Re: Toro Energy Ltd Wiluna Uranium Project Environmental Review and Management Programme

Conservation Council WA, Australian Conservation Foundation, Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA and Wilderness Society submissions to the EPA on Toro Energy Ltd Wiluna uranium project ERMP October 31st 2011

Ray Claudius

Environmental Protection Authority
Locked Bag 33, Cloisters Square, Perth, WA, 6850

Ph (08) 6467 5419

Re: Toro Energy Ltd Wiluna uranium project Environmental Review and Management Programme (ERMP)

This submission was prepared with the help and advice from Dr Jim Green, Dr Gavin Mudd and Dr Nic Dunlop. This submission is being submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia on behalf of the Conservation Council of WA, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA.

For further details or comment please contact the Conservation Council WA, Nuclear Free Campaigner Mia Pepper.

City West Lotteries House, 2 Delhi St, West Perth, WA 6005

M 0415 380 808T (08) 9420 7266 F (08) 9420 7273 W

Yours sincerely,

Conservation Council WA, Australian Conservation Foundation, Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA and Wilderness Society submissions to the EPA on Toro Energy Ltd Wiluna uranium project ERMP October 31st 2011

Mia Pepper

Nuclear Free Campaigner

Conservation Council WA

Dave Sweeney,

Nuclear Free Campaigner

Australian Conservation Foundation

Jo Vallentine

Chair

Anti Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia

Peter Robertson

Campaign Manager WA

The Wilderness Society

Conservation Council WA, Australian Conservation Foundation, Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA and Wilderness Society submissions to the EPA on Toro Energy Ltd Wiluna uranium project ERMP October 31st 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Mining in WA: Management Failures

3. Insufficient Data

4. Toro Energy's Disclaimer

5.Radiation Risks

6. Uranium Transport

7. Social Impacts − Aboriginal Heritage Issues, Jobs, Public Opinion

8. Local Environmental Impacts:

8.1 Biodiversity

8.2 Stygofauna

8.3 Calcrete Deposits

8.4 Water

8.5 Radioactive Tailings Waste

8.6 Cumulative Impacts

8.7 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Emissions

8.8 Closure and Rehabilitation

9. Global Implications of Uranium Export from Wiluna

High-level Nuclear Waste

Nuclear Accidents

Weapons Proliferation

Appendix 1: West Australian Nuclear Free Alliance 2011 Statement

Appendix 2: Radiation risks to uranium miners'

Appendix 3: 'Uranium industry's record raises doubts' (The West Australian)

Appendix 4: Technical comments by Dr Gavin Mudd

1. INTRODUCTION

Australian uranium mines have a history of leaks, safety breaches and failed rehabilitation. Accordingly a 2004 report by a Senate References and Legislation Committee found "a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance" in the uranium mining industry and identified many gaps in knowledge. To date, not a single uranium mine in Australia has been rehabilitated to the point that radiological conditions are stable and ongoing monitoring is no longer required.

The history of the wider mining sector in WA has also been problematic as detailed in a recent Auditor General's report.[1] Moreover the current uranium mine application comes amidst a raft of organisational and regulatory reviews and changes:

A series of reviews and changes within the EPA and the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP).
A DMP-appointed panel has been established to advise on uranium mining regulations and standards yet the process has been secretive and exclusive; serious concerns have been raised about the independence of the panel; the panel has yet to publicly release any of its findings; and the Government has yet to act on any of the panel's findings.
The EPA is reviewing the mechanisms for protection of stygofauna.
New mine closure plans are just starting to be rolled out.

Uranium mining management has been inadequate around Australia; mining management has been inadequate in WA; and an effective regulatory regime for uranium mining has not been established in WA. Three a priori reasons for concern about Toro Energy's proposal to develop a commercial uranium mine at Wiluna.

