Talk:Opposing a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory

This article is not ready to publish -- it seems to be a jumbled collection of statements from other websites. A re-write, in a news style, would be helpful. Also, properly linking source sites would be nice too. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Well, it seems rather obvious that this article is trying to make a political point, therefore - tagging to alert others. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a slash-and-burn job on this article, stripping over 2/3 of the content, in an attempt to make it neutral. Can everyone who is interested please have another read and think about whether the NPOV tag is still deserved? Thanks.... - Borofkin 07:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems good now, but still has some editing issues (so the cleanup tag stays for now) --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the "Copy & paste from sources", or is there something else? - Borofkin 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to find any cut+paste issues with this article. - Borofkin 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuff moved from article
I've moved this content to the talk page as part of a slash-and-burn operation. In my opinion much of it is cut-and-paste from press releases - some parts may be salvageable. - Borofkin 07:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ATHENGE LHERE SAY ‘NO’ TO NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP
One of the Commonwealth Government’s proposed sites for a national nuclear waste dump is on Arrernte land belonging to the traditional owners of Athenge Alhere, an estate group of the Arrernte Nation in Central Australia, Northern Territory. The traditional owners do not accept the Government’s plans despite the land being held by the Commonwealth.

Lucas Heights in Sydney is Australia’s nuclear reactor site and we don’t want their poison to be brought to our country, said Benedict Stevens, (Traditional Owner) today in Alice Springs.

The government says it is safe waste, but if it is so safe why are they thinking about bringing it half way across the country to our land. The government may think this place is remote, but this is our home.

The land is crucial to our way of life and we must protect the stories and dreamings that are significant to our law, our culture and our people. We are very worried and disappointed that the Commonwealth Government plans to dump nuclear waste onto our traditional lands. The government has already taken our land away from us, we have learned to live with that but now they want to destroy that land by putting a waste dump there.

The Government does not respect our way of life and they have not talked to us. The Government have their law, but we have ours which the Elders uphold. As Arrernte people it is our responsibility to protect the land for future generations of our people and all people in the community: to protect the environment of the plants, animals, birds and landscape, says Mr Stevens.

The government must first settle the urgent issue of waste management in Australia before they allow further mining of uranium in a country that has a history of nuclear contamination of the land and the environment.

We are urging Aboriginal people to be strong and say no to the nuclear waste dump also not allow uranium mining on their lands. People in the community must realize that nuclear waste comes from uranium mining activities and that it is the final state of the cycle of nuclear power.

Source: http://www.alec.org.au/site/index.cfm?display=28912&filter=i&leca=139&did=39864540

__________________

Need for a new reactor is a myth: Medical Association for Prevention of War
"We are appalled by the dishonest claims linking the nuclear waste dump to the health of Australians," said Dr Sue Wareham, immediate past president for MAPW. "While it is a health issue, this is more about endangering the health of Australians than protecting it."

The Federal Government has introduced new legislation which would force a nuclear dump on states or territories regardless of opposition from community or state parliaments and which would override countless other state and Commonwealth legal mechanisms, including indigenous concerns.

"It is clear that there is pressure on because the Federal Government want an operating licence for the new reactor in Sydney," continued Dr Wareham. "But the fact that the new reactor was granted a construction licence before the conditions of an operating licence were fulfilled makes a farce of the whole process."

One of the key conditions for the operating licence is the establishment of a viable waste management plan.

"If the government was serious about protecting the health of Australians they would be investing in the development of non-reactor technologies for the production of isotopes, so that we would not have this vast and growing nuclear waste problem."

MAPW released a comprehensive report on the issue of the new reactor which was released in August 2004. This report argues simply that the medical need for a new reactor is a myth. The report: A New Clear Direction - Securing Nuclear Medicine for the Next Generation examines the important role played by Australia's nuclear medicine sector but clearly outlines why the planned new reactor is not needed.

