[OGOGOogoloshennya]

Sure it makes sense to store nuclear waste on site given the inherent problems moving it. But it only makes sense if the site makes sense in the first place.
Lucas Heights is a poor site for a reactor and isotope facility. By being on the south western edge of Sydney if there was a release of radioactive gases the prevailing winds being commonly from the south west would likely blow most waste over Sydney.

If the leak is into the nearby water courses, the waste washes out over southern Sydney beaches like Cronulla. So for me the basic issue is the one no-one talks about. Why did they build the new reactor on the old site given the urban encroachment well within all original exclusion zones? Second question, why did they get an Argentine company to build the reactor given their poor track record. Part of the contract stated that all new waste is to be returned to Argentina. Old waste was contracted to go to France. In both cases there are contracts that will need to be broken.

So sure talk about why on site is better than waste transport, but why ignore more important questions?