ACTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE ADMINISTRATION OF URANIUM MINING AND MILLING

No other form of mining is so subject to regulation or scrutiny, governmental as well as public, as is the mining of uranium. The Committee believes that this level of scrutiny is warranted in that it responds to the sensitivity associated with uranium mining, and has contributed materially to minimising adverse effects on the environment.

As this chapter shows, the history of uranium mining and milling in Australia, especially as illustrated in the differences between the first and second phases, has made conspicuous progress both in minimising the impact of mining on the environment, and in restoring the site once the mining is concluded.

The Committee's enquiries do not suggest that mining can be carried out without an impact on the environment. But they do suggest that progress is a reality, a considerable reality. There is no reason to believe that the limits of research have been reached. As our consideration of tailings management shows, there remain large matters where much work still needs to be done. Just as the standards of a generation ago are no longer seen as acceptable, so it may be expected that standards in the next generation will rise. It is essential to have a regulatory structure which ensures that the results of research are promptly reflected in enhanced standards.

As a consequence of its review of the impact of uranium mining and milling on the environment, and the relevant governmental framework, the Committee has concluded that whilst existing arrangements have been adequate, they could be significantly better. Moreover, it believes that likely expansion of uranium mining and milling in Australia requires new arrangements to ensure high levels of performance, full utilisation of Australia's experience in uranium mining since the 1970s, rapid adoption of world best practice, and vigorous public accountability nationally and locally.

A telling contrast between Ranger and Olympic Dam has been an influential consideration leading to these conclusions. Because of the research and public reporting of the Supervising Scientist it has been possible to reach an informed conclusion that uranium mining and milling in the Alligator Rivers region has only a minimal impact on the environment. Moreover, the Committee has had the expert judgment of the Supervising Scientist to support conclusions about the environmental efficacy of mining in this area.

By contrast, there have not been any comparable affirmations about the standard or quality of performance at the Olympic Dam Operation. Nobody, Commonwealth or South Australian, provided similar systematic information, nor similarly expert judgment. The Olympic Dam mine, even if views about its quality are accurate, nonetheless does not have high level expert endorsement of the type available to Ranger because of Commonwealth involvement through the Supervising Scientist.

The Committee considers that the combination of public interest in uranium mining and milling, and the particular features of the industry, especially the problem of waste, warrant active Commonwealth involvement in continuing administration of the industry. The purposes of such administration would include ensuring that best practice standards are applied in all uranium mines and a level of public accountability of a quality the Supervising Scientist has brought to the mines in the Alligator Rivers region.

The Committee therefore recommends establishment of a Commonwealth Uranium Authority by statute without delay. Its responsibilities should include any approvals to mine; direction of environmental impact studies; supervision of plans and programs to ensure that the impact of mining on the environment is minimised; triennial audits of environmental performance at mines (or at such shorter intervals as may be necessary); and review, audit and evaluation of health and safety measures at the mines and other locations where nuclear materials are stored.

The CUA should have the powers of a commission of inquiry under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Export licences for uranium should be granted subject to the condition that the mine falls within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Uranium Authority and agrees to provide it with all information requested and to comply with any directions issued by the Authority. In respect of directions issued by the CUA, any appeals may be lodged within 30 days and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The CUA's functions should include capacity to initiate research relevant to its responsibilities.

The CUA will need to work closely with the Supervising Scientist especially in relation to mines in the Alligator Rivers region. In relation to mines elsewhere in Australia, it will be for the new Authority to decide from whom it seeks advice and research support. However, not only should there not be any impediment to using the Supervising Scientist for these purposes, the Committee, as is explained in the next chapter, perceives a positive advantage in consolidating Australian scientific expertise about uranium mining and milling under the Supervising Scientist.

The CUA should be composed of a full-time Commissioner, appointed for a term of 5 years, who will be the chief executive officer. The Directors of the Australian Radiation Laboratory and Safeguards should serve as ex officio part-time members, together with not more than two other members appointed by the Minister.

The CUA, located within the Environment portfolio to reflect its major purpose, should have a budget comparable to the Australian Safeguards Office.

It should be authorised to conduct its work by means of consultancy and contract assignments (and, as already observed, should be able to commission work from the Supervising Scientist).

Wherever possible, subject to being satisfied that it is consistent with the Authority's responsibilities, tasks may be performed under delegation by other appropriate authorities of the Commonwealth, State or territory governments, as the case may be. As much as possible any unnecessary overlap or duplication, within government or between Commonwealth and State governments, should be avoided. Even where such cooperation may not be feasible, the CUA should make every endeavour to utilise reports and returns required by State and Territory legislation or otherwise submitted to existing authorities. Where these are not adequate for CUA purposes every endeavour should be made to obtain requisite data by use of existing channels.

The CUA should report once a year to the Parliament on its proceedings and all material matters relating to the mining and milling of uranium in Australia so far as impact on the environment and health and safety matters are concerned.

The importance of the CUA will not lie in its size, for there is no need for it to be a large bureaucratic creation (as the recommendation about its budget demonstrates). It will be the informed, strategic, Australia-wide capability which will ensure that the industry's record so far is maintained and enhanced.

The national framework should be complemented by consultative committees at each mine. These committees should be composed of not more than two representatives each of the relevant company, the Commonwealth, the relevant State government, the union with major coverage at the mine, the Australian Conservation Foundation and up to two representatives of the local community nominated by the State government, at least one of whom should represent a relevant Aboriginal land council where appropriate.

The major function of each consultative committee is to ensure that there is a forum for overseeing each mine and addressing those matters which are of concern in the environment and health and safety fields. Scrutiny of the mine will not be based on review of reports, returns and papers alone. Though these and related documents will form the foundation for discussions. Scrutiny will thereby be an active process and will provide an occasion for discussion and debate with a local focus.

Such a public scrutiny forum exists in relation to Ranger. It has been recently revamped and it should continue. This proposal is not intended to supplant that particular arrangement so long as it continues.

There is a tripartite environment consultative committee (WMC, Commonwealth, SA Government) at Olympic Dam which has recently been revitalised. Its terms of reference are to provide a forum for the discussion of major matters of significance to the parties arising from the implementation of the project subject to other agreed arrangements and the procedures required by the Indenture. The ODECC, inter alia, will consider the report of recently inaugurated external audit.

This committee does not, however, obviate the need for a broad-based consultative forum.

Likewise, continuing, broad-based consultative forums are essential at proposed mines to ensure that there is an established, formal avenue for providing general information on a public basis and for ensuring a forum for discussion, question and debate.

 

CONCLUSION

The view that new national machinery for overseeing uranium mining and milling is required responds to public concern about nuclear matters and to the prospect of significant expansion of the industry.

The present system may have been sufficient for an industry with essentially two locations, the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory and Roxby Downs.

But it cannot be regarded as adequate with new mines, new locations and new mining methodologies on the horizon.

It cannot be taken for granted that in an expanded industry the good record of the post-Fox mines will automatically be maintained.

This is best assured by an appropriate public framework which embraces locally-based scrutiny of mining, national coordination of environmental and health and safety matters based on active promotion of world best practice, and public accountability through annual reporting to Parliament.