The Environmental Impact Statement for the Beverley Uranium...

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Beverley Uranium Mine

May 2002

Introduction

Uranium is being mined by acid In Situ Leaching (acid ISL) at Beverley near Arkaroola in the Flinders Ranges.

Uranium was discovered at Beverley in 1969. Plans to mine the uranium were abandoned in 1974 due to low uranium prices.

The project was revived in 1981 and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared in July 1982.

Because the uranium exists in a porous water-bearing layer (aquifer), it was proposed to use cheap but potentially polluting acid ISL.

Acid ISL involves injecting sulphuric acid into the aquifer in order to leach out the uranium. The liquid is then pumped to the surface where the uranium is extracted.

Acid ISL mining trials carried out in 1982 at Honeymoon in SA were discontinued after the occurrence of blockages, which affected the ability of the operators to control the movement of the leach solution.

In 1983 both the Honeymoon and Beverley projects were cancelled by the SA Government which cited four reasons for its decision 1:


Many of the economic, social, biological, genetic, safety and environmental problems associated with the nuclear industry were unresolved.


Endorsement of the Government’s position by a wide range of community groups.


Commitment to the Roxby Downs project.


Community disquiet at the nature of the ISL process.

The then leader of the Liberal Opposition, John Olsen, said that a Liberal government would allow the projects to go ahead according to procedures outlined in the Environmental Impact Statements.

The 1998 uranium mining "trials" at Beverley

The Beverley lease was purchased in 1990 by the USA-based nuclear giant General Atomics Inc. Its Australian subsidiary is Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd. The mine is 100% foreign owned, there is no Australian equity.

General Atomics is heavily involved in the nuclear industry, including:


production and distribution of training and research reactors


development of gas cooled nuclear power technology


building of nuclear reactors (currently negotiating to build a reactor in Thailand)


marketing of uranium hexafluoride conversion services


marketing of uranium oxide and uranium hexafluoride


operation of byproduct disposal services


salvaging uranium from nuclear weapons


development, production and restoration of open pit, underground and in situ mining


operation of a nuclear fusion research centre.

In November 1997 the South Australian Government gave permission for "trials" of ISL at Beverley. Heathgate claims that uranium is a ‘byproduct’ of these trials! 33 tonnes of yellowcake were produced by these "trials".

Permission for the "trials" was given on the basis of a Declaration of Environmental Factors (DEF) written on September 5 1997.

The SA Government official responsible for the DEF process and for recommending the "trials" is now working for Heathgate Resources.

There was no public consultation on the DEF and the relevant documents were provided by the South Australian Government in February 1998 at the last moment under the threat of a Freedom of Information request from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

In a perverse statement from the Minister for Resources, Rob Kerin, on February 24, 1998 it was claimed "There is nothing secret about the Beverley Project. We have consistently released information as requested by the Conservation Foundation." First as Minister and then as Premier, Rob Kerin consistently denied the ACF access to documents about the trials.

The trials commenced on January 2 1998 2.

According to both Heathgate and the South Australian Government the 4 to 12 month "trials" were a key step in providing information for an Environmental Impact Statement, but one month after the trial started it was announced 3 that, because of the impending Federal election, the Environmental Impact Statement would be released in March, that is less than three months after trials began.

The final report on the trials was submitted to the SA Government in July 1999, three months after the Government has given the go-ahead for commercial operation of the Beverley mine.

The proposed leach solution was claimed by Heathgate to be only slightly acidic, being about 1,000 times more acidic (pH 3.5) than the water in the uranium bearing aquifer.

In actual fact the leach solution used was 200,000 times more acidic (pH 2) than the aquifer water.

The trials required the use of 163,000 kilogram (kg) of concentrated sulphuric acid (or the equivalent of about 600,000 kg of battery acid) and led to greatly increased concentrations of radioactive and toxic pollutants in the aquifer water.

2,700 kilolitres (kL) of acidic radioactive toxic liquid wastes from the trials were pumped into the aquifer at a site adjacent to the mining operation.

