Kvanefjeldsprojektet i Sydgrønland vil ikke vil skade miljøet, fastholder direktøren i det australske mineselskab GME i et skriftligt svar til DR (1).
Formålet med Kvanefjeldsminen er at producere sjældne jordarters metaller, de såkaldte REE. Biprodukterne er uran, zink og fluor.
GMEs direktør vil ikke interviewes til DR, men har svaret skriftligt på miljøorganisationernes nylige kritik (2) af GMEs foreløbige miljørapport.
Lic. scient. Kim Pilegaard konkluderede i sin Risø-Miljørapport om Kvanefjeldsprojektet (udgivet i 1990), at F (fluorid) fra uranminen kan være tilstede i alt, hvad fårene indtager også som partikler i den inhalerede luft, således at fårene kan risikere at blive forgiftet med fluorid. (side 99)
Q2 Anne: What are the advantages and disadvantages by using Taseq as a disposal for tailings?
Gerhard Schmidt: The planned mining will result in large masses of mined materials and wastes, so the mine and tailings waste management is a relevant part of the operation and also of the environmental impacts to be expected by such mining. The potential impacts of such mine and tailings have to consider both radioactive as well as chemically toxic constituents. Both types of constituents are already available in the ore, but in an immobile form so that the hazards are currently either negligible or even non-existent. Mining and milling of the ore mobilizes those constituents, by crushing the ore and treating it with chemicals. So the end point after finishing mining has to be to immobilize those constituents to a form that is as immobile as those were before mining had started. So best-as-possible physical enclosure of those wastes, isolation from the environment and sustainable inertness of those wastes are the base requirements that should govern the selection process of waste management options.
By disposing tailings in a lake none of those basic requirements are respected and can be met. Natural lakes have a steady inflow and outflow of water, surface erosion is maximized by this flow, and disposed constituents are in a steady contact with large amounts of water so maximizing leaching of those constituents. Sustainable (long-term) isolation of the wastes from the environment is impossible under those conditions.
As the negative impacts of such disposed, but permanently leaking mining wastes are a well-known phenomenon, the European Mining Waste Directive requires the sustainable disposal of such wastes in mine openings, where those wastes can well be effectively isolated. Water flow though the disposed material has to be minimized by sustainable covers, designed to divert any surface water (e. g. rain water, melting water) away from those disposed tailings. The design has to guarantee that this installation fulfills its task over very long time (state-of-the-art are e. g. 1,000 years) without permanent active maintenance and repair. So it has to withstand natural climatic conditions, such as long dry periods as well as extreme rain, ice and snow events without eroding away. Hazardous waste constituents should not be able to travel through the installed cover, so the cover has to prevent upward diffusion by design. In a lake environment with its permanent high erosion rate, it is impossible to install such a sustainable cover as it is eroded away in e. g. less than ten years.
The only advantage of disposal in lakes is that it is a simple and a cheap management option in the short term, during operation. That is why this is preferred. But economic advantages can, in the long term, turn out to be the less economic option.Numerous examples can be cited where those costs then were transferred to the general public because the effects were only visible long after the company had left the place, and post-clean-up had to be financed publicly. Or, is not performed at all because the public is not willing to pay for that. Or, if the company still exists, the potential bankruptcy of the owner prevents mine waste regulators from enforcing more sustainable options. In both cases the consequence is a permanently leaking disposal facility. Citat slut
Direktørens udtalelser er meget upræcise. Det er bekymrende, men desværre også forventeligt. Der er meget, der skal skjules i dette projekt.
1. GMEs direktør: "I stedet for at drage forhastede konklusioner og indtage subjektive standpunkter, opfordrer vi miljøorganisationerne til at vente på den offentlige høring, hvor yderligere tekniske detaljer vil være tilgængelige."
(..)
"For tidlig diskussion og debat før den offentlige høring vil underminere integriteten for licensprocessen i Grønland."
Min kommentar: Selvfølgelig skal projektet debatteres allerede nu, så indvendinger kan komme frem i tide og medvirke til at forbedre projektet. Det må være i alle andres interesse. Høringsperioden (8 uger) er for kort til en grundig debat.
2. GMEs direktør: "Vi har lavet en meget detaljeret undersøgelse, som viser, at stigningen i omfanget af stråling i forbindelse med minen vil være ubetydelig."
