An Australian advocacy organization launched a campaign Monday against South Australia’s proposal to store international nuclear waste, which the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission estimated would pump AUS $257 billion of revenue into the state over 120 years.
The No Dump Alliance said the plan shows a lack of respect for Aboriginal communities; future generations; and public health, environmental, and financial risks. One of the group’s ambassadors, Yami Lester, who reportedly went blind from British nuclear weapons tests at Emu Field and Maralinga in the 1950s, said “there are big concerns.”
“And I worry because I know it is not safe for South Australia land and the people,” Lester, a Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal elder, said a statement. “Why does the Government keep bringing back nuclear issues when we know the problems last forever?”
As proposed, South Australia would enter into waste agreements with countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, and take ownership of about 60,000 tons of waste, which would be stored or disposed of in South Australia’s dry, Archaean geological structure.
Like Canberra think tank the Australia Institute, the No Dump Alliance said the plan’s financial projections don’t compute.
“If it’s such a good deal, why aren’t other countries rushing to do it? Something just doesn’t add up,” the group said in a statement. “The Royal Commission’s case for a nuclear dump making a profit is based on inflated estimates of the income and deflated estimates of the costs and risks.”
The commission projected state profit of more than $100 billion, with revenue expected at $257 billion for the $145 billion project.
“The Commission assumes that countries with waste stockpiles will pay a premium price to dump in our backyard and that no other country will ever offer a cheaper option,” the group added. “If the economics of this nuclear waste project fail, the South Australian public would bear the losses – forever.”
Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce said in his final report on the waste plan that the project will not be possible without “broad social and specific community consent.”