Those concerns are heightened by Toro's application − the Environmental Review and Management Programme (ERMP). The application in its current form should be rejected on the basis that there is incomplete information, baseline studies are deficient and management plans are still pending. This level of information is relevant to the public interest and is not present in the ERMP that has been made publicly available. Toro Energy's application should not be assessed let alone approved until serious data gaps have been addressed.

Remarkably, Toro Energy acknowledges that it has not fully verified the accuracy or completeness of its own application, and does not accept responsibility or liability for its application. This is clearly unacceptable and EPA assessment should be deferred at least until such time as Toro Energy takes responsibility for its own application.

Specific concerns with the ERMP application and the proposed mine at Wiluna include the following:

A mining agreement with Traditional Owners has not yet been negotiated, and the Heritage Mapping Survey which will inform negotiations has not yet been completed. There are also local community concerns and complaints about the way Toro has scheduled and conducted public meetings and consultation processes.
Lake Way is home to a unique population of Stygofauna − a newly-discovered species of subterranean crustaceans.
Transport plans are presented as a "preliminary draft" and yet the company plans to transport a toxic and radioactive product many thousands of kilometers from Wiluna to Adelaide and/or Darwin.
The mine rehabilitation plans are incomplete and Toro Energy's preliminary costing for rehabilitation is being kept secret.
Toro Energy Ltd acknowledges the need for a formal risk assessment in relation to security risks yet this has not been carried out.
Uranium mining and tailings disposal in this region would occur below the water-table and be connected to aquatic ecosystems. There is a risk of contaminating the aquatic ecosystems with changes in water chemistry, including the mobilisation of radioactive compounds.
Toro Energy plans to line the sides of the tailings pits (former shallow open pits) but not the base of the pit, this will lead to leakage of tailings into the ground.
The legal requirement for tailings management at the Ranger uranium mine in the NT is effective isolation for at least 10,000 years. This requirement should be a minimum standard for any proposed uranium mine in WA including Wiluna.
No calcrete uranium deposit has been mined in Australia and there is only one calcrete deposit presently being mined worldwide. There is a lack of expertise and experience in engineering and mine design for these deposits.
Toro Energy has not factored in recent advice from the International Commission on Radiological Protection that radon is twice as carcinogenic[2] as previously thought. Toro Energy has recklessly and irresponsibly promoted fringe scientific views that low-level radiation is harmless or beneficial; conversely, the company has done nothing to promote the mainstream scientific understanding that even the lowest doses of ionising radiation can induce fatal cancers and other diseases.
Toro Energy has not demonstrated a comprehensive understanding or analysis of the cumulative impacts of water extraction for the proposed mine.
Toro Energy has made the false assumption that the Wiluna region has naturally elevated radiation levels and has failed to submit accurate and complete evidence on the radiological environment at Lake Way and its surrounds.

Toro Energy downplays the significant global implications of its uranium mining and export proposal. We urge the EPA to address the global implications given the failure of corporate governance and the failure and limitations of Commonwealth regulation of the industry. An important, recent example of these problems has been the failure of the uranium-exporting companies operating in Australia to do anything constructive about repeated, widespread safety breaches and data falsification in Japan over the past decade − including the failure to adequately prepare for and respond to earthquakes. Instead, the mining companies supplying Australian uranium to Japan − BHP Billiton, ERA (Rio Tinto) and the Commonwealth regulators have turned a blind eye to those well-documented safety problems.

To summarise the global implications:

At best, exported uranium will end up as high-level nuclear waste. No country has established a permanent waste repository.
At worst, exported uranium will end up as fissile (explosive) material in nuclear weapons, or in a nuclear disaster such as that in Fukushima, Japan.

If the EPA believes it does not have the authority or scope to address the serious global implications of uranium mining and export, we call on the EPA to recommend to the Government to establish a full, open, transparent and independent Public Inquiry under provision 40 (2)(c) of the EP Act.

