-------
3-79
Maximum discharge from the basin and sub-basin is expected in the late
spring and early summer months because of thunderstorms. At this time, flow
in the river draining the regional basin is also at or near maximum, thus
there is high probability for considerable dilution of runoff contaminated by
mine drainage.
Total flow volumes for the basin and regional basin were estimated from
U.S. Geological Survey records for the period 1948 to 1970. Figure 3.10
shows average monthly flows in cubic meters for the Cheyenne River and Lance
Creek near Spencer,-Wyoming. Immediately apparent is the close similarity in
overall runoff pattern for the year.
Table 3.24 Summary of, calculated total flow in the Wyoming model area
sub-basin using the USGS and SCS methods
Recurrence
Interval, r,
in years
Sub-basin
Total flow (m3)
^Source: Cr78.
^Source: DOA75.
^C'NC = Not calculated.
Sub-basin
Total flow (m
2
5
10
25
50
100
32,921
64,116
90,009
127,862
159,920
194,937
14,467
NC^
98,419
170,815
231,618
295,257
Minimum flows occur in November, December, and January, and peak runoff in
both basins occurs in May, June, and July. Long-term average annual flow in
73 73
the basin is 2.18 x 10 m and 5.64 x 10 m in the Cheyenne River. These
2
are almost exactly proportional to the respective basin areas of 5,360 km
2
and 13,650 km , indicating similar climatic and runoff conditions.
-------
3-80
Assuming there are 3 mines operating for a 17-year period and that each
mine discharges on the average 3.00 m /min continuously, total annual flow
volume from the mines is 4.7 x 10 m . Cumulative discharge from the sub-
basin is 7.04 m /min or 3.7 x 10 m /yr, which causes development of a
perennial stream 12.8 km long within the basin. Insofar as the basin channel
length is 141 km, the perennial stream ceases to flow well within the basin.
Appendix H explains the methodology and intermediate steps involved in
deriving these foregoing values. Mine drainage water is not expected to flow
the full length- of Lance Creek or reach the Cheyenne River. However, on the
basis of total monthly flow, the volume of mine drainage from one mine ex-
ceeds the flow in Lance Creek and the Cheyenne River for three months of the
year, whereas flow from three mines exceeds basin flow for five months and
regional basin flow for four months each year (Fig. 3.10).
The aqueous pathway for mine drainage is considered in terms of chronic,
perennial transport in the mine water, per se, and transport by flood waters
that periodically scour the channels where most of the sorbed contaminants
would be located. Considering the random nature of flooding and the re-
sulting uncertainty as to when the next 2-, 5-, or 10-year, etc. flood may
occur, it is assumed that most contaminants accumulate on an annual basis and
are redissolved by floods of varying return periods (2 to 10 years) and
volumes. Many combinations of buildup and flooding are possible, such as
buildup for 5 years or 10 years with perhaps several 2-year storms and one
5-year storm. Insofar as numerous assumptions are made in calculating volume
and quality of mine discharge, basin runoff, and fate of the contaminants in
the aqueous system, use of annual accretion and varying flood volumes in the
sub-basin is considered adequate for estimating flood water quality.
Dilution of contaminated flows originating in the sub-basin and ex-
tending into the basin were conservatively calculated by assuming that the
total flow during the low period equaled the mean annual flow. Thus, high
flows and associated increased dilution are ignored, tending to make the
analysis conservative. Contaminated flows from the sub-basin are diluted
into these adjusted mean annual flows. Definition of the source term on an
annual basis is most compatible with the radiation dose and health effects
calculations in Section 6. Use of the low flow segment of the total annual
-------
3-81
flow regime is decidedly conservative since total flow during the five months
3 3
of low flow conditions amounts to 111,610 m and 218,336 m for the basin and
regional basin, respectively. Average annual flow for the period of record
(22 years) is considerably higher, amounting to 2.184 x 10 m for the basin
7 3
and 5.64 x 10 m for the regional basin.
Runoff in the basin and regional basin is expected to markedly dilute
contaminated flood -flows originating in the basin, Such floods would scour
contaminants from about 23 kilometers of channel affected by contaminants
from the three active mines. Peak runoff events in the sub-basin are most
likely in the late spring-early summer season when runoff in the basin and
regional basin is the maximum or near maximum, on the average. However, peak
runoff from the sub-basin could also occur when the basin and r&qional basin
are at low flow or zero discharge. Such contrasts are present between the
basin and regional basin flow regimes. From September through December,
Lance Creek tan be expected to have no discharge from 45 to 65 percent of the
time, whereas the Cheyenne River will be dry, on the average, from 65 to 85
percent of the time (Fig. 3.13). Thus there is a distinct chance that
contaminants transported in Lance Creek would not be immediately diluted upon
reaching the Cheyenne River.
Before discussing the calculated concentrations of contaminants in the
basin and regional basin streams, several other conditions need to be men-
tioned. In water-short regions like Wyoming, extensive use is made of im-
poundments to capture aad store runoff. On Lance Creek, the model for the
basin, the volume of existing impoundments is 15.78 x 10 m or 72 percent of
the annual average runoff. In the regional basin, modeled "after the Cheyenne
7 1
River, there are 4.2 x 10 m of storage volume, which is 74 percent of the
fi O
average flow of 56.4 x 10 m . Thus, it is very likely that discharge from
the sub-basin or basin will not exit the basin, particularly in the periods
of low flow. Contaminant concentrations, particularly those affected by
sorption and precipitation reactions, are likely to be reduced as a result of
sedimentation and long residence time in the impoundments, although there is
some potential for overtopping, disturbance by cattle, and so on. Signif-
icant adverse impacts are not likely considering precipitation and sorption
reactions which are likely to remove contaminants from the food chain. Proof
of this 1s lacking and we recommend confirmatory studies for the stable ele-
ments. Previous studies (Ha78; Wh76) emphasized radiological contaminants.
-------
100-
90
o 80.
cc
M
o-
Ixl
70—-J
60-
50-
40.
30—1
Cheyenne River
(Annual 0-Flow days i=55.7l)
V
x'
^ Ort
o 20 —
LU
a.
10 —
•-— . ^••>y' Lance Creek
« (Annual 0-Flow days 55=42.9%)
JAN FEB MAR APR I MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
NOV DEC i
[ Figure 3.13 Periods of no flow in Lance Creek and the Cheyenne River near R iverton, Wyoming for the period 1948-1978
J (Summarized from flow records provided by H Lowham, U S. Geologies! Survey, Cheyenne, WY }
-------
3-83
Radlum-226 is strongly sorbed onto stream sediments and (or) it is
subject to precipitation. Partial re-solution in subsequent floods occurs
but it is assumed that only 10 percent of the mass deposited on an annual
basis goes back into solution in flood waters. The rationale for this
assumption is based on laboratory studies (Sh64; Ha68), field data from New
Mexico (Ka75; Ku79), and review of the literature. Pertinent field and
laboratory data specific to surface water quality in the Wyoming uranium
mining areas are scarce, although studies by the State (summarized by Harp,
1978} are noteworthy. Sulfate is regarded herein as rather mobile and, as
such, most of it infiltrates the shallow aquifer. Therefore, only 20 percent
of the mass frcm a given mine on an annual basis is assumed available for
re-solution in flood waters. The fate of zinc, arsenic, and cadmium is in-
sufficiently understood to predict what fraction in the mine discharge will
be removed from solution versus remain available for re-solution. Studies
along these lines are necessary. Similarly, not all of the contaminants
potentially present in mine waters from Wyoming are necessarily shown in
Tables 3.21 and 3.25, which were developed based on available data from NPDES
permits, environmental reports, and environmental impact statements. In the
case of suspended solids, there is no calculation of non-point source con-
tributions from mined lands. Sediment loads from such sources could be
locally significant, but mined land reclamation and natural recovery seems to
effectively mitigate problems. Only suspended solids from mine drainage, per
se, are considered.
Table 3.25 shows the flood flow volumes (in the sub-basin) associated
with events having return periods of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years. Also
shown are the contaminant concentrations calculated from the annual contami-
nant loading diluted into the foregoing floods. As expected, concentrations
are high because of the low dilution volumes associated with the small sub-
basin. Surface water in the sub-basin might be impounded therein for use by
stock or, less possibly, irrigation, but it is more likely that the principal
impoundments would be in the larger hydrographic unit, the basin. The flood
flow volumes shown represent runoff from the entire sub-basin. When the
second and third mines begin to discharge, the annual loading and concen-
tration values shown would have to be doubled or tripled. The reader should
remember that background concentrations already present in flood runoff would
be additive to the values in Table 3.25. However, these have been assumed
-------
Table 3 25 Annual contaminant loading from one uranium mine and resulting concentrations
in floods within the sub-basin for return periods of 2 to 100 years
Contaminant and
concentration in
mine effluent
Total uranium 0.
Radlum-226 4
Total sus-
pended solids
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
20.
875
0
0.
<0.
. 070 mg/ i
I pCi/i
.9 mg/ i
«g/ i
071 mg/ i
. 004 mg/ t
. 005 mg/ i
Chemical mass available
for transport on an annual
basis
110
0.00065
32,955
275,940
112.0
6.31
7 88
kg/yr
Ci/yr(a)
kg/yr
kg/yr(b)
icg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
Flood flow volumes (m ) and contaminant concentrations associated
with return periods of 2 to 100 years
V2 = 32921
C2
3.34
19.7
1001
83B1
3.40
0.192
0.239
V5 = 64116 V = 90009 \
C C
5 L10
1.72 1 22
10 1 7.2
514 366
4304 3066
1.75 1 24
0.098 0 070
0.123 0 088
?25 = 127862
0 86
S.I
258
2158
0.876
0.049
0.062
VM = 159920
C50
0.
4.
206
1723
0.
0.
0.
69
1
700
039
049
V10Q = 194937
C100
0
3
169
1416
56
3
0.575
0.
0
.032
040
Ten percent of the annual loading is assumed available for solution. The balance is assumed sorbed onto sediments or present in
insoluble precipitates,
'Twenty percent of the annual loading is assumed available for transport and the balance is assumed to have infiltrated to the water
table or it is present as an insoluble precipitate.
V and C refer to, respectively, flood volume, in cubic aeters, and concentration in milligrams per liter or picocuries per liter for an
r-year flood. Concentrations are in milligrams per liter except radium-226, in pCi/t .
Note.--Assumptions: Mine discharges continuously at a rate of 3.00 m /mm and concentrations are the average of those shown in Table 3.21.
All suspended and dissolved contaminants remain in or on the stream sediments and are mobilized by flood flow.
-------
3-85
equal to zero In order to estimate incremental increases due to mining and to
simplify the calculations.
Table 3.26 shows contaminant concentrations in the basin and regional
basin streams from the discharge of one mine. For cases involving two or
more mines, the concentration shown would be scaled up by a factor of two or
more. Basically, the table shows the effects of taking contaminated flood
waters from the sub-basin and diluting them in the low flow volume of the
basin and regional.basin. As expected, concentrations decrease with floods of
greater volume and longer return period. Additional dilution occurs when
* «
discharge from the basin enters the regional basin. Taking the two-year
runoff event in the sab-basin, for example, uranium is diluted from 3.34 mg/£
(Table 3.25) to 0.76 mg/2. in the basin and then to 0.44 mg/£ in the regional
basin. There is some question as to whether the lesser sub-basin floods,
particularly those with return periods of 25 years or less, would actually
flow the length of the basin and enter the regional basin. Because much of
the 22.7 km reach of stream directly affected by mine discharge is located in
the basin, it is conservatively assumed that the contaminants will reach the
basin and eventually the regional basin. The foregoing analysis is struc-
tured as a worst-case, maximum-concentration scenario.
Concentrations of contaminants in flood waters affected by mine drainage
are compared to water standards for potable and irrigation uses (Table 3.27).
Radium-226 concentrations in the basin and" regional basin streams (Table
3.27) range from 1.6 to 4.5 pCi/fe and are below the drinking water standard
(for Ra-226 + Ra-228) of 5 pCi/£. Uranium concentrations range from 0.26 to
0.76 mg/£ , which is roughly equivalent to 176 to 514 pCi/£. On the basis of
chemical toxicity alone, such concentrations would probably present no prob-
lem for short periods, but radioactivity is another matter. Reevaluation of
the standard for uranium in potable water is presently receiving attention
within the Agency (R. Sullivan and J. Giedt, USEPA, oral communication,
1980). Briefly, there is consensus that the radiotoxicity of uranium is
similar to that of radium-226 and 228. For continuous ingestion at a rate of
2 liters per day, it is suggested that potable water contain no more than 10
pCi/i (0.015 mg/ji) natural uranium to reduce the incidence of fatal cancers
to no more than 0.7 to 3 per year per million population (Office of Drinking
Water guidance to the State of Colorado, July 7, 1979). Realizing that the
-------
Table 3.26 Concentrations in basin and regional basin streams as a result of surface mine discharge
Parameter
Concentrations (ingA ; pCi£ in the case of radium)
in basin discharge under low flow conditions due
to influx of sub-basin floods with 2, 25, and 100
year return periods*3''
"25
"100
Concentrations {mg/i ; pCiA in the case of radium) in regional
basin discharge under low-flow conditions due to influx of basin
discharge, also under low-flow conditions, and sub-basin floods
with 2, 25, and 100 year return periods^ '
"25
"100
Total Uranium
ftadium-226
Total Susp, Solids
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
0.76
4.5
228
1909
0.774
0.044
0.054
0,46
2.7
138
1152
0.468
0.026
0.033
0.36
2.1
107
900
0.366
0.020
0.025
0.44
2.6
131
1098
0.445
0.025
0,031
0.32
1.9
95
797
0.324
0.018
0.023
0.26
1.6
79
668
0.271
0.015
0.019
'^Calculated as follows: Assuming a two year flood, uranium concentration in the outflow from the sub-basin equals 3.34 tng/i and flow
equals 32,921 m (see Table 3.25). Average total flow for 5 months of low flow conditions in the basin equals 111,610 m . The concentration
in the basin outflow, after dilution of the contaminated inflow from the sub-basin for floods of varying recurrence intervals equals:
C8asin = VSub-basin xCSub-basin = (32921 ro3) (3.34 mg/t ) = 0.76 mg/i
(Sub-basin + Basin)
It
32921 m3 + 111610 m3)
* 'Calculations similar to "a" above, except average total flow volume for 5 months of low flow in the regional basin equals 218,336
i C V C
m . Hence, Regional basin = Sub-basinx Sub-basin
g
( Sub-basin + Regional Basin)
CD
en
-------
Table 3.27 Comparison of potable and irrigation water standards and surface water quality affected by surface mine drainage
Parameter
Range of contaminant concen-
j
'trations in flood flow
affeeted by mine diseharge
Basin Regional Basin
Mm. Max. Hin. Max.
Potable water standards^
Irrigation
(c)
Maximum Pentiissable
Concentration
Recommended Limiting
Concentration
Recommendations for maximum concentration
for continuous use on all soils (mgfa )
total U
Ra-226 + 228
TSS
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
0.36
2.1
107
900
0.366
0.02
0.025
0.76
4.5
228
1909
0.774
0.044
0.054
0.
1.
79
668
0.
0.
0.
26
G
271
015
019
0.
2.
131
1098
0.
0.
0.
44
6
445
025
031
0.015/3.
Iff}
5/0.2Pa)
—
5 pCi/£
--
—
—
0.
0.
-
-
-
01
05
-
250
5
—
0
..
.0
-
.01
—
5 pCi/i
—
ZOO
2.0
0.010
0.10
(a)
W
Concentrations in milligrams per liter, except Ra-226 -228 which are in picocuries per liter.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA76) and, in the case of uranium, suggested guidance from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS79) to the USIPft and from USEPA (Office of Drinking Mater) to the State of Colorado (La79).
^Source: NAS72.
' '0.015 nigA : Suggested maximum daily limit based on radiotoxlcity for potable water consumed at a rate of 2 liters per day on a
continuous basis.
3.5 mgA : Suggested maximum 1-day limit based on chemical toxicity end intake of 2 liters 1n any one day.
0.21 mgk " Suggested maximum 7-day limit based on chemical toxicity and Intake of 2 liters per day for 7 days.
-------
3-88
limit of 10 pCi/£ (0.015 mg/£ } may not be cost effective, the Agency is
contracting to develop the economic and technical basis for a uranium (in
water) standard. The National Academy of Science, at the request of the
Agency, evaluated the chemical toxicity of uranium. A maximum, 1-day concen-
tration of 3.5 mg/£ (7 mg/day based on daily intake of 2 liters) is the
"Suggested No Adverse Response Level" (SNARL). The corresponding concen-
tration for a. 7-day period is 0.21 mg/£ .
There are numerous complicating factors surrounding the foregoing sug-
gested radiotoxicity and chemical toxicity limits for uranium. These include
economic justification, technical feasibility, gut to blood transfer factors,
and overall health of the receptor, to name a few. Of importance is the fact
that a stricter standard for uranium in water
-------
3-89
3.3.3.2 Impacts of Seepage on Groyndwater
The previous analysis assumed no Infiltration (to groundwater) of dis-
solved or suspended contaminants* thereby creating a maximum or worst-case
situation with respect to transport via floodwaters. In fact, contaminants
will also infiltrate through the stream deposits. Anions and selected stable
elements like uranium, selenium, and molybdenum are most likely to migrate
downward. Insofar as the alluvial, valley fill aquifer may be used locally,
particularly in the case of larger drainage basins and the regional basin,
some analysis of potential impacts is offered herein.
Effects of mine drainage impoundments used to settle suspended sol Ids
are excluded from the present analysis. Such impoundments are relatively
small, commonly less than 1 or 2 hectares, and tend to become self-sealing
due to settling of fines. Potable water supplies at the mines are usually
from deep exploration borings converted to water wells or from mine water.
Problems may exist with such water being contaminated, as has been documented
in the Grants Mineral Belt (EPA75), but we do not believe seepage from set-
tling ponds to be a factor.
Infiltration of water discharged to ephemeral stream courses was not
calculated separately. It was combined into a lumped term incorporating
infiltration and evaporation. Both losses are, in part, a function of sur-
face area. Infiltration takes place primarily in the basin. When three
mines are operating, 22.7 km of perennial stream is created and extends into
a portion of the basin. Infiltration of the mine effluent adds primarily to
the amount of water in storage in the alluvium, versus acting as a source of
recharge to the deeper, consolidated strata.
As with many of the intermontane basins in Wyoming, water in the South
Powder River Basin is primarily groundwater recharged by sporadic runoff from
limited precipitation (Ke77), Some stock ponds that collect surface runoff
are supplemented by groundwater from wells or springs. Mine water discharged
from one underground mine is used to irrigate approximately 65 hectares of
native grass, alfalfa, oats, and barley. In general, groundwater is not used
for irrigation (Ho73). Groundwater use for domestic supplies is largely
confined to the Dry Fork of the Cheyenne River (Ke77). The number of wells is
close to a density of one per 400 ha (Ke77). Typical wells are completed in
the alluvium and yield less than 1GCH /min.
-------
3-90
Geological formations in the southern portion of the Powder River Basin
include in descending order and increasing age; the 1) Alluvium, 2) Wasatch
Formation, 3} Fort Union Formation, 4} Lance Formation, 5) Fox Hills Forma-
tion, and 6) older rocks too deep to be affected by uranium mining (NRC78c).
Table 3.28 shows the well depth for each formation, anticipated well yields,
and the total dissolved solids content in the vicinity of an active uranium
mining and milling project in the South Powder River Basin.
Water quality in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations ranges widely and
appears to correlate with the permeability of the water-bearing sand and
proximity to outcrops. No relation of water quality to depth is apparent.
Analyses of water from Cenozoic rocks show dissolved so'iids ranging from less
than 100 to more than 8000 mg/i (Ho73). Of the 258 analyses performed by the
US&S., 55 showed dissolved solids less than 500 mg/£ , 13J less than 1000 mg/£ t
and 125 more than 1000 mg/i . Sodium, sulfate, and bicarbonate are the dom-
inant ions, and water is usually excessively hard. Iron is character-
istically a problem in water from the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations
(Ho73). Element distributions show considerable variability due to clay
lenses in the sandy units (NRC78c). The clays act as barriers to groundwater
movement and preferentially concentrate some elements. Table 3.29 shows the
ambient groundwater quality in the immediate area of three active mills in
\ the South Powder River Basin.
3
• In the Wyoming model mine sub-basin, total inflow equals 9 m /min or
4.73 x 10 m /yr, and total annual infiltration loss equals 4.65 x 10 m
(calculated in Appendix H). Restated, 98.2 percent of the discharge infil-
trates and the remainder evaporates.
Infiltration of 4.65 x 10 m /yr is not likely to continue for the full
duration of mining unless the bedrock strata have the same or similar perme-
ability as the alluvium and (or) there is an extensive zone of unsaturated
alluvium to provide storage. The alluvium in the Wyoming study area is
concentrated along the stream axes, is relatively thin, and is underlain by
less permeable bedrock strata. It is probable that a zone of saturated
alluvium will gradually develop and extend downstream as mine discharge con-
tinues. Recharge from the alluvium to the underlying Wasatch or Fort Union
Formations will occur but at a low rate compared to infiltration. Water
quality in the alluvium is highly variable (Table 3.29); it may or may not be
affected by mine drainage. Adverse impacts, if any, are likely to be a
result of uranium, sulfate, and mobile elements.
-------
Table 3.28 Northeastern Wyoming groundwater sources
Geologic Period
Quaternary >
Tertiary
Cretaceous
Jyrassic
Triassic
Pennsylvanian
Mississippian
Qrdovician
Cambrian
Aquifer
Alluvium
Wasatch
Fort Union
Lance
Fox Hills
Mesaverde
Cody
Frontier
Dakota
Sundance
Spearfish
Minnelusa
Pahasapa
Bighorn
Flathead
Depth Range
of Wells, m
3-30
12-300
45-180
45-365
210-700
12-915
30-335
20-610
75-1830
120-210
6-275+
75-1980
150-2320
0-60
20-1800
Anticipated Well Yield, jtpm
Common
20-945
4-150
4-110
4-190
75-260
57-150
4-20
4-20
95-380
4-20
4-115
95-950
380-9460
3785
760
High
1140-2270
380-2370
380
1900
760-1900
225-265
380-7&0
380-1135
760-3410
95
380-760
1860-7470
26,500-35,600
3785
Total Dissolved
Solids, mgA
106-7340
160-6620
484-3250
450-3060
1240-3290
550-1360
6392-12,380
390-2360
218-1820
894-2310
2590
255-3620
290-3290
427-3219
124
Source; NRC78b.
-------
3-92
Table 3.29 Groundwater quality of wells sampled by the three major
uranium producers in the South Powder River Basin, Wyoming
Parameter
U)
reference Ke77.
(b)
Range of Concentration Reported
Kerr-McGee
(a)
TVA
{b}
Exxon
PH
Spec. cond.
ymhos/cm
Ca
Mg
Na
HC03
SO,
Cl
Zn
Fe
Ba
Radium (pCi/jt)
Uranium (mg/i)
7.4-8.0
210-1100
28-343
8-81
5-71
30-380
28-980
<5-57
0.006-18.0
0.41 - 5.18
< 0.002- 2.3
7.4 - 8.5
250-1300
10-200
2-80
10-300
70-110
8-1000
11-25
0.03 -3
0.2 -20
0.2 -18
0.002-60
7.3-8.1
290-600
26-150
1-13
54-121
90-412
58-575
6-16
ND- 0.14^
0.01- 1.64
ND- 0.05
0.4 -12.0
0.0004 - 0.21
(c)
(d)
Shallow wells up to 61 meters depth, Tables 2.6-7 through 2.6-10 of
e Ke77.
From Figs. Cl and C3 of reference NRC78b.
Table 2.12 of reference NRC78d.
ND: Not detectable.
-------
3-93
An actual example of this saturated front developing and moving down-
gradient is present at the Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation's Bill Smith Mine
in South Powder River Basin (Ke77). The mine discharges to a tributary of
3
Sage Creek at a rate of about 1.7 m /min. From the period January 1974 to
late 1976, a flow front 23 km long developed as a result of infiltration into
the sandy alluvium. The discharge water maintains a high groundwater level
in the stream bed. Unfortunately, no information is available on the geo-
metry of the stream channel to evaluate the volume of water that has infil-
trated in the three-year period or on any water quality changes that have
occurred.
In summary, additional field data are needed to properly address the
water quality effects of infiltrat.on. Both theory and at least one field
example indicate extensive Infiltration of effluent containing at least some
mobile stable and radioactive contaminants. Therefore, we recommend addi-
tional field investigations to determine, at the minimum, any hydraulic and
water quality effects of mine discharge on shallow aquifers and the influence
of dewatering on regional water levels and water quality, regardless of pre-
existing or anticipated local water use patterns.
3.3.4 jases_and Dusts from Mining Activ11ies
Dusts and toxic gases are generated from routine mining operations.
Combustion products are produced by large diesel and gasoline-powered equip-
ment in the mine and by trucks transporting the overburden, ore, and sub-ore
from the pit to storage pile areas. Dusts are produced by blasting,
breaking, loading, and unloading rock and ore and by haulage trucks moving
along dirt roads. Finally, Rn-222 will emanate from exposed ore in the pit
and from the ore as it is broken, loaded, and unloaded. These sources will
be discussed individually.
3.3.4.1 Dusts and Fumes
Most vehicular emissions are from the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels in
heavy-duty, diesel-powered mining equipment. Surface mines produce con-
siderably more emissions than underground mines, since the overburden must be
removed before the ore can be mined. The principal emissions are parti-
culates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons.
The quantity of these combustion products released to the atmosphere depends
on the number, size, and types of equipment used.
-------
3-94
The EPA estimates the following emissions from mining 1350 MT of ore per
day from a surface mine (Re76).
Emissions per Operating Day, kg/d
Pollutant Mining Operations Overburden Removal
Participates 17.0 18.9
Sulfur oxides 35.4 39.3
Carbon monoxide . 294.2 327,4
Nitrogen oxides 484.6 538,4
Hydrocarbons 48.4 53.8
Assuming a 330 opt rat ing -day -year (Ni79), we adjusted these emission ,'ates to
ore production for the average surface mine (1.2 x 10 MT/yr) and tha average
large surface mine (5.1 x 10 MT/yr) as described in Sections 1.3.1 and
3.3.1. Table 3.30 shows the total airborne combustion product emissions.
These estimated emission rates are somewhat higher than rates previously
suggested by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC74).
Table 3.30 Estimated air pollutant emissions from heavy-duty
equipment at surface mines
Pollutant
Participates
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Average Mine^ '
3
7
55
91
9
Emissions, MT/yr^a'
Average Large Mine
14
28
235
387
39
^a'Based on (Re76) and 330 operating days per year (Ni79).
Ore production = 1.2 x 105 MT/yr.
5
Ore production = 5.1 x 10 MT/yr.
-------
3-95
Oust is produced from blasting, scraping, loading, transporting, and
dumping ore, sub-ore, and overburden. Additional dust is produced when the
ore is reloaded from the stockpile for transportation to the mill. Dust
emissions vary widely, depending upon moisture content, amount of fines,
number and types of equipment operating, and climatic conditions. Because
ore is usually wet, the relative amounts of dust produced from mining and
handling it are usually small. We selected the following emission factors
from those suggested by the EPA for the above listed mining activities (Hu76,
Ra78, Da79):
Blasting - 5 x Iff4 kg dust/MT
Scraping and bulldozing * 8.5 x 10 kg dust/Iff
Truck loading » 2.5 x ID"2 kg dust/MT
„?
Truck dumping - 2 x 10 kg dust/MT
We applied these emission factors to the ore, sub-ore, and overburden
production rates of the average mine and average large mine and estimated
average annual dust emissions for these mining activities (see Table 3.31).
These are probably maximum emission rates because blasting is not always
required, and some emission factors appear to have been based upon data from
crushed rock operations, which would contain more fines than rock removed
from surface mines. One-half the emission factor values were applied to ore
and sub-ore because they are usually wet, except when reloading ore from the
stockpile, in which case it is assumed to have dried during the 41-day resi-
dence period (Section 3.3,1.2),
The movement of heavy-duty haul trucks is probably the largest single
source of dust emissions at surface mines. An emission factor (EF) for this
source can be computed by the following equation (EPA7?b),
EF - 2.28 x Itf4 (s) M 365_w (TF} (f) (3>2)
\48J 365™
where,
EF - Emission factor, MT/vehicle kilometer traveled (MT/VKmt),
S = Silt content of road surface, percent,
-------
3-96
V = Vehicle velocity, kmph [Note: This tenn becomes l
for velocities less than 48 km/hr (EPA77b, DA79)]}
W = Mean annual number of days with 0.254 mm or more rainfall,
TF = Wheel correction factor, and
f = Average fraction of emitted particles in the <30 vm diameter sus-
pended particle size range; particles having diameters greater
than 30 Mm will settle rapidly near the roadway.
Values selected for these terms in the solution of Equation 3,2 are —
S = 10 percent (Da79),
V = 32 km/hr for heavy-duty vehicles and 48 km/hr for light vehicles
o
(therefore, the velocity term is (32/48) and (48/48), respectively),
W = 90 days (EPA77b),
TF = 2.5 (Da79) (heavy-duty vehicles only), and
f = 0.60, since the weight percent of particles of less than 30 vm
and greater than 30 u m in diameter is generally considered to
be 60 and 40 percent, respectively (EPA77b).
Substituting these values into Equation 3.2 yields 1.15 x 10 MT/VKmT and
_3
1.03 x 10 HT/VKmt for the emission factors of heavy-duty haul trucks and
light duty vehicles, respectively.
Table 3.31 shows estimated dust emissions for the movement of heavy-duty
haul trucks using the following information:
-------
Table 3.31 Average annual dust emissions from mining activities
Dust Emissions, MT/yr
Mining Activity
Blasting
Scraping/bul Idozing
i
Truck Loading
Total at Pit Site
Truck Dumping
Reloading stockpiled ore^6j
Total at Pile Sites
Vehicular dust^ '
Wind suspended dust
from storage piles
Average Mine^3'
Ore
0.03
1.5
1.53
1.2
1 3.0
4.2
14
10
Sub-ore^
0.03
NA
1.5
1.53
1.2
NA
1.2
14
3
Overburden
3.0
51
150
204
120
NA
120
304
30
Average Large
Ore(c}
0.13
NA
6.4
6.53
5.1
13
18.1
59
44
Sub-ore^
0.13
NA
6.4
6.53
5.1
NA
5.1
59
10
Mine(b)
Overburden
20
340
1000
1360
800
NA
800
2020
94
^a'Based on annual production rates of 1.2 x 10 MT of ore and sub-ore and 6.0 x 10 MT of overburden.
^ 'Based on annual production rates of 5.1 x 10 MT of ore and sub-ore and 4.0 x 10 MT of overburden.
(0
(d)
(e)
(f)
Assumed wet.
NA - not applicable.
Assumed dry.
Dust emissions from heavy-duty vehicular traffic along ore, sub-ore and overburden haul roads.
u»
UD
-------
3-98
EF - 1.15 x 10"3 MT/VKmt,
Truck capacities - 31.8 MT for ore and sub-ore and
109.1 MT for overburden (Da79)f
Round-trip haul distance = 3.2 km to ore and sub-ore piles
and 4.8 km to overburden dump, and
Annual production1 rates - given in Section 3.3.1 and in the
footnotes of Table 3.31.
Additional dust emissions will occur from the movement of light-duty
vehicles along access roads. Using the emission factor derived above (1.03 x
_o
10" MT/VKmT) and assuming that there are 24 km of access roads traveled 4
times a day for 330 operating days per year, about 33 MT of dust will be
produced from this source annually. Emissions during haulage road main-
tenance is relatively small and will not be considered.
Table 3.31 also shows average annual dust emissions from wind erosion of
overburden, sub-ore» and ore piles at the model surface mines. For these
computations, we assumed the model overburden pile to be that of Case 2 and
in the shape of a 65-m high truncated cone (Table 3.11). The same was
assumed for the average mine, except the pile height was 30 m. The sub-ore
piles of both mines were assumed to have a truncated cone configuration
(Table 3.20). The same configuration was also assumed for the ore piles, but
the pile heights were 9.2 m for the average large mine and 3.1 m for the
average mine (Table 3.17).
Emission factors, computed in Appendix I, are 0.850 MT/hectare-yr for
overburden and sub-ore piles and 0.086 kg/MT for the ore stockpiles. The
first emission factor was multiplied by the overburden and average sub-ore
pile areas; the second factor was multiplied by the annual ore production.
In computing the Table 3.31 dust emissions, we assumed no effective dust
control program and that there was no vegetation on overburden and sub-ore
piles. Haul_ roads are normally sprinkled routinely during dry periods, and
stabilizing chemicals are applied primarily to ore haul roadways at some
mines. Sprinkling can reduce dust emissions along haul roads by 50 percent,
and up to 85 percent by applying stabilizing chemicals (EPA77b, Da79).
-------
3-99
The dust emissions from vehicular traffic (Table 3.31) (transportation)
were summed with those produced by light vehicular traffic (33 MT/yr) and
considered as one source of emissions. Concentrations of contaminants in the
dust are unknown. Some spillage of ore and sub-ore along haul roads will
undoubtedly raise uranium levels in roadbed dust. As an estimate, uranium
and daughter concentrations in the dust were considered to be twice back-
ground, 8 ppm (2.7 pCi/g)» while concentrations of all other contaminants
were considered to be similar to those in overburden rock (Section 3.3.1.1,
Table 3.16). Table 3.32 shows the annual emissions computed with these
assumptions.
Table 3.33 lists annual contaminant emissions from mining activities
(scraping, loading, dumping, etc.) according to source location, at the pit
and at the piles. Contaminant emissions were computed by multiplying the
total annual dust emissions at each pile (Table 3.31) by the respective
contaminant concentrations in each source — overburden (Section 3.3.1.1.;
Table 3.16), sub-ore (Section 3.3.1.3; Table 3.19) and ore (Section 3.3.1.2;
Table 3.19). Contaminant emissions at the site of the pit were computed by
multiplying the total annual dust emissions of ore, sub-ore, and overburden
(Table 3.31) by their respective contaminant concentrations. The three pro-
ducts of the multiplication were then summed to give the values in the 4th
and 8th data columns of Table 3.33. The health impact of the sources at each
location will be assessed separately in Section 6.1.
Table 3.34 lists annual contaminant emissions due to wind suspension and
transport of dust. These values were computed by multiplying the annual mass
emissions (Table 3.31) by the contaminant concentrations in overburden,
sub-ore, and ore listed in Sections 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, and 3.3,1.2, respec-
tively. The uranium and uranium daughter concentrations were also multiplied
by an activity ratio (dust/source) of 2.5 (Section 3.3.1.2). Although some
metals may also be present as secondary deposits, it was believed that there
were insufficient data to justify multiplying their concentrations by the 2.5
ratio.
3.3.4,2 Radon-222 from the Pit, Storage Piles, and Ore Handling
Rn-222 will be released from the following sources during surface mining
operations:
-------
3-100
Table 3.32 Average annual emissions of radionucl ides (yd)
and stable elements (Kg) from vehicular dust at
the model surface mines
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Lead
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 and
each daughter
Thorium-232 and
each daughter
Average Large
Surface Mine^3'
20
630
39
<111
13,030
<17
15,200
1,050
5.4
48
4.3
330
220
43
5,860
2,170
Average
Surface Mine^
3.3
106
6.6
<19
2,190
<2.9
2,560
177
0.9
8.0
0.7
55
37
7.3
990
370
(a)
(b)
Mass emissions = 2,170 MT/yr.
Mass emissions = 365 MT/yr.
-------
Table 3.33 Average annual emissions of radionuclides (yd") and stable elements
(kg) from mining activities at the model surface mines
Average Surface Mine^
Overburden
Contaminant Pile Site
Arsenic
Barium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium
Iron (
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 &
each daughter
Thorium-232 &
each daughter
1.1
35
NR(b)
2.2
<6
720
2.6
NR
58
<1
0.3
NR
840
0.2
18
12
2.4
1,800
120
a)
Sub-ore Ore Pit Site
Pile Site Pile Site
0.10
1.1
0.02
0.07
0.02
19
0.09
4.2
1.2
ND^
0.14
0.02
30
0.13
0.16
1.7
0.04
120
2.4
0.36
3.9
0.07
0.26
0.08
66
0.33
15
4.0
ND
0.48
0.08
105
0.46
0.55
5.9
0.12
2,990
42
2.1
62
0.05
3.9
<10
1,270
4.7
11
102
<1.6
0.86
0.06
1,500
0.74
31
25
4.2
4,300
220
Average Largje Surface Mine^
Overburden
Pile Site
7.2
232
NR
14
<41
4,800
18
NR
388
<6.4
2.0
NR
5,600
1.6
120
80
16
12,000
800
Sub-Ore Ore Pit Site
Pile Site Pile Site
6.44
4.7
0.08
0.31
0.10
80
0.40
18
4.9
ND
0.59
0.10
128
0.56
0.66
7.2
0.15
510
10
1.6
17
0.29
1.1
0.36
284
1.4
63
17
ND
2.1
0.36
453
2.0
2.4
26
0.52
12,900
180
13
406
0.21
25
<70
8,360
31
46
672
<11
4.9
0.26
9,850
4.2
206
154
28
25,700
1,440
(b)
(c)
'Mass emissions from Table 3.31.
NR - Not reported.
ND - Not detected.
U)
I
o
-------
Table 3.34
Average annual emissions of radionuclides (yCi) and stable elements
in wind suspended' dust at the model surface mines
Average Large Surface Mine
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cobal t
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 &
each daughter
Thorium-232 &
each daughter
Overburden Sub-Ore
Pile Pile
0.85
27
NR(a)
1.7
<4.8
564
<0.75
660'
NR
46
0.24
NR
2.1
0.19
14 ,
9.4
1.9
1,410
94
0.86
9.2
0.16
0.61
0.20
157
ND(b)
250
35
9.6
1.2
0.20
0.78
1.1
1.3
14
0.29
1,000
20
Ore
Stockpile
3.8
40
0.70
2.7
0.88
690
ND
1,100
154
42
5.0
0.88
3.4
4.8
5.7
62
1.3
31,300
440
Averaqe Surface Mine
Overburden
Pile
0.27
8.7
NR
0.54
<1.5
180
<0.24
210
NR
15
0.08
NR
0.66
0.06
4.5
3.0
0.60
450
30
Sub-Ore
Pile
0.-26
2.8
0.05
0.18
0.06
47
ND
75
11
2.9
0.35
0.06
0.23
0.33
0.39
4.2
0.09
300
6.0
Ore
Stockpile
0.86
9.2
0.16
0.61
0.20
157
ND
250
35
9.6
1.2
0.20
0.78
1.1
1.3
14
0.29
7,100
100
- Not reported.
- Not detected.
o
ro
-------
3-103
I. Ore, sub-ore, and overburden during rock breakage and loading
in the pit and unloading on the respective piles. (Since rock
breakage, loading, transporting, and unloading usually occur in
a short time period, they are considered one release.)
2, Ore during reloading from the stockpile after a 41-day residence
time (Section 3.3.1.2).
3. Exposed surfaces of overburden, ore, and sub-ore in the active
pit area.
4, Overburden, ore, and sub-ore pile surfaces.
The annual quantities of Rn-222 released from sources 1 and 2 above were com-
puted using the following factors and assumptions:
1. Rn-222 is in secular equilibrium with U-258.
3
2. The density of ore, sub-ore, and overburden is 2,0 MT/m ,
3. Annual production rates of ore, sub-ore, and overburden are those
given previously in this Section and in footnotes "a" and "b" of
Table 3.31.
4. All Rn-222 present, Q.OQi65 Ci/m per percent U30g, Is available
with an emanation coefficient of 0.27, [Although an emanation co-
efficient of 0.2 1s commonly used (N179), recent emanation-coeffi-
cient measurements for 950 samples of domestic uranium ores by
the Bureau of Mines indicate a value between 0.25 and 0.3 to be
more appropriate (Au78, Tanner, A.B., Department of Interior, Geo-
logical Survey, Reston, VA, 11/79, personal communication).
Therefore, an emanation coefficient of 0.27 was selected.]
5. The quantities of lUOg present in ore, sub-ore, and overburden are
0.10, 0.015, and 0.0020 percent, respectively.
Substituting these values into the following equation yields the Rn-222 re-
leases given in Table 3.35 for the average mine and the average large mine.
0.00565 C1
Rn-222 (Ci/yr) = (Percent U^g) I ^3 x percer,J (0.27) fu "'/ (3.3)
X (Production Rate, MT )
yr
The quantities of Rn-222 that emanate from exposed overburden, ore, and
sub-ore surfaces in the pit were estimated by the following method. Exposed
-------
3-104
surface areas of ore and sub-ore are assumed equal since equal quantities of
each are mined. The computation assumes an ore plus sub-ore zone 12 m thick
(h^ in the shape of a truncated cone with 45 degree sloping sides (Fig.
3.14), The radii of the zone, r,, and r^, can be computed using the following
equation from the relationship r~ = r. + 12 and the volumes of ore plus
fi *% Si *3
sub-ore mined in a 2,4 year period — 1.22 x 10 nr and 2.8 x 10V at the
average large mine and average mine, respectively (the bulking factor is not
considered in computing the pit volume),
? 9
V (ore + sub-ore zone) = 1/3 •„ hj (ri "f"rir2"l"r? ) (3.4)
The computed radii, r, and r2, were 174 m and 186 m at the average large
mine and 80 m and 92 m at the average mine. The surface areas (S.) of
exposed ore and sub-ore fn the pit are then one-half that given by the
equation,
SA - 1/2TT (dj + d2)(slant height) +* r^, (3.5)
where d, and d, are the diameters related to r, and r,,. Exposed surface
areas of ore and sub-ore were computed to be equal and 57,170 m at the
o
average large mine and 14,650 m at the average mine.
The shape of the overburden zone was assumed to be the same as the ore
and sub-ore zone (Fig. 3.14). The thickness, fu, and radius, r~» of this
zone can be computed using the following equation with the relationship, r, =
7 "J fi *?
r~ + h2» and knowing the volume—4.8 x 10 m and 7.2 x 10 m --at the
average large mine and average mine, respectively.
V (overburden) = 1/3 ir h2 (fg2 + r2r3 * r%2^ (3-6J
Since r« was computed above to be 186 m at the average large mine and 92 m at
the average mine, Equation 3,6 becomes
4.8 x 107_= 1.087 x 105h2 + 584h2Z + 1.047h23 (3.7)
for the average large mine, and
-------
Ore plus sub-ore Zone
Figure 3,14 Configuration of open pit model mines.
O
Ul
-------
3-106
7.2 x 106 = 2.659 x 104h2 + 289 h^ + 1.047h23 (3.8)
for the average mine,
Solving these equations yields the following parameters:
r2
average large mine 188 m 374 nt 186 m
average mine - 105 ra 197 m 92 m
The surface area (S.) of the exposed overburden is then given by the
following equation.
SA = 1/2w (d2 + d3) (slant height), (3.9)
where d. and d0 are the diameters related to r9 and r_. Areas computed were
52 52 ifa
4.68 x 10 m and 1.34 x 10 m for the average large ralne and average mine,
respectively.
Multiplying the exposed ore, sub-ore, and overburden areas by their U,0fl
u 0
contents (0.10%, 0.0152 and 0.0021, respectively) and by a Rn-222 exhalation
2
rate of 0.092 ti/m per year per percent U^Og* and summing gives the annual
Rn-222 releases shown in Table 3,35.
The emanation of Rn-222 from overburden, sub-ore, and ore storage piles
o
is, based on an exhalation rate of 0.092 Ci/nr per yr per percent UgOg (Ni79),
and ore grades of 0.002 percent, 0.015 percent, and 0.10 percent, respec-
tively. The surface areas used were those computed previously for the case 2
model mines and listed in Tables 3.11, 3.17 and 3.20. The areas for the
f\ *? R ?
average large mine and average mine are 1.1 x 10 m and 2.2 x 10 m for
52 42
overburden piles, 1.2 x 10 m and 3.6 x 10 m for sub-ore piles, and 6.2 x
32 32
10 m and 3.6 x 10 m for the ore piles, respectively. Applying these para-
meters, the annual Rn-222 emissions from the overburden, sub-ore, and ore
piles at the average mine and average large mine were computed. Table 3.35
presents the results.
The total annual Rn-222 released during surface mining operations is the
sum of the releases from the sources considered: 331 C1 from the average
mine and 1261 Ci from the average large mine. Considering ore production and
*The average value of measured exhalation rates at surface uranium mines
(N179).
-------
3-107
Table 3.35 Radon-222 releases during surface mining, Ci/yr
Source
Ore loading and unloading
Reloading ore from stockpile
Sub-ore loading and unloading
Overburden loading and unloading
Exposed surface of overburden,
ore, and sub-ore in the pit
Ore stockpile exhalation
Sub-o^e pile exhalation
Overburden pile exhalation
Total
Average Mine
9
9
1
9
180
33
50
40
331
Average Large Mine
39
39
6
61
691
57
166
202
1261
grade differences, these values agree reasonably well with those computed by
other procedures (Tr79).
3,4 jJnderground Mining
3.4.1 Solid Wastes
During underground mining, like surface mining, materials are removed,
separated according to ore content, and stored on the surface for various
periods of time (Section 1.3.3). These separate piles consist of waste rock
produced from shaft sinking operations and from cutting inclines, declines,
and haulage drifts through barren rock, sub-ore, and ore. The waste rock is
similar to overburden removed at surface mines, except much smaller quan-
tities are involved and none are returned to the mine. However, as mining
progresses, waste rock is sometimes used to backfill mined out areas of the
mine and retained beneath the surface. The ore and sub-ore will also be
similar in nature to those described previously for surface mines, as is their
potential to be sources of contamination to the environment (Fig. 3.15).
-------
Figure 3 15 Potential sources of environmental contamination from active underground uranium mines
o
00
-------
3-109
3.4.1.1 Waste Rock Piles
Much smaller quantities of waste rock accumulate at underground mines
than overburden at surface mines. The weight ratio of waste rock to ore
depends mainly upon the size, depth, and age of the mine. During the initial
mining stages, all material removed is waste rock. As entry into the ore
body occurs and ore mining begins, the quantity of waste rock removed per
metric ton of ore decreases sizably. Once in the ore body, as little waste
rock as possible .is mined. The ratio of ore to waste rock removed from
underground mines varies considerably. At seven presently active underground
mines, the ore to waste rock ratio varies from 1.5:1 to 16:1, with an average
ratio of 9.1:1 (Jackson, P.O., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richlandj WA, 12/79, personal communication). As future mines become larger
and deeper, the overall ore to waste rock ratio will probably decrease.
Since the annual average ore capacity of underground mines was 1.8 x 10
MT in 1978 (Section 1.3.1), the average of the 305 underground mines would
have produced 2.0 x 10 MT of waste rock during that year, assuming the
average 9.1:1 ore to waste rock ratio. This will be considered the pro-
duction rate of the "average underground mine." Like surface mines, rela-
tively few of the 305 active underground mines account for a significant
portion of the total ore produced by the underground method. Also, future
underground mines are expected to have larger capacities than many of the
current mines (Th79). Therefore, a second underground mine will be con-
sidered, which is defined as the "average large mine." Its annual ore pro-
duction rate is assumed to be 2 x 10 MT, the average ore capacity of five
large underground operations (Ja79b, TVA79, TVA76, TVA78a, TVA78b). The
quantity of waste rock removed annually will be 2.2 x 10 MT, assuming the
ore to waste rock ratio to be the same as for the average mine. Assuming the
3
density of waste rock to be about 2.0 MT/m and a bulking factor of 1.25
(Burris, E., Navajo Engineering Construction Authority, Shiprock, N.M., 2/80,
personal communication), the average mine and average large mine will produce
33 43
waste rock at an annual rate of 1.3 x 10 m and 1.4 x 10 m , respectively.
Since waste rock is not presently used to backfill mined-out areas, this rate
of accumulation will continue for the life of the mine, which is assumed to
be the same as that for an open pit mine, 17 years.
Table 3.36 lists estimated average surface areas of the waste rock piles
during the lifetimes of the two mines defined above. The following para-
-------
3-110
Parameter _ Average HI ne _ Average Large Mine
Waste rock production rate, MT/yr
Rock density, MT/m
Bulking factor
Waste rock volume, m /yr
Active mine life, yr
Pile height, m
2.0 x 103
2.0
1.25
1.3 x 103
17
6
2.2 x 104
2.0
1.25
1.4 x 104
17
12
These estimated areas assume no backfilling and that the piles are on
level terrain. Because waste rock is sometimes used to backfill and is often
dumped into a gorge or ravine, these surface areas represent maximum
conditions,
The mineralogy, physical characteristics, and composition of waste rock
from underground mines are assumed to be identical to the overburden removed
from open pit mines (Section 3.3.1.1). Also, reclamation procedures for
waste rock piles at underground mines should be similar to those described in
Section 3.3.1.4 for overburden dumps.
3.4.1.2 Ore Stockpiles
Because ore is often stockpiled at the mine and/or at the mill, it be-
comes a potential source of contamination to the mine environment during the
storage period. These piles will be smaller than the waste rock piles, but
the concentration of most contaminants in the ore-bearing rock will be much
greater.
Ore stockpile residence times can vary considerably with time and ore
management. Residence times commonly range from a few days to a few months.
The same residence time will be assumed for underground mines as was selected
above for surface mines, 41 days. Assuming a 330 operating-day-year and a
1.25 bulking factor, the ore stockpiles of the average mine and average large
q 3
mine will contain 1,400 m and 15,500 m of ore, respectively. The surface
areas of the ore stockpiles were computed using these volumes and assuming
3.1 m high rectangular piles (NRC78a). Table 3.37 lists the estimated
surface areas.
-------
3-111
Table 3.36 Estimated average surface areas of waste
rock piles at underground mines
Mine Size
• (b)
Average minev '
Average large mine
Average
Accumulation,^3' m
1.1 x 104
(c) 1.2 x ID5
Surface Area
2
of Pile, m
2,700
14,100
Surface
of Pad, m
2,460
12,800
Area
2
* ^Assumes average volume of waste rock accumulated during 17-yr. mine
life with no backfilling (1/2 total volume accumulation).
^Annual waste rock production = 2.0 x 10 MT.
f c\ 4
k 'Annual waste rock production = 2.2 x 10 MT.
Note.—Waste rock piles are rectangular with length twice the width
and sides sloping at 45° (Fig. 3.8 a).
Table 3.37 Estimated surface areas of ore stockpiles
at underground mines
Mine Size
Average
Average
(a7
(b)
(c)
Steady
Accumulation
State
.(•> m3
mine(b) 1,400
(c)
large minev ' 15,500
Assume
Annual
Annual
41-day residence
ore production =
ore production =
time
1.8
2 x
*
x 104 MT.
105 MT.
Surface Area
of Pile, m2
680
5,800
Surface
of Pad,
620
5,480
Area
™2
Note.—Ore stockpiles are rectangular with length twice the width and
sides sloping at 45° (Fig. 3.8 a). Pile height is assumed to be 3.1 m
(NRC78a).
-------
3-112
The mineralogy, physical characteristics, and composition of ore from
underground mines are assumed to be identical to the ore removed from surface
mines (Section 3.3.1.2). The UgOg grade of ore may average somewhat higher
from underground mines than from surface mines. However, a grade of 0.1
percent U,0g probably approximates reasonably well the ore reserves minable
by the underground method (DOE79). Uranium and its decay products in air-
borne dust from these ore piles will be concentrated by a factor of 2.5
(Section 3.3.1.2).
3.4.1.3 Sub-Ore Plies
The quantity of sub-ore rained at an undetground mine, as at a surface
mine, is considered to be about equal to the quantity of ore mined, 1.8 x 10
5
MT at the average mine and 2 x 10 MT at the dverage large mine. Assuming
•j
sub-ore to have a density of 2.0 MT/m and after removal a bulking factor of
1.25, the average volume of sub-ore to be on the surface during the 17-yr
operational life of the average mine and average large mine will be 9.6 x 10
O £ -5
m and 1.1 x 10 m , respectively {i.e., one-half the total of 17-yr accumu-
lation).
Although sub-ore is often placed on top of piles of previously mined
waste rock (Perkins, B.L., New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department, Santa
Fe, NM, 12/79, personal communication), we assumed separate rectangular piles
in computing the surface areas of the piles at the model mines. Table 3.38
lists the estimated surface and pad areas of the sub-ore piles. These compu-
tations were based on pile heights of 6 m at the average mine and 12 m at the
average large mine.
At underground mines, the cutoff grade ranges from 0.02 to 0.05 percent
ILQg, yielding an average sub-ore grade of 0,035 percent U,0g (99 pd"/g)
(Perkins, B.L., New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department, Santa Fe, N.M.,
12/79, personal communication). The mineralogy, physical characteristics,
and other constituents of sub-ore from underground mines are assumed ident-
ical to the sub-ore removed from surface mines (Section 3,3,1.3).
-------
3-113
Table 3.38 Estimated average surface areas of sub-ore
piles at underground mines
Average Surface Area Surface Area
Mine Size Accumulation,^8* m of Pile, m of Pad, m
Average mine* '
Average large mine^0'
9.6 x
1.1 X
104
106
18,800
104,900
17,700
99,400
^One-half that which will accumulate during the 17-yr mine life.
* 'Annual sub-ore prodyction = 1.8 x 10 MT.
tr\ c
^ 'Annual sub-ore production - 2.0 x 10 MT.
Note.—Sub-ore piles are rectangular with length twice the width and
sides sloping at 45° (Fig. 3,8a).
3.4.2 Mine Water Discharge
3.4.2.1 Data Sources
Information concerning the amount and quality of water discharged from
underground uranium mines in New Mexico is from field surveys conducted 'in
1975 (EPA75, P. Frenzel, USGS, written communication, 1979) and
(Wo79j» from site-specific environmental impact statements and reports, from
NPDES permits, and from a State study (Pe79).
Many mining companies maintain that permits are not required because the
formerly ephemeral streams into which discharge occurs are, in effect, a
result of the discharges and do not meet the definition of navigable bodies
of water. Nevertheless, the companies have applied for permits, together
with a request to the courts for a ruling concerning their necessity.
The New Mexico district office of the U.S. Geological Survey (L. Beal,
USGS, written communication, 1979) provided discharge rate and volume for the
regional drainage systems, namely the Rio San Jose, Rio Puerco (east), and
the Rio Grande. We followed procedures developed by the USGS (Bo70) to
calculate runoff from ungaged basins.
-------
3-114
3.4.2.2 Quality and quantity of Discharge
To estimate average or typical conditions for mine water discharge, 11
projects in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah were selected. Table 3,39 shows
the summarized flow and water quality data. The center of current domestic
underground mining is 1n the Colorado Plateau and the San Juan Basin. In
this area, there is an increasing trend toward underground mining. In
Wyoming, both underground and surface mining activity are significant. In
Texas, surface mining and, to a lesser extent, in situ leaching are the
principal methods used. Climatic and geologic characteristics and land and
water use patterns in the Colorado-Utah-New Mexico uranium area are broadly
similar; and the Grants Mineral Belt in general and the Ambrosia Lake Dis-
trict in particular are representative of this area. There are many comp-
licating variables such as the geologic and geonhemical characteristics of
the ore body and host rock. Water-yield and qua"ity associated with mines
also vary within the region, as do the size ana relative location of the
populace. The Grants Mineral Belt scenario is conservative. The mines
discharge relatively large amounts of water to streams that are used for
irrigation and stock watering and that flow by or through local centers of
population.
Table 3.39 shows discharge from selected underground uranium mines in
the Colorado Plateau areas of Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. On the aver-
3 3
age, discharge is 2.78 m /rain, with a standard deviation of 4.34 m/nrin. The
selected underground mines discharge an amount of water similar to that from
the Wyoming surface mines. In the Grants Mineral Belt area, average flow
3
from 28 underground mines is 2.4 m/min (J. Dudley, New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division, written communication). Of the 27 active underground
mines being dewatered, 17 discharge to the environment at an average rate of
3.2 «r/m1n. The remainder are In a closed circuit. That is, their discharge
T
1s used as mill feed water. The range for 17 mines is 0.2 to 19 m/min.
Average discharges from New Mexico underground mines are significantly
greater than those from mines in Colorado and Utah, which average 0,68
3 " *"
m /rain. Most of the ore production in New Mexico has been from mines 200 to
300 meters deep. In recent years, mines have become progressively deeper and
involve more dewatering. For example, the Gulf Mount Taylor mine, which is
not yet producing ore, discharges 15 m /min and will produce ore from a depth
-------
3-115
of 1,200 meters. Most of the water is now diverted to a nearby ranch for
irrigation and stock watering. When the mill goes on line, most of the mine
water will be used there.
Of the 16 active mines in the Ambrosia Lake district, 13 discharge to
3
offsite areas at an average rate of approximately 1.6 m /min. For modeling
and to be conservative, we assumed that 14 active mines are present in the
3
model mine area and that the average discharge rate per mine is 2,0 m /min.
This is somewhat less than the average condition for the Grants Mineral Belt
3
(3.2 m /min) as a whole in tens of discharge rate, but the high density of
mines assumed present in the model area partly compensates for the differ-
ence.
For the New Mexico project shown in Table 3.39, numbers 4, 5, 6, and 7
have discharge that comes directly from the mine portal to settling ponds
before discharge. Neither ion exchange for uranium recovery nor barium
chloride treatment for radium removal is used. Facilities 8 through 11 use
ion exchange columns for uranium removal before discharge. Settling may or
may not be used, depending on the suspended solids content of the particular
discharge. Project number 10 removes radium prior to discharge. Radium
concentrations in the combined effluent from two active mines in the Church-
rock area (projects 8 and 4), both of which use settling ponds as the only
treatment, have ranged from 1,9 to 8.9 pCI/n since 1975. In the first survey
(EPA75), effluent from these same mines contained 30,8 and 7.9 pCi/ i , The
combined discharge from both mines was sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey
in 1975, 1977, and 1978 (P. Frenzel, written commanciation) and by the EPA
(EPA75) in 1975. Concentrations were 30, 14, 2.6, and 2.6 pCi/x ,
respectively.
It is apparent that there are marked temporal trends In nine water
quality and quantity. Major factors responsible include changes in the
dewatering rate accompanying shaft sinking versus actual ore production.
Simultaneously, there are changes 1n the mineral quality and leaching rate of
strata as the ore body is approached and then penetrated.. Mining practices,
oxidation of the ore body and possibly bacterial action may also assist in
the solubilization of toxic stable and radioactive trace elements. Sample
handling and analytical procedures can also markedly affect results. For
example, if suspended solids are high and a sample is acidified prior to
filterings soluble radium, uranium, and other trace constituents typically
-------
Table 3.39 Summary of average discharge and water quality data for underground
uranium mines in the Colorado Plateau Region (Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah) and a comparison with MPDES limits
Dissolved
•
Radioactivity
D1
Project
Utah/,
llaj
Colorado
2
3
New Mexico
4
5
6
7
8, ,
9 ;1
I0(a
11 a
Average
Standard
Deviation
scharge
31
m /min
0.67
1.31
0.06
14.67
3.79
1.89
0.95
0.18
0.82
6.06
0.216
2.78
4.34
Total U,
mg/£
1.35
2.20
0.25
1.0
0.67
0.02
0.18
4.2
1.9
1.1
2.6
1.41
1.25
Ra-226,
PC1A
1.25
0.53
10.00
fb)
89}:{
23 \l\
14* '
0.1
1.9
4.7
2.3
4.3
13.7
25.9
Pb-210.
pCl/£
15
33
15
0
9.7
16
14
14
14.6
9.1
TSS
7.5
14.3
144.9
25.4
2.6
51.5
1
1.08
2.2
27.8
46.9
Ma^or and
S04 Zn
872 0.02
0.065
60.6
213.7
744
1045
67.2
675
705
837
580
368
trace
Ba
0.19
2.13
0.88
0.17
0.56
0.81
0.80
constituents, mg/£
Cd As
< 0.01 < 0.01
0.003 0.055
<0.005 <
0.011
0.005
<0.005
<0.005 <
0.011
< 0.005
0.012
0.012
0.015
Mo
0.4
0.054
0.01
0.24
0.05
-0.01
0.45
0.62
0.79
0.29
0.29
Se
0.03
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.094
0,407
0.027
0.035
0.076
0.137
-------
Table 3.39 (continued)
Summary of NPDES permit
State
New Mexico
Utah
Colorado
Dissolved
Radium-226
3/10
10/30 Total
Radium
3/10
and
3/10
and
Dissolved
Uranium
2/4
2/4
and
-12
3/5
and
2/4
limits for daily average/daily maximum, mg/i except Ra-226, pd"/£
Total
Suspended
Solids
5Q/150(dayrd
20/30(month)
20/30^
20/30
Total
Dissolved
Solids Zinc Barium Cadmium Arsenic
:) 0.5/1.0
NA/650 0.5/1.0
3500
4899G/m 0.5/1.0 1/2 0.05/0.1 1/2
122476^ and and
kg/day -/I 0.5/1
Vanadium
5/10
^'Average discharge rate per mine is shown. Two or more mines constitute the project.
(b),
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
'BaCl? treatment for radium removal faulty; repaired in late 1979.
Values shown are for untreated water. BaCl? treatment now used.
Applies to discharge associated with shaft construction.
Maximum of 10 mg/£ for 30-day period and 20 mgA for 7-day period effective July 1, 1980.
Receiving water standard.
Source: Chemical analyses from in-house studies (EPA75) and State of New Mexico (J. Dudley, Environmental
Improvement Division, written communication). NPDES permit data from Regions VI, VIII (H. May, R. Walline,
written communication). Other references include site-specific reports (EIS.ER) and company monitoring data.
-------
3-118
will increase, as compared to samples that are filtered prior to acidifi-
cation (Ka77). Therefore, development of "average" or "typical" trace ele-
ment concentration data is questionable and may be erroneous without detailed
knowledge of the many variables affecting the final results.
Despite the foregoing difficulties, available chemical data assembled in
Table 3.39 provide much of the source term input data used in subsequent cal-
culations. The reader should bear in mind that uranium concentrations are
likely to be less than 3 mg/jt simply because it is economically practical to
use ion exchange recovery for concentrations greater than this level. Daily
average radium-226 concentrations on the order of 3 pCi/n are specified in
valid NPDES permits, and reliable data from USGS, EPA, and state sources re-
veal stream concentrations near the point of discharge to be on the order of
3 to 14 pCi/fc in recent years. Therefore, the "average" radium-226 concen-
tration of 13.7 pCi/2. used in the subsequent modeling calculations is at
least slightly conservative. Actual concentrations of stable elements (Zn,
Ba, Cd» etc.) appear to be well below the NPDES limits, which were also de-
veloped from analysis of uranium mine effluent. Thus, it is presumed that
the average values in Table 3.39 for these elements are reasonably correct.
The variables of mine size, age, host rock, and water treatment (ion ex-
change, barium chloride, settling ponds) are reflected in the data. Water
quality for mines examined in Utah and Colorado generally agrees with the New
Mexico cases, with the exception of Project Number 3 mine, which is being
dewatered and may, therefore, temporarily have excessive suspended solids.
We recommend that the NPDES data for uranium mine discharges be evaluated and
that additional compliance monitoring be conducted to confirm .the quality of
mine discharge. Such studies should focus on situations where mine water is
being used for irrigation and stock watering.
Table 3.40 shows discharge and water quality characteristics for under-
ground mines under construction and not yet producing ore. The first example
involves water pumped from a deep mine shaft under construction. Consid-
erable water is encountered above the ore body; water quality is good and
representative of natural conditions; and suspended solids are high as a
result of construction. The second case is similar except that flow is re-
duced, but radium and suspended solids concentrations are greatly elevated
due to construction and possible ore body oxidation. The third case involves
-------
Table 3.40 Mater,quality associated with underground mines in various
stages of construction and operation
Dissolved
Discharge Total U Ra-226 Pb-210
Project m /min mg/£ pCi/£ pCi/ji TSS
New Mexico
1. Underground mine 5.76 0.03 0.07 10 23.8
shaft construction;
dewatering
2. Underground mine 1.73 <0.01 29 0 554
shaft construction;
dewatering
3. Underground mine; 1.43 0.08 0.2 0 1
dewatering wells
4. Underground mine 0 0.32 29 17 1.1
recirculating leach
solution from s topes
(after ion exchange)
Concentration, mg/£
S04 As Mo Se
134 <0.005 0.01 0.003
527 0.012 0.007 0.005
144 <0.005 0.01 0.003
1060 <0.005 3.2 0.268
Source: J. Dudley, State of New Mexico, written communication, 1979.
to
I
-------
3-120
dewatering wells used to dewater the ore body before mining. There is no
oxidation and suspended sol Ids are very low as is radium-226. Dissolved
radium-226 in the ore body is on the order of 10 pCiA or less in the natural
state, but concentrations rise to 100 pCi/£ or more after mining takes place,
possibly due to oxidation and bacterial action in the workings (EPA75).
Project Number 4, in the Ambrosia Lake district, is an inactive underground
mine now used as a type of in situ leach facility. Mine water is recir-
culated through the workings. Leached uranium is selectively recovered using
ion exchange. The process is a closed one, hence no effluent is involved.
Water quality after uranium removal reflects the buildup in radium, lead-210,
sulfate, molybdenum, and selenium.
3.4.3. Hydraulic and Hater QualityEffects of Underground Mine Discharge
3,4.3,1 Runoff andFlooding in the Model Underground MineArea
3.4,3.1.1 Study Approach
We chose to study an area of rather concentrated underground mining,
similar to the Ambrosia Lake district of New Mexico, All of the mines in the
district dewater to different degrees because the principal ore body is in
the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation, which is also a major
aquifer. In the analysis, flows from some 14 active mines discharge to
formerly dry washes and dissipate downstream by evaporation and, more impor-
tantly, infiltration. Suspended and dissolved constituents persist at the
land surface and become available for resuspension and transport in surface
floods with recurrence intervals of 2 to 25 years. Contaminated runoff from
the sub-basin is then diluted in average annual flows of progressively larger
streams and rivers of the region.
Similar to the analysis presented for surface mines in Wyoming, there is
a three-basin hierarchy: sub-basin, basin, and regional basin (Fig. 3.16).
These correspond to Arroyo del Puerto-San Mateo Creek, Rio San Jose and Rio
Puerco, and the Rio Srande, Of these, the Ri,o Puerco is distinctly ephe-
meral. The Rio Puerco drains into the Rio Grande, which is perennial, due in
large part to the heavily regulated flows and storage reservoirs. Because
-------
3-121
MCKINLEY COUNTY
Sub-basin area containing
model mines
0 iO 20 30 40 50
.1 I r i §
Sub-basin boundary
Boundary of a portion of the Rio San Jose basin
upstream from the sub-basin
— Rio Puerco basin boundary
A USGS gauging station
Note: Boundary of the FUo Grande regional basin above Bernardo is not
shown
Figure 3 16 Sketch of sub-basin, basin, and regional basin showing orienta-
tion of principal drainage courses, areas of drainage, and loca-
tion of mines in the New Mexico model area
-------
3-122
the Rfo Grande is the major regional river and the basis of extensive irri-
gation projects, it is included in the. analysis. The mining area is well
away from the Rio Grande Valley, and it is unlikely that noticeable changes
in flow or water quality because of raining would occur.
Flow volumes for the sub-basin and open file USGS data (I, Beal, written
communication, 1979} for flows in the basin and regional basin are used to
transport and dilute contaminants originating in the mine effluent. It is
initially assumed that all contaminants are available for transport by sur-
face flow so -as to deliberately create a worst-case situation. Section
3.4.3.2 reviews infiltration of water and solute for possible effects on
groundwater.
We do not address the effects of seepage from settling ponds because
such ponds are relatively small, tend to be self-sealing, and are well away
from inhabited areas. Supposedly, settled solids from thete ponds are
removed and incorporated with uranium mill tailings. Limited field studies
to determine whether such ponds cause groundwater contamination is warranted.
In some instances, the ponds have synthetic liners, and leakage is expected
to be minimal. The influence of mine dewatering (by wells, shafts, and
pumping of mine workings) on groundwater quality or availability is not
addressed primarily because of the lack of data. We strongly recommend
further study of the hydraulic and groundwater quality effects of dewatering.
Th,is aspect of mining is coming under increased scrutiny by regulatory
agencies at the State and Federal level because of the influence on water
quality and availability.
In summary, our approach defines the quality and volume of mine water
discharge; outlines hydrographic basins; and calculates flood flows for
various return periods ranging from 2 to 25 years in the sub-basin. These
flows are then diluted into the average annual flow in the basin and regional
basin. The principal objective is to develop a rough estimate of contaminant
loads resulting from mine discharge.
3.4.3,1.2 Description of Area
The Grants Mineral Belt of northwestern New Mexico is in the Navajo and
DatH sections of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province (Fe31). Char-
acteristic landforms in the study area include rugged mountains, broad, flat
-------
3-123
valleys, mesas, cuestas, rock terraces, steep escarpments, canyons, lava
flows, volcanic cones, buttes, and arroyos (Ki67; Co68). Elevations in the
area range from 1,980 m at Grants to an average of 2,160 m near Ambrosia
Lake, Just north of Grants is Mount Taylor, the highest point in the region.
It rises from Mesa Chivato to an elevation of 3,471 m (Co68).
The study area has a mild, semiarid, continental climate. Precipitation
averages 25.4 cm/year, and there is abundant sunshine, low relative humidity,
and a comparatively large annual and diurnal temperature range. Average
annual precipitation at Gallup, Bluewater, and Laguna is 27.12, 24.55, and
22.31 cm, respectively. In the higher elevations, the average is 51 cm or
more because of thunderstorms in July, August, and September and snow accumu-
lations in the winter months (Co68, 6o61, Jo63). Only thunderstorms are
significant in the lowlands. Heavy summer thunderstorms (40 to 70 in number)
of high intensity and local extent can result in 5 cm of rain with local,
damaging flash floods.
o
The watersheds of the Rio San Jose and Rio Puerco encompass 19,037 km .
Most of the larger communities in the basin are located in the floodplain of
the Rio Grande and principal tributaries. Extensive irrigation with surface
water occurs in the watersheds of the Rio San Jose, Rio Puerco, and Rio
Grande. In the sub-basin, there was no perennial flow before mining and,
thus no irrigation, but increasing use is being made of the mine discharge,
which is regarded as an asset in a water-short area. Subsequent sections
summarize the surface water quantity at some of the principal gauging
.stations in the Middle Rio Grande Basin and the irrigated areas below these
stations. Groundwater is used for essentially all public water supplies as
the temperature, quality, and year-round availability are assured. Numerous
wells scattered across the landscape, particularly in the stream valleys, are
used for stock water and, to a lesser extent, for potable use on the scat-
tered ranches and Indian settlements.
Under completely natural conditions, streams in the study area were
distinctly ephemeral, and many of the smaller ones did not experience flow
for periods of several years. The Rio Grande experiences peak flows in the
April-June period when snowmelt and precipitation cause gradual rises to
moderate discharge levels involving large volumes of flow and long durations.
Peak discharge rates (volume per time) occur in the summer flash floods.
-------
3-124
Construction of dams and conveyance channels to eliminate flooding problems
has been extensive. In the tributaries such as the Rfo San Jose and upper
reaches of the Rio Puerco, there is considerable streamflow regulation to
minimize flood damage and maximize use of available water for irrigation.
Conditions in the Ambrosia Lake district with respect to the type of
mining operations and discharge of effluent to ephemeral streams are dupli-
cated elsewhere in the Grants Mineral Belt. In the Churchrock district, two
3
mines discharge to the Rio Puerco at rates of 4.7 to 15 m /min. Most of the
•3
4.7 m /min discharge from one mine is now used in a nearby mill. At Mariano
Lake, located between Ambrosia Lake and Churchrock, and at the Marquez and
Rio Puerco mines east of Ambrosia Lake, mines are expected to discharge 0.8
3
to 4.5 m /min to various ephemeral streams. Another large mine will soon
3
discharge up to 5.3 m /min northward into the San Juan River Basin. In the
mid 1980's, construction is expected to begin on five large underground
mining projects that will have a combined discharge on the order of 71
m /min. Most discharge will be into the San Juan Basin, reflecting the trend
of mines becoming deeper and requiring more dewatering as the mining center
moves from the south flank of the San Juan Basin into more interior portions.
3.4.3.1.3 Estimateof Sub-basin Flood Flow
Since we use a dilution-model, emphasis is on flow volume rather than
peak discharge rate in the sub-basin, basin, and regional basin hydrographic
units. Gaging records from the U.S. Geological Survey WATSTORE system (L.
Beal, written communication, 1979) provide average discharge rates for runoff
events with various return periods and durations. The latter specify the
time, in days, and the associated flow rate that will be equaled or exceeded.
Flows for arbitrary periods of time ranging from 1 to 183 days are specified.
Probability can be stated in terms of N-year recurrence interval. By
combining discharge rate (volume per time} and time (partial duration), flow
volume can be calculated.
In the_ungaged sub-basin, runoff volumes associated with events having
return periods of 2, 5, 10, and 25 years were calculated from regression
equations developed by the USGS (Bo70). The equations were generated from
multiple regression of discharge records from gaged basins against various
basin characteristics. These are area (A), precipitation (P.), longitude
u
-------
3-125
at the center of the sub-basin (Lo), soils infiltration index (Si), and mean
basin elevation (£„]• Through use of appropriate constants and coefficients
(Bo70), flow volumes can be calculated for 1-day and 7-day events with return
periods of 2, 5, 10, and 25 years. For the sub-basin, the basic equation has
the following form:
FV = a Abi Pb9 Lo1^ S5 E (3.10)
where A = 95 mi
P = 2.9 i
3
Lo = 7.85 (longitude in decimal degrees minus 100)
S. - 8.5
E = 7.0 thousand feet
P = 2.9 inches
3
Table 3.41 contains the regression coefficients and total flow volume data.
Short-term, 1-day and 7-day, events were of main interest because these would
be expected to provide greater flushing of contaminants stored at or near the
water-substrate interface in the streams receiving mine discharge.
The extent to which mine discharge transforms existing ephemeral streams
into perennial ones is evaluated with a crude seepage and evaporation model
(see Appendix H). The basic equations and approach are patterned after a
similar analysis in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium
Milling (NRC79b).
Figure 3.16 shows the relationship of the sub-basin, basin, and regional
basin boundaries and the principal drainage courses and gaging stations. The
confluence of the Rio Puerco and Rio San Jose is shown approximately 55 km
closer to the Rio Grande than is actually the case in order to simplify flow
routing and to reduce the number of dilution calculations. Table 3.42 sum-
marizes the key characteristics of these basins in terms of catchment area,
discharge, and irrigated farmlands downstream from points where mine dis-
charge might be tributary to the streams. Mine discharge occurs in the
sub-basin which in turn discharges to the Rio San Jose and then to the Rio
Puerco. No mine discharge and no significant runoff are associated with that
portion of the basin tributary to San Mateo Creek between the Rio San Jose
and the sub-basin. For modeling, flooding within and runoff from the sub-
-------
Table 3.41 Total flow volume for sub-basin floods of 1- and 7-day durations
and return periods of 2, 5, 10, and 25 years
Flood
Volume
FV 1
FV 1
FV 1
FV 1
FV 7
FV 7
FV 7
FV 7
|2(a)
,5
,10
,25
,2
,5
,10
,25
Regression Coefficients
1.
1.
5.
2.
8.
2.
8.
3.
a
08 x
27 x
07 x
39 x
60 x
99 x
97 x
06 x
lO"4
Hf3
lO"3
ID'2
10~7
1Q-4
lO'4
ID'3
bl
0.931
0.941
0.953
0.972
0.965
0.904
0.910
0.922
b9
1.83
1.40
1.17
0.929
2.36
2.55
2.37
2.17
b!4
-1.43
-1.89
-2.18
-2.51
-1.61
-2.09
-2.39
-2.76
b!5
4.09
4.07
4.02
3'. 95
4.22
3.53
3.61
3.68
Volume
b4
2.
6.
1.
_ "1
1.50 5.
8.
1.
«*. o
(Bl3)
16 x
23 x
02 x
76 x
95 x
79 x
43 x
26 x
104
104
105
105
103
103
104
104
(a)
FV 1,2 indicates a flood of 1-day duration and a return period of 2 years.
CO
CFt
-------
able 3.42 Summary of area, discharge, and Irrigated acreage for the sub-basin, basin, and
regional basin hydrographic units in New Mexico
2 3
USGS Number of km Average m /min Average Annual
Station Period of Under Irrigation Discharge (for Discharge (m )
2
Number Area (km ) Record Yrs. Below Station Period of Record) for Period of Record
iub-basjn
iasins
Rio San Jose
near Grants
Rio Puerco
near Bernardo
tegjcma]Basin
Rio Grande at
Bernardo
246
3435 5957 42
(2927 non-contributing)
3530 19037 38
(2927+ non-contributing)
3320 49810 41
(7610 non-contributing)
2.43+
N/C
(a)
11.09
81.05
1649.35
5.83 X
4.26 x
86.69 x 10'
(a)
N/C * Not Calculated.
rsj
-------
3-128
basin Is, in effect, routed without change in flow and quality and allowed to
enter the Rio San Jose. Flow from the San Jose is further diluted In the Rio
Puerco, then diluted again in the Rio Grande. In actuality, flow from the
Ambrosia Lake district rarely, if ever, enters the Rio San Jose because flood
volumes are small and infiltration losses are large. This departure from
true conditions is justified within the context of the modeling approach
used. Basically, the model draws from a specific area but does not attempt
to closely duplicate its conditions. If a specific area were exactly repre-
sented, the model would still be incorrect to varying degrees for other
areas, and the generic value of the assessment would depreciate.
Of special interest is the effect of contaminated flows on irrigation
projects present on the Rio San Jose and Rio Grande. An extensive system of
dams and conveyance channels regulates flow in the Rio Grande, and partia!
duration flow data are unavailable. Instead, the average annual flow volume
is used to provide the final dilution estimate. For the sub-basin in which
the mines are located, flood volumes are calculated using the USGS regression
equations (Bo70). The maximum return period for which flows are calculated
is 50 years. The remainder of this section first considers the flow or
hydraulic aspects of the surface water pathway. Finally, several factors
concerning the quality of runoff water are mentioned to balance conservatism
and realism in the pathway analysis and, subsequently, in the health effects
modeling to follow. The emphasis here is on surface water impacts, and we
assume maximum transport for this pathway. The influence of infiltrating
mine water is discussed in Section 3.4.3.2,
All of the streams, except the Rio Grande and certain reaches of the Rio
San Jose are distinctly ephemeral under natural conditions. In the sub-
basin, there is perennial flow because of mine discharge. In Fig. 3.17 are
the average monthly and annual discharges for the Rio San Jose and the Rio
Puerco in comparison to cumulative annual flow from 14 mines, each dis-
3
charging at 2 m /min. The monthly data reveal pronounced seasonal variations
approaching 1 to 2 orders of magnitude. The streams do not show the same
seasonal variations, further attesting to varied patterns of runoff, irri-
gation diversion, and control features such as impoundments and conveyance/
irrigation channels. Figure 3.18 shows the percentage of each month during
-------
10-
LEGEND
3-129
L
Rio San Jose near Grants, N.M.
Rio Puerco at Rio Puerco, N.M.
Rio Puerco near Bernardo, N.M.
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct Nov
Dec
Figure 3 17 Average monthly fI ows for the period of record for the Rio San Jose
and the Rio Puerco in New Mexir-n^i'^^anzed from flow records provided by
L Beat, U S Geological Surve erque)
-------
3-130
which there Is no flow in the Rio San Jose and Rio Puereo. The average
period of annual or monthly no flow is as follows:
Rio San Jose near Grants: 0 Percent
Rio Puerco at Rio Puerco: 45 Percent
Rio Puerco at Bernardo : 71 Percent
It is ilso assumed that flow from the sub-basin reaches the first major
stream, the Rio San Jose, -with no change in flow or quality. Runoff is
minimal in the lower reaches of San Mateo Creek because of internal drainage
and considerable infiltration. Historical evidence indicates that onl.y
rarely, if ever, would •Hood runoff from Ambrosia Lake enter the Rio Se.,,
Jose, In the interests of conservatism, total flow laden with contaminants
is transported to the Rio San Jose. Dilution first occurs within the sub-
basin and then, successively, in the Rio San Jose, Rio Puerco, and Rio
Grande. The latter is the regional basin.
There is an infinite number of combinations of flood volumes and dilu-
tion volumes for the sub-basin, basin, and regional basin streams. Use of
average annual discharge volumes in the receiving streams simplifies what
would otherwise be a burdensome, confusing series of calculations. Flushing
action from the sub-basin is handled on a probabilistic basis 1n terms of
flow duration and return period. Concentration values are based on 14 mines,
a loading period of two years, and flow and water quality data shown in Table
3.39. When, for example, 5-year or 10-year events are considered, it is
conservatively assumed that events with shorter return periods do not occur.
The accretion period remains constant (2 years), and only the return period
and duration are varied, resulting in varying flow volumes. It is conceiv-
able that contaminants could concentrate for 3, 4, or 5 years and then be
flushed by a 2-year event, but this was not evaluated.
Minimum and maximum return periods for floods from the sub-basin were
set at 2 and 25 years, respectively, for several reasons. The 2-year event,
i.e., runoff volume over a duration of 1 day or 7 days and occurring on the
average of every 2 years, is expected to occur rather frequently over the
life of the mines (17 years). The intermediate-sized storms with return
periods of 5 or 10 years would result 1n considerable contaminant transport,
-------
100
e so
8°
s
•6
T5
70
60
I 50
'3 40
o
g 30
o
f-
Cu
20
10
0
Puerco near Bernardo
...... '
-
\
Rio Puerto at Rio Puerco
\
V
^
The Rio San Jose near Grants exhibits no periods of zero flow.
1
Jan I Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
| 1
Aug |Sep |0ct
Nov
Dec
Figure 3.18 Periods of no flow in the Rio San Jose and Rio Puerco (Summarized from flow records provided by L. Seal,
U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque)
-------
3-132
but concentrations would be low owing to dilution and to annual or semiannual
scouring provided by smaller floods. The 25-year event is a practical maxi-
mum expected to occur during the lifetime of the mining district. Still
larger floods, with return periods of 50 or 100 years, can be calculated but
are less important because of their infrequent occurrence. Figures 3.19 and
3.20 show calculated flow volumes from the sub-basin for 1-day and 7-day
durations and return periods of 2 years to 50 years. The extreme range in
flow volume is from 2.16 x 104 m3 to 2.55 x 105 m3.
Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show flow values in the Rio San Jose and Rio
Puerco for 1-day and 7-day durations and return periods of 1 to 100 years.
For the Rio San Jose, 1-day volumes range from 1.24 x 10 m to 1.68 x 10
3 3
m . The mean annual discharge rate in the Rio San Jose is 11.09 m /min. Flow
from the Rio San Jose enters the Rio Puerco where corresponding flows (1-day
6 73
duration) range from 0.6 x 10 to 2.15 x 10 m at the point of inflow to the
Rio Grande. Average daily discharge in the Rio Grande seasonally ranges from
53 53
8.87 x 10 m to 59.5 x 10 m . Average annual flows rather than peak 1-day
or 7-day flows were used in the subsequent calculations.
The maximum probability for peak runoff from the sub-basin and resulting
contaminant transport is in the summer months, at which time the Rio Puerco
has no flow about 22 to 75 percent of the time. Flow in the Rio San Jose and
Rio Puerco from June through September ranges from 3.96 x 10 to 1.97 x 10
2
m per month for the period of record (Fig. 3.17).
3.4.3.1.4 Prediction of Sub-basin Hater Quality
Table 3.43 outlines dilutions based on the foregoing discussion of flow
patterns and discharges and considering only the 1-day sub-basin flood event
with a 2-year recurrence interval. The dilution constant is the ratio of
concentration in the receiving water to that in the contaminated (relatively)
inflow. It is more commonly expressed as the dilution factor, which is the
reciprocal. Thus, in the case of the sub-basin flood flow entering the mean
annual flow of the Rio San Jose, there is a 271:1 dilution (Table 3.43).
With development of the foregoing (mine water) source term and surface
water pathway, the - remaining discussion emphasizes contaminant concen-
trations in surface water. This, in turn, serves as input data to health
effects modeling for the water pathway. Chemical concentrations in the Rio
-------
3-133
10 i
3
UH
LEGEND
O Sub-basin (Arroyo del
Puerto @ San Mateo Creek)
"A Basin (Rio San Jose near
Grants, #3435)
O Basin (Rio Puerco near
Bernardo, #3530}
NOTE: Total flood flow for
one day duration not calcu-
lated for regional basin
(Ilio Grande).
I
10
I
25
I
50
RECURRENCE INTERVAL (YEARS)
Figure 3 19 Total flow volumes in one-day periods for Hoods of various
recurrence intervals in the sub-basin and basins in New Mexico {Summarized
from (low records provided by L Beal, U S Geological Survey, Albuquerque)
I
100
-------
5.
4—J
3.
10'
9
8—|
7.
10
10'
1=
8_
7.
6_
3-134
LEGLND
O Sub-basin (Arroyo del Puerto @
San Mateo Creek)
& Basin (Rio San Jose near
Grants, #3435)
O Basin (Rio Puerco
near Bernardo, #3530)
NOTE: Total flood for seven days
duration not calculated for regionaJ
basin (Rio Grande).
i
10
RECURRENCE INTERVAL
25
(YEARS!
50
100
Figure 3 20 Total flow volumes in seven-day periods for floods of various
-------
Table 3.43 Dilution factors for the Rio San Jose, Rio Puerco, and Rio Grande
for 1-day flood flows with a 2-year recurrence interval
Hydrographic Basins
Rio San Jose near Grants^9'
Rio Puerco' ^
Rio Grande near Bernardo^
Flow Ratio
(m3/m3)
2.16 x 104
5.83 x 106 + 2.16 x 104
2.16 x 104
4.26 x 107 + 2.16 x 104
2.16 x 104
Oi iution
Constant
0.0037
0.00051
0.000025
Dilution
Factor
271
1973
40135
86.69 x 107 + 2.16 x 104
^'Calculated using mean annual flow in the Rio San Jose (near Grants, NM) station:
Dilution = Sub-basin flood flow ,
Rio San Jose flow + Sub-basin flood flow
' ^Assumes Rio San Jose enters the Rio Puerco at Bernardo:
Dilution = Sub-basin flood flow
Rio Puerco flow (includes Rio San Jose flow) + Sub-basin flood flow
^Dilution = Sub-basin flood flow
Rio Puerco flow + Rio Grande flow (at Bernardo) + Sub-basin flood flow
CO
tn
-------
3-136
San Jose, Rio Puerco (at Bernardo), and in the Rio Grande (near Bernardo) are
shown in Table 3.44 along with 1-day and 7-day flood flow volumes from the
sub-basin for return periods of 2» 5, 10, and 25 years. These flood volumes
are diluted into the mean annual flow of the Rio San Jose (near Grants), Rio
Puerco (at Bernardo), and Rio Grande (near Bernardo), The principal reason
for using mean annual flow is that the radiation dose and health effects
model (Section 6.0) stresses estimating average annual dose to the population
over the duration of mining activity.
For example, the 1-day duration flood flow (with a 2-year return period)
contains 1920 mg/£ uranium, which decreases to 7.09 mg/£ in the Rio San Jose
and 0.973 mg/£ in the Rio Puerco. Because of the short duration of most
floods in the sub-basin, there is Irctle difference in flow volume and, thus,
dilution between the 1-day and 7-day events. With progressive dilution down-
stream, the difference in size between sub-basin floods of varying durations
and return periods becomes insignificant relative to the mean annual flow
volumes of the basin and regional basin streams. As a result, concentrations
tend to reach a minimum and remain unchanged at this degree of accuracy.
As in the case of the Wyoming surface-mine scenario, we assume
that most contaminants in the mine water collect on or near the land
surface and are available for transport. This assumption is open to ques-
tion, but field data are scarce to support contentions as to the fraction of
cpntaminant load that becomes unavailable. For example, extensive field
studies along the Animas, San Miguel, and Dolores Rivers in Colorado con-
cluded that "...once radium becomes a part of a stream's environment, it
constitutes a relatively long-term and continuous source of water and aquatic
biota contamination" (Si66). However, cessation of uranium mill discharges
to the Colorado River tributaries effectively negated this source, which is
now believed to be buried behind the Lake Powell and Lake Mead impoundments.
Similarly, dissolved radium reverts to background levels of several pico-
curies per liter in natural streams receiving mine water in Colorado and New
Mexico. -Although it is likely that flood waters resuspend precipitates and
sediments with sorbed radium, laboratory experiments (Sh64; Ha68) indicate
that only minor re-solution takes place. This phenomenon is supported by
recent surface water data collected in the Grants Mineral Belt of New Mexico
(Ku79). Therefore, concentrations of dissolved radium in flood water are
-------
Table 3,44 Annual contaminant loading from 14 uranium mines and resulting concentrattons in sub-tasin floods and in the
average annual flow of the Rio San Jose, Rio Puereo, and Rio Grande
Contaminant
concentration
in mine
effluent {mg/l
except as noted)
Total Uranium
1.41
Radium-226
13.7 pCi/j,
lead-210
14.6 pG1/l
Cadmium
0.007
Arsenic
0.012
Selenium
0.076
3
Mass available 1- and 7-day flood flow volumes (m } and contaminant concentrations associated with
for transport 1-Day
(fci/yr extent .
as noted)
-------
Table 3.44 (continued)
Contaminant
concentration
in nine
effluent (mg/t
except as noted)
Molybdenum
0.29
Barium
0.81
Zinc
0.043
Sulfate
580
Total Suspended
Solids
27.8
Mass available 1- and 7-day flood flow volumes (m ) and contaminant concentrations associated with
for transport 1-Day
(kg/yr except, , .
as noted}u' V =2.16x10*
2 C2
300 390
1.4
0.20
0.0093
850 1100
4.1
0.56
0.026
45 58
0.21
0.029
0.0014
R n
1.22 X 10* 1.58 x ICr
584
80
3.8
29000 38000
140
19
0.90
V, =6.23xl04
5 C5
130
1.4
0.19
0.0089
380
4.0
0.55
0.026
20
0.21
0.029
0.0014 •
A
5.43 x 10*
580
80
3.8
13000
140
19
0.89
" *C10
82
1.4
0.20
0.0092
230
4.0
0.55
0.026
12
0.21
0.029
0.0014
A
3.35 X 10*
574
80
3.7
8000
140
19
0.90
'25"£"°5
48
1.4
0.20
0.0091
140
4.1
0.58
0.027
7.2
0.21
0.030
0.0014
*
1.94 x I(T
568
80
3.8
4600
130
19
0.89
*2-5947
1400
1.4
0.20
0.0092
4000
4.1
0.56
0.026
210
0.21
0.029
0.0014
r
?j.?4 x 10
586
80
3.8
140000
140
20
0.92
V5=3794 V
965
1.4
0.20
0.0093
2700
4.1
0.56
0.026
140
0.21
0.029
0.0014
L
3.8S X 103
584
80
3.8
92000
140
19
0.89
return periods of 2 to 25 years' '
7-Day
I0=1.43xl04
590
1.4
0,20
0.0091
1700
4.2
0.57
0.027
88
0.22
0.030
0.0014
E
2.38 x 105
582
80
3.7
57000
140
19
0.90
*25-2.26x!0
370
1,4
0.20
0.0092
1100
4.2
0.58
0.027
56
0.22
0.030
0.0014
c
1.51 x 10s
584
80
3.8
36000
140
19
0.89
(a)
Mass values shown are on an annual, per-mine basis.
' 'v and C_ refer respectively to flood volume, in cubic meters, and concentration in runoff for an r-year flood. Concentrations are in
ntg/1, except for radium-226 and lead-210, which are 1n pCi/*. Concentrations shown are from accretion or loading 1n the sub-basin for 2, 5, 10,
25 years, yielding the first value shown in each set. The next three values below this initial value represent, in downward order, concentrations
in the flood flow as diluted by the mean annual flow in 1) the Rio San Jose near Grants (5.83 x 10 m 5, 2) the Rio Puerco at Bernardo (4.26 x 10
n3), and 3) the Rio Grande near Bernardo (86.69 x 10 m3).
Note.—Assumptions: Mines discharge continuously at a rate of 2.0 m3/min. Concentrations are the average of those shown in Table 3.39. Except
for radium and sulfate, all suspended and dissolved contaminants remain 1n or on the stream sediments and are mobilized by flood flow. Twenty per-
cent of the sulfate and 10 percent of the radium are available for resolution.
f
*-*
iff
as
-------
3-139
arbitrarily set at 0.00144 C1/yr or 10 percent of the annual loading from the
model mine.
Sulfate is also considered an important exception in the total "trans-
port" concept. Because sulfate can be a highly mobile anion, it is assumed
that 80 percent of the load enters the shallow groundwater reservoirs and 20
percent is available for solubilization and chemical transport in surface
flows. No distinct pattern of groundwater contamination from mine water, per
se» was documented in an earlier Grants Mineral Belt survey (EPA75), but
recent data from the State indicate groundwater deterioration as a result of
mine drainage (J. Dudley, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, oral
communication, 1979). It is likely that considerable fractionation t»F other
stable and radioactive trace elements occurs, but field data specific to the
uranium mining regions are quite scarce, with the exception of Texas (He79),
where only stable elements were studied. Because of our imperfect, non-pre-
dictive understanding of trace element transport in aqueous systems, our
analysis assumes total transport for most constituents in lieu of numerous,
equally unfounded assumptions for resuspension factors, fractionation, etc.
Floods of 1-day and 7-day duration and return periods of 2, 5, 10, and 25
years are arbitrarily selected as providing the necessary flushing action
associated with intense, short-term runoff events. It is likely that storms
of shorter (less than 1-day) duration and possibly greater discharge rate
also transport contaminants. The flow volume and thus the dilution cannot be
estimated for these events.
Calculated water quality in basin and regional basin streams is shown in
Table 3.45 along with established and suggested standards for selected con-
taminants. For uranium, concentrations in the basin exceed the suggested
limits based on chemical toxicity and radiotoxicity. Radium-226/228 exceeds
the standard in the basin but is well below the standard for the regional
basin. The same is true for sulfate, cadmium, arsenic, barium, and selenium.
Zinc is the only contaminant consistently below the potable and irrigation
water standards. As in the case of the surface mine scenario for Wyoming,
uranium is apparently well above suggested limits and warrants further study,
as do the stable toxic elements in the basin area(s) closest to the mining
centers.
With the exception of radium-226 and sulfate, the concentrations of
radionuclides and other parameters shown in Tables 3.44 and 3.45 reflect no
-------
Table 3,45 Comparison of potable and irrigation water standards and
surface water quality affected by underground mine drainage
Parameter
Range of contaminant concen-
trations in flood flow , .
affected by mine discharge^ '
Basin Regional Basin
Hln. Kax. Win. Max.
Potable water standards (mg/t )* '
Maximum Penmssable Recommended Limiting
Concentration Concentration
.Irrigation
Recommendations for maximum concentration
for contmyous yse on all soils {mg/t }
Total U
Ra-226 +
TSS
Sulfate
Zn
Cd
As
Ba
Se
6.9
228 6.7
130
574
0.21
0.03
0.061
4,0
0.37
7.1
6.9
140
584
0.22
0.03
0,063
4.2
0.38
0.045
0.044
0.89
3.7
0.0014
0.0002
0.00039
0.026
0.0026
0.046 0.015/3. 5/0.2^
0.044
0.92
3.8
0.0014
0.0002
0.00041
0.027
0.0026
...
...
0.01
0.05
1
0.01
5 -fi*
250
5.0
...
0.01
...
...
5 pCi/t
200
2.0
0,010
0.10
—
0.02
^'Concentrations fn milligrams per liter, except Ra-226 -228 which are !n plcoeurfes per liter. Data shown apply to the Basin (Rio San
Jase near Grants) and Regional Basin (Rio Grande near Bernardo) streams (Table 3.44).
' 'Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA76) and, In the case of uraniam, suggested guidance from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS79) to the USEPA and from USEPA, (Office of Drinking Water) to the State of Colorado (U79).
^Source: (NAS7Z).
^ '0.015 mg/i :Suggested maximum daily limit based on radfotoxicity for potable water consumed at a rate of 2 liters per day on a continuous basis
3.5 ing/m Suggested maximum dally limit based on chemical toxicity and intake of 2 liters in any one day
0.21 mg/e: Suggested maximum daily limit based on chemical toxicity and intake of 2 liters per day for 7 days
-------
3-141
reductions for Ion exchange, precipitation, or sorption. Rather, a simple
dilution model is used in which the mass loading from mine discharge is
calculated as the product of concentration and discharge (volume). There are
problems with this approach. In some cases, the calculated concentrations in
flood waters probably exceed the solubility limits, as in the case of sulfate
in the presence of barium. In other instances, precipitation of barium
sulfate or iron and manganese hydroxides might greatly reduce the concen-
tration of radium and uranium, both of which would coprecipitate. Thus the
stream concentrations shown in Table 3.44 are probably high (conservative).
To improve the analysis, additional comparisons or parallels were drawn using
mill tailings solutions and stream water quality as affected by mine drainage
and a mill tailings spill.
Contaminant concentrations in uranium mill tailings liquids provide an
upper limit estimate of runoff concentrations insofar as the solvent action
of tailings solutions maximize dissolution of minerals present in the ore (J.
Kunkler, USGS, written communication, 1979). Table 3.46 is a compilation of
mill tailings water quality data from numerous previous reports and sum-
marized by EPA and USGS staff (Ka79; Ku79). It is apparent that there are
wide variations as a function of mining region and whether an acid or alka-
line leach mill circuit is used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC79b)
assumption for the composition of a "typical" acid leach mill is shown along
with other average or representative analyses. A conservative (worst qual-
ity) analysis for uranium mill pond water quality is estimated as follows
(Table 3.47) and compared to the average concentrations calculated from the
mixing of mine effluent and flood volumes (Table 3.44).
The data in Table 3.47 suggest that calculated concentrations in the
sub-basin almost without exception exceed those in uranium mill tailings
solutions. Thus, the calculated values are probably erroneously high. Calcu-
lated concentrations in flood waters of the basin and regional basin streams
are considerably less and are in rough agreement with field data, at least
for the stable constituents. Radium-226 and lead-210, however, still seem
excessively high considering the various natural processes of sorption,
precipitation, and so on^ To understand the degree to which natural streams
transport contaminants, we reviewed water quality data from selected New
Mexico streams receiving mine drainage.
-------
Table 3 46 Radiochetnical & stable element/compound water quality for selected acid & alkaline leach uranium mill tailings ponds in the Unittd States
i.
2.
_
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Tailings Pi la U Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210
Location (mg/t) (pC1/z)
Split Rock, MY 10.5 41600 4800
(acid)
Canon City, CO — — — > —
(acid)
:
M h IIT V n £ft inn
United Nuclear, 14 --- 38
NH (acid)(a)
Anaconda !nj, 130 — §3 —
Well Feed, NH
Kerr-McGee, NH 32 — 58
(acidKa)
y»-HP, Grants, 150 — 52
NH (alkaline)
Huneca, WY 68.4 110 240
(acid)
USNRC-Uranium 8 0 150000 400 400
Hilling ElS(acid)
Representative
acid mllpond, *
in New Mexico1 ' — —
"Average" (Exclusive
of 9 and 10) 58 13920 760
Maximum value:
"Average" versus
HRC GE1S 58 150000 760 400
Po-210 As Hn Cu Se Mo V SO
fitjtt)
940 1.1 15.5 0.2 1 0.05
10.1 25.0 18 0.6 190 7.1 34000
50 3 0.005 3 30
340 — 0.03 — 6.3 4900
30 5 0.18 7 10
0.92 70 6,8 4300
400 0.2 500 50 20 100 0.1 33000
6 160 S,5 0.32 54 10 10000
-
400 i 500 50 20 100 10 30000
Na Fe IDS NH Ca NO Cl
280 11810 374 560 43.5 65
19000 280 77400 — 380 140 6500
icififtrtil „«» »..„ — ^flfl
300 1000 700
1200 — — §9 — 7.4
500 1000 300 —
4300 — — 4.4 — 4.4 2
11700 0 5 — 460 — - li 16000
500 1000 35000 500 500 — 300
6200 510 227 485 40 1700
6200 1000 80000 500 500 40 1700
(a)
(b)
Source: Ku79.
Ammonium ion.
-------
Table 3.47 Summary of flood runoff water quality and
uranium mill pond quality
Parameters
Uranium (mg/8,)
Radium-226 (pCi/i)
Lead-210 (pCi/i)
Polonium- 2 10 (pCi/O
Arsenic (mg/£ )
Manganese (mg/£ )
Copper (mg/x.)
Selenium (mgA )
Molybdenum (mg/i)
Vanadium (mg/£, )
Sulfate (mg/ji)
Concentration
in Concentration in
uranium mill flood waters of the
tailings solution sub-basin
58
760
400
400
6
500
50
20
100
10
30,000
235 -
229 -
2430 -
NC
2.1 -
NC
NC
11 -
48 -
NC
9.7 x 104 -
6970
6780
72000
(b)
61
220
2400
2.87 x 106
Concentration in
flood waters of the
Rio San Jose^ '
7
6.9
73
NC
0.062
NC
NC
0.34
1.4
NC
2901
(a)
(b)
Refer to Table 3.44.
Not calculated.
-------
3-144
The USGS, by water sampling in the Churchrock area of New Mexico (J.L.
Kunkler, USGS, written communication, 1979), determined water quality in an
ephemeral stream receiving rather large and continuous mine discharges. Data
are also available from the Schwarzwalder Mine near Golden, Colorado (EPA72).
Until 1972, this mine discharged effluent high in uranium, radium, and trace
elements to Ralston Creek and subsequently to two lakes/reservoirs used for
irrigation and potable supply (Section 3.2.3.2.1).
The way in which surface runoff water quality is created or affected by
nnne discharge is complex. In the Churchrock area, numerous water quality
changes occur as the mine discharges flow toward Gallup (Fig. 3.21 and Table
3.48). As in other uranium mining areas in New Mexico, stream volume con-
stantly decreases with flow distance, but water quality changes are erratic.
infiltration, discussed in more detail in the following section of the report
and in Appendix H, amounts to about 90 percent or more of the water loss.
The balance is by evaporation. On a percentage basis, similar losses occur
in the principal drainage courses in Ambrosia Lake. Dissolved Ra-226 de-
creases from 30 to 0.88 pCi/£ in a reach of 9.2 km and, on a later date, from
14 to 0.95 pCi/£ in a distance of 26.7 km. Based on the limited flow and
water quality data, it appears that radium is strongly sorbed onto the stream
sediments. In October 1975, soluble uranium decreased from 1150 to 740 yg/
in the reach immediately below the mine discharges, yet in July 1977 and May
1978 uranium increased in the downstream direction from 580 to 860 ug/£ and
from 970 to 2800 yg/£. These changes bear no consistent relation to fluctu-
ations in dissolved or suspended solids along the flow path. Both of the
latter parameters appear to increase in the direction of flow and may be a
result of flash floods in lower reaches of the basin. Uranium appears to
undergo little change and may actually increase in the downstream direction.
Of the stable trace elements, vanadium, selenium, iron, molybdenum, and zinc
show no consistent change with distance.
A third approach used to assess surface runoff quality involved a brief
review of some of the data collected to monitor a July 1979 tailings accident
in New Mexico. The mill tailings dam at the Churchrock mill breached and
3
dumped 223,000 m of liquid and 1,000 metric tons of solids into the Rio
Puerco drainage system. The catastrophe immediately spurred numerous water
quality studies by State and Federal agencies. Numerous inter-
-------
O Twin Lakes
Mine Effluent, KM S UNC mines and Puerco River tributary
below mines '
Pipeline Canyon at Trestle near Churchrock. N M
Effluent from Pipeline Canyon, N M
Puerco River near Sprmgst«ad, N M
Puerco River at the Hogback near Gallup N M
Puerco River a! Gallup N M
Puerco River at Manuelito, N M
Pyerco River near state line of N M ana Am
Figure 3.21 Principal streams and surface water sampling stations in the Churchrock and Gallup areas
-------
Table 3.48 Flow and water quality in the Puerco River near Churchrock and Gallup, New Mexico
Location and
(Station Number)
Oct. 16, 1975
!
Puerco River tributary
below mines - (!)
Puerco River near
Springstead, NH -(4)
Puerco River at
Gallup, m - (6)
Puerco River at
Nanuelito - (7)
July 6, 1977
Puerco River tributary
below mines - (1)
Puerco River at the
, U nat.
m /mm pg/t as 11,0,,
14.5 1150
12.4 740
5.11
6.8(est) 540
11.55 580
6.47 860
Ra-226
pCIA
30
0.88
0.52
0.25
14
0.95
Total
Dissolved
430
480
640
800
410-
520
Solids, ma/.
Suspended
410
1600
2300
2800
260
15000
Suspended solids,
metric tons
per day Ba Cd
9.5
8.67
5.14
—
800 1
100 1
Concentrations vg/i
Cr Pb Mo V Zn Se As Fe
21-27 - 20
13-25 - 30
5.7 - 26 • - 40
--- - - . - -
06 - 0 25 1(3) 10
0 11 - - 50 20 1(19) 80
Hogback, near Gallup,
NM - (5)
Puerco River near 15.5
State line (NM/AZ) - (8)
83
0.27 600
44000
1700 4 02
30 5 6(7) 90
-------
Table 3.48 < (Continued)
Location and
(Station Number)
m /mm
U nat. Ra-226
Suspended sol ids,
Total Solids, mq/a. metric tons
Ba Cd
as U,Qg pCi/i Dissolved Suspended per day
Cr Pb Ho
Concentrations
Zn Se As Fe
Hay 25, 1978
Effluent from Kerr , 10.9
McGee and United Nuclear
Mines, Churchrock, KM-
(1)
Effluent from Pipeline 9
Canyon, NM - (3)
Puerco River near 10.88
Springstead, KM - (4)
(sampled 5/18/78)
July 11-12. 1978
Pipeline Canyon at 14.45
trestle near Churchrock,
m - (2)
Effluent from Pipeline 14.3
Canyon, NH - (3)
Puerco River near —
Springstead, KM - (4)
807
Z.6
2800
1100
940
1120
1130
1.5
0.8
8.6
1.3
2.2
12 19
820
12
230
260
240
28 - 110
16 - 0
11 -
6-11
9-13
— -
- 15
- 540
- 70
- 40
Source: New Mexico District office of ffie U.S. Geological Survey (Peter Frenzel, written communication, 1979 and Kunkler, 1979).
-------
3-148
pretations of the data have led to some confusion, compounded in some
instances by inconsistent sample collection and preservation. However,
several general findings seem true. Dissolution of stable and radioactive
trace contaminants in flood waters does not seem significant providing that
pH of the flood is in the range of 4 to 7. After several days, the mill
tailings liquid was diluted and neutralized and contaminant concentrations
decreased -- sometimes to levels lower than before the accident (J. Kunkler,
USGS, written communication, 1979). At a downstream sampling station near
Gallup, some 30 kilometers from the spill, dissolved uranium and radium-226
about 36 hours after the spill were 3.1 mg/£ and Q.9F pCi/jt, respectively.
Suspended sediments contained 19 pprn uranium and 0.72 pCi/g radium-226. For
the latter, this is less than background.
The surface water quality data pertaining to discharge of mine effluents
and to the July 1979 spill seem to indicate rapid and thorough removal of
radium-226 as a result of sorption, precipitation, pH adjustment, etc. How-
ever, stream sediment analyses in the Grants Mineral Belt are scarce, and
there are no analyses of suspended solids in flood waters. Stream-bed sedi-
ment analyses by the USGS indicate less sorbed radium-226 and uranium than
expected (Ku79). During this spill incident, uranium and selenium were
relatively mobile in surface streams.
From the foregoing review of the literature and field data and prelim-
inary calculations of runoff quality (Table 3.44), the following general con-
clusions are offered:
1. Radium-226 is removed from surface water in the New Mexico study
area at rates of 0.5 to 3 pCi/£ per kilometer of stream. Final concen-
trations are on the order of 0.25 pCi/£- Resolution in successive surface
flows occurs, but it is not significant.
2. Uranium and certain stable trace elements, such as selenium, van-
adium, molybdenum, and iron, show no consistent reduction with flow distance
and may show an increase, at times.
3. ~Considerable more data collection is needed to understand the fate
of dissolved and suspended contaminants from mine drainage. The present data
base is rather limited in terms of sampling frequency, variety of contam-
inants measured, and types of measurements, for example, suspended solids
analyses for flood waters.
-------
3-149
4. With the exception of radium-226, the preliminary calculations of
runoff quality in Table 3,44 are believed to be a first approximation of
field conditions. Additional studies specific to the principal mining dis-
tricts are needed.
5. Dissolved radium-226 concentrations in runoff are believed to be
several picocuries per liter or less under natural conditions.
6. Uranium is fairly mobile and probably the most significant radio-
nuclide in uranium mine effluent.
3.4.3.2 Impacts of Seepage onGroundwater
The principal use of grouncfwater in the immediate area of the mines is
for stock water. Wells in the highland areas are typically one to two hun-
dred meters deep and completed in underlying bedrock strata (Co68j Ka75).
Contamination of such wells by mine discharge is considered extremely un-
likely. Shallow wells are few in number and located along major drainages
that are typically ephemeral. Such shallow wells are susceptible to con-
tamination if located downgrade from mine discharges. Municipal water
supplies are usually developed from wells because groundwater is consistently
available and has acceptable suspended and dissolved mineral contents. The
aquifers tapped by municipal wells are mostly either quaternary lava flows or
deeper mesozoic sandstone and carbonate sequences. Considering the distance
from the mining centers to the communities and the hydrogeologic conditions,
it is 'unlikely that mining will cause measurable deterioration of municipal
water quality. The greatest likelihood for contaminated groundwater is in the
shallow, alluvial aquifer beneath streams receiving mine drainage. It is
extremely unlikely that water quality in deeper, artesian aquifers will be
adversely affected by mine discharge or overland flow affected by solid
wastes. Shallow wells in these locations have been constructed in the past,
but there are only a few and they are used for stock watering. It is poss-
ible that recharge of substantial quantities of mine water to the shallow
aquifer will encourage additional use of it, in which case water quality will
be of concern,
Table 3.49 shows average and extreme concentrations of various common
and trace constituents in groundwater and other measures of water quality.
The data are composited from a previous study (EPA75) and from unpublished
-------
3-150
analyses by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (J. Lazarus,
NMEID, oral communication, 1979). We have categorized the data according to
principal aquifers, which are in areas where the groundwater is not believed
to be contaminated by mining. Because it is common for a well to tap more
than one aquifer, the differences in water quality in Table 3.49 are approxi-
mate at best. The data reveal no sharp differences in water quality amongst
the three major aquifers. The San Andres Limestone, a major aquifer for
municipal and industrial uses in the Grants and Milan areas, has equal or
greater concentrations of most constituents as compared to the Westwater
Canyon Member and Gallup Sandstone units, which are closely associated with
uranium mineralization.
Theoretical analysis of radionuclide transport in groundwater beneath
and adjacent to a uranium mill tailings pond reveals very limited migration
of radionucl ides in groundwater (Se75). Using a seepage rate of 4 x 10~
cm/sec and a 10 percent loss of soluble radionuclides, numerical solutions
for steady state flow and transport into unconsolidated sand for periods of 5
years and 20 years reveal up to several meters movement of radium-226, thor-
ium-230/ 234, uranium, and lead-210 after 20 years of leaching. For example,
radium in groundwater to a depth of 3 meters is 10 percent of that in the
tailings pond. Because the other isotopes tend to have even greater sorption,
migration distances are further reduced. Although field studies at three
uranium mill tailings piles in the Grants Mineral Belt substantiate only
local migration of radionuclides {EPA75}," extensive lateral migration of
stable chemical species has been observed at uranium mills in Colorado,
Wyoming, and Washington (Ka79, Ka78a, He79). For example, with respect to
the old Cotter uranium mine at Canon City, Colorado, the Colorado Department
of Health has stated in its Final Executive Licensing Summary, August 17,
1979, that "contamination attributed to tailings liquid was observed in an
off-site water well ten years after the mill began depositing tailings, a
[migration] rate of over five hundred feet per year." With respect to the
same site, one researcher has stated that "the soluble uranium content of
Lincoln Park ground waters is highly elevated with respect to Arkansas River
water and exceeds suggested thresholds below which ecological and health
effects are not expected. Molybdenum concentrations in these ground waters
greatly exceed irrigation standards as well as the ALG based on health and
ecological effects...." (Dr79). Near neutral pH and relatively low concen-
-------
3-151
Table 3.49 Groundwater quality in principal aquifers in the
Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico
Parameter
PH
Spec. cond.
ymhos/cm
IDS
Cl
mg/s.
Se
mg/£
V
mgA
Radium-226
pCi/£,
Uranium,
mgA,
Th-230,
pCi/£
Th-232,
PC1/A
Po-210,
pCi/ji
San Andres
Limestone
- 7.2^
(6.9 - 7.5)
1900
(720 - 3500}
1680
(490 - 4500)
98
(<0.2 - 270)
0.31
(0.01 - 1.52)
0.88
(0.4 - 1.3)
0.47
(0.11 - 1.92)
1.31
(0.04 - 2.6)
0.12
(0.017 - 0.52)
0.11
(0.0053-0.54)
0.75
(0.070 - 2.3)
Aquifer
Westwater Canyon
Member, Morrison Fm.
and
Gallup Sandstone
7.9
(6.7 - 9.15)
1800
(550 - 4250)
1160
(340 - 2300)
15
(0 - 98)
0.02
(0.01 - 0.13)
0.3
(0.3 - 0.3)
0.71
(0.07 - 3.7)
0.35
(0.02 - 1.0)
0.030
(0.015 - 0.053)
0.015
(<0. 01-0. 036)
0.42
(0.19 - 0.79)
Quaternary
Alluvium, Tertiary
Volcanics, and
Chinle Formation
7.6
(6.25 - 8.8)
1715
(700 - 4000)
1240
(490 - 3800)
57
(6.2 - 260)
0.59
(0.02 - 1.06)
0.55
(0.3 - 1.3)
0.22
(0.05 - 0.72)
4.72
(0.07 - 14)
0.212
(0.018 - 0.65)
0.123
(0.0094-0.99)
0.193
(0.010 - 0.55)
(a)
Mean and range of values shown.
Note.—Selenium, vanadium, and uranium values for the limestone and alluvium/
chinle aquifers are based on 4 to 5 analyses and must be regarded as tentative.
-------
3-152
trations in mine effluents, together with low hydraulic heads, indicate short
migration distances in groundwater for radionuelides and most stable trace
elements in mine effluents.
Discharge of water pumped from mines to arroyos has both hydraulic and
water quality impacts on shallow groundwater in the alluvial aquifer. The
seepage model {Appendix H) and scattered field measurements in the Grants
Mineral Belt substantiate that significant groundwater recharge is associated
with mine discharge. Water quality effects on groundwater are poorly docu-
mented, however. We do not address the influence of impoundments used to
remove suspended solids from mine effluents before discharge. Seepage water
losses fr.im such impoundments are believed to be small, especially when
compared to infiltration losses in the arroyos and open fields receiving most
of the wastes not piped to mills for process water. The Impoundments are
rather small and tend to become self-sealing due to settlement of fines. In
at least one instance in Ambrosia Lake, the mine -pond is lined to prevent
seepage.
Unpublished flow and water quality data from the U.S. Geological Survey
(P. Frenzel, written communications 1979) document conditions in the Rio
Puerco drainage near Churchrock and Gallup, New Mexico. Figure 3.21 shows
the sampling station locations, and the chemical data are in Table 3.47.
From October 1975 gaging data, seepage and evaporation reduce flow 9.39
1 3
m /min in a reach of 30.2 kma a loss of 0.31 m /min/km. Conservatively
3
assuming 20 percent of this is by evaporation, seepage is 7,5 m /min or 3.94
x 10 m /yr. Gaging data for July 1977 and May 1978 similarly indicate
average bed losses of 0,24 m /rain/km. In the Ambrosia Lake district (data
not shown), discharges (to San Mateo Creek and Arroyo del Puerto) from about
a dozen mines total about 10.8 x 10 m /year, and the total length of
perennial stream is about 15 kilometers. Assuming an average stream width of
one meter and the above evaporation rate, evaporation and infiltration are
3 3
0.06 m /min and 75§4 m /min, respectively. In this case, infiltration
amounts to 99 percent of total loss. Dissolved solids range from 520 to 1231
mg/£ {mean 743 mg/£ )» and Ra-226 ranges from 0.2 to 23 pC1/£ (mean 6.6 pCi/n ),
Selenium and molybdenum average 0.010 and 0,22 mg/t, respectively.
Considering these two areas, evaporation averages about 4 percent of
mine discharge versus the value of one percent calculated in Appendix H.
Obviously, increased evaporation Is accompanied by decreased infiltration.
-------
3-15
Infiltration ranges from at least 90 percent to perhaps 99 percent of mine
3
discharge, or from 1.8 to 1.98 m /min per mine- The foregoing field data and
the more theoretical approach used in Appendix H show reasonable agreement on
the relative amounts of infiltration and evaporation. We conclude then that
most of the mine effluent infiltrates within relatively short distances of
the mine(s) and recharges the shallow water table. The dissolved, generally
nonreactive contaminants such as chloride and sulfate are expected to reach
the water tables but reactive contaminants such as radium-226 and most trace
metals would sorb or precipitate in the soil (substrate) in the course of
infiltration.
The influence of mine discharge on groundwater quality beneath formerly
ephemeral streams now receiving the discharge is currently under investi-
gation by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division. Monitoring
wells have been installed at several locetions along the Rio Puerco (west) in
the Churchrock area and San Mateo Creek in the Ambrosia Lake district. Table
3,50 summarizes partial results of samples taken in the last-12 to 18 months.
In the Ambrosia Lake district, marked deterioration in water quality between
the Lee Ranch and Sandoval Ranch stations on San Mateo Creek is a result of
either natural causes and (or) mine drainage from a nearby deep underground
uranium mine. Between Sandoval Ranch and Qtero Ranch even more pronounced
changes occur. In this short reach of 2.5 km, contaminated flows from uranium
mines, ion-exchange plants, and seepage from an acid leach uranium mill enter
Arroyo del Puerto, a tributary of San Mateo Creek. Additional study of
surface water quality in the Arroyo del Puerto is recommended to further
characterize the obviously interconnected surface water and groundwater
systems.
In the Churchrock areas drained by the Rio Puerco, groundwater quality
changes in the downstream direction are not readily apparent (Table 3.50).
Although there is an acid leach mill also adjacent to the Rio Puerco trib-
utary receiving the mine discharges, the mill is relatively new (1978 start-
up) and may not yet influence stream quality. Most of the discharge from one
of the two mines is used as mill feed water, thereby causing decreased dis-
charge from the mines to the stream. Nevertheless, the reach of the perennial
stream is increasing, indicating infiltration of remaining mine effluent and
addition of water to storage in the shallow aquifer. Storage changes have
been confirmed by static groundwater level measurements in the area east of
-------
3-154
Table 3.50 Groundwater quality associated with the San Mateo Creek
and Rio Puerco (west) drainages in the Grants Mineral
Belt, New Mexico
Station
Sulfate
(rag/ £ )
Molybdenum
Selenium Uranium
San MategCreek
Lee Ranch
Sandoval Ranch
Otero Ranch
125.7
225-274
463-989
103-235
350-516
< 5 <10
4-14.7 293-400
33-59 680-860
Rio Puerco (west)
Hwy. 566 Bridge on
N. Fork Rio Puerco
Rio Puerco at
Fourth St. Bridge,
Gallup
101-223
163-244
<10-284
<10-215
20-22
9-26
530-760
550-625
Source: 'Based on unpublished 1978 data developed by the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Division (J. Lazarus, oral
communication, 1979).'
Gallup. A massive spill of mill tailings into the Rio Puerco occurred in July
1979 and will complicate water quality investigation, insofar as the mine and
mill influences-are now superimposed in terms of both solid and liquid waste
loadings in the watershed. The tailings "flood," estimated to contain about
O —
360,000 m of fluid and 1000 MT of solids, was traced into Arizona.
In summary and considering the high volume of dilute mine discharges,
-------
3-155
which are enriched in certain stable and radioactive toxic trace elements
(EPA75; Hi77), we recommend that water quality effects of mine discharge be
very carefully evaluated in at least a few selected areas. Available stream-
flow data indicate that infiltration is the principal means of disposal, yet
the water quality data base, in particular, is rather weak to assess whether
adverse impacts are likely. It is expected that future discharges in the
Churchrock area alone will amount to about 40 m /min and will contain less
than 400 mg/«. dissolved solids, most of which is sodium and bicarbonate.
Dissolved concentrations of uranium, radium, iron, selenium, and vanadium are
elevated relative to drinking water limits and infiltration of uranium,
selenium, and possibly other stable elements warrants study. Use of settling
ponds and barium chloride treatment greatly reduces the suspended solids,
uranium, and radium concentrations. The final composition and ultimate
disposal of pond sediments and added chemicals is essentially undocumented
and bears additional investigation. Lastly, mine dewatering creates marked
regional cones of depression and reduces the flow of water to existing supply
wells and the baseflow component in major drainage systems such as the San
Juan River (Ly79).
3.4.4 Gases and Dusts from Mining Activities
3.4.4.1 Radon-222 in Mine Exhaust Air
Unlike surface mines, large capacity ventilating systems are required in
underground uranium mines, primarily to dilute and remove Rn-222 that em-
anates from the ore (Section 1.3.3). Ventilation rates vary from a few
hundred to a few hundred thousand cubic meters of air per minute, and mea-
sured Rn-222 concentrations in mine vent air range from 7 pCi/i to 22,000
pCi/s. (Ja79b). The concentration of Rn-222 in mine exhaust air varies de-
pending upon ventilation rate, mine size (volume) and age, grade of exposed
ore, size of active working areas, rock characteristics (moisture content and
porosity), effectiveness of bulkhead partitions, barometric pressure, ore
production rates, and mining practices. The emanation of Rn-222 dissolved in
water that seeps into most mines may also contribute to Rn-222 in the exhaust
air.
-------
3-156
Because of the numerous variables that affect Rn-222 concentrations in
mine air» it is difficult to confidently model radon releases from under-
ground mines. A useful model would be one that would relate radon emissions
to the production of U30g. Measurements relating radon emissions to ore
production have been made at seven underground uranium mines in New Mexico
(Ja79b). The results of these measurements varied at the different mines
from 1,380 to 23,500 Ci Rn-222 per APR*, with an average rate of 4,300 Ci
Rn-222 per AFR. The higher emission rates were noted to occur at the older
mines. This was believed due to larger surface areas of exposed ore and
sub-ore in the older mines. That is, inactive mined-out areas increase with
mine age, and the ceiling, floors, and walls of these areas stiTi contain
certain amounts (if ore and sub-ore. Radon emanating from these suffice areas
tend to increast the Rn-222 content of exhausted mine air unless !hese in-
active areas of the mine (rooms, stapes, drifts, etc.) are e~-"actively
sealed. Because the radon emission factor is so variable in terms of Ci per
AFR, an emission rate based on cumulative U30_ mined has been proposed for
modeling purposes (Ja79b). It is believed that this relationship would
reduce the apparent dependence of the emission rate on the mine age. However,
data are not presently available to make this latter correlation.
Although the average measured Rn-222 exhaust factor of 4,300 Ci/AFR is
tentative and may be improved by studies in progress (Ja79b), it is the only
value currently available for modeling purposes and will, therefore, be used
in the present assessment. Assuming that 1 AFR is equivalent to 245 MT** of
U308 (Ja79b), 0.017 Ci of Rn-222 will be released from the mine vents per
metric ton of 0.1 percent grade ore mined. This emission rate will include
all underground sources, i.e., emanation from exposed ore and blasting,
slushing, loading, and transporting ore bearing rock. Radon-222 emissions
were estimated for the two model underground mines by multiplying their
*AFR = Annual Fuel Requirement for a 1000 MWe LWR.
**The AFR value on which the exhaust factor was based.
-------
3-157
respective annual ore capacities by the above emission rate. Table 3.51
lists the results.
The estimated annual radon release computed for the average underground
mine is compared below with releases reported elsewhere. Agreement is rea-
sonably good.
Source Annual Release of Rn-222, Ci
This Study 306
Tr79 289 - 467^
TVA78a 1577
TVA78b 180
TVA79 215
Th79 87
a' Adjusted for 0.1 percent ore grade.
By properly capping the exhaust vents and sealing the shaft and mine
entrance, radon emission rates from inactive mines will be a negligible
fraction of the radon release rate that occurs during active mining.
3.4.4.2 Aboveground Radon-222 Sources
Radon-222 will be released from the following aboveground sources.
1. Dumping ore, sub-ore, and waste rock from the ore skip into haul
trucks and unloading them on their respective piles.
2. Reloading ore from the stockpile after a 41-day residence time.
3. Emanation from waste rock, sub-ore, and ore storage pile surfaces.
The annual quantities of Rn-222 released by sources 1 and 2 were esti-
mated using the following factors and assumptions.
Radon-222 is in secular equilibrium with U-238.
The density of ore, sub-ore, and waste rock is 2.0 HT/m .
Annual production rates of ore and sub-ore are equal and
4 5
assumed to be 1.8 x 10 MT at the average mine and 2 x 10
MT at the average large mine (Sections 3.4.1.1 to 3.4.1.3).
The production rate ratio of ore to waste rock is 9.1:1 (Sec-
tion 3.4.1.1).
3
All Rn-222 present is available for release, 0.00565 Ci/m per
-------
3-158
Table 3,51 Estimated annual radon-222 emissions from
underground uranium mining sources
Average
Source Miners Ci/yr
Underground
Mine vent air
A bo ve|| round
Ore loading and
dumping
:,:ub-ore loading
ind dumping
Waste rock loading
and dumping
Reloading ore from
stockpile
Ore stockpile exhalation
Sub-ore pile exhalation
Waste rock pile exhalation
Total
^Annual production of ore
2.0 x 103 MT.
^ 'Annual production of ore
x 104 MT.
306
1.4
0.5
0.003
1.4
6.3
61
0.5
377
and sub-ore =
and sub-ore =
Average Large
Mine^, Ci/yr
3,400
15.3
5.3
0.03
15.3
53
338
2.6
3830
1.8 x 10 MT, waste rock =
2 x 105 MT, waste rock - 2.2
-------
3-1S9
percent U,0g (N179), with an emanation coefficient of 0,27
(Au78, Tanner, A.B,, Department of Interior, Geological
Survey, Reston, VA.» 11/79, personal communication).
The quantities of LUQg present in ore, sub-ore, and waste
rock are 0.10 percent, 0.035 percent and 0.0020 percent,
respectively (Sections 3.4.1.1 to 3.4,1.3).
Substituting the above values into the following equation yields the
Rn-222 releases given in Table 3.51 for the average mine and the average
large mine.
Rn-222 (C1/yr) = (percent LLQD) f 0.00565 Ci 1(0.27) / m3
•J G I O
ij
1 1(0.27) / m3
ent/ b.O WT
m , percent/ 12.0 MT
x (Production Rate, MT) ' (3.11}
yr
These releases are maximum values since very little time will have elapsed
between the underground (blasting, slushing, loading, etc.) and surface
operations. A significant amount of the radon that is available for release
will emanate during the underground operations and invalidate the first
assumption above concerning radioactive equilibrium. Nevertheless, these
estimated maximum releases are very small in comparison to the radon released
from the mine exhaust vents.
The emanation of Rn-222 from waste rock, sub-ore, and ore piles is based
o
on an exhalation rate of 0,092 Ci/m *yr*percent ILQg (N179) and ore grades of
0.002 percent, 0.035 percent, and 0,10 percent, respectively. Surface areas
of the ore piles (Table 3.37), sub-ore piles (Table 3.38), and waste rock
piles (Table 3.36) were ysed in these calculations. Applying these para-
meters, the annual Rn-222 emissions from the waste rock, sub-ore, and ore
piles at the average mine and average large mine were computed. Table 3.51
gives the results. Total annual Rn-222 emissions during underground mining
operations is the sum of the releases from all sources considered: 377 Ci
from the average mine and 3830 Ci from the average large mine. More than 801
of the Rn-222 emissions results from the mine vent air.
3.4.4,3 Dusts andFumes ~
Vehicular emissions resulting from the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels
in gasoline ind diesel-powered equipment are considerably less at underground
mines than at surface mines (Section 3.3,4.1), The principal emissions are
-------
3-160
participates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydro-
carbons. The quantity of these combustion products released to the atmosphere
depends on the number, size, and types of equipment used, all of which are
directly related to ore production.
EPA has estimated the following emissions from mining 1350 MT of ore per
day from an underground mine (Re76).
Pol lutant Emissions per Operating^ Day, Kg/d
Participates 2.4
Sulfur Oxides 5.0
Carbon Monoxide 41.9
Nitrogen Oxides 68.1
Hydrocarbons 6.9
Assuming a 330 operating-day year (Ni79), these emissions were adjusted
according to the annual ore production of the average mine (1.8 x 10 MT) and
the average large mine (2 x 10 MT). Table 3.52 lists the total airborne
combustion product emissions. These emissions are small compared to those at
surface mines (Table 3.30). For example, these estimates indicate that the
emissions of combustion products at the average surface mine are more than
100 times greater than those at the average underground mine.
At underground mines, dust is produced by both underground and surface
operations. No measurements have been made of dust concentrations in mine
exhaust air. Because underground mines are wet, which greatly reduces dust
production, and since a large portion of the dust produced would probably
deposit underground, dust emissions from underground operations are probably
relatively small. Hence, dust emissions from underground operations will not
be assessed.
Aboveground sources of dust include dumping ore, sub-ore, and waste rock
from the skip into haul trucks; dumping these materials onto their respective
piles; reloading ore from the stockpile; using dirt haul roads by vehicular
traffic; and dust suspended by the wind from the waste rock, sub-ore, and ore
piles. These sources "will be assessed as was done previously for surface
mines (Section 3.3.4.1).
-------
3-161
Table 3.52 Estimated air pollutant emissions from heavy-duty
equipment at underground uranium mines
Pollutant
Participates
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Average Mine^ '
32
67
560
910
92
Emissions, Kg/yr^a'
Average Large Mine^
350
740
6,210
10,100
1,020
C)
'Based on Re76 and 330 operating days per year.
4
Annual ore production = 1.8 x 10 MT.
fc) 5
v 'Annual ore production = 2 x 10 MT,
Dust emissions will vary over a wide range depending upon moisture
content, amount of fines, number and types of equipment operating, and cli-
matic conditions. Because ore is generally wet, the relative amounts of dust
produced from its mining and handling are usually small. The following
emission factors were selected from those suggested by the EPA for loading
and dumping operations (Hu76, Ra78» Da79):
truck loading = 2.5 x 10~2 kg/MT; and
_9
truck dumping = 2.0 x 10 kg/MT.
Average annual dust emissions were estimated for the aboveground mining
activities by applying these emission factors to the ore, sub-ore, and waste
rock production rates of the average mine and average large mine. Table 3.53
lists the results. One-half the emission factor values were applied to ore
and sub-ore because they are generally wet, except when reloading ore from
the stockpile. In that case, it is assumed to have dried during the 41-day
residence period (Section 3.4.1.2). Also, the emission factor for truck
loading was assumed valid for loading the haul trucks from the mine skip. The
dust emission for truck dumping may be high since it was based on dumping of
aggregate, which would have a smaller particle size distribution than the
ore, sub-ore, or waste rock (Hu76).
-------
3-162
The movement of heavy-duty trucks is a Urge source of dust at most
uranium mines. The magnitude of this source depends upon a number of
factors, including the particle size distribution and moisture content of the
road bed material, vehicular speed and distance traveled, and meteorological
conditions. Emission factors for heavy-duty haul trucks (1.15 kg/VKmT) and
light duty vehicles (1.03 kg/VKmt) are the same as those computed for these
vehicles at surface mines (Section 3.3.4.1). Dust emissions for the movement
of heavy-duty haul trucks were estimated using the appropriate emission
factor and assuming —
31.8 MT truck capacities;
round-trip haul distances of 1.61 km to the ore and sub-ore
piles and 3.22 km to the waste rock pile; and
the annual production rates given in Sections 3.4.1.1, 3.4.1.2
and 3.4.1.3.
Table 3.53 lists the results.
Additional dust emissions will occur from light-duty vehicular traffic
along access roads. Using the emission factor derived in Section 3.3.4.1
(1.03 kg/VKmt) and assuming that there are 16 km of access roads traveled 4
times a day during the 330 operating days per year, about 22 MT of dust will
be produced from this source annually. Emissions that occur during haulage
road maintenance is relatively small and will not be considered.
Heavy-duty, haul truck traffic at underground uranium mines produces
considerably less dust than at surface mines. This is to be expected because
of the vast quantities of overburden that must be transported as well as
larger ore and sub-ore capacities at surface-type mines.
The dust emissions computed above for transportation assume no effective
dust control program. But, haul roads are normally sprinkled routinely
during dry periods, and stabilizing chemicals are applied to roadways,
usually to the ore haul roads. Dust emissions along haul roads can be
reduced by 50 percent from sprinkling and up to 85 percent by the application
of stabilizing chemicals (EPA77b, Da79).
Table 3.53 also lists average annual dust emissions caused by wind
erosion of waste rock,~sub-ore, and ore piles at the model underground mines.
Emission factors, computed in Appendix I, are 2.12 MT/hectare-yr for waste
rock and sub-ore piles and 0.040 kg/HT for the ore stockpiles. The first
emission factor was multiplied by the waste rock and sub-ore pile surface
-------
Table 3.53 Estimated average annual dust emissions from underground mining activities
;
Source^
Loading truck from
skip at mine shaft
Truck dumping at
piles
Reloading stock-
(el
piled ore1 '
Wind suspended dust
from piles
Transportation^'
Average Mine*1
Ore^ Sub-ore^
0,23 0.23
0.18 0.18
0.45 NA^f'
0.72 4.0
1.0 1.0
Dust
Emissions
, MT/yr
3' Average Large Mine^ '
Waste Rock
0.05
0.04
NA
0.57
0.23
Ore^
2.5
2.0
5.0
8.0
11.6
Sub-ore' c'
2.5
2.0
NA
22
11.6
Waste Rock
0.6
0.4
NA
3.0
2.6
4 3
on annual production rates of 1.8 x 10 MT of ore and sub-ore, and 2.0 x 10 MT of waste rock.
' 'Based on annual production rates of 2 x 10 MT of ore and sub-ore, and 2.2 x 10 MT of waste rock,
^Assumed wet.
* •'Aboveground activities.
ie\
v 'Assumed dry,
- Not applicable.
emissions from heavy-duty, vehicular traffic along ore, sub-ore, and waste rock haul roads.
00
1
CTs
-------
3-164
areas given in Tables 3,36 and 3.38, respectively, while the second
factor was multiplied by the annual ore production.
Table 3.54 shows annual contaminant emissions caused by mining activ-
ities (loading and dumping) according to source location, at the mine shaft
and at the piles. Contaminant emissions were computed by multiplying the
total annual dust emissions at each pile {Table 3.53) by the respective
contaminant concentrations in each source—waste rock (Section 3.4.1.1;
Table 3.16), sub-ore (Section 3,4,1.3; Table 3,19), and ore (Section 3.4.1.2;
Table 3.19). -Contaminant emissions at the site of the mine shaft were com-
puted by multiplying the annual dust emissions of ore, sub-ore, and over-
burden (loading truck from skip - Table 3.53) by their respective contaminant
concentrations. The three products of the multiplication were then summed to
give the values listed in the 4th and 8th data columns of Table 3,54. The
health impact of the sources at each location will be assessed separately in
Section 6.1,
Annual contaminant emissions due to wind suspension and transport of
dust are listed in Table 3.55. These values were computed by multiplying the
annual mass emissions (Table 3.53) by the contaminant concentrations in waste
rock, sub-ore, and ore listed in Sections 3,4.1.1, 3.4.1.3, and 3.4.1.2,
respectively. The uranium and uranium daughter concentrations in dusts from
all sources were also multiplied by an activity ratio (dust/source) of 2.5
(Section 3,3,1.2). Although some metals may also be present as secondary
deposits, it was believed that there were insufficient data to justify multi-
plying their concentrations by the 2.5 ratio,
The dust emissions from vehicular traffic listed in Table 3.53 (trans-
portation) were summed with that produced by light vehicular traffic (22
MT/yr) and considered one source of emissions. Concentrations of contam-
inants in haul road dust have not been measured and are not known. Some
spillage of ore and sub-ore along haul roads will undoubtedly raise uranium
levels in roadbed dust. As an estimate, uranium and daughter concentrations
in the dust were considered to be twice background, 8ppm (2,7 pCi/g), while
concentrations of all other contaminants were considered to be similar to
those in the waste"rock (Section 3.4.1.1). Table 3.56 shows the annual
emissions computed with these assumptions.
-------
Table 3.54 Average annual emissions of radionuclides (yCi) and stable elements (kg) from
mining activities at the model underground mines
Average Underground Mine^
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium ,
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 and
each daughter
Thorium-232 and
each daughter
Waste Rock
Pile Site
0.0004
0.012
NR(b)
0.0007
< 0.002
0.24
< 0.0003
0.28
NR
0.02
0.0001
NR
0.0009
0.0001
0,006
0.004
0.0008
0.6
0.04
Sub-ore
Pile Site
0.02
0.17
0.003
0.01
0.004
2.8
ND(cJ
4.5
0.63
0.17
0.02
0.004
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.25
0.005
45"
0.4
Ore
Pile Site
0.05
0.58
0.01
0.04
0.01
9.9
ND
16
2.2
0.60
0.07
0.01
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.89
0.02
450
6.3
Mine
Site
0.04
0.44
0.007
0.03
<0.01
7.5
<0.001
12
1.6
0.47
0.05
0,009
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.65
0.01
222
2.8
Average
Waste Rock
Pile Site
0.004
0.12
NR
0.007
<0.02
2.4
< 0.003
2.8
NR
0.19
0.001
NR
0.009
0.001
0.06
0.04
0.008
6
0.4
Large Underground Mine^ '
Sub -ore
Pile Site
0.17
1.8
' 0.03
0.12
0.04
3.1
ND
50
7.0
1.9
0.23
0.04
0.16
0.22
0.26
2.8
0.06
495
4
Ore
Pile Site
0.60
6.4
0.11
0.43
0.14
110
ND
175
25
6.7
0.81
0.14
0.55
0.77
0.91
9.9
0.20
4,990
70
Mine
Site
0.44
4.8
0.08
0.32
< 0.13
82
0.005
129
18
5.1
0.58
0.10
0.40
0.55
0.74
7.1
0.16
2,410
31
emissions from Table 3.53.
Not reported.
Not detected.
Co
I
en
en
-------
Table 3.55 Average
(kg) in
annual emissions of radionuclides (yCi) and stable elements
wind suspended dust at the model underground mines
Average Large Underground Mine
Waste
ntaminant Pi
r
Arsenic '
Barium
Cobal t
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 and
each daughter
Thonuin-232 and
each daughter
Rock
le
0.03
0.87
NR{a)
0.05
<0.15
18
<0.02
21
NR
1.5
0.008
NR
0.07
0.006
0.45
0.30
0.06
45
3
Sub-Ore
Pile
1.9
20
0.35
1.3
0.44
345
ND(b)
550
77
21
2.5
0.44
1.7
2.4
2.9
31
0.64
5,450
44
Ore
Stockpile
0.69
7.4
0.13
0.49
0.16
126
ND
200
28
7.7
0.92
0.16
0.62
0,88
1.0
11
0.23
5,700
80
Average
Waste Rock
Pile
0.005
0.17
NR
0.01
< 0.03
3.4
< 0.005
4.0
NR
0.28
0.001
NR
0.01
0.001
0.09
0.06
0.01
9
0.6
Underground Mine
Sub-Ore
Pile
0.34
3.7 .
0.06
0.24
0.08
63
ND
100
14
3.8
0.46
0.08
0.31
0.44
0.52
5.6
0.12
990
8
Ore
Stockpile
0.06
0.66
0.01
0.04
0.01
11
ND
18 -
2.5
0.69
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.08
0.09
1.0
0.02
513
7.2
CO
I
Ol
Ch
- Not reported.
- Not detected.
-------
3-167
Table 3.56 Average annual emissions of radionuclides (pCi) and
stable elements (kg) from vehicular dust at the model
underground mines
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Lead
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium- 2 38 and
each daughter
Thorium-232 and
each daughter
Average Large
Underground Mine^
0.43
14
0.86
<2.4
287
<0.38
335
23
0.12
1.1
0.10
7.2
4.8
0.96
129
48
Average
Underground Mine^
0.22
7.0
0.44
<1.2
145
<0.19
170
12
0.06
0.53
0.05
3.6
2.4
0.48
65
24
(a)
(b)
Mass emissions = 47.8 MT/yr,
Mass emissions = 24.2 MT/yr.
-------
3-168
3.5 In Situ Leach Mining
Because in situ leaching of uranium (see general description in Section
1.3.4) is in its infancy, a data base for performing a detailed generic
environmental assessment does not presently exist. The fact that the para-
meters for assessing this process are so site specific and depend upon oper-
ational procedures further impedes a generic assessment. Current research
projects may help to resolve many of the present uncertainties and provide
the data needed to better quantify the potential source terms (La78).
In view of the expected future expansion of this uranium mining method
(Section 1.3.4), a qualitative assessment that can be modified later when
additional data become available was deemed necessary. This assessment was
possible because of recent laboratory experiments and field measurements at
pilot-scale plants (Wy77, Ka78b, NRC78b, Tw79).
Similar to other uranium mining methods, in situ leaching also produces
liquid, solid, and airborne wastes. However, the quantities of these wastes
and their characteristics differ considerably from those produced at surface
or underground mines. Also, because the recovery, drying, and packaging of
the U30g produced is often performed at the mine site, wastes from these
processes should probably be included in the mine assessment.
This assessment uses the parameters of a hypothetical "typical" com-
mercial-sized in situ solution mine. Unlike surface or underground mines,
relatively few in situ facilities exist, and they are all somewhat different
because of site specificity and the rapid development of new or modified
techniques. The following parameters for the hypothetical mine were based
upon those of the Highland, Crownpoint, and Irigaray uranium projects and
those reported by Kasper et al. (1978) (Wy77, NRC78b, TVA78b).
The Hypothetical In^ Situ Solution Mine
(1) Size of deposit = 52.6 hectares
(2) Average thickness of ore body -8m (Ka78b, NRC78b)
(3) Average ore grade = 0.06 percent UgQg (Ka78fa, Tw79)
(4) Mineralogy - Sandstone
-------
3-169
(5) Ore density * 2 MT/m3
(6) Ore body depth * 153 m
(7) Mine life = 10 years (2-yr leach period in each of
5 sectors)
(8) Well pattern = 5 spot (NRC78b, TVA78b» Ka78b)
Injection wells = 260
Production wells = 200
Monitoring wells - 80
(9) Annual UgOg production * 227 MT (Wy77, NRC78b, Ka78b)
(10) Uranium leaching efficiency = 80 percent (Ka78b)
(11) Lixlviant * Alkaline
(12) Lixiviant flow capacity » 2,0002./min (Ka78b, Wy77» NRC78b)
(13) Lixiviant bleed = 50*/fnin (2.5 percent) (Wy77, NRC78b, TVA78b)
(14) Uranium In Lixiviant = 183 mg/i (TVA78b, Ka78b, NRC78b)
(15) Calcite (CaC03) removal required = 2 kg calcite per kg ILQg
(Wy77)
The solid, liquid, and airborne wastes generated by this facility are
described below. Wastes and quantities generated, as well as operations and
procedures selected, will naturally differ to varying degrees from those at
some operating sites.
3.5,1 . Sol id Hastes
The quantity of solid wastes generated depends upon the leachate, the
ore body, and operational procedures that effect the mobilization of ore
constituents. Little information is available on the quantities of solids
generated because of this site dependence, the newness of the process, and
the apparent relatively small quantities that are produced. Examples of
solid wastes that might be expected to be generated by the alkaline leach
process are listed below:
(1) Materials filtered from the lixiviant line
(2) Sediments from the surge tanks
(3) Calcium carbonate from the calcium control unit
-------
3-170
(4) Barium sulfate from the contaminant control in the
elution/precipitation circuit of the recovery process
(5) Materials deposited in the evaporation ponds
(6) Drill hole residues
(7) Solids from aquifer restoration
Sources1 and 2
No information concerning quantities of solids from these two sources
could be found, in the literature, but they are described as being relatively
small compared to other sources (NRC78b). These wastes are transferred to
evaporation ponds and retained beneath a liquid seal,
Source 3
One of the larger sources of solids is the calcium control unit (Wy77).
Calcite, CaCOg, which is removed prior to injection of the refortifled lixi-
viant, coprecipitates radium and any residual uranium. It has been reported
that the amount of calcite produced is less than 2.8 kg per 1 kg of UoOg
recovered (Wy77). Assuming this ratio to be 2.0, and if Ra-226 is in secular
equilibrium with U-238 in the ore, and 2,5 percent is solubilized by the
lixiviant (Wy77, NRC78b), 454 MT of calcite will be produced annually and
contain a total of 1.6 Ci of Ra-226. Also, calcite has been observed to
contain between 1 to 2 percent U,,00 by weight (Wy77). Assuming an average of
a a
1,5 percent lUQg, about 1.9 Ci (6.8 MT U,Qg) of U-238 may also be present in
the calcite waste.
Radium-226 and its daughter, Rn-222, are probably the most radiologically
significant radionuclides associated with uranium mine wastes, and the small
amount of Ra-226 retrieved by in situ leaching is a distinct advantage.
Conventionally mining the quantity of ore assumed for the hypothetical in
situ mine would contribute 64 Ci of Ra-226 per year to the surface. Because
of the insolubility of RaSQ.» acid lixiviants containing HgSCL mobilize even
less radium than alkaline lixiviants. It is reported that the latter mobi-
lizes up .to 4,5 times the radium as acid leach solutions (Wy77).
If practical, the calcite waste is transferred to the mill to recover
the coprecipitated uranium. Otherwise, the waste is transferred to an evap-
oration pond and retained beneath a liquid seal to minimize atmospheric dis-
persion and radon emanation.
-------
3-171
Source 4
If necessary, the sulfate concentration in the eluant circuit of the
uranium recovery unit may be controlled by the precipitation of BaSO,. There
are no data on the contaminant levels expected in the BaSO, waste, although
less than 730 MT per year are anticipated (Wy77). These wastes are impounded
beneath a liquid seal of an evaporation pond,
Source 5
An assortment of precipitation compounds will be produced by evaporative
concentration of impounded waste solutions. The principal products expected
are alkali chlorides, carbonates, and sulfates. The quantity of solids pro-
duced by this mechanism and their rate of accumulation on the pond bottom has
not been reported.
Source6
Residues produced from drilling the numerous wells required for in situ
leaching constitute another solid waste. The hypothetical 1n situ leaching
facility defined above requires a total of 540 wells drilled to a depth of
153 m: 200 production, 260 injection, and 80 monitoring wells. A diameter of
10.2 cm will be assumed for all wells, although 5.1 cm, 12.7 cm, and 15.2 cm
diameter wells have been used (Wy77). To accommodate a concrete and steel
casing, a drill hole of approximately 20 cm will be required. The residue
from drilling the monitoring wells will consist mostly of barren rock; how-
ever, an equivalent of an 8-m section of each injection and recovery well
will contain 0.06 percent grade ore. Hence, drill hole residues will consist
of 4,960 MT of barren waste rock and 230 MT of ore containing 138 kg of UgOg.
These wastes are in relatively small quantities and should be-manageable. The
waste rock and ore, if mixed and stored in a 2-m-high rectangular pile, would
only cover an area of about 0.15 hectares and average 0.0027 percent U,,00,
o o
Source 7
During the active mining period, all solid wastes are generally
retained beneath a liquid seal in lined evaporation ponds to minimize atmo-
spheric dispersion and radon emanation. A plan for the final disposal of
solid wastes has-not been determined. Suggested procedures are to transport
the wastes to a conventional uranium mill for further treatment to recover
any UjOg present, treat the effluent as mill wastes, construct long-term
tailings ponds on the site, or ship the wastes to a licensed off-site burial
ground. Solid wastes probably comprise the least significant type waste
relative to health and the environment. Solid wastes generated from recla-
mation procedures will be discussed in Section 3.5.5,
-------
3-172
3.5.2 Associated Wastewater
Water flushed through the leached area when restoring the well field is
the largest source of wastewater (see Section 3.5,5), The principal sources
of wastewater generated by the hypothetical facility during the leaching and
recovery operations are as follows:
(1) Lixiviant bleed — barren lixiviant removed from the
leach circuit to produce a net inflow into the well-field
area and to control contaminant concentrations
(2) Resin wash -- water to wash resin of excess NH.C1 used to
regenerate the resin. Lixiviant bleed is sometimes used for
this operation, and it reduces the total quantity of waste-
water produced (Ka78b)
(3) Eluant bleed -- barren eluant removed to control salt accum-
ulation, principally NaCl and NagCOg, and maintain proper
volume
(4) Well cleaning — water used to flush injection wells to pre-
vent clogging
The sources of wastewater and the quantities produced vary at different
sites, depending upon the lixiviant and recovery circuit chemistry as well as
the production rates. However, estimates were made of the quantities of
was'tewater generated by the four principal sources for the hypothetical in
situ facility, and they are listed in Table 3.57, It is assumed that waste
from backwashing the sand filters is lixiviant bleed waste water and does not
contribute to the total wastewater generated. The total volume of wastewater
4 3
estimated to be generated is 8.43 x 10 m /yr. Assuming the evaporation
ponds are 3,05 m deep with a 0.604 m freeboard (Wy77) and a natural evap-
oration rate of 142 cm/yr (TVA78b), a pond capacity of 34,770 m /yr which
would encompass a surface area of about 1.4 hectares/yr would be required.
Using evaporation data assumed for the Irigaray Uranium Project, about 75
percent of the annual wastewater inventory would evaporate, which would leave
4 3
2.11 x 10 m /yr and require a surface area of 0.85 hectares/yr. If
necessary, the pond size can be reduced by using mechanical evaporators.
-------
3-173
Table 3.57 Estimated quantities of wastewater produced by an
in situ leaching operation
Source
Lixiviant bleed (2.5%)
Resin wasfr3^
Eluant bleed
Well cleaning^
Total
Flow Rate,
( j!/min)
50
26
17
__
Annual Accumulation,
(m3/yr)
2.63 x 104
1.37 x 104
8.9 x 103
3.54 x 104
8.43 x 104
may be included in the lixiviant bleed.
^Assumes 260 injection wells flushed twice each month with 5680 liters
of water.
Source: Data from Wy77 and Ka78b proportioned to an annual ILOn production
of 227 MT and a lixiviant flow of 2000x/min; aquifer restoration is excluded
(Section 3.5.5).
-------
3-174
The liquid wastes are generally brines. They, contain large amounts of
sodium chloride consisting of 1,500 to 5,000 mg/s, total dissolved solids
(TDS), trace metals ranging from 0 to 10 mg/fc, and small quantities of radio-
activity. The quantities of contaminants generated each year were estimated
for the hypothetical solution mine by using the annual mass emissions esti-
mated for the Highland Uranium Project and adjusting the flow rates to pre-
dict the concentrations (NRC78b). Table 3.58 lists these estimated concen-
trations and annual emissions. Because the contaminants from the lixiviant
bleed were not included in the source document, the trace metals that are
mobilized by the leachate do not appear in the tabulation, and Ra-226
presence is grossly underestimated (Table 1.7, Section 1.3.4). Considering
possible trace metal concentrations and their toxicities, their presence in
the lixiviant bleed wastewater may be significant. Assuming that 2.5 percent
of the Ra-226 in the ore is extracted, the pregnant leachate will contain
about 1,520 pCi/fc , yielding 1.6 Ci/yr. However, it is assumed that most of
this radium will be removed by the calcium control unit.
There are no planned releases of liquid wastes to the environment at in
situ solution mines. The contaminants dissolved in ,the liquid wastes will
accumulate on the pond bottoms as the liquid evaporates. Barring dike fail-
ure and seepage through the lined pond bottoms, no impact should be imposed
upon the environment by this source during operation.
Another method, other than evaporation, to remove wastewater from an in
situ -site is deep well injection. This is the dominant method of wastewater
removal at operations in South Texas (Durler, D.L., U.S. Steel Corporation,
Texas Uranium Operations, Corpus Cristi, TX, 9/79, written communication).
3.5.3 Airborn e Emissions
Airborne emissions from an in situ solution mining operation will origi-
nate from three principal sources: the uranium recovery and processing unit,
the waste storage evaporation ponds, and the radon released from the pregnant
leach surge tanks. The primary radioactive species emitted is Rn-222. The
nonradioactive^ species emitted are a function of the lixiviant and the
uranium recovery process.es employed. Fugitive dust emissions, primarily from
vehicular traffic, will also occur on the site. However, because very little
heavy equipment is used, the potential for adverse environmental impact from
this source will not be significant and is not considered in this assessment.
-------
3-175
Table 3.58 Estimated average concentrations and annual
accumulation of some contaminants in wastewater
Contaminant
Calcium
Chlorine
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Magnesium
Sodium
Uranium- 238
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Concentration, tng/£
64
2,070
31
36
24
1,320
1
21(a)
6(a)
Annual Accumulation, kg
5,380
173,880
2,600
3,020
2,020
110,880
84
1.
0.
8(b)
5(b)
s are pC1/i
^ ^Units are mCi.
Note.—Mass emissions estimated for the Highland Uranium Project
(NRC78b), adjusted for flow rates and U.,0n production of the hypothetical
solution mine.
Estimated average annual airborne emissions were computed for the hypo-
thetical facility using data supplied by the Irigaray and Highland Uranium
Projects and from the report of Kasper, et al. (1978) (Wy77, NRC78b). Table
3.59 gives the results, proportioned to a production rate of 227 MT/ yr.
The major sources of emissions from the uranium recovery plant are
by-products of combustion from the dryers, volatilized solution residuals,
and U^Og fines generated during product drying. Carbon dioxide is the major
combustion product emitted, although sulfur dioxide may also be significant
if oil is usedj.o fuel the dryers. Ammonium salts, used in the precipitation
of uranium and resin regeneration, will volatilize as both ammonia and
ammonium chloride during yellow cake drying. Airborne particulates that
include uranium and some decay products are generated during the drying and
packaging processes. The emission rates of U_0a and daughter products were
computed on the basis of an average release rate of 363 kg of U,,0ft per year
-------
3-176
Table 3,59 Estimated average annual airborne emissions from the
hypothetical in situ leaching facility
Source
Annual Release Rate
Recovery PI ant^a
Uranium-238
Uranium-234
Uranium-235-
Thorium-230
Radium-226
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Ammonia
Ammonium chloride
Carbon dioxide
1.0 x 10"1 C1
1.0 x 10"1 C1
4.8 x 10"3 Ci
1.7 x 10~3 CI
1.0 x 10"4 Ci
1.0 x 1C"4 Ci
1.0 x 10"4 Ci
3.2 x 10° MT
1.2 x 101 MT
6.8 x 102 MT
Surge Tank
Radon-222^
Storage Ponds^c'
. Ammonia
, Ammonium chloride
Carbon dioxide
6.5 x ID2 Ci
i.o x io2 MF
3.0 x IO2 MT
7.5 x IO1 KT
^'Includes the calcium control unit.
^ 'Assumes all radon formed dissolves in the lixiviant and 100 percent
is released on contact with the atmosphere.
^Based on a release rate of 14.6 MT/yr of NH3» 10.6 MT/yr of C02 and
42.0 MT/yr of NH.C1 per hectare of pond surface (Wy77), and an average pond
surface area of 7.1 hectares (1.42 ha/yr x 5 yrs).
-------
3-177
from a 227 MT/yr facility (Wy77, Ka78b). High efficiency filters and scrub-
bers are used, which significantly reduce the releases from the uranium
recovery plant.
Emission rates from the wastewater storage ponds are determined by the
composition of the waste solutions, evaporation rate, feed rate to the ponds,
and the water temperature. The principal emissions from storage ponds ser-
vicing an alkaline leach process, as defined for the hypothetical facility,
are ammonia, ammonium chloride, and carbon dioxide. Different atmospheric
releases would result from waste ponds servicing an acid leach facility. The
release of Rn-222"from the pond surfaces has not been measured. The emission
rate of Rn-222 resulting from the decay of Ra-226 contained in the pond
sediments will be inhibited by the liquid seal maintained over the entire
surface area of the pond. Because of its low solubility in the unagitated
pond skater, it is reasonable to conclude that the rate of release for radon
from the water surface will be small compared to that from the pregnant leach
surge tanks. The liquid seal maintained over the pond area minimizes air-
borne particulate emissions from the storage ponds.
The principal source of airborne radioactive emissions is the release of
Rn-222 from the pregnant leach surge tanks. Rn-222 is mobilized from the ore
zone during solution mining and will be largely soluble in the lixiviant
under the very high pressure (-15 atm) that exists at the ore zone depth
(-500 ft). Upon reaching the atmosphere at the surge tank, nearly complete
release of the absorbed radon will take place. Since nearly all Ra-226
remains underground in the leach zone—only 2.5 percent is assumed to be
extracted—Rn-222 will continue to be generated in areas leached of uranium.
Consider a 2-year leach period in each of 5 sectors that is 80 percent
efficient and yields an average of 227 MT of UgOg per year. If U-238 and
Ra-226 are initially in secular equilibrium and 97.5 percent of the Ra-226
remains underground, 156 Ci of Ra-226 will be continually available for
Rn-222 production. This quantity of Ra-226 will yield a lixiviant concen-
tration in the 252,800 m3 aquifer (Section 3.5.5) of 6.18 x 105 pd*/£ ,
assuming a maximum emanating power of 100 percent. The latter assumption
will result in a maximum Rn-222 concentration in the Hxiviant. A high
emanating power is probable considering the conditions that exist in the
aquifer: high pressure, high permeability due to leaching, the presence of
water in the rock pores, radium present on grain surfaces, and the flow rate
of water through the ore zone (Ta78, Tanner, A.B., Department of Interior,
-------
3-178
Geological Survey, Reston, Va, 11/79, personal communication). Therefore,
applying these maximizing conditions with a pumping rate of 2,000 jt/min, 650
Ci/yr of Rn-222 will be released at the pregnant leachate surge tanks.
Apparently very few measurements of Rn-222 concentrations in pregnant
leachates have been made at operating facilities. One investigator reports
that measured concentrations range from 10,000 pCi/£ to over 500,000 pCi/jt
and may vary with time at the same well by factors greater than ten
(Waligora, S., Eberline Instrument Corp., Albuquerque, N.M., 1979, personal
communication). The concentration computed above for the model facility lies
above the observed range.
3.5.4 Excursion of lixiviant
A production zone excursion refers to the event when the leach solution
flows from the leach field contaminating the surrounding aquifer. Production
zone excursions are usually prevented by bleeding a small fraction (2 to 7
percent) of the lixiviant before reinjection. This imposes an imbalance in
the injection-recovery volumes and causes groundwater to flow into the leach
field from the surrounding stratum.
Production zone excursions are detected by wells placed 60 m to 300 m
from the well field. These wells are routinely monitored, generally bi-
weekly, to detect concentration increases of one or more constituents of the
lixiviant. Lixiviant constituents monitored may be chloride, ammonia, bi-
carbonate, sulfate, calcium, or uranium. In addition, conductivity and pH
measurements are usually included. When one or more of the indicators ex-
ceeds a maximum limit specified in the operator's pemn't, the observation is
verified by resampling. If positive, sampling frequency is increased, appro-
priate government agencies are notified and corrective actions are begun.
An excursion from the production zone may be terminated by one of the
following suggested methods (Wy77):
(1) Overpumping - increasing the flow rate of the recovery
wells to increase the inward flow of native groundwater
(2) Reordering - applying different pumping rates of the recovery
wells to different areas of the well field, providing a
greater inflow of native groundwater at specific points
-------
3-179
(a variation of overpumping)
(3) Reducing Injection - another method of increasing the ratio
of recovery flow to injection flow providing the same effect
as overpumping
(4) Ceasing to Pump - stopping both recovery and injection flows
(migration is then due entirely to natural groundwater flow,
which is many orders of magnitude less than with wells pumping)
(5) Begin Restoration - initiated when all other efforts have
failed to stop the migration of lixiviant from the leach
field (Section 3,5.5)
Excursions are likely to occur during the operation of an in situ leach
mine. Adverse consequences of an excursion will be determined by its extent,
the rate of outward flow, contamination levels, aquifer hydrology, and the
effectiveness of corrective measures applied.
3.5.5 Restoration and Reclamation
Restoration is the process by which the in situ leach site is returned
to an environmentally acceptable state after mining is complete. Surface
restoration consists of removing all structures, pipelines, and so on and
sealing the evaporation ponds. Subsurface restoration, the primary area of
concern, is done by discontinuing lixiviant injection and continuing pumping
to sweep fresh groundwater from the surrounding area through the leached ore
zone. , It is anticipated that this process will flush out the remaining lixi-
viant and chemical compounds or elements that have adsorbed or reacted with
the mineral content of the aquifer. The water recovered can be purified by
chemical precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, or other processes,
and then recycled. This reduces considerably the quantity of water that must
be managed. Between 75 and 80 percent of the water can be reinjected while
the remainder containing the contaminants is transferred to an evaporation
pond (Wy77, NRC78b). During the initial restoration process, it is generally
cost effective to recover the uranium from the process wastewater.
Aquifer restoration continues until the groundwater quality in the
mining zone meets a criterion established on a basis of the premining water
quality. In many cases, the premining groundwater quality criterion is diffi-
cult to establish because water quality can vary considerably over the ore
zone region and may contain high natural levels of contaminants. Samples of
water front wells monitored prior to mining in Texas contained concentrations
-------
3-180
of Rn-222 approaching 20,000 pCi/£ (Tanner, A.B., Department of Interior,
Geological Survey, Reston, Va, 11/79, personal communication), and it is
probably unrealistic to attempt to restore an aquifer to a better quality
than existed naturally before mining. Wells and flow rates used in this
process must be carefully selected and controlled to provide efficient
groundwater sweeps and to insure that all affected areas of the leach zone
are restored.
The affected aquifer volume that is to be restored may be estimated by
the following equation:
affected volume = area of well field x aquifer thickness (3.12}
x (porosity)
•
100 percent
Assuming a porosity for sandstone of 30 percent (NRC78b), the affected volume
of the hypothetical in situ solution mine defined in Section 3.5 would be:
affected volume = 52.6 hectares x 8 m x
30 percent/100 percent ~ 1.26 x 10 m .
Because of mixing leach solution with the incoming sweep water and the grad-
ual desorption of some contaminants from clays present in the ore body, more
water is required to adequately flush the contaminants than one pore volume.
It has been estimated that five to seven pore volumes of water would be
required for adequate restoration (Wy77, NRC78b). Using the seven pore
volume value and assuming that 80 percent of the sweep water is reinjected
after purification, a total of 1.76 x 10 m of wastewater having high IDS
would be transferred to the evaporation ponds during the restoration phase.
If the aquifer is swept at a flow rate of 2,000 £/min, restoration would take
8 years (1.6 yr per sector), and wastewater will accumulate at about 2.22 x
C O
10 m /yr during this period. With careful control, restoration can be con-
current with leaching in different areas of the well field.
Table 3.60 lists estimated average concentrations of contaminants in the
restoration wastewater (NRC78b) and annual accumulation rates of the con-
taminants based on a flow rate of 2,000 £/min. In the last column are esti-
mates of" the total mass of substances produced by restoration that would
become sediments in .the evaporation ponds. Data were not provided for cal-
cium, magnesium, chloride, and ammonium ions, even though the latter two are
major constituents expected from an alkaline leach process (Wy77). These
concentrations reflect average values, but concentrations in the wastewater
during the initial phase of the restoration process will be much higher. For
-------
3-181
Table 3.60 Estimated average concentrations and annual and total accumula-
tions of some contaminants in restoration wastewater
Contaminant
(a)
(b)
(c),
Concentration
mg/t
Annual
Total
Accumulation, Kg ' Accumulation, MT '
Arsenic
Calcium
Chloride
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Magnesium
Sodium
Ammonium
Selenium
Sulfate
Uranium-238
Thorium-230
Radium- 2 26
Radon-222
0.2
NA(c^
• NA
450
550
NA
550
NA
0.10
150
< 1^
100(e)
75(e>
618, 000^
210
NA
NA
473,000
578,000
NA
578,000
NA
100
157,000
<900
Q.10^
0.08^
650^
1.7
NA
NA
3,780
4,620
NA
4,620
NA
0.8
1,250
<7.2
0.8
0.6
5,200^
Produced only during the estimated 8-yr restoration period.
Total accumulation during the estimated 8-yr restoration period.
NA - Data not available.
^ ^Concentration after uranium extraction.
^ '
s are pCi/i-
'Units are Ci/yr or total curies.
Source: Concentrations based on those estimated for the Highland Urani-
um Project {NRC78b}, adjusted for a flow rate of 2,000 £/min.
-------
3-182
Table 3.61 A comparison of contaminant concentrations in pre-mining
groundwater and pre-restoration mine water (Wy77)
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Chloride
Ammonia
Bicarbonate
Uranium (U3Qg)
Radium-226
Total dissolved solids
Pre-mining
Water, mg/j,
<0.0025
0.12
0.16
< 0.005
0.0135
0.019
0.12
0.0028
0.018
0.013
<0.005
0.003
0.0035
10.75
<1.0
139
0.098
27(a)
793
Pre-restoration
Water, mgA
0.021
0.069
0.283
0.014
0.002
0.220
0.97
<0.0002
0.218
1.75
0.015
0.22
0.110
524
235
805
24.4
371U)
1324
are pC1/£.
-------
3-183
example, Table 3.61 compares concentrations of substances in the groundwater
before mining with those after mining but before restoration. These data are
from tests conducted for the Irigaray Project (Wy77) and indicate those sub-
stances whose groundwater concentrations may be elevated by in situ leaching.
Radon emission during the restoration process has not been considered
(Wy77, NRC78b, Ka78b). Because essentially all Ra-226 remains in the ore
zone (about 97.5 percent), it appears reasonable to expect Rn-222 emissions
to continue during restoration. A leached-out sector of the model mine will
contain 156 Ci of Ra-226 in an aquifer volume of 2.53 x 10 m (1.26 x 106
m * 5). Although no measurements have been made, it would appear that the
restoration wastewater will contain about the same Rn-222 concentration as
the pregnant leachate during leaching, 6.18 x 10 pCi/fc (Section 3.5.3).
Assuming a pumping rate of 2,000 £/min, a maximum of 650 Ci of Rn-222 will be
released during each year of restoration, resulting in a maximum tot-il re-
lease of 5,200 Ci during the estimated 8-yr restoration.
Restoration Is presently in the experimental stages. No com-
mercial-sized facility has reached that phase of operation. Although restor-
ation by flushing appears feasible, there have been problems when alkaline
Hxiviants were used, particularly those containing ammonium ions. Ammonium
is the preferred cation because sodium causes the clays to swell and plug the
formation, and calcium forms an insoluble sulfate that also decreases the
permeability of the formation. However, ammonium ions adsorb tightly on to
clays by replacing the calcium and magnesium atoms in the clays. Mont-
morillonite, prevalent in the Texas mining areas, has extensive surface areas
that result in very large ion-exchange capacities. Once adsorbed, the
ammonium ions desorb at a very slow rate and prolong the restoration. It has
been reported that after sweeping a leached ore zone with 10 ore zone volumes
of water, the ammonium concentration of the water was reduced to 15 to 25 mg4
(Ka78b). This concentration of ammonium may not be significant, although,
under aerobic conditions, ammonium ions can be oxidized to the more toxic
nitrate. In a deep aquifer, this oxidation process is not likely to occur,
and, because of the very low Teachability of ammonium ions from clays, any
ammonium retained after restoration will move to surrounding aquifers at a
very slow rate.
Several ongoing research studies are trying to solve the ammonium prob-
lem (Ka78b). Potassium is being tested as a cation replacement for ammonium
-------
3-184
in hopes that its adsorption and swelling characteristics will be favorable.
Sweep solutions enriched in calcium and magnesium are being tested to deter-
mine if they will facilitate the flushing of the ammonium ion by replacing it
on the clays by ion-exchange.
Restoration of the aquifer after mining stops is in the research stage.
The adequacy of the restoration process and the procedures required will
depend on a number of factors: the lixiviant used, concentration of specific
ions in the lixiviant, the physical character of the stratigraphic unit, and
the geochemical nature of the ore deposit. Undoubtedly, research will im-
prove the process in the next few years. If the criteria of the restoration
process are met, it is unlikely that there will be any adverse environmental
impact from a properly restored aquifer.
Generally, the goal of reclaiming the site surface is to return the area
to a state similar to that which existed naturally before mining. This often
means one suitable for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. The following
site reclamation actions have been proposed (Wy77):
(1) Remove all structures and exposed pipes and plug all wells with
concrete.
(2) After all impounded liquids have completely evaporated, cover
the remains with overburden to a depth [2 m has been suggested at the
Irigaray site (Wy77)j that will support plant growth and suppress
Rn-222 emissions or transport and deposit the remains in a mill tailings
impoundment.
(3) Before backfilling, dispose of the solids containing sufficient
radioactivity to warrant removal by one of the methods suggested in
Section 3.5.1.
(4) Grade surfaces of the backfilled ponds and all other barren areas
to create a suitable topography and then revegetate them.
(5) Irrigate and fertilize sites to develop adequate plant cover.
(6) Maintain fences to prevent grazing by livestock until stable vege-
tative cover becomes established.
(7) Monitor reclaimed sites for radiation, verification of vegetative
cover, and the absence of adverse erosion.
(8) Sample monitoring wells one year after restoration to verify aquifer
restoration.
-------
3-185
3.6 OtherSources
3.6.1 Minera1 Exploration
During early exploration, uranium was identified by its mineral color,
i.e., pitchblende from the Central City District in Colorado and carnotite in
the Uravan Mineral Belt in Utah and Colorado. It was usually mined in con-
junction with other metals and minerals. Later, when portable radiation
survey meters became available, a substantial portion of the uranium findings
(generally outcrops) were made by non-geologic prospectors (UGS54). Current
uranium exploration "uses extensive geological studies to locate formations
with a strong potential for uranium ore content. These formations are then
explored and field surveyed to verify the presence of ore. Much of the
current exploratory activity is directed at expanding known deposits and
mining areas.
As the surface and near-surface uranium deposits are found, mined, arid
depleted, exploration for reserves must be conducted at greater depths. The
deeper uranium deposits, however, offer few radiometric clues on the surface
regarding their location. In these cases, geologic studies and field work
postulate the existence of promising geological formations. Actual explor-
ation must be done by drilling. Drilling is also used to extend and explore
known uranium producing areas.
There are two categories of drilling: exploratory and developmental.
Exploratory drilling is used to sample a promising formation to determine if
uranium ore is present. The drilling is generally done'on a grid with the
drill holes spaced 60 m to 1.6 km or more apart. Development drilling, to
define the size and uranium content of the ore body, occurs when ore is
struck in an exploratory hole. The development hole spacing ranges from 8 m
to 100 m, depending on the characteristics and depth of the ore body.
Usually, the same drilling equipment is used for both the exploratory and
development drilling.
Ordinarily, there are three vehicles in a drilling unit. One vehicle
carries and operates the drill rig, the second carries the drill rods, and
the third carries water. Although the drill rig is a well-engineered, com-
pact design, its physical size is increasing to meet the demands of deeper
drilling (Personal communication with G. C. Ritter, 1979, Bendix Field En-
gineering Corp., Grand Junction, CO).
-------
3-186
Early drilling (1948-1956) was predominantly done with percussion
drills. These drills could drill to depths of about 76 m using 2.8 cm dia-
meter drill steel. The drill bit was cooled and cuttings were removed from
the drill hole by forcing air down the center of the drill stem. The
cuttings (chips, sands, and dusts) were carried up and out of the drill hole
by the air stream with velocities of 914-1520 m per minute (Ni76). The chips
and coarse sands collected near the bore hole while the fine sands drifted
and deposited around the drill site. Dusts, however, were free to drift with
the winds.
Rotary drilling, used for boring deep holes, generally has replaced
percussion drilling. Drill stems of 7.3' cm diameter are used to bore holes
to depths of about 1300 m. Stems with diameters of 11.4 cm and larger are
used for drilling holes in excess of 1300 m. The rotary drill bits are
cooled generally in the same manner as percussion drills. When groundwater
is encountered, water is used as a drilling medium and for removing cuttings.
The cuttings are removed from the drill hole in the form of a slurry or
drilling mud. They are usually stored in basins, either fabricated or dug in
the ground. If unavailable, water is hauled to the drill site by truck. The
drilling muds and water are stored in portable tanks or an earth impoundment
for recirculation. After the drilling is completed, very often the cuttings
are scattered and the drilling mud left at the site. This practice has been
discouraged over the past 10 years in the Uravan area (Personal communication
with S.C. Ritter, 1979, Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Grand Junction, CO).
In some cases, the cuttings are disposed of in a trench and covered up with
earth. Drilling muds are also sometimes covered. In either case,
containment of the drilling wastes does not appear to be a prevalent
practice.
Development drilling is conducted if ore is struck in an exploratory
hole. The offset distance (i.e, the distance between development drill
holes) is dependent on the previous history of the ore body sizes in the
area. Offsetting may occur as soon as ore is struck, or it may be delayed
until the exploratory drilling is completed.
-------
3-187
The ore body may be evaluated by bore hole logging or by examining and
analyzing cores. Core drilling, if used, usually begins at the top of the
ore horizon. Ore {cores and cuttings) removed from the bore hole are some-
times removed from the drill site. In cases where the ore is not removed
from the drill site, it remains with the dry cuttings or in the drilling
muds. The drill hole collar is sometimes plugged with 0.9 - 1.5 m of concrete
after the bore hole has been evaluated. In some states, the drill hole must
be plugged to seal off aquifers in order to minimize groundwater
contamination.
3.6.1.1 Environmental Considerations
By 1977, the uranium industry had completed 101 x 10 meters of surface
drilling, with an all-time yearly high of 12 x 10 meters (DOE79). From
1958-1977, about 821,900 surface holes were drilled, resulting in 87,8 x 10
meters of bore holes. No statistics are available on the number of holes
drilled from 1948-1958, but the annual and cumulative meters drilled for that
period is known (DQE79). In order to estimate the number of drill rig place-
ments for that period, the total annual meters of drilling was divided by the
annual average bore hole depth. The average depth per bore hole was esti-
mated by plotting the average annual bore hole depths for 1958-1977 then
using that data to estimate the annual bore hole depths for 1948-1957 by
linear regression analysis {Fig. 3.22).
The data points in Fig. 3.22 appear to fall into two groups: 1958-1966
and 1966-1977. The average drilling depth of the 1956-1977 group of data
points probably reflects the deep drilling in the Srantst New Mexico area
that became significant in 1969. Using this information, the 1948-1958
average drilling depths were estimated from regression analysis using the
1958-1966 data points only. Table 3,62 is a summary of the DOE drilling data
and the number of estimated bore holes by type and year.
-------
175 f
150
125 -
E-i
CM
pa
p
a
3
M
a
w
I
100
25
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964 1968
YEAR
1972
1976 '
1980
1
M
00
Figure 3,22 Average depth of exploratory drilling in the U.S uranium industry from 1948 to present.
-------
3-189
Table 3.62 Estimates of exploratory and development drill holes (1948-1979)
Surface Drilling (10 Meters)
Year
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
1977
1978
1979
TOTAL
Exploration
0.052
0.110
0.174
0.329
0.415
1.11
1.24
1.61
2.22
2.24
1.15
0.722
0.427
0.402
0.451
0.268
0.294
0.354
0.549
1.67
4.97
6.25
5.49
3.47
. 3.60
3.29
4.88
5.03
5.94
7.89
10.8
9.94
286
Development
0.012
0.016
0.063
0.106
0.091
0.112
0.169
0.232
0.457
0.564
1.06
1.00
1.28
0.972
0.741
0.604
0.381
0.289
0.731
1.62
2.30
2.86
1.69
1.23
1.10
1.70
1.83
2.74
4.48
4.45
5.24
5.18
149
Average Hole
Depth(Meters)
3J.1&
39.6^
4l!l£a?
4l.i;a<
42.?Sa<
42.7U;
44.2^1
45.7iaJ
45.7
45.7
48.2
53.9
50.0
61.9
39.6
42.4
47.5
67.7
110
125
120
122
121
128
146
168
139
154
155(a)
158(a)
Number of Holes
Exploration
2',88o£?J
4»380h
8,OOOi°C
1Q,100JP(
26,100,Px
29,000
36,300^
48,600)^
49,000
25,300
16,300
7,340
8,260
6,440
8,470
5,970
6,230
5,750
12,800
38,500
47,900
44,000
28,400
26,900
22,600
27,400
34,300
40,400
6Z,600(b)
69,200;°<
62,700*- ;
823,000
Development
320^)
424^
1'600(b)
2'220ffi
2,620
(b)
5'260(b)
12,300
22,900
19,600
24,400
19,300
12,900
13,500
9,910
7,330
13,200
16,900
19,500
28,000
14,900
10,400
9,710
11,700
12,300
21,600
27,200
30,90Q,bv
32]700(b)
454,000
Indicates estimated average depth from Fig. 3.22.
Indicates number of drill holes estimated by dividing the annual
exploration and surface drijling depths by the average hole depth.
-------
3-190
Cuttings produced by drilling can degrade the drill site area and the
local air quality. For convenience of evaluation, the cuttings are divided
into two general categories—dusts and wastes. The dusts are drilling fines
that become airborne, and wastes are drilling chips and sands deposited
around the borehole. The maximum dust production occurs when compressed air
is used solely for cleaning the boreholes. Generally the drilling industry
uses foaming agents injected into the compressed air stream to help remove
drill cuttings. The foam traps and contains the fine partieulates and sub-
stantially reduces the airborne dust. In practice, the drillers minimize
airborne dust,'because it causes excessive wear on engines and compressors.
Dust production also indicates improper drilling energy being used to grind
up cuttings in the borehole rather than bore. Occasionally some water may
also be injected into the air stream to remove cuttings and to keep the drill
H)le from collapsing when loose materials are encountered.
There are some estimates of airborne dust production and general assump-
tions concerning drilling practices (Private communication with Mr. T. Price,
Bendix Corp., Grand Junction, CO and E, Borgerding, Borgerding Drilling Co,
Inc., Montrose, CO), They are as follows:
(1) The ratio by weight of the chips, sands, and dusts produced by
drilling is approximately 60:37:3, respectively (i.e., 3 Kg of every 100 Kg
of cuttings removed from a borehole is available as airborne dust).
(2) Fifty percent of all drill holes are wet (mud) drilled and 50 per-
cent are air drilled; ninety-five percent of the latter are drilled using
mist or foara (i.e., 2.5 percent are dry-drilled).
(3) The first 6,6 m of all drill holes are drilled dry (i.e., no mist
or foam is used).
We estimated dust production from contemporary drilling by averaging
drilling data from Table 3.62 for the years 1975 through 1979, The average
depth of the holes for this period is 148 m. The annual average numbers of
exploration and development holes are 53,800 and 29,200, respectively. Air-
borne dust production from those holes that are drilled with mud (wet), foam,
or mists (97,5 percent of both the exploratory and development holes) will
originate only from the first 6.6 m depth. The weight of dust generated per
hole will be as follows:
3 3
Airborne dust (kg) = Volume of borehole (m ) x density (kg/m ) x air-
borne dust fraction (.03) per drill tiole
-------
3-191
= ( 7tr2h) (2000kg)(0.03) where h - 6.6 m
m r - 0.0865 rn (assumed average rad-
ius of 2 bit sizes r = 7.3 cm
and 10 era) (Pe79)
= <3.14)(7.48 x 10*3) m2 x 6.6 m x 2000 kg x 0.03
3
m
= 9.3 kg
The average weight of airborne dust (kg) produced from all contemporary
annual drilling (first 6.6 m) is
83,000 drill holes x 9.3 kg = 7.7 x 105 kg.
drill hole
The annual total weight (kg) of airborne dust produced from 2.5 percent
of the annual number of drill holes bored (dry) where no mud, mists, or foams
are used
= 83,000 drill holes x 148 m x 0.025 x 47 kg cuttings x
drill hole m
0,03 kg dust/kg cuttings = 4.3 x 10 kg/yr. (3.13)
The total weight of airborne dust produced annually from each dry-drilled
borehole is 209 kg.
Assuming that each development hole penetrates the 3.6 m ore body, the
total amount of airborne ore and sub-ore dust produced from development
drilling annually is
'29,200 dril1 holes x 3.6 m (ore ajid sub-ore) x m47kg^ cuttings x
yr drill hole m
0.03 kg dust/kg cutting x 0.025 = 3.7 x 103 kg, (3.14)
The total weight of airborne ore and sub-ore dust produced from each develop-
ment drill hole (no mudj mists, or foams used) is 5,1 kg.
The estimated annual quantity of ore and sub-ore brought to the surface
by contemporary drilling equals:
29.200 drill holes x 3.6 m x 47 kg cuttings (3.15)
yr drill hole m
= 4.9 x 106 kg or 4.9 x 103 MT
Most of the ore will remain at the drill site with drilling muds or with
the drilling wastes around the drill holes. Since the ore most usually will
be the last material removed from the boreholes, it will be deposited on the
-------
3-192
surface of the cuttings and drilling muds. This will expose the ore to the
elements and subject it to erosion.
3.6.1.2 Radon ...Lossesjrom Or i 11HoiQS
When the development drill penetrates an ore body, some of the ore and
sub-ore bearing formations will be exposed to air in the drill hole. Some of
the radon gas produced in the ore can enter into the air in the drill hole
and escape to the atmosphere. The mechanisms affecting the release rate of
radon from boreholes are poorly understood. Tanner observed a wide variation
in radon concentrations as a function of depth in an open borehole as com-
pared to a closed borehole (Ta58). Tanner also noted that strong winds could
significantly reduce the total radon content of an uncovered borehole. Since
so little is known about radon discharges from development boreholes, radon
losses; in this report are assessed on a "worst case" bisis using the fol-
lowing assumptions:
1. The drill hole is not plugged.
2. About 3.6 m of ore and sub-ore were drilled.
3. All radon released into the borehole escapes to the
atmosphere.
4. The average grade of the ore and sub-ore is 0,17 percent.
5. No water accumulates 1n the borehole.
The surface area of the borehole passing through the ore and sub-ore body
is •
2 wh = 2 x 3.14 x 0.0865 ra x 3.6 m = 2.0 m2. (3.16)
The radon release rate is estimated for ore and sub-ore in the borehole using
?
an exhalation rate of 0,092 Ci/m per year per percent of ILQg (N179). The
quantity of radon (Q) per development hole escaping per unit time is
0.092 Ci x 0.171 x 2.0 ra2 x x 1012 B& = 990 pCi/sec (3,17)
m2 yr * 3.15 xlO7 sec/yr Cl
The total quantity of radon per annum escaping from all development holes
drilled through 1979
11 holes x
sec-drill hole
• 4.5 x 105 drill holes x 990 pCi x 3.15 x 107 sec/yr
1
10l2pC1
Ci
- 14,000 Ci/yr (3.18)
-------
3-193
The "worst case" estimate can be modified by assuming 50 percent of the
holes are wet and 30 percent of the remaining holes are plugged or have
collapsed. In this case, the total source term would be about 4,900 Ci/yr.
Since about 31 percent of the development drill holes are at surface mines
and are consumed by the pits, the annual Rn-222 release from the remaining
holes will be 3,400 Ci/yr.
3.6,1.3 Ground waiter
Progressively deeper holes are being drilled as the ore bodies near the
surface become depleted. As the drilling depths increase, one or more
aquifers may be intercepted by a drill hole, and an aquifer with poor water
quality may be connected with an aquifer with good water quality. Depending
on the direction of flow, the quality of water may be downgraded in a good
aquifer. Most states require some plugging of the drill holes to seal the
aquifer in order to maintain water quality. Adequate plugging of the drill
holes requires a conscientious effort on the part of the driller and the
regulatory agency. Since the movement of groundwater is relatively slow, the
change in the quality of water -in an aquifer will not be apparent for some
time. Thus, it may take a long time to correct the quality of water in a
downgraded aquifer.
3.6.1.4 Fumes
It is estimated (Pe79) that 11,2 liters of diesel fuel are needed to
drill 1.0 m. In 1979, the average borehole depth was estimated to be 158 m
and would require about 1770 liters of diesel fuel. This fuel would be
burned at a rate of approximately 173 liters per hour. Some individual
holes, however, are drilled in excess of 914 m and require 10,200 liters of
diesel fuel. It is estimated that about 170 million liters of diesel fuel
were consumed for all 1979 drilling.
The principal emissions from the drilling power sources are partic-
ulates: sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons.
Because of the transient nature of the drilling, these releases are not ex-
pected to substantially lower air quality over time.
-------
3-194
3.6,1.5 Model Drilling
About 1,3 x 10 holes have been drilled and bored for all uranium mining
from 1948 through 1979 for approximately 3000 mines. This would amount to
about 430 holes per mine. Thirty-six percent of the holes were for develop-
ment drilling, and 64 percent were for exploratory drilling. Assuming that
50 percent of the exploratory and development holes are air drilled (see
Section 3.S.I.I), the airborne dust production for an average mine may be
estimated as follows;
Airborne otust from all drill holes (first 6.6 m of depth air drilled dry)
= 430 drill holes x 9.3 kg * 4000 kg. (3.19)
drill hole
Airborne dust from all dry air drilling, less the first 6.6 m» (3.20)
= (430 drill holes x 209 kg dust x 0.5 x 0.05) - 100 kg = 2100 kg.
drill hole
Airborne ore and sub-ore dust produced by dry air drilling
« 430 drill holes x 0.36 x 0.5 x 0.05 x 5.1 kg dust = 20 kg. (3.21)
drill hole
Total airborne dust produced from all drilling at an average mine site
- 4000 kg -i- 2100 kg = 6100 Kg - 6.1 MT. (3.22)
Twenty kilograms of the total dust produced will be ore and sub-ore
dusts. The Rn-222 emissions from the bore holes at an average mine site would
be
4'30 drill holes (0.5)(0.36) (990 pCi ) = 7.7 x ID4 pCi. (3.23)
sec-drill hole sec
or 2.4 Cl/yr.
Development drill holes at a surface mine would be consumed by the pit.
Tables 3.63--3.6B show airborne particulate source terms for uranium
drilling for Individual drill holes and for an average uranium mine. Table
3.63 lists the airborne dust produced for each type exploratory and develop-
ment borehole; Table 3.64 summarizes the quantity of airborne dust produced
by all types of drilling at an average mine sitej and Table 3.65 lists the
pollutants emitted from a drill rig power source,
3.6.2 PrgcfpJtation Runoff from Uranium Mine's
Unquestionably, overland flow or surface runoff from precipitation
transports dissolved and suspended contaminants from mining areas to the
offsite environment. Unfortunately, the significance of this pathway re!a-
-------
Table 3.63 Estimated source terms per borehole for contemporary surface drilling for uranium
,
'
Type of Drilling
i
Exploratory
Air (dry)
Air (mist or foam)
Wet (mud)
Development
Air (dry)
Air (mist or foam)
Wet (mud)
Thickness of Ore
and Sub-ore Bodies
(•)
NA(b)
NA
NA
3.6
3.6
3.6
Ai rborne
Total (kg)
209
9.3
9.3
209
9.3
9.3
Dust Production
Rate(kg/min)^
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
Airborne
Dust
Total (kg)
NA
NA
NA
5.1
NA
NA
Ore and Sub-Ore
Production
Rate(kg/min)(a)
NA
NA
NA
0.27
NA
HA
(a)
(b)
Based on an air drilling rate of 11.5 m/nr.
NA - not applicable.
vo
en
-------
3-196
Table 3.64 Airborne dusts produced at an average mine site
from exploratory and development drilling
Type of Drilling quantity of Airborne Dust (kg)
All types (first 6.6 m depth) 4,000
Air drilling (dry) 2,100
Total 6,100 kg^
^'Twenty kg of the total will be ore and sub-ore dusts.
Table 3.65 Estimates of emissions from drill rig
diesel power source
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
Al dehydes
Sulfur oxides
Participates
Production Rate
(kg/103 liters fuel)
12.2
4.49
56.2
0.84
3.74
4.01
Quantity^3'
(kg/drill hole)
20.2
7.4
93
1.39
6.2
6.6
Rate(a)
(kg/hr)
1.5
0.55
6.9
0.10
0.46
0.49
on a drilling rate of llm/hr.
Source: EPA77b.
-------
3-197
tive to uranium mines is highly site specific and poorly understood. Very few
field studies of runoff from uranium mining areas have been conducted, and
what field data do exist frequently relate to the combined and probably
greater influences of mine water discharge and milling. Most of the NRC
regulations apply to mill operations, since mining is generally exempt from
the agency's charter. The EPA regulations (Environmental Radiation Pro-
tection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations; 40 CFR Part 190) applicable
to the uranium fuel cycle establish dose limits for individuals to provide
protection for populations living in the vicinity of uranium mills. Uranium
mines are excluded, and 30 are liquid effluent guidelines for ore mining and
dressing (40 CFR 440, Subpart E). Regulations being developed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 apply to radioactive
wastes not covered by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Solid and
liquid waste categories will be defined in forthcoming EPA regulations de-
veloped under RCRA, but it is not anticipated that runoff from mined lands
will meet the waste characteristics in the regulations. Similarly, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, the Clean Water Act of
1977, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and State regulations in general do not
address surface runoff effects of mining. Without the regulatory base,
studies and field data are, not surprisingly, rather scarce. In New Mexico,
the State's 208 Water quality Management Plan calls for, among other things,
improved data collection on runoff from active and inactive tailings piles
and from drilling, exploration, and development activities such as access
road and drill site construction (So79).
We have not estimated chemical transport by overland flow because of the
limited time for the study. But, it is reasonable to expect that such trans-
port may be quite significant in an arid and semiarid climate where much of
the precipitation that does infiltrate is discharged back into the atmosphere
as water vapor. This has been well demonstrated in the case of uranium mill
tailings (K178). Water moving back out of the soil transports dissolved
salts that are deposited on the soil surface when the carrier (water) evap-
orates. Subsequent precipitation further transports these salts downward
into the soil and laterally to offsite areas. So-called "blooms" of salt
crystals, composed mainly of sulfate and chloride compounds, characterize
uranium ore bodies, mill tailings piles, and mine wastes in a number of
Western States, and we must presume that such salts solubilize in runoff.
-------
3-198
This also indicates that there may be large concentrations of contaminants
available for plant uptake. Molybdenum, in particular, is one of the toxic
elements on such blooms, and uranium is also highly suspect. Selenium,
arsenic, and vanadium may also be present, since their anions are mobile
under oxidizing conditions characteristic of the near-surface, unsaturated
zone (Fu78).
Overburden has been used extensively to backfill surface mines operating
since the early to mid 1970ls» but this is not true at many if not most older
and now inactive mines. Erosion of these piles by water and wind may present
the greatest problem (Ka75). Using overburden to construct acc?:;s roads and
dikes distributes contaminants in the local environment and may ijgravate air
and water pollution., Considering that 75 percent of the overburden has a
grain size exceeding 2000 \im (see Table 3.12), it is unlikely tha': widespread
physical transport v/ill result from overburden piles. However, using over-
burden for roads decreases the grain size. The association of uranium and
progeny with the smaller sediment-size fractions, by a factor of 2.5, in-
creases the potential for transport by overland flow.
Tables 3.15, 3.16, and 3.19 show stable and radioactive trace elements
in ores, sub-ore, and overburden from uranium mines. Understandably, uran-
ium, thorium, and radium are high. Arsenic, selenium, vanadium, and moly-
bdenum are almost always closely associated with uranium. Barium, zinc,
manganese, copper, iron, and potassium may also be associated in certain
mineral provinces and districts. Mercury and cadmium are occasionally pre-
sent (Th78). There is no consistent relationship between ore grade and trace
metal content in selected New Mexico and Wyoming study areas (Wo79).
Particularly in the case of active or recently active mines, surface
runoff is collected with dikes and ditches that route water to settling
ponds. Water spray or chemical additives can control road dust. They are
commonly used in the active mining stage, but almost never used during ex-
ploratory drilling. Grading piles to a slope of 3:1 or less also helps to
reduce runoff (St78), and this practice is becoming common in Texas and
Wyoming. Proper planting techniques further reduce runoff by increasing
infiltration and decreasing sediment transport.
The significance of surface runoff from mining areas as a dispersal
mechanism was investigated as part of this study (Wo79) (see also Section
3.2.3.2). We examined stable and radioactive trace elements in soils
-------
3-199
affected by runoff from ore, sub-ore, and mine waste/overburden piles from
one active surface mining area in Wyoming and two inactive areas (surface and
underground mines) in New Mexico, Although there was evidence of offsite
movement of uranium and radium at all sites, transport is limited and de-
creases with distance from the site. In Wyoming, pollutant releases from the
mine studied do not reach nearby water courses although onsite transport of
stockpiled ore as a result of precipitation runoff does occur.
A U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM, no date) study of strip and surface mining
operations and their effects in the United States involved questionnaires,
literature survey, and onsite examinations of 693 selected sites, among which
were uranium mines in New Mexico and Wyoming. At 60 percent of the sites, on
a national basis, there were no serious problems because vegetation was
reestablished and the slope of the land was gentle both before and after
mining. Thirty percent of the sites had eroded to depths of 0.3 m or less,
and the remainder were gullied to greater depths. There were sediments from
mined lands in 56 percent of the ponds and 52 percent of the streams on or
adjacent to the sample sites. Spoil bank materials ranged in pH from 3 to 5
at 47 percent of the sites and are thus not amenable to plant growth. Field
observations substantiate that rained land areas, be they former forests or
grasslands, did not return to the pre-mining condition. Idle land increased
almost fourfold because of mining. The study concluded that natural pro-
cesses need to be strongly supplemented if mined sites are to revert to
former uses. Since only 6.3 percent of lands mined for uranium were re-
claimed from 1930 through 1971 (Pa74), it seems reasonable to conclude that
there are increased sediment loads, gullying, and poor revegetation at most
older inactive mines that were poorly stabilized, if at all.
The Bureau of Mines study concluded that peak sediment loads in runoff
are characteristic of areas with high intensity storms and steep slopes,
particularly during and shortly after mining. Such problems are less severe
in arid regions, but large quantities of sediment are discharged from mine
workings, spoil "heaps, and access roads. In some instances, effects of wind
and water erosion on steep spoil banks in arid lands are evident many years
after abandonment. In areas outside Appalachia, 86 percent of the areas
investigated had sufficient runoff control, and those areas where there was a
problem almost exclusively involved coal, phosphate, manganese, clay, and
gold.
-------
3-200
Incidences of radioactive contamination of local surface water have been
documented for the Shirley Basin uranium mine (Utah International, Inc.) in
Wyoming (Ha78). The most pronounced changes in water and stream sediment
quality coincided with initial strip mining and mill processing operations.
Early acid-leach solution mining also had a decided impact. Pollutant
loadings from overland flow, per se, were not determined but are presumed to
be minor compared to aqueous discharges from mines and mills. These findings
contradict those of an earlier study (WH76) of the same mine. Soil and
vegetation collected from 1971 through 1975 at 28 stations in the vicinity of
the mine were analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta (1971 to 1974) and
total uranium, Ra-226 and Pb-210 (1975). The study (Wh76) concluded that--
1. concentrations of the foregoing parameters were extremely variable
but reasonably consistent with previously reported information;
2. there is no evidence that radionuclide concentration in soil or
vegetation collected from routine monitoring stations are changing
with time;
3. concentrations of radioactivity in soil and vegetation correlate
with distance from the mill area to a distance of 1.2 miles; and
4. measurable ecological effects from radiation in the environs of
the Shirley Basin mine cannot be demonstrated.
The absence of statistically significant soil and vegetation contamination
from the mine versus the mill is noteworthy. Overall, vegetation tends
toward higher alpha and beta concentrations than soil, except at the
close-in, upwind sampling areas. This selective concentration in vegetation
suggests aerial deposition of contaminated dust particles on vegetation, with
some additional possibility for root uptake.
Estimates of surface drilling for uranium reveal that relatively large
land areas are involved. The volume of cuttings removed from borings in the
period 1948 through 1979 is calculated using 286 x 10 m of exploratory
drilling,_and 104 x 10 m of development drilling (from Table 3.62). We
assumed that 30 percent of the mines are surface mines, which eliminates the
borings and related debris. Thus the value of 149 x 10 (in Table 3.6H) is
reduced by 30 percent. Average diameter for 8.5 x 10 m of borings in the
period 1948 through 1956 is 2.8 cm versus 7.3 cm for the period 1957 through
1979 (see Section 306.1) when 426 x 10 m of drilling took place. A sample
calculation for the volume removed from borings made in the period 1975-1979
fn 11 nw; •
-------
3-201
V = Trr h / \ (3.24)
= (3.14)17.43 cm]2 (146m)
V 2 /
- 0.632 m3
Assuming a bulk density of 2000 Kg per m s each boring results in 1265 Kg of
cuttings at land surface. There were 415,300 borings, resulting in 263,000
m of cuttings- Assuming that the average thickness of cuttings is 0.5 m,
2 2
526,000 m or 0.53 Km is affected. The inclusive area affected by drilling
from 1948 through 1979 is 3.6 Km2.
Table 3.66 summarizes the surface areas affected by mine wastes, ore
piles, and exploration and development activities. Maximum use was made of
data developed elsewhere in this report on the number of mines, waste pile
dimensions and surface areas, *wd the summary of exploration and development.
The estimate is, at best, a first approximation and needs considerable re-
finement.
For example, grain size, degree of consolidation, slope, vegetative
cover, and other characteristics may vary considerably between ambient soil
and rock materials versus mine wastes. The latter very often occur in steep,
unvegetated piles and are composed of easily-eroded, friable sandstone,
boulders, and fines. It is likely, therefore, that the sediment yield on a
mass per time per area basis exceeds that of the surrounding areasj thus the
estimate developed below may well be on the low side.
Sediment yields from areas affected by various mining "operations are
roughly estimated from consideration of land areas affected and unit soil
loss values for the surrounding regions. Actual values for individual tail-
ings or waste piles may be considerably different, but refining the values
given will require additional analysis beyond the scope of the present study.
Potential coal mining lands in the Northeastern Wyoming range lose soil
3 2
at rates of 4.8 to 167 m /Km /yr (Ke76). Upland erosion and stream channel
erosion in the Gillette study area are not generally serious problems, since
land dissection Ms presently minimal and vegetative cover is well estab-
lished. The potential for. increased sediment yield Is large, if vegetative
cover were to be reduced or eliminated and slopes steepened because of
mining. Certainly, during active mining, these conditions will be at least
3 2
locally present. Erosion rates of 600 to 1,100 m /Km /yr from mined lands in
the South Powder River Basin are expected, and they are reasonably close to
-------
Table 3.66 Sediment yields in overland flow from uranium mining areas
Source Term
Active Mines
Underground
Ore piles
Sub-ore piles
Waste rock piles
Surface
Ore piles
Sub-ore piles
Overburden piles
Factor
603 m2/mint
26,700 m /mine
26,700 m2/mine
4.15 x 103 m2/mine
67 x 103 m2/tnine
380 x 103 m2/mine
No. Installations
251 mines
251 mines
251 mines
36 mines
36 mines
36 mines
Cumulative
2
Source, Km
0.15
6.7
6.7
0.15
2.4
13.7
Annual Sediment
Loading, m
143
6385
6385
143
2287
13056
Inactive Mines
Underground
Waste piles and
sub-ore
4.07 x 103 m2/raine
2108 mines
0.86
820
Surface
Overburden and
sub-ore
6.73 x 104 m2/mine
944 mines
64
61000
o
ro
-------
Table 3.66 (Continued)
Source Term
Factor
Cumulative
*
No. Installations Source, Km*
Annual Sediment
Loading, m 'a'
Exploration and Development
Drilling
1948-1979 435 x 106 m 1.28 x 106 borings 3.6
1975-1979 1265 kg/boring 415,300 0.53
3431
506
Access roads and
pads 1.25 acres or
0.5 ha/boring
1.28 x 10l
6500
6.2 x 10"
^'Assumes average sediment yield of 953 m /Km .
Note.—Data in this table are based on average mine vs. average large mine as defined in Section 3 of
report.
to
I
1X3
O
to
-------
3-204
natural, pre-mining conditions (R. Loeper, Soil Conservation Service, 1979,
personal communication). At the Bear Creek mine, the reclamation design
3 2
calls for maximum losses from overburden piles of 1,100 m /Km /yr initially
3 2
and 600 m /Km /yr after the first 3 years. In general, erosion and soil loss
from uranium mining in this part of Wyoming is not a significant problem,
mainly because of reclamation by industry. Sediment yields in the Grants
3 2
Mineral Belt range from 95 to 240 m /Km /yr in the area of the large Jack-
3 2
pile-Paguate surface mine to 500 to 1,400 m /Km /yr near the underground
mining centers 'around Smith Lake, Ambrosia Lake, and Churchrock (P. Boden,
Soil Conservation Service, 1979, personal communication). Considering both
the Wyoming and New Mexico model mine areas, this study used an overall
3 2
average annual soil loss rate of 953 m /Km. This average sediment yield
rate is based on studies by the Soil Conservation Service of large areas in
New Mexico, Wyoming, and other Western States.
In summary, the total land area directly affected by uranium mining is
2 1 ?
about 6600 Km . Assuming an overall average sediment yield of 953 m /Km,
ft "3
annual sediment transported by overland flow is approximately 6.3 x 10 m .
Obviously exploration and development activities affect the greatest area
2
(6500 Km ), but they do not necessarily have the greatest impact.
Exploration and development, for example, affect large areas, but most of the
area affected is a result of constructing access roads and drill pads.
Whereas sediment yields from ore, sub-ore, overburden, and waste rock is
3
estimated at 90,000 m per year. Surface mining, although it supplies only
about 30 percent of U.S. production, affects the second greatest area (80
2
Km ). We have not attempted to characterize the quality of sediment runoff.
The fate of these sediments is very poorly understood and has not been the
subject of intensive investigation. Further study in the area of intensive
surface mining such as in Texas and Wyoming is needed to determine changes in
erosion rates resulting from mining and to quantify the contaminant flux and
fate.
3.7 Inactive Mines
3.7.1 Inactive Surface Mines
For generic purposes, a model inactive open pit or surface uranium mine
must be defined in order to estimate the environmental impact from this type
-------
3-205
of mining. We have assumed that an inactive surface mine has a single hole
or pit in the ground, with all of the materials (wastes) stacked into piles
adjacent to the pit area. The size or volume of the pit would be approxi-
mately equal to the volume of the ore and wastes removed from it. Since only
6.3 percent of all of the land used for uranium mining has been reclaimed
from 1930 through 1971 (Pa74), no credit for reclamation is given to the
model mine.
Ideally, the model mine size could be established by averaging the ore
and waste production for each inactive surface mine. Unfortunately, these
statistics are either not thoroughly documented or they are retained as
company confidential information. In lieu of specific information, the model
surface mine size was established from annual ore and waste production sta-
tistics for all surface mines, divided by the number of inactive surface
mines.
Table 3.67 is a summary of inactive mines, obtained from the Department
of Energy mine listing. The mines are listed by type, surface and under-
ground. Most of the inactive surface mines are in Colorado, Utah, Arizona
and New Mexico. For model derivation purposes, we assumed that there are
presently 1250 inactive surface uranium mines.
Table 3.68 lists mine waste and ore production information from 1932 to
1977. Uranium mine waste and ore production statistics, on an annual basis,
were available from both surface and underground uranium producers from 1959
to 1976 (DOI59-76). Annual uranium ore production statistics for each
uranium mining type (surface and underground) are available for 1948 to 1959
(DOE79) and for combined uranium production from 1932 to 1942 (DOI32-42). In
order to estimate waste production for the years prior to 1956, the annual
mine type ore production records were multiplied by waste-to-ore ratios.
These ratios were estimated from published 1959 to 1976 ore and waste produc-
tion statistics (DOI59-76). Very little uranium ore was mined from 1942 to
1948, since most of the uranium was obtained by reprocessing vanadium and
radium tail ings, (personal communication with S. Ritter, Bendix Field Engi-
neering Corp., Grand Junction, CO, 1979). The annual waste production for
surface mining from 1948 to 1959 was estimated by extrapolating known
waste-to-ore ratios (1959 to 1976) through the 1948 to 1959 time period using
a "best fit" regression analysis (Fig. 3.23). This method cannot be used to
estimate waste-to-ore ratios because the waste production is finite and will
always occu'% and also surface mining for uranium essentially began in 1950.
-------
3-206
Table 3.67 Consolidated list of inactive uranium producers by
State and type of mining
State
AL
AZ
CA
CO
ID
MT
NV
NJ
NM
ND
OK
OR
SD
TX
UT
WA
WY
Surface
0
135
13
263
2
9
9
0
34
13
3
2
111
38
378
13
223
Underground
1
189
10
902
4
9
12
1
142
0
0
1
30
0
698
0
32
Percent of Total
Surface Mines
0.0
11
1.0
21
0.16
0.72
0.72
0.0
2.7
1.0
0.24
0.16
8.9
3.0
30
1.0
18
Percent of Total
Underground Mines
'0.1
9.3
0.49
44
0.20
0.44
0.59
<0.1
7.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
1.5
0.0
34
0.0
1.6
Total
1246
2031
-------
Table 3,68 Uranium mine waste and ore production (MT x 1000)
Surface ..Mini rig
UndergroundMlnlng Surface Mining
Underground
Mining
Total Ore
Produced By
Surface and/or
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
Crude Ore
5059
4238
3809
: 3510
3800
3447
2656
2490
1653
1989
1393
905
1630
2344
3578
2895
3051
2691
2494
2139
1462
1131
339
241
Waste
237800
190700
139700
129700
182300
155100
120200
76870
81000
31360
32510
24400
17710
26680
33120
44640
42500
73570
46790
19240
11700
9048
2650
1930
Crude Ore
4305
3569
2485
2222
1614
2439
2836
3304
3171
3382
2897
2777
3055
3227
3575
4892
5017
5104
3796
2558
1888
1595
1043
762
Wasti
3487
2605
2195
1424
934
593
858
962
1184
1163
10Z4
863
809
941
946
1087
1117
1868
941
690
510
414
271
198
Waste/Ore
47
45
37
37
48
45
45
31
49
16
23
27
11
11
9.0
15
14
27
19 ,.
9.0(a)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8,0
Waste/Ore Underground Mines
0.81 •
0.73
0.88
0.64
0.58
0.24
0.30
0.29
0.37
0.34
0.35
0.31
0.26
0.29
0.26
0.22
0.22
0.37
0.25,..
0.27(b)
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
9364
7807
6295
5732
5414
5886
5492
5794
4824
5371
4290
1768
4685
5571
7153
7787
8068
7795
6290
4697
3350
2726
1382
1003
i
r>o
O
-sa
-------
Table 3.68 (continued)
Total Ore
Produced By
Surface and/or
Surface Mining
Underground Mining Surface Mining
Underground
Mining
Year Crude Ore Waste
1953 162 1300
1952 59 472
1951 25 203
1950 21 167
1949
1948
1947
1946
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
1936
1935
1934
1933
1932
Crude Ore Waste Waste/Ore
503
341
289
207
156
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.824
0.7221
5.68
3.89
1.55
1.31
1.03
0.230
0.047
0.0553
126 8.0
85 8.0
73 8.0
50 8.0
37
8.3
0.181
0.151
1.19
0.817
0.310
0.261
0.207
0.0461
0.00896
0.0105
Waste/Ore
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
Underground Mines
665
400
314
228
156
34
0.824
0.722
5.68
3.89
1.55
1.31
1.03
0.230
0.047
0.0553
Ijjjwaste to ore ratios from 1950 - 1958 estimated from 1959 - 1972 ratios.
* 'Waste to ore ratios from 1932 - 1958 estimated from 1959 - 1972 ratios.
PO
o
-------
60
50
40
* *
20
• *
UJ
I
0
1948
1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972
YEAR
Figure 3.23 Annual waste to ore ratios for surface mining of uranium (1948 to 1979).
1976
1980
-------
3-210
Since early surface mines recovered ore bodies very close to the sur-
face, the ore-to-waste ratio would be expected to be relatively small. A
range of waste to ore ratios of 8:1 to 35:1 for surface mining has been
estimated (C174), The lower ratio was selected to be typical for surface
mining from 1948 to 1957 and was used to estimate the waste production for
that period. The increase *in waste-to-ore ratios from 1959 to 1976 was
probably due to several reasons. The gradual depletion of near surface ore
deposits required mining deposits at increasing depths, and the development
of surface mining equipment now permits economical recovery of ore at greater
depths below grade. The waste-to-ore ratios for 1976 to 1977 were projected
with the previous regression analysis line fit.
The estimated annyil cumulative waste production from uranium surface
9
mining for 1950 to 1978 (Table 3.69) is 1.73 x 10 MT. A crude estimate of
the waste production for the model inactive surface mine can be made by
dividing the total waste produced to 1978 by the number of inactive mines.
But, this overestimates waste production because some of the contemporary
wastes are being produced by active mines, and the waste production per mine
has increased with increasing contemporary waste-to-ore ratios. To adjust
the contemporary waste production for the active mines and the increasing
waste-to-ore ratios, we assumed a cutoff date of 1970, based on the descrip-
tion of a contemporary active surface mine (N179). The model mine age is
about 1 year as of June 1978, and has an expected life of approximately 17
years. Those mines that were active in 1970 are all assumed to have become
inactive between 1970 and 1978. Their percentage of the annual waste of
about 12,5 percent was assumed to decrease linearly with time from 1970-1978.
For example, all of the wastes produced by surface mines in 1970 (i.e., 7.69
x 10 MT) were produced by surface mines that would be inactive by 1978. The
8
waste production for the following years (1971-1977) was: 1.05 x 10 MT in
1971; 1.16 x 108 MT in 1972; 1.14 x 108 MT in 1973; 6.49 x 107 MT in 1974;
5.24 x 107 MT in 1975; 4.77 x 1C7 MT in 1976; 2.97 x 107 MT In 1977. The ore
production was calculated in the same manner as for the wastes and was 3,27 x
10 MT in 1970. The ore production for the following years was: 2.32 x 10
MT in 1971; 2.58 x 106 MT in 1972; 2.38 x 106 MT in 1973; 1.76 x 106 MT in
1974; 1.43 x 106 MT in 1975; 1,06 x 106 MT in 1976, and 6.32 x 105 MT in
1977. The adjusted cumulative wastes from surface mining from 1950-1978 was
9 7
1.11 x 10 MT, and the adjusted cumulative ore production was 4,49 x 10 MT.
-------
Table 3.69 Cumulative uranium mine waste and ore production
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
Surface
1733000
1496000
1305000
1165000
1036000
853200
698100
577800
501000
420000
388600
356200
331800
314000
287300
254200
209600
167100
93510
46720
27470
15770
6720
Waste (103MT)
Underground
29250
24950
21380
19180
17760
16820
16240
15370
14410
13220
12060
11040
10180
9369
8425
7479
6391
5273
3406
2466
1776
1266
852
Surface
59220
54160
49920
46110
42600
38800
35350
3E700
30200
28550
26560
25170
24260
22640
20290
16720
13810
10770
8075
5580
3442
1979
848
Ore (103MT)
Underground
73100
68840
65210
62760
60500
58960
56510
53600
50330
47160
43810
40910
38090
35000
31750
28210
23310
18320
13150
9433
6839
4943
3356
u>
1
PO
-------
, Table 3.69 (Continued)
Year
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
1949
1948
1947
1946
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
1936
1935
1934
1933
1932
Waste (lp3MT)
Surface Underground
r
4071 580
370 171
842 257
370 171
167 98.9
48.6
11.4
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.00
2.85
1.67
0.844
0.533
0.272
0.0656
0.0195
0,0105
Ore [103MTJ
Surface Underground
509 ' 2313
46.3 702
105 1043
46,3 702
20.9 413
206
49.8
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.3
14.5
13.8
8.12
4.24
2.68
1.37
0.333
0.102
0.0553
OJ
I
IV
-------
3-213
Using these adjusted waste and ore values, the model inactive uranium surface
mine produced 8.88 x 105 MT of waste and 3.59 x 104 MT of ore.
The volume of the remaining pit of the model surface mine would be equal
to the total of the volume of wastes and ore that were removed from the mine.
3
Assuming a density of 2,00 MT/m , the volume of wastes and qre removed from
c 43
the mine pit would be 4.44 x 10 and 1.80 x 10 m , respectively. The pit
was assumed to have the shape of an inverted truncated cone with a wall angle
of 45° (Fig. 3.24). The ore body was assumed to be a solid right cylinder
with a radius of 43.7 m and height of 3.0 m. The pit depth (ground surface
to bottom of ore bed) was 36.7 m, and the ground surface area of the pit
opening was calculated to be 2.03 x 10 m .
3.7.1.1 Waste Rock Piles
Overburden and sub-ore wastes from surface mines have been handled in
several ways in the past. In one case, the sub-ore (generally the last
material removed from the pit) was piled on top of the overburden. In an-
other case the sub-ore was piled separately and blended with higher grade ore
for shipment to the ore buying stations or mills. If the quantity of sub-ore
was in excess of that required for blending, it was also dumped on top of the
overburden (personal communication with G, Ritter, Bendix Field Engineering
Corp., Grand Junction, CO, 1979). The earlier surface mining practices,
therefore, generally produced waste piles with their cores containing over-
burden and their outer surface containing a mixture of overburden and
sub-ore.
The actual method of removing and stacking overburden and sub-ore varies
from mine to mine. In many cases the wastes were dumped in depressions or
washes or stacked in more than one pile. For calculation purposes, we assume
that wastes are stacked on a single pile in the shape of a solid truncated
cone 10 m high with a 45 degree slope. It is further assumed that the
sub-ore removed from the pit is placed evenly on top of the stacked over-
burden. The area and depth of the sub-ore placed on the waste pile is esti-
mated by determining the areas of the base and top of the pile by iteration,
computing the exposed surface area of the pile, computing the volume of the
sub-ore, and calculating the depth of the sub-ore.
The areas of the base and top of the waste pile (truncated cone) were
determined from the following equation:
-------
80.4
43.7
Figure 3,24 Cross section of rnodei inactive surface mine (meters).
i
KJ
-------
3-215
V = Jl (Ag + AT +X/lgM where V = volume of wastes (overburden (3.25)
3 and sub-ore) (m )
o
= area of the base (m )
2
= area of the top (m )
h = perpendicular distance between
the base and top (10 m)
Different values of AD were substituted Into the equation until the value of
D
V was equal to the combined volumes of the overburden and sub-ore (I.e; 5.55
x 10 m ) using a" bulking factor of 251. The area of the cone top was com-
puted (assuming a 45 degree slope) from the diameter of the top (0^), which
is equal to the diameter of the base (DD)» minus 20 meters or D, * Dn - 20-.
D I D
The calculated diameters, DT and DB» are 256 m and 276 m» respectively.
The exposed surface area of the waste pile was calculated using the
following equation:
S = S, -f ST where S, = lateral surface area (mz) (3.26)
\ HE (CB + CT>
7
and S, = area of the top (m )
I 2
S = JL '(Cp + CT) "•" ir*V where Cg = circumference of the base (m)
2 c, = circumference of the top (m)
L = slant height (m)
r, = radius of the top (m)
2
S = 14.1 (w DT + wDR) + irr where DT = diameter of the top (m)
2 Dl = diameter of the base (m)
S a 14.1 (3.14) {256 + 276) + 3.14 (16384)
2
S = 6.33 x 10 m (exposed surface area of waste pile)
The volume of- sub-ore removed from the pit is assumed to be equal to the
volume of ore removed from the pit. The thickness (T) of the sub-ore plate on
the overburden 1s —
T • 1° s 2.25 x 104fn3 - 0.36m.
S 6.33 x 104m2 (3.27)
-------
3-216
In summary, the waste pile produced at an inactive uranium surface mine
is to be in the shape of a truncated cone having a surface area of 6.33 x 10
p
m . The pile is assumed to have an inner-core of overburden plated with 0.36
m of sub-ore on its exposed surface. In practice, the plate would be a
mixture of overburden and sub-ore with the sub-ore concentrations increasing
towards the pile surface.
Table 3.70 lists average annual emissions of contaminants due to wind
erosion of the overburden pile. To compute these values, an emission factor
of 0.850 MT/hectare-yr» computed in Appendix I, was multiplied by the pile
surface area, 6.33 hectares, and the stable element concentrations listed in
Table 3.19. Uranium and thorium concentrations were assumed to be 110 pCi/g
and 2 pCi/g» respectively.
3.7.1.2 Radon-222 from the Mine Area
After the termination of active mining, Rn-222 will continue to exhale
from the wall and floor of the pit. Since all of the ore has been removed,
the Rn-222 will originate from the overburden and sub-ore surfaces. The sur-
face area of the sub-ore region of the pit is estimated from the volume of
ore and sub-ore {3.£
following equations:
ore and sub-ore {3.6 x 10 m ) and the shape and size, of the pit using the
V - 1/3 h (AT -f- AB +\/A^" }where: AT = * r? (3.28)
S - 1/2 L {CB + Cb) + AB AB = 7rr| (3.29)
The terms in the equations are defined in the previous Section. By sub-
stituting the terms rg + h for r, in Equation 3.28, h can be solved by
iteration.
V = 3.6 x 104 m3 - 1/3 h [it (rn + h}2 + IT rf +
\A (rn + h}2 { Trr2) jwhen h = 5.3 m
'-•'
The exposed surface-area of the pit that contains the sub-ore is
Ss = 1/2 (7.50) Tr(87.4 + 98.0} + 6000 = 8.18 x 103 m2,
and the surface area of the overburden section of the pit is
SQ - 1/2 (44.4) (TT) (98.0 + 161.0) = 1.81 x 104 m2.
-------
3-21?
Table 3.71 shows the results of radon flux measurements made at 20 of
the tailings piles at inactive uranium mil! sites. Also shown is the esti-
mated average Ra-226 content of the tailings and the average Ra-226 content
Table 3.70 Average annual emissions of radionuclides (pti) and stable
elements (kg) in wind suspended dust at the model inactive
surface mine
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
.
Magnesium
Manganese
Overburden
Pile(a)
0.46
4.9
ND^
0.09
0.33
0.11
84
ND
135
19
5.2
Contaminant
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 and
each daughter
Thorium-232 and
each daughter
Overburden
0.62
0.11
0.42
ND
0.59
0.70
7.6
0.16
1480
11
(b)
Emissions = 5.38 x 10 g/yr.
ND - Not detected.
-------
3-218
Table 3.71 Average radon flux of inactive uranium mill tailings piles
Location
ARIZONA
Monument Valley
Tuba City
COLORADO
Durango
Grand Junction
Gunnlson
Maybe! 1
Naturita
New Rifle
Old Rifle
Slick Rock
IDAHO
Lowman
NEW MEXICO
Ambrosia Lake
Shiprock
OREGON
Lakeview
SOUTH DAKOTA
Edgemont
TEXAS
Falls City
Ray Point
UTAH
Green River
Mexican Hat
Salt Lake City
WYOMING
Spook Site
Average All Sites
Average
Radon Flux'3^
(pCi/m2-sec)
20
193
197
359
470
86
1446
458
553
70
125
173
340
660
143
65
430
77
290
1200
1770
466
Estimated
Ra-226(b)
Tailings Content
(pCi/g)
50
924
840
784
420
252
756
504
980
171
760
700
420
448
518
140
784
896
356
563
Average
Ra-226
Background
Soils(a)(pCT/g)
0.95
0.95
1.48
1.52
1.48
1.52
1.48
1.52
1.52
1.48
1.12
1.02
1.7
0.81
1.33
0.93
0.93
1.43
0.83
1.4
0.99
1.26
Reference^8'
FBD-GJT-4 (1977)
FBD-GJT-5 (1977)
FBD-GJT-9 1977}
FBD-GJT-9 1977)
FBD-GJT-12 1977)
FBD-GJT-11 (1977)
FBD-GJT-8 1977 r
FBD-GJT-10 (1977)
FBD-GJT-10 (1977}
FBD-GJT-7 (1977^
FBD-GJT-17 (1977)
FBD-GJT-13 (1977)
Bernhardt et al.
(1975)
FBD-GJT-18 (1977)
FBD-211 (1978)
FBD-GJT-16 (1977)
FBD-6JT-20 (1977)
FBD-GJT-14 (1977)
FBD-GJT-3 (1977)
Bernhardt et al.
(1975)
FBD-GJT-15 (1977)
JPJFBD77.
(DJ Sw76.
-------
3-219
measured in representative background soils for each site. The average radon
exhalation rate per average Ra-226 content of tailings material from these
2
data is 0.83 pCi of Rn/m -sec per pCi of Ra/g.
Data analysis by Schiager (Sc74) indicates a radon exhalation rate of
2
1.6 pCi of Rn/m -sec per pCi of Ra/g. This value has often been used in the
environmental impact statements to assess the radon flux from tailings mater-
ials.
Table 3.72 summarizes data obtained during radiological surveys of
inactive uranium mine sites in New Mexico and Wyoming during the spring of
1979 (Wo79). Radon exhalation rates were measured with charcoal cannisters
and the; radium-226 concentrations were determined for composite surface
samples taken from overburden, sub-ore, and waste rock piles. The average
radon-222 exhalation rate per average radium-226 content of the overburden,
2
sub-ore, and waste rock piles was 0.27, 0.11, and 0.12 pCi of Rn/m -sec per
pCi of Ra-226/g, respectively.
Measurements of the background flux and Ra-226 content of typical back-
ground soils were reported for the Edgemont, South Dakota site (FB078).
2
These data indicate a value of 1.05 pCi of Rn/m -sec per pCi of Ra/g. Table
3.73 summarizes background radon flux estimates for several regions of the
United States. Considering the average U.S. background flux to be 0.82 pCi
o
of Rn/m -sec (Tr79) and the average U.S. background soil Ra-226 content to be
1.26 pCi of Ra/g (Oa72), the average U.S. background radon exhalation rate is
2
estimated to be 0,65 pCi of Rn/m -sec per pCi of Ra/g. The average back-
ground radon exhalation rate for New Mexico and Wyoming (Table 3.72) was 0.33
2
pCi of Rn/m -sec per pCi of Ra/g. Therefore, the grand average U.S. back-
2
ground radon exhalation rate has been estimated to be 0.68 pCi of Rn/m -sec
per pCi of Ra/g, and the 'grand average U.S. background soil Ra-226 content
has been estimated to be 1,6 pCi/g.
We estimated the total radon released from the model abandoned surface
mine area from the following parameters:
1. Radon,.exhalation from the sub-ore surface area of the pit—
3 2
. the exposed sub-ore surface area (S ) = 8.18 x 10 m ;
. the average radium-226 content of the sub-ore - 110 pCi/g; and
2
the radon flux rate for sub-ore = 12 pCi of Rn/m -sec.
-------
"able 3.72 Average radon flux measured at inactive uranium mine sites
.ocation
r
Inderg round Mints
i
San Mateo Mine,
New Mexico
Barbara J # 1 Mine,
New Mexico
lurface Mines
Poison Canyon 1,
New Mexico
Poison Canyon 2,
New Mexico
Poison Canyon 3,
New Mexico
Morton Ranch
(Pit 1601),
Wyoming
irand Averages
Area
Waste pile
Heap leach pond
Background
Waste pile
Background
Sub-ore
Overburden piles
Background
Sub-ore
Overburden pile
Sub-ore
Sub-ore
Overburden
Background
Sub-ore
Overburden
Waste Rock
Background
Average Radon
Flux (pCi/mZ-sec)
18
38
0.29
7,9
0.41
7.0
6.7
0.33
5,3
9.8
11
24
9.7
2.3
12
8.7
13
0.83
Number of
Flux Measurements
11
3
1
6
1
1
5
1
3
6
2
12
4
2
Average Radium-226
Content of Surface
Sample (pCi/g)
117
81
0.77
110
3
43
62
2.1
—
—
___
170
23
3
110
32
110
2.2
I
r\3
ro
o
Source: Wo?9.
-------
3-221
Table 3.73 Background radon flux estimates
Radon Flux
2
Location ; pCi/m -sec
Background Soils of the U.S.
Champaign County, Illinois 1.4
Argonne, Illinois " 0.56
Lincoln, Massachusetts 1.3
Socorro, New Mexico 0.90
Socorro» New Mexico 1.0
Socorro, 1'ew Mexico 0.64
Yucca Flat, Nevada 0.47
Texas 0.27
2
Average U.S. Background Radon Flux = 0.82 pCi/m -sec.
Source: Tr79.
Therefore, the radon released from the sub-ore surface area of the pit is
8.18 x 103 m2 x 12 pCi of Rn/rn2-sec x 86400 sec/day = 8.48 mCi of Rn/day.
2. Radon exhalation from the overburden surface area of the pit—
. the exposed overburden surface area (S } =
4. 9 °
1.81 x 10* m*;
the average radium-226 content of the overburden = 32 pCi/g; and
2
. the radon flux rate for overburden is 8.7 pCi of Rn/m -sec.
Therefore, the radon released from the overburden surface area of the pit is
1.81 x 104 m2 x 8.7 pCi of Rn/m2-sec x 86400 sec/day = 13.6 mCi of Rn/day.
-------
3-222
3. Radon exhalation from the overburden pile remaining at the pit—
. the exposed surface area of the waste pile (S,,) =
4 ?
6.33 x 10 m ;
. the Ra-226 content of the surface of the overburden pile is
the same as the sub-ore content = 32 pCi/g; and
. the radon flux rate for the overburden pile is 8.7 pCi
2
of Rn/m -sec.
4
Therefore, the radon exhalation rate from the overburden pile is 6.33 x 10
m2 x 8.7 pCi of Rn/m2-sec x 86400 sec/day - 47.6 mCi of Rn/day.
The total radon release rate at the abandoned surface mine site is the
sum of the above three source terms, 69.7 mCi/day. The estimated radon
release rate for background soils for an undisturbed area equivalent to the
surface mine area uses the following parameters:
. the ground surface area equivalent to the area of the pit opening
(2.03 x 10 m2) and the overburden pad area (5.98 x 10 m2) = 8.01
4 2
x 10 m , and
. the radon flyx rate for background soils in uranium mining
areas = 0.83 pCi of Rn/m -sec (Table 3.72).
Therefore, the radon exhalation rate from an undisturbed area equivalent to
the model surface mine is
4 ? 2
8.01 x 10 m x 0.83 pCi of Rn/m -sec x 86400 sec/day =
5.7 mCi of Rn/day.
Table 3,74 summarizes the annual radon-222 release from the model
inactive uranium surface mine and all inactive uranium surface mines.
3.7.1.3 Land Surface Gamma Rad_1at1o_n_
The surface mine uranium overlying strata must be removed in order to
gain access^.tg the uranium-bear ing host materials and the ore body. The ore
body consists of ore and sub-ore, and the sub-ore is simply that fraction of
the ore body that contains ore uneconomical to recover. The end result of
the mining is that the residues (sub-ore) enhance natural radioactive
materials. That is, they are exposed or brought to the earth's surface. The
enhancement will cause, in most cases, increased aboveground radiation
-------
3-223
Table 3.74 Summary of estimated radon-222 releases from
inactive surface mines
Source
Estimation Method
Annual Release, Ci
Mine Pit
Sub-ore are**
Overburden «
-------
3-224
exposure rates around the mining area. Ore and sub-ore lost through handling
are subject to wind and water erosion. This effectively increases the mine
site area in a radiological sense. The gamma radiation exposure levels on
and around a mine site can be high enough to restrict use of the area after
mining.
Gamma radiation surveys were conducted at some inactive uranium surface
mining areas. Table 3.75 lists the ranges of exposure rates found. Appendix
G contains more specific information concerning the surveys. The residual
exposure rate levels would probably preclude unrestricted use of the pits,
waste piles, and overburden.
Figure 3.25 depicts gamma radiation measurements made on radials ex-
tending outward from an inactive surface mine pit. The measurements were
made with a pressurized ion chamber (PIC) at approximately 61 m intervals on
each radial. As expected, the exposure rate decreases with distance away from
the pit, indicating surface contamination from wind and water erosion of the
spoils and ore piles. Some of the contamination may also have originated
from ore and sub-ore dust losses during mining.
Since the pit resides over a former ore body and connecting or adjacent
ore bodies may be located near the mine, some caution is necessary when
interpreting the gamma exposure rates as indicative of surface contamination.
Development drilling, indicating the presence of ore bodies, is prevalent
throughout the north, west, and south areas around the pit. The northeast,
east, and southeast areas around the pit have exploratory drill holes only.
They indicate the probable absence of ore bodies. Although the north, north-
west, west, and southwest radials cross below grade ore bodies, it is not
reflected by the gamma measurements. Unless the ore body is very close to
the surface, its gamma radiation will not be measured (i.e., the 1/10 value
layer for earth shielding is about 0.3 m). The south radial, however, did
cross an ore outcropping.
If the exposure rate measurements made at the end points of the radials
(south radial excepted) are assumed to be near background, their mean value
is 14.4yR/hr with a 2 sigma error of 1.6y R/hr.
Assuming all measurements in excess of 14.4 + 1.6 u R/hr or 16.0 yR/hr
are a result of eroded ore and sub-ore from the mining activities, an iso-
exposure rate line enclosing the eroded materials can be constructed around
the mine site. The line is constructed on Fig. 3.25 and is qualitatively
-------
3-225
Table 3.75 Summary of land surface gamma radiation surveys
in New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming
Location
Area
Gamma Radiation
Exposure Rate (y R/hr)
Poison Canyon,
New Mexico
Pits
Waste piles
Overburden
40 to 190
65 to 250
25 to 65
Texas
Morton Ranch, Wyoming
(1601 Pit)
Pits
5 to 400
16 to 63
59 to 138
Source: Wo79 for New Mexico and Wyoming and Co77 for Texas.
Pit
Ore piles
Overburden
adjusted on the south radial to compensate for the ore outcropping. The line
bulges into the southeast quadrant indicating erosion by the predominant
2
northwest winds and contamination of about 0.3 km.
In summary, it appears that the residual gamma radiation exposure levels
at surface mining pits and overburden piles would preclude these areas from
unrestricted use. It also appears that wind and water erosions of the spoils,
ore, and sub-ore are occurring and causing land contamination far removed
from the mining area. Several surface mines were gamma surveyed in New
Mexico. The mines could not be individually gamma radiation surveyed because
of their close proximity, cross contamination from eroded ore and sub-ore,
and possible ore outcrops.
-------
13$
141
fSJ
149
1SI
GROSS GAMMA EXPOSURE BATE
231 58S \210 224,^220 f|E 1«3 173 1701S1162 ISO 15S 132
X ' \
344
Z31
S42
170
1S4
Figure 3,25 Results of gamma exposure rate survey at the 1601 pit and environs, Morton Ranch uranium mine,
Converse County, Wyoming {/* R/hr)
I
t\>
f-J
-------
3-227
3.7.2 Inactive Underground Mines
The model Inactive underground mine is basically defined by dividing the
total reported volumes of ore and waste removed by inactive underground
mining by the number of inactive underground mines. The number of Inactive
underground mines has been obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy mine
listing in Table 3.67. Table 3.67 lists the mines by state and type of mine.
Forty-four percent of the inactive underground mines are located in Colorado,
34 percent in Utah, 9.3 percent in Arizona, and 7.0 percent in New Mexico.
For model ing'purposes, we assume that there are presently 2030 inactive
underground uranium mines. Table 3.69 lists the estimated underground mine
waste and ore production for 1932 to 1977. Uranium mine waste and ore1 pro-
duction statistics, on an annual basis, were available for underground pro-
ducers from 1959 r,o 1977 (DOI59-76). Annual uranium ore production statis-
tics for underground mining are available from 1948 to 1959 (DOE79) and from
1932 to 1942 (DOI32-42). We estimated the mine waste production for the period
of 1932 to 1960 from underground mining waste-to-ore ratios and established
waste-to-ore ratios using the published ore and wastes production statistics
from 1959 to 1976 (DOI59-76). These ratios were fitted with a line by re-
gression analysis in order to estimate the waste-to-ore ratios from 1932 to
1959 (Fig. 3.26). Two lines were fitted to the known waste-to-ore ratios
because of the abrupt change in the ratios from 1972 to 1976. We assumed
that the steeper slope was caused by increased waste production from the
larger and deeper underground mines operated during this time. The estimated
annual waste-to-ore ratios were multiplied by the published annual ore pro-
duction values to estimate the annual waste production from 1932 to 1959. We
assumed that no ore was produced from 1942 to 1948 because most of the uran-
ium was obtained by reprocessing vanadium and radium tailings during that
period (Private communication with G, C, Ritter, 1979, Bendix Field Engi-
neering Corporation, Grand Junction, Colorado). Table 3.69 lists the cumu-
lative annual waste production from underground mining from 1932 through
1977. The total waste produced for this period was 2.92 x 10 MT, and the
total ore produced was 7.31 x 10 MT.
A simplistic way to identify a model inactive underground mine would be
to divide the cumulative tonnage of ore and wastes by the number of inactive
mines. We estimated the number of inactive mines from the U.S. Department of
Energy mine listing (Section 2.0 and Table 3.67). The model inactive under-
-------
1,2-
1,0-
0,8_
g 0.4-
* *
0,2 —
1932
1937 1942 1947 1952 1957 1962 1967
YEAR
Figure 3 26 Waste to ore ratios for inactive underground uranium mines from 1932 to 1977.
1972
1977
u>
I
to
03
-------
3-229
4 4
ground mine produced 3.60 x 10 MT of ore and 1.44 x 10 MT of waste. Unfor-
tunately, some of the contemporary waste and ore production has been produced
by ^th active and inactive mines. In order to adjust the contemporary ore
and waste production for that portion of the ore and wastes generated by
active mining, we assumed a model active mine having a mining life of 15
years (St79). The mid-life of the mine was assumed to have occurred in 1978,
with production beginning in 1971.
We also assumed that some of the mines became inactive during the
1971-1978 period and that their numbers decreased linearly. For example,
2.44 x 10 MT of ore was produced in 1972 and 85.7 percent of that ore pro-
duced was from mines that were inactive by 1978. Therefore, adjusted ore
production was 2.09 x 10 MT for 1971. The ore production for 1973 was I.IS
x 106 MT and 1.27 x 106 MT in 1974; 1.06 x 106 MT in 1975; 1.02 x 106 MT in
1976; and 6.16 x 10 MT in 1977. The adjusted waste production was: 5.08 x
105 MT in 1972; 6.67 x 105 MT in 1973; 8.13 x 105 MT in 1974; 9.43 x 105 MT
in 1975; 7.43 x 105 MT in 1976; and 4.99 x 105 MT in 1977.
Through 1978, the cumulative adjusted ore production from inactive
underground mines was 6,37 x 10 MT, and the cumulative adjusted waste pro-
duction was 2.04 x 10 MT. The model inactive underground mine was assumed
4 4
to have produced 3.14 x 10 MT of ore and 1.00 x 10 MT of waste. Assuming a
3 4
density of 2.0 MT per m , the volume of ore and waste removed were 1.6 x 10
and 5.Q x 10 m , respectively.
Fifty percent of the waste volume mined we assumed to be sub-ore. The
volume of waste rock (i.e., containing no sub-ore) removed during the mining
3 3
is 2.5 x 10 m . Assuming an entry dimension of 1.83 m x 2.13 m, about 615 m
of shafts and haulways are in the model mine. The ore body we assumed to
have an average thickness of 1.8 m with a length and width of 91.2 m each.
3 2
The surface area of the passages would be 4.83 x 10 m . The surface area of
4 2
the mined-out ore body would be 1.71 x 10 tn .
3.7.2.1 Haste. Rock Piles
Wastes produced from underground uranium mining were generally cast or
dumped near the mine entries. Those wastes that were dumped on relatively
flat terrain formed dome-shaped piles. Wastes cast from rim mines generally
formed long, thin sheets down the canyon slopes. Since most of the inactive
underground mines are in the Uravan Mineral Belt, the waste pile shape (dome)
-------
3-230
is assumed to be predominant (see Appendix S.I,2) and Is used for the
calculations of the waste pile dimensions.
The waste produced at a typical underground mine consists of waste rock
and sub-ore, The waste rock is assumed to be on the bottom of the waste pile
since it was generally removed first. Sub-ore, which was removed later, is
assumed to cover or plate the waste pile. The waste piles are assumed to be
dome shaped, covering a circular area of 0,40 hectares. The dome 1s assumed
to be a spherical segment with a height (b) and base (c) of 71,8 m. The
3 3
volume (V) of the spherical segment, 6,3 n 10 m when corrected for bulking,
is equal to the volume of wastes and is expressed as
V =1 trb (3c2 + 4b2). (3.30)
24
The surface area of the spherical segment is given by the expression
S • 1 w(4b2 + c2} where S = Surface area (m2). (3.31)
4
The term b is solved by substitution and iteration in the former equation and
is substituted in the latter equation to determine the surface area of the
wastes:
V - 6.3 x 103 m3 = 1 TT b (15465 + 4b2) where; b « 3.1 m. (3.32)
24
The surface area of the waste pile is
S = I 7t(4b2 + c2) (3.33)
4
- i (3.14) (38 + 5155)
4
• 4.08 x 103 m2.
The thickness (T) of sub-ore on the surface of the waste pile 1s
3 3
volume of sub-ore _ 3,2x 10 m
area of waste pile 4.08 x 103m2
volu-me of sub-ore _ 3.2_x_103J? =0j8ni, (3.34)
In summary, the waste pile at an inactive underground uranium mine is
assumed .to have the shape of a spherical segment with a surface area 4.08 x
3 2
10 m . The pile is assumed to have an inner core of waste rock covered or
plated with 0.78 irTof sub-ore on its exposed surface. It is expected that
the plate of sub-ore on the waste pile would be more pronounced than the
sub-ore plates on overburden piles at surface mines because of diminished
-------
3-231
blending, mining practices, and the lower waste-to-ore ratio. The grand
average of the radium-226 concentrations in the waste rock' and overburden
piles (Table 3.72) appear to confirm this expectation.
Table 3.76 lists average annual emissions of contaminants due to wind
erosion of the waste rock pile. These values were estimated by multiplying
an emission factor of 2.12 MT/hectare-yr, derived in Appendix I, by the waste
pile surface area, 0.408 hectares, and the stable element concentrations
given in Table 3.19. We assumed uranium and thorium concentrations to be 110
pCi/g and 2 pCi/g, respectively.
Table 3.76 Average annual emissions of radionuclides (uCi) and stable elements
(kg) in wind suspended dust at the model inactive underground mine
Contaminant
Arsenic
r*,
Barium -
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese ~ -
Waste Rock
Pile(a)
0.07
0.80
ND
0.01
0.05
0.02
14
ND
22
3.0
0.83
--
Contaminant
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium-238 and
daughter
Thorium-232 and
daughter
Waste Rock
Pile(a)
0.10
0.02
0.07
ND
0.10
0.11
1.2
0.03
each
238
each
1.7
(b)
emissions = 8.65 x 10 g/yr.
ND - Not detected.
-------
3-232
3.7.2.2 Radon-222 from the Hlne Area
We estimated the total radon released from the model inactive under-
ground mine from the following parameters:
1. Radon exhalation from the waste rock pile—
3 2
. the exposed surface area of the waste pile = 4.1 x 10 m ,
. the average Ra-226 content of the waste pile is HO pCi/g; and
2
. the radon flux rate for the waste pile is 13 pCi of Rn/m -sec.
Therefore, the radon released from the waste pile is
4.1 x 103 m2 x 13 pCi of Rn/m2-sec x 86400 sec/day - 4.6 mCi of Rn/day.
2. Typical background release rate--
. the ground surface area equivalent to the area covered by
3 2
the waste pile = 4.1 x 10 m , and
. the radon flux rate for background soils in uranium mining
2
areas = 0.83 pCi of Rn/m -sec (Table 3.72),
Therefore, the radon exhalation rate from an undisturbed area equivalent to
the waste pile of a model underground mine is
4.1 x 103 m2 x 0.83 pCi of Rn/m -sec x 86400 sec/day = 0.29 mCi of Rn/day.
The net radon release rate due to the waste pile at the inactive underground
mine is 4.6 minus 0.29 or about 4.3 mCi of Rn/day above normal background.
Natural ventilation will occur in most mines and usually is considered
by mine ventilation engineers when planning the forced ventilation systems.
The natural force that can maintain a natural air flow due to temperature
differences is thermal energy. The thermal energy added to a system is
converted into a pressure difference. If the pressure difference is suffi-
cient to overcome head losses, a flow of afr will occur.
Natural ventilation depends upon the difference between the temperature
inside and outside .of a mine and the difference between the elevation of the
mine workings and the surface. Air flow by natural ventilation is generally
•j
small (140 - 566 m /min) in shallow mines (Pe52). In deep mines, natural
•3
ventilation flows may range from 1,420 to 4,250 m/min (Pe52). The flow 1n
either the shallow or deep mines depends upon the depth, size, and number of
-------
3-233
openings. The intensity of thermal energy-induced natural pressure usually
ranges from a few hundredths to a few tenths cm of water in shallow (less
than 460 m deep) mines (Pe52). The maximum pressure drop per 305 m of depth
in deep mines is about 2.54 cm of water in winter and about 0.84 cm during
the summer (Pe52).
In general, natural ventilation is subject to considerable fluctuation.
It usually increases to a maximum in winter and a minimum in summer for deep
mines. The typical inactive underground uranium mine would be shallow;
therefore, the natural ventilation would be expected to reach its maximum 1n
the winter and summer"and its minimum in the spring and fall (air temperature
in the mine closfely approaches the outside temperature during the spring and
fall).
A first approximation of the annual release of Rn-222 from an inactive
underground mine simply would ba that all Rn-222 released Into the mine air
will be exhausted by natural vsntilation before a significant radioactive
decay occurs. That is, the quantity of radon released into the mine is equal
to the quantity of radon released from the mine. The quantity of Rn-222
released from the sub-ore surfaces remaining in the mined-out ore body is
= A x *so' (3,35)
where A is the surface area of the mined out
2
ore body (m )
sec
= exhalation rate of the Rn-222 from
sub-ore per unit area per unit time, 12
pCi (Section 3.7.1.2}
2
m -sec
Q = (1.71 x 104 m2) (12 pCi) = 2.1 x 105 pCi/sec.
m -sec
It should be noted that <{> is the average radon flux physically mea-
sured from sub-ore bodies in inactive surface mines (Section 3.7.1.2). Be-
cause of safety considerations, no measurements were made from sub-ore bodies
in inactive underground mines during the April 1979 field surveys. The annual
Rn-222 source term from the mined-out ore body in an inactive underground
uranium mine, using the preceding assumptions, is
-------
3-234
Q (C1) « 2.1 x 105 pCf x 3.6 x ID3 sec x 24 _hr_ x 365 4 x
yr sec hr d yr
1 = 6.6 C1
1012£Ci yr " (3.36)
Ci
The annual Rn-222 source term (Q) from the passageways, assuming an exhalation
rate of 8.7 j)Ci_ for overburden, is (Section 3.7.1.2)
m -sec
(4.8 x 103 m2) (2.7 x 10"4 CIj ) = 1.3 Ci. (3.37)
yr-m yr
3
The air flow rate from the mine, assuming 140 m /min for an average shallow
mine, will exchange the mine air every three hours. The average annual
radon-222 concentration will be
7,9 Ci/yr x 1 x 1 = 107 pCi/*.
7.4 x 107 m3/yr 1000 £/m3
The radon daughter concentration will be about 87 percent of equilibrium with
the radon, assuming a mean residence time of the radon in the mine to be 1.5
hours.
Several inactive mines in the Grants, New Mexico area were monitored for
radon discharges by natural ventilation. One of the mines monitored was
relatively small and had a vertical shaft access. Five cased 30 cm diameter
vents were found and were assumed to be connected with the mine. The shaft
was covered with steel plate, but access holes were cut in the plate and one
corner had been pried up. Four vents were capped with buckets. Just one
cover was gas tight. One vent was partially covered with a piece of wood.
Only very small flow rates due to natural ventilation were measured at the
shaft and vents. The maximum radon emission from the mine per day was esti-
mated to be 2.8 x 10 wCi. This low radon discharge rate is probably due to
partial blockage of the vents and water in the mine. The mine was partially
flooded, and flowing water could be seen at the bottom of the shaft. The
-------
3-235
effect of the water would be to partially or completely close off the mine
workings and substantially reduce natural ventilation. The water would also
dissolve and substantially suppress the radon exhaling from the surface areas
of the mine. Thus, we believe that the radon discharges from wet inactive
mines via natural ventilation will be minimal.
Investigation at another inactive mine revealed that it was connected to
three other inactive mines that were subsequently connected to two active
mines. Ventilation fans at the connecting active mines were usually shut
down after the end of the day shift and on weekends. Mine air was exhausted
by natural ventilation through the shaft (highest opening) and vents of the
mine investigated. A flow rate up to 88 m /min was observed coming from the
shaft, and radon-222 concentrations reached 11,000 pCi/£. The average flow
rate observed over a weekend was 75 m /min, with an average radon-222 concen-
tration of 9,800 pCi/2. The average radon emission was 1.1 Ci/day.
Figure 3.27 is a plot of the changes in the Rn-222 concentration in the
air from the shaft of the inactive mine investigated. The average of the
3
measurements of the air flow rate from the shaft was about 76 m /min. The
Rn-222 concentration increased almost linearly with time for about 20 hours
after the fans were shut down at the end of the day shift on April 27, 1979.
The Rn-222 concentrations also leveled off at about'10,000 pCi/n . A dip,
presumed to have been caused by high winds, occurred in the Rn-222 concen-
tration curve from about 1000 to 1600 hours on April 28, 1979.
Since the curve is relatively flat at 10,000 pCi/a. it is assumed that
the rate of production of the Rn-222 is equal to the rate of removal of the
Rn-222 from the six mines. The average residence time of the radon in the
mine air is assumed to be approximately 10 hours, and the radon daughters
would be in near-equilibrium (assumed to be = 90 percent). Assuming that all
six interconnecting mines contributed equally to the source term measured,
the release rate of Rn-222 for a single mine will be
10,000 pCi/£ x 76,000 £/min x 1440 min/day x 10"12Ci/pCi * 6
= 0.18 Ci/day.
Based on the preceding estimation of Rn-222 and progeny released from a
typical mine on the Colorado plateau and physical measurements at six con-
nected mines, the annual radon release rate may range from 7.9 to 66 Ci/yr.
These source term estimates, of course, are based on a single mine. Many mine
workings are, in fact, interconnected. If these interconnected workings are
assumed to constitute a single mine, then the upper limit of Rn-222 and
-------
Ventilation
Fans Operating
Ventilation
Fans Nol Operating
o
a.
c
v
u
c
o
o
(N
!M
r-l
c
O
•
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
ftpr.127 197£
28.1979
April 23,1979
April 30.1979
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
w T,me
o
o
N
O
o
o
ts!
O
o
O
o
CD
O
O
o
Figure 3 27 Radon-222 concentrations in mine air discharged by natural ventilation.
I
K3
-------
3-237
progeny discharge known at this time will be about 10,000 pCi/£ with an
annual Rn-222 source term of about 400 Ci/yr. For example, 67 percent of all
inactive underground uranium mines are in or near the Uravan mineral belt and
are probably dry. Their aggregate Rn-222 discharge by natural ventilation is
estimated to be
1360 mines x 66 Ci Rn-222 = 9.0 x 104 Ci/yr.
yr-mine
In summary, there is little information available on the discharge of
Rn-222 and its progeny from the vents and entries of inactive uranium mines
by natural ventilation. Some physical measurements indicate that the dis-
charges may be substantial. It is known, through surveys conducted to
support this study, that a large majority of the inactive uranium mines are
not isolated from the atmosphere and are capable of discharging their Rn-222
and progeny into the local environment. It is also known that some self-
sealing will probably occur at some of the mines, due to flooding, cave-ins,
and subsidence. Table 3.77 summarizes estimates of the annual radon-222
releases from inactive underground uranium mines. This potential source of
exposure could be practically eliminated by proper sealing of the inactive
mines.
3.7.2.3 Land Surface Gamma Radiation
Gamma radiation surveys were conducted around underground mining areas
in Colorado and New Mexico. Table 3.78 lists the ranges of gamma radiation
exposure rates measured at some of the mines. The elevated gamma ray ex-
posure rates on the waste piles are due primarily to plating those piles with
sub-ore removed during the mining process.
Some radioactive materials originating from ore and sub-ore handling can
be lost into the local environment around a mine site. Erosion of the mine
wastes can also disperse contaminants into the local environment. Figure 3.28
illustrates gross gamma radiation exposure rate measurements around an in-
active underground uranium mine in New Mexico. Background gamma-ray exposure
rate measurements made around the mine area ranged from 12 to 15 yR/hr.
According to the measurements made, exposure rate levels exceeded background
from 50 to more than 100 meters from the waste piles. The area that has been
contaminated far exceeds the area physically disturbed at the mine site.
Gross gamma exposure rates measured on the waste piles averaged about 95
-------
3-238
Table 3.77 Summary of radon-222 releases from inactive underground mines
Sou rce
Estimation Methods
Annual Release, Ci
Model Mine
Waste Rock Piles
Underground workings
Sub-o<"? Surfaces
Passageways
Background
Model Mine
Actual Mine
Underground workings
(dry)
Underground workings
(wet)
Waste rock piles
Calculated volume & surface
area; limited field measure-
ments of radon flux
Radon release based on natural
ventilation rate for shallow
mines
Calculated surface area; limited
radon flux measurements of sub-ore
Calculated passageway surface
area; limited measurements of
radon flux from overburden
Field measurements of radon flux;
and projected area of waste
rock pile
Total ridon .source minus back-
ground
Field measurements
Field measurements
Calculated volume & surface area;
Limited field measurements of
radon flux
1.7
6.6
1.3
0.11
9.5
66
1.1
1.7
-------
3-239
Table 3.78
Summary of land surface radiation surveys In
Colorado and New Mexico
Location
Area
Gamma Radiation
Exposure Rate (v R/hr)
Boulder, Colorado
Uravan, Colorado
San Mateo, New Mexico
Mesa Top Mines,
New Mexico
Waste piles
Waste piles
Waste pile
Ore
Overburden
Background
Waste piles
40 to 100
50 to 220
35 to 275
100 to 350
20 to 120
10 to 13
25 to 290
Barbara J II Mine,
New Mexico
Waste piles
Background
21 to 170
12 to 15
Source: Wo79,
-------
Vent
.Vent
21
17
0 25 SO 75 100
METERS
GROSS GAMMA RAY EXPOSURE RATE
18
I23
14 *20
12
Vent \k
• 16 *^
Figure 3.28 Gamma radiation survey around an inactive underground uranium mine in New Mexico,
I
N
I
to
O
-------
3-241
yR/hr, which would make them unsuitable for unrestricted use.
In summary, wastes from underground uranium mining technologically
enhance natural radioactivity and may -be considered low-level radioactive
wastes. Improperly controlled wastes will be dispersed into the surrounding
environment by the mining activities and erosion.
-------
3-242
3.8 References
AEC73 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1973, "Final Environmental Statement
Related to Operation of the Highland Uranium Mill by the Exxon Company,
U.S.A.", Docket No. 40-8102.
AEC74 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, Fuels and
Materials, 1974, "Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,"
WASH-1248.
Am78 Ames, L.L. and Rai, D., 1978, "Radionuclide Interactions with Soil
and Rock Media," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 520/6-78-007.
An73 Andelman, J. B., 1973, "Incidence, Variability and Controlling
Factors for Trace Elements in Natural, Fresh Waters," i_n Trace Metals and
Metal-Organic Interactions in Natural Waters (Philip C. Singer, Ed), Ann
Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Anon69 Anonymous, 1969, "Acid Mine Drainage in Appalachia," Howe Document No.
91-180, 91st Congress, 1st Session, Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C.
Anon79 Anonymous, 1979, "Uranium Exploration Damages Groundwater," Water
Well Journal, July, p. 15.
Au78 Austin, S.R. and Droullard, R.F., 1978, "Radon Emanation from Do-
mestic Uranium Ores Determined by Modifications of the Closed-Can, Gamma-
only Assay Method," Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigations 8264.
Be68 Beck, H. and de Planque, G., 1968, "The Radiation Field in Air
Due to Distributed Gamma-Ray Sources in the Ground," U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission Report, HASL-195.
Be75 Bernhardt, D.E.j Johns, F.B. and Kaufmann, R.F., 1975, "Radon Ex-
halation from Uranium Mill Tailings Piles," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Technical Note ORP/LV-75-7(A).
-------
3-243
Bo70 Borland, J.P., September 1970, "A Proposed Streamflow - Data Pro-
gram for New Mexico," U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources, Open file
report, Albuquerque, Mew Mexico.
Ca57 Cannon, H.L., 1957, "Description of Indicator Plants and Methods of
Geobotanical Prospecting for Uranium Deposits on the Colorado Plateau," U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1Q3Q-M, pp. 399-516.
Ca64 Cannon, H.L,, 1964, "Geochemistry of Rocks and Related Soils and
Vegetation in the Yellow Cat Area, Grand County, Utah," U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1176.
Ch54 Chariot, G., 1954, "Qualitative Inorganic Analyses," Translated by
R.C. Murray, Wiley Publishers, New York, p. 354.
C166 Clark, S. P., Peterman, Z.E. and Heier, K.S., 1966, "Abundance of
Uranium," Thorium and Potassium," Handbook of Physical Constants (Revised
Edition), Geological Society of America, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 821-541.
C174 Clark, D, A,, 1974, "State-of-the-Art, Uranium Hining, Milling, and
Refining Industry," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environ-
mental Research Center, Corvallis, Oregon.
Co77 Cook, L. M., Caskey, B.W. and Wukasch, M.C., 1977, "The Effects of
Uranium Mining on Environmental Gamma Ray Exposures" in Proceedings IRPA
IV International Congress, Paris, April 24 - 30, pp. 1029-1032.
Co78 Cook, L.M., 1978, "The Uranium District of the Texas Gulf Coastal
Plain,11 Texas Department of Health Resources, Austin, Texas.
Co68 Cooper, J.B. and John, E.C., 1968, "Geology and Groundwater
Occurrence in Southeastern HcKinley County, New Mexico," New Mexico
State Engineer, Technical Report 35, prepared in cooperation with the
U.S. Geological Survey.
Cr78 Craig, G.S. and Rankl, J.G., 1978, "Analysis of Runoff from Small
Drainage Basins in Wyoming," USGS Water Supply Paper 2056.
-------
3-244
Da79 Dale, J.T., 1979, Air Program Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII, Denver, CO., Memo concerning Uranium Resources Develop-
ment Company's Mining Operation in San Juan County, Utah - PDS Permit
Requirements.
Da75 Dames and Moore, 1975, "Environmental Report, Bear Creek Project,
Converse County, Wyoming," for the Rocky Mountain Energy Company.
DQA75 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1975,
"Surface Water Hydrology for the Tennessee Valley Authority on the
Morton Ranch Lease," U.S. SCS, Casper, Wyoming.
DOA78 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region, 1978, "Dr<*ft Environmental Statement for Homestake Mining CoiKiany's
Pitch Project".
DOE79 U.S. Department of Energy, 1979, "Statistical Data of the Uranium
Industry," GJQ-1QO(79).
00132-42 Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1932-1942, "Minerals
Yearbooks".
D0159 U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1959,
"Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through
September 1950, Part 6-A, Missouri River Basin above Sioux City, Iowa,"
USGS Water Supply Paper 1309.
DOI59-76 Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1959-1976, "Minerals
Yearbooks",
DOI64 U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1964, "Compi-
lation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to
September 1960, Part 6-A, Missouri River Basin Above Sioux City, Iowa,"
USGS Water Supply Paper 1729.
-------
3-24-5
DOI67 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1967, "Surface
Mining and Our Environment," Prepared by the Strip and Surface Mining
Study Commission, Bureau of Mines.
00169 U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1969, "Surface
Water Supply of the United States 1961-1965, Part 6, Missouri River Basin,
Volume 2, Missouri River Basin from Willisten, North Dakota to Sioux City,
Iowa," USGS Water Supply Paper 1917.
DOI73 U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1973, "Surface
Water Supply of the United States 1966-1970, Part 6, Missouri River Basin,
Volume 2, Missouri River Basin from Williston, North Dakota to Sioux City,
Iowa," USGS Water Supply Paper 2117.
DOI79 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979, "Uranium Development in the
San Juan Basin Region - Draft," San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Study,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Dr79 Oreesen, O.K., 1979, "Final Report, Investigation of Environmental
Contamination, Canon City, Colorado," Los Alamos Scientific Labs.
Du63 Durum, W. H., and Haffty, J., 1963, "Implications of the Minor Element
Content of some Major Streams of the World," Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 27:1,
Ea79 Eadie, G. G,, Fort, C. W. and Beard, M. L., 1979S "Ambient Airborne
Radioactivity Measurements in the Vicinity of the Jackpile Open Pit Uranium
Mine, New Mexico," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, ORP/LV-79-2.
EPA72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972, "Impact of the Schwartz-
walder Mine on the Water Quality of Ralston Creek, Ralston Reservoir, and
Upper Long Lake," Technical Investigations Branch, Surveillance and Analysis
Division, U.S. EPA, Region VIII.
EPA75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, "Water Quality Impacts of
Uranium Mining and Milling Activities in the Grants Mineral Belt, New
Mexico," U.S. EPA 906/9-75-002, Region VI, Dallas, Texas.
-------
3-246
EPA76 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Supply, 1976,
"National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, EPA-570/9-76-003.
EPA77a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, "Water Quality Manage-
ment Guidance for Mine-Related Pollution Sources (New, Current, and Aban-"
doned), U.S. EPA-44Q/3-77-Q27, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
EPA77b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Man-
agement, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1977, "Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Third Edition.
Fe31 Fenneman, N.H,, 1931, "Physiography of Western United States," N~>*
York, McGraw Hill, 534 p.
FBD77-78 Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah Inc., 1977-78, series of reports to the
U.S. EROA, Grand Junction Office on the "Phase II - Title I Engineering
Assessment of Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings".
Fu73 Fulkerson, W. and Goeller, H.E. (Editors), 1973, "Cadmium, The
Dissipated Element," Oak Ridge Natl. Lab - National Science Foundation
Environmental Program, QRNL-NSF-EP-21, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Fu77 Fuller, W. H., 1977, "Movement of Selected Metals, Asbestos, and
Cyanide in Soil: Applications to Waste Disposal Problems," U.S. Environ-
mental, Protection Agency Report, EPA 600/2-77-020.
Fu78 Fuller, W. H, , 1978, "Investigation of Landfill Leachate Pollutant
Attenuation by Soils," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report,
EPA 600/2-78-158.
Ga77a Gableman, J~,W, , 1977, "Migration of Uranium and Thorium - Exploration
Significance,*1 Series in Geology No. 3, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
-------
3-?47
Ga?7b Gabin, V.L. and Lesperance, I.E., 1977, "New Mexico Climatological
Data; Precipitation, Temperature, Evaporation, and Wind, Monthly and Annual
Means, 1950-1975," W.K. Summers and Associates, Socorro, New Mexico.
6e77 Gesell, T, F. and Cook, L.M,, 1977, "Environmental Radioactivity in
the South Texas, USA Uranium District," in International Symposium on Areas
of High Natural Radioactivity, Pocos de Caldas, Brazil, June 16-20, 1975.
Go61 Gordon, E". D,, 1961, "Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Grants-
Bluewater Area, Valencia County, New Mexico," New Mexico State Engineer,
Technical Report 20, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.
tV67 Gregors-Hansen, Birte, 1967, "Application of Radicactivation Analysis
for the Determination of Selenium and Cobalt in Soils and Plants," Transactions,
8th International Congress of Soil Scientists, Bucharest, Volume 3, 63-70.
Ha68 Havlik, B., Grafova, J., and Nycova, B., 1968, "Radium-226 Liberation
from Uranium Ore Processing Mill Waste Solids and Uranium Rocks into Surface
Streams - I, The Effect of Different pH of Surface Waters," Health Physics,
Volume 14, 417-422.
Ha78 • Harp, D. L., 1978, "Historical Examination of Water Quality Impact
from the Shirley Basin Uranium Operation," Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
Ha61 Hartraan, H., 1961, "Mine Ventilation and Air Conditioning," The
Ronald Press Co., New York.
He60 Hem, J.D., 1960, "Some Chemical Relationships Among Sulfur Species
and Dissolved Ferrous Iron," U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper
1459-C, pp. 57-73.
He69 Heier, K. S. and Billings, G. K-, 1969, "Potassium," Handbook of
Geochemistry, Springer-Verlog, Berlin, Chapter 19.
-------
3-248
He78 Hendricks, 0. W., 1978, Director, U.S. EPA Office of Radiation
Programs, Las Vegas, written communication (Review of Cotter Uranium Mill
Reports), to Paul B. Smith, Regional Representative, Radiation programs,
U.S. EPA, Denver, June 1978.
He79 Henry, C. D., 1979, "Trace and Potentially Toxic Elements Associ-
ated with Uranium Deposits in South Texas (draft)," Bureau of Economic
Geology, University of Texas at Austin.
Hi68 Hill, R. D,, 1968, "Mine Drainage Treatment, State of the Art and Re-
search Needs," U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.
Hi69 Hilpert, L.S., 1369, "Uranium Resources of Northwestern New Mexico,'*
U.S. Geological Survey Report, Geological Survey Professional Paper 603.
Hi73 Hill, R. 0., 1973, "Water Pollution from Coal Mines," Proceedings,
45th Annual Conference, Water Pollution Control Association of Pennsylvania,
University Park, Pennsylvania.
Hi77 Hiss, W, I,, 1977, "Uranium Mine Waste Water - a Potential Source of
Groundwater in Northwestern New Mexico," U.S. Geological Survey open file
report 77-625, 10 p.
Ho72 Howard, J. H., 1972, "Control of Geochemical Behavior of Selenium in
Natural Waters by Adsorption on Hydrous Ferric Oxides," jji Trace Substances
in Environmental Health (Hemphill, D.D. , Editor), 5th Annual Conference,
June 29 - July 1, 1971, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri,
(pp. 485-495) 559 p.
Ho73 -Hodson, W. G., Pearl, R. H. and Druse, S. A., 1973, "Water Resources
of the Powder River Basin and Adjacent Areas, Northeast Wyoming," USGS Hydro-
logic Investigations' Atlas HA-465.
-------
3-249
Hu76 Hubbard, S. J., 1976, "Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from
Mining: Task 1 Report - Identification of Fugitive Dust Sources Associated
with Mining," Report Prepared by PEDCo - Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task 36.
ICRP64 International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1964, "Recom-
mendations of the ICRP (as amended 1959 and revised 1962}," ICRP Publication
6, Pergamon Press, London.
ICRP66 International Commission on Radiological Protection, Committee II
Report, 1966, "Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Oosiroetry of
the Human Respiratory Tract," Health Physics 12, 173.
It75 Itln, S.C., 1975, "The Public Health Significance of Abandoned
Open pit Uranium Mines in South Texas," Master's Thesis, University of Texas
(unpublished).
Ja79a Jackson, B,, Coleman, W., Murray, C., and Scinto, L., February 1979,
"Environmental Study on Uranium Mills, Part 1, Final Report," Thompson,
Woodridge, and Ramo, Inc., Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., Contract No. 68-
03-256Q.
Ja79b Jackson, P. 0., et. a!., 1979, "Radon-222 Emissions in Ventilation
Air Exhausted from Underground Uranium Mines," Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratory Report, PNL-2888 Rev., NUREG/CR-0627,
Je68 Jenne, E. A., 1968, "Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn Con-
centrations in Soils and Water; the Significant Role of Hydrous Mn and Fe
Oxides," i_n Trace Inorganics in Water, A symposium by the Division of Water,
Air, and Waste Chemistry at the 153rd Meeting of the ACS, Miami Beach, Florida,
April 1967, Advances in Chemistry Series No. 73, ACS.
Jo63 John, E. C. and West, S.W., 1963, "Groundwater in the Grants District,"
New Mexico State Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Memoir 15.
-------
3-250
Ka75 Kallus, M.F., 1975, "Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining
and Milling in South Texas", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report,
EPA-906/9-75-004.
Ka?6 Kallus, M.F., 1976, "Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mining in South
Texas," in Geology of Alternate Energy Resources in the South-Central United
States (M.O. Campbell, Editor) Houston Geological Society, 1977.
Ka77 Kaufmann., R. F. and Bliss, J. D., 1977, "Effects of Phosphate Mineral-
ization and the Phosphate Industry on Radium-226 in Groundwater of Central
Florida," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs
Report, EPA/520-6-77-010,
Ka?8a Kaufmann, R. F., 1978, U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs, Las
Vegas, written communication (Review of October 1977 Environmental Re-
port on Split Rock Mill, Jeffrey City, Wy) to Paul B. Smith, Regional
Representative, Radiation Programs, U.S. EPA, Denver, January 1978.
Ka78b Rasper, D., Martin, H. and Munsey, L.» 1978, "Environmental Assess-
ment of In Situ Mining," Report prepared by PRC Toups Corp. for the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Contract No. JQ265Q22.
Ka79 Kaufmann, R, F., 1979, U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs, Las
Vegas, written communication (Review of Dawn Mining Company Tailings
Disposal Activities), to Edward Cowan, Regional Radiation Representative,
U.S. EPA Region X, November 1979.
Kab79 Kaback, D. S.» 1979, "The Effect of Uranium Mining and Milling on the
Incidence of Molybdenosis in Cattle of South Texas (abs.)" jm Abstracts
with Programs, 1979 annual meeting, Geological Society of America, Volume 11,
Number 7, August 1979. GAAPBC 11(7) 313-560.
Ke76 Reefer, W. Rfand Hadley, R. F., 1976, "Land and Natural Resource
Information and Some Potential Environmental Effects of Surface Mining of
Coal in the Gillette Area, Wyoming," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 743.
-------
3-251
Ke77 Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation, 1977, "Environmental Report, South
Powder River Basin Mill, Converse County, Wyoming",
Ki67 Kittle, D.F., Kelley, V.C. and Melancon, P.E., 1967, "Uranium
Deposits of the Grants Region," _in New Mexico Geological Society Eighteenth
Field Conference, Guidebook of the Defiance - Zuni - Mt. Taylor Region of
Arizona and New Mexico, pp. 173-183.
K178 Klute, A. and Heerman, D. F., 1978, "Water Movement in Uranium Mill
Tailings Profiles," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Note
ORP/LV-78-8,
Ku79 Kunkler, J.L.» 1979, "Impacts of the Uranium Industry on Water
Quality," Working Paper No. 22, San Juan Basin Regional Ur^ium Study,
U.S. Department of Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
La72 Lakin, H. W., 1972, "Selenium Accumulation in Soils and Its Absorp-
tion by Plants and Animals," Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol.
83, pp. 181-190.
La78 Larson, W.C., 1978, "Uranium In Situ Leach Mining in the United
States," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Information
Circular 8777.
La79 Lappenbusch, W. 1979, U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water, Washington,
0. C. , written communication to Dr. Frank Traylor, State of C.olorado, Depart-
ment of Health, Denver, July 6, 1979.
Lo64 Lowder, W.M., Condon, W.J. and Beck, H.L., 1964, "Field Spectro-
metric Investigations of Environmental Radiation in the U.S.A.," j_n the
Natural Radiation Environment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
pp. 597-616.
Lo76 Lowham, H.W., 1976, "Techniques for Estimating Flow Characteristics
of Wyoming Streams," USGS Water Resources Investigation No. 76-112.
-------
3-252
Ly78 Lyford, F. P. and Frenzel, P.P., 1978, "Ground Water in the San Juan
Basin, New Mexico and Colorado: The Existing Environment," San Juan Basin
Regional Uranium Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Working Paper No. 23.
Ly79 Lyford, F. P. and Frenzel, P. F., 1979, "Modeled effects of uranium
mine dewatering on water resources in Northwestern New Mexico," San Juan
Basin Regional Uranium Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Working Paper No. 37.
Ma69 Masuda, K. , Yamamoto, T., and Kitamura, N., 1969, "Studies on
Environmental Contamination by Uranium, 4. Some Aspects on the Eliminating
Factor of Uranium in Streams," Report Summaries of 12th annual meeting of
the Japan Radiation Research Society, 442.
Mi76 Miller, H. T. , 1976, "Radiation Exposures Associated with Surface
Mining for Uranium," 21st Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society,
San Francisco, California.
Mo74 Moran, R. E. and Wentz, D. A., 1974, "Effects of Metal-Mine Drainage
on Water Quality in Selected Areas of Colorado, 1972-73," U.S. Geological
Survey in Cooperation with the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission,
Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver, Colorado.
NAS72 Natiortal Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1972,
"Water Quality Criteria 1972," Ecological Research Series, EPA-R3-73-033.
NAS79 National Academy of Science, 1979, "Continuation Report of Drinking
Water and Health - Draft," Report to Office of Drinking Water, Safe Drinking
Water Committee, U.S. EPA, 421 p.
NCRP75 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1975,
"Natural Background Radiation in the United States," NCRP Report No, 45.
NM79 New Mexico Energy Resources Board, 1979, "The Uranium Industry in
New Mexico - Its Demands on State Resources," Draft.
-------
3-253
Ni76 Nichols, H. L., 1976, "Moving the Earth," third edition, North
Castle Books, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Ni79 Nielson, K. K., Perkins, R. W., Schwendiman, L.C. and Enderlin, W. I.,
1979, "Prediction of the Net Radon Emission from a Model Open Pit Uranium
Mine," Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report, PNL-2889 Rev.,
NUREG/CR-0628,
NRC76 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, 1976, "Final Generic Environmental Statement on
the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light Water Cooled
Reactors," NUREG-0002, Vol. 3.
NRC77a U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, 1977, "Draft Environmental Statement Related to Operation of
Sweetwater Uranium Project," NUREG-Q4Q3, Docket No. 40-8584.
NRC77b U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, 1977, "Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of
Bear Creek Project," NUREG-0129, Docket No. 40-8452.
NRC78a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, 1978, "Draft Environmental Statement Related to Operation of
White Mesa Uranium Project," Docket No. 40-8681, NUREG-0494.
NRC785 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, 1978, "Draft Environmental Statement Related to Operation of
Highland Uranium Solution Mining Project," Docket No. 40-8102, NUREG-0407.
NRC78c U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978, "Draft Environmental
Statement Related to Operation of the Morton Ranch Uranium Mill, United
Nuclear Corporation," NUREG-0439.
NRC78d U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978, "Final Environment^
Statement - Highland Uranium Solution Mining Project," NUREG-0489.
-------
3-254
NRC79a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, 1979} "Draft Environmental Statement on the Shootering
Canyon Uranium Project (Garfield County, Utah)," NUREG-0504.
NRC79b U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979, "Draft Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling," Volume I, Appendices, NUREG-
0511,
Qa72 Oakley, D, T., 1972, "Natural Radiation Exposure in the United
States," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, ORP/SIO 72-1.
Pa?3 Page, A. L. and Bingham, F, T., 1973, "Cadmium Residues in the
Environment" jm Residue Reviews, Vol. 48, Francis A. Gunther (Ed.),
Springer-Verlag Publishers.
Pa74 Paone, J., Morning, J. and Giorgetti, L., 1974, "Land Utilization
and Reclamation in the Mining Industry, 1930-71," U.S. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 8642.
Pe52 Peele, R., 1952, "Mining Engineers Handbook," John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., London,
Pe79 Perkins, B, L., 1979, "An Overview of the New Mexico Uranium Indus-
try," New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department Report, Santa Fe, New
Mexico.
Ph64 Phair, G. and Gottfried, D., 1964, "The Colorado Front Range, Colo-
rado, U.S.A. as a Uranium and Thorium Province," i_n the Natural Radiation
Environment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-38*
Ra78 Rachal, E. A,, 1978, "Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-9Q8/1-78-QQ3.
Ra77 Rankl, J.G. and Barker, O.S., 1977, "Rainfall and Runoff Data from
Small Basins in Wyoming," Wyoming Water Planning Program/USGS Report No. 17.
-------
3-255
Re76 Reed, A. K., Meeks, H.C., Pomeroy, S.E. and Hale, V.Q., 1976,
"Assessment of Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining and Milling," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-600/7-76-036.
Ri78 Ridgley, J., Green, M., Pierson, C., Finch, W. and Lupe, R. , 1978,
"San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Study, Working Paper No. 8, Summary of the
Geology and Resources of Uranium in the San Juan Basin and Adjacent Region,
New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado," U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geology Survey Report.
Ro64 Roserifeld, I. and Beath, D.A. , 1964, "Selenium: Geobotany, Bio-
chemistry, Toxicity, and Nutrition," Academic Press PublisherSj New York.
Ro78 Rogo^ski, A.S., 1978, "Water Regime in Strip Mine Spoil," i_n Sur-
face Mining and Fish/Wildlife Needs in the Eastern United States, Proc. of
a Symposium, Eds. 0. E. Samuel, J. R.- Stauffer and W. T. Mason, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/81, 137.
Ru58 Rushing, D.E., 1958, Unpublished Memorandum, U.S. Public Health
Service, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ru76 ' Runnels, D. D., 1976, "Wastewaters in the Vadosa Zone of Arid Re-
gions: Geochemical Interactions," Proc. 3rd National Ground Water Quality
Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept. 15-17, 1976, Ground Water 14, No. 6,
374.
Sc74 Schaiger, K. J., 1974, "Analysis of Radiation Exposures on or Near
Uranium Mill Tailings Piles," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Radiation Data Repts. 15, 441-425.
Sc79 Schwendiman, L. C., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1979,
a letter to Harry Landon, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
-------
3-256
Se75 Sears, M. B., Blanco, R. E.» Dahlman, R. C., Hill, G. S,, Ryan, A.D.
and Witherspoon, J, P., May 1975, "Correlation of Radioactive Waste Treatment
Costs and the Environmental Impact of Waste Effluents in the Nuclear Fuel
Cycle for Use in Establishing 'As Low As Practicable1 Guides - Milling of
Uranium Ores," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-TM-4903, Vol. 1.
Sh62 Shearer, S. D. , 1962, "The Teachability of radium-226 from uranium
mill waste solids and river sediments," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, Madison,- Wisconsin,
Sh64 Shearer, S. D., and tee, G. F., 1964, "teachability of Radium-226
from Uranium Mill Solids and River Sediments," Health Physics, 10, 217-227.
Si66 Sigler, W. F., Helm, W, T., Angelovic, J. W. , Linn, W. D. and
Martin, S. S., 1966, "The effects of uranium mill wastes on stream biota,"
Bulletin 462, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
Si77 Sill, C. W. , 1977, "Workshop on Methods for Measuring Radiation in
and Around Uranium Mills," (Edited by Harward, E. D.), Atomic Industrial
Forum Inc., Program Report, Vol. 5, No. 9, 221, Washington, D.C,
So79 Sorenson, J.B. and Marston, K.L., 1979, "Uranium Mining and Milling and
Environmental Protection: Mitigation of Regulatory Problems," San Juan Basin
Regional Uranium Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Working Paper No. 35.
St79 Stein, R. B., 1979, "Modeling Future U-CL Search Costs," Engineering
and Mining Journal 179, No. 11, 112.
St^8 Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., 1978, "Uranium Mining and Milling -
The Need, The"Processes, The Impacts, The Choices," A contract prepared for
the Western Interstate Energy Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report, EPA-908/1-78-OQ4.
Sw76 Swift, J. J. , Hardin, J, M. and Galley, H.W., 1976, "Potential Radio-
logical Impact of Airborne Releases and Direct Gamma Radiation to Individuals
Living Near Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Piles," EPA-520/1-76-001.
-------
3-257
Ta58 Tanner, A.B., 1958, "Meteorological Influence on Radon Concen-
tration in Drill Holes," AIME Trans, 214, 706.
Ta78 Tanner, A. B., 1978, "Radon Migration in the Ground: A Supple-
mentary Review," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1050.
Ta64 Taylor, S. R,, 1964, "Abundance of Chemical Elements in the Con-
tinental Crust: A New Table," Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 29, 1273.
Th79 Thomasson, W. N., 1979, "Draft Environmental Development Plan for
Uranium Mining, Milling and Conversion," U.S. Department of Energy.
Th78 Thompson, W.E., et. a!., 1978, "Ground-Water Elements of in-Situ
Leach Mining of Uranium," A contract prepared by Geraghty and Miller, Inc.,
for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-Q311.
Tr79 Travis, C. C,, Watson, A. P., McDowell-Boyer, L. M., Cotter, S. J.,
Randolph, M, L. and Fields, D. E,, 1979, "A Radiological Assessment of Ra-
don-222 Released from Uranium Mills and Other Natural and Technologically
Enhanced Sources," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-0573 (ORNL/
NUREG-55).
Tu69 Turekian, K. K., 1969, "Handbook of Geochemistry," Springer-Verlog,
New York, pp. 314-316.
TVA76 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1976, "Final Environmental Statement -
Morton Ranch Uranium Mining".
TVA78a Tennessee Valley Authority, Department of the Interior, 1978, "Final
Environmental Statement - Dal ton Pass Uranium Mine".
TVA78b Tennessee Valley Authority, Department of the Interior, 1978, "Draft
Environmental Statement - Crownpoint Uranium Mining Project".
TVA79 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1979, "Draft Environmental Statement -
Edgemont Uranium Mine".
-------
3-258
Tw79 Tweeton, 0, R., et. al., 1979, "Qeoehemical Changes During In Situ
Uranium Leaching with Acid," SME-AIME Preprint.
UGS54 Utah Geological Society, 1954, Guidebook to the Geology of Utah,
No. 9, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
We?4 Wentz, D. A,, 1974, "Effect of Mine Drainage on the Quality of
Streams in Colorado, 1971-72," U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with
the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission, Colorado Water Conser-
vation Board," Denver, Colorado, Circular No. 21.
Wh76 Whicker, F. W. and Winsor, T.F., 1976, "Interpretation of Radio-
logical Analyses of Soil and Vegetation Collected from 1971 through 1975
at the Shirley Basin Uranium Mine," Utah International Inc., San Fran-
cisco, California.
Wo71 Woolson, E. A., Axley, J. H., anu Kearney, P. C. 1971, "The Chem-
istry and Phytotoxicity of Arsenic in So:Is; I. Contaminated Field Soils,"
Soil Scientists Society of America Proceedings, /ol. 35.
Wo79 Wogman, N. A., 1979, "Environmental Study of Active and Inactive
Uranium Mines, Mills and their Effluents," Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratory Report, PNL-3069.
Wy76-78 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division,
1976-1978, Guidelines Nos. 1-6.
Wy77 Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 1977, "Environmental Report - Irigaray
Project, Johnson County, Wyoming," Wyoming Mineral Corporation, 3900 So.
Wadsworth Blvd. , Lakewood, Colorado 80235.
Ya73 Yamamoto, T., Yunoki, E., Yamakawa, M., and Shimizu, M., 1973,
"Studies on Environmental Contamination by Uranium, 3. Effects of Carbonate
Ion on Uranium Adsorption to and Desorption from Soils," Journal of Radiation
Research, 14, 219-224.
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF MINES
-------
4 -
4.0 Description of Model Mines
Section 1.3 describes uranium mines and their operations, and Section 3
describes the potential sources of contamination at the principal types of
active and inactive mines. These discussions include an analysis of the
potential sources of contamination, quantities of contaminants associated
with the different sources, variations in the sources, and estimates of the
values needed to define the impact that these sources may impose upon the
environment and nearby populations. We attempted to define these terras and
mining parameters in a way that would reflect a general view of the uranium
mining industry and permit a generic assessment. The parametric values that
we have chosen for this assessment are listed below. The sections of this
report from which they we»*e derived are given in parentheses.
4.1 Surface Mine
The model open pit (surface) mine will be located in Wyoming. It is the
mine defined in Section 3.3 as the "average large mine." However, to define
the total Impact of all 63 open pit mines operating in the United States in
1978 we used the parameters developed in Section 3.3 for the "average mine."
Parameter
Ore, MT/yr
Sub-ore, MT/yr
Overburden, MT/yr
Production Parameters (1.3.1, 3.3.1)
Average La rge Hi ne
5.1 x 105
5.1 x 105
4.0 x 107
Average Mine
1,2 x 105
1.2 x 105
6.0 x 106
Parameter
Mining days
per year
Mine life, yr
Ore stockpile
residence time,
Overburden
management
days
Mining Parameters^3.3.1)
Average la rge Mine
330
17
41
Case 2*
Average Mine
330
17
41
Case 2*
*Case 2—Backfilling concurrent with mining - assumes 7 pits opened in 17-yr.
mine life and the equivalent of one-pit overburden (2.4 yr. production)
remains on the surface.
-------
4-2
Parameter
Average grade,
percent UgOg
Th-232 concentration,
Activity ratio
(dust/ore)
Mineralogy
Density, MT/m3
Surface 'area o
stockpile, m
Area of pad, m
Stockpile height, m
Thickness of ore
zone, m
Ore Parameters (3.3.1.2)
Average Urge Mine
0.1
10
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
6,200
5,300
9.2
12
Average Mine
0.1
10
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
3,590
3,340
3.1
12
Parameter
Average grade,
' percent ILQg
Th-232 concentration,
pCi/g
Activity ratio
(dust/sub-ore)
Mineralogy
Density, MT/m3
Surface area of
2
stockpile, m
Stockpile height, m
Area of pad, hectares
Sub-Ore Parameters (3.3.1.3)
PeerageLarge Mine
0.015
flverageMine
0.01S
2
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
120,000
30
11
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
36,000
30
3
-------
4 - 3
Parameter
Average grade,
percent U3CL
Th-232 concentration,
pCI/g
Mineralogy
Density, MT/ra3
Surface area of
2
dump, m
Dump height, m
Area of terrain,
hectares
Overburden Parameters (3,3.1.1)
Average Large Mine
0.0020
1
Sedimentary
2.0
1.1 x 106
65
104
Average Mine
0.0020
1
Sedimentary
2.0
3.5 x"10
30
33
5
Wastewater Discharge Parameters
Parameters (mg/j, except as noted)
Discharge volume,
m /ruin
Total uranium
Radium-226, pCi/£ ^
Total suspended solids
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
Average Mine
2.94
(Assumed value of 3.0)
0.07
0.41
20.88
175
0.071
0.004
0.005
(a)
Concentration of Ra-226 and its daughters are reduced to 10^ of the
amount actually released due to irreversible sorption and precipitation.
^Concentration of sulfate is reduced to 20% of the amount actually
released due to Irreversible sorption and precipitation.
-------
4-4
Ai rborneSource Terms (3.3.4)
Section 3,3.4 identifies and describes potential sources of airborne
contamination at surface mines. The principal sources are dusts produced
by mining operations and wind erosion and Rn-222 released by exposed uranium
in the pit and overburden, sub-ore, and ore piles. The tables of Section
3.3.4 present the average annual emissions of contaminants from these sources
during active mining.
Source
Combustion Products
Vehicular Dusts
Dust from Mining Activities
Wind Suspended Dust
Rn-222 Emissions
4.2 Underground Hi_n_e
The model underground mine, defined in Section 3.4 as the "average large
mine," will be located in New Mexico, However, to determine the total impact
of all 305 underground uranium mines in the United States we used the
parameters developed in Section 3.4 for the "average mine."
