Original Pangea promotional video - courtesy Robin Chapple
In 1999, Pangea
Resources proposed to establish an international, commercial high level
nuclear waste dump in the outback of Western Australia. The Pangea proposal was defeated over the next two years, but it remains an important case study for proposed models of nuclear waste storage.
The Pangea dump
would run for 40 years and store 20% of the world's nuclear waste. After
this time responsibility would pass to the people of Australia and Pangea
Resources would no longer monitor the site.
Pangea
in Retreat...for now
In January 2002, Pangea retreated from our shores to continue its nefarious
business elsewhere
Nuclear
Waste
A look at the material in question - what is high level nuclear waste,
and why you need to know about it.
Alternatives
to a Dump
There is no proposal for the storage of nuclear waste that is
totally acceptable or risk free, the option that has least risk and
the potential to develop a deliverable waste management strategy is
to store radioactive wastes in an above ground facility at or near the
site of production or use.
The
Pangea Project: Detailed Background
The Australian community only found out about the Pangea
project as a result of a leaked promotional video tape spelling out
the proposal in graphic detail. Since then an extraordinary story of
subterfuge and doublethink has emerged.
Project
Summary Pangea's
business plan was based on taking 76,000 metric tons of spent fuel and/or
reprocessed high-level waste over some 40 years. This
would only be 20% of the spent fuel expected to be generated annually
by commercial reactors around the world, but would still be the largest
collective movement of nuclear waste in history.
Who
were Pangea?
The company's major financial backer was British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL),
who have invested A$35 million in the project. Other partners include
NAGRA, the Swiss nuclear agency, and Enterra Holdings, the parent company
of the international geotechnical company Golder Associates.
The
Government Response
The Australian government was caught with its pants down following the
leak of the Pangea video, and not everyone had time to get their stories
straight. Read about some of the connections between Pangea and friends
in government - that we know of.
The
Geology
Supposedly, Western
Australia was chosen because the geology of the Neoproterozoic
zone of the Centralian Suberbasin (an ancient seabed) is simple, stable
and a long way from the populated centres of the Northern Hemisphere. Pangea consider it
acceptable that this area become a radioactive sacrifice zone, believing
the rate of release from the site will be acceptable to the public of
Australia.
The
Traditional Owners
Pangea have indicated two potential sites of interest. Neither one appeals
much to the people who would have to live with the dump in their backyard.
Critique
of Pangea The
anti-nuclear movement in Australia has now been campaigning against
Pangea for one and a half years. The reasons for opposition vary among
different people, and range from a simple 'Not In My Backyard' (NIMBY)
reaction to more global considerations of whether nuclear waste should
be buried in underground dumps at all.
Statement
by Mary Olson NIRS Nuclear waste specialist Mary Olson (USA) visited Perth in
August 1999 with a simple message: nuclear waste should never be dumped
and left.
The
Pangea Video
Pangea was 'outed' in 1998 by the discovery by FOE UK of Pangea's secret
promotional video.
The
Transportation Hazards Look no further for reasons to oppose the mass-movement of nuclear
waste around the world.
The
Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act 1999 In
November 1999 the Western Australian Parliament passed "The Nuclear
Waste Storage Prohibition Act 1999" in response to the clear demonstration
of opposition by the WA community (50,000 people signed a petition calling
for legislation). In theory, this law bans the importation of nuclear
waste into Western Australia. Our legal advice is that the legislation
is critically flawed and could leave the way open for Pangea to establish
their dump. The law could also be repealed by a pro-nuclear government
in the future.
"This waste
is actually a high quality product, not rubbish off the back of
a lorry," he said.
"In fact,
it is often a quality assured value added product. Before you put it in a hole, it is enclosed in a copper canister,
which costs something like US$200,000. So you can call the facility
what you like, but it is not just a dump."
An upset Charles McCombie, Pangea Resources Technical
and Strategic Adviser Quoted in Minerals Gazette, May 1999
~ tip o' the hat to Gavin Mudd who spotted this gem of a quote.
