Appropriate safety and radiation protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD wants uranium to be treated like any other mineral in the legislation 1. The party believes that decisions should rest on evidence and expertise rather than fear propaganda 1 or irrelevant information from interest organizations 2. SD argues that it is technology-inhibiting to replace one veto with another 3 4 and that one should not limit mining in a certain rock type 3 4. The party believes that a strong Environmental Code and authorities that evaluate based on evidence-based knowledge are sufficient 1 2. SD emphasizes that Sweden needs nuclear power and minerals for defense 5 and welcomes local anchoring in permit processes 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a strong and impressive industrial nation. That we are is not a given, but a result of us as a nation, over centuries, having understood how to take advantage of and refine the natural resources we are fortunately blessed with. It has not always been easy or entirely without risk, but our ancestors have accepted the challenges, spat in their hands, and with a combination of knowledge, cunning, and persistence developed technologies that have placed us in absolute world-class, not least regarding mining.
In the mining industry, which I myself have worked in, many have historically paid with their lives. I want to emphasize here in this speaker's chair that my thoughts go to all those who, under great hardships and with a working environment we today cannot imagine, have contributed to building the industrial nation Sweden. We also know that many environmental transgressions have been committed historically. This has led to stricter occupational health and safety regulations and environmental requirements, which we work according to today. This we should applaud.
Why do I mention that then? Yes, because what we are debating here today hooks onto the mining-related issues and the energy policy, which is so important for the industry. Considering NU27 Purposeful safety and radiation protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials can in some ways be considered a logical consequence of both the Tidö parties' energy policy and the Riksdag's decision to allow prospecting for and mining of uranium again, as well as the shaky global situation we have been in for some time.
Mr. Speaker! Uranium is a commonly occurring element in Sweden's bedrock. In its naturally occurring form, it is not more dangerous or toxic than many of the other elements we have under our feet out in the forests and fields. Uranium has, however, due to its fissile properties, become almost mythologized and has been portrayed by nuclear power opponents as uniquely dangerous.
Unfortunately, the debate on this fundamental issue often becomes subjective and emotionally charged, and pure fear propaganda is very common. At its core, it is actually about whether one believes in modern power sources such as nuclear power or if one still wants to cling to wind power as in the time of the windmills.
For those of us who have pushed to repeal the so-called uranium ban, this bill is a logical consequence. We want uranium in the sense of the law to be treated exactly like any other metal or any other mineral in the prospecting and mining stages. In our view, it is only at the enrichment stage that it can be considered a nuclear technical activity. It is primarily this perspective that the proposal is about.
To process and permit the prospecting and mining of uranium according to the exact same strict Environmental Code as for all other metals and minerals is therefore logical and consistent. This will also, hopefully, lead to future decisions resting more on evidence, facts, and expertise than on propaganda, fear, and local hype. It is fundamentally something that is good for everyone involved.
In this context, mining in the rock type alunshiefer has emerged as an element in the debate, this because alunshiefer often contains uranium. But not all uranium is found in alunshiefer, and alunshiefer does not only contain uranium. The question is more complex than that.
In alunschist, other critical metals and minerals are often found, such as antimony, bismuth, phosphorus, gallium, lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and vanadium. Several of these are critical or central, not least for the functional capacity of the total defense and other society-critical activities.
The previous government investigated whether a ban on the mining of alunschist was desirable, but not even their investigators advocated for this. On the other hand, it was decided that specific suitability requirements shall apply to those who apply to conduct activities in the rock in question. It is a decision based on the fact that alunschist, due to its structure, is complex to extract raw materials from and that the risks are acknowledged to be greater.
It brings us back to what I began this speech with. If something is difficult or dangerous, you change the rules and the requirements, in this case the environmental requirements. Then it is up to industry and academia to show that they can deliver on that, but one does not give up. You neither build nor maintain an innovation-driven technology nation by throwing in the towel.
The goal of the policy shall be not to hinder or make mining in a certain rock type impossible. On the other hand, we shall, of course, continue to have high national environmental requirements that are clear, predictable, and equal for all. In this way, one creates understandable rules of the game while simultaneously safeguarding our shared nature and one of the most important resources we have, namely water.
