DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining Nuclear Development 2014 Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining Managing Environmental Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining NEA Nuclear Development Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7062 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of 31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency. The mission of the NEA is: – to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; – to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development. Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda. © OECD 2014 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) [email protected]. Cover photos: Helmsdorf tailings disposal area, Germany (A. Jakubik/Wismut); McClean Lake tailings management area, Canada (AREVA). FOREWORD Foreword Uranium is the raw material used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants that generate significant amounts of electricity with life cycle carbon emissions that are as low as renewable energy sources. However, the mining of this valuable energy commodity remains controversial, principally because of environmental and health impacts associated with the early years of uranium mining. Maximising production in the face of rapidly rising demand was the principal goal of uranium mining at the time, with little concern given to properly managing environmental and health impacts. Today, societal expectations and regulation of the industry are directed much more towards radiation protection, environmental stewardship, health and safety. With over 430 operational reactors in the world, nuclear fuel will be required for many decades in order to meet requirements to fuel the existing fleet and demand created by new reactors, given the projected growth in nuclear generating capacity, particularly in the developing world. New mines will in turn be needed. As a result, enhancing awareness of leading practices in uranium mining is increasingly important. This report aims to dispel some of the myths, fears and misconceptions about uranium mining by providing an overview of how leading practice mining can significantly reduce all impacts compared to the early strategic period. It also provides a non-technical overview of leading practices, the regulatory environment in which mining companies operate and the outcomes of implementing such practices. Societal expectations related to environmental protection and the safety of workers and the public evolved considerably as the outcomes of the early era of mining became apparent, driving changes in regulatory oversight and mining practices. Uranium mining is now conducted under significantly different circumstances, with leading practice mining the most regulated and one of the safest and environmentally responsible forms of mining in the world. In support of this statement, this report provides an overview of the evolution of mining practices and outlines how health and environmental impacts of leading practice uranium mines are managed and minimised. All aspects of the full life cycle of a mine are covered, from the time that a deposit is considered to be of economic interest for mining to the time that mining is completed, the facility is closed and remediated and control of the leased land is returned to the landowner, usually the government. Case studies are included to further demonstrate the scale of the changes undertaken as well as to outline the outcomes of historic and modern mining practices. This report provides a factual account of leading practices in order to inform public debate on uranium mine development and to provide policy makers with a framework of approaches that should be undertaken to ensure that uranium mining is conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Key components in achieving this goal include the establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework, planning for closure before the mine begins production, requiring financial assurance from companies to cover the costs of closure and remediation, application of leading practices to minimise radiation exposure of workers and the public, protection of water resources and the safe, long-term disposal of tailings and problematic waste rock. Public consultation and information sharing, environmental impact assessment and environmental monitoring throughout the life cycle of the mine facility are also shown to be crucial components of this framework. MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF URANIUM MINING, NEA No. 7062, © OECD 2014 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Mr Robert Vance of the NEA Nuclear Development Division, with input and oversight provided by an ad hoc expert group nominated by member countries. The NEA wishes to express its appreciation to the members of this group: Ms Nicole Hinton, Australia Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (Chair); Mr Dale Huffman, AREVA Resources Canada (Co-chair); Mr Frank Harris, Rio Tinto Uranium, Australia; Mr Nikolas Arnold, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria; Ms Eeva Ruokonen, Talvivaara Mining Company Plc, Finland; Mr Alexander Jakubick, Uranium Mining and Remediation Exchange Group, Germany; Mr Zekail Tyulyubayev, Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan and Mr William von Till, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr Kevin Scissons (KHS Solutions) provided oversight, input and editorial assistance in the final stages of preparation of the report. The efforts of Mr Peter Woods of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Ms Susan Hall of the United States Geological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)
