclear power station that would produce high-level waste,’’ Senator Canavan said.
“We are supporters of an open and mature debate around this issue but we recognise that any move to nuclear power in this country would take years and require bipartisan support, those are things that we don’t have now.’’
Two sites near Kimba and one near Hawker have been short-listed as possible locations for a radioactive waste storage facility. The community votes are being held before the Government proceeds with selecting a preferred site.
Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said he was unable to comment on the Barngarla application because the matter was before the courts.
Inadequate report from Senate Committee on selection process for nuclear waste dump
The final report on the senate inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia was released on Tuesday but those who oppose the facility say it has failed to address their main concerns.
The recommendations included the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) working with local stakeholders to use part of the 60 hectare buffer zone to grow and test agricultural produce to reassure the community and agricultural markets the produce is safe for consumption.
However, while the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group is thankful for the time and effort put into the inquiry, member Kellie Hunt said it was “disappointed” with the recommendations.
“We are disappointed that the recommendations do not address any of our primary concerns,” she said. “In particular, our issues regarding the lack of definition of what constitutes broad community support, and the lack of genuine need to move the intermediate level waste from Lucas Heights to a second interim storage location.
“We continue to oppose the siting of this facility on agriculture land in the Kimba district.”
The Senate Economics References Committee wrote the report using submissions made by stakeholders in in the affected communities near the sites in Kimba and Hawker, as well as public hearings in Kimba, Hawker and Canberra.
A spokesperson from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said the department thanked the committee for the report and that it “looks forward to reviewing it.”
“We have the opportunity to take account of the findings ahead of the community ballot that is scheduled to begin on August 20.”
The full report is available on the senate inquiry website at aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility
Senator Rex Patrick: Additional Comments on Senate Report re selection process for siting nuclear waste dump
Recommendation 1 The Minister must quantify how broad community support will be determined and do so before vote.
Recommendation 2 As a minimum, broad community support must mean a 65% vote in favour in the AEC vote, AND agreement from all adjoining neighbours AND the agreement from aboriginal communities.
Recommendation 3 The ANSTO Act should be changed to permit the storage of intermediate-level waste until such time as an appropriate facility site has been identified and a facility built and commissioned
Senator Rex Patrick Senator for South Australia, Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, 14 August 2018
p. 67 Additional Comments by Senator Rex Patrick Kimba and Hawker, when you finally surrender, it must be of your own free will!
The Work of the Committee
1.1 I thank the committee for the work it has done in relation to this very important inquiry. I also thank the secretariat for their behind the scenes efforts.
1.2 I support the general findings in this report and the recommendations that flow from them, but I feel they do not address several substantive issues with enough force.
1.3 Out of responsibility to the communities of Hawker and Kimba, I address those issues now. Continue reading
Conflict of interest: Richard Yeeles, adviser to South Australian Premier on Olympic Dam Aboriginal Trust
Tim Bickmore shared a link.No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 15 Aug 18
The Olympic Dam Aboriginal Trust distributes funding to 3 aboriginal groups based upon income from the mine. Those groups are: Barngarla, Kuyani (Adnymathanha) & Kokotha.
Barngarla & Kuyani are currently the groups targeted by the radioactive waste site suppository process.
According to the ODAT website, currently Richard Yeeles, senior economic adviser to State Premier Steven Marshall is listed as a BHP representative on the council which determines who gets what monies…..
Conflict of interest? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/?multi_permalinks=2493650837315365%2C2493518107328638¬if_id=1534298281981165¬if_t=group_activity
Greens Dissenting Report on selection process for nuclear waste dump
The definition of broad community support has been inconsistent throughout the entire process
decision-making power of the Minister is wholly arbitrary. It is nonsensical to say that we must accept an arbitrary decision-making process as a means to avoid arbitrary decision-making processes.
The Adnyamathanha people have a demonstrable interest in the process of site selection.
it is condescending and inaccurate to suggest that community concerns around the impact of a radioactive waste dump on agriculture and tourism perceptions of safety and attractiveness are unfounded.
It is imperative that all stakeholders within transport corridors should be consulted.
Dissenting Report from the Australian Greens Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, 14 August 2018
1.1 The Australian Greens believe the site selection process is fundamentally flawed. There has been a consistently stated commitment by the Minister to respect the views of the communities relevant to the process by not proceeding without “broad community support”, ensuring that the absence of such shall serve as an effective veto. However, the Minister has refused to explain what he would consider to be sufficiently “broad”, ensuring that any number can be considered sufficient, or insufficient, and ultimately disenfranchising affected communities in the name of ministerial ‘discretion’.
