The Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising
Scientist
Operations and Issues
R.A. Panter [1]
Head, Science, Technology, Environment and Resource Group
Parliamentary Research Service
This short paper is intended as an introduction to the origins, operations
and management of ERISS, the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising
Scientist. There is particular emphasis on the changes at ERISS since
the 1993 amendments to the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers
Region) Act 1978; on important current and future issues concerning
ERISS; and on the range of research issues on mining impact that remains
to be tackled in the Region. It is beyond the scope of the paper either
to cover the detail of the Institute's completed research or to assess
its quality. Complete listings of ERISS's published and unpublished research
are readily available, however, and major research reviews were carried
out in 1989 and 1994 (1-3).
ERISS has experienced much change over the last few years.
Not all of the policy developments of 1993 were welcome since more was
expected from less resources. Also, Aboriginal people have continued to
strengthen their influence in the Region. Their attitude towards the environment
does not always sit comfortably with conventional Western assumptions
(4). This year the new Federal Government has brought new priorities and
challenges, e.g., the three-mines uranium policy has been dropped and
Jabiluka [the name North Ranger is now not being used] and other uranium
deposits may be exploited, perhaps leading to new environmental and social
impacts. A stronger Federal emphasis on cost-saving, outsourcing and devolution
to the States has led to some concern over the future of public sector
environmental research. It is indeed an appropriate time to ascertain
whether ERISS is in healthy shape.
WHAT IS ERISS?
ERISS is a complex of laboratories and offices occupying
15 600 square metres in the Ranger Project area. Tropical woodland hides
ERISS - and the Ranger mine - from ground-level tourist
operations at the mining/tourist town of Jabiru, 8 kilometres to the east.
According to the Director (Dr Arthur Johnston), about 20 of ERISS's 43
staff can be counted as professional scientists. While the balance of
expertise changes with changing research emphases and changing staff,
ERISS can be considered to be knowledgeable in aquatic biology,
aquatic toxicology, plant ecology and physiology, environmental chemistry,
environmental radioactivity and geomorphology (5). There is a chemistry
laboratory, a radioactivity laboratory, a geomorphology laboratory, an
aquatic biology laboratory and a plant laboratory.
The origins of ERISS are to be found in the Second Report of the Ranger
Uranium Environmental Inquiry (RUEI), otherwise known as the Fox Report.
Although the RUEI is now almost twenty years old, it was a thorough investigation
and is still widely quoted. Among all of the potential environmental (as
distinct from social) impacts of uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers
Region (ARR), mine water management in the tropical climate was correctly
emphasised by RUEI as the most problematic. Originally, the Ranger partners
wanted to release hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of contaminated
mine waters every year (6) into the nearby Magela wetlands but RUEI recognised
that this was based on very poor environmental information. Ranger's receiving
water standards were not accepted (7) and no releases at all were recommended
for the first few years of the mine's operation (8).
In order to develop standards for operation of Ranger, not only for possible
water releases but in such areas as sewage control, ionising radiation,
ore dust and so on, RUEI recommended that a multidisciplinary 'research
institute type structure' (9) be set up in the Region. As its first main
task, the institute would collect baseline information on the regional
environment. More broadly, however, the institute would study the 'environmental
problems of a large natural region' in a 'comprehensive manner' (9).
An Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute (ARRRI), the original name
for ERISS, was established by the Environment Protection (Alligator
Rivers Region) Act 1978 under the overall direction of the Supervising
Scientist, a new position also recommended by RUEI. The first Supervising
Scientist, Mr Bob Fry, set high standards for environmental protection
by setting a goal of 'zero' impact of uranium mining on the Alligator
Rivers Region environment (10). The name ARRRI was changed to ERISS in
1994.
