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

asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, upon notice, on 7 June 2012:

(1) Was the cost of $13 million, cited when the NMC was opened in 1991: (a) the cost for the entire facility or for the cyclotron itself; and (b) taxpayer funded; if so, to what extent.

(2) On what basis was the decision made to decommission the NMC.

(3) Was it the manufacturer's advice to decommission the machine.

(4) What was the manufacturer's assessment of the operational problems of the NMC.

(5) Is the IBA built 'Cyclone 30' still operating in other countries.

(6) Why have other operators obtained longer life cycles from their equipment than the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.

(7) What was the cost of decommissioning the NMC.

(8) Is the NMC's residual value of $2 million, cited during the 2010 11 Senate Budget estimates hearings of the Economics Committee, the book value or the actual sale price.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) (a) The cost of $13 million was for the cyclotron itself; (b) The construction of the NMC was funded by government through a special appropriation.

(2) In the last years of its operation, the NMC became unreliable, due primarily to equipment failures in a facility approaching the end of its operating life. After considering the results of an external review of the facility, the ANSTO Board decided that further investment and high maintenance costs were no longer justifiable, as reliability could not be guaranteed.

(3) No.

(4) Not applicable – see response to (3) above.

(5) Yes.

(6) The Government cannot answer on behalf of other operators.

(7) $2.2 million.

(8) The book value.