|
On 15 August 2000,
the Senate referred issues relating to the above matter to the Select Committee
for an Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor at Lucas Heights. The
Select Committee will examine and report by 4 December 2000 on the following matters: (1)
That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee for an Inquiry into
the contract for a new reactor at Lucas Heights, be appointed to examine and report
by 4 December 2000, on the following matters: (a) the need
for a new research reactor, including: (i)
the validity of science and industry enhancement claims of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Commonwealth Government, (ii)
the adequacy of supply, and the cost, of radioactive sources and nuclear medicines
used in diagnosis and treatment, (iii) the opportunities
for alternative sources of nuclear materials for medical applications, such as
additional cyclotrons at appropriate locations, (iv) the
validity of nuclear expertise and national interest claims of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office,
ANSTO and the Commonwealth Government for the replacement reactor, and (v)
consideration of alternative approaches and means through which Australia’s
national interests in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and nuclear safety
can be supported and advanced; (b) the process
leading up to the signing of a contract in June 2000 with INVAP of Argentina for
the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, with particular reference
to: (i) the quality and accuracy of information
relied on in assessing the tenders, including a review of how the economic, environmental
and public health impacts were considered, (ii) the probity
of the tender arrangements and the accuracy of the cost assessments, (iii)
the checks made of the record of the preferred tenderer, INVAP, and its capability
to undertake the project safely and economically and its record in matching international
best practice in other projects, and (iv) public access
to information about the proposal and the consideration of issues raised through
the public consultation process; (c) the nature
of the contractual commitments entered into and the degree to which they are binding
on the Commonwealth, including in the event that not all approvals are obtained
and all other preconditions met, or that a future Government decides not to proceed
with the reactor, with particular reference to: (i)
the timeframe and process to be followed by the Australian Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety Agency in considering the issue of a construction licence and
an operating licence, and the consequences under the contract if such licences
are not issued, (ii) any other requirements for approvals
from the Commonwealth, state or local governments and the consequences if such
approvals are not obtained, (iii) the consequences if preconditions
set in the Environmental Impact Statement and other previous inquiries are not
met at the time of granting of a construction licence, (iv)
the nature of any provisions in the contract related to the ability of either
party to terminate the contract prior to completion and the provisions in relation
to compensation for termination, and (v) whether all or
part of the contract and other documents created during its consideration and
approval should now be made public; (d) whether
the preconditions set by previous inquiries and assessments into this proposal
have been adequately met prior to the contract being entered into, with particular
reference to: (i) fulfilment of each of the
conditions for approval set out in the draft Environmental Impact Statement and
its supplement report, including requirements for waste management, (ii)
whether the recommendations of the Economics References Committee inquiry into
the Lucas Heights proposal which reported in September 1999 have been adequately
responded to, (iii) the adequacy of occupational and public
safety protection procedures, and (iv) the adequacy of nuclear
incident plans and emergency procedures; and (e)
the adequacy of proposed fuel and waste management provisions in the contract
(or yet to be finalised), with particular reference to: (i)
the specific fuel proposed to be used and its source, the type of fuel rods and
where they will be manufactured, (ii) the proposed spent fuel management
arrangements during operation, (iii) the arrangements made to ensure that
spent fuel rods can be reprocessed, stored and ultimately disposed of safely,
(iv)
whether the new reactor is subject to negotiation of satisfactory contracts for
international reprocessing of spent fuel rods; and, if so, which countries will
be involved and will these contracts be subject to a provision which requires
the return of Australian waste as is the case with some of the existing Lucas
Heights fuel rods, and (v) the timing of any requirement
for the provision of an Australian long-term waste storage facility for rods from
a new reactor.
How to prepare a submission
| 
