AMSJ » How safe is Uranium
LATEST NEWS

How safe is Uranium

Chief Executive of the Australian Uranium Association, Michael Angwin, dispels some of the safety myths surrounding this valuable, and highly controversial mineral.

2005 Packing Shed 570600The future of nuclear power, and the uranium mining industry that supports it, has been the subject of much debate recently.

The nuclear power accident that occurred at the Fukushima plant in Japan in March 2011 caused many to question the legitimacy of nuclear power as part of our modern, global energy mix.

But make no mistake – although the legacy of Fukushima has created particular challenges for the industry – nuclear power still has an important role to play as a source of clean, reliable energy.

The consensus among respected forecasters is that nuclear power capacity will grow absolutely and will maintain its share of the world’s electricity supply. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency, nuclear power capacity will continue to expand into the foreseeable future, by at least 25% by 2035. The source of the expansion will mainly be Asia and Eastern Europe. The forecasts acknowledge that there could be a decline in nuclear capacity in Western Europe, but this will not be enough to offset the growth in Asia.

The long-term outlook is clear; nuclear is here to stay. And this is where there is an opportunity for uranium businesses – because supplying nuclear growth requires new sources of mined uranium.

Uranium mining in Australia The development of the Australian uranium mining industry has had a bumpy history, subject to the political ideologies of the governments of the day at the national level as well as the state and territory levels.

State/TerritoryExploration  Mining
New South WalesYN
Northern TerritoryYY
QueenslandYY
South AustraliaYY
TasmaniaYY
VictoriaNN
Western AustraliaYY

STATUS OF POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR THE AUSTRALIAN URANIUM INDUSTRY, FEBRUARY 2013

However, developments in the past 12 months point to broader and growing support from political leaders across the county.

The first of these most recent developments was the announcement by the New South Wales Government that it would overturn a ban on exploration for uranium in that state (although the ban on mining still remains in place). This was followed by the newly elected Newman Government announcing it would permit uranium mining in Queensland. With these changes in state policy there is now a positive investment environment for uranium in a majority of Australian states. Only Victoria prohibits all uranium-related activities.

Perhaps of greatest significance for the industry however, was the agreement in October 2012 between Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and her Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh, to negotiate a treaty for the export of Australian uranium to India. This decision has elevated the issue of uranium mining in Australia to a strategic policy issue for the nation and Australia now appears on the path towards having a complete and fully articulated national uranium policy.

These developments have all occurred since the Fukushima nuclear accident, a period which has presented many opportunities for critics of uranium to attack our industry. Despite this challenging environment, we have slowly seen a shift towards greater political support for our industry, a situation which would not have been possible without a strong commitment by industry to continuous improvement in its operations and management practices – a commitment which builds on an existing record of solid performance.

“The uranium industry has been closely involved with the establishment of a national database to record career radiation dose histories of all uranium mine workers.”

In fact, today’s uranium mines have a very good operational record of responsible environmental management and conservative radiation protection practices, in order to ensure the safety of their workers and the communities in which they operate. Let’s take a look at what the record shows:

104628729REPORT S URANIUM MINES IN AUSTRALIA

Olympic Dam

BHP Billiton’s Annual Radiation Protection Report for 2010/11 of its Olympic Dam operations reports that the average dose for its underground mine workers during the year was 3 millisieverts; the maximum was 7 millisieverts. It also reports a consistent reduction of dose over the past five years.

Public radiation exposure for the Roxby Downs township and the Olympic Dam village (which is closer to the mine) was estimated at 0.009 millisieverts for the year and 0.006 millisieverts for the year respectively. The dose contributed by the operation was indistinguishable from the background radiation; that is, it was below the limit of detection.

Ranger

Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA), operator of the Ranger Uranium Mine, reported in its annual report for 2010/2011 that the radiation exposure of its uranium workers is well below the legislated maximums – less than a quarter – and is declining.

The effective dose for members of the public is consistently one-twentieth to one-tenth of the maximum permitted dose.

Beverley

Heathgate Resources’ 2010 annual reporting against its Beverley Uranium Mine Radiation Management Plan reports that:

“Doses to employees and contractors at the Beverley Uranium Mine remained low during the year.

The average dose of 0.28 mSv was less than the annual effective dose limit of 1 mSv to members of the public as stipulated in the South Australian Radiation Protection and Control (Ionising Radiation) Regulations 2000. The maximum dose for the year was 2.69 mSv, also well below the employee dose limits of 20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 years or 50 mSv/yr in any one year.1

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE INDUSTRY

Australian uranium projects have a track record of meeting the highest standards of environmental assessment and approval under mainstream project assessment and approval processes.