    The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) August 5, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46476 SUMMARY R46476 The Energy Employees Occupational Illness August 5, 2020 Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Scott D. Szymendera During the Cold War, thousands of Americans worked in the development and testing of the Analyst in Disability Policy nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Some of these workers were exposed to radiation, beryllium, silica, and other toxic substances that may have contributed to various medical conditions, including different types of cancer. Enacted in 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA, Title XXXVI of P.L. 106-398) provides cash and medical benefits to former nuclear weapons arsenal workers with covered medical conditions and to their survivors. Part B of EEOICPA provides a fixed amount of compensation and medical coverage to Department of Energy (DOE) employees and contractors, atomic weapons employees, and uranium workers with specified medical conditions, including cancer. Workers with certain radiogenic cancers can access EEOICPA Part B through one of two pathways: dose reconstruction and the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). Under dose reconstruction, the worker’s individual work history and radiation exposure is evaluated to determine the probability that the worker’s cancer was caused by his or her exposure to ionizing radiation. Under the SEC, workers from the same worksite can petition to be included in the SEC based on the site’s work and exposure history. All members of the SEC with covered cancers are eligible for Part B benefits. Approximately 70% of EEOICPA Part B cancer cases are awarded benefits via the SEC rather than dose reconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium
    In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium (June 2009) l Most uranium mining in the USA and Kazakhstan is now by in situ leach methods, also known as in situ recovery (ISR). l In USA ISL is seen as the most cost effective and environmentally acceptable method of mining, and Australian experience supports this. l Australia's first ISL uranium mine is Beverley, which started operation late in 2000. The proposal for Honeymoon has government approval and it is expected to be operating in 2008. Conventional mining involves removing mineralised rock (ore) from the ground, breaking it up and treating it to remove the minerals being sought. In situ leaching (ISL), also known as solution mining, or in situ recovery (ISR) in North America, involves leaving the ore where it is in the ground, and recovering the minerals from it by dissolving them and pumping the pregnant solution to the surface where the minerals can be recovered. Consequently there is little surface disturbance and no tailings or waste rock generated. However, the orebody needs to be permeable to the liquids used, and located so that they do not contaminate ground water away from the orebody. Uranium ISL uses the native groundwater in the orebody which is fortified with a complexing agent and in most cases an oxidant. It is then pumped through the underground orebody to recover the minerals in it by leaching. Once the pregnant solution is returned to the surface, the uranium is recovered in much the same way as in any other uranium plant (mill). In Australian ISL mines (Beverley and the soon to be opened Honeymoon Mine) the oxidant used is hydrogen peroxide and the complexing agent sulfuric acid.
    [Show full text]
  • Öffentliche Bekanntmachungen Der Grossen Kreisstadt Aue-Bad Schlema
    4 l 19. Februar 2021 Wochenendspiegel Erzgebirge, Ihr Wochenspiegel für Aue-Schwarzenberg ÖFFENTLICHE BEKANNTMACHUNGEN DER GROSSEN KREISSTADT AUE-BAD SCHLEMA Herausgeber: Große Kreisstadt Aue-Bad Schlema · Goethestraße 5 · 08280 Aue +++++++ SILBERBERG-KONKRET ++++++ 168 Einladung Bekanntgabe gefasster Beschlüsse der öffentlichen ➒ zur Sitzung des Stadtentwicklungsausschusses Sitzung des Stadtentwicklungsausschusses der Die Debatte über die gemeinsame Stadt Silberberg hat nach der erfolgten Fusion von Aue und am Dienstag, dem 02. März 2021, 18:00 Uhr, Großen Kreisstadt Aue-Bad Schlema vom 01.12.2020 Bad Schlema noch einmal an Relevanz hinzugewonnen. Viele Menschen treibt das Thema um, Emotionen werden geweckt, wichtige Fakten und relevante Informationen geraten jedoch im Kulturhaus Aue, Goethestraße 2, 08280 Aue, kleiner Saal Beschluss-Nr. 121/2020-SEA zumeist in den Hintergrund. Die Kolumne SILBERBERG-KONKRET trägt dem Bedürfnis nach Der Stadtentwicklungsausschuss der Großen Kreisstadt Aue-Bad Informationen & Aufklärung Rechnung. Zudem bekommt der Leser Gelegenheit, sich aktuell Tagesordnung öffentlich Schlema beschließt, dem Bauantrag „Errichtung von 5 Werbean- über die laufenden Entwicklungen zu informieren. 1. Begrüßung durch den Vorsitzenden lagen“ (Damaschkestraße 28) auf dem Grundstück Flurstücknum- 2. Beschluss zum Bauantrag „Errichtung einer Werbeanlage mer 1230/13 der Gemarkung Aue zuzustimmen. In der heutigen einhundertachtundsechzigsten Kolumne widmet 8 m2 LED-Videowand“ (Auer Straße) auf dem Grundstück Beschluss-Nr. 122/2020-SEA