Toro Energy's ERMP has important surveys missing and management plans pending, the incompleteness of the ERMP highlights a deficiency in the assessment process of public consultation. We are advised that Toro continue to finalise studies and management plans- those surveys and management plans are therefore excluded from the public comment process which has led to over 2000 public submission. It is deeply insulting to the West Australian public for serious volumes of information and important aspects of the project to be omitted from the ERMP during the public comment process. At risk of setting a poor precedent by accepting an incomplete and inadequate application under an insufficient regulatory regime, we urge the EPA to reject Toro Energy's application and to recommend a Public Inquiry under the EP Act to address the broader issue of uranium mining in WA. At the very least we expect the EPA to recommence the public comment process when a complete ERMP for the Wiluna proposal is submitted by Toro Energy.

2. MINING IN WA: MANAGEMENT FAILURES

Auditor General's report on mining compliance

On 28 September 2011 Colin Murphy, the WA Auditor General, released a report on an audit into mining compliance in WA, looking at the states regulatory process and systems in place to oversee the mining sector in WA.[3] The report identifies a number of key areas where the Government agencies that regulate the mining industry are overwhelmed and failing to adequately monitor and assess mining compliance and environmental performance.

Some key areas of concern that have been identified by the Auditor General include:

DMP's planning and management of its inspections did not define the frequency of inspections needed to assure compliance with conditions; did not include risk assessment to select sites; did not have clear inspections guidelines or criteria to ensure consistency with inspections, and did not have clear controls to ensure inspection reports are consistent with authorised enforcement action. (pp.27-29)
Environmental enforcement has weaknesses: the enforcement policy relies on voluntary compliance and staff are advised to apply the lowest level of enforcement action that will achieve compliance, placing too much reliance on staff judgment − this results in inconsistent and inappropriate action. (pp.29-30)

Government-funded panel on uranium regulations

The WA Department of Mines and Petroleum announced on the 23 August 2010 that it had appointed an expert panel to advise how to employ a world's best practice uranium sector regulatory framework. Over one year later there has still not been any public reporting of any results from this panel, nor are we sure that there will be any public release of information from this panel.

The Conservation Council of WA, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society, the Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA, and UnionsWA all raised concerns about:

the lack of independence of the panel;
exclusion of people with expertise in relevant areas, e.g. radiation specialists, health practitioners, social scientists, consultation experts, Indigenous and environmental representatives;
non-disclosure of the Terms of Reference with the DMP actively stopping the Panel from releasing the Terms of Reference (though they were eventually released);
narrow and unclear Terms of Reference which exclude vital issues such as transport risks, Native Title, Aboriginal heritage, public health, environmental protection, safeguards, weapons proliferation and security issues;
limited transparency and no public engagement; and
Minister Moore's statement in Parliament (15 Sept 2010) that all reports from the Panel would be regarded as internal Government documents.

The Wiluna application ought to be rejected on the grounds that an effective regulatory regime is not in place and there is no reason to believe that one will arise from the DMP's non-transparent 'uranium regulation panel' process.

Radiation regulations in WA

A 2009 report titled 'Uranium Exploration: Safety, Environmental, Social and Regulatory Considerations', written by Nick Tsurikov of Calytrix Consulting[4], details a number of key issues regarding radiation management and standards in Western Australia. These include:

inadequacies in radiation management plans approved prior to 2008;
incorrect assumptions and false values in relation to radiation management regulations;
inconsistency between regulations on dose limits in guidelines and regulations;
uncertainties regarding applicable regulations for the transport of uranium core samples and on limitations of uranium concentration in materials being transported;

the need to establish an effective system of inspections of uranium exploration sites and uranium mines;

a skills shortage of radiation safety officers and insufficient accredited training programs to address this; and, among other problems,
contradictions in radiological rehabilitation requirements - back to original state or to 1 mSv (which would be unacceptable).

We ask the EPA to determine which of the concerns raised by Mr Tsurikov have been satisfactorily addressed, and more importantly, which have not.

