Still no to nuclear dump

By Bob Burton

A consortium dominated by the British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) is trying to gain support from governments in the Asia-Pacific region for a global nuclear waste dump in the Australian outback. This despite the fact that the Australian government has said that its current policy is not to accept the radioactive waste of other countries.

According to Department of Industry, Science and Resources spokesperson Caroline Perkins, the government’s position “is based on the clear principle that countries deriving benefits from nuclear power should expect to make their own arrangement to dispose of nuclear waste.” But the consortium, Pangea Resources, is apparently undeterred and even suggested in a conference held in Canberra mid-November that Australia could be persuaded to change its stance.

Pangea General Manager Marcis Kurzeme told participants at the ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ conference that “(a) new nuclear waste disposal initiative was justified because many national waste repository programmes were suffering delays, cost overruns, and in some unfortunate cases, significant lot of loss of investment due to failed attempts to site a geological repository.” He also confirmed that Pangea is “informing other governments on the Pangea concept and the global benefits” of the proposed nuclear waste dump.

Still, he admitted that the “the current group of supporters of Pangea are acutely aware this project can succeed only with the support of the Australian people and with the

participation of Australian industry.”

Pangea is 70 percent owned by the British government-owned BNFL, with minor shareholdings held by the Swiss company Nagra, and the parent company of Canadian based geo-technical company Colder Associates. Previous BNFL attempts to establish low and intermediate level dumps in Britain have failed. According to Kurzeme, Pangea is undertaking a feasibility study “to construct a deep disposal facility for up to about 25 per cent of the world’s existing nuclear waste.” Pangea has said that the

project would require a fleet of five dedicated ships continually plying the seas carrying nuclear waste from Europe and the North-east Asian region to South Australia.

Kurzeme, though, denied that Pangea wanted other governments to help “lobby” for the Canberra’s approval of the proposed nuclear waste dump. “Lobbying is a very emotional word,” he told IPS.

Pangea, however, has been advised on a range of foreign policy arguments that it could use to persuade Australia to support its

proposal.

These arguments are in a leaked 61-page “commercial-in-confidence” briefing paper for Pangea prepared in August by Canberra based security consultants, Du Pont & Associates and Bergin & Associates.

The paper explains why Australia is the “ideal” site for the dump: “Australia is probably one of the few regional states which would be politically acceptable to Japan, South Korea and problem as an end destination for the nuclear waste product.”

“China, North Korea and Russia could probably be persuaded to use a geological repository in Australia,” the brief adds.

It then argues that the project would benefit Australia by gaining recognition for its efforts to “protect the global environment”, “strengthen disarmament”, “promote non proliferation” and “strengthen the alliance with the (United States)”. Its authors suggest that by accepting a nuclear waste dump, Australia would be in a position to extract concessions from Washington.

“Given that the US would derive substantial political and security benefits,” the authors say, the Australian government could “extract trade and political concessions from Washington, including guarantees that Australia would not be economically damaged by US export subsidies or restrictions on market access.”

The consultants advise Pangea to point out that Australia’s approval of the dump would “enhance (the country’s) regional standing as well as increase its leverage with a number of its key friends and allies, particularly the US,

Japan and South Korea.”

Anti-nuclear Pacific nations too, the report argues, could be persuaded to support the dump. “Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, the Cook Islands and Papua New Guinea would probably acquiesce to the idea,” it states.

This, it says, would address Pacific nations’ long-time concern about the possible effects on the marine environment from a procession of ships. The consultants say Pangea could argue that “locating such a facility in Australia would discourage private schemes for storing nuclear waste in the South Pacific.”

But Pangea is in for a tough fight ahead. It is already reeling from a string of legislative setbacks in both Commonwealth and State parliaments.

Legislation against the proposed nuclear waste dump has passed through the Lower House of the West Australian Parliament, and a motion opposing the dump went through the Australian Senate recently.

On the eve of the conference - organised by the Australian Nuclear Association - a poll commissioned by the international environmental watchdog Greenpeace also revealed that 85 percent of Australians support the federal government passing legislation to prohibit the importation of foreign nuclear waste.

Said Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaigner

Jean McSorley: “The Australian nuclear industry is attempting to create what it terms a ‘nuclear renaissance’. The Australian public clearly believes the government should ban the importing of foreign nuclear waste.”

She added, “A nuclear waste dump will perpetuate the nuclear industry and increase the hazards from many more ships carrying nuclear materials through the region,” she says.

But Pangea’s Kurzeme criticised the

opposition in state legislatures against

nuclear waste dumps. “The government hasn’t felt the need to be informed while it is legislating,” he said of the West Australia action. “The debate in Parliament was something to behold.” IPS ■