Dear Ed via Benny
Thank you very much for your excellent post. You have articulated my feelings (and the facts) very precisely.
Do I have your permission to use some of your fine words in my submission to the Australian Government on why we should be investing our taxes into sustainable renewable energy sources (as you mentioned) rather further "wasting" our futures on nuclear proliferation? See below G Monbiot's "misleading" writing for two other submissions (as wording examples and e-mail address - in particular the section which I have bolded) for sending your own submissions.
With thanks and warmest regards
Anne
ps: Please sign the Global Petition to mitigate climate change and forward to all you know. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/737214963
----- Original Message -----
From: e haf
To: benny zable ; annelisa@... ; maxigar@... ; adusta@... ; bodner@... ; ffilms@... ; Senator.Bob.Brown@... ; cjbulley@... ; byronenvirocent@... ; ncallahan@... ; mcecil@... ; bobrich@... ; lendmanstephen@... ; ClimateChangeAction@... ; christine.phelps@... ; ben.pearson@... ; john@... ; aha@...
Cc: ian.cohen@... ; be_a_reactor@... ; jimcdavis@... ; michael.denborough@... ; aabcc@... ; graemedunstan@... ; earth@... ; peace@... ; cloud_catcher@... ; k.paasonen1@... ; bewilderness@... ; JunoGemes.pbp@... ; goodtimes@... ; web@... ; thinksolar@... ; shaman@... ; Global-Justice-Alliance@yahoogroups.com ; tughollow@... ; ecofest@... ; Senator.nettle@... ; nattyreddredd@... ; rneville@... ; peaceman2844@...
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:09 AM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: By George Monbiot now. "A few more nukes!"
The only thing 'green' about nuclear power is the cost
By Ed Haffmans
Touting nuclear power (New Green?" May 19) as an alternative to global warming and oil is shortsighted, greed-driven and wrong. When the fossil fuel consumption of the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining, refining, transport, plant construction, shielding, waste disposal, terrorism protection, and capacity factor over the life of the plant are considered, nuclear is a marginal net energy source and substantial greenhouse contributor. The only "green," apart from the glow when things go terribly wrong, is the money lining the pockets of former Greenpeace sell-out Patrick Moore and his ilk.
Pseudoenvironmentalist Moore, through his "Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.," is a paid corporate shill for a host of big-business anti-environment causes.
In the long run, a rethinking of our wasteful lifestyles and various forms of solar energy, which the United States receives more of in just one hour than our entire annual energy consumption, are our only options. Fossil fuels are merely stored solar energy. Uranium is also limited.
Any system that lives on savings while discarding income is doomed to extinction.
Solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, tidal power, and radically improved efficiency remain trivial because our rulers prefer oil wars, nukes and corrupt cronies. Nuclear power has been subsidized to the tune of $150 billion since its inception, 30 times that of all renewables combined. It gets a free ride on insurance that would not be available on the free market. Yet the last nuclear plant built in the United States took 23 years to build and cost $8 billion. For that sum, 1KW grid tied to photovoltaic solar electric systems could be installed on nearly a million American homes, or 8,000 one-megawatt wind turbines could be built way more quickly. Money wasted on nuclear power is money not spent on safe, clean and truly carbon-free alternatives.
Imagine if the $300 billion wasted so far on the Iraq oil war could have been spent on conservation and renewables.
Some European countries are getting 20 percent of their electricity from wind (Denmark), subsidizing biodiesel (Germany), requiring solar water heat on new construction (Spain), and outstripping us in all renewables. PV panels are terrorism proof, replace the energy of manufacture in 6-12 months of use, and last indefinitely.
It's time to replace the corrupt politicians who are shoving nukes and $3 gas down our throats with more folks like U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey and U.S. Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini, who back an Apollo-type program for homegrown terrorism-proof energy independence. And if Demublicans and Republicrats can't do it, maybe it's time to give the Green Party a chance.
Ed Haffmans lives in Accord.
-------
TOMORROW'S FORECASTA few more nukes!
Environmentalists need to face the fact that nuclear power is less dangerous than fossil-fired global warming.
