Three independent peer reviews of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed replacement research reactor have found that the Lucas Heights site meets all technical, safety and licensing criteria.
The reviews, which were totally independent of ANSTO, were commissioned by Environment Australia, the Federal Governments environment department to:
- ensure rigorous independent expert scrutiny of the DEIS
- assist stakeholders in understanding the EIS technical issues, and in preparing their submissions on the DEIS
- assist the Commonwealths environment department in its assessment of the proposal
The major topics examined related to the management of reactor products, spent fuel and wastes, and the safety aspects associated with the proposal. Major conclusions of the technical reviews include:
- "On the basis of the available written information, discussion with key parties as well as the brief site visit, it can be concluded that the site for the proposed reactor has no negative characteristics which would make it unacceptable from a nuclear or radiological safety point of view." (International Atomic Energy Agency 1998)
- "The report concludes that the Risks and Hazards assessment for the EIS has been carried out using currently accepted methodologies and internationally verified computer codes. The Reference Accident has been selected and analysed in detail, and is judged to be appropriate for bounding any fault that can occur on a well designed reactor system." (Parkman Safety Management 1998)
- "In Summary, CH2M HILL concludes that radiological impacts of the proposal, as described in the DEIS, are minimal and of no significance to the public. All discharges are well below regulatory limits, as would be expected for a modern pool reactor." (CH2M HILL 1998)
The reports are detailed, and confirm the high level of safety inherent in the replacement reactor proposal. The reports include a number of editorial suggestions and seek clarification of specific technical issues.
All of the issues raised in the three peer reviews, as with all public submissions, will be answered in depth within the Final EIS.
Published: 27/11/1998