United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-80-010
May 1980
Air
Source Category
Survey: Uranium Refining
Industry
-------
EPA-450/3-80-010
Source Category Survey:
Uranium Refining Industry
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Contract No. 68-02-3058
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
May 1980
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise,
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion . Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement
by EPA. Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations as supplies permit
from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; or may be obtained, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-010
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 BACKGROUND 1
2.0 URANIUM MILLS 1
3.0 URANIUM CONVERSION FACILITIES 5
4.0 NON CONVENTIONAL URANIUM PRODUCTION 7
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
6.0 REFERENCES 8
m
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1A U.S. Uranium Production Mills, Operating as of
January 1, 1979 11
IB U.S. Uranium Production Mills Current Proposed Projects 12
2 Estimates of Emissions from Uranium Mills 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Annual Uranium Concentrate Production Mills Operating
as of January 1, 1979 14
2 Uranium Mills in the United States Operating as of
January 1, 1979 15
3 Generalized Flow Chart of Alkaline Leach
Mi 11 i ng Proces s 16
4 Generalized Flow Chart of Acid Leach Milling
Process 17
5 Metropolis (UFg) Facility Row Chart 18
6 Sequoyah Plant (UFg) Flow Chart 19
iv
-------
SOURCE CATEGORY SURVEY:
URANIUM REFINING INDUSTRY
1.0 BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report was to determine if new source performance
standards (NSPS) should be developed for the uranium refining industry.
Based on a 1976 report on uranium mining and milling by the Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, the uranium refining industry was placed on the
priority list for NSPS under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. The
Batelle report established domestic uranium milling capacity at 29,100
metric tons per day (MT/day) (32,000 tons per day (TPD)) or 10.6 million
?fi
metric tons per year (MT/yr) (11.7 million tons per year (TPY)).
Later, uranium milling capacity for 1980 was predicted to be 25.4 million
MT/yr (27.9 million TPY) ore. According to an estimate by the Argonne
National Laboratories, a reduction of approximately 4,270 MT/yr (4,700 TPY)
I O
particulate emissions would result from a new source performance standard.
The Uranium Refining source category was defined by the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to include uranium mills and
conversion facilities. Production of uranium concentrate (yellowcake)
by nonconventional methods (in-situ leaching, copper leaching, by-production
of wet-process phosphoric acid) was to be considered as an overview only.
The Source Category Survey Report was to include all significant pollutants,
not just particulates.
The survey included some interaction with the Office of Radiation
Programs (ORP) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Regulatory authority and jurisdiction were
documented since radionuclides were to be considered in the source
category.
2.0 URANIUM MILLS
Uranium milling is the processing of uranium-bearing ore and production
of uranium concentrate (yellowcake). The growth of uranium milling has
1
-------
been established in the recent "Source Category Survey Report on Uranium
and Vanadium Ore Processing."9 Uranium concentrate production has
increased 45 percent in the last 2 years as illustrated in Figure i.12»28»29
The majority of uranium concentrate is produced in the Wyoming
Basins and Colorado Plateau regions of the western states, as noted in
1 ? ?R ?Q
Figure 2.'^°'" There are, however, a few small facilities, mainly in
Florida, that produce concentrate as a byproduct of the phosphoric acid
industry. An additional small amount of uranium concentrate is
derived from in-situ mining and copper heap dump leaching. These
nonconventional sources of concentrate contribute only five percent of
1 ? ?Q
domestic uranium concentrate production. '
2.1 Processes5'6*7,9,13,19,26,27,30,31,32,33,35
In general, two approaches are used in uranium ore processing:
alkaline leaching (Figure 3) and acid leaching (Figure 4).
2.1.1 Alkaline Leach Process.
2.1.1.1 Leaching of ore. Alkaline leaching is normally done for
ores of lime contents greater than 12 percent. The leaching solution is a
mixture of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate (or the ammonium
compounds). This solution is fed to the grinders and used as the wetting
agent in reducing particle size to approximately 200 mesh. The finer
particle size is necessary since the leach solution cannot leach across
grain boundries. The ground pulp is heated and fed to air-agitated
Pachuca tanks. Leaching is done at 82-135°C (180-275°F) and takes from
5 to 96 hours. Oxidants used in alkaline leaching include air, copper,
ammonia, and permanganate.