WHEN I TELL my "green" friends that I am rethinking nuclear power, they respond with outrage. I am an environmentalist, and, to a large extent, the green movements in the developed world arose from public concern about atomic energy.
For about 30 years we have seen nuclear power as dangerous, its radioactive wastes as unmanageable, the industry as incompetent and untrustworthy. In the environmental camp, any softening of this opposition is seen as a betrayal.But climate change and falling energy reserves demand that we reopen the question. The nuclear industry now claims that nuclear power is the most reliable answer to the global warming caused by the overuse of fossil fuels. It argues that new technologies make it safe and cheap.
I've spent the last year searching for a way to cut carbon emissions by 90%, which is necessary to prevent runaway global warming. One of the hardest problems is how to generate enough electricity. My sympathies lie with renewable power. Alongside a massive energy-efficiency program, it plainly provides part of the answer. But it cannot supply all of our electricity needs. The rest must come from somewhere, and to dismiss nuclear power without considering what the alternatives involve would be irresponsible.
I still detest the nuclear industry and its efforts to hoodwink the public about its costs, its dangers and its record. But I've reluctantly concluded that some of its arguments have merit.
It is true, for example, that a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl is highly unlikely to happen again because no new power station will be built without a containment vessel, which prevents most radiation from escaping in an accident. But the mining, processing and use of uranium will continue to be accompanied — as they always have been — by leaks into the environment.
It now looks as though radioactive waste can be stored safely. The Finnish authority responsible for nuclear waste disposal has developed a method that looks foolproof. The problem is that it is expensive, and the nuclear industry has a long record of cutting corners. One British company was caught throwing nuclear waste into open shafts it had dug above crumbling coastal cliffs. Another admitted that it had been keeping plutonium in uncovered ponds for more than 30 years. Workers at the U.S. Geological Survey, which is responsible for testing the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada, falsified the rates of water percolation, apparently to make the site seem safer than it is.
After reading reams of conflicting data, I now also believe that global supplies of uranium are not the limiting factor many feared. On the other hand, the threat of nuclear terrorism can never be wholly dismissed, and the more fissile materials that are extracted and refined, the more opportunities there will be for people to obtain them. But although the radiation released by accidents or terrorists could kill hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, climate change caused by burning fossil fuels threatens hundreds of millions.
Though nuclear power is plainly less dangerous than climate change, I would still like to avoid building new plants if possible. But the real danger is this: If we oppose nuclear power without demonstrating that there are viable alternatives, we become, in effect, lobbyists for the coal industry. In Eurasia, there are still abundant supplies of natural gas, but in North America, gas production has already peaked and is in long-term decline. Already, coal supplies 32% of U.S. electricity, while natural gas supplies 24% and nuclear power 10%. As 90% of remaining U.S. fossil energy reserves take the form of coal, gas generators are likely to be replaced by coal plants. The same applies to aging nuclear generators, if they are not replaced by new ones.
If you believe that burning coal sounds more benign than nuclear power, I invite you to turn on your computer and search for images of the >"mountaintop removal" being carried out by coal-mining companies in the Appalachians. It looks as if a nuclear disaster already has happened. The forests have been flattened, the hilltops blown off, the valleys filled with sterile rubble. Coal is also the worst of all fuels as far as climate change is concerned. It contains 40% more carbon per unit of energy than gas.
But if fossil fuels and nuclear power are bad choices, could 90% of the electricity in the United States be generated by greener means? There is no doubt that, if it could be harnessed, the U.S. has enough ambient energy to provide all the electricity it now uses. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute points out that the wind in a few counties in the Dakotas is, in theory, sufficient to supply the entire nation with electricity. Though no one is suggesting that all U.S. energy should be drawn from one >source, the development of cheap, high-voltage direct current, or DC, lines of the kind now used in Brazil, Sweden and Australia would permit even the most remote sources to be exploited. The problem with transporting power has been that the electricity load carried by traditional alternating current, or AC, systems declines as the distance increases. But DC systems don't suffer such "line losses." In principle, DC lines could open up wind and wave power across the entire U.S. continental shelf, and solar electricity throughout its deserts.