In its major role of protecting the ARR and people from impacts of uranium
mining, ERISS develops standards, as mentioned above, for
mine activities and consequences such as radon release, contaminated water
release and so on. In the case of receiving water standards, a great deal
of research work has been done on aquatic toxicology. Selected organisms
have been tested with a wide range of chemicals to measure their toxic
effects. In order for biological monitoring to be meaningful, a good knowledge
of what the environment was like before mining (baseline research) is
required. In a Region which already has some radioactivity naturally present,
has huge tropical wetland areas, is subject to other environmental impacts
(e.g., feral pigs, weeds) and experiences great variation in seasonal
weather intensity, baseline studies are quite complex and in fact occupied
much of ARRRI's early history. Apart from characterising local freshwater
ecosystems, the baseline studies included research work on the evolution
of the Magela floodplain, its present-day chemical inputs and outputs,
the behaviour of naturally occurring radionuclides and the existing diet
of Aboriginal people (for radiation health monitoring).
Apart from research work leading to standards for pollutant releases,
a vital function for ERISS is developing models and finding methods for
monitoring the health of the regional environment. While as many as possible
of these methods are meant to be carried out routinely, either by Ranger
itself or by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, some
of ERISS's surveillance methodology has proven to be time-consuming or
else requires special equipment and/or skills. In these cases, ERISS
has tended to continue with its own monitoring of the environment
even though the work may not be strictly 'research' as such.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF RANGER TO DATE
ERISS and its predecessor ARRRI have played a major role
in measuring Ranger's impacts and in developing new (e.g., biological)
methods for measuring impacts. Due partly to the complex, intensive system
of compliance requirements and surveillance at the Ranger mine, and partly
to the relatively benign ore characteristics, the offsite environmental
impacts overall have turned out to be insignificant in nature.
No local resident is considered to have received a dose of ionising radiation
in excess of international standards as a result of uranium mining, while
personal monitoring of Ranger workers has showed them to be subject to
doses less than the legal occupational limit.
ERISS's biological monitoring in its various forms has
not turned up measurable changes in local ecosystems due to the mine.
The fact that Ranger has managed to juggle its contaminated mine water,
e.g., in Retention Pond No. 2, around the site without having to release
it in large quantities into the environment has undoubtedly helped to
minimise impact. There has been a series of unauthorised releases of mine
water - in relatively small amounts - but this has not appeared to have
permanently harmed the environment. Over the 15-year life of the mine
there have been only two incidents considered unacceptable by the authorities.
One of these involved the spillage in July 1982 of one tonne of yellowcake
(uranium oxide concentrate) onto two workers. The other occurred last
December (1995), when 12 cubic metres of diesel oil was allowed to spill
into one of the mine dams, killing 40 water birds.
The main chemical pollutant leaving the Ranger minesite has been identified
as magnesium sulphate. This substance is thought to arise from oxidation
of mineral sulphides in waste rock dumps, and separately from mill waters
as a result of the acidic chemical processes used in concentrating uranium.
Fortunately, magnesium sulphate is relatively harmless to ecosystems but
its impact is being closely monitored. Another phenomenon being observed
is the release of small quantities of radium from soils surrounding the
mine site as a result of tailings dam seepage into groundwater. Over a
period of thirteen years, the concentration of radium measured in one
test bore has increased by a factor of five (11). Again, there does not
seem to be need for alarm over the result at this stage.
CHANGES TO ERISS POST-1993
The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Act
1993 and its aftermath in 1994 brought considerable change to the
environmental research of the Supervising Scientist. Apart from the new
name, ERISS, the Institute was now joined up with EPA, the Federal Environment
Protection Agency (which is in effect a Division of the Federal Environment
Department) and its functions were broadened to include commercial (fee-for-service)
research work and the provision of scientific and technical advice to
the Federal Environment Minister on environmental matters outside the
Alligator Rivers Region. It was envisioned that ERISS might eventually
be able to earn 30% of its operating expenses through commercial contracts.