2.1.1.2 Thickening of leach solution. Alkaline leaching is
selective for uranium. Thus, the slurries need only have the solids
removed. This is done by vacuum drum filtration. Simple countercurrent
decantation is used for desanding when "resin-in-pulp" (RIP) is used for
purification. The residue is sent to the tailings pond.
2.1.1.3 Precipitation and dewaterinq. Sodium hydroxide is used
to precipitate the uranium concentrate (uranium oxides and sodium
uranates). The concentrate is filtered and dried. The filtrate is
recarbonated and recycled to grinding or filtration.
-------
2.1.2 Acid Leach Process.
2.1.2.1 Leaching of ore. Acid leaching is used for ores of lime
content less than 12 percent. The most conmon acid used in uranium ore
leaching is sulfuric acid. Leaching is done in open, agitated tanks.
Oxidants (sodium chlorate or manganese dioxide) are added if there is
insufficient ferric ion in the ore. Since sulfuric acid is a more
effective leaching agent, the ore need only be ground to about 28 mesh.
But, due to the increased leaching effectiveness, purification steps
must be added to the process to eliminate other minerals that may have
been leached into solution.
2.1.2.2 Thickening of leach solution. Acid leach mills generally
use countercurrent decantation (CCD) to eliminate sand fines. This
serves a two-fold purpose: (1) elimination of solids and (2) washing of
fines to remove leach solution.
2.1.2.3 Purification. The leach solution is purified by ion
exchange, solvent extraction, or Eluex processes (a combination of ion
exchange and solvent extraction). Solvent extraction has become more
popular since it is operated continuously and provides a pure product.
Ion exchange (IX) uses strong or intermediate base anionic-type
resins. Strip solutions are normally composed of a chloride, nitrate,
bicarbonate or ammonium sulfate-sulfuric acid combination. There are
four types of ion exchange processes:
(1) fixed-bed type, with stationary resin-packed columns;
(2) moving-bed column type, where resin is transferred between
stationary columns;
(3) continuous resin-in-pulp (RIP), where resin and solution flow
countercurrently (agitation is by forced air); and
(4) basket RIP, where solutions flow in and out of tanks and
the resin is held in agitated baskets.
Solvent extraction (SX) uses an organic phase extractant to withdraw
the uranium from the leach solution. An aqueous phase extracts the
uranium from the organic phase in a purified, concentrated state. There
are two solvent extraction processes used in uranium milling:
-------
(1) Dapex process: the extractant is an alkyl phosphoric acid
(di(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid (EHPA) as a 4 percent solution in
kerosene). The modifier is usually tributyl phosphate (TBP), but
long chain alcohols, such as isodecanol, are also used. The stripping
solution, which is recycled, is sodium carbonate.
(2) Amex process: the extractant is an amine (6 percent almine-
336 in kerosene), modified with isodecanol. Stripping is done with an
ammonium sulfate solution maintained at a pH 4.0 to 4.3 to eliminate
sodium impurities.
2.1.2.4 Precipitation and dewaterinq. Uranium concentrate or
yellowcake is precipitated from the purified solution by addition of
ammonia (other possible chemical additives are sodium hydroxide, hydrogen
peroxide and magnesia). Before being fed to the driers, the yellowcake
is partially dewatered by filtration or centrifugation.
2.1.3 Drying. Yellowcake drying is commonly done in a multiple
hearth furnace. In some cases, such as excess sulfate in the product,
the dryer is operated at a temperature sufficiently high to drive off
sulfates as SO^. This procedure often causes transformation of uranates
to uranium oxides, along with the release of ammonia.
2.2 Emissions
2.2.1 Particulates. The major airborne emissions resulting from
uranium ore processing are particulate matter. Particulates are emitted
from crushing, grinding, and ore handling operations, in addition to
drying and packaging of yellowcake. Particulate emissions from these
sources will be assessed and regulated as warranted under the NSPS being
developed for the metallic minerals industry.
2.2.2 Radionuclides. Uranium ore processing facilities are licensed
by the NRC or by those States that have agreed with the NRC to perform
as the regulatory authority (i.e., agreement States). The NRC is charged
with enforcement of radionuclide emission standards, as established by
ORP in the Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190). Radon emissions
are not regulated under this standard since dosages are difficult to
determine and emission control techniques are not known. Emission
4
-------
regulations of agreement States must be as restrictive as the Uranium
Fuel Cycle Standard.