3. INSUFFICIENT DATA

(ALSO SEE APPENDIX 4 COMMENTS FROM DR GAVIN MUDD)

It is clear from the ERMP that Toro Energy aspires to meet existing regulatory standards. But existing regulatory standards are inadequate as reported in the Auditor General's report, a 2003-04 Senate Committee and in other literature.[5] Toro Energy Ltd expects the EPA to approve an ERMP that lacks key data and detail. No doubt there are precedents − hence the problems identified by the Auditor General, Senate Committees, etc. Nonetheless it would be inappropriate and unprofessional for the EPA to approve an ERMP with such serious data gaps. While Toro energy may be addressing some of these data gaps at present, they are not present for the public review process, some of the gaps include areas that are of public interest, such as heritage surveys and transport plans. The following information should be re-submitted for public comment on their full completion.

Some of the data gaps include:

Toro Energy Ltd state that ‘high volume air sampling was not available for much of the 2010 sampling period due to power supply limitations' (p.4.4). Toro Energy Ltd should provide actual data from 2011 sampling and not leave this to some future study.
Toro Energy's 'Transport Management Plan' is presented as "preliminary draft"
The mine rehabilitation plans are incomplete and Toro Energy's preliminary costing for rehabilitation is being kept secret.
Potential sources of water for the mine are still being explored.
A mining agreement with Traditional Owners has not yet been negotiated, and the Heritage Mapping Survey which will inform negotiations has not yet been completed.
Toro Energy Ltd acknowledges the need for a formal risk assessment in relation to security risks yet this has not been carried out.

In its current state the ERMP is not fit to be assessed let alone approved.

4. TORO ENERGY'S DISCLAIMER

Toro Energy's application states that the company has relied on information provided by third parties and "Toro has not fully verified the accuracy or completeness of that information except where expressly acknowledged". Toro goes on to say that that the company "gives no warranty or undertaking, express or implied, in respect of the information contained in this ERMP [Environmental Review and Management Plan] and does not accept responsibility and is not liable for any loss or liability whatsoever arising as a result of any person acting or refraining from acting on any information contained in the ERMP."

The WA and Commonwealth Governments should refuse to assess Toro Energy's application until such time as it has fully verified the accuracy and completeness of its own application and until such time as Toro Energy Ltd accepts responsibility for its own submission.

5. RADIATION RISKS

(ALSO SEE APPENDIX 4 COMMENTS FROM DR GAVIN MUDD)

Toro Energy Ltd states that the average radiation dose for miners at Wiluna will be 5.1 millisieverts (mSv), with 3.8 mSv of that from radon progeny (Appendix D, p.61). There is no evidence that Toro Energy Ltd has factored in recent advice from the International Commission on Radiological Protection indicating that radon progeny are twice as carcinogenic as previously thought.[6] Thus the true dose for miners will be closer to 10 mSv − approximately half of the permitted average dose for nuclear industry workers but 10 times the permitted dose for members of the public. It is unclear in Toro Energy's ERMP whether they have considered the buildup of radon progeny with atmospheric inversions, where warm air is trapped by a layer of cold air, studies have shown that with inversions such as these radon progeny can accumulate anywhere between 100 and 1000 times higher that natural levels.[7]

To give some indication of the hazard involved, Nuclear Radiologist Dr Peter Karamoskos states in relation to the Olympic Dam mine in SA (at which radiation doses are marginally lower than those projected by Toro Energy Ltd for Wiluna):[8]

"The average miner at Olympic Dam is in his twenties and stays on average five years at the site. A typical calculation using the linear no threshold model and the latest BEIR-VII figures of radiation carcinogenesis risks indicates miners at Olympic Dam therefore have a 1:670 chance of contracting cancer, most likely lung cancer. Note that as the research demonstrates risk of developing lung cancer is greater for younger workers. These risks are not insubstantial and it is debatable whether miners have the training to understand such explanations, or are even informed of these risks in a full and accurate manner that they can comprehend and make an informed work decision."