In order to improve communication between research customers and performers
in the ARR, the former poorly performing Coordinating Committee was disbanded
and two new advisory bodies, namely, the Alligator Rivers Region Advisory
Committee and the Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee were formed.
The latter is discussed below under the heading of priority setting.
An external review of what was then ARRRI was completed in February 1994.
Known as the Barrow Review after the Chairman, Dr N J Barrow, its main
(adopted) recommendation was the removal of the revegetation research
program, which had been integral to ARRRI's mining rehabilitation research.
It was argued in the Review that ERA (Ranger) should be carrying out revegetation
research itself; and that in any case there was a high probability that
ARRRI's revegetation results would not be used by the company.
Following the Barrow Review, the new Supervising Scientist (Mr Barry
Carbon, also head of EPA) decided that ERISS's research would henceforth
not be limited to the Alligator Rivers Region and would be placed into
two main divisions, namely:
- research into environment protection from the impact of mining, particularly
uranium mining, and
- research into the environment protection of the wetlands of Northern
Australia, especially those in Kakadu National Park (12).
A further catch-all category of 'general environment protection research'
has since been added to ERISS's ambit in order to encompass tasks set
by the EPA or ordered by the Minister. Note that about one-third or less
of ERISS's staff presently belong to the wetlands division.
Together with these major changes, staffing and budget allocated to the
Supervising Scientist were cut significantly between 1992/93 and 1994/95.
The actual loss in appropriations was $1.12 million per year and has led
to a reduction in staff numbers at ERISS from 51 to 43.
ERISS - CURRENT OPERATING ISSUES
Funding, critical mass, the location issue
A dominant question is whether ERISS, a small remotely located institute
with recently reduced funding, has the 'critical mass' of staff and ideas
which is crucial for any research body. If funding is inadequate and staff
numbers too small, this can show up in high staff turnover, low morale
and ultimately, low productivity. Without critical mass, more resources
can be used unproductively than if greater size and diversity were provided
for.
On my recent one-day visit to ERISS (on 12 August), I was
impressed by the well-kept state of the buildings and grounds and the
quality of the laboratory equipment. In comparison with an earlier visit
some five years ago, greatly improved staff facilities and some new worker-designed
laboratories had transformed the site. The present budget of about $4
million is divided fairly evenly between salary and non-salary components,
a sign that salaries are being balanced with equipment purchases. Perhaps
this could be further checked.
None of the staff expressed reservations over the condition or lack of
scientific instruments. It is still difficult to attract scientists of
high calibre to work and remain at Jabiru, however, and lack of people
rather than equipment appears to be the limiting factor. The wetlands
division alone is presently facing the loss of five staff, according to
its head, Max Finlayson.
The remote site means relative isolation from other scientific institutions,
even given the convenience of the Internet. Salaries of government scientists
are reasonably competitive by Australian standards, especially within
the principal research scientist range and above. Even so, Dr Johnston
states that senior scientists required to lead research teams are particularly
hard to employ and keep because of the limited or non-existent educational
facilities available to their teenage children. A shortfall of high quality
team leaders who are prepared to carry on with monitoring and research
programs for several years is probably holding back the maximum effectiveness
of ERISS. In collaborative work - which is favoured over ordinary consultancies
- ERISS is therefore likely to be the junior partner or take on the role
of sample collector in the absence of key scientific staff. The collaborator
is likely to be a distant academic rather than a live-in temporary team
member. Under the circumstances, special care needs to be taken to ensure
that ERISS remains scientifically authoritative in its selected research
areas. Incentives such as a generous allowance of trips to Darwin or other
forms of inducement to attract scientists might perhaps be considered.
On 12 August Dr Johnston twice mentioned his concern at the potential
loss of critical mass at ERISS. Separate research teams also need to have
their own critical mass of effectiveness. Considering that Jabiru is remote
from a university or CSIRO-type science atmosphere, it could be legitimately
claimed that ERISS with its twenty scientists is too small.
