|
Clean Futures Collective Better active today than radioactive tomorrow! |
CALL THE HONEYMOON OFF!
Friends of the Earth Adelaide, June 2006 In May 2006, South African-Canadian mining company SXR Uranium One applied for a license to commercially mine uranium at Honeymoon, 75 kilometres north-west of Broken Hill. The mine is projected to mine 400 tonnes of uranium a year for only six to eight years (1). Despite its relatively small-scale, in this period the mine operators will procedurally dump radioactive waste into groundwater, with no responsibility to rehabilitate it after concluding their operations. South Australian Premier Mike Rann has reportedly expressed his support for the project with claims that the mine already has all the approvals it needs (2). However, the 2003 Senate Committee Report into Australia’s uranium mines emphasises, with the confirmation of SXR, that without the Commercial Uranium Mining and Milling License under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982, the approval process for the mine is incomplete (3). If the South Australian Government grants approval to commercially mine uranium at Honeymoon , it is potentially a breach of the binding SA Platform for Government, which commits the Labor Party to “oppose the establishment of any new uranium mine in SA” and of election commitments from Premier Rann both in 2002 and 2006. >>> Acid In-situ Leach Uranium mining
The proposed Honeymoon uranium mine will use the controversial ‘acid in-situ leach’ (ISL) mining process. Where it has been used in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, acid ISL has left a legacy of serious groundwater and surface contamination. In the US, acid ISL is not used commercially in favour of alkaline ISL which allows groundwater to be rehabilitated. Acid ISL mining involves injecting large quantities of sulphuric acid into groundwater to dissolve uranium present in aquifers. The sulphuric acid solution, containing the dissolved uranium, is pumped back up to the surface, processed and the mine waste (including radioactive particles and heavy metals) is dumped back into the groundwater. These toxic and radioactive substances are now mobile in the aquifer and capable of spreading to pollute connected groundwater systems. The 2003 Senate Report emphasised that “at the very least, [acid ISL mines] should be subject to strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts are minimized” (4). However, under existing conditions, neither the Beverley nor Honeymoon mines would be required to rehabilitate the groundwater after the mine’s operations conclude. As experience with the Beverley mine in the northern Flinders Ranges has shown, acid in-situ leach mining also carries a constant threat of surface contamination through spills and leaks. The Honeymoon mine is especially complicated as the operators seek to mine the lowest of three hydrologically connected aquifers. This requires the mine to drill through the upper two aquifers in order to access the lowest ‘basal’ aquifer. In times of drought, water from the uppermost aquifer has been mixed with surface water and used as drinking water for livestock. Even during its experimental phase Honeymoon was plagued by spills and accidents. Six spills were recorded at the Honeymoon trial mine in 1999, including one spill of ‘9,600 litres of “process fluid” (5), which had a significant uranium and toxic radon gas content (6), and another in which sulphuric acid injected into the groundwater as part of the mine process traveled upwards, contaminating a higher aquifer (7). None of these spills were revealed to the public until after the project had safely been granted state and federal approvals. The mine’s then project manager described how the acid had apparently passed through a clay layer previously considered impervious, stating that “we expect that [spills and leaks] will happen from time to time” (8). Additionally, Honeymoon’s aquifer is not contained, with the groundwater moving at a rate of up to 20 metres per year to a discharge point understood to be near Lake Frome in the west (9). The 2003 Senate Committee Report concluded that “the Committee has grave reservations about the commencement of full-scale mining at Honeymoon. The use of the contentious ISL mining method coupled with the doubts surrounding the nature of the Honeymoon aquifer and its connectivity with other aquifers is reason enough for the Committee to recommend that the project should not proceed” (10). In 1983, Premier John Bannon refused approval to an earlier proposal for acid leach uranium mining at Honeymoon, citing environmental concerns and public opposition. These concerns remain. >>> TAKE ACTION! The South Australian Government has offered a four week public consultation period in regard to the Honeymoon license application, closing on 30 June 2006. This final stage of approvals for the mine is designed to assess whether the proposal adequately protects workers, the public and the environment from radiological