United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry
Washington DC 20460
Energy from the
West
Energy Resource
Development
Systems Report
Volume IV: Uranium
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U S Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields
The nine series are
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 "Special" Reports
9 Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects, assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems, and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
Energy From the West
Energy Resource Development
Systems Report
Volume IV: Uranium
By
Science and Public Policy Program
University of Oklahoma
IrvinL. White Edward J. Malecki
Michael A. Chartock Edward B. Rappaport
R. Leon Leonard Robert W. Rycroft
Steven C. Ballard Rodney K. Freed
Martha Gilliland Gary D. Miller
Timothy A. Hall
Managers,
Energy Resource Development Systems
R. Leon Leonard, Science and Public Policy
University of Oklahoma
Clinton E. Burklin
C. Patrick Bartosh Gary D. Jones
Clinton E. Burklin William J. Moltz
William R. Hearn Patrick J. Murin
Prepared for:
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Project Officer:
Steven E. Plotkin
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy,
Minerals and Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ncr does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
11
-------
FORWARD
The production of electricity and fossil fuels inevitably
impacts Man and his environment. The nature of these impacts
must be thoroughly understood if balanced judgements concerning
future energy development in the United States are to be made.
The Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry (OEMI), in its role
as coordinator of the Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program, is responsible for producing the informa-
tion on health and ecological effects - and methods for miti-
gating the adverse effects - that is critical to developing the
Nation's environmental and energy policy. OEMI's Integrated
Assessment Program combines the results of research projects
within the Energy/Environment Program with research on the
socioeconomic and political/institutional aspects of energy
development, and conducts policy - oriented studies to identify
the tradeoffs among alternative energy technologies, development
patterns, and impact mitigation measures.
The Integrated Assessment Program has supported several
"technology assessments" in fulfilling its mission. Assess-
ments have been supported which explore the impact of future
energy development on both a nationwide and a regional scale.
Current assessments include national assessments of future
development of the electric utility industry and of advanced
coal technologies (such as fluidized bed combustion). Also,
the Program is conducting assessments concerned with multiple-
resource development in two "energy resource areas":
o Western coal states
o Lower Ohio River Basin
This report, which describes the technologies likely to be
used for developing six energy resources in eight western
states, is one of three major reports produced by the "Tech-
nology Assessment of Western Energy Resource Development"
study. (The other two reports are an impact analysis report
and a policy analysis report.) The report is divided into six
volumes. The first volume describes the study, the organization
of this report and briefly outlines laws and regulations which
affect the development of more than one of the six resources
considered in the study. The remaining five volumes are resource
specific and describe the resource base, the technological
activities such as exploration, extraction and conversion for
developing the resource, and resource specific laws and regula-
iii
-------
tions . This report is both a compendium of information and a
planning handbook. The descriptions of the various energy
development technologies and the extensive compilations of
technical baseline information are written to be easily under-
stood by laypersons. Both professional planners and interested
citizens should find it quite easy to use the information
presented in this report to make general but useful comparisons
of energy technologies and energy development alternatives,
especially when this report is used in conjunction with the
impact and policy analysis reports mentioned above.
Your review and comments on these reports are welcome.
Such comments will help us to improve the usefulness of the
products produced by our Integrated Assessment Program.
Steven R. ReMiek
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Energy, Minerals and Industry
iv
-------
PREFACE
This Energy Resource Development System (ERDS) report has
been prepared as part of "A Technology Assessment of Western
Energy Resource Development" being conducted by an interdisciplin-
ary research team from the Science and Public Policy Program
(S&PP) of the University of Oklahoma for the Office of Energy,
Minerals and Industry (OEMI), Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This study is one of
several conducted under the Integrated Assessment Program estab-
lished by OEMI in 1975. Recommended by an interagency task
force, the purpose of the Program is to identify economically,
environmentally, and socially acceptable energy development
alternatives. The overall purposes of this particular study were
to identify and analyze a broad range of consequences of energy
resource development in the western U.S. and to evaluate and
compare alternative courses of action for dealing with the pro-
blems and issues either raised or likely to be raised by develop-
ment of these resources.
The Project Director was Irvin L.(Jack) White, Assistant
Director of S&PP and Professor of Political Science at the Univers-
ity of Oklahoma. White is now Special Assistant to Dr. Stephen
J. Gage, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Research and Develop-
ment. R. Leon Leonard, now a senior scientist with Radian Corpora-
tion in Austin, Texas, was a Co-Director of the research team,
Associate Professor of Aeronautical, Mechanical, and Nuclear
Engineering and a Research Fellow in S&PP at the University of
Oklahoma. Leonard was responsible for editing and managing the
production of this report. EPA Project Officer was Steven E.
Plotkin, Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry, Office of
Research and Development. Plotkin is now with the Office of
Technology Assessment. Other S&PP team members are: Michael A.
Chartock, Assistant Professor of Zoology and Research Fellow in
S&PP and the other Co-Director of the team; Steven C. Ballard,
Assistant Professor of Political Science and Research Fellow in
S&PP; Edward J. Malecki, Assistant Professor of Geography and
Research Fellow in S&PP; Edward B. Rappaport, Visiting Assistant
Professor of Economics and Research Fellow in S&PP; Frank J.
Calzonetti, Research Associate (Geography) in S&PP; Timothy A.
Hall, Research Associate (Political Science); Gary D. Miller,
Graduate Research Assistant (Civil Engineering and Environmental
Sciences); and Mark S. Eckert, Graduate Research Assistant (Geo-
graphy) .
-------
Chapters 3-7 were prepared by the Radian Corporation, Austin,
Texas, under subcontract to the University of Oklahoma. In each
of these chapters, Radian is primarily responsible for the des-
cription of the resource base and the technologies and S&PP is
primarily responsible for the description of laws and regulations.
The Program Manager at Radian was C. Patrick Bartosh. Clinton
E. Burklin was responsible for preparation of these five chapters.
Other contributors at Radian were: William R. Hearn, Gary D.
Jones, William J. Moltz, and Patrick J. Murin.
Additional assistance in the preparation of the ERDS report
was provided by Martha W. Gilliland, Executive Director, Energy
Policies Studies, Inc., El Paso, Texas; Rodney K. Freed, Attorney,
Shawnee, Oklahoma; and Robert W. Rycroft, Assistant Professor of
Political Science, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
VI
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the technologies likely to be used
for development of coal, oil shale, uranium, oil, natural gas,
and geothermal resources in eight western states (Arizona, Color-
ado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming). It is part of a three-year "Technology Assess-
ment of Western Energy Resource Development." The study examines
the development of these energy resources in the eight states
from the present to the year 2000. Other reports describe
the analytic structure and conduct of the study, the impacts
likely to result when these resources are developed, and analyze
policy problems and issues likely to result from that develop-
ment. The report is published in six volumes. Volume 1 describes
the study, the technological activities such as exploration,
extraction, and conversion for developing the resource, and
laws and regulations which affect the development of more
than one of the six resources considered in the study. The
remaining five volumes are resource specific: Volume 2, Coal;
Volume 3, Oil Shale; Volume 4, Uranium; Volume 5, Oil and Natural
Gas; and Volume 6, Geothermal. Each of these volumes provides
information on input materials and labor requirements, outputs,
residuals, energy requirements, economic costs, and resource
specific state and federal laws and regulations.
vii
-------
OVERALL TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR
THE ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS REPORT
VOLUME I: INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL SOCIAL CONTROLS
PAGE
Chapter 1
ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objectives of the ERDS Document.... 3
1.3 Organization of the ERDS Document.. 4
1.4 Limitations of the ERDS Document... 9
Chapter 2 GENERAL SOCIAL CONTROLS
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Environmental Impact Statements.... 1.1
2.3 Siting and Land Use 19
2.4 Resource Exploration 29
2. 5 Resource Acquisition 38
2.6 Resource Extraction 48
2.7 Occupational Safety and Health 59
2 . 8 Air Quality 65
2.9 Water Quality 95
2.10 Water Use 109
2.11 Solid Waste Disposal 135
2.12 Noise Pollution 139
2.13 Transportation and Distribution.... 145
2.14 Conclusions 153
VOLUME II: COAL
Chapter 3 THE COAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
3 .1 Introduction 1
3 . 2 Summary 3
3. 3 Coal Resources 12
3.4 A Regional Overview 27
3. 5 Exploration 37
3.6 Mining 52
3. 7 Benef iciation 139
3.8 Conversion 174
Vlll
-------
OVERALL TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
VOLUME III: OIL SHALE PAGE
Chapter 4 THE OIL SHALE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
4.1 Introduction 1
4. 2 Summary 4
4 . 3 Resource Description 13
4.4 Exploration 25
4.5 Mining and Preparation 37
4.6 Processing 142
4.7 Land Reclamation 297
VOLUME IV: URANIUM
Chapter 5 THE URANIUM RESOURCE SYSTEM
5.1 Introduction 1
5. 2 Uranium Resources 8
5. 3 Exploration 31
5. 4 Mining 64
5.5 Uranium Milling 197
VOLUME V: OIL AND NATURAL GAS
Chapter 6 CRUDE OIL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
6.1 Introduction 1
6.2 Resource Description of Western
Crude Oil 8
6.3 Exploration 14
6.4 Crude Oil Production 57
6.5 Transportation 144
Chapter 7 THE NATURAL GAS RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
7.1 Introduction 146
7.2 Resource Description of the Western
Natural Gas 151
7.3 Exploration 157
7.4 Natural Gas Production 165
7. 5 Transportation 201
IX
-------
OVERALL TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
VOLUME VI: GEOTHERMAL PAGE
Chapter 8 THE GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
8.1 Introduction 1
8. 2 Summary 6
8.3 Resource Characteristics 13
8.4 Exploration 40
8.5 Extraction: Drilling 68
8.6 Extraction: Production 113
8. 7 Uses of Geothermal Energy 146
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV
CHAPTER 5: THE URANIUM RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
Page
5 .1 INTRODUCTION 1
5.1.1 Background 1
5.1.2 Summary 2
5.2 URANIUM RESOURCES 8
5.2.1 History of Nuclear Energy 8
5.2.2 Basics of Nuclear Energy 9
5.2.3 Characteristics of the Resource 12
5.2.4 Quantity of the Resource 13
5.2.5 Location of the Resources 25
5.2.6 Ownership of the Resources 25
5.3 EXPLORATION 31
5.3.1 Technologies 31
5.3.2 Input Requirements 33
5.3.3 Outputs 38
5.3.4 Social Controls 42
5.3.5 Exploration on Federal Lands 44
5.3.6 Exploration Permits on Indian Lands 51
5.3.7 Exploration Permits on State Lands 51
5 . 4 MINING 64
5.4.1 Open Pit Mining 65
5.4.1.1 Technology 65
5.4.1.2 Input Requirements 71
5.4.1.3 Outputs 82
5.4.2 Underground Mining 91
5.4.2.1 Technology 91
5.4.2.2 Input Requirements 97
5.4.2.3 Outputs 108
XI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VOLUME IV
Page
5.4.3 In-Situ Mining 114
5.4.3.1 Technology 114
5.4.3.2 Input Requirements 131
5.4.3.3 Outputs 154
5.4.4 Social Controls for Mining 169
5.4.5 Obtaining Minable Lands 169
5.4.6 Health and Safety of Mining Personnel.... 181
5.4.7 Mining Permits and Reclamation 191
5.5 URANIUM MILLING 197
5.5.1 Technology 197
5.5.2 Input Requirements 205
5.5.3 Outputs 216
5.5.4 Social Controls for Milling 222
5.5.5 Land Use and Planning 223
5.5.6 Water Quality 227
5.5.7 Air Quality 229
5.5.8 Solid Wastes 229
5.5.9 Safety and Product Output (Radiation).... 230
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME IV
CHAPTER 5: THE URANIUM RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
Number Page
5-1 Distribution of 1/1/77 Ore Reserves by Depth of
Ore - $10 . 00 Reserves 14
5-2 Uranium Deposits in the Western United States 26
5-3 Uranium Surface (Open Pit) Mining Operation 69
5-4 Uranium Surface Mining Block Design 70
5-5 Underground Uranium Mining, Typical Mine Layout
Using Panel Method 95
5-6 Underground Uranium Mining Operation 98
5-7 Underground Uranium Mining, Block Diagram 99
5-8 Typical Uranium Ore Formation 115
5-9 In-Situ Solution Mining Well Patterns 118
5-10 Solution Mining Wells Positioned in Ore Formation. 119
^
5-11 Typical Well Field Layout (Aerial View) 12 1
5-12 In-Situ Solution Mining Uranium Recovery Process.. 125
5-13 Well Field During Simultaneous Production and
Reclamation Processes 130
5-14 Aquifer Water Clean-Up Process 132
5-15 Typical Production Well Completion 136
5-16 In-Situ Solution Mine Plan Layout 140
5-17 In-Situ Mine Land Use Schedule 152
5-18 In-Situ Mine Uranium Extraction Process 156
5-19 Sequence of Social/Technological Activities:
Uranium (Federal Public Domain Lands) 170
5-20 Sequence of Social/Technological Activities:
Uranium (Federal Acquired Lands) 171
5-21 Sequence of Social/Technological Activities:
Uranium (State Lands) 172
5-22 Uranium Mill Block Diagram 201
Kill
-------
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME IV
CHAPTER 5: THE URANIUM RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
Number
5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
EXPLORATION FOR A 1200 TON/DAY URANIUM MINE.. 3
5-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 1200
TON/DAY OPEN PIT URANIUM MINE 4
5-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 1200
TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE 5
5-4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 250 TONS
OF YELLOW CAKE/YEAR IN-SITU SOLUTION MINE.... 6
5-5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 1200
TON/DAY URANIUM MILL 7
5-6 URANIUM ORE RESERVES AND PRODUCTION, 1947
THROUGH 1976 16
5-7 ESTIMATED URANIUM ORE RESERVES, JANUARY 1,
1977 17
5-8 POTENTIAL RESOURCES (TONS U308), JANUARY 1,
1977 18
5-9 U308 NEEDS FOR PROJECTED NUCLEAR REACTOR FUEL
REQUIREMENTS 20
5-10 ESTIMATED REMAINING URANIUM RESOURCES IN
INTERMEDIATE AND HIGH GRADE DEPOSITS TO A
CUTOFF COST OF $100 PER POUND/AS OF 1/1/73... 23
5-11 ESTIMATED LOWER GRADE URANIUM RESOURCES NOT
INCLUDED IN TABLE 1 24
5-12 ESTIMATED $10 POUND (U30e) ORE RESERVES BY
STATES , JANUARY 1, 1977 27
5-13 DISTRIBUTION OF 1/1/77 ORE RESERVES BY
RESOURCE REGION (10$ RESERVES) 28
5-14 ACRES HELD FOR URANIUM MINING AND EXPLORATION
(IN THOUSANDS OF ACRES) 29
5-15 ACRES HELD FOR URANIUM EXPLORATION AND
MINING (IN THOUSANDS OF ACRES) - DISTRIBUTION
BY STATE 1/1/77 30
5-16 ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOLOGY-
RELATED EXPLORATION FOR URANIUM 34
5-17 ESTIMATED PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR
EXPLORATORY DRILLING 35
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
VOLUME IV
Number
5-18 EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR EXPLORATORY
DRILLING 36
5-19 NOISE-PRODUCING POTENTIAL OF EQUIPMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH TEST HOLE DRILLING 41
5-20 SUMMARY OF STATE LAND EXPLORATION PERMITS.. 54
5-21 ARIZONA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT 55
5-22 COLORADO URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT 56
5-23 MONTANA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT 57
5-24 NORTH DAKOTA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT.... 58
5-25 NEW MEXICO URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT 59
5-26 SOUTH DAKOTA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT.... 60
5-27 UTAH URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT 61
5-28 WYOMING URANIUM EXPLORATION (MINING CLAIM). 62
5-29 WYOMING URANIUM EXPLORATION (PLACER CLAIMS) 63
5-30 SCHEDULE OF MANPOWER RESOURCES (MAN-YEARS)
REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A 1200 TON/DAY
SURFACE URANIUM ORE MINE 73
5-31 MANPOWER RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF A 1200 TON/DAY SURFACE
URANIUM ORE MINE 74
5-32 EQUIPMENT ESTIMATES FOR A 1200 TON/DAY
SURFACE MINING PROJECT 76
5-33 CAPITAL INVESTMENT ESTIMATE FOR A 1200 TON/
DAY SURFACE MINE PLANT (1977 DOLLARS) 77
5-34 ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY FOR A 1200 TON/DAY
OPEN PIT URANIUM MINE (1977 DOLLARS) 78
5-35 POSSIBLE VEHICLUAR EMISSIONS FROM A 1200
TON/DAY SURFACE MINING OPERATION 83
5-36 RADIOACTIVE RELEASE OF RADON-222 GAS FROM
364,000 TON/YR URANIUM SURFACE MINING
OPERATION 85
5-37 MAJOR NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT AND SOUND
LEVELS FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATION
(SHOVEL AND DUMP TRUCK) 89
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
VOLUME IV
Number
5-38 MAJOR NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT AND SOUND
LEVELS FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATION
(USING SCRAPERS) 90
5-39 MANPOWER REQUIREMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
A 1200 TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE.... 101
5-40 MANPOWER REQUIREMENT FOR OPERATION OF A
1200 TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE 102
5-41 TYPICAL EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR A 1200
TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE 104
5-42 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR URANIUM CONCENTRATE
(YELLOWCAKE) PRODUCTION AT AN UNDERGROUND
MINE PRODUCING 1200 TONS/DAY OF ORE CON-
TAINING 0.25 PERCENT U308 (1975 DOLLARS)... 105
5-43 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ESTIMATE FOR
HYPOTHETICAL URANIUM UNDERGROUND MINE AND
MILL (1975 DOLLARS) 1200 TON/DAY CAPACITY.. 106
5-44 ESTIMATED AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ORE
HAULING EQUIPMENT (1200 TON/DAY UNDERGROUND
MINE) 110
5-45 NOISE-PRODUCING POTENTIAL OF SURFACE
EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH AN UNDERGROUND
MINE - OCTAVE BAND SOUND POWER-WATTS x 10~2 113
5-46 METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER TREATMENT 128
5-47 SCHEDULE OF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR AN
IN-SITU SOLUTION MINE PILOT PLANT STUDY.... 133
5-48 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AN IN-SITU
SOLUTION MINING PLANT 138
5-49 CHEMICAL ADDITION REQUIREMENTS FOR A
500,000 LBS/YR SOLUTION PLANT 139
5-50 BASIS FOR COST STUDY FOR AN IN-SITU LEACH
PLANT 142
5-51 IN-SITU COST MODEL AND SCALED OPERATING
COSTS FOR A 500,000 LB/YR MINE (1977
DOLLARS) 143
5-52 IN-SITU LEACH COST MODEL AND SCALED
INVESTMENT COSTS FOR A 500,000 LB/YR MINE
(1977 DOLLARS) 144
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
VOLUME IV
Number
5-53 IN-SITU MINING OPERATING COSTS FOR TWO
GRADES OF URANIUM ORE - 500,000 LB/YR
MINE (1977 DOLLARS) 145
5-54 IN-SITU INVESTMENT COSTS FOR TWO GRADES
OF URANIUM ORE - 500,000 LB/YR MINE
(1977 DOLLARS) 146
5-55 IN-SITU MINE ECONOMICS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
(250, 000 LB/YR MINE) 148
5-56 WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR A 500,000 LB/YR
IN-SITU SOLUTION MINE 150
5-57 ESTIMATED AIR EMISSIONS 157
5-58 ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF PROCESS WASTES AND
EFFLUENTS FOR A 500,000 LB/YR URANIUM
SOLUTION MINE 159
5-59 SUMMARY OF DOSE RATES RECEIVED BY A MAN
STANDING AT A CERTAIN DISTANCE FOR A GIVEN
PERIOD OF TIME 167
5-60 50 YEAR DOSE RECEIVED AT MAXIMUM RATE 167
5-61 SUMMARY, 1976 - PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY
RESULTS , BRUNI, TEXAS 168
5-62 AREA MONITOR RESULTS, PERIOD 10/1/76
THROUGH 1/20/77, BRUNI, TEXAS 168
5-63 SUMMARY OF TERMS FOR URANIUM LEASES ON
STATE LANDS 182
5-64 ARIZONA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 183
5-65 COLORADO URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 184
5-66 MONTANA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 185
5-67 NEW MEXICO URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 186
5-68 NORTH DAKOTA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 187
5-69 SOUTH DAKOTA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 188
5-70 UTAH URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 189
5-71 WYOMING URANIUM LEASE FEATURES 190
5-72 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR URANIUM MINES 195
5-73 URANIUM MILL PROCESS METHODS AS OF 1/1/77.. 200
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
VOLUME IV
Number Page
5-74 MANPOWER RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A 2500 TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY.. 207
5-75 MANPOWER RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR OPERATING A
2500 TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY 208
5-76 SELECTED MAJOR MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1200 TON/DAY URANIUM ORE
MILLING PLANT 210
5-77 ESTIMATED MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A 1200
TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY 211
5-78 EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR OPERATION OF A 2500
TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY 212
5-79 URANIUM ORE PROCESSING MILL CAPITAL CON-
STRUCTION COST ESTIMATES (1977 DOLLARS) -
1200 TON/DAY MILL 213
5-80 OPERATING COST ESTIMATE FOR URANIUM MILLING
OPERATION (1977 DOLLARS) - 1200 TON/DAY
MILL 214
5-81 ESTIMATED NON-RADIOLOGICAL AIR EMISSIONS
FROM A 1200 TON/DAY URANIUM MILL 218
5-82 AVERAGE ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL AIR EMISSIONS
(IN CURIES) FROM A 1200 TON/DAY ACTIVE
URANIUM MILL 218
5-83 CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES AND
CHEMICALS IN TAILINGS SOLUTION 219
5-84 231
xviii
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
ENGLISH UNITS/METRIC UNITS
To Convert From
To
Multiply By
acre
acre-ft/year
acre-ft/year
Btu
Btu/hr
ft
gpm
hp
Ib
psi
ton
nr
gpm
m3/yr
joules
watts
m
m3/min
watts
kg
pascal
4046.9
0.6200
1233.5
1054.4
0.2931
0.3048
0.003785
745.7
0.4536
6894.8
907.18
xix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
David A. Rehbein and Clinton E. Burklin of the Radian Cor-
poration had primary responsibility for preparation of this
volume of the Energy Resource Development Systems (ERDS) Report.
The social controls sections were prepared by Rodney K. Freed
of the Science and Public Policy Program at the University of
Oklahoma. Mr. Rehbein is now with the Texas Air Quality Control
Board in Austin, Texas and Mr. Freed is now an attorney in Shawnee,
Oklahoma.
The research reported here could not have been completed
without the assistance of a dedicated administrative support staff.
At Radian Corporation, Mary Harris was responsible for typing of
this volume, and at the University of Oklahoma, Janice Whinery,
Assistant to the Director, coordinated assembly of the volumes of
the ERDS Report.
page.
Nancy Ballard, graphics arts consultant, designed the title
Steven E. Plotkin, EPA Project Officer, has provided contin-
uing support and assistance in the preparation of this report.
The individuals listed below participated in the review of
this volume of the ERDS Report and provided information for its
preparation. Although these critiques were extremely helpful,
none of these individuals is responsible for the content of this
volume. This volume is the sole responsibility of the Science
and Public Policy interdisciplinary research team and the Radian
Corporation.
Dr. L.E. Craig
Director, Energy Information
Division
Kerr-McGee Corporation
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Dr. James Freim
Lynchburg Research Center
Babcock and Wilcox Co.
Lynchburg, Virginia
Dr. John Hoover
Energy and Environmental Systems
Argonne National Laboratory
Chicago, Illinois
Mr. S. Jackson Hubbard
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
xx
-------
Mr. Lionel S. Johns
Program Manager
Office of Technology Assess-
ment
U.S. Congress
Washington, D.C.
Mr. William C. Larson
Twin Cities Mining Research
Center
Bureau of Mines
Twin Cities, Minnesota
Mr. Terry Thoem
Office of Energy Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
xxi
-------
VOLUME IV
CHAPTER 5
THE URANIUM RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1.1 Background
This document is one of several reports issued in support
of a "Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource Develop-
ment," a project jointly conducted by the Science and Public
Policy Program of the University of Oklahoma and the Radian
Corporation of Austin, Texas. The project is funded by the
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
68-01-1916. This document is issued as Chapter 5 of the "Energy
Resource Development System" (ERDS) report. For each of six
energy resources, the ERDS report describes the energy resource
base, the technologies used to develop the resource, the inputs
and outputs for each development technology, and the laws and
regulations applying to the deployment and operation of each
technology. Resources described in the ERDS report are: coal,
oil shale, uranium, oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy.
This chapter describes the technologies, inputs, outputs,
laws, and regulations associated with the development of
uranium resources. The chapter comprises five major sections
which begin with a general description of the uranium resource.
The remaining sections describe the steps or activities involved
in developing uranium resources.
-------
Section 5.2, Uranium Resources, describes the characteristics
of the uranium resource and gives estimates of the quality and
quantity of the known and projected uranium reserves. This
section also discusses the uranium resource in terms of location
and ownership.
The remaining sections describe the development of the
uranium resource as a basic sequence of activities. In the
development of the uranium resource, these activities include
exploration, mining, and milling. For each activity, "techno-
logical alternatives" are discussed which represent potential
development options, (e.g., uranium can be mined on the
surface, underground, or extracted in-situ. When available,
input requirements and outputs for each technological alterna-
tive or activity are presented. Input requirements discussed
in this report include: manpower, materials and equipment,
economics, water, land, and ancillary energy. The outputs
include the residuals that may pose environmental hazards such
as: air emissions, water effluents, solid wastes, noise
pollution, occupational health and safety hazards, and odors.
Section 5.3 discusses the technologies, inputs and outputs,
laws and regulations associated with uranium exploration.
Section 5.4 discusses the same items for the mining of uranium
including discussions of underground mining, surface mining,
and in-situ solutional mining. Section 5.5 describes uranium
milling to form the intermediate product, "yellowcake".
5.1.2 Summary
Tables 5-1 through 5-5 summarize the input requirements
and outputs associated with development of the uranium resources.
-2-
-------
TABLE 5-1.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPLORATION
FOR A 1200 TON/DAY URANIUM MINE
Inputs
Manpower
Materials and Equipment
• drilling rigs
• heavy duty vehicles
Economics
i
Water (over life of exploration
T effort)
Land
Ancillary Energy
400 man-years
4 to 6
15
$804,000
2.4 acre-ft (2.96 km3)
50 acres (202 km2)
8.34 x 109 Btu/yr (8.8 TJ/yr)
Outputs
Air Emissions
Water Effluents
Solid Wastes
Noise Pollution
Occupational Health and Safety
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
(?1000 ft.
Minimal
1977 dollars, adjusted from reported 1976 dollars.
-3-
-------
TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 1200 TON/DAY
OPEN PIT URANIUM MINE
Inputs
Manpower
• construction
• operating
Materials and Equipment
• structural steel, piping, tubular
goods
• concrete
• refined products
• heavy duty vehicles
Economics
• capital investment1
operating cost
Water
• externally supplied
• internal recycle
Land
Ancillary Energy
• electricity
• fuels
Outputs
Air Emissions
• particulates
• sulfur oxides
• carbon monoxide
• nitrogen oxides
• carbon dioxide
• Rn-222 gas
Water Effluents
Solid Water
Noise Pollution
Occupational Health and Safety
• deaths
• injuries
• lost time
276 man-years
178 men
400 tons (360 Mg)
10 tons (9 Mg)
5100 tons (4600 Mg)
74 items
$21.2 million
$ 7.3 million/yr
1.1 acre-ft/year (1.4 kmVyr)
^4 acre-ft/year (54 km3/yr)
1800 acres (7.3 Mm2)
6.9 x 10s kwh/yr (24 TJ/yr)
1.3 x 10s gallons/yr (4.9 kmVyr)
1580 tons/yr (1400 Mg/yr)
39 tons/yr (35 Mg/yr)
409 tons/yr (370 Mg/yr)
539 tons/yr (490 Mg/yr)
617 tons/yr (560 Mg/yr)
33 curies/yr
500-1500 acre-ft/yr (616-1850 kmVyr)
Returned to mine
88 dBA @50 ft.
1.8 deaths/yr
£69 injuries/yr
4280 man-days/yr
i
1977 dollars
-4-
-------
TABLE 5-3.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 1200 TON/DAY
UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE
Inputs
Manpower
• construction
• operating
Materials and Equipment
• concrete
• pipe and tubing
• structural steel
• reinforcing bars
• continuous miners
Economics
• capital investment
• annual operating cost1
Water (potable)
Land
Ancillary Energy
• electricity
• fuel for mine heating
• equipment fuels
Outputs
Air Emissions
• Rn-222 gas
• particulates
• sulfur oxides
• carbon monoxide
• hydrocarbons
• nitrogen oxides
• aldehydes
• organic acids
• carbon dioxide
Water Effluents
Solid Wastes
Noise Pollution
Occupational Health and Safety
• deaths
• injuries
122 man-years
197 men
27,000 tons (24,000 Mg)
1,350 tons (1200 Mg)
1,750 tons (1600 Mg)
2,000 tons (1800 Mg)
4 items
$ 30 million
$ 13 million
17.9 acre-ft/yr (22 km3/yr)
8 acres (32 km2)
24.5 x 106 kwh/yr
11 x 106 Btu/yr
120 x 103 gal/yr
(88 TJ/yr)
(12 GJ/yr)
(450 m3/yr)
1073 curies/yr
0.7 tons/yr (0.6 Mg/yr)
1.6 tons/yr (1.5 Mg/yr)
13.3 tons/yr (12.1 Mg/yr)
2.2 tons/yr (2.0 Mg/yr)
(20.0 Mg/yr)
(0.2 Mg/yr)
(0.2 Mg/yr)
21.9 tons/yr
0.2 tons/yr
0.2 tons/yr
1314 tons/yr (1200 Mg/yr)
4839 acre ft/yr (6.0 Mm3/yr)
negligible
<65 dBA (§500 ft
1 death/year
25 injuries/year
!As 1977 dollars, adjusted from reported 1975 dollars.
-5-
-------
TABLE 5-4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A 250 TONS OF
YELLOW CAKE/YEAR IN-SITU SOLUTION MINE
Inputs
Manpower
• construction
• operation
Materials and Equipment
• well cement
• piping
• chemicals
Economics
• capital investment1
• annual operating cost1
Water
Land
• mining activities
• milling activities
Ancillary Energy
• electricity
• propane fuel
• drilling rig fuel
Outputs
Air Emissions
• NH3
• C02
• U308
Water Effluents (amt not evaporated)
Solid Wastes
Noise Pollution (intermittent)
Occupational Health and Safety
60 man-years
75 men
unavailable
unavailable
3000 ton/yr (2700 Mg/yr)
$23.4 million
$12.5 million
0.6 acre-ft/yr (.7 km3/yr)
25-100 acres/yr (101-405 km2/yr)
5 acres (20 km2)
26.3 x 10s kwh/yr (95 TJ/yr)
3.7-11 x 109 Btu/yr (4-12 GJ/yr)
320,000 gal/yr (1.2 km3/yr)
30 ton/yr (27 Mg/yr)
0.5-1 x 103 ton/yr (450-907 Mg/yr)
95 ton/yr (86 Mg/yr)
0-0.5 ton/yr (0-0.5 Mg/yr)
3 acre-ft/yr (4 km3/yr)
<1600 ton/yr (1500 Mg/yr)
<65 dBA @1000 ft
unavailable
T1977 dollars
-6-
-------
TABLE 5-5.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A
1200 TON/DAY URANIUM MILL
Inputs
Manpower
• construction
• operation
Materials and Equipment
• concrete
• piping and structural steel
• pumps and motors
• chemicals
• heavy duty vehicles
Economics
• investment capital
• annual operating cost
Water
Land
Ancillary Energy
• electricity
• heating fuel
Outputs
Air Emissions
• S02
• C12
• hydrocarbons
• CO 2
* N0x
• Rn-222 gas
• particulates
Water Effluents
Solid Wastes (landfilled)
Noise Pollution
Occupational Health and Safety
• deaths
• injuries
• lost time
300 man-years
77 men
6,000 tons (5400 Mg)
400 tons (360 Mg)
35 tons (32 Mg)
13,000 ton/yr (12,000 Mg/yr)
6 items
$11.9 million
$ 4.7 million
300 acre-ft/yr (0.4 Mm3/yr)
300 acres (1.2 Mm2)
7.7 x 10s kwh/yr (28 TJ/yr)
171 x 109 Btu/yr (180 TJ/yr)
4.5 ton/yr (4.1 Mg/yr)
0.1 ton/yr (0.1 Mg/yr)
0.2 ton/yr (0.2 Mg/yr)
526 ton/yr (477 Mg/yr)
1.3 ton/yr (1.2 Mg/yr)
11,000 curies/yr
175 ton/yr (160 Mg/yr)
none2
438,000 ton/yr (400 Tg/yr)
75 dBA @100 ft
0.046 deaths/yr
14.1 injuries/yr
873 days/yr
*1977 dollars
2600 acre-ft/yr are evaporated from evaporation ponds.
-7-
-------
5.2 URANIUM RESOURCES
5.2.1 History of Nuclear Energy
Commercial use of nuclear fission as an energy source has
a history of only 20 years; the first electric power generation
plant went into operation at Shippingport, Pennsylvania in
1957. The use of nuclear power as an energy source grew out
of nuclear weapons development during World War II. With the
creation of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) following the
war the government began an explicit effort to fund and develop
the commercial use of nuclear energy. The major rationale
behind this development has been the assumption of a large
supply of nuclear resources that could one day be substituted
for the more limited fossil fuel sources. The AEC was disbanded
in 1974 and its responsibilities divided between two government
agencies. Today, the development of nuclear energy is overseen
by the U.S / Department of Energy. The responsibility of
regulating the use of nuclear energy has been assumed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The development of nuclear fission as an energy source has
been strongly influenced by the complex technologies and the
hazards from radioactivity. The complexity of the technologies
has required continuous research and development, and as a
result, development costs have been higher than the private
sector has been willing to bear. Together with the need for
regulating safe and peaceful use of radioactive materials, the
level of cost has resulted in a major role for the federal
government in the development of nuclear energy.
-------
5.2.2 Basics of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear fission is the process whereby certain heavy atoms
split into two dissimilar atoms and, in doing so, release
energy, one or several neutrons, and other sub-atomic particles.
The neutrons can then react with other atoms, causing them to
fission, and thus create a "chain reaction." The term "nuclear
criticality" is used to describe a sustaining chain reaction;
that is, the chain reaction will continue until conditions are
altered to make the reaction cease. In a nuclear reactor, the
controlled chain reaction creates heat, which can be converted
to electrical energy.
Three isotopes1 fission readily and are usually referred to
as fissile2 fuels: U-235, Pu-239 (plutonium-239) and U-233.
When an atom fissions, the two newly formed atoms are called
fission products or fission fragments. Since the splitting can
occur in a variety of different ways, various fission products
are formed; for example, strontium, cesium, iodine, krypton,
xenon, etc. The nuclear fuels and most of these fission pro-
ducts are radioactive, thereby creating fuel and fuel by-product
handling problems that are unique to the nuclear power industry.
Radioactivity (or "radioactive decay") can be described as
che spontaneous transformation of an atom into either a new atom
1 Isotopes are a grouping of atoms that contain the same
number of protons but a different number of neutrons. Two or
more isotopes of an element exhibit similar chemical properties
but different physical properties because of their different
atomic weight. For example, natural uranium has three isotopes,
Uranium-234, Uranium-235, and Uranium-238. All contain 92
protons but a different number of neutrons.
_2Fissile is a term that describes nuclear fuels that will
fission when bombarded with low-energy neutrons. Fertile is a
term that describes a material which can be converted into
fissile nuclear fuels.
-9-
-------
or a different isotope of the original atom with the concurrent
release of energy in the form of highly energetic alpha par-
ticles, beta particles, or gamma rays. The term "half-life"
indicates how rapidly a material will decay. In the time equal
to a half-life, the amount of radioactive material decreases by
one-half. In addition to a number of beneficial uses (including
several in medicine), these particles and rays can have signifi-
cant adverse effects on the cells of biological organisms. The
effect of radioactivity on biological organisms is determined by
the rate of decay and by the type of particles and rays that are
released. Two units for describing radioactivity that will be
used throughout this chapter are "curies" and "rems." A curie
is a measure of the number of unstable nuclei that are
undergoing transformation in the process of radioactive decay.
One curie equals the disintegration of 3.7 x 1010 nuclei per
second. A rem is a unit to measure the radiation received by
organisms in the form of the particles and rays.1 The natural
background dose, not including medical x-rays, is approximately
125 x 10~3 rem.2 In many cases the notation "mrem" (or milli-
rem) will be used, where one millirem equals 10~3 rem. Thus,
natural background dose levels may be expressed as 125 mrem.
Two generations of nuclear fission technology are either
available or under development: conventional fission reactors
and breeder reactors. Conventional fission reactors are
commercially available and represented approximately 10 percent
1 The conversion from curies to rems for a certain type of
radiation can be made when the biological damage caused by that
radiation is known. The received dose in rem units is deter-
mined by the curie value and the extent of biolobical damage.
2Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977. p. H-3.
-10-
-------
of the nation's electrical generating capacity in 1977.: These
reactors are expected to be the major source of nuclear-
generated electric power for the next 20 years. Two types of
conventional fission reactors are presently available in the
U.S.: the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and the boiling
water reactor (BWR). As of December 1976 these reactors were
producing 45,451 megawatts of electricity.2 The Federal Energy
Administration expects conventional fission reactors to have
1420 gigawatts capacity by 1985.3 Three factors should be
noted with regard to conventional fission reactors:
1) Although they are commercially available, engi-
neering problems are still being solved.
2) The rate at which these reactors have been brought
into operation has been slower than projected.
This has been due to economic factors and the delays
in the licensing process caused by various regulatory
agencies.
3) A controversy exists over the amount of uranium
that is available for conventional reactor use.
The last factor, the amount of economically available
sources of uranium, has prompted the development of the liquid
1Allen, L.R., Manager, N.S.S. Marketing. Babcock & Wilcox
Co., NPGD, Lynchburg, VA. Information from telephone conversa-
tion. December 19, 1977.
2Mygatt, Peter. "Status of Nuclear Generating Units in the
United States as of December 31, 1976." ERDA News Release No
77-19. Grand Junction, Colorado: U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, Grand Junction Office. March 1, 1977
3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977. p. H-3.
-11-
-------
metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). The breeder reactor is
attractive because it produces plutonium, which may be used to
fuel other LMFBR's and therefore reduces the amount of uranium
required per reactor per year. ERDA is presently carrying on a
development program for the LMFBR. The future of this tech-
nology is uncertain due to the present administration's
hesitance to develop the breeder reactor.
5.2.3 Characteristics of the Resource
Uranium is one of the elements and occurs in nature as a
compound. About 95 percent of the uranium mined in the U.S.
exists as uranium oxide (known as uraninite or pitchblende).
Most of-the remaining five percent exists in uranium hydrous
silicate compounds (known as coffinite) or potassium uranium
vandate (known as carnotite).l Uranium consists of three natur-
ally occurring isotopes in the following proportions: 99.29
percent U-238, 0.71 percent U-235, and a trace of U-234. A ton2
of uranium-bearing ore contains, on the average, four to five
pounds of uranium oxide from which 0.024 to 0.030 pound of U-235
can be obtained.
Most of the uranium mined in the U.S. is found in three
types of deposits: ancient conglomerates, petrified rivers,
and veins. Ancient conglomerates are old stream channel
deposits that were formed more than one-half million years ago.3
Petrified rivers and veins are both sandstone formations. The
difference between th'e two is that the host sandstone containing
the uranium lies horizontally in the first and vertically in
the second. These sandstone formations provide 95 percent of
Singleton, Arthur L. (1968) Sources of Nuclear Fuel.
AEG Understanding the Atoms Series. Washington: GPO. p. 11.
2Unless preceded by "metric", "ton" will refer to a short
ton (2,000 pounds). A metric ton is 1000 Kilograms (2,205
pounds).
3 Singleton, Arthur L., op.cit., p. 22.
-12-
-------
the ore mined in the U.S. The distribution of deposits of
"low cost" ($10.00 per pound UsOa) ore reserves with depth
are shown in Figure 5-1.
5.2.4 Quantity of the Resource
Uranium resources and reserves are normally discussed in
terms of quantities available at four cost of recovery levels:
$10, $15, $30, and $50 per pound of U30e. The Energy Resource
and Development Administration (ERDA) estimates that the United
States uranium reserves, as of January 1, 1977 were 410,000 tons
of uranium oxide (U308) contained in 305 million tons of ore
with an average grade of about 0.14 percent UsOs, recoverable
at a cost of $15 or less per pound.1'2 These estimates compare
with estimates last year of 430,000 tons of U308. The reduc-
tion does not indicate a decrease in the amount of uranium ore
present in the ground but does indicate that this amount of
uranium is no longer in the $15 cost category.
Additions to $15 reserves in 1976 contained an estimated
48,000 tons of U308.3 However, during the year about 14,000
tons of UsOs were mined and shipped to mills, and 54,000 tons
were subtracted from the $15 reserve category, primarily due to
Estimates are made by evaluating original drilling and
other data furnished by the uranium mining industry of ERDA's
Grand Junction, Colorado, Office. Estimated operating and for-
ward capital costs were used by ERDA in calculating reserves.
Profit and "sunk" costs, such as expenditures for property
acquisition, exploration, and mine development, are not included,
Therefore, the figure of $15 per pound does not represent the
price at which the estimated reserve would be sold.
2ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado:U.S.Energy Research and Development Admin-
istration, Grand Junction Office. January 1, 1977. p. 55.
3iMd., p. 21.
-13-
-------
PER CENT OF RESERVES
NUMBER OF DEPOSITS
20
10
FEET
100
200
300
27.7
Figure 5-1. Distribution of 1/1/77 Ore Reserves by Depth of
Ore - $10.00 Reserves.
Source: ERDA.
Statistical Data of
Colorado:
the Uranium Industry.
Grand Junction, Colorado: U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, Grand Junction Office,
January 1, 1977. p. 50.
-14-
-------
inflation, and added to higher cost reserves.1 A history of
past reserve estimates and production is shown in Table 5-6.
Table 5-7 gives ERDA's estimates of uranium reserves at each of
these price levels as of January 1, 1977.
Due to the escalation in mining and milling costs, and
increasing uranium prices, ERDA has dropped the $8 per pound
classification and data on reserves at a cost of $10 per pound
UaOs are the lowest cost level reported. The prices include the
cost of exploration, mining, and milling.
The potential resources (that amount estimated to be ulti-
mately recoverable at the given price level) are shown in Table
5-8. Data for uranium are unique in that reserve estimates are
provided for various prices. For other energy resources,
"reserves" are identified resources which are economically
recoverable, and no specific price is given. These differences
in data presentation make reserve comparisons between uranium
and other resources difficult.
During 1974, ERDA greatly expanded the scope of its program
to assess potential uranium resources and implemented plans to
investigate all parts of the U.S., including Alaska, and to
evaluate geologic formations not previously considered. This
is known as the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE)
program. For the NURE program, the single class of potential
uranium resources was expanded to three classes. The three
classes of potential resources are arranged in order of decreas-
ing reliability from top to bottom. "Probable" potential is in
existing mining districts and productive formations; "possible"
potential is in productive provinces and productive formations;
Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado:U.S. Energy Research and Development Admin-
istration, Grand Junction Office. January 1, 1977. p. 21.
-15-
-------
TABLE 5-6.
URANIUM ORE RESERVES AND PRODUCTION,
1947 THROUGH 1976
Year
End
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Shipment
to Mills3
-
100
500
800
1,100
1,300
2,300
3,500
4,400
8,400
9.800
14,000
17,400
18,800
18.500
17.100
14,700
13,900
10,600
10,100
10.900
12,800
12,600
13,100
13,100
13,900
13,800
12,600
12,300
14,000
Cum.
Prod.
-
100
600
1,400
2,500
3,800
6,100
9,600
14,000
22,400
32.200
46,200
63,600
82,400
100,900
118,000
132,700
146,600
157,200
167,300
178.200
191,000
203,600
216,700
229,800
243,700
257,500
270,100
282,400
296,400
Tons UiO, In, Ore
Reserve Estimation
(58) (515) (§30)
2.200
2,200
2,200
3.000
5,800
7,300
15,200
27,600
67,600
120,200
166,300
181,800
197,100
187,100
174,200
166,200
160,200
150,900
144,700
140.800
147,700
160,800 265.000
204,100 317,000
246.100 391,000
273,200 520,000
273,200 520,000
276,700 520.000 634,000
200,000 420,000 600,000
200,000 430,000 640,000
c 410.000 680.000
Sum of Reserves and
(58) (515)
2,200
2.300
2.800
4,400
8.300
11.100
21,300
37,200
81,600
142,600
198,500
228,000
260,700
269.500
275,100
284,200
292,900
297,500
301,900
308,100
325,900
351,800 456,000
407,700 520,600
462,800 607,700
503,000 749,800
516,900 763.700
534,200 777,500
470,100 690,100
482,400 712,400
706,400
Cum. Prod.
(530)
900,500
870,100
922,400
976,400
"includes miscellaneous UjO, receipts from mine waters, heap leach, solution mining, and
refining residues.
''The reserve estimates since 1961 are based on a chosen cost per pound of UjO« . Estimates for
the period 1952 to 1961, inclusive, are based on the AEC Domestic Uranium Program Circular 5
(Revised). For the period orior to 1952, the basis is arbitrary thickness and grade cut-offs.
c$8 reserves are no longer reported because of increased market prices.
Source: ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand Junction, Colorado: U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977.
p. 2?.
-16-
-------
TABLE 5-7. ESTIMATED URANIUM ORE RESERVES, JANUARY 1, 1977
Cutoff Costs
Dollars/lb. U308 Tons U308
$10 250,000
$15 410,000a
$30 680,000a
$50 840,000a
This table does not include by-product uranium (approximately
140,000 tons of U308 available through the year 2000).
alncludes the lower cost reserves.
•
Source: ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry.
Grand Junction,Colorado:U.S.Energy Research and
Development Administration, Grand Junction Office,
January 1, 1977. p. 26.
-17-
-------
r^
r^
CT>
r-i
•
<-*
>*
Pi
•i-l
0) HI 4-1
r-l r-l CO
42 ,D r-l
CO «H 3
,a co u
O CO CU
rl O CX
O^ ^j ^^
d
o -
•r< d
4-1 0
O T-l
3 co
4-1
T) CO
d -H
co d
rl •<-!
0 6
T)
.
>.
M
CO
^
T)
d
M
&
*r*4
d
cO
5-i
£3
^ ^
00 CD
rl U
CD -rl
d *4-l
W "4-1
O
•
co d
• o
|D T-l
4-1
O
• * d
0 3
l-^-« **+.
vw • 1
rl CO
CU - M T)
£
-------
"speculative" is in new provinces or new formations. The
estimates of speculative potential, made solely on geologic
inference for unexplored areas, have a reliability considerably
less than either probable or possible potential estimates for
areas in which considerable exploration has occurred.
To indicate the energy represented by these reserves, a
typical 1000 megawatt electric (Mwe) nuclear reactor requires
250 tons of yellowcake per year.1 (Yellowcake is the uranium
oxide product from refining uranium ores.) Therefore, the
presently licensed capacity of approximately 45,451 Mwe would
exhaust the nation's $10 per pound reserves in about 22 years.
If the nation achieves the 142,000 Mwe capacity projected by the
Federal Energy Administration for 1985,2 existing $15 per pound
reserves would last only about 15 years.
Table 5-9 presents estimates of the relationships between
uranium needs and years of supply from 1977 to 1984. These
projections make the accuracy of uranium reserve estimates a
critical issue. Part of the debate revolves around the govern-
ment's procedures for estimating reserves. Responsibility for
these estimates rests with ERDA which publishes a yearly esti-
mate.3 The data base for the estimate is proprietary reserve
information provided on a voluntary basis by private companies.
ERDA makes its own reserve estimates based on the company-
supplied information. ERDA judges the reasonability of the
company's estimates by a comparison with its own estimates.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy CompanyTDocket No. 40-8452.
Washington,D.C.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977. p. 10-21
zlbid., p. H-3
3Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental Survey of the
Uranium Fuel Cycle, Washington. Government Printing Office.
1974.p. 1.
-19-
-------
1
CO
EH
W
^U
W
c^
M
£3
ex
w
crf
w
:=>
tJH
Crf
O
EH
U
<^
W
erf
erf
~"1
Z
Q
W
EH
U
W
"-3
O
Crf
PH
crf
o
/-*
r~-
r^.
-^
rH >,
-v. 4-1
rH -H
CO
CO O.
4-1 -H
co o
W
01
0) X!
X! -U
4-1
4-1
co co
r-l
CO 4J
0) CO
K"^ co
j
14-1
O rH
rH
M T-l
0) ^
,Q
^
^J
' Z
T3
C
d
o
a
r^
01
a
o
oo
CO-
TS
C
d
o
a
)_i
01
a
LO
rH
C/> •
-0
C
d
o
a
M
O)
a
o
i— i
C/v
CO
Q II
w
w
00
cfl
J-i
ao Cfl
O 0)
0 || ->->
~,
CO co
US
-20-
-------
However, apparently no uniform data collection method or reserve
estimate method exists in the uranium industry.1
In addition to the data collected by ERDA, other studies
have analyzed the U.S. uranium reserves on the basis of a higher
UsOs cost. The statistics contained in this analysis were origi-
nally taken from published AEC data. In addition to these
reported quantities, large amounts of uranium are considered
likely to exist in present producing areas at a greater depth
and lower grade and in new producing areas considered potentially
productive by geologists.2
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that UsOs
might be economically attractive at a cost of up to $100 per
pound. The amount of higher grade uranium ore which could be
extracted at these costs was estimated on depth considerations
by Electric Power Research Institute and reported in Electric
Power Research Institute, Uranium Resources to Meet Long Term
Uranium Requirements, (November, 1974).3 The quantity of the
lower grade resources which could be recovered at this cost is
not included in the estimates. The effect of this omission is
to make the estimates conservative and increase confidence in
the values. These estimates do, however, include quantities
:In an effort to provide more reliable reserve estimates,
the AEC undertook the National Uranium Resource Evaluation pro-
gram for a comprehensive assessment of U.S. uranium resource
potential (AEC, n.d.). Problems in arriving at generally accepted
estimates are illustrated by a preliminary study of the San Juan
Basin in New Mexico. The AEC estimated that this basin contained
740,000 tons of U30s at a price of $30 per pound but 36 indepen-
dent geologists reviewed the study and their estimates were
290,000 tons less than the AEC estimate. Conversely, some indus-
try critics contend that the overall domestic resource estimates
of the government are low.
2Electric Power Research Institute, Uranium Resources to Meet
Long Term Uranium Requirements. EPRI SR-5, PB 239 515, Spring-
field, VA.Nat'l. Tech. Inf. Service. 1974. p. 4.
3 Ibid.
-21-
-------
assumed to be present in nonproducing areas. These quantities
are included due to the early stage of uranium exploration and
the probability that the full extent of the deposit has not been
established. The factor used for these estimates in unknown
areas is 2.77 (i.e., the estimate is that there is 2.77 times as
much material outside of the known district as in it).
Tables 5-10 and 5-11 summarize the uranium estimates for the
higher cost U30s. In Table 5-10 two numbers, along with a sub-
jective probability factor, are shown for each area. The range
results from uncertainty as to the depth distribution of the AEG's
estimated potential resources. If all of the AEG estimated poten-
tial low-cost resources are deeper than the 400-foot reference
depth used for projection, the lower estimate results. If the
^
same percentage of potential resources is above 400 feet as for
low cost reserves, the higher estimate results. It is, of course,
possible but judged unlikely that an even larger percentage of
potential resources than low cost reserves is above 400 feet.
Estimates of recoverable uranium, resources have a high
degree of uncertainty. Resource estimates vary from year to year,
and according to the organization doing the assessment. In very
general terms, yearly and organizational estimates vary by as
much as 20 to 30 percent. According to ERDA a thorough new
resource assessment is now in progress. As previously pointed
out, however, the useful size of the resource base is a function
of mining technology, costs in many segments of the fuel cycle,
and on the technology fort uranium use, mainly burning versus
breeding.
-22-
-------
TABLE 5-10. ESTIMATED REMAINING URANIUM RESOURCES
IN INTERMEDIATE AND HIGH GRADE DEPOSITS
TO A CUTOFF COST OF $100 PER POUND/AS OF
1/1/73
Million Tons
Low High
o *a
In the known producing areas 3.5 (.90) 7.7(.10)
In the total United States 13.2(.50)a 28.9(.05)a
r*
Numbers in parentheses are the subjective probabilities that
the true value is greater than the given value.
4
Source: Electric Power Research Institute, Uranium resources
to meet long term uranium requirements, EPRI SR-5,
PB 239 515, Springfield, Virginia:National Technical
Information Service, 1974, p. 8.
-23-
-------
TABLE 5-11. ESTIMATED LOWER GRADE URANIUM RESOURCES NOT
INCLUDED IN TABLE 1
Tons U308
Grade Range In Known In Total
(% U308) Producing Area United States
.15 - .20 318,000a (.90)b 1,200,000a (.50)b
.10 - .15 l,524,000a (.90)b 5,700,000a (.50)b
.05 - .10 3,773,000a (.90)b 14,200,000° (.50)b
3.
At the time of this report the average grade of uranium
resources recoverable at $8 per pound was 0.213 percent. As
much as one half the material estimated here might be recover-
able at less than $100 per pound of UaOa.
Numbers in parentheses are the subjective probabilities
that the true values are greater than the given value.
°Assumed not recoverable at less than $100 per pound. In
practice some would be since some below 0.05 percent ma-
terial was included in $8 reserves. However, some
material above 0.10 percent will not in fact be producible
below $100 per pound.
Source: Electric Power Research Institute, Uranium resources
to meet long term uranium requirements""^EPRI SR-5,
PB 239 515, Springfield, Virginia:National
Technical Information Service, 1974, p. 9.
-24-
-------
5.2.5 Location of the Resources
The location of uranium deposits in the western United
States is shown in Figure 5-2. As indicated in Table 5-12, two
states, New Mexico and Wyoming, contain 86 percent of the proven
reserves at $10 per pound. The Colorado plateau (which covers
parts of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico) contains the
major portion of both proven reserves and potential resources as
shown in Table 5-13.
About 68 percent of the $10 per pound reserves are located
at depths that require underground mining;1 the rest can be mined
using open pit or solution mining technologies. The higher cost
of underground mining generally requires that the deep ores have
a higher concentration of uranium before they can be classified
as reserves.
5.2.6 Ownership of the Resources
In January 1977, approximately 27 million acres of land
were classified as being held for uranium exploration and mining
by ERDA. As shown in Table 5-14 the lands are divided into var-
ious categories of ownership. These categories and an explana-
tion of each is as follows: 1) fee - land claims on private
lands or potential claims on federal public domain lands,
2) claims - federal public domain lands that have only been
located, 3) state - state owned mineral lands, 4) Indian - lands
held by individual Indians or by Indian tribes in a trust status,
Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado: U.S. Energy Research and Development Admin-
istration, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977. p. 50.
-25-
-------
Figure 5-2. Uranium Deposits in the Western United States
Source: Nuclear Assurance Corporation. U_. S. Uranium
Economics and Technology. Atlanta, Georgia.
Nuclear Assurance Corp", NAC-1. p. VI-6.
-26-
-------
TABLE 5-12. ESTIMATED $10 POUND (U308) ORE RESERVES BY STATES,
JANUARY I, 1977
State
New Mexico
Wyoming
Texas
Tons of Ore
(Millions)
55.8
55.4
6.2
Grade of
Ore
au3o8)
0.27
0.11
0.12
Tons of
U308
152,700
62,300
7,300
Percent of
Total Tons
U308
61
25
3
Arizona, Colorado
& Utah
Others
(Calif., N.D.,
S.D., Wash.)
TOTAL
5.8
5.8
129
0.30
0.18
0.19
17,300
10,400
250,000
4
100
Source: ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand Junction,
Colorado: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration,
Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977. p.49.
-27-
-------
x-^
en
w
^
oS
W
en
w
os
o
I— 1
v^
2
O
M
O
w
w
o
OS
0
en
w
os
>•
PQ
en
W
^>
OS
w
en
w
OS
w
os
o
CO
4J
•H
• co
0 O
CU
Q
CO
r-lO
CO m
4J ID
o
H co
C
5-S 0
H
CD
o
•o
£>
CO
C
o
H
CO
o
m
*D
8-5
r- I
^ i
r-l !
~^
r-l
PL,
0
2
CU
^i
O
CO
0 C
M 0
H ! H
£3
PQ
i
M II
os !
H
en
M
O
CO
r-l
1
m
cu
0 C
rl O
3 T-l
O bt
CO CU
w
cu OS
rJ pcj
*— J II
H !
||
'
1C co C
r- CN r-- m m
ro in co r**- CN
CO
vO
CN
in
•^ r-i cN O r-l 00
\o m
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
-
o^
•H M O
CO O -H
CO rH 4-1
CQ O CJ
O C
rH 3
CO -"-)
M C
4-> O T3
C T-l C
CU 4-1 CO
O Or!
C O
<-<3 3
r-^ n
C C
rl t3 O
CU C -H
x: co 4J
4J r-l CO
rl O rl
O 4J
2 co
>4
CO r-l
QJ 4J
•H CO
CJ T3
0 • C
OS CU M
bO
C C 6
cu pS -H
x; c
4-i co co
rl T3 rl
O CO P
2 r*
CU CU
CO 4-1
CU cfl
•H rl M-l
X rl 0
O CU
O T-l CO
oS en 4J
co
C T5 O
rl C
CU CO rH
fi nj
4-1 - O
3 CO -H
O C 4J
CN en -H co
rH
C co
•r( C
CO -H
<4-l rH CO
rH P_ rH
3 OH CO
3 OrH ,J
O CO CO CO C '• <
130) bCC C4J rl W H
C04J C>r^ rl CO CU rl O
rICO -r(CO CUCO X! 01 H
Or-t gco wo w x:
rHCn OPQ COO rl -U
O >,
CU
Q •
ON
T3 ••3'
c •
CO CX
x:
CJ •
rl f***
cfl r~-
CU ON
Cfl rH
cu
OS -
rH
t^
6C >^
rl rl
CU co
C 3
w c
cO
• ^
en
CO rl • -
r-l CU 3 CU
ox: a
rH 4-J
-------
TABLE 5-14. ACRES HELD FOR URANIUM MINING AND EXPLOITATION
(IN THOUSANDS OF ACRES)
Distribution by Land Category
Type of Land
State
Claim
Acquired
Indian
Fee
TOTAL
Source: ERDA.
1/1/73
1,859
9,679
206
603
5,330
17,677
1/1/74
1,945
10,290
145
646
5,748
18,774
Statistical Data of
1/1/75
2,968
11,634
275
635
5,746
21,276
the Uranium
1/1/76
3,385
12,605
277
627
6,017
22,911
Industry.
1/1/77
4,635
15,067
293
815
6,273
27,083
Grand
Junction, Colorado: U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977.
p. 86.
-29-
-------
5) acquired - lands held by the federal government but not in
the public domain. Table 5-15 shows the division of acres held
for uranium exploration and mining according to state. In a
recent Library of Congress report, "Petroleum Industry Involve-
ment in Alternative Sources of Energy", the amount of uranium
resources owned by U.S. oil companies was revealed.1 The report
stated that 47% of the U.S. uranium reserves were owned by the
oil companies. Kerr-McGee had the largest amount at 21%,
followed by Gulf Oil which owned 11.6%.
TABLE 5-15. ACRES HELD FOR URANIUM EXPLORATION
AND MINING (IN THOUSANDS OF ACRES)
DISTRIBUTION BY STATE 1/1/77
Arizona 1,021
Colorado 1,852
Montana 420
New Mexico 3,885
North Dakota 128
South Dakota 810
Utah 5,498
Wyoming 11,246
TOTAL 24,860
Source: ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industr
Grand Junction,Colorado:U.S.Energy Researc
and Development Administration, Grand Junction
Office, January 1, 1977. p. 87.
^.S. Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Energy Research and
Development. Petroleum Industry Involvement in Alternative
Sources of Energy,95th Congress,1st Session,Publication No.
95-54.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 1977. p. 327.
-30-
-------
5.3 EXPLORATION
Uranium exploration is usually conducted at two levels -
regional exploration for potential uranium occurrences and more
local and detailed exploration to define deposits in high proba-
bility areas. For the purposes of this discussion, an explora-
tion program for a mine or mines capable of producing 1200 tons
of uranium ore per calendar day for 30 years is assumed. The
total ore required is therefore about 13 million tons. Most
uranium ore occurs in sandstone bodies of fluvial deposits in
Wyoming and the Colorado Plateau.
5.3.1 Technologies
A typical exploration strategy for uranium deposits consists
of the following steps:
1) Selection of promising geographic area and review
of existing data,
2) Field work and definition of prospect or prospects,
3 ) Conduct of drilling program to evaluate prospects,
4) Interpretation of results, formulation of recom-
mendations, and preparation of report.
A broad range of earth science technologies is used in this ex-
ploration program. These technologies include geologic, geo-
physical, geochemical, and earth drilling methods.
-31-
-------
Geologic Techniques
Geologic techniques should provide the central basis for
an exploration program. Because most uranium occurs in fluvial
sedimentary rocks, modern stratigraphy is the most important
geologic subdiscipline. Also important are structural and eco-
nomic geology. The specific geologic techniques most often
used are surface and subsurface mapping of several parameters
such as structural configuration of the strata and sand thick-
nesses .
Geophysical Methods
The radioactivity of uranium provides a valuable exploration
aid. Radiometric prospecting, a type of geophysical prospecting,
has served to locate most of the known uranium accumulations.
Airborne scintillometers are used extensively in regional explor-
ation, and hand-carried and vehicle-mounted scintillometers are
used in both regional reconnaissance and in locating specific
local ore bodies. Additionally, borehole scintillometers are
used in conjunction with a drilling program for evaluating a
prospect.
Geochemical Methods
Two types of geochemical methods are employed in the explor-
ation of uranium. In the first type, soil or stream sediment
samples are systematically collected from a promising area.
These samples are then chemically analyzed for their uranium
content. Samples from areas underlain by uranium ore bodies
will often have a higher-than-normal uranium content, so this
type of geochemical survey will often help to delineate
potential ore bodies.
-32-
-------
The second type of geochemical survey is used for certain
types of uranium deposits that have accumulated near the inter-
face between oxidizing and reducing conditions in a sandstone
body. The interface can often be delineated by collecting a
traverse of samples and subjecting them to geochemical analysis.
Once the interface is located, it can often be traced to a
location of uranium accumulation.
Drilling Methods
The drilling methods used in uranium exploration are much
the same as those used in coal exploration (See Chapter 3). The
standard rotary and core drilling (sometimes with diamond bits)
are the two most commonly used methods. For estimating
input requirements and output residuals below, a drilling
program similar to that proposed by the Exxon Co. will be
assumed.1 This involves the drilling of about 200 holes at an
average depth of 1200 feet using 4 to 6 drilling rigs.
4
5.3.2 Input Requirements
5.3.2a Manpower Requirements
Geologic, Geophysical and Geochemical Techniques
A Uranium exploration program should be directed by pro-
fessional geologists with a supporting staff. A team of three
geologists - a stratigrapher/sedimentologist, a geophysicist
with expertise in surface and borehole radioactive exploration
methods, and a geochemist would probably be needed to apply the
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion,New Mexico.Volume I,Billings, Montana:Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Dept. of the Interior, June, 1976, p. 1-11.
-33-
-------
combined geologic, geophysical, and geochemical techniques. It
is further assumed that the team would be supported by two
assistants and a secretary. Table 5-16 presents an estimate of
the manpower required to conduct an exploration program for a
1200-ton-per-day uranium mine.
TABLE 5-16: ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR
GEOLOGY-RELATED EXPLORATION FOR URANIUM
Geologists (3)
Support
Personnel (3)
Selection of area and review
of existing data
Field work and definition of
prospect
Conduct of drilling program
Interpretation of results,
formulation of recommenda-
tions, and report writing
(Man-Years)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6.0
(Man-Years)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6.0
Drilling Methods
Exploratory drilling is generally contracted to a well
drilling firm. Table 5-17 gives an estimate of the personnel
requirements for drilling the exploration holes. This table
assumes the drilling contractor would operate four to six crews
at a time with service personnel available for clearing and grad-
ing trails, surveying line, etc. Exxon estimates the exploration
-34-
-------
phase of its underground mines in New Mexico to employ 32 people
for thirteen years.1
TABLE 5-17. ESTIMATED PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
FOR EXPLORATORY DRILLING
Supervisors and foremen 3
Well drillers 4 to 6
Drillers helpers 8 to 12
Truck drivers and/or laborers 5 to 6
Survey instrumentmen 2
Survey rodmen or chainmen 4
Equipment Operators 2 to 3
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Nayajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. Volume I",
Billings,Montana:Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept.
of the Interior, June, 1976, p. 1.2.
5.3.2b Materials and Equipment
The materials needed for geologic techniques are about the
same for uranium exploration as for other energy resources. The
materials have been described in the coal resource system (see
Chapter 3).
Rather specialized equipment is required for exploration in
which radioactivity detection is used. The simplest and cheapest
device is the hand-held Geiger-Mliller counter. Scintillometers,
both hand-held and vehicle mounted, are more sensitive and usually
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico. Volume T~, Billings, Montana: Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Dept. of the Interior, June, 1976, p. 111-67.
-35-
-------
yield better results. Airborne scintillometers are used for
regional exploration. Borehole geophysical logging equipment,
including probes for measurement of radioactivity (gamma ray
logs), are usually provided by a contractor specializing in
borehole logging and need not be accounted for in this estimate.
A relatively sophisticated chemical analysis laboratory
is required for geochemical analyses, but existing laboratories
are available and probably need not be provided for a specific
exploration program.
The equipment required for the drilling part of an explor-
ation program is given in Table 5-18. This estimate is for four
to six drilling crews operating at a time.
TABLE 5-18. EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR EXPLORATORY DRILLING
Drilling rig, rotary, rated for 2,000 ft. 4 to 6
Water truck, gasoline 2 to 3
Service vehicles - 3/4-ton, gasoline 6 to 8
D-8-type crawler tractor with dozer, diesel 2 to 3
Truck and trailer, diesel 2 to 3
Survey carryall, gasoline 2
Misc. small welders, pumps and generators 10±
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. Volume I,
Billings,Montana:Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept.
of the Interior, June, 1976, p. 1.1.
5.3.2c Economics
The costs for uranium exploration include drilling, drill
roads, drill site preparation, geological and other technical
-36-
-------
support, sampling and drill hole logging. In 1976 these costs
ranged from $1 to over $25 per foot drilled. The average cost
was $3.13 per foot.1 Assuming 200 wells of an average depth of
1200 feet, the total exploration costs would be $751,200.
5.3.2d Water Requirements
The major water requirements for uranium exploration would
result from the drilling operations. These operations would re-
quire approximately 3900 gallons per well for making drilling muds,
assuming an average well depth of 1200 feet. For a 200 well explo-
ration activity the total water requirement would be about 780,000
gallons. A 1200 ft well could be drilled in one to two days.2
*•
5.3.2e Land Requirements
There are short term requirements for land use in explora-
tion drilling. About 1/4 acre of land is required for each
drill hole.3 The 200 drill sites would require 50 acres of land
which would appear unsightly until reclaimed. Approximately
60 to 80 miles of one lane trails would be needed to reach the
drilling sites. "*
5.3.2f Ancillary Energy
The main energy requirement for the exploration activity is
the drilling operation. Exxon has estimated that it will require
JERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado.U.S.Energy Research and Development Admin-
istration, Grand Junction Office. January 1, 1977. p. 83.
2Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reservation,
New Mexico. Volume I, Billings, Montana. Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 111-21.
*ibid., p. III-3.
"ibid., p. 1.1.
-37-
-------
60,000 gallons of liquid hydrocarbon fuels per year for the
drilling crews.1 Using a heating value of 139,000 Btu/gal2 of
fuel, the energy requirements are then 8.34xl09 Btu/year.
5.3.3 Outputs
A relatively small quantity of output residuals are generated
during uranium exploration activities. The impact of these acti-
vities with respect to air emissions, water effluents, solid
wastes, noise pollution and occupational health and safety is
discussed in the following sections.
5.3.3a Air Emissions
The major source of air emissions resulting from uranium
exploration is the operation of various types of machinery. In
particular, drilling rigs, trucks, and bulldozers are operated.
All use interna]. combustion engines which exhaust pollutants to
the atmosphere. These pollutants include particulates, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, lead and sulfur
dioxide. The quantity of these pollutants is small compared to
the quantities of mining and milling air emissions which follow
a successful exploration program. For example, the greatest
quantity of pollutant for a 208 hp diesel powered drill rig
would be about a 6:.4 Ib/hr release of nitrogen oxides.3
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico.Volume I.Billing, Montana.Bureau of Indian
Affairs,Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.1.
2Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in
Metallurgical and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5 - Energy
Data and Flowsheets, Intermediate - Priority Commodities).Columbus,
Ohio:Battelle Columbus Laboratories, September 10, 1975.
3 U.S. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.
Second Edition. Research Triangle Park,North Carolina.U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Manage-
ment. February, 1976.
-38-
-------
In addition to the emissions from machinery operation, the
moving equipment would produce dust clouds. The severity of
this dusting would depend on the turbulence created by the vehi-
cles, weather conditions, and the condition of the roadway. The
effect of this emission should be minimal due to the small num-
ber of vehicles which would be scattered over a wide area.
5.3.3b Water Effluents
The exploration activity causes several types of impacts
on water resources. Drilling site access roads could cause
erosion which would affect surface water runoff characteristics.
The presence of mud pits and drill pads could also cause small
changes in local surface water runoff characteristics.
In most cases, exploratory drilling will pass through
several aquifers as drilling progresses deeper into the ground.
Because of a difference in hydraulic pressures, water could leak
through the holes between aquifers contaminating one aquifer with
water from another. To prevent aquifer contamination or depletion,
all drill holes should be sealed with heavy drilling mud and/or
cement.
5.3.3c Solid Wastes
Solid waste in the form of eroded surface sand could occur
if proper reclamation procedures were not implemented following
the exploratory drilling. The drill sites would have to be
-39-
-------
filled and reseeded. The trails to exploration drill holes
would have to be reclaimed to prevent erosion from wind and water.
5.3.3d Noise Pollution
The noise sources associated with uranium exploration which
would produce measurable effects on the environment would be the
equipment used for drilling the test holes, the equipment used
to prepare and restore drill hole sites, facilities used to
maintain the equipment, and vehicles used to transport personnel
and supplies to the drilling sites.1 Table 5-19 gives the noise-
producing characteristics of representative exploratory drilling
equipment at distances of 50, 500, and 1000 feet.
The drilling rig would be expected to produce the most
noticeable noise because it would be operated for longer contin-
uous periods than other types of equipment. The time to drill
a test hole varies from one-half day for a shallow hole to as
much as a week for a deep hole.2 The average test hole of
1200 feet depth would require one to two days of drilling.3
The noise associated with site preparation and restoration
would be temporary. Noise related to transportation of equip-
ment and personnel would be transient. No single location would
be exposed for extended periods of time to noise from equipment
maintenance as this activity would be performed in the field.
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico. Volume I. Billings, Montana. Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 111-19
2ibid., p. 111-21.
3 ibid. , p. 111-21.
-40-
-------
TABLE 5-19. NOISE-PRODUCING POTENTIAL OF EQUIPMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH TEST HOLE DRILLING
Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Equipment
Air Compressor
Back-hoe
Crane
Bulldozer
Generator
Pump
Truck
Drilling Rig
50 ft
75-81
75-85
75-83
75-80
75-78
75-76
75-91
75
500 ft
55-61
55-65
55-63
55-60
55-56
55-56
55-71
55
1000 ft
49-55
49-59
49-57
49-54
49-50
49-50
49-65
49
Note: 1. There will be variations in these values because of atmospheric
effects. The changes will be measurable at distances of 1000
feet and will depend on temperature, humidity, wind and noise-
frequency characteristics.
2. The lower levels shown are recommended by the U.S. General Service
Administration as the maximum level for equipment purchased after
January 1, 1975.
Sound pressure level in dBA re 2 x 10 s Newton/m2, or 2 x 10 ** dynes/cm2.
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium Explora-
tion, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reservation, New
Mexico. Volume I, Billings, Montana. Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 111-20.
-41-
-------
5.3.3e Occupational Health and Safety
The potential for safety hazards in an exploration opera-
tion would be similar to those associated with other small drill-
ing operations. This would include hazards from moving equipment
and environmental concerns such as overexposure to severe weather
and the danger of poisonous reptiles.
5.3.4 Social Controls
As indicated in the resource description, ownership of
uranium lands in the U.S. may be by federal government, state
governments, Indian tribes or individual Indians, Railroads, or
private individuals or corporations. The rules and regulations
governing how uranium lands are made available to private parties
for exploration and development vary according to the ownership
of the land on which the mineral is located. The following
sections will discuss the applicable rules and regulations to
the various forms of land ownership.
Federal laws and regulations pertaining to the ownership
and control of uranium resources apply to four categories of
lands:
1) Public Domain: Lands subject to disposal or sale
under the general land laws of the U.S., but not
including either reserved lands, withdrawn lands
or coastal lan'ds below the low water mark;
2) Reserved: Lands that have been set apart by the
Congressional or Executive branches for a special
public use such as national forests, Indian and
military reservations, etc.;
-42-
-------
3) Withdrawn: Lands temporarily removed from the
public domain by special legislation, usually for
conservation purposes; and
4) Acquired: Lands that were never a part of the
public domain or that were once public but owned
either privately or by a state government when
acquired or reacquired by the federal government.
