Uranium Customers' Liability
(last updated 16 Jan 1998)
Uranium mining and milling is responsible for the largest share
in the total radiation dose caused from the whole nuclear energy
industry - as well for the nuclear workers, as for the public:
- 49% of the average annual collective effective dose to
workers in the nuclear fuel cycle is due to uranium mining and
milling, 44% is due to reactor operation (1985-1989).
[UNSCEAR1993, p.474]
- 75% of the global, long-term collective effective dose to
members of the public from radionuclides released from the
nuclear fuel cycle is due to radon releases from uranium mill
tailings piles, 25% is due to carbon-14 releases from reactors
and reprocessing plants. [UNSCEAR1993, p.200]
On the other hand, most of the uranium produced worldwide is
mined in remote areas and is exported to customers abroad. This
means that the consuming countries take the benefit of the
electricity produced, while the producing countries take a major
share of the risk and the long-term problems.
This situation raises the question whether the consumers of the
uranium should be made responsible for the environmental damage
and health effects caused in the producing countries.
During the last years, this issue has been covered by a number
of parliamentary initiatives in consuming countries. Some of
them are presented here.
[UNSCEAR1993] Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation,
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation, UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with
Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York, 1993, 922
p.
GERMANY
Uranium import (1989)
In the answer to a parliamentary question posed by the Green
Party, the German Federal Government denied in 1989 the
responsibility for environmental and health effects caused from
mining of uranium for German utilities in foreign countries:
"The buyers of uranium are not responsible for the safety
of the installations during construction, operation, and
decommissioning." (BT-Drs. 11/5788 of Nov. 23, 1989,
questions VI 2, VI 3d, VII 4)
This attitude was for the first time challenged in another case
in 1993, the Ok Tedi copper and gold mine in Papua New Guinea.
This case is referred to here, though not related to uranium,
since it marks a breakthrough.
Ok Tedi copper/gold mine (1992/93)
The Ok Tedi mine released 60 to 70 million tonnes per year of
tailings and wastes immediately into the Fly River - there was
no tailings dam. In a motion brought before parliament by
Christian Democrats and Free Democrats, and consented by the
majority of the parliament, the Federal government was called
upon to use its influence with the German shareholders of the
mining company and the government of Papua New Guinea to demand
Western environmental standards and the compensation of people
concerned. With this decision of the Federal Parliament, Germany
has for the first time acknowledged its responsibility for the
conditions under which imported raw materials are produced
abroad. But, this has remained an isolated case, so far.
On April 24, 1992, the Green Party Members of the Federal
Parliament (Bundestag 
) had
filed a motion titled "Erzbergbau am Ok Tedi in Papua-
Neuguinea" (Drs. 12/2462). During the June 3, 1992, plenary
session, the Bundestag delegated this motion for discussion to
the parliamentary committee for economic cooperation
(Ausschuß für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit).
This committee discussed the motion on Nov. 11, 1992. The
original text was rejected by the committee, but it formulated a
new text that was adopted by the committee and forwarded to the
Bundestag with the recommendation for approval (Drs. 12/3883 of
Nov. 30, 1992). The Bundestag adopted this motion on Jan. 14,
1993 (Plenarprotokoll 12/131).
The text adopted by the parliament contains the following main
points: (Drs. 12/3883):
The federal government is asked to use its influence on the
German shareholders of the Ok Tedi mine and (through use of
existing diplomatic links) on the Papua New Guinea government,
to achieve the following improvements:
- setting of environmental standards corresponding to western
standards,
- finding of better solutions for the retention of the mill
tailings,
- review of the compensation and participation regulations
with the goal of identifying all persions concerned, to
compensate their economic, ecologic, and social cost and to
spread the useful effects of the project widely.
The German shareholders of the Ok Tedi Mining Ltd were at
that time: Metallgesellschaft 7.5%, Degussa AG 7.5%, Deutsche
Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (DEG) 5%.
SWEDEN
Uranium import (1995)
In Sweden, a first attempt was made in 1995, to acknowledge the
responsibility of the customers for the environmental and health
impacts of the uranium mining in the producing country: The
Christian Democrats brought a motion (N422) before the Swedish Parliament , signed by
the Center, Left and Green Parties that would have set standards
for imports and set prices on associated external costs. Sweden
gets at present 40% of its annual demand of 1600 tonnes of
uranium from Russia. [NF Feb. 13, 1995] The motion was rejected
by the parliament on June 7, 1995.
1994/95:N422 av Dan Ericsson m.fl. (kds, c, v, mp):
Svensk uranimport, Jan. 24, 1995
This motion was complemented by two other motions lauched by the
Green Party:
1994/95:N430 av Eva Goës m.fl. (mp): Uran, Jan. 24,
1995
1994/95:U622 av Ragnhild Pohanka m.fl. (mp): Urbefolkningar,
Jan. 25, 1995
These motions also were rejected.
The motions were reactions to a Greenpeace report on the
environmental situation at the Priargunsky uranium mine at
Krasnokamensk in Eastern Siberia. The mine was Russia's only
active uranium mine at that time, at an estimated annual
production of 2900 t U. In the nearby town of Okchabrsky,
Greenpeace identified catastrophic radiation levels: uranium
levels in soil were 20 times normal values; radon levels in 36%
of the homes were in excess of the standards for occupational
exposure [Litvinov1994]. Later, a commission of the Swedish
National Institute of Radiation Protection (SSI) was sent out to
verify the Greenpeace report; it could not find any health nor
environmental problems [NF Oct. 23, 1995] [Ehdwall1995].
In 1996, however, Russian scientist Yuri Filipchenko who has
been studying radon levels in Okchabrsky homes for four years
confirmed the allegations made by Greenpeace: Some "260
families are living in radiologically unacceptable
conditions"; radon concentrations above 5000 Bq/m3 have
been found in homes located above the mine (NF Nov. 4, 1996).
Subsequently, the Green Party filed a new motion on the
topic:
1996/97:N425 av Eva Goës m.fl. (mp): Svensk
uranimport, Oct. 5, 1996.
- [Litvinov1994] Report on the Greenpeace visit to the uranium
complex at the Priargunskiy Mountain Chemical Combine, by D.
Litvinov, 17 p. Download
- [Ehdwall1995] Assessment of the health and environmental
situation in the mining community Krasnokamensk, East Siberia,
Russian Federation, by H.Ehdwall et al. Translation of SSI-95-
20. Swedish Inst. of Radiation
Protection (Ed.), SSI-95-21, Stockholm 1995, 51 p.
- NF = NuclearFuel, New York
- See also 1996 report by Paul Robinson (SRIC) on Impacts of Uranium Mining in
Krasnokamensk.
Global Justice (1997)
As a reaction to the Indigenous Peoples Uranium Speaking tour in
Europe in fall 1997, Swedish Greens launched the motion for
Global Justice - Indigenous Peoples and Uranium Mining in
Parliament (U412 Sep.30, 1997).
EUROPEAN UNION
On January 15, 1998, the European Parliament adopted an urgency resolution in favour of indigenous
peoples concerned from uranium mining, and against the Jabiluka
project in Australia, in particular.