These wastes contain radioactive uranium, thorium and radium. A full analysis of the wastes was not given in the DEF, but the wastes contain arsenic, aluminium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, nickel, selenium and vanadium in concentrations 30-800 times those present in the underground water.

Arguments used by Heathgate and the South Australian Government to justify the "trials" were misleading. They claimed that:


Most of the uranium in the US is obtained by ISL.


Heathgate is not disposing of anything in the aquifer that was not already there.

The ISL process used to mine uranium in the US is not the same sort of ISL process being used at Beverley: The US uses an alkali solution, whereas it is an acid solution that is being used at Beverley. Only the former eastern bloc countries (Eastern Germany, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) and China have used acid ISL to mine uranium.

When Heathgate talked about the ‘aquifer’ they included the solids that make up the aquifer. Environmental concerns, however, relate almost entirely to the liquid in the aquifer. Radioactive and toxic materials immobilised in solids underground are not a major concern. The same materials when dissolved are a serious threat to health, safety and the environment.

Heathgate claimed at a public meeting on February 28, 1998 at Davenport near Port Augusta South Australia that all liquid wastes revert back to solids when reinjected into the aquifer, but no evidence was given to support this claim. Four years after the original claim there is still no empirical evidence to support it.

It is intrinsic to the ISL process that it mobilises radioactive and toxic materials. These materials should be properly managed. This requires that all wastes be contained in evaporation ponds and that all of the residual solids be kept out of the groundwater. This is not the case at Beverley where the liquid wastes are being deliberately disposed of into the groundwater.

In 1995 the South Australian Government held an inquiry into the leak of waste water from the Roxby Downs tailings retention system which put underground water at risk.

As a result of the inquiry, Western Mining Corporation was required to improve the management of its liquid wastes in order to prevent further leaks.

The wastes that Heathgate is disposing of into the underground water are very similar to the wastes that WMC is not allowed to leak into the ground. Both wastes contain radioactive and toxic pollutants.

Heathgate Resources lobbied governments, environment groups and the general public about the jobs and royalties and about the safe, low impact, environmentally sensitive nature of the Beverley project.

The project is neither environmentally benign nor does it provide many jobs.

Despite the current depressed nature of the uranium market, Heathgate is predicting a large increase in demand for uranium.

As in the past, such predictions are likely to be wrong, but because the proposed ISL process is cheap, and because Heathgate has a built-in demand in the form of its parent company General Atomics, then uranium from Beverley will be sold, but at very low prices which will minimise royalties to SA and to the traditional owners.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Environmental justification for the "trials.

The EIS for the Beverley uranium mine was released on June 29, 1998, six months after mining started at Beverley, and one year before the final report of the trials was submitted to the SA Government According to Heathgate and the South Australian Government the "trials" were a key step in providing information for an Environmental Impact Statement yet the final report was not written until one year after the EIS and it was not publicly released until two years after commercial operation was given the go ahead.

After six months of operation:


The actual gamma doses to plant operators appeared to be unknown. The EIS talked about expected gamma doses.


Inhalation of long-lived alpha emitting radioactive substances were estimated rather than measured.


Computer modelling was used to predict radon increases due to the mine rather than direct measurement.


The proponents seemed to be in doubt as to the concentration of radon and radon decay products.


Atmospheric dispersion modelling was used to ‘estimate’ average worker radon exposure.


In the section on trial mine outcomes there was only one page that related to environmental protection.

As shown in Table 1 acid leaching results in greatly increased concentrations of radioactive and toxic substances compared with the original ground water.

Table 1. Increases in concentration of pollutants due to acid leaching.

Pollutant
Concentration relative to groundwater


Extracted solution
Injected solution

Acid
200,000
300,000

Aluminium
170
170

Arsenic
25
20

Cadmium
210
200

Cobalt
38
37

Chromium
29
1.5

Nickel
5,000
5,000

Lead
3.8
2.5

Radium 226
13
11

Selenium
250
260

Uranium
510
36

Vanadium
780
760


The extracted solution is a potential environmental threat due to possible leaks outside the ore body and into other water bodies.

The injected solution presents a similar hazard but in addition it shows the magnitude of the environmental folly of the project. This solution is of very similar composition to the ‘bleed solution’ that is being deliberately disposed of into the underground water at rates of about one million litre per week.

