Safety and Environment

ENVIRONMENT

The process of mining is an extremely extensive task, and a large stress on the environment, careful planning and execution of mining tasks is critical if the effect on the surrounding area is to be minimised. A few processes assure this is the case, these are:

1. Smart site choices
2. Persistent participation of environmental regulations
3. Rehabilitation after mining

Smart site choices

Site choices in Australia depend on the following aspects:

1. Affect on the quality of mining
2. Commercial outcome
3. Affect on the environment
4. Land rights

Quality of mining

The quality of the site determines how much uranium can be mined and so affects the economical feasibility of the mine. Australia has the world's largest known retrievable supply of Uranium, along with its vast, uninhabited, easy to improve land, makes it the ideal place for uranium mining.

However, the quality of uranium is no match for the current coal quality and production. As a result, coal is likely to stay the major power source for Australia.

For more information on how the uranium is distributed underground and in the oceans see Uranium Deposits

Commercial Outcome

The prevailing consideration for the construction of a mine is this: If the mine is built, run and decommissioned, will a profit be made. While Australia owns 30% (6) of all known uranium deposits her reliance on uranium is minimal. The vast majority of the uranium is exported to USA who has a large reliance on Uranium as a fuel for power generation.

It is clear than Australia has more than enough cheap uranium to mine for its own power generation, however, the use of coal has become such a large business for Australia, that it is economically feasible to keep coal mining for power generation. Last year Australia exported $13.5 billion in coal [5] and produced half this amount in home use. In 1992 coal production reached 378 million tonnes, 66% of which were exported. As Uranium mining increases, it may become economically feasible in the future.

Fig. 1. Distribution of Australia's Uranium Exports (Used Without Permission) (4)

Effect on the Environment

Much of the available uranium has been discovered, the environmental considerations must create preferences to land which is resilient enough to withstand the pressures of underground or open cut mining. Underground water flow can be disrupted during open cut procedures and important geological structures can be affected while mining underground.

One example of this type of disturbance is the Ranger mine. The original design underestimated rainfall and overestimated evaporation rates, which caused an excess of wastewater that needed to be dealt with. This lead to problems when the wastewater was released to the surrounding wetlands without permission from the land owners who legally control what enters their land.

Land rights

In Australia, many outback areas rich in uranium are environmentally protected or are tendered by aboriginal landowners. Usually, in the case of aboriginal ownership, the land is leased to the mining corporation, under an agreement of environmental management and guaranteed sufficient rehabilitation of the land. For example, the owners of the ranger mine make a payment if 4.25% of its gross sales revenue, as well as rent of $200 000 a year to the Kakadu land trust. For this money to reach the trust, and the traditional aboriginal owners, the money is payed to the government, who distribute it to the Northern Territory groups. Since the mine commenced operations in 1980, it has invested $207.7 million dollars in royalties.

This type of land leasing is common, and other mines are treated exactly the same way, in this respect, the product of the mining (uranium) has little effect on these agreements. In some cases, however, due to the stigma surrounding uranium and nuclear power in general, uranium mines find themselves under stricter controls than others.

The Ranger Mine: The project area is leased from the Aboriginal traditional owners, title to the land being held by the Kakadu Land Trust. The Company makes a payment of 4.25% of its gross sales revenue plus an annual rental of $200 000 for the use of the land. Ranger has paid a total of $207.7 million in nominal terms in royalties since the project began in 1980. The money is paid to the Commonwealth Government and ultimately distributed to Northern Territory-based Aboriginal groups, including the Traditional Owners, under the terms of the Commonwealth¹s Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act of 1976. Additional payments of over $7 million are on account of Jabiluka.

Environmental regulations

While the mining is occurring, a continual set of regulations must be in place to ensure the affect on the environment in minimised. The regulations on uranium mining are much the same as other forms, however uranium mining finds itself the recipient of stricter regulations, due to the social stigma surrounding nuclear power.

1. Stress to the environment
2. Emissions
3. Waste disposal

Stresses on the Environment

Mines, as well as simply carving large holes in the earth, generate wastes and emissions. These tend to effect the outside environment. In most ways, a uranium mine is no different from any other mine. Other mines, for example coalmines generate as much waste ore are uranium mines. Coalmines even upturn uranium from the soil. Uranium mines deal with their material much more carefully, partially because of the higher concentrations, but mainly due to pressures by public antipathy.

The office of the supervising scientist OSS is the government's overseer of Northern Territory mining instances. They are responsible for reporting information of environmental standards and restoration measures, as well as the communication between the government, the landowners, and the public (7). The environmental attitudes of mines are continuously being tested by more and more regulations in order to ensure stringent safeguards to protect the environment.

In situ leaching is an entirely different process and in theory, should cause less of an environmental impact. Often, the groundwater already has dangerously high radiation levels and other contaminants. In these cases, the possible further contamination may be considered less important. The chemicals used in the process may lead to contamination due to the unexpected emission of waste, if the safeguards are not strictly enforced.

Emissions

Details on mining emissions can be found in Mining Safety. Radon gas is a common emitter found in all types of mines (uranium or otherwise), but is a larger potential threat to uranium mines. These emissions can be harmful to surrounding wildlife and plant life if not correctly maintained. Water can be used to 'soak up' the radon gas, but this process is inefficient and does not guarantee success.