hazards under the Radiation Protection and Control Act. It’s essential to make submissions to demonstrate community opposition to this small-scale, yet high-risk venture. Uranium mining and exports have no place in a truly sustainable future and should be phased out, not expanded. With its small scale and short mine life, Honeymoon is a fitting illustration of the concerns raised by the 2003 Senate Committee Report. The report stated that the “shortcomings in the operations of all [Australia’s uranium mines] suggests that short-term considerations have been given greater weight than the potential for permanent damage to the environment. (11)” … There is no set format for submissions, however, a formal letter structure is a good guide. For example, Your address Date Recipient’s address To whom it may concern, Please consider the following submission in regard to Southern Cross Resources Pty Ltd’s Application to commercially mine and mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site. I wish to express my grave concern regarding this application, and recommend that the license not be granted for the following reasons. When making a submission, you may wish to emphasise some or all of these points: Honeymoon is a high-risk venture, with certain, long-term contamination of groundwater as the mine operators will be using acid in-situ leach rather than the less polluting alkaline ISL, and have no responsibility to rehabilitate the groundwater once mining operations have concluded. The operation is especially risky as the aquifer to be mined lies below two other aquifers. The uppermost aquifer has been used, mixed with surface water, as drinking water for livestock. The mine's record of spills and leaks demonstrates the high-risk of contamination of other aquifers with sulphuric acid, heavy metals and radioactive particles. Among the most significant leaks were the spills of 9,600 litres of ‘process fluid’ (containing significant levels of uranium and radon gas) and the leaking of sulphuric acid into an upper aquifer. The sulphuric acid leak occurred despite claims in the mine’s environmental impact statement that there was “no likelihood water from lower aquifers migrating upwards” (12). Spokespeople from the mine have stated in the past that there is “no guarantee against similar leaks in the future” (13), and that they “expect that [leaks and spills] will happen from time to time” (14). The aquifer is not sealed, but rather travels to a discharge point near Lake Frome, meaning that all radioactive mine waste and heavy metals will be carried through the groundwater. Granting approval to the Honeymoon mine directly contravenes the recommendations of the 2003 Senate Committee Report, which expressed its “grave reservations” about the operation and recommended that “the project should not proceed”. For these reasons, I seriously urge the Environment Protection Authority to not grant a license to commercially mine and mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site. Sincerely, Your name … More information on making submissions regarding this development is available at http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/honeymoon.html. This website also contains the license application and information regarding waste management and the mine’s waste and radiation management plans, which you can respond directly to, although the more general comments suggested above are also acceptable. Submissions can be mailed to: Keith Baldry or emailed to [email protected] References 1 Chandler, J 2006, ‘The honeymoon may be over for this site, which is slated as our next uranium mine’ The Age, 9 April 2006, p. 9 2 Sunday Territorian 2006, ‘Honeymoon mine set to go ahead’, Sunday Territorian, 2 April 2006, p. 21 3 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 217 4 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. xvii 5 Hockley, C 2001a, ‘New doubts on uranium mine safety’, The Advertiser, 19 August 2001, p. 8 6 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee 2003, ‘Executive Summary and Recommendations’, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 226 7 Hockley, C 2001b, ‘Company denies “inconsistency”’, The Advertiser, 12 December 2001, p. 8 8 Hockley, C 2001c, ‘Honeymoon uranium mine acid leak’, The Advertiser, 6 December 2001, p. 1-2 9 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 209-210. 10 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee 2003, ‘Executive Summary and Recommendations’, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. xvii 11 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee 2003, ‘Executive Summary and Recommendations’, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. ix 12 Hockley, C 2001 ‘Company denies “inconsistency”’, The Advertiser, 12 December 2001, p. 8 13 AAP 2001, ‘Honeymoon leak prompts calls for uranium mine review’, AAP, 6 December 2001 14 Hockley, C 2001 ‘Company denies “inconsistency”’, The Advertiser, 12 December 2001, p. 8 |
|
Last updated 14 June 2006 |