This has been underlined following the removal of the revegetation program
together with most of the plant expertise. Another reason for worry on
this score is the obvious presence of staff who have been at the Institute
for some time. These people would be stimulated by more bright new talent
arriving. Overall, there is a distinct possibility that ERISS has
already been reduced below its critical mass in a research performance
sense.
One way for ERISS to grow is through expansion of fee-for-service work,
i.e., commercial research. This is undoubtedly a reason for broadening
ERISS's functions. However, there are some traps in commercial work, some
of which are discussed later. CSIRO has found that commercial contracts
do not always carry a component for capital items and overheads. That
is, the research body may be compensated in the contract for salaries
and chemicals, say, but it is commonly assumed by the client that buildings
and their upkeep are already paid-up.
Expansion of uranium mining in the ARR would require more funding and
thus provide another opportunity for growth at ERISS in that many new
research projects would become necessary. However, in the case of Jabiluka,
ERA, the same company as at Ranger is involved. ERA has already negotiated
a user-pays fee of about $1.5 million per year (indexed but not related
to the quantity of uranium mined) for Ranger and may oppose any increase
related to start-up at Jabiluka.
Still on the critical mass issue, contact with other research bodies
can be made, firstly, through visitors and some are listed in the Supervising
Scientist Annual Report (1994-95). However, these are listed as single
day visits only and not all involved professional scientists. In order
that ERISS staff benefit fully from visitors, the stays
presumably should be much longer than a day. Secondly, a turnover of contract
staff can have a revitalising effect but the option is presently limited
due to industrial sensitivity. Thirdly, while ERISS clearly does not wish
to take on a function of tertiary education, the opportunity for PhD students
and postdoctorates is probably being underutilised.There can be financial
advantage here for ERISS as well as the stimulation that keen young scientists
can bring.
As regards location, the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC)
recommended unsuccessfully in 1993 that the then ARRRI be relocated to
Darwin in a bid to concentrate tropical research there (13). Small as
it is, ERISS still counts as a significant research centre in the Northern
Territory. Under ASTEC's proposal the Jabiru facility would have been
retained as a field station supporting the Darwin headquarters. On 12
August ERISS management expressed support for this to happen
but stated that currently it is not being encouraged to push the idea
inside government.
Time for another research review?
The research work connected with the Supervising Scientist has been extensively
reviewed, especially between 1989 and 1994 (1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16).
The most thorough of these reviews was that of Professor G. H. Taylor
(2), who made several soundly-based criticisms such as the slow rate of
reporting results, poor propagation of results, no detailed research plans,
too many research projects, projects based on topics of scientific interest
rather than research objectives, not enough collaborative projects, and
so on. Much of this criticism has since been 'taken on board' and appropriate
changes made. Specifically, as a result of the Taylor Review, temporary
laboratories have been replaced, contract research is now allowed, research
plans are standard (see below), research is not limited to the ARR, a
scientific advisory committee has been established (mentioned earlier),
workshops have been elevated in importance and better reporting has occurred.
More recently, the less well-known Barrow Review (2) has led to the present
division of research at ERISS as described earlier.
Since many reforms have been made in the last few years in response to
reviews, and since it is widely appreciated that ERISS is
still adjusting to its new functions and structure, the indications are
that another general research review at this stage would be unhelpful
and untimely. The only specific research issue which should be reconsidered
is the defunct revegetation program.
Priority setting
Because of ERISS's limited size and enlarged role, the choice of projects
year by year must rank as one of its most important operating issues.
The key documents to examine for examples of ERISS's thinking include
the draft 1996-97 corporate plan, the strategic plan, and the document
of strategic directions of the ERA/ERISS research programs.
Sub-issues relating to priority setting include the ERISS statement of
values and objectives, external sources of advice, allocation of work
among the two main research divisions, the balance of commercial work
with public interest research, Regional work as against non-Regional,
the giving of advice versus actually doing research, the extent of collaborative
work, division of work with other bodies such as the CSIRO, extent of
maintenance of routine monitoring at Ranger, balance between areas of
expertise and so on. Obviously, not all of these factors can be discussed
fully here.