    [Show full text]
  • About Uranium Mining in South Australia Foreword
    The Facts about uranium mining in South Australia Foreword South Australia has been a major producer of uranium since 1988. We are proud of our track record and our global reputation for excellence. The South Australian Government thoroughly To achieve that aim we need to challenge assess mining lease proposals, and through the perceptions of unacceptable hazards stringent conditions, rigorously upholds the associated with the uranium industry. Risks highest standards for monitoring and safety. associated with nuclear energy are judged harsher than competing energy sources. The enduring strength of this State’s leadership in uranium mining is an insistence Access to information and education is on world’s best practice for managing our the key to challenging these perceptions. resources. Uranium – The Facts is just that, the facts that should be the basis for any informed debate Our global reputation enables us to attract about uranium and South Australia’s current the world’s leading uranium miners and role in the global nuclear fuel cycle. lead the country in annual production. Uranium produced in South Australia is equivalent to delivering CO2-free power to 20 million people. Yet with more than 80% of Australia’s total Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP, uranium resource, there remains considerable Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy scope to expand. It’s not enough that we produce exports from the world’s largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam, we want to unlock the full potential of all South Australia’s uranium assets. How we regulate The Foreign Investment Review The Australian regulatory framework Board examines foreign investment for the uranium industry is widely proposals to ensure the investment is recognised as world’s best practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018
    Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018 Commission Meeting December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A CNSC Staff Presentation e-Doc 5970530 PPTX e-Doc 6018833 PDF Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills CNSC Regulatory Oversight Reports for 2018 • November 6, 2019: Canadian Nuclear Power Generating Sites: 2018 • November 7, 2019: Use of Nuclear Substances in Canada: 2018 • November 7, 2019: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Sites: 2018 • December 11, 2019: Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities in Canada: 2018 • December 12, 2019: Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018 Reporting on licensee performance based on CNSC oversight nuclearsafety.gc.ca 2 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Presentation Outline • Errata • CNSC’s regulatory oversight activities • Uranium mine and mill facilities • Performance of uranium mines and mills • Interventions • Conclusions SAG mill used to grind ore at the McArthur River Operation. (Photo source: CNSC) nuclearsafety.gc.ca 3 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Errata – to be corrected before the report is published Appendix B, Table B1, corrected information Facility Safety and control area Date report issued Fitness for Service, Conventional Health and Safety, March 20, 2018 Environmental Protection, Human Performance Management Environmental Protection, Radiation Protection, October 31, 2018 McArthur Conventional Health and Safety River Physical Design, Environmental Protection, Radiation August 8, 2018 Operation Protection, Conventional Health and Safety Environmental Protection October 2, 2018 Emergency Management and Fire Protection January 16, 2019 nuclearsafety.gc.ca 4 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Errata – to be corrected before the report is published Appendix J: Environmental Action Level and Regulatory Exceedances Reported to CNSC.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkaroola Protection Area: a Field Guide to Selected Geological Features
