By Paula Wallace
It outlines a project that will take 11 years to build and could increase ore production six fold, to a total of 72 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) – of copper concentrate, refined copper, uranium oxide, gold bullion and silver bullion.
Whilst it has outlined a number of aspects of the massive Roxby Downs development, the miner has been criticised by environmental, anti-nuclear and community groups for not providing a wider range of alternatives which for one would take into account concerns about radioactive waste at the mine site and in downstream uses.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has criticised the proposal on the basis that BHP’s Draft EIS has not “addressed feasible alternatives as project options to provide a basis for informed public consideration and input and to facilitate Government decisions and conditions in the public interest.”
The ACF’s David Noonan said the Draft EIS should include options where Olympic Dam can trade as a copper venture with all radioactive materials retained on-site; that all copper concentrate should be processed on-site; that mine tailings be disposed of in the pit for 10,000 years as per the Ranger mine agreement; that the plan include use of renewable energy; and that different sites are offered for location of a desalination plant.
Noonan also said that BHP has applied for State Government approval to extract up to one million tonnes of copper product a year, even though the EIS only examines an expansion of up to 750,000 tonnes a year.
“Radioactive waste from the mine, damage to the marine environment from desalination and greenhouse pollution from additional energy demand may all be one third worse than envisaged by the company’s EIS.
“BHP plans to line only 15 per cent of the proposed 44 square kilometre tailings facility that will be up to 65 metres high…This could be leaking 8 million litres of liquid waste by 2020,” he said.
BHP has previously stated that it is not seeking to operate at one million tonnes per annum of copper. The Draft EIS states that the timeframe for the assessments contained in the document is set at 40 years. While the size of the mineral resource suggests that mining could continue well beyond that time, BHP said in that case “further environmental approvals would be required.”
The ACF’s concerns around the miner’s plan to send uranium containing copper concentrate overseas are numerous.
“The uranium quarry plan would make BHP and South Australia complicit in selling uranium to nuclear weapons states and in unresolved radioactive waste management problems overseas and at the mine site.”
This raises questions generally about the scope of a uranium mining company’s responsibilities in the nuclear fuel cycle and its interpretation of corporate sustainability.
BHP is active in the development of policies and frameworks for uranium stewardship and said “this had included the adoption of a Stewardship policy by the Australian Uranium Association.”
The Uranium Stewardship Principles issued by the AUA stipulate that companies should be “acting responsibly in the areas that we manage and control, and share our concern in other sectors of the nuclear fuel cycle”.
In addition, companies should be, “providing responsible sourcing, use and management of uranium and all its by-products.”
This does not make it clear if mining companies are responsible for managing uranium and its byproducts beyond the mine including to overseas markets. When asked whether BHP considers this to be part of its responsibilities it said, “Tracking of uranium after it leaves Australia is subject to multi lateral and bi lateral safeguards arrangements administered for the Australian Government by the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office.”
Whilst some would consider it to be part of responsible management of uranium and all its by-products, The Uranium Stewardship Principles also don’t make it clear whether mining companies should be involved in the disposal of downstream radioactive waste.
“Sustainability is a key part of the uranium industry in Australia going forward,” said Mark Chalmers, chair of the Uranium Industry Framework.
“One of the debates is the concept of taking the waste back. But you name one other product, including those from uranium mining, in the world that ships something out and then takes it back, this debate is somewhat silly.
“For example, if you build a car, manufacture chemicals and/or pesticides it seems strange that you would have the obligation to return these to the countries of origin at a later date.”
“The one thing that’s important to remember is that uranium concentrate shipped out of Australia is considered Class 7 radioactive goods, and in itself, is not a highly dangerous substance. Many other products shipped out of Australia and around the world like chemicals, fertiliser, and pesticides are far more dangerous in many cases,” said Chalmers.
He said that doesn’t mean that uranium concentrates are not shipped at the highest standards and within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Also, he said the high costs and complicated processes involved in making a nuclear weapon have proved to be effective deterrents.
Whilst mining companies to date have not been expected to take responsibility for the downstream emissions or impacts of the deployment of their products, the recent public concern over coal powered energy may prompt a re-thinking of this issue in the context of the mining industry’s ‘social licence to operate’.
Chalmers believes strongly in community consultation. When he was senior vice president-general manager of Heathgate Resources’ Beverley uranium mine in 2002, the company initiated a successful communications strategy in part to address what he considered to be ‘myths around the industry’.
“Heathgate had a significant role to play in setting the standard in Australia, it became the poster child, particularly in South Australia, for how uranium mining would look in Australian going forward…there were open days, we gave tours and talks to the public, and the company has always been available to the public and the Government agencies.
“One of the most important aspects of operating in the uranium industry is to be fully transparent and available, but make it known that you’re available and ‘walk the talk’,” said Chalmers.
In regard to concerns that China’s uranium processing standards may be more liable to lead to emissions of radioactive pollution, Chalmers said, “Shipping concentrate to China is certainly not an issue, when the uranium becomes U3O8 there’s another level of safeguards required and if anyone has been to China and looked at its nuclear program it’s very impressive.
“And the thing is that uranium is natural and is a very common element…If I wanted to make uranium concentrate I could make it from soil in my backyard or from fertiliser I brought at Bunnings. It wouldn’t be easy but I could do it.”
With other uranium projects due for start up in the medium-term the uranium industry now has an opportunity to set out a sound sustainability agenda.
BHP also recently announced it was also planning to develop its Yeelirrie uranium deposit in Western Australia by 2011, with initial production from the mine starting in 2014.
“I don’t think they [WA] are far off having a framework for uranium mining. I think it will come quite quickly in a year or two. But I think it will be a number of years before you have a uranium mine operating,” said Chalmers.
* The Olympic Dam Draft EIS will be on public exhibition for 14 weeks (until August 7th) during which submissions can be made to Government about the proposed expansion.
At the end of this public exhibition period, BHP Billiton will prepare a Supplementary EIS to respond to all of the issues raised by the public submissions.
The Federal, South Australian and Northern Territory Governments will then consider the Draft EIS, the public submissions and the Supplementary EIS in making their decisions about the project.
Mining industry to host public forum on uranium mining: Darwin
Australia’s uranium industry will be the focus of a free public forum to be held as part of a major international conference on uranium mining.
While there has been much political discussion and debate about the uranium industry, there has been little opportunity for members of the community to learn more about the technical aspects and regulatory controls applied to ensure the safe and sustainable development of uranium.
The Uranium Industry Public Information Evening, to be held on Thursday June 11th at the Darwin Convention Centre, aims to help community stakeholders to become better informed on current practices and policies in the uranium industry.
The event is jointly hosted by The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Northern Territory Resources Council.
The public forum will feature two sessions in which leading experts will give short presentations about key issues in uranium and will be available to answer questions.
The Uranium Public Information Evening is recommended to interested residents of the Northern Territory, mining professionals, professionals from other industries, and students who would like to understand more about uranium exploration, mining, processing, radiation safety controls and indigenous and community stakeholder relations.
The event will run from 6-8:30 pm. Attendance at the forum is free, but registration is required. To register your interest in attending, or for more information about the Uranium Public Information Evening tel: +61 (0)3 9658 6159 or 0406 061 455 or email: msarder@ausimm.com.au
For a copy of the Australian Uranium Association’s Uranium Stewardship Principles click here.
To read the first part of this report click here.
