Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 July 2012:

(1) Given the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) as the national Commonwealth regulator does not have jurisdiction outside Australia, why was the agency appointed to coordinate the whole-of-government response to the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.

(2) From what open sources does ARPANSA draw information in its monitoring and advice for Australians on the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.

(3) From what sources within the Japanese Government does ARPANSA draw information for its monitoring and advice for Australians on the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.

(4) Since the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearings in May 2012, has ARPANSA sought detailed knowledge of the status and serious risks posed by the spent fuel pool at Reactor 4 at the Fukushima Daiichi site.

(5) Given that the last advice posted on the ARPANSA website is dated 24 February 2012, and given that the situation in Japan has altered in terms of the reopening of nuclear power plants, when will this advice be updated.

(6) Does ARPANSA have sufficient resources to continue to provide ongoing monitoring and advice to the public and the Government on the ongoing situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) ARPANSA was not the coordinator of the whole-of-government response for Australia to the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident. Rather ARPANSA provided advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Inter Departmental Emergency Task Force (IDETF) and the Australian Government.

(2) ARPANSA has used open sourced information from the Japanese Government, the Independent Investigation Commission and from the operators of the Fukushima nuclear power plants, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), to provide advice. In addition ARPANSA used published assessments undertaken by international agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the French-based Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire. Information was also sourced from internationally reviewed scientific journal publications.

(3) ARPANSA drew information from within the following sectors of Japanese Government for its monitoring and advice for Australians on the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi site:

(a) Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet;

(b) Food Safety Commission;

(c) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology;

(d) Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare;

(e) Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries;

(f) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry; and

(g) Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

(4) Yes.

(5) ARPANSA updated its web advisory on Fukushima on 6 July 2012 confirming that the safety situation at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi site remains unchanged.

(6) Yes.