Most of these public lands are managed by the Department of
the Interior (DOI), generally by its Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM). A majority of Indian lands are owned in a trust
status in which the federal government is the trustee and the
Indian tribes or individual Indians who own lands or interests
in lands are the beneficiaries. In the case of these lands,
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also has responsibility.
Other agencies with primary land management jurisdiction over
public lands a,re the Forest Service in the Department of Agricul-
ture, and the Corps of Engineers in the Department of Defense.
As outlined by DOI, the principal goals and objectives
of federal management of public minerals are: to assure "orderly
and timely resource development," including promotion of explora-
tion, encouragement of development compatible with other land
uses, and maximum ultimate recovery; to protect the environment,
including conducting exploration and production activities with
maximum environmental concern, assuring rehabilitation of lands,
assuring public safety; and to insure the public a "fair market
value" return on the disposition of its resources, including
evaluation procedures prior to approval of applications, leases,
etc., according to "net public resource value" criteria.1
!U.S. Congress, Senate Committe on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing
pursuant to S.Res.45, A National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, 92nd Congress 2nd Session, June 19, 1972, pp. 17, 173-174.
-43-
-------
Each of the above goals and objectives is covered in some manner
by specific legislative acts.
As noted above, a large percentage of the estimated uranium
resources are located on public domain lands. The significance
of uranium on these lands is greater than indicated by percentage
estimates because uranium originally found on public domain claims
which have since been patented is included under the category of
private lands.
5.3.5 Exploration on Federal Lands
Since the method of obtaining minable uranium lands is con-
trolled by the Mining Law of 1872, which has been explained in
Section 2.2 of Chapter 2, this section will only treat the
specific exploration requirements not discussed earlier. The
exploration procedures can be divided into two categories, those
without exploration permits and those with such permits.
5.3.5a Uranium Exploration Permits
Although 1872 General Mining Law was written without men-
tioning an exploration permit and in fact was to allow unhampered
prospecting, there are certain situations where a permit is
required. The discussion that follows will explain some key
points, within the provisions.
In August of 1974, the Forest Service (FS) published regu-
lations for the use of surface lands in conjunction with mining
under the 1872 law.* These regulations are applicable only to
'39 Fed. Reg. 31317 (1974); codified at 36 C.F.R. § § 2521
et seq. (1975).
-44-
-------
the public domain lands that are within the boundaries of a
national forest, or that land co-terminous with the Forest Ser-
vice's jurisdiction. Only the use of earth moving equipment
will bring the regulations into play, and the requirement is
for the explorer to file a "notice of intent" with the district
ranger.1
Once the threshold requirement of earth moving equipment
is reached, and if significant surface disturbance is anticipated,
then a "plan of operations" is required.2 The contents of the
plan are set out in the regulations3 and summarized as follows:
1) names and addresses of operators or lessees, 2) map of pro-
posed location and disturbances, 3) description of the operations
including means and time frame. Finally, the regulations require
that an environmental analysis be undertaken to determine
whether an EIS need be filed.1*
Because the 1872 Mining Law is not applicable to the acquired
lands within the national forests, neither are the previously
mentioned forest service regulations. The acquisition of minerals
on such lands are controlled by the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
19465 with permitting procedure regulated primarily by DOI.
Prospecting permits and the associated leasing procedure on
acquired national forest land is handled similarly to the
procedures on other acquired lands except for one item. Although
the BLM and the USGS issue the permits, they can only be
approved by the Secretary of the Interior upon the advisement
!McGee, B., "Uranium Exploration and the Fission of the
Permit System," RMMLI Proceedings 1976: 7-9.
236 C.F.R. § 254.4(a) (1975) .
336 C.F.R. § 252.4(c) (1975) .
"36 C.F.R. § 252.4(f) (1975) .
5§ 402; 60 Stat. 1099.
-45-
-------
of the Secretary of Agriculture (parent to the Forest Service,
and having the duty to protect the national forests).
Another subcategory within the Forest Service area of
operation is its regulation of exploration on wilderness areas.1
Set up by the Wilderness Act,2 the wilderness areas are to remain
open to mining until December 31, 1983.3 The primary source of
regulation for these areas is the previously mentioned FS regu-
lations. This occurs because wilderness areas are found within
national forests or if not the access points are usually through
the national forests making the FS's regulations on routes of
travel and mode of travel applicable. Two additional agencies
have control over wilderness areas, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Park Service, "* both under the Depart-
ment of Interior. Where the FS regulations are used in connec-
tion with a wilderness area, it can be expected that the environ-
mental problems will require a plan of operation.
Until the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 19765
(The Organic Act) the public lands administered by the BLM under
the DOI were not regulated as to mineral development. The pros-
pector under the mining law (1872) and its regulations was not
!A wilderness area is "an area where the earth and its
community of life are untramineled by man, where man himself is
a visitor who does not remain." 16 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (c) (1970).
2Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131 et seg. (1970?),
316 U.S.C.A. § 1133 (d) (3). (1970).
"*In addition, Congress recently passed the Act of September
28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1342 whereby the remaining areas of the Nation-
al Park System were closed to new exploration. The Act also
authorized the writing of regulations to control the development
of existing mineral claims in the park areas. See Proposed Rules
•41 Fed. Reg. 49862 (Nov. 11, 1976).
5Pub. L. No. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743 (codified as 43 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1701 et seg. (Supp. 1976).
-46-
-------
required to notify the BLM of the prospecting or even the removal
of ore.1 The Organic Act however, does place requirements on the
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Act2 and to take any action neces-
sary to prevent undue degradation of the lands.3 Proposed rules
under the Organic Act1* applicable to uranium exploration on BLM
administered lands were published in December, 1976. These rules
include a requirement that a notice of intent be filed with BLM
prior to any mining operation (including exploration) which might
cause significant disturbance of surface resources.5 BLM must
determine whether the operation will cause significant disturbance,
and if so, notify the operator within 15 days that a Plan of
Operations is required. If a Plan of Operations is required, it
must be submitted and approved before work begins and be accom-
panied by a- bond adequate to cover the estimated cost of rehab-
ilitation of disturbed areas.5
As was described earlier, the 1872 Mining Law is not appli-
cable to acquired lands, therefore the procedures are somewhat
different and are set out in the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1946. The prospecting permit granted under this plan gives the
holder the exclusive right to prospect7 and upon the discovery
of a valuable deposit, the permittee is entitled to a preference
right to lease.8
:43 C.F.R. Group 3800 (1975).
'Organic Act of 1976, § 310, 43 U.S.C.A. § 1740 (Supp. 1976)
3Id. § 302(b), 43 U.S.C.A. § 1732(b) (Supp. 1976).
^Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-
579; 90 Stat 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1701).
543 C.F.R. 3809.1-1, Federal Register. December 6, 1976,
p. 53429.
643 C.F.R. 3809.2, Federal Register. December 6, 1976,
p. 53431.
743 C.F.R. § 3510.1-2 (1975).
843 D.F.R. § 3510.1-1 (1975).
-47-
-------
5.3.5b Uranium Location Under the Mining Law of 1872l
A. Determine if the land is available for claim work and
filing. By the use of the Federal Land Office records of the
District where the land is located, it should be determined if
the land has generally been withdrawn from the application of
the 1872 Mining Law. It is advisable to also check the records
of the Washington, D.C. office. The following entries in the
records will place doubt on the validity of any mining claim: a
preexisting patent, national forests, stock driveways, reservoirs,
water sources, roads, trails, power lines, Wild and Scenic River,
Fremont Trail, Oregon Trail, historic point, withdrawn lands for
other purposes, reserved lands and Public Land Sales Act.
B. Comply with discovery requirements. By federal law, no
"location" can be made until after discovery has been accom-
plished.2 Although these numerous court cases and departmental
decisions3 on the subject of what constitutes discovery be of
sufficient quantity and quality to justify a prudent man in the
expenditure of his time and money with reasonable expectation
lAn adaptation of a paper by R. Lawren Moran and David G.
Ebner presented at the Uranium Exploration and Development
Institute held in Denver, CO, Nov. 18-19, 1976. See paper 2,
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, 1976.
230 U.S.C.A. § 23 (1970?). Court decisions have stated:
(1) surface indications and geological inferences do not show
a discovery, Renault Mining Co. v. Tyak, 419 F. 2d 766 (9th Cir.
1969), but rather the actual presence of deposits within each
claim must be shown, U.S. v. Jones, 2 I.B.L.A. 237, 239 (1971);
(2) that the deposit must reach a point of becoming development
rather than only justifying further exploration, Barton v. Morton,
498 F. 2d 288 (9th Cir. 1974); (3) that there be reasonable
probability for developing a mine by comparing the quantities
and quality of the deposit, U.S. v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (1968);
(4) that reasonable probability exists that the ore can be
mined at a profit, U.S. v. N.J. Zinc, 74 I.D. 191 (1967);
(5) that the discovery be shown asto each claim, U.S. v. Snyder,
72 I.D. 223 (1965), off'd 405 F. 2d 1179 (10th Cir. 1968) .
3Department of Interior, Board of Land Appeals.
-48-
-------
of success in developing a paying mine.1 Further no rights
vest until discovery has been made.2
Since the states were authorized to administer the public
lands within their boundaries under the terms of the 1872 Law,
modified procedures were quickly written into the state laws.
Those procedures generally required a posting of notice at the
discovery site which gave the prospector time to perfect his
location. At present the procedures (subject to variations
among the states noted below) are: discovery accomplished,
point of discovery established with the distance from the side-
lines of the claim to the center of the lode or vein may not
exceed 300 feet,3 and some "discovery work" may or may not be
necessary.
One final calculation determining what is and what is not a
valid discovery must be mentioned. Because the courts are re-
quired to listen to cases arising between disputed claims under
the above stated laws a body of case law has developed on the
subject. Unfortunately the cases must be divided between those
where the U.S. is a party and those where it is not. A basic
premise of property disputes is that one must depend upon the
strength of his own claim rather than attempt to prove invalid
the claim of another. In such situations the resolution by a
court of the dispute between two claimants in the favor of one
proves only the relative relationship of their claims and not
the superiority of the winning claimant over all others. In
the case of uranium claims this is especially true - requiring
1 Castle v. Wornble, 19 L.D. 455 (1894); U.S. v. Coleman,
390 U.S. 599 (1968).See also G. Reeves, "The Law of Discovery
Since Coleman," 21 Rocky Mtn. Mineral Law Institute 415 (1976).
2Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 (1920).
3The 300 feet to side limit is a federal maximum and does
not vary among the states.
-49-
-------
the cases to be divided into two groups. Case law concerning
disputes between individual claimants would be one category and
cases between the claimant and the U.S. government would be the
other. The respective opinions of the courts as to what makes
a good claim then must be taken only in light of the parties
involved.
C. Description of the Claim - The purpose of the claim
description is to provide record notice that the claimant is
working under the provisions of the law to establish title to
the land described. The states vary in their requirements for
claim description but generally require that the description
allow the claim's boundaries to be determined with reasonable
certainty and commonly require that some natural object or per-
manent monument be incorporated in the description. State law
specifics will be described below.
D. Claim Monuments - Marking the claim on the ground
serves the purpose of notifying all that the land in that area
has been claimed. By federal regulation the four corners of
the claim must be marked with monuments. Further the erection
of the monuments is part of the location procedure and the
prospector certifies that the claim has in fact been marked in
the prescribed manner when he signs the location certificate.
Again there are some variations among the states.
E. The Location Certificate - The requirements for the
location certificate vary by state. By filing the certificate in
the public records the locator affirms that he has performed the
required acts leading1 to a valid claim on the land.
*43 C.F.R. § 3841.4-5(b) (1975).
-50-
-------
5.3.6 Exploration Permits on Indian Lands
Procedures for obtaining exploration permits for Indian
lands are the same as those for federal lands, except that per-
mission from the appropriate Indian agency or authority is also
required. Generally the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the
DOI is the authority. But more specifically the Superintendent
of Indian Affairs, with tribal consent, issues the required
exploration permit. Note also that the permits are of limited
duration and do not give the permit holder a preference to lease.
5.3.7 Exploration Permits on State Lands
Because the primary goal of mineral exploration is the
acquisition of a right to develop the mineral, the method of
attaining that right determines the exploration procedure. Hence
a state which has retained the older mining claim method of min-
eral rights will also retain the respective prospecting methods.
Both the older method and the more recent exploratory permit
lease method exist in the western states. This section will deal
only with the specifics of the exploration of state lands for
uranium; for a discussion of the general procedures see respec-
tive sections in Chapter 2.
State uranium disposition statutes may authorize the loca-
tion or leasing of deposits and, in general, requirements for
permits to explore vary according to this distinction. Colorado
utilizes a location or mining claim procedure as a first step
toward making uranium lands available. Once a discovery is made
and notice is posted with the State Board of Land Commissioners,
-51-
-------
the claimant must within ten days make arrangements for a permit
to explore the extent of the discover.1
Judicial decision in Colorado has given the locator prefer-
ential right to lease after concluding exploration activities.
On the other hand, Utah statutorily requires the procurement of
a prospecting permit since its state-owned lands and mineral
rights thereto are open only through leasing. Prospecting per-
mits in New Mexico, although not provided for in state law, may
be issued within the discretion of the state leasing agency.
Where a permit is required, the state usually stipulates that a
prospecting plan be filed and limits the extraction of minerals
prior to leasing except for sampling or other experimental acti-
vities.1 Although the discretionary authority of the agency head
varies within the states being considered, the right is usually
reserved to cancel a permit when the permittee has not complied
with the terms of the permit and applicable state statutes.
Montana should also be noted for its statutory ban of the solu-
tion extraction of uranium for two years starting 1975 . After
the two year period the state legislature will decide whether
to allow it or not.
The exploration methods available in the western states
can be divided into three general categories. Wyoming and Colo-
•rado retain some form of the 1872 mining law resulting in pros-
pecting and claim filing. The remaining states fit into two
categories: those (Arizona, South Dakota, and Utah) which have
specific exploration permits separate from any leasing procedure,
and those (North Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico) which require
Verity, Victor, John Lacy, and Joseph Geraud. "Mineral
Laws of State and Local Government Bodies," in Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Foundation, ed. The American Law of Mining. New
York, N.Y.: Matthew Bender, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 644.
2ibid., pp. 652-656.
-52-
-------
the exploration to be incorporated in the lease itself. The
latter states also usually require competitive leasing of their
state lands. Those states with separate exploration procedures
allow terms usually of one year or less in the permits with
extensions available if necessary. In addition to the above
permit requirements these permits are required in some of the
states for underground mines, etc. Those permits are applicable
to all underground mines regardless of mineral sought and are
discussed in Chapter 2.
The following tables summarize the applicable statutes in
each state for uranium exploration. Table 5-20 is a summary of
the eight states and Tables 5-21 through 5-29 give detailed
information for each state.
-53-
-------
TABLE 5-20. SUMMARY OF STATE LAND EXPLORATION PERMITS
Amount of Preference Additional
Method of exploration Term of annual work given to permits
File Exploration Exploration permit required permittee may be
claim permit within lease or lease to retain to lease required"*
AZ X 1 yr. X
renewable $10/acre/yr2
CO X3 60 days X
extensions
available
MT X 10 yrs. N/A X
renewable
NM X 3 yr. N/A
extensions
available
ND X 5 yrs. N/A X
renewable
SD X 1 yr. X
renewable
UT X 1 yr. $250/6 mos. X
renewable
WY X $100/yr. if N/A1
a placer
claim
;The discoverer under these statutes, after filing claim, acquires the land
title. If a placer claim the title does not pass until $500 expended on mine.
2This amount is increased to $20 per acre per year after the first 2 years.
3Although this is a permit type of exploration many of the requirements
(e.g., posting of notice on site) of the filing method are retained.
^For example: Open mine permits, drilling permits, explosive use permit,
etc. See Section 2.3.
-54-
-------
TABLE 5-21. ARIZONA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT'
ITEM
STATUTES
SUMMARY
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond § 27-255
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
27-251 State Land Department, State Land
Commissioner
§ 27-251 $25.00 filing fee
§ 27-251 $2.00 per acre up to 640 acres.
Permittee must expend at least $10
per acre per year for two years
and $20 per acre per year after
that
§ 27-252 One year, renewable to a total of
five years
Required, see § 27-255
§ 27-255 Bond amount determined by commis-
sioner to cover surface damage
Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated, 1956.
The second item in each table indicates special requirements for
issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a necessity
of filing an application with a minimum of information to include
the applicant's name, address, and location of the land involved.
-55-
-------
TABLE 5-22. COLORADO URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT4
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 36-1-140 State Board of Land Commissioners
§ 36-1-140 1. Discovery
2. Posting of notice of discovery
on site.
3. Notify board within ten days of
discovery.
§ 36-1-140 Sixty days, but extension possible
§ 36-1-140 At expiration of permit the locator
may be required to lease upon
agreed-to-terms
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973.
3The second item is each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location of
the land involved.
-56-
-------
TABLE 5-23. MONTANA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT
a,c
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 81-501
§ 81-503
81-502
§ 50-1704
State Board of Land Commissioners
§ 81-501 These lands must be leased by
competitive bids to at least fair
market value
Set by board, but not less than
$2 per acre
10 years, renewable every 5 years
after that
No person may prospect, initiate
construction, or undertake preopera-
tion of solution extraction of
uranium for 2 years (from April 8,
1975)
Revised Codes of Montana, 1947.
The second item in each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location of
the land involved.
•>
"Exploration of Montana lands outside of lease is not allowed,
hence the terms above are those of the lease.
-57-
-------
TABLE 5-24. NORTH DAKOTA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT
a,c
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
§ 33-11-02.1
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 38-11-02.2
§ 38-11-02.2
§ 38-15-03
§ 38-16
All agencies of the state are
authorized to lease, but Board
of University and School Land
established standards, policies,
terms, conditions, rules, and
regulations for such activities.
Set by Board of University and
School Land
Set by Board of University and
School Land
The Industrial Commission may
require a bond to satisfy con-
flicts between mining or oil and
gas developers on same land
The State Soil Conservation
Committee requires a report of
operation annually if it is a
surface mine
aNorth Dakota Century Code, 1960, as amended.
The second item in each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location of
the land involved.
°Exploration of North Dakota lands outside of a lease is not
allowed, hence the terms above are those of the lease.
-58-
-------
TABLE 5-25. NEW MEXICO URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT3>C
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 7-9-17
§ 7-9-21.1
§ 7-9-22
§ 7-9-31
§ 7-9-21
§ 7-9-25
§ 7-9-34
§ 7-9-19
Commissioner of Public Lands
$10
Rent to be set by commissioner but
not less than 5c per acre during
primary and not less than 50£
per acre secondary
Maximum area in lease - 16 sections
Primary term 3 years, a 2-year
extension available but rent is
10 times as much per year. Secon-
dary term for production allowed
Bond set by Commissioner but not
less than $5,000 for surface
repair
Commissioner may use competitive
bidding
In 1955 New Mexico ceased to issue
the prospecting permit and all ex-
ploration must come under lease
procedures above
New Mexico Statutes, 1953.
The second item in each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location
of the land involved.
"Exploration of New Mexico lands outside of lease is not allowed,
hence the terms above are those of the lease.
-59-
-------
TABLE 5-26. SOUTH DAKOTA URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMITa
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Special
Requirements^
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 5-7-1
§ 45-7A-3
§ 45-7A-2
§ 45-7A-2
§ 5-7-7
§ 5-7-9
§ 5-7-7
§ 5-7-7
§ 5-7-9
§ 5-7-7
§ 5-7-8
§ 5-7-10
§ 45-6A-16
Commissioner of School and Public
Lands
A report of any exploratory well
drilled must be sent to Department
of Natural Resources (will be kept
confidential).
Such wells must be capped, sealed,
or plugged.
50C per acre
50c per acre per year.
of 640 acres.
Maximum
One year, renewable to total of
three years
The Commissioner, at his discre-
tion, may refuse to issue permit
if in best interests of state
Priority of issue to earliest
application date
Pennitee may not remove any
minerals
Although South Dakota requires a
special permit (at a fee of $25)
to use heavy equipment in explora-
tion of the surface; this section
specifically exempts state lands
from that requirement. (The per-
mit is issued by the State Conser-
vation Commission)
South Dakota Compiled Laws, 1967.
5The second item in each table indicates special requirements for
issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a neces-
sity of filing an application with a minimum of information to
include the applicant's name, address, and location of the land
involved.
-60-
-------
TABLE 5-27. UTAH URANIUM EXPLORATION PERMIT'
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
§ 65-1-18
§ 40-1-13
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 40-1013
§ 40-6-5
State Land Board
160 acres maximum per township,
per person, with $250 worth of
work completed every six months
per townships. No ore to be
removed
One year maximum, with yearly
renewals available
If developer plans to drill (either
exploratory or production), the
Board of Oil, Gas and Mining has
the authority to require:
a) security (for plugging)
b) notice of intent to drill
c) filing of well logs
Utah Code Annotated, 1953.
The second item in each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location
of the land involved.
-61-
-------
TABLE 5-28. WYOMING URANIUM EXPLORATION (MINING CLAIM)
a,c
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 30-1
§ 30-3
§ 30-6
§ 30-1
§ 30-1
County clerk in county where claim
located
1) Sink a shaft at location (or
drill)
2) Post a sign with name of
locator, etc.
3) Mark surface boundaries
The locator who files this claim
(or certificate) owns the minerals
in fee (forever)
This discovery method is only
applicable to minerals (in this
case uranium) found in veins.
The discoverer has 60 days to file
this claim after discovery with
the following information:
a) name of claim'
b) name of discoverer
c) location of claim
d) amount of surface claimed
(appears to be no specific
statutory limit)
Wyoming Statutes of 1957.
3The second item in each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location of
the land involved.
^
'See also uranium placer claims on separate sheet.
-62-
-------
TABLE 5-29. WYOMING URANIUM EXPLORATION (PLACER CLAIMS)a>C
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Special ,
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Duration
Bond
Discretionary
Actions
Other
Information
§ 30-10
§ 30-10
§ 30-16
§ 30-12
§ 30-10
County clerk in county where claim
located
1) Erect sign post with name of
location on sign
2) Mark boundaries on surface
Locator may receive a patent
(certificate of ownership) after
5 years or expenditure of $500
Locator must perform not less than
$100 worth of work per year on the
placer claim
The locator has 90 days to file
this claim with the following
information:
a) name of claim
b) name of locator
c) number of acres claimed
d) description of land
e) date
Wyoming Statutes of 1957.
The second item in each table indicates special requirements
for issuing the permit. A blank in this category reflects a
necessity of filing an application with a minimum of informa-
tion to include the applicant's name, address, and location of
the land involved.
•^
'See also uranium mining claims for Wyoming.
-63-
-------
5.4 MINING
Uranium mining techniques depend on the depth, size, assay,
and host formation of the ore body, and some of the basic tech-
nologies are similar to those used in coal mining (Chapter 3).
Of the 281 uranium sources being worked at the end of 1976,
74 percent were underground mines, 16 percent were open pit
mines, and the remaining 10 percent consisted of other sources
(e.g., low-grade stock piles, heap leach, mine water, solution
mining).1 In terms of total 1976 ore production, however,
underground mines provided 48 percent, open pit mines provided
48 percent, and other sources provided about 4 percent.2 Thus,
although small in numbers, open pit mines produced an amount
equal to the yellowcake mined in 1976 by underground mining,
since daily production rates from open pit mines are much
greater than the rates from underground mines. Currently there
is a trend towards open pit and in-situ mining due to the rising
cost of underground mining and depletion of resources mineable
by underground techniques.
A 1,000-Mwe model reactor requires approximately 250 tons
of yellowcake per year.3 Assuming a U30g concentration in the
ore of 0.2 percent, 125,000 tons of ore must be mined each year
to supply one 1,000-Mwe reactor. For comparison a 1,000-Mwe
coal-fired plant would require more than three million tons of
coal per year. **
Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado:U.SiEnergy Research and Development
Administration, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977, p. 31.
2lbid.
3Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory'Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, pp. 10-21,
''ibid.
-64-
-------
To quantify emissions, costs, manpower requirements,
and other impacts associated with uranium mining, certain
assumptions regarding size and operating rate must be made. To
satisfy this requirement, a single production rate of 440,000
tons of ore per year (1200 TPCD average) has been assumed. Both
the open pit mine and the surface mine are considered to produce
ores containing 0.20 percent UsOe. On the basis of these ore
grades and a typical recovery of 93 percent1 of the U308 at the
mill, the mine/mills would produce about 800 TPY (4500 Ib/day)
of UsOa (yellowcake). The yellowcake contains approximately 90
percent U309 (typical value)2.
5.4.1 Open Pit Mining
5.4.1.1 Technology
Open pit mining is used to extract uranium ore from depths
ranging from a few feet down to about 400 feet.3'1*'5'5 Although
most surface mining operations are less than 400 feet deep,
there are some exceptions to the rule. An example of this is
!ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado:U.S.Energy Research and Development
Administration, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977, p. 100.
2Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy CompanyTDocket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, pp. 3-26.
3Battelle Columbus and Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Environmental Considerations in Future Energy Growth. Columbus,
Ohio:1973.
""Conquista, Conoco-Pioneer U308 Venture, on stream," Mining
Eng. 24(8), 37-41, 1972.
5Klemenic, John (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Examples
of Overall Economics in a Future Cycle of Uranium Concentrate
Production for Assumed Open Pit and Underground Mining Operations,
TIP-26294.Springfield, Va.:NTIS, 1972.
6Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling," IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4)
1201-8. '.Q73
-65-
-------
Humble Oil and Refining Co.'s uranium surface mining operation
in Converse County, Wyoming, where the operation extends to a
450 foot depth.1 A recent study indicates that some surface
mining can be done at depths of more than 500 feet.2
One significant difference between coal and uranium surface
mining is that the ore zone in uranium mines is very irregular
and of highly varying quality. Coal seams are generally very
well defined. The discontinuities of uranium ore zones dictate
using unique mining techniques that are not employed in coal
mines. A second difference between coal and uranium mines is
that each truckload of uranium ore is graded (measured for
radioactivity) as it leaves the pit. The truck then delivers
the graded ore to a specified stockpile. Often ore zones are
graded in place to facilitate mining operations. The purpose
of this ore grading and separation is to control the feed to
the mill and thereby insure the most efficient and economical
processing.
For shallow surface mining operations, the pits may be
mined with the pit walls almost vertical.3 As the mining opera-
tions progress and the open pit gets deeper, the need for sloping
walls becomes important - mainly to avert the subsidence of
the walls into the pit.
tumble Oil and Refining Co., Minerals Dept. Highland
Uranium Mill, Converse County, Wyoming, Applicant's Environmental
Report.Houston, Tex.:1971.
2Clark, Don A. State-of-the-Art - Uranium Mining, Milling,
and Refining Industry"Environmental Protection Agency,Rob't
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada, Ok.: 1974.
3Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling." IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4),
1201-8, 1973.
-66-
-------
After removal and storage of the topsoil for later use in
reclamation, large quantities of overburden must be removed.
Overburden is classified as shallow, soft overburden and hard,
deep overburden.1 The shallow, soft overburden is stripped by
diesel crawler tractors and bulldozed into waste piles. These
waste piles are loaded by power shovels or front-end loaders
into trucks that transport the overburden to the mine dump or
backfill it into mined out areas of the pit. The hard, deep
overburden is usually drilled and blasted using wagon drill
holes.2'3 The broken rock is loaded and transported to the mine
dump or backfill in a way similar to the stripped overburden.
Overburden resulting from surface mining operations averages
about 30 cubic yards per ton of ore, but can vary over a very
wide range of densities.1*
The exposed uranium ore, after the overburden is removed,
is drilled, broken, and transported to the ore storage area,
by the same procedure adopted in overburden extraction. The
ore occurrences in the mine are so erratic that tonnage and ore
grade vary with location. In attempting to maintain a consistent
feed ore grade going to the mill, with a minimum amount of waste,
selective mining methods are employed. They include controlled
digging, accompanied by ore sampling and probing.5'5
Nuclear Assurance Corp., U.S. Uranium. Economics and
Technology, NAC-1, Atlanta, Ga.
2Ibid.
3Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling," IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4),
1201-8, 1973.
"Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Environmental
Considerations in Future Energy Growth. Columbus"Ohio:1973.
5Humble Oil and Refining Co., Minerals Dept. Highland
Uranium Mill, Converse County, Wyoming. Applicant's Environmental
Report.Houston, Tex.:1971.
^Nuclear Assurance Corp.,op.cit.
-67-
-------
An isometric view of a surface mine showing an ore body,
which has been exposed for mining by stripping of the overlying
shale and sandstone, is shown in Figure 5-3. J As this figure
indicates, there are many irregularities and discontinuities
in the ore zone. Figure 5-4 summarizes the material flow and
effluent flow associated with uranium surface mining operations.
Ground water intrusion is a problem in a number of surface
mining operations. Normally, ground water is pumped from the
mine to surface evaporation ponds, or treatment units prior to
surface discharge.3 The common practice is to dig a trench (or
ditch) several feet deep around the periphery of the pit floor.
The water that drains into the ditch is discharged out of the
mine.1* As the mine floor depth is increased a new ditch is dug
that is always lower than the mine floor. This procedure is
repeated throughout the mining operation.
A very important phase of all surface mining operations is
reclamation. As a mining area is abandoned it becomes the
receptacle for the overburden that must be removed from active
mining sites. Thus reclamation continues at the same pace as
the mining operation, lagging behind the mining activities by a
fixed time period of one or more months.
^oungberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling," IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4).
2Battelle Columbus and Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Environmental Considerations in Future Energy Growth. Columbus,
Ohio: 1973.
3U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental Survey of
the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Springfield, VAT!Nat'l. Tech. Inf.
Service, 1972.
**Clark, Don A. State-of-the-Art - Uranium Mining, Milling,
and Refining Industry"Environmental Protection Agency.Rob't
S~. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada, Ok. : 1974.
-68-
-------
Uranium Ore
Figure 5-3. Uranium Surface (Open Pit) Mining Operation
Source: Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry-
Exploration, Mining, and Milling." IEEE trans
Power Appar. Svst. Vol. PAS-92(4) . 1973. '
p. 1204.
-69-
-------
CC
O
L_
^™
0.
Ul
0
LU
cc
«
cc
o
r~
a.
UJ
u
UJ
cc
x
cc
**
UJ
(O
UJ
OO} r-
UJ _1 <
0 3
UJ Q o
ce- z _
^.03 O r-
2UJ Q Ct
CC 0.
• •
J
cc
o
h*
a.
o
u
cc
0
z
o
OL
X
r- O
cc z
UJ J
r™
t-
Ul
tn
k i
CU
Ul => d
Q O U.
cc *
3 UJ O
CO Z <
CC _ CO
Ul
o o o
k /
co M
f^ M
oj (U
r4 C
w
C! 4-J
k tvO co (U
r -H CU r^
co |3 d
CU rC 4-1
Q JJ 3
L^ fr .
^ o
0 Z C
O -r-l
r-l O
CQ -H CO
M-i C
CiO *H O
C 0 -H
•r-l Ct) -U
cc
Ul
H™
3
o
z
o
cc
o
. 4
^_
1 o I
"^ ^f ^J
Z U. Z Z
cc D a. 2
3 CO O
C OH CtJ
•H r-l
S T3 CU
C ""o
CU IT) -H
O CO
cd co c
14-1 d o
J-l X O
en 3 r-i
i — i cd
E 0 -u
due
•H 1 'U
*-* ^\ ci
* CO i — 1 £3
M r-l O
3 CU M
4-1 -H
4-) r>
• c8 fl
-J PQ W
•
on
t-^
ON
r-l
•
0
•H
o
co
rH
o
o
.
f"i
4J
^
o
o
LO
-------
The available choices of potential land use after mining
are greatest in those areas with the best soils and most favor-
able soil moisture conditions. In general, the reclamation
goals include: approximate original contour, restore texture
and fertility for use as cropland, establish improved wildlife
habitat, develop recreational amenities such as lakes, and
convert to urban or industrial use.
Reclamation activities require replacement and compaction
of overburden in a manner approximating original land contour.
The topsoil which was carefully removed and stored at the
beginning of the mining activities is then replaced over the
overburden and revegetated with plants suitable to the soil
and climatic conditions. Reclamation generally includes
irrigation for promoting revegetation, compaction, and dust
control. Reclamation activities also must consider runoff and
erosion control through the use of contours, dikes, dams and
culverts.
5.4.1.2 Input Requirements
The various inputs required for construction and operation
of a surface uranium mine will be discussed in the following
sections. These inputs include labor, material and equipment,
capital, water, land, and any outside energy. Specific assump-
tions regarding size and ore grade must be made in order to
quantify these input variables.
The uranium surface mine considered here has a yearly
output of about 4.4 x 105 tons of uranium ore. This is equivalent
to an average daily energy output of 1.12 x 1012 Btu, assuming;
1200 TPCD ore production, an ore grade of 0.20 percent U308
-71-
-------
(0.7 percent Uzas ), a heating value of 71.4 x 1012 Btu per ton
U23s fissioned1, and a recovery of 93 percent of the U308 in the
ore.
5.4.1.2a Manpower Requirements
Two phases must be addressed in any discussion of the
required labor force: the construction phase and the operating
phase. Different skills are required of the workers involved
in each phase.
The Bechtel Corporation has estimated the manpower required
to build and operate a 1200 ton/day mine.2 Table 5-30 presents
the construction manpower and the proper timing sequence to
efficiently^build a uranium surface mine. Table 5-31 presents
the number of men required to operate such a facility.
Similarly, the employment predictions for a 1400 ton/day
surface mine run by the Rocky Mountain Energy Company call for
an 18-month construction period for the mine and mill, and
employ an average work force of 150 persons with an expected
peak of 250 at the height of activity.3 Mine operation is
expected to employ 175 persons for 11 years.1* Both sources
project approximately the same overall manpower requirements.
1 Pratt and Whitney Aircraft. Aeronautical Vest-Pocket
Handbook, 10th Ed., 1964.
2Carasso, M., et al. Energy Supply Model, Computer Tape.
San Francisco: Bechtel, 1975.
3Dames and Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Energy Company, 1975, p. 4-16.
"ibid., p. 8-4.
-72-
-------
TABLE 5-30. SCHEDULE OF MANPOWER RESOURCES (MAN-YEARS)
REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A 1200 TON/DAY SURFACE
URANIUM ORE MINE
Year
Skill
Civil Engineers
Mining Engineers
Geological Engineers
Other Engineers
Designers 4- Draftsmen
Supervisors + Managers
Pipefitters
Electricians
Iron Workers
Carpenters
Operating Engineers
Other Major Skills
Teamsters + Laborers
TOTALS
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
2
16
58
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
31
2
17_
67
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
45
3
17
79
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
46
3
_7
68
Source: Carasso, M., et al.. Energy supply model, Computer
Tape, San Francisco, Bechtel, 1975.
-73-
-------
TABLE 5-31. MANPOWER RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF A 1200 TON/DAY SURFACE URANIUM
ORE MINE
Number
Skill Required
Mechanical Engineers 1
Mining Engineers 2
Geological Engineers 1
Other Engineers 2
Designers + Draftsmen 2
Supervisors 4- Managers 6
Other Technical 4
Non-Technical (non-manual) 28
Electricians 4
Welders 4
Operators 62
Other Major Skills 32
Other Craftsmen 20
Teamsters + Laborers W_
TOTAL 178
Source: Carasso, M., et. ai., Energy Supply Model, Computer
Tape, San Francisco, Bechtel,1975.
-74-
-------
5.4.1.2b Materials and Equipment
Information on the materials required to construct a 1200
ton/day surface uranium ore mine was extracted from Bechtel's
"Energy Supply Planning Model."1 This model predicts that 180
tons of structural steel, 30 tons of reinforcing bars, 90 tons
of piping, 100 tons of oil country tubular goods, 10 tons of
concrete, and 5100 tons of refined products will be used to
build this size mine.
Table 5-32 contains an estimate of the equipment required
to operate a surface mining project. Two different surface
mining techniques are represented in the table, "scraper/ripper
stripping" and "truck/shovel stripping." One of these techniques
would be selected for use in mining the ore. Also given are
estimates for equipment needed for getting the ore to the mill
and for reclamation operations. The equipment requirements have
been presented for a 1200 ton/day operation, and were scaled
from a 1400 ton/day mine.
5.4.1.2c Economics
The capital and operating costs for a 1200 ton/day surface
mine are shown in Tables 5-33 and 5-34. These costs were
estimated from information provided in a report by Dames and
Moore.2 The economic data in the Dames and Moore report was
provided for three different capacity mines in 1975 dollars.
This data was adjusted by using CE plant and M&S equipment cost
indexes from the "Economic Indicators" given in Chemical
^arasso, M., et al. Energy Supply Model, Computer Tape.
San Francisco: Bechtel, 1975.