What about the cost? Although estimates vary widely, electricity from large-scale wind farms appears to be cheaper than electricity from either nuclear power or coal, and its costs are falling fast. Even solar thermal electricity, a more expensive technology than wind, is now cost-effective in some places. A report published last year showed >that during times of peak demand in Southern California, the cost of electricity produced by solar thermal plants is roughly equal to the wholesale price of conventional power. Peak demand in sunny places, driven by air-conditioning, coincides with maximum solar output.
The problem with alternative energies is that the coincidence of demand and supply is by no means guaranteed. Power companies can fire up their standby coal plant when demand rises, but they can't turn on the wind or ask the sun to shine. This problem can be partly overcome by using long-distance DC cables: When there's a flat calm in New York, there could be a gale blowing in Chicago. The wider the net from which electricity can be drawn, the more reliable ambient power becomes. But beyond a certain point — perhaps 50% or so of total supply — power from intermittent sources cannot be guaranteed. Part of the >remainder could be supplied by burning biomass such as straw or wood. But farm waste is limited, and mass planting of fuel crops has implications for water tables and the global food supply.
So, with gas growing scarcer, where do Americans find the rest of their power? It seems to me that the U.S. has only two choices: either to build a new generation of nuclear plants or to find a genuinely acceptable, nonpolluting means of mining and burning coal.
Such a means might exist, if underground coal gasification fulfills its early promise. In principle, you can partly combust underground coal seams, capture the gas they produce and scrub the pollutants from it, producing either methane or hydrogen. The methane can be burned in power stations and the carbon dioxide in their exhausts extracted and buried, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 90%. The hydrogen could be piped to people's homes and used in mini-generators to provide both electricity and heat. But unless great care is taken, underground combustion could contaminate supplies of groundwater.
Picking "clean coal" or nuclear power is not a choice I would like to make. But if there is one thing I have learned in studying our energy systems, it is that there are no painless solutions.
- To visit our group on the web, go to:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateChangeAction/
Example submissions:
1.
Stop the Honeymoon - uranium submission
Posted by: "jarrah" jarrahhuman@... to the eco-feminist womens group
Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:45 pm (PST)
Posted by: "jarrah" jarrahhuman@... to the eco-feminist womens group
Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:45 pm (PST)
Hi Loves
here's a letter you might want to use/change as a submission to stop a new Uranium mine happening at Honeymoon. they can be sent to: radiationprotection@...
jarrah
14/6/6
To whom it may concern,
Please consider the following submission in regard to Southern Cross Resources Pty Ltd’s Application to commercially mine and mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
I wish to express my grave concern regarding this application, and recommend that the license not be granted for the following reasons.
- Honeymoon is a high-risk venture, with certain, long-term contamination of groundwater as the mine operators will be using acid in-situ leach rather than the less polluting alkaline ISL, and have no responsibility to rehabilitate the groundwater once mining operations have concluded.
- The operation is especially risky as the aquifer to be mined lies below two other aquifers. The uppermost aquifer has been used, mixed with surface water, as drinking water for livestock. The mine's record of spills and leaks demonstrates the high-risk of contamination of other aquifers with sulphuric acid, heavy metals and radioactive particles.
- Among the most significant leaks were the spills of 9,600 litres of ‘process fluid’ (containing significant levels of uranium and radon gas) and the leaking of sulphuric acid into an upper aquifer. The sulphuric acid leak occurred despite claims in the mine’s environmental impact statement that there was “no likelihood water from lower aquifers migrating upwards” (12).
- Spokespeople from the mine have stated in the past that there is “no guarantee against similar leaks in the future” (13), and that they “expect that [leaks and spills] will happen from time to time” (14).
- The aquifer is not sealed, but rather travels to a discharge point near Lake Frome, meaning that all radioactive mine waste and heavy metals will be carried through the groundwater.
- Granting approval to the Honeymoon mine directly contravenes the recommendations of the 2003 Senate Committee Report, which expressed its “grave reservations” about the operation and recommended that “the project should not proceed”.