The closest ERISS comes to having a mission statement is its stated main
objective which is to:
Conduct environmental research and provide environmental advice on the
protection and management of sensitive areas nominated by Government so
that the Australian community can be assured that regions which it values
highly are being protected.
It may be perceived from this that ERISS, at least on paper, has become
very vague and general in function despite its original main thrust, that
of protecting the ARR from uranium mining. Of course, there are many good
reasons for ERISS not to be limited entirely to this function. However,
a more succinct mission statement with at least some mention of 'mining'
and 'The Alligator Rivers Region' would be helpful in focussing on the
Institute's main raison d'^etre.
While the bringing together of the Commonwealth EPA and the Supervising
Scientist may have brought savings in administration costs, particularly
within the Canberra Office, it is to be hoped that ERISS is not sliding
into becoming a 'convenient' research unit for a wide range of environmental
tasks for the EPA or the Minister of Environment. ERISS's specialisation,
size and location are mostly unsuited to this role. The appearance of
a number of ERISS research projects located in Christmas Island and Tasmania
suggests that a program of Ministerial or EPA priorities has already started.
These far-flung research tasks, even though they are funded and connected
with mining impacts, would be more efficiently carried out by outsourcing.
Another approach would be to limit ERISS to providing advice in these
circumstances rather than expending scarce research resources on sites
outside its special area of expertise, namely, research into the management
of tropical wetlands.
It was mentioned earlier that some of ERISS's work is not strictly research
as such, being more accurately described as routine biological monitoring.
This occurs for two main reasons. Firstly, the culture of mining companies
and the Territory mining officials is predominantly directed to monitoring
chemicals rather than living organisms. This is partly due to the chronic
shortage of environmental toxicologists in Australia but also stems from
the belief that chemical testing is sufficient. To cite but one argument
against this attitude, the toxic effects of single chemicals in temperate
ecosystems may be well described in international manuals. However, the
combined effects of a mixture of mine effluents, especially in the tropics,
is unlikely to be characterised fully.
Secondly, it may be ERISS's fault that the routine tests which it develops
are not suitable for mine workers or government officials to perform.
For example, while ERISS believes that it has perfected a streamside test
involving mortality of fish larvae and fecundity of snails, ERA is having
trouble with the test so ERISS continues with that routine work. Another
example is the very slow development of a simple ecological toxicity test,
even after some years of research. Such delays hinder ERISS's progress
in moving to new research projects.
On the subject of external advice, there is now an Alligator Rivers Region
Technical Committee to deal with research priorities as pointed out earlier.
Fifteen members were appointed on 3 March 1995, headed by an chairman
independent of the Supervising Scientist and the Australian Nature Conservation
Agency. All members have some relevant qualifications and experience to
assist in their advice to ERISS. So far the Committee has met twice so
experience with it is limited. One of the Committee's main roles appears
to be commenting on proposed research projects contained in a draft version
of ERISS's corporate plan which is prepared by about July each year (it
has been slightly delayed in 1996). The Committee has usefully requested
that ERISS and ERA prepare a joint document reconciling research to be
done by the two bodies. This has required establishment of a ERISS/ERA
Research Coordination Committee to tackle what has often been a contentious
issue in the past. ERISS seems to be (correctly) using the Committee as
an advisory body rather than as a board of management. The Committee as
a whole or its individual members are able to communicate directly with
the Federal Environment Minister on any Committee matter of concern.
