REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF REPORTING PROCEDURES FOR THE SA URANIUM MINING INDUSTRY
Hedley Bachmann
August 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT ...... 1
INTRODUCTION...... 2
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW...... 2
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ...... 3
METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW ...... 8
REVIEW OF CURRENT INCIDENT REPORTING PROCEDURES...... 10
THE SEVERITY OF THE CONSEQUENCES AN INCIDENT MAY HAVE ON THE PUBLIC, EMPLOYEES AND ENVIRONMENT...... 10 MECHANISMS FOR KEEPING THE COMMONWEALTH INFORMED...... 13 THE CONCEPT OF ‘ONE WINDOW INTO GOVERNMENT’ TO SIMPLIFY REPORTING FOR MINE OPERATIONS ...... 14 TRANSPARENCY IN THE EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS TO HELP THE COMMUNITY MORE FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HAZARDS AND ASSOCIATED RISKS ...... 15 CONSISTENCY OF REPORTING OBLIGATIONS AND INCIDENT ASSESSMENTS BETWEEN OPERATIONS...... 15 DETERMINE WHETHER THE CURRENT MECHANISM FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SUCH INCIDENTS IS APPROPRIATE, AND IF NOT RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS...... 16 BEST PRACTICE INCIDENT REPORTING IN THE INDUSTRY ...... 17 REPORT ON THE PROCESSES IN PLACE PRIOR TO JANUARY 2002 SPILL AT BEVERLEY AND IN PARTICULAR THE EFFECT OF ANY MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO REPORTING...... 18 APPENDICES...... 19
Recommendations of the Report
I recommend the government adopt the following measures:
1. A register of incidents should be kept at each mine site. Incident registers should be available to the regulatory agencies as required and made available for perusal at the three- monthly ISL Radiation Review Committee meetings held between mine management and Government regulatory agencies.
2. In order to allow the release of information about incidents which may cause, or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm or risks to the public or employees, the Government should revise and appropriately amend the secrecy/confidentiality etc. clauses in the legislation referred to in Appendix B. Information on individual persons should not be disclosed.
3. The incident reporting requirements as set out in Appendix D should be adopted. If legislative change occurs which affect the reporting requirements, they will need to be further reviewed having regard to any legislative change made.
4. The Chief Inspector of Mines should be required to forward a copy of any incident report form received to Environment Australia and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.
5. Current reporting arrangements should be varied to ensure that all agencies are informed at the same time. I recommend that required incidents be reported to the three agencies by facsimile or email.
6. An incident reporting form (see Appendix E) should be adopted by all regulatory agencies involved in the regulation of mining and milling of uranium ore.
7. If the Mining Act and the Radiation Protection & Control Act continue to apply, public notification should be made of those incidents which cause or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm through the Minister for Mineral Resource Development or the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources.
8. A protocol should be put in place such that, when a significant incident arises, a lead agency and a lead Minister are identified (as has been done in the area of water contamination involving the Department of Human Services and S.A. Water).
1 Introduction
On the 6th of May 2002 Cabinet approved a recommendation of the Minister for Mineral Resources Development for an independent review of the reporting procedures in the South Australian uranium mining industry. Current mining operations for uranium include one at Olympic Dam, owned and operated by the Western Mining Corporation, where uranium ore is produced from the underground mine through a process of grinding, flotation, leaching and solvent extraction.
There is also the Beverley Uranium Mine, owned and operated by Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd., which extracts uranium using the in-situ leaching (ISL) method of mining. In addition, Southern Cross Resources Pty. Limited has recently obtained a mining lease at the Honeymoon site and is expected to carry out mining operations using the in-situ leaching method in the not too distant future.
The decision for the independent review followed a series of unplanned spills at the mines; 62,000 litres of uranium bearing fluids at the Beverley mine in January 2002 and 420,000 litres of uranium bearing copper concentrate slurry at Olympic Dam in December 2001. The decision for the review was also timely because the current procedures for reporting spills at ISL uranium mining operations were put in place during the Beverley Uranium Mine field trials and needed to be reviewed now that commercial production had commenced.
The independent review was assisted by a specialist support group nominated from the following agencies:- The Environment Protection Authority; Manager, Pollution Avoidance Branch, Peter Dolan, Scientist, Radiation Protection Branch, Andrew Johnston, The Office of Mines and Energy Resources; Program Manager, Resource Development, Sam Walker The Workplace Service Unit; Acting Assistant Director (Compliance), Bill Loizides.
At the time of the establishment of the Review, the Radiation Protection Branch was in the Department of Human Services. Early in the review period it was transferred to the Environment Protection Agency.
Terms of Reference for Independent Review
The terms of reference of The Review require me to produce a report that:- 1. reviews the current incident reporting procedures associated with uranium mining and related activities in South Australia to Government and, where appropriate, recommend suggested changes to these procedures. The review of incident reporting procedures should consider the following issues: • The severity of the consequences an incident may have on the public, employees and the environment;
2 • Transparency in the effective disclosure of environmental incidents to help the community more fully understand the hazards and associated risks; • Mechanisms for keeping the Commonwealth informed; • The concept of “one window into Government” to simplify reporting for mine operations; • Consistency of reporting obligations and incident assessments between operations; and • Best practice incident reporting in the industry.
2. determines whether the current mechanism for public notification of such incidents is appropriate, and if not, recommend alternative mechanisms; and
3. reports on the processes in place prior to the January 2002 spill at Beverley and in particular the effect of any Ministerial correspondence related to reporting.
Legislative Framework
1. To commence The Review it was necessary for me to examine and understand the legislative and regulatory framework which governed and regulated the mining of uranium in South Australia. This examination revealed that the following Acts and their accompanying Regulations applied:
Mining Act 1971 Mines & Works Inspection Act 1920 Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 Environmental Protection Act 1993 Occupational Health Safety & Welfare Act 1995 Dangerous Substance Act 1979 Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982
2. The Mining Act, committed to the Minister for Mineral Resources Development and administered through the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources, contains provisions for granting of mining leases and includes special provisions attached to mining of radioactive minerals. Section 10 provides that no person shall carry out mining operations for the recovery of any radioactive mineral unless he is the holder of a mining lease or retention lease, upon which the Minister has endorsed an authorisation to carry out mining operations for that purpose. Each of the uranium mining operators has been granted a lease by the Minister.
The mining lease, which is quite detailed in its terms, requires compliance with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation and the preparation of an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan to be approved by the Minister. The lessee is required to conduct operations, monitor parameters and report activity in accordance with the strategies and time frames set out in the approved plan.
Provision is made in the Act for the lodgement of a Rehabilitation Bond to ensure that land disturbed by mining operations is rehabilitated. The amount, which is quite substantial, is
3 determined by agreement with the Minister and is lodged prior to commencement of mining operation.
3. The Mines and Works Inspection Act, committed to the Minister for Mineral Resources Development and administered through the Workplace Services Unit of the Department of Administrative and Information Services and the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources, is an Act to make better provision for the regulation and inspection of mines and works, and for other purposes. The Act provides for the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Mines and such other Inspectors of Mines as deemed necessary for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the Act.
The Act in Section 18 also permits the Governor to make Regulations for the purpose of ensuring the safety and health of all persons who are employed in or about any mine, and the general public. The Second Schedule to the Act outlines the subject matter for regulations, including the powers and duties of inspectors as well as notification of accidents in and about mines. The Regulations also provide a general duty of care to ensure that the operation or activity, interferes as little as possible with the amenity of the site of the operation or activity.
4. The Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982, committed to the Minister for Environment and Conservation and now administered through the Environment Protection Authority, is an act to provide for the control of activities related to radioactive substances and radiation apparatus and for the protection against the harmful effects of radiation. The Act extends to the mining and milling of radioactive ores, which includes uranium and through Section 24, requires a licence to be issued to enable operations for mining and milling. The Act also provides for the establishment of a Radiation Protection Committee to advise on the regulations and to advise the Minister on the granting of licences, including the conditions to which the licence is to be subjected. In addition, Section 14 provides for a Sub Committee to report on matters related to the mining and milling of radioactive ores. Each uranium mine in South Australia has been issued with a licence with conditions attached, under this Act.