For these reasons, I seriously urge the Environment Protection Authority to not grant a license to commercially mine and mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
Sincerely,
-------------------
here's a letter you might want to use/change as a submission to stop a new Uranium mine happening at Honeymoon. they can be sent to: radiationprotection@...
jarrah
14/6/6
To whom it may concern,
Please consider the following submission in regard to Southern Cross Resources Pty Ltd’s Application to commercially mine and mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
I wish to express my grave concern regarding this application, and recommend that the license not be granted for the following reasons.
- Honeymoon is a high-risk venture, with certain, long-term contamination of groundwater as the mine operators will be using acid in-situ leach rather than the less polluting alkaline ISL, and have no responsibility to rehabilitate the groundwater once mining operations have concluded.
- The operation is especially risky as the aquifer to be mined lies below two other aquifers. The uppermost aquifer has been used, mixed with surface water, as drinking water for livestock. The mine's record of spills and leaks demonstrates the high-risk of contamination of other aquifers with sulphuric acid, heavy metals and radioactive particles.
- Among the most significant leaks were the spills of 9,600 litres of ‘process fluid’ (containing significant levels of uranium and radon gas) and the leaking of sulphuric acid into an upper aquifer. The sulphuric acid leak occurred despite claims in the mine’s environmental impact statement that there was “no likelihood water from lower aquifers migrating upwards” (12).
- Spokespeople from the mine have stated in the past that there is “no guarantee against similar leaks in the future” (13), and that they “expect that [leaks and spills] will happen from time to time” (14).
- The aquifer is not sealed, but rather travels to a discharge point near Lake Frome, meaning that all radioactive mine waste and heavy metals will be carried through the groundwater.
- Granting approval to the Honeymoon mine directly contravenes the recommendations of the 2003 Senate Committee Report, which expressed its “grave reservations” about the operation and recommended that “the project should not proceed”.
For these reasons, I seriously urge the Environment Protection Authority to not grant a license to commercially mine and mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
Sincerely,
-------------------
2.
ACT NOW to prevent new SA uranium mine
Posted by: "Sophie Green" thesootyshow@...
Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:05 pm (PST)
The Rann government is pushing for a new uranium mine - the
Honeymoon mine - located in SA's east. The mine has just applied
for its final license, with the Rann Government implying that it
should have no problem being approved to go into full production.
This is potentially breaking Premier Rann's election commitments
both in 2002 and 2006, and breaching the binding South Australian
Platform for Government, which commits the Labor Party to "oppose
the establishment of any new uranium mine in SA".
It is crucial to demonstrate to this government that the
community is still strongly opposed to further nuclear
developments. Submissions close on June 30, less than 15 days to
go!! Get typing now! (information and a proforma letter is below)
CALL THE HONEYMOON OFF!
Friends of the Earth Adelaide, June 2006
In May 2006, South African-Canadian mining company SXR Uranium
One applied for a license to commercially mine uranium at
Honeymoon, 75 kilometres north-west of Broken Hill. The mine is
projected to mine 400 tonnes of uranium a year for only six to
eight years (1). Despite its relatively small-scale, in this
period the mine operators will procedurally dump radioactive
waste into groundwater, with no responsibility to rehabilitate it
after concluding their operations.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has reportedly expressed his
support for the project with claims that the mine already has all
the approvals it needs (2). However, the 2003 Senate Committee
Report into Australia's uranium mines emphasises, with the
confirmation of SXR, that without the Commercial Uranium Mining
and Milling License under the Radiation Protection and
Control Act 1982, the approval process for the mine is incomplete
(3).
If the South Australian Government grants approval to
commercially mine uranium at Honeymoon , it is potentially a
breach of the binding SA Platform for Government, which commits
the Labor Party to "oppose the establishment of any new uranium
mine in SA" and of election commitments from Premier Rann both in
2002 and 2006.
Acid In-situ Leach Uranium mining
The proposed Honeymoon uranium mine will use the controversial
'acid in-situ leach' (ISL) mining process. Where it has been
used in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, acid ISL has
left a legacy of serious groundwater and surface contamination.
In the US, acid ISL is not used commercially in favour of
alkaline ISL which allows groundwater to be rehabilitated.
Acid ISL mining involves injecting large quantities of sulphuric
acid into groundwater to dissolve uranium present in aquifers.