More here: http://www.mapw.org.au/mapw-commentary/press-releases/2005/131005MR_waste_Dump.html

Working together to make a Strong Stand
Traditional owners in the Territory are working together to take a strong stand against the proposed nuclear waste dump on their countries.

Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon says traditional owners and communities living near the proposed sites has been left out of the loop and were now seeking real answers from Canberra.

"Locally we’ve seen the Traditional Owners of Athenge Alhere, north of Alice Springs, make a strong statement on their position with the support of Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation," he said.

The NT Government say it's crude politics: "there is no scientific or environmental logic to Canberra's decision to select the Northern Territory for sites for this waste dump. It comes down to one point, and one point only, and it is crude politics..."

All the potential nuclear waste dumps are on defence force land.

How much waste will be managed at the facility?
The Australian Government owns 3,600 cubic metres of low level radioactive waste and 400 cubic metres of intermediate level radioactive waste.

Each year, about 30 cubic metres of low level waste and about three cubic metres of intermediate level waste is generated each year on a routine basis by Australian Government agencies.

The decommissioning of the current HIFAR research reactor will generate up to 2,500 and 150 cubic metres of low and intermediate level radioactive waste, respectively. The exact amount generated will depend on the decommissioning option chosen.

there already is a nuclear dump in the NT
actually, the NT already has a nuclear dump.

It's called the Rum Jungle Uranium Mine

The NT's first uranium mine was attrociously mis-managed : some years the tailings were poorly managed on site, only to be lost to major rainfall events, while in other years they were directly dispersed into the East Finnis river.

Since then there have been two attempts at what has been termed 'rehabilitation' The first, in the 70s, was basically ineffective. In the early 90s, some more realistic work was done, which limited the ongoing impacts of pollution, but did nothing to isolate any of the localised contaminants from the environment.

now Compass Resources, an inexperienced upstart mining hopeful plan to start digging on the boundary of the old uranium mine within the next 3 months (that is by march 2006) with long term plans to increase the footprint of their first stage oxide project to take in the sulphide deposit below (encroaching on the old mine) and eventually return to mill over unprocessed ore at Rum Jungle.

-=

more detail from my article at : http://dimc.axxs.org/?action=newswire&parentview=5120

The contamination of the region from the regrettable legacy of Rum Jungle Uranium Mine must be more thoroughly addressed by the responsible parties. Foremost among these are the Commonwealth Government, through its agency the AAEC (now ANSTO, who provided the radiological impact report for this project) and notably miner Conzinc (now Rio Tinto, who through its subsidiary ERA, operate Ranger Uranium Mine within the boundaries of Kakadu National Park). There is also a strong argument for funding the rehabilitation of past disgraces such as Rum Jungle through an industry trust built from a levy on new mines.

These responsible parties must recognise that rehabilitation takes priority over any other objective, particularly a proposal as incompatible as this.

The Legacy of Rum Jungle Uranium Mine

The Public Environment Report for the browns oxide project makes numerous references and allusions to the degradation brought by the Rum Jungle Uranium Mine, where a litany of mismanagement was distinguished by the tailings ‘dam’ (such as it was) regularly (both by routine, and frequent accident) washing into the River.

Since then, despite a couple of attempts at rehabilitation, which demonstrated degrees of success in reducing pollution but certainly fell short of isolating contaminants from the environment, the disaster zone left behind at Rum Jungle has contributed to ongoing environmental impacts. As the PER reports:

‘long-term generation of acid drainage from the Rum Jungle mine site has caused severe adverse environmental impacts on this river system’

In the face of this admission, the report repeats assertions such as :

‘Possible future extension of the Browns project into the old mine areas, with subsequent rehabilitation using more modern techniques, based on the extensive data available, could be a preferred outcome for the overall rehabilitation of the area.’

This approach to conservation management must be rejected outright. In fact, coming as it does from the responsible Commonwealth body (ANSTO, formerly the AAEC, who controlled the mine under the Atomic Energy Act), this assertion is downright cynical.