Radionuclide emissions from milling operations include radon gas
from ore handling and yellowcake dust from drying and packaging. Uranium
mills are generally located at uranium mine sites. Based on this, the
radon source represented by the mine is much larger than that for the mill.
Also, radon is mainly emitted for dry uranium ore and exposure to dry ore
in the mill is limited to ore handling and crushing. As a result,
worker exposure to radon in the milling operation is considered minimal.
Yellowcake dust is minimally 90 percent U30g and would be considered
a radionuclide. The emission of yellowcake dust would, therefore, be
more tightly controlled as a radionuclide under the Uranium Fuel Cycle
Standard than as a particulate under the NSPS being developed for the
metallic minerals industry.
2.2.3 Other Emissions. Nonradiological emissions include hydro-
carbons, S09 and acid mist (less than 8.2 MT/yr (9 TPY))23, NOV (less
23
than 1.8 MT/yr (2 TPY)) , and ammonia (trace amounts from yellowcake
2i 22 23
precipitation and drying). * ' Hydrocarbons are, by far, the largest
of these emissions, with estimates ranging from 0.5 to 82 kilograms per
day (1 to 180 pounds per day). As a worst case estimate, less than
30 MT/yr (33 TPY) of hydrocarbons per plant are emitted, mainly as kerosene,
8 26 27
from solvent extraction purification operations. ' These examples
of nonradiological emissions from uranium mills, compiled from four NRC
Final Environmental Statements, are detailed in Table 2.
3.0 URANIUM CONVERSION FACILITIES1 »6»17»30»31.32,33
Uranium conversion facilities process uranium concentrate from
milling operations to uranium hexafluoride (UFg). Uranium hexafluoride
is required for uranium isotope separation in gaseous diffusion plants.
There are only two existing conversion facilities in the United
States: Allied Chemical Corporation's Metropolis (Illinois) Works
(using a dry hydrofluor process) and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation's
Sequoyah (Oklahoma) plant (using a government-designed solvent extraction
process). Production capacity could increase in the next 5 years by,
at most, one new plant, or by expansion of an existing facility.
-------
3.1 Dry Hydrofluor Process.
A block diagram of the dry hydrofluor process is shown in Figure 5.
In this proprietary process, uranium concentrate is fed to a series of
fluid beds where it is converted to uranium dioxide (UOg). Through
countercurrent contacting with anhydrous hydrofluoric acid, UOg is
converted to uranium tetrafluoride (UF,). Uranium hexafluoride is
formed from UF. through contacting with fluorine in a series of fluorin-
ation towers; The gaseous UFg product is filtered and condensed to its
solid state for packaging prior to shipment to diffusion plants.
3.2 Solvent Extraction Process.
As noted in Figure 6, the solvent extraction process differs from
the dry hydrofluor process in that uranium concentrate is initially
digested in hot nitric acid. Solvent extraction is then used for
purification, with tributyl phosphate in hexane as the organic phase
and water as the second extractant. The resulting uranyl nitrate is
dehydrated and denitrated to uranium trioxide using heaters. Reduction
to uranium dioxide is done by countercurrent contacting with dissociated
ammonia at 593°C (1100°F) in a two-stage fluid bed. The further conversion to
UFg is as in the dry hydrofluor process.
3.3 Emissions.
Both conversion facilities are located in nonagreement states.
Thus, the NRC has licensing authority and regulatory jurisdiction of each
plant.
3.3.1 Radionuclides. Particulate emissions from conversion
facilities are, as for yellowcake, considered radiological. The radio-
nuclides are regulated by the NRC under the Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard.
3.3.2 Fluorides. Combined fluoride emissions at each facility
are currently within air quality standards. Since Oklahoma and Illinois
have no fluoride air quality standards, these conversion facilities use
the standard of the State of Washington (0.5 Mg/m3) as a reference.
These emissions are controlled using scrubber systems (water, caustic,
KOH) to meet fluoride standards and to guard against radionuclide emissions.
The worst case emission has been noted as 0.22 Mg/m fluoride at the
-------
fence! ine of Allied's Metropolis Works.