The sulphuric acid solution, containing the dissolved uranium, is
pumped back up to the surface, processed and the mine waste
(including radioactive particles and heavy metals) is dumped back
into the groundwater. These toxic and radioactive substances are
now mobile in the aquifer and capable of spreading to pollute
connected groundwater systems. The 2003 Senate Report emphasised
that "at the very least, [acid ISL mines] should be subject to
strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of
radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing,
regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts
are minimized" (4). However, under existing conditions, neither
the Beverley nor Honeymoon mines would be required to
rehabilitate the groundwater after the mine's operations
conclude. As experience with the Beverley mine in the northern Flinders Ranges
has shown, acid in-situ leach mining also carries a constant
threat of surface contamination through spills and leaks.
The Honeymoon mine is especially complicated as the operators
seek to mine the lowest of three hydrologically connected
aquifers. This requires the mine to drill through the upper two
aquifers in order to access the lowest 'basal' aquifer. In times
of drought, water from the uppermost aquifer has been mixed with
surface water and used as drinking water for livestock.
Even during its experimental phase Honeymoon was plagued by
spills and accidents. Six spills were recorded at the Honeymoon
trial mine in 1999, including one spill of '9,600 litres of
"process fluid" (5), which had a significant uranium and toxic
radon gas content (6), and another in which
sulphuric acid injected into the groundwater as part of the mine
process traveled upwards, contaminating a higher aquifer (7).
None of these spills were revealed to the public until after the
project had safely been granted state and federal approvals. The
mine's then project manager described how the acid had apparently
passed through a clay layer previously considered
impervious, stating that "we expect that [spills and leaks] will
happen from time to time" (8). Additionally, Honeymoon's aquifer
is not contained, with the groundwater moving at a rate of up to
20 metres per year to a discharge point understood to be near
Lake Frome in the west (9).
The 2003 Senate Committee Report concluded that "the Committee
has grave reservations about the commencement of full-scale
mining at Honeymoon. The use of the contentious ISL mining method
coupled with the doubts surrounding the nature of the Honeymoon
aquifer and its connectivity with other aquifers is reason enough
for the Committee to recommend that the project should not
proceed" (10).
In 1983, Premier John Bannon refused approval to an earlier
proposal for acid leach uranium mining at Honeymoon, citing
environmental concerns and public opposition. These concerns
remain.
Take action!
The South Australian Government has offered a four week public
consultation period in regard to the Honeymoon license
application, closing on 30 June 2006. This final stage of
approvals for the mine is designed to assess whether the proposal
adequately protects workers, the public and the
environment from radiological hazards under the Radiation
Protection and Control Act.
It's essential to make submissions to demonstrate community
opposition to this small-scale, yet high-risk venture. Uranium
mining and exports have no place in a truly sustainable future
and should be phased out, not expanded. With its small scale and
short mine life, Honeymoon is a fitting illustration of the
concerns raised by the 2003 Senate Committee Report. The report
stated that the "shortcomings in the operations of all
[Australia's uranium mines] suggests that short-term
considerations have been given greater weight than the potential
for permanent damage to the environment.(11)"
-----
There is no set format for submissions, however, a formal letter
structure is a good guide. For example,
Your address
Date
Recipient's address
To whom it may concern,
Please consider the following submission in regard to Southern
Cross Resources Pty Ltd's Application to commercially mine and
mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
I wish to express my grave concern regarding this application,
and recommend that the license not be granted for the following
reasons.
--------------
When making a submission, emphasise some or all of these points:
- Honeymoon is a high-risk venture, with certain,
long-term contamination of groundwater as the mine operators will
be using acid in-situ leach rather than the less polluting
alkaline ISL, and have no responsibility to rehabilitate the
groundwater once mining operations have concluded.
- The operation is especially risky as the aquifer to be
mined lies below two other aquifers. The uppermost aquifer has
been used, mixed with surface water, as drinking water for
livestock. The mine's record of spills and leaks demonstrates the
high-risk of contamination of other aquifers with sulphuric acid,
heavy metals and radioactive particles.