Waste Disposal

The biggest environmental waste product is the wastewater. It can be contaminated and be difficult to store. Some instances have seen contaminated waters released unlawfully, and so the treatment and storage of the wastewaters is a highly important topic. This problem is by no means specific to uranium mining; this issue is a problem for all types and forms of mines. However, there is a greater probability that the wastewater will be dangerously radioactive, as has been observed in the past. The water is usually neutralised and cleaned of solid elements, but his treatment is costly and time consuming.

Often, the waste is of a relatively high activity, but rarely is it devastatingly dangerous. For the land to be naturally rich in uranium implies that the activity is naturally high, and so further production of radioactive bodies should not affect the equilibrium in the environment.

Rehabilitation

After the area is mined, the site should be returned to a state as close to the original state as possible. Full rehabilitation would imply renewed land on which vegetation can again grow, and within a certain timeframe, look no different to the surroundings. Necessary steps toward full rehabilitation include:

1. Sufficient planning and preparation
2. Continual practice of mining, with rehabilitation in mind
3. Execution

Planning and Preparation

The rehabilitation of a uranium mine is financially accounted for before the mine is constructed, it is included in the total cost in starting a mining project. Important thing to consider include what types of wastes will need to be disposed of and how dangerous it is.

The Nabarlek mine was one of the first to have a total planned and executed rehabilitation plan. It began production in 1979 and continued to supply uranium until 1989. Although the rehabilitation program was organised before 1979, the rehabilitation did not begin until 1994/95. Mines started before 1979 may not have a detailed decommissioning arrangement, or one at all for that matter. The rehabilitation is going well but the land cannot be used normally until it passes all the necessary tests. This may take another decade.

An example of a well planned and executed rehabilitation was of the Mary Kathleen mine, this was the first attempt at rehabilitation and won an award for engineering excellence.
In situ leaching, being a totally different method than underground or open pit mining has creates its own environmental concerns. Past efforts overseas have shown that, with correct planning, the environment can be brought back to near pristine order. However, the line is fine, as unprepared mining operations have resulted in serious environmental concerns like highly contaminated groundwater significants distances from the area of mining.(7)

Smart Practice

The areas outside mines must remain unaffected from the mines for a rehabilitation to be successful. Rehabilitations only fix problems to do with the mines, if a groundwater leak occurred, rehabilitation would not repair the damage done. Also, if wastes are disposed of unlawfully, they fall out of the rehabilitation plan and would not be restored.

In situ leaching requires continual careful processing, rehabilitation is difficult for these methods to the environmental sustainability relies on how sound the mining process is. In situ methods should leave the ore body relatively untouched during operations.

Execution

For open cut mines, the process simply involves throwing all the waste ore back in the pit. This method was originally accomplished by the Nabarlek mine in 1994. When this is completed, revegetation can be achieved relatively easily. A problem which seems to follow most rehabilitated mines is the water quality after rehabilitation.

One benefit of filling the pit with the waste is that the radiological waste will be at a slightly lower concentration than the land originally held (remembering that the site was radioactive before the mine was put in place. Higher level waste is buried at the bottom, creating a barrier between the waste and the vegetation above. The filling has been shown to be almost as secure as the original ore body.

Another advantage is that the tailings can be immediately disposed of, there is no need to transport the waste to different areas. Each piece of equipment or machinery was either cleaned until certified of radiological safety, or placed in the pit. Waste machinery was buried deep so as to not intrude on the growing vegetation. Below is an image of the Nabarlek mine during operations, and afterwards. The land has been considered almost healthy, with a few years expected until unrestricted access is allowed.

In situ leaching does not require nearly as an extensive amount as effort as open cut and underground mines. The method is not as damaging, and in some cases, rehabilitation is not necessary as long as the process is correct.

Figure 2 Nabarlek mine. top) during operations.
Bottom) after two years of rehabilitation (Used withou permission from the UIC)

Figure 3 This image shows the mine indistinguishable from the surrounding environment (Used without permission from the UIC)

Figure 4 Mary Kathleen mine before and after rehabilitation

References

1. J C Altman, Compensation for Native Title: Land rights lessons for an Effective and Fair Regime, J C Altman, Native Title research unit, Australian institute of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Studies, Issues paper No 20, April 1998. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/rsrch/ntru/ntpapers/ip20web.pdf
2. NLC Northern Land Council Website, http://www.nlc.org.au/%5C
3. Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy), A Review of Australia's Uranium Mining and the Proposed Jabiluka Uranium Mine: A Scientific Case for placing Kakadu as World Heritage in Danger, Technical submission to the world heritage commission of UNESCO, May 1999
4. UIC, Australia's Uranium and Who Buys it, UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 1, August 2005.
5. Australia Coal Association, Australian Black Coal Exports - Summary. http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm
6. UIC, Australia's Uranium, Uranium Information Centre LTD, http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm
7. P Kay, Beyond the Three Miles - In Situ Leaching Proposals in South Australia, Science, Technology, environment and resources group, 12 May 1998.
8. QML, Environmental Management and Rehabilitation of the Nabarlek Uranium Mine, UIC, Mines Paper #5, March 1999, http://www.uic.com.au/nabarlek.htm
9. QML, Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining, UIC Breiging paper 10, UIC,
   http://www.uic.com.au/nip10.htm
10. UIC, Australia's Uranium mines, UIC, August 2005, http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm