International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM-2018)

SOCIETAL BARRIERS TO URANIUM MINING: A CASE STUDY FROM BRAZIL

26 Jun 2018, 12:20

20m

Vienna

ORAL Track 10. Health, safety, environment and social responsibility Health, Safety, Environment and Social Responsibility

Speaker

Dr Mariza Franklin (Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN) - Institute of Radiation Protection and Dosimetry (IRD))

Description

INTRODUCTION Attitudes of different communities against uranium mining can cause severe constraints in uranium mining operations, eventually leading to insuperable barriers to project implementation and development. Some studies have investigated the public opinion on uranium mining in different countries. One of these studies in Australia revealed that just under half of the public support the mining of uranium, while 36% opposes it [1]. The study also informed that over the previous decades, public support for nuclear energy in Australia has declined, while support for uranium mining has remained relatively stable. In Canada a study prepared by Areva Resources [2] indicated that “the uranium mining and uranium mining companies continue to hold a place of importance in the minds of Saskatchewan residents. Support remains high among survey respondents, both province-wide and in the North… “as the result of the perception…that the primary companies operating in the industry operate safely and responsibly, and contribute positively to the province”. A study developed by the University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu [3] indicates that public opinion was more critical of uranium mining operations in comparison to other types of mining activities e.g. metals and industrial minerals. Only 1 to 4% of the interviewed individuals considered these activities not acceptable while in the case of uranium mining this level was determined as being between 38 to 51%. Six variables were examined in the study: Environmental attitudes, Perceptions of the disadvantages and benefits, knowledge of the mining, Trust, Trust in officialdom and Acceptability of foreign mining companies. Familiarity with operations correlated strongly with the acceptance. Drawbacks have a stronger impact in the acceptability than have the benefits. Trust in the authorities and legislation is strongly and positively correlated with acceptance. Finally, it was seen that the people that are more willing to accept foreign mining companies were also those more inclined to accept uranium mining. Regarding Africa’s situation the place of the continent in the global nuclear market was examined [4]. The paper considers international and African tools that either exist or are being set up to improve the governance of uranium mining in Africa. It concludes that improvement requires attention to strengthening government capacity and ensuring wider consultative processes. PERSPECTIVES FROM THIS WORK In the scope of this work over one hundred entries in the internet that captured individual views on uranium mining all over the world were examined. This strategy did not follow any strict scientific-based methodology. The intention was to achieve a preliminary assessment of the hypothesis that basic perception towards uranium mining was the same all over the world and if so, what would be the main aspects to drive people’s views and positions. Because of this investigation, it was found that attitudes were affected by four main issues: i) Misuse of scientific evidence that ends up propagating fear; ii) Influence of historical (legacy) sites - that in many cases were developed outside proper regulatory framework - that are associated with practices that are no longer accepted or even seen as good practices, iii) Long term issues i.e. mining sites remain dangerous even after their closure, iv) the perception that these operations bring considerable burden to indigenous people (this because mining operations in many circumstances take place in remote areas). These points above seem to be fully consubstantiated by a wide diverse publications/reports available in the literature. Some examples are provided below. The Quebec Mineral Exploration Association (AEMQ) and Quebec Mining Association (QMA) wrote an open letter protesting the “attempts to manipulate public opinion against the mining and industry and the uranium industry in particular” [5]. The manifesto refers to the announcement made by a group of doctors that would be leaving the area of a future mining operation. The open letter indicates that the group of doctors were claiming that the principles of precaution and prevention should be considered in any decision regarding the implementation of a new uranium mining project and led to a more extreme claim for a “moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in Quebec. The letter signatories indicated that the overall manoeuvre against uranium mining was intended to “to instil doubt and fear in the largest possible number of citizens of good faith, including doctors”. A report released by NEA/OECD in 2014 [6]. The publication reveals that public perception of uranium mining is largely based on the adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from past practices i.e. those that took place during an essentially unregulated early phase of the industry. The work from Brugge and Goble (2002) [7] points out that federal government in the USA “deliberately avoided dealing with a health disaster among Navajo uranium miners”. The authors indicate that even after two decades after the harmful effects of uranium mining were known, the implementation of protective measures have not been implemented. No doubt that what makes uranium mining even more sensitive to public scrutiny than other mining activities or industrial operations is the radioactive properties of uranium and its daughters. In addition one cannot ignore the obvious link of mining operations to atomic bombs (in the past) and nuclear power (nowadays). It is also a critical aspect that the legacy sites created with the operations that were initiated during the 1940’s/1950’s up to the 1980’s now need governmental funding to finance the remediation required to render the sites safe and stable. Funding to be allocated for the remediation of these sites will compete – specially in countries with less advantaged economies - with other demands, particularly those of social nature (e.g. education, health, etc.) and that will not be well perceived by the public. An obvious reaction is that societies with that perception will stand against future operations based on the experience accumulated from past operations. THE CONTEXT IN BRAZIL In Brazil the only ongoing uranium mining and processing operation was started in 2000 and is located at Caetité (Lagoa Real province) a semi-arid region at the central-southwest of Bahia state. The extraction of uranium from the ore is achieved by means of a Heap-Leach process. Due to scarcity of water, local population rely, to a considerable extent, on the abstraction of groundwater for living purposes. Enhanced concentrations of uranium in those waters come to be an issue for the local population as it is not seen because of natural processes but rather because of the uranium mining operations. Since the beginning of the mining operations in Caetité, accusations involving workplace accidents, tailing spills, potential soil and water contamination, and uncertain risks (e.g. cancer) to the health of the workers and the population which lives in the surrounded area of the mine have taken place In April 2008, a team of Greenpeace collected eight samples of groundwater (allegedly used for human consumption) in an area within a circle of 20 km diameter centred in the uranium facility. It has been reported that two of these samples presented uranium concentration “far above” the guideline proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The report, entitled “Ciclo do Perigo – Impactos da produção de Combustível Nuclear no Brasil - Denuncia: Contaminação da Água por Urânio em Caetité Bahia”. (Cycle of Danger: Impacts of Nuclear Fuel Production in Brazil. Complaint: Contamination of Water by Uranium in Caetité, Bahia), was then released. The report refers to some publications that are intended to support the hypothesis that undesired health effects allegedly caused by the uranium operations in the region are being observed. The Greenpeace report in page 17 states that in one of studies the uranium incorporation rates by inhabitants of Caetité were 25 times higher than those presented in a control region. The referenced study was indeed a M.Sc. Dissertation that was subsequently published in a peer review journal [8]. In the journal the information is presented in a different way i.e. “uranium concentrations in teeth from residents of Caetité are about 8 times higher than those from the control region”. The article also reveals that from a total of 41 tooth samples collected in the Bahia state, 17 came from the city of Caetité and only 2 from the city of Lagoa Real area where the mine is located. The results are not depicted in tables, rather in graphics. It can be seen thought that the two samples came from an individual of around 17 and another one of 31 years old. While the first sample presented uranium concentration of something around 5 ηg.g-1 the other one showed a value 10 times higher. Based on these results the authors infer that higher values could correspond to overexposure cases potentially due to food and water ingestion. As a conclusion and based on the data set mentioned above the article suggests that “uranium body levels in residents of Caetité are also much higher than the worldwide average and because of that daily ingestion of uranium in Caetité, from food and water, is equally high. Finally, it is proposed that “The populations of the studied localities, and Caetité´ in particular, are subject to radiobiological risks much higher than those for populations living in other regions of Brazil or abroad”. It is recognised that few data are available that adequately describe the dose-response toxicity of uranium after an oral exposure in humans but in case of high levels of exposure transient renal dysfunction would be expected. The point to be made here is that if any health effects would be expected due to chronic ingestion of uranium these would have been kidney disfunctions instead of radiation induced effects. Along the same lines a great deal of fear is caused by the potential effects of radon gas associated with the mining operations. In this regard an oncologist suggested that the number of lung cancers in Caetité was twice the average for the state of Bahia and three times higher than the number observed in the southwest region of the state. It is also suggested that the increased number of lung cancers is due to the radon concentration in the air that is said to be “10 times higher than the value recommended by the World Health Organisation”. Association between neoplasm increase and mining operations in Caetité is also proposed by another study [9] particularly thyroid cancer and leukaemia. Reference levels for radon in dwellings set out in the IAEA international safety standards is of the order of 300 Bq.m-3 [10]. Radon concentrations in open air of a uranium mining area is reported to vary in the range of 1.75 to 25.6 Bq.m-3 [11]. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states in its home page addressing the question - “Do uranium mines and mills increase radon levels in the environment? “– states that studies have shown that uranium mining and milling activities do not increase radon levels above background levels in the environment away from the mine site [12]. In addition, it is said that “Radon exposure to members of the public from CNSC-regulated activities is virtually zero”. With those pieces of information in mind and considering that: i) the main health effects of uranium are not related to its radiological properties, ii) the main health effect of radon is lung cancer not leukaemia neither thyroid cancer and iii) with the typical environmental concentrations of radon – even in areas close to uranium mining – no increase in adverse health effects would be expected, it can be stated that all the issues raised so far in NGO’s report, blogs, social media and other sites in the internet are not consistent and constitute perfect examples of how (pseudo/inconsistent) scientific information can be used to propagate fear as indicated above. They cause huge negative psychological impact in the populations that are exposed to these pieces of information. IAEA RELATED ACTIVITIES IN CAETITE The IAEA organised – in 2010 – one mission of the Uranium Production Site Appraisal Team (UPSAT) to review the uranium production site of Caetité under the request of INB [13] . It was found that the operations at Caetité were run with no evidence of adverse environmental impact outside the mining licence area. The UPSAT team also noted that within the mining production area some environmental impacts in ground water have been noted and these should be further studied. Between 2012 and 2015 the IAEA supported Brazil – under the Agency’s Technical Cooperation Programme – in implementing a project entitled “Sustainable Water Resources Management in a Uranium Production Site” (BRA 7010). This project was intended to contribute to the formulation of proposals that could lead to the sustainable management of water resources in INB operations in Caetité, considering the environmental aspects of water management in addition to social issues. The main counterpart of the project was the Institute of Radiation Protection and Dosimetry (IRD) from the Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN). Taking into consideration the many concerns of the population related to the contamination of the environment an expert mission to Brazil, to advise the project team on the best approaches to be used in the communication of the project results to the relevant audiences, was implemented under the auspices of BRA 7010 project. To support a wider understanding of the overall perception in relation to mining operations a wide survey, that included analysis of information provided in local blogs, electronic newspapers and materials available texts available in NGO’s sites as well as interviews with residents available in the YouTube, was conducted. The acquisition of information by means of the above survey did not follow any science-based method of information acquisition. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The survey confirmed that the dissemination of inaccurate information is very intensive. While public opinion (local community) is constructed based on information of questionable scientific consistency results provided by more robust technical/scientific work is not made available to local stakeholders and/or simply disregarded by those interested in promoting unjustified fear. That was accompanied by an expressed and considerable sense of lack of transparency by INB regarding its operations. Opinions formed based on what is perceived as reliable scientific investigations indicate that cases of cancer in the region have risen after the operations of the mining company began. The study on the concentration of uranium in teeth of the population of Caetité mentioned above has been widely used to sustain the idea that people are getting exposed to uranium isotopes. It is also suggested that some of observed cancer cases are related to high radon concentrations in air. It was also seen that complaints about the mining and milling operations go beyond the radiological impacts. On the social dimension it is argued, among other things, that the company did not absorb a significant number of workers from the region. It was also indicated that selling the agricultural products cultivated in the region became rather difficult because of the belief that these produces are contaminated with radioactive elements. In addition to the radiological impacts, complaints of the dust coming from mining operations (due to explosions to remove the ore) do also exist. There are also complaints on the scarcity of water springs that – in the past – would allow the irrigation of soil in which different agricultural products were cultivated. Finally, the collected information indicates that complaints also extend to the nuclear regulatory body. The notion of lack of transparency, lack of information and eventually lack of independency is present. The attitude though seems not to be the same regarding other regulatory bodies (e.g. the environmental regulator IBAMA). As a conclusion the perception that the official organizations and local authorities are not “protecting” the local population gives room for NGO’s from outside the region to fill this gap. By adopting an anti-nuclear discourse and emphasizing the risks related to the mining operations, these organizations end up aligning side by side with the population. They get the trust of residents and, by providing concerted information suggesting the inappropriateness of the operations, lead the population to stand against the development of INB operations in the region. In this regard it can be clearly seen that the arguments put forward by the NGO’s in the different channels of communication end-up being reproduced by members of the community in their interviews. The analysis of this situation suggests that INB does not have or does not sustain a consistent communication/engagement plan. As it happens in many occasions, operators tend to be reactive and not proactive. That means, by not having in place a continued mechanism of interaction with the population, INB leaves room for the action of groups and individuals that clearly demonstrate an attitude against nuclear energy and related activities. Some of the statements made go far beyond the issues that directly affect the local population and bring to the local discussions an agenda that is far broader and belongs to an international conversation THE PATHFORWARD Due to the many concerns expressed by the population of Caetite about environmental contamination (more specific contamination of groundwater) it is of utmost importance that all information acquired with the IAEA supported Technical Cooperation Project is communicated to the relevant stakeholders. The expert mission to Caetité served as the first step in a process to help improving a situation that is currently hindered not only by the lack of trust amongst the actors but also because of the lack of proper understanding of the potential environmental impacts associated with uranium mining and the operations in Caetité. The expert mission was complemented with additional work of investigation of information contained in different web sites in the internet as mentioned before in the text. With these considerations in mining the proposed course of actions include: INB should have a more proactive attitude in terms of communication with the different stakeholders, not only with the different regulatory bodies and other relevant organizations, but also, and perhaps mainly, with the local communities. It must be recognized that the lack of engagement allows that other organizations continue filling the existing gap and aligning with these communities. Therefore, they will be perceived as those who really care about their lives and wellbeing. Under these circumstances it is not a surprise, as this study revealed, that members of the local communities will adopt the discourse and ideas presented to them by these organizations. IRD on its part should hold joint public meetings including INB, CNEN, IBAMA, and other relevant organizations and people from local communities, especially those living in areas where water samples were collected. The meetings would then start with information on the project (why? how? what?). Then explanations on natural radiation should be provided (making comparisons with exposures to radiation in our daily lives). Project results should then be presented. In support to these meetings, press releases should be prepared. They should be short with easily understandable information and photos. An important issue to be considered will be how to involve NGO’s in these meetings. They should also be participating in the discussions and their arguments should be carefully listened to and discussed but not in a confrontational way. It must be ensured that that the aims/ethics of science are cleared understood, and the consequences, lessons learned, and future steps in the project are explained. Connected to this point, a specific part of the IRD website should be devoted to the project and an online information channel should be opened with as many relevant summaries and scientific abstracts as possible, but in language suitable for a layperson. Scientific articles on the project results should be prepared and published. Beyond the project scope, educational material on environmental and natural background radiation for different levels of students and children and community groups could be developed. The initiative can be proposed to INB and/or to the local municipality (responsible for education). A last point to be carefully considered refers to the expectations of the local communities on the social role to be played by INB in the region. Taking into consideration that many of these communities need basic assistance (to be provided by the State) a natural expectation is that some of the needed actions could be provided by INB. It is not expected that a company will replace the role of the State in addressing the basic needs of a population. However, in the scope of the so called “social responsibility” it might be the case that the mining company can address – to a certain extent – some of these needs. In this regard the notion of social responsibility goes beyond the concept of “justifying the company existence and documenting its performance through the disclosure of social and environmental information” [14] ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to acknowledge the work done by Phil Richardson; Nadja Zeleznik; Eeva Salminen during the expert mission to Brazil in the scope of TC Project BRA7010. REFERENCES [1] McAllister, I. Public Opinion Towards the Environment. Results from the ANU Poll., The Australian National University (2008). [2] AREVA RESOURCES, Public Support for the Uranium Mining Industry in Saskatchewan. http://mining.areva.com/canada/liblocal/docs/Information/Publications/More-Publications/2017_Public_Opinion_Survey_Situation_Summary_web.pdf (2017) [3] LITMANEN, T, JARTTI, T & RANTALA, E., Citizens’ attitudes toward mining in Finland http://www.uef.fi/documents/547540/0/Citizens%E2%80%99+attitudes+toward+mining+in+Finland+10.2.2016+UEF.pdf/1777f53e-a079-4056-97a8-d87f77dbcd55 (2016). [4] SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. Uranium Mining in Africa: A Continent at the Centre of a Global Nuclear Renaissance. SAIIA Occasional Paper No 122 (2012). [5] MARKET WIRED. Uranium and the Manipulation of Public Opinion (2010), http://www.marketwired.com/printer_friendly?id=1134761 [6] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining. Extended Summary. NEA No. 7063, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation And Development (2014). [7] Brugge, D and Goble, R. The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People. Am. J. Public Health 92(9) 1410 – 1419. (2002). [8] Prado, G. et all. Evaluation of uranium incorporation from contaminated areas using teeth as bioindicators—a case study. Scientific Note. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 130, 2, 249–252 (2008). [9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International basic Safety Standards. General Safety Requirements Part 3 No. GSR Part 3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna (2014). [10] RAGHAVENDRA T., RAMAKRISHNA S.U.B., VIJAYALAKSHMI T., HIMABINDU V., ARUNACHALAM J., Assessment of radon concentration and external gamma radiation level in the environs of the proposed uranium mine at Peddagattu and Seripally regions, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 7, 3, 269-273, (2014). [11] CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION, Radon in Canada’s Uranium Industry. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/radon-fact-sheet.cfm#levels (2012). [12] New Uranium Production Cycle Assessment Service Makes its Debut (2010). https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-uranium-production-cycle-assessment-service-makes-its-debut [13] CRUZ, J.A. & RIBEIRO, F.S., Association between the neoplasm increase and uranium exploration in the municipalities of Caetité and Lagoa Real, Bahia, Brazil. European Journal of Cancer. 60, 1, 15. (2016). [14] JENKINS, H. & YAKOVLEVA, N., Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 14, Issues 3–4, 271-284 (2006).