- Among the most significant leaks were the spills of
9,600 litres of 'process fluid' (containing significant levels of
uranium and radon gas) and the leaking of sulphuric acid into an
upper aquifer. The sulphuric acid leak occurred despite claims in
the mine's environmental impact statement that there was "no
likelihood water from lower aquifers migrating upwards"
(12).
- Spokespeople from the mine have stated in the past
that there is "no guarantee against similar leaks in the future"
(13), and that they "expect that [leaks and spills] will happen
from time to time" (14).
- The aquifer is not sealed, but rather travels to a
discharge point near Lake Frome, meaning that all radioactive
mine waste and heavy metals will be carried through the
groundwater.
- Granting approval to the Honeymoon mine directly
contravenes the recommendations of the 2003 Senate Committee
Report, which expressed its "grave reservations" about the
operation and recommended that "the project should not proceed".
For these reasons, I seriously urge the Environment Protection
Authority to not grant a license to commercially mine and mill
radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
Sincerely,
Your name
-----
More information on making submissions regarding this development
is available at http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/honeymoon.html
<http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/honeymoon.html> . This website also
contains the license application and information regarding waste
management and the mine's waste and radiation management plans,
which you can respond directly to, although the more general
comments suggested above are also acceptable.
Submissions can be mailed to:
Keith Baldry
Director, Radiation Protection Division
Environment Protection Authority
PO Box 721, KENT TOWN SA 5071
or emailed to radiationprotection@...
References
1 Chandler, J 2006, 'The honeymoon may be over for this site,
which is
slated as our next uranium mine' The Age, 9 April 2006, p. 9
2 Sunday Territorian 2006, 'Honeymoon mine set to go ahead',
Sunday
Territorian, 2 April 2006, p. 21
3 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and
Honeymoon
uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 217
4 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and
Honeymoon
uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. xvii
5 Hockley, C 2001a, 'New doubts on uranium mine safety', The
Advertiser, 19
August 2001, p. 8
6 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, 'Executive Summary and Recommendations',
Regulating the
Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines,
Commonwealth of
Australia, p. 226
7 Hockley, C 2001b, 'Company denies "inconsistency"', The
Advertiser, 12
December 2001, p. 8
8 Hockley, C 2001c, 'Honeymoon uranium mine acid leak', The
Advertiser, 6
December 2001, p. 1-2
9 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and
Honeymoon
uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 209-210.
10 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the
Arts
References Committee 2003, 'Executive Summary and
Recommendations',
Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium
mines,
Commonwealth of Australia, p. xvii
11 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the
Arts
References Committee 2003, 'Executive Summary and
Recommendations',
Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium
mines,
Commonwealth of Australia, p. ix
12 Hockley, C 2001 'Company denies "inconsistency"', The
Advertiser, 12
December 2001, p. 8
13 AAP 2001, 'Honeymoon leak prompts calls for uranium mine
review', AAP, 6
December 2001
14 Hockley, C 2001 'Company denies "inconsistency"', The
Advertiser, 12
December 2001, p. 8
Posted by: "Sophie Green" thesootyshow@...
Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:05 pm (PST)
The Rann government is pushing for a new uranium mine - the
Honeymoon mine - located in SA's east. The mine has just applied
for its final license, with the Rann Government implying that it
should have no problem being approved to go into full production.
This is potentially breaking Premier Rann's election commitments
both in 2002 and 2006, and breaching the binding South Australian
Platform for Government, which commits the Labor Party to "oppose
the establishment of any new uranium mine in SA".
It is crucial to demonstrate to this government that the
community is still strongly opposed to further nuclear
developments. Submissions close on June 30, less than 15 days to
go!! Get typing now! (information and a proforma letter is below)
CALL THE HONEYMOON OFF!
Friends of the Earth Adelaide, June 2006
In May 2006, South African-Canadian mining company SXR Uranium
One applied for a license to commercially mine uranium at
Honeymoon, 75 kilometres north-west of Broken Hill. The mine is
projected to mine 400 tonnes of uranium a year for only six to
eight years (1). Despite its relatively small-scale, in this
period the mine operators will procedurally dump radioactive
waste into groundwater, with no responsibility to rehabilitate it
after concluding their operations.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has reportedly expressed his
support for the project with claims that the mine already has all
the approvals it needs (2). However, the 2003 Senate Committee
Report into Australia's uranium mines emphasises, with the
confirmation of SXR, that without the Commercial Uranium Mining
and Milling License under the Radiation Protection and
Control Act 1982, the approval process for the mine is incomplete
(3).