We Sweden Democrats believe in a strong mining industry that asserts itself well, not least environmentally, in an international context. We believe in Swedish nuclear power and that it has a given part in the future Swedish energy mix. We also believe in Swedish environmental legislation and the authorities and courts that apply and adjudicate according to these regulatory frameworks.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety. With that said, I wish the Speaker's Presidency, the Chamber Office, and the members a good summer in this debate. This is not only my last debate for the parliamentary year but also for this mandate period.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the presentation!
A consequence of the matter we are deciding on today is that the municipal veto for uranium mining is removed. Today, a press release was also issued stating that the government will appoint an investigation on how municipal influence should be strengthened when it comes to mining in alunschist.
There is not much more information in the press release than there was in the press release presented already in February regarding a rapid investigation into the same matter. But it is clear that it is representatives from Moderaterna, Liberalerna and Kristdemokraterna who are speaking in the press release and not anyone from Sverigedemokraterna.
I know from previous debates with Eric Palmqvist that the Sverigedemokraterna do not think that any new municipal vetoes are needed for uranium mining or mining in alunschist, if I have understood that correctly. I wonder if the Sverigedemokraterna stick to the position that they do not want to see a new municipal veto for mining in alunschist.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Luhr, for those questions!
It is interesting to observe the Green Party's position on the issue. One was in the Green Party was not so concerned about the municipal veto when it came to wind power, something that Sweden does not need. On the other hand, Sweden needs energy around the clock even when it is not blowing, and we need uranium. In that case, the municipal veto is apparently important according to the Green Party's view.
We do not fully share the view that we need a municipal veto for the specific rock type alunskiffer. We believe that it should be examined objectively and on an evidence-based basis by the authorities and the courts in accordance with the Environmental Code. It should not be decided by local storms of criticism that are often blown up and are not always completely objective. I also mentioned that in my speech.
Now we will have to see what the investigation shows. We have not been involved in preparing the investigation directives for it. The proposal will land here in the chamber. Then we will have to take a position on what it contains.
But that is nothing we have requested. We do not consider it the rock itself that is limiting, but it is the potential consequences that result from mining that are what we must consider and grant permits based on.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!
I can start by saying that what was said is not quite correct. Miljöpartiet thinks it is very important that citizens, neighbors and municipalities are involved at an early stage when it comes to deciding on their immediate environment. I really want to emphasize the importance of that.
I want to go back to the question itself regarding mining in alunschist and the investigation that is coming. The investigation has several different points of entry. I am a bit curious if there are any of those points of entry that the Sweden Democrats consider to be more positive.
If the investigation were to land on something other than a new municipal veto, are there any alternatives that the Sverigedemokraterna have looked at? If the investigation were to present a result where a new municipal veto for mining in alunschist is proposed, will the Sverigedemokraterna then attempt to oppose it in a potential future negotiation with the Tidösamarbetet?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Katarina Luhr, for the questions!
Just as Member Luhr pointed out earlier, the information here is quite sparse, and it also arrived today, while I was sitting and preparing my speech. It does not say much there. I therefore do not want to speculate on what the single-person investigator's final product will be and what the investigation will lead to, let alone what the Sweden Democrats will land on with any future cooperation partners.
I hold fast to the Sweden Democrats' basic position: It is bad to replace one veto with another. It is technology-inhibiting to limit mining in a certain bedrock or a certain rock type; one inhibits technical development in that way. That is not how we manage a technology nation and innovation power.
It is, however, naturally completely impossible to stand here and say where and on what footing the Sweden Democrats will land when it comes to a product that we have not yet seen. In that case, I must leave the answer to the member.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the clarity!
It appears very clearly from the government's actions in various issues that they are quite stressed. This morning, a message arrived stating that the government is withdrawing the bill to lock up 13-year-olds in prison and intends to return with another bill, which is to be processed by the summer parliament.
At the same time, the government presents a position where they want to appoint a letter-investigator in the Government Offices who shall propose how the municipal veto can be restored in the mining of alumschist and how this can be retroactively introduced into the legislation.
It appears completely backwards. If the government truly had wanted – or been told by the Sverigedemokraterna – it would have withdrawn this and ensured that the municipal influence and veto remain. But the government does not do that, because the Sverigedemokraterna have clearly taken a stand to push through this proposition. In this issue, it is apparently particularly important that the local population and the municipalities should not have any veto.
The government could have come back with a fairly small change and obtained a significantly larger majority for its proposals in this chamber. But the Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, have made clear who it is that decides. Can Eric Palmqvist just confirm that?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the question! I thought, in and of itself, that the question was a bit vague. I would certainly confirm something, but I did not quite perceive specifically what it was.
Thank you also for the comments regarding the bills that the government has amended or withdrawn! In this case, we in Sverigedemokrater maintain our position. As I said in the previous exchange of remarks with Katarina Luhr, we consider it directly bad to replace one veto with another. We do not believe that the rock itself, but rather the potential environmental risks present in each individual environmental assessment, is what should be governing. It is Sverigedemokraternas basic position, and we stand by it.
I recoil from what the member stated regarding the Sweden Democrats having some kind of separate stance when it comes to the uranium and the veto right in this case. I received a question about this, and I bounce it back to member Isak From.
What other mineral does the member know of for which a municipal veto is applied? What other rock type is a municipal veto applied to? Is uranium such a special mineral that it is just this and just alunschist that one is fixated on having a municipal veto for? I cannot recall anything else, but member Isak From is welcome to answer that question.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! I can add something to Eric Palmqvist's speech where he listed a number of other minerals, besides uranium, that can be found in alumschist. It is something that makes the municipalities quite upset and frightened, namely lead, cadmium and arsenic, which risk leaking into the groundwater. It is fully understandable that the affected municipalities feel some concern.
For the Social Democrats, it is in this perspective absolutely crucial that local acceptance is reached and that the municipalities can have their say in the question: Is this possible? Do we feel that this is safe?
This is what we are now debating and perhaps will vote on on Monday. Will the government proceed and remove the local influence and the veto for those municipalities that now feel great concern regarding the extraction of minerals from alunschist?
Mr. Speaker! There are investigation permits in 112 municipalities today, I believe – some may have been added. There are over 800 investigation permits that are active. Many of these 112 municipalities have very poor or no experience at all of mining, extraction from shale, or uranium extraction.
A very great fear is spreading in the municipalities, and there is every reason to ensure the influence of the municipalities and the local population through the veto in this regard. I think that Eric Palmqvist has answered very clearly as to who it is that decides in this matter.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member From, for the questions or perhaps rather the observations!
I agree with the member from From as far as there are municipalities expressing concern not only regarding uranium but also regarding, for example, lead, cadmium and arsenic. These are elements that are very troublesome and toxic in our nature – perhaps even potentially more toxic than uranium.
It is somewhat this that I have touched upon both in previous exchanges and in my main presentation in the speaker's chair: Uranium itself does not require any special legislation. We shall have a strong Environmental Code, strong environmental assessments, and authorities that can examine this in an adequate manner and based on the collective evidence-based knowledge that exists.
I want to remember that Member From, like myself, is a local politician in the home municipality. Just as the Member said, this is very much about fear. An opinion is being built around fear and around the information that interest organizations spread, which is not always completely relevant. It becomes easy to say no to something out of fear that one does not have, instead of building one's position on knowledge.
The Sweden Democrats' position is the one I have set out from the rostrum, and I believe it serves Sweden well. On the other hand, I look forward to the proposal that the investigation will present. If the investigation can show that one can in some way have a local anchoring, I welcome that, for it is desirable in all mining and mineral policy and in all permit processes and is something that Member Isak From knows I usually uphold. But we must first see what conclusions the investigation will present.
Rickard Nordin (C)
Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and Eric Palmqvist are outraged by fear propaganda, local antics, Twitter storms, lack of professionalism, inaccuracies, and non-evidence-based claims.
It is a fairly good summary of what the Sweden Democrats usually talk about when it comes to wind power. It is exactly these things that are brought up every single time. But it is good that Eric Palmqvist thinks it is disgusting and should be opposed and that one should have an environmental assessment that is legally secure.
The interesting thing is that the Sweden Democrats, given this rhetoric, should also be opponents of the local veto for wind power. But they are not, even though it is precisely these things that appear in the Sweden Democrats' channels, rhetoric, and communication every time a wind power establishment is underway. How does this add up, really? Why do the Sweden Democrats want a municipal veto for wind power but not for uranium mining?
