Disaster report shows 30km nuclear plume descending on Melbourne’s eastern suburbs

In the event of a Fukushima-type disaster at a proposed nuclear power plant in the Latrobe Valley, Lilydale would be spared, but not wide swathes of Melbourne’s eastern suburbs, according to detailed maps released today by advocacy group Don't Nuke the Climate.

Where would be worst impacted?

The maps show the impact of winds blowing north, south, east and west from the proposed Loy Yang nuclear site in the Latrobe Valley.

The southerly wind map shows the impact would reach as far north as Buxton, with the “pollution plumes and evacuation zones” spanning across most of Gippsland, into Pakenham and Berwick and then as far west as Rowville, Glen Waverley, Clayton and Box Hill.

The mapping also highlights parts of Port Phillip Bay that would be hit, as well as most of Melbourne’s western suburbs.

What is the Coalition’s nuclear plan?

The Coalition has released a plan to transition seven current or former coal power plants to nuclear sites, including two sites in NSW, two in Queensland, and one each in Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia.

AGL owns the Loy Yang power station, with plans to retire the plant in mid-2035.

How broad would the impact be?

The research, which used data from the Fukushima disaster, overlaid pollution plumes and evacuation zones recorded after the meltdown at the Daiichi nuclear power station across the Coalition’s seven proposed reactor sites.

The interactive map uses a radiation plume map of the deposition of radioactive caesium-137 from the Fukushima disaster as of July 2011.

The darker the shading, the higher the level of radioactive contamination and the higher the radiation exposures for people in those areas.

The research shows nearly 84,000 people living within 30km of the Loy Yang site would be impacted, including 31 schools, six hospitals and health facilities and 16 child care centres.

The World Health Organization reports there is an increased risk of cancer, including thyroid cancers, breast cancers and leukaemia, in people exposed to radioactive materials.

How concerned should we be?

Speaking with the National Account, Friends of the Earth Australia national nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green led the research and said more research needed to be undertaken before any further nuclear plants were commissioned, to take into account potential environmental risks and financial costs.

“Even though these nuclear disasters are rare, we need to be prepared, and we need to think carefully about if we want to subject ourselves to those risks,” he told the National Account.

“These reactors will cost literally hundreds of billions of dollars, roughly $300 billion, and if you're having to over-engineer to account for earthquake risks, then you're going to be adding billions more into the costs.

“What we've heard from the proponents is the asinine and meaningless statement that modern nuclear reactors are incredibly safe.”

How did the Fukushima accident happen?

The Fukushima nuclear accident began on March 11, 2011, and is regarded as the largest nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, leading to the evacuation in Japan of 190,000 people. Twenty-four were injured and there was one suspected death from lung cancer as a result of radiation.

Although there was only one official death caused by the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster, nearly 20,000 died due to the tsunami and flooding, and another 2313 were listed as "disaster-related deaths".

"The premature disaster-related deaths were mainly related to physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from care settings and homes; and delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami," the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association said.

Although the disaster was triggered by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami event, Green said the “root causes of the problem were corruption and grossly inadequate regulations”.

“We can look to Australia to see these sorts of problems playing out in real time,” he said. “The regulation of Australia's nuclear industry and the uranium industry has been uneven at best and at worst, it's terrible.

“We would need confidence that there's going to be the strictest level of regulation, even though that has not been the pattern in Australia.”

How can we prevent a future disaster in Australia?

Green said with the sites located well away from coastlines, it would be difficult to transport enough water to keep the nuclear reactors cool to prevent a large-scale accident.

“One thing I am concerned about is that you need a vast amount of water when a disaster happens to keep the reactors cool and to prevent further accidents,” he said. “How on earth are they going to do that at these inland sites that have been proposed by the Coalition? It really just doesn't square.”

How do locals feel about a nuclear plant in Gippsland?

Solutions for Climate Australia’s Leigh Ewbank said about 30 community members objected to the Coalition’s plans in a campaign rally in Mount Waverley in January.

"Peter Dutton's nuclear reactor push undermines the community's aspiration to power their homes with rooftop solar, storage, and solar and wind energy from the grid,” he told the Eastern Melburnian.

“This community opposition to nuclear will only grow as more people appreciate the extreme cost and risks associated with the technology.

"Power bills will soar under Dutton's nuclear reactor plan.”

Casey Independent candidate Claire Ferres Miles said the response she is hearing from local voters is they would rather install solar panels on their roof than have a nuclear power plant in the Latrobe Valley.

“Let's call out the Liberal Party's nuclear proposal for what it is - a distraction to extend fossil fuels well beyond their useful life and to stop investment in renewable energy,” she told the Eastern Melburnian.

“Voting for the Liberal Party means Australia will miss all our legislated targets and make it virtually impossible to hit the bipartisan net zero by 2050 target.”

Correction: Dr Green was interviewed by the National Account's Archie Milligan. A previous version of this story misattributed.