Argentina

IAEA Technical Meeting to Develop a Layperson´s
Guide to Environmental Remediation
Vienna - Austria, 31 August to 4 September 2009
Uranium Mining Projects:
Environmental Issues and Stakeholders Involvement
Current Situation in Argentina
Maricruz Caruso – [email protected]
National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA)
ARGENTINA
Presentation Outline
• NPPs in Argentina
• Legal framework for U mining cycle
• Environmental and social issues of the U mining
cycle:
– Uranium exploration projects
– Uranium production projects
– Former mining and milling plants
• Major public concerns regarding U mining
• Final remarks
NPPs in Argentina
a
b a
c
ATUCHA I
357 MWe
Slightly Enriched U
b
EMBALSE
648 MWe
Natural U
c
ATUCHA II
(under construction)
745 MWe
Natural U
Legal Framework
U Mining Cycle
•
•
•
•
•
Nuclear National Law
Radioactive Waste National Law
Argentinean Mining Code
Regulatory Standard AR 2.12.1
Environmental National and Local Legal
Framework
Legal Framework
Environmental and Social Issues
• In Argentina, national and local legal framework
requires an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) previous to any stage of mining.
• The preparation of an EIA provides ways for
stakeholders to participate in the decision
making process.
• Stakeholders participation and their right to
know is integrated into the basic regulations of
the country, even in the Argentinean National
Constitution.
Legal Framework
Environmental and Social Issues
General Process of Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Study
Technical and Sectorial Advice
Public Hearing
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Audits
U Mining Cycle in Argentina
U Exploration
Projects
U Production
Project
(Stand By)
Former Mining
and Milling Plants
Cerro Solo
Deposit Chubut
San Rafael
Utility Complex Mendoza
Malargüe Site Mendoza
2
3
8
1
U Exploration
Projects
6
N
D
1.
SALTA EXPLORATION PROSPECTS
E
3.
LA RIOJA EXPLORATION PROSPECTS
O
5.
E
7
4
V
2.
L
4.
P
M
5
E
N
T
0
1000 km
6.
7.
8.
CATAMARCA EXPLORATION PROSPECTS
CHUBUT EXPLORATION PROSPECTS
SANTA CRUZ EXPLORATION PROSPECTS
FRANCA DEPOSIT (CATAMARCA)
CERRO SOLO DEPOSIT (CHUBUT)
DON OTTO DEPOSIT (SALTA)
Mapeo geológico, estudios
hidrogeoquímicos,
hidrogeológicos y radimétricos
Utilización de accesos
Construcción y funcionamiento
de canaletas
Construcción de planchadas
TAREAS DE
EXPLORACIÓN
Realización de sondeos
con extracción de cutting
Consumo de agua
Funcionamiento del grupo
electrógeno
Environmental Impact
Studies are submitted to
the Environmental
Regulatory Authority
Generación de efluentes
cloacales y aguas servidas
Generación de residuos
sólidos
FUNCIONAMIENTO
DEL CAMPAMENTO
Agua superficial
Agua subterránea
MEDIO NATURAL
Ruido ambiental
Geomorfología
Suelo
Flora
Fauna
MEDIO
PERCEPTUAL
FACTORES AMBIENTALES
Aire
Paisaje
Socio Cultural
Económico
IMPACTO POSITIVO
IMPACTO NEGATIVO
Eventual mantenimiento de vehículos
ACCIONES POTENCIALMENTE IMPACTANTES
MEDIO
ANTRÓPICO
U Exploration
Projects
Exploration Activities Pichiñán U District
Environmental Impact Matrix
ACTIVIDADES DE EXPLORACIÓN DISTRITO PICHIÑÁN ESTE
MATRIZ DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL
U Exploration Projects
µR/h
2
Baseline Environmental Surveys
6
4 3 ° 2 0 ’1 7 ’’S
68°29’25’’W
68°51’53’’W
68°51’54’’W
68°29’29’’W
4 3 ° 2 0 ’2 0 ’’S
10
4 3 ° 2 7 ’5 5 ’’S
Airborne Gamma-Ray Spectrometry
Ground Gamma-Ray Spectrometry
4 3 ° 2 7 ’5 1 ’’S
Carborne Gamma-Ray Spectrometry
Meteorological data collection
U exploration Projects
Baseline Environmental Surveys
Water monitoring
Groundwater level monitoring
Sediments monitoring
U Exploration Projects
Stakeholders Involvement
Approach areas and some actions:
•
Political: meetings with national, provincial and local government staff
•
Educational: involvement in educational events and in teachers’ training,
•
members.
constant presence in universities, actions aiming at the inclusion of an
objective vision of nuclear issues in the educational syllabus.
Social – Institutional: institutional advertising,
participation in
community events, meeting with public interest groups, opinion and
expectations surveys in areas influenced by mining prospects, improvement
of the information available to the public through the Internet.
The main goal is not only to provide information but also to
achieve community involvement
Adapted from Luterstein 2008
U Production Project
San Rafael Utility
Complex
N
0
1000 km
U Production Project
San Rafael Utility Complex
• San Rafael Utility Complex operated from the middle 70’ to the year
1997, and produced U to feed Argentina’ s nuclear rectors.
• Operation has taken place in compliance with environmental, security
and radiation protection legal framework and caused a minimal
environmental impact limited to the working area.
• Since the last years, different actions aimed at the reopening of the
complex have been carried out.
San Rafael Mining Parameters
(Adapted from Castillo 2009)
- Sterile rock exploited: 13.400.000 m3
- Marginal mineral exploited: 376.000 t
- Feeding plant mineral exploited 2.500.000 t
- U Produced: 1,600 t
- Current RAR + IR: 10,010 t U
- Average ore grade: 0.076% U
- Open pit with 0,025% U cut off
U Production Project
San Rafael Utility Complex
• In the year 2004 CNEA submitted the EIA
“Remediation and Synchronic Restart
Operation of San Rafael Mining and Milling
Complex with addition of UO2 Production
Plant” in order to remediate some legacies
and, at the same time, reopen the mine and
restart the U production plant.
• The Provincial Regulatory Authority stated
that CNEA had to begin with the
environmental remediation of some legacies
(as mine water and solid waste from U
concentration process) before the reopening
of the U Complex.
U Production Project
San Rafael Utility Complex
• In the year 2006 CNEA submitted the EIA “Management of wastes
in temporary disposal”.
The main goal was to begin with the management of mining waste in
order to improve the environmental situation of the site (installation
of water and solid wastes treatment plants, construction of new
evaporation ponds and U tailings management).
• Technical and Sectorial Advice were obtained.
• To improve communication with the community,
CNEA carried out many activities:
‒ hired an external communication consultant
‒ made announcements in mass medias
‒ opened an information and visit centre
• Although there were two calls, no Public Hearing took place.
• Public Hearing and the Environmental Impact Statement are
needed to complete the Environmental Impact Process.
U Production Project
San Rafael Utility Complex
• At the present, CNEA is only allowed to carry
out some complementary activities as rebuild
evaporation ponds and to make the
environmental surveillance of the site.
• It can be pointed out that part of the public
opinion might refuse an environmental
remediation project that could lead to the
future restart of mining and milling activities in
the site.
Former Mining and
Milling Plants
4
7
5
1 8
3
2
N
Sites to be remediated
1. Malargüe (Mendoza)
2. Córdoba (Córdoba)
3. Los Gigantes (Córdoba)
4. Tonco (Salta)
6
5. Huemul (Mendoza)
6. Pichiñán (Chubut)
7. Los Colorados (La Rioja)
8. La Estela (San Luis)
0
1000 km
Source: PRAMU
Former Mining and Milling Plants
Malargüe Site
• CNEA operated Malargüe Industrial Complex at Mendoza
Province for 32 years. The Plant produced yellow cake from
uranium ores mined from several deposits within the
Province.
• The production was stopped at the end of 1986 and site
restoration was started.
• The final objective is to stabilize the tailing system (700,000 t
of tailings) for the long term and to minimize the release of
pollutants to the lowest levels that could be reasonably
achieved.