Since Aboriginal people are becoming increasingly vocal users of ERISS's
research services, it is as well that there is a Northern Lands Council
(NLC) representative on the Technical Committee. The importance of taking
account of the Aboriginal viewpoint was emphasised in 1995, when the NLC
could not get agreement from the Traditional Owners to a release of mine
water under conditions that the Supervising Scientist had advised were
safe. Much research time had been spent by ARRRI and ERISS on developing
standards to enable that expert advice to be given. The Supervising Scientist
has since expressed a wish for ERISS to conduct studies on the social
impact of ARR uranium mining. However, the proposal has been set aside
temporally because of strong opposition from the NLC.
ARRRI and ERISS have found that workshops are a valuable source of external
ideas on research priorities. The original research planning was done
by a group of nine appointed experts who met several times in 1977-78.
Workshops followed in August 1978, June 1979 and May 1983. A wetlands
workshop was held in March 1995. Professor Taylor (2) advocated annual
workshops on the basis of their success.
One can think of some traps for ERISS management in planning research
under the present circumstances. One would be to concentrate too much
on academic wetland studies. However, ERISS management is aware of this
danger and wishes to emphasise that links to the impact-of-mining research
are maintained in the planning of wetland work, where the guideline is
utility, especially in terms of whether information is needed for the
management of wetlands. Existing and proposed projects include research
on the effects of herbicide used on the weed Salvinia, 'ground
truthing' for remote sensing of northern wetlands and contributing to
the development of national receiving water quality standards, e.g., for
uranium. It might be advisable for ERISS to publicise its specialisation
accurately as 'tropical' wetlands since 'wetlands' covers such
a wide range of habitats around Australia and the rest of the world.
Another trap would be to 'go commercial' with great enthusiasm, dedicating
a large portion of research and administrative resources to attracting
and spending external funds. Some Divisions of CSIRO have been criticised
for this approach. The threat here, as with 'wetland' work, is that the
acknowledged thrust and main purpose of ERISS, namely research in support
of reducing mining impact in the ARR, could be easily diluted. Originally,
the idea of giving government research bodies the goal of obtaining 30%
of their funding privately was to encourage them to become useful to industry,
within their fields of expertise. The intention was not simply
to make money in the way that Australia Post makes money by selling stationery.
Without care, a research body such as ERISS could devote too much time
to the pursuit of dollars. On the other hand, the potential is there to
provide much needed environmental services.
Fortunately, Dr Johnston is highly aware of the problems mentioned. He
states that present external funding of ERISS only amounts to about 10%
of the total budget, so the commercial work is not yet a major item. How
rapidly this should proceed to 30%, if at all, is an interesting question.
Dr Johnston expects that most of the commercial work will be performed
in the wetlands research area where there is a clear gap in information.
A further reason for this is a stated desire to maintain the impact-of-mining
thrust to the satisfaction of key players in the Region. Thirdly, since
the Supervising Scientist has an overview role in surveying mine compliance,
it is considered by ERISS to be a potential conflict of interest if ERISS
is seen to be employed by mining companies. As a result, ERISS will not
accept mining company funds directly, and the public interest is thus
preserved. This may puzzle those who mistakenly believe that ARRRI and
ERISS were set up primarily to benefit ERA. Fourthly, although ERISS is
well equipped to do analytical work, it chooses not to compete with established
commercial analytical laboratories. This is an example of the so-called
'yellow pages' test at work. That is, if five or six private enterprises
supplying a product or service can be found, then there may be no need
for the public sector to become involved.
Given that Northern Australia has such strong geographical links with
New Guinea, Indonesia and South-East Asia as a whole, one would have thought
that ERISS's commercial services could be harnessed to help meet the huge
tropical wetlands management needs of those regions. This, rather than
say, Tasmania, would be an appropriate part of the world to market ERISS's
special skills. Perhaps rather more effort should be put into attracting
this type of work which would amount to a form of international aid to
our northern neighbours.
Research results and public relations
Several of the reviews which have examined environmental research done
by the Supervising Scientist have commented unfavourably on the reporting
of results. For example, the Barrow Review (3) highlighted the 'difficulty
of obtaining a comprehensive summary of work to date'. The Auditor-General
(1) advised that 'prompt publication would enhance the credibility of
the research undertaken...'. The Taylor Review (2), finding that years
sometimes passed between the collection of data and the appearance of
results, recommended that 'priority be given to publishing past research
which has not yet been written up'. To be sure, some of the delays have
been caused by tardy consultants and some by departures of key scientific
staff before finalisation of results.
The greatest need has been for progress reporting and for summarisation
of results in a form understandable by lay people, for example, Aboriginal
people, visitors to the ARR and Canberra-based policy advisers. While
this paper makes no conclusions about the present speed of publication,
three recent ERISS documents explaining key research issues connected
with radiological protection, wetland filters and rehabilitation are a
great improvement in communication of results outside the scientific community.
They should be widely distributed.
The Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee is an appropriate forum
for reporting results. Since the ERISS Corporate Plan (research plan)
already contains performance indicators, it would benefit the advisory
process if a formal report of the past year's achievements and setbacks
measured against those indicators were to be given annually to the Committee.
Care is needed so that this type of report is not confused with ERISS's
regular offering of a new research plan.
The Barrow Review commented on the need for 'publications and activities
for the community and special interest groups...', even raising the possibility
of using public relations expertise. It is therefore disappointing that
the Jabiru site is kept secluded from non-official visitors. Even visitors
to the Ranger mine are not guided by a prominent sign to indicate the
turn-off. ERISS may not want a constant stream of tourists in its laboratories
but visitors to the area usually have no inkling of ERISS and its work
aimed at protecting the Region. A visitor centre containing suitable displays
would greatly help ERISS's image and recognition as well as provide results
in a clear and open way.
Some research needs in the region
There is a danger that, given that Ranger has appeared to cause no significant
offsite environmental impact to date, some observers (even governments)
may discount the need for further research work on uranium mining in the
Alligator Rivers Region. However, this view would neglect some important
projects now in progress and, even more importantly, would fail to acknowledge
possible impacts from the proposed expansion of uranium mining at Jabiluka
and Koongarra. This section introduces selected areas of research on the
impact of uranium mining which serve to demonstrate that ERISS's principal
activity is still relevant and necessary.
The first example is ERISS's current work on artificial wetland filters.
A remarkable result at Ranger has been the avoidance of major planned
releases of mine waters from within the Restricted Release Zone. Conditions
seemed right for such a release in 1995 but the Aboriginal owners' opposition
carried the day. Ranger has managed its excess water by using Pit #1 for
temporary storage, and by irrigation. However, passing mine waters through
a wetland filter prior to irrigation is seen as necessary to clean up
uranium and other chemical content if possible. While irrigated soil is
known to trap radionuclides of concern, the possibility of saturation
and overload prompts the wetland filter option. Research issues include
the fate of absorbed uranium in the filters (soil, plants?), attempts
to remove sulphate as well, possible remobilisation of filtered substances,
carbon cycling (relates to microbiological activity), performance monitoring
(the filters are not necessarily efficient) and development of a sampling
protocol.
One of the most important aspects of Ranger's management is preparing
for rehabilitation. The environmental impact of Ranger is mainly the significant
but largely inescapable damage done to the site itself. This is Aboriginal
freehold land which may be used actively for, say, emu farming when mining
has ceased. In any case, there needs to be a degree of assurance that
Ranger in rehabilitated form will not pose a danger to the Kakadu Park
and to the Region for the foreseeable future and beyond.
Three out of seven major issues suffice to illustrate the need for rehabilitation
research. Firstly, it is necessary to design a stable landform - in practice
this could be the final form of the tailings dam - which can be assured
of maximum resistance to weathering processes such as erosion. ERISS is
involved in simulation studies and in the development of a predictive
model system for landform evolution.