The ‘bleed solution’ is said to contain "trace amounts" of selenium, molybdenum, and other "naturally occurring" metals. The selenium concentration in the ‘bleed solution’ is 260 times higher than in the natural groundwater. Some of the other "naturally occurring" metals are in concentrations that are 5000 times higher than the naturally occurring concentrations.

The amounts of dissolved pollutants injected into the underground water are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Amounts of pollutants to be disposed of in the underground water.

Pollutant
Amount / kg

Aluminium
18,300

Arsenic
20

Cadmium
20

Cobalt
2000

Nickel
1000

Lead
30

Selenium
130

Uranium
7100

Vanadium
380






Despite six months of "trials" the compositions of these solutions were not given in the Environmental Impact Statement.

The fact that Stage 1 of the commercial operation was only five times larger than the so-called trials and that commercial production was given permission before the final report for the trials was written demonstrated that the "trials" were really the start of commercial operation.

Omissions from the Environmental Impact Statement


The Environmental Impact Statement did not make use of the experience of the former aborted ISL uranium mine at Honeymoon in South Australia.


The Environmental Impact Statement selectively gave an example of one case of acid ISL uranium mining in the USA. It made no mention of other cases including in Eastern Europe, where Heathgate’s project manager, Charles Foldenauer, is believed to have had experience with acid ISL.


A key claim by Heathgate at a public meeting on February 28, 1998 at Davenport near Port Augusta South Australia, namely that all liquid wastes revert back to solids when reinjected into the aquifer, was not addressed.


The EIS claimed a predicted shortfall in supply of uranium up to the year 2010. Uranium supply and demand forecasts have been notoriously unreliable even over periods as short as one year. The large amounts of highly enriched uranium from nuclear weapons which is being diluted to reactor grade uranium means that the market for uranium is likely to be depressed for many years. This is reflected in the price of $15/lb (about US$10/lb at June 1998 exchange rates) used in the Environmental Impact Statement.


Average background radon levels were given but no indication of the range. The average level of 11 Bq/cubic metre converts to a radiation dose of about 1 mSv/yr. This suggests that just living at the site is a significant radiation hazard. No data was given for sites that are not near uranium bearing ores.

The Environmental Impact Statement did not address either the appropriateness of uranium mining or the uses of uranium. This is equivalent to mining asbestos without regard to its appropriateness or to the problems caused by the use of asbestos.
Instead of giving the background radiation for the Beverley site, the Environmental Impact Statement gave a world average, which it claimed was "received by everyone in the world". This is obviously ridiculous; there is a wide variation in background radiation, with many receiving less, and many receiving more, than the average.

The data given on background radiation was presented in such a way that it was very difficult to estimate doses to workers at the Beverley site. The general impression, however, was that workers would receive about ten times the dose from gamma and radon sources that they would have received if they had worked at normal sites.


It was claimed that monitoring would be regular but no information was given on how regular: Was it to be daily, weekly, monthly or yearly?


It was stated that the monitoring program was still being planned. The proponents had more than adequate time to devise a programme.


It was stated in the EIS that "Any remaining ponded process solutions would be treated and disposed." But no information was given on the method of treatment or disposal.


It was admitted under close questioning at a public meeting in Adelaide on August 6, 1998, that a spill of polluted liquid had occurred. This was attributed by Heathgate to a fault in the plastic piping. No information was given in the EIS about this or any other spills and leaks that may have occurred.


It was claimed in the Environmental Impact Statement that experience from the "trials" indicates that the personnel gamma doses would not be large but gave no data to support this claim.


No data was given to support claims in the Environmental Impact Statement about the radiation dose by inhalation of radon decay products.


No data was given to support the statement that employee gamma doses from the project are ‘suggested’ by the data from the trials to be in the range 1 to 2mSv.

Gross Contamination of the Underground Water

It is intrinsic to ISL mining that the groundwater is contaminated by the leach solution and by the substances that it dissolves.

