'Who wants to live near a nuclear dump?'
By Andy Gianniotis
SYDNEY — More than 150 people crammed into the Sutherland Shire council chambers on November 10 for a special meeting of the shire's environment and health committee. The meeting was in response to the federal government's approval of a replacement nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.
A presentation by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) was received with mixed reactions. The large number of placards with messages such as "no new reactor" made it clear a big proportion of locals oppose the new reactor.
Michael Priceman from the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre expressed concern at the "the obvious lack of knowledge expressed by at least half of the councillors" about the issues associated with the new reactor. "And these are people on the environment and health committee."
Jean McSorley, a long-time campaigner against the nuclear industry, said she had seen communities divided over this issue before, and the problem remains the same: "Who wants to live near a nuclear waste dump?".
ANSTO's executive director, Helen Garnett, kept repeating that the problem of waste was not the responsibility of ANSTO but of the federal government.
The Scottish Dounreay plant which has agreed to reprocess existing spent fuel rods also has written into its contract that for every curie sent to it, it will send one back. "The federal government's answer seems to be that future governments can deal with the problem", said Priceman.
Jim Green, from the Wollongong University department of science and technology, argued against ANSTO's claims that the new reactor is needed to produce medical isotopes. "Most advanced industrial countries make do with cyclotron-produced isotopes, and alternatives such as spallation sources are a real alternative to costly and risky nuclear reactors", he said.
The committee meeting decided that the council should support the environmental impact statement process ordered by the government, leaving the nuclear waste problem as the key question to be resolved. If satisfactory arrangements cannot be found for safe waste storage then it is likely the council would not support the reactor.