1.2 Jobs figures have been floated and inflated. Traditional owners have been cherry-picked or ignored altogether. Sites have been nominated by absentee landowners with no direct tie to the community on which the site selection process is being inflicted. And this process is simply unnecessary. It does nothing to address the need for long-term intermediate level storage, consistent with international best practice. It avoids amending the relevant Act by spending millions of dollars on a divisive and unnecessary process that is being pushed through to align with the electoral cycle instead of the science.
1.3 ARPANSA Chief Regulatory Officer Mr Jim Scott has told the Committee that Lucas Heights cannot offer long-term storage of low-level waste under the ANSTO Act. He argues that this requires the identification of a long-term disposal facility.
1.4 Low-level waste is set to be disposed at the NRWMF, consistent with international best practice regarding low-level waste management. However, intermediate level waste is also set for long-term storage at the NRWMF. This is not consistent with international best practice which supports medium to deep burial disposal of intermediate level waste. Continue reading
Senate Report on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Facility in South Australia
The report is at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Report
It is 77 pages. I confess to have only skimmed through it at this stage. It appears to be a careful attempt to bless the process, while not having a real opinion about it, one way or the other. To be fair, it does contain a few questions, does not appear to be a “full go ahead” recommendation.
Coalition Senators Senator Jane Hume Senator Dean Smith put in Additional Comments. Short and not very interesting.
Greens, Senator Hanson-Young put in a longer Dissenting Report report, strongly criticising the process.
Senator Rex Patrick put in Additional Comments, also criticising the process
RECOMMENDATIONS in the Report
Chapter 2 Community sentiment
- 22. Recommendation 1 2.67 If a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility were to be sited in an agricultural region, the committee recommends that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science work with local stakeholders, so that part of the remaining 60 hectare buffer zone can be used to grow and test agricultural produce, in order to reassure the community and agricultural markets that the produce from the surrounding region does not contain excessive amounts of radiation and is safe for consumption.
- 23 Chapter 3 Indigenous support
- 31 Recommendation 2 3.40 The committee recommends that the Minister intensify and expedite efforts to fully engage with the Indigenous stakeholders near Kimba and Hawker so that comprehensive heritage assessments for all nominated sites can be completed
- 33 Chapter 4 Financial compensation and incentives to communities
p.36. 4.22 The committee notes that it is unfortunate for a former politician, particularly one with significant exposure to the nuclear waste issues, to place the government in the invidious position of p. 37 deciding whether he should receive financial compensation for hosting a NRWMF on his property, thereby further politicising an already contentious process.
Recommendation 3 4.25 The committee recommends that the government undertake an independent valuation of the land to be acquired to ensure that the financial compensation is consistent with the original proposal to compensate the landholder at four times the land value.
- 43 Chapter 5 General comments about the site selection process
- 49 Recommendation 4 5.35 The committee recommends that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science make submissions received during the consultation process publicly available in the circumstances where the authors originally intended for their submission to be made public. ((That requirement has apparently been fulfilled)
- 50 Recommendation 5 5.37 The committee recommends that the Office of the Chief Economist within the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science undertake a policy evaluation of the first two phases of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The committee made no other general recommendation)
Peter Malinauskas, South Australia’s Labor leader says the nuclear waste selection process is wrong
Katrina Bohr No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 12 Aug 18
I shared my concerns for the people in the communities, and the process that’s been imposed on them.
He agreed that the process is wrong, and gave me his word, that the issue will be brought up in Parliament as soon as it returns.
He was shocked to hear how people’s health and lives are being affected.
I’m holding him to his word! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP – Senate Inquiry
The Federal Government selects prime agricultural wheat farmland and the most seismically active Flinders Ranges to become Australia’s Radioactive Nuclear Waste Central Depot. Questions have not been answered truthfully and the site selection process smacks of a fixed match.
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP – Senate Committee of Inquiry
DEPARTMENT FAILS TO DEFINE ‘BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT’ – AGAIN!
Senator Rex Patrick Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA,
Inquiry into the Site Selction Process of the Radioactive Waste Management Facility Canberra
DEPARTMENT FAILS TO DEFINE ‘BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT’ – AGAIN!
At today’s hearing into the Site Selection Process for the Radioactive Waste Management Facility, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science were unable to explain what ‘broad community support’ is.
Instead, they’re going to leave that definition up to Minister Canavan who is on record saying he wants this issue done and dusted before the next federal election.
Noting the secrecy surronding all of this, the people in Kimba and Hawker are going to get to experience what it was like to vote in the Soviet Union -the State will tell you what’s best for you.
For a good ten minutes I tried to find out how the Minister will come to his decision, to no avail. Here’s a quick 50 second snapshot, but you can watch the full exchange here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/?multi_permalinks=791599437851535¬if_id=1533450785067354¬if_t=group_activity
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 