    Arkaroola Protection Area: A field guide to selected geological features Graeme L. Worboys and Stephen B. Hore arkaroola.com.au environment.sa.gov.au Citation: Worboys, G. L. and Hore, S.B. (2013) Arkaroola Protection Area: A field guide to selected geological features. Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide. Copyright: © This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised without the express permission of the authors. Acknowledgements: Many individuals and organisations contributed to the development of this Field Guide. The text has been sourced predominantly from the Arkaroola National Heritage Listing nomination jointly submitted to the Australian Government by the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and Margaret and Douglas Sprigg of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Appreciation is expressed for the use of this material. The Field Guide also sourced technical geological quotes from a 2004 field guide developed by John Drexel and Stephen Hore and appreciation is extended for the use of this material. Thanks are particularly extended to Margaret and Douglas Sprigg, Lorraine Edmunds and Dennis Walter of Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary; Jason Irving of the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; Tim Baker of the Geological Survey of South Australia; the Geological Society of Australia (South Australia Division); Jim Gehling and Joël Brugger of the South Australian Museum; the University of Adelaide; Malcolm William Wallace of the University of Melbourne; Malcolm Walter of the University of New South Wales; Narelle Neumann of Geoscience Australia; and Paul O’Brien of Helivista Helicopters (South Australia) for their assistance in the development of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Pages on U Mining by End of October, See Pol D
    URANIUM MINING IN AUSTRALIA Friends of the Earth, Australia foe.org.au/anti-nuclear January 2013 With Australia holding 30-40% of the world's uranium mining was overturned in 2012. In WA, known conventional uranium reserves, the the Liberal government supports uranium mining uranium mining industry hopes to significantly but the Labor opposition opposes any new increase production. However the Coalition uranium mines (but might permit mines that have government, in power from 1996-2007, succeeded received prior approvals). In NSW, the Liberal in establishing only one new mine. The Beverley government supports uranium exploration but has mine in South Australia began commercial not (yet) moved to permit uranium mining. production in 2001. The tiny Honeymoon mine in SA began production in 2011 but in May 2012 joint A 2003 report by a federal Senate References and venture partner Mitsui announced that it was Legislation Committee found "a pattern of under- withdrawing from the Honeymoon project as it performance and non-compliance" in the uranium "could not foresee sufficient economic return from mining industry. It identified many gaps in the project." knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination As at January 2013, there is bipartisan support for from the uranium mining industry, and it uranium mining at the federal level and in SA and concluded that changes were necessary "in order the NT. In Queensland, a long-standing ban on to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage". The history of secret nuclear weapons research, and committee concluded "that short-term states stockpiling 'civil' plutonium.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of Commission Meeting of December 14, 2016
    Canadian Nuclear Commission canadienne de Safety Commission sûreté nucléaire Public meeting Réunion publique December 14th, 2016 Le 14 décembre 2016 Public Hearing Room Salle des audiences publiques 14th floor 14e étage 280 Slater Street 280, rue Slater Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) Commission Members present Commissaires présents Dr. Michael Binder M. Michael Binder Dr. Sandy McEwan Dr Sandy McEwan Ms Rumina Velshi Mme Rumina Velshi Secretary: Secrétaire: Mr. Marc Leblanc M. Marc Leblanc General Counsel: Avocate générale : Ms Lisa Thiele Me Lisa Thiele 613-521-0703 StenoTran www.stenotran.com ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Opening Remarks 1 CMD 16-M66.C 3 Approval of Agenda CMD 16-M68 3 Status Report on Power Reactors CMD 16-M64 13 Written submission from CNSC staff CMD 16-M50/16-M50.A 18 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 16-M50.1 46 Written submission by Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council CMD 16-M50.2 48 Written submission from Northwatch CMD 16-M70/16-M70.A 155 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 16-M70.1 179 Submission from Énergie NB Power CMD 16-M70.2 180 Submission from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories CMD 16-M49/16-M49.A 245 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 16-M49.5/16-M49.5A 270 Presentation by Cameco Corporation CMD 16-M49.3 298 Submission from the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CMD 16-M49.4/16-M49.4A/16-M49.4B 348 Presentation by AREVA Resources Canada Inc. CMD 16 M49.1 363 Submission from the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation CMD 16-M69 397 Submission from CNSC staff CMD 16-M72 411 Written submission from CNSC staff 1 Ottawa, Ontario / Ottawa (Ontario) --- Upon commencing on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 8:34 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Gewerbeflächenreport 2017 Für Den Erzgebirgskreis in Zusammenarbeit Mit Der Wirtschaftsförderung Erzgebirge Gmbh
