Grønlandsudvalget 2015-16
L 155 Bilag 2
Offentligt
1618181_0001.png
GSc Consulting
Environmental and health
impacts of uranium mining in
Greenland
Overview on impacts, their evaluation and resulting consequences for
regulation and control
Public Conference on mining uranium in Greenland,
Copenhagen/Denmark, March 16 2016
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0002.png
Overview
1.
General overview over impacts
2.
Specific issue: radiation protection of workers
and the public
3.
Specific issue: wastes from mining and
processing
4.
Specific issue: social impacts
GSc Consulting
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0003.png
1 Overview on impacts
# Impact
Operation
High
Closure
Moderate
Post closure
None
GSc Consulting
1
Occupational radiation
2
Public radiation exposure
3
Gaseous emissions & dust
High
High
High
Moderate
Depending
Depending
4
Liquid emissions processing
5
Mining waste storage
6
Processing waste disposal
7
Dam Safety
8
Landscape, visual impacts
High
High
Small
High
Very High
Very High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Very High
Depending
Extremely High
Depending
Depending
Depending
Depending
Depending
Depending
9
Social impacts
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0004.png
2 Specific issue: Radiation Protection
Occupational exposure:
•
Elevated exposure rates during blasting/hauling via dust
•
Very high exposure rates in certain processing stages by direct gamma radiation
(specific workshops, maintenance and repair in certain stages of the facility)
•
Experiences in Germany: disregards of basic protection requirements lead to severe
health damages among underground mine workers
Requires strict radiation protection regime
Public exposure:
•
Elevated exposure rates from radon emissions (and its decay products), range ca. 20
km
•
In the closer vicinity (range 2 – 5 km): exposure to dust (alpha exposure via lung
pathway)
•
Experiences in Germany: exposures up to 5 mSv per year (limit: 1 mSv/a), misuse of
contaminated materials, release of materials for road construction, etc.
Requires strict radiation protection regime
GSc Consulting
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0005.png
3 Specific issues: wastes from mining & milling
Properties of mining & milling wastes:
•
Wastes can include toxic constituents (chromium, copper, arsenic, …)
•
Wastes can include pyrite (acid generation if in contact with oxygen, acidic leachate!)
•
Milling wastes extremely fine grained (subject to intensive leaching, dust if
uncovered!)
•
Removal of uranium does not substantially reduce adverse properties
•
Experiences in Germany: High arsenic concentrations, high pyrite content requires
thorough disposal concept, leachate from storage facilities requires water treatment
Consequent and restrictive enclosure policy required
Waste management during operation:
•
Management regime requires compatibility with local climatic conditions (Greenland:
operation during the winter season)
•
Dams and waste piles require high mechanical stability with design against local
conditions (including low-probability events)
Robust safety policy required, no compromises in respect to safety
GSc Consulting
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0006.png
3 Longterm enclosure of milling wastes
Longterm enclosure of milling wastes:
•
Safe enclosure of wastes required over extremely long time scales
•
Design necessary for stability over 1,000 years ++
•
Design against erosion, climate changes, changes in local conditions, etc., required
•
European Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/EC requires sustainable disposal strategy:
Waste Management Plan that covers the complete operation
Priority of disposal in mine openings
Sustainable covering of the wastes
Adequate financial provisions required to cover all costs for later disposal of the
wastes
•
Experiences in Germany: no waste management plans, no provisions, 8 bn € cleanup
costs to be paid by the german taxpayer (36 € per produced kg U, larger than current
market price)
Projects on the economic edge: Large risk that cleanup and longterm-care for the
wastes will rest with the general public or else local communities will suffer from
incomplete cleanups
GSc Consulting
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0007.png
4 Social risks
Social impacts of mining:
•
Large increase of workers and employment in a very short period
•
Very special qualifications required
•
Overwhelms local economic and social structures and builds up very specific
structures that are very specific for the project
Impacts of mine closure:
•
Complete collapse of the specialized economic and social structure
•
Adaption to new situation and complete restructuring required
•
Leaves communities with unresolvable situation
•
German experiences: immediate release of ten thousands of mine workers at Wismut
to unemployment, large costs for the social security systems, complete restructuring
of the coal mining sector in Northrhine-Westfalia and the Saar region, longer term
costs uncovered
The limitation and control of adverse social and economic structural changes is a
task that could outweigh any positive economic impacts by far
GSc Consulting
 L 155 - 2015-16 - Bilag 2: Præsentationer og talepapirer fra høringen om uran den 16. marts 2016
1618181_0008.png
Summary
1. The environmental and health impacts are manifold.
To limit those to acceptable levels requires the introduction of strict
regulatory regimes and their contineous control by regulators.
2. The mining project requires the introduction of a very strict radiation
protection requirement regime. Otherwise adverse radiological
impacts would result.
3. The adverse consequences of a failed waste management practice as
elsewhere in the mining industry are manifold, a strict regulatory
regime is required to avoid large damages to the society as a whole
and to local communities. The disposal of milling wastes into lakes is
an overall unsustainable practice.
4. The adverse social consequences of large mining projects can have
very costly consequences and have to be carefully evaluated.
GSc Consulting