Acid ISL is particularly polluting because acid dissolves many more pollutants than alkali. This fact is given very little attention in the Environmental Impact Statement with the use of acid rather than alkali ISL being justified in commercial terms; the relative environmental impact of acid and alkali ISL is given low priority.

Unlike most mining projects in developed countries where liquid wastes are evaporated and the resulting solid wastes are responsibly managed, the liquid wastes at Beverley are disposed of by pumping back into adjoining and mined-out aquifers. This is a practice that should be rejected by responsible governments.

The low priority given to preventing pollution of the underground water is justified by the proponents in terms of the initial radioactivity and high salinity of the underground water.

No account is taken of the fact that most water, including the Adelaide water supply, is treated before it is of acceptable quality. Nor should the fact that the underground water is saline and radioactive be an excuse for polluting it.

There are plans to supply Kalgoorlie in West Australia with water obtained by the desalination of seawater at a cost of $750 million 4. This is as an example of the value of any water resource no matter how saline.

Future options for the use of a resource should not be put at risk by irresponsible activities today.



There are no plans to restore the aquifers that will be polluted with the mining solution and liquid wastes from the project. A responsible company would:


Not discharge its liquid wastes into the underground water but would evaporate the liquid wastes and properly manage the solid residue.


Restore the aquifer to its original quality by flushing with clean water, evaporating the polluted water and properly managing the solid residue.



Spills of Toxic Radioactive Liquid

It was stated in the Environmental Impact Statement that Heathgate Resources would undertake measures including "prompt wet clean-up of spills capable of generating radioactive dust". This contrasts with statements made 6 weeks after the Environmental Impact Statement was released, namely that there was no need to clean up some 500 litres of liquid that leaked from a plastic pipe 5 on March 12, 1998.

It was claimed in Parliament by the Minister for Resources, Rob Kerin, that "It is the water from the aquifer which was actually spilt." Kerin admitted that "the water" contained 340 mg/litre of uranium (which is 830 times higher than in the natural groundwater) and that a "mild acid solution" had been added (the spilt liquid was 200,000 times more acid than the natural aquifer water) but made no mention of the greatly increased concentrations of radioactive and toxic pollutants.

This spill released about 5 million Bequerel of radium-226 and about 100 gram of uranium.

It was claimed by Heathgate that removal of contaminated soil would do more environmental harm than leaving it there!

It was claimed in the Environmental Impact Statement that "long-lived alpha dust doses will be negligible given that spillages are captured when wet …." Yet the only spill that had been made public during the EIS process was not cleaned up.

Considering that this spill was made public only under pressure, the doubt existed about how many other spills occurred which had not been made public and which were not cleaned up.

This question was answered just before the 2002 state elections when a major spill of about 62,000 kilolitre containing some 8 kg of uranium triggered the revelation that there had been 22 previous spills that had not been reported to the public.

Radioactive Wastes

The plan to bury solid radioactive waste in shallow, unlined trenches was inconsistent with the guidelines for the national radioactive waste repository.

There was even greater contradiction between the guidelines and the planned disposal of liquid radioactive wastes into underground water. This aspect of radioactive waste disposal was not even mentioned in this section of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Conclusions

The mining of uranium is environmentally indefensible. Mining uranium is the first step in a nuclear industry that radioactively contaminates the earth and its inhabitants in every conceivable way. It contaminates the air we breathe, the soil in which we grow our food and the water we drink.

Ionising radiation from the nuclear industry is a growing and ever present threat to our health and to that of generations unborn.

Wastes from the nuclear industry will be radioactive for thousands of generations. After 50 years, the safe storage of these wastes is still an unresolved problem.

Like asbestos, uranium should be outlawed.

Uranium fuels a nuclear industry that poises the world between the knife edges of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, one as destructive as the other.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Beverley mine does not even attempt to address these issues.

The Australian nuclear industry in general has consistently refused to defend itself in a public forum. Instead it hides behind the ideologically driven agenda of sympathetic governments.

The environmental assessment of the Beverley project from the so-called trials to the Environmental Impact Statement has consistently ignored the issues, has treated the environment like a sewer and has left no doubt about its real purpose, namely to expedite the mining of uranium by the cheapest possible means.