Uranium Mine Threatens Heritage Site in Australia
6/9/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Uranium Mine Threatens Heritage Site in Australia
Source: The Times (London)
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: June 9, 1999
Byline: Julia Hinde
As Australia looks forward to hosting next year's Olympic Games, the
country's Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage Site famous for its
wetlands and wildlife, can expect a tourist bonanza.
But only months before the Olympic year, Australia faces an
embarrassing environmental problem that could see Kakadu, in the
Northern Territory, placed on the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation's (Unesco) World Heritage "in
danger" list.
According to a Unesco report last November, plans to open a huge new
uranium mine just upstream of the park pose serious threats to the
natural and cultural values of Kakadu.
Australia has until July to convince Unesco otherwise. The dispute
hinges on scientific interpretations of risk: different groups of
scientists and environmentalists disagree as to the long-term dangers
of the mine. The proposed new mine at Jabiluka will open up one of
the world's largest and purest uranium reserves. If, as predicted,
these are used in Europe, Asia and America as the raw material to
provide nuclear energy to power homes and businesses, the uranium at
Jabiluka is said to be worth A$4 billion (o1.6 billion) to the
Australian economy.
The mine - approved by the Australian Government after an assessment
by the mining company Energy Resources of Australia - will be largely
underground with just a few new buildings on the surface, while much
of the processing will take place about 14 miles away at an existing
mine. An estimated 20 million tonnes of radioactive waste will be
buried underground.
But a report submitted to Unesco by a group of Australian scientists,
led by Professor Bob Wasson, of the Australian National University in
Canberra, highlights a number of environmental threats to Kakadu if
mining at Jabiluka goes ahead.
As well as pointing out "serious flaws" in the design of the mine,
the scientists say that expected climate change over the next few
thousand years, driven by global warming, is likely to change the
hydrology of the site. Increased rainfall and flooding will make it
impossible to guarantee the safe containment of radioactive tailings
- rock left over after the pure uranium has been removed - and other
waste. "We simply do not know if the designed structures can
withstand the major rainfall events of the future, so the integrity
of the Kakadu National Park cannot be guaranteed with any
probability."
Others are also concerned. Dave Sweeney, of the Australian
Conservation Foundation, says: "There is no question of the damage if
this mine goes ahead. There will be site specific damage, including
vegetation clearance, degradation of surface water, fumes and dust.
But the main concern is the long-term radiological hazard, with large
volumes of low level radioactive waste." Mr Sweeney adds that the
uranium tailings will, on average, contain 80 to 85 per cent of the
radioactivity of the original ore, and could be subject to erosion
and leaching, potentially contaminating the park.
"The main danger with uranium is its movement through air, ground and
water flows," he explains. "By mining you take the uranium ore out of
its underground cocoon, and grind it as fine as beach sand. During
the mining process, you increase enormously the potential of
radioactivity to blow away in the wind or be taken up by water. We
believe it has the potential to cause significant environmental
impact and could build up in the food chain in the wetlands."
Others are concerned that water used at the mine - and potentially
contaminated with uranium - may be released into the environment.
Unesco's World Heritage Committee has recommended calling a halt to
work at Jabiluka. It noted "the serious concerns and preoccupations
expressed by some of Australia's most eminent scientists as to the
unacceptably high degree of scientific uncertainties" in relation to
the Jabiluka mine design, the effectiveness of the chosen means of
storing the tailings in the mine void, and possible impacts on
catchment ecosystems.
But, so far, the Australian Government has been unmoved and work on
the mine has commenced.
In response to the World Heritage Committee, the scientists advising
the Government are clear that "the natural values of Kakadu National
Park are not threatened" and "the degree of scientific certainty that
applies to this assessment is very high". Although they agree that
there are a number of weaknesses in the original modelling and mine
plan, they add that had the original plan been implemented, the risk
to the Kakadu wetlands and radiation exposure to the Aboriginal
people would be extremely low, even if the water retention ponds
holding radioactive waste water failed. This is because "uranium is
not a particularly toxic substance for aquatic animals.
It has been well established that the toxicity of uranium is much
lower than that of many more common substances such as copper,
cadmium and lead."
The report does, however, note a small but quantifiable risk of
persistent adverse effects to aquatic animals over a 20-square-
kilometre area if the retention ponds fail.
"It is the perception of the public that uranium is a very dangerous
substance, and the failure of the scientific community to persuade
the public otherwise has led to the adoption of extreme measures to
ensure that no amount of uranium should leave the site of a uranium
mine," they say.
The report implies that the public has been led, wrongly, to believe
that uranium is extremely dangerous. However, a 1990 report by the US
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states that "animals
that ate food, drank water, or breathed air that had high levels of
uranium dust have developed kidney damage", while "animal studies
suggest that uranium may affect reproduction and the developing
foetus". In addition, the high levels of radon gas formed when
uranium decays are thought to cause cancers.
Paul Walton, lecturer in chemistry at York University, says uranium
is probably "not all that dangerous from a radioactive point of view,
but there is always a poisoning risk. It is a heavy metal and
generally toxic to life. Unless the mining company takes a lot of
precautions, I would feel unsafe locating a mine near a World
Heritage Site."
The difference in scientific opinion has led to accusations that the
Australian Supervising Scientist's Office, which was responsible for
the positive advice given to the Government, is not as independent as
it should be. "In the past ten years, it has said that there is
absolutely no impact from uranium," says John Hallam of Friends of
the Earth.
However, the environmental risks to Kakadu form only one part of the
case for labelling the World Heritage Site "in danger". Also at risk,
says Unesco, is the park's cultural heritage. The park is a
traditional home for the Mirrar Aboriginal people, and the mine
allegedly passes through Aboriginal sacred sites associated with the
dreaming serpent Boiwek-Almudj.
If the threat to the Kakadu's natural ecosystems and plant, bird and
marine life cannot protect the park, perhaps the dreaming serpent
can.