2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
2.1 The impacts of uranium mining are very broad. There are impacts
resulting from the end-use of uranium in energy and weapons production
involving risks of radioactive leaks, emissions, melt downs, and nuclear
detonations at great risk to the environment and public health. At the
end of the uranium cycle, the uranium either ends up as some form of
waste or as a weapon.
2.2 There are also the direct environmental impacts of uranium mining
in terms of tailings waste, production and mining processes and their
impact on the local environment. Tailings from uranium mining contain
80% of the level of radioactivity of the original ore as a result of
the presence of uranium decay products such as Thorium 230, Thorium
234 and Radium 226. The environmental impacts of tailings have been
well documented for both uranium mines currently in production, the
Roxby Downs and Ranger uranium mines, as well as historical mines such
as Radium Hill and Rum Jungle. The Rum Jungle mine was abandoned in
1971 after polluting 100 km2 of the Finnis River system following the
collapse of its tailings dam.
2.3 The problems at Roxby Downs uranium mine include the Tailings Retention
System (TRS) and the depletion of water from the Great Artesian Basin
in the Mound Springs area, 100 kms North of the mine. The TRS has leaked
a massive 5 million cubic metres over four years and the response from
both the State and Commonwealth Governments has been completely inadequate.
Evidence presented to the Committee highlighted the ongoing lack of
scientific understanding of the source of the leakage and the hydrogeological
flow patterns beneath the TRS[1].
2.4 Roxby Downs is the biggest uranium mine in the world and uses a
massive 15 million litres per day of water in what it is a sensitive
arid region. Mining operations are currently being expanded and this
will increase water use to 48-51 million litres per day. To meet this
demand a second borefield, Borefield B, has been developed for use until
the year 2036.
2.5 The majority report states that the Olympic Dam Operation uses
approximately 3% of the water drawn from the South Australian section
of the Great Artesian Basin. Even the table included in the Report shows
this to be wrong. Of the water drawn from the basin by human activity
in 1995, as opposed to natural losses from springs and leakages, 130
ML/d is drawn for pastoral uses, 22 ML/d for Gas/Petroleum and 15 ML/d
for Olympic Dam/Roxby Downs. This represents 9% of the water draw from
the basin. When these figures are adjusted to take into account the
operation of Borefield B from September 1996, and the fall in production
from Borefield A, the amount being drawn from the Basin by Olympic Dam/Roxby
Downs increases to 48-51 ML/d. This represents approximately 25% of
the water drawn from the basin. It is gross inaccuracies such as this
in the majority Report which put its whole validity in doubt.
2.6 The impact of this water use has been the long term degradation
of the Mound Springs as well as serious depletion of the ground water
tables in the Great Artesian Basin and the Mound Springs system. This
spring system hosts unique ecosystems of flora and fauna as well as
being a significant site to the Arabunna people who are the traditional
owners. Evidence presented to the Committee suggests that the demise
of at least two spring complexes (Priscilla and Venerable Springs) may
have already occurred and that 10 other spring complexes have been affected
by reduced flows[2]. This environmental degradation
requires urgent investigation by a fully independent scientific body
with expertise in the environmental effects of uranium mining.
2.7 The tailings dams at the Ranger mine have been plagued by similar
problems of poor design, faulty construction and mismanagement to those
at the Roxby Downs mine. The risks of the tailings dams leaking translates
into a risk to the environment through contamination of the Magela Creek
system as well as the risk to members of the public, indigenous people
and workers of exposure to radiation.
(Picture Omitted)
Retention Pond No 2 at the Ranger mine.
2.8 Both Ranger mines, and the proposed Jabiluka and Koongarra mines,
exist within the Kakadu National Park region. Although some of the boundaries
of the Park have been arbitrarily set or changed, all of these mine
sites are part of the same ecosystem of enormous conservation significance.
Kakadu National Park is one of only 17 sites in the world listed for
its cultural and environmental significance. This imposes international
obligations upon Australia. Kakadu is listed on the World Heritage List,
its wetlands are meant to be protected under the Ramsar Convention,
its birdlife under the China-Australia and Japan-Australia Migratory
Birds Agreement, and the area is also listed on the National Estate.
Allowing uranium mining to occur in such an environmentally significant
area is itself a breach of Australia's international obligations.
2.9 Compounding these concerns is the fact that ERA have a history
of mismanagement, tailings dams leaks, releases and accidents. Evidence
presented to the Committee included a list of over 40 incidences of
authorised or accidental releases of contamination into the environment
over the history of the operation of the mine[3]. This reinforces concerns about the present abrogation
of Australia's responsibility in relation to one of the most significant
pieces of environmental heritage in the world
2.10 The environmental impacts of the proposed Jabiluka and Kintyre
mines have not been not fully assessed and the relevant environmental
impact assessment processes have only recently been triggered. However,
there is great cause for concern over the ability of ERA to design and
manage a water management and tailings system at Jabiluka which would
be consistent with the need to protect a World Heritage region such
as Kakadu National Park.
2.11 The Kintyre uranium deposit was excised arbitrarily from the Rudall
River National Park. However, the deposit still remains within the delicate
ecosystem of the park. The deposit is situated in a seasonal arid zone
river system[4], prone to cyclonic weather conditions, and is also likely
to suffer from problems with water management and tailings disposal
which will create an unacceptable risk to the environment of the region.
Mining at Kintyre would be inconsistent with the need to protect the
delicate ecosystem of the Rudall River National Park.
Recommendations:
1. There should be an independent scientific
assessment of the environmental impacts of both the Roxby Downs
and Ranger mines. |
2. The Olympic Dam Indenture Agreement which
limits the right of public access, the application of proper
environmental impact procedures, and protects the mines operation
from public scrutiny through its secrecy provisions, should
be revoked. |
3. There should be an independent study into
the ecology of, and impacts of the Roxby mine on, the Mound
Springs system. This should be followed by the implementation
of measures to protect the springs from damage and to rehabilitate
them. |
4. The Ranger mine should be closed and rehabilitated
and the Jabiluka and Koongarra deposits incorporated into Kakadu
National Park. |
5. A rehabilitation bond should be levied
on all uranium mining operations. |
Footnotes:
[1] Friends of the Earth Fitzroy and
Women Opposed to Uranium Mining, Submission 76
[2] Friends of the Earth Fitzroy and
Women Opposed to Uranium Mining, Submission 76: Australian Conservation
Foundation, Submission 81
[3] Australian Conservation Foundation,
Submission 81
[4] Tasmanian Greens, Submission 66