For me and the Center Party, this is a question of local influence. If something affects people locally, those who are affected should also have the opportunity to influence. That is why we think it is reasonable with a veto for both wind power and for uranium mining.
Take Jämtland as an example! There, a company has secured 80,000 hectares for uranium mining – an area larger than half of Öland. Don't Eric Palmqvist and the Sverigedemokraterna think it is reasonable that one has local influence over that type of decision, which has significantly greater consequences than a decision regarding a wind farm?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Nordin, for the questions and the comments!
The short answer is that wind is everywhere. Uranium is not everywhere. Sweden does not need wind power either. Sweden needs nuclear power, however.
Furthermore, our minerals are needed for something other than just energy production, for example, as I mentioned, for defense. Wind power is something that the defense expresses in quite many places that they do not need. That is actually the short answer.
If we are going to talk about areas, we can talk about Markbygden, and then we can come back to it after that. Markbygden is absolutely enormous. It was the type of wind power project that the member of the Center Party, together with the other red-green parties, was quite keen to push through during the last parliamentary term, and actually also looked at the possibility of removing the municipal veto for.
I will stop there, but I note that we have very different views on this. That is, in fact, what we can conclude from this first exchange of remarks.
Rickard Nordin (C)
Mr. Speaker! The big difference is that Piteå said yes. Piteå had the opportunity to say no to Markbygden but said yes. What the Sverigedemokraterna want to do is to take away from Jämtelanders, East Swedes, West Swedes, Öland residents and others the chance to say yes – or no, for that matter. That is the big difference here. The Sverigedemokraterna want to strip away all local influence.
Furthermore, reference is made to nuclear power. What is it, to begin with, that nuclear power is supposed to be for? Yes, to transition and get rid of the fossil. But the shale from which the uranium is to be mined contains 15–20 percent fossil coal. The mining of the uranium that is to be used to get rid of fossil fuels would thus become one of Sweden's largest sources of emissions. It does not add up.
Another thing does not add up either. It is not the case that we become self-sufficient in uranium and nuclear fuel just because we mine uranium. The uranium must be enriched, and those facilities do not exist in Sweden. We therefore do not become independent.
Also, a third thing is interesting. We can look at the contents of uranium in the Swedish bedrock. Take Jämtland, where they have these mining permits on areas larger than half of Öland. There it is 300 grams per ton. In Canada, where they also extract uranium today and from which we import uranium, among other things, it is 200 kilos per ton.
It is very few times that I say this, but it is actually better to enrich the uranium somewhere else, both environmentally and in terms of intrusion.
I maintain what I have said and pose my question once more: How can it be more reasonable to have a veto for wind power than for uranium mining, when the consequences of uranium mining are so incredibly much greater?
If one thinks that it is a problem with wind power, it is very good that we have a municipal veto. There we agree. The Center Party has said yes to that all the time. We have never submitted proposals to abolish anything such as that, regardless of what Eric Palmqvist says. But the question remains: Why should not Jämtelanders, Öland residents, and Västgötar be allowed to have influence and decision-making over their local lands when it comes to specifically uranium mining when they have it in other areas?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the points raised!
Yes, Piteå said yes to Markbygden. Was it good with China-controlled wind power that operates with extreme losses and has resulted in large areas of land that are almost destroyed, poor wildlife and the like? Was it good that a municipality made that decision? Is that the form of decision that one is prepared to override the municipalities with? I do not think so.
The members of the board also raise the low concentrations. With that reasoning, we would not have any copper mine in Aitik either. Aitik has one of the lowest concentrations of copper in the world, but we also have one of the best technologies for enrichment. We are sovereign in enrichment, because we have a good academy and a skilled industry that does this.
We can translate that to this industry. It is not the case that just because one has a low concentration, one cannot be good at enrichment. I do not understand that approach. It would mean that several of our Swedish mines, which today generate large profits, would not be attractive to have, according to the Center Party's logic. I do not understand that, and I recoil from that stance.
I know that we will soon have the question period, so for everyone's convenience, I will stop there. I cannot, after all, ask the member any question and have it answered.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.