If the South Australian Government grants approval to
commercially mine uranium at Honeymoon , it is potentially a
breach of the binding SA Platform for Government, which commits
the Labor Party to "oppose the establishment of any new uranium
mine in SA" and of election commitments from Premier Rann both in
2002 and 2006.
Acid In-situ Leach Uranium mining
The proposed Honeymoon uranium mine will use the controversial
'acid in-situ leach' (ISL) mining process. Where it has been
used in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, acid ISL has
left a legacy of serious groundwater and surface contamination.
In the US, acid ISL is not used commercially in favour of
alkaline ISL which allows groundwater to be rehabilitated.
Acid ISL mining involves injecting large quantities of sulphuric
acid into groundwater to dissolve uranium present in aquifers.
The sulphuric acid solution, containing the dissolved uranium, is
pumped back up to the surface, processed and the mine waste
(including radioactive particles and heavy metals) is dumped back
into the groundwater. These toxic and radioactive substances are
now mobile in the aquifer and capable of spreading to pollute
connected groundwater systems. The 2003 Senate Report emphasised
that "at the very least, [acid ISL mines] should be subject to
strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of
radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing,
regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts
are minimized" (4). However, under existing conditions, neither
the Beverley nor Honeymoon mines would be required to
rehabilitate the groundwater after the mine's operations
conclude. As experience with the Beverley mine in the northern Flinders Ranges
has shown, acid in-situ leach mining also carries a constant
threat of surface contamination through spills and leaks.
The Honeymoon mine is especially complicated as the operators
seek to mine the lowest of three hydrologically connected
aquifers. This requires the mine to drill through the upper two
aquifers in order to access the lowest 'basal' aquifer. In times
of drought, water from the uppermost aquifer has been mixed with
surface water and used as drinking water for livestock.
Even during its experimental phase Honeymoon was plagued by
spills and accidents. Six spills were recorded at the Honeymoon
trial mine in 1999, including one spill of '9,600 litres of
"process fluid" (5), which had a significant uranium and toxic
radon gas content (6), and another in which
sulphuric acid injected into the groundwater as part of the mine
process traveled upwards, contaminating a higher aquifer (7).
None of these spills were revealed to the public until after the
project had safely been granted state and federal approvals. The
mine's then project manager described how the acid had apparently
passed through a clay layer previously considered
impervious, stating that "we expect that [spills and leaks] will
happen from time to time" (8). Additionally, Honeymoon's aquifer
is not contained, with the groundwater moving at a rate of up to
20 metres per year to a discharge point understood to be near
Lake Frome in the west (9).
The 2003 Senate Committee Report concluded that "the Committee
has grave reservations about the commencement of full-scale
mining at Honeymoon. The use of the contentious ISL mining method
coupled with the doubts surrounding the nature of the Honeymoon
aquifer and its connectivity with other aquifers is reason enough
for the Committee to recommend that the project should not
proceed" (10).
In 1983, Premier John Bannon refused approval to an earlier
proposal for acid leach uranium mining at Honeymoon, citing
environmental concerns and public opposition. These concerns
remain.
Take action!
The South Australian Government has offered a four week public
consultation period in regard to the Honeymoon license
application, closing on 30 June 2006. This final stage of
approvals for the mine is designed to assess whether the proposal
adequately protects workers, the public and the
environment from radiological hazards under the Radiation
Protection and Control Act.
It's essential to make submissions to demonstrate community
opposition to this small-scale, yet high-risk venture. Uranium
mining and exports have no place in a truly sustainable future
and should be phased out, not expanded. With its small scale and
short mine life, Honeymoon is a fitting illustration of the
concerns raised by the 2003 Senate Committee Report. The report
stated that the "shortcomings in the operations of all
[Australia's uranium mines] suggests that short-term
considerations have been given greater weight than the potential
for permanent damage to the environment.(11)"
-----
There is no set format for submissions, however, a formal letter
structure is a good guide. For example,
Your address
Date
Recipient's address
To whom it may concern,
Please consider the following submission in regard to Southern
Cross Resources Pty Ltd's Application to commercially mine and
mill radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
I wish to express my grave concern regarding this application,
and recommend that the license not be granted for the following
reasons.
--------------
When making a submission, emphasise some or all of these points:
- Honeymoon is a high-risk venture, with certain,
long-term contamination of groundwater as the mine operators will
be using acid in-situ leach rather than the less polluting
alkaline ISL, and have no responsibility to rehabilitate the
groundwater once mining operations have concluded.
- The operation is especially risky as the aquifer to be
mined lies below two other aquifers. The uppermost aquifer has
been used, mixed with surface water, as drinking water for
livestock. The mine's record of spills and leaks demonstrates the
high-risk of contamination of other aquifers with sulphuric acid,
heavy metals and radioactive particles.
- Among the most significant leaks were the spills of
9,600 litres of 'process fluid' (containing significant levels of
uranium and radon gas) and the leaking of sulphuric acid into an
upper aquifer. The sulphuric acid leak occurred despite claims in
the mine's environmental impact statement that there was "no
likelihood water from lower aquifers migrating upwards"
(12).
- Spokespeople from the mine have stated in the past
that there is "no guarantee against similar leaks in the future"
(13), and that they "expect that [leaks and spills] will happen
from time to time" (14).
- The aquifer is not sealed, but rather travels to a
discharge point near Lake Frome, meaning that all radioactive
mine waste and heavy metals will be carried through the
groundwater.
- Granting approval to the Honeymoon mine directly
contravenes the recommendations of the 2003 Senate Committee
Report, which expressed its "grave reservations" about the
operation and recommended that "the project should not proceed".
For these reasons, I seriously urge the Environment Protection
Authority to not grant a license to commercially mine and mill
radioactive ores at the Honeymoon site.
Sincerely,
Your name
-----
More information on making submissions regarding this development
is available at http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/honeymoon.html
<http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/honeymoon.html> . This website also
contains the license application and information regarding waste
management and the mine's waste and radiation management plans,
which you can respond directly to, although the more general
comments suggested above are also acceptable.
Submissions can be mailed to:
Keith Baldry
Director, Radiation Protection Division
Environment Protection Authority
PO Box 721, KENT TOWN SA 5071
or emailed to radiationprotection@...
References
1 Chandler, J 2006, 'The honeymoon may be over for this site,
which is
slated as our next uranium mine' The Age, 9 April 2006, p. 9
2 Sunday Territorian 2006, 'Honeymoon mine set to go ahead',
Sunday
Territorian, 2 April 2006, p. 21
3 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and
Honeymoon
uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 217
4 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and
Honeymoon
uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. xvii
5 Hockley, C 2001a, 'New doubts on uranium mine safety', The
Advertiser, 19
August 2001, p. 8
6 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, 'Executive Summary and Recommendations',
Regulating the
Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines,
Commonwealth of
Australia, p. 226
7 Hockley, C 2001b, 'Company denies "inconsistency"', The
Advertiser, 12
December 2001, p. 8
8 Hockley, C 2001c, 'Honeymoon uranium mine acid leak', The
Advertiser, 6
December 2001, p. 1-2
9 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts
References
Committee 2003, Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and
Honeymoon
uranium mines, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 209-210.
10 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the
Arts
References Committee 2003, 'Executive Summary and
Recommendations',
Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium
mines,
Commonwealth of Australia, p. xvii
11 Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the
Arts
References Committee 2003, 'Executive Summary and
Recommendations',
Regulating the Ranger, Jabiluka, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium
mines,
Commonwealth of Australia, p. ix
12 Hockley, C 2001 'Company denies "inconsistency"', The
Advertiser, 12
December 2001, p. 8
13 AAP 2001, 'Honeymoon leak prompts calls for uranium mine
review', AAP, 6
December 2001
14 Hockley, C 2001 'Company denies "inconsistency"', The
Advertiser, 12
December 2001, p. 8
the two submissions are reposted here via the list: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/eco-feministwomen/
Offline 
Send Email