Australia — global nuclear dump?

Last week the public were denied access to a meeting between Esperance 
Shire Council in WA and the Consortium Pangea Resources, which wants to 
construct a nuclear dump in the shire that would store nuclear waste from 
around the world. The meeting was arranged by the council after calls from 
the Local Environment Action Forum and the wider community to amend 
Esperance's town planning scheme to prohibit any nuclear activity in the 
Shire. The following is a report on the proposed project prepared for 
Greenpeace Australia by Jean McSorley.

Consortium Pangea Resources Inc has proposed that Australia become the host 
nation of an international nuclear waste "facility".

This dump site would be used to dispose of intensely radioactive spent 
nuclear fuel, high level radioactive waste (HLW), intermediate level waste 
(ILW) and "unwanted" nuclear materials derived from weapons dismantling. 
The dump would be sited in Western Australia or possibly South Australia.

The proposal

It is proposed that when fully operational the facility would receive 700 
canisters of HLW, 2,000 tonnes of spent fuel and 20,000 cubic metres of ILW 
per annum. The site would be open for 40 years.

The total amount of spent fuel destined for the site is estimated at 75,000 
tonnes. To put that in perspective, the Lucas Heights reactor operated by 
the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has 
produced approximately 321 kilograms of spent nuclear fuel in 44 years of 
operation.

Pangea's proposal would, therefore, involve importing 233,644 times the 
amount of spent fuel that has been produced in Australia.

The 75,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel suggested by Pangea is roughly 20 
per cent of spent nuclear fuel in the world. The Pangea proposal is not, 
therefore, a global solution insomuch that it does not resolve the problem 
of the global stockpile of spent nuclear fuel, but only addresses part of 
the problem.

Similarly, the amount of HLW and ILW proposed for the site would not cover 
the total amount of these materials.

Most importantly, there is no suggestion whatsoever that if Pangea's plans 
went ahead the nuclear industry would stop producing spent nuclear fuel, 
high level waste or weapons-usable materials such as plutonium.

If the Pangea proposal proceeds it will undoubtedly be seen by the nuclear 
industry as the green light to create even more nuclear waste through the 
use of dangerous facilities such as nuclear power plants, research reactors 
and spent fuel reprocessing plants.

Non-proliferation

One aspect of the Pangea proposals concerns "unwanted" nuclear materials 
derived from weapons dismantling. For many commentators this is the most 
attractive part of this proposition.

There is no doubt that many people around the world are keenly aware of the 
need to drive the disarmament process more quickly. 

In this respect the Pangea proposal looks good as it talks of non-
proliferation and, in proposing a disposal route, appears to provide a 
"solution" to the crucial problem of what to do with nuclear weapons 
materials.

However, Pangea talks only of "unwanted" nuclear materials. The plutonium 
sent for disposal will not, therefore, result from complete nuclear 
disarmament, but will be the waste product of those bombs that the nuclear 
weapons states decide they don't want any more.

Unfortunately, the US, the UK, France, Russia and China all have policies 
which mean maintaining their nuclear arsenals for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, a number of them are engaging in designing new weapons. Thus, 
Pangea will do nothing to "solve" the problem of nuclear weaponry and the 
threat it poses to the world.

In this respect it is worth noting that the largest financial backer for 
Pangea is British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), a UK-government-owned company 
that operates the Sellafield spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility — 
the facility that separated plutonium for Britain's nuclear arsenal.

It is also where BNFL now produces plutonium for civil nuclear programs in 
Europe and Japan. This reactor-grade plutonium is, however, weapons-usable.

BNFL has been heavily criticised for its part in the trade in plutonium as 
this is causing considerable concern amongst the international community 
because of the nuclear proliferation potential of such activities.

At present there is no environmentally acceptable method for the disposable 
of nuclear wastes. The policy of the majority of environment groups is 
above-ground dry-storage at the site of origin of waste production.

Such technology is already employed by the nuclear industry for spent fuel 
and HLW storage. Establishing stores at the point of production, or use, 
keeps the waste where there are technical resources to monitor and retrieve 
the material to prevent contamination of the environment.

The Pangea proposal does discuss the possibility of the retrievability of 
wastes. Pangea claims that "the earliest credible date" for retrieval is 
100 years after closure of the site. However, many of the materials that 
would be sent for disposal are radioactive for hundreds of thousands of 
years.

Pangea has failed to explain how it plans to establish the necessary 
financial and institutional arrangements to cover the possibility of off-
site contamination that might occur thousands of years from now.

It has been claimed that there is a pressing environmental need to "solve" 
the problem of radioactive waste. The real need, however, is to stop the 
production of radioactive waste.

The pressure to "solve" nuclear waste — by disposing of it — is a 
political imperative driven by an industry intent on creating more wastes.

For example, in Australia the push for a national nuclear waste dump is 
being driven by ANSTO, which wants to build yet another reactor and 
increase isotope production. This will add significantly to Australia's 
domestic nuclear waste stockpile over the coming 40 years.

ANSTO is facing political and public opposition to keeping nuclear waste 
and spent fuel on site. It is promoting the idea of a disposal site in 
South Australia as part of its "solution".

However, a poll of South Australians revealed that 93 per cent opposed the 
idea of even a low-level nuclear waste site.

This situation in Australia is a small-scale example of the Pangea 
proposal.

It has also been suggested that Australia, as one of the world's major 
suppliers of uranium, should be prepared to accept the waste products of 
the industry. It is ridiculous to suggest that spent nuclear fuel and high 
level waste can be "swapped" for uranium.

These materials are, relative to uranium, very, very radioactive and cannot 
be compared on safety and radiological grounds.

If the "waste-return" logic was followed on all raw materials exported from 
Australia we would, for example, also take back fibro waste from asbestos 
sold overseas, or the lead batteries produced from lead mines here.

What country would accept such a situation?

Those countries which have decided to have nuclear power plants and other 
nuclear facilities have to accept the burden of their decision. However, it 
should be noted that whilst Australia is under no moral obligation to 
accept nuclear wastes from overseas, it is under absolute moral obligation 
to stop selling uranium.

Further, if Australia expects other countries to handle their own nuclear 
waste then it should be prepared to deal with the radioactive wastes 
produced here.

Australia should, therefore, undertake to deal with its spent nuclear fuel 
domestically and not rely on reprocessing or disposal of spent fuel 
overseas.

Back to index page