ERA, operator of the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu, announced on March 20 that it was abandoning for the present its plans to release radioactively contaminated water into Magela Creek. The week before, Aboriginal traditional owners of land likely to be affected had been refused a request for an injunction to stop the release.
ERA presented the decision as an effort to comply with the concerns of Aboriginal people. However, as the article reproduced here indicates, changing weather and water flow conditions had made it necessary for ERA to postpone the release. It is possible, even likely, that ERA will be tempted to release contaminated water in the next wet season.
This article, by RICHARD LEDGAR, is excerpted from the newsletter of the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory.
The fantastic rainy season we have been having means that excess water is accumulating within the restricted release zone (RRZ) of the Ranger uranium mine. Run-off within the zone is collected in retention ponds. The ponds are supposed to be large enough to cope with our monsoon climate. During the dry the water evaporates, making room for the next wet season's accumulations.
That is in theory. In reality, due to an initial design fault, there has been a net accumulation of water within the RRZ from one year to the next. In years when above average rainfall occurs, such as this year, the retention ponds fill to capacity and additional storage areas are required.
When these retention ponds have filled to capacity, Ranger seeks to release the excess into Magela Creek. Prior to March 10, authorisation to release into the Magela has never been granted, and Ranger has been forced to use the mine pit and borrow pits within the RRZ as alternative storage areas.
For the first time authorisation has been granted, but has not been able to be implemented due initially to an injunction hearing, and subsequently to a fall in the flow rate of the Magela. The skies are clear over Jabiru and the general feeling is that unless the monsoon returns, flow rates will remain below those set by the Office of the Supervising Scientist as optimum for release. So the injunction request achieved a satisfactory delay but not a resolution.
In refusing the injunction, Chief Justice Brian Martin stated that as science had found that there would be no harm to the environment, there was no basis for the plaintiffs to be in fear of the release.
Chief Justice Martin appears to have totally discounted the evidence of Bill Neidji, a senior traditional owner of the country downstream of the discharge site. He appears to have relegated the accumulated knowledge of 60,000 years of continuous occupation within a uranium-rich environment to a "thing" called "fears".
Affidavits from a number of senior traditional owners that the contaminants would bring about a long-term poisoning of the environment and the people who depend on it, were dismissed as irrelevant.
The affidavits from the Office of the Supervising Scientist on the other hand, based on, at the most, 20 years of research, were accepted without question. Despite an almost universal recognition that there are no safe levels for the release of radionuclides into the natural environment, the OSS evidence went unchallenged.
The release of water from within the RRZ is a serious threat to the environment, and an inappropriate way to manage a world heritage area.
The contaminants within the RRZ are toxic radionuclides, with long half-lives and of a type that accumulate within the food chain. Potential therefore exists that the impacts of release may not become apparent for years.
For example, radium is one of the contaminants. Radium easily displaces calcium in organisms, but the effect takes a while to show up. So, in short-lived organisms, the impacts may not be detected. In longer lived organisms such as people or crocodiles, the impacts can be observed, but not for some time. This means that we need to exercise caution.
The federal environment minister, Senator Faulkner, has a suite of responsibilities that, to date, it appears he has been reluctant to exercise.
Following are extracts from a letter sent to the minister on March 18 from the Environment Centre.:
"Firstly as the Minister responsible for the Australian Nature Conservation Agency you have a specific commitment to ensuring that the concept of joint management is a reality in all aspects of park management. It makes joint management a sham if the knowledge and advice of [traditional owners] is only acted on when it suits government. Bill Neidji has clearly indicated that, based on his authority and knowledge, this release will poison the land, the water, the plants and the animals.
"As the Minister responsible for the Office of the Supervising Scientist it is a requirement to ensure that the OSS is examining the operation of Ranger in the most comprehensive manner. This is currently termed as using Best Practical Technology ... BPT, as it is currently being applied, is not only deficient, but out of date ...
"The area downstream of the mine is part of the area listed on the Register of the National Estate ...
"As you are no doubt aware from recent media reports, Bill Neidji has stated that if this release occurs he and his family will have to leave their traditional lands. This will have an obvious impact on the on-going management of the cultural resources of the listed property.
"As the Minister responsible for the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act you similarly have a duty to ensure that the values which entitle Kakadu to be placed on the World Heritage list are not jeopardised."
The threat to release contaminated water into Kakadu National Park is a real and ongoing one.
The management of Kakadu is a matter of concern for all. Aboriginal people are seeking to maintain their cultural responsibilities and non-Aboriginal people, nationally and internationally, should be vitally concerned with the ongoing protection of its integrity.