Parameter
Ore, MT/yr
Sub-ore, MT/yr
Waste rock, MT/yr
Production Parameters (1.3.1, 3.4.1)
Average Large Mine
2__5
2 x 105
2,2 x 104
Average Mine
1.8 x 104
1.8 x 104
2.0 x 103
Parameter
Mining days per year -
Mine life, yr
Ore stockpile residence
time, days
Waste rock management
Mi n i ncj Parameters (1.4.1!
Ave rage Larc[g_ _H i _ne
330
17
41
No backfill
Average Mine
330
17
41
No backfill
-------
4-5
Parameter
Average grade,
percent U30g
Th-232 concentration,
pCi/g
Activity ratio
(dust/ore)
Mineralogy
Density, MT/m
Surface area of
2
stockpile, m
Stockpile height, m
2
Area of pad, m
Ore Parameters (3.4.1.2)
Average Large Mine
0.10
10
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
5,300
3.1
5,480
Average Mine
0.10
10
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
680
3.1
620
Parameter
Average grade,
percent U3Gg
Th-232 concentration,
pCi/g
Activity ratio
(dust/sub-ore)
Mineralogy
Density, MT/m
Surface area of
2
dump, m
Dump height, m
?
Area of pad, ra
Sub-Ore Parameters(3.4,1.3)
Average Large Mine
0.035
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
104,900
12
99,400
Average Mine
0.035
2.5
Sandstone
2.0
18,800
6
17,700
-------
4-6
Maste Rock Parameters (3.4,1.1)
Parameters
Average grade,
percent U30g
Th-232 concentration,
pCi/g
Mineralogy
Density, MT/m3 -
Surface area of
2
dump, :n
Dump h&vjht, m
2
Area or terrain, m
Average Large Mine
0.0020
1
Sedimentary
2.0
14,100
12
12,800
Average Mine
0.0020
Sedimentary
2.0
2,700
6
Viastewater Discharge Parameters (3.4.2.2)
Parameter (mg/jj except as noted)
Discharge volume,
m /min
Total Uranium
Radium-226, pCi
Lead-210, pCi/s
Total suspended solids
Zinc
Barium
Cadmium
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Selenium
Average Mine
2.78
(assume value of 2.0)
1.41
1.37
1.46
27.8
116
0.043
0.81
0.007
0.012
0.29
0.076
U)
Concentrations of Ra-226 and its daughters are reduced to 10 per-
cent of the amount actually released due to irreversible sorption and pre-
cipitation.
* ^Concentrations of sulfate are reduced to 20 percent of the amount
actually released due to irreversible sorption and precipitation.
-------
4-7
Ai rborneSourceTerms (3,4.4)
Section 3,4.4 identifies and describes potential sources of airborne
contamination at underground mines. The principal sources are contaminated
dusts due to mining operations and wind erosion and Rn-222 that is released
from the mine exhaust vents during mining and from waste rock, sub-ore, and
ore pile surfaces. Average annual emissions of contaminants from these
sources during active fliining operations are presented in the following tables
of Section 3.4.4.
Source Table
Combustion Products 3.52
Vehicular Dusts 3.56
Dust from Mining Activities 3.54
Wind Suspended Dust 3.55
Rn-222 Emissions 3.51
4.3 In Situ Leach Mine
The following parameters are for a model (hypothetical) in situ solution
mine as defined in Section 3.5;
1. Size of deposit = 52.6 hectares
2. Average thickness of ore body = 8 m
3. Average ore grade = 0.06 percent U30g
4. Mineralogy = Sandstone
5. Ore density = 2 MT/m3
6. Ore body depth = 153 m
7. Mine life = 10 years (2-yr leach period in each of 5 sectors)
8. Well pattern = 5 spot
Injection wells - 260
Production wells = 200
Monitoring wells = 80
9. Annual U30g production » 227 MT
10. Uranium leaching efficiency = 80 percent
11. Lixiviant - Alkaline-
12. Lixiviant flow capacity a 2,000 i/m1n
13. Lixivitnt bleed = 50 A/min (2.5 percent)
14. Uranium 1n Lixiviant * 183 mg/g,
15. Calcite.(CaC03) removal required = 2 kg calcite per kg U_0g
-------
4-8
Data were insufficient to estimate aqueous releases of contaminants from
these type mines. However, since these facilities are planned to operate
with no aqueous discharges, releases of contaminants via this pathway, except
for possible excursions, should be small. Annual releases of contaminants to
the atmosphere were computed in Section 3.5.3 for the model mine and listed
in Table 3.59. These estimated annual airborne releases will be used to
compute dose and indicate adverse health effects that might be associated
with in situ leach mining.
4.4 jn_actjve Gurface Mine
The model inactive surface mine will be located in Wyoming. It is
defined in Suction 3.7.1. The model mine parameters are listed below.
Mine Parameters
1. Period of active mining = 17 years
2. Total waste rock production = 8.88 x 10 MT
4
3. Total ore production = 3.59 x 10 MT
3
4. Density of ore and waste rock = 2.0 MT/m
5. Size of abandoned pit:
Volume = 4.62 x 105 m3
4 2
Ground surface area = 2.03 x 10 m
Pit bottom area = 6.00 x 103 m2
Depth = 36.7 m
6. Surface area and composition of waste rock pile =
4 2
6.33 x 10 m uniformly covered to a depth of
0.36 m with sub-ore
7. Reclamation = none
Airborne Source Terms
Sections 3.7.1.1 and 3.7.1.2 identify and describe potential sources of
airborne contamination at inactive surface uranium mines. The principal
sources are contaminated, wind-suspended dust from the waste rock pile and
Rn-222 released from exposed ore and sub-ore bearing surfaces in the pit and
the waste rock pile. Tables 3.70 and 3.74 show average annual emissions of
contaminants from these sources.
-------
4-9
4.5 Inactive Underground Mine
The model inactive underground mine will be located in New Mexico. It is
defined in Section 3.7.2, and its parameters are listed below.
Mine Parameters
1. Period of active mining - 15 yrs
4
2. Total waste rock production = 1.00 x 10 MT
4
3. Total ore production = 3.14 x 10 MT
4. Density of ore and waste rock =2.0 MT/m
5. Surface area and composition of waste rock pile =
3 2
4.08 x 10 m uniformly covered to a depth of
0.78 m with sub-ore
6. Mine entrance and exhaust vents not sealed
Airborne Source Terms
Sections 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.2.2 identify and define potential sources of
airborne contamination at inactive underground uranium mines. The principal
sources are contaminated, wind-suspended dust from the waste rock pile and
Rn-222 released from the unsealed mine entrance and exhaust vents and the
waste rock pile. Tables 3.76 and 3.77 list average annual emission of con-
taminants from these sources.
-------
SECTION 5
POTENTIAL PATHWAYS
-------
5-1
5.0 Potential Pathways
5.1 General
5.1.1 Vegetation
Airborne participate radioactivity may be deposited directly on the
edible foliar surfaces of crops or on the soil and then migrate through the
soil into the plant's root system and into an edible crop. Such crops may be
consumed directly by man or by animals which are ultimately consumed by man.
The use of contaminated water (either groundwater or surface) to irrigate
crops may also lead to the ingestion of radionuclides from either the direct
consumption of the crop or the crop-to-animai-to-man pathway.
The reconnaissance surveys of some inactive uranium mine sites indicated
that no crops for human consumption were being farmed at or near any of the
sites. Although the potential for man's ingestion of radionuclides in edible
crops due to the direct deposition or the root uptake of either airborne par-
ticulates or contaminated mine water is a greater possibility near the active
mines, farming in such areas is not extensive.
Almost every inactive and active mine site visited had range cattle and/
or sheep grazing on the natural vegetation growing at the site; hence, the
possible consumption of such animals could be a potential pathway for man's
ingestion of radionuclides released into the environment surrounding the mine
sites.
5.1.2 Wildlife
There are numerous species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians
at both active and inactive uranium mine sites. Though mining may destroy
their natural habitat, there are no significant radiological impacts on
wildlife in these areas. Dewatering and drainage from active mines sometimes
create ponds or streams that may be used by migratory waterfowl and local
wildlife as a source of water, but, when mining is completed, the ponds dry
up, probably without leaving any permanent or significant radiological impact
on wildlife. The small lakes formed in inactive surface mine pits, however,
may remain for a long "period of time and have a significant environmental
impact. It would be expected that sedimentation and eutrophication of the
lakes would progressively diminish the impact with time by reducing the con-
tact of ore bodies with the biosphere. The potential food pathway of animal-
-------
5-2
to-man via wildlife hunting at these sites is also minimal. Hunting 1s poor
and hunting restrictions are usually observed at the mine sites.
5.1.3 Land Use
Most uranium mining activities have been conducted in areas away from
population centers. Most mines are located on private property or are on
Federal lands such as national forests. The predominant land use is as
rangeland (or forest) and only minor areas are cropland. The fraction of land
-3
used for vegetable crop production for Wyoming and New Mexico is 1.59 x 10
_g
and 1.38 x 10 -, respectively. This fraction is based on the assumption that
the statewide fractions apply to uranium mining areas within each state.
Average population densities are typically rural, i.e., less than one person
p
per 2.6 km .
5.1.4 Population Near Mining Areas
Uranium mines occur in clusters throughout many western states and are
somewhat scattered throughout the eastern states. In order to estimate the
number of persons residing within 50 miles (80km) of a mine, we used county
populations where there either is or has been mining. Table 5.1 lists the
states and their respective mining counties plus the numbers of inactive and
active surface and underground uranium mines in each county. We derived the
county population statistics from U.S. Department of Commerce census data
(DOC78), which are January 1, 1975 estimates. The county areas were obtained
from the same reference.
2
The area, 20,106 km , within a circle with a radius of 80 km usually
exceeds the area of most counties. Because of this, the number of persons
residing within 80 km of a mine will be underestimated using county popula-
tion statistics. In other words, we consider the estimates of populations
within the mining regions to be somewhat low.
Persons residing in a mining area are likely to be exposed from more
than one mine because of the aforementioned clustering. To account for this,
Table 5.1 -lists the product (person-mines) for both active and inactive uran-
ium mines. The total number of person-mines for inactive mines Is approxi-
mately 82,000,000 persons. The total number of person-mines for active mines
is approximately 14,000,000 persons. The combined equivalent population
exposed to inactive and active uranium mining is approximately 96,000,000
persons.
-------
Table 5.1 Number of uranium mines and population statistics for counties
containing uranium nines
State County
!
Alaska Southeast'3'
Arizona Apache
Coehlse
Co con i no
filla
Graham
Maricopa
Mohava
Nivajo
Pfrrta
Santa Cm*
Yavapa 1
California Imperial
Inyo
tern
Lassen
Number of
Uranium Mines
Inactive Active
I
140
2
113
18
1
3
5
3S
2
3
3
2
1
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Population
Density County Area
2 2
(persons/km ) (tai)
0,03
1.1
3.8
1.0
2.4
i,4
41,
0.76
2.3
19.
4.3
1.8
6,8
0.77
17
1.4
44,501
28,930
16,203
48,019
12,297
11,961
23,711
34,232
2S.666
23,931
3,227
20,956
10,984
26,237
21,113
11,816
County
Population
(persons)
1,282
32,304
81,918
48,326
29,255
16,578
i?l,Z28
25,857
5i»649
443,958
13,966
37,005
74,492
17,259
349,874
16,796
Person-Mines Person-Mines
Inactive Active
1,282
4,522,560
123,836
5,460,838
526,590
16,578
2,913,684
129,285
2,088,715
887,916
41,898
111,015
148,984
17.2S9
2,099,244
33,592
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59,649
443,958
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5.1
(Continued)
State County
i
California Madera
Mono
Riverside
San Bernarduv
Sierra
Tuolurnne
Colorado Boulder
Clear Creek
Custer
Dolores
Eagle
El Paso
Fremont
Garfield
Gilpin
Grand
Number of
Uranium Mines
Inactive Active
1
1
5
3
4
1
7
4
3
6
2
1
25
10
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Population
Density
(persons /km'
7.5
0.51
25.
14
1.2
4.6
68
4.8
0.59
0.62
1.7
42
6.6
2.3
5.0
0.86
County Area
!) (to)2
5,556
7,840
18,586
52,103
2,481
5.832
1,937
995
1,909
2,657
4,353
5,587
4,022
7,759
383
4,802
County ,
Population
(persons)
41,519
4,016
456,916
696,871
2,842
25,996
131,889
4,819
1,120
1.641
7,498
235,972
26,545
17,845
1,915
4,107
Person-Mines Person-Mines
Inactive Active
41,519
4,016
2,284,580
2,090,613
2,842
25,996
923,223
19,276
3,360
9,846
14,996
235,972
663,625
178,450
7,660
16,428
0
0
o •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5.1
(Continued)
(
State County
Colorado Gunnison
Hinsdale
Huerfano
Jefferson
La Plata
Larimer
Mesa
Moffat
Montezuma
Hontrose
Park
Pitkin
Pueblo
Rio Blanco
Saguache
San Juan
Number of
Uranium Mines
Inactive Active
1
1
2
13
3
5
185
18
6
479
7
1
1
26
13
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
20
3
I
63
0
0
0
0
1
0
Population
Density
( persons/km )
1.2
0.19
1.6
120
5.4
17
7,3
0.77
2.7
3.5
0.77
3.5
20
0.77
0,39
0.77
County Area
(to)2
8,339
2,729
4,077
2,018
4,358
6,762
8,549
12,284
5,423
5,796
5,599
2,520
6,228
8,45t
8,142
1,012
County
Population
( persons \
10, DOS
519
6,590
235,368
23,533
114,954
62,407
9,459
14,642
20,286
4,311
8,820
124,560
6,507
3f175
779
Person-Mines
Inactive
10,006
519
13,180
3,059,784
70,599
574,770
11,545,295
170,262
87,852
9,716,994
30,177
8.S20
124,560
169,182
41,275
1,558
Person-Mines
Active
0
0
0
235,368
0
0
1,248,140
28,377
14,642
1,278,018
0
0
0
0
3,175
0
-------
Table 5.1
(Continued)
State
Col arado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
County
San Miguel
Teller
Custer
Lemhi
Broadwater
Carbon
Fallen
Hill
Jefferson
Hadfson
Clark
Elko
Humboldt
Lander
Lincoln
Lyon
Number of
Uranium Hines
Inactive Active
339
3
5
1
1
11
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Population
Density
{persons/km*
0.7?
3.9
0.23
0.39
0.82
1.5
0.96
2.3
1.5
0.55
16,2
0.31
0.25
0.39
0.19
1.9
Coynty Area
1 (te)2
3,322
1,432
12,?66
11,862
3,090
5,325
4,229
7,581
4,278
9,138
20,393
44,452
25,128
14,558
27,114
5,257
County
Population
(persons)
E.557
5,584
2,967
6,395
2,526
7,797
4,050
17,358
6,839
5,014
330,714
13,958
6,375
2,992
2,64?
10,508
Person-Mines Person-Mines
Inactive Active
866,823
16,752
14,835
6,395
2,52$
85,767
4,050
17,358
20,517
5,014
661.428
41,874
6,375
5,984
5,294
21,016
63,925
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5.1
(Continued)
State
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
County
Mineral
; Hye
Was hoe
Sussex
Catron
Dona Ana,
Grant
Harding
Hidalgo
McKinley
Mora
Quay
R1o Arriba
Sandoval
San Juan
San Miguel
Santa Fe
Number of
Uranium Mines
Inactive Active
2
1
6
I
4
1
3
1
1
73
1
3
8
3
41
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Population
Oens i ty
o
{persons/km )
0.71
0.12
8,9
73
0.12
7.1
2.1
0.25
0.53
3.5
0.93
1.5
1.9
2.3
4.6
1.8
13
County Area
(ta»)2
9,751
46,786
16,487
1,364
17,863
9,852
10,282
5,527
8,927
14,138
5,025
7,446
15,133
9,619
14,245
12,279
4,926
County
Population
(persons)
7,051
5,5§9
144,750
99,299
2,198
69,773
22,030
1,348
4,734
49,483
4,573
10,903
28,752
22,123
65,527
21,§S1
64,038
Person-Mines
Inactive
14,102
5,599
868,100
99,299
8,792
69,773
66,090
1,348
4,734
3,612,259
4,673
32,709
230,016
66,369
2,686,S07
$5,853
128,076
Person-Mines
Active
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,731,905
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5,1
(Continued)
State
Mew Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
County
Sierra
Socorro
Taos
Valencia
Billings
Slope
Stark
Cad do
Custer
Crook
Lake
Butte
Custer
Fall River
Harding
Lanrence
Pennlngton
Number
Uranium
Inactive
6
7
I
19
9
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
ID
93
28
2
5
of
Mines
Active
0
Q
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Population
Density
2
{ persons/km )
0.6?
0.57
3,0
3.1
0.39
0.39
5.8
8.8
8.3
1.3
0.34
1.3
l.Z
1.9
0.39
8.4
8.3
County Area
(km)2
10,790
17,102
5,843
14,649
2,950
3,172
3,408
3,294
2,538
7,703
21,318
5,827
4,032
4,514
6,946
2,072
7,198
County
Population
(persons)
7,189
9,763
17,516
45,411
1,153
1,360
19,650
28,931
21,040
9,985
7,158
7,825
5,196
8,066
1,879
17,453
59,349
Person-Mines
Inactive
43,134
68,341
17,516
862,809
10,377
1,360
58,950
57,862
21,040
9,985
14,316
23,475
51,960
750,138
$2,612
34,906
296,745
Person-Mines
Active
0
0
0
181,644
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5.1
(Continued)
State County
Texas • Briseoe
Burnet
Crosby
Sana
Gonzales
Karnes
lite Oak
Utah Beaver
Box El
-------
Table 5.1
(Continued)
State
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Cou n ty
Pmte
San Juan
Sevier
Umtah
Mash ing ton
Wayne
Pend Orel lie
Spokane
Stevens
Albany
8ig Horn
Camp be 1 1
Carbon
Converse
Crook
Fremont
Number
Uranium
Inactive
10
241
2
14
6
32
3
9
1
4
9
55
16
31
23
65
of
Mines
Active
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
z
0
0
0
3
5
0
13
Population
Bens i ty
2
(persons/km }
0,77
0.77
2.3
1.5
2.7
0.39
1.9
67
3.5
2.3
1.5
1.2
0,77
0.77
0.77
1.2
County Area
(km)2
1,952
i§,961
4, §96
11,621
8,281
6,438
3,631
4,553
6,4
-------
Table S.I
(Continued)
Stite County
Wyoming Johnson
i Nitrona
Niobrara
Sublett«
Sweetwater
Washakie
Weston
Rum her
Uranium
Inactive
15
16
13
1
4
2
1
Of
Mines
Active
0
2
0
0
I
0
0
Population
Dans i tv
y
(persons/km )
0,39
3,9
0,39
0.39
1.2
1,5
1,0
Average Population
Density Area
2
4.4 persons /km 1
County Area
(km)2
10,813
13,835
6,770
12,554
27,011
5,858
6»Z34
County
Population Person-Mines Person-Mines
(persons) Inactive Active
4,217 63,255
53,956 863,296
2,640 34,320
4,899 4,899
32,413 129,652
8,78? 17,574
6,307 6,307
Total County Total Person-Mines
(tan)2 Population (Inactive)
,492,136 6,625,099 82,327,885
0
107,912
0
0
64,826
0
0
Total Person-Nines
(Active)
14,035,161
Note.--Population statistics from (OOC78).
Congressional District.
-------
5-12
5.1.5 Population Statistics of Humansand BeefCattle
Table 5,2 lists some population statistics for humans in New Mexico and
Wyoming, humans in all uranium mining states, and beef cattle in New Mexico
and Wyoming.
Table 5.2 Population statistics for humans and beef cattle
TotalHuman andBeef Cattle Population Within 80 km Radius of Mines
New Mexico Wyoming All Uranium Mining States
Human 447,412 224,195 6,625,099
Beef cattle 753,000 905,000
Average Human and Beef Cattle Population Densities Within 80 km Radius
of Uranium Mines (number/km r'
Human
Beef Cattle
2.4
4.1
1.3
5.1
4.4
taken from Table 5.1: New Mexico - 183,646 km2; Wyoming • 177,422
2 2
km, and the total county area = 1,492,136 km ,
5.2 ProminentEnylronmental Pathways and Parameters for Aqueous Releases
From a computer code prepared within EPA, we calculated annual committed
dose equivalents to individuals and annual collective dose equivalents to a
population for these assessments. Table 5.3 lists the aqueous pathways that
were initially-considered potential pathways of exposure. As indicated in
Table 5,3, these pathways result in computation of dose equivalents due to
inhalation, ingestion, ground surface exposure, and air submersion. For above
surface crop ingestion, milk ingestion, and beef ingestion (pathways 3, 4,
and 5), we considered only uptake through the plant root systems to predict
-------
5-13
concentrations of radlonuelides in crops, since essentially all irrigation is
ditch irrigation. Appendix J contains a detailed explanation of the
environmental transport and dosimetry models used in these analyses.
The maximum individual for the aquatic pathways is the individual at
maximum risk. He is exposed to radionuclides discharged in mine effluent
through pathways 2 through 10 of Table 5.3. The water contributing radionu-
cl ides to these pathways comes from a creek into which a mine discharges. The
average individual is exposed to the average risk of all persons included in
the population of the assessment area. He is exposed to radionuclides dis-
charged in mine effluent through pathways 2 through 8 and 10 of Table 5.3.
The water contributing radionucl ides to these pathways is taken from the
regional river after the creek water has been diluted in this river. The
population considered in the assessment of the aquatic pathways is obtained
by multiplying the regional assessment area size by the population density
within this area. This assessment area contains the drainage basin for the
mine effluent stream, the creek and the regional river discussed in defining
the maximum and average individuals.
5.2.1 IndividualCommitted Dose Equivalent Assessment
Section 6 of this report contains the computed dose equivalents to the
maximum individual and to the average individual. For the maximum indi-
vidual,' we included all pathways in Table 5.3 except drinking water (pathway
1). It is known that the releases to the aquatic environment occur through
discharge of mine water to surface streams. Potentially, drinking water
could be one of the most significant pathways for the maximum individual dose
equivalents, if surface water containing mine wastes was drunk. However, it
appears that all drinking water for both the New Mexico and the Wyoming sites
conies from wells (Robert Kaufmann, 1979, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, NV, personal communication). Thus, the only way mine
discharges can enter human drinking water is by percolating through the soil.
Since we do not know the soil chemistry for these sites well enough to
predict the ion-exchange- parameters for the soil, we can not predict,
realistically, the quantity of mine-related radionuclides that would ^ach
the groundwater. We expect that these ion-exchange factors would be large
for several of the radionuclides conn'dered in these analyses and that
groundwater concentrations of radionuclides discharged in mine water
-------
5-14
would be quite small compared to concentrations In the surface water down-
stream from the mines. Further study is needed before dose equivalents for
the maximum individual by drinking groundwater can be adequately addressed.
The following are other assumptions used to calculate maximum individual
dose equivalents:
1. Ground surface concentrations of radionuclldes (used for
pathways 6 through 8) are for 8.5 years, the assumed
midpoint of mine life. The assumed period of mine oper-
ation is 17 years. The organ annual dose equivalents for
the external surface exposure pathway are based on the
ground concentrations after the 8.5 years buildup time.
2. For inhaled or ingested radionuclides» the dose equivalents
are the annual committed dose equivalents that will be
accumulated over 70 years after intake for an adult.
We calculated dose equivalents to the average individual in the assess-
ment area by taking the population dose equivalents (discussed in Subsection
5.2.2) and dividing by the population living in the area.
Table 5.3 Aquatic environmental transport pathways initially considered
Pathway No. Pathway
1 Drinking water ingestion
2 Freshwater fish ingestion
3 Above surface crops ingestion - irrigated cropland
4 Milk ingestion - cows grazing on irrigated pasture
5 Beef Ingestion - cows grazing on irrigated pasture
6 Inhalation - material resuspended which was deposited
during irrigation
7 External dose due to ground contamination by material
originally deposited during irrigation
8 External dose due to air submersion in resuspended
material originally deposited during irrigation
9 Milk ingestion - cows drinking contaminated
surface water
10 Beef ingestion - cows drinking contaminated surface
water
-------
5-15
5.2.2 Collective (Population) Dose Equivalent Assessment
For the population dose equivalent assessment calculations, we concluded
that the pathways of concern are pathways 2, 3» 4, 5, 6, 7t 8» and 10 of
Table 5.3 (detailed discussion in Appendix J, subsection J2). The size of
2 2
the assessment areas for New Mexico is 19,037 km and 13,650 km for Wyoming.
We used the following considerations to calculate population dose equivalents
for the assessment area:
1. Ground surface concentrations of radionuclides are for 8.5
years, the assumed midpoint mine life. (The period of
mine operation is 17 years.) The organ annual collective
dose equivalent rates for the external surface exposure
pathway are based on the ground concentrations after the
8.5 year buildup time.
2, For inhaled or ingested radionuclides, the dose equivalents
are the annual collective dose equivalents that will be ac-
cumulated over the 70 years after intake for adults.
3. The population distributions around the sites are based
on estimates by county planners (John Zaboroc, 1979,
Converse Area Planning Office, Douglas, Wyoming, personal
communication) and agricultural personnel (Tony Romo, 1979,
Valencia County Agent, Los Lunas, New Mexico, personal
communication) for 1979. The populations, assumed to remain
constant in time, were estimated to be 16,230 and 64,950
persons in the Wyoming and New Mexico assessment areas,
respectively,
4. Average agricultural production data for the county which con-
tains a major portion of the assessment area are used.
5. The population in the assessment area eats food from the as-
sessment area. We assume that any imported food is free ot
radionuclides.
As mentioned previously. Appendix J contains the details regarding the
models and values for parameters used in these analyses.
-------
5-16
5.3 j^gnimentEnvironmentalPathways and Paraffieters for Atmospheric Releases
We used the AIRDOS-EPA (Mo79) computer code to calculate radionyclide
air and ground concentrations, ingestion and inhalation intakes, and working
level exposures; and we used the DARTAB (BeSO) computer code to calculate dose
and risk from the AIRDOS-EPA Intermediate output using dose and risk factors
from the RADRISK (Du80) computer code. We calculated working levels associ-
ated with Rn-222 emissions assuming that Rn-222 decay products were 70 per-
cent in equilibrium with Rn-222» a value considered representative of indoor
exposure conditions (Se78). Appendix K contains a detailed discussion of the
application of the AIRDOS-EPA and RA0RISK computer codes.
Figure 5.1 shows the general airborne pathways evaluated for uranium
mines. We calculated doses due to air immersion, ground surface exposure,
inhalation, and ingestion of radionuclides, but w= did not address the resus-
pension pathway, since the AIRDOS-EPA code did nat provide a method for cal-
culating resuspended air concentrations or subssquent redeposftlon to the
ground surface. We used the modification to the AIRDOS-EPA computer code
made by Nelson (Me80) to include the effect of environmental removal of
radioactivity from the soil. For ingestion, transfers associated with both
root uptake and foliar deposition on food and forage are considered,
5.3.1 IndividualCommittedDoseEquivalentAssessment
We assessed the maximum individual on the following basis:
1. The maximum individual for each source category is intended
to represent an average of the individuals living close to
each model uranium mine. The individual Is assumed to be
located about 1600 meters from the center of the model site.
2. Ground surface concentrations of radionuclides used in the
assessment are those that would occur during the midpoint of
the active life of the model uranium mine. Buildup times
used in the assessment are 8.5 years for active surface and
underground mines, 5 years for the in situ leach mine, and
26.5 years for the inactive surface and underground mines.
The 26.5-year buildup time for the inactive mines is chosen
to represent the midpoint of the 53-year exposure time that
a resident living a lifetime in the region around the model
mine is estimated to experience. The organ dose equivalent
rates for the external surface exposure pathway are based on
-------
Airborne Radionuehdes and Trace Metal Contaminants
Inhalation
Soil
Vegetation
"*" Ingestion
Animals
Ul
I
' Figure 5 1 Potential airborne pathways in the vicinity of uranium mines.
-------
5-18
"the concentrations for the indicated buildup time,
3. For inhaled or ingested radionuclides, the dose equivalent
rates are actually the 70-year committed dose equivalent
rates for an adult receptor, i.e., the internal dose equiva-
lent that would be delivered up to 70 years after an intake.
The individual dose equivalent rates in the tables are in
units of mrem/yr.
4. The individual is assumed to home grow a portion of his or
her diet consistent with the rural setting for each model
uranium mine site. Appendix K contains the actual fractions
of home-produced food consumed by individuals for the model
mine sites. The portion of the individual's diet that was
not locally produced is assumed to be imported and uncontam-
inated by the assessment source.
5.3.2 ColTective (Population) Dose Equivalent Assessment
The collective dose equivalent assessment to the population out to 80 km
from the facility under consideration is performed as follows:
1. The population distribution around the model mine sites is
based on the 1970 census. The population is assumed to re-
main constant in time.
2. Ground surface concentrations and organ dose equivalent rates
for the external surface exposure pathway (as for the individ-
ual case) are those that would occur over the active life of
the model mine.
3. Average agricultural production data for the state in which the
model uranium mine is located are assumed.
4. Jhe population in the assessment area eats food from the assess-
ment area to the extent that the calculated production allows,
and any balance is assumed to be imported without contamination
by the assessment source.
5. Seventy-year committed dose equivalent factors for an adult
receptor (as for the individual case) are used for ingestion
and inhalation.
-------
5-19
5.4 Mine Wastes Used In the Construction of Habitable Structures
Using uranium mine wastes under or around habitable structures or
building habitable structures on land contaminated with uranium mine wastes
can result in increased radiation exposures to individuals occupying these
structures. The radium-226 present in these wastes elevates the concen-
trations of radon-222 and its decay products and produces increased gamma
radiation inside these structures. The health risk to individuals occupying
these structures is generally much greater from inhaling radon-222 decay
products than the risk received from gamma radiation.
Radon-222, formed from the decay of radium-226, is an inert gas that
diffuses through the soil and migrates readily through foundations, floors,
and walls and accumulates in the inside air of a structure. Breathing
radon-222 and its short-lived decay products (principally polonium-218,
bismuth-214, and polonium-214) exposes the lungs to radiation.
The radon-222 decay product concentration (working level) inside a
structure from radon-222 gas diffusing from underlying soil is extremely
variable and influenced by many complex factors. These would include the
radium-226 concentration of the soil, the fraction of radon-222 emanating
from the soil, the diffusion coefficient of radon-222 in soil, the rate of
influx of radon-222 into the structure, the ventilation rate of the
structure, and the amount of plate-out (adsorption) of radon-222 decay
products on inside surfaces.
'The potential risks of fatal lung cancer that could occur to individuals
living in homes built on land contaminated by uranium mine wastes have been
estimated using measurements and calculational methodology relating radon-222
decay product concentrations inside homes to the radium-226 concentrations in
outside soil (He78, Wi78). These estimates are shown in Section 6.1.5.
-------
5-20
5.5 References
Be80 Begovich, C.L., Eckerman, K.F., Schlatter, E.G. and Qhr, S.Y., 1980,
"DARTAB: A Program to Combine Airborne Radionuclide Environmental Exposure
Data with Dosimetric and Health Effects Data to Generate Tabulations of
Predicted Impacts," Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rept., QRNL-5692 (Draft).
DQC78 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1978, "County and
City Data Book, 1977," (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.).
Du80 Dunning, D.E. Jr., Leggett, R.W., and Yalcintas, M.G., 1980, "A Com-
bined Methodology for Estimating Dose Rates and Health Effects from
Exposure to Radioactive Pollutants," Oak Ridge Natioial Laboratory
Rept., OiNL/TM-7105.
6e78 George, A.C. and Breslin, A.J., 1978, "The Distribution of Ambient Radon
and Radon Daughters in Residential Buildings in the New Jersey-New York
Area," presented at the symposium on the Natural Radiation Environment III,
Houston, Texas, April 23-28.
He78 Healy, J.W. and Rodgers, J.C., 1978, "A Preliminary Study of Radium-
Concentrated Soil," Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report, LA-7391-
MS,
Mo79 Moore, R.E., Baes, C.F. Ill, McDowell-Boyer, L.M., Watson, A.P.,
Hoffman, F. 0., Pleasant, J.C. and Miller, C.W., 1979, "AIRDOS-EPA:
A Computerized Hethodology for Estimating Environmental Concentrations
and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases of Radionuclides," U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Report, EPA 520/1-79-009 (Reprint of ORNL-
5532).
Ne80 Nelson, C.B., 1980, "AIRDOS-EPA Program Modifications," internal
memorandum dated February 12, 1980, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C,.
Wi78 Windham, S.T., Phillips, C.R., and Savage, E.D., 1978, "Florida
Phosphate Land Evaluation Criteria," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Draft Report, unpublished.
-------
SECTION 6
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
-------
6 - 1
6.0 Health and Environmental Effects
6.1 Health Effects and Radiation Dosimetry
6.1.1 Radioactive Airborne Emissions
We used data on radioactive emissions (Section 3} to estimate the
public health impact of these emissions. Our assessments include estimates
of the following radiation exposures and health risks:
1. Dose equivalent rates and working level exposures to the
most exposed individuals (maximum individual) and to the
average exposed individuals in the regional population
(average individual)
2. Collective dose equivalent rates and working level exposures
to the regional population
3. Lifetime fatal cancer risks to the maximum and average indi-
viduals in the regional population
4. Genetic effect risk to the descendants of the maximum and
average individuals in the regional population
5. The number of fatal cancers committed in the regional popu-
lation per year of model mine operation
6. The number of genetic effects committed to the descendants of
the regional population per year of model mine operation
The somatic health impact risks estimated in this report are for fatal
cancers only. For whole body exposure, the risk of nonfatal cancer is
about the same or slightly less than for fatal cancer. Thus, for whole
body doses, it is conservatively estimated that one nonfatal cancer could
occur for each additional fatal cancer. The somatic health impact for the
regional population (additional cancers per year) is calculated at equi-
librium for continuous exposure and this is equal to the additional cancers
committed over all time per year of exposure; thus we used the term
committed additional cancers {see Appendix L),
The genetic effect risks estimated in this report are for effects in
descendants of an irradiated parent or parents. Genetic effects per year
in the regional population due to radionuclide releases from the mines are
calculated for an equilibrium exposure situation. The calculated genetic
effects per year at equilibrium is equal to the genetic effects committed
over all time from one vear exposure. Thus, the calculated additional
-------
Table 6.1 Annual-release rates (C1) used in the dose equivalent and health
effects computations for active uranium mines
Classifi-
cation
Mining
activities
Ore
Sub-ore
Overburden/
waste rock
Vehicular
dust
Total
Average Surface Mine^
Location
Pit/mine site
Pile site
Pile site
Pile site
Mining area
All sources
U
4.3E-3
1.01E-2
4.2E-4
2.25E-3
9.9E-4
1.81E-2
Th
2.2E-4
1.42E-4
8.4E-6
1.50E-4
3.7E-4
8.90E-4
Rn-222
1.99E+2
4.2E+1
5.0E-H
4.0E+1
0
3.31E+2
Average Large Surface Mine * '
U
2.57E-2
4.42E-2
1.51E-3
1.34E-2
5.86E-3
9.07E-2
Th
1.44E-3
6.20E-4
3.00E-5
8.94E-4
2.17E-3
5.15E-3
Rn-222
7.97E+2
9.6E+1
1.66E+2
2.02E+2
0
1.26E+3
;?(Release rates taken from Tables 3.32 to 3.35.
l°JRelease rates taken from Tables 3.51 and 3.54 to 3.56.
cr>
ro
-------
Table 6.1 (cont.)
Average Underground Mine ^ '
U
2.22E-4
9.63E-4
1.04E-3
9.6E-6
6.5E-5
2.30E-3
Th ,
2.8E-6
1.35E-5
8.4E-6
6.4E-7
2.4E-5
4.93E-5
Rn-222
3.08E+2
7.7
6.1E+1
5.0E-1
0
3.77E+2
Average Larqe Underground Mine * '
U
2.41E-3
1.07E-2
5.95E-3
5.10E-5
1.29E-4
1.92E-2
Th
3.10E-5
1.50E-4
4.8E-5
3.40E-6
4.80E-5
2.80E-4
Rn-222
3.42E+3
6.83E-H
3.38E+2
2.6
0
3.83E+3
fcl
In Situ Leach Mine VCJ
U
l.OE-1 ,
N.A. ^
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
l.OE-1
Th
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
Rn-222
6.50E+2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
6.50E+2
(c)
(d)
Release rates taken from Table 3.59.
N.A.- Not Applicable.
Note.--Columns labeled U and Th Include each daughter of the decay chain in secular equilibrium.
I
OJ
-------
6-4
Table 6.2 Annual release rates (Ci) used in" the dose equivalent and health
effects computations for inactive uranium mines
Location
Pit/vents-
portals
Waste rock/
sub-ore pile
Surface Mine ^ Underground Mine \ '
U Th Rn-222 U Th Rn-222
0 0 8.1 0 0 7.55
1.48E-3 1.1E-5 1.74E+1 2.38E-4 1.7E-6 1.7
^ '
Release rates taken from Tables 3.70 and 3.74.
Release rates taken from Tables 3.76 and 3.77.
Note. — Column headings U and Th include each daughter of the decay chain
in secular equilibrium.
-------
6-5
genetic effects are committed effects to all future generations for one
year of exposure to the regional population.
We calculated individually each major source of radionuclide airborne
emissions for each model uranium mine site so that we could determine the
extent that each source contributed to the total health impact. Tables 6.1
and 6.2 contain the annual release rates for each source classification (or
location) that we used to calculate dose equivalent rates and health
effects for active and inactive uranium mines.
The estimated -annual working level exposures from Rn-222 emissions by
the model uranium mines are listed in Table 6.3. The working level ex-
posures presented for the maximum individual are the Rn-222 decay product
levels to which an individual would be continuously exposed for an entire
year. Working level exposure to the regional population is the sum of the
exposures to all individuals in the exposed population from the annual
release from the model mine.
We estimated radiological impacts of radioactive airborne emissions
from the model uranium mines with the A[RDOS-EPA (Mo79), RADRISK (Du80),
and DARTAB (Be80) computer codes. Appendixes K and L contain explanations
of our use of these computer codes.
Where emissions for U-238 plus daughters and Th-232 plus daughters
were reported (Section 3), a source term for both the parent and important
daughters were input into the AIRDOS-EPA code. For example, a reported
emission rate of 0.01 Ci/yr of U-238 plus daughters (U in Tables 6.1 and
6.2) would be input into the AIRDOS-EPA code as 0.01 Ci/yr of U-238, 0.01
Ci/yr of U-234, 0.01 Ci/yr of Th-230, 0.01 Ci/yr of Ra-226, 0.01 Ci/yr of
Pb-214, 0.01 Ci/yr of Bi-214, 0.01 Ci/yr of Pb-210, and 0.01 Ci/yr of
Po-210. A reported emission rate of 0.01 Ci/yr of Th-232 plus daughters
(Th in Tables 6.1 and 6.2) would be input into the AIRDOS-EPA code as 0.01
Ci/yr of Th-232, 0.01 Ci/yr of Ra-228, 0.01 Ci/yr of Ac-228, 0.01 Ci/yr of
Th-228, 0.01 Ci/yr of Ra-224, 0.01 Ci/yr of Pb-212, 0.01 Ci/yr of Bi-212,
and 0.0036 Ci/yr of Tl-208. The Tl-208 source term 1s approximately one-
third that of Bi-212 because of the branching ratio.
The maximum individual, average individual, and population dose equiv-
-------
Table 6.3 Annual working level exposure from radon-222
emissions from model uranium mines
Source
s
Average Surface Mine
Average Large
Surface Mine
Average Underground
Mine
Average Large
Underground Mine
Inactive Surface
Mine
Inactive Underground
Mine
In Situ Leach Mine
Maximum
Individual
(WL}(a)
2.3E-4
8.4E-4
4.6E-4
4.7E-3
1.8E-5
1.1E-5
4.5E-4
Average
Individual
(WL)
4.5E-7
1.7E-6
2.1E-6
2.1E-5
3.5E-8
5.1E-8
8.9E-7
Regional
Population
(person-WL)
6.5E-3
2.5E-2
7.5E-2
7.6E-1
5.0E-4
1.8E-3
1.3E-2
(a)
Working level.
en
-------
6 - 7
Table 6.4 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radioactive
particulate and Rn-222 emissions from a model average surface
uranium mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endosteal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Liver
Stomach wall
Pancreas
LLI^ wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI(b) wall
SItc^ wall
Ovaries
Testes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymus
Thyroid
Weighted mean
Maximum
Individual
(mrem/yr)
2.4
3.4E+1
1.2E+1
5.5E-1
1.6
9.7E-2
5.2E-1
4.6E-1
4.2
3.0E-1
2.1E-1
9.4E-2
5.1E-1
5.4E-1
6.4
5.1E-1
5.2E-1
5.4E-1
4.9
Average
Individual
(mrem/yr)
5.4E-3
7.5E-2
6.3E-3
2.0E-3
6.3E-3
8.9E-5
1.9E-3
1.6E-3
1.8E-2
9.7E-4
5.2E-4
1.2E-4
1.9E-3
1.9E-3
2.8E-2
1.9E-3
1.9E-3
1.9E-3
5.5E-3
Population
(person-rem/yr)
7.7E-Z
1.1
9.0E-2
2.7E-2
9.1E-2
1.3E-3
2.7E-2
2,3E-2
2.5E-1
1.4E-2
7.4E-3
1.7E-3
2.7E-2
2.7E-2
4.0E-1
2.7E-2
2.7E-2
2.7E-2
7.8E-2
> ' I AlaJdy 1 Jl r«no -ir»-f-£ie'4->i««* *.ia 1 1
uppsr larytj inucsuine
Small intestine wall.
-------
6-8
Table 6.5 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radio-
active participate and Rn-222 emissions from a model average
large surface uranium mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endosteal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Liver
Stomach wall
Pancreas
LLI wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI wall
SI wall
Ovaries
Testes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymu s
Thyroid
Weighted mean - -
Maximum
Individual
(mrem/yr)
1.35E+1
1.9E+2
6.6E+1
3.0
8.9
5.4E-1
3.0
2.5
2.1E+1
1.7
1.1
5.2E-1
2.8
3.0
3.5E+1
2.8
2.9
3.0
2.7E+1
Average
Individual
(mrem/yr)
2.7E-2
3.8E-1
3.1E-2
9.5E-3
3.2E-2
4.5E-4
9.6E-3
8.2E-3
9.0E-2
4.9E-3
2.6E-3
6.0E-4
9.6E-3
9.5E-3
1.4E-1
9.6E-3
9.6E-3
9.6E-3
2.7E-2
Population
(person-rem/yr)
3.9E-1
5.4
4.5E-1
• 1.4E-1
4.6E-1
6.4E-3
1.4E-1
1.2E-1
1.3
7.0E-2
3.8E-2
8.6E-3
1.4E-1
1.4E-1
2.0
1.4E-1
1.4E-1
1.4E-1
3.8E-1
-------
Table 6.6 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radio-
active participate and Rn-222 emissions from a model average
underground uranium mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endosteal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Liver
Stomach wall
Pancreas
LLI wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI wall
SI wall
Ovaries
Testes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymus
Thyroid
Weighted mean -
Waximum
Individual
(mretn/yr)
5.1E-1
7.2
2.9
1.2E-1
3.5E-1
2.0E-2
1.1E-1
9.4E-2
9.1E-1
6.4E-2
4.3E-2
2.0E-2
1.1E-1
1.1E-1
1.4
1.1E-1
1.1E-1
l.IE-1
1.1
Average
Individual
(mrem/yr)
8.3E-4
1.2E-2
5.0E-3
' 2.3E-4
7.2E-4
2.8E-5
2.2E-4
1.8E-4
2.0E-3
1.2E-4
7.3E-5
2.8E-5
2.2E-4
2.3E-4
3.1E-3
2.2E-4
2.2E-4
2.3E-4
2.0E-3
Population
(person-rem/yr
2.9E-2
4.1E-1
1.8E-1
8.3E-3
2.7E-2
l.OE-3
8.0E-3
6.5E-3
7.4E-2
4.4E-3
2.7E-3
l.OE-3
8.0E-3
8.0E-3
l.IE-1
7.9E-3
8.QE-3
8.1E-3
7.1E-2
-------
6-10
Table 6.7 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radioactive
particulate and Rn-222 emissions from a model average large
underground uranium mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endo steal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Li ver
Stomach wall
Pancreas
LLI wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI wall
SI wall ,
Ovaries
Tes tes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymus
Thyroid
Weighted mean
Maximum
Individual
(mrem/yr)
4.2
6.0E+1
2.5E+1
9.7E-1
2,9
1.7E-1
9.4E-1
7.8E-1
7.7
5.4E-1
3.6E-1
1.6E-1
9.2E-1
9.4E-1
1.2E+1
9.2E-1
9.4E-1
9.4E-1
9.8
Average
Individual
(mrem/yr)
6.9E-3
9.6E-2
4.7E-2
1.9E-3
6.0E-3
2.3E-4
1.8E-3
1.5E-3
1.7E-2
l.OE-3
6.0E-4
2.3E-4
1.8E-3
1.8E-3
2.6E-2
1.8E-3
1.8E-3
1.9E-3
1.8E-2
Population
(person-rem/yr
2.5E-1
3.5
1.7
6.9E-2
2.2E-1
8.5E-3
6.8E-2
5.5E-2
6.2E-1
3.6E-2
2.2E-2
8.4E-3
6.6E-2
6.8E-2
9.2E-1
6.6E-2
6.7E-2
6.8E-2
6.2E-1
-------
6-11
Table 6,8 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radioactive
particulate and Rn-222 emissions from a model inactive surface
uranium mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endosteal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Liver
Stomach wall
Pancreas
LLI wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI wall
SI wall
Ovaries
Testes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymus
Thyroid
Weighted mean
Maximum
Individual
(mrem/yr)
2.1E-1
2.9
9.5E-1
5.6E-2 •
1.4E-1
1.5E-2
5.4E-2
4.4E-2
3.5E-1
3.3E-2
2.4E-2
1.4E-2
5.2E-2
5.5E-Z
5.3E-1
5.2E-2
5.3E-2
5.5E-2
3.9E-1
Avtrage
Individual
(mrem/yr)
4.8E-4
6.8E-3
5.0E-4
1.8E-4
5.5E-4
1.1E-5
1.8E-4
1.4E-4
1.5E-3
9.2E-5
4.7E-5
1.3E-5
1.8E-4
1.8E-4
2.3E-3
1.8E-4
1.8E-4
1.8E-4
4.7E-4
Population
(person-rem/yr
6.9E-3
9.8E-2
7.2E-3
2.6E-3
7,8E-3
1.6E-4
2.6E-3
2.0E-3
2.1E-2
1.3E-3
6.7E-4
l.BE-4
2.5E-3
2.6E-3
3.3E-2
2.5E-3
2.5E-3
2.6E-3
6.8E-3
-------
6-12
Table 6.9 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radioactive
particulate and Rn-222 emissions from a model inactive underground
uranium mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endosteal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Liver
Stomach wall
Pancreas
LLI wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI wall
SI wall
Ovaries
Testes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymus
Thyroid
Weighted mean ..
Maximum
Individual
(mrem/yr)
' 5.8E-2
8.0E-1
2.7E-1
1.6E-2
3.9E-2
4.0E-3
1.5E-2
1.2E-2
9.7E-2
9.1E-3
6.6E-3
3.7E-3
1.4E-2
1.5E-2
1.5E-1
1.4E-2
1.5E-2
1.5E-2
1.1E-1
Average
Individual
(mrem/yr)
9.3E-5
1.3E-3
3.4E-4
2.9E-5
7.9E-5
5.2E-6
2.8E-5
2.2E-5
2.1E-4
1.6E-5
l.OE-5
4.9E-6
2.7E-5
2.8E-5
3.2E-4
2.7E-5
2.8E-5
2.8E-5
1.5E-4
Population
(person-rem/yr
3.4E-3
4.6E-2
1.3E-2
l.OE-3
2.8E-3
1.8E-4
l.OE-3
8.0E-4
7.6E-3
5.8E-4
3.7E-4
1.8E-4
9.7E-4
l.OE-3
1.2E-2
9.8E-4
l.OE-3
l.OE-3
5.7E-3
-------
6-13
Table 6.10 Annual radiation dose equivalents due to atmospheric radioactive
participate and Rn-222 emissions from a hypothetical in situ
uranium solution mine
Organ
Red marrow
Endosteal
Pulmonary
Muscle
Liver
Stomach wal 1
Pancreas
LLI wall
Kidney
Bladder wall
ULI wall
SI wall
Ovaries
Testes
Spleen
Uterus
Thymus
Thyroid
Weighted mean
Maximum
Individual
(mrem/yr)
1.6E-1
2.8
3.9E+1
8.4E-3
1.9E-2
1.6E-2
7.6E-3
6.1E-1
3.3E-1
4.8E-3
2.0E-1
3.6E-2
7.3E-3
8.9E-3
4.6E-2
7.4E-3
7.9E-3
8.4E-3
1.2E+1
Average
Individual
(mrem/yr)
2.7E-4
5.0E-3
2.0E-2
2.2E-5
5.4E-5
5.7E-5
2.1E-5
2.5E-3
l.OE-3
1.2E-5
8.1E-4
1.4E-4
2.1E-5
2.2E-5
1.8E-4
2.1E-5
2.1E-5
2.1E-5
6.2E-3
Population
(person-rem/yr
3.8E-3
7.1E-2
2.9E-1
3.1E-4
7.7E-4
8.1E-4
3.0E-4
3.5E-2
1.5E-2
1.6E-4
1.2E-2
2.0E-3
3.0E-4
3.1E-4
2.5E-3
3.0E-4
3.0E-4
3.1E-4
8.8E-2
-------
6-14
alent rates* due to atmospheric radioactive participate and Rn-222 emis-
sions from the model uranium mine sites are presented in Tables 6.4 through
6.10. The Rn-222 dose equivalent rate is only for the inhalation and air
immersion pathways and excludes Rn-222 daughters. The impact from Rn-222
daughters is addressed separately with a working level calculation. The
dose equivalent estimates are for the model sites described for use with
the AIRDQS-EPA code in Appendix K. Assumptions about food production and
consumption for the maximum individual were selected for a rural setting.
The maximum -individual dose equivalent rate occurred about 1600 meters
downwind from the center of the model site. The term "population" refers
to the population living within a radius of 80 kilometers of the source.
Population dose equivalents are the sum of the exposures to all individuals
in the exposed population for the annual release from the model uranium
mine.
Dose equivalent rates in Tables 6,4 through 6.10 indicate that the red
marrow, endosteal cells, lung, kidneys, and spleen are generally the
highest exposed target organs. A dose equivalent rate is presented for the
"weighted mean" target organ, but this calculated result was not used in
the health effect calculations. We calculated "weighted mean" dose equiv-
alents by using organ dose equivalent weighting factors (see Appendix L)
and summing the results. The weighted mean dose equivalent rate was pre-
sented instead of the total body dose equivalent rate.
Individual lifetime fatal cancer risks and estimated additional fatal
cancers to the regional population due to atmospheric radioactive emissions
from the model uranium mine sites are presented in Tables 6.11 and 6.12.
The individual lifetime risks in Table 6.11 are those that would result
from one year of exposure (external and internal) and the working levels
estimated for those individuals. Except for the in situ leach mine, the
individual lifetime risks in Table 6.12 are those that would result from a
lifetime of exposure (71 years average life expectancy). The individual
lifetime risks in Table 6.12 for the in situ leach mine are based on an
exposure time of 18 years, which is the expected life, including restor-
ation, of this type of model uranium mine.
*The dose equivalent rates were not used to calculate risk and are only
presented for perspective purposes. Risks of health impact were calcu-
lated directly from external and internal radionuclide exposure data.
-------
6-15
Table 6.11 Individual lifetime fatal cancer risk for one year of exposure
and estimated additional fatal cancers to the regional popula-
tion due to annual radioactive airborne emissions from model
uranium mines
Source
Maximum
Exposed
Individual
Average
Exposed
Individual
Regional
Population
Average surface mine
Participates and Rn-222 6.7E-7
Radon-222 daughters 5.5E-6
Total 6.2E-6
Average large surface mine
Participates and Rn-222 3.7E-6
Radon-222 daughters 1.9E-5
Total 2.3E-5
Average underground mine
Particulates and Rn-222 1.6E-7
Radon-222 daughters 1.1E-5
Total 1.1E-5
Average large underground mine
Particulates and Rn-222 1.4E-6
Radon-222 daughters 1.1E-4
Total 1.1E-4
Inactive surface mine
Particulates and Rn-222 8.5E-8
Radon-222 daughters 4.2E-7
Total 4.7E-7
Inactive underground mine
Particulates and Rn-222 1.5E-8
Radon-222 daughters 2.7E-7
Total - 2.8E-7
In situ leaching facility -
Particulates and Rn-222 1.6E-6
Radon-222 daughters 1.1E-5
Total 1.3E-5
7.5E-10
1,1E-8
1.2E-8
3.7E-9
4.1E-8
4.5E-8
2.8E-10
4.9E-8
4.9E-8
2.5E-9
5.0E-7
5.0E-7
6.4E-11
8.3E-10
8.9E-10
2.0E-11
1.2E-9
1.2E-9
8.7E-10
2.1E-8
2.2E-8
1.1E-5
1.6E-4
1.7E-4
5.4E-5
5.9E-4
6.4E-4
l.OE-5
1.7E-3
1.7E-3
9.0E-5
1.8E-2
1.8E-2
9.1E-7
1.2E-5
1.3E-5
7.4E-7
4.4E-5
4.5E-5
1.2E-5
3.0E-4
3.1E-4
-------
6-16
Table 6.12 Individual lifetime fatal cancer risk due to lifetime exposure
to radioactive airborne emissions from model uranium mines
Source
Maximum
Exposed
Individual
Average
Exposed
Individual
(c)
Average surface mine^ '
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
Average large surface
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
Average underground
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
Average large underground mine
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
Inactive surface mine* '
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
Inactive underground mine^
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
In situ leaching facility* '
Particulates and Rn-222
Radon-222 daughters
Total
(a)
1.4E-5
1.2E-4
1.3E-4
6.6E-5
3.5E-4
4.2E-4
3.5E-6
2.0E-4
2.0E-4
2.5E-5
1.9E-3
1.9E-3
3.9E-6
3.0E-5
3.4E-5
1.1E-6
1.9E-5
2.0E-5
1.6E-5
2.0E-4
2.2E-4
1.6E-8
2.3E-7
2.5E-7
6.6E-8
7.4E-7
8.1E-7
5.8E-9
9.0E-7
9.1E-7
4.4E-8
8.6E-6
8.6E-6
4.5E-9
5.9E-8
6.3E-8
1.4E-9
8.5E-8
8.6E-8
8.7E-9
3.8E-7
3.9E-7
* 'Considers exposure for 17 years to active mining and 54 years to
inactive mine effluents. -
(b)
(c),
Considers exposure for 71 years to inactive mine effluents.
Considers the average individual in the regional population within an
80-km radius of the model mine.
(d)
Considers 10-year operation and 8-year restoration.
-------
6-17
Table 6.13 Genetic effect risk to descendants for one year of parental
exposure to atmospheric radioactive airborne emissions from
model uranium mines
Source
Descendants of
Maximum Exposed
Individual
{effects/
birth)
Descendants of
Average Exposed
Individual
(effects/
birth)
Descendants of
Regional
Population
(effects/yr)
Average surface mine
Average, large surface mine
Average underground mine
Average large underground mine
Inactive surface mine
Inactive underground mine
In situ leach facility
6.3E-7
3.7E-6
1.4E-7
t
1.1E-6
6.0E-8
1.6E-8
8.0E-9
2.6E-9
1.3E-8
2.9E-10
2.4E-9
2.4E-10
3.4E-11
2.7E-11
1.6E-5
7.9E-5
4.4E-6
3.6E-5
1.4E-6
5.0E-7
1.6E-7
-------
18
Table 6.14 Genetic effect risk to descendants for a 30-year parental
exposure to atmospheric radioactive airborne emissions from
model uranium mines
Effects/birth
Source
Descendants of
Maximum Exposed
Individual
Descendants of
Average Exposed
Individual^
Average surface mine* '
Average large surface mine'
Average underground mine
Average large underground mine^ '
Inactive surface mine^ '
Inactive underground mine^
In situ leach facility^ '
1.2E-5
6.4E-5
2.6E-6
2.0E-5
1.8E-6
5.0E-7
1.4E-7
4.6E-8
2.21-7
5.4E-9
4.0E-8
7.2E-9
5.8E-10
4.8E-10
• ^'Considers exposure to 17 years active mining and 13 years inactive
mine effluents.
(b)
Considers exposure for 30 years to inactive mine effluents.
(c)
x 'Considers the average individual in the regional population within an
80-km radius of the model mine.
(d)
Considers 10-year operation and 8-year restoration.
-------
6-19
Genetic effect risks due to atmospheric radioactive emissions from the
model uranium mine sites are presented in Tables 6.13 and 6.14. The risks
to descendants in Table 6.13 are those that, would result from one year of
exposure to the parent or parents of first generation individuals. The de-
scendant risks in Table 6.14 are those that would result from 30 years ex-
posure to the first generation parent or parents, except for the in situ
leach mine where we used an 18-year exposure time. The 30-year time period
represents the mean years of life where gonadal doses are genetically
significant.
We estimated the health impact risks v/ith the DARTAB code using ex-
posure data from the AIRDOS-EPA code. The dose equivalent and risk con-
version factors that we used with the DARTAB code are tabulated in Appendix
L. The sou-atic risk conversion factors are based on a lifetime (71 years
average lifetime) exposure time, and the genetic effect ri<»k conversion
factors are based on a 30-year exposure time. When the exposure time for
calculated risks was only one year, we calculated the risk by multiplying
the risk calculated by OARTAB with the ratio of the one year exposure time
to the exposure times used to calculate the risk conversion factors (1/71
for somatic effects and 1/30 for genetic effects to descendants of maximum
and average exposed individuals).* Appendix L contains a discussion of the
health risk assessment methodology.
We developed several tables to present the calculated health impact
risk. The percentage contributions to the fatal cancer risks for indi-
vidual sources at each model uranium mine site are contained in Table 6.15
for the maximum individual and Table 6.16 for the average individual. The
fatal cancer risks by source term for one year of exposure which we used to
calculate percentage contributions are contained in Tables L.4 to L,6 in
Appendix L. Tables L.7 to L.9 contain genetic risks by source term at each
model uranium mine site. The percent of the fatal cancer risk due to
radon-222 daughter concentrations at model uranium mine sites is indicated
in Table 6.17. The percent of the fatal cancer risk for principal nuclides
and pathways due to radioactive particulate and Rn~222 emissions at each
model uranium mine site are contained in Table 6.18.
*A correction factor was not needed for OARTAB calculated genetic
effects committed per year to the regional population.
-------
Table 6.15 Percent of the fatal cancer risk for the maximum Individual
due to the sources of radioactive emissions at model uranium
' mines
Percent of fatal cancer risk ' ' '
Mining
Mine type Activities
Average surface mine
Average large surface mine
Average underground mine
Average large underground mine
Inactive surface mine
Inactive underground mine
In situ leach facility
56 (95)
59 (93)
80 (=100)
89 (=100)
28^ (100)
77(c) (100)
100 (87)
Ore
18 (66)
14 (41)
3 (79)
2 (76)
0
0
0
Sub-ore
14 (98)
12 (98)
17 (97)
9 (96)
0
0
0
Spoils
12 (89)
14 (86)
<1 (96)
<1 (96)
72 (84)
23 (77)
0
Vehicular
Dust
<1 (0)
1 (0)
<1 (0)
<1 (0)
0
0
0
Table L. 4, Appendix L,
in parentheses are percent contribution of radon-222 daughters.
^Emissions from abandoned pit (surface mine) or vents and portals (underground mine).
IN3
o
-------
Table 6.16 Percent of the fatal cancer risk for the average individual
In the regional population due to the sources of radioactive
emissions at model uranium mines
Percent of fatal cancer "isle3' '
Mine type ,
Average surface mine
Average large surface mine
Average underground mine
Average large underground mine
Inactive surface mine
Inactive underground mine
In situ leach facility
Mining
'Activities
58 (97)
60 (96)
81 {a 100)
89 (slQQ)
29^ (100)
80^ (100)
100 (96)
Ore
16 (78)
11 (64)
2 (93)
2 (91)
0
0
0
Sub-ore
14 (99)
12 (99)
16 (99)
9 (99)
0
0
0
Spoils
12 (93)
16 (92)
<1 (99)
<1 (99)
71 (90)
20 (92)
0
Vehicular
Dust
<1 (0)
1 (0)
<1 (0)
<1 (0)
0
0
0
(a)
(b)
(c)
See Table L.5» Appendix L.
Values in parentheses are percent contribution of radon-222 daughters.
Emissions from abandoned pit (surface mine) or vents and portals (underground mines).
ro
-------
6-22
Table 6,1? Percent of fatal cancer risks due to radon-222
daughter concentrations at model uranium mine
s i tes
Source Percent fatal cancer risk
(a)
Average surface mine 89
Average large surface mine 84
Average underground mine 99
Average large underground mine 99
Inactive surface mine 88
Inactive underground mine 95
In situ leach facility 8?
^'Remainder due to radioactive particulate and Rn-222 emissions.
-------
Table 6.18 Percent of the fatal cancer risk for principal nucl ides and pathways slue to radioactive
jj£tjc_u!ate and Rn-22? emissions at model urajjuinipnes_
Percent of fatal cancer risk
Internal Pathways
Mine Type
Average
Surface Mine /
•
Average Large
Surface Mine
j
Average
Underground Mine
Average Large
Underground Mine
Inactive . ,
Surface Mine18'
Inactive , ,
Underground Mine* '
In situ
Leaching Facility
Receptor
Max. Individual
Av. Individual
or population
Max. Individual
Av, Individual
or Population
Max, Individual
Av. Individual
or Population
Max. Individual
Av. Individyal
or Population
Hax, Individual
Av. Individual
or Population
Max. Individual
Av. Individual
or Population
Max. Individual
Av, Individual
or Population
Principal Nyclides
U-238(20.0), 0-234(22.1), Th-230{31.7T,
Ra-226[7.94), Po-210{7.33)
(J-Z38C9.I7), 0-234(10.1), Th-Z30(22.7) ,
fta-226{21.3), Pb-210(6.92), Po-2IO(22,4)
11-238(20.0), 11-234(22.2), Th-230(3l.8),
fta-226{7.98)
U-238(i.l9), 0-234(10,1), Th-23Q(22.7),
Ra-226(21.4), Pb-210{6.94)» Po-2lO(22.4)
U-238(17.9), U-234{19.8). Th-230(28.4),
Ra-226<7.14), Po-210(6.59), Rn-222(13.6)
U-238(12.0), U-234(13.2), Th-230{20.1),
Ra-226{7.24), Po-210(7.31), Rn-Z2Z{34.6)
U-238(17.5), U-234(19.3), Th-230(27.7),
Ra-226{6.97), Po-210{6.43), Rn-222(16.0)
U-238(1I.2), U-234C12.4), Th-230(18.8),
«a-226{6.76), Po-210{6.83), Rn-222(39.2)
U-238(19.5), U-234(2l.6}» Th-230(31.0),
«a^226{9.4), 81-214(5.31). Po-210(7.17)
U-238(8.76), U-234(9.68), Th-230{2L7)
R3-226E26.1), Pb-210(6.77), Po-210(2l.4)
U-238(19.6), U-234(21.6), Th-230(31.1),
Ra-226{9.45), Bi-214{5.33), Po-210C?.21)
U-238{17.0), U-234(18.8), Th-230(28.5J»
Ra-226{12,7), Bi-214{4.81), Po-210{10.4)
U-238(45.2), 0-234(50.0), U-235(2,2I)
U-238(43.3), U-234(47.BS, U-235(2.12)
Inges-
tion
15.8
60.1
15.9
60.5
14.0
16.9
13.6
15.7
1S.8
6Z.2
16.9
26.3
0.46
3.50
Inhal-
ation
80.2
38.1 |
80.0
37.7
82.5
80.6
82.9
82.0
75.4
34.3
75.2
66.6
99.5
96.5
External
Air
Immersion
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.004
0.025
0.063
0,029
0.071
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.009
Pathways
Ground
Surface
4.02
1.81
4.05
1.83
3.52
2.43
3.39
2.25
7.85
3.48
7.88
7.09
0.039
0.038
'Spoils source term only.
-------
6-24
The fatal cancer health risk at each of the model uranium mine sites
is dominated by the lung cancer risk from radon-222 daughter exposures (see
Table 6.17). Radioactive particulates and Rn-222 contributed to a Tittle
over 10 percent of the total fatal cancer health risk at the model surface
mines and at the in situ leaching facility (see Table 6.11). Essentially
all the risks from the model underground mines are due to radon-222 daugh-
ter exposures. The fatal cancer health risks from the active model under-
ground mines are greater than the risks from the active model surface mines
because of the -larger quantity of Rn-222 released. The risks are similar
at inactive surface and underground mines.
The largest fatal cancer risk is f'*om the average large underground
mine (see Tables 6.11 and 6.12)—an estimated 1.9E-3 lifetime fatal cancer
risk to the maximum exposed individual for a lifetime exposure. The life-
time fatal cancer risk to the average individual in the regional population
is estimated to be 8.6E-6 for a lifetime exposure period. The number of
estimated additional fatal cancers in the regional population per year of
mine operation is estimated to be 1.8E-2.
For the active surface mines, about 60 percent of the radon daughter
impact is from the exposed pit surfaces (see Table L.4). For the active
underground mines, the predominate radon daughter impact is from mine vent
air. For the inactive surface mine, about 70 percent of the radon daughter
impact is from waste rock pile exhalation and about 30 percent was from the
pit interior surfaces. About 80 percent of the radon daughter impact for
the inactive underground mine was due to radon releases from the mine vents
and entrance. The release of radon from the pregnant leach surge tanks was
the predominate source of the radon daughter health impact risk for the
model in situ leach mine. Detailed percentages of the lifetime fatal
cancer risks by source term for each model uranium mine are contained in
Tables 6,15 and 6.16.
The health impact from particulate radionuclides and Rn-222 was pre-
dominately due to U-238 and daughter radionuclides (see Table 6.18). Thor-
ium-232 and daughters were only minor contributors to the particulate and
Rn-222 fatal cancer risk with Rn-222 only contributing significantly (14 to
40 percent) at active underground mines. The majority of the exposure to
individuals around the model uranium mines is received from the internal
pathways. Inhalation was the most important internal pathway except for
the average individual and regional population impact at surface mines
-------
6-25
where ingestfon was the major pathway (see Table 6,18), For active surface
mines, about 52 percent of the participate and Rn-222 impact to the maximum
individual was from the ore source term, and about 25 percent of the
health impact was from the mining activities source term (see Table 1.4).
For active underground mines, between 28 and 46 percent of the particulate
and Rn-222 impact was from the ore source term and between 25 and 41 per-
cent of the particulate and Rn-222 impact was from the sub-ore source term.
The predominant source of the particulate and Rn-222 impact from the in~
active mines was particulate radionuclides in wind-suspended dust from the
waste rock pile. The release of particulate radionucl1des from the uranium
recovery plant was the predominant source of the particulate health impact
risk for the model in sity leach mine.
For perspective, the calculated fatal cancer risks can be compared to
the estimated cancer risk from all causes. The American Cancer Society
estimates the risk of cancer death from all causes to be 0,15 (Ba7i). The
maximum exposed individual around the model average large underground mine
is estimated to incur an additional lifetime fatal cancer risk of 0.0019
(1.3 percent) due to radioactive airborne emissions from the model mine.
There is a regional population of 36,004 persons for the model average
large underground mine site located in New Mexico. The cancer death rate
for the State of New Mexico for whites of both sexes was 154.5 deaths per
year for 1973 to 1976 per 100,000 people (NCI78), Applying this statistic
to the regional population, about 56 cancer deaths are estimated to occur
each year in the regional population from all causes. Applying the approxi-
mate fatal cancer risk coefficient of 0.15 to the regional population of
36,004 persons, about 5,400 people in the regional area would normally die
of cancer. About 0.018 additional cancer deaths (0.00033 percent) in the
regional population are estimated per year of operation from radioactive
airborne emissions at the model average large underground mine.
The risk of genetic effects from radiation exposure at model uranium
mine sites is very small compared to the normal occurrence of hereditary
disease. The national incidence of genetic effects is 60,000 per 10 births
(MAS72). The normal occurrence of hereditary disease for the descendants of
the regional population of 14,297 at the model average large surface mine
in Wyoming is 0.06 effects per birth and 12.1 effects per year, based on
202 live births per year in the regional population. (We present sta-
tistics for the site of the average large surface mine since the largest
-------
6-25
genetic risk for all the evaluated model uranium mines occurred at this
site [see Tables 6.13 and 6.14]). We estimated the genetic effect risk to
the descendants of the maximum exposed individual to be an additional
6.4E-5 effects/birth (0.1 percent increase) for a 30-year exposure period.
The genetic effect risk to the descendants of the average exposed indi-
vidual in the regional population is estimated to be an additional 2.2E-7
effects/birth (0.00036 percent increase) for a 30-year exposure period.
The number of additional genetic effects committed to the descendants of
the regional population per year of operation of the average large surface
mine is estimated to be 7.9E-5. The additional committed genetic effects
constitute a very small increase to the 12.1 effec.,s that will normally
o(-ur each year in the live births within the regional population.
6 1,2 Nonradioactjve Airborne Emissions
To calculate atmospheric concentrations at the ""ocation of the maximum
individual, we used the data on nonradioactive air pollutant emissions from
Section 3. We compared these pollutant air concentrations with calculated
nonoccupational threshold limit values, natural background concentrations,
and average urban concentrations of selected airborne pollutants in the
United States.
The "natural" background atmospheric concentration has been defined
(Va7J) as the concentration of pollutants in areas absent of activities by
man which cause significant pollution. Variations in background levels may
result from differences in mineral content of the soil, vegetation, wind
conditions, and the proximity to the ocean or metropolitan areas. Based on
an extensive literature survey and consideration of the abundance and dis-
tribution of the chemical elements in the ocean and earth's crust, a set of
"natural" background airborne concentrations has been developed for the
United States (Va71). Natural background airborne concentrations for
selected pollutants are listed in the second column of Table 6.19. Also
listed in the. table are average concentrations of airborne pollutants in
urban areas. The latter are arithmetic mean concentrations obtained from
measurements taken over a period of several years (Va71).
6.1.2.1 Combustion Products
Airborne concentrations of combustion products released from diesel
and gasoline-powered equipment were estimated for the site of the maximum
-------
27
Table 6.19 Natural background concentrations and average urban
concentrations of selected airborne pollutants in
the United States
Natural Background - Average Urban -
Pollutant Concentration, p g/m Concentration, p g/rn"
Gases
CO - 100 7000
NO 40 141
NH* 10 80
SO 5 62
CO* 594,000, , NR
Hydrocarbons NRW 500
Suspended particles
Total
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Hg
Fe
Pb
Mg '
Mn
Mo
Ni
Se
Sr
Th
U
V
Zn
Zr
20 - 40
0.005
0.005
0.0001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.0005
0.2 - 0.5
0,001
0.1
0.01
0,0005
0,001
0,001
0.005
0.0005
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.001
105
0.02 ( 1)
NR
0.002
0.0005
0.015
0.09
0.1
1.58
0.79
NR
0.1
0.005
0.034
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.05
0.67
NR
NR - Not Reported.
Source: Va71; except for CG~, Ba76,
-------
6-28
individual. The concentrations were computed using the annual release
rates given in Tables 3,30 and 3.52 with dispersion parameters applicable
for the model underground (New Mexico) and surface (Wyoming) mining areas
(Appendix K). The estimated combustion product concentrations are low
compared to the natural background and average urban concentrations (see
Table 6.20). A conservative threshold limit value (TLV) was computed, as
described in Section 6.1.2.3 for S02> CO, and N02. Of these pollutants,
only the nitrogen oxide concentrations at the average large surface mine
exceed the ngnoccupational TLV. Considering these comparisons and the
conservative nature of the analyses, combustion products released from
heavy uranium mining equipment do not appear to pose a health hazard.
6,1.2.2 Nonradioactive Gases
Airborne concentrations of the three principal nonradioactive gases
released from the hypothetical in situ leach mining site were computed
using the source terms from Table 3.59 and the meteorological parameters
and dispersion model described in Appendix K. Table 6.21 shows the esti-
mated atmospheric concentrations at the location of a maximum individual;
occupational threshold limit values (TLV's); adjusted TLV's applicable to
nonoccupational exposures; and the percent the estimated concentrations are
of the adjusted TLV's. The occupational TLV's have been conservatively
adjusted. They were adjusted on the basis of a 168-hr week, instead of a
40-hour week and a safety factor of 100.
The results of this analysis indicate that two of the estimated con-
centrations fall below their respective TLV's, and the concentration of
ammonium chloride is approximately equal to its TLV. Considering the
conservative nature of the adjusted nonoccupational TLV on which the com-
parisons were made, none of the nonradioactive gases appear to be at con-
centrations that might pose a serious health hazard. The ammonia level is
about 80 percent of the estimated "natural" background concentration and
only about 10 percent of the average urban concentration (Table 6.19).
6.1.2.3 Irace Metals and Parttculates in the Form of Dust
We identified seventeen trace metals and particulates in the form of
dust as potential airborne emissions from uranium mines. Table 6.22 pre-
sents projected airborne concentrations of the metals and particulates at
the site of the maximum individual for six mine classifications. As might
-------
Table 6.20 Combustion product concentrations at the site of the maximum individual
with comparisons, pg/m
Pollutant
Particulates
of combustion
S0x
CO
NOX
Hydrocarbons
Average
underground
mine
1.4E-3
1.2E-2
9.7E-2
1.6E-1
1.6E-2
Average large
underground
mine
1.6E-2
1.3E-1
1.1 E+0
1.8E+0
1.8E-1
Average
surface
mine
9.7E-2
5.5E-1
4.3E+0
7.1E+0
7.1E-1
Average large
surface
mine
4.5E-1
2.2E+0
USE-f-1
3.0E+1
3.1E+0
Natural
background
concentration
NR(C)
5E+Q
l.OE+2
4.0E+1
NR
Average
urban
concentration^ '
NR
6.2E+1
7.0E+3
1.4E+2
5.0E+2
Non-
occupational
TLV(b)
NR
3.1E+1
1.3E+2
2.1E+1
NR
U)
(b)
(c)
See Table 6.19.
Nonoccupational TLV = TLV (mg/m3) x 40 hr/168 hr x 10"2 x 103 pg/mg (ACGIH76).
NR - Not reported.
i
r\>
-------
6-30
Table 6.21 A comparison of the airborne concentrations of nonradioactive
gases it the hypothetical in situ leach site with threshold
1imit values
Contaminant
NH3
NH4C1
co2
Atmospheric
Concentration' '
Ug/m3)
8.1
24
60
TLV{bJ
(mg/m )
18
10
9000
Non-
(c)
occupations 1 v '
TLV (yg/m )
43
24
21,400
Percent of
Nonoccupational
TLV
19
100
0.3
(a)
(b)
Location of maximum individual.
Source: ACGIH76.
^Nonoccypational TLV = TL¥ (mg/rn3) x 40 hr/168 hr x 10~2 x 103 pg/mg,
-------
6-31
be expected, large surface mine emissions usually have the greatest concen-
trations, and those from Inactive underground mines the least. Projected
metal concentrations range from a low of about 5 x 10" ygm/m of cobalt
3
frum inactive underground mines to a high of about 1 ygm/m of potassium
from large surface mines.
Table 6.23 shows where particulates (dust) or trace metal air concen-
trations are estimated to exceed natural background or average urban air
concentrations (Table 6.19). Several trace metal air concentrations exceed
"natural" background; however, only the estimated air concentration of par-
ticulates (dust) exceeds the air concentration of airborne pollutants in
urban areas.
We evaluated the significance of these concentrations by comparing
them with threshold limit values (TLV's) for workroom environments pub-
lished by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(AC6IH76). These TLV's, which are for occupational workers and a 40-hour
workweek, were adjusted by multiplying by 40/168 to convert them to con-
tinuous exposure values and dividing by 100 to make them applicable to the
general public. Table 6.24 is a tabulation of the adjusted TLV's, the pro-
jected concentrations of metals and particulates (from Table 6.22), and the
ratio of these concentrations to the adjusted TLV's. The sums of these
ratios provide a measure of whether a mixture of the metals would be a
significant problem, a sum greater than one indicating that the "composite"
TLV has 'been exceeded.
Table 6.24 shows that in no case does a single metal exceed its TLV,
nor do any of the mixtures exceed a "composite" TLV. Although TLV's were
not available for potassium and strontium, their low toxicity and low con-
centrations make it unlikely that their addition to the sums would change
this conclusion. For the worst case, large surface mines, the sum of
ratios is only about 17 percent of the limit.
Particulates, on the other hand, present a different picture. The TLV
for nonspecific particulates, nuisance dust, was chosen for comparison. It
can be seen that^the TLV is exceeded by a factor of six at the large model
surface mine and nearly exceeded at the average model surface mine. About
50% of the exposure to dust is from vehicular traffic, and about 30% re-
sults from mining activities within the pit.
In summary, specific trace metal airborne emissions from uranium mines
do not appear to present a significant hazard, either singly or as com-
-------
Table 6.22 Stable truce metal airborne concentrations at the site of the maximum
' individual, ug/m
Trace
metal
AS
fia
Co
Cu
Cr
Fe
Hg
K
Hg
Mn
Ho
Ni
Pb
St
Sr
V
Zn
Part(b
Av§. undsr-
ground mine
3.1E-5
5.1E-4
4.0E-6
3.3E-5
5.0E-S
9.7E-3
7.2E-6
1.3E-2
9.4E-4
7.1E-4
3.3E-5
4.9E-6
4.1E-5
3.1E-5
1.7E-4
4.7E-4
2.6E-5
J 1.2
Avg. large
underground mine
1.9E-4
i.ae-3
3.1E-5
l.SE-4
1.4E-4
4.1E-2
1.5E-5
6.3E-2
6.91-3
2.8E-3
2.3E-4
3.9E-5
2.0E-4
2.2E-4
5.5E-4
3.0E-3
9.6E-5
3.9
Avg. surface
mine
2.6E-4
7.0E-3
1.1E-5
4.4E-4
1.1E-3
1.4E-1
1.8E-4
1.7E-1
2.SE-3
I.IE-2
1.4E-4
1.4E-5
5.4E-4
1.2E-4
3.4E-3
2.2E-3
4.6C-4
2.3E*1
Avg. large Inactive under-
surface mine ground mine
1.5E-3
4.2E-2
4.7E-S
?.6E-3
6.9E-3
B.5E-1
1.1E-3
1.0
l.OE-2
6.8E-2
6.7E-4
5.8E-5
3.2E-3
5.9E-4
2.1E-2
1.8E-2
2.8E-3
1.4E+2
3.1E-6
3.6E-S
4.5E-7
2.2E-6
8.9E-7
6.3E-4
N^a)
9.8E-4
1.3E-4
3.7E-5
4.5E-6
8.9E-7
3.1E-6
4.SE-6
4.9E-6
5.4E-5
1.3E-6
3.9E-2
Inactive surface
mine
1.5E-5
1.6E-4
2.9E-6
I.1C-5
3.6E-6
2.7E-3
NA
4.4E-3
6.2E-4
1.7E-4
2.0E-5
3.6E-6
1.4E-5
1.9E-S
2.3E-5
2.5E-4
S.2E-6
1.7E-1
*b'
- Not available.
Part. - Particulates (dust).
-------
6-33
Table 6.23 Comparison of stable trace metal airborne concentrations at the
location of the maximum individual with natural background con-
centrations and average urban concentrations of these airborne
pollutants
ExceedNatural Background
(a)
Exceed Average Urban Concentration
(a)
Average Large Surface Hjne
Ba» Cr (possible), Fe, Hg (possible),
Mn» Ho, Pb» Sr, V,
participates
Participates
Average Surface Mine
Ba, Cr (possible), Mn, V
None
Average Large Unde rground Ml ne
V
None
Average Underground Mine
None
None
(a)
See Tables 6.19 and 6.22.
-------
Table 6 24 Comparison of trace metal airborne concentrations at ^.he site of the maximum individual with threshold limit values
(TLV's) in the workroom environment adjusted for continuous exposure to the general public, ug/«
Trace
metal
As
Ba
Co
Cu
Cr
fs
Hg
i.'
Kg
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Se
Sr
V
Zn
Total
. , • Average
Adjusted^ ' Underground Mine
TLV
1.2
1 2
0 24 i
0.48
1 2
12
0.12
w(-b}
24
12
12
0.24
0,36
0.48
NA
1.2
12
of ratios
Participates:
Oust 24(c)
Cone Cone /TLV
3 1E-5
S.1E-4
4.0E-6
3 3E-5
5E-5
9.7E-3
7.2E-6
1.3E-2
9.4E-4
7. 11-4
3.3E-5
4.9E-6
4.1E-S
3.1E-5
1.7E-4
4.7E-4
2.6E-5
1. 2E+Q
3E-5
4E-4
2E-5
7E-5
4E-5
8E-4
6E-5
__-
4E-5
6E-5
3E-6
2E-5
1E-4
6E-5
—
4E-4
2£-6
2E-3
5E-2
Average Large
Underground mine
Cone. Cone /TLV
1.9E-4
1.8E-3
3.1E-S
1.5E-4
1.4E-4
4.1E-2
1.5E-5
6.3E-2
6 9E-3
2.8E-3
2.3E-4
3.9E-5
2.0E-4
2.21-4
5.5E-4
3.0E-3
9.6E-5
3.9E+0
2E-4
2E-3
l£-4
3E-4
1E-4
3E-3
1E-4
— -
3E-4
2£-4
2E-5
2E-4
6E-4
5E-4
—
2E-3
8E-6
1E-2
2E-1
Average
Surface Mine
Cone. Cone. /TLV
2.6E-4
7 OE-3
1.1E-5
4 4E-4
1 1E-3
1.4E-1
1.8E-4
1 7E-1
2.5E-3
1.1E-2
1.4E-4
1.4E-5
5.4E-4
1.2E-4
3.4E-3
2.2E-3
4 6E-4
2.3E+1
2E-4
61-3
5E-5
9E-4
91-4
1E-2
2E-3
--
1E-4
9C-4
IE- 5
6E-5
2E-3
2E-4
—
2E~3
4E-5
3E-2
1E+0
Average Large
Surface mine
Cone Cone /TL','
1.5E-3
4 2E-2
4.7E-5
2.6E-3
6 9E-3
8.5E-1
1.1E-3
l.OE+0
l.OE-2
6.8E-2
6.7E-4
5.BE-5
3 2E-3
5.9E-4
2.1E-2
1.8E-2
2.8E-3
1.4E+2
1E-3
4E-2
2£-4
5E-3
6E-3
7E-2
9E-3
—
4E-4
6E-3
6E-5
2E-4
9E-3
1E-3
..
2E-2
2E-4
1.7E-1
6E+0
Inactive
Unde^g round mine
Cone Cone. /TLV
3 1E-6
3 6E-5
4 5E-7
2.2E-6
8 9E-7
6.3E-4
NA
9 8E-4
1 3E-4
3. 7£-5
4.5E-6
8.9E-7
3.1E-6
4.5E-6
4.9E-6
5.4E-5
1.3E-6
3.9E-2
3E-6
3E-5
2E-6
5E-6
7E-7
5E-5
SE-6
3E-6
4E-7
4E-6
9E-6
9E-6
—
4E-5
1E-7
2E-4
2E-3
Inactive
Surface mine
Cone.
1.5E-5
1 6E-4
2.9E-6
1.1E-5
3 6E-6
2 7E-3
NA
4.4E-:
6.2E-4
1.7E-4
2 OE-5
3.6E-6
1.4E-5
1.9E-5
2.3E-5
2.5E-4
5.2E-6
1.7E-1
Conc./TLtf
1E-&
1E-4
IE- 5
2E-5
3E-6
2E-4
._
--
3E-5
ie-5
2E-6
2E-5
4E-5
4E-5
..
2E-4 a
4E-7 S
7E-4
7E-3
'"'Adjusted TIV = Occupational TLV (mg/m3) x 40 hr/lfiShr x 103 fig/mg x 1/100.
(b)
(c)
NA ~ Not available.
Limit for nuisance dust - total mass.
Source: Morkroom TLV's from ACGIH76.
-------
6-35
posite mixtures, when evaluated against adjusted threshold limit values.
However, particulate emissions, at least for surface mines, require further
evaluation. If model predictions can be verified by measurement, control
measures are indicated.
6.1.3 Radioactjye Aquatic Emissions
We used the data on radioactive releases from mine dewatering (Sec-
tions 3.3.3 and 3.4.3) to estimate the public health impact of mining
operations at a typical active underground mining site (New Mexico) and a
typical active surface mining site (Wyoming), The health risks estimated
in this section are of fatal cancers and genetic effects to succeeding
generations. Dose equivalents and health risks per year of active mine
operation are estimated for the maximum and average individuals and for the
population of each assessment area. These calculated dose equivalents and
health risk estimates are believed to be higher than the actual dose equiv-
alents and health risks because of the conservative ass .ptions required to
predict movement of radionuclides in surface waters (see Section J.2 of
Appendix J). Very few data are available on aquatic releases from inactive
mines; hence, the significance of these releases, particularly for Colorado
and Utah where inactive mines are numerous, could not be determined.
The individual and population dose equivalents presented in this sec-
tion are computed using the models and parameters discussed in Appendix J.
The health risk estimates are generated by the following procedures:
a. For inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides, the quantity
of radionuclides taken into the body is determined as part
of the dose equivalent calculations. This quantity is mul-
tiplied by a health risk per unit intake conversion factor.
b. For external irradiation from ground deposited radionuclides
or from air submersion, the dose equivalents are calculated
and multiplied by a health risk per unit dose equivalent con-
version factor.
The health risk per unit intake and health risk per unit external dose
equivalent conversion factors for aquatic releases are listed in Tables
J.13 and J.14, Appendix J. This appendix also discusses the health risk
assessment methodology used to obtain the risks presented in this section.
Uranium and Ra-226 releases are given for both active mining sites. It is
assumed that the stated uranium releases are entirely U-238 and that U-234
is in equilibrium with the U-238 but that Th-230 precipitates out of the
-------
6-36
Table 6.25 Annual radiation dose equivalent rates due to aquatic releases
from the New Mexico model underground mine
Organ
Endosteal
Red Marrow
Lung
Liver
Stomach Wall
LLI Wall^
Thyroid
Kidney
Muscle
Ovaries
Testes
Weighted Mean
Maximum Individual
Dose Rate (mrem/y)
5.6E+1
2.0
1.3
5.5E-1
1.9E-1
9.4E-1
4.5E-1
2.8E-H
4.9E-1
4.1E-1
4.7E-1
2.2
Average Individual
Dose Rate (mrem/y)
5.0
1.6E-1
2.1E-3
2.9E-2
3.8E-3
6.6E-2
2.5E-2
2.4
2.5E-2
2.4E-2
2.4E-2
1.5E-1
Population Dose
Rate (person-rem/y
3.2E+2
1.1E+1
1.4E-1
1.9
2.5E-1
4.3
1.6
1.6E+2
1.6
7.8E-1
7.8E-1
9.9
large intestine wall
-------
6-37
Tible 6.26 Annual radiation dose equivalent rates due to aquatic releases
from the Wyoming model surface mine
Organ
Endo steal
Red Marrow
Lung
Liver
Stomach Wall
LLI Wall{a)
Thyroid
Kidney
Muscle
Ovaries
Testes
Weighted Mean
Maximum Individual
Dose Rate (mr&n/y)
• 6.8E-1
3.8E-2
2.3E-2
3.0E-2
l.OE-2
2.9E-2
1.8E-2
4.0E-1
1.9E-2
1.5E-2
1.8E-2
4.0E-2
Average Individual
Dose Rate (rnrem/y)
2.1E-1
7.4E-3
l.OE-4
2.8E-3
2.8E-4
7.7E-3
1.4E-3
1.1E-1
1.5E-3
1.5E-3
1.4E-3
7.1E-3
Population Dose
Rate (person-rern/y
3.4
1.2E-1
1.7E-3
4.5E-2
4.6E-3
1.3E-1
2.3E-2
1.8
2.4E-2
1.2E-2
1.2E-2
1.2E-1
^a'Lo,wer large intestine wall
-------
Table 6.27 Individual lifetime fatal cancer risk and committed fatal cancers to the population
residing within the assessment areas
Source
Underground
mine site
(New Mexico)
Surface mine
Site (Wyoming)
Maximum exposed individual Average exposed individual
lifetime fatal cancer risk lifetime fatal cancer risk
for operation of the mine for operation of the mine
1 yr. 17 yrs. 1 yr. 17 yrs.
3.3E-7 5.6E-6 2.0E-8 3.4E-7
7.1E-9 1.2E-7 9.6E-10 1.6E-8
Cpmraitted fatal cancers
for the assessment area
population for operation
of the mine
1 yr. 17 yrs.
1.3E-3 2.2E-2
1.6E-5 2.7E-4
'The average individual risk is the cumulative population risk divided by the population
residing within the assessment area.
CJ
CD
-------
6-39
Also, it fs assumed that Rn-222, Pb-214, Bi-214, Pb-210, and Po-210 are in
equilibrium with the Ra-226. For example, a reported release rate of 0.01
Ci/yr of U-238 would be reflected in the analyses as 0.01 Ci/yr of U-238
and 0.01 Ci/yr of U-234. In like manner, a release of 0.001 Ci/yr of
Ra-226 would be reflected in the analyses as 0.001 Ci/yr Ra-226, 0.001
Ci/yr Rn-222, 0.001 Ci/yr Pb-214, 0.001 Ci/yr Bi-214, 0.001 Ci/yr Pb-210,
and 0.001 Ci/yr Po-210.
The maximum individual, average individual, and population annual dose
equivalent rates
-------
6-40
(Table 6.27). This represents a 0.00023 percent increase in the expected
fatal cancer occurrences in the assessment area population as a result of
operation of the underground mine in New Mexico over its 17-year active
life. For the Wyoming assessment area (16,230 persons), the estimated
increase in the expected fatal cancer deaths due to operation of the sur-
face mine for 17 years is 0.000011 percent.
Table 6.28 presents the genetic risks to succeeding generations, for
exposure to both individuals and the population within the assessment area,
caused by mine dewatering radionuclide releases. The genetic risks to
succeeding generations of maximum and average exposed individuals (columns
2 and 3, respectively) and the committed genetic effects to the descendants
of the present population within the assessment area (column 4) are shown
for one year of releases. The mechanics and assumptions used to estimate
the genetic effects are similar to those used to estimate fatal cancer
risks (see Appendix J). For both the model underground (New Mexico) and
surface (Wyoming) mines the majority of the risk is from releases of U-238,
U-234, and Po-210.
The risks of additional genetic effects due to the discharge of con-
taminated mine water from model uranium mine sites are very small when com-
pared to the normal occurrence of hereditary diseases. As given in Section
6.1.1, the natural incidence of genetic effects is 60,000 per million
births (NAS72), or 0.06 effects per birth. This natural incidence rate is
equivalent to 848 effects per year per million persons, considering a birth
rate of 0.01413 births per person-year. Taking the New Mexico site as an
example, the normal incidence of genetic effects for the assessment area
population (64,950 persons) during the 17 years of operation of the mine
would be 936 genetic effects. The increase in genetic effects committed to
the assessment area population during the 17 years of operation is 0.015
genetic effects committed. Thus, the genetic effects committed due to
aquatic wastes released during the operation of the New Mexico underground
mine are only^ 0.0016% of the genetic effects which occur due to other
causes during the mine operating life. For the Wyoming site (16,230 per-
sons), the genetic effects committed due to aquatic wastes released during
the operation of the model surface mine are only 0.0001% of the genetic
effects which occur due to other causes during the mine operating life. It
-------
Table 6.28 Genetic risks to succeeding generations of an individual and committed genetic effects
to descendants of the present population residing within the assessment area
Source
Genetic effects committed to succeeding
generations of an individual for operation
of the mine for 1 '
Maximum Individual
Average Individual
Genetic effects committed to the
descendants of the present population
for operation of the mine for 1 year
Underground mine
site (New Mexico)
4.5E-7
3.3E-8
9.0E-4
Surface mine
site (Wyoming)
1.4E-8
2.0E-9
1.4E-5
^Genetic effects assume 1 birth per person.
-------
6-42
should be noted that genetic effect risks to descendants of individuals
cannot be added to somatic effect risks for these individuals.
6.1.4 Ngnradioactive Aquatic Emissions
Data on nonradlological emissions from uranium mines via the water
pathway are limited. Table 6.29 presents available estimates of concen-
trations of four trace metals plus sulfate and suspended solids in dis-
charge streams from the model surface mine located in Wyoming and seven
trace metals plus sulfate and suspended solids from the model underground
mine located in New Mexico. These concentrations are calculated after
dilution in the first order tributaries (Appendix J) and represent average
concentrations for the assessment areas. The concentrations presented in
Table 6.29 are conservative since, with the exception of sulfates, loss of
contaminants due to precipitation, adsorption, and infiltration to shallow
aquifers are not considered. The concentrations are calculated by diluting
discharges from a mine into the first order surface streams with no losses.
For sulfate, a more realistic approach is taken since only 20 percent of it
Is assumed to remain in solution in the surface stream, as discussed in
Section 3.3.3.1.4.
Also presented in Table 6.29 are recommended agricultural water con-
centration limits for livestock and irrigation for several of these ele-
ments (EPA73). Drinking water limits are not presented because public
water supplies are normally derived from groundwater rather than surface
water, so drinking water would not be a pathway of concern for the average
individual in the assessment area. Though drinking water would be a po-
tentially significant pathway for the maximum individual, the data avail-
able for this analysis did not allow a reliable prediction of groundwater
concentrations due to mine dewatering (Appendix J). For this reason, the
impact of nonradioactive waterborne emission on the maximum exposed indi-
vidual could not be evaluated. The ratios of the average water concen-
trations to these limits are also listed in Table 6.29 and show that only
molybdenum from the underground mine approaches its limit (irrigation).
Also, the sums of the ratios being less than one indicate that mixtures of
the metals would not exceed a "composite limit" for an average individual
in the assessment area.
-------
Table 6,29 Comparison of nonradiological waterborne emissions from uranium mines with
recommended agricultural water quality limits
Recommended Limits, mg/t
Livestock
Parameter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Selenium
Zinc
Uranium
Sulfate
Total suspended solids
Totals
0.2
0.05
NA
0.05
25
NA
NA
NA
Model Surface Mine Model Underground Mine
Avg. Water Ratio Ratio, Avg./ Avg. Mater
Irrigation Cone., mg/t Avg. /Livestock Irrigation Cone., mg/i
0.1
NA
0.01
0.01
0.02
2.0
NA
NA
NA
Limit Limit
1.4E-4 0.0007 0.0014 3.1Er4
2.0E-2
1.1E-4 0.0022 0.011 1.6E-4
7.0E-3
1.6E-3
4.8E-4 0.00002 0.00024 1.1E-3
2.0E-3 3.5E-2
4.9 2.9
5.8E-1 6.8E-1
0.0029 0.013
Ratio' Ratio, Avg./
Avg. /Livestock Irrigation
Limit Limit
0.0016 0.0031
0.0032 0.016
0.70
0.032 0.08
0.00004 0.00055
0.037 0.80
lit
(b)
NA - Not available.
Excluding molybdenum.
-------
6-44
Because of the limited number of data available, it is difficult'to
evaluate the significance of these discharges. Although molybdenum could
be a problem, it is not possible to quantify the risk from molybdenum to
the maximum individual without having estimates of drinking water con-
centrations. Uranium, the metal estimated to be in highest concentration
(Table 6.29), has no established limits based on chemical toxicity in the
United States. In Canada, the maximum acceptable concentration for uranium
in drinking water based on chemical toxicity has been set at 0.02 tng/£
(0.04 mg/day),-considering a continuous lifetime intake rate of 2 liters of
water per day (HWC78). It is reasonable to assume that limits for uranium
in water used for irrigation and to water livestock would exceed the
drinking water limit. Hence, based on the estimated uranium concentrations
at surface (0.002 mg/£ } and underground (0.035 mg/x, ) uranium mines, the
water would probably be icceptable for irrigation and livestock watering.
The other constituents, such as solids and sulfates, for which limits are
not available, have minimal or no toxic properties.
It is premature to conclude the health hazard caused by non-
radiological waterborne emissions from uranium mines. Before definitive
conclusions can be reached, additional information is needed. Of par-
ticular interest would be data on water use patterns in the vicinity of the
mines and the degree to which the mine discharges may infiltrate ground-
water supplies.
6.1.5 Solid Wastes
6.1.5.1 Radium-226 Content
Solid wastes, consisting of sub-ore, waste rock, and overburden, at
active and inactive uranium mines contain elevated concentrations of
radium-226.* The sub-ore may contain as much as 100 pCi/g of radium-226.
Even though the overburden and waste rock contain lower concentrations than
the sub-ore, most of these wastes contain concentrations of radium-226 in
quantities greater than 5 pCi/g (see Sections 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.7.1, and
3.7.2).
* The radium-226 concentration in natural soil and rock is about 1 pCi/g.
-------
6-45
Uranium mine wastes containing radium-226 in quantities greater than 5
pCi/g have been designated as "hazardous wastes" in a recently proposed EPA
regulation (43FR58946, December 18, 1978) under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). This is primarily due to the fact that the use of
these wastes under or around habitable structures could significantly
increase the chance of lung cancer to individuals occupying these struc-
tures.
6.1.5.2 Estimates of Potential Risk
We have estimated the risk of fatal lung cancer that could occur to
individuals living in houses built on land contaminated by uranium mine
wastes (Table 6.30). Risks were estimated for homes built on land con-
taining radium-226 soil concentrations ranging from 5 to 30 pCi/g, The
relationship between the indoor radon-222 decay product concentration and
the radium-226 concentration in soil under a structure is extremely vari-
able and depends upon many complex factors. Therefore, the data in Table
6.30 only illustrate the levels of risks that could occur to individuals
living in structures built on contaminated land. These data should not be
interpreted as establishing a firm relationship between radium-226 concen-
trations in soil and indoor radon-222 decay product concentrations.
Table 6.30 Estimated lifetime risk of fatal lung cancer to
individuals living in homes built on land
contaminated by uranium mine wastes
Ra in Soil
(pCi/g)
5
10
20
30
Indoor Working Levels
(ML)
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.12
Lifetime Risk of
Fatal Lung Cancer'3'
(per 100 persons)
2.5
5.0
10
15
Based on an individual being inside the home 75 percent of the time,
-------
6-46
The working level concentrations In Table 6.30 were derived from
calculations made by Healey (He78), who estimated that 1 pCi/g of
radium-226 in underlying loam-type soil would result in about 0.004 WL
inside a house with an air change rate of 0.5 per hour. These calculated
working levels are in reasonable agreement with measurements made by EPA
(Fig. 6.1) at 21 house sites in Florida (S.T. Windham, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Written Communication, 1980). The Florida data were
derived from the average radium-226 concentration in soil (core samples
were taken to a maximum depth of three feet at each site) and the average
radon-222 decay product concentration inside each structure.
6.1.5.3 Usjng Radium Bearing Wastes In The Construction of Habitable
Structures
Wastes containing elevated levels of radium-226 have been used at a
number of locations in the construction of habitable structures. In Grand
Junction, Colorado, uranium mill tailings were widely used as landfill
under and around the foundations of homes and other structures causing high
radon-222 decay product concentrations inside many structures. To remedy
this situation, Public Law 92-314 was passed in 1972 to establish a fed-
eral-state remedial action program to correct the affected structures. In
Mesa County, Colorado, which includes Grand Junction, uranium mill tailings
were identified at about 6,000 locations. About 800 of these locations are
expected to receive corrective action because the radon decay product
concentrations inside buildings constructed at these locations exceeded the
remedial action criteria (DOE79). According to the criteria, dwellings and
school houses would be recommended for remedial action if the indoor radon
decay product concentration exceeded 0.01 WL above background; other struc-
tures would be recommended for remedial action if the indoor radon decay
product concentration exceeded 0.03 WL above background.
In central Florida, structures have been built on reclaimed phosphate
land. The reclaimed land is composed of phosphate mining wastes that con-
tain elevated radium-226 concentrations. EPA estimates that about 1,500 to
4,000 residential or commercial structures are located on 7,500 acres of
the total 50,000 acres of reclaimed phosphate-mined lands (EPA79). A
survey of 93 structures built on reclaimed phosphate land showed that about
40 percent of the structures had indoor radon-222 decay product concen-
trations in excess of 0.01 WL and about 20 percent had concentrations in
-------
6-47
0.1
O)
cu
en
c
0.01
o
o
TJ
C
0.001
I I i I
10 15
Radtum-226 in soil (pCi/g)
20
Figure 6,1 Average indoor radon-222 decay product
measurements (tn working levels) as a function of
average radium-226 concentration in soil
-------
6-48
excess of 0.03 WL (EPA79). Lifetime residency in a structure with a
radon-222 decay product concentration of 0.03 WL could result in twice the
normal 3 to 4 percent risk of fatal lung cancer.
6.1.5.3.1 Use of Uranjum MineHastes
We do not know to what extent the wastes from uranium mines have been
removed from mining sites and used in local and nearby communities. How-
ever, while surveying in 1972 for locations with higher-than-normal gamma
radiation in the Western States to locate uranium mill tailings material
used in local communities, EPA and AEC identified more than 500 locations
where "uranium ore" was believed to be the source of the elevated gamma
radiation (ORP73). The specific type of ore (mill-grade, sub^ore, low-grade
waste rock) was not determined as this was beyond the scope of the survey.
At some locations, however, surveyors attempted to characterize the ore by
using such terms as "ore spillage," "ore specimens," "low-grade crushed
ore," or "mine waste dump material.11 Some locations were identified as
sites of former ore-buying stations (ORP73).
Since it is unlikely that valuable mill-grade ore would have been
•widely available for off-site use, we suspect that uranium mine waste
(perhaps sub-ore) may be the source of the elevated gamma radiation levels
at many of the locations where large quantities of ore material are pre-
sent. Table 6,31 shows the locations where higher-than-normal gamma radi-
ation levels were detected during these surveys and the suspected sources
of the elevated levels.
6.2 En v ir onmen t ajJEjff e cts
6.2.1 General Considerations
Minerals are necessary to augment man's existence and welfare; in
order to obtain them, some form of mining is necessary. The very nature of
mining requires disturbing the land surface, but may be considered tran-
sitory. To discuss the environmental effects of uranium mining in partic-
ular, it is convenient to divide the mining operations into three phases,
The first phase includes the exploration for, and the delineation of, the
ore body. This involves, in most cases, substantial exploratory and de-
velopment drilling. The second phase involves the preparation of the mine
site and the mining process itself. This phase includes the construction
of service areas, dewatering impoundments, and access roads, digging or
drilling of mine entries, etc. During the actual mining process, waste
-------
6-49
Table 6.31
Gamma radiation anomalies and causes
Location
Arizona , ,
Cane Valleyw
Cameron
Cutter
Tuba Ci ty
State Total
Colorado^
Cameo
Canon City
Clifton
Coll bran
Craig
Debeque
Delta
Dove Creel'
Durango
Fruita
Gateway
Glade Park
Grand Valley
Gunnison
Lead vi lie
Loma
Mack
Mesa
Mesa Lakes
Mol ina
Naturita
Nucla
Palisade
Plateau City
Rifle
Sal Ida
Slick Rock
Uravan
Whitewater
State Total
Idaho
!Ba"ho City
Lowman
Salmon
Number of
Anomalies
Detected
19
3
5
17
44
3
187
1083
145
86
109
43
83
354
1276
17
1
110
47
91
199
90
123
3
43
33
13
939
28
810
64
9
209
55
6253
3
12
77
Cause of Anomaly
Uranium Radioactive
Tailings
15
7
22
1
36
159
4
8
2
1
59
118
58
12
1
10
3
18
10
6
I
10
3
107
1
168
6
3
208
1013
9
1
Ore
4
1
4
9
24
31
2
7
3
17
18
47
1
2
8
2
3
2
1
15
6
36
20
2
5
4
256
2
Source
1
1
3
2
49
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
7
1
75
Natural
Radioactivity
3
3
99
14
46
1
29
2
67
26
28
65
4
1
2
14
1
52
2
453
2
3
65
Unknown
2
7
9
2
28
876
139
25
106
10
3
102
1144
3
98
7
6
181
82
120
3
43
2
2
773
27
614
4
1
49
4456
1
9
State Total
92
10
70
10
-------
6-50
T ab1e 6.31 (egntin ued)
Location
New Mexico
(Tfuewater
Gatnerco
Grants
Milan
Shiprock
State Total
Oregon
Lakeview
New Pine Creek
State Total
South Dakota
EJgemont
Hot Springs
Provo
State Total
Texas
Camp be 11 ton
Coughran
Falls City
Fashing
Floresville
George West
Karnes City
Kenecfy
Panna Mana
Pawnee
Pleasanton
Poth
Three Rivers
Til den
Whitsett
Number of
Anomalies
Detected
2
5
101
41
9
158
18
4
, 22
55
45
4
104
7
1
5
1
IS
10
10
22
3
1
21
15
5
11
I
Cause of Anomaly
Uranium Radioactive Natural
Tailings
1
7
5
8
21
43
3
46
2
2
1
1
Ore
1
49
23
1
74
2
1
3
2
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
Source Radioactivity
5
1 25
4 1
0
5 31
10
10
1 1
17
1
2 18
6
1
3
14
10
6
13
3
2 17
14
2
11
1
Unknown
19
8
27
6
3
9
8
25
33
2
2
7
1
1
2
State Total
129
101
15
-------
6-51
Location
Utah
Blanding
Bluff
Ci sco
Crescent Junction
Green River
Magna
Mexican Hat
Mexican Hat
(Old Mill)
Hoab
MonticeTIo , »
Salt Lake City^ '
Thompson
Number of
Anomalies
Detected
38
2
2
2
23
27
5
- 14
125
59
225
30
Tailings
10
1
1
10
15
31
70
26
Uranium
Ore
21
1
2
1
14
1
4
1
76
16
10
3
Cause of
Anomaly
Radioactive Natural
Source Radioactivity
1
1
2
7
3
5
0
3
1
21
I
6
76
Unknown
4
1
1
7
3
21
9
64
1
State Total
State Total
552
164
150
19
16
108
16
111
Washington
C res ton
Ford
Reardan
Spring dale
3
1
10
2
3
1
10
2
Hudson
Jeffery City
Lander
Riverton
Shirley Basin
8
28
86
86
9
13
4
15
9
2
9
8
14
1
1
1
5
3
53
33
1
2
2Q
23
State Total
Totals
217
7587
41
1323
33
537
107"
94
904
46
4716
EPA report ORP/LV-75-2, August 1975. Cane Valley was not included in initial
gamma survey program.
Excluding Grand Junction where non-tailings anomalies were not sub-categorized
according to source.
frl
v 'Salt Lake City was not completely surveyed.
Source: ORP73.
-------
6-52
plies are produced, mine vents drilled or reamed, and pits opened and
sometimes closed. In the third or retirement phase, the site is subject to
deterioration from weathering ad infinitum. The extent of the deter-
ioration depends somewhat on the amount and quality of reclamation con-
ducted during this phase.
6,2.2 Effects of Mine Dewatering
Both surface and underground mines are dewatered in order to excavate
or sink shafts and to penetrate and remove the ore body. Dewatering is by
ditches, sumpst and drill holes within the mine or by high capacity wells
peripheral to the mine and associated shafts. Dewatering rates up to 4 x
5 3
10 m /day have been reported in the literature. Average discharge for the
surface and underground mines modeled herein are 3.0 and 2.0 m /min-
ute/mine, respectively. Between 33 and 72 new mines are projected in the
San Juan Basin of New Mexico alone. Total annual discharge is expected to
9 3
exceed 1.48 x 10 m , Calculated effects include decreased flow in the San
3 3
Juan (0.05 m /min} and the Rio Grande (0.85 m /mm) rivers. Future mining
will be primarily underground and the average mine depth will increase 275
percent, i.e., from 248 m to 681 m. Average mine discharge is expected to
3 3
increase from 2.42 m /min to 13.8 m /min.
Aside from the hydraulic and water quality effects of discharging
copious quantities of mine water to typically ephemeral streams, dewatering
impacts are receiving increasing scrutiny because of the observed and cal-
culated impacts on regional water availability and quality. Declines of
water levels in regionally-significant aquifers of New Mexico and reduced
base flow to surface streams are expected. Water quality effects relating
to inter-aquifer connection and water transfer as a result of both de-
watering and exploratory drilling have not been evaluated in any uranium
mining area. In several Texas uranium districts, the effects of massive
dewatering associated with surface mining are beginning to receive atten-
tion, but definitive studies have not yet begun and regulatory action is
not expected in the near future. With respect to in situ leach mining,
dewatering is not necessary and hence is not a concern. There is, however,
some question concerning the practice of pumping large volumes of ground-
water to restore aquifers. It is likely that both dewatering and aquifer
restoration practices will come under increasing State regulation in water-
short areas, particularly in areas of designated groundwater basins or
where aquifers connect with fully-appropriated surface streams. The un-
certainties surrounding environmental impacts of mining in this area can be
-------
6-53
expected to increase, and additional, comprehensive investigations of the
effects of mine dewatering and wastewater discharge are needed. Expansion
in Wyoming and Texas surface and in situ leaching operations is similar,
and these areas should be included in future investigations.
Uranium in water removed from mines through deliberate pumping or
gravity flow is extracted for sale when the concentration is 2 to 3 mg/£ or
more. If there is subsequent discharge to surface water, radium-22^ is
also removed down to concentrations of 2 to 4 pCi/t, to comply with NPDES
permit conditions. .Use of settling ponds at the mines also reduces total
suspended solids and may reduce other dissolved constituents as a result of
aeration and coprecipitation. Seepage from such settling ponds is believed
to be low and, therefore, environmentally insignificant relative to ground-
water. Management of waterborne solid wastes is inconsistent from one mine
to another. In some cases, the solids are collected and put in with mill
tailings, but in most cases they remain at the mine portal and are covered
over.
For surface versus underground mines, we recognize certain inconsis-
tencies in the parameters chosen to calculate contaminant loading of
streams. Contaminant loadings from a model surface uranium mine were
calculated for uranium, radium, TSS, sulfate, zinc, cadmium, and arsenic.
As noted in Section 3.3.1, molybdenum, selenium, manganese, vanadium,
copper, zinc, and lead are commonly associated with uranium deposits!
t
however, there tfere too few data for the latter elements to develop an
"average" condition. In addition, barium, iron, and magnesium can be
abundant in New Mexico uranium deposits. There were insufficient data for
these elements in the case of surface uranium mines 1n Wyoming, hence
contaminant loadings were not calculated. Regional differences dictate
which parameters are monitored for baseline definition and NPDES purposes.
Not all potential contaminants are important in every region. For this
reason and others, State and industry monitoring programs are inconsistent
with respect to parameters. Since the scope of this study did not permit
extensive field surveys, maximum reliance was placed on published, readily-
available data.
In terms of parameters and concentrations, NPDES permit limits are in-
consistent from one EPA Region to another and from one facility to another
in a given Region. In part, this reflects previous screening of the efflu-
ent discharge data and natural variations in the chemistry of ore bodies.
-------
6-54
However, the inconsistencies in parameters included and concentration
limits are sufficiently large as to suggest Devaluating NPDES permits and
specifying more consistent limits that more closely reflect contaminant
concentrations and volumes of mine discharge.
Infiltration of most of the mine discharge in Wyoming and New Mexico
is confirmed by field observations from these States. The modeling results
agree with these field data. Furthermore, the modeling results, i.e.,
maximum infiltration, are consistent with those in the generic assessment
of uranium milling (NRC79). Potable aquifers are defined under the Safe
Drinking Water Act as those which contain less than 10,000 mg/£ TOS.
Shallow groundwater throughout the uranium regions of the U.S. meets this
criterion.
Considering that essentially all of the mine effluent infiltrates and
is a source of recharge to shallow potable aquifers, NPOES limits should be
influenced by the drinking water regulations and ambient groundwater qual-
ity. The latter is essentially never considered with respect to mine dis-
charges. Extensive use of soils in both the saturated and unsaturated zones
as sinks for significant masses of both water and toxic chemical constit-
uents originating in the mine discharge necessitates further evaluation of
the fate of these elements. Present understanding of fractionation and
resuspension processes affecting stable and radioactive trace elements
greatly limits accurate prediction of health and environmental effects of
mine discharge.
6.2.3 Eros ionpfjifned.Lands and Associa ted Wastes
Increased erosion and sediment yield result from mining activities
ranging from initial exploration through the postoperative phase. Access
roads and drilling pads and bare piles of overburden/waste rock and sub-ore
constitute the most significant waste sources. Dispersal is by overland
flow originating as precipitation and snowmelt. To a lesser extent, wind
also transports wastes and sub-ore to the offsite environment. Underground
mining is much less disruptive to the surface terrain than 1s surface
mining. Documentation of the processes and removal rates is scarce and
consists of isolated studies in Texas, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Conser-
vatively assuming that sediment yields characteristic of the areas con-
taining the mines also apply to the mine wastes, yields of overburden,
3
waste rock, ore, and sub-ore amount to 90,000 m per year. Total sediment
-------
6-55
yield from all mining sources, including exploration and development
fi 1
activities, is estimated at 6.3 x 10 ra .
Actual erosion rates from specific sources could be considerably above
or below this value owing to such variables as pile shape and slope, degree
of induration and grain size, vegetative cover, and local climatic patterns
and cycles. Slope instability does present serious uranium mine waste
problems throughout the mountainous uranium mining areas of Colorado (S.M.
Kelsey, State of Colorado, written communication, 1979). Field obser-
vations in four western states confirm that some erosion characterizes
essentially every pile but that proper reclamation, particularly grading
and plant cover, provides marked Improvement and may actually reduce sedi-
ment loss to below ore-mining levels. Unstabilized overburden, waste /ock,
and sub-ore piles revegetate rather slowly, even in areas of ample rainfall
such as south Texas;
Stable trace metals such as molybdenum, selenium, arsenic, manganese,
vanadium, copper, zinc, and lead are commonly associated with uranium ore
and may cause deleterious environmental and health effects. Mercury and
cadmium are rarely present. There is no apparent relationship between the
concentration of trace metals and ore grade. In New Mexico ores, selenium,
barium, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, and vanadium are most abun-
dant. Presently, very few data are available to characterize the trace
metal .concentrations in overburden rock. Results of trace metal analyses
of a few grab samples from several uranium mines in New Mexico and one in
Wyoming show that except for selenium, vanadium, and arsenic, no signif-
icant trend attributable to uranium mining was present (N.A. Wogman,
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Written Communication, 1979),
Considering the background concentration for these elements and the limited
number of analyses, the inference of offsite contamination based on these
elements is indefinite.
Ore storage piles, used to hold ore at the mine for periods averaging
one month, are .potential sources of contamination to the environment via
dusts suspended and transported by the wind, precipitation runoff, and
Rn-222 exhalation--all of which can be significantly reduced by proper
management. Similarly, spoil piles remaining as a result of overburden,
waste rock, or sub-ore accumulations left on the land surface after mining
constitute a source of contaminants for transport by wind and water. Waste
particles enriched in stable and radioactive solids and Rn-222 can be
-------
6-56
transported by wind and precipitation runoff. Such transport can be re-
duced through proper grading and installation of soil covers protected by
vegetation or rip-rap.
Soil samples collected from ephemeral drainage courses downgrade from
inactive uranium mines in New Mexico and Wyoming generally revealed no
significant offsite movement of contaminants (See Appendix G}. For the New
Mexico mines studied, Ra-226 was elevated to about twice local background
at distances of 100 to 500 meters from the mine. Water and soil samples
from a surface mining site in Wyoming showed no significant offsite move-
ment of mine-related pollution although some local transport of stockpiled
ore was evident in drainage areas on and immediately adjacent to one mine
pit. The strongest evidence that mine wastes are a source of local soil
and water contamination is the radiochemical data and uranium in partic-
ular. Substantial disequilibrium between radium and uranium may indicate
leaching and remobilization of uranium, although disequilibrium in the ore
body is also suspect.
6.2.4 Land Disturbance from Exploratory and Devejopment Drill ing
About 1.3 x 10 exploratory and development drill holes have been
drilled through 1977 by the uranium mining industry (see Section 3.6.1).
Using the estimated land area of 0.51 hectares disturbed per drill hole
(Pe79), about 6.5 x 10 hectares of land have been disturbed by drilling
through 1977, To further refine the estimates of land areas disturbed, we
reviewed some recent drilling areas at three mine sites. From observing
187 recent drill sites, it was concluded that 0.015 ± 0.006 hectares per
drill pad were physically disturbed. The error term for the estimates is
at the 95 percent confidence level. The land area disturbed by roads to
gain access to the drill sites was also estimated from aerial photography
and amounts to 0.17 ± 0.11 hectares. The error term for this estimate is
also at the 95 percent confidence level. The total area disturbed per
drill site (drill pad and access roads) is 0.19 ± 0.11 hectares. Using the
latter estimates from aerial photography, the total land area disturbed
2
from all drilling through 1977 ranges from about 1000 to 4000 km with a
2
mean of about 2500 km . Drilling wastes removed from the boreholes can
disturb additional land areas through wind and water erosion. Ore and
sub-ore remaining in the drilling wastes can, in a radiological sense,
disturb land areas around the drill site from erosion. The extent of the
-------
57
J *•„„* ^f^lfft CS **« -i^J *iJ! Sfcl Ii/ A-**J j^. :^ ' "'-nJii fi
Figure 6 2 Example of natural reclamation of drill sites
-------
6-58
radiological contamination at drill sites is not known and cannot presently
be estimated.
Some reversal of the initial environmental damage at older drill sites
was also observed from aerial photographs. Figure 6.2 contains a typical
medium-to-large surface uranium mine and some adjacent drilling areas that
show the effects of weathering. New drill sites are in the upper left-hand
corner of the photograph. The access roads and drill pads are plainly
visible. It also appears that exposed drilling wastes remain at the drill
site. The area left of center in the photograph shows drill sites that are
probably Intermediate in age. The drilling wastes remaining have very
little voluntary vegetation growing on them, and appear to have been sub-
ject to wind erosion. Weathering of the drill puds and access roads is
obvious, as they are hardly discernible. It appears, in these cases, that
weathering may be considered a natural reclamation phenomenon. Old drill
holes are located in the lower left corner of the photograph. The drilling
wastes appear to be isolated dots; the drill pads and roads are almost
indistinguishable from the surrounding terrain. It appears that weathering
and volunteer plant growth tend to obscure scarring caused by roads located
in relatively level areas. In Figure 6.3, an underground mine site, the
access roads to the adjacent drill sites required extensive excavation
because of the topography. These more severe excavation "scars" will
probably remain for a long period of time.
In summarys the average number of drill holes per mine can be esti-
mated by dividing the total number of holes drilled through 1977 by the
number of active and inactive mines in existence in 1977;
1.3 x 106 drill holes y 400 drill holes. (6.1)
3300 mines mine
The total land area physically disturbed from drilling per mine is
4°° drill holes x 0.19 hectares x km2 = 0.76 km
<™™**™"™~~™~™11™™~™~''''~~'"~™ ~ J™~""^ " «
-- mine drill hole 100 hectares mine (6.2)
In some instances, weathering and volunteer plant growth (natural recla-
mation) tend to restore the land areas disturbed by drilling. In others,
especially on rugged topography where extensive excavation has occurred,
weathering may promote extensive erosion rather than natural -reclamation.
Any ore or sub-ore remaining at the drill sites is subject to erosion.
-------
6-59
6.2.5 Land Disturbance frog^ Mining
6.2.5.1 Underground Mines
At underground mines, some land area must be disturbed to accommodate
equipment, buildings, wastes, vehicle parking, and so on. The disturbed
area may range widely between mines in the same area or in different geo-
graphical areas. The land area disturbed by 10 mines was estimated from
aerial photographs. Nine of the mines were in New Mexico and one was in
Wyoming. The disturbed land area averaged 9.3 hectares per mine site and
ranged from 0.89 to 17 hectares. Access roads for each mine site consumed
about 1.1 hectares on the average and ranged from 0.20 to 2.59 hectares,
Subsidence or the collapse of the underground workings also causes some
2
land disturbances. An estimated 2.8 km of land has subsided as a resul';
of uranium mining in New Mexico from 1930-71 (Pa74). A crude estimate cf
the land disturbed from subsidence per mine can be made by dividing the
subsided area by the number of inactive underground mines in New Mexico.
This amounts to about 1.5 hectares per mine. The total area (mine site,
access roads, and subsidence) disturbed by an underground mine is estimated
to be 12 hectares.
6.2.5.2 Surface Mines
An estimate of land disturbed from surface mining was also made from
aerial photographs of eight mining sites in New Mexico and two in Wyoming.
The area estimates are for a single pit or a group of interconnected pits,
including the area covered by mine wastes. The average disturbed area was
estimated to be about 40.5 hectares and ranged from 1.1 to 154 hectares.
2
Access roads for the pits averaged 2.95 hectares (0.03 km ) and ranged from
0.18 to 18 hectares. The total area disturbed per mine site is about 44
hectares.
6.2.6 Retirement Phase
The actual exploration and mining of the uranium ore constitutes a
very small portion of the total existence time of a mine when considered
over a large time frame. The natural forces of erosion and weathering, as
well as plant growth, will eventually change any work or alterations that
man has made on the landscape. For example, underground mines may even-
tually collapse and fill with water if they are in a water table; waste
piles erode and disperse in the environment; the sharp edges of pits become
-------
6-60
Figure 6.3 Inactive underground mine site.
-------
6-61
smooth from wind and water erosion; lakes that are produced in pits fill up
with sediment; vents and mine entries collapse, etc.
Perhaps one of the more important considerations associated with
allowing a mine site to be naturally reclaimed is the dispersal of the mine
wastes. Their removal from underground and subsequent storage on the
surface constitute a technological enhancement of both radioactive mater-
ials and trace metals, creating a low-level radioactive materials disposal
site. It appears that containment of the wastes would be preferred over
their dispersal. .Wastes from underground mines deposited near the entries
are subject to substantial erosion. - Figure 6.3 is an aerial photograph of
an inactive underground uranium mine. The large light area is the waste
pile and the small pile nearby is a heap-leach area. Erosion is occurring
on both. A possible solution to this problem is to minimize the amount of
wastes brought to the surface by backfilling mined-out areas. Another
technique to minimize the dispersal of wastes into the environment by
containment is to stabilize them. Unfortunately, a substantial quantity of
wastes from past mining activities have been dumped in depressions and
washes, which, in essence, enhances their dispersion into the environment.
In retrospect, the wastes should have been stored in areas where minimal
erosion would occur and then covered with sufficient topsoil to promote
plant growth.
In surface mining, radiological containment can be accommodated by
keeping the topsoil, waste rock, and sub-ores segregated during their re-
moval. When backfilling, the materials can be returned to the pit in the
order they were removed or in an order that would enhance the radiological
quality of the ground surface. In this manner, the wastes would be con-
tained and essentially removed from the biosphere. Figure 6.4 shows some
examples of inactive and active surface mines. Some weathering and natural
revegetation are noticeable around the inactive pits. Revegetation, on the
other hand, appears to be relatively sparse at other inactive pits.
Erosion in inactive mining areas in New Mexico and Texas can result in
deep gullying of mine waste and overburden piles. The mine wastes blan-
keting the foreground oT Figure 6.5 are incised by an ephemeral stream that
has been subsequently crossed by a roadbed in the immediate foreground.
This particular mine, located in the Mesa Montanosa area immediately south
of Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, was active from 1957 to 1964. Thus, erosion
occurred in about 15 years. In the background is a large mine waste pile,
-------
6-62
the toe of which is being undercut by the same ephemeral stream (Fig. 6.6).
No deliberate revegetation of the mine wastes dumped in either discrete
piles or spread over the landscape (Fig. 6.7} is occurring, due in large
part to the unfavorable physical and chemical characteristics of the
wastes. The wastes are devoid of organic matter and are enriched in stable
and radioactive trace elements, some of which are toxic to plant life. Low
rainfall and poor moisture retention characteristics further suppress
vegetative growth. As shown in Fig. 6.7, there is a sharp contrast between
the vegetative cover on mine wastes versus that on the undisturbed range-
land in the background. Waste rock from many if not most of the mines in
New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado is weakly cemented sandstone with numerous
shale partings. Physical breakdown to loose, easily-eroded soil unsuitable
for plant life is common (Fig. 6.8), and transport by overland flow and
ephemeral streams occurs both during and long after the period of active
mining (Fig. 6.9).
Depending on the degree of reclamation, if any, -inactive surface mines
in Texas vary considerably in the degree of erosion and revegetation. For
example, the deep gullying shown in Fig. 6.10 developed in a period of one
year. The mine wastes in this case were not contoured or covered to mini-
mize gamma radiation, excessive erosion, or revegetation. In fact, the
wastes were disturbed and shifted very recently in the course of construc-
ting the holding pond (for mine water pumped from an active mine to the
right of the picture) in the background. Drainage in this instance is
internal, i.e., to a holding pond. In the background are more recent mine
waste piles also showing deep gullying, scant vegetation, and lack of
protective soil covering. Mine wastes in Texas are not completely returned
to the mine primarily because of the excessive cost. As in the case of
most mining operations, the bulking factor makes it physically impossible
to completely dispose of the wastes in the mines.
Surface mines in Texas, particularly the older ones, also have assoc-
iated overland flow to the offsite environment. Shown in Fig, 6.11 is a
principal channel floored by unstabilized mine wastes and draining toward
nearby grazing lands. Numerous deer and doves also were observed in the
area and are activefy pursued by sportsmen. The unstabilized mine in this
photograph was last active several years ago, but most activity stopped in
1964. Vegetation has been very slow to reestablish and is essentially
limited to a very hardy, drought-resistant .willow shown in the center of
the picture.
-------
6 - 63
,-« -c>s> -y" a/ i«f*
Figure 6,4 Example of active and inactive surface mining activities
-------
6-64
Figure 6,5 Mine wastes eroded by ephemeral streams In the Mesa
Montanosa area, New Mexico.
-------
6-65
i^^wr^K^1 'sSH^s i*"*^* •J^^llSr;*^3;'f»*5^' -?*v^>T*
Figure 6 6 Basal erosson of a uranium mine waste pile by an ephemeral
stream in the Mesa Montanosa area, New Mexico.
-------
6-66
Figure 6.7 Scattered piles of mine waste at the Mesa, Top Mine, Mesa
Montanosa, New Mexico, Note the paucity of vegetation. Colum-
nar object in background »s a ventilation shaft casing
Figure 6.8 Close-up view of easily eroded sandy and silty mine waste from
the Mesa Top Mine, Mesa Montanosa, New Mexico
-------
6-67
figure 6.9 Gullying and sheet erosion of piled arid spread mine wastes at
the Dog Incline uranium mine, Mesa Montanosa, New Mexico,
-------
6-68
»^t^r&*3^is£!!*&7* I-.-- r."ft*--: isr
Figure 6.10 Recent erosion of unstabtlized overburden piles at the inactive
Galen mine, Karnes County, Texas
Figure 6.11 Unstabilrzed overburden piles and surface water erosion at the
Galen Mine, Karnes County, Texas.
-------
6-69
Mines stabilized within the last few years feature improved final con-
touring and use of topsoil and seeding to stimulate revegetation. The
reclaimed spoil piles are then available for grazing. Because backfill
cannot be complete (due to economic and bulking factors), part of the mine
pit remains as shown in Figs, 6.12 and 6.13, which are of the same mine. The
aerial view shows extensive patches of light colored soil devoid of vegeta-
tion. Here topsoil is missing and revegetation is minimal despite the 5
years elapsed since mining. Figure 6.13 is a closeup of one portion of the
mine showing deep gullying, a thin layer of dark topsoil over relatively
infertile sand and silt, and the vertical mine walls. Excavations like
this must be fenced. They are a hazard to :livestock and people. It is
likely that erosion will continue to spread away from the mine; but the
rate and consequence is unknown.
Although a mine site can be reclaimed to produce an acceptable aesthe-
tic effect, it may not be suitable in a radiological sense. At the conclu-
sion of surface mining, the remaining pit will contain exposed sub-ore on
some of the pit walls and pit floor. Because most mines at least partly
fill with water and the ore zone is thereby covered, gamma radiation and
radon diffusion should be markedly reduced. Although water accumulation in
the pit would be expected to have elevated concentrations of trace metals
and radioactive materials, this condition would probably be temporary
because of the eventual covering of the pit by sedimentation from inflow of
surface water and materials sloughed from the pit walls. The natural
reclamation process could be enhanced by tapering the pit wjlls to a more
gradual slope and depositing the materials on the pit floor. If sub-ores
are allowed to remain near the surface, gamma exposure rates may be suffi-
cient to prevent unlimited land use and, even if enough stabilizing mater-
ials were used to suppress the gamma radiation, radon exhalation probably
could prevent unrestricted land use also. Some of the possible radiation
problems could be reduced by separating the waste rock and sub-ore when
hauled to the surface. The waste rock could then be used as a blanket for
the sub-ore. Away from the pit proper» surface gamma readings must be
below 62 yR/hr to comply with Texas State regulations. It is reasoned that,
since background is about 5y R/hr, surface gamma radiation of 57 yR/hr or
less would cause a total body dose of 500 mrem/yr or less.
A number of the older mines in Texas were active in the late 1950*5
and early 1960's—before there were requirements for stabilization. Such
-------
6-70
Figure 612 Aerial view of the Manka Mine, Karnes County, Texas. Note
the extent of the mine pit and associated waste piles with poor
vegetative growth on bare wastes or those with insufficient top-
soil cover.
Figure 613 Overburden pile showing the weak vegetative cover and
gullying associated with improper stabilization at the Manka
Mine, Karnes County, Texas. Mine stabilized m 1974
-------
6-71
mines, one of which is shown in Fig. 6.14, are relatively shallow, contain
shallow pools of water, and have high associated gamma radiation on the
order of 80 to 100 ^R/hr and as much las 140 to 250 pR/hr in some areas.
The particular mine in Fig. 6.14 has maximum readings of 400wR/hr on the
mine waste piles. In addition, the mine was used for illegal disposal of
toxic wastes, primarily styrene, tars, and unidentified ceramic or re-
fraction nodules. Some of the drums containing the wastes are shown in the
rear center and right of the photograph.
Mine wastes may be used for construction and other purposes if they
are not controlled or restricted (see Sections 5.4 and 6.1.5.3.1). These
wastes have been used for fill in a yard and park (Appendix G). Possibly
they have also been used 1n a school area and fairgrounds (Th79). Their
use in dwelling construction has also been reported (Ha74). It is also
common practice to use mine wastes for road ballast and fill in areas
around mine sites. This type of usage is evident from the roads Immed-
iately adjacent to and located north and northeast of the mine shown in
Fig. 6.3.
In summary, only about six percent of the land used for uranium mining
has been reclaimed from 1930-71 (Pa74), For the most part, the wastes at
the mine sites are spreading as a result of weathering and erosion. It
appears that the wastes can be controlled or disposed of by altering some
mining, practices, which would require very little effort or expense on the
part of the mining industry. Any reclamation of the mine sites should be
keyed to long-term, natural reclamation that will continue indefinitely.
Careful planning can hasten the natural reclamation process and insure
long-term stability of the mine sites. Measures should be taken to prevent
the removal of mine wastes.
-------
6-72
iiJtvsp&ap*
Figure 614 Inactive Hackney Mine, Karnes County, Texas. Drums in back-
ground contained toxic liquid wastes and styrene. Mine was
active in late 1950's and early 1960,
-------
6-73
6.3 References
ACGIH76 American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, 1976,
"TLV's - Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1976," American Con-
ference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Ba76 Baes, C.F., Goeller, H.E., Olson, J.S. and Rotty, R.M. , 1976, "The Global
Carbon Dioxide Problem," Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL-5194.
Ba79 Battist, L., Buchanan, J., Conge!, F., Nelson, C., Nelson, M., Peterson, H. ,
and Rosenstein, M., 1979, Ad Hoc Population Dose Assessment Report, "Popu-
lation Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nu-
clear Station," A preliminary assessment for the period March 28 through
April 7, 1979 (Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.).
Be80 Begovich, C. L., Eckeroan, K.F., Schlatter, E.C. and Ohr, S.Y., 1980, "DAR-
TAB: A Program to Combine Airborne Radionuclide Environmental Exposure Data
with Dosimetric and Health Effects Data to Generate Tabulations of Predicted
Impacts", Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL-5692 (Draft).
DOE79 U.S. Department of Energy, 1979, "Progress Report on the Grand Junction
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program," DOE/EV-0033.
DOI68 U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, 1968, "Water Quality Criteria: Report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior."
Du80 Dunning, D.E. Jr., Leggett, R.W. and Yalcintas, M.G., 1980, "A Combined
Methodology for Estimating Dose Rates and Health Effects From Exposure to
Radioactive Pollutants," Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL/TM-
7105.
EPA73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, "Water Quality Criteria-1972,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-R3/73-033.
-------
6 - 74
EPA79 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, "Indoor Radiation Exposure
Due to Radium-226 in Florida Phosphate Lands," EPA-520/4-78-013.
Ha74 Hans, J. and Douglas, R., 1974, "Radiation Survey of Dwellings in Cane
Valley, Arizona and Utah, for the Use of Uranium Mill Tailings," Office
of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
He78 Healy, J.W, and Rodgers, J.C., 1978, "A Preliminary Study of Radium-Con-
centrated Soil,""LA-739]-M$.
HWC78 Health and Welfare Canada, 1978, "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Wate',
Quality," Canadian Government Publishers Centre, Supply and Services Canadf
Hull, Quebec, Canada, K1ADS9.
Mo79 Moore, R.E., Baes, C,f. Ill, McDowell-Boyer, L.M,, Watson, A.P., Hoffman,
P.O., Pleasant, J.C. and Miller, C.W., 1979, "AIRDOS-EPA: A Computerized
Methodology for Estimating Environmental Concentrations and Dose to Man
from Airborne Releases of RadionucTides," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report, EPA 520/1-79-009 (Reprint of ORNt-5532).
NAS72 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1972, "The Ef-
fects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,"
Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiations (BEIR Report).
NCI78 National Cancer Institute, 1978, "SEER Program: Cancer Incidence and
Mortality in the United States 1973-1976," Prepared by Biometry Branch,
Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, National Institutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
NRC79 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979, "Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, Volume I, Appendices," NUREG-0511.
ORP73 Office of Radiation Programs, 1973, "Summary Report of Radiation Surveys
Performed in Selected Communities," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
6 - 7'5
Pa74 Paone, J,, Morning, J. and Giorgetti, L., 1974, "Land Utilization and Rec-
lamation in the Mining Industry, 1930-71," U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington,
D.C.
Pe79 Perkins, B.L., 1979, "An Overview of the New Mexico Uranium Industry," New
Mexico Energy and Minerals Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Th79 Thrall, J., Hans, J. and Kallemeyn, V., 1980, "Above Ground fiamnia-
Ray Logging of Edgemont, South Dakota and Vicinity," U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs - Reot., QRP/LV8Q-2.
Va?l Vandergrift, A.E., Shannon, L.J., Gorman, P.G. , Lawless, E.W,, Sallee, E.E.
and Reichel, M,, 1971, "Participate Pollutant System Study - Volume 1 - Mass
Emissions," EPA Contract to Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri,
Contract No. CPA 22-69-104.
-------
SECTION 7
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
7-1
7.0 Summary and Recorofngndatlons
7.1 Overview
This report describes the potential health and environmental effects
caused by uranfym mines. It considers all contaminants—solid, liquid, and
airborne—and presents doses and health effects caused by wastes at both
active and inactive mines. In addition to outlining the various methods of
mining uranium, the report graphically depicts mine locations and lists the
U.S. total of 340 active and 3,389 inactive urainum mines (Appendixes E and
F) according to mine name, owner, location (state, county,
section-township-range), and total ore production. Table 7.1 summarizes
the 'nine lists.
Several facts and limitations helped shape the method and approach of
this study. Little information on uranium mines is available; measurement
info,(nation that is available on uranium mine wastes 's frequently influ-
enced (biased) by nearby uranium mills; there are inherent variations
between uranium mines, especially between in situ mines, that complicate
generic assessments of uranium mine wastes; and, finally, the law (P.L.
95-c04) that mandated this study allotted only a short time in which to
complete it. To accommodate these facts in our study plan, we decided to
develop conceptual models of uranium mines and to make health and
environmental projections from them, based upon available data from the
litprature; to employ conservative (maximizing) assumptions when necessary;
and to supplement available information with information from discussions
with persons inside and outside the agency and by doing several field
studies in Texas, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Table 7.2 summarizes the
sources of uranium mine contaminants that were modeled in this study.
7.2 Sources and Concentrations of Contaminants
7.2.1 Surfaceand Underground Mines
We calculated released radioactivity for two models of active under-
ground and surface uranium mines. The average-large mine, the first model,
reflects new and predicted future mines. The average mine, the second
model, reflects the regional impact of multiple mines. The quality and
-------
Table 7.1 Distribution of United States uranium mines by type of mine and state
Active
State
Alaska
r
Arizona
California
Colorado
i
Florida
Idaho
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
N. Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
S. Dakota
Texas
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Unknown
Total
Surface -
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
16
13
2
19
0
60
Under-
ground
0
1
0
106
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0'
0
108
0
6
0
256
• In situ
leaching
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
3
0
11
Others
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
2
0
13
Surface
0
135
13
263
0
2
0
9
9
0
34
13
3
2
111
38
378
13
223
6
1252
Inactive
Under-
ground
1
189
10 .
902
0
4
0
9
12
1
142
0
0
1
30
0
698
0
32
5
2036
All
Other(a)
0
2
0
52
1
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
4
17
0
10
2
101
I
ro
Includes mine water, heap leach dumps, miscellaneous, and unknown.
-------
7-3
Table 7.2, Sources of contaminants at uranium mines
Source
Waste Rock (Overburden) Pile
Wind suspended dust "
Rn-222 emanation
Precipitation runoff
Sub-Ore Pile
Wind suspended dust
Rn-222 emanation
Precipitation runoff
Ore Stockpile
Wind suspended dust
Rn-222 emanation
Precipitation runoff
Abandoned Mine Area Surfaces
Rn-222, emanation
Mining Activities
Dusts
Combustion products
Rn-222
Waste water
Surface discharge
Seepage
Active
Underground
M
M
C
M
M
C
M
M
C
M
M
M
M
M
C
Note, — M» Source model edjC, considered but
Active
Su rf ace
M
M
C
H
M
C
M
M
C
M
K
M
M
M
C
not modeled due
Inactive
Underground
M
M
C
M
M
C
M
M
C
M
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
to lack of
Inactive
Surface
M
M
C
M
M
C
M
M
C
M
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
information^ NA» not applicable.
-------
7-4
flow rates that were determined for water discharges from typical surface
and underground mines in Wyoming and New Mexico, respectively, were used to
calculate chemical loading of streams in three hydrographic units: sub-
basin (containing the mines), basin, and regional basin. Infiltration of
mine water to potable groundwater and suspension/solution of contaminants
in flood waters are the main components of the aqueous pathway. Crude
dilution and infiltration models were used to evaluate aqueous discharge
from active mines. Off-site movement from inactive mines is primarily by
overland flow, the contamination significance of which was evaluated with
limited field and literature surveys.
Concentrations of radionuclides and stable elements in waste rock,
sub-ore, and ore, selected from only a few measurements, are shown in Table
7.3. Average annual airborne emissions for the sources listed in Table 7.2
were computed for active and inactive mines using the concentrations listed
in Table 7.3 and the geological and meteorological information appropriate
for each region. Source terms were maximized by assuming no dust control
and no spoils pile restoration. Annual emissions of airborne contaminants
estimated for the various sources are given in the following tables of
Section 3.
Tables on Active Mines
Tables on Inactive Mines
Source
Combustion Products
Vehicular Dusts
Dust from Mining
Activities
Wind Suspended Oust
Radon-222 Emissions
Su rf ace
3.30
3.32
3.33
3.34
3.35
Underground
3.52
3.56
3.54
3.55
3.51
Surface Underground
—
—
3.70 3.76
3.74 3.77
Annual emissions in mine water discharged to the surface by the model
average underground and surface mines are listed below.
-------
7-5
Parameter
Surface Mine
._{Wyoming.)
Underground Mine
{New Mexico)
3
Flow rate, m /min
Uranium-238, Ci/yr
Uranium-234, Ci/yr
Radium-226, Ci/yr^
Radon-222 and each
short-lived daughter, Ci/yr
Lead-210, C1/yr
Poloniura-210, Ci/yr
Arsenic, Kg/yr
Barium, Kg/yr
Cadmium, Kg/yr
Molybdenum, Kg/yr
Selenium, Kg/yr
Sulfate, MT/yr^
Zinc, Kg/yr
Total suspended solids,_MT/yr
3.0
0.037
0.037
0.00065
0.00065
0.00065
0.00065
7.9
ND^
6.3
ND
ND
276
112
33.0
2.0
0.49
0.49
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
13
850
7
300
70
12?
45
29
'a'No data available.
^ Mhe values shown for radium-226 and sulfate are 10 percent and 20 per-
cent, respectively, of those released on an annual basis. Radium 1s assumed
to be irreversibly sorbed, and sulfate readily infiltrates.
-------
7-6
Table 7.3. Concentration of contaminants in waste rock (overburden), ore, and
sub-ore
Nonradioactive
Stable
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury
Magnesium
Concentration
Waste Rock
-
9
290
NA
NA
18
<51
6,000 15
<8
NA 3
> uq/g
Ore and
Sub-ore
86
920
ND
16
61
20
,700
ND
,500
Stable
Element
Manganese
Molybdenum
Potassium
Lead
Ruthenium
Selenium
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration
Waste Rock
485
2.5
7,000
22
NA
2
150
100
20
» uq/g
Ore and
Sub-ore
960
115
25,000
78
ND
no
130
1,410
29
Radioactive
Radioactive
Contaminant
U-238 and each daughter
Th-232 and each daughter
Waste rock
6
1
Concentration,
Sub-ore
(a)
2
pCi/g
Ore
285
10
concentration of U-238 and each daughter was assumed to be 99 pCi/g
at active underground mines, 40 pCi/g at active surface mines, and 110 pCi/g
at inactive mines of both types.
Note.—NA, Not~available; ND, Not detected.
-------
7-7
7.2.2
In Situ Leach Mines
The sources of airborne releases that we assessed at our model in situ
leach mine were the uranium recovery and packaging unit, the evaporation
ponds, and the surge tank. The annual releases for these sources are listed
below.
Source
Annual Airborne Release Rate
Recovery Plant
Uranium-238
Uranium-234
Uranium-235
Thorium-230
Radium-226
Leid-210
Polontum-210
Ammonia
Ammonium chloride
Carbon dioxide
0.10 C1
0.10 C1
0.0048 C1
0.0017 Ci
0.00010 Ci
0.00010 Ci
0.00010 Ci
3.2 MT
12 MT
680 MT
Surge Tank
Radou-222
650 Ci
Storage Ponds
Ammonia
Ammonium chloride
Carbon dioxide
100 MT
300 MT
80 MT
Since in situ mining is site specific and relatively new, little
information is available on its wastes. Thus, only airborne releases were
assessed quantitatively; liquid and solid wastes were discussed quali-
tatively.
Several chararcteristics of in situ mining, especially regarding its
liquid and solid wastes, tend to minimize its release of contaminants.
-------
7-8
First, only a small fraction of Ra-226 is leached (2.5 percent assumed);
second, all liquid wastes are impounded with no planned releases; third,
much of the liquid waste evaporates, except at a few sites in Texas where
the wastes are injected into deep wells; and, finally, at in situ mines
solid wastes accumulate at a much lower rate than they do at conventional
mines. Aquifer restoration and underground excursion of the leaching
solution were also discussed qualitatively. Although restoration has not
yet been done at a commercial scale site, preliminary experiments indicate
that proper aquifer restoration is possible. During the restoration
process, Rn-222 will continue to be purged from the aquifer and should be
considered a possible source of exposure.
7.2.3 Uranium Exploration
During exploration and developmental drilling, dusts are produced,
Rn-22H and combustion products from drilling equipment are released, and
approximately 0.2 hectares of land surface are disturbed per drill hole.
The average mine site produces an estimated 6,100 kg of airborne dust, 20
kg of which is ore and subore. About 3400 Ci of Rn-222 are released annu-
ally from all development holes drilled since 1948 (4.5 x 10 ), which is
similar to that released from one operating mine. Combustion product
releases are small .
7. '3
Exposures were assessed for a hypothetical most exposed individual
living about 1600 m (1-mile) from the center of the mine and for a
population residing within an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the mine. The
meteorological and geological parameters used were those appropriate to the
respective sites.
Aqueous releases were modeled through a basin, sub-basin, and regional
basin hydrographic area. Dilution by precipitation, snowmelt, and periodic
flooding (typical of semiarid regions) was analyzed but not used in the
model. For the model we assumed that the average annual release of
contaminants is diluted by the average annual flow rate of the stream being
considered. The pathways that we assessed are listed below.
-------
7-9
Air Pathways
Water Pathways
Breathing
a. Radioactive particulates
and radon-222
b. Radon-222 daughters
1. Breathing
a. Resuspertded contaminants
deposited from irrigation
water
External Exposure
a. Submersion-
b. Surface deposited
radioactivity
External Exposure
a. Submersion in resyspended
contaminants deposited
from irrigation water
Eating
a. Above-surface foods
grown in the area
b. Milk and beef cattle
grazing in the area
Egting
a. Above-surface foods grown
in the area
b. Milk and beef cattle grazing
in the area and drinking
contaminated water
c. Fish
In addition to the risks caused by wastes at or discharged directly
from the mines, we assessed the risks to occupants of habitable structures
built on land containing uranium mine wastes. The radium-226 in these
wastes increases the concentrations of radon-222 and its decay products and
the gamma radiation inside these structures.
7.4 Potential Health Effects
7.4.1 Radioactive Ajrborne.Emissions
The risks of fatal cancer were estimated for radioactive airborne
emissions. They include the lifetime risk to the most and average exposed
individuals in the regional population and the number of additional fatal
cancers in the regional population caused per year of model mine operation
(see Table 7.4),
-------
7-10
The major fatal cancer risk at each of the model uranium mines is the
risk of lung cancer from Rn-222 daughter exposures (Tables 6.11 and 6.12).
At surface and in situ mines, radioactive particulates plus Rn-222 con-
tribute only a little over 10 percent of the total fatal cancer risk. The
principal radionuclides in the airborne particulate emissions are U-238,
U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, and Po-210, The contribution from Th-232 and its
daughters is minor. At underground mines, essentially all the risks are
due to Rn-222 daughter exposures. Fatal cancer risks at active underground
mines are greater than those at active surface mines because of the larger
quantity of Rn-222 daughter products released. For inactive mines, the
risks are similar at surface and underground sites.
Most of the exposure to individuals around the model uranium mines is
received internally, usually by breathing. However, the average person in
the region around surface mines receives most of his exposure by eating
contaminated foods. The largest contributors to the radioactive partic-
ulate plus Rn-222 impact are ore and overburden at active surface mines and
ore and sub-ore at the active underground mines. For the model in situ
mine, the uranium processing plant was the main source of particulate
radionuclides.
Of all evaluated model uranium mines, the average large underground
mine (Table 7.4) causes the largest fatal cancer risk and the largest
number of additonal cancers in the regional population. Compared to the
natural occurrence of fatal cancer from all causes (Table 7.5), we estimate
an increase of 1.3 percent (0.0019) in fatal cancers over the lifetime of
the maximum individual and a 0.0003 percent (0.018) increase in fatal
cancers in the regional population per year. Increases in expected fatal
cancers are less at all other model mine sites.
Compared to a normal occurrence of genetic effects of 0.06
effects/birth and 12.1 effects/year in the regional population (Wyoming),
the computed risk of additional genetic effects from radiation exposure at
the model uraninum mines is very small. The average large surface mine
produces the largest increase in genetic effects. We estimate the genetic
risk to the descendants of the most exposed individual to be an additional
6.4E-5 effects/birth (0.1 percent increase) for a 30-year parental ex-
posure; 2.2E-7 effects/birth (0.00036 percent increase) to the descendants
of the average exposed individual in the regional population for the same
-------
Table 7.4 Summary of fatal cancer risks from radioactive air-
borne emissions of model uranium mines
Source
Average Surface
Mine
Average Large
Surface Mine
Average Under-
ground Mine
Average Large
Underground Mine
Inactive Surface
Mine
Inactive Under-
ground Mine
In Situ Leach Mine
Most exposed
individual life-
time fatal cancer
risk (a)
1.3E-4
4.2E-4
2.0E-4
1.9E-3
3.4E-5
2.0E-5
2.2E-4
Average exposed
individual life-
time fatal cancer
risk (a)
2.5E-7
8.1E-7
9.1E-7
8.6E-6
6.3E-8
8.6E-8
3.9E-7
Fatal cancers
cancers caused in
regional population
per year
1.7E-4
6.4E-4
1.7E-3
1.8E-2
1.3E-5 '
4.5E-5
3.1E-4
^ 'Lifetime exposures were calculated as follows;
Surface and underground mines: Exposure for 17 years to active mining and 54 years to
inactive mine effluents.
Inactive mines: Exposure for 71 years to inactive mine effluents.
In situ leach mine: Exposure for 10-year operation and 8-year restoration.
-------
7-12
Table 7.5 Percent additional lifetime fatal cancer risk for a
lifetime exposure to the individual and the percent
additional cancer deaths in the regional population
per year of exposure estimated to occur as a result
of uranium mining
Source
Average surface mine
Average large surface
mine
Average underground
mine
Average large
underground mine
Inactive surface mine
Inactive underground
Most
Exposed
Individual
8.7E-2
2.8E-1
1.3E-1
1.3
2.3E-2
1.3E-2
Average
Exposed
Individual
1.7E-4
5.4E-4
6.1E-4
5.7E-3
4.2E-5
5.7E-5
Regional
Population
7.9E-6
3.0E-5
3.1E-5
3.3E-4
6.1E-7
8.3E-7
mine
In situ leach mine
1.5E-1
2.6E-4
1.4E-5
Note.--Comparisons are based on the risks given in Table 7.4, a national
cancer risk from all causes of 0,15, and an estimate of the cancer death rate
from all causes to the regional populations of New Mexico (5,400 deaths) and
Wyoming (2,140 deaths).
-------
7-13
exposure period; and 7.9E-5 additional genetic effects committed to the
descendants of the regional population per year of mine operation. The
latter increase is very small compared to the 12.1 effects that will norm-
ally occur each year in the live births of the regional population.
7.4.2 Nonradioactive Airborne Emissions
Atmospheric concentrations of nonradioactive air pollutants were
calculated at the location of the most exposed individual. The concen-
trations were compared with calculated nonoccupational threshold limit
values, natural background concentrations, and average urban concentrations
of selected airborne pollutants in the United States.
Of the pollutant sources investigated, three produced insignificant
health hazards:
1. airborne stable trace metals
2. airborne combustion products from heavy equipment operation
3, nonradioactive gas emissions at in situ leach mines
However, at active surface mines, dust particulates (produced mainly
by vehicular traffic) equal or exceed conservatively calculated nonoccu-
pational threshold limit values and, therefore, are a potential nuisance.
7:4.3 Radioactive Aqueous Emissions
The only water from active uranium mines is that pumped from the mines
and released to surface streams. The largest radiation dose* from this
water to individuals in the assessment regions is to the endosteal cells
(bone) (see Tables 6.25 and 6.26). It primarily comes from eating foods
grown on land irrigated by streams fed by discharged mine water. Signifi-
cant, but of lesser importance, are exposures due to breathing wind sus-
pended material from irrigated land, eating fish caught in streams near the
site, and external gamma radiation from land irrigated by streams fed by
mine water discharges. We estimate only a small risk from eating beef and
milk from cattle grazing on irrigated pasture and drinking water contami-
nated by mine discharges (< 2 percent of the total risk from aqueous
emissions). The radionuclides of major importance in the risk analyses are
U-238 and U-234.
*In Section 7, "dose" is to be read as "dose equivalent"--absorbed
radiation (dose) multiplied by a quality factor.
-------
7-14
The risks of fatal cancer were estimated for radioactive aqueous dis-
charges to surface streams from active uranium mines. The estimates in-
cluded, for the 17-years of active mine operation, the cumulative risk to
the most and average exposed individuals fn the assessment area and the
number of fatal cancers caused to persons residing within the assessment
area (Table 7.6). Aqueous emissions from inactive mines and from in situ
leach mines were not modeled due to a lack of data. However, we believe
aqueous source terms from these mines would be low.
Drinking water may be an important source of exposure for the most
exposed individual living near a uranium mine. However, we did not esti-
mate it because we could not quantify radionuclide concentrations in pot-
able groundwater with available information. Also, mine water probably is
not consumed directly by man.
Table 7.6 Summary of the fatal cancer risks caused by radioactive
aqueous emissions from model uranium mines
Source
Most exposed
individual's life-
time fatal cancer
risk for 17 years
of mine operation
Average exposed
individual's life-
time fatal cancer
risk for 17 years
of mine operation
Fatal cancers
caused in the
assessment area
population from
17 years of
mine operation
Underground 5.6E-6(3.7E-3%)
mine site
(New Mexico)
Surface mine 1.2E-7(8.0E-5*)
site
(Wyoming)
(a)
3.4E-7(2.3E-4%) 2.2E-2(2.3E-4X)
1.6E-8{1.1E-5X) 2.6E-4(1.1E-5X)
ll "risks" in this table are in addition to the 0.15 risk of fatal
cancer from all causes.
Although aqueous discharges from the model underground mine produce
greater risks than those from the model surface mine, primarily because of
greater releases of U-238 and U-238 daughters, aqueous releases at either
mine cause only very small cancer risks (see Table 7.6) beyond the 0.15
-------
7-15
natural risk of fatal cancer. For example, in New Mexico (assessment
population 64,950) and Wyoming (assessment population 16,230), 9,742 and
2,434 deaths from cancer from all causes are projected to occur. Aqueous
mine discharges in these areas will add only 0.022 and 0.00026 estimated
deaths, respectively, to these totals.
The largest increase in estimated genetic effects occurs at the under-
ground mine site. However, compared to the natural occurrence of heredi-
tary disease, the overall risk of additional genetic effects due to radio-
nuclides discharged in water from the model mines is very small. Based on
a natural occurrence of 0.06 effects/birth, there will be 936 genetic
effects in the regional population of New Mexico during 17 years of mine
operation. In contrast, there will be only 0.015 additional effects to all
the descendants of the regional population because of the 17-year exposure
period.
7.4.4 Nonradi oactiveAqueous Emissions^
Aqueous concentrations of nonradioactive pollutants were calculated
for stream water we assumed was used by the average individual within the
assessment area. The pathways considered are those listed in Section 7.3.
Drinking water might be a significant pathway for the most exposed indi-
vidual. However, we could not make a reliable prediction of increased
groundwater concentrations due to mine dewatering with the available data.
A comparison of the water concentrations of several pollutants with
recommended EPA limits for livestock and irrigation usage (see Table 6.29)
showed that only molybdenum from the underground mine approaches its limit
for irrigation. The sums of the ratios of the average water concentrations
to the recommended limits are less than one, indicating that mixtures of
the metals would not exceed a "composite limit" for an average individual
in the assessment areas. Constituents such as solids and sulfates, for
which limits are unavailable, have minimal or no toxic properties.
More .information is needed before definitive conclusions can be
reached about health hazards caused by nonradioactive waterborne emissions.
Uranium, the metal estimated to be in highest concentration, has no es-
tablished limits based on chemical toxicity in the United States. Of
particular interest would be data on water use patterns near the mines and
the degree to which mine discharges may infiltrate groundwater supplies.
-------
7-16
7.4.5 Solid Wastes
We estimated the risk of fatal lung cancer to individuals living in
houses built on land contaminated by uranium mine wastes as a function of
the Ra-226 concentration in the wastes (see Table 7.7). How much mine waste
has been used for homesite land fill as well as its level(s) of contami-
nation are unknown. Because of the cost, it is unlikely that mill-grade
ore would be available for off-site use. It is more likely that waste
rock, perhaps mixed with some sub-ore, would be the material used. Con-
sidering the Ra-226 content of sub-ores and the likelihood of its being
diluted with waste rock and native soil, mine wastes in residential areas
would probably contain between 5 to 20 pCi/gm of Ra-226,
Table 7.7 Estimated lifetime risk of fatal lung cancer to the
average person living in a home built on land contami-
nated by uranium mine wastes
226Ra in Soil Indoor Working Levels Lifetime Risk of
(pCi/g) (WL) Fatal Lung Cancer^
5
10
20
30
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.025
0.050
0.10
0.15
on the average individual being inside his home 75 percent of the
time.
7.5 Environmental Impacts
We evaluated the environmental effects of uranium mining, including
exploration, by reviewing completed studies, extensive communications with
State and Federal agencies, field studies in Wyoming and New Mexico, re-
connaissance visits " to Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, and
imagery collection and interpretation. Underground and surface mines were
examined to develop a sense of an average or typical condition with respect
to mine size, land areas affected, quality and quantity of airborne and
-------
7-17
waterborne releases, and general, qualitative appreciation for the effects
of such operations on surface streams, groundwater, disturbed land areas,
and natural recovery processes. In many instances, conditions can be
documented, but the significance remains highly subjective and thus weakens
the justification for corrective action, particularly for inactive nines.
7.5,1 Land and Water Contamination
We conclude that (1) U.S. uranium mills make little use of mine water;
(2) mine drainage .is to the environment, with occasional use for agri-
culture, sand backfilling, construction, and potable supply; (3) active
surface mines in Wyoming and underground mines in New Mexico have the
greatest discharge to the offsHe environment; (4) inactive surface mines
do not appear to adversely affect groundwater quality, although water in
such mines is typically contaminated and runoff from surface accumulation
of overburden and sub-ore may be a source of surface water contamination;
and (5) selected inactive underground mines in Colorado and possibly adja-
cent portions of Utah may discharge water enriched in radionuclides and
trace elements. Since the mining industry now uses terrestrial ecosystems
extensively as sinks for mining-related contaminants, an appropriate govern-
ment agency should monitor active mines for groundwater quality, sorption of
contaminants on stream sediments, and the flushing action of flooding
events.
Before and during surface and underground uranium mining, contaminated
mine water is frequently discharged to arroyos and pasture lands adjacent
to the mines. Less frequently, mine water is used in nearby uranium mills,
in which case ultimate disposal is to the mill tailings pile where evap-
oration and seepage occur. However, despite this practice of mine water
discharge to land and despite the existence of over 3,000 active and in-
active mines and the accelerating level of exploration and mining, there
are many more studies and surveys on the interaction of uranium mills and
water resources than there are on uranium mines and water resources. With
few exceptions, monitoring mine water quality has been related to NPDES
permits.
When mines discharge water to open lands and water courses, 90 percent
or more of it infiltrates the soil and the balance evaporates. Stable and
radioactive contaminants subject to sorption are selectively concentrated
-------
7-18
in nearby soils, which become a local sink. Mobile constituents such as
sul fate and chloride probably percolate to the water table along with the
bulk of the water, which recharges nearby shallow aquifers downgrade from
the mines. Although many areas In New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming,
and Utah have received mine water discharge, studies of contaminant
accretion on soils and deterioration of groundwater quality have been
rather limited. Widespread contamination of groundwater has not been
documented, but there are indications that local surface water and ground-
water quality have been adversely effected in Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas.
Studies underway in New Mexico reveal, in at least two mining districts,
groundwater deteriorating because of mine drainage. Significant increases
in ambient uranium and radium occurred in the Shirley Basin uranium dis-
tri :t of Wyoming because of initial strip mining and mill processing and,
to e lesser extent, in situ leaching. The long-term significance of soil
loading with stable and radioactive contaminants and their cycling through
the terrestrial ecosystem, including the human food chain, has not been
determined for uranium mining operations.
Discharges from model active surface and underground mines average 2
3
to 3 m /minute. In most cases, complete infiltration takes place in stream
beds within 5 to 10 kilometers of the mines. However, when discharges from
several mines are combined or if single mine discharge is several cubic
meters per minute or more, infiltration and storage capacity of the
alluvium in nearby channels is exceeded and perennial flows are created for
distances of 20 to 30 kilometers. For example, underground uranium mines
in the Grants Mineral Belt of New Mexico currently discharge 66 m per
3
minute. Of this, only 12 ro per minute are used in uranium mills; the
balance is discharged to nearby washes or arroyos. Fourteen of the 20
active uranium mills make no use of mine water, which is associated with
essentially every active underground mine and most active surface mines,
particularly in Texas and Wyoming.
Annual contaminant loading from continuous discharge at a rate of 3
•3
m / minute from one surface mine in the Wyoming model area and dilution in
flood flows with recurrence intervals of 2 to 25 years produce the loading
and stream concentration values in Table 7.8. Chemical loading was calcu-
lated on a mass-per-time basis to estimate the effects of mine drainage.
-------
7-19
For assessing environmental impacts, we assume that most contaminants
remain on or near the land surface and are available for resuspension in
periodic flash flooding in the sub-basin. Sorption, precipitation, and so
on are assumed to render 90 percent of the radium-226 unavailable for
further transport. Eighty percent of the sulfate is assumed to infiltrate
and also becomes unavailable for further transport in flood waters.
Stream concentrations for uranium, zinc, cadmium, and arsenic are
likely to be less than those shown because there will not be 100 percent
resuspension of sbrbed contaminants, and flood events with lesser return
periods are also likely to disperse contaminants. The loading data are
believed to be quite realistic; it is the temporal distribution and re-
distribution of the contaminants that constitute a significant unknown.
These preliminary results indicate contamination of surface water with
uranium, radium, sulfate, and, to a lesser extent, with cadmium and arsenic
in stream waters near the mine outfall. Subsequent dilution of these
initial concentrations will occur as the flow merges with that of pro-
gressively larger streams in the downgrade direction, but cadmium and
sulfate may exceed the drinking water standard in flood waters as far as
the regional basin. Impoundment of these initial flows can be expected
considering water management practices in semiarid rangeland areas like
Wyoming. Therefore, further pathway investigations, based on field data,
are needed.
For the model underground mining area, we selected the Ambrosia Lake
District of New Mexico. We assumed that 14 mines discharged an average of
2 m /minute and that loading took place for two years prior to each flood.
We then calculated concentrations in flood water for eight different
cases-for 2, 5, 10, and 25 year floods (larger numbers indicating larger
floods), with concentrations for each flood being calculated on the basis
of both a 1-day and 7-day flood duration (see Table 7.9). Based upon these
assumptions and calculations, it appears that concentrations in flood
waters, particularly in the basin, may exceed established or suggested
standards for uranium, .radium* cadmium, arsenic, selenium, barium, and
sulfate. However, precipitation and sorption, in addition to dilution
farther downstream, probably will reduce these concentrations enough so
that quality standards for drinking and irrigation water can be met. But
-------
Table 7.8 Summary of contaminant loading and stream water quality from a model surface uranium mine
Annual Loading
Per Mine
(Kg/yr)
Drinking Water
Standard
Concentrations in Basin and Regional Basin
Flood Flows for Floods of 2, 25, and 100
Years Return Period, mg/t
Uranium s 0.015/3. 5/0. 21^
110
Radium-226 5
0.00065 Ci/yr pCi/£
TSS
32,955
Sul fate 250
2.76 x 105
Zinc 5.0
112.0
Cadmium 0.01
6.31
Arsenic 0.05
7.88
^- ' I nsirHf nsi i/aliiac? c hnuin ¥f\v* v*arl-i lint anH eiil^
Basin
Mi n Max
0.36 0.76
2.1 4.5
pCi/£ pCi/l.
107 228
900 1909
0.366 0.774
0.02 0.044
0.025 0.054
Regional
Min '
0.26
1.6
pCi/£
79
668
0.271
0.015
0.019
^i-iii Od r»e»¥*/"*£inf'
Basin
Max
0.44
2.6
pCi/£
131
1098
0.445
0.025
0.031
of the amount actually released by a mine. Irreversible sorption and precipitation affect radium and
sulfate infiltrates to the water table.
* '0.015 mg/l : Suggested maximum daily limit based on radiotoxicity for potable water consumed at a
rate of 2 liters per day on a continuous basis. 3.5 mg/t : Suggested maximum daily limit based on chemical
toxicity and intake of 2 liters in any one day. 0.21 mg/£ : Suggested maximum daily limit based on chemical
toxicity and intake of 2 liters per day for 7 days.
f\5
O
-------
laoie /.y nummary or contaminant loading ana stream water quality rrum
a model underground uranium mine
Annual Loading,
Per Mine(a)
(Kg/yr)
Uranium 1480
Radium-226
0.0014 Ci/yr
Lead-210
0.0014 Ci/yr
Cadmium 7
Arsenic 13
Selenium 80
Molybdenum 300
Barium 850
Zinc 45
Sulfate 1.22 x 105
TSS 29,000
Drinking
Water
Standard
(mg/ £ )
0.015/3. 5/0. 21(b)
5 pCi/£
—
0.01
0.05
0.01
—
1.0
5.0
250
•*-""-*
Concentrations in Basin and Regional Basin for 1-day and
7-day Floods of 2 to 25 Years Return Period, mg/l
Min
6.9
6.7 pCi/£
71.2 pC1/£
0.03
0.061
0.37
1.4
4.0
0.21
574
130
Basin
Max
7.1
6.9 pd/£
73.4 pCi/t
0.03
0.063
0.38
1.4
4.2
0.22
584
140
Regional
Min
0.045
0.044 pCi/£
0.470 pCi/£
0.0002
0.00039
0.0026
0.0089
0.26
0.0014
3.7
0.89
Basin
Max
0.046
0.044 pCi/£
0.0472 pCi/£
0.0002
0.00041
0.0026
0.0093
0.27
0.0014
3.8
0.92
(a)Loading values shown for radium and sulfate are reduced to 10 percent and 20 percent, respectively,
of the amount actually released by a mine. Irreversible sorption and precipitation affect radium and sulfate
infiltrates to the water table.
^ '0.015 mg/l : Suggested maximum daily limit based on radiotoxicity for potable water consumed at a
rate of 2 liters per day on a continuous basis. 3.5 ng/i : Suggested maximum daily limit based on
chemical toxicity and intake of 2 liters in any one day. 0.21 mg/l : Suggested maximum daily limit
based on chemical toxicity and intake of 2 liters per day for 7 days.
ro
-------
7-22
more theoretical and field evaluations are needed to confirm this.
In situ leaching has contaminated local groundwater reservoirs. We
expect that this will continue because leach solution excursions from the
well field do occur and because injected constituents, especially ammonium,
can not be fully recovered. The NRC and agreement States recognize this
situation but consider the adverse impacts outweighed by the benefits of
recovering additional uranium and developing a relatively new technology.
7.5.2 Effects of Mine Dewatering
Underground mines and most surface mines are dewatered to allow for
excavation or shaft sinking and ore removal. The resulting low concen-
tration and, oftentimes, large volume effluent discharges introduce sub-
stantial masses of stable and radioactive trace elements to local soil and
water systems. This extensive use of soils in both the saturated and
unsaturated zones a.s water and contaminant sinks requires further study to
'determine the environmental fate of those elements. In addition to local
effects, the long-term impacts on regional water availability and quality
are also important. The NPDES limits relating to surface discharges are,
in terms of parameters and concentrations, different from one EPA region to
another and should be reevaluated to more closely reflect the impact of
contaminant concentration and mine discharge. In general, the uncer-
tainties about the environmental impact of mine dewatering can be expected
to increase; and additional, comprehensive investigations of its effects
are necessary.
7.5.3 Erosion of MinedLands and AssociatedWastes
From initial exploration through retirement, mining, particularly
surface mining, increases erosion and sediment yield. The most significant
waste sources are access roads, drilling pads, and piles of over-
burden/waste rock and sub-ore. Sediment and associated contaminants are
dispersed mostly through the overland flow of precipitation and snowmelt
water. Erosion rates vary considerably with the characteristics of the
source area, i.e., pile geometry, soil and rock characteristics, amount and
type of vegetative cover, topography, and local climate. There is some
-------
7-23
erosion of all mine waste sources, although studies of ephemeral drainage
courses downgrade from inactive mines in New Mexico and Wyoming usually
reveal only local soil and water contamination and no significant off-site
dispersal of contaminants. Proper reclamation, particularly grading and
revegetation, markedly reduce erosion and, consequently, contaminant trans-
port.
7.5.4 Exploratory and Development Drilling
The uranium industry has drilled approximately 1,300,000 exploratory
and development drill holes through 1977. This amotr.ts to about 430 drill
holes per mine if averaged over all active and inactive mines. During the
r-;urse of drilling, some land areas are disturbed to provide access roads
*c the drill sites and pads for the drill-rig placements. This has dis-
turbed about 2500 km2 (960 mi2) of land for all drilling through 1977.
Drilling wastes accumulate at each drill site. Although these wastes
are sometimes placed in trenches and backfilled after drilling, the general
industry practice (observed from field studies and aerial photography),
apparently, is to allow the wastes to remain on the surface, subject to
erosion. The extent of radiological contamination from erosion of the
remaining ore and sub-ore at development drill holes is not known.
The average drilling depth has increased with time and will probably
continue ,to do so in the future. Deeper drilling will tend to increase the
probability that several aquifers may be penetrated by each drill hole.
Aquifers with good quality water may be degraded by being connected, via
the drill holes, with aquifers of poor quality water. Current regulations
require drill holes to be plugged to prevent interaquifer exchange, but
often only the first one and one-half meters of the borehole will be
plugged, and regulations do not effect past drill holes. Finally, it appears, from
mine site surveys and aerial photography, that very few drill sites have
been reclaimed.
7.5.5 Underground Mining
The land disturbed by individual underground mines varies from 0.89 to
17 hectares (2.2 to 42 acres) with an average of 9.3 hectares (23 acres).
In addition, access roads to the mines consume about 1.1 hectares (2.7
acres), and mine subsidence disturbs about 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres). A
-------
7-24
total of about 12 hectares (30 acres) of land are disturbed by an average
underground mine.
All underground uranium mining through 1977 has produced about 2,9 x
10 MT or about 1.8 x 10 m of wastes. Some of these wastes, the sub-
ores, contain elevated concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides.
The sub-ores usually are removed last in the mining process and dumped on
top of the waste rock where they are subject to erosion. Some radiation
surveys conducted around waste piles indicate that the sub-ores are eroding
and contaminating land in addition to that disturbed by the mining activ-
ities.
During our field studies in Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado,
we saw very few mine sites where reclamation had been completed or was in
progress—especially at the inactive mine sites.
7.5,6 .Surface Minjng
The cumulative waste from surface mining uranium between 1950 and 1978
9 93
amounts to about 1.7 x 10 MT (1.1 x 10 m ). Overburden is usually used
to backfill mined-out pits during contemporary mining. At older inactive
mines, the mine wastes were either used for pit backfill or completely
disregarded. Erosion of these waste piles may cause substantial environ-
mental problems.
The amount of land physically disturbed at a surface mine is highly
variable. The area disturbed at ten surface mines was estimated to range
from 1.1 to 154 hectares (2.7 to 380 acres), averaging about 41 hectares
{101 acres) per mine site. Access roads disturb about 3 hectares (7.4
acres) per mine site, bringing the total average area physically disturbed
to about 44 hectares {109 acres). Field surveys of inactive mine sites
indicate that mine wastes (sub-ores) erode ,and contaminate land areas
greater than those physically disturbed. The land contamination appears to
have been caused by erosion of ore stockpiles, erosion of sub-ores, and
dust losses from the actual mining process.
Very few if any inactive mine sites were reel aimed. Reclamation of
any mine site will have to address the radiological aspects of the mine and
Its wastes.
-------
7-25
7.6 Regu 1 atory Perspect1ve
Except for in situ leach mining, licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), uranium mining is not licensed, per se» by a Federal
agency. However, three Federal statutes have particular relevance to
uranium mining. First, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended O972) requires a permit for discharges to navigable waters.
Second, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 require a permit for
pollutant air emissions. Third, proposed regulations under the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act of 1977 Identify hazardous wastes and
stipulate their disposal for uranium mining. When promulgated, these
latter regulations will strengthen current Federal and State reclamation
requirements.
In situ yrar.Iym mining is licensed by those states having
agreement-state status with NRC. National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued by EPA approved states. No
state issues mining licenses per se. However, most states require mining
and reclamation plans, including bonding fees, for at least
state-controlled lands. Most reclamation requirements provide erosion
control through slope and vegetation standards. Arizona is the only
uranium mining state without reclamation requirements.
7', 7 Cone 1 usions andRecommendations
The evaluation of the potential impacts of uranium mining was
performed largely by means of analytical studies of model facilities. We
believe that the results give an adequate representation of the
industry. In order to determine the extent of possible problems, our
studies were specifically designed to give conservative results. It
should be recognized that actual mines may operate under conditions
producing substantially smaller Impacts than the results presented.
Compared to uranium milling, health and environmental effects of
mining are"not as well understood, despite the existence of over
3000 active and inactive mines. We have noted throughout this report
Instances of the absence or Inadequacy of pertinent information.
-------
7-26
7.7.1 Conclusions
7.7.1.1 Solid Wastes
Solid uranium mining wastes are potentially hazardous when used as
building materials or when buildings are constructed on land containing
such wastes. The hazard arises principally from increased risk of lung
cancer due to, radon-222. In a 1972 survey of communities in uranium
mining regions, EPA and the former Atomic Energy Commission found more
than 500 locations where such wastes had been used.
7.7.1.2 A1rborneEff1uents
a) Individuals living very near active underground mine exhaust
vents would have an increased risk of lung cancer caused by exposure to
radon-222 emissions. Surface mines and in situ mines are less hazardous,
ami inactive mines do not have significant radon-222 emissions. Other
airborne radioactive emissions from all types of mines are judged to be
smaller.
b) The number of additional cancers committed per year in the
regional populations due to radionuclide air emission from the
approximately 340 active mines and 3300 inactive mines was estimated to
be about 0.6 cancers in 1978. This number of estimated additional
cancers is small, about one-third of the estimated additional cancers in
•regional populations due to radon emissions from the 24 inactive uranium
mill tailings piles addressed by Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act (EPA 80). (These mill tailings piles represent
about 13 percent of all tailings currently existing due to U.S. uranium
mifling and mining). These potential effects are not of sufficient
magnitude to warrant corrective measures, especially considering the
large number of sites involved.
c) The following were judged to cause an insignificant health risk
for all types of mines:
1. airborne nonradioactive trace metals.
2. airborne combustion products from heavy-duty
equipment operations.
3. nonradioactive emissions from in situ leach sites.
-------
7-27
d) Airborne dust near large surface mines (primarily caused by
vehicular traffic) may exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for particulate matter.
7.7.1.3 Wa terborne Effluents
a) We estimate that an insignificant health risk accrues to
populations from waterborne radioactivity from an average existing mine.
b) Uranium mine dewatering and water discharges, which are
i
increasing as more and deeper mines are created, may in the future have
significant effects on water quality. Current treatment practices are
controlling the release of radioactivity into surface waters.
c) Water in inactive surface and underground mines usually contains
radionuclides and trace elements in concentrations comparable to
groundwater in contact with ore bodies. Some abandoned underground mines
in certain areas of Colorado and Utah probably discharge such waters to
nearby streams and shallow aquifers. Available data is not sufficient to
conclude whether or not there is a problem.
d) We could not determine, using models, that there is no health
hazard to individuals who drink water drawn from such surface or
underground sources. Water discharges from active mines to nearby
streams and stream channels may extensively recharge shallow aquifers,
many of which are either now used or could be used for drinking water.
Such determinations must be made on a site-specific basis, and take
account of the additive effects of multiple mines. These studies can be
made easily a part of State or utility surveillance programs.
7.7.1.4 Exploratory and Development Drilling
Harm from effluents due to exploratory and developmental drilling is
probably small compared to effects of operating mines. Under current
regulations and practices, however, aquifers penetrated at different
levels can mix, creating the potential for degrading high quality
groundwater.
-------
7-28
7.7.2 Recommendations to Congress
1) Based on this study, we do not believe at this time that
Congress needs to enact a remedial action program like that for uranium
mill tailings. This is principally because uranium mine wastes are lower
in radioactivity and not as desirable for construction purposes as
uranium mill taiTings. Nonetheless, some mining waste materials appear
to have been moved from the mining sites but not to the extent that mill
tailings were. .
2) Some potential problems were found that might require regulatory
action but none of these appear to require new Congressional action at
this time.
7.8 Other Findings
1) Regulations may be needed to control wastes at active uranium
mines to preclude off-site use and to minimize the health risks from
these materials. These regulations would need to address the use of the
materials for construction purposes as well as ultimate disposal of the
materials.
EPA proposed such regulations in 1978 under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1980, Congress amended RCRA to
require further EPA studies before promulgating general regulations for
mining wastes. An EPA study by the Office of Solid Wastes on all types
of mines, including uranium mines, is currently being conducted. The
amendment did not restrict EPA's authority to regulate use of uranium
mine wastes in construction or reclamation of lands containing such
wastes.
2) Standards are needed to control human exposure from radioactive
air emissions from uranium mines. This is principally because of
potential exposure to individuals living near large underground uranium
mines rather than concerns regarding the exposure of regional
populations. We have proposed such standards under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act.
-------
7-29
3) EPA has conducted two field studies in 1972 and 1978 which
define possible sites at which mine wastes may have been used in
construction or around buildings. The information developed in these
studies has been sent to State health departments. The States should
conduct follow-up studies, as appropriate, to determine whether there are
problems at these sites.
4) The adequacy with which NPDES permits protect individuals who
may obtain drinking water near the discharge points for uranium mine
dewatering should be evaluated by States. Under the Public Water Systems
provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act, radionuclide sfarjdajcds now
exist for drinking water.
5} Some site specific studies should be considered by States to
determine the extent to which inactive uranium mines are significant
water pollution sources.
6) States with uranium mines should determine the feasibility of
control of fugitive dust from large surface mines and incorporate the
recommendations in State Implementation Plans.
7) States should require borehole plugs in drilling operations that
will prevent interaquifer mixing (exchange) and also seal drilling holes
at the surface.
7.9 References
EPA80 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, "Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites (40 CFR 192), "EPA 520/4-80-011.
-------
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDES FOR
URANIUH MINING
-------
Table A.l Federal laws, regulations, and guides for uranium mining
General
Conservation-
Water Preservation
Federal Agency Use Statutes
/
Depti of Int. 1 2,3,4,6,7
BIA(a)
BLM(a) 5
Dept. of Energy 2
Dept. of Agr, 1 2,8d
USFS(a)
EPA 1 2
AIR-OAQPS^
Water
Surface OWPS
Ground OSW(a)
Land-QSW
Radiation-QRP^
U.S. Array
Corps. Qf Engrs. 1 2
Dept. of Labor 2
MSHA(a)
OSHA(a)
Nuclear Reg.
Mining
Permits Environmental Quality
Exploration Mining Water Land
Rights Rights Air Surf UG Solids Reclam.
8 8 2,8
99 9
10 10 10
9 9
11 11 2
2,8d
12,13 13 12
16 19 2
14
17
19
18 18 18 18
15 15 15 15 15
16 2
2 23(b) 23(b) 23(b) 23{l
Health
and
Safety
20
20
22
21
J) 23(b)
wBIA-Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM-Bureau of Land Management
USGS-United States Geological Survey
USFS-United States Forest Service
OWPS-Office of Water Planning and Standards
OSW-Office of Solid Waste
ORP-Office of Radiation Programs
MSHA-Mining Safety and Health Administration
.... — - ^ ™ -_, ™_ ___.,.__ tl*^«»l»llilil!l^,y«'*. \fV \A\ l\A IICUI VII m^tll M]t3bfOiriUM
^b,OAQPS-Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards QSHA-Qccupational Safety and Health Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) regulations and guides for milling do apply to in situ extraction
or mining but not conventional surface or underground mining where NRC has no authority.
-------
Table A.I (continued)— Key to Federal laws, regulations and guides cited
1, See Appendix B and Appendix C for U.S. Constitution Citations, Federal Laws, and Interstate Compacts
2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 92-190)
3. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) (Supplants Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969)
4. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-655) (Supplants Antiquities Act of 1906)
5. Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976
6. Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 USCA 469-469C)
7. Historic Sites Acts of 1935 (16 USCA 21-50)
8. a. U.S. Mining Law of 1872 (30 USC 21-50)
b. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC 181 et seq)
c. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (Amended) (30 USC 351-359)
d. Materials Act of 1947 (Amended) (30 USC 601-602)
e. Reorganization Plan of 1946 (60 Stat. 1099)
9. Indian Land - 30 CFR 231
10. Public Land - 30 USC 22 (43 CFR 3810, 3746, 3501, 3814.1)
11. Withdrawn Public Land - 42 USC 2097
12. National Forest Land - 16 USC 478 (43 CFR 3811.1 and 36 CFR 252)
13. National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 USC 1600) - Regulations for land and resource management
planning under this Act In the National Forest System are given in Federal Register Volume 44,
Number 181, September 17, 1979
14. Clean Air Act as Amended (42 USC 1857 et seq)
15. Public Health Services Act (Reorganization No. 3, 1970; Section 301 - Environmental Monitoring)
-------
Table A.I (continued)—Key to Federal laws, regulations and guides cited
16. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
17. Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended {33 USC 466 et seq)
18. Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976 (Proposed 40 CFR 250.46-4)
19. Safe Drinking Water Act Amended (Public Law 95-523 and Public Law 95-190); (Could affect raining operation
where injection of wastes is utilized)
20. Atomic Energy Act Amended (Public Law 86-373; 42 USC 2Q21(h)» Federal Radiation Guidance functions from
prior Federal Radiation Council)
21. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
22. MSHA formed by transferring MESA from DO! to DOL pursuant to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977,
Public Law 91-173 as amended by Public Law 95-164
23. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guides and Regulations for Benefication Processes
a. Regulatory Guide 3.5, Standard Format and Content of License Applications for Uranium Hills
(Nov. 1977)
b. Regulatory Guide 3.8, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills (Sept. 1978)
c. Regulatory Guide 3.11, Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems for
Uranium Mills (Dec. 1977)
d. Regulatory Guide 4.14, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Releases of Radioactive
Materials in Liquid and Airborne Effluents from Uranium Mills (June 1977)
e. Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -
Effluent Streams and the Environment (Feb. 1979)
f. Regulatory Guide 8.11, Applications of Bioassay for Uraniurn (June 1975)
g. Regulatory Guide 8.13, Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure
h. Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10 CFR 20)
i. Domestic Licensing of Source Material (10 CFR 40)
j. Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection (10 CFR 51)
k. Proposed Regulations: Uranium Mill Tailings Licensing (10 CFR Parts 40,150) - 44 F.R,
50012, August 24, 1979
-------
Table A.I (continued)—Key to Federal laws, regulations, and guides cited
1. Staff Technical Positions: Tailings Management - "Current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Licensing Review Process: Uranium Mill Tailings Management"; Environmental Monitoring - "Pro-
posed Branch Position for Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs for
Uranium Mills"
m. Proposed Regulatory Guide 3.11.1, Operational Inspection and Surveillance of Imbankment Reten-
tion Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings {April 1979}
-------
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL WATER PROGRAMS AND RIGHTS ACTIVITIES
AND THEIR LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
-------
DM 2000, INC
1833Hormel
San Antonio, Texas 78219
(210)222-9124 FAX (210)222-9065
THIS
PAGE
FOUND
MISSING
FROM DOCUMENTS
WHILE SCANNING
-------
APPENDIX C
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED INTERSTATE MATER COMPACTS
-------
C-l
Interstate water compacts
Name Year
Arkansas River Compact 1948
Arkansas River Basin Compact 1965
Bear River Compact 1955
Belle Fourche River Compact 1943
Canadian River Compact 1950
Colorado River Compact 1922
Connecticut River Flood Control Compact 1951
Costi11 a Creek Compact 1963
Delaware River Basin Compact 1961
Great Lakes Basin Compact 1955
Klamath River Basin Compact 1957
La Plata River Compact 1922
Merrimack River Flood Control Compact 1956
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Compact 1947
New York Harbor (Tri-State) Interstate Sanitation Compact 1935
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact 1939
Pecos River Compact 1948
Potomac River Basin Compact 1939
Red River of the North Compact 1937
Republican River Compact 1942
Rio Grande Compact 1938
Sabine River Compact 1953
Snake River Compact 1949
South Platte River Compact 1923
Susquehanna River Basin Compact 1970
Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control Compact 1955
Thames River Flood Control Compact 1957
Upper Colorado River Basin Compact 1948
Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
District Compact 1967
Yellowstone River Compact 1950
Source: Environmental Study on Uranium Mills, TRW, Inc., USEPA Contract
No. 68-03-2560, February 1979.
-------
APPENDIX 0
STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDES
FOR URANIUM MINING
-------
Table D.I State laws, regulations, and guides for uranium mining
General
State
COLORADO
Department of Health
Water Quality Control Div,
Air Quality Control Div.
Department of Natural Resources
Div. of Water Reserves (State
Board of Land Commissioners
Mined Land Reel am. Bd.
Division of Mines
MEW MEXICO
State Land Commission
Dept. of Energy and Minerals
Dept. of Natural Resources
Env. Improvement Div.
TEXAS
Dept. of Water Resources
R.R. Commission of Texas
General Land Office
Dept. of Health
Air Control Board
UTAH
State Engineer
Dept. of Social Services
Division of Health
Water Pollution Control Bd.
NRC
Agreement
State
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes
_
-
-
-
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
No
-
-
-
-
NPDES
Permit
State
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
-
No
-
-
-
-
No
-
-
-
-
-
No
-
-
-
-
Water
Use
-
-
-
15
-
-
-
_
_
-
3
-
„
13
-
-
-
-
—
3,4
-
-
-
Permits
Exploration
Rights
-
-
-
-
1
2,3
-
—
1
-
T
-
_
-
1
14
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
Mining
Rights
-
-
-
_
1
2,3
_
_
1
-
-
-
_
3
1
14
_
-
—
-
_
_
-
Mining
Air
-
4,5
-
_
-
_
—
_
_
_
5,6,7
„
.
5
_
_
12
—
-
-
5
-
Environmental
Water
Surf
6,7,8,10
-
-
-
2,3
-
—
_
-
-
,8,9 10,12,13,
™
8,9
5
-
6,10
-
_
-
-
1
1
Quality
UG Sol
-
8,9,10
-
-
-
2,3
-
.
_
-
_
14 11
M>
-
2,7
-
-
.
-
-
1
1
Land
ids Reclam.
_
_
_
_
1
2,3
-
v a*
_ _
2
_
14
_ _
4,11 4
2
15
_
-
_> .•,
_
_
_
-
Safety
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
«*
-
9
.
16
—
_
_
_
10
-
-
,»
5
_
Dept. of Natural Resources
-------
Table D.I (continued)
GENERAL Mining
NRC NPOES Permits Environmental Qua 1ity
Agreement Permit Water Exploration Mining A_1_r Water Land
State State State Use Rlflhts Rights Surt JJG Solids Reel am. Saf
WASHINGTON Yes Yes ... -
Dept. of Natural Resources - - -1,2 1,2-- -22
Dept. of Ecology - - 9- - - - ____
Office of Water Programs - - - - - 8 (No) - -
Dept. of Social Services & Health - - - __.-...
Health Services Division - - - - - - - - -- 3
Air Quality Division - - - - - 7 - - - -
WYOMING No Yes - -
State Inspector of Mines - - - Ba Sa 3d 8c
State Engineers Office - - 1- .__ ..__
Dept. of Env. Quality - - -- ___ ____
Air Quality Div. - - - - 3a,4 - -
Water Quality Div. - - - - - 2,5 5,6 - . .
Land Quality Div. - - 3c 3c - - - 3c,7 3c,7
Solid Waste Management - - - - __. _3d__
-------
Table D.I (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
Col orado
1. Mining Rules and Regulations, 1973, 1976; Uranium Mining Lease and Prospecting Permit; State Board of
Land Commissioners.
2, Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, July 1, 1976; Mined Land Reclamation Board (Act, 32, Title 34,
C.R.S. 1973, as amended).
3, Rules and Regulations, Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board; effective July 1978.
I
4, Colorado Air Quality Control Act of 1979, adopted June 20, 1979, Replaces Colorado Air Pollution
Control Act of 1970. Radioactive materials included in list of air pollutants.
5. Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards, Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission. Specifically, Regulation No. 1, Emission Control Regulations for Particulates,
Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado; and Regulation No, 3, Regulation Governing Air
Contaminant Emission Notice, Emission Permit, and Fees for Direct Sources.
6, Regulations Establishing Basic Standards and an Antidegradation Standard and Establishing a System
for Classifying State Waters, for Assigning Standards, and for Granting Temporary Modifications,
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, May 2E, 1979; effective July 10, 1979.
7, Regulations for Effluent Llmftati ons, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission;
adopted March 18, 1975 effective August 21, 1975.
8. Regulations for the State Pischarge Permit System, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control
Commission; adopted November 19, 1974 effective January 31, 1975, amended February 7» 1978.
9. Rules for Subsurface Pisposal Systems, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission;
revised July 6, 1976, effective October 1, 1977.
10. Guidelines for Control of Water Pollution from Mine Drainage, November 10, 1979; Water Pollution Con-
trol Commission (Ch 66, Act. 28, C.R.S. 1963 as amended 1970).
11. Colorado Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control, April 1, 1978, Uranium Mill Licensing
Guide, May 1978; Radioactive Materials License; Radiation and Hazardous Wastes Control Division G
(Title 25, Act. II, C.R.S. 1973, Radiation Control). »
-------
Table D.I (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited,
/
12, Guidelines for the Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Mill Tailings Ponds to Prevent Water
Pollution, March 13, 1968; Water Pollution Control Commission (Colorado Water Pollution Control
Act of 1966, Ch. 44, Session Laws 1966 as amended by Ch. 217).
13, Publication of a Regulation-Providing Tailings Piles from Uranium and Thorium Mills be Adequately
Stabilized or Removed, Colorado Department of Public Health; effective June 10, 1966,
14. Colorado Division of Mines responsible for health and safety standards for uranium mines and mills.
Regulations contained in Bulletin 20: Section 108 - "Missed Holes—Misfires," Section 110 -
"Mucking," Section 12,2 "Radiation Control," Section 130 - "Safeguards," Section 140 - "Shafts
and Raises,"
15, Office of State Engineer, Division of Water Resources (Article 16, Section 5 - Colorado Constitution
and Title 37, Article 90, Section 137 - Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973).
o
-------
Table D.I (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
New Mexico
1. State Land. Leased by State Land Commission, 19-8-14 NMSA 1978.
2. State and Private Land. Mine plan filed and approved by State Mining Inspector, 67-5-1 et seq.
NMSA 1978.
3. Water Permit issued by State Engineer; 72-5-1 et seq. NMSA 1978 and 72-12-1 NMSA 1978 and Desert
Lands Act of 1866 as amended and 43 USC 383.
4. NRC agreement State Under 42 USC 2021. License required for source material: unrefined and un-
processed ore is not included. Specific License required for Mills, 10 CFR 40.20 - 40.31, Ad-
ministered by Environmental Improvement Division (E1D).
5. New Mexico delegated responsibilities and powers under Clean Air Act (40 CFR 52.1620).
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Quality Control Regulations, State of New Mexico Health
Department, Environmental Improvement Division; reissued November 1976.
6. Application for Permit and Certificate of Registration General Form for Sources Located Within
the State of New Mexico, New Source Review Section, Air Quality Section, Environmental Improve-
ment Division, revised February 1976.
7. Application for Permit to Construct or Modify and Certificate of Registration for Mineral Pro-
cessing Plants Located within the State of New Mexico, New Source Review Section, Air Quality
Section, Environmental Improvement Division, revised February 1976.
8. Supplementary Information and Notes for Use with Application for Permit and Certificate of
Registration for Mineral Processing Plants, State of New Mexico - Environmental Improvement
Division, Air Quality Section, New Source Review Section.
9. Monitoring Air Quality in Mines and Mills Underground: State Mine Inspector 69-5-7 NMSA 1978
also MSHA (30 CFR 57.5-37) Restricted Areas: Mills, EID, 74-2-13 NMSA 1978 Unrestricted Areas:
EID per Clean Air Act (42 USC 7410) and State Radiation Protection Act (74-2-1 et seq. NMSA 1978).
10. New Mexico Water Quality: Not NPDES approved by EPA. State does not require permit per 74-6-5
NMSA 1978 and parts 2-100 of N.M. Water Quality Regulations if EPA issues NPDES permit.
11. Underground Water. State EID regulates pollution of underground water per 74-6-1 et seq. NMSA 1978.
o
I
CJ1
-------
Table D.I {continued}—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
12. Water Quality - Radioactivity: Mines by EID according to Sec. 2-101{b) of N.M. Water Quality
Regulations; Mil Is,by EID per NRC 10 CFR 20.106 and Appendix B.
13. Water Quality Standards on Enforcement: EPA enforces under NPDES system for effluent streams
entering surface water of United States: EID enforces N.M. groundwater standards under N.M, Water
Quality Control Act, 74-6-1 et seq. NMSA 1978.
*.>
14. Amended Water Quality Control Commission Regulation, Parts 1,2,3, and 4, Water Quality Control
Commission; January 11, 1977, as amended June 14, 1977 and November 8, 1977.
Water Quality Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico, Water Quality Control
Commission under the authority of Paragraph C, Section 74-6-4 of the New Mexico Water Quality Act
(Chapter 326, Laws of 1973, as amended); adopted August 22, 1973, revised September 29, 1975,
January 13, 1976, February 8, 1977 and March 14, 1978.
15, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency Uranium Mill License Application Guidelines,
Radiation Protection Section; September 1977.
16. (a) Radiation Protection Act, Chapter 185 Laws of 1959 (as amended by Chapter 284 Laws of 1971
and by Chapter 343 Laws of 1977).
(b) New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency Regulations for Governing the Health and Environ-
mental Aspects of Radiation, Environmental Improvement Board, June 16, 1973.
-------
Table D,l (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
Texas
'l. Texas Uranium Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (May 1978), Rules of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Division. The Railroad Commission of Texas, July 1, 1979.
2, Surface Mining Permit Rule 102 - Elements of Permit Application, Rule 250 Reclamation Plan; Rules
of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division.
3, Application for Permit to Conduct In Situ Uranium Mining, Instructions and Procedural Information for
Filing an Application for a Permit to Conduct In Situ Mining of Uranium, Texas Department of Water
Resources.
4. Technical Report for In Situ Uranium Mining, Texas Department of Mater Resources.
5. Surface Mining Permit, Rule 108 - Permit Approval (Rules of the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Division), Permit shall be granted if application complies with Permit rules and all applicable
Federal and State laws. Permit may be approved conditioned upon approval of all other required
State permits or licenses.
6. Texas Department of Health (TDH) issues licenses for surface mining, in situ mining, milling and
processing of uranium ores and leachates in accordance with NRC Agreement,
7, TDH implements U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act regarding public water supplies. The underground injection
portion of SDWA is regulated by the Railroad Commission {Oil and fias), Department of Water Resources
(In situ mining of uranium, salt, and sulfur).
8, Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation and Texas Water Quality Standards apply to surface water ,
throughout state,
9, Texas Department of Water Resources issues "no discharge" permits to all uranium in situ extraction
processes.
10. Texas Radiation Control Act, 1971. Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation (TDH).
11. Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1969 (Texas Department of Water Resources), Rules pertaining
to Industrial Solid Waste Management, March 3, 1978.
12. Texas Air Control Board. Air Control Board H-76 bill introduced February 1, 1979 to include
radioactive material in the definition of air contaminant and allow Board to charge fees for
permits and variances.
-------
Table 0.1 (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
13. Texas Water Code, Chapter 2 - "Water Use" - Texas Department of Water Resources.
14. Rules and Regulations for Prospecting and Mining State-owned minerals. General Land Office Rules
12.6.18.03,001-.006 {Feb. 17, 1976).
15. Texas Uranium Surface Mining and Reclamation, General Land Office Rules 135,18.05.001-.005.
C3
I
CO
-------
Table D.I (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
- Utah
1. Utah Water Pollution Control Act, Utah State Divison of Health.
(a) Wastewater Disposal Regulations, Part I, Definitions and General Requirements, State of Utah,
Department of Social Services, Division of Health; adopted by Utah Water Pollution Control Board,
May 18, 1965, Utah State Board of Health, May 19, 1965, (Revised by Utah Water Pollution Control
Committee, Nov. 2, 1978) under authority of 26-15-4 to 5 and 73-14-1 to ,13, Utah Code annotated,
1953, as amended.
(b) Wastewater Disposal Regulations, Part II, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, State
of Utah Department of Social Services, Division of Health; adopted by Utah Water Pollution Control
Board May 18, 1965, Utah State Board of Health May 19, 1965, revised by action of the Boards June 2, 1967
and June 21, 1967, further revised by action of the Utah Water Pollution Committee September 13, 1973, and
by action of the Utah State Board of Health October 23, 1978.
(c) Wastewater Disposal Regulations, Part III, Sewers and Wastiwater Treatment works. Consideration of
Waste stabilization Ponds (Lagoons) for Industrial Wastes is subject to requirements determined from
analysis of the engineers report and other available pertinent information in addition to sections 83-91.
(d) Wastewater Disposal Regulations, Part IV, Individual Wastewater Disposal Systems.
(e) Wastewater Disposal Regulations, Part V, Small Underground Wastewater
Disposal Systems.
2. Changes and Additions to the General Rules and Regulations, adopted by the Board of Oil, Gas and
Mining; March 22, 1978, effective June 1, 1978.
(a) Rule M-3 — Notice of Intention to Commence Mining Operations.
(b) Rule M-1Q — Reclamation Standards.
3. Water Laws of Utah and Interstate Compacts and Treaties (Second Edition, 1964).
4. State Engineer, H,B. No. 167 - "Temporary Applications to Appropriate Water" - introduced in the
1979 General Session, an act enacting Section 73-3-5.5, Utah Code Annotated 1953.
D
ID
-------
Table 0.1 (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cittd
5, Utah Radiation Protection Act; Utah Code Annotated, 1953; Title 26, Chapter 25 - Radiation Control.
6. Utah Air Conservation Regulations, State of Utah, Department of Social Services, Division of Health;
adopted by the Utah Air Conservation Committee and the Utah State Board of Health September 26, 1971;
revised January 23, 1972; July 9, 1975; May 22, 1977; February 1979; under authority of 26-15-5 and
26-24-5 Utah Code annotated, 1953, as amended.
-------
Table D.I (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
Washington
1. Mineral Leasing Laws, Revised 1965. (Laws cover surface and underground but not in situ and heap
leaching).
2. Rules and Regulations Relating to Protection and Restoration of Lands disturbed through Surface
Mining, October 20, 1970 (Surface - Mined Land Reclamation Act, Ch 64, '1970, Sec. 5 ROW 78.44--
only applies to surface mining on private and state-owned lands).
3. Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protection, Chapter-402-22 WAC, Specific Licenses.
4. Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protection, Sec, 402-24-220 WAC, Concentrations in Air and
Water for Release to Restricted and Unrestricted Areas, *
5. Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protection, Chapter 402-24 WAC,
Standards For Protection Against Radiation.
6. Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protection, Chapter 402-52 WAC, Uranium and/or Thorium
Mill Operation and Stabilization of Mill Tailings Piles.
7. Clean Air Act, Revised Washington Administrative Code, Rev,, Chapter 70.94, RCW,
8, Water Quality Standards, State of Washington, Department of Ecology; June 19, 1973. (Revised
Dec. 19, 1977). Water Pollution Control Act of 1970 (as amended).
9. Department of Ecology - Water Use -
(a) Water Pollution Control: Chapter 90,48 RCW
(b) Water Code - 1917 Act; Chapter 90.03 RCW
(c) Regulations of Public Groundwaters: Chapter 90.44 RCW.
-------
Table D.I (continued)—Key to State laws, regulations, and guides cited
Wyomi ng
1* Regulations and Instructions, Part I, Surface Water, Wyoming State Engineer's Office, revised
January 1974.
2. Condensed Detailed Instructions for Preparation of Surface Water Applications and Accompanying Maps
for Facilities (pollution control and others) for Mining and Other Industrial Operations, revised
4-28-78. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements: Wyoming's BPT for Uranium Mine Waters.
3. Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, as amended, Department of Environmental Quality: 1973 Cumulative
Supplement, 1974 Session Laws, 1975 Session Laws, 1976 Session Laws, 1977 Session Laws.
(a) Article 2 - Air quality Regulations.
(b) Article 3 - Water quality.
(c) Article 4 - Land Quality. Buidelines No. 1-6 and 8.
(d) Article 5 - Solid Waste Management.
4. Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, Department Environmental Quality, filed January 25, 1979.
5, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Department of Environmental Quality: Chapter I, Quality Standards for
Wyoming Surface Waters, filed July 17, 1979; Chapter II, Discharges/Permit Regulations for Wyoming 1974;
Chapter IV, Regulations for Discharge of Oil and Hazardous Substances into Water of the State of Wyoming,
June 13, 1978,
6. Proposed Groundwater Regulations: WQD Chapter VIII, Quality Standards for Groundwater of Wyoming (1979);
WQD Chapter IX, Wyoming Groundwater Pollution Control Permit (1979).
7. Wyoming Land Quality Rules and Regulations, Department of Environmental Quality, filed October 6, 1978,
amended September 13, 1979.
8. State of Wyoming Non-Coal Mining Laws, Safety Rules and Regulations, Title 30—Mines and Minerals.
(a) Chapter 1 - General Provisions
(b) Chapter 2 - Bureau of Mining Statistics
(c) Chapter 3 - Mining Operations Generally (Article 4 - Safety Regulations)
(d) Chapter 3 - Mining Operations Generally (Article 5 - Open Cut Land Reclamation)
o
1
-------
APPENDIX E
ACTIVE URANIUM IN
THE UNITED STATES
-------
ICTIVE PRAKIU* MIHES I» THE UHITED STATED
SOURCE] DOC, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
CONTROLLER HA«E
COUNT*
RUTH 1 * 4
8ILVER CREEK IND
KAVAJO
BLUE ROCK UOCO HHA
BCHWARTZKAIDER M COTTER CORP
BLACC MA»A IHCE *NG CO
BOMAKZA
CEDAR PT.1-L.CHJ
ELIZABETH 17*11
HOBBARD HJ'STP PA
JULY
LA SAL 4
LIBERT* REtL
LUBSDE1- 1
MINERAL CHA.N io»
?LB-C-G-2»A
NLB-C-G-27
HE* VIBDE
OCTOBER ADIT
PACK RAT 1 * 2
RAJAH 30 SHAFT
RAJAH 67 » 61
ROSEBUD
THORNTON
ZEE LSE, -RAJAH 4
BESSIE 3*1
XARCE GROUP
SAGE-BUELLA
BROKEN BOX
VCA ilATURITA TA1
ADA*
APRIL
8LACK POINT
BLAC.KBURN
BLUE CAP
BOON DOCK
BREEZY
HUCKHORH-UREKA
CANON 4,5 * ^
CLIt FD"ELLER
COL1PAD1UX
CRIPPLE CREEK 2
DONALD L
ECHO 2 » 1
ECHO t
EOUIHOX
ATLAS MtUERALS
* S OAWSOK
GULF STATES CME«
HU5BARO *4NG,
V, C, MOORE3
PIOKC^JJ yRAV I we
MARIO" BIRCH
UNIOl CARBIDE CP
ATLAS-AHAIC
RALPN FOSTER
FOSTER H-COVTLSC
UNION CARBIOE CP
ATLAS-AHAX
UNION CtRBIOE
UNION CARBIDE
UMIOM CARBIOE CP
GRAHA" MKG,
C V HGOD«»BD
UNION CARBIDE
U«10V CARBIDE CP
UN10H CARBIOE CP
UNIOW CARPI&E CP
JOHK DUFUR
DURITA CORP,
CLEGHORI-tWASHP-lll'
ATLAS MINERALS
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE
GEO--ENCRCY RES
EARL HOT!
U4JIOX CARBIDE CP
t * H IININC
C f COOPER
UNION CARPWr
UHOH CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE
•UCHAEL GPEAGOR
GLEN GRIAGQ*
CLfCHORN + HSHP, UP
MESA
HESA
NtSA
NCSA
»E8A
NESA
KCSA
"ESA
KESA
NESA
MESA
HEE>
MESA
<*ESA
HESA
MESA
MESA ,
MESA
MESA
MESA'
HOf FAT
"OFFAT
HOFFAT
KONTEZUMA
"QNTEZUMA
MONTROSE
MOHTROSE
MONTR05F
MONTROSE
MOt-TROSE
HONIROSE
KONT»08E
HONfROSE
MQNIRDSE
HONTROSE
KONTOOSE
MONTRDSE
KOfTROSI
MONTROSE
KONTR04E
NONTROSE
1C. TOWMSKIP
RANGE
HERSD.
X1NIKG
TCTAtr PROBUCTIQN
MtTKOO (TONS IS Or 01/01/7
3
35
20
36
2)
2*
JS
12
36
IS
Jl
T
is
t
It
1
16
It
Jl
t
18
1)
7
13
20
1)
Jl
31
3!
10
21
34
21
21
21
)
}
12
n
»
si
11
Si
so
51
50
SI
SI
SI
so
so
so
51
SO
51
SI
51
SI
7
1
7
41
45
4*
46
31
45
4|
41
41
47
47
47
4S
41
41
N
S
N
K
*
N
1
n
H
N
N
N
H
K
X
K
H
H
H
N
K
H
K
h
K
H
N
5
N
K
H
N
K
N
K
N
N
N
13
71
11
JO
19
17
20
{1
20
19
20
tl
11
19
20
30
20
19
19
1»
»4
ts
*4
11
11
11
17
2<
il
1*
11
11
n
17
17
11
11
11
.0
0
.0
,0
.0
,0
,4
.0
.0
• 0
.0
,0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
.8
.0
,0
• 0
,0
,0
.0
.0
,0
0
a
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
«
.0
.0
,0
.0
.§
,0
,0
,0
• 0
,0
E
H
u
v-
w
w
w
H
H
H
V
N
w
N
w
K
H
N
w
N
•»
w
w
M
M
w
w
£
H
H
N
W
H
h
IT
M
N
N
14
0*
32
J2
22
22
22
22
22
23
22
12
22
22
32
32
22
22
32
22
06
06
06
22
22
22
23
24
33
32
33
22
22
J2
32
22
32
22
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UHDERGRO
UHOERGRO
UfTDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UN0ERGRQ
UNDERCRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDESCRQ
UKDERGRO
UNOERSRO
UKDtRGRO
UNKNOKN
U*DERGRO
UHBMGRO
UNOeftGKO
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRD
UNOERGRO
UNOEHGRQ
UNDERORQ
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
suRf»CE
SURFACE
SURFACE
T»1L,DHP
UNOERCBO
UKOERCRO
UKDCRCRO
UKDERORO
UKDERGRO
auftncc
UNDERCftO
UMDERGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDEXGRO
UNDEAGRO
UKDIKORO
UNDEKSftQ
UNDEKCRO
UMDERGRO
UNOERCRD
1,000 •
100
>100,000
j.ooo «
>100,000
,000 >
,00g .
,000 •
• 000 -
,000 »
,000 -
,000 •
,000 •
too
>100,000
>100,000
1,000 •
1,000 »
HOOiOOO
>100, 000
100
1,000 •
noo.ooo
1,000 •
>100,OOC
>iOO,OOC
100
• 1
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
• I
*
I
t
t
,
t
t
f
t
t
,
,
000
000
MO
ooo
000
000
000
ooo
000
900
001
000
100,000
100
- 1
100
100
,
,
,
,
000
000
000
000
<100
100
l.OOO •
100
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 •
1,000 •
- 1
1
000
100,000
• 1
" I
100
100
- 1
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
too
loo
100
1
1
t
t
t
t
1
,
9
1
t
t
1
,
1
000
000
000
ooo
OOff
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
DEPIK
tri.j
150
SO
ISO
100
400
200
50-
250
SO
450
150
100
SO
100"
400
100
450
300
iso
sso
50
100
450
100
100
so
50
0
330
SO
0
200
200
0
0
100
SO
200
100
TOO
1S»
50
too
ISO
m-
i
-------
active URANIUM MINE* IN TKZ UNITED STATES
SQIfRCEl DOE, 5«»ND JUNCTION, COLORADO
HAKE
CONTROLLER N*NE
COUNTlf
COLORADO
CCQNT'Ol
EULA BELLE CRAIG
FARMER CIRL
FAVN SPRINGS «
CREAGOR CROUP
CREASY SPOC"
GUADALCANU
J M
JACK ICNirC
LONG PARK 11
LONG PARK IS
LONG PARK 1*
LUCKY GPQUP
fiYBt i « 6
HILL 2
MINERAL JOE CROU
MINERAL PARK 4,s
*LS»C-!>L-3J
MLB-C-JO-5
MLB-C-LP-23
KLB-C-SF-11
MLB-C-SR-12
XLB-C-SR-1 J
NLB-C-SR-St
Hi.B-c-5h.i6A
MONOGRAM CLAIH
NIL-TRACE
PEANUT MINES
PEGGY
PICKET COBPAL
PRINCESS
RAVEN
REX KINE
RIKSQCK 5
RINROCK BLUE"! 2
RIKROCK CROUP
RYE 1
SEPTEMBER NORN
BESMQ
SILVER DOLLAR
ST. PATRICK 9
SUNiEAN GROUP
URA
WAND* 3
MHITE FACE
TtLLDK BIRD 1
YELLO" SPOT CBOU
PITCH
UNION CARBIDE
HONOGRAH HSG,
UNION CARBIDE CP
ATLAS-AMAJt
nONEFH URAV INC
UNION CIRPIOC CP
UKIOH CARBIDE
WILLIAMS INC
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARKIDE CP
ENERGY FUELS KUC
UNIOX CA'BIDE CP
UN10U CARBIDE CP
ATLAS HINrRALS
t ATLA8 MINERALS
1NCS NUC-COVTLSE
CATESrOJC-COVTLSE
INCC MKG-GOVTLSC
CAWSON »-FOVTtSE
•HABAKER-CQVTL3C
rLANGANp-covn.sr
kLEASE DAVSON
DYNOVE LTD
UNIOV CAR»IDE
UN10M CARBIDE CP
ATLAS-lilA]!
KEESHAH, GLEN
DON ANDPErfS
D K. »NDBr>S
rooTi KI^ERALS
CLECHOflf + HAS
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CMblDE CP
UHIOK CARBIDE CP
KATIVE RESERVE
UHIOK CARSIOE
ATLAS MINERALS
C + D EXPLORATIO
C H BUNKER
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARPIDC C
PATTERSON, JAMES
UNION CARBIDE CP
R K DIETZ,
REED KIKIKG
HOHESTAKE HNG CO
MO"TROSE
KQNTROSE
MONTROSE
MO^TROSE
KQITROSE
XONTROSE
•Ot-TUQSE
MONTPQSC
MONTRQSC
KONTRQSE
MONTROSE
UnNTROSir
HO**TPt3SE
MOMTROSC
MONTRQ3E
«IOI»TROSC
NO«TROSE
MOKTROSC
10"TRQSE
KO''TeOSE
KONTOQSE
MONTSOSE
MONTROSE
NONTROSE
MONTPOSE
HONTRQSE
KONTROSE
MONTROSE
NONTKOSE
MOXTHOSE
HOMT»OSE
M01TROSE
NQHTROSE
MO--TRQSC
MO.NTRQSC
KO^TROSE
MO"TI«08E
HOCTBOSE
NOMTROSE
HONTROSE
HONTPOSE
MONTROSE
MONTNOSC
NOWTROBt
KOHTROSE
KONTRQSE
8AGUACHE
]2
27
3 j
11
27
21
21
31
in
26
J2
21
1!
It
t
24
17
1
2
16
10
34
11
10
2?
31
14
1 J
41
41
4*
44
47
43
4
47
47
44
41
46
47
44
4S
47
41
tl
47
4S
45
IS
47
47
47
41
47
47
47
41
H
K
N
M
N
K
K
N
N
N
N
H
#
H
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
cc. TOMNSKIP RANGE
J2
77
])
11
J7
21
Jl
21
in
26
J2
2i
1!
It
«
24
17
1
2
it
10
34
1!
10
2»
31
14
]}
11
41
44
4i
41
43
4
47
47
4«
41
46
4t
41
49
47
41
tl
47
4S
45
IS
41
47
47
41
47
47
41
41
H
K
N
N
N
K
K
N
N
N
N
M
a
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
17
11
tl
11
17
11
1
It
19
n
>7
17
17
17
17
17
H
11
7
11
II
!*
It
30
17
17
17
11
17
i
,6
.0
,0
• 0
0
.0
9
.0
.7
0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
.0
0
.6
• 0
• 0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
.t>
.0
e
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
• 0
0
.0
N
H
H
V
H
M
W
U
V
w
H
V
N
H
M
M
M
VI
W
W
N
M
W
N
H
V
H
V
H
E
MEDIC,
jj
22
21
22
22
23
22
22
22
12
25
21
32
32
23
29
32
Jl
32
33
23
23
22
22
33
22
22
22
33
32
MIMING
MllHDO
UHDCRSIO
UNDERCftO
UKDZRGRO
UNOERCHO
UNOEKGRO
UMBEASRO
UHDERCRO
(JNDERGRO
UNOCRCRQ
UkDfRG*0
WDIRGRQ
UKDERCRO
UNOE3GRO
UHDERQRO
UNDERCHO
UNDERCRO
UHptftGRD
UNOEftGRO
UdDERSRO
UNDERCPO
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UHSCfiCRQ
UkDtttCRO
UNDEDCRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDEftflRO
UNDERCRO
UKDERGKQ
UHDERGRO
«»DEI>ORO
UNDCRGRO
UKDERGXO
UKDEx&RO
UNDERCRO
UMDERSRO
UNOERCRO
UK&ERCRO
UNDERCRO
VMDCRCRO
UNDERGRQ
UNDERCRO
UNOtRSRO
IINDERSRO
UNDtRCRO
IfNDCRSRO
UNXNOMX
UNUCRSRQ
TOTAL PRODUCTIOd
(TQHJ 11 or Oi/Dl/7
>100,000
,080 "
,OOD •
,000 •
,oao •
,000 -
too
,000 -
,000 »
,060 •
1,000 •
100
1,000 -
1,000 •
MOO, 000
1,000 -
>ioo,ooa
1,000 -
1,900 •
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 »
1,000 »
1,000 •
1,000 .
1,000 -
>100,000
1,000 -
1,900 •
1,000 *
too
,000 -
,000 •
,000 •
.000 -
,800 •
,000 •
,000 -
,000 •
1,000 •
1,000 -
MOO, COD
100
1,000 -
$,000 -
MOO. 000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,090
169,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
too, ceo
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,060
100,000
<100
100,000
100,000
" 1.000
106,000
100,000
<100
DIPTH
tn.)
ISO
0
160
ISO
100
3SO
200
SO
200
300
200
SO
400
200
100
ISO
too
400
2S9
23 a
ISO
390
490
103
100
100
400
110
90
100
1*0
100
400
ISO
so
190
so
100
so
100
300
210
410
10
ISO
0
0
ISO
m
i
no
-------
URANIUM KIKES IN THE UNITED STATEI
•OURCEl DOE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE
NINE NAPE
CONTROLLER HAKE
COUNTY
SEC,
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
HERID,
BURRO UNION CARBIDE
CARNATION PIONEER URAV INC
CIVET CAT GROUP
CERENO-BIGLER SH
f ALCQn»BQB»OtUH
CMC1
HANGOVER (8LRC1O
HAPPY JACKESLKPC
LUCKY SIPIKE
MAGPIE 3
HUBICTTA
NORTH BURRC
POND
RADIUh 1, 10,* It
RADIUM GP-BLACKb
SEARS GROUP
SILVER BELL
SNYDER * PCTERSO
STRAWBERRY ROAN
BUMNIT INCLINE 1
SUN CUP tPUCKETT
SUNDAY GROUP
UINTAN
KIL^ARTfi
ANN LEE(3I, 14-9}
BUCKY fl4»14-iO)
cLirrsioc 16 UN
DQG-fLEA (20-13-
IX CIRCUIT GRANT
HAC 1 t2,lS-l4,S
KINE WATER
MLB-KK-B-l
M E CHUPCHROCK
KAVAJO RES. NW
SAHDSTONEC37-14-
BEC 1 1) 9
BEC 13 14 19 8X0
BEC n-!5-MW2,N
BEC 11*20.14-9
SEC It 14N 9V
BCC 1»"1J"0»(HOP
BEC ll-fSN"!!*!
8EC 25-14N-10*
EAGLE PCAK NNG C
UNION CARBIDE
ATLAS-rOQte.
UHION CARBIDE CO
LOWELL E ROCKWCL
MARION BIPCH
KANhERT MNG,
PIONEER URAV INC
SHIPRQCK.LTD
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
ATLAS-rOOTE
ATLAS-rOQTE
JON" *ERES
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE
ATLAS MINERALS
ATLAS-APAX
DOLORES BENCH LT
UNION CARRIDE CP
». D. TPIPP
UNION CARPIDE CP
UNIOM CARPIDE CP
UNITED NUCLEAR
CQBB NUCLEAR INC
KER»-KCGEE CORP
K » M "ININC CO
KERR KCCEE
UN • HO"ESTAKE
UNITED NUC HO*
NARNOCK-GOVT LSE
UNITED NUCLEAR
KERR-KCGEE COPP.
UNITED NUCLEAR
KERR XCGEE
COftS NUCL IND
GULF MINERAL RES
KERR KCGEE
KERR-MCGEE CORP.
RANCHERS EXPt,,
WESTERN NUCLEAR
UNITED HUC HO*
BAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUri.
SAN NIGUEL
SAN PIGUCL
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
CAN MIGUEL
SAN KIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
BAN MIGUEL
SAN "ICUEL
SAN "IGUEL
SAC MIGUEL
SAN KIGUEL
SAN "IGUrt
SAN riGUEL
•AN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
SA* MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
NCKINLEY
NCKINLEY
KCXINLCY
HCKINLEY
MCKI1LEY
NCKIKLEY
NCKINLEY
HCKINLEY
HCKINLEY
NCKINLEY
HCKINLEY
MCKINLEY
MCKII.LEY
KCKINLEY
HCRfLEY
KCKINLEY
MCKINLEY
HCKINLET
MCKINLEY
It
U
3
11
21
36
19
25
35
7)
4
13
22
11
32
31
It
1}
36
24
IS
21
14
36
20
12
14
J4
)4
1
12
12
20
If
I*
21
21
44
44
42
44
43
44
41
45
41
44
41
44
33
43
43
4]
4
44
4]
44
44
14
14
14
1)
IS
17
17
1)
13
14
15
14
14
11
If
14
N
N
N
H
H
K
N
K
N
N
k
K
S
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
K
N
N
M
*
11.0
II. 0
0
20,0
0
lt.0
If .0
20.0
II, 0
11,0
11,0
0
n.o
li.O
14,0
0
26.0
11,0
19.0
19.0
1.7
te.o
19.0
17.0
17,0
».o
io!o
9,0
8.0
0
14.0
0
0
K.O
n.o
e.o
9 .0
10,0
14.0
9,0
9,0
9,0
11. 0
10,0
w
II
U
w
N
W
H
M
M
W
U
W
E
N
M
M
H
U
H
V
H
U
H
W
M
H
M
¥
U
M
N
M
tf
W
M
M
N
33
23
32
22
22
32
22
22
23
32
23
22
24
23
23
22
32
22
32
33
22
22
32
33
22
22
22
33
32
32
22
33
23
32
32
33
32
MINING
JDTAL PRODUCTION
DEPTH
METHOD (TONS AS Or 01X01/7*) (fT.)
UNDERGRO
UNDERSRO
UNDERCRO
IINDERORO
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRQ
UNDtRGRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
UNO! RGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRQ
UNKNOWN
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRQ
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCRCRO
MNATPROD
UNDERGRQ
KNATPROD
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNQERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
MOO/000
MOO, 000
1,000 -
MOO, 000
1,000 -
1,000 '
1,000 -
1,009 -
1,000 •
1,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
100
1,000 -
MOO, 000
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
MOO, 000
1,000 «
1,000 «
1,090 -
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
1,000 -
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
1,000 •
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO.OOO
1,000 *
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
1,009 -
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
» 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
-------
ACTIVE UPHSIUH MiNea IN tni UNITED STATES
DOE, GRAND JUICTIQK, COLORADO
MINE
CONTROLLEP NAHE COUNTY
NEW MEXICO CCQNT'D) ..»...*..».
SCC 30,14-JC* *
SEC 32 ISM Hrf
SIC 35.I4H-9*
SCC 3S,17»--16.I N
SEC 7-13N-IU
SCC I UN 9*
SCC. 11-11-11 S
SEC. IS-14-10
8EC.I J«14N.10<<
aEc,n,i4N-9«,s2
SlC.H-13-10 NWO
SEC.19»U-9 5EO
S£C.21,ll-» OOPI
•EC.21-14H-10*
SEC,24«26-S4N-io
SEC,26,14N-9H,S2
•EC. 29-14-9 (HU»
8EC.12, 141-09W
ENDS JOHNSON DUH
L-BAR
PAGUATE-JACKPIL
ST. ANTHONY
•••***>««i« TEXAS
KURT LEASE
BOQNE-ANDEfiSQ* L
BENAVIOES
PALANGAhA DO«E
BUTLER LEASE
DICKSOH 100,000
1,000 •
, MOO, 000
1.000 -
MOO, ono
l.ooo -
J.OOO .
>100,000
>100,000
>100.000
MOO, ODD
>100,000
1,000 -
MOO, 000
MOO, OOQ
ItOOO •
MOO.OOO
>ioo,ooo
1,000 >
>100,000
>100,000
MOO, 000
>100,000
MOO, 000
1,000 •
1,000 -
1,000 -
MOO, 000
1,000 -
1,000 >
MOO, 000
1,000 -
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
M50.000
Ol/
100
100
too
too
100
100
100
01/7
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
100,000
100
100
too
loo
too
,000
-------
ACTIVE UIUMI-UM MINES IN THE UNITED STATES
90UI>CCl DOE, CRAMP JUNCTION, COLORADO
PICE
NINE
CONTROLLER NA«E
.COUNTS
TEXAS
MC LEAH-BOKNAN
SMITH, K, A. 3-070
IAHZOM
O'HERN LEASE-75
UTAH
MONARCH
ALLEN
COHETQITE
DEDE 6.7*1
BELT* MJNK
DESERT HOOK 1
BEXTER GROUP
DIRTY DEVIL 3
DOG J
FLAT TOP LODE
INCLINE 1,2,*7
INCLINE t
JACK RAB-ACE-N-H
JOSHUA 1
TErfPLE MQUNTI IM
THUNOERRIHD
VANADIUC KJfC t
YELLO* DAISY
YELLOW QUEEN
CONGRESS 79*40
CONGRESS-DAISY J
COMGRESS«E»GLE
DAISY JUNE GROUP
DELHONTE GPOUP
DONALD DUCK 2
ELENORA t
LUCKY STRIKE
XIDHS-CtHT IPEDE
MINNIE PC*PL
KQCKIhCBIPD CLAI
P*F
POISON SPRING 3
SEC J4-JI-U SLK
TRACHYTE GPOUP
BLACK JACK
BLACKSTONE 5*6
CACTUS SAT
COBALT
CORRAL 1
COPVUSITE
* 2
EXXON CO,, USt
CONOCO-PIPNEER
INTRHTHL ENERGY
poeit oit, co
HOLLINGSHEAD KNC
HATTCRSOK HIKING
IHDUSTBIAI. MININ
ATLAS HXNEKALS
UTAH WEST IKC.
XATTESSOl* CINING
JOHN ADAMS
IHDUSTRtAL NUCL
JOHN ID us
MINERALS rVtb*!"
ATLAS MINERALS
ATLAS HINERALS
ATLAS MINERALS
TROJAN NINING CO
RON CROSS
INDUSTRIAL MIKIN
TEMPLE ROCK MNC,
DAN 1 PQkCLL
AUGUST PPItBE.JP
TCD EKKIR
EHFRGY FUELS HUC
DONALD 0 HANNI
Till EKKEft
DEWNIB CKICER
DEE RAEY
ENERGY FUELS NUC
PLATEAU RCSOU LT
SHUHWAY A8SOC,
LtO D JACKSDX
J + R XNG
J » R MNG.
HUNT, A * SONS
MINERALS BECVRY
ENERGY rUELS NUC
LYHM ZUFELT
ALFRED rROST
ATH9-XMAX
L + 0 IHUPiiAY
COTTER CORP.
BHIPROC*! LTD
LIVE O&K
LIVE OAK
LIVE OAK
WEBB
BEAVER
ENERY
E»ERY
EMEPY
E«ERY
E»ERY
ENERY
EMERY
fMERT
EMERY
EHERY
E'FRY
EVERY
E«ERY
EKEBY
C»CHY
EHEPY
EMERY
EK£»r
GAPTIELD
GAPTIELD
GARFTCLD
CARFIELD
GARFIF.LD
GARFIELD
GARFIELD
GARFIELO
GARFIELD
CiPriELO
CAPriCLD
GAPrlCLO
CARrlELD
GASriELD
GARriELD
GRAND
GRAND
GRAND
GRAND
GRAND
GRAID
EC.
1.
34
31
})
27
19
TOWNSHIP RANGE KERJD,
9
0
a
0
39 S lt.0 M 24
e
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22 S 21,0 E 24
22 1 22,0 C 24
22 8 22,0 E 24
e
24 S 20,0 E 24
23 S 26.0 C 24
MINING
METHOD
SURFACE
SURFACE
IK-StTU
IH-SITU
UNDEftSRO
UNDERCRO
UNDC3QRO
UKOERGRO
UNOEPCao
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHDERGRO
UHDESGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDEAGRO
UHDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
I'KDCRGHO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNCERCRO
UNDERGRO
UfcDERGRQ
UHDERGRQ
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNDEPGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UNOERORO
SURFACE
UKDERORO
U10ERORO
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(TONS AS or
i,ooa -
1,000 -
>100,000
>ioo,ooo
,000 -
,060 "
,000 "
,000 "
» 00,000
,000 -
,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 -
1,000 -
>;OO,OOQ
MOO. 000
1,000 •
1,000 •
1,000 "
1,000 -
too
1,000 -
1,000 *
100
1,000 -
1,000 "
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 -
llOOO -
- . 1,000 •
J.OOO •
l,oso -
1,000 -
100
1,000 "
1,000 -
MOO, 000
1,000 »
01/01/7
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,090
100,000
100,000
100,000
100.000
100,000
100,000
100,000
-------
ACTIVE URANIUM MINES ID IKE UNltEO 8TATES
BOURCEt DOC, GR»K» JUNCTION, COLORADO
MINE NAME
«**»*«•««•* UTAH
LAST DOLLAR
MC GROUP
XINERAL POLAR 23
PINTO
POLAR CROUP
POLAR NCSA
RED HEAD
SEC.J2-CANE CRfE
6HINAPUHP I
•LICK ROCK t,3*3,,
UTAH ALLCJy GROUP'
BINSHA*
ABE 4
ATOMIC KING GROU
BEAVEP (DEEP CM
etc SUCK HA * i
BLUE I
BLUE BIRD
PUGS 1-4
CAKCL (Hioroun
CANARY »lnr
ctirr Houst
COLUMBIA BHAfl C
CQTTOI-KOQO CRQUP
CQTTONKOQD GPOUP
FAR *EST "INC
rp
G1AND
GRAND
GRAND
GPAKD
GRAND
CRAHC
GRA«0
GRAND
CRAND
GRIND
ftAN JUAN
8AN JUAf
IAN
(IN
SA1 JU>*>
9AN JUAM
BAN JU»"
SIN JlUH
IAN JUAM
SAN JUAM
SAN JUAN
BAV JUAN
BAN JUA»
SAN JUAM
JAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAK
SAK JUAN
SA» JO/ll
SAM JUAS
BAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
BAN JUAN
BAN JUAM
«*« JUAN
BAM JUAN
IAN JUAN
SAN JUAX
JAM JUAN
BAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
BAH JUAN
BAH JUA1
EC. TOWNSHIP
2*
11
10
22
12
)4
21
6
Jl
14
14
4
4
4
21
4
26
28
t
It
JO
15
4
21
4
If
11
21
24
2?
35
25
24
2*
24
2)
21
31
JO
13
31
11
11
79
n
u
29
Jl
Ji
40
JJ
11
12
29
I
11
JO
2»
S
S
S
S
B
8
t
S
S
S
3
S
S
S
S
$
3
S
S
S
S
S
a
B
8
MNGI
0
25
20
2S
25
31
2J
30
30
32
as
24
21
21
21
21
24
21
25
24
IS
IS
22
2S
31
2S
24
3
it
34
34
0
,0
• Q
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
0
.6
,6
,0
,0
,0
0
0
,0
.0
0
0
,0
,0
0
,0
.0
0
p
,0
0
,0
.0
.0
,0
0
6
0
0
,0
,s
0
,0
.0
,0
E
E
E
r
E
E
e
ME1ID.
34
34
24
34
24
74
24
24
34
34
?4
24
HIKING TOTAL PRODUCTION
KETHOO (rocs is or oj/ai/i
UNDERGRO iOO - 1,000
UNBERORO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNOERGHO
yxDESCRO
UNDERGRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SUSrACE
UNDERGRO
UHDCRGRO
UNKNOMS
UWDERCRO >
UHOESGRO
1,000 • 100
.,000 - 100
,000 - 100
loo • i
,000 » 106
,000 « 100
100 - 1
.000 • 100
,008 * 100
,000 - too
,000 » 100
,000 • 100
00* 0®0
1,000 « 100
<
,
<
1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
«
2* UHOERGRO 1,000 • 100,
34
24
34
UNDERGRO
DNOOCHO
UKDERGAO
UNDERGRO
1,000 • 100
100 - 1
100*1
uooo > too
,
,
i
,
1-00
000
joa
000
000
000
800
000
ooo
ooo
ooo
000
ooo
ooo
000
ODD
000
000
000
000
UNDERGRG »100,000
UN0ERG3D >IOO/OQO
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
r
E
24
24
24
24
34
24
24
24
34
34
34
34
24
34
UKDCRGRO
UHDERGRO
USECRGRQ
UKDERGHO
UNDERGRO >
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO >
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UXDERGRO
UHOERGRQ
UNQERGRO
UNDERGRO
UKDERCRO
UNDERGRQ
100 • I
,000 - loo
f
,
000
000
,000 - 100,000
100 - 1
00,080
,000 - 100
,000 - 100
,000 - 100
00,000
,000 - 100
,000 - too
,000 - 100
,000 » 100
,000 - 100
,000 • too
,000 - 100
»00fl - 100
,000 * loo
,
t
1
,
,
f
,
,
f
,
,
,
t
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
000
ooo
ooo
ooo
000
ooo
UNOERGRO >100,000
UNdEHGRO
lVf.Tt.Ct.
100 . 1
100 - 1
1
r
000
000
UNDERGRO >100,000
UNDERGRO MOO, 000
UNDERGRO M00,000
DEPTH
o
503
SO
C
100
0
ISO
JJO
so
0
so
0
200
100
4SO
400
1)0
ISO
100
ISO
50
50
500
490
100
SO
0
0
550
ISO
100
100
500
aoo
so
100
50
aio
100
50
300
SO
2600
100
0
1000
10
400
m
CO
-------
E-7
OOOOOOOO OOQOOQOO CJOQQOOaO OOOCKOOOOOOOO
O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOO QOOOOOOOOQO O O O O O
OO OOOOOOOOOOOQOO OOQaOOOQOQO O O O O O
OO QOOOOOOOOQOOOC* OOOOQOOOOOQ OOOv4O
»* **.«..k»^^w«.. „...,,...*. *.«.„* . _. « V *
OO OQ**«3«-*O—««~ie*GOQO OOOQOOOOOOO OWU O
OO <3 Q O O O O O O O QOOOOOOOOOO O O O
O O O O O O OO OO
OQQOQ>-«O"*«-*o-«..«ooooQoaooaooooQOoc*oo*"'«Q o
OO*OO O O OQOOQ^wOQOQaaOOOoa^O O O
OOOOO O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O
A A A A
O Q O O O O Cl Q CJOOOOQoaOOOOOOOODOOOD D O
ttot(xcflizaw«a:w«:a.ii:««a:ci;a;«cflt:ct(atix,BtBC«t«.«*o(;«»«W(i:
Kit^^^oa^«:**i^flC<«ffia(;a;t^flcocaCaiiKft:eCBtH,ae
ZJ»»S>=»rirJ«3=3«=3323S=5»=»^33»S«^S^3=>»»^>3^3»ri*a
•*•* **'*•••»•* •«•.»-••«•«'•**»•'»• * *
M h» WUMkJ ^j u MkJWUWMMM MM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC"OOOOOOOOOOO
tfitn -* *1 *- «i » ^ m^>*v<«tfi<«BiNrin ^ i-»
V r~* r~- ** P~ r-O*-*1^i^t^JC*«"r* Ol^
O O
«i «n
o »
o
o o
U M
O O
•n * n
•y 7 ae ae *
r y a at z z x * :
o u u a o
a s o & _j fej u
«"• fr- SE W 5C Mia * U *5 I
o ac U
i a a. u M:
.j c. y
x a -c
r^r i*/ a: ih,
3C $t -« r^
a. u -J ***
3 «,J| I
O <"« •*! •* •»
» —
CD 3=
:t-» w M a *-< >« i
: <« O ac < -c -c i
. o> &. a. at K fit c
I U <»l>-t.-««Z:*-'U.O JCi^l
iSMMnnrtw flc.X'Mioac.acuo
O * i£ j! "« ^ >ClBj *• « O o ^: ^j
.XX(JUUOOOtr*B'tHU*-'^iaO3E*J
rmKUUbJkiaLXtrt- t^-*?kiXi-«QCJ^W
[(OIO««WB«S««>>»*» X » » ^- >^
W U
31 3(
O O
-------
ACTIVE URANIUH NIHES IH THE UNITED STATES
BOURCEl DOC, OP-ANO JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE
HIKE NANE
CONTROLLf* NAME
COUNTY
8CC, TOWNSHIP
TOTAL PRODUCTIOh
CTOHS AS Of 01/01/79}
DEPTH
erf.)
•••» WYOMING
{CONT'05 *»***«»****
SEC, 13 + 4, 2iN-78*l
BEAR CREEK 8-4,5
HIGHLAND PPDJ 0,
HIGHLAND PROJ.U,
SEC.33,17N-73.r
SEC.36.36N-74W
BIG EAGLE
CAP 1,2*1
CLYDE, BPET, LOC
DICK CROUP
GOLDEN GOOSE
HAL-BAPT-EGL CRI
LUCKY HC GROUP
MC INTOSH E + W BN
OLA CPOUP
PAY DIPT
RAVINE
SEC 16 MINE WATE
SEISMIC RES, SEC
SHEEP MOUNTAIN 1
SUNSET GROUP
IP.ICAP.Ai
PAY »LJDB-HC»P L
PAY ALJ06-PROIOP
STAR 1-7
SUSIE
CRE
GETTY OIL
POCKY MT ENERGY
EXXOK CO USA
EXXON CO,, USA
KERP-MCGEE CORP,
KERR-HCGEE CORP,
PATHFINDER MINES
FEDERAL AMERICAN
FEDERAL AMERICA
UNI01 CARBIDE CP
WC6TERH KUCLSAR
PATHFINDER
PATHFINDER
HESTERS NUCLEAR
UNION CARBIDE CP
WESTERN NUCLEAR
WESTERN NUCLEAR
WESTERN NUCLE»R
WESTERN NUCLEAR
WESTERN NUCLEAR
FEDERAL AMERICA
WYOMING KINEHALS
ONION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UHIQK CARBIDE CP
UHIOH CARBIDE CP
MINERALS EXPLTN
MINERALS CXPL.CO
CAPBQ«
CONVERSE
CONVERSE
CONVERSE
CONVERSE
CONVERSE
FREXOHT
FREMONT
FREHONT
FREKQNT
fRCMOMT
rREKONT
FBEHONT
FREMONT
FREMONT
FREMONT
FREMONT
FREMONT
FREMONT
FRtHONT
FREKONT
JOHNSON
NATRONIi
NATRONK
NATRDNA
NATRONA
SMEETHATER
8«EET«AIER
1
33
39
20
1)
36
3T
2}
30
21
6
3
33
20
17
2}
6
IS
14
H
16
21
IB
36
36
17
36
17
33
32
33
21
32
33
13
21
as
at
32
46
33
33
24
24
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
N
71
7»
73
73
. 7S
74
2
l«
91
SO
?2
90
90
90
92
92
«2
90
77
19
89
9)
93
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,9
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
0
,0
,0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
c
.0
.0
• 0
|0
u
H
w
H
V
H
M
M
H
N
W
M
N
N
K
W
K
W
V
H
03
6
06
06
06
06
6
06
06
06
06
6
06
06
06
22
6
6
06
06
06
06
SURFACE
•URFACE
SURFACE
UNDEHGRQ
SURFACE
~U«DCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
IN-SITU
IN-SITU
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
IN-SJTU
HL-DUKPS
. LOMGWADt
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
MOO.OOC
>100, 000
>100,000
>ioo,ooo
liOOO »
1,000 *
>100,000
too
MOO, ooo
MOD, 000
MOO, COO
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
1>000 -
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
MOO, 000
IfOOO -
MOO, 000
1,000 •
MOO, 000
1,000 -
100,000
100,000
" 1,000
100,000
<100
loo.ooo
too, ooo
100,000
-------
APPENDIX F
INACTIVE URANIUM MINES IN
THE UNITED STATES
-------
INICT1VE tl
- SOURCEI
ooe,
MI'.ES II THE UNIICD StJkTtS
CPI«D JUNCTION, COLORADO
KlNC
SEC. TQNNSHIP
KININS
HETHOO
TOTAL PHODUCT10N
CTO*S o or
DEPTH
tn.)
CUB
ALASKA
STA!«fl*a{i METALS
1,008 - 100*000
300
ARIZONA
1
BAPTO*. 3
"ETTIE 1
BLACK 1
SLACK 2
BLiCjf MUSTACHE
PLACK ROC*
et»c* focf pocii
RLDCK K HIKE P.R0
HLUCSTONr I
CAPITA" BINAILY
CARSON
CATO i
CATfi 2
CHEi- HEZ i
CHESTER "111 1
CKl«hf.Y MNE 1
CISCO 1 C»»P *t
CLA11 71
CHI* Jl
CLAIM T , in
i I
COVt 1
COVE 4
CflVE ^E5A 1
COVE "C5* 10
COVL rES* 2
COVt WES» VCA
COVL -DIES
EAST MESA
EAST MESA I * 2
etaiiir i
EURIDA
FALL DO«K "E$A
FLAG Mt$» 1
JR.
Kfl.t
Ajn Tfjff
T*let
«A€
Nli»P»JC
Si', (,JO
NAVAJO
TRIPE
TBIf f
NtVlJO
KAVAJQ
MVAJC
H»V»JO
TPIPF
TRIBE
Teipr
HAI'AJO
H»VAJO
NAVAjn
tfAVAJQ
TRIPE
TPIbE
TR1RE
1PIEF
TPfPE
APACHC
APACHfc
APACHE
HPIC'IE
iPkfHE
AP«CHE
APICHE
4PACHF
«P»CKE
»PACHE
APACHE
»P»C»'E
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
AP«CKE
APACHE
J1
J
31
1
2«
1 }
71
20
i"
1
Jt
1
1
2
10
2
9
8
36
40
41
J6
IS
46
36
33
31
J2
H
Id
34
32
31
JJ
9
H
J6
h
S
F
•-
1
M
K
N
N
f.
V
k
X
H
M
H
N
K
«
29
2?
29
24
?S
11
29
23
J3
33
29
«
21
3J
2«
23
1
29
Z»
0
0
0
a
0
,0
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
tn
0
,0
.0
0
.0
t<1
,0
.0
0
4
0
0
0
,0
«
0
.0
0
.0
,0
,n
0
,o
0
0
,0
.0
.0
E
r
E
E
c
k
IT
E
IT
r
r
k
E
E
r
r
u
r
i
14
1 4
14
14
I 4
22
M
M
14
14
14
21
1 4
14
14
14
21
M
14
UNpERGRQ
SURFACE -
ONDERGRD
UNDENGRO
UNDEKGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDL^GPO
UMDE3GRO
UNOCRGRD
UNDERGHO
VNDERCRf
UNDF HGRO
UMOERGRO
UNDEHG^O
UNDERGRQ
UKEE8CHO
U"nERGRO
UKRERGPO
UKD€RG»O
SUPFACf
SURFACE
UfDEHGRO
UNDEPGPO
USOEPGD0
UNRERGRO
UNDCRGRn
UXDtRCDQ
UNDE^GRO
U^OS^HGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDEitGRO
UNDtRGRO
UtiDEnGSQ
• UNDtRCRQ
UHDERGRQ
UMDERGRQ
UHDIRSKQ
UNPEPGRQ
UNDERGO
UNDCRGRO
UNOERCRO
vnDCHCua
<100
<100
<100
1,000 » 100,000
1,000 * 100,000
-------
INACTIVE URAHIU* HINEJ IH THE VKITEO STATES
JOURCEl DOE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PISE
Hint NAK£
CONTROLLER NAME
COUNT*
C » C
HUNLEY I
HARVry REGAK J
HARVEY BLkCXUATE
»A»VEt 6L»C*'-»TE
HAZEL
HOWARD NEZ 1
JAU>i!H 3
Jl* LEE 1
JS^ LCE 6N5LI t
JI"MIE BILEtN 1
Jl«T! KING
JOHX KEE TRJCI 4
JOHK LEE IENALLY
JOHN f, T»ZZIE 1
JOKNKY HC C«Y 1
KHSEWCOD H»t.E l
KhlFE CS>GE
LIST CHANCE
LEASE 1
LOOKOUT POINT
KC KE«ZIE J
MCLVlf BEVJLLK 1
KESA 1
HESfc 1 1-2
»>ESIi 1 1-4
KES* 1 3-4 "jNt
1E5A i KI1C 141
KES» I HIWF 16
"4ES* 1 Mjf,t 2J
»IS» 1 KI»E S4
MESA 2
HESA 2 1-2 PTNE
MESA 2 »*i»iE 4
•>E»A 3 SJ tT 1
^•£5* 4
ME3* 4 1-2
KE1A 4 1-4
XTCi 1 KIh£ 19
VISA 5
KESt 8
HIP:E BROOir i
MILDRED 1
KOHUiENT 2
XOHUHEfcT 3
MOllUMENT HEAP LK
"ONUHEKT VALLEY
H S M 3
ro&iER
NAVAJO
M VII JO
Nȴljn
HAVHJO
NA»»ja
NAVAJD
, CFDRCE
TRIBE
TPIPE
TRIBE
TRIB?
TPIEF
TRIBf
PAULSEH, PAT D.
h»V»JO
NIVJ.JO
N«VtJO
<JQ
WA»»JO
*A»«JO
rav*jo
N»v«jn
NAV»JO
NAV*JD
^AVAJO
HA'JAJO
MVAJO
NAVtJO
N»»*JO
fcAVAjO
f.AVHJQ
KAVAJO
NAVtJO
M»V»JQ
KJVCJil
NAVtJO
P»CHE
APACHE
APACHt.
APACHC
APACHE
APHCHE
APACHE
APACHC
APACHE
AO»C«E
APJCME
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACWE
APACHE
APACHE
APHCHL
APACHf
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APAC«£
»P»CH£
APACHE
l?»CHE
APACHE
APACHE
UPACHF.
APAC«E
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
EC. TOWNSHIP
RANGE
HER.ID,
HIKING
TOTAL PRODUCTION
HETHOD (TONS A3 Of 01/01/7
IB
14
1
it
59
J2
23
jj
22
70
11
21
25
16
g
17
1
1
34
12
IB
32
33
16
40
9
36
Jfc
36
36
36
36
36
36
)6
36
16
15
H
K
N
•y
N
N
N
H
N
N
(1
N
N
V
*•
N
N
k,'
K
29
25
it
ji
31
2t
7
29
2«
29
J9
2'
29
29
39
29
29
29
2*
,0
0
0
0
«
0
0
,0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
,0
,n
0
g
0
(i
,0
.0
,0
.0
0
0
0
0
,0
,0
0
.0
,0
,0
.0
a
.0
,a
a
0
0
0
a
0
,0
E
E
E
E
E
E
k
£
E
r
F
E
r
r
F
E
E
E
E
14
14
14'
14
t4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
SURFACE
UHDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
UNOERGRQ
SURFACE
SURTACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UUDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UHDERGRO
UKDCRGfQ
UNDESCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERCHO
UMDERCPO
UNDERGRO
UNDEH5RQ
UH0EPGPO
UHOERGRO
UNOERGRQ
UIOCRGRO
UNPERGRO
UMDERGRO
UKDEftGnO
UNDEMGxO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDCRGRQ
UNDERGRO
UIDfRCPQ
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURTuCE
UNOCRG80
UKDERCRD
6y RT ACE
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNBERCRO
HL-OUKP5
UHDERGRO
UNDCRGRG
iao
too
JfiO
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,080 -
100
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
101)
1,000 -
100
100
100
MOO, 000
1,000 -
too
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,050 -
ico
1,000 -
1,000 •
MOO, 000
100
100
50
50
50
0
rv>
-------
INACTIVE URAHtuN NINES in THE WIIEO *f*fcs
•DUPCtt DOE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
FtCt
WJNE
CONTROLLER HAKE
county
ARIZONA
I«F
NAVAJO TRIBE
NAVAJO TRIBE
TRISE
kkVAJO TWIiE
KtVAJO TR1HE
TRI«
TPIflE
TP1BE
TPIBl
TRIRE
TRIPE
NAVAJO TRIPE
WjUVJIJO
N»V»JO TSJRt
NA»*JO Tfcise
MVAJO 1P1BI
HAVAJO
T»ib«
TUJBE
TBISE
*AfAJO TPJPE
»Ar*JO TP1BE
K*»»JO IRJ8C
ThJBE
MAVAJO TBIB^
HAVAJO TRIBE
TB1BE
*AJO TPJ8E
TBJBE
KAV»JQ TR1BI
TRIBE
TRIBE
PIWJ.WG CO
KAVAJQ TRIBE
TUI6S
tPt«
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHC
AP*CKE
1PICHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACKE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACBF
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACHE
APACKE
APACHr
APACHE
APACMF
APACMC
AFiCME
* EC * TOrf^SH^F
12 J* N
11 1* W
1J *0 H
11 39 N
JO - 39 H
13 N
11 39 *
1 H H
JO U 1
J6 14 N
IS J4 N
11 36 N
3T H N
»0 1J H
RANGE H[»:s.
21,0 C H
31,0 C H
0
28.0 E |4
3i.o r t4
31," r H
0
1,0 w 21
0
0
11, « E 14
0
0
0
21,0 C 14
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
29.0 H 21
51,0 E 1«
0
2J.O f 14
0
0
3«,o e H
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
29,0 E 14
0
S
D
0
2S.O I 14
e
5
0
MINING
KKIKOO
UHDERGRO
UNOE8CSO
UNDERGRO
UHDERCRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDESC.tO
UNDERGRO
UNtCRGftO
UfcDERGRO
VMtCPCRO
UHBERGRO
UNOCPGRO
UfDCRGRO
8URTACC
VNOERGNO
VNDERGRQ
tlBDERCRQ
SURFACE
UfOERGSO
UNDERGItO
UKDCRGRO
UKDERGRO
SURFACE
UKOERGRO
UNDERGPO
SURFACE
UNBERCRO
SURTtCE
OHOERGRO
UNOIPCRO
UMOERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SISDERGRO
ON0CPGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
IURFACH;
UNDEPGRD
UNQCRGPO
UHDERGRO
UNOERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UKDCRCPQ
tINDEBCRO
10TAL PRODUCTION
CTONS Al OF 01/01/79J
100 » 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
<100
t» 000 » 100,0(§
1,000 m 160,000
ios - 1,000
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM. HINE8 IH THE UNITED STATES
•OURCEl POt, 6R»HP JUNCTION/ CDLDRAPf)
PkGE
HIKE NAHE
CONTROLLER NAME
COUNTY
ARIZONA
lOHA 1
STAR 1
8 11
B 2
« B
» B
I
HALOHi-Y 2
ALfCC
AIDS
AMOS CHEE
B.tB. UA
BAKCR
BIG BLUE
BOYD TISI
BGYO TISI 1
CASEY 3
CHARLES HU3XOW 1
CHARLES HUSKQ") 1
CHARLES HUS1COM 7
CHARLES HUSKQ* 4
CHARLES HIISK^N 5
CHARLFS HUSXO" 9
CLIFF CANYON
COPPER 1 * W1LLA
E HU5KON 14
E HUSKON IS
EARL HUSRO"
EL PKOU1TO
ELWOOD CAiyO
£L«*OQD
C^NCTT LEC 1
EHHETT LEE 3
rOLET 5CYAZZIE31
CHUB CLAI" 14 k2
KENRJ SLOIN 1
HOSfFEH SEZ
HOWARD i
HUSKON I
HU8KDK 10
WUSKOB J!
HUIXQ* 1]
KU1KQN 14
HUSJCON J7
HUSKQN 2
KUSKON J
CCO"T'D5 *
NAYAJQ TSlfrE
OOCO
SMTH * ROKSTDM
>i*V*JO IRIBe
N»V»JO TRIBE
f«ViJO
N»V«JO
KAVAJO
PARI*
UNKW04
ALPINE
N»V»JO
hltVJkJO
HAVAJO
KAVHJO
M*V»JO
»«V»JO
JRIRE
TRIBE
TPIPE
IRICC
TRIBE
TBIPE
B*N.» OIL
CCJNTROLR
(/RAItUM C
TRIBF
TBI«»
-------
INACTIVE VRAMUM HJtlES IN THE UNITED »TAT£i
BQURCCl DOE, GRASD JUNCTION,
PAGE
MINE NAME
COW1KQl.it:*
AfltZOht
HUSXOH *,
HUSTON 7
H'JSKQS I
J SC*«I«0
COCONINI}
COCO11NO
COCONt>0
coco«i«.o
COCO.VI^O
coco«j>,a
COCQWIWQ
COCONXNQ
COCOMIkO
COCOMIMO
COCO*!WO
COCOUJHO
'EC, TO*NSHIP RANCE
27
19
18
1?
11
11
11
3
14
14
14
2»
1
30
3!
1
10
a
26
2
10
24
35
4
17
1!
3
51
21
20
J4
J4
I
4
1
5
i!
aa
11
J4
22
11
11
3
12
JO
If
58
?6
29
2*
19
21
27
2T
Z7
JO
J»
24
2V
36
Ik
a*
14
25
9
39
as
21
2?
J2
21
32
29
It
37
Jfl
21
29
29
39
30
31
36
Jl
31
31
35
21
36
N
u
N
M
M
1.
\.
H
N
H
h
N
N
t,
*
K
N
N
N
|i
s
N
N
•<
N
IV
K
N
N
>,
1,
N
M
H
M
*
Ii
N
N
K
N
H
0?
N
M
N
H
«
10
*
IP
«
«
9
10
10
Ifl
10
9
7
10
10
10
50
10
7
$
t
5
9
10
10
9
10
5
9
*
10
9
9
9
9
$
9
10
10
2
9
10
IB
10
to
.0
• o
• 0
,0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
«o
,0
,0
.0
1*
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,fl
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
« 0
,0
,0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,B
0
0
,0
.0
,0
.0
E
t
E
It
E
E
c
t
r
t
E
I
t
F
t,
F.
E
C
C
E
r
r
E
I
E
E
E
E
F
E
E
E
E
E
r
t
r
c
E
I
I
t
C
I
t
F
E
HER ID,
S*
1*
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
H
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
1*
14
14
\4
14
14
14
14
H
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
II
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
NIXING
METHOD
8CJRFAXE
SURFACE
SUPFACE
UNBFBBRO
SURFACE
5C/RFACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SUKfACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
suKrt.cs
SUPfACE
U*OERGSQ
SURFACE
SUfFACE
SUSFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDCRGRQ
I'UDIflGHO
UNDEDGRO
Ur,'DC«S«Q
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
«o«r*cc
SURFACE
6-URflCC
SURFACE
SURFACE
SVSFACC
UKDERCHD
UNOERCRO
UWOEP5J10
SURFACE
fll/KFACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
JOBFACE
IW0MSRQ
tDt Alt PRODUCTION
{fOKS A3 Or 01/01/7?}
100 - 1,000
1,080 •» 100.000
loo - 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 * 100,080
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
,000 -
108
200
,000 «
,000 »
,080 *
100
iCq
,000 «
"
,066 "
,000 -
,000 -
100
100
- 1,000
100,600
- 1,000
- 1,000
-------
INACTIVE BPAflSM KINE* IN THE UNITED »f*?«
OOC, OTAKO JUHC1ION, COLORADO
PACE
MIKE
COWft
sec.
KEHIO,
KINIRC
METHOD
PROOUCTJON
AS Of Cl/GJ/7»)
OEFtH
SEDWIHC
RIDCNOUH
ARIZONA
PYAI. 2
54,9, 1
SAN 7
*EC 1 IK $«Q
SHARON lit"H
8UH VAlLEr «ll«E
THOMAS 1
¥EHHJJ,LIO»I
HARD fEPRACE IRA
YAZZIC I
YAizrc: 101
*Aitie 102
YAZZIIT a
YAZZIC in
lEtiliD<> JEEP 7 »»
UK CJtVC
BIC Siren SKOUP
PLACK BRUSH
t>D»NA LCE
HOPE CLAI*
HORSESHOE
aon
LITTLE JOE
UHTXY BOY
LUC« STOP
W£LJ«[»A GROUP
BSD BLUFF
sen ctirr i
SOCKEWITE
SUE
TOHATD JUICE
f IRE
1 * M
CROUP
H I
DE*Q GROUP 24
HjtCKa CifcfDH
RADON 1
TBI6B
CONTBOLP
MkVSJO IRIHt
liAVAJO tPIBC
AGENCY
NORDELt, »,C.
CAMYOH VNA
TPI6C
UIITEB DfVEt.CO,
rjiVAJU TRIBE
«*V*J(J TPIHE
TRIBE
BUPPCt BOSS
EXP1.
8»KtR » CLIHE
«IYO»IHC HIKCHALS
MtUGHT, AITft'O
KI'lEPALS
ST*fY *
KJOI'INO KtKEPALS
CtOiC UP
ETAL
WICKQt.9,
, A.H.JB.
SICKLE »
JOHPSOrt *
TOHTO NATt
»KDBItE
, L.A.
HlttlNG C
UUCLEAB
CRirr
NAVAJO TUJBE
CQCQ1J«0
COCONKO
CfCONIKO
COCO'U>-0
CDCOS|«IO
fOCOiH-0
CDCO'UUO
C1LA
Clfc*
6II.A
Oil,*
CII.A
Clfc*
GILS
GIL*
Gil*
Gil, A
OltA
OIL*
CIL4
•J1L*
KARJCOPA
HAPICOP*
KOH*VE
«»OHAVE
HAVAJO
}4 41 K
« 11 «
1 16 fc
14 5* N
11 Z? h
4 57 t<
t 11 N
JJ 1» f
31 II N
21 1» «•
14 2? H
19 2« t-
t? 51 N
14 2? H
J8 » N
28 39 N
25 1} \
3f> 11 It
41 N
7.0
1.0
10,0
10,0
10,0
10,0
0
1,0
21,0
0
1.0
1,IB£RGi<0
UMDERCRO
usDr»J5Ro
UI-OERSRO
UNDERCRO
UNDERCRO
IURFACC
UIOERCRO
UNOtttSRO
OUBERGRO
UNDCRCRO
SURFACE
UMDCOCRO
VMDFRCPO
SURFACE
UNOEKCAO
UNPER5RO
UKDERCRO
UMOERSSiO
UNDERGRO
UNDERCBO
<100
100
100
1,030
t,ooo
1,000 » JOOtOOO
100 - 1.BOO
OOtt
-------
UMNIUH MINES 1W THE UNITED ITHTE*
tOE, CR*NO JUICTtON, COLORADO
MINI
CONTROttfR HA*E
SIC.
RANGE HtRID.
HETH30
TOTAL PRODUCTION
CTOHS ILS Of Ol/Ot/71)
DEPTH
tfT.S
8IC CHIEF
ais roun 2
BOOTJACK
riRCHOHT "6-
600F 4
GOTMt
j cur i
It It GROUP
LITTLE JOK1" 1,1*
K*C 3
HlTChkbL SUITE
time* 2
HONUUfNT 1
K£rf HEX
RAINBOW SMITH
ROCK GHRDEI- as
SAIN P20E Tiff
S*M CHAHLCE 1
sec,iJ-is*«2je
S* 41-THACf ||
SPtMCEB J MIWE
STJtPLICHf <£*ST3
8UML.1GM:
SUNLIGHT SOUTH
SUNRISE
»I«8t<0<> * * *
ItLACf OYKE
tl»«p» LCE 2
DURAMIUM 1
«0"T*N» GROUP
WHITE OAK
MOON BEAM
ICVEl* Sf*»l
UH»*If» SANDERSON
r H
(COM'D)
TRIPE
!ILL£I, HUGO H.
ClARKE, f.H,
NtVUJO
N«V»JO
NUVftJD
HUV&JO
H*V*JO
»UV»JQ
N»VA,IQ
N*tAJO
KiVJiJD
CRUl
SAKTA CHUI
MINERAbft EXPL CO
23
jj
14
1*
1
JJ
2°
3
4
II
14
14
2t
16
22
24
li
JJ
J3
4
J2
9
4]
41
41
41
41
11
ti
11
1?
11
41
41
24
1C
16
IT
! 9
+ 1
41
41
11
20
ti
X
N
1*
H
N
N
N
N
N
h
k,
H
N
N
k
N
N
1,
It
M
N
N
V
tt
11
1?
1*
19
19
IS
IS
2)
?)
33
26
11
22
21
22
23
30
H
19
19
31
n
10
«<3
.0
.0
0
,0
.0
0
e
,0
,0
,0
,9
,0
D
,0
to
,0
,0
8
,0
0
,0
0
0
0
,6
c
0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
.0
0
E
E
E
E
r
E
r
r
E
E
E
r
E
E
r
E
E
E
r.
E
E
t
E
•
M
It
14
14
14
14
14
{4
1*
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
S4
14
14
14
14
1WERCRO
UHDCTGHO
UHDERCRO
SUPf *CE
UNBERGRQ
ONOEXSBO
SUPFUCF
UK&ERCSO
UNQEAGAO
UNDEUCBO
$unr*ct
$IJRF»CC
swf*ce
UMOEBSiO
SURFACE
UNOERCRO
WNOEHGOO
SWftCt
UKDEBGRO
SORFACt
sunr*c£
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHOCACflO
8UWFACE
SURFACE
UNKNOMN
UtfpEBCRQ
UHOCRORQ
UNDEHCPO
UtOCdGfQ
5URJ ACC
UNDtBCRO
UKOERGPO
UCBERGRO
UNOtRCRO
iURFACE
JURf ACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
supncc
1,060 •
1,000 *•
1,000 -
1,000 »
1,000 «
100
loo
l,00<5 -
1,§00 »
1,000 «
>100,000
no
1,000 -
too
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 •
100
1,000 -
IOC
160
100
too
100
- 1
- 1
too
100
100
" I
300
• 1
,000
. OSD
,600
<100
, coo
»<300
<100
-------
INACTIVE URAHIOM rms IN THE UNITED STATES
if?U«CE| COt. CRAMP WKCTJQWi COLORADO
MINE NAME
CONTROLLER HAKE
COUNTY
TOWNSHIP
RANGE Ml*XD»
VETHOO
TOTAL PRODUCT 101.
{TONS AS Of 01/01/793
DEPTH
(FT.)
GYP R08BINS,li»PRI£T
COSO CLAIM
BUCKEYE CROUP
KEPGON )
LITTLE SPARKLiP
NOB HILL
OWEN 5
PIOKEEP 1
CORNELIA C 2
LOLA G
PATSY OPOUP
E*E»ALD 1
GROUP J02
LUCK* I
HEIODY CROUP
NORTHEAST GROUP
WHITE DOME
BIG HUNCH 1
KINDTE
ROSE OF SHARON
PISE CONE»SL STR
FED.RCS-PN1-UP
MIRACLE MINING C
GREAT LAKFE OIL
rCRC Ui>A>.IUH CO
CASTLE BUTTE URS
OrfEk K1NSNG CO,
GREAT SALT LAKE
BAKER * SONS
BAKER * NILLEB
WAGfcQV, FARL *,
NEVADA COtDFIELD
UNITED KNG»DEVEL
HARDING J.L.
"INFRAL EXPLOIT.
SAFRAMEK.r , *J,
OAK t AD*»S
BIG HUNCF URAN I
NINOTE, j>.».
OAI LESSA^DftD, S»G
DOG VALlCf UPAS,
JUNIPER [S'lRA PS3 P»THFtM>ER
BLUE HOPflL * NAN DUnfA* VALTFP
fAIR DAT XlNE BUSK*. f>,l .
KIPP L£»5E
HILL TAILINGS
KILLIP LIASE
MOUNTAIN COAT
SISK
VICTORY CROUP
K1GHHNDC"
LITTLE WARRIOR 1
XAPTHA E.
SPANISH BAP CROU
BECK MOUNTAIN LO
KING NSDAS
HALTERS RANCH
ARROWHEAD GROUP
BARLO* CREEK
BROKEN IHUNB 2
GOOD MOPE-NEVADA
RAINEt DAY
SOUTH PAPLOk
ARROWHEAD 1
KTh STATFS OIL «
ClHCIiEY OZARX
NT* STATES Oil t
FPOHTIER PIfINC
EN1BETA COPP
JIKTQWN URANIUM
UNCOUPAHGPC UPAN
SEACOL CDPP
KTN STATES UPA^I.
SPANISH BAR URAN
XEST, GEORGE A
KLI^E, BILL* ASSOC
HUNDT, fct^IS C.
ARROWHEAD HIDING
FOOTE HINFPALS
PETTICHEW, PARLEY
fM PINKERTON
VILLirORD, BEN J
rOOTr MIMCRALS
6K1LAND I>>CR.CD,
IMPERIAL
Ir-YG
KERN
KERS
KER^
KFI>N
KEf-
FERN
LASSCW
LASSCV
MADEOI
*o«o
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
R1VEXS10E
RJVFlSInii
HIVEHSIDF
SUfJ BERHARDIKO
SA'l iCRiARDI'.D
SAN BERVARDUO
SIERRA
TUOLUKNE
BOULDER
ROULOES
BOULDER
PQULOEP
ROULDEP
BOULDER
HOULDiP
BOULOE«
CLEAR CREEK
CLEAR CRFFK
CLEAR CREEK
CLEAR CREIK
CURTER
CUSTER
CUSTER
DOLORES
DOLORES
DOLORES
DOLORES
DOLORES
DOLORES
EACLC
25
n
20
n
3J
j]
36
1
))
1)
J
19
29
II
15
2J
15
10 S
J5 S
11 S
17 S
J2 5
)1 S
27 S
23 N
6 S
6 S
6 S
f> S
2 «
5 1.
44 W
7 H
40 N
0
J1.0
32.0
12.0
32.0
Ji.O
22,0
J5.0
11,0
0
24.0
0
20.0
0
2J.O
2J.O
0
0
2,0
0
o
20,0
19.0
72.0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.0
0
0
0
0
0
E
E
E
t
F
E
E
C
E
r
E
E
E
I
V
V
V
30
20
20
50
20
20
20
20
20
25
2*
25
15
20
22
06
22
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UKOERGRO
UNDE.DCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURP ICE
SURFACE
UMOERCRO
SURFACE
UNDtPGRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNDEAGRO
SUtiFACK
UNOEAGRU
SURFUCC
SURFACE
UhPERSRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE.
MlSC.-PB
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHDERGRO
UN'DFKCPO
SURFACE
UNDCRCRO
SURFACE
UNDCRCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDER5RO
UNDERGRO
UNDFRGRO
aURFACl
<100
100 - 1,000
<100
<100
too * iiOoo
<100
<100
too - 1,000
-------
INACTIVE summit! MIKES IH THE UNITED STATE*
BOE, 5JU10 JU«CfION,
FAGC
HtNE
OCR* »0
LUCKt BtH LEAST
BILL 4 BUB 3*4
CAP POCK 4«
a
COLORADO (COM'OJ
TQlrtG,
DltLEY RANCH
FIRST
KICK PARK
HOUeST JOHN i-15
JOAH 2
(C»09 HILL DOE tO
LAS? CHANCE
LIOHINII.5 3
tltTLC ABNER 1
MAR* i, 1
Hlscnt MINE i
K0QSE PAIN BOii1
PICNIC TRIE
KJUNBdw DHF BOO*
BED cLirr jo
SAMB CREEK *
stc, in, ns-u* N
S£C.»*, 17S-71» M
CROUP
THCWNt 9«10
tin VAW TtlWEta
INO or TPilL 1
I,2»J
lOTIJ •
IODE l-l
tint
CUtCH
WOOD HIHK
*IS MfP 33
»I1H I-tO
JDKi-SON C,B,1«.C
Bfh BIVri> fNd
KURD * »5SOC.
COTTER CQ!=POi»*f«.
* PPUD*
OIL«»*«
JOMPia OH,*x«C
UUXNOKN COenEir
CQ
rt,
PKMQ1T
FRf'DNT
ri>E«»a«HIP
JO IT 5
1* if S
2* t? a
14 IT J
11 ii s
11 1J S
14 It 5
U 11 S
J* 17 S
1 111 S
J* IT S
It IT S
JO IT S
36 IT S
21 5 J!
11 «« X
44
11 35 S
VANCE
0
0
0
12,0 *
11.0 »
73,0 V
0
0
0
0
Tl.fl H
11.0 h
13,0 W
0
11,0 V
1J.O *
0
0
11,0 H
I
0
Tl.O *
73. « »
11.0 t.
O
TJ.O M
11.0 *
0
0
o
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II, 0 «*
0
0
0
S.O I
s,o
10,0 b
HCBID. HIKING
HEtKOO
SUHf ACE
3URFACC
UNDERCRO
04 SURFACE
06 SURFACE
Ci. SURFACE
_ WDEHGHQ
UCOERSRQ
SURFACE
UV6ERSRO
22 50RF4CE
OS ynoEAGBO
06 Uf*DE^GRO
U^DERSRO
04 iORFACC
06 E^^pt^GRQ
UM0RHGRO
£U^F*C£
06 SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDEKGRO
06 SURFACE
ofi i/*0c*£Re
06 UNBERSBO
SURFACE
Oi SURFACE
06 UbDFRQRO
SURFACE
USDCPQKO
SURFACE
UNOERCRD
UKBERfilf)
SURFACE
SURFACE
t/woensRO
UNDCRGHO
SURFACE
SUBFACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
OS £^WDE^GRS
SURFACE
SURFACE
UKp£RGRQ
OS VKDERCRD
3} UKDCRGRO
C6 SURFACE
1, 000
100,000
160 *
too
100
<100
<100
-------
3KACTIVE UBAHIUM MINES IN THE UNITED STATES
SOUPCtl DOC, CR1KD JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 10
MINE I.A.KE
COHTROLLC? NAXE
COUNTY
COLORADO
CCDWT'3)
STUD
ASCENSION MIKF
fcUBRCY LID-IK LS
FOR* PROSPECT
GRAPE VINK I
L-ADWIG 2 RPDSPEC
LEYDFN XI-JF
MANN RANCH
NENA 1
OH«A» KIKE
O.KE»P *
AFRO-HEAtl 4
AR»OWHEAC I +
ARROWHEAD II
AHRQUHEAC H
13
14
ARROWHEAD 17
ARROWHEAD 18
ARROWHEAD 19
ARROWHEAD JO
25
21
ARROWHEAD If>C 1 +
ARROWHEAD INC |2
ARROWHEAD J*C 3*
ARROWHEAD IKC *
A.T-05-1-36
*UiTIH *
B^XCQ 1
BELHONT I » 5
iTSSIE CROUP
!«PISCOE,C.E«*SSCi
I-CCEE
ROCKY
FUrtS NUC
MORFNO URAK.CORP
J L KA«« l'E*vJUH
UNKNOWN CC"T«Ol,R
OHHIH, LF. IGH D,
FOUR COPhFBS OIL
COTTEP COPPOftSTK
SAftNETT HlNlVC C
SU'.SFT UCJ!>..|NC.
STEAR-JS, t.C.
CNinorcE "i«ies c
KC LAl'^HLFN, E.
ROHIS50N, I,C,
KOKTOn, ELBEST
AJ»X "IKIkc *nt
ATL»S-A> AX
S-«f AX
ATL»S-»»*X
ATL»S-AM»)r
ATl.(>S->>KI,X
ATLAS-APAX
»TL»3-AH»X
UNIOS CARBIDE CP
DUNKLE, n»LC
VOODAl>0, CHl.Rl.C5
DtVIS, RALPH N,
CAHPfCO, »,H,
KC KtyjS, JOHN U
.JEfTERSON
JcrrtssiN
JIFTERSON
JEFFtRSOM
JKFrCRJON
JEFFERSON
JFFrERSON
JtrFERSO'J
JEFFFRS31*
LA PLATA
LA l-LATA
LA PLATA
LARI-'E"
«rsA
KF&J.
VESA
HE.'ft
KESA
MFSA
NESA
KESA
HfSA
•TSA
MESA
MESA
KESA
KFSA
EC, TOWNSHIP
34 _
39
1«
U
26
1
11
1
2
in
1!
10
Ifl
11
2
2
2
7
J
10
10
10
3
]
11
4
6
IT
1
14
3
4
J
5
3
36
SI
&«
90
SO
50
50
50
50
50
50
SO
SO
SO
50
50
SO
50
SO
SO
50
SO
51
JO
90
s
s
$
s
s
V
N
K
N
N
H
h
N
M
K
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
X
N
II
N
V
V
H
N
RANGE
71
79
70
70
7t
11
19
i»
11
11
1*
11
ie
(S
l»
18
19
16
H
18
16
18
IB
II
It
IB
It
IB
18
11
0
,0
6
0
,0
,0
0
.0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.1
,0
.0
.0
.a
• "
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
0
tO
.0
0
.0
,0
,0
w
K
w
w
w
w
fe
U
N
k
w
U
k
V
U
w
k,
w
w
M
H
H
W
H
W
•t
V
V
w
h
KERZD,
06
06
06
06
06
13
21
*J
25
22
23
12
23
3}
22
22
22
3?
22
23
32
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
32
22
HIKING
HETHQD
UNDERGBO
iriOERGRO
UWDERORD
UNDERGRQ
SUBFACF
UNDEflCRd
UNDERCRO
UHDEHCRO
UNOERGRQ
UNOLPGflQ
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERCHQ
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
UMOEKCSO
UNDEWGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UI-DEPGRO
UHOERCRO
UNDERGRO
UHDt»CRO
UNDERGBO
UhCCRGHO
OfDIRGRO
UJiBERGRO
UKOERSHO
UNDERGRO
UhOlRGmO
UNOERGNO
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
U!, DCRCHQ
- UNOCHGR1
UNOCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRQ
UNPERGRO
UNBERGRQ
SURfJCE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(TONS A3 Of 01/01/19}
100 • 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 ' 100,000
100,000
1,000 - 100,000
100 - 1,000
1,000 •
1,000 •
ICO
1,000 •
1.000 •
100
100
100
S.QQQ *
1,000 •
100
1,000 •
1,000 •
100
1,000 •
100
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
I, 000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
i.ooo -
1,000 •
100
1,000 -
100,000
100.000
-------
INACTIVE (rfuwiuK KIKES m THE UKITEB
SOURCEi DOE, GRAHD JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 11
MINE
CONTROLLER MAME
COLORADO
tCO'-T'D)
BIG JIDIM LEASE
BIG MAVFRICK
BIG flFVE-J
BLACK HES*
SLACK PPCK 2
BLACK STREAK
BLUE CPf£K
&LUE PESl VIEi*
BLl/C R19BOM 1
BLUE RIBBON 3
BLU? PIPBDN 1 7
Rt8l>0l. 13
E RIRB'J>. GnOU
BLUE1IPO
BLUEBIRD BU«P
nONfcJE
BOD 1
BU1CX
c-G-21
CALAfltY
CALAMITY
CALCD
CAT THICK
CA*E CA»-YOK
CH1CO * C FRICTI
CLIFF D-ELLER
CLIMAX
CLIMAX RESIDUb
CtJ"»X VO CLF.AKU
DU
1*4
COVE i ABU
CRESCENT
CROrfJ HIST
CU« CCATtvSY)
DEAL GROUP
OEPPESSIOv 2*3
DEPRESSION 4 * 5
OCPRESSIflw 6
DEPRESSION CROUP
DRUM D'/ST
DURAUGQ 3
ELIZABETH 1-10
E*ERSQfl
FLAT TOP
FQUI-TAT» Of YQUT
FRACTION
ARPDrfHEAD URAN,
KCtLCY, P*1- E,
r.t.
UNUM csRHDt
rsEEK HJrC,
CBEIK Mt«IH
s-*r*ir
ATLAS-AHIX
ATLAS-A-'AX
STEHPT.
iliDC, N*Y
5CHU«ACI>I.P,J.I.
U.S.G^VT.
ATLAS H!«.tR(,LS
SM1FBOCC LTD.
HJ»r Ml^ihG «OIL
GPAHtH r.P.
IATTT, fp£D
UNION C»PB10F CP
UNION CAPPIbL
U«KJJO*«
GRlPf * BAILEY
GIUPCE
DEAL H1G CO. INC.
NUCL[»»
COxTmr«T*L «Aft
MTTERfQHN HHC,
td-'TOtf BROfi.OPUM
'SENHAH 4 TU1NEL
'ATLA1-APAX
ATLAS'AHHX
BUBHETt, WILLIAK
COUHTY
HFSA
HIS*
f'ESJi
MES4
MESi
MES«
1ES4
HFSA
MESA
xrs*
XFSA
^FS^
MES*
HC5J
MES«
M£S»
«FSf
MESA
MESA
HEJA
"ESA
"£SJ
MESA
»fj*
MESA
MESA
HESS
"CSS
HFSA
HJSA
«ESA
HERA
BEkVl.fi
EC, TOWNSHIP
..
50
12
27
31
l»
30
J
10
n
14
]
19
j q
31
13
35
10
21
1
H
22
6
22
4
25
11
S
4
4
\l
!«
n
n
34
4
11
11
3!
13
50
50
SO
50
50
50
50
SO
50
50
io
50
50
SO
51
50
SO
SO
SO
50
51
so
so
50
50
50
50
50
2S
49
50
50
SO
50
51
44
50
50
51
50
N
h
N
N
Ft
H
N
H
S
(.
ki
«
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
h
N
H
N
V
N
S
N
N
N
H
H
t.
N
N
N
V
N
RANGE HEP ID.
1..
ni
i'»
J9.
n.
|7.
11.
IB!
1".
S J,
it.
n.
IT.
11.
18.
16.
IS ,
18.
1*.
1'.
11.
18.
11.
19.
18.
18.
11.
36.
n.
11.
18.
I*.
18.
1*.
IT.
n.
it.
11.
i*,
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fc
N
V,
w
W
w
w
M
¥
U
W
1.
w
*
w
1,
If
b
1.
h,
.
«
M
N
X
H
k
k
k
N
U
W
22
23
32
22
22
32
22
22
22
22
53
J2
33
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
32
2?
12
32
22
22
22
24
22
33
32
22
23
22
22
22
32
22
12
MINING
HCTKflO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UMDCRGRO
-UMDERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNCtHGSO
UWDERGHQ
UMJF.RGHD
U^DF RGRO
U^QESGBQ
UMDFRGRD
DUwPi
SUPF»CE
SEIRTACE
UNOERGRQ
{(•iOCRGPO
UNOCRGRQ
Dtl*PS
UNDERGRO
t/NR^O^K
UNOC1GRO
UNDE.RGRO
UNDESGRD
yMOERCRD
MI5C.-PB
KISC.-PB
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGR3
UNDERGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
lURfACE
UNOERGRD
UNQERGRO
UNpERCSO
UMDERGRO
H15C , -PB
UNDERGRO
VHQERGPO
UNDCPGPO
VHDCUGPO
UNDERGHO
Ul-DtrtCBO
tOTAL PflODUCUDN
CTOCS AS Or Ot/Ot/T9)
1 ,000
<100
<100
100,000
100 - 1,000
<100
1,000 • 100,000
<100
100 • 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
«100
<100
1,000 * 100,00&
100 - 1,000
1,000
<100
100
1.000 • 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
too
100
100
100
100
,000 «
,000 •
,000 •
,000 -
,000 -
100
100
,000 *
,000 •
100
ICO
, eoo -
100
100
100
- ,000
,008
,000
« ,000
,000
100,000
<100
100,000
103,000
<100
100,000
<100
<100
100,000
<1QO
• 1,000
<100
« 1,0*0
soo.oco
100,000
« 1,000
- 1,000
<100
100,800
• 1,000
<100
- 1,000
• 1,000
DEPTH
-------
INACTIVE URANtUH MUTES IN THB UKXTED STATES
SBUMEl (OBi flPAMft .JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 11
COMWOLLER WAME
CQtOBAOO
(COWT'OJ
GATEWAY TAILINC3
CtLMORE LODE
GLADYS t
HANSON-NEGUS
HAJ»VE* 1
HOLE 24
HOPE 1 10 4
HUMDINGER
J.I. LEWIS
JEAN 1 * 3
40BY 5RDUP
JOE
JOHN BRQKS
JOHN BRGWV
JOHMfY *»E 3
JU DEE I
JUMBO 1
KANARAPU }
HARM INCLIKE
KING SOLOMON
It 4
LA
LA 8*L
LA 5*0 1 4 2
LA JAL 3,4,6*25
IA SAL 5 * 1
LA Sit. GROUP
LI SAUE GSOUP
LEE 1-6
LEGAL * LUCKY DA
LEVAD*
LIBERTY nu a
LITTLE JDHNKY
LITTLE PAVCRICK
LOCUS 1(2*1
IOOE CUJ-*
LOG CAilK
LOKE PE»X
LOOK OUT
LOST DUICHHAN
LUCKY BO*
LUCKY BAY
LUCKY HOLt
LUCKY PIKE 2
LUCKY STRIKE
IlABASfEK PROOUC
GATEWAY M»IC*OEV
RIGGt/EfHAKTOUCH
ATLIS-i^llit
PAY -
CQHT10LR
J.w.
LCDUC »
BOND, JACIC
E.Eil,OJS.INC,
UNIOH CARBIBE CP
NE« IBait, K»«C«CH
IP-I'-, HAYNE A,
KARKCN, h,V.
U«10s CABB13E CP
CA"YOIi ORA* CO I
Blue CHEW CC. TQHH8HIP RANGE
10
36
[9
IT
38
3t
39
J
16
31
i
J«
I"
11
12
24
2S
32
J6
36
36
36
21
"I
2J
11
}1
31
21
31
)3
21
1»
2t
1
3t
12
51
SI
51
SO
51
51
SO
SO
SI
Si
so
si
so
so
so
41
SO
50
51
51
Si
Si
SO
so
so
Si
$1
50
50
4«
51
39
51
50
34
50
X
H
N
N
N
N
H
H
K
N
X
*
N
N
f.
H
K
S
N
N
H
h
N
N
N
r.
N
h
H
N
N
N
N
N
$
X
19
20
11
n
11
IB
H
ti
20
18
30
30
17
1*
20
t*
11
l
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM MINUS IH JHt UNITED STATES
DOC, C**NO JONCT1UK, COLOBADO
PAGE 11
.NINE
CONTROLLER
COLORADO
(COM?i
LUCKY STPJKE 7
LUMSDEk 2*6
HAMKOTH
MARK
H3A
HAVERICK
MAVERICK «
XCS* 5
NCSA I
MESA CREEK
MILL CLrA* op
KILL SHE LODE
XIMERAL CHANNEL
MINERAL
HIKING LEASE
XLB-C-C-J6
MLB-C-G-271
MONROE II
34
HEtLso«
KEILSO" MOTHER D
OUTL»*
PAY
PAYDAY 1 THRU T
PAYROC* CROUP
PEACH 10 INC. 1*2
fir TACE I
PPT ,CP»»CF>, torus
ALABASTER PROOUC
6CHUN»CHCP,J,1,
PET1TTI. JOKN J.
4TLAS-AHAX
LEECD CAS * OIL
k, S. OAXJfIN
VHO»N » rilLLIAHS
rOiTCR * SONS
UWIOM CARBIDE CP
U"IOK CARBIDE
UNION ORRIDE CP
BLUE CRtl* I'CS4
MESA
MESA
t-ESA
NESA
"Eft
HES»
KESA-
HE5*
"ESI
PTSA
HfSA
ME.**
"CSA
NtSA
MESA
MES*
MEEA
NCSA
KESA
HCSA
«E5A
NESA
MCIk
fESA
KESA
HESA
MESA
MESA
KESA
.EC, TOUKSHIP
12
36
11
Ji
i
2T
J
1
1]
12
12
11
It
10
10
in
)l
12
19
J
n
2i
:
10
31
9
33
16
J5
16
IS
>6
10
35
i«
J3
14
75
J7
50
St
51
SI
50
34
SO
so
so
so
50
44
SO
50
SO
$0
SI
so
Sj
SO
SI
so
46
SI
SI
Sfl
:«
50
4S
SI
SI
SI
50
so
51
50
SI
50
SO
N
K
N
W
N
S
N
H
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
H
N
K
N
*
N
H
N
S
K
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
h
N
V
K
P1HGC
18.
20.
11.
IS.
30,
2*.
li.
K.
11.
1*.
11.
1«.
I",
i».
19.
19.
IV.
M.
IS.
19,
11,
IB.
11.
19.
U.
IS,
26.
11.
IB,
JO.
20.
20,
IT.
H.
11.
11,
J*.
i«,
11.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fi
G
0
0
a
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
a
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
V
M
tJ
K
K
E
M
W
k.
V
W
H
U
Hi
W
h
k.
4
W
M
W
V
H
It
V
H
E
V
M
W
M
W
M
k
H
U
N
r
M
HERID,
22
21
22
72
22
24
22
22
1)
2}
22
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
24
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
KININS
XETHQD
SURfACE
UNPERCRQ
UVDERCBO
UNDERCgQ
UNOERGOQ
UNDERCRQ
SUf-HCC
UNDERCRQ
UNOE1GHQ
UKOERXiRO
UNDERCRQ
HZSC.-PH
UNQCRCRQ
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRQ
SUHfACE
UNDER5PO
UKKNQJK
UNDERGRO
tfWDERSWO
BURfACE
UNDERCRO
UNDEBGRO
UHDERiRO
UNDFRCRO
SURFACE
UNOLRCRO
UKDEKCRa
UNDCRCRO
H1SC.-P*
UhDERGRO
8URFICE
U»SESfi»0
UNQERCRO
UNDER5RO
. UNDIBGRQ
UNDERGRO
USDCRSRO
UNDERGRO
UNOEftGRO
SUBTACE
UHDLRGRO
UNDf.RCRS
UKDERGRO
UKQERCRO
UlgCKGKO
KllC.-PB
SURFACE
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(IONS AS Of 01/01/79)
«toc
1,000 * 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 » 100,000
i,oao « 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
<100
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
-------
UtANlUM MINES IM *HE UMIIED ifATES
SOURCE! DOC, CRAdO JUNCTION, COLORADO
FACE 14
HIKE *f*«E
CONTROLLER NAME
COBhtr
SEC, tOWNSHIP HA1GE HCHIO.
MEfXOtt
TOTAL PROPVCTIOH
(TOMS M OF
PEPfK
tFI.5
COLORADO
(COKT'03
SHELBY BEAS 2
gJLVe* MOO*
SMALL SPOf
8I.DW SHOE
*TO«1»T 7REA5UHE
STSOOC I
tm
«U* iPOI-ClOUO 1
aoPPir ti
*0»PUV 1*
tINBtPFQOf GROUP
THE DUKE
TOS1TLQ
fRQJAN li « 30
VASABIUh K1HG i
VANADIUH KI^G 2
WASP
MESA
C»T
TELLO» JACKET 1$
JfEtLQ* JACKET ?
jrELLQ* JACKET I*
HBS1E <* * JO
BLUE FOUNTAINS 4
BREADLINE
H'FFAiQ HEAD
BUTLER (.CASE I
CEPAfiS 1
CLAIK I
CLETA GROUP
DOC ARfOUR NINE
GER1PUDE
GLOHY 8tt
MHKSOH *,C,S,
LITTLE STAR
LUCKY MT
SEC.1t, *•*-«<»
4ISTCRS
BLUE EAGLE 1
KABLE KAY
ROBERT* JEAN
»WAS»LO* 1
STOLLEfi * SOfcCN
BFCK, L.C.
BEf
•» BQDJ
fCTBO KUCLCAR
ATLAS-AMAX
COLO
•» sons
VPIOI CABRIOE CP
fONTGnriEPY. JACK
AMERICA* LEOtiC U
HUVOKJV KHC.CO.
CP
C.
E,
UNION
ETC*
UNION CAP81PE
•(BIGHT, k
UTI9* URAM.CD,
"RIGHT, MBPEN E,
C*»iiOE CP
SKULL CREEK COAt
HHC
BUFFALO
+ UL3H
BESSELL » KAYE
UNIO« CARBIDE CP
CARBIDE C?
» CALDXCLL
OKtOh C»*eiOE CP
PD-ERS. LLOYD
RANOSP VPA^.CO.
UNIUH CARPJDE CP
TOMt 'WlLtlAHS CD
, tin,
OIL
SLICiR, GENI
tOUNC,
HCSA
MESA
NfSA
MESA
VESA
NESA
HESA
«E3A
UESA
*-EEA
HFSA
MFSA
HESH.
MESA
MESA
HESA
VESA
HOFFAI
MONTIZUH*
14
10
?
12
11
12
J5
U
12
U
15
19
13
23
11
It
19
10
21
I
]
]
'
JO
I
9
31
1*
51
I
to
59
41
SO
so
50
51
§0
50
91
SI
50
51
51
50
4?
34
50
10
50
I
^
i
s
6
N
N
W
N
h
N
h
4
Oi
06
fit
SUftFACC
KjsC, "PB
UkOERGRO
OKDCRGKO
UHDEROBQ
UHOfGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UfcOERCRa
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURf AC«
OKOEHGRO
SURFACE
UNjjEflGRO
1* tSC ,*Pa
U«OE*SSO
SURFACE
UHDEHGRO
IINOCBGRO
UNOERGRQ
vwtmno
SURFACE
UNDEHGRQ
y^DERG^O
UNDERGRO
SURfACt
ujtorsGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
iUfrACC
UNDCRGRO
UKOER5RO
SURFACE
IURFACC
SURFACE
SOtFACE
OMDEIlGftQ
itiRFACE
\I»BER5F»D
1,000 •
trOOO -
" 100
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
too
100
ten
100
1,000 -
too
1,000 »
VOC
100
1,000 •
too
MOO, CCS
1,090 *
1,090 »
HOO.OOC
100
100
100
too
100
100
. i
100
• 1
100
• i
• 1
* 1
- 1
100
« 1
100
- 1
" 1
too
• 1
too
100
" i
- 1
- i
- J
«100
€100
,000
,000
,000
,000
«100
<100
«os«
,coo
«lflO
<100
,00i)
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM MINES IH THE UNITED STATES
SOURCE! DOE, GRAND JUKCTION, COLORADO
PAGE IS
HA*E
NAHE
COUNTY
COLORADO
VEACH
VIRGINIA »NS
1ST NATIONAL BAN
2ND HATIO"IAL BAN
JO-JO
45-90
ABAJO fS
ADL STARS c*r«i»
ALTA
ALTAIP.CAPELLA.Y
AHEP-ICAh »»Gir 4
AMERICA\ FACIE G
ANCHOR
ANCLE
ANtfA PA* t
AN"* *A)f I DUMPS
ARCTUBU5-
AUSTIh
-------
INACTIVE URANIU*1 MINtS IK THE UWITIO STATES
SOURCCl BOE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE 1*
MINE
\
CONTROLLER
COLORADO
tCDWT'Dl
BITTER CHEEK
FLACK DINAH
BUCK DINAH DU*P
BLACK EACLE
BLACK GNAT
BUCK HAkK
BLACK JACK
BLACK PRI'.CE
BLACK RPC*
BUCK TQM
BLACKFODT MTTLE
BLISS
BLON0A
BLQNDY
BLUE PELL
BLUE BIRD
BLUE BIRD DUMP
BOB 6,', «
BOB 9
BOB CAT
BOB CAT
BONANZA
BCNITA 1
BOUKCIK BETT1
BPOOKE I
BROOMSTICK
BRO<»«I DERSY
BRUSHY B>S1«
BUBBLES
tUCKTVE *
BUCKHOR" I
BUCKSHOT
BUCKSKI*
BUCKSKTS CROUP
BUTTERFLY
c r c
C»8I» VIEW
CALYERT 2
CkMCL ILtlCMIOHl
CAKOPUS
3
CARPENTER RIDGE
ClSmH MILL
CE1UR RIDCE
CHECKER
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNIO«< CARBIDE Cf>
COCXRUN, r.V,
HALEY -INING CO.
I' RIGHT, GEORGIA f
MAGIC UR*Nju» CO
SINDEPi F. V,
UNION CAPPinE
UHlQN CAfRIDE CP
SANDRA PAP-IE Mil
UNION' CARBIDE C
AYEHS, EVEPETT
6RJPE «.r,
UHIQ« CARBIDE CP
UNION CARflDE CP
UNION CARPIDE CP
UflJDM CIRflDE CP
BELL, I.L.+ B.L.
UKJ01 C»RBIPE CP
CPACLtCN «»N V
SECURITY UMN1UM
BOMTA U»»MU« C
i30l*rs * THOMPSON
fOOTE
EAPLElf,
5CHUMACHEP 0. I.
CUFTIS, CLYDE
WH10N CAftBlCE CP
JAP" AN * HADOC1
r V BI^DLR
UNION CARfZOE
UNJOH C*H81I>E
UNXQ* CARBIDE CP
UNION CAR8IDE CP
FOO1E HIHTRAUS
UNIOS CARBIDE CP
PATTERSOt., P*T
IfACKEL, CAPL
If H JOS CtRBIOC CP
CONTROLP
0,c.
A YEP 5, EVERETT
COUNT!
MONTROSe
HONTROSE
XQNTHOSE
HONTROSE
MQNTRDSE
*ONTRQSE
HONTRQSE
"Oi-fOSE
"OMPOSE
WOI-TPOSE
HOf'TRDSE
HOHTROSF
HONTRDSE
MO^THOSE
MONTROSE
HONIROSC
MONTP05E
MOKTROSE
MONTSOSE
CON7ROSE
hOKTROSE
KONTftOSC
MONTROSE
MONTFOSE
MQNTPOSE
HOHIROSF
HONTP08E
MONTR03E
WOhTSOEC
MDNTPOSE
HOHTHOSE
KOKTOOit
MONTBOSE
SEC. TOWNSHIP
12
28
21
4
21
" 2
JJ
21
20
10
26
J!
25
29
5
1*
1
12
10
II
21
21
}|
JS
35
10
14
20
JJ
10
11
It
4
It
21
4
JO
46
41
47
45
4*
45
46
if
46
47
41
47
41
46
45
47
47
4$
45
4J
28
41
48
46
4t>
47
47
47
(6
45
45
46
45
47
47
45
47
K
H
N
H
H
N
II
h
V
H
N
tr
N
N
N
N
n
K
>4
»
S
H
H*
N
H
N
N
N
H
N
H
fc
H
N
K
N
H
RANGE
17
17
17
16
11
18
If
la
17
17
16
17
ie
11
17
17
20
n
it
IB
26
. 18
17
II
1 J
IT
10
17
18
It
SI
17
1*
n
i?
19
n
.0
.0
,0
.0
o
.0
!«
,,r
,o
,0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
,o
0
,0
.0
,0
0
.0
0
.0
,0
0
.0
0
0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
.0
,0
,0
„
N
V
w
tf
w
w
M
K
k
w
W
V
V
k
M
t>
l>
y
w
E
N
M
V
W
y
u
w
w
fc
t
k
M
V
w
H
W
HCRID,
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
24
22
12
22
J5
22
11
22
11
22
U
22
22
21
22
22
21
HIKING
XCTHDD
UNDERGHO
UNDERGRO'
DU1PS
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UNDERCRO
llNDCRGRO
UNDERCRO
UNOER5RO
UNDEHGRO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UNDERORO
USOFHCRO
DU.1P3
UNDEHCSO
SURFACE
UNDERGRD
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDEROHO
UXDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UfcDERGRQ
UKDERCRO
USBERCSD
UNDERGRO
UdDCBGRQ
•UNDERGNO
UXQERSRO
UNDERGRO
U1DCRGKQ
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRQ
UNDERGRO
UHDERSRO
SURFACE
SURfliCE
UNDERCRO
SUfTlCC
TOTAL PRODUCTION
{TOKS AS OF Ol/OJ/7*>
1,000 - 100,000
i.ooo - 100,000
100 » 1,000
<100
<100
-<10C
<100
100 - 1,000
too * 1,000
1,000 • 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000
1,000
1,000 - 100,000
10D
100 - 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
100 » 1,ODD
<1QQ
1,000 - 100,000
100 - 1,030
l.ooo * loo.ooo
<1QO
100 - 1,000
1,000 • 100.000
<100
loo
<100
1,000 • 100.000
100 • 1,000
100 - 1,000
100,000
-------
INACTIVE UHAHJUH HIKES III THE OXitEO :iAIES
SOURCE] DOt, GRIND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE IT
CONTROLLER
CQUNTlf
COLORADO
CNESTEPFIFLD TPE
CHILU 5
CHIPMOKK J
-CHRISTIE
CLUfi 3
CLUP GROUP
ctua CRQC/P
COLUMBUS
CO^FUSIO"
CQPPEP JACK
CORPORATION
CORRECT
COT ION XOOD 1,3.3
COUGAR
CRIPPLE CREEK
CPIPPLE CPEEK OU
CRIPPLE CPK 3 OU
CUE BALL
0*03
D + D 5
PADS
DUN PATCH
DAW*
DEER, JULY, Stl"
DIANA
DOAGf 2-L-AST Oil
DOLORES 1
POLOPFS MINE •
DONALD L DUUP
DONMA K
DOftOTHJ
DOROTHf E.
DflUBLC J»CK
DUCHESS 2 * }
DUSTY DU«P
EAGLE ROCK i
EOITM IREkE
CDNA KAE
EIGHT BALL
EIGKT 0 CLOCK
ELIZABETH »MV 1
EVENING STAR
EXPECTANT 1
rAER* OUEEH
FARMER BOt
TAWLTLEJS
C*«BIOE CP
CARBIDE CP
AiTERS, EVERETT
STOCKS, R,H,*SISK
UNION CARPIDE CP
UNI01 CARBIDE CP
UHIO"
FOOTE
NC co
CK-PJDE
CP
PJlIfERSO1*, FAT
DDDLEr T.T.
UMIO« CASHIOE CP
UNION CAPM9E C°
UNJO-i CAPPIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
ROC-ERS * hUVT
DOfcELL N.L.
H1C»D COPPfP CD
OREN
UNION C*B8IOE CP
FOOTS "TNEFULS
UNI01 CABHIOE CP
UNIOB CtRBIDE CP
U»»IO*. CIPRIDE CP
rooTE NINERALS
UXION C»PPIDE CP
ST RCCIS OBAWIUK
E. JANES A.
UNION CAHBJOC CP
DQ^ELL K.L.
JTENART, JA"E8
SIN E.J,
OU CARBIPC CP
PETRO NUCLEAR
tDKDON, ROBERT
UNION CARBIDE
KINSEf « KALICH
>>ONTPOSE
»(OMTROSE
HDHTROSt
cOfcTP-aSE
HONTB35E
XQNTBOSE
NCKTPOSE
HOHTPOSC
MO»-TRDSE
"QNTROSE
"OWTROSE
"ONTRDSr
CONTBO&E
KONIPOSE
MONIPOSE
KONTROSE
HOWTROSE
HQITTR05C
KONTRQ3E
HONTPOSE
KOHTRQSE
UNION CAPH1DE CP KONTMOSC
EC.
35
4
30
13
31
2
13
19
16
33
2*
21
21
]
14
IS
2«
H
20
JO
19
Jl
20
I*
10
J4
11
21
J
3 3
11
3
10
24
6
TOWMBHIP RANGE
45
4i
48
41
41
46
47
48
47
46
47
47
47
47
41
47
4(
49
46
44
41
47
47
48
47
4(
4S
45
47
46
47
45
47
49
41
N
S
N
N
H
N
N
tl
N
W
N
H
H
V
h
N
h
V
N
H
N
H
H
K
h
1.
J.
N
H
H
K
H
H
V
N
U
19
17
17
17
17
20
ID
n
19
17
17
17
17
H
17
17
1*
n
18
n
16
17
II
16
11
19
If
17
18
20
19
17
19
17
0
,0
,0
0
0
,0
,0
.6
.0
,0
,c
,0
0
.0
0
,0
,0
.0
• 0
0
0
.0
.0
0
,0
.0
.0
,0
«0
0
.0
.0
,0
,0
,0
0
0
,0
.0
,0
>o
0
.0
,0
.0
0
,0
,0
U
U
N
w
V
H
U
i>
w
•
w
n
U
h
H
V
H
1*
w
w
d
H
ta
w
w
V
U
H
V
U
w
X
H
H
¥
KER1D,
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
32
22
22
32
32
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
22
72
32
22
23
22
22
22
MINING TOTAL PRODUCTION
METHOD (TONS AS Or 01/01/7
£RCSD'
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
DUMPS .
UNOERGRfJ
UNDERGRO
UNCEHGRO
UNDEAGRO
UHDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UHOEKGnQ
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
DUMPS
DUMPS
UfeorftCRo
UNDERGRO
UNDERGpf
UNDERGRO
UMDERGRn
SURFACE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,000 •
,000 -
too
,000 -
,000 "
,000 -
100
100
100
100
,000 •
,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
10C,000
100,000
<1 00
<100
• 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
10d.OOO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UKOERGRO
UNDERGRO
DUMPS
UdDEHGRO
UNOERCRO
IWDESCftO
UXDERGRO
UKDCRGPO
DUMPS
UNDERGHO
UNDERGRO
UHDERGRO
1'Npracno
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UHOERGRQ
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
,000 -
,000 -
,000 -
,000 »
100
,000 •
,000 •
100
,000 •
100
100
100
,000 -
joo
,000 •
100,000
i oo ,0^0
100,000
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
«100
- 1,000
100,000
- 1,000
-------
INACTIVE URANHJK MINIS IK THE UNJfEB SfiTCS
BOE, CR**D JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGI II
MINE VAHE
WAME
COUNT*
FAhh SPRISCS II
SPP.IS&S J]
SPRINGS 15
FMN SPRINGS 21
r*«M SPRll.CS J»
30
r»WK SPRlfcGS 5 f
nrTH N*TIC1*t 8
FIREBIRD
rt»T TOP
FLORENCE
GHASt DUfp
GP-*)f FOX
FOURTH JULY + X
FOURTH 1A1L B*SK
FOX
FOX CISTEHX
FRACTION » FRAC
GltSEFT
GNO»«E
GOLDEN EAGLE 14.
GOOD HOP! PFD TO
sumo O*D
CRANDVIC*.
Cf<»SS ROOTS
CRASS BOOtS DUkP
DO
6-P.OUKDKnG
GROUNDHOG
GYP I.EASE
HAPPV
HAPPY JOE
HAPPY THOUGHT
HA.SO LUCK
HAHOROCK
HAROLD
KtXRT CUT
KjEMRY CLAY DIO£ CP
UNION CAP8IOC CP
U«IO\ CABPIOC CP
KIL, PI PL fc.
PKIOf C*R»1DE CF
CP
CP
CP
UN10H
OLIVCP * PUSS '
FOOTC KIWEBALS
UNION CABBIOE CP
CP
tONC,
rootc
BHION CiPBI&C CP
u*io>» cupeioc CP
UHION CUPBIOC CP
UNION CARBIDE
DJtDE
CONTROSC
HONIP.OSE
KC1KIRDSE
MOKTPOSC
MONTROSC
MGNTXPSE
HDHTROSE
KQHTSOSE
HONTROSE
KDhTKOSC
HO"T|!08E
P'OITBOSE
NOHIROSE
HONTROSC
MONTROSE
HONTROSE
NQNTROSE
KO^TROSE
HDNtRQSC
HQNTPOSE
• 1C,
Ji
6
*
$
11
1
Si
6
J
i
21
10
Jf
SO
1
24
28
30
I*
I?
12
17
9
to
14
27
tJ
11
11
to
20
It
11
9
10
2i
2
1*
It
13
29
3*
20
21
towns
46
4$
49
45
4ft
4S
" 4i
4S
45
45
47
47
4J
47
45
4g
47
41
41
41
46
47
45
47
48
48
46
46
47
47
47
46
41
41
45
47
45
4*
46
46
4
€7
47
41
M1P
N
H
K
k
s
N
N
N
N
H
N
N
1
N
H
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
h
h
H
V
N
V
h
a
h
H
V
H
J.1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
t
11
n
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
11
11
17
17
11
11
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
17
11
11
18
11
17
J7
17
11
17
19
It
17
19
17
It
17
1
17
17
11
AS!
.0
.0
,0
,0
,0
, J
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
• 0
,0
,0
0
6
.0
.0
.0
.0
,6
,0
.0
.0
,0
<0
.0
,0
, J
mt
0
,0
,0
,1
.0
,6
.0
:E
w
|4
H
V
IT
u
V
H
H
W
*
h
•
H
V
w
W
tt
N
V
W
b
K
H
V
•„
w
H
*
W
W
ll
K
H
U
U
h
v
W
H
W
H
ll
V
XEKID,
22
22
22
22
22
32
12
3S
53
J2
22
22
22
22
21
35
22
22
22
22
22
22
12
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
71
32
22
33!
53
33
33
23
22
22
22
22
32
HIKING
METHOD
UNDZftGRO
UND£RGP-0
UNDEHCRO
UNQERGRQ
UNDERGllQ
UNOCRCDO
UHOERGRD
UKOCKGRO
UHDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UHDERORO
UNDIRGRO
UNDERSMO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
t^KOC*^CPO
UNDERGRO
UKDERCPO
UWBERGRQ
UIIOERGP.O
L'S'OEKCRO
O^DCRGRO
UHDERGRO
UKDCRCRO
SURFACE
SURf ACE
UNDERCRO
UMRCRGRO
SOrtPS
SURfuCE
CUMPS
UNOERGRO
UNOEBCRO
OU«PS
UH0ER5RO
UNBERGRD
U*BERGR0
UUBERCRO
UMOERCRO
U-HOEROflp
UNDERSRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDE*0*0
UNDERGRO
UNQERSRD
DUMPS
UHOERSRD
UKDERGRO
PRODUCTION
tTONS A* 0r §1/01/795
. 000 •
,000 -
,060 «
,000 •
,000 "
180
166
100
1.08B »
1,000 -
100
1,000 «
1,000 -
1,000 *
100
I. 000 -
too
100
1.500 -
i,aao »
i.oao •
109
1,009 -
1«000 -
too
1,000 -
100
1,006 "
100
1,006 -
1,000 '
160
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,900 -
too
100
1,000 "
1,000 *
1,000 »
too
166,000
100,000
100,060
100,000
100,006
- 1,000
- 1,060
- 1,006
100,000
100.000
• 1,000
100,000
100.600
<100
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
- 1.000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
<100
» 1,000
00
-------
mcrrre
SOURCEt
NINES IN r«r UKITEO STATES
OOE, GKAN0 JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE 19
HINE NAME
CONTROLLER NAME
COLORADO
fCQKT'D)
HOKESTEkD
NQHFr*QQti
NONEKHQaH DUMPS
HORSEHAIR GROUP
HOT ROCK
MOT SPOT
HOWLING COYOTE
HUMMER
Kl/XHEP DWPS
IUKA
IOL*
1-1
ISLAND vir
J.S. CROUP
J.J.
JACK RAH8IT
JACKPOt GROUP
JCEP
JITTEX8UG
JO tMNt GROL'D
JOt
JOE DAM1Y
JOC DAiuY DUUP5
JDE RIVERSIDE
JOHN I,
JOKES
JOKER
JOKER
JUOY ANi,
JUN90
JUNE RUG
JUNGLE BASI»
JUST RIGHT
KING
KING Of LODES
LARK 1*8
LUST CHAHCE 1
LAST HOPE
LAST LQ»D
LAZY THRET
tEYl
LITTLE B»5IN
LITTLE BUCKHORN
LITTLE CHlEr
LITTLE DICK
LITTLE DICK DUMP
BALL,
uwio* cAftirpe CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
URRALRURU-MQLZ
GUJRE, HELEN ",
KE-JTS, KIPf,
PRICE
UNION CARBIDE Ct>
W»IO+ CtOPlDE CP
SCHU*ACWFI»,J i '
LA RUE, o,c,
UNION CARPinE CP
UlJOt CAflRJDE CP
CHAPMAN » FRANKS
UHIOH CHPP1DE CP
UNION Ck^PIDE CP
UhhNOM CONTROLS
BEE HIVE
ChC.cn.
CHE«!COS,K»PRY P
UNION CtRRJDE CP
U>iION CJB8IDE CP
UNION C»B8IOE CP
UNION CUHPIDE CP
SHIPTr 0,f,
RUCK HA-X U°»N,
ELCEil, Pp*MK
ST HE5IS UFH>-IUH
RBI NIC, >L
roOTE 4INFSH1.S
E.E.Lt'iIS,IflC,
UHIOS C»P-810E CP
UNION CHRP10E
UNION CkHPIPE CP
DYKITEK LI-TPPSIS
SNJDr.H, FPED JR,
6.. O.UEtAH *CXPI
UHIOH c»?PiDe CP
UNION CHRBIOE CP
COUHTlf
MQNTHG3E
"ONTCOSC
CO*. THOSE
KOhTROSE
MO>.TBOSE
MOhTBOSE
"HNTPOSE
MONTPi'iSE
HONTP15E
XONTROSE
HONTROSE
"ONTROSE
NONTROSE
KDVTP03E
HONTROSE
HDiiTROSE
"ONTBOSE
PONTPQSr
HQ),TR08E
CP
UNION C1RPIDE CP
fOHTROSE
KOHTROil
KONTfOSE
MONTRPSE
HQfiTROSE
•1C, TOWNSHIP
20
20
I
1
n
i)
5t
7!
3
29
It
]
2ft
i]
2
IB
21
25
21
21
29
10
24
10
It
11
11
10
15
11
19
11
9
22
«
JS
9
IT
10
11
ID
JO
47
41
*S
4S
44
47
4«
«4
49
4f
45
47
46
45
40
47
48
49
46
46
41
4i
41
4S
46
41
45
21
45
44
41
45
41
41
41
41
45
41
41
41
41
4t
H
N
N
N
V
K
N
H
t.
N
t;
H
ti
N
N
H
N
h
N
K
N
H
H
•»
N
»
H
6
N
N
N
It
H
N
H
H
N
M
N
N
N
H
RANGE
17
17
It
it
1?
1»
17
17
It
17
H
17
17
It
JO
17
11
18
n
17
17
11
1*
19
11
11
19
26
17
17
17
11
1C
1«
19
H
11
n
19
11
17
J7
0
,0
,0
.0
,0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
0
.1
.0
.0
,6
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,0
0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,c
V
k
N
k
k
H
H
V
X
N
W
U
w
k
y
w
u
K
V>
h
H
N
V
U
rf
ri
H
c
U
H
V
M
U
w
k
W
h
w
w
U
H
k
MCRIO.
32
22
22
22
33
12
32
32
22
3?
22
22
32
22
22
32
22
22
23
22
22
32
23
22
22
32
23
24
22
22
23
22
22
32
22
33
22
22
32
32
23
22
K1HINC
METHOD
SURFACE
UNDEXGRO
DUMPS
UNDERGRD
UNUCRGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERCRQ
UNDERGRO
DUMPS
UNDEPGHO
UNDERCHO
UNDERCRO
UMOER&RO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDESCRD
UHDERG^O
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
UNDCRCRO
UhUERGRQ
UNDERCRO
UNOEHGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDERCRO
UNOERCRO
UkDERGRQ
UMOCRSMO
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRQ
UNDCRCRQ
SURFACE
UNQERGRQ
UNDLRGRQ
UVOERCHO
USDERSRO
UMDERCRO
UNOERGFIO
5UHT1CC
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRQ
BUPTACE
UNOERGRQ
6UNP3
TOtiL PROOUCTIOH
(tons AS or oi/aimj
<100
1,000 • 100/000
1,090 - 100,000
1.000
100,000
100 - 1,000
100,000
100 - 1,000
<10fl
100 - 1,000
100 . 1.000
l,ooa - 100,000
<10fl
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
-------
INACTIVE
MINES IM THE UNITED STATES
DOE, cKt.no Jt/wctja*,
FACE 20
CDNTROLLfP NAME
COLORADO
fCQNT'D)
LITTLt
LITTLE JOE -
LITTLE SUP I
LO HIGH
L06 CABIN
LOHI
LONE CEOAB
12
LONG PARK I
LQKS PARK 10
LOSf! PARK 10 Our
LONG PARK it
LONG RANK
LOSG PARK 2
LONG PIRK 3
LOXG PARK «
LO»G PARK 5
LONG PARK t
LONG PARK 6
LONG PARK s
LONG PARK GROUP
LUCK OAK
LUCK* ULUf.'DER
LUCKY DOG
LUCKY MAP*
LUCKY STRIDE
LUCKY STRIKE 'J**
A-AKGIC 2
KARC1C GROUP
KARJOPIC AN1
fADfMA BELLE
""ARY ANN 4-OORQT
MARY JA>K
rooiE
MALEY LEO C
HIETI, HARICW J.
SULLIVAN+NOQRE+
•I JCW COPPFH CO
JQHAhNSFN E,J.
GALYEAN, JA^ES f
OWKCft
CARMDE CP
UNION CARBIDE
CP
CP
UKION
UNIQ»i C1PCIDE CP
UNltN CAHB1DE CP
ON10H CARBIDE CP
UNIQ'.
UNIOU
U-JIO-* CARRIDF CP
UV10"- CARB1DF CP
CP
CIPPIOE CP
SUTHERLAND MNG.
COUCH * tl>n«E
U«IQ<- CAHPIDE CP
OtlO« CARfclDE CP
RIDCNDUJ- * ROSS
Krizrt., ire
MIGHT, sn,t
CP
IINIO* CAPBtDE CP
FHKDK1S
PEIRO MUCIEAH
uxsa* cARfroe CP
UN10K C»RPIDE CP
C, JOHANKSEN
CAP8IDE
CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE
CHRISTMAS,*, fNC
UNION CARBIDE
CARE, ORVAt
PATTERSONi PAT
HOPKINS * SMITH
SHITH, ED
LAMHERTt JANES P.
UNIOH C»BBIDE CP
COUNTY
MOHTPOSE
XOKTROSE
KONtflOSE
KPKTROSE
HONTR0.1E
HQKTBOSE
HQHTP.OSE
NONTHOSE
XONTROSE
MQNTPOSE
HONTPUSE
("ONTHOSE
HDNTPQSE
MONT'OSE
fONTROSE
IOHTBOSE
KQNTBQSE
HONTPQ5E
HONTROSE
>«OHTROSE
MDNTROSE
MONTP-OSE
MQNTROSE
HDHTROSE
KfHISOSE
EC. TQik'SKIP RANGE
s
14
J5
17
M
9
27
27
37
37
21
21
21
29
37
27
27
2
18
29
31
2«
31
JO
JO
H
6
11
14
15
}4
1
10
33
]4
at
!<
4
27
45
41
tt
46
46
48
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
4S
47
4U
41
4B
47
4(
41
47
41
46
47
4*
47
46
It
44
47
47
N
N
Ji
N
N
H
N
K
h
H
H
N
N
N
K
N
N
N
ri
H
N
H
N
M
N
*
M
N
K
M
N
N
1,
K
N
N
N
U
N
It
11
11
17
17
1*
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
It
17
17
17
17
17
15
17
30
I»
17
20
17
17
16
17
If
If
29
17
17
17
,0
,0
0
0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
0
»n
,1
,0
Q
.0
o
,0
.0
0
.0
• 0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
0
.0
• 0
,0
H
N
w
u
*
\i
w
K
U
h
V
w
v
V
k
W
H
H
h
k
H
N
V
W
h
*
w
V.
tl
V
M
V
h
h
M
E
V
K
V
MCR10,
22
22
-
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
IS
22
12
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
32
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
32
22
22
22
14
22
22
22
MIKING
NETKOD
UNDERGRO
SUPFACC
SURFACE
UNOE.RGRQ
UtiDERGRO
UNDERCRO
UNOERGRO
UMDERCnO
UNDERGRQ
UNDEPGRO
OUUPS
UNOERGPO
UNDERGRO
UNOCRCKO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UKOCRCflO
UM>EHCPO
OUUPS
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
UKDCRGRQ
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNOtHCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERCPO
UNDERGRO
DUMPS
SUKTACE
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNCEAGRO
UNOCRGRO
UNKNOMv
VVOCKSKO
DUMPS
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
UNDCRGRO
TOTAL PRODUCTIOH
(TONS AS OF Oi/fll/791
100
1,000
- 1.000
<100
C100
<100
100,000
<100
-------
INACTIVE UKAVIUH MINES III TMt UNITED STATES
SOURCEl DOE, GRAKO JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE II
NINE
CONTROLLER NAME
COLORADO
(CDHT'D)
MIHFRAL PARK J
M*ING LEASE 10
MINING LEASE II
HIKING LEASE (J
MINING LEASE u
HIHIMG LEASE I!
KINING LEAST 21
MINING LEASE 74
»JNIVC LEASE II
MINING LE»S£ 41
KLB-C-SR-15
*ODEE»
MONOGRAP 12
MONOGRAM S-FR" G
GlORf 2
NOVIf STIR
MUCKER
HUN
MUSTAHO
HAT GROUP
NATURITA 24
KATURITt 4
NAVAJO
KAVAJO
New CA*P 81«D
MIL 2 OUHP
NORTH STAP DCNp
WORTH STAR U1AME
OTCL*
NIICL*
OLO CRGW
OLD GRAKDAO
OLD QUAKER
OLD SALT LICK
OLD 8T*C I
OPERA BOX
OPHIR BLUEBIRD
DPHIR DUMP
CRCCOK
OVERSIGHT
PABLO 4 * I
PAIN. OBNOXIOUS
PARADOX 4,S*«
PARADOX BELLE
ATHS-AHAX
LI SALLE MINING
UMiOn CARBIDE CP
BUNKER * CO
USIO-J C»RRIOE CP
BRITO, BEN
ALBtNC, CLA1R
BARKLEY * CO
6HATTUCK DE'iN He
VORCESTEli WIVES
C1TTEH-COVT.LFASI.
TRJO IIP GVTLSE
COUGAR VCTTUatS
SCARS, RALPH
UHlfN CIH8IDE CP
E,e,ti£«is,iic«
TINTIC URANIUK
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CAFBIRE CP
PtDNF.ER UPAV IMC
MHIP1* CAPMIOE CP
TRANS »'0nj D VRAM
GRIPE, ALLEN L.
BCHU»»Ct-tR,J I
UNJOW CAPBIPE CP
U>IIOI- C4R8IOE CP
UNIOh CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNIOX CJkPBIDE CP
CtKOOSC uftltUt
rOOTE MlNFRALS
UMIOH CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
Union CARBIDE CP
UNiot CARptoe CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
t!MIO100, 000
1,
,
,
,
,
,
I,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
100
ooo -
ooo •
ooo »
800 •
000 "
000 •
ooo •
100
000 -
too
000 -
100
100
100
000 "
000 "
100
000 -
100
000 »
- I
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
- 1
100
• 1
icn
• 1
- 1
• 1
100
too
• t
100
- 1
100
,000
,000
,000
,000
,oao
,OOQ
,000
,000
]00,000
«100
DEPTH
200
ISO
2Sd
100
400
iso
100
jso
soo
too
250
150
400
0
190
200
50
SO
a
too
100
200
ISO
too
50
50
0
200
0
400
200
200
100
so
0
2SO
0
SO
o
350
$0
iO
100
300
200
180
JSO
100
-------
SOURCE |
**IW NIMS JH MC BNlfEB ST*tt8
DOE, GRIND JWetW, COLOPiCO
CONTROLLER KIKE
*EC, TQrfWSHIP
RANGE
NINttfS
NIT HO 3
PHODUCTION
<10KS AS Or OJ/01/19)
DEPTK
crr.i
COLORADO
tCO"T'0]
PAPAOOX C
PARABOX D
PARADOX VIE*
PATTrPSOt. SEEP
PATTY 4
PATTY S
P£(3 LEO 2
PlNton-ccn
PLUTO-SAIIlf*
PQQCrf * PDOCM 1
POOP no*
PRAYER 8*9
PAI
PRODUCTION
OUHpS
PROXlgtTIClN
R.*.L. 1
RABSIT FOOT 1
RiajhR-CkRLY HOP"
RABIU" OCLE
BSDI'JM HILL 19
RADIUM HIIL I]
RADIUS KILL SO
RADIUS HILL 1
RADIUM KING(URA»
RADIUS OUEf-1* 11
MJAH OU»P 0«E
IU4AK-BIG CHIEF
RAMBLl* D'Jl'M
SATEX
RATTLER i
RtTTt.rSi.Mte 1
RAVEH
CABttOE CP
U CARBIDE CP
»EU, GtWGE L,
HOI,*»», CLJIT
BIL(,
COPPtB CO
co
onion c*BBinE CP
th cn^TBft!1
CHR61DC CP
(1LUE
STRODF, CCOBY
UNI01 C»P»IDE CP
UNION C*"*PIO£ CP
UNION C**P1DE CP
U»IPN CAfBinr CP
»T£PS + AYtBS
MIC»0 COPPER
COolU. * *SSOC.
6*£*T 4ESt£RN UP
y«ION SAHPtDK CJ*
UH10«J C*RBIOE CP
V-tlft CAHPIOE CP
»R».USF 4
(BE HIVf
UH10>i CARBIDE
CAFPIOE
fOOTE "If'EKAtS
UflON C**eiDL CP
MiPVCb H*G CO
TOHPCS, D»VJO
CDL COL DPILLIHC
UNION CAHBIDE CP
BMlOd C*W*IOE CP
HIOtEN SPLENDOR
B * L MNC.
i » i
UMIOM CASPIOC CP
ILl URAH
6USS
MQNTPOSC
*QMSOS£
WO>ltROSE
MONT805E
I'ONTPOS'E
MQWTPOSE
MQWTPOSE
MOWTROIC
22
21
2
It
II
J4
2J
J4
24
J3
14
4
20
2J
JJ
1)
2
14
1C
10
»*
i
20
27
7
II
7
IS
i
10
2)
46 M
46 N
46 h
411 *
4| Tl
46 N
45 H
41 M
4S N
47 *
II N
46 M
4t I.
45 N
41 M
41 x
45 '•*
47 K
41 K
45 1
41 t»
41 «
48 N
45 H
4J I.
48 M
45 *
4* N
4S »
46 N
41 X
41 W
4t N
41 *
41 N
4» H
47 *
4$ H
47 *
41 N
41 H
41 X
48 K
17,0 M
n.o w
11.0 S
1S.O h
1»,0 M
18,0 W
!*.« "
1*,0 V
11,0 K
17,8
l«.0
18.0
Ji.O
l#.0
If .0
If'.O
0
l«l,0 X
17,0 h
0
1«,0 n
!E.O V
11,0 «
iltO '-
n,o w
17,0 »
18.C V
tf.O >>
19,0 «•
J»,0 k
11,0 w
0
18.0 *
17,0 W
ie,o w
11,0 *
19,0 M
l»,0 U
17,8 «
n.o n
n.o w
0
II,0 *
20,0 tf
17,0 v
n.o w
1»,0 K
19,0 *
22
22
11
21
32
2J
13
15
22
22
22
21
22
22
32
22
32
32
22
13
22
73
22
31
22
22
23
25
32
32
22
22
22
22
32
22
n
22
22
UUDERflRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERSRO
UKQEUCRQ
UNDtBCKD
SURFACE
UNGLKCRO
UHDCRGRO
UHOEtCRO
sunrtcc
UNDERGtO
UKUER5IO
VNDEKCItO
Sl/BrACE
UNDEPCRO
UNDERCRQ
SURFACE
UHOEBSRO
SURFACE
UhDEMGRO
DNDERGRO
UNDEDGRO
UNOERCBO
1,000 - 100,000
>100,000
100 * 1,000
<100
100
1,000 » 100,000
100 - 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
1*000 * 100,000
«100
1,000
<100
1,000 » 180,000
1,000 • 100,000
- 100,000
loo
loo
1,000 «
1,000 »
1,000 «
i.eoo •
1,00ft -
100
i,eo« •
1,060 -
1,000 -
100
1,686 »
1,000 "
1,000 -
1,000 »
1,000 •
• 1,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
-------
INACTIVE URUHIUK NINES IH THE UNITED STATES
SOURCCl OQE, GRAHD JUNCTION, COLORADO
P*CE 11
NINE
CONTROLLER
COLORADO
(COfcT'O)
RED BIRD
RED CO*
RED HEAP 1
RES ROCK 2
BED ROCK S
RED S
20
REMANENT 1
REPUBLICAN DUMP
REPUBLKAX-DUStY
RES.SLOCK 2 KL.4
RIGEt,
RIM CLAIMS
RI"tRK,BLUES 15«1
RIHROCK
PIMPOCK BLUES in
RIMPQCK BLUES S
»l*!ROCK SLUES «»
RINROCK BLUES *E
RIMRQCK BLUES 9
ROCK RAVEN
ROSEBUD
POOL OAF
KUBAtULE
BAM
SAUCER BIS!1- GPO
SCHOOL tHi*
SECO LILY t
SHAOO* SOCK
SHAMROCK
SHARKED
•KRtVCR
SLI«
SHDKr
SOCKET
BOOKER OP- IA.TER
IPHINJt
SPHINX DUfP
»T PATRICK
STAR 1) * 14
HCOFKEC, L.
UNION CARBIDE CP
tiOILt «.K,
COPPER
COPVtR
80UTM*£StrM OIL
CLECHQRN*WASMBR>OKTROSC
IONTROSE
HO*TROSE
KPHTHOSE
MONTROSf
MOHTROSt
MONTROSt
HOKTRQSE
MOHTSOSE
HOMTROSt
COMTROSC
VQNTPOSE
KOf-TROSE
KONTROSE
CONTROSE
KOMTROSE
KONTROSE
EC.
5
3
2«
35
23
Jl
7
12
20
55
II
2J
It.
IS
9
I
1
1
J9
13
10
29
4
16
20
«
2
20
33
20
1
29
JS
20
2S
1
1
JO
20
20
TOWNSHIP
40
41
41
41
41
46
4«
41
47
48
*4
411
46
41
4S
49
49
49
41
48
45
47
4?
46
40
41
49
4i
47
41
4*
41
41
41
48
47
4t
47
41
41
N
N
H
»
N
*
N
N
*r
N
N
H
H
N
N
k
l>
N
t.
N
N
N
N
U
N
h
N
N
N
N
N
H
H
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
DANCE
19
11
11
11
11
J«
18
11
IT
17
18
11
If
l«
H
18
11
11
n
18
18
17
17
11
17
17
11
11
If
11
19
17
11
17
11
17
H
17
17
11
,0
.0
0
,0
.a
.0
.0
.0
,0
0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
0
0
• 0
.0
e
.0
.0
,0
0
V
H
W
u
w
h
«
K
if
K
U
W
W
H
*.
X
H
U
to
U
•
W
V
H
W
K
w
u
w
w
tf
u
V
ti
M
W
W
W
M
¥
MERID.
32
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
13
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
12
22
22
22
22
MIMING
METHOD
UNDERCRO
UNBERCRO
so«r*cc
UNDESGRO
UHOERGRO
uHDERSRn
UWDERSSO
SURFACE
tiNOEKGRQ
CUMPS
UHOCftGKO
UNOERGRO
UHOERGRO
UNDERCRO
OHSCKSKO
UNDCBCHQ
UNDERCRO
UNDE«CRO
OHDCRGHOr
UNOtRCBO
UNDERCSO
UHDERCRO
U-.DERC.OO-
UNccscsn
UNOERCAO
ONDERCRO
SURFACE
UNDEDCKO
UKOEFGRO-
UNDERGRO
UNDEflGna
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO-
SURTiCE
UNDEKGilD
UXOCRGRD
UNDCRCRO
UHDCRGPO
sunr*ct
UNDERGHOr
UNDCRCRtT
SURFICE
*URF)iCE
UHDERGRO
UNOERGRO
DUMPS
UNOCRGRO
UKOERSRO
{TONS *» Or 01/01/79)
1,000 •
IOC
100
1,000 •
1,000 •
1,000 -
1,000 *
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
1,060 -
1,000 «
100
100
!,000 -
1,000 -
100
100,000
<100
ooo
. 1,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
<100
100,000
100,000
toe, ooo
100,000
100,000
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM *I«tS IK THE UdtTCD »f*TCI
DOE, 6RAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 94
'MINE Hlft
STAP ^ * 4
STAB I BU-P -
STAR 5 * 4
STARLIGHT
STARLIGHT I
6T*»l>IG«T I
BtARLICfT 4
•TlKLlGNT 8
STtEB t-1
STRAIGHT A»R0«
BliKRISF CROUP
SUMSEt
•UPPRISC
BYLVETS POCKET
TEAPOT 00«C J *
TEEPEE POLE
THREE JAC<$
THPEC PU5*ETEtPS
T»t 2
TNT J
tOO HIGH
TOP NOTCH
TO** HOUSF
I
fRAMP 3
THA*P DUVPS
TPIA«GUIATION
TRIPOD
fiUSCOTT
tms srsttus
T«0 BITS
t»O SHOVEL
U,a,CRA«iT
URANIUM CIPL
UtUhUfi-DOPOTHK J
UKAKA* 2
OPERA
VADIN VIE*
VALE* tIMUMS-162
CONTROLLER KANE
'D)
CARBIDE CP
UHID* CAPAIDE CP
UH10V CARRIOE CP
SItPLOT, J.R, CO
r A SITTO*.
StMPLOT, J.R, CO
SltPLOT, J.R. CO
J.R. CO
HA, RUSSELL 0
U>UOR CAPPIOE
tmiO* CAPBIDC CP
»SC*D COPPER
CONSOLIDATE*! U«JS
u»ros CJRPIOE CP
PATTCXSW, PAT
UNtOt. CABRIoe CO
UKIOI' CABBJ.OE CP
BLUE CREEr
USIOS CARPIOE
UHIO«| C*B»IOC
CP
the
COX, f»ARION
U«(ION CAPMJOE CP
OHIO* CltfllOf.
UMIC* CARBIDE CP
U»IIO»J CARBIDE CP
UHION CAPBIDC CP
UMI01 CARBIDE CP
UHIQ*
UNION
UKlOd CA«B1DC CP
«ARV£L «"IO CO
KAUPIN, ED
ONION CAHRIBE CP
CARRIDf CP
CAPPIOE CP
GIRL I»C
UNION CAKRIOE CP
ICHUHACHES,J»1,
fC CE.-ltt, J,P, » L
fOOTi; »(l(fERALa
CARBIDE CP
COUIitt
fowTROse
H0^THOSE
SEC. TQW.SHIP
««ohT«ose
HONTPOSt
NDHTPOSE
HONTROSE
MONTPOSE
HOMTPOSE
MONTPOSE
•ONTR05E
"(0HTR05E
lOKTIiOSE
HONfROSE
MQNTRDSC
MOkjpaSE
KONTPOit
HONTHOSE
MOhTPOAE
KONTPOSE
dONTROSE
KQNTROSE
MONTPOSE
21
3)
31
12
11
1*
3
2
IS
24
13
16
14
g
23
21
21
16
10
21
2
H
34
II
I
11
14
11
4
10
1 1
at
43 N
48 M
48 K
46 N
46 P
*« N
46 M
46 N
4 *
46 H
41 N
47 h
46 A
46 H
46 «
47 W
SO fc
*"> N
41 N
46 N
47 N
47 i»
41 «
4V M
47 W
47 N
47 N
4? K
*B N
41 K
4B !«
46 N
47 N
*7 *
41
46 N
47 N
41 N
46 H
11.0 W
17,0 *
17,0 W
11.0 M
18,0 «
11,0 h
U.O V
18.0 M
l.B M
17.0 fc
20,0 W
17.0 W
11,0 »
17,0 H
0
0
0
o
11.0 M
10,0 M
11,0 h
17,0 h
17.0 fc
17.0 *
20,0 W
0
17.0 h
0
17.0 K
11.0 W
17,0 M
17,0 V
0
17,C ri
II.0 fc
It.O «
H,0 *
17.0 *
17,0 H
JP.O «
J7JO X
J7.0 »
1».0 M
11.0 h
it,a M
J2
22
22
22
22
23
22
S2
22
J2
12
22
12
12
22
22
33
11
21
22
12
21
22
22
21
12
22
22
>2
12
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
ai
22
METHOD
UHOERGRO
BUMFS
UMBERGRO
UKDESCRO
UMOCRGRO
UNOERGNO
StlRfACC
UMOERCRO
UTOERGRO
SUHfACE
UND£RG»<}
UND£RGHa
UHOCRGKQ
DUMPS
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRQ
SBRrACC
UNDEROHQ
ONOCRGRC
UNOERCRO
SUHfACE
UNDEPGRO
DUMPS
UNQERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDtHGRQ
UNOCHGKO
UhDCKCHfl
WDERGRO
UKOER5IIQ
UNOERGRO
UKDEflSflO
UMDERGRO
TOTAL PRODUCTION
*» AS Of
1,600 •
1,000 •
too
100
i»000 «
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
1,000 •
1,000 «
1,000 »
1,000 -
100
1,000 »
1,000 »
1,000 -
1,009 *
1,000 -
1,000 >
1,000 -
1,000 •
t,
<100
100,000
100,000
- 1,000
<( QQ
<}00
• 1,000
100,060
-------
MIMES IN THE UNITED STATES
40URCEI ODE, GRMO JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE 39
NINE MAKE
CONTROLLER NANC
COOHTY
SEC. TOrfhSHJP
XCPID,
HETHOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
CTOKi AS OF
DEPTH
[Ft.)
VALLEY VIE*
VALLEY YIEH-'rf.St
VAN
VAHABLEhf ,4)
VANAOITt
VAUADIU" KING
VENTURE LODE
VICTORY 2
visci*i 3
VIStA GRANDE
VQS«,ir 5
WATCHPAM
<(>T EHLOO
WEDGE i
HEDGE*?! XARREH
WEDNESDAY * T"liP
HEST
WEST tticr
VEST MARTHA BILL
WHITE CC'«
HHITE C«0-'
WHITWEY
Pitts C4T 2
Kite CAT t
JtILD HOFSE-CCILOit
WILDCAT J •
WINDY DAY
WOOPCfUf X
*ooo*ABn
BRIGHT
YELLQ* JACKET
ZEBRA
7ELLA GROJP
GE* DANDY I
L*»Y EtX 1
LAST CMANCE
LUCK* JI* 1,2«3
MAC GEORGE 4
REDSKIN HINES
SHIRLEY ME
FRYING PAN CROUP
AVEPY RANCh
AtLEH
BROWN 2
BOOH S
KURRCLL 1,2«J
SURRELL S
BUTTERFLY GROUP
E t LEWIS, If C
(max CAABIOC CP
UNION CARblDE
SILVER STATE URA
U«10< C»fcB10£ " "
UKlQh CfPRIDt
PICE * WILLIAMS
KELLY, NARK
ClCShORN, PIUflLAS
SAN V GPA^LICH
scacirro UPMIUM
FOOTr HI»-EP»LS
K.ARVFL "«-C CO
UMICt"* CARPEOE
U1ION CARBI&E
IJHinn CARRIOt. CP
*AG1C UPA1IUM Cfl
4ILLIAHS, D.L,
UNION CARP1UE CP
COLC*l'
TOSrC", L1'*'A«
u'liON CAPfioe CP
BURNETT, «3LLIAM
MICRO COPPER
U^IP" CARBIDE CP
KICRO COPPFR
UXIDN CAPRIDE
X0>(' TRUfURT UP
KELLS ENCLISK«ST
UfUHN CARRIDE CP
I'^ink CAfiPIDE CP
UNION CAKflDE CP
JOHNSON, KUfiO -f.
NAPT1N OUAYLE BR
AR'lIkr, JOH-J
hARD « FIEIEY
FOUR STAR CSCPL.C
trLLOf OUEC" URA
PEOSlCIH HINRS IV
CIOOM MINIKC
ASPEN HIRItiC CO.
CLIFF » CPEEK UR
t.+ h, LEASING CO
DEVEREAUX BROS,
DCVERFAUlt BROS,
lYLE FRANCIS
KlMIERtDOROTHl'
JRJ ING.
KOMTROSE
xanfKose
HONTROSE
MONTR05E
HONTRnSe
"O^TPOSE
HDNTCOSE
MO^'TROSE
MO^TROSE
HONTR0SE
NO^TRPSE
^O^TfiQSE
KQHtfOSE
CONTftOSE,
DOUTftOSE
KOWTROSE
VOKTQORE
HpNTROSE
^OHTROSE
^ONTsose
10NTROSC,
BONT»OS€
HOCTROSE
MO*IPOSE
H0i.f ROSE
"OKTnQSE
WONTROSE
WOWTC05I
MO^TROSE
•iQNTROSE
HOW IP 04 f
"OHTROSE
PO'i'TBnJC
PARK
PAKf!
PAR"!
PARK
PARK
PARK
PAR*
MTK11
PUEBLO
RIO BUNCO
RIO HI.ANCO
RtO BLANCO
RIO BLANCO
RIO SL»«CO
RIO BLANCO
1
20
11
3*
39
22
31
33
3
34
30
10
3
J2
3S
Jl
1
)
15
78
27
11
2*1
3
23
1
}7
1)
11
16
36
1*
6
41
47
46
48
47
47
46
47
47
46
48
4?
47
47
46
49
4S
45
47
41
41
40
49
47
40
45
4B
48
44
4S
10
11
11
H
It
H
N
K -
h
N
k
H
!,
N
rt
N
N
N
h
N
N
N "
N
N
h
H
t.
1
N
K
N
*
N
5
S
S
19, ft
17.0
11,0
16.0
n.n
17.0
17,0
0
11,0
30.0
0
19.0
18.0
I7.o
20.0
17,0
it.O
0
17.0
20.0
17.0
17. 0
1S.O
11", 0
11. 0
le .0
17, «
1».0
11,0
17.0
17,0
17.0
1*.0
0
a
a
15,0
g
0
7«.o
0
66.0
0
0
e
0
0
0
h
V
H
k
M
H
W
W
t)
L
k
tt
V
W
W
k
W
f
H
V
V
V
¥
i,
W
V
p
H
W
V
¥
H
H
33
52
33
32
22
22
2?
23
22
12
22
22
32
22
22
22
22
33
23
22
22
22
22
22
33
23
22
33
22
22
04
0*
Ob
UNDERGRO •
UNOEHCRO
UNDERGOO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNOERCRQ"
svHrtce
SURFACE
UNOCRGHQ
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNOCRS'O
SURFACE
VNDEi>G!)0
UNDERGRQ
UNDERCRO
UNDERCRO
UNOERSRO
UNOERCRO
UHDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNOE.RGRO
UNOERGHO<
UNDERCftO
UHDIRGSO
5U*FACt
SURFACE
UNDFRGHO
UNDERSRQ
UNDERGRO
I/NDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNOERCRO
SURFACE
"UNDERGRO
UNDEACRO
UMDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
U1DERCRQ
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
Sl/RfACC
8URFICE
SURFACE
UhCERCRO
1,000 -
1.000 "
100
1,000 •
1,000 .
1,000 "
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 -
100
I. 000 -
1,000 •
too
l.ooo •
ICO
100
1,800 -
1,000 -
100
10B
100
100
too
100
1,100 -
106
1,000 *
100
1,000 -
100,000
100,009
- 1,000
<100
100,000
100,000
ClDO
<100
100,000
<100
<100
' 100
<100
IDOjQOO
100,000
100,000
<100
• I. 000
100,000
<100
<100
1(10,000
-------
IHicrivr UFANIUN MINES IN THE UNITED STATES
lOURCEl DDE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO „
NAN£
CONTROLLER NAME
CQUMTlf
SEC,
RANGE
MINING TOTAL PRODUCTION 0EP1H
METHOD ttONS AS Of 01/01/79} (ft,}
CHRI3
EVEMt-G STAB
FRYING P»« 1
t»ST DAY
LUCIL 106
*.*<;.
hAHYINE YJCW 10
MinKZGHT tfH
RIO BL»"CO
S.*G. 4
SHYLO GROUP
9T, LUl
T,B.
TWIN STAR 500
UTE CROUP
KINDT POI-.T 1
BEGINNERS LUC* 1
BOBCAT LOOK
PONITA fiHOUP
LA RUE 2
LITUF INDIAN 16
LOOKOUT 22
LOS OCHOS
MARSHALL PASS 3
PFRCUPt 1
MOCKING RICO
PAM LOOE
RAN 4 P-A" 1
SEC. 1 NH VtQ T-
ELK PAPK NINE
GSAYSILL
»0» BfLL
ALCHEHISt
APRIL
kYk JAY
BABE 1-4
BAChlLDP
BALD EACLE
BAY KULE
BE*** 10
BEAN 13,16,+ 1?
BE**. 2 + 3
SEAN 4 * S
UTAH t
PHILLIPS, CLAYTON
BEVEBEHUJC BROS,
DEVEPEAUX BROS.
OECC TR»IL NINES
PAKTfli, MPflKAN
HC ALE5TEP TUELS
JONES M.S.
lOVt UBIHIUH CO
DEVEREAUI 8HQS.
tUPP, HAPPY H.JR
KA"P, HARPY H.JB
kc ULESIE* rurt
DEVtiFAUX BROS.
S*1TW, LOUISE
TKJrt ST»P »I»I1*G
6ENTRY «N,«,
PHIPPS, o.r.
0 * J UflAMI'lH
C»^*DIAN "OLLt
KOtEStACE ""G C/
XO^APCH EXPL.CQ.
KOXFSTAIT M«G CO
UNCOMp»HGPE EXPL
COL TEX UMVIUC
CtRD^ER, JOE
CAU1F.UTAK PCTRQ
PIKE HINIKC CO,
GUXNtsai" "I^ING
GADU1I PIKIXG
TOOTE «INFPhL&
H*R>*ON 1 , J ,
rUJIl H + HALL R
s * « MIKING co
rP-lTI EP1CRSOM H
•ILLItSS, RAY L.
HERRING, JAMES
SPENCER K1HIHG C
UNKNOWN CONTROL^
ATLAS-FOOTE
»TLAS-rOOTC
ATLAS-FOOTE
ATLAS-FOQTF
AILAS-fOOTE
RIO BLANCO -
RIO HLfJCO
RIO BLAfCO
BIO BLANCO
RIO RLA^CQ
HIO HLkXCO
cio »LMCO
MO BLANCO
RIP BUKCO
RIO SLA1CQ
HO BLANCO
PIC BLANCO
RID BLI-'CO
PtQ Hl.AKCO
RID 9LA«H "IGUtL
fiAH HICUCL
S\H KIGUEL
*»1 «IGUEL
SAN NICUEL
SUN HIGUCL
BAN KICUEL
2A" MIGUEL
fl»N MIGUEL
8»» MIGUfL
30
21
13
]
16
It
IS
4
3%
11
30
32
11
S
S
s
47
41
4(
4B
41
41
40
40
43
41
44
43
44
*4
44
4}
43
43
1,
N
H
M
N
*
M
t.
1.
ti
N
N
M
N
M
N
K
K
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,0 E
t.o t
6,0 E
2.0 e
s.o c
0
0
0
0
2.0 E
7,0 W
9,0V
19.0 W
10,0 fc
0
20.9 H
0
il.O W
16.0 K
C
19,0 w
19.0 K
l».fl H
H.o v
19.0 K
32
22
S2
33
33
33
22
32
32
22
21
33
32
22
33
23
33
J2
SURFACE
UMDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UHDERGHO
SURFACE
UNDEK.GRO
SURFiCL
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UKDERGRQ
UMDERGRO
UfcDCDSRO
UKPEBCRO
SURfACE
UhDERG*0
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
UXOERGRO
UNOERGPO
UNDERCRO
UNDCRiao
UkDERSRO
UNOERCRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UI-DCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UWOCRGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCKGRO
UNDEKCAC
UNDERCRO
UHDEfCRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDCRCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDFRGRO
ONOERGRO
1
1
1
1
1
1
,000 •
100
,000 -
100
,000 •
,000 •
100
,000 "
100
too
,000 -
100
100,000
«too
100,000
100,000
« 1,000
0
100
so
100
0
0
0
a
0
100
sso
so
130
voo
100
0
0
0
so
0
so
so
100
so
100
so
J30
0
so
so
0
so
100
so
0
0
0
0
199
so
JOO
so
0
100
100
100
100
so
ro
-------
INACTIVE URAMUm NINES I» THE UNITED STATES
SOURCE! DCti CKAHD JUNCTION, COLOR IDC
PACI 21
*INE HAKE
CONTROLLER HA«f£
cot/Ktr
SEC,
tUVGC MCRIO,
METHOD
TOTAL P«O»UCTIOM
CTONS AS Of 01/01/1*)
BZPTH
BEAM PATCH
BC*P CREEK
BETTT JANE 2
BIG BUCK 1
PIG CHIEF
BIG '•'EBtCIKE
BIG S
BLACK BIRD
BUCK FOX
BLACK JACK
BLACK *1«C 5
BLK.SPIP.-RED AN
iLUC HOOK
BLUEBIRD
BI.UfF
BPCTTOM * "ORCOT
KROrfN MULt
BUCKHOP1
BUGwIhE
BULL fOOSt
BULL SKAKT CROUP
HURRO POIvT
CANYO")
CANNON vir«
CAPE HAIRS
CEOAR RIDGE CROU
C*ARLC* T. 1
CHAPLES T, 3A
CHARLOTTE i
CHESTA
CHIEF 1-3
CMINWESE
CHIPMONX
CHlWUt-K 1
CLEAR CREEK
CLEAH tin
CLIFF B»CLLEH
COLORADO CAT
CONE 1-S
COWHAND 2
CRUCIBLE
CUP 1
CURTIS
cusco
CtCLC 3
DELUXE + KA8TEB
DEREMO DUrPS
CICKIE 3 * 3
ATLAS-FOOTS
roQTE MINI s»ts
UNKNOWN coNTROLi1
CLOSSON,D»MEL S
UNIDK CARPIDE CP
E>"tESS Oil « UPA
DUNCAN * SANCHEZ
ATLAS-FDOTE
D«SCA« P L HJ1Z.N
ATLAS-FOOTE
BACHELOP COPP,
C.L. STEWAPT
DAVIS « GQFORTK
DULANEY "KG.
UNION CARBIDE CP
BPETTDN »hORCnTT
BLAIR, FLOY"
VPOUn, E.R.
B*LORA,HEJ-»AH H.
rHo«Psn*., I.E.
URANIUM P&QCESSE
SCHUMACHER, J 1
KEOGH * $HU**AY
BUfCt'i P L "INjn
BARRtTT * RRUWH
BILL nit-lire CO
CASflCLP, ARTTOR
CAKFtELD, 1RTHUP
LLOTD, ^fPLt D,
HEW DEAL «HC CO
FRITZ EPICKSON (•>
WI LLI A**S + NC GEHE
PETRO NUCLEAR
AZTEC *l«r*<3 CO.
UHKHOW1 COKTRQLI
LTftNS, N.E,
BKALLft, A.U
SMTDER, LIE
ATLA5-FQQTE
BOLDRA, S^EP^AN #,
MIELS01, £1*11
PlStMKOOVER,«ATH
SAM JUAN LOSING
LUBBOCK HNG.CO,
BEARS, P.ALPH
BITTON « 8ITTOS
UNIOH CARS10E CP
B.I.K.COflPDRATIO
BUN
H.H
SAN
BIN
SAN
SAN
SAN
BAN
St-i
SAN
Sftl.
SAN
BAN
S AN
SI"
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAH
SAM
SA1*
SAN
1»N
SAN
SAS
SAN
SA^
8A"
SAN
SAN
BAN
SAN
StN
SA."
BAN
SAM'
SAN
BAN
BAN
BAN
BAN
BAH
BAN
BAN
SAN
BAN
SAN
BAN
MIGUEL
xinijEfc
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
HIGUEL
MIGUEL
HIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
"IGilEL
•MODEL
HIGUEL
XIGUEL
HIGUTL
MIGUEL
"JGUIL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGJEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
XIGUEL
"ICiJEL
MIGUEL
HICUEL
HICUEL
KICl/EL
HICUFL
HIGI'Cb
HICUFL
"•I5UEL
MIGUEL
CJWEL
H1GUEI
HIGUCL
HIGUFL
HICUEL
"IGUEL
HICUEb
xicurt
WIGUEL
H1GUFL
MIGUEL
^IGUCL
HIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
KIGPEL
5
4
56
29
- yj —
32
1
J
28
10
16
24
35
7
34
31
12
12
16
5
10
36
It
35
t
g
1!
30
31
7
21
43
42
44
41
45
44
41
43
43
4)
45
43
4S
4}
41
45
43
42
45
43
4J
4J
4!
44
42
44
44
44
45
43
43
u
1
t.
h
N
N
N
H
N
n
N
N
N
N
N
s
H
H
N
N
N
K
H
tt
N
ft
H
N
N
N
1,
19.
10.
20.
18.
1 9 .
It.
|9,
18.
19,
19.
11,
20.
K.
U.
IB,
19.
t*.
IS.
K,
11.
19.
If,
H.
29,
17.
IT.
19.
19,
10,
It,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
^
tt
w
u
V
w
fc
N
*
¥
w
u
u
t.
k
V
h
M
N
V
V
U
V
W
W
H
H
\t
W
V
H
22
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
JJ
21
22
21
22
JJ
22
32
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
UNDERCRD
UfOERGMO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
UNDERGO
SURFACE
UNDERCRQ
UNDERCRC
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
UHDEP.GRO
UNDERGDQ
SURFACE
UNDERCRQ
SURFACE
U>iDERCRO
UKDERCRO
UNDERCRO
i/NOERCCO
UNDER. GRO
UHDERCRO
UNKNOWN
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDEflCHO
UNDERGRO
UUDERGRO
UliDERCRO
ONDERCRO
SURFACE
UNDEPGRO
UXDERGSO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
UKDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UHDERGRQ
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGSO
SUPfACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
DUMPS
UNDEHGHD
t1,000 - 100,000
'l»00ff • 100,000
<100
-------
INACTIVE tlRAWlUM HIDES I* THE UNITCO SfATH
•OUKCIl 8«» SHAMS junction, COLOMBO
PASB 21
KINC HAH!
CONTROLLER WAKE
COUMJf
RANGE HERID,
MINING
METHOD,
TOTAt PROOOCTIOK
A» OF
in,)
COLORADO
CCQNT'D)
DOLORES lit VCR
DONALD HILL
DDNCCtN LEASE
DRAGON
CUBANGO * I ANI*
EAPLY HOf>K CPOL1P
ECLIPSE
KWJIPE C»Q«I>
r*t* VIM
ran, CHEEK GROUP
rive POINTS
rox GROUP
rox CROUP
FRACTION
'FRACTION i
FRANCES
1*2
C.N.O. 1
GAP
GERALD T.
GLEN 21
COrORTK H
GOLDEN ROD 1
GOLDEN ROD 2
GOLDEN nan 4
GOPHER
6RASST HItL
GRCEH ARROW
GROUND HOC
HOC DUup
STAKE
KOHC5TC10
HALLOWEEN
«*j»rt JACK
HAUK-FRANKIE
HAIEL
FOOTC MINERALS
DOLORES RIVER 0M
vnon CARBIBF CP
litiHOKT MINTS INC
OLIVES BROS
D.Ci IUNKER HIWL
UNION CARBIDE CP
OHlHEtl* AIMING
UNKNQkM
FQOtE
flVC POINTS URAN
OULAKEY flKtKC C
WKIO* CARBIDE
C»»>PIP£ C
OP-ittL H.I,
R£ED, EPGtP J.
U«1O» C'RBIBE C?
OAVIS HIKING CO
FAHRIOH +BAGRILL
AtONIC ENFRGY CO
aOKHSON«HARGRAV£
SCHltMACHCPjJ I
iKU"
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM HIKES IN THE UNITED antes
uot, CRAKO JUNCTION, COLORADO
MINE NAME
CONTROLLED MAKE
CDUSTY
SIC.
TOKSSKIP RANGE
NERIB
i
HOG81CK DAVIS, TRENTON
HORSESHOE 1 BROOKS HINERAL5
HORSESHOE 2
HORSESHOE 3
HOPSESKPE 4
HORSESHOE 8
HORSESHOE 6
HORSESHOE 7
HORSESHOE PEND t
HOT DRILL 11
HOT SHOT
HOT SPOT
NOrrAft LCAJE
!•*•
INDEPENDENCE
INSPIRATION 1
INSPIRATION Ii
J.J. 2
J,V,EAVtNSDH Lit
JACK KNIFE 1
JACK-0-LAtiTERh
JACKIE L.
JACKIE "ALLS 1
JACKKMIFI 1 ta
JACKPOT GROUP
JIM J
JOE BUSH GROUP
JOE DANDY
JUPITER
KATE MEYERS
K*TIE
KCfSTOHf
KLONDIKE
LA SALLE
LAST ctn>tcr
LAST HOPE
LATRICIA
ICE MOCK
LEOPARD VANADIUM
LIBERTY JELL
LITtLE CHIEF
LITTLE HELF*
LITTLE KARIE
LITTLE MAX
LITTLE ROY
LIZZIE G
LONE PEAK 1-3
LQhE STAR CROUP
BROOKS MINIRALS
BROOKS MINERALS
BROOKS MISTRALS
BROOKS KJ'JrPiLS
BROOKS MINERALS
CENTURY NKG»DEVC
CEMIURY HI>G*OEVt
OMITEn UR*1 CORP
SCHU»ACH£R, J I
»YCRS, rVFRETT
CAWSOV, I>.S.
DULAMEt MIMING C
GOT7, + GUPriELL
tEECO 6*3 » OIL
SITTOh F A
SHITH « PETFRS
ULAKADQ HUG. CO,
SCHUMACHER, J I
DALE DILLON
DULANEY cIniG c
FRITZ ERICKSQN M
SCHUMACHER J I
PBDWV * MPIGHT
DAVIS * GOflRTH
TMOKPSQN, E,
uetLso*, f.
Ou'ifAN fct[,reR
BL1XT, ALFRED
DALPCZ, MARIO
FkHflOf +SAGf!tL
£iAKALUCRE MINES
*TL»S«rOOTE
C"tlVH!Vz» OIL »
JIM BUTT
DOfLE 1 A
KAMHOLZ, fcOY
BENNETT 4CQRHETT
-HALICF, ELI
BALDRA, HER"tN M.
COFORTH, WM,
THOHPSON+GRIBBLE
UNION CiRBIDt CP
8NYDCR,C,F<*SON5
C NtlLSON
PIONEER URAV INC
J * J Nfifi,
SAN
BAH
SAN
BAH
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SM<
SAN
SAN
iA\
SAS
SAS
SIN
SAK
KAN
, SAX
SAN
SAN
BAN
SAN
IAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
-------
OMNXUK HIKES IK t« UMTtO STATES
POE, 5RAHJ) JliVtClIOf, CCLORAOQ
is
K3NC NILMC
COUNTY
JEC, 1CKKSHIP
MEIUD,
HtHtWS
HETHOB
' fOTAl,
?»»s ** or oj/oi/»t)
ert.s
COLOMBO
14
touts
160KOUT
tost
LOST
tOST DQC
•* jot
tuett
H4GP1E
MARGARET C, !-«
«**«
PARtHA SUE
3
MARY «,
*»* BAY
*AT«t, t •» 3
+ i
'
J
8C1H
*£$* HIM.
»I«t!f 3
HtNCHAL
MOUNT*!*
KXHtPftl NT«
KIUCJUl, Ml<* 1 «
J
UJSE i
teast i?
it
JfcC
c***ine
PETRO
ST. or cotodAOO
a»T*r,*E1> "KG CO
OOTLC *> K
I»E?M NUCl,e&8
TOftftea.
THE aOINK V£*tUf»
roots Hi*r,j»A!,s
CO
* SONS
RICE, JOE
WE t
CO
SITTO*. *
SStTON *
BUl,A«IEt MINIMS C
ooLAttcr Kifit-c c
HEtW.6
WBISHt, L,f,
l,t,
KEITH
«(»JCHT» t.S,
NDICHf 1,
«»JCHt» CLYOC
t.«,
JACK C,
MC CORMIER, *H,f
SAN
SAM mCUEt,
8AN
SAN "icarj.
**N XI6UE1,
SA* flCUtt.
«A* Hieuct.
SA» HlGUEi,
SIS
NtCUtb
HJCUEE,
»JG«£t
WJCUEL
SAX
mcuet
SIM
•A4* Htcurj,
ftAK KICUKt
si* MIGUEL
SAW "IGUEL
• Jt* KlSWEt
SAt, MGUtti
SAM MIGUEL
SA,«
SAW
S*« "ICUEJ,
8iS H1GUEL
*AK PJCUEt
• AM
«»N flCUtl
• «S HlCUCt,
SAH MICttti,
s*« xxeuci,
SAN KIGUEC,
e*» MICUEL
•AM
3}
2}
2*
Jfc
7
H
at
it
22
11
i*
2*
tl
11
tl
II
19
1?
31
20
27
91
J6
21
44 N
44 V
45 «
45 h
4J N
4J *
4& li
4S N
41 N
4J S
4) N
4$ W
4} K
4fr W
44 II
4S «l
4S N
41 N
4} fc
4J S
4) N
4J *
4J K
44 M
4) N
44 N
43 N
44 M
4> N
0
11,0 t*
1».0 »
11.0 H
!»»« w
H.O tf
0
t*.« »
0
H.O h
SI.O w
It.S W
1S.B. «
19.0 <*
lt.0 k
19,0 b
0
11,0 K
0
11.0 V
17,0 W
H.8 «
il.fl fc
a
11,0 W
S9.0 *,
19,0 if
19,0 si
H.O B
i«,o w
H.O «
lt.0 «
0
1«»0 «*
15.0 H
0
8
t
0
0
0
0
0
i',0 **
11.0 l>
»«,« »t
22
2?
22
32
22
22
22
32
22
22
n
22
22
22
22
22
n
22
2$
12
22
22
22
22
21
22
32
21
22
22
22
UNDCRSftO
UNOESCRO
rnvtwrn
UNDEDCRQ
UNDf.SCSC
UKOEMSAO
UKOEHSRO
SUKFACe
UNOERCKO
UMDCftCliO
UNDEHGBO
so«r»cE
UKDERCHO
UNDCRCRO
UH8ER6RO
SOIlfACE
UNOCRGKO
UHOERSdO
VKDCMOO
UNDCRCKO
UM0EK&XQ
UNBEitCIO
QKOCKCRO
UNOCMCRO
UNDCRCRO
UKOCSCKQ
1,885 " tOO.OOO
1,600 - 108,000
1,000 • 100,000
160 - i.OSO
1«0
100
I, COS
1,000
1,300
100 • 1,000
i$Q * irOOO
1,000 « tfiO,080
- 1,00(5
» 1,000
-------
inactive UIUNIUM KJNFS IH THE UNITED STATES
DDE, GR*»D JUNCTIOH, COLORADO
PACE Jl
1 MINE NAVE
CONTROLLER NA*£
cou»Tr «ec.
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
1ESID,
MIMING LEASE 20 SAK JUAN I. EASING
MINING LEASE 21 BHRD + ROBl»
H0RTHEP-M LIGHT
OtEGA
OHEMSBY
PAINTED ROCK
PARROT GPOUP
PAtSTRE»K 3
ITCAS i
PENIGAL
PENJU
PHILLIPS 66 1
PINE BUG
PITCHFORK
POLARIS 1
FOUR OFF
PROSPECTORS FORT
OUEE1 OF SPADES
DADIUK
GAriBLI1' tfNQKLES
O'WA* « «A«CfEZ
ORTMEYER "NG CO
HARGROVE J,n.
RLUF CRFEU MI«IN
J!UL*J»Er »HG CO
BLIXT, ALFRED *QS
KAlrlOLZ, BOY
ATOMIC E'tEPUt CO
CHOUfY J.B,
GA1TNQ AIMING CO
HOLLI'-G, KriRY
FIOIE 41KFPAL5
Qiltt>t1i H.R,
TBISTT « FYFRtY
UllOll CeCRlOE CP
NILL1A-S * CONN
SHODK5 "1NERALS
HILL,*01JNC»N»8UFF
HILL»OU*CAfc»8UFF
BARPETT • BUEi-IER
CRISTEA .'NC.CO,
«»DOOX,C,»i .
E H JGMM.SE1
•^OTLEK, «.C.
UNION CARPIOE CP
TIIRNEa,. ACE
ATLftS-FOOTE
UiION C»RfIOC CP
HOtZ, EARL
UNKNOWN
UNHNO-M CflHTBOLR
PRETTY SLUE "KG
bRooKs MINERALS
UNION CARPIDE CP
UMTFD UHAH CORP
DALPEZ, HARIO
JACK THO»PSQN
PHILLIPS, DORR
TURKFR » SMITH
BOKUM COPPORATM
MA.VERLT MINING C
UHKNOWK CONtROLR
XOBCRTS PUTH
TMUhDERBIPD UP.AN
JTLHS-FPOTE
S>N
SAH
SAH
SAN
KAN
SAN
J»'J
SAC
SAN
SAN
5*1-
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAh
SA1!
Sit
SAN
SAN
SAf-
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAS
11H
SAN
SAh
5AK
SAN
SAH
SAN
SAN
SAN
BAH
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
BAN
SA"
SAM
SAX
BAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
ClGUEL
"ICUEL
'IG'JEL
MIGUEL
*IGJEL
"IGUEL
HIGUFL
HICUFL
H IGUEL
"IGUCL
MIGUEL
MFC.UEL
MIGUEL
XIGUEL
"1GUEL
MICUEL
Hir.jci
"IG'JEL
HICUEL
MlGyFL
MIKUEL
HlGUEL
"IG'JEL
1IG.IEL
HIGUEL
MIGUFL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
" IGUEL
KIGUEL
»IGUEL
VIGUEL
MIGUEL
"IGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
flCJEL
MIGUEL
XIGUEL
"IC'JFL
"IGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
HIGUEL
HIGUEL
26
5
36
J?
29
31
If.
30
10
5
15
3D
23
14
19
29
4
1
11
2*
36
2*
S
22
19
35
U
31
26
30
24
)
3 t
29
31
25
1*
S
44
4)
44
44
43
44
43
44
43
43
4}
44
44
4S
4}
43
4}
42
43
4}
44
4]
43
44
44
44
4]
44
4)
4)
43
41
44
43
44
41
43
43
it
H
N
H
H
*
•f
•i
K
h
f,
ti
N
h
N
N
Fl
1.
H
V
N
•J
N
N
N
K
h
N
N
h
•,
N
K
N
H
H
N
N
19.0
11,0
19,0
JR.fl
19,0
18,0
0
JS.O
1«,0
19.0
IR.fl
19,0
1",0
19.0
11.0
11.0
0
u.o
19.0
18,0
0
11.0
11.0
0
0
0
20,0
l«. 0
0
19.0
19,0
11. 0
11,0
19,0
11, P
u.o
19.0
0
19.0
16.0
11,0
19.0
1ft, Q
0
0
19,0
11,0
H.O
V
H
U
V
k
K
W
U
t
t.
V
»
w
V
w
V
V
w
k
ta
k
H
k
V
k
i
U
U
1,000
loo, ooo
100,000
100,000
100,000
<100
100,000
100,000
100,000
200,000
100,000
» 1,000
-------
INACTIVE URAMU? MZ«S J» THE UNITED STATES
fOUPCCl Doe, GUANO JUNCTION. COLQRAPO
PAGE
MINE NAME
CONTROLLER
COft-TTf
*EC, TO«MS*IP
MCR1D.
HIM1KC
i
RADIUS 1
RA&IO»> S3
RABID* 19
RADlUk 52
RADIUf 24
RAOIU" 25
RADIU* 26 + 27
RADIUS 29
FADIim J
IUBSU*1 4
RADIUM S » »
RAftlU* t
RADIUM 7
PADK'f 1
RAIHY OAt
RAMBLER
FAT HOLE
RATTLESl.IKE
RATTLES'.**!
RATTLESNAKE I
RED AHT
RED MORSE
RED RdC^ « « 5
RED ROCK *
RED SfAKE
REP TOP
RED TOP
RED WIMC
PCX CLAIM
PI*
RlVEfiVlEW
ROBERT H
JIOBEPTA JEAN
B05F JUt-F
RQ< tCE
S.B, SUnUP
SAGE i j
SAN MIGUEL
SANTA MARIA
SABA M,
SARAH ELLEM
(ARAH JANE
SCHLEt;
ilHCLt JACK
•Lie* HIM
•LICK ROCK MILL
SPRIiG *
SITTOM C A
MUAJl-rOOTt
ATLAS"!' DOTE
ATLAS-FOOTE
• ATLAS-rOQTE
ATLAS-rOOTE
ATl/AS-COOtE
ATLIS-rOOTE
ATLAS-FORTE
ATLAS»FOOT£
AtLtS-FOOtE
ATLAS-FOOft
ATI.AS-F0OTE
AtLAS-FOOff
UHIO* CARBIDE CP
UKIO* CARBIOE, CP
ROGERS, JACK
,RUT HCPFQPD, ft.F,
KWICHT, h.B,
CARVHUFF,CAtPBCL
WUCKtEB, »>«t.
UHXQ4 CARflJOE CP
BROOKS r-IfERALS
BRCWK5 FIKEBALS
JFoELI^, LOR EM
3ULL1VAN, BILL
JOHNSON, HUOO h.
8ALE3, BURT
neers, EPSAR j.
DRloXARD, JONK
UXJOM CARBIDE CP
HA»LAMC, J,* c,
WA^RTO^ R»J,
KAflLAMC, FRED
ftPOQuS NI^CRlLS
DITCP, GU¥ B.
SMU><<«A¥* DADE
ATLAS-FOOTE
SKIDMORC, T,H,
fOOtt HIHCRM.S
GPIPC R,
tomes, DAVID
SNTfDER , RQ8ERT A,
BUL»sti' KINING C
CBISTt* NN5.CO,
R04CNOU]STlHOHCi
8KYLANO SALES, lt«
UNION CARBIDE CP
SSI
5*"
SA"
SAX
SA*>
-SAN
Si^
BAN
SA«
SA«
SAN
SA"
SAX
SA"
61"
SA"
SA*'
3»f
SAN
»»N
SAN
SA"
SAN
S»N
SA"
SAM
SA»
SAN
SAh
AA^
SAN
SAU
SAN
SA"
SAI
SAX
SAM
ftAN
SAN
•AM
BAN
»»K
SAN
BAH
SAN
SAN
"IGUEt
WIGUEL
MIGUEb
tXCUFL
MIGUEL
CIGUKL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIOOEL
MIGUEL
•^jeut'j,
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
«IGU*L
RIGUEt
•HCUCL
IIGUF L
MICUEL
MIGUEL
njGUfL
NIKUEL
MICHEL
HIGUEb
NlCUtL
MIGUEL
HIGUEL
HICUEl
MICUEL
MIGUEL
HICUEL
1ICUCL
PISUEL
HICUEL
"ICUEl
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
MIGUEL
HIGUEL
«ICU£L
HIOJFL
MIGUEL
1I6UCL
H1GVCL
KIGUEL
"IGUFL
MICUlL
5
4
5
Jy
S
5
S
S
4
4
1
-------
INACTIVE UPMZUK MINES IS tHE UHlTIO STATES
ooe.
PACE II
m»cr KACE
COS»OU.CI> -UHE
cou.
'"
• EC,
TOUHSNIP
RAUGE
HERIO,
MINING
METHOD
r
SPUD PATCH UNJOK CAPPIDE
STAR
SUNDAY
SUNDOHN
SUNOG^N GBQUP
SUN^YSIDE
SUt-RISE
SUNRISE » PAtEMf
SUNRISE 1
BUNRISr }. 4, *
SUNSHINE *
TAtbKftlr
TERRIBLE
1E3TAS Ctllgr 1
TJNf
TQRHAOG
TXU BAR
UINTAH 2 tOOE
ywCLE SA*
VKCLE SAM(csfp VA
UtE 4
WAlltY VIE*
VAN
VAN tQVECNC SLK RiC
VAS»AD1«M
VANADIUM 7
VAMADIUK QUEEN S
VANURA CLAIMS
victos
VICTOR J
VIRGINIA
HALLY-BOURLE JAC
HUll BA*.C
WI'JDV DAY-BILL
MYOMlKG
YEI,LO<< CIPL
TCLLQfcSIRD-RAOIU
YQRKTON
ZEBRA
tCSHA 1
ASPIL 2.*«l
SfNEVJEVE WOE
OLIVER * PUSS
LIE H. KO»R[&
LUBP.QCK HNG.CO.
* * 4 •olHTHC, CO,
iUMNETT + CO
At Lk8*FOOTE
Afl/AS-FOOf E
AftAS»FPOfC
At l»AS»rOOTC
AYCPS, EJFRETt
CNAPLFC RICKETS
"MFIFLB* JfRilY
KUY^EKOAtL ••ELHO
HNIO»I CARBIDE CP
UtlQM CAR8IRE CP
U»IO« CAR8IOE CP
TyCNSCHER, C.L,
4£,I*4»*f£Mf**«JA
UVJON CARPIDE CP
C*A"OEt, "ARIOW
rosfsp, IYHAK
lORRCS, BAVIO
SH1PR0CK, LTQ
'ATICPS, *<«B.
U»10N CARBIDE CP
KC OGUG^l*^*^^ J GH
SKOI^If ElfP £P?
REED, EDCIR. J,
BISHQP CAfcrON UP
JOHAHNSC»< t,J,
SCHTOCH, r.M.
FDOfC ERC»0
UNDERGRO
ONOERGRQ
VliOCRGRO
UHOEHGHO
UNDCRGRd
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UKDERGRO
UNDCRCRO
SURFACE
UNt>£RGRQ
UNOEPCRO
UNOCRGRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
uwnzacso
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
tmoCRGRO
UNDER5RO
UMDCRGRO
UNDCRGRO
UHDSHGHD
{VPFACZ
UNOERGRQ
UNQERCRO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
TOTAL PROOTCIIOK
(TON4 AS OF
100,000
€100
- 1,000
»
so
0
too
90
too
100
M,
POtK
MI5C.-PA
<100
-------
INACTIVE inUHIUM MINES I* THE UNITED STATES
DDE, CMND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE 14
NINE N»*£
........... IDAHO
COIL CREEK. CROUP
EAST BASIW CREFK
ELK 'l-DEERSTPIKE
LIGHTKIMG CKOUP
CONTROLLED NANE
COU»f!f
DONNA LOU I
L«.U8, OON
EVANS, t,r.
LAIJB, DON
UUKKQKM CPNTROLR
UNKHQtoi C1VTROLP
CONTBQLR
CUSTIB
cusren
CUSTER
CUSTER
CU3TEP
EC. TOWNSHIP PAfCC
n
is
6
U
It
11
h
N
N
14.0
0
14.0
0
14.0
0
t
t.
r
NERID.
01
OB
0*
MINING
METHOD
UNDERCRQ
SURFACE
UNDER.GRQ
UNDEHSRO
UNDERGRD.
SURFACE
TOTAL PRODUCTION DEPTH
AS or oi/fli/n) trr.)
1,000 • 100,000 so
1,090 - 100,000 tOO
1,000 - 100(000 loo
100 - 1,000 SO
1,000 ' 103.000 90
«100 0
«•»•••*»•«« "issoURl «....
ST LOU APPT PSID CDU"E!*CI»L
St. LOUIS
MISC.-PI
1(900 - 100,000
WQWTAHA
COBBAN LEASE
BOH 6
SlinCHP1"- 3
KEY
OLD GLORY
PEARl
pe«c GROUP
SANDRA
SNAIL 3
UNIT J
FRFE
HkYVCS MO"ESTEA.D
LONE FAGLE G»DUP
HO* SROUP
HIDDEN
IICL MIKJNG CD
HC HORN *t.C CO.
PRVC1R MINING CO
BICE •'Ifcl'.G CO
NICHAUn, l.L,
hlDLAhO »KG, CO,
COLOTAH UCHJU1
STOIC*. JA*ES J.
TEXAS INSTPll'CMT
CLKKOfiN HINIKC
LEWHART, PAK«iOND
CI3ELEI", AH CTA
POUELL, H.V.
CASBOW
C»RBQM
CAPBDN
CARBf)>J
CARBON
CARBON
rkLLON
HI! L
JLFFEHSON
HADISQH
JO
17
26
g
J3
I
If
31
3«
*
9
9
9
8
9
to
t
7
K
S
s
s
s
s
H
N
S
1
21
Jt
31
27
31
61
4
4
.»
,0
.a
,0
0
0
,0
0
.0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
.0
.0
c
t
r
r
E
E
e
H
X
31
33
33
33
33
33
05
21
3)
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNCCRCSO
SURFACE
UNDERGO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE.
U1DERGRO
UhDEftGRO
UhDERGRO
UNOERSRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UKDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDCHGRO
100
1,000 -
IPO
100
100
100
100
100
100
<100
> 1,000
<100
100, 000
* 1,000
<100
* 1,000
£» KIHEPALS
VALLET VlfK UBAM
tEE, LESTER E.
MA'iCIKI, FRANK
CLARK
CLAPX
ELKO
HUHBOLDI
LANDFR
LANDER
LINCOLN
LION
JO
2
34
!« S
it N
II h
71.0 E
0
o
o
0
0
41,0 E
44.0 N
0
0
0
20
20
30
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDCRGRO
UMDEHGHQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
<10D
<100
1,000 - 100,000
100 - 1,000
IfOOO * lOOt^^O
too - 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
loo * 1,000
<100
so
0
so
so
so
too
109
so
so
so
so
1
u>
4S,
-------
1HACTIVE URAKIUK Klhta IK THE UMTCP STATES
SOURCEl DOE, GPMO JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 31
CONTROLLER NAME
COUNTY
BCC. TOdhSNIP
RAVCt KGRID,
NCTMOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(tons us or oi/oi/79)
DEPTH
1,000
<]00
<100
100 -
100
100
<100
1,000
1,000
<100
100
a
so
so
so
so
50
so
so
SO
CKARtOTTE
NEW JERSEY ••••
8£*CO IHC
UNQERGRO
<100
so
HE« "EXIC1
BABY MlhE
CIDKIGHT
RED B»SI"i
SEC,21, !""le» NC
BLUE STAR
FLOYD COLLINS
IXEZ-SE024-30S-I
POLITA 2,17H-2<)E
UAPANE SEC 2: PI
29-14-09 WINE KA
B HILL IJ»21(SEC
BARB J 2! 30, 13-1
Btea j i fjo-ti-
1ARB.J 1 (30-11-
BG-I.RPC30-1 1-9)
BILLY THE FIO
BLACK JACr 2
BLUE PEAKC34-1J-
BOSCH NE034-IJ-
C 0*5 <1S-16-17|
CHAPLOTTC(3J-1J-
CKILL KlLl,S(P.At,T
CHURCHROCH (B»l7
CLirrsiot SFC »
DAKOTA 14-1JN-104
BAVCNPORT(30-ll-
THREE ELEVEN HNS
GULF
STATE OF l.E-f »
LE»CH . LliCH
WESTrP" EStiaClBAT
STATE ar »n MEX
PICHECO.J.JtMD B,
nlLDEP SYK
»CGE£
CITRUS CNTK LAND
CITPUS CNTY LAND
SMITH
HID-CONT KNG.CC
ITMITED NUCLEAR
INDIAN ILLOTEC
INDIAN ALtOTCE
GARCIA + AkDRCfS
HYDE ESTATE
S»iTA FE PtCIFC
SANTA FE PAC1FC
HAP-QUEZ, NABOR
UNITED HUCLFAP
KERR-KCCCE CORP,
STATE OF M« HEX
HYDE ESTATE
CATPON
CRAi.T
SRAHT
HARDI1C
HIDALCO
KC1CIHLEY
HCKIKLEY
NCKINLEJ
HLEr
MCKIULEY
11
19
21
5
6
20
10
JO
30
20
I 9
11
13
2*
24
3%
33
24
17
4
20
2
2
3
17
14
13
13
H
13
13
14
19
IS
13
13
16
13
13
16
13
13
N
N
t.
N
N
h
ft
X
h
N
N
N
M
K
N
H
H
N
N
N
N
11
10
1*
29
11
9
9
P
«
9
11
13
13
10
9
17
9
9
16
10
9
0
,0 h
.0 1*
.0 '•
0
0
0
0
.0 r
0
0
.0 V
,0 W
,0 fc
.0 fc
,0 *
,0 H
,0 W
.0 K
.0 K
.0 h
,0 k
,0 >•
,0 H
,0 V
.0 «
0
.0 «
,0 fc
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
32
22
23
2J
22
32
22
22
22
21
UNDC9GRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
U1DERGRO
SURFACE
ONDCSGRO
UNDtRCRD
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
MfcATPRGD
U»DEHGRO
UUDFRCRO
UNDERGRO
USDCPCSD
UNDERCRO
UIDCRGflO
UHDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UKOERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDCRGHO
UNOERCRO
UNDCRGRO
UKDERGRO
UKDERCRO
LOwGRADC
UNDCRGMO
UNDCAGRO
4100
1,000
<100
100
<10D
loo > ii0oo
ICQ • 1,000
10D,OOB
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - ioo,ooo
1,003 - 100,400
MOO,000
MOO,000
1,000 - 100,000
100,000
MOO.OOo
1,000 - 100(000
1,000 - 100,000
<100
0
so
0
0
0
50
so
0
so
0
0
200
ISO
330
so
400
300
so
3SO
TOO
a
0
so
0
iso
650
0
0
ISO
tn
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM MINES IN fHE UKITCD St»TES
SOURCSl COE, 6»»1t> JUHClJOrf,
MINE N*>«E
CONTHOfcLER NAME
SEC. TO'HSHIP
RAhCC
HCTHOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
tnm AS or 01/01/7?)
DEPTH
IF?.}
DJ*»OhO 2
I SEC 1!
2
20-13-
MEXICO (coj-f'Dj
SXJPBfJCKjtTU
(4-14-lt)
FLAT TOP I 1 i
FL»T TOP VII i»t
fTOTZ J
KQGBiCX J-$
JS»BELLM**'».l J»
LOST MIAE(33-14-
KAC 31 t1«li( 15-J
HAR3UCZ (23,13-0
"»*t nn.i
MESA TIP (20-IJ-
BCD CAR CT
RIO poj»'7
re
SEC I* I3« »«
SSC IT J3 »
SEC 11 14^ »W 1C
SEC IS 1J'« i*
SEC 30 14* S* LQ
sec jj 14^ loi, L
8CC 22,14-10
SEC 23 11' !0-
SEC 24 144 l(H L
SEC I* (!ECt*Tl
• EC ;» HI. 9w i.O
SIC 10 14« 9*< LC
«IC Jl 14< »J
SEC JJ,i4-9{Q'>.L!<
ate u-n-ui 10
SEC J6 U'i 10-
SEC, i9-141»«0*
aEC»ti,ii«-i»^ a
*ec,i«»tiN-it«i k
«C.>5-iJi.JO« S
FOUR
CtiCl
CtT»«* CNTY
ESTATE
routs *NC,CI,
rouiz »«s,cn.
rnuTi iiwc.cn,
CITRUS C"T*
U^'ITCU H. KMST»ft
HW CSUTE
SMITH OtVFLPi'E'iT
S*r t« fr C»ILHO
UntTCCi », ^
NYOf ESIITE
31H1E Of HC» »I
ITP I"P »>•*".. «K
Pti UP*««IU" CO
Of NE«r ME
re
C1THBS
t4NP
KECH
KERR
wcctr
»,«.
r CDHI",
or HE* »"B
ESEOCPO, M,
33
11
20
3C
3D
4
11
14
12
1
35
1*
JO
24
11
20
i*
1*
II
11
23
23
31
I*
ID
It
24
21
II
15 N
14 «
13 N
14 N
13 H
43 *
13 N
15 N
t% d
J4 rf
1J h
IS N
13 i
14 N
IS N
13 i.
13 •!
14 *
13 h
IJ «•
14 *
13 N
IJ *
IJ 1
14 *
10 h
15
14 H
14 *
13 N
H x
13 H
13 »
11 >.
IJ *
17,0 V
1S.O •»
0
9,0 k
0
11.0 W
»,a *
S.S K
9,0 k
l&.SS .
