Senator Margetts asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 17 July 1998:

(1) (a) Is the Minister aware of continuing concerns being expressed by a broad range of Aboriginal people in the Gammon and North Flinders Ranges region over the environmental and cultural impacts of development of the proposed Beverley uranium mine site; (b) how are these concerns being addressed; and (c) does the Minister intend to consult with dissenting Aboriginals in the area.

(2) (a) Is the Minister aware that the proposed mining technique and leaching agent (acid leaching) being proposed for the Beverley site is no longer permitted to be used in commercial operations in the United States of America (USA) because of documented adverse impacts; and (b) can an explanation be provided as to why South Australia should be afforded less environmental protection or regard than in New Mexico.

(3) (a) Can the volume of uranium extracted to date from the `trial' mining operation at Beverley be clarified; (b) where is the uranium currently stored; and (c) how did it get to this location and who owns this product.

(4) Can clarification be given in relation to persistent anecdotal reports that exist in the region that the trial in-situ leaching operation conducted by Heathgate Resources at Beverley has experienced significant difficulties and irregularities in relation to pressure and containment and that these difficulties have required the attention of South Australian and Commonwealth agencies and international personnel.

(5) Can an explanation be provided as to why the current licensing arrangements make no requirement on Heathgate to restore ground water quality to pre-mining levels unlike the situation in the USA, and indeed allows the company to directly discharge acid, mine and radioactive waste materials directly to the aquifer.

Senator Hill (Environment) —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

Answers to similar questions were provided in my response of 11 June 1998 to questions asked during Senate Estimates. Following is a further response.

(1) (a) No. No concerns have been expressed to me or my Department by Aboriginal people; (b) The EIS and assessment process will provide a means of exposing all aspects of the project to public review and consultation; (c) Consultations will be held as appropriate during the assessment process.

(2) (a) Acid leaching as a mining technique is not banned in the USA. Most uranium mines use the in-situ leach mining technique in conjunction with an alkali leach, because the generally high levels of carbonates make acid leachates inefficient in the groundwater associated with the mines; (b) The environment protection for the Beverley mine is of the highest standard. The geology of US uranium deposits is not suitable for acid leaching and an alkali solution is used instead. Nevertheless ISL mines are required to be carefully monitored and controlled whatever type of leachate is used.

(3) (a) Approximately 15 tonnes of uranium oxide stored in 200 litre steel drums; (b) In a secure enclosure within the processing area at Beverley; (c) Uranium produced is owned by the South Australian government.

(4) I understand that the trials at Beverley have been very successful in their stated purpose of determining optimum operating conditions including environmental matters. There have not been any significant difficulties and irregularities in relation to pressure and containment. I understand that the only international personnel involved are engaged by Heathgate Resources which is US owned.

(5) The groundwater at the Beverley mineralised zone aquifer is highly saline and contains uranium and radon with no potential use for people or stock. In contrast, several US ISL mines operate in or immediately adjacent to aquifers from which nearby communities draw drinking water supplies. Compared to pre-mining levels, radioactivity of the water in the mine zone will not change after mining. However there will be an elevation in the amount of some metals in the aquifer which could take up to 20 years to return to pre-mining levels.