3.3.3 Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon emissions result from solvent
extraction purification at the Sequoyah facility. These emissions are
as hexane and, as an uncontrolled worst-case estimate, amount to 168 MT/yr
(185 TPY) or 5.33 grams per second (g/sec). This emission rate does
meet the Oklahoma hydrocarbon emission standard (15.88 g/sec). According
to the State of Oklahoma, the emissions of hydrocarbons from this facility
are not significant.
4.0 NONCONVENTIONAL URANIUM PRODUCTION
Uranium production by nonconventional methods includes in-situ
leaching, copper heap pile leaching, and byproduction of wet-process
phosphoric acid. These methods combine to represent only five percent
of domestic uranium production. Although no emission data are available,
emissions would probably be lower than those of mills due to the magnitude
of operations.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon this information, it was concluded that:
(1) Radionuclide emissions are regulated by the NRC) under the
Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190). Particulate matter in the
product end of the milling process has a high radionuclide content and
is more tightly regulated as a radionuclide than one would expect for a
particulate NSPS.
(2) All significant particulate emissions of uranium mills will be
assessed (and regulated; if warranted) under the current project for
development of NSPS for the metallic minerals industry.
(3) Other emissions are minor and are currently meeting air quality
standards.
It was, therefore, recommended that NSPS not be developed for the
uranium refining industry.
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Allied Chemical Corporation. Safety Evaluation Report: Uranium
Hexafluoride Facility (Metropolis, Illinois), Docket No. 40-3392.
Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (n.d.)
2. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Energy Use Patterns in Metallurgical
and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 5 - Energy Data and Flow-
sheets, Intermediate - Priority Commodities). Columbus, Ohio.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. September 10, 1975.
3. Bendix Field Engineering Corporation. NURE 1978, Annual Activity
Report. Grand Junction, Colorado. U.S. DOE, Grand Junction Office.
June 1979.
4. Bliss, J.D. Radioactivity in Selected Mineral Extraction Industries -
A Literature Review. Las Vegas, Nevada. U.S. EPA, ORP. November 1978.
5. Carapreso, F.E., and W. P. Badger. "Hydrogen Peroxide Precipitation
of Uranium at the Atlas Minerals Uranium Mill", Trans., Soc. Mining
Engrs. AIME 254 (4). 1973. p. 281.
6. Clark, D.A. State-of-the-Art — Uranium Mining, Milling, and Refining
Industry. EPA, Rob't S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, OK. 1974.
7. "Conquista, Conoco-Pioneer U.Og Venture, on stream", Mining Eng.
24(8). 1972. p. 37-41.
8. Dames & Moore. Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project. Converse
County, Wyoming, For Rock Mountain Energy Company. Denver, CO.
RMEC. 1975.
9. DiNitto, R.G., and O.K. Cook. Source Category Survey Report:
Uranium and Vanadium Ore Processing Industry. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. U.S. EPA, OAQPS. March 1979.
10. Douglas, R.L. Radiological Survey at the Inactive Uranium Mill
Site Near Riverton, Wyoming. Las Vegas, Nevada. U.S. EPA, ORP.
June 1977.
11. Electric Power Research Institute. Uranium Resources to Meet
Long Term Uranium Requirements. EPRI SR-5, PB 239 515, Springfield,
VA. National Tech. Inf. Service. 1974.
8
-------
12. ERDA. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand Junction,
Colorado. U.S. EPA, Grand Junction Office. January 1, 1977.
13. Engineering and Mining Journal, excerpts from 1978 and 1979 issues.
New York, New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
14. Hans, J.M. et al. Miscellaneous Data and Information Collected
During Radiation Surveys of the Former Monument Uranium Mill Site
(1974-1975). Las Vegas, Nevada. U.S. EPA, ORP. July 1978.
15. Humble Oil and Refining Co., Minerals Dept. Highland Uranium
Mill, Converse County, Wyoming, Applicant's Environmental Report.
Houston, TX. 1971.
16. Kail us, M.F. Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining and Milling
in South Texas. Houston, TX. U.S. EPA. October 1975.
17. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation. Letter from W.J. Shelley (Kerr-
McGee) to R.M. Wilde (NRC) regarding Sequoyah Uranium Hexafluoride
Facility, Docket No. 40-8027. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. 1975.
18. Monarch, M.R., et al. Priorities for New Source Performance Standards
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Research Triangle Park,
N.C. U.S. EPA, OAQPS. April 1978.
19. Nuclear Assurance Corporation. U.S. Uranium Economics and Technology.
Atlanta, GA. Nuclear Assurance Corp., NAC-1.