In relation to the Olympic Dam Project, the Licence requires that the provisions of all regulations relating to the mining, treatment, storage and transport of radioactive ores and the management of related waste, should be observed. In addition the Licence requires that the licensee shall comply with the Mines and Works Inspections Act and regulations made thereunder.
Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd. has been granted a Licence under the Radiation Protection Control Act for operations for the Beverley Uranium Project, carried out on its Mining Lease issued under the Mining Act. The conditions of the Licence require observance of the various Codes of Practice applicable to mining and milling of radioactive ores.
Southern Cross Resources, Australia Pty. Ltd. has been granted a Licence under the Radiation Protection and Control Act for field leach trial operations for the Honeymoon Uranium Project carried out on Retention Leases issued under the Mining Act. The conditions of this Licence also require observance of the various Codes of Practice applicable to mining and milling of radioactive ores.
4 5. The Environment Protection Act 1993, committed to the Minister for Environment and Conservation and administered through the Environment Protection Authority, is an Act to provide for the protection of the environment. Section 7 (2) provides that this Act does not apply to circumstances to which the Radiation Protection Control Act 1982 applies, and subsection (3) of Section 7, provides that this Act is subject to the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982. My interpretation of these provisions is that the Radiation Protection Control Act and the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act, take precedence over the Environment Protection Act. The Environment Protection Act in Part 4, prescribes a general environmental duty which requires a person not to undertake an activity that pollutes, or might pollute, the environment unless the person takes all reasonable precautions and practical measures to prevent or minimise any resulting environmental harm. This general duty of care would apply to mining operations in relation to spills of substances other than radioactive materials which could cause damage to the environment.
6. The Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Act 1986, committed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and administered through the Workplace Services Unit of the Department of Administrative and Information Services, is an Act to provide for the health, safety and welfare of persons at work. The Act outlines the duties of employers and employees in respect to health and safety at work. Provisions are made for the appointment of health and safety representatives and health and safety committees. Schedule 1 of the Act lists the areas for which regulations may be made and includes provisions for the steps to be taken on the occurrence of any work related injury and for the notification of accidents and dangerous occurrences.
7. The Dangerous Substances Act, committed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and administered through the Workplace Services Unit of the Department of Administrative and Information Services, is an Act to regulate the keeping, handling, transporting, conveyance, use and disposal, and the quality of dangerous substances, and for other purposes. Section 8 of the Dangerous Substances Regulations, requires the holder of a Licence issued under the Act, to advise the Competent Authority in writing, setting out the particulars of any accident involving any dangerous substance in or on licensed premises. The Act does not apply to Class 7 Substances which include radioactive material such as uranium.
8. The Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act, committed to the Minister for Mineral Resources Development and administered through the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources, under Section 7, determines that the Mining Act and the Environment Protection Act are to be construed subject to the provisions of the Indenture. Section 11 of the Indenture, which is titled “Protection and Management of the Environment” requires the Joint Venturers at three yearly intervals to “submit to the Minister a three year program for the protection, management and rehabilitation (if appropriate) of the environment in respect of that Project including arrangements with respect to monitoring and the study of sample areas to ascertain the effectiveness of such program.”
Section 10 of the Indenture requires compliance with various Codes including: • Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining & Milling of Radioactive Ores, 1987
5 • Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances, 1990 • Code of Practice on the Management of Radioactive Wastes for the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores, 1982 • Codes which are relevant and issued by the National Health & Medical Research Council from time to time • Codes of the International Commission on Radiological Protection or the Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency
Under the Mining Act, a Special Mining Lease was granted to the Joint Venturers by His Excellency the Governor, to amongst other things, enter into and occupy the land, to explore for, and to mine and obtain all minerals (other than opal) in or upon the land.
Sub section (7) of Section 11 of the Indenture provides: “In the event of a sudden and unexpected material detriment to the environment occurring as a result of the Joint Venturers’ operations, the relevant Joint Venturers as soon as reasonably practicable shall submit to the Minister a program for the mitigation of such detriment and the provisions of sub-clauses (2) to (6) inclusive of this Clause shall apply to any such programme.”
9. A perusal of the above Acts leads me to the conclusion that uranium mining and milling operations are subject to complex and comprehensive regulations and conditions administered by a variety of Government Agencies and regulators. A good summary of the regulation and reporting requirements of uranium mining in South Australia was provided in the Office of Minerals & Energy Resources submission and is attached as Appendix “A.”
10. Of much interest to the terms of reference for this independent inquiry, particularly having regard to transparency of reporting, was the wording of the confidentiality and secrecy provisions of the various Acts. A copy of the relevant Sections are attached as Appendix “B.”
The Radiation Protection Act has a Secrecy Clause (Section 19) as does the Dangerous Substances Act (Section 9.) The Environment Protection Act has a Confidentiality Clause (Section 121) as does the Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Act (Sections 12 & 55.) The Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982, contains a Confidentiality Clause (Clause 35) while the Mines and Works Inspection Act has a Section that requires an Inspector not to report or divulge information without authority. The Mining Act has a Section 14, a section titled “Misuse of information.”
In my view, these Sections are very restrictive in allowing the release of any information across agencies and to the public, about any incident at uranium mining and milling operations. I have been made aware of an opinion given by the Crown Solicitor in relation to freedom of information requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, to provide inspection reports, made by Inspectors at the Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines.
The Crown Solicitor has advised that there is no provision for release of reports prepared under the Radiation Protection and Control Act, other than releases made for the purposes of the performance of official duties by persons engaged in the administration of the Act. In his
6 view this does not permit information being made available to the public. In addition, the Crown Solicitor has stated there is no specific power in the Mines and Works Inspection Act, to release Inspector of Mines reports to a licence holder or to the public. There is a limited power for the Chief Inspector of Mines to release, with the approval of the Minister of Mineral Resource Development, factual statements of a report but not statements of opinion.
In addition, I am aware that the Ombudsman has reported on the secrecy provisions of legislation in relation to provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
Reference was made in submissions about secrecy and the lack of public information. The Radiation Protection Branch proposed that the secrecy section (Section 19) be removed from the RPC Act and varied to permit the release of particular categories of information including that relating to the environmental consequences of radiation incidents, accidents or emergencies.
The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) suggested that Section 7(2) (c) of the Environment Protection Act should be repealed to ensure that persons engaged in activities such as uranium mining, are required to report in terms of the EP Act. The Australian Conservation Foundation pointed out “that it is difficult, if not impossible, to properly appraise regulatory requirements and performance at the Beverley commercial uranium mine as key documentation is not public, as it is said to be made exempt from disclosure by “secrecy provisions” Section 19 of the Radiation Protection Control Act 1982”. It recommended that the secrecy provisions no longer be used to exempt uranium mining documentation from public release under freedom of information legislation.
Dr. Matthews, from the Conservation Council of SA, submitted that “this inquiry into reporting procedures is being held in the context of a protracted period of secrecy and lack of public consultation by the S.A. Government, S.A. Government departments and the nuclear industry in S.A.”
I consider it appropriate that the confidentiality, secrecy, misuse of information etc., clauses in the legislation referred to above be revised and amended, particularly having regard to the policies of the Government for transparency and open and accountable Government. I have been informed that there is currently a review being carried out by the Department of Administrative & Information Services of the Freedom of Information Act, 1991. I have been advised that the Act currently has an exemption clause which exempts document which are the subject of secrecy provisions of other legislation, disclosure of which would constitute an offence against another Act. I have also been informed that the review does not intend to amend the FOI Act to override those secrecy provisions. It is therefore imperative that each clause referred to in Appendix B be revised and amended to allow for the release of information to the public of incidents which may cause, or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm or risks to the public or employees. I recommend that Government revise and appropriately amend the secrecy/confidentiality etc. clauses in the legislation referred to in Appendix B.
7 Methodology of The Review
In undertaking The Review, I have met with the following:
Dr. David Blight, Executive Director, Office of Minerals & Energy Resources
Mr. Serge Caplygin, Chief Mining Engineer, Inspector of Mines, Office of Minerals & Energy Resources
Mr. Greg Marshall, Chief Inspector of Mines and Manager Regulation and Rehabilitation Branch, Office of Minerals & Energy Resources
Dr. Kevin Buckett, Director, Environmental Health Branch, Department of Human Services
Mrs. Jill Fitch, Manager Radiation Protection, Department of Human Services
Dr. Brendon Kearney, Executive Director, Clinical Systems, Department of Human Services
Mr. Nicholas Newland, Acting Chief Executive, Environment Protection Agency, Department of Environment & Heritage
Mr. Bill Loizides, Acting Assistant Director (Compliance) Workplace Services, Department for Administrative and Information Services
Mr. Ian Tansell, Manager, Primary Industries, Workplace Services, Department for Administrative and Information Services
Mr. David Noonan, Campaign Officer, Australian Conservation Foundation
Dr. Gavin Mudd, Environmental Science/Engineering Consultant, Friends of the Earth Australia
Dr. Dennis Matthews, Conservation Council of S.A.
Mr. Tom Hunter, Project Executive Officer, Southern Cross Resources Australia Pty. Ltd. (Honeymoon)
Mr. Richard Yeeles, Divisional Manager, Corporate & Environmental Affairs, WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty. Ltd.
Mr. Mark Chalmers, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd. (Beverley)
Mr. David Brunt, Vice President, Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd. (Beverley)
Mr. Stephen Middleton, Vice President Corporate Affairs, Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd. (Beverley)
8
Mr. Phil Sutherland, Chief Executive, South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy.
Hon. Sandra Kanck, Australian Democrats Deputy Parliamentary Leader, Member of the Legislative Council.
I have also contacted the two Commonwealth Government representatives on the Mines Environmental Consultative Committees. These are:
Mr. Malcolm Forbes, Assistant Secretary, Environment Assessment Approvals Branch, Commonwealth Environment Australia.
Mr. Alan Laird, Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism & Resources
The technical expertise of the agency representatives has been invaluable in carrying out the review. I am particularly grateful for the assistance given to me by Mr. Sam Walker, Program Manager, Resource Development, Office of Minerals and Energy Resources, who has been providing administrative support.
On the 3rd of July, accompanied by Sam Walker, I visited the Beverley Mine and was shown over the total mine operation. On the 4th July, we visited the Olympic Dam site and again were shown over the total mine operation. I record my appreciation of the co-operation of the respective companies and their personnel in arranging these visits.
Each of the Agency personnel and others with whom I met, discussed the terms of reference, potential alternative solutions, and were invited to prepare a formal written submission.
Written submissions were received from: • Office of Minerals and Energy Resources • Radiation Protection Branch • Workplace Services • Environment Protection Authority • South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy • Australian Conservation Foundation • Friends of the Earth Australia • Conservation Council of SA • Commonwealth Department of Industry Tourism and Resources • Commonwealth Environment Australia
9 Review of Current Incident Reporting Procedures
The current incident reporting procedures for the Olympic Dam site, and in situ uranium mining, are included in Appendix “A.” In reviewing these procedures I am required to consider a number of issues. I will deal with these in turn.
The Severity of the Consequences an Incident May Have on the Public, Employees and Environment.
Radioactive materials within uranium processing plants and wellfields can be considered as one of two broad types. The first type consists of relative low activity wellfield and process solutions, tailing materials and liquids. The second type consists of higher activity uranium bearing solutions and solids, including uranium oxide concentrate and other process material such as some smelter dusts or anode slimes in the case of Olympic Dam. All materials are processed in areas with appropriate secondary and where necessary tertiary containment structures such as bunds. Higher standards of control and containment apply to higher levels of radiation activity. `As advised by the agency submissions, the potential for any long-term environmental impact through the accidental release of process materials is low.
Of course it must be remembered that radiation exposure is only one of a number of possible hazards associated with the accidental release of process materials through failures of equipment, procedures or through other causes. There are hazards associated with containment failures of various chemicals associated with uranium ore processing, which are similar to those applicable to other industries using the same chemicals etc. in their processing operations. The provisions of the Dangerous Substances Act and Regulations, are applicable to all licensed premises.
A good description of the process plant and the consequences of plant incidents were included in the submission of the Radiation Protection Branch and I have included this as Appendix “C.”
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) submission drew attention to Labor Party policy: “In relation to mining and milling Labor will…… Ensure through public accountability mechanisms that the Australian Public is informed about the quality of the environmental performance at uranium mines.” (Federal ALP Platform, June 2000).
Attention was also drawn to statements: “Labor supports the strictest environmental conditions for existing uranium mines.”
And the Governor’s speech in opening Parliament that: “The Government will ensure there is transparency and accountability in the reporting of uranium spills.”
The ACF considered the review should include the consequences of surface leaks of liquids and of solid radioactive materials at the three mines.
10 The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) considers that the uranium mining industry is subjected to an abnormally rigid degree of public attention and Government regulations and scrutiny, but that this reflects the strong history of public debate concerning nuclear affairs and uranium mining. SACOME also considers that the State’s uranium producers recognise that the scrutiny is an integral characteristic more related to public and political perception than anything else.
The industry has indicated that it believes significant incidents are adequately defined and handled by the relevant legislation and regulatory agencies. SACOME proposed: “that the manner in which Government handles its role in scrutiny and control of the uranium industry should incorporate the following principles:
1. All reporting requirements should be practical, in line with relevant international practice and consistent with the detailed approval processes that were undertaken for the projects.
2. Spills reporting by operators should be: • timely • transparent; • visible; and • able to be readily related to their impacts upon onsite criteria, worker exposure, public health and safety or environmental damage.
3. It should be a system that accords with best practice in industry/Government reporting and interaction, to maximise industry efficiency and sustainability.
4. There should be a single contact point within Government for company reporting consistent with licence and statutory requirements.
5. There should be a comprehensive easily understood form submitted within a specified time period by the operator to Government notifying of a defined event.
6. A spill incident register of reported and non-reported incidents should be maintained at each mine site to allow accurate and timely interaction between operators and Government agencies.”
The conclusions reached by the Environment Protection Authority which follow seem to be reflected in all agency responses. “An assessment of incidents reported to the EPA by WMC (including those involving radioactive substances) suggest that none of these incidents meet the definition of causing or threatening serious or material environmental harm. This is chiefly due to the containment systems in place at Olympic Dam, preventing the escape of material into the environment.
The conclusions reached by the task group which visited the Beverley ISL Uranium Mine on the 10 May 2002 (tabled in the Legislative Council on 16 May 2002), concluded that the
11 evidence supported the Department of Human Services statements, that the reported spills of radioactive process solutions have not resulted in any harm to workers or the environment.
On past experience the environmental consequences of incidents at the uranium mines currently in operation are likely to be localised and therefore, not serious due to the nature of the material that may be released and the receiving environment. Any change in the future to the nature of incidents and possible impacts may mean the need for a different response.
What constitutes a threat of environmental harm may vary due to the containment systems in place, as well as the features of the potential receiving environment (proximity to watercourses etc).”
There is a common thread in the submissions received that the current reporting criteria for reporting spills at ISL mining operations be reviewed. Suggestions range from all spills being reported to Government to only those more serious spills being reported.
The current criteria are volume based and were determined for the field leach trials. It has been submitted that risk factors should be considered and those criteria for reporting an incident/spill should have regard to the size of the spill, the chemical and radiological nature of the spilled fluid and whether the spill was contained within a purpose built containment structure or bund. Any criteria determined must enable judgement to be made on the impact or potential impact the spill may have on the public, employees and the environment.
Discussions have been ongoing between regulatory agencies, to develop simple, easily understood criteria which would have regard to the damage and harm that may be caused to the public, employees and to the environment.
The SACOME submission proposed that a spill incident register of reported and non reported incidents should be maintained at each mine site to allow accurate and timely interaction between operators and Government agencies. I commend this action and recommend that the registers be kept and made available for perusal at the three-monthly ISL Radiation Review Committee meetings held between mine management and Government regulatory agencies.
Following detailed discussion with the specialist support group I am satisfied some changes need to be made to the reporting arrangements. I do not accept that all spills should be reported to the Government, particularly as they will all be recorded as a matter of course by the mining companies, on their registers of spills. Those that need reporting are those which are of a more significant nature, which cause or may cause serious or material environmental harm or affect the health or safety of employees or members of the public. The current reporting arrangements of the Occupational Health & Safety Regulations, the Dangerous Substance Regulations and the Environmental Protection Act will continue.
I recommend that the reporting requirements as set out in Appendix D be adopted. If legislative change occurs which affect the reporting requirements, they will need to be further reviewed having regard to any legislative change made.
12 Mechanisms for Keeping the Commonwealth Informed
The relevant Commonwealth agencies to be kept informed on uranium mining and milling issues include Environment Australia and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. Each of the operating mines has an Environment Consultative Committee constituted by the South Australian Government, which includes representatives of the two Commonwealth Agencies. The Executive Director, Minerals and Energy Resources of the Department of Primary Industry and Resources chairs the Committees.
The State Government, through the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources, also informs the Commonwealth of any material or serious breach of any requirements placed on any of the uranium mining projects by the Commonwealth, or any material or serious breach of the mining lease or licence conditions imposed by the State. The Commonwealth requirements relate to annual reporting and the consultative committee arrangements, with the regulation of day to day activities and reporting requirements being the responsibility of the State.
The Commonwealth representatives were sent a copy of the Review terms of reference and asked for comment, in particular on the mechanisms for keeping the Commonwealth informed. Their responses to the current mechanisms have been positive.
The Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) advises the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on the issuance of export permissions for uranium concentrates. Permission to export is conditional on the uranium mining companies complying with specified environmental requirements. Commonwealth requirements for each mine reflect their unique environmental issues including participation in an environmental consultative committee and release of information to the public through annual reporting.
The South Australian Government, in consultation with the Commonwealth, establishes an environment consultative committee for each mine which meets twice a year, or more as required. DITR has stated that it is “well satisfied with the Consultative Committee arrangements”. Between committee meetings there is an exchange of information between officers of the Commonwealth Departments and the Department of Primary Industries and Resources.
In concluding its submission, DITR has advised that “The Consultative Committees are working effectively and the Department does not see a need to change the current arrangements.”
On the 23rd of August I had a telephone conversation with Mr Malcolm Forbes and other officers of Environment Australia who had the benefit of a copy of the written submission from the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. Mr Forbes indicated general agreement with the written submission but made some additional comments, primarily on public notification. He considered more efforts should be made to encourage non-government participation in the consultative mechanisms and drew attention to the Australian Minerals Industry Code of Environmental Management, a publication of the Minerals Council of Australia.
Mr Forbes indicated that WMC were at the fore-front of implementing the code and that other uranium mining companies should be encouraged to participate. He also suggested that the
13 mining companies should consider from time to time third party verification of environmental performance.
I have formed the view that the current mechanisms are satisfactory but could be improved. I recommend that the Chief Inspector of Mines be required to forward a copy of any incident report form received to the two Commonwealth agencies.
The Concept of ‘One Window Into Government’ to Simplify Reporting for Mine Operations
The S.A. Chamber of Mines & Energy submitted:-
“The concept of a single “window” to Government is attractive to industry and has obvious advantages in clear reporting and timelines. Current arrangements involve reporting to: • the Office of Minerals and Energy (OME-PIRSA); • the Radiation Protection Branch (which has been recently transferred to the EPA); • Workplace Services; and, more recently; • the EPA.
The prime reporting agency is determined by the particular circumstances of any individual incident. However, this process could potentially result in problems in communication and jurisdiction within the public service. Since the industry has most routine contact with OME on a wide range of issues, SACOME believes this is the appropriate single “window” ”.
There is some support for this concept within Government particularly when it is combined with a single incident reporting form. This has tended to occur to some extent with the Chief Inspector of Mines being the nominated point for the initial notification of spills under the current arrangements.
Some of the submissions, and in particular that of the Conservation Council of SA, suggest that the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources would not be the appropriate place to report as it is both the promoter and the regulator of mining. It was submitted that this would be contrary to the widely accepted procedure of keeping industry and regulators at arms length as far as is possible.
Whilst I have some sympathy with the concept of “one window into Government” the current requirements of the various pieces of legislation do not allow for the concept. Each of the Acts detail the appropriate authority to be notified and this authority varies according to which Minister or agency has responsibility for administering the various Acts. If uranium were regulated by one Act and one Ministry, the concept of a single window to Government would apply. Total regulation of the industry would then be the role of a single agency and Ministry. This appears to have recently been confirmed as the practice in the Northern Territory where the Mining Management Act applies to all areas of operation of mining, including mining and milling of uranium.
14 I therefore consider that current reporting arrangements should be varied to ensure that all agencies are informed at the same time. I recommend that incidents which require reporting be reported to the three agencies by facsimile or email.
Transparency in the Effective Disclosure of Environmental Incidents to Help the Community More Fully Understand the Hazards and Associated Risks
Effective disclosure of environmental incidents is a desirable objective but, as commented previously in this report, there are several legislative impediments. There is general support within the Government Agencies for a review of those provisions to provide for more transparency and accountability.
The submission of the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy suggests that regular reporting direct to the public would be adopted based on the impact severity of reported incidents. Such a web based reporting system would be in accord with systems used by Government e.g. the EPA existing Public Register.
The submissions of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and the Conservation Council of SA, all seek full and prompt public disclosure of any incident involving radioactive leaks at uranium mines. The ACF in particular has a view that if a leak was contained in a bunded area, the obligation to publicly report the leak should be no less.
As previously recommended, the secrecy and confidentiality provisions should be amended to allow the release of information to the public about incidents which may cause, or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm or risks to the public or employees. Information on individual persons should not be disclosed.
Consistency of Reporting Obligations and Incident Assessments Between Operations.
There was general support within the submissions to the suggestion of a single reporting form to report incidents to Government. Such a form would embrace the requirements of the regulatory agencies involved and enable them to fulfill the legislative requirements. Olympic Dam had been in the process of developing such a form and one is in use for reporting incidents to the Northern Territory Government in relation to uranium mining.
A single, easily understood, reporting format should assist in obtaining consistency in reporting obligations. It is necessary of course to recognise that there are important differences between the underground mining and the I.S.L. mining processes. Each incident will need to be assessed to determine its severity and the consequences it has had or may have on the public, employees and the environment. This assessment is to be undertaken in accordance with the nominated criteria.
The S.A. Chamber of Mines and Energy has submitted as follows:- “Within South Australia, in the “modern” uranium era, there have been the very large copper-uranium integrated operation at ODO and now the two ISL operations. These are
15 very different operations in terms of size, process, location and impact. It is difficult to use any criteria for consistency between ISL and Olympic Dam-style incident reporting other than adopting comparable “impact” values. It is therefore suggested that the current review of reporting standards aims at consistency to adopt the measure of “impact” as the main criteria for consistency in reporting.
Any assessment of reporting procedures in other areas including the Northern Territory and the USA demonstrates that each geographical area has its own unique needs and requirements. Nevertheless SACOME submits that best practice incident reporting should be: • open and timely • accessible to the public, media and NGOs • clear, unemotional and factual, in accordance with agreed impact and risk matrix criteria • good communication of a simple severity rating; and should provide a clear emphasis on future actions being taken and required.”
Attached as Appendix E, is an incident reporting form which I recommend be adopted by all regulatory agencies involved in the regulation of mining and milling of uranium ore.
Determine Whether the Current Mechanism for Public Notification of Such Incidents is Appropriate, and if Not Recommend Alternative Mechanisms.
The current mechanism for public notification for both mines is based on publication of the Environment Management and Monitoring Plan and the Annual Environment Report. Olympic Dam also places its annual Community, Environment, Health and Safety Report on the Company’s web-site. An Olympic Dam Community Consultative Forum was established but participation by non-government members has fluctuated and, in one case, withdrawn.
There does not appear to be a current mechanism within Government for public notification of incidents, probably because of the secrecy and confidentiality clauses currently applicable.
Section 109 of the Environmental Protection Act requires the Environment Protection Authority to keep a register to record, amongst other things, “details of incidents causing or threatening serious or material environmental harm that come to the notice of the Authority”.
However, as already noted, Section 7 of the Environment Protection Act provides (among other things) that: • the Act does not apply to circumstances to which the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 applies; • the Act is subject to the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982; • the Act does not apply in relation to waste produced in the course of an activity (not being a prescribed activity of environmental significance) authorised by a lease or licence under the Mining Act 1971, the Petroleum Act 1940 or the Roxby Downs
16 (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 when produced and disposed of to land and contained within the area of the lease or licence; • the Act does not apply in relation to wastes produced in the course of an activity (not being a prescribed activity of environmental significance) authorised by a lease under the Mining Act 1971 when disposed of to land and contained within the area of a miscellaneous purposes licence under that Act adjacent to the area of the lease.
It seems to me that the Parliament’s intention was that the mining and milling of Uranium, and the effect of such on the environment, was to be covered by the Mining Act and leases granted thereunder. Reference has been made previously in this report to that being the practice in the Northern Territory. There is provision under the Mining Act for the lodgement of substantial bond payments, to ensure that all end of mining environmental requirements are met.
If the Environment Protection Act is to apply, amendments to that Act are required. If that occurs, incidents that cause or threaten to cause serious or material environmental harm would be on the Authority public register.
If the Mining Act and the Radiation Protection Control Act continue to apply, I recommend that public notification should be made of those incidents which cause or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm through the Minister for Mineral Resource Development or the Office of Mines and Energy Resources.
When a significant incident arises, I recommend that a protocol be put in place to determine a lead agency and a lead Minister, as has been done in the area of water contamination involving the Department of Human Services and S.A. Water.
Best Practice Incident Reporting in the Industry
The Executive Director, Office of Minerals and Energy Resources has advised that the reporting requirements for radioactive spills and similar incidents that currently apply to ISL uranium mines in South Australia, are more stringent than those known elsewhere in the world.
The Radiation Protection Control Branch advised that the existing ISL reporting requirements in South Australia are not considered appropriate for a commercial mining operation as they were approved for field trials. The Branch also commented that the reporting requirements currently operating, are seen to be very restrictive by comparison with the U.S.A.
Both submissions referred to the regulations of similar mines in the United States, where the industry is regulated directly by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environment Protection Agency, or by individual States. The States operate as “agreement States” in implementing national regulations and standards.
The ACF also suggested I look at the US EPA, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of Wyoming reporting requirements for (alkaline) ISL uranium mines and make my recommendations at least as stringent.
17 I have concluded that the current reporting arrangements are well in excess of those required in the U.S.A. Appendix 4 of the Radiation Control Branch submission set out the procedure applicable in Texas and these are included in this report as Appendix F.
I am satisfied that the adoption of a standard reporting incident form and of the reporting requirements recommended by this report will be among the best practice reporting requirements in the industry.
Report on the Processes in Place Prior to January 2002 Spill at Beverley and in Particular the Effect of any Ministerial Correspondence Related to Reporting
The processes in place prior to the January spill are the same as those currently operating, and have been summarized in Appendix A.
Following enquiries to the relevant Ministers’ offices, no ministerial correspondence related to reporting has been brought to my attention.
18 Appendices
Appendix A Summary of the regulation and reporting requirements of uranium mining in South Australia.
Appendix B Secrecy and confidentiality provisions of relevant Acts of Parliament.
Appendix C Description of Process Plant and the consequences of Plant incidents.
Appendix D Criteria and procedures for recording and reporting incidents at SA uranium mines.
Appendix E Proposed incident reporting form.
Appendix F Current incident reporting arrangements in Texas, USA.
19 APPENDIX A
Summary of the regulation and reporting requirements of uranium mining in South Australia.
APPENDIX A
REGULATION OF URANIUM MINING IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
BACKGROUND
• There are two operating uranium mines in South Australia – Olympic Dam and Beverley. WMC’s Olympic Dam mine is a conventional underground mine which primarily produces copper, but produces significant quantities of associated uranium, gold and silver. Beverley is an in-situ leach (ISL) uranium mine, owned and operated by Heathgate Resources.
• Southern Cross Resources has recently gained all necessary approvals and is moving to establish a commercial ISL mine at Honeymoon. The operation of the Honeymoon uranium mine will be regulated in exactly the same way as Beverley.
• South Australia has an existing body of legislation which provides a comprehensive set of controls for the mining and milling of uranium ores. Relevant legislation is administered by the following agencies:
• Department of Human Services (DHS) • Department of Primary Industries and Resources (PIRSA) • Work Place Services, Dept. Administrative and Information Services (DAIS) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
LEGISLATION
The following South Australian legislation is particularly relevant to uranium mining and milling in South Australia:
• Mining Act, 1971 (Mining Act) • Mines and Works Inspection Act, (1920) (MWI Act) • Radiation Protection and Control Act, 1982 (RPC Act) • Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act, 1982 (RDIR Act) • Environmental Protection Act, 1993 (EPA Act) • Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act, 1986 (OHSW Act) • Dangerous Substances Act, 1979 (DS Act) • Development Act, 1993 (DEV Act) • Water Resources Act, 1997 (WR Act)
• It should be noted that while much of the legislation applying to uranium mining in South Australia applies to mining generally, the Radiation Protection and Control Act (RPC Act) specifically addresses issues related to uranium mining.
• Further, the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act (RDIR Act) sets out the obligations of both the State and WMC in relation to matters at Olympic Dam, including Government regulation. The RDIR Act also modifies the operation of several of the Acts listed above.
The Radiation Protection and Control Act
• The RPC Act, is the principal Act controlling all types of activities involving radiation, including mining and milling of radioactive ores. It provides for various categories of licence and registration, including a Licence to Mine or Mill Radioactive Ores. A person must not mine or mill radioactive ores without holding the appropriate licence.
• A licence is subject to conditions that the Minister for Health may attach to the licence. Conditions on a licence typically include requirements for the licensee to comply with various Codes of Practice, which have been developed by the Commonwealth to ensure uniformity of regulation of uranium mining in Australia. The codes include:
• Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (1987); • Code of Practice on the Management of Radioactive Wastes from the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (1982); and, • The National Health and Medical Research Council Recommendations for limiting exposure to ionising radiation (1995).
• For the Olympic Dam Project, the codes are additionally applied under the RDIR Act. The codes require that a uranium mine have a Radiation Management Plan and a Radioactive Waste Management Plan, approved by the Government.
• The RPC Act establishes the Radiation Protection Committee to advise on Regulations and the granting of licences, with conditions, under the Act. This committee is comprised of a range of Government and non-government members. The RPC Act also provides for the setting up of subcommittees including the Mining and Milling Subcommittee and the Waste Management Subcommittee to assist the Committee on decisions relating to the assessment of applications for a Licence to Mine and Mill Radioactive Ores.
• The Radiation Protection and Waste Management Codes provide for an “Appropriate Authority” to implement the provisions of the codes and to grant approvals or authorisations. In forming the codes, the Commonwealth envisioned that each State or Territory would adopt the codes via its own legislation. To facilitate their adoption, an Appropriate Authority is defined in the codes as that authority having responsibility for enforcing provisions of any legislation implementing any part or the whole of the code.
• The DHS is an Appropriate Authority for the purposes of these codes. In addition to the responsibilities of the DHS under the Act, the following agencies also administer legislation relevant to the mining or milling of radioactive ores:
• PIRSA has broad responsibilities for mining operations under the Mining Act, 1971 and the Mines and Works Inspection Act, 1920. In the special case of Olympic Dam, the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982, vested in the mining Minister and administered by PIRSA, also requires compliance with these codes.
• Workplace Services Group of the Department of Administrative and Information Services has responsibilities under the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920, the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, and the Dangerous Substances Act 1979.
• The EPA has responsibilities under the Environment Protection Act 1993.
2 • Where appropriate, these agencies are also “Appropriate Authorities” for the application of the above codes to the mining and milling of radioactive ores in South Australia.
• PIRSA and DHS work closely together in the application of the codes. This is achieved by frequent consultation and cooperation between the relevant officers, and by an administrative agreement which ensures that both agencies (together with any other relevant agencies) are involved in the consideration of applications for approvals from the operators.
MINING LEASE APPROVAL
• A Mining Lease under the Mining Act 1971, may be granted by the Minister for Mineral Resources Development (Mining Minister) following consideration of the results of an extensive assessment, including assessment of the likely environmental impacts, and satisfactory resolution of Native Title.
• The legislation is implemented so as to minimise the environmental effects of mining and milling and ensure adequate decontamination and rehabilitation of mining sites.
• Section 75 of the Development Act 1993 (the Dev Act) allows for certain applications for mining production tenements to be referred to the Development Minister. Applications to carry out operations which are of “major social economic or environmental importance” must be referred to the Development Minister. Planning SA undertakes an EIS level assessment, which culminates in the Development Minister providing advice to the Mining Minister, to be taken into account in developing conditions of approval.
• Uranium mining is a controlled activity under Commonwealth law. In order to export the uranium product, a company must obtain an Export Permit. The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires that a “nuclear action” (eg. a proposed uranium mine) be referred to the Environment Minister for advice in preparing conditions for an Export Permit. All current uranium mining projects were subject to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act [EPIP Act], which is a predecessor of the EPBC Act.
• As both Commonwealth and State legislation require an EIS, it has been usual practice to conduct a joint State/Commonwealth EIS, with Planning SA acting as the lead agency.
• As a result of extensive environmental impact assessment processes, each of the uranium mining projects has a Mining Lease with a detailed set of conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
• The Beverley mine operators are required as part of Mining Lease conditions under the Mining Act to submit for approval to the Mining Minister a program for the protection, management and rehabilitation of the environment. This program is known as the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). Similarly, as part of the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act Olympic Dam Corporation operates in accordance with a range of approved Environmental Management Programs (EMPs) including radiation dosage, waste management, flora, fauna, groundwater and air emissions.
3 • Monitoring results are analysed and reported annually. Results of the environmental radiation component of the programs are progressively reviewed at quarterly ISL Operators Meetings and the Olympic Dam Environmental Radiation Review Meetings between the operators, DHS, PIRSA and other relevant Government agencies.
• Relevant State agencies are consulted during the process of evaluating and approving Environmental Management Plans (&/or Programs). Annual reports are required on the progress of the program. Both the EMMP and the annual reports are public documents.
• As part of the conditions of a mining lease under the Mining Act, the Beverley operators are required to submit for approval a Mining and Rehabilitation Program (MARP). In addition, an annually estimated cost of decommissioning the mine is submitted for assessment by PIRSA. The operator is then required to lodge an appropriate bond. This is not the case for Olympic Dam, as it operates under the Indenture.
• An Environmental Consultative Committee exists for Olympic Dam and Beverley and one will be formed for Honeymoon prior to commercial operations. The Committees are formed to facilitate the sharing of relevant environmental information between the operators, and the State and Commonwealth Governments.
REPORTING
Olympic Dam
• EMM/EMP Reporting Clause 11 of the Indenture requires WMC to have an approved program for the protection, management and rehabilitation of the environment. To fulfil this requirement WMC has an approved Environmental Management Manual (EMM), as well as a number of detailed Environmental Management Programs (EMPs). WMC is required to produce an annual report, detailing the monitoring undertaken, the results achieved and discussion of any implications of these results. Olympic Dam produces quarterly environmental and radiation monitoring data for Government assessment. The Olympic Dam Environment Consultative Committee meets twice per year for exchange of information between WMC and the State and Commonwealth Governments. • Spill Monitoring, Notification and Reporting Olympic Dam Corporation’s (ODC) current external reporting protocols in the event that a spillage of material occurs as a result of operations are outlined in the Environmental Management Program (EMP) – Spill Management. This document defines reporting triggers such as spill event categories and the required response. It is provided to the EPA, PIRSA and DHS as a means of formal notification of the company’s process for Spill Management. This EMP has been developed to minimise the environmental impact of surface soil contamination from hazardous fluid spillage, leakage and seepage at ODC. Classifications, notifications and the clean up of liquid hazardous material spillages are all outlined in the EMP.
4 Beverley
• Periodic Reporting
Annual The Beverley operators are required to report annually on the EMMP – an Annual Environmental Report. The report is a summary of the non-radiological environmental data and is submitted to the Mines Minister. The Annual Environmental Report should include a written audit report addressing issues such as compliance with State and Federal approvals and the appropriateness and accuracy of monitoring data. Biannual (Environmental Consultative Committees) An Environmental Consultative Committee is set up in relation to each operating uranium mine. The committees meet twice per year to consider environmental data and discuss relevant issues. Quarterly Operators are required on a quarterly basis to provide various data in writing to the Chief Inspector of Mines. These include groundwater monitoring data as well as management of hazardous chemicals. ISL Operators’ Meetings The results of a range of environmental and radiological monitoring are discussed at ISL Operators Meetings. These meetings are held quarterly and attended by company representatives and Government officers. Radiation Reporting Periodic Reporting The Beverley mine submits monthly, quarterly and annual radiation reports to the Radiation Protection Branch of the Department of Human Services. Incident Reporting Excursions: The Beverley operators are required to monitor water quality in adjacent formations. Should this water quality data identify an excursion of mining fluids beyond the mining zone, the company must verbally advise PIRSA within 24 hours and in writing within 7 days. Corrective actions are then required to bring the chemical parameters within specified control limits. Spills: The Beverley mining site currently operates subject to an Notification Procedure For Spills developed during Field Leach Trial (FLT) phase. The requirement for the operator to notify PIRSA, and the timeframe for that notification, depend on the nature of the material spilled (raw groundwater or leach liquids), the location of the spill (within bunds or outside bunds) and the quantity spilled. Spills that may have potential to harm the health of workers or the environment are reportable by fax within 24 hours.
CONCLUSION
• There is a comprehensive body of legislation in South Australia, covering all aspects of uranium mining regulation. This legislation has been in place for a number of years, has been implemented and administered completely over that period, and has been shown to achieve the purposes for which it was designed.
• Although extensive mechanisms of monitoring, reporting and notification of incidents have been established, there is a need to review these mechanisms to reassure members of the public that Government regulation is adequate and that no threat exists to the environment or the health of workers or the general public as a result of uranium mining. This review is now in progress.
5 APPENDIX B
Secrecy and confidentiality provisions of relevant Acts of Parliament.
MINING ACT 1971
Misuse of information 14. Any person employed in the administration of this Act or in the Department of Mines who uses any information derived by him in the course of, or by reason of, his employment for the purpose of personal gain shall be guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty:$5 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.
MINES AND WORKS INSPECTION ACT, 1920
Inspector not to report or divulge information without authority 9. (1) An inspector shall not, for any purpose whatever, make a report on any mine or mining property or prospect except an official report to his superior officer or the Minister, nor shall he make public or reveal to any person any knowledge or information obtained by him in the exercise of his official duties, except as aforesaid or pursuant to subsection (1a) of this section or when giving evidence in a court of law. (1a) The chief inspector of mines may (a) upon application by any person and payment of the fee fixed by the Minister; and (b) with the approval of the Minister, release to that person any statements of fact contained in a report made by an inspector on an accident occurring in a mine or mining property or prospect or connected with any mining operation or undertaking. Penalty (2) Any inspector who is guilty of any contravention of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars. (3) This section does not apply in relation to a report made pursuant to the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act, 1986.
RADIATION PROTECTION AND CONTROL ACT 1982
Secrecy 19. A person who is engaged or has been engaged in any office or position connected with the administration of this Act shall not, otherwise than in the performance of the duties or functions appertaining to that office or position, divulge or communicate any information obtained by virtue of that office or position.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1993
Confidentiality 121. A person must not divulge any information relating to trade processes or financial information obtained (whether by that person or some other person) in the administration or enforcement of this Act except— (a) as authorised by or under this Act; or (b) with the consent of the person from whom the information was obtained or to whom the information relates; or (c) in connection with the administration or enforcement of this Act; or (d) for the purpose of any legal proceedings arising out of the administration or enforcement of this Act. Penalty: Division 5 fine.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE ACT 1986
Confidentiality 55. (1) A person (including a health and safety representative, a member of a health and safety committee or a person acting as a consultant) must not disclose information (except as permitted by subsection (1a)) if— (a) the person obtained the information in the course of carrying out functions in, or related to, the administration, operation or enforcement of this Act; and (b) the information is— (i) about commercial or trading operations; or (ii) about the physical or mental condition, or the personal circumstances or affairs, of an employee or other person; or (iii) information provided in a return or in response to a request for information under this Act. Maximum penalty: Division 6 fine. (1a) The disclosure of information is permitted if it is— (a) a disclosure in the course of official duties; or (b) a disclosure of statistical information; or (c) a disclosure made with the consent of the person to whom the information relates, or who furnished the information; or (d) a disclosure required by a court or tribunal constituted by law; or (e) a disclosure to the Corporation, or to an administrative unit in the Public Service of the State, made under the authorisation of the Minister; or (f) a disclosure authorised by the regulations. (1b) A regulation made for the purposes of subsection (1a)(f) cannot take effect unless it has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and— (a) no motion for disallowance is moved within the time for such a motion; or (b) every motion for disallowance of the regulation has been defeated or withdrawn, or has lapsed. (1c) A person must, in making a disclosure under subsection (1a), insofar as is reasonably practicable, take steps to prevent or minimise any adverse commercial or industrial impact on the relevant employer. (2) An inspector shall not intentionally disclose to an employer the name of a person who has made a complaint to the inspector in relation to occupational health, safety or welfare unless— (a) the disclosure is made with the consent of the complainant; or (b) the disclosure is required by a court or tribunal constituted by law. Maximum penalty: Division 6 fine.
DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES ACT 1979
Secrecy 9. A person who is or has been engaged in an office or position connected with the administration of this Act must not disclose information obtained by virtue of that office or position except: (a) with the consent of the person from whom the information was obtained or to whom the information relates; or (b) in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of this or another Act (including an Act in force in another State or a Territory that corresponds to this Act); or (c) for the purpose of any legal proceedings arising out of the administration, operation or enforcement of this or another Act (including an Act in force in another State or a Territory that corresponds to this Act); or (d) in accordance with the regulations or with guidelines approved by the Minister. Maximum penalty:$10 000.
ROXBY DOWNS (INDENTURE RATIFICATION) ACT 1982
35. CONFIDENTIALITY
No party shall make public any information provided by another party hereto pursuant to this Indenture without first obtaining the consent of the relevant party and shall have due regard to any interests obligations or commitments of that relevant party in relation thereto. Nothing contained in this Clause shall restrict or inhibit in any manner the rights of any party pursuant to this Indenture pursuant to Clauses 49 and 50. APPENDIX C
Description of Process Plant and the consequences of Plant incidents.
Process Plant
Activity of Plant Materials:
The radionuclide concentration of most process streams at Olympic Dam and the ISL processing plants are generally low in relation to the final stages of the uranium extraction process. For an ISL plant, the initial process stream consists of very low uranium and slightly higher radium content solutions. For a ‘conventional’ mining and processing operation such as the Olympic Dam mine, the initial process streams again have low radionuclide concentrations, similar in magnitude to the parent ore.
For both ISL and ‘conventional’ mining operations, the final stages of uranium processing results in materials containing significantly increased uranium concentrations. This occurs where uranium has been extracted from the process stream, concentrated in solution, and in the precipitation, drying, calcining and packaging areas where the uranium appears in a paste or powder form.
Liquids and Slurries:
Primary containment of liquid process materials in uranium plants consists of tanks, pipe- work, and other process equipment. A failure of primary containment may result in the release of process materials into secondary containment structures consisting of bunded areas with sumps and pumps for the collection of the spilt material.
Secondary containment is considered an integral part of the ‘equipment, facilities and procedures to restrict exposure of individual employees and members of the public’. The design of secondary containment is such that accidental releases of process materials will be controlled and returned to the process via sump pumps. There should be no environmental impact as the material is confined within the process area. Where a bund overflows and the spilt process materials leave the secondary containment, plant design provides for a third level of containment in the form of perimeter bunds and sumps or catchment ponds. This material generally requires a special clean up operation and may be returned to the process or sent to tailings disposal as waste.
Failure of the tertiary containment will release materials from the plant area and may result in contamination of the environment.
Loss of Containment of Solids: Generally the most active solid material in the uranium extraction process is found in the drying/calcining and product packing areas. Accidental exposures can occur through failure of primary containment failure, dust extraction equipment or operator error. Such an incident occurred at the Ranger mine in July 1982 in which two workers were exposed to excessive levels of product dust and resulted in significant radiation exposure.
Failure of secondary containment can also result in a situation where there is significant potential for occupational radiation exposure through inhalation of product dust.
At Olympic Dam, active dusts (containing Po-210 and Pb-210) also occur in the smelter off gas train and are collected for return to the process or recycled into the smelter. Accidental releases of this material may result in dispersal into the immediate surroundings and a
1 possible a hazard to workers. Relatively small volumes of active slurry and solids also occur in the ‘anode slimes’ treatment process.
Airborne Emissions: Where materials become airborne through failure of dust extraction equipment, stack emissions, a fire, or explosive dispersal, there is the possibility of dispersion into the plant area resulting in occupational exposures. Dispersion outside the plant area may also result in environmental contamination.
Consequences of Plant Incidents:
Process solutions:
Any unintended release of process solutions can result in worker exposure through splashing or ingestion. Given the low radionuclide content of most process streams, substantial quantities of liquids would need to be ingested to result in a significant dose. Any significant contamination of a worker’s clothing or skin arising from an unplanned release of process liquor, or any suspected ingestion of liquids, requires investigation by the Radiation Safety Officer. This is particularly important in the uranium solvent extraction circuits.
The escape of process solutions from secondary containment represents a significant loss of control of a process and until remedial measures are taken, may lead to contamination of the plant area with the subsequent potential for increased occupational exposures.
The escape of process liquids from tertiary containment (plant boundary) will generally result in contamination of the immediate environment. As this material can be easily identified and removed, the radiological consequences for the environment are negligible. Given the great distances from existing South Australian uranium mines to the nearest members of the public, the public exposures arising from such a release are expected to be negligible.
Solids: Accidental release of uranium product or other active process dusts can result in an ingestion or inhalation hazard for workers. Localised surface soil contamination is possible within the plant and in the broader environment. No significant environmental impacts are foreseen as the material is easily identified and removed.
Airborne Emissions: Accidental release of process dusts can be an inhalation hazard for workers depending on the circumstances. This is particularly true for uranium product dust or dusts arising from smelter operations. Some localised surface soil contamination is possible within the plant and in the broader environment depending on the extent of the release and the nature of the material. Given the large distances to the nearest members of the public, there will be no public exposures arising from such a release.
2 APPENDIX D
Criteria and procedures for recording and reporting incidents at SA uranium mines.
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR RECORDING AND REPORTING INCIDENTS AT SA URANIUM MINES
INTRODUCTION
This reporting procedure addresses those incidents involving the unplanned release of radioactive process materials or liquids associated with the physical and chemical processing of uranium ores.
Incidents that require reporting under the OHS&W Act 1986, the Dangerous Substances Act 1979 and the Environmental Protection Act 1993 shall be reported as normally required under those Acts.
The aim of this procedure is to ensure compliance with conditions attached to the Licence to mine or mill radioactive ores issued under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982, and to ensure radiation exposures to workers, members of the public and the environment are as low as reasonably achievable.
All written reports of incidents shall be made on the approved Incident Report Form.
It is proposed that:
(a) The attached reporting procedure be applied as part of the radiation management plan for uranium mining operations, approved under Clause 8 of the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1987 (or as amended).
(b) The efficacy of the procedure should initially be reviewed within 12 months. The review will take account of any changes in mine operations, technical difficulties encountered, the interaction of these procedure with the requirements of other applicable Acts and Regulations, and the appropriateness of current recording and reporting levels. The procedure should be regularly reviewed thereafter.
In applying the proposed reporting procedure, it is acknowledged that processing plants, wellfields, evaporation ponds, tailings dams, etc are ‘disturbed’ operational areas and will be subject to an approved clean up and rehabilitation program at the completion of the project. The reporting procedure places emphasis on events which may result in unplanned release of radioactive process materials or liquids to the ‘undisturbed environment’, or any unplanned exposures to workers or members of the public.
The procedure is considered ‘generic’. Other site specific requirements may also be applied to particular operations as necessary. REPORTING AND RECORDING PROCEDURE The following recording and reporting conditions are to be applied:
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Report • Any defect, due to design or malfunction, discovered in the mill or plant, equipment or working procedure, that is likely to cause a significant increase in radiation exposure. • Release, or loss of control of radioactive process materials or liquids, leading to the accidental exposure of a worker to radioactive materials through inhalation, ingestion or significant contact. • Unplanned dispersal of any radioactive process materials through fire, explosion or other events.
B. UNDISTURBED ENVIRONMENT Report • Unplanned release of radioactive process materials or liquids. • ISL mining fluid underground excursions. • Evidence of the reduction in integrity of the ISL trunklines, TRS pipelines and structures, pipelines or structures associated with Evaporation or Storage Ponds containing radioactive materials or liquids. • Release of radioactive process materials or liquids which enter or threaten to enter an ephemeral watercourse. Record • Any unplanned release to the surface of more than 10 m3 of natural groundwater.
C. ISL WELLFIELDS Report • Any unplanned release of more than 10 m3 radioactive process liquids. Record • Unplanned releases to the surface of more than 10 m3 natural groundwater. • Any unplanned release of more than 1 m3 of radioactive process liquids. • Evidence of the reduction in integrity of the ISL lateral lines.
D. PROCESS PLANT Report • Any release of uranium concentrate outside secondary containment. • More than 50 m3 radioactive process material or liquid escapes secondary containment, but is contained within the engineered controls of the plant perimeter. • Unplanned release of more than 2 m3 uranium concentrate within secondary containment Record • Unplanned release of radioactive process materials or liquids of more than 50 m3 or 50% of secondary containment volume. • More than 10 m3 of radioactive process materials or liquids escapes secondary containment, but is contained within the engineered controls of the plant perimeter. • Unplanned release of more than 0.2 m3 of uranium concentrate within secondary containment.
E. TRS, CORRIDORS AND PIPELINES Report • Unplanned release of more than 50 m3 radioactive process materials or liquids within Tailings Retention System (TRS) bunded areas and pipeline corridors. • Evidence of reduction in integrity of TRS or evidence of leakage from approved Evaporation Ponds or Storage Ponds containing radioactive materials or liquids.
Record • Unplanned release of more than 10 m3 radioactive process materials or liquids within TRS bunded areas and pipeline corridors. TERMS USED
Report: a verbal report in the first instance, followed by a written report by email or fax within 24 hours.
Record: details of the event are to be recorded in an operator’s log or equivalent for inspection by regulators as necessary.
Uranium Concentrates: shall include all concentrated uranium bearing solutions, slurries and solids from the feed to the uranium precipitation and thickening process, through to the final drummed product.
Operational Areas: processing plant, tailings and evaporation ponds, ISL wellfields pipeline corridors and other areas approved by the regulators, which have clearly defined perimeters engineered to prevent the release of liquids from the site. The engineering controls may consist of bunds, drains, stormwater collection points and ponds etc.
Undisturbed Environment: refers to the areas outside the approved engineering controls (eg pipes, stormwater drains and ponds, bunding of the plant or wellfield or pipeline corridors, airborne emission control equipment or the wellfield mining zone).
Primary Containment: refers to pipes, tanks and vessels and other engineered containment of radioactive process materials and solutions
Secondary Containment: refers to bunded process areas within the plant perimeter.
Wellfield Mining Zone: refers to the ISL ore zone, bounded by approved monitoring wells. APPENDIX E
Proposed incident reporting form.
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
NOTIFICATION OF INCIDENT
CONTACT DETAILS Mine Site Name
Company Name
Your Name
Your Title
Contact Person
Contact Details Business Mobile
Fax E-mail
INFORMATION ABOUT THE INCIDENT (please see explanatory notes) Date & Time of Incident
Location of Incident
Type of Incident
Nature of Material
Estimated Quantity
Was It Contained? How?
Description of Incident (attach separate sheet, if necessary)
Current Status
Probable Cause
Emergency or Remedial Actions (taken or planned)
Who has been notified?
Page 1 of 2
NOTIFICATION OF INCIDENT (Cont’d)
SAFETY & HEALTH RELATED INFORMATION
Number of Injured Persons (please attach a separate sheet with the names of injured persons) Details of Injuries
Potential for Impact on Workers’ Health Actual or Potential Impact on the Safety or Health of Members of the Public
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Nature of Impact and Severity
Current Situation (Potential / ongoing / ceased / etc)
Emergency & Remedial Action Taken Samples Taken? (if (when / where / type / number / etc) so, give details)
Signed: ______Time: ______am/pm Date: ______
OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIVED BY
DATE TIME
Page 2 of 3
EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR “NOTIFICATION OF INCIDENT” REPORTING FORM
The form is to be used when notifying Government agencies of incidents at uranium mines and which are reportable within 24 hours.
A representative of the company should notify the appropriate responsible officers by telephone as soon as practicable after the incident occurs, and forward the completed form by fax (or email) to:
PIRSA - Office of Minerals and Energy Resources
EPA - Radiation Protection Branch
EPA - Operations Branch
DAIS - Workplace Services
Give enough information for regulators to rapidly assess the likely hazard to the health and safety of workers and/or to the environment. A guide to some of the information requested in the form is given below.
Location of Incident • Specific details required
Type of Incident • eg. Spill, fire, personal injury, excursion, dangerous occurrence, or similar term Nature of Material • Characterise such things as chemical nature, level of acidity/alkalinity, typical concentrations of radiologically active components, etc. Estimated Quantity • Indicate how the quantity was estimated and how reliable the estimate is. Description of Incident • Give a description of the event (or sequence of events) with an appropriate level of detail. Current Status • Indicate such things as: whether the incident is on-going; whether clean-up is required and if it has been completed; whether the plant was shut down and, if so, has normal operation resumed Who has been notified • Indicate if notification has been made to other parts of Government, the media, etc. Confidential Information • If including information about individuals, please attach as a separate page. • Apart from personal information and unless otherwise stipulated all information will be treated as not confidential and may be released publicly.
Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX F
Current incident reporting arrangements in Texas, USA.
INCIDENT REPORTING PROCEDURES AT ISL MINES IN TEXAS, USA
In total there have been eleven ISL Uranium mining operations in the USA. Six of these mines sites are located in Texas. Reporting procedures for ISL mines in Texas are set out in the “Texas Administrative Code.”
Spills
There are two notification categories for spills:
(1) Spills that require immediate notification to the relevant agency:
• Any failure of by-product retention system which results in release of by-product1 material into unrestricted areas. • Any release of radioactive material outside of the licensed boundary which exceeds specified radionuclide concentrations.2 • Any spill which exceeds 20,000 gallons (75,800 litres) and which exceeds specified radionuclide concentrations.2 • Any release of solids which exceeds specified soil contamination limits and extends beyond the licensed boundary.
(2) Spills that require notification within 24 hours to the relevant agency:
• Any spill which exceeds 2000 gallons (7580 litres). • Any spill that extends beyond the monitor well ring (typical diameter 100 metres). • Any spill that extends more than 400 feet (122 metres) from an injection or extraction well pipe artery between the wellfield and the processing plant. • Any spill that extends more than 200 feet (61 metres) from the processing plant.
Other Reportable Incidents Include • Any event involving a source of radiation that has caused or threatens to cause an individual to receive a dose above the specified limit.3 • Any unplanned contamination event that requires access to the contaminated area by workers or the public, to be restricted for more than 24 hours. • Any event in which equipment that is required to function to prevent releases exceeding regulatory limits, fails or is disabled. • An unplanned fire or explosion damaging any container or equipment containing radioactive material.
1 By-product material is defined as; “Tailings or wastes produced by or resulting from the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by such solution extraction processes do not constitute “by-product material” within this definition.” 2 Specified concentrations include: Uranium-238 (1 ppm), Uranium-234 (1 ppm) and Radium-226 (2.2 Bq/L). 3 A total effective dose equivalent of 0.25 Sv or more is to be reported immediately. A dose exceeding 0.05 Sv received within a period of 24 hours is to be reported within 24 hours. 1