• The last part of the remediation programme will be the
reforestation of the area in order to make the sector available
for public use, keeping in mind the restrictions and final
approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority.
Source: NEA/IAEA Report 1998
Former Mining and Milling Plants
Malargüe Site
Activities performed:
• Dismantling and demolition of
existing installation and equipment
• Construction of underground and
surface drainage system
• Construction of surveillance camp and laboratories
Activities in progress:
• Tailings containment system composed of an engineered,
layered barrier of natural materials
Planned Activities:
• Reforestation of the area
• A 20 year performance monitoring period
Adapted from www.cnea.gov.ar and NEA/IAEA Report 1998
Former Mining and Milling Plants
Malargüe Site
Malargüe Former Milling Complex - Mendoza
Tailings containment system –
multilayer barrier
Tailings
management
and site
rehabilitation
Adapted from Kurtz 2008
Former Mining and Milling Plants
Malargüe Site
The public consultation process has been carried out in different
development stages of the project.
•In 1994 the Environmental Impact Study and Long Term
Management of Uranium Tailings from the Malargüe Milling Complex
was submitted to the regulatory authority.
•Two public hearings (1994 and 1996) and a public workshop took
place.
•In 1997 the Environmental Impact Statement was given by the
regulatory authority.
•In 2001 and in 2005 public opinion surveys and public forums were
implemented. Main topics discussed:
– the project progress
– the integration process of the U milling
tailings as a part of the urban
development and landscape
– the tailings monitoring and surveillance
• In 2006 an information and visit centre
was created.
U Mining and Major Public Concerns
• Adverse environmental impact in general (open pits,
water, air and soil pollution, fauna an flora detriment).
• Resources’ detriment and depletion (water and energy)
“Water is more valuable than gold”
• Negative radiation effects in human health .
• Negative effects of chemicals (as H2SO4) in human
health and in the environment.
• Negative impact of mining in traditional
economical activities of the community
(as tourism and agriculture).
U Mining and Major Public Concerns
• Accidents with radiological and chemical releases.
• Mine’s closure: abandoned radioactive and mining
wastes and unemployed workers.
• Former unacceptable mining practices for today’s
standards (even no related with U).
• Looting of natural resources
“They take all away, they do not leave anything”.
• Mistrust in regulatory authorities and
mistrust in technical institutions that
make the environmental studies
(even universities).
U Mining and Major Public Concerns
Questions from the Public in San Rafael
(Workshop REMEDIATION STRATEGIES APPLIED TO URANIUM MINING PROJECTS 2007 IAEA/CNEA.
Closure Debate: Opening to San Rafael Representatives – Experts to Answer the Questions from the Audience)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Does radiation produce cancer?
Does radiation affect the wine?
What do you do with radon?
The different opinions on the effects of uranium mines,
do these depend on the source of information?
Do you carry out an occupational health monitoring?
Does CNEA employees have cancer?
Are children born with malformations?
Are there any working U mines in Germany?
If we allow CNEA to open the U mine: Will foreign companies take the U
away?
Are the environmental surveillances made by the universities really
independent?
U Mining and Major Public Concerns
“The fact that we coexist with U and other radioactive materials,
does not mean that we are biologically adapted to them.
There is no cero risk. Any amount of radiation implies a risk”
Raúl Montenegro, Biologist
(Source: www.uranionogracias.com.ar)
“The public concerns are a matter of risk perception of the
population and their willingness to accept the risk”
(Source: Communication Strategies in Uranium Mining. Report of a Consultants meeting held at the IAEA’s
Laboratories Seibersdorf, Austria, 15-19 October 2007)
Final Remarks
• In Argentina U mining and milling have always taken place in
compliance with the safety, environmental and radiation protection
national framework. These activities have caused a minimal impact
limited to the working area and there were no harmful effects within
local communities.
• In spite of this, part of the population still remains insecure.
• When facing opposition of some NGOs, it must be taken into
account that not necessary all the community shares the same
opinion. Moreover, many people ignore CNEA's activities, including
the environmental protection actions that are taken.