Min kommentar mht. "ubetydelig stigning i omfanget af stråling":
Ved brydningen sker der det, at klippen knuses og behandles kemisk. Enkelte uranefterkommere er opløselige i vand (radium) eller gasformige (radon). De kan derfor lettere komme ud i miljøet, end de kunne i den oprindelige bjergart.
Noget lignende gælder det fluoridholdige mineral, som også findes i Kvanefjeldet. (Se NOTAT om fluorider nedenfor (3). Risikoen for forurening af omgivelserne er derfor betydelig.
Kilde: Illustration side 97 i Risø Miljørapport 1983
Kim Pilegaard er nu professor på DTU MILJØ Institut for Vand og Miljøteknologi
3. GMEs direktør: "Lokationen for deponiet er nærmest ideel, skriver John Mair og peger på at klippen under og rundt om søen er massiv og uden forekomst af ler eller andre ustabile materialer."
Min kommentar vedr. Taseq som "nærmest ideel" lokation.
Ja, fra et virksomhedsøkonomisk perspektiv! Den er billig!
Gerhard Schmidt, pensioneret ingeniør fra Öko-Institut, har udtalt følgende i en mail til mig om Taseq som tailingsdepot:
Min kommentar vedr. Taseq som "nærmest ideel" lokation.
Ja, fra et virksomhedsøkonomisk perspektiv! Den er billig!
Gerhard Schmidt, pensioneret ingeniør fra Öko-Institut, har udtalt følgende i en mail til mig om Taseq som tailingsdepot:
"Disposal in a lake, as proposed in Greenland and as not completely ruled out by the regulator there, is the Canadian way and is strongly competing to achieve the world championship for another worst case example for tailings waste management."
Q2 Anne: What are the advantages and disadvantages by using Taseq as a disposal for tailings?
Gerhard Schmidt: The planned mining will result in large masses of mined materials and wastes, so the mine and tailings waste management is a relevant part of the operation and also of the environmental impacts to be expected by such mining. The potential impacts of such mine and tailings have to consider both radioactive as well as chemically toxic constituents. Both types of constituents are already available in the ore, but in an immobile form so that the hazards are currently either negligible or even non-existent. Mining and milling of the ore mobilizes those constituents, by crushing the ore and treating it with chemicals. So the end point after finishing mining has to be to immobilize those constituents to a form that is as immobile as those were before mining had started. So best-as-possible physical enclosure of those wastes, isolation from the environment and sustainable inertness of those wastes are the base requirements that should govern the selection process of waste management options.
By disposing tailings in a lake none of those basic requirements are respected and can be met. Natural lakes have a steady inflow and outflow of water, surface erosion is maximized by this flow, and disposed constituents are in a steady contact with large amounts of water so maximizing leaching of those constituents. Sustainable (long-term) isolation of the wastes from the environment is impossible under those conditions.
As the negative impacts of such disposed, but permanently leaking mining wastes are a well-known phenomenon, the European Mining Waste Directive requires the sustainable disposal of such wastes in mine openings, where those wastes can well be effectively isolated. Water flow though the disposed material has to be minimized by sustainable covers, designed to divert any surface water (e. g. rain water, melting water) away from those disposed tailings. The design has to guarantee that this installation fulfills its task over very long time (state-of-the-art are e. g. 1,000 years) without permanent active maintenance and repair. So it has to withstand natural climatic conditions, such as long dry periods as well as extreme rain, ice and snow events without eroding away. Hazardous waste constituents should not be able to travel through the installed cover, so the cover has to prevent upward diffusion by design. In a lake environment with its permanent high erosion rate, it is impossible to install such a sustainable cover as it is eroded away in e. g. less than ten years.
The only advantage of disposal in lakes is that it is a simple and a cheap management option in the short term, during operation. That is why this is preferred. But economic advantages can, in the long term, turn out to be the less economic option.Numerous examples can be cited where those costs then were transferred to the general public because the effects were only visible long after the company had left the place, and post-clean-up had to be financed publicly. Or, is not performed at all because the public is not willing to pay for that. Or, if the company still exists, the potential bankruptcy of the owner prevents mine waste regulators from enforcing more sustainable options. In both cases the consequence is a permanently leaking disposal facility. Citat slut
Tailings/affald fra en REE/uranmine vil være det største miljøproblem.
Der vil blive produceret næsten 1 mia tons, hvis alle ressourcer udvindes.