2Lootens, P. J. Uranium Production Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge,Illinois:Dames and Moore,1975.
-75-
-------
TABLE 5-32.
EQUIPMENT ESTIMATES FOR A 1200 TON/DAY
SURFACE MINING PROJECT
Unit
Capacity
Number
Required
Scrapers
Rippers
Pushers
Water trucks
Grader
Drill
Service trucks
Pickups
Fuel and lube trucks
Topsoil and Overburden Removal
Scrapper/Ripper Stripping
30 yard 14
^385 H.P. 2
^385 H.P. 5
7,000 to 10,000 gallons 2
^40 H.P. 2
4 3/4-inch holes 1
Light-duty 3
3/4 ton 5
1,000 gallons 3
Shovel
Trucks
Rippers
Grader
Water truck
Drill
Service trucks
Pickups
Fuel and lube truck
Truck/Shovel Stripping
14 yard
120 ton
^385 H.P.
•^240 H.P.
7,000 to 10,000 gallons
4 3/4-inch holes
Light-duty
3/4 ton
1,000 gallons
Backhoe
Trucks
Rippers
Road maintenance
Drill and blast
Service vehicles
Pickups (ore sampling)
Wheel loader
Ore Removal
4 yard
35 ton
-^385 H.P.
Same units as used by
the stripping fleets.
3/4 con
6 yard
Self-loading scrapers
Caterpillar tractor
Reclamation
Caterpillar 633
D-9
1
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek Project,
Rocky Mountain _Eneri;y Company, Docket No. 40-8452. Washington
D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Materials
Safety and Safeguards, June 1977. p. 3-25
-76-
-------
TABLE 5-33. CAPITAL INVESTMENT ESTIMATE FOR A 1200 TON/DAY
SURFACE MINE PLANT (1977 dollars)
Item
0
Shop/warehouse, surface buildings
o
Office buildings
Q
Access road, 8 miles
a
Initial haul road, I mile
Q
Magazines (explosives storage)
Crusher & loan-out
Q
Electrical supply
Well drilling & pump installation
Piping, 1 milea
Ambulance
Pickups, 3/4-ton
Service & maintenance trucks
Fork liftsb
Subtotal
Contingency (§ 10%
Mining Equipment
Total Mine Investment
Preproduction stripping
ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Investment Cost (103 $)
1,629
179
90
26
34
365
375
46
22
13
130
135
101
3,145
315
10,207
13,667
7,500
21,167
Cost increased by a factor of 1.13
3Cost increased by a factor of 1.16
^
"Cost increased by a factor of 1.15
For 10,000,000 tons of,overburden (§ 125% of estimated operating
stripping costs.
Source: Lootens, D. J. Uranium Production Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge, Illinois: Dames & Moore,
~
-77-
-------
TABLE 5-34. ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY FOR A 1200 TON/DAY
OPEN-PIT URANIUM MINE (1977 dollars)a
$ Per Ton Milled
Topsoil Removal 0.06
Stripping 12.80
Development Drilling 0.19
Ore Mining 2.70
Crush and Load-out 6.23
Reclamation0 0.80
TOTAL MINE OPERATING 16.78
COST ESTIMATEb
aCosts were increased by a factor of 1.10 and 1.07
for labor and supplies, respectively. Labor is
assumed to be 57% and supplies 43% or the operating
cost, resulting in a factor of 1.14 to be used to
scale the costs.
No provision for ore transportation to mill site.
cPhillips, P. E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and
In-Situ Leach Economics," Presented at the Conference
on Uranium Mining Technology. Reno, Nevada"April 28,
1977.
Source: Lootens, D. J. Uranium Production Methods and Economics
Considerations. Park Ridge,Illinois:Dames & Moore,
1975.
-78-
-------
Engineering magazine.1'2 The factors used in adjusting costs
are noted in the information given in the tables. The costs
for a 1200 ton/day mine were interpolated from the adjusted costs
derived for a 500,1000 and 2000 ton/day mine.
5.4.1.2d Water Requirements
Water requirements for a surface mining operation would
result mainly from two water needs: dust suppression on haulage
roads and potable water for personnel. An estimated 40,000 to
50,000 gallons per day would be required for dust suppression
at a 1400 ton/day surface mine.3 Assuming the amount of dust
suppression needed varies linearly with mine activity, the water
needed for a 1200 ton/day mine would be 34,000 to 43,000 gallons
per day. However in most cases the water for dust suppression
would be provided by the mine dewatering system which would be
producing 860,000 to 2,800,000 gallons of water per day.1*
Occasionally surface mines do not have sufficient ground water,
or the ground water is of such poor quality that it requires
treatment even before use as a dust suppressant.
Potable water requirements for a 1400 ton/day surface mining
operation have been estimated to be about 1000 gallons per day.5
This water would be provided by a local water well. The water
would be treated if necessary to convert it to drinking water
quality. Potable water requirements for a 1200 ton/day mine
are assumed to be similar to those for a 1400 ton/day mine as the
manpower requirements are about the same.
1 Chemical Engineering. "Economic Indicators," Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 82, (Dec. 22, 1975), p. 116.
2ibid., Vol. 89, (Dec. 5, 1977), p. 7.
3Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy CompanyTDocket No. 40-8452.
Washington^B.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, p. 3-22.
"ibid. , p. 3-14.
5ii>id. , p. 3-22.
-79-
-------
5.4.1.2e Land Requirements
The largest requirement for open pit mining is for land area.
The amount of land area needed for an open pit mining operation
varies with the shape of the ore deposit being mined. Larger land
areas are required for thin, widely spread deposits than for thick
concentrated deposits. If the uranium occurs in separate deposits
in an area, the whole area is removed from other use even though
mining occurs only at the deposits. The movement of large
machinery and the generation of large amounts of noise and dust
from the mining would prevent other activity in the area.
The deposit being mined by the Rocky Mountain Energy
Company in Converse County, Wyoming represents a typical land
requirement of a 1000 ton/day open pit. The pit will be approxi-
mately 7600 feet long and will vary in width from 1200 feet in
the middle to 800 feet on either end.1 Topsoil, overburden, and
ore will be removed to depths of 160-375 feet below the original
surface.2 The single pit would require about 153 acres of land.
As a result of all the mining activity, approximately 575 acres
will be needed for the mine pits, 880 acres for overburden piles,
148 acres for topsoil piles, 130 acres for haul roads and settling
ponds, and 40 acres for the mine shop.3
The mine mentioned above would produce approximately 1000
tons of ore per day for a five year period.1* However, removal
of the overburden would require 14 to 15 months and the mining
1 Dames & Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver,Colorado.Rocky Mountain Energy Company. 1975.p. 9-8.
2 Ibid.
3Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977. p. 4-6.
"Dames & Moore, op. cit., p. 9-1.
-80-
-------
of nearby ore deposits would remove the land area of the mine
from use for an additional five years.1
In uranium surface mining, land areas previously mined
and already exhausted of uranium ore are partially reclaimed
by backfilling the open pit with overburden materials. At the
end of mining operations the last portion of land is not back-
filled with soil due to economic reasons.2 This area typically
is allowed to fill with water to form a man-made lake. It can
be used for a water impoundment for livestock and wildlife3 or
future recreational benefits'* if the water in the lake is of
good quality. For the surface mine mentioned previously, a
lake covering 72 acres would be left following reclamation.
5.4.1.2f Ancillary Energy
The energy requirements for a uranium surface mine result
from the fuel requirements of the mining equipment and the elec-
trical energy requirements of the mine. Battelle Columbus Labo-
ratories has done a study for the U.S. Bureau of Mines on the
energy usage in uranium ore processing.5 This study estimated
that 7,900 kwh of electricity and 1,515 gallons of fuel, oil,
Dames & Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver, Colorado". Rocky Mountain Energy Company. 1975.p. 9-1.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental Survey of
the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, WASH-1237. Springfield, VA.National
Technical Information Service.T972. p. A-10.
Dames & Moore, op.dt., p. 9-2.
"*U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, op.cit., p. A-14.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in
Metallurgical and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5--Energy
Data and Flowsheets, Intermediate-Priority CommoditiesT"! Colum-
bus, Ohio. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. September 16, 1975.
-81-
-------
and grease are consumed for every net ton of UsOs.1 For a
1200 TPCD ore production with an ore grade of 0.20 percent U308,
the electrical energy requirement would be 18,960 kwh/day. The
fuel, oil, and grease requirement would be 3636 gallons/day, or
0.545x109 Btu/day using a heating value of 0.15x105 Btu/gal.2
5.4.1.3 Outputs
The outputs associated with a 1200 ton/day surface uranium
ore mine are discussed in the following sections. Air emissions,
water effluents, solid wastes, noise pollution, and occupational
health and safety statistics will be discussed and quantified
where possible.
5.4.1.3a Air Emissions
Sources of nonradiological air emissions from a uranium
surface mine are mainly the heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles
used in operating the mine which were discussed in Section
5.4.1.2b. The emissions from the internal combustion engines
and the fugitive dust generated by equipment operation are the
major pollutants released. Using a similar equipment list and
emission factors developed by the EPA (EPA Pub. No. AP-42) TVA
has estimated the vehicular emissions from surface mining opera-
tions. These emission estimates are presented in Table 5-35.
Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in
Metallurgical and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5--Energy
Data and Flowsheets, Intermediate-Priority Commodities')"! Colum-
bus , OhicT. Battelle Columbus Latoratories. September 16, 1975.
p. 207.
2 Ibid.
-82-
-------
TABLE 5-35
POSSIBLE VEHICULAR EMISSIONS FROM A 1200
TON/DAY SURFACE MINING OPERATION3
Pollutant
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions
First shift Second shift Annual
(lb/hr)b (lb/hr)b (tons/yr)b
10.16 7.94 18.8
21.19 16.43 39.1
216.35 176.75 409.5
291.12 138.81 538.8
a Emissions due to gasoline and diesel fuel consumption.
b Emissions given in Ib/hr are for times when vehicles are
operating, whereas the tons/yr figures reflect the schedule
of operations for the year.
Source: Tennessee Valley Authority. Draft Environmental State-
ment, Marton Ranch Uranium Mining. Chattanooga, TN.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Environmental
Planning. 1975. p. 46-12.
-83-
-------
Carbon dioxide emissions would be approximately 3380 Ib/hr.
This was calculated by assuming that all of the 3636 gal/day of petro-
leum product requirement (Section 5.4.1.2f) was No. 2 fuel oil
containing 87 percent carbon by weight with a density of 7.0
Ib/gal, and all the carbon in the fuel is converted to C02.
Fugitive dust can be expected from blasting, drilling,
scraping, loading, transporting, and dumping of overburden and
ore, as well as from wind erosion of disturbed areas and over-
burden material before reclamation. TVA used an emission
factor for fugitive dust of 1.4 tons per acre per month.1 This
factor was developed by the EPA from data collected around
construction sites in Nevada and Arizona. TVA also used an
estimate of 900 acres of unpaved roads, pit areas, and over-
burden and ore piles for the maximum surface area disturbed by
open pit mining activities at any given time. Using the
emission factor of 1.4 ton/acre/month, the maximum exposed
surface area would produce approximately 1300 tons of total
particulate emissions per month (^3600 Ib/hr) if no mitigating
measures were taken. In completing an estimate of fugitive dust
emissions, TVA quoted a U.S. Bureau of Mines report which
estimated that with mitigation, the dust emissions can be
reduced by as much as 90 percent.2 This would then give an
estimate of 130 tons per month (^360 Ib/hr) for fugitive dust
emissions.
Because of the radioactive nature of the uranium ore, uran-
ium mines have' the unique problem of radioactive emissions.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Draft Environmental Statement,
Morton Ranch Uranium Mining. Chattanooga, TN.Tennessee Valley
Authority, Division of Environmental Planning. 1975. p. 4.6-4.
2 ibid., p. 4.6-5.
-84-
-------
As a consequence of uranium ore exposure to the atmosphere dur-
ing mining operations, radon gas (Rn-222) and its daughters are
released to the environment. Rn-222 is the major radioactive
nuclide released. An estimate of this release for a surface
mine removing ore at a rate of about 364,000 tons/yr (a 1000
ton/day) surface area of 3.8 x 106 ft2 is shown in Table 5-36.
TABLE 5-36. RADIOACTIVE RELEASE OF RADON-222 GAS FROM
364,000 TON/YR URANIUM SURFACE MINING OPERATION
Upper limit Lower limit
Ore gas 27.7 Ci/yr 27.7 Ci/yr
Overburden 1.4 Ci/yr 1.4 Ci/yr
Mine surface 7409.0 Ci/yr 4631.0 Ci/yr
Total 7438.1 Ci/yr 4660.1 Ci/yr
Note: Ci (curies)
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No.
40-8452. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion. Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.
June 1977. p. K-7
The radioactive release from overburden and the mine sur-
face is a function of amount of overburden and mine surface area,
respectively. These would be about the same for the 1200 ton/day
mine described in this section. The Rn-222 gas release from the
ore would vary with the mining rate and would be about 33.2
curies (Ci)/yr for a 1200 ton/day mine.
5.4.1.3b Water Effluents
Water effluents from an open pit mine are primarily a
result of water instrusion into the mine pit. To keep the mine
dry while the ore is extracted, water is pumped from the mine
-85-
-------
to a settling pond. In the pond the water receives treatment
prior to discharge to existing surface drainages. A water
balance on a typical open pit mine would have an estimated 600
to 1600 acre ft/yr of water from the mine going to a settling
pond.l From the pond an estimated 33 acre ft/yr would go to
evaporation, 45 to 56 acre ft/yr would be used for dust suppres-
sion, and 500 to 1500 acre ft/yr would be released to surface
drainage.2
The water that is pumped from the mine to a settling pond
is turbid and carries suspended solids, rock, silicates, Ra-226,
and trace uranium ore.3'1* The item of primary concern with this
water is its Ra-226 content although it may be necessary to
remove a number of other constituents as well. Some treatment
process, such as the use of barium chloride, is utilized for
removing radium from the mine water before discharge.5 The
radium precipitated in the settling ponds would be periodically
transferred to a tailings pond. Radium content of the mine water
could be as high as 100 pCi/1.5 A typical ambient groundwater
concentration of radium would be only 3.3 pCi/1.7 Concentrations
of radium in the water discharged to the environment are generally
required to be less than or equal to the ambient concentrations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington,D.C.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977. p. 3-34.
2Ibid.
3U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental Survey of the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle, WASH-1237. Springfield, Va. Natural Techni-
cal Information Service,1972. p. A-17.
"Nuclear Regulatory Commission, op.cit., p. 3-30.
5Jiid., p. 3-141.
6lbid., p. 3-33.
7Ibid., p. 3-30.
-86-
-------
To insure that there is no hazardous water discharged to
surface drainage or lost through seepage from the settling pond,
a proper water monitoring program should be maintained to check
surface and underground water quality. 1
5.4.1.3c Solid Wastes
There are very few solid wastes associated with a surface
mine other than the overburden that has been removed. Overburden
removal is part of the mining operation and the overburden is
used in the reclamation activity. Therefore, overburden is not
actually considered a solid waste. However, the overburden that
is placed back into the mining pit for reclamation is more per-
meable, even after settling and compaction, than it was before
it was disturbed. It also contains many minerals that were pre-
viously sealed below the surface. As a result of having been
disturbed, the replaced overburden will be less stable, and thus
more reactive. Because of this, increased leaching of chemical
ions can result. In addition to uranium, moderate to high con-
centrations of vanadium, selenium, molybdinum, and arsenic can
be present in the overburden and are susceptible to leaching.2
Because the disturbed fill area will be more permeable than
the undisturbed land surrounding it, groundwater flow should be
deflected around the reclaimed areas. This would lower the
amount of leaching through the disturbed area. An additional
consequence of the higher permeability would be an increase in
erosion resulting in increased sediment deposition down gradient.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977. p. 3-141.
2ibid., p. 4-5.
-87-
-------
5.4.1.3d Noise Pollution
The use of heavy machinery and explosives in breaking and
loading the overburden is the major source of noise pollution
created by open pit mining. Tables 5-37 and 5-38 summarize
the major noise producing equipment which are used and the
estimated sound levels for the two types of surface mining.
Also given is the equivalent noise level, which would occur at
a distance of 100 feet from the mine, resulting from all the
noise producing equipment. Information in Tables 5-37 and 5-38.
was developed from EPA reports No. 550/9-75-014, "Portable Air
Compressor Noise Control Technology and Cost Information" and
No. 550/9-74-004, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety."1
In many ca^es it is necessary to detonate explosives in
order to loosen the overburden. Measurements reported by Dames
and Moore for the Rocky Mountain Energy Co. indicate that such
detonation would produce maximum sound levels of 97 dBA at 500
feet.2
The mine would be a source of noise pollution for its
entire 10 year life. The mine could be expected to operate 24
hours per day, 7 days a week.3 Detonation of explosions is
generally limited to daylight hours.
1 Dames & Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Proj ect,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Energy Company. 1975 .p. 5-35,
5-36.
2lbid., p. 5-39.
3lbid., p. 5-36.
-88-
-------
TABLE 5-37. MAJOR NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT AND SOUND LEVELS
FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATION (SHOVEL AND DUMP TRUCK)
Equipment
Usage Factor'
Sound level
at 50 feet
(dBA)
D9G Caterpillar tractor
Scraper
Power shovel
Dump truck
Bulldozers (for clean-up)
Drill
Air compressor
.16
.08
.5b
.5b
.02b
.04
.04
77
76
82
88
74
84
67
Equivalent Sound Level: 85 dB at 100 feet
a Percentage of time in noisiest operating mode
" Estimated
Source: Dames & Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy
Company"Denver,Colorado.Rocky Mountain Energy
Company. 1975. p. 5-35.
-89-
-------
TABLE 5-38. MAJOR NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT AND SOUND LEVELS
FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATION (USING SCRAPERS)
Equipment
D9G Controller tractor
Scraper
Drill
Air compressor
Usage Factor a
.16
1.0b
.04
.04
Sound level
at 50 feet
(dBA)
77
87
84
67
Equivalent Sound Level: 83 dB at 100 feet
a Percentage of time in noisiest operating mode
Estimated
Source: Dames & Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy
Compauy~. Denver, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Energy
Company. 1975. p. 5-36.
-90-
-------
5.4.1.3e Occupational Health and Safety
The results of a five-year survey on the occupational
health hazards related to the operations of nuclear fuel cycle
facilities indicate that a typical (including surface and under-
ground) uranium mining operation has the following occupational
health statistics:l
Deaths: 1.8 per year
Injuries 69 per year
Man-Days Lost: 4.28 x 103 per year
The Mining Enforcement Safety Administration reported that
no deaths and 34 non-fatal injuries occurred during surface
uranium mining activity in 1976.2
5.4.2 Underground Mining
5.4.2.1 Technology
Underground uranium mining techniques are significantly
different from underground coal mining techniques. The two
major differences are related to seam sizes and mine ventilation
systems. Most uranium ore bodies are long, thin, and quite
erratic in occurrence, and thus require special adaptations of
routine coal mining techniques. Since the seam at any one site
is often quickly mined, both the working equipment and total
mining operations must be highly mobile. Special ventilation
:U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The Safety of Nuclear Power
Reactors (Light Water-Cooled) and Re la-ted Facilities, Final Draft,
WASH-1250.Springfield, VA.Nat'l. Tech. Inf. Service.1973.
2Johns, B.D. Writer/Editor. Office of Information, Mining
Enforcement Safety Administration. Information from telephone
conversation. January 16, 1978.
-91-
-------
systems are required in underground uranium mines because of the
radon gas created by the uranium. To maintain radon radioacti-
vity in the air at acceptable levels, large-capacity air circula-
tion pumps are used in conjunction with special exhaust shafts
at tunnel extremities to provide adequate ventilation throughout
the mine. Fresh air enters the main shaft, travels through the
various tunnels and passageways, and exits through the vent holes
Underground mining is normally employed to extract uranium
ore bodies that are at depths greater than 400 feet.1'2 Access
to underground uranium mines can be accomplished by either the
adit method, the incline method, the shaft method, or any com-
bination of the methods. 3
The adit method uses a horizontal access or passage to the
mine and is normally used when the uranium ore deposits are near
steep hills, mountains or cliffs.1*'5 It is the simplest and
cheapest method of gaining access to the ore bodies. The ore
is hauled out of the mine by shuttle cars, a small train, or a
conveyor system.
^attelle-Columbus and Pacific Northwest Labs. Environmenta 1
Considerations in Fugure Energy Growth. Columbus, Ohio. 1973.
p. 455.
2Klemenic, John, (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Examples
of Overall Economics in a Future Cycle of Uranium Concentrate
Production for Assumed Open Pit and Underground Mining Operations .
TID-26294.Springfield, VA.NTIS.19727
3Nuclear Assurance Corp. U.S. Uranium, Economics and Tech-
nology. NAC-1. Atlanta, GA: Nuclear Assurance Corp. p. VII-1.
"Clark, Don A. State-of-The-Art - Uranium Mining, Milling,
and Refining Industry" Rob ' t. £T Kerr Environmental Research
La5~. EPA: Ada, OK. 1974. p. 26.
5Nuclear Assurance Corp., op.cit.
-92-
-------
The incline method is employed when the ore deposits are at
shallow depths.1 The passage is usually inclined at an angle of
15 to 25 degrees and it proves to be more economical than the
shaft method, but slightly more expensive than the adit method.2
Access by the shaft method is used for deep uranium ore mines.
The shaft is normally a vertical passage with either a circular or
a rectangular cross-section.3 Preference for the type of shaft
cross-section is dependent on the mine strata. For example, in
a water-saturated formation a circular concrete shaft is prefer-
red. " Generally, shafts that are at least 800 feet deep are
concrete-lined.5 In this type of access, elevators are used to
lower men and equipment to the ore deposits.6 Self-dumping buckets
called "skips" are used to hoist ore out of the mine.
Underground uranium mining operations normally use either
open stope, room, and pillar, longwall retreat, or panel mining
techniques.7'8 For mines with narrow veins, the open stope method
is best suited for the mining operation.9 In this method, mining
is accomplished by step-wise advances into the ore vein. The vein
Nuclear Assurance Corp. U.S. Uranium, Economics and Tech-
nology. NAC-1. Atlanta, GA: Nuclear Assurance Corp. p. VII-1.
2Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling," IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4)
1201-8. 1973.
3Ibid.
"Ibid.
5Clark, Don A. State-of-the-Art - Uranium Mining, Milling,
and Refining Industry"EPA 660/2-74-038.Rob't S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Lab. 1974.
5Nuclear Assurance Corp., op.cit.
7Clark, Don A., op.cit.
8Nuclear Assurance Corp., op.cit.
9 ibid.
-93-
-------
is divided into sections. Each section measuring 10 to 20 feet
is mined to completion, then the operations move to the next sec-
tion. Before the newly mined section is left behind, it is nor-
mally supported. The support consists of stulls and headboards,
and rock bolts. As an alternative the mined out portion may be
backfilled with waste material from either the mining operation
itself or from the milling operation. The mining operation pro-
gresses in this manner until the entire ore vein is exhausted.
For mines with considerably wider veins, the rest of the
aforementioned mining techniques can be used. Rooms mined by the
room and pillar method are about 20 feet wide and approximately
10 to 20 feet high. * During the initial phase of the mining
operations, pillars of unmined material about 40 to 60 feet square
are left in place to support the roof. As the mining operations
reach completion in this area, these pillars are extracted upon
retreat, and the roof is allowed to collapse in a controlled
manner.
The panel mining method is like the room and pillar method,
except that the pillars are narrower and longer. Figure 5-5
illustrates an underground uranium mining operation by the panel
method.
Another mining technique employed when the mine has wide
veins is the so-called longwall retreat. It was first introduced
to the U.S. about 20 years ago for coal mining purposes.2 In
this method, the entire length of the vein is mined by making a
series of horizontal cuts extending from one side of the vein to
the other. As the mining operations progress, the roof of the
1Nuclear Assurance Corp. U.S. Uranium. Economics and Tech-
nology. NAC-1. Atlanta, GA.
2TRW Systems Group. Underground Coal Mining in the United
States. Research and Development Programs, BP 193 934. Spring-
field, VA:Nat'1 Tech. Inf. Service. 1972.
-94-
-------
HLJ
J '^7/X*
J
Vv^xx^x^,
J**" '"• "•" ' ' 'X- '•'•'
/
- (f^«'(,. <.
7™\ f"^
' vntM* s.
STRIKE
""ftt t ('*"" ft ({'
t
f
\££jS/( { ff( /(/ /
r,rsrr*r,,,,sr, rrs rr* r,j
'*
4
5
/X//xy >V.x x/y ,/ X XAA/ s (fsss
DIP
DIRECTION
OF RETREAT
Figure 5-5. Underground Uranium Mining, Typical Mine Layout
Using Panel Method.
Source: Nuclear Assurance Corporation. U.S. Uranium Economics
and Technology. Atlanta, Georgia. Nuclear Assurance
Corp. NAC-1. p. VII-5.
-95-
-------
areas that have been most recently mined are supported by a row
of hydraulic jacks or retractable posts which extend the width
of the cut. Upon completion of each horizontal cut, the outer-
most row of the hydraulic jacks or steel posts are removed from
the previous cut and repositioned to support the new cut.1 Behind
the advancing working area, the roof is allowed to cave in; in
some cases blasting is employed to effect this. The purpose of
caving is to alleviate the overburden pressure on the other por-
tions of the panel being mined, and at the same time to partially
back fill the already mined areas.
The ore is broken by drilling and blasting. Drilling is
normally done by diesel-driven or compressed air-driven drills
equipped with tungsten carbide drill bits.2'3 Blasting is accom-
plished by dynamite or ammonium nitrate mixed with fuel oil. The
broken ore is loaded by mechanical devices. In large mining
operations, mucking machines (small front end loaders) or slushers
(small dragline buckets) are employed. The ore is hauled by
trucks or dump cars and is taken to the access station. Here,
the ore is brought to the surface by shuttle cars, rail cars, or
by self-dumping buckets. The choice depends on the type of access
to the mine as previously mentioned. The ore, upon reaching the
surface, can be blended to a certain grade as desired by the
receiving mills. The ore is then transported by trucks or by
rail to the mill."
Nuclear Assurance Corp. U.S. Uranium. Economics and
Technology, NAC-1. Atlanta, GA.
zlbid.
3Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling." IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4)
1201-8. 1973.
''Nuclear Assurance Corp., op.cit.
-96-
-------
An isometric view of an underground mine that illustrates
the extraction of the uranium ore is shown in Figure 5-6.:
Figure 5-7 summarizes the material flow and effluent flow asso-
ciated with underground uranium mining operations.2
Overburden (generally referred to as gangue) resulting from
underground mining operations is about one cubic yard or less per
ton of ore.3 It is significantly less than the overburden moved
in surface mining operations.
5.4.2.2 Input Requirements
The exemplary underground uranium ore mine chosen to repre-
sent requirements for underground mining is one that produces
1200 tons/day ore. This is equivalent to an average daily energy
output of 1.12 x 1012 Btu assuming an ore grade of 0.20 percent
U308 (0.7 percent U23 *), a heating value of 71.4 x 1012 Btu per
ton U23 5 fissioned1* and a recovery of 93 percent of U30s in the
ore. The various inputs to this size facility will be discussed
in the following sections.
^oungberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration,
Mining, and Milling." IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92 (4)
1201-8. 1973.
2Battelle-Columbus and Pacific Northwest Labs. Environmental
Considerations in Future Energy Growth. Columbus, OH. 1973.
3Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labs. Data for Preliminary
Demonstration Phase of the Environmental Quality Information and
Planning System (EQUIPS), BNWL-B-141.Richland, WA.1971.
"*Pratt and Withney Aircraft. Aeronautical Vest-Pocket
Handbook, 10th ed. 1964. -
-97-
-------
Passes
Figure 5-6. Underground Uranium Mining Operation.
Source: Youngberg, Elton A. "The Uranium Industry-
Exploration, Mining, and Milling." IEEE
Trans. Power Appar. Syst. Vol. PAS-92(4)
(1973).p. 1205.
02-2412-1
-98-
-------
c
O
RECEPT
i
0)
UJ i
JS
El
p- CO
z uj
3 CC
CC
<
t
CO
UJ
r-
13
2s
c£
<
0.
'
CO >
g ,0 O
CO CO 5-i
rl _1 O
M
CO 4J >i
•-J tn hT
K 2
? 2w
K Z(E
§1°
Q 0) 5-i
5 a)
,M 43 C
O iJ W
0 rl
r-( O
co C
rv. PQ H
•
^
H*
cc
<
IU
CJ
•!-(
M-l
•t-l
o
cO
PM
T3
C
cO
to
3
,0
§•
r^
r-l in
O-»
CO ON
PQr-l
O CO
•rl J3
J3 CO
Or4
- 4J
03 CO
3 0)
J3 &
E4=
3 4J
r-l ^
0 O
U2
i
u-i
cu
-------
5.4.2.2 a Manpower Requirement s
Exxon has estimated the manpower requirements to construct
and operate a typical underground uranium mine. The mine would
produce about 1500 tons per day using either room and pillar or
long wall retreat methods. The manpower requirements for a 1200
per day mine were scaled from this estimate and are presented in
Tables 5-39 and 5-40.
Construction of a new mine is estimated to take about two
years.1 Table 5-39 details the 61 workers employed to construct
the mining facilities (buildings, shafts, roads, utilities, etc.).
Each mine would require 197 workers for nine years of
operation.2 The majority of the work force would be miners (102)
but 95 other skilled and unskilled workers would be needed. The
normal work week would be 40 hours, with each day divided into
shifts. Only approximately one-fourth of the total personnel
would be working at any one time.
5.4.2.2b Materials and Equipment
Although no data were available on the quantity of materials
required to construct an underground uranium mine, Bechtel Cor-
poration has estimated the materials required to construct an
underground coal mine.3 Assuming that the materials used for
construction of a coal mine are similar to those used in a uranium
mine, and that the amount of material varies linearly with mine
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico.Volume I.Billings, MT:Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1-39.
2Ibid, p. 1-37.
3Carasso, M., et al. Energy Supply Model, Computer Tape.
San Francisco, Bechtel. 1975.
-100-
-------
TABLE 5-39. MANPOWER REQUIREMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
1200 TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE
Construction Activity and Skill Number
Roads and Utilities
Supervisors 2
Operating engineers 5
Electricians 4
Laborers 2
Construction of Surface Facilities and
Mine Development
Supervisors and staff 8
Foremen 4
Miners 10
Hoistmen 2
Mechanics 7
Skilled laborers 14
Carpenters 1
Operating engineers 2
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Nayajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. Volume I.
Billings,MT:Bureau of Indian Affairs, Depart-
ment of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1^5.
-101-
-------
TABLE 5-40. MANPOWER REQUIREMENT FOR OPERATION OF A
1200 TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE
Skill Number*
Staff and supervisors 19
Foremen 6
Hoistmen 3
Mechanics 13
Carpenters 3
Miners 102
Laborers 51
•^Approximately one-fourth of the total personnel would be working
at any one time.
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. Volume I.
Billings, Montana: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Depart-
ment of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.6.
-102-
-------
capacity, the material requirements for an underground uranium
mine can be calculated. The material requirements for the 1200
ton/day uranium underground mine would then be 27,000 tons of
concrete, 1350 tons of pipe and tubing, 1750 tons of structural
steel, and 2000 tons of reinforcing bars.
Exxon has estimated the equipment requirements for operating
an underground uranium mine. These requirements are listed in
Table 5-41, but the numbers have been scaled linearly to reflect
operation of a 1200 ton/day mine.
5.4.2.2c Economics
In 1972 the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission issued a report
on the estimated costs for uranium mining and milling.1 Economic
data were given for a 2000 ton/day underground mine and mill
representing costs as of January 1, 1972. The information pro-
vided in Table 5y42 presents this information scaled to a 1200
ton/day mine and representing costs in 1975 dollars. Costs were
adjusted by using percent of total cost calculated from the AEC
data and total costs from a Dames and Moore report.2 The costs
for a. 1200 ton/day mine were interpolated from derived costs for
mines of 500, 1000, and 2000 ton/day capacity.
The effect of mine depth on capital and operating costs was
also presented for three sizes of underground mines in the Dames
and Moore report.3 This information was used to determine the
^lemenic, John, (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Examples
of Overall Economics in a Future Cycle of Uranium Concentrate
Production for Assumed Open Pit and Underground Mining Operations
TID-26294.Springfield, VA:NTIS.1972.
2Lootens, D.J. Uranium Production Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge,Illinois.Dames and Moore.T975.
3 Ibid.
-103-
-------
TABLE 5-41. TYPICAL EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR A 1200
TON/DAY UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINE
Number
Surface Plant Equipment Required
Service hoist, 400 HP, electric 1
Production hoist, 500 HP, electric 1
Compressor plant, 1,200 HP, electric 1
Emergency electric generator, 3,000 kva, diesel 1
Ventilation system, 1,000 HP, electric 1
Heating system, 14 million Btu/hr, natural gas 1
Portable concrete batch plant 1
Transportation and Service Vehicles Equipment Required
Ore hauler, 50-ton, diesel 1
Service vehicles, 3/4-ton, gasoline 4
Forklift, 4,000-lb, gasoline 1
Underground Mining Equipment Required
Continuous miner, electric 4
Haulage motors, track-type, 10-ton, diesel 2
Ore cars, 110 cu ft 10
Slushers, 30-75 HP, electric and pneumatic 5
Raise boring machine, electric 1
Load-haul-dump vehicle, 2 cu yd, diesel 8
Utility hoist, pneumatic 3
Drills, pneumatic 4
Pumps, electric 10
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium Explora-
tion, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reservation, New
Mexico. Volume I. Billings, MT: Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.3, 1.4.
-104-
-------
TABLE 5-42. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR URANIUM CONCENTRATE (YELLOW-
CAKE) PRODUCTION AT AN UNDERGROUND MINE PRODUCING
1200 TONS/DAY OF ORE CONTAINING 0.25 PERCENT U308
(1975 DOLLARS)
Costs
Capital 10* DOLLARS
Acquisition 2,110
Exploratory Drilling 7,630
Development Drilling 3,510
Mine Primary Development 7,730
Mine Plant and Equipment 1,550
Mill Construction 4,500
TOTAL CAPITAL 26,430
Operating $/Ton
Mining 16.45
Hauling 1.20
Milling 5.98
Royalty 2.62
TOTAL OPERATING 26.25
Source: Kelmenic, John (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission).
Examples of overall economics in a future cycle of
uranium concentrate production for assumed open pit
and underground mining operations, TID-26294,
.ergro
'ield,
Springfield, VA:NTIS, 1972, p. 7.
-105-
-------
effect of mine depth on a 1200 ton/day mine. The costs were
interpolated from costs for mine sizes of 500, 1000, and 2000
ton/day. The capital and operating costs for a 1200 ton/day
mine are shown in Table 5-43 for two different mine depths.
TABLE 5-43. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ESTIMATE FOR
HYPOTHETICAL URANIUM UNDERGROUND MINE AND
MILL (1975 DOLLARS) 1200 TON/DAY CAPACITY
Mine Depth
2000 feet deep
4000 feet deep
Source: Lootens, D.J.
Capital Costs
(10 3 Dollars)
23,800
37,500
Uranium Production
Operating Costs
($/Ton)
26.61
30.60
Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge, Illinois : Danes & Moore,
1975.
5.4.2.2d Water Requirements
Major water requirements for an underground uranium mine
result from the need for dust suppression in the mine and potable
water requirements. The water for dust suppression is provided
by water intrusion in the mine from surrounding aquifers. The
potable water requirements for the mine office, shop, and showers
would be provided by water wells. Potable water requirements are
estimated to be about 20,000 gallons per day for a 1500 ton/day
mine.l Assuming these water requirements are proportional to
manpower requirements, the estimated potable water requirements
for a 1200 ton/day underground mine would be approximately 16,000
gallons per day.
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico. Volume I. Billings, MT: Bureau of Indian
Affairs,Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.4.
-106-
-------
5.4.2.2e Land Requirements
Exxon has estimated that a 1500 tons per day underground
uranium mine would require about 10 acres of surface land.l
This would not include the land required for ore haulage roads
between the mine and a mill. Based on Exxon's estimates a 1200
ton/day mine underground uranium mine will require a surface area
of about 8 acres.
5.4.2.2f Ancillary Energy
Energy requirements for an underground mine result from the
need for electric power for lighting, ventilation, and equipment,
natural gas for space heating, and hydrocarbon fuels for mining
equipment. Exxon has estimated an electric power requirement of
4000 kva for a 1500 ton/day mine.2 This would be equivalent to
about 3500 kw of three phase electric power. From a ratio of
mine sized this requirement was calculated to be 2800 kw for a
1200 ton/day mine. Exxon also estimated a natural gas require-
ment of up to 14,000 standard cubic feet per hour for mine heating.3
A heating value of 1000 Btu/cubic feet" gives this requirement the
energy equivalence of 14x106 Btu/hr. This requirement becomes
11x106 Btu/hr when ratioed by mine size down to a 1200 ton/day
mine. Liquid hydrocarbon fuel usage for a 1500 ton/day under-
ground mine would be about 150,000 gallons/year.5 If this is
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion. New Mexico.Volume I.Billings, MT:Bureau of Indian
Affairs,Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. III-3.