Engineers carry the maxim :

‘When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail’

In the face of the unparalleled destruction and pollution wrought by Rum Jungle Uranium Mine, to suggest that more mining is a way forward to rehabilitation of natural values is not just absurd; it is profane.

The Commonwealth government already owes a debt of responsibility for appropriate rehabilitation. We do not need to surrender the region for further exploitation to earn it.

Inadequacy of piecemeal assessment

It is blindingly obvious that the current proposal facing stakeholders, such as government and the public, is just a glimpse of what the mining industry has planned for the Rum Jungle region. In fact, this proposal represents simply the first stage in a much more significant plan to exploit the region. The public information sessions, laudably staged by Compass Resources, clearly communicated that the very day they receive approval for the Oxide project, Compass will begin the process of pursuing approval to mine the Sulphide deposit, which lies underneath, and extends into the old Rum Jungle site.

Indeed, the proponents presentation on the project from January this year was sub-titled ‘Profitable Early Development Followed By Major Long Life Sulphide Project’ and maintains references to the extent and value of the sulphide deposit, reporting over 20 years of sulphide resources, and ‘major resource additions indicated’. This report on the Oxide Project concludes with a flowsheet for the Sulphide Project, and a sketch of the Sulphide Project’s lead plant.

Further, the ANSTO report suggests that:

‘other sources of ore, not in the mineral leases, may need to be assessed, but would be subject to separate independent permitting’

and the latest half-yearly report, discussing tenements covering Rum Jungle, identifies ‘excellent potential … to define uranium resources at several locations’.

While we all know full well that there are bigger plans afoot, we are not being allowed to see the big picture. It is entirely inappropriate that the proponent should be permitted to pursue piecemeal approval of a much larger project, with much larger environmental costs, and a much larger burden of radioactive waste.

This is underscored by the cynical attempt by the proponent to use the region’s degraded environment as justification, or at least a smokescreen, for further pollution. Undoubtedly, if this illogical argument is successful this time, it will be applied again in pursuit of the next, major stages of this multi-staged project.

So why would Compass choose to pursue segmented assessment, when their further plans are so well developed, and where best practice clearly dictates that stakeholders deserve the opportunity to scrutinise and contribute to discussion of the whole project before works begin? For one thing, Compass is not well resourced. A new company, who have never operated a project like this before, Compass is lean on capital, capacity and resources.

These shortcomings not only explain Compass’s failure to follow through on an appropriate model of assessment, but must also reflect on their preparedness to accept responsibility for the costs borne by the impact of the Browns Oxide project on the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle Mine. Encompassing management methods designed with the primary objective of avoiding the sterilisation of the sulphide deposit, incorporating rehabilitation strategies which look more like short term management, and risking drawdown on contaminated water at Rum Jungle, the Browns Oxide project will inevitably delay and complicate the challenge of adequately rehabilitating Rum Jungle Uranium Mine. This will not only result in further environmental harm, but will translate directly as further cost to the Commonwealth Government who must eventually take charge of rehabilitation. Given that Compass have not yet raised all the capital for their Browns Oxide proposal, we can have no confidence in their capacity to compensate this additional cost at Rum Jungle.

But to be fair, it must be acknowledged that the proponent has sought assessment of the combined Oxide / Sulphide proposal. Although this process was abandoned, due to the proponents inability to fulfil the requirements for approval, there are some lessons to be learnt from their failed attempt. In particular, while the PER goes to great pains to highlight that the Oxide Project escapes regulation as a nuclear action, it must be recognised that the original combined proposal was determined as such for referral under the EPBC Act. By taking a step back, and seeking approval for the oxide ore that sits above the major sulphide deposit, the proponent has staved off the rigorous assessment and scrutiny that this later stage will demand. In doing so, they have denied the public the accompanying degree of scrutiny and information about their plans to conduct a nuclear action.

