Recommendations to Senate Committee
|1.5 Recommendation: An Auditor is essential if only to balance slightly the outrageously partial nature of this shameful exercise. We ask that this Committee immediately call upon the Minister to make the appointment.
1.8 Recommendation: That the Committee obtain a fully detailed and costed report of the alleged study to find a site for a replacement nuclear reactor. That this report, if it exists, be made public.
1.9 Recommendation: That the Committee obtain from the Department of Primary Industry and Energy an estimate of the cost for a national waste repository and that the figure be made public.
1.11.3 Recommendation: That the Committee arrange for the public attitudes survey to be carried out again to determine what changes to attitudes, if any, have taken place during the past 12 months. The cost would be far less than the $40,000 for the original poll and should be taken from the $6 million ANSTO has been given for the EIS.
1.11.5 Recommendation : That the Committee persuade the NSW government to carry out a thorough health study of the communities around the reactor site, using, amongst other tools, hospital records. It should attempt to check death records of all people who have lived in the area since the reactor was commissioned in 1958. The Commonwealth government should fund this.
1.11.7 Recommendation : That the Commonwealth government provide insurance cover for personal injury and property loss (including loss of property values and social disruption) in the event of an accident at the reactor site which has off-site consequences. This would eliminate the need for individuals to take the government to court in civil proceedings. Remember the "Voyager" and "Agent Orange" cases.
2.2 Recommendation : That the Committee contact Professor Allen and get his informed opinion on the matter.
2.4 Recommendation: That the Committee urgently contact the authors of these papers as well as the persons mentioned in the acknowledgement to obtain their first hand views.
3.3 Recommendation : Now that an area for the national waste dump has been selected from the eight suggested by the NRIC - the Woomera option - an estimate of its cost be obtained from the Minister and that it be made public. It is beyond belief that such an undertaking be started without some idea of its cost.
3.4 Recommendation : That the Committee investigate the question of the "co-location" at this site, of the long lived Intermediate Waste which will return from Dounreay. Will it be yet another "interim measure"? If so, how long is it envisaged to stay at the site? How would it be stored? Above ground and retrievable or below ground? What are the estimated half lives of the contents of the concreted wastes? Note: some of these decay naturally but then transform into elements with extremely long lives. Has deep underground permanent disposal been considered" If not why not?
3.5 Recommendation : That the Committee investigates the cuts in government funding to scientific, medical and industrial research and development over the past two budgets and compares these with the costs which are being and will continue to be incurred to run HIFAR and any replacement. That it makes an estimate of any job losses which have taken place due to funding costs.
3.6 Recommendation : That Professor Stocker be consulted and his opinion be asked about the cost/benefits of this proposal. (It could be the first time he has been asked.)
4.3 Recommendation : That your Committee consult Professor McKinnon and the other members of his team from the RRR and ask his opinion as to whether the conditions set out in his report have been met.
5.10 That the decision to proceed with the building of a new reactor at Lucas Heights was made before the Probability Safety Assessment report on the HIFAR reactor has been made public. Indeed the Minister has suggested that the full report might be kept away from the public (and Local Council) and only the Executive Summary released - some time. Can your committee have this essential report made public? If not, a public statement as to why it is so secret should be made.
Nuclear Study Group
|Back to Submissions Index