2ibid., p. 1.4.
3ibid., p. 1.4.
"Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in
Metallurgical and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5--Energy
Data and Flowsheets, Intermediate-Priority Commodities).Columbus,
OH: Battelle Columbus Laboratories. September 16, 1975. p. A-l.
5Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs, op.cit.
p. 1.4.
-107-
-------
assumed to be diesel fuel with a heating value of 0.139x106
Btu/gal,1 the energy represented in the fuel would be about
20.9x109 Btu/year. This requirement would be approximately 17x109
Btu/year when ratioed to a 1200 ton/day mine size.
5.4.2.3 Outputs
Outputs from an underground uranium ore mine are discussed
in the following sections. These ouputs are: air emissions,
water effluents, solid waste, noise pollution, and occupational
health and safety statistics.
The mine is assumed to be in steady-state operation. This
means that the shafts have been drilled and the mine is producing
ore on a regular basis.
5.4.2.3a Air Emissions
Underground uranium mining operations produce dust in the
mine tunnels and crosscuts. Radon gas and its daughters are
emitted from the exposed surfaces in the mine and present an even
greater concern than the dust. The dust and radionuclides gener-
ated by the mining process are emitted to the atmosphere through
exhaust ventillation shafts. About 150 cfm/ton2 (180,000 cfm for
a 1200 ton/day mine) of air is circulated through the mine to
maintain a reasonably healthy atmosphere for the miners. This air
flow dilutes the pollutants to a concentration well within the
Federal and State regulatory standards.3 The velocity of the air
^attelle Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in
Metallurgical and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5--Energy
Data and Flowsheets, Intermediate-Priority Commodities).Columbus,
OH: Battelle Columbus Laboratories. September 16, 1975. p. A-l.
2Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reservation,
New Mexico.Volume I,Billings, MT:Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Dept. of the Interior, June 1976, p. Ill-8.
.
-108-
-------
emerging from the vent shafts would cause the pollutants to be
rapidly dispersed into the atmosphere. An estimate given for
the maximum average concentration of radon-222 in the mine vent
exhausts is 4x10 7y Ci/Ml.1 This value is probably high but is
the best estimate available. With a 180,000 cfm volumetric flow
rate, the estimated maximum average radon-222 emission rate would
be 2.94 Ci/day.
Exxon has applied the EPA emission factors for heavy-duty
diesel-powered vehicles to the estimated 150,000 gallons of liquid
hydrocarbon fuels consumed per year in a 1500 ton/day mine. The
estimated air pollutants produced by the 365-day operation of
underground mining equipment for a 1200 ton/day mine are given in
Table 5-44. These estimates were determined by reducing the emis-
sions by a factor equal to the ratio of mine sizes. An estimate
can be made of C02 emissions by assuming that all the carbon in
the fuel for a 1200 ton/day mine (120,000 gallons/year of No. 2
fuel oil) is converted to C02. With a fuel composition of 87 per-
cent carbon by weight and a density of 7.0 Ib/gal, the C02 emis-
sions would be about 300 Ib/hr.
5.4.2.3b Water Effluents
Water effluents from an underground mine result from the
intrusion water which is pumped from the mine to keep it dry.
Exxon has estimated that 3000 gallons per minute would be a
reasonable yield of water from an underground mine in New Mexico.2
This water would be treated in the same way as water from a
Tennessee Valley Authority. Draft Environmental Statement,
Marlin Ranch Uranium Mining. Chattanooga, Tenn.: Tennessee
Valley Authority, Div. of Environmental Planning. 1975. pp. 4.6-9.
2Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian_Reservation,
New Mexico. Volume I, Billings, Montana: Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Dept. of the Interior. June 1976. p. 111-32.
-109-
-------
TABLE 5-44. ESTIMATED AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ORE HAULING
EQUIPMENT (1200 ton/day underground mine)
Emissions
Pollutant Ibs/day
Particulates 4.2
Sulfur Oxides 8.9
Carbon Monoxide 73.8
Hydrocarbons 12.1
Nitrogen Oxides 120.1
Aldehydes 1.0
Organic Acids 1.0
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Nayajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico, Volume I,
Billings,Montana:Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Dept. of the Interior, June 1976. p. III-9.
-110-
-------
surface mine. Depending upon circumstances, the water may con-
tain sufficient mining-induced contaminants to require treatment
before release to the surface water. The water from the mine
will probably have a total dissolved solids content of less than
1000 milligrams per litre and a pH range from 6.5 to 9.0, with
the higher values more likely.l Contaminants in the water can
include radon gas and isotopes of such elements as polonium, lead,
and bismuth.
5.4.2.3c Solid Wastes
The solid waste generated by underground mining is much less
than that for open pit mining. One cubic yard or less of waste
rock is produced per ton of ore.2 Exxon has estimated that the
waste brought to the surface from an underground mine could be
**
stored in about a five-acre area. 3 The waste would be covered
with topsoil and planted with grasses and shrubs for reclamation.
In cases where underground wastes are toxic, and not suitable for
revegetation, they can be disposed of in abandoned portions of
the mine.
5.4.2.3d Noise Pollution
The major sources of surface noise to environment in under-
ground mining are the stationary equipment at the mine surface
facilities. This equipment includes the blowers which supply
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reservation,
New Mexico.Volume I,'Billings, Montana:Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Dept. of the Interior, June 1976, p. 111-34.
2Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Environmental Considerations
in Future Energy Growth. Columbus, Ohio"! Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, 197T, p~. 458.
3Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs, op.cit.,
p. 1-34.
-Ill-
-------
ventilating air to the mine, together with their drive motors,
and gas fired air heaters.1 The major noise-producing equipment
for an underground mine are listed in Table 5-45. The estimated
values of sound power rating are in units of acoustical power.
Noise levels are expected to decrease from 65 dB(A) at a radius
of about 500 ft to 37 dB(A) at a radius of about 5000 ft from
the mine.2
5.4.2.3e Occupational Health and Safety
Accidents which occur in underground mines are caused by
faulty operation of equipment, blasting mishaps, cave-ins, fire
and other lesser reasons.3 Fires are particularly dangerous since
they may produce noxious gases in addition to damage from the fire
itself. The 1976 injury and death statistics for uranium under-
ground miners as reported by the Mining Enforcement Safety Admin-
istration for a 1200 ton/day underground mine are 1 death and 25
nonfatal injuries*. ^
A unique hazard to uranium miners is the exposure to radon
gas and its decay products. These products would be isotopes of
such elements as polonium, lead, and bismuth.5 The products attach
themselves to dust and aerosol particles in the air and if inhaled
can cause lung cancer.6
Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico. Volume T~, Billings, Montana:Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Dept. of the Interior. June 1976. p. 111-24.
2ibid., p. 111-23.
3Johns, R.D. Writer/Editor. Office of Information, Mining
Enforcement Safety Administration. Information from telephone
conversation. January 16, 1978.
"Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs, op.cit.,
p. 111-45.
5ibid., p. 111-47.
6Ibid.
-112-
-------
*—
^*
433
X
H
^
Q
W
< r
M O
0 rH
O
CO X
CO
< CO
EH
£ S
W S
IS '
p, £^
h- 1 pj
o* o
U p..
W Q
CJ 23
M
• .
in i
N
33
*
>,
a
c
01
3
a
01
^
i-i
01
4-1
c
01
u
•o
c
cfl
CQ
>
cfl
4-1
O
0
O
0
O
oo
o
0
o
•*
o
o
0
CN
o
o
o
o
o
m
o
CM
m
CM
o-
vD
co
£.
U ^-x
Cfl tj
6 a) 01
01 I-l
-f 4J IM -H
1 I
LO
u
P3
M O 3
cr
CM 01
**~S M
H
co ^ CM m
O r~ -H -H
C3 O 0 0
^O 00
o •— * \& 10
in p^ CN *-<
O O —i O
v^ oo
»— * vO lO
o> r*** ^H I-H
. * . •
r^ O co o
>^ i-^
\o *-H in
^-4 h^ O CM
m o ON o
vO ^~*
i-^ o
CXD r^ o m
ON O 00 O
CO U">
r-^
CM O
00 vf O O
• • • •
CT» i— < O i— 1
CO O
vo -^ -H m
•— i r~- m CM
CO CM
_^
O O O co
• • • •
O CM O vO
CM -d" O
f^ v^ f^ OQ
• • • •
^H in vo in
co -H i— i
CO
l-i
I-l 0
01 4-1 M I-l
5 Q m o u
Q
CO
cfl
a
cfl
4J
a
£
CO
oo
rH CM
^7
PQ I-l
M
• M
M
01 Pi
-3
r-t •
O vO
^5
o
o
•1-1
X
01
S3
3
1)
M
C
o
•f-l
4J
cfl
M
01
CO
01
ctf
cfl
•H
•a
c
M
O
c?
cfl
Z
«
^-1
cfl
CO
p.
o
I-l
d-
£
•H
f— 4
r-|
•H
2
•»
01
C
3
„
^
0
•H
M
01
4J
CJ
M
01
4-1
U-l
O
^j
O.
0)
a
CO
S-l
•H
Cfl
14-1
M-l
^
s
£
M
14-1
O
3
cfl
0)
tj
3
PQ
-113-
-------
5.4.3 In-Situ Mining
The techniques used for in-situ solution mining of uranium
involve the leaching of the uranium from underground ore deposits.
This is accomplished by pumping a leaching solution into the
ore through patterns of injection wells. The leaching solution
dissolves the uranium and is pumped out of the ground by pro-
duction wells to a processing mill. The processing mill will be
discussed along with the mining process in this section as it
is usually constructed as an integral part of the in-situ solution
mining operation.*'2'3
5.4.3.1 Technology
Mine Site Selection
In-situ solution mining techniques are used in situations
where the uranium ore is of such a low grade that it is not econo-
mical to mine by other means or where the ore formation lies in the
ground in a way to make it inaccessable by other mining techniques.
The cross-section of a typical uranium ore formation is shown in
Figure 5-8.k However, before in-situ solution mining techniques can
be used the ore formation must meet certain geological requirements.
1Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood,Colo.:Wyoming Mineral Corporation,1977,
p. 10.
2Anderson, J. S. and M. I. Pv.itcb.ie. "Solution Mining of
Uranium." Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 54 (January 1968),
pp. 20-23.
3White, L. "In-Situ Leaching Opens New Uranium Reserves in
Texas." Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 176 (July 1975),
pp. 73-80.
"Shock, D. A. and F. R. Conley. "Solution Mining - Its
Promise and Its Problems," Proceedings from Solution Mining Symp.
AIME Annual Meeting. Dallas, Tex., February 25-27, 1974, pp. 79-97.
-114-
-------
UJ
L_ a.^^rv*—'•
PO&2
«o vv,»*j
:.o^
^••$£
o:
<>o . oVo
co ~.
H
00
1
LO
0)
M
d
&0
•H
fa
O cO
S-i X
(X, 0)
H
co
•U
M CO
cO
T"t . 1
U r— (
C rH
cO CO
Q
QJ
co
•r-l
E 60
o c
r-l -H
(X, U
Clj
CO 0)
ii "T1
-*-1 >
en en
M
c
• -r4
^C
(U -H
r-l S
c
0 C
u o
•r-l
• -U
0«! 3
1-1
• o
fa CO
-a e
fi O
CO r-l
< CO -
00
CX
• C c^
Q -H r-l
T3
- OJ -
4si cu r^
CJ O CN
O O i
,£ 5-i m
U} P-i CN
01
o
r-l
d
o
CO
-115-
-------
The major requirements are that the ore formation be chemically
amenable to leaching techniques, the formation be confined by
natural or artificial means to restrict dilution or fluid losses
and that the formation not be located in an aquifer used for a
domestic water supply.1'2'3
If the ore formation to be mined meets all of the above
requirements, then a detailed field testing program in the
general area of the mine site would be initiated. A regional
hydrology survey of the area surrounding the mine site and a
more detailed land hydrology survey in about a 10,000-foot
radius at the mine site would be made to determine ground water
characteristics. "* Additionally, a geophysical survey and a
detailed program of water sampling would be performed.5
The results of the above testing being satisfactory, a
pilot plant test program at the site would begin. Testing
would be done to determine the permeability of the ore formation
and the type and dimensions of the well pattern to be used.6
1Anderson, J. S. and M. I. Ritchie. "Solution Mining of
Uranium." Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 54 (January 1968),
pp. 20-23.
2Hunkin, G. G. "A Review of In-Situ Leaching," Paper at
the AIME Annual Meeting, Soc. of Mining Eng. New York: AIME
Preprint 71-AS-88, February 26 - March 4, 1971. pp. 11-12.
3Frank, J. N. "Cost Model for Solution Mining of Uranium,"
Presented at the Uranium Industry Seminar. Grand Junction, Colo.:
October 19-20, 1976, p. 3.
"Hunkin, G. G., op.cit., p. 12.
5Ibid.
6Shock, D. A. and F. 'R. Conley. "Solution Mining - Its
Promise and Its Problems," Proceedings from Solution Mining Symp.,
AIME Annual Meeting. Dallas, Tex., February 25-27, 1974, pp. 79-97.
-116-
-------
Well Pattern Design
In the design of a well pattern, the well spacing and
location, rates of flow, and fluid pressures are all engineered
to provide the solution confinement, sweep efficiency, and leach
contact time required for maximum productivity.l If the ground-
water flow is significantly greater than the proposed leaching
solution flowrate, then the injection wells would be located
upstream from the production well to provide an efficient sweep
(area of contact) of the ore formation containing the uranium.
However, in most cases the ground-water flow is very small. In
such cases a well pattern consisting of a production well
surrounded by a perimeter of injection wells, or, a pattern of
an injection well surrounded by a perimeter of production wells
is chosen. The contacted area of the ore formation is controlled
by the hydraulic gradients imposed within the formation. The
gradients are imposed by the injection well pressures and volumes
in conjunction with the amount of flow from the production well.2
Three different well patterns are shown in Figure 5-9.3>1*'5
Figure 5-10 is a cross-sectional view of how the wells would be
placed into the ore formation.6
G. G. "The Environmental Impact of Solution Mining
for Uranium." Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 61 (October 1975),
pp. 24-27.
2Ibid.
3Anderson, J. S. and M. I. Ritchie. "Solution Mining of
Uranium." Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 54 (January 1968),
pp. 20-23.
"Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood,Colo.:Wyoming Mineral Corporation,1977.
5Humble Oil and Refining Company. Applicants Environmental
Report - Proposed Uranium In-Situ Mining Test, Converse County,
Wyoming" Houston, Tex. : Humble Oil and Refining Co. ~September
1970.
6Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division, op.cit., p. 7.
-117-
-------
S
§
5
U
01
s
l
o
£
H-H O
CO
e
O
bO
C
•H
C
•H
s
c
o
•H •
4-1 CO
34
C
cO
•
d bO
0 d
•r-l -r-l
•u E
CO 0
a 5-1 >,
• a, os
CU
•H -
x:/^
O CO
4-1 VO
•H CTi
Pi r-l
• >,
M ri
CO
• 3
S C
CO
T3 "-)
c^
cO
-•4-
VJ
• LO
CO
•
• 1— 1
>-) 0
>
-
d -
O rH
co cO
M d
CU 5-1
t3 3
C 0
< >-)
co
CU
CJ
5-i
3
O
CO
i— l
cx -
X ^
W 4J
c
- 3
C 0
O CJ
•rl
4-1 C
CO 0
5-1 CO
0 C
ax:
^ 0
o >->
CJ
rH 4J
CO CJ
r-l CU
CU T-l
c o
•H M
S PM
bO >
C rJ
•r-l CO
E b£
O -H
>. rJ
13 M
.
^
.
a,
*
^-»
ON
i— 1
•.
C
0
H
4J
CO
r-l
O
a
5-i
0
CJ
•H
C
CO
r-l
»
T3
CU
CO
0
Q.
O
1,
W
P-.
i
4J
r-l
0
a
CU
PS
i
r^
cO
4J
C
CU
E
C
O
M
•H
>
C
w
CO
4-1
C
CO
O
•H
^i
r~n
a
a
N
^
>1
4J
d
3
- 0
s^ r ^
P^ w
c
cO cu
a, w
S ^
o cu
0 >
C
bO O
C 0
«r-f
c -
•rl 4-J
U-l CO
cu cu
«H
*n f\r
w u<
d d
Cfl .H
c
r-l -rl
.-J V
" f^,
o
3
CU 4J
I— 1 •!-!
XI CO
E i
3 C
EC M
o
r^.
CTv
r-l
5-4
CU
f\
I^-J
E
cu
4-1
a,
CU
CO
^
0
CJ
bO
d
•r-l
d
•T-l
4-1
CU
OS
CM
CM
O
-118-
-------
c
o
•rl
4_)
- CO
•u
0, M
o
to
•U
C
OJ
6
C
O
to
^1
o
•H O
Q
MT3
C O
•H O
C S
CO
C
tO
cO
o.
X H
w -u
.§
c o
O O
•r-(
4-1 C
CO O
S-i en
O C
O i-)
o
r-l 4J
CO O
!-i <1)
0) -r-
c o
•H M
g
O
CO
bd
ex
CO
O
CO
-119-
-------
The pattern of production and injection wells makes up what
is sometimes referred to as a uranium production cell. The size
of these cells varies from as few as 2 wells for a pilot plant to
5 or 7 wells for a commercial plant. Each cell is independent
from another. They are designed so that there is no fluid flow
across cell boundaries. These cells are combined to cover the ore
formation and comprise a well field. A well field designed to
support a production rate of approximately 125,000 Ibs U308 per
year would typically contain 10 to 15 cells. l The total mine unit
would utilize 4 to 6 well fields at any one time to maintain an
annual production of 500,000 Ibs U308. As the solution from the
production cells reaches a uranium content which is uneconomical
to process, the cells are shut off and new cells are brought on
line. This process is repeated until the well field is mined
completely. A typical well field layout is shown in Figure 5-11.2
Monitoring wells are also located around the perimeter of the
ore body to monitor the groundwater quality in the vacinity of the
operation. These wells are essential to insure that there is no
groundwater contamination.
Leaching Solutions
In addition to the well field design, the leaching solution
to be used is determined for a particular mine location. There
are two major considerations in selecting a leaching solution for
uranium solution mining. First, it must be capable of oxidizing
the uranium and then forming a soluble uranium complex which can
be recovered in the processing plant. Second, reactions with the
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 27.
2lbid., p. 25.
-120-
-------
a
K
O
k.
U
(E
O
CO
0)
•r-C
4J
d
o
>.
cfl
01
•H
y
•i-i
ex,
0)
CO
V-i
CU
CU
E
C
o
wl
C ••
o •
•H O
CO i—I
•H O
> U
•H
Q -
T3
toO O
C O
•--i 3
C 0)
c
o
•H
4J
cfl
X
w c
CO O
^ co
o c
O
C_>
r-l -U
cfl O
>-l (1)
cu
C O
C S-i
•r-f Cfl
E W
O -H
CN
CU
U
^
3
O
-121-
-------
minerals present in the formation (i.e., calcite, clays, feldspars,
zeolites, pyrites and carbonaceous materials) should be minimal.1
Both chemical reactions, and physical or chemical sorption may
occur between the leaching solution and the ore formation. Alter-
ations of the leaching solution composition and/or mobilization
of contaminants may result from such reactions and later impede
aquifer restoration. Two ions are commonly used in uranium solu-
tion mining to form a soluble complex with the oxidized uranium.
The sulfate ion is used in the acid leach process and the bicar-
bonate ion in the alkaline leach process.2'3'"'5'6
The stronger action of the sulfuric acid leach allows better
recoveries (85-957=) of uranium to be obtained, and oxidation of
the uranium is easily accomplished with a variety of chemical
oxidants.7 However, the acid leach system tends to be limited
by the side reactions of the leaching solution. These reactions
involve the attack and breakdown of minerals naturally occurring
in the uranium ore deposit. In addition, the leaching essentially
stops when the pH of the leaching solution increases above 2.
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 104.
2Ibid.
3Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 for Solution Mining of Uranium, Supplemen-
tal Environmental Report. Houston, TX: Exxon Company. 1977.
p. 10-2.
''Anderson, J.S. and M.I. Ritchie. "Solution Mining of Uranium."
Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 54 (January 1968). pp. 20-23.
5White, L. "In-Situ Leaching Opens New Uranium Reserves in
Texas." Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 176 (July 1975).
pp. 73-80.
6Hunkin, G.G. "The Environmental Impact of Solution Mining
for Uranium." Mining Congress Journal,Vol. 61 (October 1975).
pp. 24-27.
7Wyoming Mineral Corporation, op.cat.
-122-
-------
At a pH above 4 the uranium precipitates out of solution.1 This
results in the collection of chemicals into fronts as the injected
acid is consumed and the solution becomes less acidic.
The bicarbonate leaching solution generally has lower
recovery values (60 to 70%) than those obtainable with sulfuric
acid.2 The advantage it offers, though, is that the uranium
remains in solution over a wide range of alkaline concentrations
(pH range of ~6 to 10).3 This includes the natural alkaline
concentration of the aquifer containing the ore formation. The
collection of chemicals into fronts may still occur, particularly
at the higher alkaline concentrations. However, the influence
of the chemical front formation on the solubility of the uranium
in the leaching solution is less critical than with the acid
process.1* In general, the minerals contained in the ore formation
with the uranium do not react with the bicarbonate ion.
The majority of uranium solution mining operations in this
country employ an alkaline leaching solution.5'6'7'8 The
1 Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood,Colo.:Wyoming Mineral Corporation,1977,
p. 1047
2lbid. , p. 105.
3 Ibid.
"ibid.
5lbid., p. 107.
6Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License, SUA-1139 for Solution Mining"'of "Uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report.Houston, Tex.: Exxon Company,
1977, p. 10-2.
7White, L. "In-Situ Leaching Opens New Uranium Reserves in
Texas." Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 176 (July 1975),
pp. 73-80.
8Hunkin, G. G. "The Environmental Impact of Solution Mining
for Uranium." Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 61 (October 1975),
pp. 24-27.
-123-
-------
solution consists of groundwater with hydrogen peroxide or oxygen
to oxidize the uranium, and an alkaline chemical to react with
the uranium and place it in solution.
Uranium Recovery Process
The recovery of uranium from the leaching solution con-
sists typically of three operations: 1) leaching solution/
sorption, 2) elution/precipitation, and 3) product drying/
packaging. The process proposed for Wyoming Mineral Corpora-
tion's uranium solution mine located in Johnson County, Wyoming
is typical of this type of recovery. A typical in-situ solu-
tion mining process is shown in Figure 5-12.*
In the leaching solution/sorption circuit, uranium is
removed from the recovered uranium-bearing leaching solution
by an ion exchange process which uses a solid ion exchange
resin. In an ion exchange column, the uranium ions are removed
from the leach solution by the resin. This process involves
the uranium ions "exchanging" places with chloride ions which
are present on the resin. The barren leaching solution now
containing chlorine in place of uranium leaves the ion ex-
change unit and has hydrogen peroxide and ammonium bicarbonate
added before being reinjected into the ore formation to repeat
the leach cycle.
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johns on
County, Wyoming.Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation,
1977. p. 10.
-124-
-------
O 2
2 O
ii
Po
05 W
i
2:
3<
r Zf
<:
o C-
£2 =
Q. CO
gui '
K =
co
V
z
5°z
151
0 2 5"*-!
S| IP
t 3 uj
18 icfit -
85 g5£3 ig
iu < <_ictn: = 2
or uj wOOo < H
-1" -icoco w 2 3
^"O
-i 5 «
uig 5 = i
KS 20
|2
nr o
Itl ii
^ £ 5 ^^
ii§ s»
Hj 0.
Il
< 1-
K.<
E e
§ 2
U| LU
C CO
0.
^2 A
1^
S-i
01
o
o
0)
(*
1 ' §
T X -H
<*>% c
o R §
0 S fc
= g p
°- M
c
•H
c
•H
r
c
o
•H
3
I— 1
o
c/l
3
4-J
•H
CO
1
c
M
CM
r-l
1
m
cu
V-i
d
bO
•H
fe
c-S
-SI
CO >,r-(
GO C
C 3
•r* O
C U
T) CO
C C
C
o
•H
•U
CO cj
M CU
O
•-I O
a s-i
X PH
W
C co
o tjd
•H
U
CO
CX4J
M M
O O
u aj
a>
r-l P5
CO
^ r-(
01 CO
C 4-1
GO C
C O
•H M
E-H
o >
>->c
& w
o
o
co
M
4J
CO
V<
O
cx
M
o
CJ
bO
C
•H
I
eh?
-1251-
-------
The second operation in the uranium recovery process is
the elution/precipitation operation. As the ion exchange
resin becomes saturated with uranium, it is transferred from
the ion exchange column to an elution column. In the elution
column uranium is removed from the uranium saturated resin
with an ammonium chloride solution (^1 to 2 M NH^Cl).1 In
this operation uranium ions are essentially removed from
the resin and replaced again with chloride ions. The uranium-
barren resin is returned to the ion exchange column and the
concentrated uranium solution goes to the precipitation and
separation process.
In the precipitation step ammonia is added to the uranium
solution which precipitates the uranium as ammonium diuranate.2
The precipitated uranium is separated and sent to a dryer/
packaging-unit where it is processed to obtain the final U30a
product. The uranium-barren solution is treated and returned
to the elution column to repeat the process.
Aquifer Restoration
After the ore formation is mined out, the aquifer con-
taining the ore formation must be returned to some agreed upon
water quality. The techniques available for the restoration
of an aquifer fall into three general categories: "total water
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Divi-
sion. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation,1977.
P- 32.
2ibid. , p. 32.
-126-
-------
removal"; "water removal, clean-up and recycle"; and "in-situ
restoration".1
In "total water removal", contaminated water is pumped
from the aquifer and surrounding ground water flows into the
leached ore formation to flush away contaminants. The re-
moved water is not reinjected into the ore formation aquifer,
but is either evaporated, used in irrigation, or sent to a
deep disposal well.
In the second method "water removal, clean-up and recycle",
contaminated water is pumped from the aquifer, treated above-
ground and then reinjected into the aquifer where it origi-
nated. This process is similar to the original solution
mining method in that it removes minerals (contaminants) from
the aquifer and concentrates them aboveground. Examples of
4
aboveground treatment techniques are given in Table 5-46.
The third method of aquifer restoration, the "in-situ"
method, involves the treatment of the underground aquifer
to produce the desired water quality without aboveground
treatment. Chemicals are injected into the aquifer which
would reprecipitate any chemical species that were mobilized
by the leaching solution. This technique may be practical
for those species that can be stabilized underground by pre-
cipitation or other techniques. However, it can only partly
JWyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson
County, Wyoming.Lakewood, Colo: Wyoming Mineral Corpora-
tion, 1977. p. 158.
-127-
-------
TABLE 5-46. METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
Above Ground
Treatment Processes
a. Reverse Osmosis
b. Electrodialysis
c. Ion Exchange
d. Conventional Evaporation
with Water Recycle
e. Ultrafiltration
f. Chemical Precipitation
g. Ammonia Air Stripping
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project,
Johnson County, Wyoming. Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming
Mineral Corporation, 1977, p. 160.
-128-
-------
restore the aquifer since the method cannot effectively remove
dissolved species such as ammonia and chloride.1
The aquifer restoration techniques currently in use or
proposed by commercial in-situ mining processes include the
"total water removal" method employing deep wells and evapora-
tion ponds, and the "water removal, clean-up and recycle
method".2'3'1* The recycle method will be'discussed here because
it is commonly used and because it minimizes residuals by not
requiring a disposal well or an evaporation pond for solar
evaporation.
When cells of a well field are removed from production, the
leaching solution still remaining in the area depleted is pumped
out and injected into the new area to be mined. At the same time,
uncontaminated aquifer water from the new area is pumped into the
depleted area. A buffer zone where no mining is taking place is
needed between the mining and restoration areas so no hydraulic
coupling of the two operations can occur. This is shown in
Figure 5-13.5 After the majority of the leaching solution has
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Divi-
sion. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977.
p. 1657
2ibid. , p. 170 .
3Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for amendment to source
material license SUA-1139 for solution mining of uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report.Houston, TX.:Exxon Com-
pany, 1977. pp. 3-31.
''White, L. "In-situ leaching opens new uranium reserves
in Texas". Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 176 (July 1975),
pp. 73-80.
5Wyoming Mineral Corporation, op.cit., p. 172.
-129-
-------
p_o/-^ RECOVERY WELL
Vv
(TYP.)
^""~ INJECTION WELL
(TYP.)
TYPICAL MINE CELL
1 ,„/
j 1 " '' !
UJ I
° -
f*j
K
T3
c
cfl
d
0
•H
4J
o
3
"w
o
P-I
CO
d
o
QJ
d
cO
4J
i— 1
3
6
•H
°°
d3
£•
Q
-d
t—i
T-l
d B
o ••
•H •
W O
•H i— I
> o
••-I U
Q
d o
•r-l O
c s
•r) 0)
CO
C
CO
o d
4-1
CO O
r-l
cx -
W -U
d
- 3
d o
o u
•r-l
J-J d
CO O
5-1 co
o d
5-i O
o
CJ
I—I
CO O
CU
0) •!-
d o d
•H 5-i O
SCX.-H
-U
CO
5-1 5-i
•H CO O
e M cx
O
CJ
0)
u
o
CO
-130-
-------
been pumped from the restoration area, the process of "water
removal, clean-up and recycle" begins and continues until the
restoration area has been returned to some agreed upon water
quality. The quality of water to be left in the aquifer after
restoration is decided between the mining company and the state
water quality board before mining begins.
One proposed water clean-up process is shown in Figure 5-14.1
This process removes hardness chemicals such as calcium and mag-
nesium by cold-lime softening in the first stage of processing.
After the hardness removal, the overflow solution is further
treated to remove the remaining impuruties. The impurities of
primary concern are ammonia and total dissolved solids (TDS) .
The removal of these impurities is accomplished by first
feeding the- overflow solution to a reverse osmosis (RO) unit.
The unit would produce a TDS content comparable to baseline water
quality. The cleaned solution (permeate solution) from the RO
unit is then fed to a final chemical treatment unit and trans-
ferred to the well field for reinjection into the aquifer.
5.4.3.2 Input Requirements
5.4.3.2a Manpower Requirements
An in-situ mining project begins with a program of testing
as described in the technology section. This test program would
last typically 18 months. The U.S. Bureau of Mines has given the
manpower requirements shown in Table 5-47 as typical permanent
1Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 172.
-131-
-------
0
21
oil
(4
co
co
0)
4J
CO
12
l-i
01
4-1
•H
3
cr
i
m
bO
CO
J-)
C
01
g
o
c
u
CO
M
Ol
C
00
C
•H
g
O
c
O
Q -
"O
oo o
c o
••-i 3
C 01
•H ,*
2 co
hJ
"O
c
CO •
b£
C C.
O -H!
•H g,
W O,
co H
aH
X 4J
u c
3
C O
o u
•H
w C
CO O
1-, en
O
&.J2
^ O
o >->
CN
r-4 4J
CO O
1-1
01
c
so H
c ^
•H CO
§
0)
CJ
CO
O
CJ
-132-
-------
manpower usage for a pilot test program. r In addition to the
personnel shown in the table, a geologist, hydrologist, reservoir
engineer, petroleum engineer, metallurgists, and mechanical
engineers would be used periodically.2'3
TABLE 5-47. SCHEDULE OF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR AN IN-SITU
SOLUTION MINE PILOT PLANT STUDY
Approximate Time
Employed
Project Supervisor 18 months
Chemical Engineer 18 months
Chemical Technician 16 months
General Laborers (3) 5 months
Drill Rig Operators (2) ^1 week
Water Truck Operator ^1 week
Source: Larson, W.C., Geologist. Twin Cities Mining Research
Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from tele-
phone conversation. November 23, 1977.
The geologist and hydrologist would be employed to make the
regional and local hydrology surveys, geophysical survey, and
water sampling program prior to construction of the pilot plant.
The number of wells required to construct a pilot plant could be
drilled in about a week. As the wells are drilled, tests would
be made and the results analyzed by a reservoir engineer, petro-
leum engineer, and a metallurgist to determine the characteristics
Larson, W.C., Geologist, Twin Cities Mining Research Center,
U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from telephone conversation.
November 23; 1977.
Hunkin, G.G., "The Environmental Impact of Solution Mining
for Uranium". Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 61 (October 1975).
pp. 24-27.
Frank, J.N. "Cost Model for Solution Mining of Uranium."
Presented at the Uranium Industry Seminar. Grand Junction, CO.
October 19-20, 1976.
-133-
-------
of the ore formation. The chemical engineer supervises construc-
tion and operation of the plant. The chemical technician performs
chemical analyses of samples taken during the test program. Opera-
tion of the pilot plant requires about three laborers for five
months.
The construction of a 500,000 Ib/yr processing plant for
an in-situ solution mine would take approximately 12-18 months.1'2
During this period chemical, civil, electrical, and mechanical
engineers would be involved in insuring the plant is being
constructed according to design and to aid in the startup of
the plant. The type of craftsman that could be needed to con-
struct the plant might be pipefitters, electricians, boiler-
makers, ironworkers, and carpenters. General laborers would
be required to assist in the different phases of constructing
the plant. One company has estimated that it will employ 20-
43 people during the construction phase of a 500,000 Ib/yr in-
situ mining process.3
A typical commerical operation of a 500,000 Ib/yr in-situ
solution mining operation would employ 45-55 people. Of these
people, a typical breakdown would be 25 professional and 30
general labor. An additional 12 people would make up a sup-
porting staff off site at a home office.1*
1 Frank, J. N. "Cost Model for Solution Mining of Uranium",
Presented at the Uranium Industry Seminar. Grand Junction, Colo. ,
October 19-20, 1976. 25 pp.
2Phillips, P. E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ
Leach Economics", Presented at the Conference on Uranium Mining
Technology. Reno, Nevada, April 28, 1977.
3Ryan, F. M. "Energy Activity Profile", Lakewood, Colo,:
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, November 1977.
"Larson, W. C., Geologist. Twin Cities Mining Research
Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from telephone con-
versation. November 23, 1977.
-134-
-------
In order to replace wells in mined-out areas with wells in
unmined areas, a continuous drilling operation is needed. This
work is generally let out to a local drilling contractor. It
would involve using 2-3 drill rigs about 14 hours a day. It
would require 2 laborers per rig per shift and 2 water truck
operators per shift to support this effort.1
5.4.3.2b Materials and Equipment
The material and equipment requirements for an in-situ
solution mine can be divided into two separate requirements,
those for the well field and those for the uranium extraction
process. The well field will consist of injection, production,
and monitor (or observation) wells. These wells will be drilled
using standard water well drill rigs. These rigs use a circu-
lating mud solution to carry drill cuttings to the surface and
therefore require a water truck as a source of water to make
the drilling mud.
After the wells are drilled, they are completed with a
string of PVC, fiberglass, and/or steel casing.2 The casing is
cemented in place by pumping cement down the casing and forcing
it out into the annular space between the casing and drill hole.
The amount of cement used will depend on what is required to
isolate the ore zone from the aquifers above it. A typical well
completion is shown in Figure 5-15.3 This figure shows how a
Larson, W. C., Geologist. Twin Cities Mining Research
Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from telephone con-
versation. November 23, 1977.
2Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for amendment to source
material license SUA-1139 for solution mining of uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report. Houston, TX.: Exxon Company,
1977.pp. 3-4.
3Ibid.} pp. 3-4.
-135-
-------
Figure 5-15. Typical Production Uell Completion
Source: Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material license SUA-1139 for solution mining of uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report.Houston, Tx.:Exxon
Company, 1977, p. 3-4.
-136-
-------
screen or slotted lines are inserted into the ore zone area to
selectively inject or recover leach solution. The requirement
for a 500 ft. well cemented to the surface is 500 ft. of casing
material and approximately 1310 Ibs of cement. 1 A production
well would have some sort of pumping unit associated with its
assembly to pump the leaching solution to the surface.
The pipeline system connecting the well field to the uranium
extraction plant would typically consist of 4 to 10 inch trunk-
lines between the plant and the well field header sites and 1.5
to 2 inch flowline pipe from the header to the individual wells.2
All lines would be buried below the frost line at an average
depth of about 5 feet. The lines would be PVC, high density
polyethylene, fiberglass, and/or coated and wrapped steel, de-
pending on the size and operating conditions of the various seg-
ments of the system.3 The length of pipe needed will depend on
the distance of the well field from the plant. This distance
will increase as the area around the plant is mined out and more
distant wells are brought into service.
The uranium extraction plant as described in the previous
section on in-situ solution mining technology is made up of
various system components. These components and their function
are outlined in Table 5-48 . Sizes and quantities of these
components are not available from the mining companies at this
time. The process equipment will be housed in a heated building
1 Campbell, M. D. and J. H. Lehr. Water Well Technology.
New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.p. 622.
2Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for amendment to source
material license SUA-1139 for solution mining of uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report.Houston, TX.:Exxon Company,
1977.pp. 3-9.
3Ibid.
-137-
-------
TABLE 5-4 8.
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AN
IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PLANT
Component
Function
Surge Tanks
Ion Exchange Columns
Resin Transfer Units
Elution Columns
Storage of pregnant and barren
leach solutions
Adsorption of uranium from leach
solution onto resin beads
Transfer uranium loaded resin to
elution columns
Strip uranium complex from resin
beads
Decarbonator
Precipitators
Vessel where the uranium carbonate
complex is broken down using HC1
Vessels where NH3 is added to pre-
cipitate the uranium as ammonium
bicarbonate
Dewatering Units
Dry/Pack Unit
Makeup Tanks
Contaminant Control
Units
Waste Storage Ponds
Separates the solution from the
precipitator into a uranium bar-
ren liquid fraction and a uranium
rich slurry
Removes water from uranium slurry
and processes to a packaged
yellowcake product
Required for leach solution make-
up and eluant solution makeup
Required to remove calcium car-
bonate from leach solution and to
remove contaminants from eluant
For storage of liquid and dis-
solved solids waste
-138-
-------
for protection from the weather. Another building at the plant
would be an office/laboratory building. A typical plant layout
is shown in Figure 5-16.1
Chemical material requirements for a 500,000 Ib/yr plant
are given in Table 5-49. There would also be an initial charge
of resin beads for the ion exchange/elution circuit which would
have to be added to as the initial charge becomes degenerated.
TABLE 5-49. CHEMICAL ADDITION REQUIREMENTS FOR
A 500,000 LBS/YR SOLUTION PLANT
Location
Reagent
Estimated Use (Ibs/hr)
Injection Solution
Make-up
Decarbonation/
Precipitation Circuit
Eluant Make-up
Dry/Pack Unit
Scrubber
CO 2
NH3
H202
HC1
NH3
NH1|HC03
NH^Cl
Fuel (Propane)
Combustion Air
75
40
75
25
5
35
75
20
<
- 225
- 120
- 250
- 70
- 20
- 100
- 200
- 60
6700
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project,
Johnson County, Wyoming. Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming
Mineral Corporation, 1977. p. 31.
'Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 for Solution Mining of Uranium, Supple-
mental Environmental Report. Houston, TX, .- Exxon Company 1977
pp. 3-37.
-139-
-------
Figure 5-16. In-Situ Solution Mine Plan Layout
Source: Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 for Solution Mining of Uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report. Houston, Tx.: Exxon
Company, 1977, p. 3-37.
-140=
-------
5.4.3.2c Economics
In a recent study by P. E. Phillips of the Rocky Mountain
Energy Company, in-situ solution mining economics were compared
to open pit economics.1 The in-situ mining basis for the cost
model are shown in Table 5-50. While this study considered an
acid leach process, most costs for a basic leach process would
be the same with the exception of mild steel replacing fiber-
glass reinforced plastic tanks for about a 20% savings in equip-
ment costs.2
The operating costs and initial investment for the cost
model and scaled costs for a 500,000 Ib/yr plant are shown in
Tables 5-51 and 5-52. All costs are in 1977 dollars. The case
studied was for a 250,000 Ib/yr mine. Scaling these costs to
meet a 500,000 Ib/yr production rate would be allowable since
most mines are made up of 250,000 Ib/yr modules. Some processes
have the modules sharing a common decarbonization/precipitation
circuit and drying/packaging unit. These components represent
a small portion of the capital and operating expenses and there-
fore introduce little error in the scaleup of these expenses for
a 500,000 Ib/yr plant.
Tables 5-53 and 5-54 give the operating and capital costs
for in-situ mines operating with two different grades of ore.
The costs shown have been scaled from a 250,000 Ib/yr to a 500,000
Ib/yr mine. The case study showed that an in-situ mining opera-
tion had a higher rate of return and a shorter payment period
when compared to an open' pit mine.3 The shorter payout period
Phillips, P.E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ Leach
Economics." Presented at the Conference on Uranium Mining Tech-
nology. Reno, Nevada. April 28,1977.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
-141-
-------
TABLE 5-50. BASIS FOR COST STUDY FOR AN IN-SITU LEACH PLANT
250,000 Ibs U308/Year Plant in Wyoming
WELL FIELD - 500 foot total depth
- Line drive patterns with well reversal
- Equal no. of production and injection
wells
- 10% monitor wells
- 5" PVC casing, cemented to surface
- 5% well failures
- 60% underground recovery
- 50 ppm UaOe solution strength
- 10 gpm/well injection rate
- 50 ft. well spacing
PLANT - Sulfuric acid leach
- I-X followed by S-X (Eluex)*
- 316 SS pumps
- PVC piping
- FRP tanks
18 month construction period
12 year mine life
^Calcined yellowcake as final product
Source: Phillips, P. E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ
Leach Economics", Presented at the Conference on Uranium
Mining Technology. Reno, Nevada, April 28, 1977.
-142-
-------
TABLE 5-51. IN-SITU COST MODEL AND SCALED OPERATING COSTS FOR A
500,000 LB/YR MINE, 0.05 70 U308 (1977 dollars)
Item
Well Field
Milling
G & Aa
Reclamation
Royalty and Taxes
TOTAL
Operating
250,000 Ib/yr plant
15.28
6.76
1.40
0.34
2.00
25.78
Costs ($/lb)
500,000 Ib/yr plant
15.28
6.76
0.70
0.34
2.00
25.08
o
This total cost is assumed to be the same for a 250,000 and
500,000 Ib/yr mine.
Source: Phillips, P. E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ
Leach Economics," Presented at the Conference on
Uranium Mining Technology. Reno, Nevada, April 28, 1977.
-143-
-------
TABLE 5-52. IN-SITU LEACH COST MODEL AND SCALED INVESTMENT COSTS
FOR A 500,000 LB/YR MINE (1977 dollars)
Item 250>
Mobile Equipment
Mill and Tailings3
Roads, Site Preparation
TOTAL CAPITAL
Working Capital
Initial Well Field
Infrastructure
TOTAL INVESTMENT
Investment
000 Ib/yr plant
2.3
6.5
1.0
9.8
1.4
2.2
1.3
14.7
Costs (105 $)
500,000 Ib/yr plant
4.6
8.3
2.0
14.9
2.8
4.4
1.3
23.4
This cost was reduced by 20% and a factor of 1.6 applied as derived
from.- Peters and Timmerhaus. Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers. New York, N.Y.:McGraw-Hill, 1968, p. 124.
This total cost is assumed to be the same for a 250,000 and
500,000 Ib/yr mine.
Source: Phillips, P. E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ
Leach Economics," Presented at the Conference on
Uranium Mining Technology. Reno, Nevada,April 28, 1977.
-144-
-------
TABLE 5-53. IN-SITU MINING OPERATING COSTS FOR TWO GRADES OF
URANIUM ORE - 500,000 LB/YR MINE (1977 dollars)
Operating Costs ($/lb)
Item
Mining
Milling
G & A
Reclamation
Royalty & Taxes
TOTAL
Source: Phillips, P. E.
Leach Economics
0.17. U308
5.90
6.76
0.70
0.12
2.00
15.48
"A Comparison
," Presented at
0.0570 U308
15.28
6.76
0.70
0.34
2.00
25.08
of Open Pit and In-Situ
the Conference on
Uranium Mining Technology. Reno, Nevada, April 28, 1977
-145-
-------
TABLE 5-54. IN-SITU MINING INVESTMENT COSTS FOR TWO GRADES OF
URANIUM ORE - 500,000 LB/YR MINE (1977 dollars)
Item
Mine Mobile & Shops
Mill & Tailings
Roads, Site Preparation
TOTAL CAPITAL
Working Capital
Initial Well Field
Inf ras tructure
TOTAL INITIAL INVESTMENT
0.1%
2
8
2
LfL
1
6
1
21
Investment Costs
U308
.4
.3
.0
J_
.8
.0
.3
.8
(10s $)
0.05% U308
4.6
8.3
2.0
14^9
2.8
4.4
1.3
23.4
Source: ^Phillips, P. E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ
Leach Economics," Presented at the Conference on
Uranium Mining Technology. Reno, Nevada,April 28, 1977
-.146-
-------
indicates that in-situ solution mining could be applied to small
deposits with fewer operating years than that required for con-
ventional mining. The rate of return for an in-situ solution
mine producing UaOs at a rate of 250,000 Ib/yr would range be-
tween about 20 to 40%. '
A sensitivity analysis involving some major parameters of
in-situ mining economics is shown in Table 5-55. The effect of
increasing the recovery of uranium, pregnant leaching solution
strength, injectivity of the formation, and well spacing by 10%
and decreasing well costs by 10% is investigated. The effect
is shown on economic considerations such as the number of wells
per year which would have to be drilled, the cost of drilling
the wells, the cost of producing the product, the rate of return,
and present value. The number of wells and well field costs
are considered since they make up a large portion of the operat-
ing costs for an in-situ mine. Most of the well field costs
are a direct function of the number of wells required to provide
a desired production rate. A completed well of 500 foot depth
costs about $12 p'er foot if drilled and cemented with company-
owned equipment for a total of $6,000 per well.2
The analysis of Table 5-5 5 leads to some interesting
conclusions. Recovery of uranium from the ore formation does
not appear to be quite as important as well spacing and solu-
tion strength. The same relative increase in the pregnant
leaching solution strength is more significant to the economics
than well spacing because it not only reduces the well require-
ments, but also increases the capacity of the plant with little
change in the capital required. Another fact is the increase in
Phillips, P.E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ Leach
Economics." Presented at the Conference on Uranium Mining Tech-
nology. Reno, Nevada. April Z8,1977.
2
' Ibid.
.-147-
-------
^^
u
jj
M
Prf
^i
" —
CQ
O
O
o
o
m
CN
CO
M
CO
l 1
<;
5
K^
EH
M
^
M
H
1— 1
CO
w
CO
CO
a
M
o
o
o
w
w
2
rH
£3
H
M
CO
1
1— 1
•
m
m
i
m
w
<
£_(
3
CrH C
•H CO O
> -r-l
CU J--5 i — 1
60 4J O rH
C CrH -r4
CO O) X
x; co (w;
CJ CD
S_i
p ,
UH C
0 S-i
;3
0) 4J g-S
4-> CU
co p5
erf
4J
CO
C O
•rH U
cu bOX)
60 C rJ
C«^j "*>^
•r-l ^^
CO 4-)
x: co
CJ iH
01
Cu
o
rH CO
rH 4J X)
cu co t-4
U 5-5
co
i— I VJ >-i
rH CU CO
d) p i CU
12 ^
[
1
1
'
i m CN
i
i — 1 »^O
O CN CO
CN CN CN
-U
.0 3
O rH
0) O
Crf CO
0
co o o
CO rH rH
PQ + +
co
rH
cn
CN
^j-
en
rH
00
CN
^j.
i— 1
rH
^J-
o-
!>•>
4->
•iH
^
•iH
4J
O
CU
•i—)
C
M
g
O
rH
+
m o
.
en CN
m en
CN CN
CN ^>
r~ in
CN rH
CO "*O
ON O
CN
_JJ f^
•H 0
CL,
01
C a
CU C •
O ! d) P^
0 )H r^
cu o>
I4_l Cm , |
0 G
O •»
C U oo
O CN
CO CU
•H X! rH
r-l U -H
CO ^
cxu a
B to <
o
O T3
CU CO
~ CO CU
W r-l
PH -
o
Pn - c
r cu
- w crf
CO O
CX-H .
•H B >,
rH O 60
r-t C O
•H O rH
x: o o
OH W C
"
(U
o
3
O
!W
-148-
-------
net present value associated with the increase in solution
strength. This $6.2 million increase amounts to more than $2,000
per well (after tax) over the life of the project.1 This indi-
cates that more costly well completions would be justified if
they resulted in better solution strength. Also the effect of
reducing the well costs directly is not as significant as solu-
tion strength or well spacing, but is more significant than an
increase in recovery.
5.4.3.2d Water Requirements
The major water requirements for an in-situ uranium mining
operation are for the well drilling and leaching solution proces-
sing associated with the mining operation. These requirements are
listed in Table 5-56. To maintain a production rate of 500,000
Ib/yr of yellowcake about 30 acres of well field per year would
be drilled. 2 A 7-spot well pattern used in the well field
would require about 28 production and injection wells3 and about
7 observation wells.1* On this basis approximately 3 wells must
be completed per day to maintain a 500,000 Ib/yr production
rate. This is not unreasonable as a 500 foot well can be com-
pleted by one drilling crew in a day.5 The water requirement for
drilling is for making the drilling mud solution. The amount
Phillips, P.E. "A Comparison of Open Pit and In-Situ Leach
Economics." Presented at the Conference on Uranium Mining Tech-
nology. Reno, Nevada. April 28,1977.
2Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p~! 33 .
3Larson, W.C., Geologist. Twin Cities Mining Research Center,
U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from Telephone Conversation.
December 8, 1977.
4Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 for Solution Mining of Uranium,
Supplemental Environmental Report.Houston, TX:Exxon Company.
1977.
5Larson, W.C., op.cit.
-149-
-------
of solution required for a 500 foot well is about 3140 gallons of
water.1 The water requirements for three wells a day would be
about 9420 gallons/day.
TABLE 5-56. WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR A 500,000 LB/YR
IN-SITU SOLUTION MINE
Item Water Requirement (gallons/day)
Drilling Operations3 9,425
Process Water 51,000
Aquifer Restoration 121,000
Sanitary Water 2,000
Calculated
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, John-
son County, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral
Corporation. 1977. pp. 34, 35, & 175.
The total process use of water for a 500,000 Ib/yr uranium
solution mining operation would be at the most 51.0 x 103 gallons/
day.2 This includes the overproduction of the well field to in-
sure the leaching solution doesn't escape the mining area, water
for injection well cleaning, and resin wash water. In addition
to this, water usage from the aquifer restoration would amount to
around 121 x 10 3 gallon/day.3 Also an estimated 2000 gallons/day
would be required for sanitary water use."
Larson, W.C., Geologist. Twin Cities Mining Research
Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from Telephone Con-
versation. December 8, 1977.
2Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977 . p. 35 .
^ibid., p. 175.
'Ibid., p. 34.
-150-
-------
5.4.3.2e Land Requirements
Uranium deposits are generally located in ore formations
which occur as small, separate fronts (20-50 acres) or as large,
elongated fronts (1000 acres).1'2 A 500,000 Ib U308/yr produc-
tion rate would mine about 25-50 acres/yr.3 The mill process
area would require about a 5-acre site.1* The entire area of an
in-situ mine and mill is removed from other usage.
An in-situ mining operation which will mine one uranium
deposit with a 20-acre well field, another deposit with a 50-acre
well field, and use a common milling process plant has stated
that it will require 200 acres for the lifetime of the operation
0^10 years).5 Another mining operation is going to mine an elon-
gated front formation. It states that it will require 100 acres/
yr for a 10,7-year lifetime.5 Each of these operations would pro-
duce about 500,000 Ib/yr of yellow cake. At the end of an in-
situ mining operation, all of the land is restored for use as
before the mining operation. A typical mining schedule is shown
in Figure 5-17 for the mining of uranium from an ancient stream
bed. The mining activities initiate in the proximity of the plant
and progress stepwise along the stream bed.
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 3.
2Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 For Solution Mining of Uranium, Supple-
mental Environmental Report. Houston, TX: Exxon Company. 1977.
p. 3-5, 3-6.
3Wyoming Mineral Corporation, op.cit., p. 5.
5Exxon Company, U.S.A., op.cit., p. 7-1
6Wyoming Mineral Corporation, op.cit., p. 120.
-151-
-------
1989
1 MILE
I, 1988
1987
1986
1980
PLANT
1981
1984
1985
Figure 5-17. In-Situ Mine Land Use Schedule
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming
Lakewood, Colo. : Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977, p.
-152-
-------
5.4.3.2f Ancillary Energy
The major energy requirements for an in-situ mining process
are for the pumping of fluids and the drying of the final product.
Smaller amounts of energy are consumed in the process of drilling
the injection, production, and monitoring wells. The power
requirement for a 250,000 Ib/yr uranium solution mining operation
in George West, Texas is about 1500 kw. J This would be made up
mainly of pumping energy needed to move solutions from the well
field to the processing plant and operation of process equipment.
Since solution mines are generally modularized into 250,000 lb/
yr units, a good estimate for a 500,000 Ib/yr plant electrical
energy requirements would be 3000 kw.
The second major energy requirement in the uranium recovery
process is that for drying the yellowcake product. Estimates for
one 500,000 Ib/yr mine in Wyoming are for the use of 20-60 Ibs/hr
of propane.2 Using a heating value of 21,560 Btu/lb,3 the energy
requirements for the drying operation would range from 10 to 30
million Btu/day.
When the aquifer restoration program begins, additional
power will be required to pump aquifer water solutions to the
surface for treatment and then injection back into the aquifer
(assuming "water removal, cleanup and recycle" method of restora-
tion is used). One estimate for a rate of aquifer restoration to
1White, L. "In-Situ Leaching Opens New Uranium Reserves in
Texas." Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 176 (July 1975),
pp. 73-80.
2Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood,Colo.:Wyoming Mineral Corporation,1977,
P- 31.
3Bland, W. F. and R. L. Davidson. Petroleum Processing
Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967, p. 11-10.
-153-
-------
clean up 180 acre feet/year of contaminated water would provide
that volume to be recycled 5 times for adequate contaminant
removal.1 This results in an energy requirement of about 85 kw
(assuming total dynamic head of 500 ft and pump efficiency of
75%) or about 290 x 103 Btu/hr.2
If it is assumed that a 3 well/day drilling rate is required
to maintain a 500,000 Ib/yr production rate (see Section
5.4.1.3.1.4), also allowing that one 185 HP drilling rig can drill
a 500 ft well (assumed average depth for an in-situ solution min-
ing well) in a 14 hour day,3 then the estimated total energy re-
quirement for operating 3 drilling rigs would be 122 x 10s Btu/day.
This estimate was made assuming a diesel fuel consumption of 0.066
gal/HP-hr and a heating value of 0.139 x 106 Btu/gal for the fuel.
5.4.3.3 Outputs
Mining companies are reluctant to release data on residuals
for their mining process because in-situ uranium mining is still
in the research and development stage. Also, commercial scale
in-situ operations have not been in operation long enough to
generate sufficient data on effluents. Information presented
in this section on air, liquid, and solid wastes will be, for
the most part, a qualitative discussion of what is thought to
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division,
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 175.
2Campbell, M.D. and J.H. Lehr. Water Well Technology.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1974. p. 601.
3Larson, W.C., Geologist, Twin Cities Mining Research Center,
U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information from the telephone conversation
December 8, 1977.
-154-
-------
make up a waste stream. Figure 5-18 will be used to discuss the
effluents of a typical uranium recovery process producing
500,000 Ib/yr of yellowcake.1
5.4.3.3a Air Emissions
The gaseous effluents for alkaline leach in-situ uranium
mining are given in Table 5-57.2 Effluents from the process
plant and evaporation ponds are mainly NHs , COa, and NH4C1. The
U308 emissions are from losses through the scrubbing unit of the
drying and packaging operation.
Air emissions from the mining reclamation process are not
included with the information in Table 5-57. The source of
these emissions would be an additional waste pond. This pond
would have a surface area of about 30,000 ft2.3 It would be
made up of a saline brine of pH^6 having a total dissolved
solids content of ^15,000 ppm, and containing NHi»+, NA+, Ca+2 ,
Mg+2 , Cl~, and S0<*~2 ions. ** Radioactive elements would be
present as uranium (10-500 ppm) and Ra-226 (100-1000 pCi/liter).5
No information is available on what quantity of the elements
present in the ponds will be emitted to the air through evapora-
tion. It is likely that the emissions would be similar to those
from the process evaporation ponds and include NHa and NEUC1
as the major gaseous effluents.
1 Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Proj ect, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood, Colo. .- Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977,
p. 30.
2 Ibid. , p. 38.
3 Ibid. , p. 117.
"ibid., p. 175.
5Ibid.
-155-
-------
w
en
C
O
NH
4-J
cO
0
a
0
O
C "-5
O
•H -
4-1 4->
CO O
M 0)
X! OH
M r-l
O
O O T3
u CMO
(U
cO
^ C
3: W
bO
en
•H
0)
O
-156-
-------
TABLE 5-57. ESTIMATED AIR EMISSIONS
Emission Rate (Ibs/yr)
Source
Uranium Recovery Process
Calcium Control Unit
Calcite Storage Pond
Liquid Waste Storage
Ponds
NH3
4-6x10 3
1.5-2.5xl03
2.5-3.5xl03
48-56xl03
C02
l-2x!06
4-6xl03
9-10xl03
36-40xl03
NH^Cl
20-35xl03
40-60
9.5-10.5xl03
140-160xl03
U308
7-900
—
—
"
Estimated assuming combined surface area of all ponds to be 4 acres.
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977. p. 38.
,-157-
-------
5.4.3.3b Water Effluents
The estimated worst case volumes of process wastes and
effluents are given in Table 5-581 for a 500,000 Ib/yr solution
mining production facility. The wastes from this facility would
be sent to ponds. All of the evaporation or storage ponds men-
tioned in this section are lined with a plastic liner. Each
pond has a leak detection system so that when a leak occurs
the pond can be evacuated to an adjacent pond while liner repairs
are effected. Large leaks are detected by a noticeable drop in
«-
pond level. Smaller leaks are detected by sampling perforated
pipes lying beneath the pond liner.
The largest volume of contaminated water generated by the
solution mining process is the residual leaching solution left
in the mined formation after mining is terminated prior to
aquifer restoration. Assuming the restoration process is one of
water removal, clean-up, and recycle, the waste stream generated
from aquifer restoration would be approximately 135 acre-ft/yr.2
This stream would be sent to a storage pond and evaporated to
a solid.
The primary source of effluent water (^20 gpm) from the
in situ process is the over-production of the well field.3
This is done to insure that the leaching solution is confined
within the mine boundaries. As seen from Figure 5-18, the
overproduction is removed from the process in two different
streams. The first is a waste stream from the calcium control
1Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining
Division. Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County,
Wyoming. Lakewood,Colo.:Wyoming Mineral Corporation,1977,
p. 34.
2 Ibid. , p. 175.
3 Ibid. , p. 33.
-158-
-------
TABLE 5-58. ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF PROCESS WASTES AND EFFLUENTS
FOR A 500,000 LB/YR IN-SITU URANIUM SOLUTION MINE
Receptor
Source
Estimated Volume
'Acre-ft/yr Gals/min.
Restoration Waste
Storage Pond
Calcite Storage Pond
Over-produced Leach
Solution Storage Pond
Concentrated Liquid
Waste Storage Pond
Solid Waste
Storage Pond
Sanitary Waste Field
Ground Surface
Aquifer Restoration Process 135 84
Calcium Control Unit
Bleed for Inventory Control
Spent Resin Wash Water
Eluant Circuit Contaminant Cont.
Injection Well Cleaning
Eluant Circuit Contaminant 24 1.5
Control
Sanitary Water Use 2 1.3
Monitor Well Sampling 1 0.6
3.2
18
24
5
14-23
2
11
1.5
3
9-14
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977. p. 34.
•159-
-------
unit of about 2 gpm. This stream would produce 800 tons/yr of
CaC03 containing 1-2 percent U308 by weight and 500-1200 pCi
Ra-226/gm.1 This stream is stored in a calcite storage pond as
shown in Figure 5-18. The liquid is allowed to evaporate and
after mining has stopped, the pond is reclaimed. Solids from
the pond are either buried or removed.
The second stream is a direct bleed from the leaching solu-
tion circuit for inventory control. This stream is split into
two different streams; one is used for resin wash water O7 gpm)
and the other is wasted to a storage pond (^11 gpm). The stream
sent to the pond consists of the leaching solution after most
of the complexed uranium has been exchanged for chloride ions
in the ion exchange column.
The resin wash water is used in the resin transfer unit to
limit chemical contamination between the sorption and elution
circuits. The spent resin wash water leaving the resin transfer
unit is expected to contain NHi* , Cl~, COa"2, and HC03~2 ions and
radioactive elements Ra-226, Th-230 and uranium.2 The spent
resin wash water is then sent to the drier off gas scrubber as a
scrub solution (^2 gpm), to the eluant make-up system (^3.5 gpm),
and to a storage pond (^1.5 gpm).
Another major source of process effluent water is the eluant
circuit bleed (^4.5 gpm).3 This source originates in the contam-
inant control unit which operates in the eluant circuit. This
unit produces a liquid waste stream (^3.0 gpm) containing alkali
1 Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 37'.
2Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 for Solution Mining of Uranium, Supple-
mental Environmental Report"Houston, TX:Exxon Company.1977.
p. 3-24.
3Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division,
op.cit., p. 35.
-160-
-------
chlorides, carbonates, and sulfate salts which is sent to the
concentrated liquids storage pond. A dissolved solids waste
stream (^1.5 gpm) made up, for the most part, of barium sulfate
(<800 tons/yr) and small amounts of vanadium1 is sent to the
solid waste storage pond.
Another source for process effluents is the routine injec-
tion well cleaning necessary to maintain leaching solution flows.
This would result in a waste stream of 9-14 gpm2 containing the
residuals from the formation and well (mainly CaCCh) carried
along by the formation water withdrawn in the cleaning process.
This stream would be sent to an evaporation pond for disposal.
The remaining water effluents would be from sanitary water
use (^1.3 gpm) and monitor well sampling (^0 6 gpm).3 The
effluents due to sanitary water use would be sent to a sanitary
waste field. It is assumed that the monitor well sample water
would be pumped out onto the ground as it would contain local
aquifer water.
5.4.3.3c Solid Waste
The solid wastes generated from in-situ solution mining
primarily result from the material left after the water has
evaporated from the waste ponds. This material would either be
covered as the ponds are backfilled or removed from the site if
it exceeds the allowable level of radioactivity.
The three principal sources of solid wastes in the solution
»
mining process are the calcite storage pond, the solids waste
1Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 39".
2Ibid., p. 35.
3 ibid., p. 34.
-161-
-------
storage pond and the other liquid waste storage ponds mentioned
above. Additional solid wastes result from liquid waste storage
ponds produced during the aquifer restoration process. These
wastes are similar to those generated in the uranium recovery
process and would be similarly treated.
One of the largest contributions to the solid waste of a
solution mining operation comes from the removal of CaCCh
(calcite) from the leaching solution circuit. The precipitated
calcite would contain as much as 1-2 wt.% U30e and 500-1200 pCi
of Ra-226 per gram. This would produce <800 tons/yr of calcite
to be impounded in the calcite storage pond on site.1
Another major source of solid waste is that of the elution
circuit contamination control unit waste storage. The unit is
operated to remove sulfate and vanadium in order to maintain
uranium extraction and/or product quality. The sulfate would
be controlled by precipitation of barium sulfate resulting in
<800 tons/yr of that compound being sent to the solids waste
storage pond.2
The third source of solid wastes would be that resulting
from evaporative concentration of impounded waste solutions.
These precipitation products are expected to be an assortment
of alkali chloride, carbonate and sulfate salts.3 The rate and
quantity of solids produced in this manner has not been deter-
mined at this time.
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division,
Environmental Report, Iragary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p!37.
2Ibid., p. 39.
3 Ibid.
-162-
-------
A solid waste not sent to ponds is generated by the elution
circuit contamination control circuit. Vanadium control would
be exercised using sorption from the eluant onto activated carbon.
This would produce an as yet undetermined amount of spent carbon
which would be drummed and stored.
One area of solid waste that is not generated in large
quantities, but presents a material handling problem is that of
radioactive solid waste. This waste would result from material
periodically cleaned out of various vessels, spent ion-exchange
resin, and spent equipment/parts coated with scale or that have
been exposed to radioactive fluids for extended periods of time.1
This material would exhibit radioactive levels requiring controlled
disposition according to NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
regulations. The quantity of this type of material which would
be generated by a solution mining process has not been determined
at this time.
5.4.3.3d Noise Pollution
The major noise problems associated with in-situ uranium
mining would be with the drilling operations involved in this
activity. Equipment used and noise levels expected would be
similar to those for uranium exploration discussed earlier.
Process equipment will be contained in a closed building for
protection from the weather, therefore noise would only be a
problem to employee health if it reached too high a level.
Generally, solution mining has been located far enough from
populated areas so that noise problems have not occurred.
1 Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source
Material License SUA-1139 For Solution Mining or Uranium, Supple-
mental Environmental Report"Houston, TX:Exxon Company.1977
p. 3-32.
-163-
-------
5.4.3.3e Occupational Health and Safety
At this time there are only three commercial in-situ mining
projects operating in this country. One of these projects has
been in operation for approximately three years while the other
two are expected to reach design capacity this year. As a result
of this rather limited operating experience with in-situ solution
mining, meaningful data on occupational health and safety statis-
tics are not available.
Occupational safety hazards at an in-situ solution mine
facility will result from five major areas: electrical, mechani-
cal, chemical, environmental, and radioactive hazards. The major
electrical equipment contributing to a safety hazard will be
pumps, transformers, electrically operated switches, gauges,
valves, agitators, and recording devices.1
Major mechanical equipment presenting a safety hazard typi-
cally will be 1) small, continuous steel-belt dryer for drying
uranium precipitate (fully covered), 2) front-end loader, 3) agi-
tators in precipitation tanks, 4) truck-mounted, water-well drill
rigs, 5) road scraper, and 6) trucks.2
There will be several chemical reagents stored on the in-
situ solution mine site. These will include typically carbon
dioxide (gas), hydrogen peroxide (50%) (liquid), anhydrous ammonia
(liquid), hydrochloric acid (50%), ammonium chloride (solid), and
ammonium bicarbonate (solid).3 These chemicals are potentially
dangerous to operating personnel if allowed to contact the skin
or if the vapor is inhaled in a concentrated form.
Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Iragary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p. 147.
2 Ibid., p. 148.
3 Ibid.
-164-
-------
Environmental hazards associated with in-situ solution min-
ing are produced by the location of the mining process rather
than by the process involved in the mining operation. For environ-
mental hazards in the Gillette, Wyoming area, one mining company
has given the harsh weather conditions of the winter season and
the danger of poisonous snakes in the well fields during warm
weather as potential environmental hazards.l
Under normal operating conditions, exposure to radiation
will possibly come from two sources:2
1) Release of Radon-222 gas from production surge
tanks and ponds, and
2) Loss of product through the scrubber stack
(primarily U308).
Small quantities of Radon-222 gas can be released from
areas where solutions are exposed to the atmosphere. In order
that significant levels of daughter products are not released,
the surge tanks should be enclosed and vented directly to the
atmosphere to keep the concentrations of these gases down to an
acceptable level.
There will be a release of UsOs product from the dryer unit
through a scrubber stack as discussed in the previous section
on air emissions. These particulate radionuclides, through dis-
persion in the atmosphere, will be deposited in the soil, on
vegetation, and in surface waters. The particulate removal system
1 Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO: Wyoming Mineral Corporation. 1977. p~! 149.
zlbid., p. 125.
*-165-
-------
chosen should serve to minimize the environmental effects of
this release by keeping the amount of release down to acceptable
levels.
Wyoming Mineral Corporation has calculated what the internal
dose commitments would be for a 500,000 Ib/yr yellowcake produc-
tion facility located in Johnson County, Wyoming. Calculations
of exposure were done for first year, 50 year, and maximum accu-
mulated dose after 50 years to man located at the site boundary
and at the nearest residence. The dispersion model used was
from Turner's Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.1
The dose commitment model used was from ICRP publications #2
and #10.2'3 The results of these calculations are summarized in
Tables 5-59 and 5-60.
The results of these calculations show that the internal
exposure resulting from an in-situ solution mining operation
would be minimal. Typical amounts of radiation that the average
person is exposed to each year are: "*
Food 0.025 rem/yr
Air 0.005 rem/yr
Soil 0.056 rem/yr
Current research indicates that a person may receive up to a
25 rem dose of radiation with no detectable effect.5
turner, D.B. 1970 Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26.
2I.C.R.P. Report of Committee on Permissible Dose for Internal
Radiation. I.C.R.P., Publication No. 2, Permagon Press.1959.
f
3I.C.R.P. Evaluation of Radiation Doses to Body Tissues From
Internal Contamination Due to Occupational Exposure. I.C.R.P.,
Publication No. 10, Permagon Press. 1967.
"* Johns on, T.O. Nuclear Energy Key Issue-9. Lynchburg, VA:
Babcock and Wilcox, NPGD. December 1975.
5Glasstone, S. and A. Sesonske. Nuclear Reactor Engineering.
New York, New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1967. p. 532.
-166-
-------
TABLE 5-59. SUMMARY OF DOSE RATES RECEIVED FROM FACILITY BY A
MAN STANDING AT A CERTAIN DISTANCE FOR A GIVEN
PERIOD OF TIME
Maximum Annual Dose Rate
Worst Case
Site Boundary (50 years) 1.2 rem/yr
Site Boundary (1 year) 0.59 rem/yr
Nearest Residence (50 years) 0.0015 rem/yr
Nearest Residence (1 year) 0.00076 rem/yr
Normal Case
Site Boundary (50 years) 0.17 rem/yr
Site Boundary (1 year) 0.08 rem/yr
Nearest Residence (50 years) 0.00018 rem/yr
Nearest Residence (1 year) 0.00 rem/yr
TABLE 5-60. 50 YEAR DOSE RECEIVED AT MAXIMUM RATE
Dose
Site Boundary (worst case) 60 rem
Site Boundary (normal case) 8.5 rem
Nearest Residence (worst case) 0.77 rem
Nearest Residence (normal case) 0.009 rem
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977, p. 134.
A summary of the annual external radiation doses received at
Wyoming Mineral Corporation's Bruni, Texas solution mine is given
in Tables 5-61 and 5-62. The mine at Bruni produces 250,000 Ibs/yr
of yellowcake. The exposure from this mining operation is low enough
to allow for a 500,000 Ib/yr operation to still not exceed the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's exposure limit given in 10CFR, part 20.
-161-
-------
TABLE 5-61. SUMMARY, 1976 - PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY
RESULTS, BRUNI, TEXAS
Total number of individuals monitored for
entire period = 22
Total accumulated whole body exposure
above background = 70 mrem
Average whole body exposure =3.2 mrem/year/man
Total accumulated skin exposure = 160 mrem
Average skin exposure = 7.2 mrem/man/year
Present occupational (whole body)
exposure limit (10CFR, P20) = 5000 mrem/man/year
TABLE 5-62. AREA MONITOR RESULTS, PERIOD
10/1/76 THROUGH 1/20/77,
BRUNI, TEXAS*
Badge Number Location Exposure Rate
2735-1003 Outer surface of conduit at 48 mrem/year
clarifier feed approximately
4' from clarifier junction
2735-1007 On post, approximately 12-14" 24 mrem/year
above ground surface, 3'-4'
from clarifier underflow pond
*These stations consistently record the highest exposure potential
as they are located near the primary external exposure source,
i.e., calcium .removal (radium-226) .
Source: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming,
Lakewood, Colo.: Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977, p. 127.
-168-
-------
5.4.4 Social Controls for Mining
There are three categories of social controls for mining
operations. First certain statutes and regulations affect the
acquisition of the land itself (leasing), second controls exist
for health and safety and last permits for mining and reclama-
tion must be acquired. All three topics will be discussed
below.
5.4.5 Obtaining Minable Lands
Leasing varies with the land ownership, hence the controls
for federal, Indian, and state ownership will be discussed
separately. Leasing privately owned land is discussed in
Chapter 2.
As noted in Section 5.3.5a the primary method for the acqui-
sition of uranium producing land within the public domain is the
Mining Law of 1872. Procedures for filing a claim under that law
have been discussed in Section 2.3, hence the discussion that
follows is a description of specifics for uranium only. The
sequence of activities for acquiring uranium leases on federal
public domain lands is summarized in Figure 5-19. Additional
figures summarize the procedure for federal acquired lands and
for state lands.
Although uranium is not subject to the Minerals Leasing Act
of 1920, acquired federal lands and the lands embraced within the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) withdrawals are subject to uranium
leases. As indicated in the resource description, a very small
percentage of uranium resources are on federal acquired lands.
BLM may issue leases on these lands under the Acquired Lands Act
of 1947,l although at present only one lease is in operation on
•61 Stat. 913.
-169-
-------
0 *J
•a 4
o
i
I
4
J
4 3 *>
*> t n
•e§<2:
«>
n *> o
e n -ri vi
fc. o E >
» o E L,
.C o « v
S 4 aco
T) B
!3 I
I *-< « U
0 -^ 3
s -p O*
32
°" S?
SO)
T3
.. O. C
«jor>
«9 .0
n o
ss
*S
.U
O rH
h
U 4
. O
< -H
:c *»
n O
°%
« o
*6.
« 3
a -o
I)
BOO i-l
4? -rl tf <0 rH
4 -P 3 rH
rH O.ut O -H
O O 3 E
>^ fci eo
L. O -rl t,
^S^-^fi
^B^V O
s CUB
r7j5 » 5
0.-P *> -P 4
O.-H c] O rH
-< > D. C O
•o 4 e
t, . 4J O
BO -P
«. n
X « < C
*« C 33 O
to w o
•HO
*> O
C «J « C
O ^ •< -H
•a" .5
U 4 8 '
O 4
U rH
U
c"
o o
•H r-l
*> XI
01 4
E u
a TH
•3-S.
S3-
O
a
1 ^
211?
J3 J3 «J O.
out,
2 2g.c
O rH « O ,
1 £
M C OC 6
S3
I
3
4
in
,3
• o
e
rH
£
e .c -ri
0 rH J-> O
£4 c m
<, « •-
O C
.rl B
g
2
.ff
o H o o C
Vi 4 U. « 2
•rl fH S -H
o t, > to c
S O C Si V O
S5 *> t) *> J3 -H
O E C "5 O O
*>. C«H ^ *> g
K u Vi t, u ^j
r-l I. O O n
O. 3 T) Q..H C
ft. O C U fc. O
< a 4 u a. o
•p c
4 a>
n ••
C O
a 4->
g
I
c <->
O a)
a *J
t, n
O V
- i*
c « t)
, - 1« O -H T1 85
u *> t. c c
«-i o m « ri t.
OO-H U CL V
O ^j O ^. C 73 n
O V D-~ —. t)
at o u CL a
-H own
o a c x ' >
rH h a I U T3 «•"
»H u *>
n) . . 60-O w «H
*> n no c « o E
o
n
7
V, (s4 U L. rH'-r- O t> 5 ?
0 O O O «5 *^ 4* -*^ ~-
j=to aoc£n£
O U «) £ -rl
« -C C •) t, n
•H .u —i <•! o n
~
U 4)
3l<
co o.
3 U -rl O* n
«JVUVVLi
a a -a (. TJ o
M l e
c .* -a
»H O OJ
•o o u
1, *i 60
o a
0""" j?
4 >,
4-> V
2-S5
*-• o t,
O flj
-------
«
e
»*>
i ce
I CO B
n - t,
0 c «< -P
O O S B
g-H CO C
*° 8
25 B-
ts.3
to *• -p
W ^^
C
II
•PO
•H «J
rH *H
c. a «s 0
e So to c
§*
•g-B10-
2Sc
0?5c
Ei - .. _
•H X *i t,
r-l O -H c9
r-t « t, 0.
Srt g.g
O
"S
&
o
*
1-4
2
o
4)
b.
g
J
«rt
C
2
a
a
0
3
V
1
^
o
•H
M
al/techno
•i*
o
o
B
V.
O
8
0
1
CO
? *
fa
o2
j; ,
*O *-*
rt
cn ox
** si
B
o fi
^ 00
o L>
O *<^-v
4 T»
B 0
^4*^
rt E s
•<-> E o*
O o« »<
•.£5 i
°^-2 S
o 1-1 o a
o S L, X
« e 0
V 0 to
r-l O.U. n
«
ev »-i to •> > n
o c co o c
•HO L, CO
0 *3 CO Q. r-l
u u a o. o,
B 0 CO
o a e
*» 0 ft, S 0
B^"i5
O 05 ^
il O fci *J *>
.!-> Q. O -H -H
OJ 0 En
0-0 •« C 0-0
v o. 0
r-l C CO C. C -H
O. 41 fi "O V|
rt S-ggggS
_ -H 3 c
V X O *> -^t c
n gj *> o c -o
^H C Li V, V
«^ L. X 0.-r( 0
fi 0
J3 *J 0 fc, X *J
3 C U 0 d 0
CO r-l * V< C3 C
So a
^j O
CO <8 Li
a -o v
J3 * 0
*> 4» O
*I 1
KB B
i> a S -H
H O
0«i-4 O
M** T3
•iH «) t, C
B B -H «
•H C 3
E 0 0* C
., ^ f ° -
O ^H ti -H S
r-l > > b.
(fa 0 -H •< «
49
« 0 t,
o 2. o
1- 0 -H >>
y -0 h t, *j
O B O.-H
<8 B -H
*< 0 *j j: o
0 en C *J cK
*i B « B *H
0 E O
sO 0 0 2 B M C
K t-l O CO
Z r-t I, O -rl -H
^ C *>
O r-l > O C 0
*> f E « ™-l 3
•H 0 Z CO L,
•H 0 0 JS JO 'n
C.*> r-l *> E
a n ^ TH o o
•< E *->•>*> u
a
•-I 0
2M
(.
tr JJ id +> O
{ 0 B J3 V 13
- 1 -> o o c) LI
C o n E o
0 •»•! — ^ -o
w -. * , c -a n c
b W !, Li O t. a!
0) t O ^( *> 4) *J
j3 L, u t, J3 -J J C
«j o o 4> o X -rl
w 0 <-i g n > .u
4^ > 14 C
E *> «j c x c a>
*-l «H *j O 4) o 3
iigiiiii
s
^5
s
•H
^*
0 Jt
•P 0
rH eg
•-4 0 -P
5 1
1°
S*«
0
01 -P
6-s
3^
•3 "3.5
§1 1°
O *J -rt
* -o 6""c
ft) 41 C O 4)
t. C 3 -« 3
TH 4J O CO r-1
CM but)
&i o •• c. c 3 o
00 BOO = *) •>-<
en c m
a a. -r< to «
to ^ ' .0 ° "E
-e o x = U
1
2
rj
^
^ *-,
O CO
^•^ r?
35
'a c
a t>
T3
W Vj
sS
B
II
i-« *3 **
o a
fi
i^ •
Li B
0
•0 JS 0
C *> fl
< T* 0
l-t 1» r-l
S*
gig
tS o
C "O f*
a c o
a) *-.
*- rt C
4J
O L. is
v^ V r-l
r-( Ji 3 CO
J3 t. tflU
0. S S 3
.
o
CM
1
0)
H
bO
fa
-171-
-------
• I
c c *>
h « I Q -H U
o c c £ ao p
*• u o z i» E
01, J3 *J
1} i-l i-l Jj «
2 « > *» o c
•SS. C -H *> O
^ V > O
O * b
*» -H «- *» O X
i. O t. •«* *»
c « o u -H
O •«-> 63 O. Q i-l
«H «• C >- -4
*) E -H C. n y
a) r-l £ n)
(I « -H rH ~ «-c
i-i o <-, 01 c
E O* C
TJ
o j<
e C
o -j
iH
*> e
4 «
*» n.
1°
£3
H o
I
*>
CO
«4
£
« E
62 O
u.o
a)
i! —
o •<
a a,
*»
c9
d co
-H
* E
T3 £
I C U
O i-l
*.• C a
, n o u
•H u
C *> >
o co o
•H «)
n c <
«! » CL
•H e w
So
•-I O
a.-i
t. E
p. a .o
E *> a
LI n
n C
t.
•8
O *-> « « a-
t,' n
« T3
e c *> u
*> O re «
to -H *> S 13
«•> e c
B 3 j= « *
O rl -J i-l JJ
> H JO
«- O O «
a. c
C -r<
O t. Z
i-l *> .c c c
«• rt n o
u :< o u
•r* >>•"->
«- « o C *J
•M *1 C »l C
*» (. o -H
O O o -o
O nl U
b ^=
U »J
n o
o
o o — i
U •« H
>-i C
x a u
j a a
a
•o a
$ . ?
O « nj
> "5 "S
£ ,5
C « O
4) V
ECU
U -* o
5? M c
C C 10
ce M S
(. n
b v, n
•< O -^
-S
89 0 60
C'H -
T* 1-1 O
•o a*>
o "o jo
u o c
o *j -H
« o -a
^* t,
o o
(. X u
o *» o
HO O -rt
C a E
•H o
•a Z i.
<» T3
i-l'iH O
*> e o
M u a
v 1-1 n
> to o
cot,
•H ^ a
*-" H >« «> o
00 C 63-rH
B <-. S -O -J 60
O i-l V « C
C 4* £ r-l E —I
S-H -^ -H 3 i-l
E rH « -4 iH
n C o *> -o -A
O « (.!)«(.
M ck a. -d t. -o
o
T) tt
K « -H
•H > tl
1-4 U M
C V-JCI
•aw g ?„
X 3 *» -rt
S •! B JO
» . (.
O -<»•»< W
*>(.*)«-!>
Cg2 .2
o n c —
«H « I E *>
-»» «. o o w
« 3 •* o a.
o -a i i E
«H U l> *J O
1-4 U »
o- •
«4 e
*J 9
>>_^«
•O -O
5?S
h ^( O.
••
.. « -
«0 C C O «J
•
i-l •) O •< "•
i-l P rt U D.
•* t, V. 3 V
i B. n
-172-
-------
acquired lands. When valuable uranium mineral deposits are
known to exist, the lands are leased competitively under a bonus
bidding and fixed royalty system. Those lands that do not con-
tain a known valuable uranium deposit are made available through
a prospecting permit system with a preference right to lease
upon discovery of a valuable deposit.1 In the case of certain
acquired lands (e.g., National Forests), consent of the surface
management agency (e.g., Forest Service) is required prior to
issuance of leases.2
Mineral leases are actually issued by BLM, but preparation
of the terms of the lease is the joint responsibility of BLM
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). BLM determines whether
a valuable or "workable" deposit exists according to the criteria
of the "prudent man" test. USGS determines the value of the
deposit, sets the financial terms of the lease, and enforces the
stipulations of the lease. The Secretary of the Interior does
not have the authority to cancel leases for noncompliance, leases
may be cancelled only by the federal courts.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gave the Atomic Energy Com-
mission (AEC) broad powers to acquire land which contained
uranium deposits through condemnation or other procedures.
Except for approximately 40 square miles located primarily in
western Colorado acquired between 1947 and 1966 when the
primary use of uranium was for defense purposes, the Commission
did not exercise its statutory authority relating to uranium
land acquisition.
^.S. , Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing
pursuant to S.Res.45, A National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., June 19, 1972, p. 115.
243 C.F.R. 3823 (1973).
-173-
-------
Likewise, AEG conducted no mining operations and apparently
only one milling operation. In general, the Commission
restricted its activities largely to purchasing uranium ores
and concentrates, relying on private industry for exploration
and development. Prior to 1954 the AEC issued uranium mining
leases without formal regulations to govern such leases.
The Atomic Energy Act as amended in 1954 authorized AEC to
"issue leases or permits for prospecting for, exploration for,
mining of, or removal of deposits of (uranium) in lands belonging
to the United States".2 "This was done presumably to promote
exploration and development and to solve, at the administrative
level, some of the problems created by conflict with the mineral
leasing laws. The Circular 7 leasing system combined elements
of both the location and leasing laws".3 However, Congress spe-
cified that AEC's leasing power should be invoked only when it
is the only means of achieving private development of uranium.
The law states that the leasing power is not intended to supplant
the mining laws in any "normal" situation." Only a few leases
were actually issued and their number decreased under the terms
of the Multiple Mineral Development Act which gave the lessees
the option to convert their leases into mining claims. Later in
1954, Circular 7 leasing was terminated, and no leases were
issued after that year.
^wenson, Robert W. "Sources and Evolution of American
Mining Law," in Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, ed.
The American Law of Mining. New York, N.Y.: Matthew Bender,
1973, Vol. 1, p. 107.
242 U.S.C. 2097 (1970).
3Swenson, Robert W. , op.dt., p. 109.
''U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing
pursuant to S.Res.45, A National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., June 19, 1972, p. 287.
-174-
-------
According to legal mandate, AEG withdrawn lands may be
leased by a competitive bidding and royalty system. The
Commission is currently proposing to lease lands it acquired by
purchase or withdrawal in western Colorado, eastern Utah, and
northern New Mexico to private mining operations. The Grand
Junction Operations Office (Colorado) is responsible for the
administration of uranium leases on Commission-controlled lands.
The disposal procedures and royalty schedules for uranium on
these lands are to be determined at the discretion of the Com-
mission. It is expected that the terms of the leases will be
5 to 10 years, renewable for an additional 5 to 10 years, and
may be cancelled for noncompliance.l
The availability of reserved lands to mineral development
varies. For example, National Forest lands reserved from the
public domain are legally open to mineral development under the
1872 Mining Law. However, persons undertaking uranium develop-
ment activities must comply with the rules and regulations gov-
erning the National Forests. In general, Forest Service does not
encourage mineral development within its preserves and carefully
scrutinizes an alleged mineral discovery to confirm whether or
not it is valuable. Military reservations are generally ex-
cluded from entry although if mineral rights were established
prior to reservation, these rights are recognized. It should be
noted, however, that the AEC leasing authority extends to lands
belonging to the U.S. and not otherwise subject to lease, such
as military reservations and reservoir lands.2
'U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing
pursuant to S.Res.45 ,A National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., June 19, 1972, p. 287.
2Stoel, Thomas B., Jr. "Energy," in Dolgin, Erica L., and
Thomas G.P. Guilbert, eds. Federal Environmenta1 Law. St.
Paul, Minn.: West, 1974, p. 947.
-175-
-------
No fees are levied by the federal government on uranium
deposits subject to location under the Mining Law of 1872.1
There is no statuatory provision for payment of any bonus, rental,
or royalty, nor is there any Secretarial discretion to impose
such fees on public domain mining claims. If the claimant patents
his claim, the federal government is entitled to collect a $25
service charge (payable to BLM) and a purchase price of $5.00
per acre for a lode or vein claim and $2.50 per acre for a
placer claim.2
Rental and royalty on uranium leases on acquired lands are
generally within the discretion of the responsible agency head.
Leases usually stipulate a rental charge of one dollar per acre
and a royalty of seven to ten percent of the value of the minerals
AEC established a uranium purchase program in 1947 to stimulate
exploration for the resource. Although the program was curtailed
in 1958, it did result in the discovery and development of most
of the present day uranium districts. From 1958 to 1966, explora-
tion was conducted on a limited basis, but in 1967 the outlook
for a private market in the electrical power generation industry
improved so that by 1969, exploration drilling had reached an
all-time high. Information on remittances to the federal gov-
ernment from production activities is not detailed. Aggregate
estimates summarizing receipts from royalties and other land-
owner payments indicate that the federal government received
about $500,000 per year (average) for the period 1953 to 1962.
AEC received no income from uranium leases after 1962.3
^.S., Congress, Stenate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing
pursuant to S^Res.45, A National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., June 19, 1972, p. 118.
230 U.S.C. 29 (1970), see also 43 C.F.R. Subparts 3862 and
3863 (1973).
3Senate Interior Committee. Federal Leasing Policies,
p. 291.
-176-
-------
5.4.5b Indian Lands
A number of major uranium deposits have been developed on
Indian lands (e.g., the Laguna, Navajo and Spokane reservations).
The Congress has enacted special laws applicable to Indian lands
and therefore the Mining Law of 1872 does not pertain to this par-
ticular land category. All kinds of minerals on most tribal lands
may be leased under authority of the act of May 11, 1938.l The
principal goal of Interior regarding the development of minerals
on Indian lands is to "assist the Indian landowners in deriving
the maximum economic benefits from their resources consistent
with sound conservation practices and environmental protection."2
In most cases, uranium mineral rights are leased by the
tribes or individual Indians but the lease is subject to the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior as trustee. Indian-
owned lands are made available through a competitive lease
system with advertised bids unless the Secretary of the
Interior or the Commissioner of Indian Affairs authorizes
private negotiations between the applicant and the landowner(s).
The highest bonus bid is awarded the lease regardless of other
considerations. USGS, the Indian landowners, personnel of BIA
and, in some cases, their attorneys or mining consultants
evaluate mineral lease offers. Rental and royalty payments are
flexible and are determined according to market considerations.
There is a performance requirement to spend $10 per acre per
year on the development of mineral leases.3 The Indians receive
the entire income from leases on their lands.
'25 U.S.C. 3962-d.
2U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing
pursuant to S. Res. 45, A National Fuels and Energy Policy
Study, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 1972, p. 652.
3Berger, Edward B. "Indian Mineral Interest - A Potential
for Economic Advancement." Arizona Law Review, Vol. 10 (Winter
1968), pp. 688.
-177-
-------
Leases of Indian mineral land are nonrenewable and are
awarded for a maximum of ten years or as long as minerals are
produced in paying quantities after the ten year period. There
is no limit on the number of leases an individual or corporation
may hold but there is a limit of 2,560 acres per lease. Lease
provisions may be amended within the term of the lease with the
consent of all parties and approval by the Secretary. In addition,
nearly all Indian uranium mining leases provide for a reasonable
adjustment of royalty rates by the Secretary, based on market
and economic conditions, at the end of the primary term and
specified periods later. The Secretary also has the authority to
cancel an Indian lease if violations of the terms occur.1 Data
on leases for Indian lands are not readily available.
5.4.5c State Lands
Most states have passed legislation providing for leasing
of state-owned lands or minerals reserved from sale. The follow-
ing discussion is intended to present some of the broad aspects
of acquisition by private parties of rights to uranium lands
owned by the western states. While all states have rather com-
plete legislation covering all minerals, New Mexico has one of
the newer and more complete systems for leasing state-owned min-
eral lands. Except in those cases where state legislation incor-
porates federal statutory provisions, minerals owned by these
states are subject to state law only. In general, it is the goal
of leasing statutes to "effect a policy to promote the discovery
and development of the mineral resources of the state for the bene-
fit of the public through a system of licensing on a royalty basis.2
^.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Federal Leasing and Disposal Policies. Hearing pursuant
to S. Res. 45, A National Fuels and Energy Policy Study, 92d Cong.,
2d Sess., June 19, 1972, p. 658.
2Verity, Victor, John Lacy, and Joseph Geraud. "Mineral
Laws of State and Local Government Bodies," in Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Foundation, ed. The American Law of Mining. New
York, N.Y.: Matthew Bender, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 638.
-178-
-------
Usually the management and disposal of state lands is located
in a single agency; the lone exception being North Dakota where
each state agency is allowed to lease the lands it controls. The
administrative head of the agency is authorized to accept or
reject lease applications. Approval of a lease may require
consent from one or more state agencies. While most states have
constitutional provisions authorizing the sale of state-owned
lands, there has been a noticeable trend in legislation in the
recent past toward reservation of minerals. Reservation policies
of some states are based on retention of a fractional part
(undivided) of the minerals upon sale, however, states which
presently reserve minerals may have sold lands without reservation
prior to passage of new legislation (e.g. , Colorado prior to 1917),
The manner in which minerals may be claimed affects the
method of obtaining a lease. Colorado continues to use a form
of location or mining claim as a preliminary step in obtaining
a mineral lease, but there is a definite trend away from this
kind of practice. In fact, New Mexico repealed such a statute
in 1955. Likewise, the area that can be encompassed in a claim
depends on specific state stipulations and, in the case of Colo-
rado, is not specified at all. The distinction between lodes and
placers made in the federal statutes as well as the recognition of
extralateral rights does not receive attention in state mineral
land laws and is "on the verge of extinction".1 State laws also
contain provisions for surface management, unlike federal statutes
in which the claimant gains exclusive right to surface lands.
As noted above, the various methods of location are all
preliminary steps toward obtaining a lease from the state.
Verity, Victor, John Lacy, and Joseph Geraud. "Mineral
Laws of State and Local Government Bodies," in Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Foundation, ed. The American Law of Mining. New
York, N.Y.: Matthew Bender, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 648.Although
still retained by Wyoming.
-179-
-------
Location as a rule gives the claimant a preferential right to
lease the claim provided statutory requirements are fulfilled.
The actual process for leasing uranium varies from state to
state. Leasing may be on a preferential rights basis, a first-
come first-served basis, or through competitive bidding.1 Appli-
cation for a mineral lease must be in writing and accompanied
by payment of a fee to cover processing and issuance. Also,
lease applications (e.g. , on a preferential right basis) must
be filed in the time specified by statute. As a rule the leasing
agency is not required to offer the land for lease and may reject
an application. Mandamus may lie to compel the execution of a
lease, "but is seldom successful because considerable discretion
is granted the state agency charged with the management and dis-
position of state-owned lands".2
The length of the lease may vary but is within the range of
three to twenty years with the right to mine thereafter as long
as the specified minerals are produced in paying quantities.
New Mexico provides for succeeding periods of three, two and
five years at increasing rental rates. Rental rates for state
mineral leases are usually fixed, and if a royalty system is in
effect it is generally established through a calculation of the
percentage of production. New Mexico, Wyoming, and South Dakota
require bonding for faithful performance of the lease terms and
Utah, New Mexico, and North Dakota stipulate posting of a bond
for the protection of third persons which if forfeited may be
given either directly to the third person or to the state for the
benefit of the third person. Most of the states have a statutory
provision for cancellation of leases for noncompliance.
:For summary of state laws on leasing see Table 5-63.
2Verity, Victor, John Lacy, and Joseph Geraud. "Mineral Laws
of State and Local Government Bodies," in Rocky Mountain Mineral
Law Foundation, ed. The American Law of Mining. New York, N.Y.:
Matthew Bender, 1973, Vol. 2, pp. 659-60.
-180-
-------
Although the Colorado law does not specifically give a
preferential right to a lease, judicial decision has given the
locator such a priority.:
Included in the following tables is a summary of state
statutory law for leasing of state owned uranium lands and the
others are detailed compilations for each state. Although these
are the procedures for leasing, it should be noted that Section
5.3.7.2 on exploration of state lands and Section 2.3 in Chapter
2 will also add classification to this section.
5.4.6 Health and Safety of Mining Personnel
Since Section 2.7 of Chapter 2 was devoted to a discussion
of all general health and safety social controls, this section
will only include a discussion of those controls specifically
applicable to uranium mining. One of the more controversial
aspects of uranium mine safety has been the potential exposure
of underground uranium mine workers to radon gas.
Originally the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) issued
guidelines for mining exposure but received criticism from labor
for reflecting the interest of the nuclear industry at the
expense of mining personnel.2 In 1970, FRC functions were
transferred to EPA and the Agency then became responsible for
providing guidance for radon daughter exposure limits in uranium
mines. The implementation and enforcement of the EPA guidelines
1 Verity, Victor, John Lacy, and Joseph Geraud. "Mineral Laws
of State and Local Government Bodies," in Rocky Mountain Mineral
Law Foundation, ed. The American Law of Mining. New York, N.Y.:
Matthew Bender, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 649.
2Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Congress and the Nation,
Vol. 3: 1969-1972. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly,
1973, p. 842.
-181-
-------
TABLE 5-63- SUMMARY OF TERMS FOR URANIUM LEASES ON STATE LANDS
AZ
CO
MT
NM
ND
SD
UT
WY
Duration of
Lease
20 years
(renewable)
Not specified
10 years
(renewable)
3 years
(renewable)
5 years (continues
while producing)
5 years
(renewable)
10 years (continues
while producing)
10 years
(renewable)
Preference to
Lease Given
to exploration
permittee
Must lease be issued
under competitive bid
Not specified
Yes
Optional
Yes
Optional
New leases must be
competitive
Not specified
-182-
-------
TABLE 5-64. ARIZONA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES'
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 27-254
§ 27-254
§ 27-234
§ 27-234
§ 27-235
State Land Department, State
Land Commissioner
Discovery under, exploration
permit; Proof of valuable
mineral deposit
$15 per year for each 20 acres
50% of net value of production
20 years, with renewal of suc-
cessive 20 year terms
Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated, 1956.
-183-
-------
TABLE 5-65. COLORADO URANIUM LEASE FEATURES51
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 36-1-113
§ 36-1-112
§ 36-1-114
§ 34-32-109
State Board of Land Commis-
sioners
Application—50*
Lease—$1.00
Lease service fee—$5.00
Board may adjust rentals to
get maximum revenue
See supplemental sheet for
open mine permit if required
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973.
-184-
-------
TABLE 5-66. MONTANA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES'
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 81-501
§ 81-501
§ 81-503
§ 81-503
§ 81-502
§ 50-10
§ 50-16
§ 69-33
§ 50-1704
State board of land commis-
sioners
These lands must be leased by
competitive bids to at least
fair market value
Set by board, but not less
than $2 per acre
Set by board, but not less
than 10%
10 years, renewable every 5
years after that
See supplemental sheets for
Strip and Underground Mining
Act, Mine Siting Act, and
geophysical exploration
permit
No person may prospect,
initiate construction, or
undertake pre-operation of
solution extraction of
uranium for 2 years (from
April 8, 1975)
Revised Codes of Montana, 1947. This is also the procedure
for uranium exploration in Montana.
-185-
-------
TABLE 5-67. NEW MEXICO URANIUM LEASE FEATURES
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
§ 7-9-17
§ 7-9-21.1
§ 7-9-22
§ 7-9-31
§ 7-9-23
§ 7-9-21
Bond
Other
Information
§ 7-9-25
§ 7-9-34
§ 7-9-19
Commissioner of Public lands
$10
Rent to be set by commissioner but not
less than 5$ per acre during primary
and not less than 50£ per acre
secondary—con'd
Maximum are in lease - 16 sections
Not less than 5% or gross plus not less
than 5% of all bonuses earned by
lessee
Primary term 3 years, a 2-year extension
available but rent is 10 times as much
per year. Secondary term for produc-
tion allowed
Bond set by commissioner but not less
than $5,000 for surface repair
Commissioner may use competitive
bidding
In 1955 New Mexico ceased to issue the
prospecting permit and all exploration
must come under lease procedures above
Mexico Statutes, 1953. This is also the procedure for uranium
exploration in New Mexico.
-186-
-------
TABLE 5-68. NORTH DAKOTA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES'
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 38-11-03
§ 38-11-02
§ 38-11-07
§ 38-11-03
§ 38-15-03
§ 38-16
All agencies of the state are
authorized to lease, but Board
of University and School Land
established standards, policies,
terms, conditions, rules, and
regulations for such activities.
Set by Board of University and
School Land
Set by Board of University and
School Land
Set by Board of University and
School Land
The Industrial Commission may
require a bond to satisfy con-
flicts between mining or oil
and gas developers on same land,
The State Soil Conservation
Committee requires a report
of operation annually if it is
a surface mine.
North Dakota Century Code, 1960, as amended. This is also the
procedures for uranium exploration in North Dakota.
-187-
-------
TABLE 5-69. SOUTH DAKOTA URANIUM LEASE FEATURES*
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 5-7-1
§ 5-7-13
§ 5-7-12
§ 5-7-12
§ 5-7-12
§ 5-7-12
§ 5-7-13
§ 5-7-13
§ 45-7A-3
§ 45-7A-2
§ 5-7-2
S 5-7-11'
§ 45-6A-16
Commissioner of school and public lands
A reclamation plan
$25 for application
Fixed by Board of School and Public
lands, but not less than 5%
Nor more than five years, with renewal
available for five year terms
Required for payment of royalties
Amount of bond for no. 7 above at
discretion of commissioner
A report of any exploratory well drilled
must be sent to Department of Natural
Resources (will be kept confidential)
Such wells must be capped, sealed, or
plugged
This section specifically exempts coal
and uranium from a required lease by
competitive bidding
This section says the permittee may
apply for a license (lease). (But
says nothing of preference to
permittee)
This section exempts state lands from
the requirement of a surface mining
permit (fee-?50) issued by the state
conservation commission
South Dakota Compiled Laws, 1967.
-188-
-------
TABLE 5-70. UTAH URANIUM LEASE FEATURES*
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 65-1-18
§ 65-1-24
§ 65-1-18
§ 65-1-18
§ 65-1-18
§' 65-1-90
§ 65-1-90
§ 40-8-13
§ 40-8-14
§ 40-6-5
65-1-45
State Land Board
per acre
Not less than 50C per acre per year
nor more than $1.00 per acre per
year
Not more than 12^% of gross
Not less than 10 years and for so long
as producing
Required only to reinstate lease after
failure to pay for damages to surface
Amount of bond in item no. 7
If this is a mining operation (surface)
the developer must submit a plan of
reclamation and before operations
start also execute a bond, for
surface damage. The Board of Oil,
Gas, and Mining controls this aspect.
The Board determines the amount of
bond
The Board of Oil, Gas and Mining has
the authority to require:
(a) security (for plugging)
(b) notice of intent to drill
(c) filing of a well log (for any
drilling)
Newly acquired lands and lands with an
expiring lease must be let through
competitive bids, all others leased
to first applicant.
Code Annotated, 1953
-189-
-------
TABLE 5-71, WYOMING URANIUM LEASE FEATURES3
Item
Statutes
Summary
Agency
Requirements
Fees
Rental
Royalty
Duration
Bond
Other
Information
§ 36-74
§ 36-42
§ 36-74
§ 36-74
Board of land commissioners, Commis-
sioner of public lands
Fee for filing a lease application
is $15
Not more than 10 years, with prefer-
ential right to renew for 10 year
periods
The agency above has authority to set
rates and terms in its rules and
regulations within confines of
specific statutes noted above
Wyoming Statutes of 1957:
-190-
-------
are within the authority of Labor, specifically the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA). The mandatory limits for radon
daughter exposures are no more than 4 working level months (WLM)*
exposure during any calendar year, no exposures greater than 1.0
WL, and individual exposure level records required for persons
working in any area with levels greater than 0.3 WL.2
5.4.7 Mining Permits and Reclamation
Not all mining on federal lands is controlled by permit
nor is all of it subject to reclamation. Below is discussed
the controls in the specific areas.
5.4.7a Federal Regulation
As noted in the section on making lands available, a high
percentage of uranium is found on public domain lands. Since
in this case uranium is a location-patent mineral, the mining
laws in effect give the locator possessory rights to the claim.
As a result, federal controls governing land use and land reclama-
tion for uranium mining activities on the public domain are lacking
in some areas. According to the Mining Law of 1872, no permit is
required for mining on these lands, although permits are required
for the construction of access roads to mining sites on land
administered by BLM and the Forest Service.
^'Working level" (WL) is a measure of level of radiation
due to products of radioactive decay of radon. It is set at
an emission of 1.3 x 10s million electron volts of alpha rays
per liter of air. Inhalation of air containing a radon daughter
concentration of 1 WL for 173 hours results in an exposure of
1 working level month (WLM). 30 C.F.R. 57.2.
230 C.F.R. 57.5-37 to -40.
-191-
-------
In terms of protection of nonmineral resources on the
public domain, the surface management agency is responsible
for protecting other resources which may be adversely affected
by mining operations. For example, uranium production is subject
to certain regulations on public domain lands administered by the
Forest Service.1
The Mining Law of 1872 does not provide for federal control
of land reclamation or environmental impacts. Regulations pro-
mulgated by Interior for reclamation of public lands exempt
uranium mining.2 In cases where federal control is lacking,
particularly in the area of land reclamation on the public domain,
Colorado and Wyoming have passed laws requiring the restoration
of lands disturbed by mining operations. These state laws are
applicable to mining operations on the public domain.
On federally acquired lands the BLM may formulate requirements
for land reclamation and the protection of nonmineral resources
to be incorporated into the terms of the lease. The Forest
Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW)
may have input into this process.3 Before extraction begins, a
mining plan must be filed with USGS, and this plan may contain
provisions for land reclamation and the protection of other non-
mineral resources. USGS decides whether or not to issue an
environmental impact statement on the proposed mining operation.
The agency is also responsible to supervising mining operations
conducted on acquired lands.
William 0., et ai. Federal Energy Regulation: An
Organizational Study. Washington, B.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1974, p. H-20.
243 C.F.R. Subtitle A, 23.2a.
3Doub, William 0., et ai., op.cit., p. H-21.
-192-
-------
On Indian lands provisions for land reclamation and the pro-
tection of other resources may be incorporated into the terms of
the lease, as noted earlier. In addition, provisions for land
reclamation and other environmental provisions must be out-lined
in the leasee's mining plan which is subject to approval by USGS.
Conformity with lease and mining plan provisions is subsequently
monitored by the Geological Survey.1 The mining operator is also
required to file a performance bond on Indian lands.
While most of the manufacturing operations that comprise the
nuclear fuel cycle are subject to licensing and regulation by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), uranium mining is an excep-
tion. NRC does have the authority to issue mining permits on
federal lands, but for the most part has only exercised this
authority on what were AEC withdrawn lands. However, the NRC
considers the environmental effects of uranium mining pursuant
to its licensing authority for closely related milling operations.
The NRC Director of Regulation requires that environmental impact
statements filed for milling operations include the impact of
mines owned and operated in conjunction with the mill.
The regulation of emissions and effluents from mining
operations falls within the auspices of a number of agencies.
In general, EPA or states with EPA approved programs set standards
for water and air quality and have responsibility for the enforce-
ment of these standards. A uranium mining operation must obtain
a water discharge permit from either EPA or a state with an EPA
approved water quality program. In some cases, the Corps of
Engineers reviews EPA discharge permits to assess the potential
impact of the activity on navigation waters. 2
!25 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter P, 177.7.
2Doub, William 0., et al. Federal Energy Regulation: An
Organizational Study. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1974, p. H-21.
-193-
-------
EPA has established effluent limitations for uranium mines
as point sources. These are indicated in Table 5-72 for existing
and new sources. These limitations may be exceeded as a result
of a storm which is not likely to occur any more frequently than
once in 25 years.l
On acquired lands where uranium mineral rights are leased
(i.e. , deposits are known to exist), BLM may require certain ef-
fluent standards to be met as a condition of the lease. The
Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife may
have input into this process.2 USGS supervises uranium mining
operations to insure compliance with agency environmental stipu-
lations in addition to enforcing its own regulations which are
designed to minimize pollution.3
5.4.7b State Regulation
Some western states have attempted to fill the void in uranium
land reclamation making their state laws applicable to all lands
within the state including the public domain. In particular Colorado
and Wyoming have done so. Although other states have reclamation
laws they may or may not be applicable to federal-public domain lands,
Although Colorado has a relatively weak strip mining law, a
new state law went into effect in 1974 giving the state control over
development activities of statewide interest (H.B. 1041).
'Federal Register 40, 215, p. 51745, Nov. 6, 1975.
2Doub, William 0., et al. Federal Energy Regulation: An
Organizational Study. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1974, p. H-21.
3U.S., General Services Administration, National Archives
and Records Service, Office of the Federal Register. United
States Government Manual 1973/74. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1973, p. 272.
-194-
-------
TABLE 5-72. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR URANIUM MINES
Effluent
TSS
Cd
Zn
As
Ra 226C
U
COD
Mo
V
PH
Existing Sources3
Max for any
one day
30
0.10
0.2
0.2
10
4
100
2.0
10
within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Avg. for
30 days
20
0.05
0.1
0.1
3
2
50
1.0
5
—
New Sources13
Max for any
one day
30
0.10
0.2
0.2
10
4
100
-
-
within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Avg. for
30 days
20
0.005
0.1
0.1
3
2
50
-
-
-
40 CFR 440.53 (a) (1)
340 CFR 440.55 (a) (1)
•*
"Values in picocurie per liter
-195-
-------
In addition, the legislature enacted another bill (H.B. 1034)
in 1974 to clarify the full zoning and planning controls now
available to localities. New Mexico, although it has no state-
wide land use policy, does have a strip mining law. The
Conservation and Land Use Study Commission of Wyoming has drafted
a state land use planning act which is being considered by the
legislature. The Utah Land Use Act, providing for designation
of and planning for critical environmental areas, was passed by
the legislature in 1974.
-196-
-------
5.5 URANIUM MILLING
The basic purpose of the milling process is to extract the
UsOe from the uranium ore and concentrate it into "yellowcake"
(which contains about 90 percent UaOs). There are several
operational uranium milling facilities in the U.S. Currently,
uranium mills have milling capabilities from 400 to 7,000 tons
of ore per day.l The milling module described in this section
processes the ore from the surface and underground uranium mines
described in the mining section. The rate of mill input assumed
in the discussion of milling technology is 1200 tons/day (440,000
TPY). The ore is assumed to contain 0.2 percent U308. The
recovery at the mill is assumed to be 93 percent of U308 input.
Upon this basis, the mill produces 4500 Ib/day (800 ton/year)
of yellowcake containing 4200 Ib/day (740 ton/year) U30s.
5.5.1 Technology
Extraction of uranium from the ore involves both mechanical
and chemical processes, with the chemical process being the
core of the milling operation. There are two chemical processes
that are used by U.S. uranium mills for extracting uranium
from ore, the acid leach process and the alkaline carbonate
'ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand
Junction, Colorado:U.S.Energy Research and Development
Administration, Grand Junction Office, January 1, 1977, p. 102.
-197-
-------
leach process . l ' *' 3 ' "' 5' s' 7 Selection of the leaching process
is dependent on the physical and chemical properties of the
ore, with the main consideration being the lime content of the
ore.3 The acid leaching process is suitable when the ores have
a lime content on the order of 12 percent of less.9 The alkaline
carbonate leaching process is suitable when the ores have higher
lime content. The acid leaching process does not dissolve
radium as readily as the alkaline leaching process.10
^attelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Data for
Preliminary Phase of the Environmental Quality Information and
Planning System (EQUIPS).BNWL-B-141, Richland, Wash., 1971.
2Clark, Don A. State-of-the-Art - Uranium Mining, Milling,
and Refining Industry, EPA 660/2-74-038.Rob't S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Lab. , Ada OK, 1974.