20. Nuclear Fuel, excerpts from 1979 publications. New York, New York.
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
21. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement on Uranium Milling. NUREG-0511. Washington, D.C.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 1979.
22. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Environmental Statement on
Shootering Canyon Uranium Project. NUREG-0583. Washington, D.C.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. July 1979.
23. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Environmental Statement on
White Mesa Uranium Project. NUREG-0556. Washington, D.C. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. May 1979.
-------
24. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation of Bear Creek Project,
Rocky Mountain Energy Company, Docket No. 40-8452. Washington, D.C.
NRC, Office of Nuclear Mills Safety and Safeguards. June 1977.
25. Planning Support Group, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium Exploration,
Mining and Milling Proposal, Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico.
Vol. I. Billings, Montana. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept. of the
Interior. June 1976.
26. Reed, A.K., et al. Assessment of Environmental Aspects of Uranium
Mining and Milling. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. EPA, IERL. December 1976.
27. Stone and Webster. Uranium Mining and Milling. The Need, the Processes,
the Impacts, the Choices. Administrator's Guide. Denver, CO. Western
Interstate Energy Board. May 1978.
28. USDOE. National Uranium Resource Evaluation, Interim Report. Grand
Junction, CO. U.S. DOE, Grand Junction Office. June 1979.
29. USDOE. Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry. Grand Junction, CO.
U.S. DOE, Grand Junction Office. January 1, 1979.
30. USEPA. Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. Part I-
Fuel Supply. Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, ORP. October 1973.
31. USEPA. Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. Part II-
Supplementary Analysis-1976. Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, ORP.
July 1976.
32. USEPA. Radiological Impact Caused by Emissions of Radionuclides
into Air in the United States-Preliminary Report. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, ORP. August 1979.
33. USEPA. Radiological Quality of the Environment in the United States,
1977. Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA, ORP. September 1977.
34. Wyoming Mineral Corporation. Exploration and Mining Division.
Environmental Report, Irigary Project, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Lakewood, CO. Wyoming Mineral Corp. 1977.
35. Youngberg, E.A. "The Uranium Industry - Exploration, Mining and
Milling", IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-92(4). 1973.
p. 1201-8.
-------
TABLE 1A. U.S. URANIUM PRODUCTION MILLS
OPERATING AS OF JANUARY 1, 197929
Conventional Mills
Plant Location
The Anaconda Copper Company
Atlas Minerals Corporation
Bear Creek Uranium Company
Conoco-Pioneer Nuclear
Cotter Corporation
Dawn Mining Company
Exxon Minerals Company, USA
Federal American Partners
Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation
Pathfinder Mines Corporation
Pathfinder Mines Corporation
Petrotomics Company
Rio Algom Corporation
Sohio Natural Resources Company
Union Carbide Corporation
Union Carbide Corporation
United Nuclear Corporation
United Nuclear—Homestake Partners
Western Nuclear, Inc.
Western Nuclear, Inc.
Grants, New Mexico
Moab, Utah
Powder River Basin, Wyoming
Falls City, Texas
Canon City, Colorado
Ford, Washington
Powder River Basin, Wyoming
Gas Hills, Wyoming
Grants, New Mexico
Gas Hills, Wyoming
Shirley Basin, Wyoming
Shirley Basin, Wyoming
LaSal, Utah
Cebolleta, New Mexico
Uravan, Colorado
Natrona County, Wyoming
Church Rock, New Mexico
Grants, New Mexico
Jeffrey City, Wyoming
Well pi nit, Washington
Solution Mining Operations
Plant Location
IEC Corporation
Mobil Oil Corporation
Union Carbide Corporation
United States Steel Corporation
U.S. Steel-Niagara Mohawk
Wyoming Mineral Corporation
Wyoming Mineral Corporation
Wyoming Mineral Corporation
Pawnee & Ray Point, Texas
Bruni, Texas
Palagana, Texas
George West, Texas
George West, Texas
Bruni, Texas
Ray Point, Texas
Irigaray Wyoming
Heap Leaching:
Dumps, Tailings or Copper Dumps
Plant Location
Durita Development Corporation
Solution Engineering, Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation
Wyoming Mineral Corporation
Naturita, Colorado
Falls City, Texas
May bell, Colorado
Bingham Canyon, Utah
11
-------
TABLE IB. U.S. URANIUM PRODUCTION MILLS
CURRENT PROPOSED PROJECTS9'13'20'27
Conventional Mills
Plant Location
American Nuclear Corporation
Bokum Resources Corporation
Chevron Oil
Conoco
Cyprus Mines Corp./WMC
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
Gulf Mineral Resources
Homestake Mining Co.
Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp.
Mineral Energy
Minerals Exploration
Mobil Oil Company
Phillips Uranium
Pioneer Nuclear, Inc.
Pioneer-Uravan
Plateau Resources, Ltd.
Portland General Electric/
Martin-Trost Assoc.
TVA
Union Oil
United Nuclear Corporation
Gas Hills, WY
Marquez, NM
Panna Maria, TX
Crownpoint, NM
Canon City, CO
Blanding, UT
Mt. Taylor, Ml
Gunnison, CO
Casper, WY
Temple Mountain, UT
Sweetwater, WY
Crownpoint, NM
Nose Rock, NM
McKinley Co., NM
Slick Rock, CO
Shootering Canyon, UT
Miracle Mine, CA
Edgemont, SD
Shirley Basin, WY
Morton Ranch, WY
Solution Mining Operations
Plant Location
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.
Ogle Petroleum
Rocky Mountain Energy Company
Texura Corporation
Wyoming Mineral Corporation
Pumpkin Buttes, WY
Bison Basin, WY
Casper, WY
Hobson, TX
Buffalo, WY
Phosphoric Acid Byproduct
Plant Location
Gardinier, Inc.
IMCC
Tampa, FL
Mulberry, FL
Heap Leaching:
Dumps, Tailings, or Copper Dumps
Plant Location
Anamax
Brush Well man, Inc.
Phelps Dodge
Tucson, AZ
Delta, UT
Bisbee, UT
12
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATES OF EMISSIONS FROM URANIUM MILLS8'15'22'23'24
Uranium Project
Bear Creek
Leaching
S02 + H2S04
Chlorine
Solvent Extraction
Hydrocarbons
Dryi ng
so2
NOV
Capacity3 Emissions
MT/day (TPD) kg/hr(lbs/hr)
1270(1400)
0.009(0.020)
0.010(0.022)
0.014(0.030)
0.45(1)
0.014(0.030)
Rates6
MT/yr(TPY)
0.08(0.09)
0.09(0.10)
0.12(0.13)
4.0(4.4)
0.12(0.13
Tailings
Hydrocarbons
Shootering Canyon
Solvent Extraction
Hydrocarbons
Highland
Solvent Extraction
Hydrocarbons
White Mesa
Leaching
S02 + H2S04
Solvent Extraction
Hydrocarbons
Dryi ng
so2
NO.
3.3(7.2)
718(790)
0.94(2.1)
2730(3000)
0.18(0.04)
1820(2000)
0.023(0.05)
0.045(0.1)
0.91(2)
0.23(0.5)
28.6(31.5)
8.4(9.2)
0.16(0.18)
0.18(0.20)
0.37(0.41)
7.5(8.2)
1.8(2.0)
is metric tons per day; TPD is tons per day.
kg/hr is kilograms per hour; Ibs/hr is pounds per hour; MT/yr is metric
tons per year; TPY is tons per year.
13
-------
o
o
o
12
o
3
O
Q.
oo
O
m
1 0
66
70
72
Year
7"*
76
78
FIGURE 1. ANNUAL URANIUM CONCENTRATE PRODUCTION 12'29
-------
T
. *\.
i
; __WYpMINGMINERAL
BEAR CREEK URANIUM k.
— • r- PAT
<~~ ~^- i ,
^ PETROTOMI
-EXXON \ ~\
-S V
PATHFINDER-SHIRLEY BASIN
L y
\
1
}"^rM
•i *.: *~**2f?