Final Remarks
• When there is a lack of accurate and consistent information
available to the public, and it is easier to find libelous or inaccurate
information about U mining, laypersons become into opponents of
the project, just in case.
• Many people who are against a U project, not only do they think
about the specific results of the project, but they also think about
other potential collateral consequences, for example:
“If remediation of a part of the legacies is allowed, the mine will be
reopened; if the reopening of the mine is allowed, foreign companies
will come to the country, will open other mines and will take away all
the natural resources at very low costs, and local communities will
carry the burden from the effects of mining (legacy sites and
diseases)”.
Final Remarks
• Stakeholders have the right to be informed and to be involved in
decisions that may affect their well-being.
• Reasonable issues and concerns that are presented by
stakeholders should turn into decisions to improve the benefits of
the initial project.
• Timely stakeholders’ involvement may encourage public confidence,
which is an important prerequisite for the project’s success.
• Stakeholders’ involvement may be a major administrative and
logistical challenge, but it must be taken into account that all
technical work might be lost without commitment and fluent
communication with population and regulators.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Luterstein R., 2008. Abordaje Social Presentación.
López L. y G. Peñalva, 2001. Espectrometría de rayos gamma y determinación de la radiación natural (Chubut, Argentina). Simposio
sobre Energía Nuclear: Desafíos y Realidades en Latinoamérica.
Castillo A, 2009. Argentine Situation Presentation Vienna June 2009.
NEA/IAEA Report 1998. Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling.
Kurtz 2008. Situación Actual Proyecto de Restitución Ambiental de la Minería del Uranio Noviembre de 2008. Presentación.
IAEA 2007. Communication Strategies in Uranium Mining. Report of a Consultants meeting held at the IAEA’s Laboratories Seibersdorf,
Austria, 15-19 October 2007.
Monken-Fernandez 2008. Regional Training Course on Environmental Management Systems in Uranium Production Cycle. Stakeholder
Involvement – Why is it needed and How to do it?. Presentation. Perú.
Stakeholder Involvement – Examples IAEA Regional Training Course Argentina 3-7 November 2008
Svampa M. y M. A. Antonelli, 2009. Minería Trasnacional, narrativas del desarrollo y resistencias sociales.. Ed. Biblos. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Asociación Espacio Abierto para Defensa del Patrimonio Del Chubut, 2009. Actividades Mineras ¿Qué Posición Tomar al respecto?.
Presentación.
UTN 2004. Resumen Ejecutivo de la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental Rehabilitación y Remediación Sincrónica del CMFSR e
Integración PPUO2. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Avellaneda. Coordinador: H. A. Choren.
Caruso, M. y J. De Santis, 2008 . Aspectos Ambientales del Ciclo Minero del Uranio en Argentina. IAEA Training Course –
Environmental Management Systems in the Uranium Production Cycle Lima, Perú - December 1st to 5th, 2008.
Domench P., 2005. Estrategias para el desarrollo de la comunicación y las relaciones con la comunidad en los distintos sitios a realizar la
restitución ambiental de la minería del uranio. XXXII Reunión Anual Asociación Argentina de Energía Nuclear 23 al 25 de noviembre de
2005, Buenos Aires. CNEA-PRAMU. En www.cnea.gov.ar
IAEA INSAG-20, 2006. Stakeholders involvement in nuclear issues. Vienna.
IAEA Safety Reports No. 24, 2002. Communication Planning by the Nuclear Regulatory Body. Vienna.
IAEA- TECDOC-1244, 2001. Impact of new environmental and safety regulations on uranium exploration, mining, milling and
management of its waste. Proceedings of a Technical Committee meeting held in Vienna, 14-17 September 1998.
ONG uranio no gracias (en línea) www.uranionogracias.com.ar
Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (en línea) www.cnea.gov.ar
Material de difusión al público de la CNEA
Acknowledgments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
L. E. López (GEMP-CNEA)
L. Oficialdegui (GEMP-CNEA)
R. Lusterstein (GEMP-CNEA)
R. Gruner (GPMP-CNEA)
P. Aramayo (PRAMU-CNEA)
J. Molinari (PRAMU-CNEA)
Virginia Bernava