Kilde : Update regarding Kvanefjeldet as of June 2015. Se også Marts 2017
Tailings er langlivet lavaktivt affald, der producerer radioaktive efterkommere i mia. af år.
Den nukleare brændselskæde eller brændselscirkel
Kilde: Courtesy of the IAEA; Photos from AREVA, Cameco, Fortum, Posiva, TVO, and WNA. Bemærk at tailings fra uranmøllen ikke optræder i brændselscirklen!
AECB har også udtalt at:
"Den totale radioaktivitet i tailings, for en given mænge uran, er sammenlignelig med radioaktiviteten i atomkraftens højradioaktive affald.
Man kan derfor gøre den konstatering at der er blevet udvist utilstrækkelig opmærksomhed overfor de langsigtede aspekter af tailingsbehandling, og at disse bør gøres til genstand for samme opmærksomhed, som den der er blevet givet det højradioaktive affald." (4)
En række miljøorganisationer frygter alvorlige konsekvenser for miljøet, hvis Grønland giver tilladelse til uranmine. Mineselskabets foreløbige miljørapport blåstempler ellers projektet.
3. NOTAT OM FLUORIDER (skrevet af Jens)
Fluorider, der er opløst i vand, er giftige for mennesker og dyr.
I naturen findes fluorider i form af calciumfluorid (CaF2, flusspat), som er tungt opløseligt i vand (ca. 0,002 g per 100 mL vand). De findes også i kryolit (Na3AlF6), der også er tungt opløseligt i vand.
Men i Kuannersuit / Kvanefjeldet findes en del af fluoriderne som natriumfluorid (NaF, villiaumit), der har en vis opløselighed i koldt vand (ca. 4g per 100 mL). Ikke så let opløseligt som natriumchlorid (almindeligt salt) (ca. 40 g per 100 mL), men nok til, at fluorid-forurening kan blive et problem, hvis der sker råstofudvinding i området.
Ved minedrift sker der det, at bjergarten knuses, så overfladen bliver umådelig meget større end før. Natriumfluorid i bjergarten vil derfor opløses langt hurtigere end før knusningen.
"Den totale radioaktivitet i tailings, for en given mænge uran, er sammenlignelig med radioaktiviteten i atomkraftens højradioaktive affald.
Man kan derfor gøre den konstatering at der er blevet udvist utilstrækkelig opmærksomhed overfor de langsigtede aspekter af tailingsbehandling, og at disse bør gøres til genstand for samme opmærksomhed, som den der er blevet givet det højradioaktive affald." (4)
Skrevet af Anne
1. Mineselskab: Ny uranmine i Grønland giver ubetydelig stigning i stråling DR 20.3.17
En række miljøorganisationer frygter alvorlige konsekvenser for miljøet, hvis Grønland giver tilladelse til uranmine. Mineselskabets foreløbige miljørapport blåstempler ellers projektet.
3. NOTAT OM FLUORIDER (skrevet af Jens)
Fluorider, der er opløst i vand, er giftige for mennesker og dyr.
I naturen findes fluorider i form af calciumfluorid (CaF2, flusspat), som er tungt opløseligt i vand (ca. 0,002 g per 100 mL vand). De findes også i kryolit (Na3AlF6), der også er tungt opløseligt i vand.
Men i Kuannersuit / Kvanefjeldet findes en del af fluoriderne som natriumfluorid (NaF, villiaumit), der har en vis opløselighed i koldt vand (ca. 4g per 100 mL). Ikke så let opløseligt som natriumchlorid (almindeligt salt) (ca. 40 g per 100 mL), men nok til, at fluorid-forurening kan blive et problem, hvis der sker råstofudvinding i området.
Ved minedrift sker der det, at bjergarten knuses, så overfladen bliver umådelig meget større end før. Natriumfluorid i bjergarten vil derfor opløses langt hurtigere end før knusningen.
4. Anon., 1978: The Management of Uranium mill tailings an appraisal of current practices, AECB-1156. Advisory Panel on Tailings, Atomic Energy Control Board, Canada, 31.p
5. Måske tager nogen Fusen på Narsak Atom Posten 7.6.2015
6. Så kom borgermødet om uran endelig til Narsaq Sermitsiaq 31.5.2015
6. Så kom borgermødet om uran endelig til Narsaq Sermitsiaq 31.5.2015
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar