WNDI 2008 1

Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Nuclear Power Aff Addendum....................................................................................................................................1
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum......................................................................................................1
1AC/2AC add-on........................................................................................................................................................2
1AC/2AC add-on............................................................................................................................2
Uranium Mining = Open Pit Mining...........................................................................................................................3
Uranium Mining = Open Pit Mining............................................................................................3
Open Pit Mining is Bad for the Environment.............................................................................................................4
Open Pit Mining is Bad for the Environment.............................................................................4
Uranium Mining is Bad for the Environment.............................................................................................................4
Uranium Mining is Bad for the Environment.............................................................................4
Uranium Mining Bad..................................................................................................................................................6
Uranium Mining Bad.....................................................................................................................6
Uranium Mining Bad – Tailings..................................................................................................................................7
Uranium Mining Bad – Tailings...................................................................................................7
Uranium Mining Bad –Tailings..................................................................................................................................8
Uranium Mining Bad –Tailings....................................................................................................8
WNDI 2008 2
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

1AC/2AC add-on
Replace Pages 7, 8, and 9 of the 1AC (Yim 06, Kidd 08, Bosselman 07) with this card:

The plan is key to prevent a massive expansion of new uranium mining

Roger Hagengruber, Chair, Nuclear Energy Study Group Director, Office for Policy, Security & Technology,
University of New Mexico Former Senior Vice President, Sandia National Laboratories, et al, May 2005,
“Nuclear Power And Proliferation Resistance: Securing Benefits, Limiting Risk“, Nuclear Energy Study Group,
https://drum.umd.edu/dspace/bitstream/1903/4039/1/2005-NESG.pdf
In the longer term, the balance among the benefits, costs, and risks of reprocessing may change significantly.
By reprocessing spent fuel and burning the recovered uranium and plutonium in a nuclear "breeder" reactor, it
is possible to get as much as 50 times more energy out of the original uranium. Therefore, if nuclear
energy expands substantially in the future and puts pressures on the availability of low-cost uranium
fuel,47 then reprocessing and breeder reactors could become the preferred option if the associated
proliferation risks can be addressed.

And any of the cards that follow about how super bad uranium mining/open pit mining is
for the environment.
WNDI 2008 3
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Uranium Mining = Open Pit Mining

Uranium ore is mined using open pit mining
Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>

Most uranium ore is mined in open pit or underground mines. The uranium content of the ore is often between only
0.1% and 0.2%. Therefore, large amounts of ore have to be mined to get at the uranium. In the early years up until
the 1960's uranium was predominantly mined in open pit mines from ore deposits located near the surface. (image
(50k) new window: Ranger open pit mine, Australia) (image (32k) new window: Lodève open pit mine, France)
(image (57k) external link new window: Midnite Mine, WA, USA - AESE) (image (36k) external link new window:
Sweetwater open pit mine, Wyoming, USA - WMA) Later, mining was continued in underground mines. After the
decrease of uranium prices since the 1980's on the world market, underground mines became too expensive for most
deposits; therefore, many mines were shut down. New uranium deposits discovered in Canada have uranium grades
of several percent. To keep groundwater out of the mine during operation, large amounts of contaminated water are
pumped out and released to rivers and lakes. When the pumps are shut down after closure of the mine, there is a risk
of groundwater contamination from the rising water level.

Uranium is mined using largely open pit mining

World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association Website. “World Uranium Mining”. Last Updated July 2008.
Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html>.

Mining methods have been changing. In 1990, 55% of world production came from underground mines, but this
shrunk dramatically to 1999, with 33% then. From 2000 the new Canadian mines increase it again, and with
Olympic Dam it is now around half. In situ leach mining has been steadily increasing its hare of the total. In 2007
production was as follows: conventional underground & open pit 62% in situ leach (ISL) 29% by-product 10%
(considering Olympic Dam as by-product rather than in underground category) In the 1990s the uranium production
industry was consolidated by takeovers, mergers and closures. In 2007, seven companies marketed 85% of the
world's uranium mine production:
WNDI 2008 4
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Open Pit Mining is Bad for the Environment

Open Pit Mining Bad- Earth Displacement and Carbon Dioxide
CARD. Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction. Uranium Mining. “Open Pit Mining”. Last Updated 18 July
2008. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.nunnglow.com/uranium-mining/open-pit-mining.html>.
Open pit mining is used when deposits of uranium are considered close to the surface. Uranium deposits in the
Centennial Project’s south area are at a depth of 80 to 120 feet with an average thickness of 9 feet. Mining to that
depth would create a 129 foot hole in the ground, equivalent to a 12-story building. The average grade of the
uranium in Centennial Project’s south area is only 0.1 %. This means 2.9 million tons of rock must be mined to
remove the uranium. The predictable result is something like the Big Eagle Pits near Jeffrey City, Wyoming (read
article) where uranium mining left a ghost town and three super fund sites (Photograph courtesy of U.S. Energy
Corporation) or the Midnite Uranium Mine (read article), a superfund site in Washington State (Photograph by Elly
Hale, EPA) Big Eagle Pits near Jeffrey City, Wyoming Big Eagle Pits near Jeffrey City, WyomingMidnite Uranium
Mine Midnite Uranium Mine The intense mining required to move and process 2.9 million tons rock and ore to
bring this low grade uranium to market comes with a significant carbon footprint. In her book, Nuclear Power is Not
the Answer, Dr. Helen Caldicott writes: "The largest unavoidable energy cost associated with nuclear power relates
to the processes of mining and milling uranium fuel. Variable grades of uranium ore exist at different mines around
the world. A greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from a mine containing a low-grade uranium
concentration of 0.1% than from another mine containing a uranium concentration of 10%-ten times more. . .The
energy used to mine the uranium is fossil fuel . . ." The Sierra Club concurs with Dr. Caldicott and writes “Uranium
mining is among the most carbon-dioxide-intensive operations in the world” (SierraClub.org).
Open Pit Mining Bad-Radioactive Waste
CARD. Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction. Uranium Mining. “Open Pit Mining”. Last Updated 18 July
2008. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.nunnglow.com/uranium-mining/open-pit-mining.html>.
Open pit mining produces huge piles of waste rock. Waste rock from uranium mines will typically contain
concentrations of radioisotopes (radioactive isotopes) higher than the undisturbed surface. Uranium left geologically
isolated from our environment by layers of earth and rock is not harmful. In an undisturbed uranium deposit the
activity of all decay remains unchanged for hundreds of millions years. This changes when the uranium deposit is
mined and the unstoppable and deadly series of radioactive decay begins. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion
years before it finally reaches a stable form of lead. (Image to the left provided by Colorado State University.)
Open Pit Mining Bad- Deforestation and Foreign Invasion
Rhett Butler. (Math and Economics Background, Studying tropical rainforests for more than a decade ).
Mongabay.com. “Environmental impact of mining in the rainforest”. Last Updated 2007. Accessed 23 July 2008.
<http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0808.htm>.
Large-scale mining operations, especially those using open-pit mining techniques, can result in significant
deforestation through forest clearing and the construction of roads which open remote forest areas to transient
settlers, land speculators, and small-scale miners. These settlers and miners are probably a greater threat to the
tropical rainforest environment than industrial mining operations. Wildcat miners enter regions rumored to have
gold deposits and clear forest in search of riches. They hunt wildlife, cut trees for building material and fuelwood,
and trigger erosion by clearing hillsides and detonating explosives. Miners can also bring diseases to local
indigenous populations (where they still exist) and battles over land rights. One well-documented example is the
conflict between the Yanomani Indians of Northern Brazil and Venezuela and garimpeiros—illegal Brazilian miners.
Reports indicated that Yanomani populations have fallen significantly since the first incursion of miners in the
1980s. While deforestation and chemical pollution from mining can impact the rainforest environment, downstream
aquatic habitats fare worse. Increased sediment loads and reduced water flows can seriously affect local fish
populations.
Uranium Mining is Bad for the Environment
Uranium Mining Bad- Waste Rock
Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
Waste rock is produced during open pit mining when overburden is removed, and during underground mining when
driving tunnels through non-ore zones. Piles of so-called waste rock often contain elevated concentrations of
radioisotopes compared to normal rock. Other waste piles consist of ore with too low a grade for processing. The
WNDI 2008 5
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

transition between waste rock and ore depends on technical and economic feasility. All these piles threaten people
and the environment after shut down of the mine due to their release of radon gas and seepage water containing
radioactive and toxic materials. (image (36k): new window The waste rock "pyramids" of Ronneburg, Germany)
Waste rock was often processed into gravel or cement and used for road and railroad construction. VEB
Hartsteinwerke Oelsnitz in Saxony has processed 200,000 tonnes of material per year into gravel containing 50 g/t
uranium. Thus, gravel containing elevated levels of radioactivity were dispersed over large areas.

Uranium Mining Bad- Heap Leaching

Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
In some cases uranium has been removed from low-grade ore by heap leaching. This may be done if the uranium
contents is too low for the ore to be economically processed in a uranium mill. The leaching liquid (often sulfuric
acid) is introduced on the top of the pile and percolates down until it reaches a liner below the pile, where it is
caught and pumped to a processing plant. During leaching, piles present a hazard because of release of dust, radon
gas and leaching liquid. After completion of the leaching process, a longterm problem may result from naturally
induced leaching if the ore contains the mineral pyrite (FeS2), as with the uranium deposits in Thuringia, Germany)
or Ontario, Canada. Then, access of water and air may cause continuous bacterially induced production of sulfuric
acid inside the pile, which results in the leaching of uranium and other contaminants for centuries and possibly
permanent contamination of ground water.
WNDI 2008 6
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Uranium Mining Bad

Uranium Mining Bad- In Situ Leaching
Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
With the in situ leaching technology, a leaching liquid (e.g. ammonium-carbonate or sulfuric acid) is pumped
through drill- holes into underground uranium deposits, and the uranium bearing liquid is pumped out from below.
This technology can only be used for uranium deposits located in an aquifer in permeable rock, confined in non-
permeable rock. In situ leaching gains importance with a decrease in price of uranium. In the USA, in situ leaching
is often used. In 1990, in Texas alone in situ leaching facilities for uranium were operated at 32 sites. In Saxony,
Germany, an underground mine converted to an underground in situ leaching mine was operated until end of 1990 at
Königstein near Dresden. In the Czech Republic, the in situ leaching technology was used at a large scale at Stráz
pod Ralskem in Northern Bohemia. The advantages of this technology are: The reduced risk for the employees
from accidents and radiation; the lower cost; and no need for large tailings piles. The disadvantages are: The risk
of leaching liquid excursions beyond the uranium deposit and subsequent contamination of ground water; the
unpredictable effects of the leaching liquid on the host rock of the deposit; the production of some amounts of waste
sludge and waste water when recovering the leaching liquid; and the impossibility of restoring natural conditions in
the leaching zone after finishing the leaching operation. After finishing the in situ leaching, the waste sludge must
be dumped in a final deposit and the ore zone aquifer must be restored to pre-leaching conditions. Ground water
restoration is a very protracted and troublesome process, which is not yet completely understood. It is still
impossible to establish pre- leach levels for all parameters.
WNDI 2008 7
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Uranium Mining Bad – Tailings

Uranium Mining Bad- Tailings
Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
Uranium mill tailings are normally dumped as a sludge in special ponds or piles, where they are abandoned.. The
largest such piles in the US and Canada contain up to 30 million tonnes of solid material. In Saxony, Germany the
Helmsdorf pile near Zwickau contains 50 million tonnes, and in Thuringia the Culmitzsch pile near Seelingstädt 86
million tonnes of solids. The amount of sludge produced is nearly the same as that of the ore milled. At a grade of
0.1% uranium, 99.9% of the material is left over. Apart from the portion of the uranium removed, the sludge
contains all the constituents of the ore. As long lived decay products such as thorium-230 and radium-226 are not
removed, the sludge contains 85% of the initial radioactivity of the ore. Due to technical limitations, all of the
uranium present in the ore can not be extracted. Therefore, the sludge also contains 5% to 10% of the uranium
initially present in the ore. In addition, the sludge contains heavy metals and other contaminants such as arsenic, as
well as chemical reagents used during the milling process. Mining and milling removes hazardous constituents in the
ore from their relatively safe underground location and converts them to a fine sand, then sludge, whereby the
hazardous materials become more susceptible to dispersion in the environment. Moreover, the constituents inside the
tailings pile are in a geochemical disequilibrium that results in various reactions causing additional hazards to the
environment. For example, in dry areas, salts containing contaminants can migrate to the surface of the pile, where
they are subject to erosion. If the ore contains the mineral pyrite (FeS2), then sulfuric acid forms inside the deposit
when accessed by precipitation and oxygen. This acid causes a continuous automatic leaching of contaminants.
Radon-222 gas emanates from tailings piles and has a half life of 3.8 days. This may seem short, but due to the
continuous production of radon from the decay of radium-226, which has a half life of 1600 years, radon presents a
longterm hazard. Further, because the parent product of radium-226, thorium-230 (with a half life of 80,000 years) is
also present, there is continuous production of radium-226. (view Uranium decay series) After about 1 million
years, the radioactivity of the tailings and thus its radon emanation will have decreased so that it is only limited by
the residual uranium contents, which continuously produces new thorium-230. Uranium Mill Tailings Activity If,
for example, 90% of the uranium contained in an ore with 0.1% grade was extracted during the milling process, the
radiation of the tailings stabilizes after 1 million years at a level 33 times that of uncontaminated material. Due to the
4.5 billion year half-life of uranium-238, there is only a minuscule further decrease. (see also Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Properties)

Uranium Mining Bad- Tailings

Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
Uranium Mill Tailings Hazards Potential hazards from uranium mill tailings Radionuclides contained in uranium
tailings emit 20 to 100 times as much gamma-radiation as natural background levels on deposit surfaces. Gamma
radiation levels decrease rapidly with distance from the pile. The radium-226 in tailings continuously decays to the
radioactive gas radon-222, the decay products of which can cause lung cancer. Some of this radon escapes from the
interior of the pile. Radon releases are a major hazard that continues after uranium mines are shut down. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents living nearby a
bare tailings pile of 80 hectares at two cases per hundred. Since radon spreads quickly with the wind, many people
receive small additional radiation doses. Although the excess risk for the individual is small, it cannot be neglected
due to the large number of people concerned. EPA estimates that the uranium tailings deposits existing in the United
States in 1983 would cause 500 lung cancer deaths per century, if no countermeasures are taken.
WNDI 2008 8
Nuclear Power Aff Addendum

Uranium Mining Bad –Tailings

Uranium Mining Bad- Tailings
Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
Tailings deposits are subject to many kinds of erosion. Due to the long half-lives of the radioactive constituents
involved, safety of the deposit has to be guaranteed for very long periods of time. After rainfall, erosion gullies can
form; floods can destroy the whole deposit; plants and burrowing animals can penetrate into the deposit and thus
disperse the material, enhance the radon emanation and make the deposit more susceptible to climatic erosion.
When the surface of the pile dries out, the fine sands are blown by the wind over adjacent areas. The sky has
darkened from storms blowing up radioactive dust over villages located in the immediate vicinity of Wismut's
uranium mill tailings piles. Subsequently, elevated levels of radium-226 and arsenic were found in dust samples
from these villages. Seepage from tailings piles is another major hazard. Seepage poses a risk of contamination to
ground and surface water. Residents are also threatened by radium-226 and other hazardous substances like arsenic
in their drinking water supplies and in fish from the area. The seepage problem is very important with acidic tailings,
as the radionuclides involved are more mobile under acidic conditions. In tailings containing pyrite, acidic
conditions automatically develop due to the inherent production of sulfuric acid, which increases migration of
contaminants to the environment.

Uranium Mining Bad- Tailings

Peter Diehl. (Associate Professor, Department of History, Western Washington University). WISE Uranium Project.
“Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes”. Last Updated 15 Aug 2004. Accessed 23 July 2008. <http://www.wise-
uranium.org/uwai.html>
Tailings dams are often not of stable construction. In most cases, they were made from sedimentation of the coarse
fraction of the tailings sludge. Some, including those of Culmitzsch and Trünzig in Thuringia, were built on geologic
faults. Therefore, they are subject to the risk of an earthquake. As the Thuringian tailings deposits are located in the
center of an area of earthquake risk in the former GDR, they suffer a risk of dam failure. Moreover, strong rain or
snow storms can also cause dam failures. (for details see: Safety of Tailings Dams) It is of no surprise that again
and again dam failures have occured. Some examples are: 1977, Grants, New Mexico, USA: spill of 50,000 tonnes
of sludge and several million liters of contaminated water. 1979, Church Rock, New Mexico, USA: spill of more
than 1000 t of sludge and about 400 million liters of contaminated water. 1984, Key Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada:
spill of more than 100 million liters of contaminated liquids. (see also Chronology of uranium tailings dam
failures) Occasionally, because of their fine sandy texture, dried tailings have been used for construction of homes
or for landfills. In homes built on or from such material, high levels of gamma radiation and radon were found. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents of such
homes at 4 cases per 100.