Since 2008, four uranium projects have been approved under state and federal environmental laws:

  • The Beverley Mine expansion, located in South Australia. Federal Environment Minister Garrett approved the expansion after a ‘comprehensive, scientifically robust and transparent process that showed the expansion ‘would have no impact on water quality within the Great Artesian Basin’ and would operate ‘as world’s best practice’ (August 2008).
  • The Four Mile Uranium Mine, located in South Australia. Federal Environment Minister Garrett approved this mine and was ‘certain this operation poses no credible threat to the environment’ (July 2009).
  • The expansion of Olympic Dam, located in South Australia. Federal Environment Minister Burke approved the expansion with conditions that ‘ensure the proposal meets world-best practice environmental standards …protection of the natural environment’ (October 2011).
  • The Wiluna Uranium Mine, located in Western Australia (WA). WA’s Environmental Protection Authority recommended the approval of the mine which would meet ‘the EPA’s objectives for key environmental factors including radiation management, transport, mine closure and rehabilitation, groundwater and water supply, surface water, air quality, flora and vegetation, fauna and habitat and Aboriginal heritage’ (May 2012). Recently, WA’s resources and environment ministers moved the project through the next stages of the approval process. The project awaits a Commonwealth decision by Federal Environment Minister Burke.

Not only do Australia’s modern uranium mines have a history of meeting tough approval processes, they also have a good record of environmental performance once they are up and running. The proof is this; there is no track record of regulatory, let alone punitive, intervention by governments or their authorities against the industry because of incidents leading to observable, recordable or lasting environmental impact. But there is a track record of uranium mining operations that authorities recognise as consistent with, or better than, the industry’s environmental obligations.

Of course there are environmental incidents from time to time, as in any mining operation. However few have been serious enough to attract regulatory scrutiny or action.

Take the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory as a case in point.

The environmental performance of this mine is scrutinised by the Office of the Supervising Scientist, a division of the Commonwealth Environment Department.

In its 2010/2011 annual report, the Supervising Scientist reported that:

‘During the year there were no reported incidents that resulted in any environmental impact off the immediate mine site. The extensive monitoring and research programs of the Supervising Scientist Division (SSD) confirm that the environment has remained protected through the period.’

The Supervising Scientist has reported on Ranger’s performance in these terms for the past 30 years.

There have been incidents but there is no track record of punitive intervention.

In South Australia, where there is a long history of uranium mining, companies report publicly on a variety of bases to regulatory authorities.

Reports are scrutinised and, if necessary, action is taken by the authorities. There are many reports but little regulatory intervention required. Why? Because the operational performance of the uranium industry is a good one.

“ There are many reports but little regulatory intervention required. Why? Because the operational performance of the uranium industry is a good one.”

RADIATION PROTECTION OF WORKERS AND THE PUBLIC

The uranium industry recognises that radiation can be hazardous and must be managed safely.

Radiation associated with uranium operations is generally low-level radiation which uranium companies manage as part of their daily operations. Uranium companies manage the ways in which workers, the public and the environment are exposed to radiation and keep doses well below regulated limits.

The uranium industry has thoroughly-developed best-practice systems and processes for minimising radiation hazard and keeping risk as low as reasonably achievable. The systems the industry uses and the practices they embody are based on the globally-agreed fundamental science of radiation and radiation protection.

A long-established collection of international organisations interpret the science of radiation and health physics to produce globally-agreed standards, policies and guidelines for the protection of people and the environment from the potential effects of radiation.

This expert network includes the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which is the world authority on radiation and its effects on human beings. Distinguished scientists comprise the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the world’s leading radiation protection body. The ICRP takes UNSCEAR’s work into account when making recommendations and providing guidance on all aspects of protection against ionising radiation. The ICRP says its main objective is to provide an “appropriate standard of protection …. without unduly limiting beneficial practices giving rise to radiation exposure”.

RADIATION PROTECTION IN PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA

In Australia, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) establishes the standards for radiation protection of workers and the public.

ARPANSA’s dose limits, which are internationally developed and applied limits, for ionizing radiation are set out in the table below:

Occupational Public 
Effective dose 20 millisieverts per year, averaged over a period of 5 consecutive calendar years 1 millisievert in a year

Best practice radiation management is a key element of the Australian Uranium Association’s (AUA) governance and standards framework. The AUA Code of Practice, with which all member companies must comply as a condition of membership, encourages companies to perform better than regulated requirements wherever possible and to improve practice continually.

Companies which operate uranium facilities are legally accountable for ensuring radiation risk is managed to ensure workers, the public and the environment are protected from harm.

Again, we can look at the operational performance of Australia’s uranium mines for evidence of the industry’s record of radiation protection performance. Their results are all reported publicly through the relevant regulatory authorities.

The result of the radiation protection measures taken by the uranium industry is that doses to workers average less than a quarter of the occupational limit and public doses are well below a tenth of the public dose limit. Uranium exploration, mining, production and transport give rise to very low levels of exposure which have no proved damaging effect on human health.

“The truth is, radiation is a well understood, naturally occurring phenomenon that is managed well by the industry.”

Sealed stacked and strapped drums

THE KEY FACTS URANIUM BY THE NUMBERS

AUSTRALIA HAS THE LARGEST ENDOW MENT OF URANIUM 31% OF THE WORLD’S RESOURCE

AUSTRALIA CURRENTLY SUPPLIES AROUND 1/8 (APPROXIMATELY 12%) OF WO RLD DEMAND FOR URANIUM  EACH YEAR

NUMBER OF OPERATING URANIUM MINES IN AUSTRALIA
4
 OLYMPIC DAM
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

RANGER
NORTHERN TERRITORY

BEVERLEY
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

HONEYMOON
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

EXPORT REVENUES IN 2016-17 ARE FORECAST TO BE NEARLY $ 2 BILLION $AUS

RECORDING URANIUM WORKERS’ RADIATION DOSE HISTORIES

The uranium industry has been closely involved with the establishment of a national database to record career radiation dose histories of all uranium mine workers, no matter where they work or live. The National Radiation Dose Register allows uranium workers to check their own radiation dose histories as they move from mine to mine or between jurisdictions. The register will also permit the production of trend reports on recorded worker doses over time.

The register has been operating since July 2012 and holds career dose data for around 24,000 people who have worked in the uranium industry. Mine operators collect the data and provide it to ARPANSA, which operates the register, and holds the data for workers to access privately.

As the uranium mining industry grows in Australia, the uranium industry will urge governments to make the necessary legislative provisions to allow mines to be exempted from privacy restrictions that would prevent the mining companies contributing their employees’ dose data to the register.

Currently limited to uranium mining, the coverage of the dose register might be extended to other industries in which radiation exposure of workers is a consideration in occupational health and safety.

Monitoring of worker dose levels is an essential part of ensuring that uranium miners remain safe and healthy. This is central in the continuing efforts of the uranium industry to operate to the highest standard of environment, community and employee safety.

UP TO STANDARD

The industry has well-tried systems and processes for ensuring emissions from mines and radiation doses for workers in mines and processing plants are kept to very low levels, consistently well below the limits set by federal and state regulatory agencies.

Cameco_MG_2689ENSURING THE SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF URANIUM

The product that is produced at a mine ready for export is called uranium oxide concentrate (UOC); it is also commonly known as ‘yellowcake’. An international system of practices and protocols exists to regulate the packing and moving of UOC, which performs the dual function of ensuring the safe and secure transport of uranium product.

Before it can be transported off the mine site, the UOC must be sealed in 200-litre steel drums in accordance with requirements set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The drums are then stowed securely into shipping containers, secured to international standards using a webbed Kevlar-based strapping system. This effectively means that the UOC is ‘double encapsulated’ – an inner sealed container (drum) contained within an outer shipping container. This practice minimises the likelihood of a spill as the result of an incident.

The drums of UOC are tightly sealed and monitored prior to container loading. The accidental dispersal of radioactive material via dust or mud on equipment leaving the site is prevented because anything leaving the mine site is washed, then checked. Only after passing a contamination clearance process, and formally recorded as clean, may it leave the mine site.

Each drum is also registered and recorded before the shipping container is sealed. The containers are locked and are not opened, unless for official inspections, until they reach their overseas destination, thus ensuring the secure movement of the product.

There is little radiation risk when UOC is packed for transport and it is safe for personnel to work near the containers during packing and loading.

In Australia, the Australian Safeguards and Non- Proliferation Office (ASNO) licenses each shipment of uranium oxide to depart the mine site and for export. Uranium is transported by road or rail following the normal routes for commercial transport.

Since the early 1980s, over 6800 containers of uranium from the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory, over 3600 from Olympic Dam in South Australia and 583 from the Beverley Uranium Mine, also in South Australia, have been transported to ports at Adelaide or Darwin with no incidents involving a spillage of uranium oxide over that period.

CONCLUSION

Uranium mine operators have an exemplary record in the area of radiation protection. The Australian Uranium Association, by requiring Member adherence to its Charter, Code of Practice and operational guidance framework, seeks to ensure that uranium mining and exploration companies continually look to improve the way they operate.

PROFILE
Michael Angwin

CEO, Australian Uranium Asociation

Michael Angwin is the inaugural chief executive of the Australian Uranium Association, appointed in 2006. He has been responsible for establishing the Association, its decision-making processes, its agenda and its advocacy approach. Michael has been a senior executive at the Business Council of Australia and in the Commonwealth and Victorian public services, Rio Tinto’s Chief Employee Relations Adviser and the principal of a consulting business.

REFERENCES

1 http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Radiation/Report/beverley_2010.pdf

Supervising Scientist Annual Report 2010/2011, page xi

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment