by Tom Kelly
Delegates to the ALP national conference later this month are being lobbied intensely on uranium mining policy by both pro- and anti-mining forces. The fact that the conference decision could well end Labor's existing three mines policy reflects increased pressure for liberalisation of the policy from those with mining interests, as well as the waning of the anti-uranium movement as a mass public phenomenon.
The policy was adopted in 1984 as a compromise to allow mining at Ranger, Nabarlek and Roxby Downs, for the life of those mines. (Nabarlek was mined out in 1990, and Ranger is expected to be mined out by the end of this year, although stockpiles are sufficient for yellowcake production to continue until the end of the decade.)
Under the three mines policy, no other uranium mines were to be permitted. This was presented to the anti-uranium forces both outside and within the party as a policy to "phase out" uranium mining while allowing the continued operation of the mines which were already operating when Labor won government federally in 1983.
The three mines policy was immediately perceived by those opposed to uranium mining as a sell-out. It led to mass defections from the ALP and to a surge in support for the Nuclear Disarmament Party, which had a clear anti-uranium mining policy.
Market glut
Over recent years, a glut in uranium supplies worldwide and consequent lower prices have meant that there has not been a great deal of pressure from the industry to allow new mines to operate.
In fact, it has been more profitable for Australian uranium producers to fulfil their contracts with uranium bought overseas than to export their own. According to the August 29 Financial Review, Energy Resources Australia (ERA), which operates the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, is supplying half its current sales from purchases from Kazakhstan. This purchased uranium is available at below ERA's cost of production.
The economic viability of the Australian uranium industry will be enhanced when the world stockpile is run down to a level that boosts prices. The industry expects this to happen by 1996, and Australian producers want approval to begin new mines now, so that they can be ready for the upturn when it comes.
There is a strong element of uncertainty in these calculations, however. This arises from the possibility of the release onto the civilian market of large amounts of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from nuclear warheads and stockpiles, particularly from the Commonwealth of Independent States. According to the Financial Review, total HEU inventories would supply 12 years of the world's reactor demand. Adding CIS and Western uranium inventories to this gives enough uranium to supply the world's reactors for the next 17 years.
Against this background of market uncertainty, debate around the three mines policy has focused on the economic viability of new mines. The acceptance of this approach by anti-uranium lobbyists seems to be due to the perception that these economic arguments are more likely to sway the ALP and its conference delegates than broader health and environmental considerations.
While such an approach reflects an accurate perception of the profit before people motivations that dominate Labor Party decision-making, accepting this framework means that the crucial reasons for opposing uranium mining remain in the background. The battle against uranium mining could be lost on an economics basis without the key health and environmental issues being adequately addressed.
Remembering Chernobyl
In Australia, on the opposite side of the planet to Chernobyl, site of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986, it may be necessary to remind ourselves of the magnitude of the disaster that is still unfolding there. John Hallam dealt with the human and environmental impact of Chernobyl in an article which appeared in the Autumn 1994 issue of Third Opinion, the journal of the Movement Against Uranium Mining (NSW).
Hallam points out that eight years after the Chernobyl accident, nearly 5 million people in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia live on contaminated land. Even in Britain (which started receiving Chernobyl fallout six days after the accident) there are still 600 farms that are too contaminated for meat raised on them to be eaten without restriction.
Friends of the Earth (Ukraine) says the immediate radiation effects of the accident have already claimed more than 32,000 lives, and last year the World Health Organisation reported a 24-fold increase in thyroid cancers in children. More than 250,000 hectares of farmland have had to be abandoned as a result of contamination.
Given the lack of discussion about the hazards of nuclear power, we could be forgiven for assuming that the serious problems facing the technology had been solved. Surely, if we believed that Chernobyl-type disasters could happen again, or if we thought that the problems of nuclear power plant safety and waste disposal hadn't been solved, we wouldn't supply the raw material for such a dangerous technology, would we?
Well, according to Hallam, of Russia's 29 nuclear plants, 11 are Chernobyl-type units, and six are older units that are considered problematic in terms of safety. A report earlier this year from the Russian Federal Nuclear and Radiation Authority reported 20,000 safety violations, based on 5500 inspections. Ten per cent of nuclear workers failed safety knowledge tests.
Closer to home, Indonesia's plans to build 12 nuclear reactors in central Java, which happens to be in an earthquake zone, should make clear that even if Australia doesn't turn to nuclear power itself, we may well end up on the receiving end of a nuclear disaster.
Lucas Heights
In Australia, recent controversy over accumulating radioactive waste at Lucas Heights south of Sydney is just another reflection of the failure of the nuclear industry to find a real solution to its waste problem. According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on May 3, the cost of building a repository for the high level nuclear waste from the tiny Lucas Heights research reactor could be up to $17 billion. While the United States has promised to take back the spent fuel rods, the chairperson of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that before doing this "the US would first have to resolve its own environmental issues and select an acceptable storage site".
The release, last month, of an updated version of Dr Helen Caldicott's Nuclear Madness: What You Can Do is timely for Australia, given the debate on uranium policy. Caldicott, a paediatrician and anti-nuclear activist who founded Physicians for Social Responsibility in 1979, argues that claims that nuclear energy is a safe, clean, efficient form of power only endanger countless lives and stifle funding for research into alternative forms of power.
Caldicott points out that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, and argues that in reality there is no viable way to store radioactive waste safely. Waste remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and containers designed to store waste have repeatedly displayed defects.
The only responsible course of action with regard to the nuclear fuel cycle is to refrain from involvement, and to direct resources to energy conservation and to clean alternative technologies such as solar, wind and wave power. A decision regarding uranium mining in Australia made according to the criteria of its profitability for private companies allows short-sighted and narrow vested interests to take precedence over the interests of humanity as a whole.
There is a vital need to again raise public consciousness regarding the dangers posed by the nuclear fuel cycle, and to convince people that Australia should take a lead on the issue and leave its uranium in the ground.