25 January 2001 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Nuclear double standard

BY ROBBIE MacGABHANN

Chris Patten's name will forever be etched in Irish minds for two reasons. One, being his report on the RUC and two, his tears from the deck of the Britannia as it left Hong Kong in 1997.

Now Patten is an EU Commissioner for External Relations and what has he turned his attention to? Well Chris is worried about the 300 nuclear reactors and thousands of used fuel rods dumped into the Arctic Ocean by the Russians. The EU, led by Patten, is trying to force the Russian Government to clean up its navy's nuclear waste problem.

According to Patten, there are ``in the seas and shores surrounding the Kola Peninsula'' some ``300 nuclear reactors - about 20% of the world's total - and thousands of spent fuel elements''.

Patten also said: ``The lack of adequate storage or disposal facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste from the reactors of nuclear vessels is a sword of Damocles hanging over all our futures''.

But while everybody wants to see any nuclear dangers that threaten us dealt with quickly and safely, there is a huge double standard at work in Patten's analysis. There are two clear examples of this. One is the record of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), in particular their Sellafield operations, and the second is the role being played by the EU in subsidising the nuclear industry outside of the EU.

The problem facing the Russian military in decommissioning its old nuclear submarine fleet is a highly visible one. Apparently, the shores the Kola Peninsula are ``littered'' with beached, and now inoperable nuclear submarines. It makes for good PR and you can show a picture of a rusting hulk to back up your case.

Not so visible and apparently not such a threat to all our futures is the stockpile of waste that includes 70,000 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel in Sellafield, which is one of the world's largest sites of spent nuclear waste.

It is the very same nuclear waste dump that was described in 1998 by the Institute for Resources and Security Studies as ``one of the world's most dangerous sites''. In the same year, the British Health and Safety Authority described the same site as being in danger of leaking, because the stores that contained the waste were ``crumbling''.

What is the difference then between a crumbling concrete bunker in Britain and a rusting submarine in Russia? Both contain the same dangerous nuclear waste.

The Russian sailors are unpaid and hungry, according to one media report, while the British nuclear industry workers merely falsify safety records, which is obviously an entirely different matter from the disaster waiting to happen in Russia.

The nuclear double standard does not end there though. The very same EU that is lobbying the Russian Government to clean up its nuclear waste is giving a $585 million loan to build two new nuclear reactors in the Ukraine, even though there are still undealt with concerns about the ability of the Ukrainians to implement EU safety standards. There is also the little problem that the reactors are being built in an earthquake-prone area. None of these concerns seemed important enough to stop the EU loan being given to the Ukrainians

What is even more alarming about the loan is that it highlights the lack of democracy within the EU and the power that unelected decision makers have on policy making. The loan for building the nuclear reactors was paid by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development with EU Commission approval, even though only 6 of the 15 EU states supported the loan.

For the record, the six who supported the loan were France, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland and of course, Britain. Of the six, five are members of NATO, while Finland has been a member of the NATO-run Partnership for Peace since 1994.

I wonder who really has a sword hanging over us?

An Phoblacht
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland