AUSTRALIA will not be a dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste, the Federal Government reaffirmed yesterday. Science Minister Peter McGauran, in Argentina, rejected suggestions by Swiss group ARIUS that Australia was an ideal site for an international nuclear waste store. "Countries deriving benefits from nuclear technology should make their own arrangements to safely dispose of their nuclear waste," he said. "Under no circumstances will the Federal Government consider involving bodies in Australia's radioactive waste facilities which may be seen as promoting Australian storage or disposal of international nuclear waste."

ARIUS formed out of the disbanded multinational Pangea which wanted to dump up to 75,000 tonnes of overseas waste from disarmed nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations each year in Australia. It nominated outback South Australia and Western Australia as preferred sites. ARIUS spokesman Charles McCombie said this week his organisation was "interested in Australia". "Scientific work to date has confirmed that geologically Australia is an excellent potential host for a safe repository," Dr McCombie said, adding ARIUS's focus was not on Australia at this stage.

"The earlier work of Pangea indicated South Australia probably has excellent sites - as does WA - but ARIUS is currently actively looking for options in neither," he said.

(JG - The irony and hypocrisy of McGauran saying from Argentina that Australia won’t be a nuclear dumping ground ... he was in Argentina to convince them to take Australia's spent nuclear fuel.)

KEY players behind the failed Pangea proposal for an  international nuclear waste dump in Australia have  regrouped, intent on pursuing a multinational waste  repository.

The Swiss-based Association for Regional and International Underground Storage wants Australia to  reconsider siting a nuclear waste dump. ARIUS executive  director Charles McCombie told The Australian he was optimistic that opposition to the Pangea proposal would fade and the plan for a shared waste facility would be backed. "Given the acknowledged excellent geological  conditions in your country, an obvious option would still be that Australia defrays the cost of its own disposal program by accepting waste from elsewhere," Dr McCombie  said.

But anti-nuclear activists are prepared for another fight.The Australian Conservation Foundation's David Noonan said this country should not be a dumping ground for other nations' nuclear waste. "The cost to Australia would  be vast ... in the loss of our reputation, and in the  potential environmental and other impacts of any mishap or  accident," Mr Noonan said.

The federal Government also is cool on the plan. Science Minister Peter McGauran said a sharing agreement on Australia's proposed intermediate-level nuclear waste site was not under consideration. "The  federal Government is strongly opposed to importing overseas radioactive waste for either disposal or storage in  Australia," he said.

Pangea proposed setting up an  international nuclear waste dump in Australia, but -- after  several years of promotion and lobbying -- wound up its  affairs earlier this year. Dr McCombie, who ran Pangea, then set up ARIUS as a non-profit group to seek solutions for toxic waste storage. The group's members are nuclear  industries in Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan and Switzerland.

Dr McCombie said the federal Government's current search for an intermediate nuclear waste dump  should be widened to look at the concept of a shared  facility. He said: "The storage facility for long-lived wastes that your Government is currently trying to site is  an interim measure, which does not fulfil the long-term ethical requirements on waste producers.

"Australia will  ultimately have to build a very expensive small national  deep repository, or else use a shared facility."

Dr McCombie said Pangea was never given a real chance to sell its proposal for an international dump in Australia. "The politicians who wished to make political capital out  of the issue jumped in first with extremely polarising positions," Dr McCombie said.

"We optimistically believe  that these positions could well alter in future, especially  if shared facilities are implemented elsewhere."

Dr McCombie said he had not given up hope of "Australians coming to appreciate the high benefits and low risks that would be associated with hosting a well-organised and managed international facility".