Secondly, rehabilitation will require a large program of revegetation
which must be preceded by extensive trials. While some work is being done
by ERISS, the main bulk of the revegetation studies have been left with
ERA, largely as a result of the Barrow review and budget cuts to ERISS.
Revegetation of tropical sites is of far wider interest than Ranger alone,
however, and the wisdom of removing this program is not at all clear.
It is likely that expensive plant science facilities at ERISS are presently
underutilised. ERISS should have continued to have a leading role in developing
standards for revegetation success and monitoring in order to give independent
assurance that ERA's program would be successful.
Thirdly, rehabilitation studies continue to assess the best method of
disposing of mine tailings at Ranger. The large tailings dam is said to
be full. Although the REUI recommended that tailings be transferred to
Pit #1, below ground deposition means that the tailings may be subject
to transport by groundwater flows. This is particularly so in the case
of Pit #3. Nevertheless, it is suggested that retention of tailings in
the tailings dam will lead to their dispersal quicker than from the pits.
If Jabiluka is mined a large new source of tailings will arise on the
Ranger site if the company's plans are accepted. It is necessary to choose
the best alternative in this situation, and find out whether approval
of Jabiluka closes off certain options for tailings management.
Lastly, there is a need for ERISS to consider the likely environmental
effects of mining at the Jabiluka and Koongarra sites, in view of their
possible development. There would be an important difference in impact
between mining and milling at Jabiluka (one possibility) and trucking
ore south to Ranger. The first alternative - reportedly favoured by some
Aboriginal people - would require intensive study of tailings dam placement,
visual pollution issues and water management approaches. The trucking
option requires examination of the impact of radioactive dust blowing
off the trucks into the nearby Magela wetlands.
While ERISS has done some baseline work on waterways in the South Alligator
catchment, the most relevant stream as far as Koongarra is concerned is
off limits for sampling by order of park management. The given reason
is that operations would be too close to Nourlangie Rock, a prime tourist
area. Naturally, ERISS would prefer that it had better access to the immediate
environment of a prospective minesite at Kakadu.
References
1. Auditor-General, Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator
Rivers Region - Research Project Administration, Audit Report No.
10, 1989-90, (Parl. Paper No. 183,1989), AGPS, Canberra, 1989 ('Key Findings').
2. DASETT, Review of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, (Professor
G. H. Taylor), AGPS, Canberra, 1989.
3. EPA, Report of the Consultancy on the Alligator Rivers Region Research
Institute, (Dr N. J. Barrow, Dr K. Bowmer, Mr D. Davy), February 1994.
4. Lawrence, D. (consultant), Managing Parks/Managing 'Country': Joint
Management of Aboriginal Owned Protected Areas in Australia, Parliamentary
Research Service, 1996 (not yet released).
5. Supervising Scientist: Annual Report 1994-95, 46.
6. Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry: Second Report, (Presiding
Commissioner: Mr Justice R. W. Fox), AGPS, Canberra, 1977, 93.
7. ibid., 113.
8. ibid., 157.
9. ibid., 302.
10. Fry, R. M. in the session: Uranium Mining and the Tropical Environment,
57th ANZAAS Congress, Townsville, 28 August 1987.
11. Supervising Scientist: Annual Report 1993-94, 51.
12. ibid., 25.
13. ASTEC, Research and Technology in Tropical Australia and their
Application to the Development of the Region: Summary Report, AGPS,
Canberra, 1993, 23.
14. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation
and the Arts, Review of the Auditor-General's Report on Research Project
Administration in the Office of the Supervising Scientist, AGPS, Canberra,
1989.
15. Industry Commission, Mining and Minerals Processing in Australia:
Vol 3,
Report No. 7, (Parl.Paper No. 105, 1991), AGPS, Canberra, 1991.
16. Joint Committee of Public Accounts, Public Sector Research and
Development: Vol 1,
AGPS, Canberra, 1992.
Footnotes
[1] For the purposes of this research, Dr Panter
was seconded to the Committee's secretariat.