I
"'"•; \ v^, i
-. i i ,'/«•'
• COTTER | C L:r^
•TA ! ' i Vf
Q McGPc 1 1 \ r— -— •*"
* "ncvjcc^^^-**^"**^**^^"**^^-*' ' "*^ yj ^-f**
UNITED NUCLEAR] \ 7
HOMESTAKE I
1 i
| '"^"-^-^ — -,
A 1
.( •
/ 1
L !
rr^y
o 190 coo
HILCI
i I
SOHIO NATURAL RESOURCES
/•IB^f "~"~"
^^ CONOI
C/N* ii^»«^*--- — -
CONOCO-PIONEER ^ IEC CORP
SOLUTION ENGINEERING
^•^ Ik
WYOMING MINERAL
MOBIL OIL
U
U.S. STEEL
UCC-PALANGANA
S STEEL-
NIAGARA MOHAWK
CORP
FIGURE 2. URANIUM MILLS IN THE UNITED STATES OPERATING AS OF JANUARY 1, 197929
-------
Ore
from Rece
i ving
Pads
i
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Grinding I
Classification
Liquid- Solid
Separation
solution
Leaching *
solution
Liquid-Sol id
Separation
Clarification
Precipitation
Recarbonation •*
Devatering
Drying L
Packaging
YELLOW CAKE
IGURE 3. GENERALIZED FLOW CHART OF ALKALINE LEACH MILLING PROCESS
27
LEGEND
Particulate Emissions
Process Flow
16
-------
Ore from Receiving Pads! -*
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
.Grinding
H2S04 t
OXIDANTS
I
»j Leaching |~-
solution
Clarlficition
LJL
Liquid-Solid
Separation
residue
Concentration
recycle solution
t water
Tailings Pond
1
jPreclpltationj- *•
Oewatering
Drying I
Packaging
FIGURE 4. GENERALIZED FLOW CHART OF ACID LEACH MILLING PROCESS
27
LEGEND
Participate Emissions
Add Vapors, Ammonia
Hydrocarbons (Kerosene)
Process Flow
17
-------
Fluorine
Production
Receiving &
Storage
Recovered Uranium
Calcination
Ore
Preparation
Reduction
Hydro-
fluorination
Fluor i nation
Gases Vented
Off-gases Filtered
& Scrubbed
Distillation
Liquid & Solids
l
Waste Treatment
& U Recovery
f
\
Solid Residue Liquid to
to Burial Effluent
Product Loading
& Shipping
FIGURE 5. METROPOLIS (UF6) FACILITY FLOW CHART
1
LEGEND
Particulate Emissions
Fluorides
Process Flow
18
-------
STORAGE
WATER
SAMPLING
DIGESTION
SCRUBBER
1 ,-
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
1
CONCENTRATION
1
t
DENITRATION
«.
Raffinate
to Disposal
ACID STORAGE
I
REDUCTION
AMMONIA
DISSOCIATION
I
AMMONIA STORAGE
J_
HYDROFLUORINATION
_L
HF PRETREATMENT
-V—
FLUORINATION
•LIQUID HF
1
FLUORINE PLANT
WATER
PRODUCT COLLECTION
HF SCRUBBER
UCT
FIGURE 6. SEQUOYAH PLANT (UF6) FLOW CHART
TO DISPOSAL
17
LEGEND
-v—v-
Particulate Emissions
NO , Ammonia
FIGorides
Hydrocarbon (Hexane)
Process Flow
19
-------
TECHNICAL HEPORT DATA
(I'lcasc rcr.d liiiiriictwiis. on t/ic reverse bcjars completing)
i. RKPOHT KO.
EPA-450/3-80-010
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Source Category Survey: Uranium Refining Industry
7. AUTHOR(S)
John H. E. Stalling III
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
3024 Pickett Road
Durham, N.C. 27707
3. RFCIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980
6. pr-ni-opi,MiNG ORGANI NATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3058
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA
ID. SUPPLL.v ', TARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The purpose of this source category survey was to determine if new source performance
standards (NSPS) should be developed for the uranium refining industry. Information
on the uranium milling process, the uranium conversion process, industry growth, and
industry emissions was collected. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs were contacted to
determine the existing and proposed regulations applicable to this industry.. It was
concluded that radionuclide emissions are regulated by the NRC under the Uranium Fuel
Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190) and that all significant particulate emissions of
uranium mills will be assessed (and regulated; if warranted) under the current project
for development of NSPS for the metallic minerals industry. Based upon this informatH
it was recommended that NSPS not be developed for the uranium refining industry.
17.
K~Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Uranium
Radionuclides
Particulate Matter
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution
New Source Performance
Standards
c. COSATI Field/Group
13 B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited, Available from: National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Rnad. Snrinofipld. Virginia—22161.
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (0-73)
20
------- |