Emotive claims made yesterday by Mr Daniel Hirsch, a member of a United States-based antinuclear community action group, to the Senate Select Committee inquiring into the contract for the Replacement Research Reactor, were dismissed as unfounded by international experts more than two years ago, following a comprehensive examination during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.
Mr Hirschs current statement raises no new issues.
According to Dr Ron Cameron, Director of Safety at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, three independent peer reviews of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the replacement research reactor have found that the Lucas Heights site meets all technical, safety and licensing criteria.
"The reviews were totally independent of ANSTO. In fact they were commissioned during the environmental assessment process by Environment Australia, the Federal Governments environment department," Dr Cameron says.
In their assessments the three independent peer reviews confirmed that the "reference accident"assumptions and outcomes, were appropriate. The reference accident is a hypothetical scenario to evaluate the maximum plausible health, safety and environmental impacts.
"In addition, Environment Australia, in its review of the EIS, commissioned a specific assessment from one of the independent peer reviewers of the claims made by Mr Hirsch," Dr Cameron says.
"This reviewer concluded that the releases predicted by ANSTO were appropriate and that the assumptions made by ANSTO were well substantiated by international experience."
In its Environment Assessment Report prepared in February 1999, Environment Australia stated that "While the Sutherland Shire Councils submission disagreed with some of the assumptions in determining the Reference Accident, the weight of evidence is that these concerns are not a valid consideration. On the basis of the information available, the Reference Accident is considered to be suitably precautionary".
The reference accident and its assumptions used in the DEIS were also scrutinised by ARPANSA, who agreed that the choice was suitably conservative.
On the basis of these detailed assessments, the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill, stated in March 1999 that "All the evidence before me confirms the proposed research reactor will be safe, with no significant risk to the environment or the community."
Senator Hill added, "There are no environmental reasons including on safety, health, hazard or risk grounds to prevent construction, subject to a number of conditions."
The Parliamentary Public Works Committee also examined these issues in 1999 and concluded that "all known risks have been identified".
"ANSTO is committed to the safety of the replacement research reactor and has specified a design which will ensure the maximum safety of the community," Dr Cameron says.
"The replacement research reactor will incorporate the inherent safety features of modern pool type reactors to ensure that even for the hypothetical maximum credible accident no countermeasures beyond the 1.6km buffer zone would be required.
"Quite simply, this ensures that even in the improbable event of an accident, there would be no health impacts on the community," he says.