    Gewerbeflächenreport 2017 für den Erzgebirgskreis in Zusammenarbeit mit der Wirtschaftsförderung Erzgebirge GmbH Stand: Mai 2017 Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Vorwort ................................................................................................................. 3 2 Datengrundlage ................................................................................................... 4 3 Gewerbeflächenüberblick ..................................................................................... 5 4 Gewerbeflächenentwicklung .............................................................................. 11 5 Auswertung und Schlussfolgerung ..................................................................... 12 6 Anlagen .............................................................................................................. 13 Quellenangaben: Publikationen und statistische Erfassungen - der IHK Chemnitz - des Statistischen Landesamtes Sachsen Veröffentlichungen und Daten der Wirtschaftsförderung Erzgebirge GmbH (WFE) Titelseite: Stadt Annaberg-Buchholz, bestehendes Gewerbegebiet an der B101 und neu geschaffenes Industriegebiet an der B101 FOTO: Wirtschaftsförderung Erzgebirge GmbH 2 1 Vorwort Der Erzgebirgskreis entstand im Rahmen der Kreisgebietsreform 2008 im Freistaat Sachsen aus den Altkreisen Annaberg, Aue-Schwarzenberg, Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis und Stollberg. Die Wirtschaft ist geprägt von kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen, die sich vorwie- gend im Umfeld der Mittelzentren sowie entlang infrastruktureller Entwicklungsachsen
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019
    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Report 46 March 2020 www.parliament.nsw.gov.au LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Standing Committee on State Development Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Ordered to be printed 4 March 2020 according to Standing Order 231 Report 46 - March 2020 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on State Development. Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 / Standing Committee on State Development. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2020. – [xiv, 150] pages ; 30 cm. (Report no. 46 / Standing Committee on State Development) Chair: Hon. Taylor Martin, MLC. “March 2020” ISBN 9781920788599 1. New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council—Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2018. 2. Uranium mines and mining—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 3. Nuclear industry—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 4. Nuclear energy—Law and legislation—New South Wales. I. Martin, Taylor. II. Title. III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on State Development. Report ; no. 46 622.349 (DDC22) ii Report 46 - March 2020 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Table of contents Terms of reference vi Committee details vii Chair’s foreword
    [Show full text]
  • Graham Simpson 2007
    Presentation to the Nunavut Planning Commission Discussion on Uranium Mining Graham Simpson, Saskatoon (June 5th 2007) A. I wish to thank the Commission for inviting me to bring some experiences of the Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Co-operative (ICUCEC) of Saskatoon. B. I am a retired Prof. of Plant Sciences at the University of Saskatchewan where I taught and did research for 40 years in the field of plant physiology. I am particularly concerned about the deterioration in the environment and biosphere by radioactive pollution that can have long-term genetic effects in all living things. I have been a member of ICUCEC since it began. C. I will give you a brief history of ICUCEC that has been in existence now for 27 years. Following the Cluff Lake Enquiry in Saskatchewan in 1978 the Provincial Government decided to permit new uranium mines in the Wollaston Lake basin in the far north of the Province. The nuclear industry decided to quietly buy up land owned by Mennonite dairy farmers close to Saskatoon, with the object of building a uranium refinery to avoid sending yellowcake all the way to Port Hope in Ontario. The farmers were angry at the deceit and called on local churches of different denominations to oppose a refinery when hearings were held by the Saskatchewan Government. The United Church, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Mennonite churches banded together in an organisation initially called the Inter-Church Uranium Committee (ICUC) that made a convincing case to the hearings against having a refinery(1). The committee then focussed on the expanding uranium mines and for ethical reasons opposed them on the grounds that uranium was going from Saskatchewan to atom bombs (The Cold War was on) also to nuclear reactors that created huge amounts of radioactive waste posing a threat to the environment and humans for ages to come.
    [Show full text]