3Caropreso, Frank E. and Badger, William P. "Hydrogen
Peroxide Precipitation of Uranium at the Atlas Minerals Uranium.
Mill," Trans., Soc. Mining Engrs., AIME 254 (4), 281, 1973.
"Geier, Harold. "Uranium Ore Treatment," Megallges, A. G. ,
Rev. Activ., N.S. No. 13 (1970), 29.
5Humble Oil and Refining Co., Minerals Dept. Highland
Uranium Mill, Converse County, Wyoming, Applicant's Environ-
mental Report, Houston, Tex., 1971.
6Nuclear Assurance Corp. U.S. Uranium. Economics and
Technology, NAC-1, Atlanta, Ga.
7Rosenbaum, J. B. and George, D. R. "Cost Reductions in
Ion Exchange Processing of Uranium Ores," Symposium on the
Recovery of Uranium from Its Ores and Other Sources, Sal Paulo,
Aug. 19/0, Proceedings, Vienna,International Atomic Energy
Agency, 1971, pp. 297 ff.
8Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Data for
Preliminary Demonstration Phase of the Environmental Quality
Information and Planning System (EQUIPS), BNWL-B-141, Richland,
Wash., 1971.
9Clark, Don A. State-of-the-Art - Uranium Mining, Milling,
and Refining Industry, EPA 660/2-74-038, Rob't. S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Ada, Ok., 1974.
10U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental Survey of
the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, WASH-1237, Springfield, Va.:NTIS, 1972
-198-
-------
As a consequence, the acid leaching process discharges more
radium with the tailing thereby creating solid wastes with
slightly increased radioactivity.
In the U.S., most uranium mills use the acid leaching
process. As reflected in Table 5-73, only four of the sixteen
uranium mills in operation employ the alkaline leaching process.
Several steps are involved in removing uranium from ore
during uranium milling operations. To illustrate the milling
operations, a block diagram of the acid leaching process is
shown in Figure 5-22. The uranium mill subsequently described
is similar to a mill proposed by Humble Oil and Refining Company
to be operated in Converse County, Wyoming and represents the
process predominantly used in the U.S.1
The first step in the milling process is ore preparation.
Characteristics of concern include size, hardness, uranium con-
tent, clay content, and moisture content. With all ore pro-
cessing plants, some "average ore" must be defined and the
design based on it. A design based on the "worst ore" will
be extremely expensive to build and will have excess capacity
most of the time. Conversely, if the "best ore" is assumed,
the plant will be less expensive to build but will not have
adequate capacity most of the time. The same holds true if
any single characteristic of the ore is considered.
The blending and storage yard will allow blending of ore
from various parts of the pit to maintain steady, average
characteristics. Up to 50 days' ore requirements can be placed
1 Humble Oil and Refining Company. Environmental Report,
Highland Uranium Mill, Converse County, Wyoming, Applicants
Report to the Atomic Energy Commission. Houston, Texas:
Humble Oil and Refining, July 1971.
-199-
-------
TABLE 5-73. URANIUM MILL PROCESS METHODS AS OF 1/1/77
State and Company
Plant Location
Mill Process
Colorado:
Cotter Corporation
Union Carbide Corporation
New Mexico:
The Anaconda Company
Kerr-McGee Corporation
Sohio-Reserve Oila
United Nuclear -Homestake Partners
Texas :
Conoco-Pioneer
Utah:
Atlas Corporation
Rio Algom Corporation
Washington:
Dawn Mining Company
Wyoming:
Federal American Partners
Union Carbide Corporation
Utah International Inc.
Utah International Inc.
Western Nuclear Inc.
Exxon Company
Source: Nuclear Assurance Corp. U.S
Canon City
Unravan
Grants
Grants
Cebolleta
Grants
Falls City
Moab
La Sal
Ford
Gas Hills
Gas Hills
Gas Hills
Shirley Basin
Jeffrey City
Powder River Basin
. Uranium, Economics
A1K, C-ppt
AL, CCD, IX
AL, BRIP
AL. CCD, SX
AL°
A1K, C-ppt
AL, CCD, SXC
A1K, BRIP
ALKb
AL, IXb
AL, ELUEX, CRIP
AL, CRIP
AL, CCD, ELUEX
AL, CCD, ELUEX
AL, ELUEX, CRIP
AL, CCD, SXd
and Technology, NAC-1
Atlanta, GA. Nuclear Assurance Corp. p. VIII-6.
o
ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand Junction, Colorado:
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Grand Junction Office.
January 1, 1977. p. 102.
Mining Information Services, Engineering and Mining Journal. 1977 E/MJ Interna-
tional Directory of Mining and Mineral Processing Operations. New York, NY.
Mining Information Services of the McGraw-Hill Mining Publications. 1977. Sect. 2A.
GKullus, M.F. Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining and Milling in South Texas.
Houston, TX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Houston Branch. 1975. p. V-GA.
Exxon Company, U.S.A. Application for Amendment to Source Material License
SUA-1139 for Solution Mining of Uranium, Supplemental Environmental Report.
Houston, TX. Exxon Company. 1977. Appendix I, p. 26.
Abbreviations
ALK - Alkaline Leach CRIP -
AL - Acid Leach ELUEX -
CCD - Countercurrent decantation IX
C-ppt - Caustic precipitation SX
BRIP - Basket Resen in Pulp
Continuous Resin in Pulp
Rip or IX with H SO solution
Column Ion Exchange
Solvent Extraction
-200-
-------
0
1
ITATION
o
z
z
CO
<
£ *
uj g
ff 5
CL <
1
z
ai
o
CO
OUj
h£
s| * /
CKENING
AND
FRIFUGING
* 1
$1** 3/
CO 2 U./
H- CC
< UJ
•z.
* s*l
H O
z p
UJ 0
> <
0 H
co £
UJ
'
f
6*
CO — »•
CM
z
/8
U / D
< a
E S
~*»UL m ^-
5 3
QC cr
o
CO
/ — \
1 '
- 5
o 5
Z N
•z E
5 uj
Sg
A \ "
/ 2T X
/ o
/ «o.
o
•z
S x
0 0
< <
Ul
_J
j
x^
»-z
«2
^S6
^
H
cx
co
co
CM
C "
O PC
•H 00
CO <
•H £ 01
C O i-l
cc o a
M
• ai CD
CM c 3
O-J Crl p^
i
m o ^
•H CO
at E ai
>-i o >—'
34-10
M < 3
fe
CO O)
• X!
0)
o
V4
3
O
CO
UJ
QC
O
-201-
-------
in the yard. This will allow a further benefit - the drying of
the ore from 15 percent moisture as mined to 10 to 12 percent
moisture. At this moisture content the ore can be handled and
crushed without causing significant sticking and clogging prob-
lems, and, at the same time, without the generation of signifi-
cant amounts of dust. As with all open areas, some dusting will
result. This is not considered to be a significant health
problem.:
The blending will be carried out by directing the trucks
from the mine to the proper pile to achieve the desired blend.
Additional blending can be achieved when the ore is withdrawn
from the piles with the front-end loader as it is being fed to
the ore hopper.
The next segment of ore preparation is crushing and
grinding. Size reduction of the ore is necessary for two
reasons; 1) small particles offer greater exposure of the
uranium mineral to the leaching agent, and 2) the ore particles
must be fine enough so that they can be pumped and flowed
through pipes and process equipment without settling out and
clogging the system.
An apron feeder will withdraw ore from the hopper and feed
it out a belt conveyor which transfers the ore out to the
crusher building.
In the crushing process, the uranium ore is first screened
in a three inch vibrating grizzly. Material larger than three
inches is separated and conveyed to a two impeller impact crusher.
Crushed material from the crusher is mixed with the minus three
Ratlin, Robert J. "Uranium Mining Health and Safety,"
presented at the Topical Conference on Nuclear Public Information,
Pal Harbour, Florida, March 22, 1971.
-202-
-------
inch material from the grizzly and then ground to small particles
in a wet rod mill. The ground ore is pumped, in slurry form,
from the rod mill to the leaching process.
The dust from the ore preparation is controlled by two dust
collection systems, one in the crushing area and the other in
the fine ore bin area. They are fan-powered wet systems designed
to operate at a dust concentration of 8 grains of minus 10 micron
sandstone dust per cubic foot. The collection efficiencies are
greater than 95 percent.
Leaching is the process by which the uranium minerals are
dissolved from the bulk of the valueless sandstone. The process
devised for treating the ore utilizes heat to increase the
reaction rate of the leaching agents. Sulfuric acid and sodium
chlorate are added at the rates of 40 pounds and 1 pound per
ton of ore.
The leaching process continues over 8 hours as the slurry
flows by gravity through the series of 8 mechanically agitated
holding tanks. All of the soluble uranium (more than 95 percent
of the total uranium) has at this point been placed in solution.
The recovery of uranium from the leach solution is
accomplished in four sequential steps. The first involves the
separation of the dissolved uranium from the insoluble waste
material or tailing. The second is the concentration of uranium
by extraction from the leach solution into an organic phase and
then returning it to another aqueous phase. The third step
is the precipitation of the uranium from solution as yellowcake.
The final step is drying the yellowcake product.
A five-stage countercurrent decantation (CCD) process will
be used to separate the uranium solution from the insoluble solid
-203-
-------
waste residue. The final product from the decantation process
is a relatively clear aqueous solution containing the UaOs with-
out the undissolved solids. The UsOs is then removed from this
solution by solvent extraction.
Solvent extraction is an ion exchange process which uses a
liquid ion exchange reagent dissolved in a. kerosene organic
phase. The ion exchange reagent, a tertiary amine, is very
soluble in kerosene but quite insoluble in water. When the
organic phase is mixed with the aqueous uranium solution, sul-
fate ion from the organic phase is exchanged for a uranium ion
from the aqueous phase. Four serial stages of solvent extraction
are used. After the uranium has been removed, this aqueous
solution is recycled to the CCD circuit to dissolve additional
uranium.
The organic phase, which now contains the uranium, is pumped
to a four-stage stripping circuit where the uranium ions are
stripped from the organic phase with a concentrated ammonium
sulfate solution. The uranium free organic phase is recycled
to the solvent extraction circuit. The aqueous phase, laden
with highly concentrated uranium is pumped to the precipitation
process.
Precipitation involves adding anhydrous ammonia to the
uranium solution to precipitate yellow ammonium uranium oxide,
chemically (NHOa UaO?- This yellow precipitate is separated
from the solution by gravity settling a series of two thickeners.
The second thickener underflow is pumped to a continuous solid
bowl centrifuge for further washing and dewatering. The centri-
fuge discharge (yellowcake) goes to the drier.
-204-
-------
The yellowcake must have almost no contained moisture to
meet specifications. This is accomplished by heating the
discharge of the centrifuge to about 600°F in a six-hearth
roaster.
The roaster off-gas with its entrained dust load is treated
in a wet dust-collecting system. Yellowcake dust produced
during the subsequent packaging operation is collected through
the same system. The dust loading of the gas entering the
system is estimated at .73 grains/cubic foot, with most particles
minus 10 microns. The dust content of the discharge gas is .005
grains/cubic foot. The system assures that people within and
outside of the restricted area are not exposed to unsafe conditions
The dried yellowcake is pulverized using a single impactor
hammer mill and stored in a hopper. A hose-tubing connection is
made to the 55-gallon drums in which the product will be stored
and shipped. The connection is dust tight, and the air displaced
during the filling of the drum is exhausted through the previously
mentioned dust collection system.
The uranium mill is designed so that during normal operation
and all foreseeable emergency conditions, no solution or fluid
of any kind can escape the process. All spills are pumped back
to the process or to the tailing when the emergency is over.
This is accomplished by careful planning of floor grades and
building walls so that there is adequate volume to contain spills
within the buildings.
5.5.2 Input Requirements
The inputs to a 1200 ton/day uranium ore milling facility
are considered in the following sections. These inputs include
-205-
-------
labor, materials and equipment, capital expenditures, water,
land, and a source of energy.
5.5.2a Manpower Requirements
There are two labor phases required of all facilities -
construction and operation. Exxon has estimated the personnel
necessary to construct and operate a mill capable of processing
2500 tons of raw ore per day. l Tables 5-74 and 5-75 present
the proposed personnel for construction and operation of such
a mi 11.
Construction is assumed to be a 1-shift, 40-hour week
operation. These same figures can be used as a high estimate
of the manpower required to construct a 1200 ton/day mill. With
this estimate, the construction of the 1200 ton/day mill should
take less than the three year period proposed for the 2500 ton/
day mill.
Exxon has estimated that a labor force of 77 people would
be required to operate their 2500' ton/day facility. Rocky
Mountain Energy Co. has estimated a total mill-work force of 75
people for its 1000 ton/day mill.2 The similarities of these
two estimates indicate that among commercial scale processing
mills, size does not greatly affect personnel requirements.
Therefore we will assume the personnel requirements given for
operating Exxon's 2500 ton/day mill would probably also serve
as a good estimated for the 1200 ton/day mill. A typical mill
will operate for about 10 years.
1 Planning Support Group Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium
Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Mavajo Indian Reserva-
tion, New Mexico, Volume I.Billings, Montana:Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Dept. of the Interior, June 1976, p. 1.8.
2Dames and Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver, Colorado:Rocky Mountain Energy Company , 1975 / p . 5-47
-206-
-------
TABLE 5-74. MANPOWER RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A 2500 TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY
Skill Quantity
Supervisors and staff 20
Contract special skills 7
Pipe fitters 40
Steel workers 20
Millwrights 5
Electricians 15
Carpenters 15
Concrete finishers 2
Operating engineers 9
Mechanics 3
Laborers 15
. 151
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Nayajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. Volume 1.
Billings, Montana.Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.8.
-207-
-------
TABLE 5-75. MANPOWER RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR OPERATING
A 2500 TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY
Skill Quantity
Management and staff* 15
Laboratory technicians* 6
Operations foremen** 4
Operations technicians** 28
Maintenance foremen** 2
Maintenance technicians** 14
Instrument technicians** 4
Warehousemen** 4
77
* Required for a 1-shift, 5-day week
** Total required for the continuous 7-day week operation of the
mill. About one-fourth of the personnel would be working at
any one time.
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo
Indian Reservation, New Mexico.Volume ~.Billings,
Montana.Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.8.
-208-
-------
5.5.2b Materials and Equipment
Table 5-76 lists the major materials required to construct
a 1200 ton/day uranium ore milling facility. This data was
extracted from data contained in "The Energy Supply Planning
Model."1
Table 5-77 lists the major materials consumed per day in
order to operate a 1200 ton/day mill. These numbers are from
data presented for the 1000 ton/day Bear Creek uranium mill.2
The equipment required for the operation of a mill, in
addition to the milling facility itself, is given in Table 5-78.
This equipment requirement was estimated for a 2500 ton/day mill
but is a good estimate for a 1200 ton/day mill because of the
economy of size.
5.5.2c Economics
Dames and Moore have issued a report which provides an
estimate of mill capital construction costs. These costs were
reported in 1975 dollars.3 Table 5-79 presents the capital
construction costs interpolated from the three mill capacities
mentioned in the report. These costs have been adjusted to 1977
^arasso, M. , et al. Energy Supply Model, Computer Tape.
San Francisco, Calif.: Bechtel, 1975.
2Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Sear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington,D.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, p. 3-26.
3Lootens, D. J. Uranium Production Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge, Illinois : Dames and Moore, 1975.
-209-
-------
TABLE 5-76. SELECTED MAJOR MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1200 TON/DAY URANIUM ORE MILLING PLANT
Resource Number
Ready mixed concrete (tons) 6,000
Piping (tons) 110
Structural steel (tons) 140
Reinforcing bars (tons) 140
Pumps & drives (100HP) (items) 28
Pumps & drives (100HP) (tons) 35
Source: Curusso, M., et ai. Energy Supply Model, computer tape-
San Francisco, California. Bechtel,PT75. p. 3-26.
-210-
-------
TABLE 5-77. ESTIMATED MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A
1200 TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY
Material Rate of consumption Circuit inventories
Water 288,000 gal/day 780,000 gal
including storage
H2SO* 60,000 Ib/day 1,056,000 Ib
including storage
NH3 960 Ib/day
NaClOa 4,800 Ib/day
Flocculents 3,000 Ib/day
Kerosene 36 gal/day max 48,000 gal
Amine 12 Ib/day max 10,080 Ib
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452
Washington,D.C.Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Office
of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. June 1977.
p. 3-26.
-211-
-------
TABLE 5-78. EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR OPERATION OF A
2500 TON/DAY URANIUM MILLING FACILITY
Unit Quantity
Front-end loader, 4 cu yd, diesel 1
Front-end loader, 1/4 cu yd, diesel 1
Forklift, 3,000 Ib, gasoline 1
Boom truck, 5-ton, gasoline 1
Trucks, 3/4-ton, gasoline 2
Source: Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Uranium Exploration, Mining and Milling Proposal,
Nayajo Indian Reservation. New Mexico. Volume I.
Billings, Montana.Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Department of the Interior. June, 1976. p. 1.7.
-212-
-------
TABLE 5-79. URANIUM ORE PROCESSING MILL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
COST ESTIMATES (1977 DOLLARS) - 1200 TON/DAY MILL
Item Mill Capital Cost ($)
Unloading, crushing, sampling 1,520,000
Grinding 580,000
Leaching 920,000
Classification, purification 1,450,000
Precipitation, filtration 310,000
Tailings disposal 77,000
General facilities and utilities 5,060,000
Engineering and field expense 1,400,000
Contractor feed, contingency 575,000
TOTAL COST 11,892,000
Source: Lootens, D. J. Uranium Production Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge, Illinois : Dames & Moore,
1975.
-213-
-------
dollars based upon cost index data from Chemical Engineering
magazine.l'2
Operating costs interpolated from three sizes of uranium
milling operations are shown in Table 5-80. Dames and Moore
reported total operating cost estimates for a mill.3 This
total cost has been broken down into four components - supplies
59%, labor 3070, other 6%, and utilities 5%. " Costs have been
adjusted to 1977 dollars using cost index data from Chemical
Engineering magazine.5's
TABLE 5-80. OPERATING COST ESTIMATE FOR URANIUM MILLING OPERA-
TION (1977 DOLLARS) - 1200 TON/DAY MILL
Component
Supplies
Labor
Other
Utilities
TOTAL COST
Mill Operating Cost ($/Ton)
6.06
3.33
.71
.62
10.72
1 Chemical Engineering. "Economic Indicators." Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 82 (Dec. 22, 1975), p. 116.
zibid., Vol. 89 (Dec. 5, 1977), p. 7.
3Lootens, D. J., Uranium Production Methods and Economic
Considerations. Park Ridge, Illinois: Dames and Moore, 1975.
''Long, E. A. and W. R. Archibald. "Innovative Systems for
the Recovery of Uranium." 1975 Mining Yearbook. Denver, Colo.:
Colorado Mining Association"1975, p . 115 .
5Chemical Engineering. op.dt., Vol. 82 (Dec. 22, 1975)
p. 116.
5Chemical Engineering. op.dt., Vol. 89 (Dec. 5, 1977), p. 1,
-214-
-------
5.5.2d Water Requirements
Based upon water requirements for the 1000 ton/day Rocky
Mountain Energy Co. mill total water requirements for a 1200 ton/
day mill have been estimated to be 275 acre ft/yr (0.25 x 10s
gallons/day) for process make-up water and 26 acre ft/yr (24 x
103 gallons/day) for domestic water. These water requirements
totaling 0.28 x 10s gallons/day would come from local water wells
5.5.2e Land Requirements
A typical uranium mill having a 1200 ton/day capacity would
require about 300 acres of land.1 This area would include the
land occupied by the mill, tailings pond, access road, power
lines, septic leach field, parking lots and ore storage piles.
This land would be removed from other use for the lifetime of
the mill, approximately 10 years.2 Most of the land will be re-
claimed after the mill is decommissioned and, with the possible
exception of tailings piles, will be made available for other
uses. 3
5.5.2f Ancillary Energy
The energy requirements for a mill extracting uranium via
the acid leach process have been estimated by Battelle Columbia
Laboratories. They were for 9470 kwh per ton of U303 electrical
!Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, p. 4-2.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid,
-215-
-------
energy and 210,500 cubic feet of natural gas per ton of UaOs-1
A 1200 ton per day mill processing ore which contains 0.20
percent UsOa and maintains a 93 percent recovery would produce
2.23 tons/day of U30s. The energy requirments would then be
about 880 kw of electrical energy and 19,600 cubic feet per hour
of natural gas. Using a heating value of 1000 Btu/cubic feet2
for the natural gas, the energy use represented by the gas would
be 19.6 x 10s Btu/hr.
5.5.3 Outputs
The outputs associated with a uranium milling plant are
discussed in the following sections. The analyses were made for
a plant size similar to a 1200 ton/day uranium ore processing
facility. The outputs examined and quantified where possible
include air" emissions, water effluents, solid wastes, noise
pollution, and occupational health and safety statistics.
5.5.3a Air Emissions
The radiological and non-radiological air emissions have
been estimated for a 1000 ton/day mill.3'1* Based on these data,
^attelle Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in
Metallurgical and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5--Energy
Data and Flowsheets, Intermediate-Priority Commodities).Columbus,
Ohio:Battelle Columbus Laboratories,September 16,HT75, p. 207.
2 Ibid.
3Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington,B.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, p. 3-29, 3-34, 3-35,
3-37.
''Dames and Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, 1975, p. 3-14--
3-22.
-216-
-------
the non-radiological air emissions for a 1200 ton/day mine are
shown in Table 5-81. Table 5-82 lists the radiological air
emissions and their sources for a 1200 ton/day mine.
5.5.3b Water Effluents
Based upon data by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the
Bear Creek Project, the liquid effluent from a 1200 ton/day
uranium mill would be about 600 acre-ft year (^0.54 x 10s gallons/
day) of a solution carrying mill tailings to a tailings pond.l
This solution would be about 35% solids.2 An organic residue
will be retained in the tails as a film attached to the solid
particles in the solution. The estimated releases to the tailings
pond would be 8.2 Ib/hr for kerosene, 0.26 Ib/hr for amine, and
0.17 Ib/hr for alcohol.
The estimated concentrations of radionuclides and chemicals
present in the tailings solution are shown in Table 5-83. By
design, all water going to the tailings ponds will be evaporated.
The ponds will be lined and sealed to prevent seepage into the
ground water system, and they will be sized and constructed to
prevent overflow during heavy rains. Therefore there will be no
direct wastewater effluents released to the environment.
5.5.3c Solid Wastes
The solid wastes generated by a uranium mill are mainly
in the form of dust and mill waste tailings. The dust is
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy. Docket No. 40-8452. Washington,
D.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Materials
Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, p. 3-34
21bid. p. K-5.
-217-
-------
TABLE 5-81. ESTIMATED NON-RADIOLOGICAL AIR EMISSIONS FROM
A 1200 TON/DAY URANIUM MILL
Source Gaseous Effluent Quantity
Leaching process S02(g) + H2S
-------
TABLE 5-83. CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES AND
CHEMICALS IN TAILINGS SOLUTION3
Radionuclide
Concentration, uCi/ml
U-238
U-234
Th-230
Ra-226
2.4 x 10-7
2.4 x 10-7
1.2 x 10-*
1.7 x 10-7
Chemical
Concentration, mg/£
Fe
Na
K
Mg
Ca
Al
As
Kerosene
Amines
Alcohol
700
1300
280
63
320
570
240
1.1
6.9
0.42
0.21
aBased upon measurements in a synthetic raffinate.
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No.
40-8452~Washington, D.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Com-
missions, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and
Safeguards, June 1977, p. 5-6.
-219-
-------
produced from the ore piles and che yellowcake drying operation.
An estimated 4 Ib/acre/hr of dust would be generated by heavy
equipment operating in the ore pile area.* Assuming an ore pile
area of about 10 acres,2 the dust introduced into the air from
the ore pile would be 40 Ib/hr. An estimated 0.04 Ib/hr of
dust would be emitted from the scrubber stack of the yellowcake
drying system.3
The dust from the ore piles would contain radionuclides
concentrations of the local ore. The dust from the scrubber
would contain 98 percent of the uranium in the ore, 5 percent
of the Th-230, and 0.2 percent of the Ra-226 and Pb-210
naturally occuring in the ore.1*
The largest single effluent for the entire uranium milling
operation is the production of barren tailings. This is the
material left after the uranium has been leached from the lost
ore. Approximately 1200 tons per day of sand, silt, and clay-
sized particles would be generated at a 1200 ton per day mill.
The tailings are sent to a tailings pond where they are
allowed to settle. When the barren tailings have filled the pond
to capacity, the pond is removed from service, allowed to dry up,
and reclaimed. Reclamation generally involves covering the pond
with landfill, restoring its contour to that of the surrounding
environment, fertilizing, and revegetating with local flora.
1Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, June 1977, p. 3-29.
2ibid., p. 3-38.
3 ibid., p. 3-29.
"ibid., p. 3-35.
5Dames and Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver,Colorado:Rocky Mountain Energy Company, 1975, p. 3-20.
-220-
-------
Prior to reclamation, wind erosion of the barren particles
on the beaches of the tailings pond would be a source of fugitive
dust. This effluent can be estimated from a wind erosion loss
of 0.02 tons/acre/year1 and a dry beach area of 30 acres.2
The dust generated would then be approximately 3.3 Ib/day.
5.5.3d Noise Pollution
The ore processing which takes place at a uranium mill
will produce noise from the crushing and screening of the ore
and from pumps used for material handling.3 The noise from a
crusher is expected to be 89 dBA at 30 feet and the noise from
screening operation 96 dBA at 15 feet. "* An equivalent noise
level of 82 dB at 100 feet is estimated for the approximately
50 hermetically sealed pumps to be used in the mill.5 Typically,
the milling operation is entirely enclosed with a large building.
This will attenuate the sound level by about 10 dB.5 The equiva-
lent noise level at a distance of 100 feet from the mill building
would then be about 75 dB.7
Tennessee Valley Authority. t)raf t Environmental Statement,
Martin Ranch Uranium Mining. Chattanooga, Tenn.: Tennessee
Valley Authority,Div.of Environmental Planning, 1975, p. 4.6-4.
2Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek
Project, Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452.
Washington,D.C.:Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, June, 1977, p. 3-37.
3Dames and Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming, For Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Energy Company,1975, p. 5-36.
"ibid.
5 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
-221-
-------
5.5.3e Occupational Health and Safety
The results of a five-year survey on the occupational health
hazards related to the operations of nuclear fuel cycle facilities
indicate that a 1200 ton/day mill has the following occupational
health statistics:1
Deaths: 0.046 per year
Injuries: 14.1 per year
Man-Days Lost: 873 per year
5.5.4 Social Controls for Milling
This section will discuss federal and state regulations
governing milling including those which control a) initial
planning and land use, b) water quality, c) air quality,
d) solid wastes, and 3) safety and product output.
^.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The Safety of Nuclear
Power Reactors (Light Water-Cooled) and Related Facilities ,
Final Draft. WASH-1250, Springfield, Va.: NTIS, 1973.
-222-
-------
5.5.5 Land Use and Planning
The majority of regulation in this area is at the federal
level and some at the state as discussed below.
5.5.5a Land Use and Planning (Federal)1
The major method of control over fuel processing facilities
is the licensing process. Three basic kinds of licenses apply to
the various nuclear fuel cycle facilities and include: 1)
licensing for the possession and use of source material, 2)
licensing for the possession and use of special nuclear material,
and 3) licensing for production and utilization facilities.
The uranium mill is included only in item 1 above and items
2 and 3 are for enriched materials and use facilities respec-
tively.
Any individual or company which possesses or uses source
materials is required to obtain a license from the NRG.2 An
application for the license must be made to NRC at least nine
months prior to beginning construction on the facility and must
contain a description of the activity that will be performed as
well as an EIS.3 The permit is required to handle source
material which is defined as uranium and/or thorium in any form
which by weight makes up 0.05% of the ore.1*
!This procedure applies to "non-agreement" states and see
Section 5.5.5b for discussion of difference.
2Atomic Energy Act of 1954. § 2014 and 10 C.F.R. 20.
310 C.F.R. § 40.31(f).
"10 C.F.R. § 40.4(h).
-223-
-------
NRG has listed the requirements imposed on a source material
license (in this case a mill) which must be met before a license
is granted. l These requirements include: 1) an authorized
purpose for the process, 2) a qualified applicant, 3) use of
adequate equipment, facilities, and procedures, 4) it is the
best interests of the public, and 5) that NEPA compliance exists.
The above requirements have resulted in two specific review
processes by NRG: a safety assessment and an environmental
assessment. 2
The safety review is, as its title suggests a careful anal-
ysis to be sure that the mill will be as safe as possible.
Factors that are considered include such things as worker safety
(radiation), security plans, procedures used, and workers quali-
fications and training programs.
The environmental assessment is an effort to comply with
the various aspects of NEPA. Under an NRG issued regulation,
an EIS must be prepared prior to issuing "a license to process
and use source material for uranium milling.3 Although, as noted
earlier the application must be submitted nine months ahead of
planned construction; there is also a requirement that the EIS
JSee 10 C.F.R. § 40.32.
2Shaw, Permits Required to Open a Uranium Mill, RMMLI
Uranium Conference 1976, p. 12-5.
310 C.F.R. § 51.5(5).
-224-
-------
be completed prior to construction.1 Although the EIS is the
primary tool of the environmental assessment other factors are
considered.
Following the completion of both review processes, NRC may
require revisions in applicant's proposal or it may attach
conditions to the permit. Normally, such items as monitoring
programs, safety programs, and quality assurance programs become
conditions attached to the permit.2 Also NRC requires some type
of financial assurance of performance. This can be the surety
bond executed by the developer to a state or federal agency to
insure reclamation of disturbed lands and stabilization of
tailings. Often this bond is tied to the mining reclamation
bond, normally required by the state.3
Two additional bonds are usually required, one to insure
that post-reclamation and stabilization monitoring are carried
out and the other to insure that annual maintenance of tailings
dams, tailings piles, and diversion structure is performed. To
insure that the tailings disposal area is not used for other
development, NRC requires a 50 year restrictive covenant on the
land title to run from the date of termination of the license.1*
'10 C.F.R. § 40.32(e).
2Shaw, RMMLI, p. 12-7.
3Ibid.
''It appears this is an effort to get at a lack of regulatory
authority for either EPA or NRC over tailings piles after the
license has expired. Recently the House Interior Committee's
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held hearings wherein
testimony revealed that EPA felt it lacked authority and an ERDA
representative claimed EPA and NRC had authority. A subcommittee
member's conclusion was that no one wants to take credit for mill
tailings so that perhaps additional legislation is necessary.
Nucleonics Week, Vol. 18, No. 21, May 26, 1977, p. 2.
-225-
-------
The monitoring bond and annual work bond are usually held by
the NRC since most states (those called "non-agreement") do not
have agencies able and willing to perform such supervision.
5.5.5.b State Siting Laws
As noted in Chapter 2 siting regulation can be direct or
indirect. Examples of indirect siting laws include such controls
as those over air pollution or solid waste disposal. The dis-
cussion that follows will be devoted only to direct siting
regulation, where those indirectly affecting siting will be
discussed in other sections.
The primary permit described in Section 5.5.5.a, the source
material license, can in some cases be issued by a state. The
term used to describe such states is "agreement states" and
its meaning is literal in that in fact by agreement between NRC
and the state, the state is authorized to issue the permit. In
the eight state study area the breakdown is as follows:1
Agreement States Non-Agreement States
Colorado Utah
New Mexico Wyoming
North Dakota Montana
Arizona South Dakota
In the agreement states, the state program for the issuance of
source material permits has been reviewed by the NRC and deemed
to be as "good" as the NRC' s. 2 Pursuant to statute NRC has
delegated some of its responsibilities to those states.3
'Shaw, p. 12-1 and 37 F. Reg. 22162, Oct. 18, 1972.
2Ibid.
3The procedure for the state issued permit appears to be
similar to that of NRC's which is what one would expect from the
circumstances. The state procedure will not, therefore, be
described here .
-226-
-------
In addition to the indirect siting controls at state level
discussed in the introduction to this section, other state laws
may be brough into action. For example, many states require
prior approval of the mining plan and usually those mining plans
require some discussion of the tailings (even from a mill)
associated with the mining plan.
5.5.6 Water Quality
Generally within the water quality area, permits can be
required at federal and state levels of government depending
upon the effluent discharge. For a general understanding of
this subject, Chapter 2 should be read to get an overall picture
Below will be recorded the laws and regulations at both levels
of government and it is important to note that water quality
can be controlled from various directions (e.g., drinking water
quality or federal and state standards for streams and lakes or
effluents standards) .
5.5.6.a Federal Water Quality Statutes and Regulations
At the federal level, statutes affecting uranium mills and
which are related to water quality are found in the planning
activities noted in Section 5.5.5, the FWPCA of 1972 and the
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Additionally Section
of Chapter 2 contains the permit required under FWPCA from
the Corps of Engineers.
The procedure for obtaining a discharge permit for a
uranium mill is the same as any other discharge permit and is
described in Chapter 2. Presently, a mill which does not
discharge effluents into "waters of the U.S." will not require
a permit from EPA. EPA is considering publishing regulations
-227-
-------
which define "best practicable treatment" standards for uranium
mills,1 which will then offer to the mill a specified option to
the no-discharge holding pond.2
Under the terms of the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is
possible to arrive at an interpretation which will require
consideration of drinking water sources (underground and surface)
when locating a facility which would likely include uranium
mills.
5.5.6.b State Regulation
As described in Chapter 2, the control of water quality,
although authorized by federal law has been delegated to some
of the states. In certain technologies connected with a
uranium mill other state laws come into play and they will be
described below.
Many states require approval of all waste water treatment
systems including those for tailings pond, sewage lagoon, or
septic tank.3 Additionally many states regulate milling activi-
ties under state mining regulations. Hence that state agency and
permitting process will address milling and tailing disposal."
How much indirect control of mill procedures exists within
these state laws will vary at each state. Also because most
uranium mills are located in the arid West, the local State
Engineers will usually be required to give approval of the
tailings dam or other impoundment.5
1RMMLI Uranium Conf. Shaw, p. 12-3.
2See discussion in Section 2.9.
3op.cit.
"ibid., p. 12-3 and 12-9.
5Ibid.
-228-
-------
5.5.7 Air Quality
Air quality for uranium mills is regulated no differently
than that for other facilities.
As noted in Section 5.5.3.a, the major criteria pollutant
emitted from a uranium mill is in the form of an NOX emission
and the federal ambient standard is set up in Section 2.8. The
ambient standard is relevant when questions of new source review
or set-off policies are considered.l No NSPS have been set up
for the uranium mills. But EPA is considering using the Toxic
Substance Control Act of 1976 to control wastes from an uranium
mill.2
5.5.8 Solid Wastes
Regulation of solid waste disposal from a uranium mill
generally reflects two concerns for the tailings, one radio-
activity, the other mining-reclamation. Non-agreement states
usually regulate the latter, while agreement states can regulate
both areas. Of course NRC takes on radioactivity regulation in
non-agreement states. The general procedures of both will be
described below.
5.5.8.a Solid Wastes Federal
As described in Section 5.5.a, the main concerns in the
solid waste area from a regulatory viewpoint are the tailings
1Again see Section 2.8 for discussion of each.
2Note also that specific nuclear material (e.g., "source
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) is exempted
from the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, Section 3(2) (A)
(iv).
-229-
-------
stabilization and monitoring. Presently NRC appears to require
that licensee impose "restrictive covenants on the land where
tailings are stored for at least fifty (50) years after termina-
tion of a license."1 One covenant and a respective surety bond
to guarantee performance, requires that at least annual surveys
of the site both environmental and radioactive be made. Addi-
tionally the tailings piles and dams must be maintained and a
bond filed insuring performance. The requirements listed above
can be supervised by NRC or a designated agency in an agreement
state.
5.5.8b State Regulation of Uranium Tailings
In both agreement and non-agreement states, state
mining laws were written to include either specifically or
indirectly the regulation of mills and tailings disposal. The
main concern of the state in this context is tailings disposal
and more importantly the reclamation of the land and "returning
the surface to a land use consistent with its pre-disturbance
use."2
5.5.9 Safety and Product Output (Radiation)
Safety regulation at the uranium mill and product regulation
are tied together in the regulation of radiation. The federal
OSHA standards for ionizing radiation and worker safety are
equivalent to the standards required by NRC in agreement
states.3 In summary those regulations set cumulative limits
for exposure.
'Shaw, RMMLF, p. 12-8.
2Ibid.
337 F. Reg. 22162, Oct. 18, 1972.
-230-
-------
TABLE 5-84.
Kerns per Calendar
Quarter1
Whole body 1%
Hands and/or feet 18 3/<
Skin 7%
In the above table one "rem" is defined as the equivalent
biological effect of one roentgen of x-rays.2
131 F. Reg. 22158, Oct. 18, 1972.
229 C.F.R. § 1910.96 (a) (7) 1973.
* u.i moMMMmKomK: an -Mi-u7/*7
-231-
------- |