This sleight of hand has been quite deliberate. The latest public information session in Batchelor was punctuated by ridiculous to-ing and fro-ing over the question of whether there was any uranium, any radioactive pollution and any radioactive waste in relation to the project. Technical director Rodney Elvish opened his presentation with the assurance that there was no uranium at Browns. This was immediately challenged, and he conceded that there is a considerable quantity of uranium, but that it is not being processed for commercial purposes. Despite this clarification, the same speaker repeatedly attempted to claim that the project involves no uranium, even displaying an overhead slide that emphatically denied the presence of uranium. Each such attempt was challenged (each time by a different, confused member of the public) and rescinded. After insisting that the project would not generate radioactive wastes, the same technical director emphatically vowed that all such wastes would be covered by a Radiation Management Plan.

This farcical fumbling over the pertinent issue of radioactive waste and pollution demonstrates clearly that the company is keen to downplay, even deny, the significant radiological issues implicit to their project. In this light, the decision to attempt piecemeal assessment can be recognised, in part at least, as a further attempt to hide and obfuscate the significant radiological impacts of the further plans for Rum Jungle. Given the clearly communicated and often repeated intention of Compass Resources to immediately pursue assessment of the Sulphide project upon attaining approval for the Oxide project, this strategy must not prevail. The Community deserves to be informed and consulted upon the true breadth of radiological impacts embodied in the plans Compass has for Rum Jungle.

If the Company is to be permitted to pursue segmented assessment, then the Project should at least be recognised as part of the major plan for exploiting the sulphides, and so should qualify for an EIA as a nuclear action under the EPBC Act.

Radioactive waste and pollution

The fact that uranium concentration at Browns is not commercial does not discount the fact that mining operations would result in the mobilisation and dispersal into the environment of significant radioactive pollution. While the current small set of measurements of radioactivity fall below bureaucratic levels for regulation, and anticipated human doses fall below so-called ‘acceptable’ limits, it must be highlighted that

‘environmental impact assessment concluded that there will be some environmental impact from the presence of uranium in ore’.

In recognition that they ‘may require that appropriate measures be taken … to minimise any environmental impact from tailings, waste liquors, airborne emissions etc.’, Compass commissioned a report from ANSTO, the national nuclear science organisation, which significantly recognised areas of potential radiological impact :

Water – any uranium and thorium and long lived progeny; Air – any radon / progeny; Dust – U and Th decay chains; External gamma - U and Th decay chains.

While acknowledging that significant radioactive pollution would result from the proposal, the PER admits that baseline radiological data is limited. Assurances that this data will continue to be collected as the part of the ongoing Mine Management Plan are particularly unimpressive. While it may not be uncommon for the collection of ‘baseline’ data to be undertaken after the horse has bolted, this by no means validates the flawed method. It must also be recognised, as with other pollutants and contaminants in the Rum Jungle region, that any such data, whether taken now, or after the ‘development’ progresses, are not natural baseline data, but are rather data for a highly contaminated site, heavily polluted by previous inappropriate mining practices at Rum Jungle Uranium Mine.

Furthermore, while outlining the need for a Radiation Management Plan, there has been no indication of the nature or detail of such a plan. It is highly unsatisfactory for approval to proceed without public scrutiny of this Plan. The public cannot be confident that issues related to radioactive contamination and the management of the inevitable radioactive wastes this proposal would produce have been adequately addressed in the absence of this Plan. It is inappropriate to relegate such significant details until after approval.

The ANSTO report acknowledges international trends towards the development of policies for the explicit protection of the environment from radiological pollutants. The report clearly states that the prevalent criteria of acceptable human doses are now recognised to be insufficient to guarantee environmental protection. And yet we are told that :

‘current regulatory controls on radiological impact are based on the assumption that the protection of humans will result in the protection of the environment.’

By a process of induction, it follows that these current regulatory controls are insufficient to guarantee environmental protection. While the report goes into great detail on anticipated dose calculations, this data falls far short of providing a basis for the important objective of protecting the environment from radioactive waste. Perhaps to offer some comfort, the report indulges in a combination of guesswork and hand-waving to give a vague promise of

‘an indication of the likelihood of whether there is potential for a significant impact’

This clearly falls short of what the community expectations of environmental protection from radiological impacts.

In fact, the report clearly identifies a number of scenarios in which, despite conforming to the current regulatory controls, radioactive waste from the proposed operation at Browns could present a significant impact on the environment. One such scenario is that of tailings washing in to the River. While this is characterised as ‘an unlikely event’, it must be remembered that regular repetition of such an ‘unlikely event’ is responsible for a major component of the detrimental legacy of Rum Jungle Uranium Mine. Similar unlikely events have been recorded at the heavily regulated and scrutinised Ranger Uranium Mine as recently as January last year, as they have throughout the life of that highly regulated and monitored mine.

Another disturbing scenario identified is the potential for a process water spill. The ANSTO report warns that uranium will accumulate in the recycled process water. We are told that the process solution may contain accumulated concentrations of radioactive contaminants which would represent an environmental impact. The maximum indicated tailings discharge water concentration exceeds UNSCEAR guidelines for water-plants and frogs. Yet the Water Management Plan (such as it is) makes no reference to objectives of managing this radioactive waste. The Water Management Plan describes how wet season flooding of the Tailings Storage Facility would overflow into the main sediment trap, which in turn would be released into the River.

Reference is made to processing, which would assumedly accumulate the radioactive precipitates with the radioactive tailings wastes. However there is no detail given to assure the public that any effort will be made to manage the radioactive wastes that may accumulate in the process water. Perhaps this requirement is to be relegated to the Radiation Management Plan; however it is inappropriate for approval to proceed in the absence of this fundamental information. As already stated, the public deserves more detailed knowledge of the proponent’s plans for the management of the radioactive wastes which will inevitably be generated by this proposal.

Concerns about the lack of detail about the management of contaminated water are only strengthened by recent experience with the Ranger Uranium Mine. Despite the intense scrutiny afforded this project, and despite the fact that the uranium product earns the Ranger Uranium Mine regulatory controls for their radioactive materials that this first stage at Browns may evade, there has been frequent mismanagement of contaminated water at Ranger Uranium Mine. Particularly relevant are the regular wet season overflows, where despite the presence of mechanisms and plans for the treatment of water, certain extreme weather events during the wet season seem to catch everyone by surprise, and result in the unintentional release of ‘hot’ water ahead of the planned management actions. The lack of detail provided by Compass makes such fumbling appear even more likely for this proposal.

All other concerns aside, on this matter of the appropriate management of radioactive wastes alone, the proponent should be sent back to the drawing board. The project should be assessed with all the scrutiny and rigour afforded a nuclear action under the EPBC Act, to guarantee the public greater confidence in the integrity of their management plans, ahead of any approval to proceed beyond this planning stage.

Community sensitivity about the likely environmental impacts of radioactive wastes from the Browns Oxide project can only compound in the face of the realisation that this is but the first step in a multi-stage plan for further exploitation of the Rum Jungle region. While the public has unfortunately been denied an accurate picture of future developments planned for the area, it is clear from the cursory report on the potential impacts of the first stage of this segmented proposal that we should anticipate environmental impacts due to radioactive wastes. Given the footprint of the Sulphide deposit, and the reference to extension of the project into the old mine, it is clear that this would be the first step along a trajectory that would guarantee greater levels and volumes of radioactive waste than are addressed by this PER.

Rather than considering opening the region up to further contamination from radioactive waste and other heavy metal contaminants, our immediate plans for Rum Jungle should remain focussed on rehabilitation. While some progress has been made in managing the significant pollution suffered by the Finniss system, we clearly have a long way to go. The degraded local environment must not be used to justify, nor camouflage, any proposal for further pollution. The current degraded status must not be used as a basis for benchmarks or targets for water quality or rehabilitation status. Neither can the regrettable state of the locality be abused as justification for further pollution. We don’t need another miner to come in to resolve the outstanding responsibility for rehabilitation: this already sits firmly on the shoulders of the parties who profited from Rum Jungle Uranium Mine, who remain well resourced to address their responsibility.