1»,0 *
}1«0 fc
9.0 W
JS.O It
».« •«
:! ,o j
11.0 k
».0 fc
4,0 '
10,0 k
9.0 f
0
1}
|0,0 U
11.0 «
n
9,0 !•
«,0 *
0
9,U w
0
0
10,0 >
i),e k
o
n,o «•
o
0
9.0 U
9,n >>
o
10.0 fc
10,0 h
10,6 W
11.0 V
10,0 %
10,0 *
22
23
22
22
21
22
23
23
23
23
31
13
33
22
37
22
32
32
32
22
21
22
23
22
23
33
32
22
22
32
33
UVDEitSRO
UkoERGRO
UDDER5RQ
UKDERSRO
VNDCRGfO
UNQERGxQ
UNOCRSRQ
UHQERGR^
tJH&£RCRO
UfrStRGRQ
U1PERGRO
UXQCRSRO
UKDERGRO
UHDERGRO
UNOCRSRO
LOtfGRtOC
UMOE^CRO
U10ERGRO
•UHOER6RO
LD'CSADE
UNDCilGRD
UNDERGRQ
UKOERCRO
SURFACE
1,000 » 100,000
100,000
>loo,a
1,000
1,000 • 100,000
i.ooa - ioo.ooc
100 - i.ooo
1,010 - 100,000
100 » t.ooo
190 . i,000
l.OOO « 100,009
100 • l,Bno
100,000
ioo.ooo
<100
100,000
100,000
>100,300
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
MOO.OOO
100 - 1,3(10
too - ),ono
100 » 1,000
l*^t)0 * 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 10C,CCC
1,000 * 1SO»006
1,000 - 100,000
>10J,000
1,000 * 100,000
>135,000
100 * 1,000
i.OOO - 100,000
,000
>100,000
1,009 • 100,000
»!«(?,000
1,000 * 100,000
1,000 - 100,909
»IOO,000
1,000 » 100,flOP
1,000 -
100
ton
4&0
200
SO
so
»ou
100
JOO
so
too
so
0
100
0
via
101
J»0
200
ISO
ISO
300
0
50
so
so
a
200
200
a
ISO
0
0
«sa
so
0
JO
0
0
too
loo
0
so
400
ISO
so
too
so
1
CO
en
-------
URANIUM KIKES IK TNI US.ITEO
»0URC*I CO!, BUtHS JUMCrlDN,
HI N't
CPUHT*
SEC,
HERIO.
WETHQB
tOTAt, PRODUCTI0«
nous AS or oi/oi/m
DCPTK
crt.i
NE» MIKICO
KONTiDJ
•EC. Ji.Ufc-n?"
SEC,J2-iS>l-i t* fc
8EC.J3-1S-U *»»
SEC,S.13tt-10«
ICCtlO* JJ-1&H-!
•nvjR sit
u
VAt,bCJO (SIC, J*
t
LfftOUX RANCH
snots LUCK
•ox
COYOTE HILIS
J.O.J.,
lUCKt 4TFIICE
RED MEAD
WHITtrLO t
courts
COX'At 3
14
B a
• R ft
HECUBJ-IC
BEGAT 2
CAW1CO* VtCW
CXHL
OENCH NCZ 1
BAST RESEPKA110W
tHOS JOHHSQN 1-*
H I HOY J
HOG »*CK 2
HORAfE BL-J I
BOYD
STATE Or HKrf HEX
•AUK * FIFE
SMTA rt i»Acirc
•TATE or *,*,
HYDRO MUCt.tAR
HTOPQ
rr i>*ciric
C**CE
C«TY
CST
:»cs
STATE Or fcF* HEX
ClilSTtO
OE^NIS, l,,l.
tiiei'iAso ce»ct,c
tlTTUE BJiTTtfR N
U*. UAID + lNtfESr,
ARROTA DE ACUA M
B01.IVAH
MHitcrto *»nc,cn.
ii* i*n, oca.
SLA TEX VF»TUf»E
WEAPONS "JJiIMC C
NAVJJQ TRIBE
MA¥WO TKIBE
MiVJiJtl TRIBE
KAVAJO TCIiE
NAVAJO TRIBE
WAVAJQ THIRe
*A-t,t.r
1
JO
11
JJ
J2
Jl
J)
1
14
JO
OKAY
ouAr
OUAI
RIO AftHlRA
PIO MPIWit
PIO «tPI*A
Pio *l»l>!»
•10 A*Bll>»
mo
24
Jfl
31
I*h JtPAN
BAN JUA»<
11
SAP JUt.'-
•Ah JUtN
SAN JUAN
IAN JUAM
BiK JUM,
i* N
U »
J» *
13 «
!» N
15 «
- IS H
M X
14 k
14 N
IS H
11 N
11 «
52 W
1 N
2f H
}t> M
5t N
2J W
2} H
ii.O U
4,0 u
4,0 U
9.0 *
11.9 *
U,0 *
11,0 k
0
17,0 *
II.0 *
10,0 k
t«.o «
9.0 ».
C
9,0 h
16,0 E
53.<5 t
0
0
0
0
l.n r
0
*.0 E
n
,o E
,o ••
.0 *
,o *
.0 f
0
0
0
0
0
o
21,0 k
0
0
(s
0
0
0
20,9 ••
0
0
0
0
22
22
22
22
22
32
22
22
22
33
22
23
22
22
12
12
22
12
23
12
33
22
22
22
owoiaSRn
UHOERGBO.
BURFACC
tmoE^ciw
UNOERCRO
UNOE4CPO
UtJOtfiCRD
UNOCRCM
UNKNOWN
U(iDEi>GHO
SURFACE
UNOERCRO
•UPftCK
UHOIRCRO
UNOEMRQ
SURFACE
!0t
l.OOo
1,000
1,010
1,000
l.QOO
J, oao
10(
1,003 •
1,000 •
1,000 •
I. 000 •
i.ooo •
', - 1,006
too, ooo
100,000
100,000
180,000
100,000
100,509
«100
-------
INACTIVE URAHIUK NINES IK THE UNITED STATES
SOURCCl DOC, CRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAKE 11
MINE «AJ*E CONTROLLER NXHE
JOE BEN 1 NAVAJD TRIBE
JOHN JOE 1 SAVAJO TRIBE
JOHN JOH1 CP 314 NAVAJO TR1BF
JUNCTION NAVAJO TRIRF
KEY TOHE NAVAJO TRTBE
KIWG 2 NAVAJO TRIBE
KING TUIT t HAVAJO TRIfcE
KitiG TUTI POI»T NAVAJO TRIBE
KINGS t
LCwER CANYON
NELSON PQIKT
PLOT 1 Kit) 'ASK
ILOT 3 KING WT
PLOT 7 OAK SPRIN
PLOT 1 COTTONhOO
PLOT 9 LOSE STAR
REED HENDERSON 1
ROCKY FLATS NINE
SALT CAVYDK
SHADYSIDE
SKAOYSIDE 2
SKIPROCK RESIDUE
SUMkYSIDE
TENT 1
UPPER SALT *ASK
BIAH 2
SPARKS-STONE t
HINPY NINE HIKE
LA BAJADA
RA« JOSE CLAIMS
EXPIRE CLAIMS
LAST CHANCE
MITCHELL PRICE !
PARAK
PITCKBLEKD STP1K
ST »IN LEASE 61
AUGUA TORRES
HOOKS RANCH
JETER KINE
LITTLE OAVIC
LUCKY DON SEC IS
MARY BALL i
SAM LORCNiO 1 NW
BLACK COPPER 2 L
BLACK HANK t BUN
CEDAR CLAIMS 1 7
CHAVC1 (2S-SO-J)
CKRISTHAS DAY PH
NAVAJO TRIPE
MYAJO TRIBE
I.AVAJC TRIBE
NAVAJO TRISE
hAVAJO 1RISE
tlAVAJO YRIBF
KAVAJO TRIPE
HAYAJO TRIBF
KAVAJO TRIBE
NAVAJO TRIBE
NAVAJO TRIBE
MAVAJO TRIBE
KAVAJO TRIPE
HAYAJQ TRIBE
NAVftJC TRIBE
KAVAjr, TRIBE
NAVAJO TRIBE
FURPAN»FOSTER
SPARKS STO»-E MUG
Ski CARLOS UHAN
LOSE STAP MHG+DV
POYHM-, J.C,
THE EMPIRE PPGJ,
ALA.MQ KINISG CD.
PRICE BUELL
SAMANIEGO.BERNIE
TERRY, EARL K.
AUGER, FOBFRT
CArtPSELL FARMING
LUM^US, R,H.
CAPITOL STABOARD
SANTA FE PACIFC
LUMKUS, R,H,
CAMPBELL FAR-ING
GRIfGO, J"£
SLACK COPPER HIM
GRAKT8 STATE 8NK
YUCCA URANIUM
CAHOHcno mo, us
UKKNOW CQNTROLR
COUNTY
SAN JUAt.
3A* JUA1
SAN JUA*.
StV JUAN
SAN JUA«
SAN JUM
SA«; Ju»>>
SAM JUA*
5AS JUtk
SA>< JUA"
SA<1 JUAN
SAM JUA><
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAH
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAf
SAN JU»K
SA« JUAh
£A« JUAN
SAX JUA1
SAN JUA'.
SAN JUAt.
SAN MIGUEL
SAN MIGUEL
S*N XIGUEL
SANTA FE
SAHTA FE
SIICRA
SIEKRA
SIERRA
SIFRRA
SIERRA
SIERRA
SOCQPRO
SOCORRO
80CORRO
SOCORRO
SOCORRO
SOCORRO
SSCCJRRO
TAOS
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
VALEKCIA
VALENCIA
SEC.
39
21
It
15
21
2)
IF
11
i
14
9
29
11
26
4
20
23
4
TOWNSHIP
-
39
21
29
10
29
29
24
17
16
tl
•15
20
1
3t
13
11
10
12
I.
^
N
N
K
H
fi
N
N
N
h
N
N
N
N
N
K
N
RANGE
31
21
21
21
21
31
20
24
H
21
1
t
f
15
9
9
J
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
«o'
0
.0
0
0
0
,0
.0
0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
Q
.0
,0
,0
• 0
,0
r
t
K
U
N
N
W
E
E
E
E
E
W
E
N
U
N
M
XEFID.
14
32
32
22
32
32
22
32
22
22
22
11
32
22
22
22
12
22
MIMING
KE1WOD
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UKOERGRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UhDERCRO
UNOERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UKOCRGRO
UHOERCRO
UHDERGRQ
UNDEAGRO
U^DERGRO
UKDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UWDERGRO
UNDEAGHO
^ISC ,»P8
UNOERGRO
UKDEKGRO
UKOERCRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UKDERGRO
UCQERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNOLRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNDERGO
SURFACE
UhDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UHDCRCHO
UHOERGRO
TOTAL PRODUCTION
AS or oi/oi/m
ico -
100
100
l,ooo *
1,000 »
100
too
1,000 -
100
100
100
1,000 •
100
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
<100
<100
-------
INACTIVE UHAXIUM HINES IK THE UNITED 5TATEI
IDUPCti DOC, GRAI-D JUNCTION, COLORADO
it
HIHE
CONTROLLER "AME
«E* MEXICO tcoHT'Dj
CRACrPOT(&l4«-6"
FALCON i + i
LA
LAST
PAIS*>tQ (16-l-K)
RED iLUFf GAY F»
SA*D¥ (SEC.27-9"
SEC }J-l2l-9h
g£C 9 12* 9*
TAFFY (SEC.11-12
TO* UCSCC.4-11-
ODC 5 (3CC.4-U-
WOOORO* C34-H-0
OEV1LLIERS NUC,
TUCCA URAHIUH
CIBOLA HHG, CO,
BROAOD'JS, J.FOLEY
trcomn H1KEP1L5
GOOD NEWS HNG.LT
UNITED NUCLEAR
Hfl^ESTAKt "ING*
ELKtMS, MH>X
KATIOhAl GROWTH
AWACOMJA CO,
correr, HILLIA"
CO.
NORTH DAKOTA
0 LEASE
CHURCK I
GEARY LEASE
JOHNSON M1NE*SFC
CETTIfS
»HC»IC»lii LUTH Cl-
US
KL»
OKHUS £Kp-l)
»EC,2,J7W-]00*,S
SMITH 1 LFASE
SPIKE 1
HUR1CK 1
FRANK LEASE
LUPTAX 1
IUPTAK STATE
PACIFIC
KATDgN, GARY
DE SART * KfLLEY
JOC
FHANK
LUPTAK, ANNA
LUPTAK«ST.N.DAK,
OKLAkQXA
CE"ENT
SCHOOL LA1.D
THORPE I
LISTER MILLS
LISTER MILLS
PRATT,OPVILLE L
OREGON
PINE SPRINGS
LUCKf L»83
KHITf.
*«»•«••«*•* SOUTH DAKOTA *l««*****«l
APLAMD I * UNKNOVK CONTRQLR
COUNT*
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
VALLkCIA
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
VA1E«CIA
V*IE«CTA
VALENCIA
HILLINGS
BILLINGS
EILLINGS
BILLIWGS
»ILL1«GS
• TARK
STAC*
STARK
CADDQ
CADOO
CUSTtR
UNKNOWN CHNTROLR CROOK
HCftTCRN NUCLEAR LAKE
wt'cLEAe LAKE
EC. TOWNSHIP HANCE
21
15
1
4
10
21
11
9
14
31
3
4
J
2(
15
2
6
10
5
7
6
t
13
25
10
43
12
1 1
12
1 j
12
12
12
42
36
J7
40
42
41
17
}1
31
3«
40
40
40
18
17
H
if
K
N
H
K
N
K
H
h
).
N
rl
h
N
N
K
N
N
N
S
S
8
19
9
9
~
9
t
5
9
9
99
00
00
00
99
oo
00
00
0!
00
99
99
99
Itt
IS
19
0
,0
.0
0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
,0
«o
.0
0
0
0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,n
,n
,a
,0
.0
,0
0
0
0
, 0
,0
,0
w
x
14
t!
h
u
V
u
K
w
u
.
k
u
hi
V
w
w
I*
k
W
£
E
F
MLRID,
22
22
J2
22
27
22
22
32
23
05
05
05
05
07
OS
05
OS
OS
03
05
05
OS
11
11
HIKING TOTAL PRODUCTION
KET'tOO ITONS A4 OF 01/01/791
UkOERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SORFACE
SURFACE - -
UNDCRCRO
(?»Oe»G13
5UCFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDEr*GRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERSRO
UHDERCRD
mr
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
suRf ACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
, 1,000 -
1,000 «
1,000 -
JOO
1,000 "
> too, off a
loo
MOO.OOO
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 •
1, 000 -
3,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
too
1,000 •
1,000 •
1,000 »
1,000 *
1,000 -
MOO, 000
100
,000
<100
100,000
100
- 1
100
• 1
100
- I
- I
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
" 1
JOO
100
100
100
100
,000
,000
<100
,000
,000
,000
.000
-------
INACTIVE UPAN1UH HJNtS IN THE UNITED STATIS
SOURCKi DOE, G»A»D JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE 40
CONTROLLER WANE
COUNTY
8Q1ATO RA'ICK
FLINC LEASE
BUD-LUCKY B»D
CAYLOR LE«SE
BARIC 1
DEL «UERT')
FREEZEOUT GP.OUP
JIHPCP 1
LOST CAHfOf. 1
K.C.I
TOO LATE
URANIUM I
ACCIDhKTAL CROUP
ANY 1
APPLE PIE
B.'H.GROU"
BARKER • MUHELL
BAXTER 1
BEADLE GROUP
BERIT 2
BITS GROUP
BLUE I.OTE
RUOfc-OEXTtR
CKILSCW CAKYO*
CLARABFLLE CROUP
COAL CANYON
COAL CA'.YO'- I
COAL CAt-YO" 14
CRA" LEtSE
CR»»QALL CROUP
CYCAD
DAKOTA FLATS
DAMSITE
DARNELL LEASE
DiRRO- 1-5 AND •<
DIANE A
DRtFlrfOOD CAiYQN
EAGLF AEPIC 1
COGEyOST 6
GERTRUDE * FLORA
GET "E HICK 1
COULD LEASES
GREEN ACRES CROU
CREEH SLIPPIR 1
CULL LEASES 1-3
HELEN
HELLS CANY01 CPO
HEY • FAY 5*6
OAKQTA (CUNJ'U? ••
ENRICO BONAfO
ALEX )- -G
TENX.VULLEY AUTH
USTERM GIAKT 01
DARROk * COOK
GENTL£*"EX "IMING
IFNN.VALLFY AUTK
ROaiN3QH,PEL8EPT
KEflCHFRVAl , ,P,S,
KE-.NEDY, "IKE C,
TE'.N. VALLEY AUTH
CRAVE" UPA' .CO.
LOPF>iZ PRDIHEPS
LO«D,B.H4RAIiY 4.
ALLIED EXPL.CO,
TFMM,V»LLFY AUTH
TF«".'/AtLf Y AUTH
PAXTFP, F.P,
TF^N.VtLLFY AUTH
DAKOTA UR*N+D1>LG
CHORD, RI1V E.
CHORD, BOY F.
tE'if.YlkLLl'i AU1H
TCM1 .VALfY AIITH
CHORD, Km C,
CHOFO, ROY E,
CHORD, Rny c»
HUFF J.» .
T^*^^>VAt.lpFY itUTH
TF-«I-,VALLFY AUTH
TEN«, VALLEY AUTK
CHOfcD, Pi)Y E.
LORFXZ PROTHEPS
DISNEY "INI«IO CO
TE«N,VALLFY AUTH
CHORD, ROY C.
BAa*EB, JA"CS
CHILDEFS, M,F,
CHORD. ROY E.
CHORD, POY C,
CHORD, ROY E.
TEHfi.VALLFY AUTH
AL8PICrf7,F»J
CHORD, POY F.
IENH.VALLFY AUTH
CHORD, ROY C.
H»«SON»HAUPT»IAN
FAY + hEY
BUTTS
BUTTr,
CUSTER
COSTER
CUSTEB
CUSTER
CUSTFR
Cl'STER
' CUSTE"
CHSTEH
CUST'P
CUSIEP
FALL PIVER
FALL PIVEH
FALL RIVER
FALL RIVFR
FALL MVER
FALL RIVER
FALL RIVER
FALL RIVER
FALL HIVFR
FALL RIVCB
FILL ojwm
FALL PIVCH
FALL RIVER
FALL PIVER
FALL PIVER
FALL RIVER
FALL PIVEP
FALL F.JVER
FALL RIVFk
FALL RIVEP
FALL RIVEP
FALL RIVfK
FALL RIVEO
FULL RIVER
FALL RIVEP
FALL RIVFR
FALL RIVEP
FALL RIVFR
FALL RIVES
FALL RIVER
FALL PIVER
FALL PIVER
FALL RIVER
FALL RIVER
FALL RIVER
FALL RIVER
25
2J
14
6
16
3J
31
21
24
24
1
19
It,
I?
4
?5
31
2
75
24
If
26
11
1'
27
19
20
I H
t H
6 S
2 S
6 S
1 5
1 S
7 S
1 S
7 S
t S
7 S
T S
I S
I S
7 S
i S
1 »
7 S
7 S
7 S
7 S
« t
7 S
8 S
7 8
7 a
RAriGE
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
J.I
0
*.o
0
0
0
7.0
«
1.0
0
0
7.0
i,«
0
9.0
0
2,0
0
5.0
3.0
0
6.0
4,0
0
1.0
1.0
0
0
2,0
J.a
2,0
1.0
0
l.D
J,o
1.0
0
3,0
C
E
E
E
C
E
E
t
F
t
E
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
t
t
t
I
T.
NERID.
07
D7
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
97
07
07
07
07
07
07
OJ
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
06
07
HININC
METHOD
SUHFACE
UHDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SUHFACE
UNDERCRO
SUHFACE
UXDKRCRO
UMOERCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDEHGR3
SURFACE.
SURFACE
SUHFACE
SUHFACE
UMUEDCRQ
UMOEPCRO
UNQERSPt}
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UHOFRCRO
UHDERCRO
UNDLRCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SUHFACE
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(TONS A3 OF 01/01/79}
DEPTH
IOO,000
100
1,000 -
1,
100
MOQiOOO
1,000 •
1,000 *
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 •
«100
too, ooo
<100
• 1.400
<100
100,000
0
<100
100,000
<100
- 1,000
<100
<100
- 1,000
100,000
<100
<100
<100
<100
- 1,000
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
» 1,000
<100
100,000
<100
- 1,000
- 1,000
- 1,000
<10Q
100,000
100,000
<100
• 1,000
100,000
• i.ooo
100,000
100,010
100,000
- iiooo
» 1,000
100,000
0
so
iOO
so
0
50
too
so
56
so
ioo
so
so
g
0
50
0
50
50
50
so
0
290
0
100
0
0
0
50
50
59
50
50
200
100
100
50
»o
200
so
50
150
50
100
ISO
50
JO
50
T|
O
-------
INACTIVE URAHIUM MINES I« THE UNITED STATES
-SOURCE! DOt, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PISE 41
MIME NAME
county
««.
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(TOHS 13 Of OI/OJ/793
DEPTH
(FT.i
HI PflCKETS *
HOLDUP 15-KADOJ
HOLDUP 2
HOLDUP 22
HOT PQI'.T GPP
IHOGZH?
JACK PlI.E 2
JOANN
KELLOf.C KINJ
UNO
LAKOT* Loot 1 1
LAtYH»«S liCCE
Lrox t
LIDN-HC K«IGH1
LITTLE AN1*
LODE CROUP
LOR A 1
LORD I.EHF
LUCKY I
tUCKY STPIXI
LUCK* STRIKE
LUCKY T"SS
"ARTY LEASF
•ARYJAC S 9
HAT1AS PEAK
NC KNIGHT 1
KIGGER GUICH
OPHELIA *
PA63T 1
PAT 2
PATSY
PAY flAY J
PEE t*EE
PE«!NY«ITT 1
PICTQ5P»P'< LOOE
RABY LEASE
PIOGE RIJNfcEP
RJP3*JGPT£R 1
ROAD HOG
RONENA
SEC.HI'-H SEO
sEC.it, as- tt
BHA^ROC*
6IUNVEY SOB
SKIPPER 4
80TQ * VERDE
SOUTH VIE- GROUP
SOUTHVILX
CHORD, HOY F,
CHOPD, POY E.
CHOPO. ROY E,
CKHRD, ROY E,
CHORD, RUY E,
CHORD, ROY F,
BONER, POY
CHORQ, pot E.
TE8N, VALLEY AUTH
CHORD, PPY E.
tAKITA PBQ5PECTI
CKOPO, ROY E,
rEfiHAU5E>l« NC
CHQRO, ROY C.
TC^**. VALLElf AUTH
CHORD, ROY E,
CHORD, ROY r..
TENV.V»LL»'Y AUTH
BFTTCXKJUSEN.PAY
CHORD, POY E,
B^ITM, ROPEPT B.
ALLIED rm. ,co.
8EAP LODGF fWG,
f 1COUAY*EM*DAB,
kEIA « HENDERSON
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
fALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
rim,
TAt-L
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FAIL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
RIVER
PIVER
RIVER
RIVEH
HIVFR
RIVER
R1VCP
KIVER
RIVER
SIVFR
PIlTFR
RIVFR
SlCJft
RIVFI"
R1VEP
RIVFH
RIVEB
PIVEP
RFVEtl
PIVFP
RIVEH
RIVER
PIVfs
ft I if Ft
RIVER
RI VEM
RIVER
RIVFR
RIVER
RIVER
RIV'R
RIVER
KIVER
RIVFH
RIVLR
RIVER
RIVER
R? VEP
RIVF1
RIVtn
PIVfR
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVFR
RIVFR
RIVER
20
1}
3)
28
1«
IV
31
12
26
11
10
34
25
1«
11
30
2«
37
25
19
21
55
7
1
7
7
_ J
'
1
7
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
S
S
&
g.
S
S
S
s
S
5
S
Ji
S
S
K
S
S
S
B
B
3
.0
,0
.0
0
.0
,0
0
0
*.o
0
0
1.0
0
J.o
0
0
0
0
2.0
0
0
0
3.0
,0
,0
0
,0
,0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
1.0
J.o
0
3,0
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
3,0
0
E
F
E
E
E
E
E
F
E
1C
IT
E
F
r
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
C
07
07
07
07
07
07
OT
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
SURFACE
UNDERGRO •
UHDERGRO
UrfDEBGPO
UHDE-1GRO
SUflf jiC£
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHDFRGRO
SURFACE
SURMCE
SURFACE
SUHFAC5
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
U*>DERGRO
SURFACE
SUflflCE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UfcOERCHO".
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE*
SURFACE
SURFACE
UV&EriCRO
SURFACE
UXDERGRO
UNDEBGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
suf.FA.cr.
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UMDCRCRD
SURFACE
SURFACE
100
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
1.010 -
1,000 •
1,001 .
too
100
1,000 -
100
1,030 -
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 -
1,000 »
1,000 -
1,000 -
l.ooo -
100
too
1,000 -
1,000 -
too
- 1,000
100,040
- 1,000
<100
100, ona
<)00
CiOO
<100
100,000
100,000
<100
<100
100,000
100,000
«100
<100
•ciao
<100
- 1,000
<100
- 1,000
<1QO
106.000
- 1,000
100,000
100, 800
-------
INACTIVE URANIUK XINIJ IK THE UNITED STATES
tOUKCtl BOB, S*k»D JUtiCllOlt, COLORADO
P»CE 42
HIKE IIAME
NUKE
SEC, TOWNSHIP
fOTAt PRODUCTION
(TONS AS OF 01/0)/7«)
DEPTH
C",3
STARLIGHT 3
TIN SHACK i -
TRAIL FRACTION
TRAIL KIND
V1PGII.JA C
MSHBOAPD
NCSIESN EpGl
YCLLOk CAT I
BILLY DALF 1-4
SLUE J»Y «
BD9CAT GROUP
BQNC-CHQPPY
CALAMITY JIMF ?
CARBONATF CRQL'P
CRAZY 1 * 2
DAISY *AY 5
CLFANO1* I
FLAT TUP GPOUP
HILLTOP C*OU»
JCFFEBY tYM>
JS« CBQUP
LAST CHANCE CrfCU
LINOAhl
t,Oi£SO»e PETC
LUC^Y STP1«E 3
KC CUOOY LCASF
MOONSHINE
PICKPOCKET
QUAD 1 •» J
OVII-u b
PELF CROUP
P-IUCY cfo-ip
SNAKE FYE
JKOOXS
SUSA>- BFCXY
TRIO LOPE
BAVARIA
STANLEY
•3 ELD 1
KAYLOR LEASE
KQQL 10
RUBE t
TED !
EYBICH, HK»OLt> R
8IEBCR t fC LtOD
CHORD, ROY C.
CHORD, ROY E,
SUS8UEHANUA «EST
LORCNZ SROTH6BS
CHORD, ROY C,
CHORD, ROY E,
HENOEHSON*BLNNET
HA1VA1.A BWOS.
SCMULL, LESTER
PlittCPSCX, t,,J,
KKUSE.HELVIM A,
SflNDAfcCE PEfRO
HANSON LLEWELYN
MT* STATFS INC,
BROfN, E.G.
CRE*IER«LUCLOW«S
HANSON LLF^BLYN
KILLER, c.O.
LE1«AR»P(,TT£RRQ1*
KALIxAS BRU3.
tINDAHL
HAIVA.L4, W,3,
DUCKY SIX »"i|C URAK,
H'INKRES, "•«, L.
OUAB MWG CP
6UIHN,J.F,t P»,H,
voss OIL co.
OLSON. * OMLfcltD
STEPNAD * HILL
PETtRS, M.«C,
RI»HOCK NINtNO
TPIO DIKING CO.
ROCCFORD TKPCE S
ROCKFORD THREE S
DEHFV1.U L.R.
BALDWIN, F,V,
ARNfitDjIKOHAS T,
PICtOGRAPH KHG,
HILLED, THEODORE
r*LL RIVER
FALL SIVER
r*LL RIVER
r»,i.L HIVFR
FALL RIVFR
FALL CIHER
FALL p.l»rn
TALL RIVER
FALL RIVER
MARGINS
HABD1«G
HARDIER
KilROIMG
H&RDIhG
HARPING
NARDI>iG
HARDING
H»RDI«G
NABDI1C
HARDING
HARDING
VARDtnC
HARDING
HARDIsG
HAfDI-iC
HAPDTFlG
HARDING
NAPDISG
HAPPt'«G
KARDIxG
HkPDIdC
HAfDENG
HARDIKG
HARDING
HARDING
HARDING
HARDING
LAWRFNCE
LA«PENCE
PENN1NGTDH
PfJ«IHCTD«
PFNM1HGTO'-
PENNINGTON
PE^HINGTON
-
36
30
19
36
34
3D
23
14
29
18
24
5
27
12
23
23
20
21
26
31
29
IS
13
3«
21
36
29
2)
14
-
7
1
1
32
31
11
22
19
21
1ft
17
20
22
16
21
23
22
23
31
22
16
22
1*
22
23
32
33
33
16
S
S
S
N
N
S
u
k
h
N
N
tl
N
K
V
h
N
N
N
N
H
H
K
H
H
N
h
N
X
0
0
p
a
0
2.0
4.0
0
J.o
s.o
s,o
1,0
1.0
7.0
S.O
i.O
1.0
s.o
4,0
1.0
3,0
S.O
s.c
6.0
4.0
0
6.0
s.o
5.0
»,1
o
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
9.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- -
E
c
c
c
E
E
C
E
E
e
E
r
E
w.
E
t
E
F
C
T
C
E
E
e
c
E
r
E
e
07
07
07
07
01
07
01
07
01
0?
07
07
07
01
01
01
07
01
07
07
07
07
07
07
01
07
01
07
07
SURFACE
SUfcFACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
"SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
UNDERSRD
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
sumct.
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SHNFACE
SURFACE
SURfVCE
SURFACE
SUPFlCC
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACt
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SUdfACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOCRSRO
SURFACE
1,000 -
100
1,000 •
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 •
I. 000 •
1,000 -
1,000 •
1.000 •
100
1 ,000 •
100
i ,ono »
1,000 -
l.uoo -
1,800 .
1,000 •
100
100
<100
<100
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100, ooo
<100
100,000
100,000
-------
UMAMIU4 HINtS IN TKB UNITED ITATCS
BOUXCfl DOE, CRAMS JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACK
MICE
CONtflOLlFf tUH£
COUNTt
JEC,
RANGE KSRIO,
METHOD
TOTAL P800UCT10H
{tons *s or
in.i
TEXAS
TULB MUNCH
MLB HQPSE
IOBANKI RANCH
|CRO*H
64RZA COUNTY £)EP
WJLLSIfE
*C ARTHUR wwoSFC
TWIJI RATTLER
YCLLO" COS-SEC. 4
S«IT« e.r 14
LttSi
TH NAT9
music r,(u».i4iij
it*SE 1
LlUb A LEASE 12
WS5K NIESTORSf
CPHDt UElSC
t LSElJ
NUHf. LC*SE
TPiCT
30UIN
WRIGHT
WURI
Ct»Y
KOPPLIN.K. JIJ
M*e£L N Fi-
VC LEt" J * 3
) no, 000
1,000 -
1,000 «
1,000 •
MOO, 000
1,000 •
MOO, 060
t.BOfl «
1,000 -
1,000 *
* loo, ooo
1,090 -
1,900 -
>ioo,ooo
>190,000
MO 0,000
1,000 -
>ioo,ooo
1,000 *
>soo,ooo
MOO, 000
MOO. 009
MOO, 000
1,000 *
1,000 »
MOO, 000
MOO, COO
1,000 *
MOO, 000
1,000 -
oo,ooo
160,008
iOO.oon
190,000
100,000
100,000
106,000
100,000
100,000
iAOr 000
-------
INACTIVE URANIUH MlKtS IK TKt UNITED STATES
SOURCEl DOE, GRA*0 JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 44
HIKE KANE
NAME
COUNTY
GEYSER BASIN
IRO" OUEEh
LITTLt SISTERS
KEP.CUSY S£C l«
.WYSTEKY SNIFFER
PRODUCER
MILLARD GROUP
BLUE SKY 1
KEG
OH HENRY 1
RAtt-pnrf RICGE r,R
12A
4-CORUEKS AREA D
*.*G.l
A.E.C, INCLINE
A.E.C.1J
A,E.C,6*t
A.E.C.1
ACEITE 2
ADDIT 2
APEX S
BAKER INCLINE
BCAP CLAW
BIG CHIEF 1
BIC FLAT 1
SIC ROCK
BIRTHDAY
BLACK ROC*. 1
BLANCO
•LOCK C
BLOCK G
BLUE BELL 2
BLUE BUTTE
BLUE BUTTE 1
BLUE coose
BLUE JAY 1
BLUEBIRD
BLUEHIPD
BRIDGE 2»12
BUCKHOP.N
RUCKSXIi- 2
WLt 1
BUZZARDS ROOST
CAMP BIRD CPOUP
CANARY GROUP
CAT BIRD
CECIL1AITE 1
CEDAR "TN SEC 16
GEYSER BASIN UPA
C * H HUG,
CRAEFF, RUSSELL
«AR"lCli,CLOPED 0
HYSTEBY SNIFFER
ATKIUSOW EXPL.CP
DREkES, VFRHON
GRAHAK, FPCO M,
PEEP. G.It.
ACADEMY URANIUM
PARRlSH+DALftbEI
MIGHT, L.B.
ATLAS KIkERALS
ALBRECHT BROS. UP
CO^SOLIOATFO URA
CONSOLIDATED URA
UNION CARPI^E CP
CONSOLIDATED URA
•CONSOLIDATED "Of
CONSOLIDATED URA
»OOD*ARD, O.k,
UNION CAPBIBE CP
PAChlQC * CHIOES
SPACE, PEED
HUNT, RED
URAHIUS 1KC,
kILCOJt, BERT L.
FOOTE L.S,
STONE, E.F.
PLATEAU UPAK1UM
CONSOLIDATE.!? UPA
FAflWSWORTHjEHERS
DAVIS + filELSOH
ADAHS,R,D.»L.A.
ASIRUS, C.C.
JENSCh t KOURIS
HUNT, KAY
HAYES H.» M,
MAMSEH, HdxCR
KAIf>STEAUX,HAPVC
FAUCETT * JOSES
VALLEY KlfMG, CO
HAMILTON J.C,
UNIOf. CARHIDE CP
LITTLE kILD HORS
KILLIAHS MINERAL
ACERSON, ALFRED 0
R HENDERSON
BEAVER
BEAVER
RCAVCR
PEAVEB
BEAVER
BEAVER
BOX ELD£I
OUCFESNE
DUCHE5HE
DUCHESNE
DUCHCSHE
EHERY
E"ERY
EHEPY
EHCRY
ENEPY
EHERY
FHERY
EMERY
EMERY
E'CRY
FMFRY
f'EPY
EMEat
EMERY
EJ-EBY
C*ERY
FHTRY
FWERY
EMEPY
EHCRY
EHEPY
ECFRY
EHEPY
CM| BY
EKERY
EHFRY
E1ERY
FMERY
CHERY
EVERY
IWE*Y
ECERY
EKERY
EMEPSf
CHIBY
EHEPY
IMChY
SCC. TOWNSHIP RANGE HERIO,
21
J7 5
0
0
6,0
0
o
0
0
a
o
o
0
0
ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
a
A
o
6
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
MINING
METHOD
SURFACE
UNDFRGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNBERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UiMOERCftO
DUMPS
UMDCRGRD
i^NDit>>Gso
UliOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNOCKGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDt'RGRQ
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UNQGRORO
SURFACE
UNDEtGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UKO&.KGRO
UHDEHCRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
UNDEBCRO
UNOERCRO
U.1DERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDCRGRQ
SUKFACC
SURFACE
10TU. PRODUCTION
(TONS AS OF
•
_
1,000 -
100
1,000 «
loo
100
MOO, 000
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 -
too
100
100
100
t,o«o -
too
100
too
01/01/79)
<100
<100
<100
<100
100,000
- 1,040
<100
<100
«100
-------
INACTIVE UPAKJU* NINES IK THE UOS 3
DARLENE 1-30
DELTA
01SEl«T
DIXIE JOYCC
DOLLt
BONITC
omit i
EAGLES tlESt
EfEK C
rLintys'1 t
GREW VCI«.
CREEP
ifl
HEBTI I
HIODCH POfNf
* PUMPS
10
IUCL1NE l!
INCLINE 12
INCblVE 11
INCLINE 14 * 15
INCLINE H
17
18
19
CID*R XJDGE URkU
, RIC»*»D
FUELS NUC
CHEHIE, f.V.
ELLIOTT i J4«"ES 0
lNi JOJkNMC
i FREP
c»(t«ot
J,c.
*CEP50N» ALFRED p
ffESBPEY, 5. 1,
PETHO lltCl-E*1"
{,»«» 6LE* *.
DINOQUISt, JOE
EttlOTf, JIMB8 0
*CEPSQN«»LrReO O
urtoititct*
HE*IM,
HA: J.r.
»TEt.L, L,r,
U,5.UP»njliM COCP
PROS.UR
CLnDN
K,
HUC
Ksr UP*
PETITTI. JOH-i a,
DALE DILLOK
OOt, kLD K1NNI
JOE
nito HUCLE&.R
fCIRO SUCtEAR
PETR0 NUCLLJLJl
PCTRO
tttva
FOUR CORNERS OIL
FOUR CORKERS OIL
C»£R¥
E1EPY
E'-IRT
EHERt
EfERT
EMERt
E^EST
ECERJf
EMERY
E«tERT
EMERY
EHERif '
tKER*
EMERY
UHERt
StWFACt
SURFICS
UNDERCRO
VNOCRGHO
UMJERCSQ
UNDCRGSQ
(MOCRCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
U*DC"5*0
SURFACE
UNBEHC8(J
SURFACE
UNDERSRO
DUKPS
UWBER6BQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOMCRO
UMDCRCRO
SURFACE
UHoESGho
SURFACE
SOBF»CE
UNOESGRQ
SURFACE
UNOERSflQ
1/K0EWGKQ
UNPEilGRO
SURFACE
U-40EACRO
UNDfRCRO
U^DERCRQ
UhDCRCRO
sswjfACe
UHOERSRO
SURFACE
OUKFS
UNDERCRO
UNDERGRO
DOTSERGRO
UHOCKCRO
UWDERCRQ
UNOER5RO
UHOE-RCPO
UNOER&RD
UNDCR5M
1,000 •
1,000 «•
1,000 »
1,060 •
1,000 -
1,030 -
100
109
100
100
100
too
100
ICC
l.oos »
ttOOO "
190
100
1,000 -
joo
1,000 -
100
1,900 »
100
too
<100
«ico
loo, ooo
-------
URANIUM Wl*eS IN THE UMTtO Sf*f£S
SOURCE| DOE, SPjmB «}UNCTfOW, COLORADO
PAGE 41
tune
CO"TROI.LEK »*,*£
COUNTY
SEC, TOWNSHIP RANGE HGMID,
MINIMS
METHOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(IONS AS Of OI/01S74)
crr.j
UTIH
10
INCLINE ii
INCLIrfl. IS
I«CLItt J
**5
7. KINK
IHCLT*E 9 NQRTP
IrtCLIKC 9(J"tO 1-
J*CK POT
aOHNHlE Ef>Y 5
JQ3HO* 1
LAST
l*ST CHJSCE 4
iiC OC/C t,£*5l
LITTLE KF"» 7
LITTLE JPE
tlTTLE LIL-JEPRY
LITTLE *IKF
LITTLE BUS**"
LITTLE KlLOCtT
tO*E T»er CPOWP
LOCKOUT !
LODETT*
IUCKY OOC 1
LUCKY SOUIPCCI
LUCKY aTPirE
LUCKf STS-IKC 1,2
il/Cltr Sffijltf CfO
MICKY STRIKE GRO
JO
J2
MEftk I
CISCELLAHEOUS
MORLtNC 1
«OUNT*1» KING
KI»S S
KlUO J
MOUNTIIH KINC GR
HUCHO
(COMT'DJ »«
PETRO NUCLEAR
rou* COBBERS OIL
TOUR CORktPS OIL
us*
*TL*S
JOSHU* flVl'ir, CG
a rfcY(V* UB,
CURTIS, SUSSCLL
SS.ACK BULt UNO.
GRAHLICH *"I«E»tL
R8S '•tMlNC CO,
J,C.
WdlCHT, L,f,
NIXD« llgmtUH CO
*s$*«s, c.e.
Jt*K
JOANNE
PETERSON, JESS
U,8.U«H*I«»« COUP
U,S,Ui»«IUM CORP
BEKtLEY, Jl«
mi'R CORKE(>S OIL
KT1L90N, WSQ1
8K1BHDRE, t.Hi
CONSOLIDATED UB*
iKIOHOftt, T,H.
IKIBMORE, t.H,
COW80L{0»IID UR*
ATLiS MIHTPALB
r«fRY
EMtRY
EHCRY
C»ESY
I.*lft
EMI.SY
ECIPY
f-EPY
E"r/«i»Y
EKERY
ENEPY
EMERY
EHKPY
EKCRY
34 S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
0
0
0
o
«
0
9
0
0
0
a
a
o
9.0 r
o
6
0
0
USDERCftO
UNDEHGKO
UWDESCRO
UNOERGRO
UfcDERCRO
UNOCRGRO
UNBER5RO
UHBERGRO
UMDERGRO
UHOttGHO
SoSfACc"
"KDEPGRO
ONDEKGPO
sunrtCE
SURFACE
UHDEKGRO
UNDEHGRG
UNCLUCRO
UNOEfiGftO
UKOtKCftQ
UNMR5HQ
SURFACE
BNDERGRQ
SURFACE
UHDERCRO
SURT/ICE
UKDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDEHGRO
UMDERGRO
UMDERGRD
jyttr*CE
UNDERGAO
SUPTACE
SURfACE
UNDE1GRO
UNOCRGRO
UhOEDGRO
UNOERGRa
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
ItNDCRGRO
UNCERCRO
UNOCHGRO
UHDERGKO
tlHCESGRD
UNOERGRQ
100
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
1,000 «
100
1,008 •
1,000 "
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
100
ino
too
100
1,080 -
l.oso *
loo
1,000 «
100
J00
1,000 »
1,000 «
100
» 1,000
-------
IH»CTJVC ui»A*tu* KIBES i« ?ttr UNITED STATES
•DURCCl DOE, CSAWO JUNCTION, COtDRIBO
o
MlhC
NAME
COUNTY
SEG.
«*KGC
METHOO
fUSOUCtlOs
(To*s AS or
(FT. 5
KUDO?
vn, a
«»£SA i
KQR1K MtS* U
HQRTK MSA II
NORTH FESA 6
WORT* JLr i
UiF'iOwi'
VAN
L,T.
HUNtKB t.T,
(NKBV
UHIO>> C»B§IBE CP
C01SOWOHTED U«*
coNsotiP«reo URA
CO»»50LIOATEO UR*
BNJt>«< CUflPIKE CP
e»i:pif
CMEBlf
ten o,
»tST
Oil,
PETRQ
VITPO Klwrmts
WE (.CM »lil«Ft*0 NDCLCA*
'«- CO
EKfpt
E"E»!f
CO.
Eiff>Glf F«CL5 HOC
tl* "IHlhC CO
i»Lri>eD o
c.c,
S1C1D"«01»E» t.H.
6*A«LICK
RTILSON,
»*BBLC,
KINES
|!«»1CH1,
tjNDFRGRO
UNDCBGRQ
SUKPACC
UNDFRGPO
UNOCRGRQ
SURF ICE
UNOERGRQ,
SURFACE
UNDE*C*D
SURFACE
UHPERCBQ
CWIWSRQ
UK0ERCRO
UNOtRGRQ
UNDERGHD
UNHEKCRQ
UNtiERGhO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UH05.RCHO
100 » i * 000
loo • 1,000
<100
1,000 -
1,000 - 100*000
CiOO
100 - 1,000
1,000 > 100,000
loo - j.eoo
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM MfctS I* THE UkJTCP STATES
SOURCE! DOE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE 41
MINE NA»E
CONTROLLER
COUNT*
SEC, TOWNSHIP
HAKGC NERID.
KIHIHC
KETMOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
{TONS AS OF 01/01/79)
DEPTH
VIRGINIA VALLEY
VITRO DUPP
WEDDING SFLL
WHITF STAR 1-in
KICKIUP
CILD HORSE 2J,?7
WILDCAT
fclLLD* SPRINGS
HIWDV
AGATE GPOUP
ALLEN I
B + * CLA1U 1
iCAR CAi'YON
BETTY JACK
BIG TPEE
BLACr CAT 2
BLACK HOUMHN
BLACK KlDOk
BLITZ .
BLUE EIPD
BLUE PIPD 4
SLUE" GOOSt
BBQilN TOP
BUFF
BULL 4
BUST 2
RUTTLAP MSH 1
C1RPON 1
CEDAR POI n 3
CIRCLE CLIFFS
COFFEE ROYAL 1 *
CONGRESS 14
CONGRFSS 22
CONGRESS 2<
CONGRESS 23
CONGRESS 47
CONGRLSS 47*4i*5
CONGRESS SJ
CRDK-LUCKY SI.ATE
DEAN 4
BEEP CAHXOfc S
DEEP CAKYON 3
DENNEA LOU
DIRTY SKA*E 7
DOHS 1
DREAH
DPEA" CLAIH 1
DUKE HIKE
LAW, GLEN A.
VITRO CHE'ICAt
H,**,k, HIHE.RALS
B * B 1IMNC CO.
ARAGOI', A,B,
CIStCRW *I«,Ir«G
JENSEN t JACCSDN
fl^TERS * JOfCS
BLACK DPAGOK URA
UNITED ENERGY
KA1SEP URAN.CO.
U«)CKO»N
NEIf'ECKE PROS.
FEDERAL IIESQURCF
UMIVtBSAL URAN.C
30TH CE"TUBY POk
rc ELROY, JOHH
HOLMES, J.MARK
ENERGY FUFLS wuc
ACNE URANIUM KhC
RAIKSOJ UPANIUH
bUUE GOOSI «<»C
OAVInSQN.FPERlf L
CHH1S1EI SFN, ARUI
PRIGHI, fc.K.
HUNT, RFO
SMITH » StEk'ART
EK<£«, HAPOLD C,
SILVfP BELL IVBll
COOPEH * IfRDKM
BPOrtN, A,P,*ASSOC
BULLDnG HIMSG C
CUTHRIC * ASSOC.
GUIHRIE t ASSOC.
GUTKRIE * ASSQC.
GENERAL UT1LTIES
EKKER, NAPOLP C.
INDUSTRIES«HIHES
SMITH, c.e.
GENERAL UTILTIES
EHrtR, KkPQtO C,
EKXER, HAROLD C,
HEP-CULLS URANIUM
DIRTY SHAfE MNC
IXXER, RITTBP
BROWH » SONS CO
DREAM MINING CO
FRANDSEN BROS,
r»»t
FMERY
E^ERY
tliZf-Y
F^ERY
F.^ERY
CKERY
E«ERY
CHEHY
GARFIELO
GAPFIELO
GAMFIELD
GlBFTELD
GARFIELD
CARFIELD
GASriELD
GAHFIELO
GARF1ELO
GAPFIELO
GABFtELB
GAHFIELO
GA.RFICLD
GAfflELO
GIPFIEIO
GARFItLt
, GAPFIELD
GIRFIELO
GARFIELD
GAPFIELD
GARFIELD
GARFIELD
GARFIELD
GAPFIELD
CARF1ELP
GAtFlELD
CAKFIELO
GARFIGLD
GARFIELD
CAPFIELD
GAPFIELD
5APFIELQ
GAPFICLO
CARFIELD
GARFIELD
GARFICLD
GARFIELD
GASF3ELD
CARFIELD
SURFACE
DUMPS
UMDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGP.D
SURFACE
SURFACE
SUPFACE
UNDERCPO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
iURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDEPGRO
UKOEPGRO
UKOCRGRD
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRD
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
USDLFGPO
UNDERGHO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UKDERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
loo - 1,000
100 - 1,000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000
<100
1,000
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM KINCS IN THE UNITED STATES
"SOURCEl DOC, CPAN3 JUNCTION, COLORADO
4f
HIKE N*»'E
CDNIPOLLtF NAME
COUm
SEC. TOWNSHIP
RANGF MEKID,
MINING
METHOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
[TONS AS Or OJ/01/79)
DEPTH
err,3
UTAH
(CONl'D)
EAGLE CPOUF
EAST COVE «
COMA GROUP
ELLEK I
ELLSWORTH 1
ELO»» J
CRHA h»E 1 « J
EUNICE 1
FIVE STAP CROUP
FPE*01iT ASSOC 1
CARFTFLQ
GENERAL
HAHSEK 4
HARD ROcr
HARD SCRA6PLE I
HENRY 1J
HOPE
HOPE-CIRCLE CL1F
HOT SHOf*4T,St;T,
JAKE
JIH DA(-fY
JUNE P.ELL GROUP
KIIC GROUP
LAST CHANCE J
LITT1E SUE
LODE
LONE I-,
LOUISE 1
LUCCY D*Y
LUCKY STUKE 1-7
LUCKY STROE 10,
LUCKY 5TP1HE 8 '«
LUCK* ATPICEI 9*
PAJEST 1C « fODOC
MAJESTIC 1
MAUD V
"ERRI HAC GROUP
MIDNIGHT
CIDMGHT 1
MISFIT I
HODOC J
NANCY 2
NANCY J*NE
EKKER, HQPACE
HDHfY POT URAM C
EKKER, HAROLD C.
HUNT, PtO
S1VS
EKKER
EKKED, BITTEH
EKKEft, HAPDLD C,
tAIBSANKS, NEIL
HOOD. HO-XPD P.
.HABLr. P
*saic.o,
SUITE
HAPOLD C,
JOE
H*XSCN, J.VCAPS
HOLIES, J.F*BK
HUMT, K»t
BPO»N, J.r.
HUM, KAY
HOPE Ml»iJ>.G CO
STUD HOPSl BUTTK
HOWARD S.K,
iUCHAUt, 5ANOY I
HKKT, RED
rODTE lINfRALS
HUNT, KAY
UTAH FNEWY CO.
AULE1 PAUL K
C*H illlf.p
HE*!' J
CREEK
JUSTENSEH, LEE
* JACKSON
ULIPPEL, BEK F.
HYDRO JET SEBVIC
EKKCR, HAOOLO C.
P*P ASSOCIATES
BISTIAM, G,A.
KOVELLE, E,0.
HOOD, HOWARD P«
TAHKKP « TROUT
CO,
CO
SELF, EPROL
S.*
BBET
HUXT,
GAPriELD
GARFICLD
GARriet.0
SkffllLO
GAPFItLO
GATIELD
GARFULD
GAS-FIELD
G&RFIELO
GARFIELD
GARFIELD
GAPFIELD
CAPriELO
GAPFIELO
CARFIELO
CAP MELD
GAPFULD
GARFIELD
CARFIFLD
CARF1ELO
GAPFIELO
GAPFIELO
GARFIELO
GARFIELO
GAPF2ELO
CAPFIELO
GAWFIELO
CABFIELD
CAPTIELO
CARFIELO
CARFIFLD
REO
GJRFJILD
GARFJELO
GARFIELD
GARFICLO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE '
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
VHPEHGRQ
SURFACE
UNDERORQ
SURFACE
SUHFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
IINDERGAO
UNOCRGRQ
UNDERGRO
UMOERCRO
SURFACE
U*DEflCR0
UNOEHCHQ
SURFACE
UNDLRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDFRCSO
UdPBRGRQ
SURFACE
UNOFRGRO
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
1JNDERGHO
SURFACE
UNBERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
URDERCHO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
100
100
100
100
1,000 -
100
100
100
too
100
1,000 «
too
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
100
100
109
» 1,000
(loo
<100
- 1,000
<1 00
- 1,000
<100
<100
<100
1.000
000
-------
INACTIVE
HJHCS I» THE UNJIW »1MJIS
DOC, GRAND JUNCTION, COIORABO
so
KI«E
COUNtT
SEC, towHSHiP RANGE KERID,
METHOD
TOTAL
(TONS A8 OF 01/01/79}
OlPfH
CFT.5
OIL BEEP 1
PlVMf.lt ll
PHYLLIS
eoccx or
RAINY D»Y
RUTS fcfST
PATTI.ESNAKE
PCD CLIFF
UTAH
(CDHf'D)
ATON
ROTSiRS W1OST
POSE AN- i
RO$lLA« CPDUP
V> LEAR
"AJ.TFB CS1UP
WHITE BULL 6ROUP
MILLIE I
HOOOPUfF GROUP
TtLLOW C*T 1-J
J*C*ET
PAINT
} SS 5
I CROUP
AEC CROUP
liUSUA
, HAROLD C»
RED
EKFER, SITTER
JfNSlH,
DIVIS, PAV
SEVEY,
JONNSO"! « FOSS
CKKER
ARCO UiUlfU11 CO
RltJHRlE * ASSOC,
HATHIS, B.C.
SHtLCO, {PC.
P*P ASSCC
U (t,COCP
MINUS,
SfLF,
FU1LS NUC
S.» k.rtlSING CO,
CPfEL rt-+ 1C INC J
mars, BB»DLET
»ILt *RO OtBDSEI
OCHN1S F(ffEI>
CKESThUJ.HAOTLf T
IKXCR, HORACE
HNC
ACME UBAtl
HUNT, rH
HAY, (JN&Qt
ROCFRS, R.S.
TtRtC.CHAS.H.CST
U«*MU« SICVICE
FUELS HUC
r.o.
BARWEY * HQ«lki»r>
BALSLEY. I0«
URANIUI* PSOO CO
CO
HARRIS
CABFICLD
SABflELO
OAITIELD
OARFtttO
GARFIELD
SAPritlD
GARriSL.0
SIR! tELO
CAPFIFLO
C»PFttLO
6*1= U CLP
CAPF1FLD
CIPFlfLO
SARFIELD
GAHFIELO
G&RFtELO
GABF1ELO
5ASF1ELD
CARFrELO
SARFItLB
CIJTULD
SIPFIELP
CAHF1ELO
MPFIELO
C»AN»
12
0
0
0
0
6
o
0
Q
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
o
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n«o E
0
17.0 E
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
UNBE«G«0
UJiQEKCRO
UVOCRGkO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UKDERGRO
UKOtBGHO
SURFACE
UMOCRG10
UNDERGBO
UhftERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
U*DIHGRO
SURFACE
UXDERGrlO
tJPDERCRQ
U"<0ESCRO
UdDEacno
IflOfGRQ
SURFACE
OTDERCdO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UMDCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
wornans
SURFACE
UNorRGRQ
UNDttGRO
UNCCRGRO
U^DEftGRO
24 UfTDLRCRO
SURFACE
J4 SURFACE
100 . 1,000
1,000 * 100,008
<100
100 • |,OOO
CIOP
C100
<160
*100
-
-------
INACTIVE VIUMUK IttHtS 1» THE UNITED STATE$
ODE, GSAHD JUVCHQK, C0LOKA.OO
P4CC SI
«UNC
Nlk*t
COUHTIt
•EC. TQ»».SWIP BAN5E HERIP,
TOTAl. PROOUCTIOM
{fDNS AS Of 01/41/79)
PtPIH
crt.)
UTAH
(COt'T'P)
Blȣ SPOT
POINT
MG 1UGK 17
tic LOUIC i
BLACK IP€ I « 2
stwE nor
BLUE
PLUE
BOI*)? I
*s*y*t,o
ftUCKHQH* I
C 0 KKEEIFB Cl»l
CAPT*l« «E MNC
MCHOtSi CUPti A.
CO»'GER k,I.
Cr»CLf P01 IMC,
STRATEGIC
COLVIN
» t»OR
ROC* U«AN,
C*1
tllMCC
StCHESf, AB1 0,
K,* J.KININC CO,
CO
*1E»N*IM», MSS
ONKU-Jut COhTHObA
COLO CL(>V» 0««l*
*C KCIti * HVSHtit
STOCKS, JCH»<
»fRk*I CO,
CBEAt "TSTEM UR
ONION CUBMDt C?
»L*Ci CtT
*.!?»
H
UHIOU CHUBJDE CP
UNION cifHOE ct
S, Wtt B,
M1M1NC
SMITH 4 L1RC3
PCCEHEt, L,
CIUND
fifi*«B
CP*«t»
CB*HC
CR*'-0
GRiHD
6SUKO
Gft*»«C
6P»*P
GPIINO
GR»HO
sumo
BRUNO
G**«0
GBUHD
GRAND
1
5
29
34
2J
7
j
4
it
11
29
u
It
a
36
24
24
IS
>4
to
JS
21
SS
JO
14
S
1
24
2S
21
S5
24
23
21
2k
2«
24
22
31
21
25
25
24
24
2ft
25
24
5
14
31
33
25
24
3J
25
21
s
&
s
s
s
s
s
s
a
s
s
s
&
y
s
s
s
s
£
s
s
s
a
s
3
S
I
s
S
25
21
25
20
IJ
2i
25
ao
?i
2*
30
11
2«
t'
n
20
20
11
U
2S
9 1
25
20
22
21
29
2)
2S
24
,0
.0
.0
,0
,0
,0
0
a
0
0
0
,fl
.0
0
.6
0
,0
,0
0
,0
,0
0
, J
0
,0
0
,0
,0
0
.0
.5
,0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.0
»o
.0
0
s
0
,0
c
0
0
1
e
r
r.
r
c
E
E
e
E
E
1
r
E
r
E
E
C
C
w
F
E
E
£
C
r
E
C
24
24
24
24
J4
2*
24
24
24
3*
2*
2<
24
24
24
34
24
24
74
2*
24
24
24
24
24
34
24
24
24
UNOEKGHO
suftncs,
UMPCR5RQ
"UNOERGRO
UNDERGRQ
SUKfiCE"
UUDCBGHO
UNOEHGilD
UfcOEflCSO
UNBERGRO
U«OC*GHO
BuOCAGBO
H!SC,-Pi
8Uf?f*C£
suprACE
OUCPS
1,000 -
100
109
1,000 -
100
1,000 »
t,0<10 -
1,000 «
100,000
« 1,000
«ioo
100,000
100,400
EflC80 1,000 * IBM
SURfWE
UNOCRGRO
UHDEKGRO
su»r*cc
UTOEHSSO
yNDEHGRO
U"iDEBGRO
U&OEK6SQ
100
100
100
.
•
.
1
1
1
-------
VPANtUM MIMES IK THr ilMTSa
SOURCEI OOEi OAANO JUHCtlON, LOLORABQ
33
MINE *&!>£
»••••••••••• UTAH
6RC1T FAULT
HEUEfl" I
HUT JOE
HILL TOP 1
MIPONJft)
MOPE
KOHSEIKJEf 1 Hj«J
INCLINE 1,2, 3, •<*
1HCEPSOLI, 11
it*
JOK<-
JOHUMir A.I
JVkMITft GWJUP
JUMCTION
JUNIPER CROUP
KCLLr I
KUWOl KE
LAST IMDTA" I
LENA !
IEWIS *
LITTW tVA
LITTLf PEOICI1E
tone PINE i
LOOKOUt i
10«IK GHQUPS
bUCKY D»Y
H CROUP
HCPCURY t
•III.E HICM tinr r
WttieRfcL tW-BtR J
Nl«R*L II
poi*s t*
JltG BLUE
HISIAKC,
HOW* Ct»I»8
NCM ARXITRQ1G
KORIH NJfC 3
NQf»I* SbQPC 3
otn HC COY
OLC SPOON
OSCAR i
OXIDE t
p.r.s.t.
PlRCO *
33
(COKT'OJ
8*iCONES EIPL.DR
zuercLT c,« P,
JIN tHtTCKCbL
DC PC£J,S05E HAP
XFVINE< DOW J,
UMVERSJL UD4N.C
>TJ.»S lINIKtLS
MIMES i*c
CP'IIROLP
D»V1S. LEON L.
ftmnO1*, C,8,
"•0»B VP4MU11 CO.
PEIPQ KIICLCiH
»Bt«*»Tny, jess
WUGOT, «.», its
It-ili, J.w,
HILL UR*
TCMt PCM
JOMCS, E,t,,
rastEP »
»IRfciQP«t PPSPCTR
ue¥rw|f>$ ca»
tlt-t, UNTMO^If JP
1HDUSTR1ES*MINES
JTStPt S10CKS
SHUNWJiy * KESTMO
ATl»*««*N*X
Lit HORRIS
UHIO* CHR810E CP
THOPHBUBC OR»W r
JENSCI- f KOuaji
fURNtll BROS
*^Efi»*TK1f, JESS
CITO, CKXPJ-ES
UNION CARilDE CP
Ut*H ALLOT ORES
UTAH ALLOT ORES
fiR»ND
SB* no
CPANO
6R*ND
SRS,«P
CBUHD
GRAND
CR»»0
GN»liD
GRIND
6»»ND
CR*WD
CRAW
CRSHD
CB»t.n
CRtt.0
GR*NB
CH*ND
CRHt.0
SRtND
SPAK'D
GRAND
CHJkO
'EC.
21
11
14
4
22
10
1
11
24
iS
26
6
21
1
J2
27
IS
IS
7
1
t
t
i
J0I»NSHJR KUKGE
26
29
35
27
J*
2
35
33
2 J
12
15
24
12
24
23
26
26
It
26
24
26
25
24
21
11
S
a
s
s
s
s
s
5
S
s
s
5
S
S
s
s
5
5
S
s
s
s
S
t
J
- 20
31
n
14
J7
|4
»7
21
11
22
aa
J4
12
24
22
26
11
20
H
ss
24
25
S3
21
23
,0
.0
,0
,0
6
0
.0
,0
e
.5
,0
0
,0
0
.0
0
.0
0
§
.0
,0
0
0
.0
c
0
.0
,0
,0
8
0
,«
(J
,1)
.0
0
,0
0
«o
9
0
0
0
0
.0
,0
.0
E
e
e
s
E
£
C
E
t
e
E
S
E
e
E
E
E
F
E
E
E
I
C
K
E
HEKIO.
J*
34
24
34
24
24
2*
34
14
24
34
24
14
24
14
24
24
34
34
24
34
24
24
24
24
MINtkG
KS1NOO
UHOERGRQ
SURFACE
ONDErtGRO
UNDERQRO
ynt>CtlCT*1
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOEftGRO
tUKTkCt
UXDERCRO
VMDERGRO
$tmr*«
SUftFliCC
SURFACE
UNCCRSRO
UKOGR.GRO
UKOeRGftQ
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRD
UNOERCPO
L'XCERGRO
UNOEffGRO
UN0ERCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UKDCRGRQ
UWOERC80
sdfiFACi
SURFACE
UKDERGRO
UKDCRGRO
SURFACE
VN[>£RGRO
Ut-oERGRO
SORFACE
iHtDdtcno
UNDERGRO
UNDCFtSRQ
SURFACE
SURfACC
»WACE
SURFACE
UmstRSHO
UNOIRGRD
SURFACE
tOTAt PKOOUCIION
AS or
100
!,OQO - ICQfCCC
100 - 1,000
<100
1,000 - 180,000
<108
1,000 " tOO,000
<100
<100
JOB - 1,000
100 - 1,000
<100
109 • IjOOO
t.OOO - 100,000
<100
<100
ICO
-------
INACTIVE URANIUK MJNBS IK THE (SUITED
SOURCE! ODE, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
51
MINE1
CONTROLtER
UTAH
PEt.TREE 1»8
PETERSON PROPEOT
PEfiFiro TPEF 2
PETRIF1KD TREE »
PINE TPrr !
PIKT0 JACK
PITTSBURb
POLAR KTNC
PO«D
PROSPECT I
PROSPECT 2
PROSPECT 4
PROSPECT T
PROSPECT 9
PROSPECTOR
QUE5TA 3
PAACH vie*
PEO HEM) 2
REP OXIDE 1
*ID TOP 3
PED
RIBBON
RIKROCK
VIEK
jp,fi»ct/p
RUSTY BUCKET
RUTrt I
S,R. FRACTION
SADDLE
SAND FLAT
•C.SEC.JKR'-GlAl
sen arc. 2
SEC.2.23S-J1E
SEC.3J.22S-23E
SWIKARUKP I
SHXhARUMP 1.1A.I
•LICK SOCK
BNOM FLAKE I
80CKO 2
SQUAW PARK G»OUP
SUE » RUTH
SURE riRE
tCATQt. 2
THC"-AS B,
TKCiPSOt, C.
UNION cjisRioc CP
UNION CARflDE CP
UNKNOhH CQ-ITSDLB
UNION CARAIOE CP
ONIOM CAPRICE CP
IRVINE, Dtl^ J.
UHIfix CAfSIOE CP
UK1DN CARBIDE CP
UMIOS C»R5IPE CP
VH!t#0'"t
HETZEl., LFE
HARBISON, JAMES L
BQO'SPAHG "INIVG
8OP
"•OKTGO<«ERK, jnci"
Busrit, I.E.
rDSEtlTE ('«*«, CO
SMJPE, IKE w,
CHARLES
UNI01 C*MBIOE CP
UNIOM CAPPIOE CP
CVANS R,C,
AOAIR. iVCif)
KIOGH, JON«.
11C.
CO
C*P1!DE CP
ZIA.K, P»Ut
MIDLAKU UPANIUK
ATLIS MINERALS
STATE or UT*H
UMION CARBIDE CP
OIL CO,
POdER OIL C".
UTAH ALLOY ORES
t,IL>, GLEh
ATOKIC POKER UR*
PCNL t PUCCrpI
»UNRAY MINING CO
otto
4 JOT 3
UMQK C*RBIDC CP
VHlCr< C*R6IC£ CP
COUNT*
GRAND
GBAMD
GRAM)
"OHA>!0
GHAND
CRA'.D
SP*>.D
CRASD
CRAND
GPI-ID
GP««n
GRAHO
CPA'-O
GRAND
$8«r>D
CRf-D
GRAND
CRM6
GRAND
CFIXO
GRAND
CRA«D
GRAHD
GRIUD
CRA>.D
G»»1D
GRD.D
CR*NO
GRAND
GRAKQ
CRAWO
CRAMS
ICC, TQWHSHIP
2T
14
2T
JS -
20
10
»
1J
Ik
11
i»
I"
11
18
2*
11
4
2«
26
12
2*
2*
It
}
32
11
21
11
«
34
14
24
24
24
2«
19
25
24
75
35
25
25
25
2!
25
33
34
31
22
24
2S
21
24
2)
22
23
22
2}
23
47
n
24
24
i
a
£
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
S
S
s
s
s
5
&
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
H
&
a
s
RANGE
Z1
29
?3
2»
19
2S
25
25
2t
55
26
2K
26
2*
24
2)
21
23
25
1*
21
25
24
21
21
22
31
20
20
2)
25
25
,6
• 0
0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,6
.0
.0
0
0
,0
.9
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.B
.0
0
0
• 0
0
tO
.0
a
.0
,0
0
B
.0
.0
0
,0
.0
0
e
0
.0
,0
t
E
r
E
1
E
E
E
E
E
E
r
c
r
E
E
r
E
E
r
E
I
r
E
IT
E
E
E
H
E
E
I
ME RID
24
24
74
24
34 '
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
54
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
54
24
24
2<
34
2«
24
22
24
34
24
, MIKING
METHOD
(IKOERCffO
UNOERGRQ
UHDERCRO
UWERGRD
UNDERGRQ
SURFACE
UNDERGHO
UNDEHGRO
(/NOERGRO
UNQFRCRO
SURfACE
UHOERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHDER5RO
SURFACE
StfRFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
UNQERGRQ
*unf ACE
UNDCRGRO
SURFACE
UNDCRGRD
UNDCilGRO
SURFACE
SUHFJCE
UNOERGRO
SU»FACE
SURFACE
UhDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGfiO
UNDEitGRQ
UNOIRCKO
UNDERORO
UHOCRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UWCERGRO
UNQCRGRD
UKOEHGRO
iURFACC
suRrncc
UNOERGRO
UNOERCRQ
TOTAL PROOUCTIQM
(TONS AS DF 01/01/793
i.ooo - ioo,ooo
1,000 - 100,090
<100
1,000 - 100*000
1,000 * 100,000
-------
URAK1UH MINES 1W tttt ONITEB SfAfES
sou»cti one, ORANO JUKCIIOK, COLORADO
54
THREE Jill! 19
TOBt G1>OUI>
TWIN BUTTE
UT»H ST.LSt. 51 J
1IHK t
4 «E*> vr»
i-io
VIWD1 »fH»'t
VEltOrf CRASS POO
YELLO* HORSE
XELLOK J*C»
ftlUtw R
YBLl.O«
YIP TIP
DESCST V1F.W
KILL
EAGLE ROC*
RAOII*C£
BtlDDSf
CUOYS
J B G
CROUP
ANNE
POTTS
PROSPECTOR
ABC U
»BC 1
INK
ANN
ASH
11
COVtROLLER «»«£
CCOMT'O)
CO(lt.TT
L,L.
(JONfS, fcEO X,
N.t.
C.L,
ST»tS OF UTAN
|iO»LES * wpICHT
DJVJS »,L,» BISS
UHIQM CAPPIOE CP
ASEP*iATKY, »tESS
JAUHKE, HOI *rlO
SMITH. CH*»LSS H
KC COLOIICH, W,0,
c»to» CHAPtes
*»6Pt!AfHf, JESS
kRICWI, WILLIAM
SCHOMIC^ER J. 1.
*TKI-*SO>I, •*.«.
HC
50LCE*
Ct*l>I
BLACK
BLACK rtTM.UR»1,t;
9,
t£*D*OI
BLACK flEAP COMSO
H< (>E!t
» V.ti.
HUCht* C,J,
INTtB«»TM EKPGt
CLEOi*
IADS,
HAY* JO TSI8C
ATLA8 NIHFPAiS
UKADCQ
UCAOCQ
OR»MD
GRAND
6PANO
CP*NO
GRSt 0
1IPH
PIl'TE
PIUTf
PIUTE
PIUTE
PH'Tf
Hint
PIUTC
PIUTC
PIUTE
t*re
«*t- JUAN
s»* ju*i
»*» JUAI
sti ju*"-
5AU JUAN
SAN JUAX
8AH JUAs
EC.
It
jj
18
JJ
1
is
3\
J5
t«
«
4
*
4
4
26
4
SS
11
TowwsKr?
22 S
33 a
Jfc S
21 E.
2! 8
32 S
12 S
1? S
46 S
27 N
11 »
2T 5
21 5
21 »
J& S
57 5
11 S
JO 1
KAN;
33.0
0
0
0
a
2S.O
2*.0
21,0
2S.O
0
0
12, «
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
fl
U.o
II. 0
«,o
0
fl
J,0
1,0
0
J * ^
J,1)
0
1.0
4,0
1.8
(1
0
0
0
a
21.0
0
0
0
2*,0
0
0
0
;c
c
I
E
£
E
t
w
Ik
•
V
it
K
h
t.
V
V
E
e
HER1D,
24
24
14
14
24
24
34
24
24
94
2«
24
24
34
2*
24
24
34
MININQ TOTAL PRODUCTION
WEtWQO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHOERCRO
WIRE ACE
SURr»CE
UNOERCftO
UWERGRO
iURFACE
y«DERCRQ
SURFACE
SUfifACE
SUHfACC
SURFACE
CNDERSRn
UK'OERGRO
tWRCACE
UNDCRGBO
UKOERGRO
SURFACE
I/VDJRCSO
OKOERaSD
UMOERORO
UNDtRGRO
UMOE^CBO
UKDEBSRO
SURFACE
OltDERCRO
UHOERGRO
8U»FACE
UNOLRGRO
UNOECGRO
SURFACE
i»BEj»GRO
UNDCRCRO
UHDEIiSiSO
ONDS.KCRO
»JSC,-?S
iURFACE
UXOEPGRO
U^OERCRO
U»OEBC»0
$ORf»C£
UNOER5RO
UNOErSRO
(IKOIRGRO
UNOEXGRO
UNOERGHO
UNDt^GRO
{tons AR or
-
1,000 «
100
too
100
100
»100,000
100
too
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 •
»100,000
1,000 «
1,000 »
ioo
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
100
1,090 •
J.680 •
1,000 -
1,000 •
oim/ru
<100
<100
(100
-------
un*«itf« nines w rm ofcizeo tt*?is
*OU*CCl OOt, SRAKO JUMCTIOf, COLORADO
!9
KtliE
COUNTY
•EC, TQ«NSHlP VkHGC KEflO,
ctons
or
trt.)
f VK
•ACARDI CUTLCR
GPO'H»
BEE
• EM, Klf'E
BENCH 1,2, J * «
HETTY GROUP
SIC DC* I
8iG BfcUrr
BIG BO«L
BIO BUCK
BIG 8UCC ll
»rs suCf j
BIG SUCH l.lUBt
BIG BUCf m;6?'iK
BIG RUCK«."*,I'5>
• 1C CBCLK
•10 INDIAN a
615 "I*r 1
BIS PQliitrY
RIG SADUt E 1
»JG TPLE
8XU, s
JOt
BL»C)< »CC 7
»l»ni BOTID"
BUCK C»TS 1-10
BiACK MM
• LAC* 0*1 Of
MIiACX «»TfN
BMJ S1AKJ
BtUE BEtL
SLUC BIPD
BiUE BISO I
BLUt &0^^tT
awtrt
BLUE coosr
BtUE J»T
stye O»Y j
•LUC J*f OU'CS
BHlTt
HtttL «.».
CONTROLS
ELK
8,* d
PITtltl,
ATLAS «l#tflilS
»l».ERjlt5
BTAH COtOHAt>Q OF
LA^xEPT, JAHCS P
OPts«iA«, Uttl*"
l-ISSOUSl EXPb.CQ
Kl<~ (IFOa.
•ICHT, BILL
BLIkCK ROC* URAN.
HAX«CLL>VELVIN I,
GEO.EXfPS* RES
*ac
WAVtJO
E)fCALC£ir£ 1^0.
f XD^CHajCtf^UDE E
PLATEAU J4NC.CO,
K»LI«I, Ok-EN
HARBISQP,JAKES t
PME8LCY *
* WP10WT
JOHWSDS, PUA.M
SAN JLiJ-i
SIN JU*N
S«H JUAl
SA>> iiu**
S*h JU*1
S»N JOA'f
SUN ju».'
«««.' JUS"
S*»' JU»*
SIN JUM
5*-" JUJ"
S»>. JUIM
9A>> JUih
S*N JO**
5*1 JUS'"
S»M J0»^t
S*W JUA*
SUN JUAN
SAM JUA1
SAN
SAK JUAN
fAK JU*«b
**K JUJ*
5t"> JUtri
S*N jy**
SA" JUA"
SAW jat«
StN JilA--
a*"1
6*1 JU»''
SAN JUAN
IIM JUAN
SAW J'/»*
SIN JUAK
1
a
R
•)
n
I!
11
ii
to
19
28
15
)(
38
?0
29 S
n s
11 S
11 S
IT S
27 S
1C S
JO S
10 S
31 n
Jt s
28 %
27 5
21 S
31 6
J7 J
0
0
21.0
0
0
21.0
as.o
17,0
0
0
8
2S.O
21.0
0
0
24,0
24,0
0
24,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?!, 100,000
MOO, 005
«ioo
<100
1,000 - 100,000
100 i* i^ f 0do
100 • I,OOP
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM KIKES IN THE UNITED STuTta
COt, CTAKB JUifCtlOtff COLORAGQ
F1GB 54
HIHE
CPNfROttER SAM
•EC,
RAISE
METHOD
IDtAfc PROOUCTION
CfDNI AS OF 01/01/79)
BEPTH
(rt,>
BLUE LIZfABD
BOBCAT
BOJO -
80NAWZA 1 •> 3
BQSklE LEC
BOUNDER
BO"
BQrftiGS
SOI CANYON
BRADFORD 1-5
BREEtt GPnUP
BRIGHT SIAC
BROKE-i SHQt
BRfWflE 1
BUB
BUCK 1
SUC< SUS 1*2
BUCKEYE NO 1
iUCiCHQJ**
BOCKHORM 1-J
l»UCR5Kls 1-2
BUGOKTfc RPR8J"
BUCKSCIf. STAIC
PUC) 1
BUSIER
HITt-EP CA*YO*i
SUTTE 1
C CROUP
C.C.C,
CALICO
CAXEl (CIGArfCtTt
CANARY
CANARY
C AH$Y
CANTO* i
ClMYC1* J
CA»L.LQOX,isJaOi(Y
CAROL B
CASTER 2
CASK IN }
CEOuC
CEOA* 17
CE0AR ilRO
CEOAR INCLINE
CN*xP I
CHAIttS KEITH
CH»RtKf J
CHCSS DlOGt
(SERS* rirrt.3 KUC
tlMKNOWK CONTRLR
aojo UPAMIUH co,
SAlSt-CY, K.W.
BOJO URAMUH CO,
PETFRSON, fRASK
INSPIRATION LEAK
fcTlitS MtfcrRfcUS
FQOtC M1NERAIS
DEVILS CAhYoM CfNTER C
SHU«i*AY BOB
BIGHORN COLO Cb<3
ALBERT B»LL*HD
•(ECdEP W.J.
UfOKIC EXP.t J'.XC
BUCiiHORN MIMING
JIH HIMBOUHSi
llNIC*OkW CONTBfJfcfl
SMIPHOC^ , ! TO
BALDWIPOBCR} D
HICH015»SVT¥AI!*
UliXKQkli cnhtBOLR
SHUHJAY StTW
AIRIORNE PRSPCIR
DFLAY SHU'^AY
R»I^CHE«$ FXPt.*B
SAiStLS UPti.cvG
BA05EP UP»»,CORf
ABERNATHr, JESS
HEDftBASU'ttE KC
BIR8EP MIHIKC CO
COL TEX UBA«IU»'
MtCLSO^i fRM»Cl&
OyfiAf UHA^IUM
MORGAN, CHARLES S
8HU«J*K < ktST-D
EIAK, PAUL
YU»A DEVELOP, CO,
BRADfORD,SYLV(Sf
YUBA DEVtLOP.CO,
CMANp HIKING CO
NAVAJO TRIBE
WHITE CAhYOM MKG
SNUHirfAY PETE
SAN
•AN
SAN
S*N
SA1
SAN
SA>'
SAK
SAM
SAh
SA»
Stx
SAh
&AH
SAN
SIN
3^1,
i*n
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
StN
SAN
SAK
SAM
SAN
SIN
SiN
SA»j
SAN
S*N
BAN
SAN
SAN
S1H
• AN
• AN
StN
SAW
SAM
SAN
SAM
SAN
SAH
SAN
SAM
JU**f
JUAH-
JUA^
JUA*
JUAV
JUAK
JUAN
JUAM
JU1M
JUAH
JUAN
JUAN
JOH.
JOA-<
JOAX
JUK»
Jljill
JUAH
JUJh
JUAM
JUAN
JIH*
JUAN
JUAV
J'JAS
JUAV
JUAK
JUAN
JU»S
JOA-"
JUAN
JU*"i°
JUA1
JIIA<»
JUA/I
JU»«
JU*1*
JUA».
JUAN
JUAM
JUAN
JUAN
JUAW
JUAV
JUAM
JUIN
JUA»
6
11 10 S 24,0 C
0
31 11 S J».0 E
0
0
0
II 19 5 24,8 E
0
0
a
14 }i S 24,0 E
3) 29 S 26.0 E
a
0
0
0
0
n IT S 24.0 E
0
0
e
0
!9 51 1 tt.O w
J» JJ S 2J.O E
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 It S 36.0 f
I» 27 S 34, 8 E
0
0
0
.0
i a« s 2},e r
0
6
0
0
* 11 S 21,0 E
0
0
0
0
7 Z1 S 24,0 C
UNOEMRO
2t ONQERSRO
UNDtftGRQ
14 UHOERORO
SURFACE
UKOCRGRO
SURFACE
}4 UNOERCRO
UNDRRSPO
UKKVJjWU
UHoesoso
24 UkDCRGiiO
24 SURFACE
SURfACE
SURFACE
UNDERCKO
UHDCSCPO
SURfACf
24 SURFACE
SURfkCE
UKKKOVN
UMOERSSO
UNOfRGHO
32 UNOCRC80
3* UNDI«GR(J
SURFACE
UHOERGR0
UKOERORO
UNBERGRO
SURFACE
UNOSRGRQ
34 SURfACE
24 VNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNBEAGRC!
UfcDERCaO
3MDCRGRQ
Ji UvoCRGHb
UKBCRCRO
SURFACE
SORfACE
UNDC8GRO
24 UNDEKCRO
UWDIRGSO
SUKFACt
UKDSHCRO
UNDERCRO
14 VHDERGRO
1,000 «
1,800 -
100
too
MOO, COD
1,000 »
100
too
100
too
too
s.ooo -
1,000 »
100
1. 000 -'
100
i
100
i.ooo -
1,000 •
100,000
108, COS
- 1,000
» 1,000
<100
-------
INACTIVE 0**»tSUM NlfcEi III THE UNITED STATES
. «ou»cci ttae, CHAM ju«crioi»» COLOS*OQ
PACE SI
K1NE HA*lE
CLM" 4
CLAI* 1
ctirr HOUSE
COAt CPCEH
COLUMBIA 1
TOP S
COST»«ZA
COTTOWOQp
COTTOW*QOP 1*1
COTTON-HOOD TAIL!
COUGAR
COVE epnOP
CQIQTE t
CUTLCH
CTS *QNUftlVELLOir JC
CIXIL 2
COLLAR
OOfQfHT 2
DOSOfHT KAY
HUGH » if
CANYQK
EACUS
0>
StA«£5»!«0 HETALS
UNIOH
ATLAS
SlITOh * DWLAKET
UR
PIONEER D^LG.CO.
B1LSLET. H.H.
INTf P
>' r,J,
BLACK i
BLACK.c,«jories r
HANVEV 0ELLUM
C
BUhCETT SHU"rt»T
ciirr MiNitic co,
ENERGY rUFLS WUC
JIM C. BUTT
DAVIS, WO'tK
CROSS,
ooriE v.
R.
OADE
UBA
ATOMIC
HO«EST»)iE
RKD ROC«
SURPLUS
CD
BAROt, POFEf»T
ATLAS MIMFPtLft
COTTOHMOOO HNG,
FOOTE HIHCRALS
AtONGO, E.J.
OELK1 USAt, „ Olt
HD*f URAHIUH CO,
STOCKS, H.o.
COUNTS
£A« jyin
Sfi JUAO
SAN JUAN
SAW JUAN
SAM JUA*.
6AN JIUl
S»H JUAN
Stk JUAN
HH JUAJf
**H JU»»'
SAM JUA1
•EC, TOK1SHIP
SA« JUA1.-
$A>1 JUAN
«IS JUAN
5»ti JUAN
SAh JUA«
8«f> JUS"
SA» JUA1
SAN JUAe
UH0ERGRQ
UH&CRGPO
VfcCERGRQ
USDEBGSC
u?f0£#GH0
UNQEHGRO
SURFACE
UNBERORO
UNOEKGRO
UNDC8GRO
SURFACE
U«OERGRO
Uf.CtPGf!0
UNOERSRO
U*DE*GpO
UNDERCBO
SURFACE
V1DEKGRO
SURFACE
UbDtRGRO
OMOERGRO
O^DCRGRO
UNBERGRO
UNPERGRO
SUHFACE
TOTAL PRODUCIIOH
tfONS AS Of Ol/fll/T»I
loo
<100
«loo
1.000
too
ifooo •
j,000 •
1,000 •
J.OOfl *
100
1,000 *
100
liOOO «
1,000 -
t.ooo «
1,000 «
1,000 «
» 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
<100
100,000
* 1,000
100,000
- »,000
100,000
108,900
ioo.soo
100, JOO
<100
100,000
• 1,000
ice, cuo
100,9UO
<108
<100
169
1,000 -
JiOOO •
<100
<100
t.ooo - leo.ooo
100 » 1,003
<100
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 • 100,000
•rioo
<1CC
»100,000
t,ooo • 100,000
100 » 1,000
100 « 1,000
too - 1,060
<100
24
UHOEP6RO
too » 1,000
1.800 * |£»9,009
DEffM
(fT.J
a
100
10
8
so
so
3
TOO
0
0
jeo
100
0
e
100
0
jaa
too
100
S8
100
3SC
90
so
100
JCO
0
asa
3JO
0
2SO
so
to
0
500
150
ISO
2SO
180
400
tea
so
50
so
too
0
0
0
-------
INACTIVE UPANHIM KlHCS I* THE UNITED STATES
, SQU&CE1 DOE, G*AKB JUKCTIQH, COLORADO
FACE SI
MINE
UTAH
EASI PI"
EAST *OOOEF' |H!)t
ELL*
EVA
tUPI
< r,o.R,»
FAIR
FALL
FIREFLY
ri|t$T«LAAT CMASC
FORK VIE*
FOUND
CLAIM
FRANCE
FRIDAY
6,0. I
CILHAN
CILPA*
CLAOE 11
COLO CROS.N
GOOD HOPE
CBAKO VIE*
SRASS ROOT
CRfKN t CFtCN
GRISEN FLY J
5REC« ROCK
osrt
HALF * KALf
HINCDVEB
HAPPT J*C>(
HARD BOCK
HART DRAW
KATCMtf J
KATTIC
8LEAK,
BITK SHOK-tAT
wjSHBUpN, LAHK
PRCSLEr * T4W
U110W C»»HB6
P.J,
HILISBGPO URAN
ABBOT, D»V10
FOOTE
DIl/LOI<
S
MNCt
MI»BOt>RN<
OlIBAt
t, MAX w.
8RD*-<(, ALBERT J,
WW CPHTHOtf
OE«iH « FFRANDO
SMUPC BROS
URA«
JTM c,
BLAKE, DO>-*LD V,
NOOEVT, CtAUDE £
NAVAJO TSIBC
C*Yi ABE
BLUE CHIEF URA»
hAZER, ORS01
CLK Hm.VPH^.COX
LAUGHTER ( GERALP
NAVAJO TRIBE
JOHCSPM, DAVE
BRUNKE, H.U.
HAPPI SUf1>BlSt R
CODDrfIN, fAY
ntniHo co,
* TID'tLL
CUBPKY, VtCfOP
COBNt*
BAH JOAM
SAN JUtS
EAK JlfAN
BAN JU*N
SAH JU»K
B»H JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JIMt
AAN JUAN
fl»^ JUAM
SA't JUAt"
SAN JUII»
SAN JUAh
KIN JU»H
SAK JUAM
3»S JUAH
SA1 JUAN
SA* JUAN
SAM JUAN
SA* JUAN
SM juts
SAV JUAK
BAN JUAN
SAN Mk\
SAN JU»<
BAN JUAN
8AH JUAN
8AK JUAN
•AN JUAN
SA1 J'lAk
SAN JU»«<
SAK JUA1
IAN JUtN
8AN JUAN
SAN Jl'IN
HAN JUAH
SAN JUAN
BAN JUAN
BAN JUAN
8AN JtJAM
BAN JUAN
BAN JUAN
-EC, TOWNSHIP
3« 21 S
IJ *T H
1 10 S
50 21 S
1 11 S
f I? S
6 It S
i U a
37' 3* S
u ii a
10 11 8
1! 17 S
iJ 12 a
MANGE
8
0
2«,0 t
a
30,0 V
14,0 C
0
0
0
0
»
S«,0 E
0
a
0
0
0
21,0 E
C
0
0
94,0 C
0
0
0
0
js.o r
«
0
0
0
0
is.o e
a
21.0 t
e
J4,o e
c
26,0 E
0
0
ii.o e
Jl.O C
0
e
0
0
0
XKRIO. HIKING
fETHOO
tfNDCRGftO,
DNOERCRO
14 UKDERGRO
IHiBLSGBQ
}2 ONDERGBO
i« UMoenGRO
Ot-OEflCRQ
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
DWDCRGfiO
HHOCRGRO
}4 UNBEH5KO
UNDEMSKQ
UNDERCRG
UWERCRQ
IIPDESCSO
U1DCRGRO
34 UNOEHGRO
SURFACE
UNDERCRO
UNDERCRQ
94 UHOCR5RO
IUJtr*CE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURfACt
34 UNBERGHO
UNOCRGRO
UUBERGRO
UM3CWGRO
•JNDF.HCHO
yHOE«SRQ
24 UNBCKXO
SURFACE
14 SJnfKCE
SURfiCC
24 UKOf-^CKO
• SURFACE
t4 UNOCRSRO
ONDCRSRO
susrACt
34 UKDCiGRO
34 UhOEKGRO
UNDCRCRO
iURFACE
UNDCRSiltl
UNDERCRQ
UNOCRGRO
TOTAL PK00UCTION
(fOHS AS OF 01/0i/?fl)
100 - 1,000
100 - 1,000
1,000 » 109,000
-------
UM"UUH HIKES IN THE UNITED SlATtS
SOURCE! DOEi SPAXD ^UUCftON, COLORADO
PAGE S«
K1NC
CONTROLLER: HAKE
COUNTS
HERIO,
*l»l*G
METHOD
TOTAL PRODUCHOH
CTONS »S Of Oi/Ol/19)
DEPTH
(FT.S
KEKSf L. SAMPSON
HESPERUS
HIDDE" LOG
KIODEHi VALLEY S
HJOEDUT "IKE
HIGH HOPES
KKiHIALL
HIGHWAY
HILLTOP
COHElfHOGN
HOOT
HOOT 0*L
KOPE 1
KOPE*S»C£,ETC,
HOPPERS
NQB5CFLY
HORSESHOE 1
KOJSE
I DON T K^Q"i
IDA
J«C»<«!XO« SHIFT
lKOtP|Nf>E»t»IA> CPEEK GBP
J.R.P, It
JACK
JACKPOT
JACKPOT
J»C*S
JACOBS CHUB
jic DAJ'PY
JOAN
JOAN
*JQF IUSXDP
JDHJ. CLAIMS
JOHN D 2
JOHNNIE
,jOHt">ilE PIfcE
JOKES
JOKER 1
JOI-AC 1,2*3
JUOSf KAT
JUNCTION GROUP
KIEV
KING J
KING JAUS V1RCE
K1TTT
HAVAJO TRIBE
MiYnElrD, JERRY
tout" MINING CO
M * H DE¥FLOPHEN
UTAH JlW KESOU
UfcKSCIKI. CQSTBQt.*
IHDUSTBJAt, DM1*,
BAt, ASE
STADTCR.ROBRRf !.
COUGHS + SE»PS
SHU"<»Y PPDS.HG
CROSS, QTOJE V,
CAMPSELL, ^,ii
BUTT, H.O.ET »L
PEARS01, T,E.
UNKNOWN CD^fBOliI1
KNIGHT, N,R,
UNION CARRlDt CP
BRLICe-tCU^NINGMAM
CRAftlC** FXPLOR,
ATLAS "IHrPitS
TUSlfcG » DE*^
PARADOX »t!»iINC C
PARAPOI HIHIVC C
ALAODl* EXPL.IMC
CLE^MJf CUTL£R
LOtf ST*R HXG.CO
BT^TLEr « nSRCI*
NAVHJO i»i*e
ATOMIC EXTRACT, II
POCCPS, DlfH-'L
*ATKU-S,L»»«AN «,
k*5H5l'»h , L»? K
REDO, ELLIPTT
$KU<**'A!f H * 6
CLOUSE * fOSTER
BHUKhtY BPC3.KG
VICIt BPOS
COTTDK*ODD HUG,
MJHFRALS WEST
CENTUM 21 M»5
CRA1S. E»»l M.
•PPLtBEf, CLCN
AKJH, M,E»
SESAHC KININC co
URADCO
JIHUHHAY KENNETH
SAM
S»N
SAN
$A^
6>
5JN
SAN
Sl*<
SA"»
6ft M
5>V
SAN
SAN
SAM
S&1*
SAN
SAN
SAM
SAM
BAH
JUAN
JU»i>
JOA"
JUAN
JU*N
JUAN
Jljllfi
JU*1*
JUA*
JUAN
JU»»-
JUAN
JUAh
JVA1
jyi*
J'rAi
JUAN
JUA*I
JU*U
JUAK
JUAV
jmH
JU»«
JU*1»
JU*«i
JU*N
JU»1
jgil*
JHA-i
JUAN
JU*^
JU*f
JU*^
JVH.1
Mk\
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JU4H
JUJN
JUAh
JUtN
JUAN
JU»«
JUIM
JUA»i
JU»N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IS J7 S 21,0 r
1 11 S 24.0 E
0
0
0
0
i J2 s ?j.o r
0
6
31 2B s 2s.o e
34 }9 s 34,0 C
0
n
10 J3 5 22,0 E
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
31 21 S 3*,0 C
0
e
0
0
11 J2 S 2J.O r.
0
0
0
0
J J«i S 2J.O E
10 J7 S 21,0 t
d
0
0
24
24
It
2*
24
24
24
24
24
24
UMOE3CRQ
UN0ERGPO
tINDFHSRO
UNOCRGRO
SUKl ACE
UNpf RGBQ
^ftE)ERGRO
liNDCHGRO
SURFUCC
sunrACC
1INQERCRO
UhO£«CRO
UNOERGRO
UKOEAGBO
UROERGBO
SURFACE
SUBFACr
utucacRo
UM^EBSRB
SURFACE
UNDERGRD
UNDEHGRO
SURFACE
UKDERGBO
U»it»EKGRfi
SURFACE
UKGfRGRO
UNDEflGHO
UNOENGRO
UnUtNGRQ
UMOCMGRO
SOftMCE
SURFACE
U*iof aCHO
WDCRCRO
UNDCPGRO
S,URr4CL
USDEP.GRO
UNDS'RCRD
ySDERGRO
U»«DE»G«0
UIOERCHQ
SUSF*CE
UHPERGRO
SUKF4CE
UNOCRGRO
UhDCRGRO
SURFACE
' MOO, 400
100
100
>100,')00
too
100
100
100
1,000 «
100
»1<5Q,Q«0
l.00« *
luo
100
|,ISOO »
1,«OJ •
ino
1,000 "
100
i. ooo •
1,000 «
1,060 -
1.000 »
,,00
'» I, OOP
• 1,006
<100
<100
» 1,000
«100
<100
• 1,000
- 1,000
<100
- 1,000
-------
URANIUM NINES IK THE OUSTED STATES
JOUJtCfl DOE, GfiAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE SO
NINE
KNOB
l« LOMJ 2
LAST CHAWCC 1
LAST CHA«-Cr 1
LAST CHANCE J
LAVCHPEf1 5
LIA.5E 15 26
LCDCE
IEH* It,
trs» to
IIKA 4
tED J,
KIM IP
LITTLE 0*«*
tlfTLE 01*11.
tltTLC !>!•* J
LITTLE OOfOTHY
tITTLC FA«tN
IITTL" IWDJAH
LITTLE. J»CK
LITTL* PEfFR
LTZA0D
f.OGA*
lOliJ SUITE
LO«E fill
STAR
5*6
LONG MOLE
LOST 8n**tOST HP
LOST I«DI*> !
LOUIS'
LOY* (UY
LUCKY OAT t
LUC'Y LADY
L.IICCY STPIXE
MICKY STRIKE t *
tueity stf me ?
LULU I
••ABLE OE£
MACHINE REJECTS
MIMIC
C*OOP
NkMK
tCQNT'O) «•
REDO, PRESTOS
BAILEY, R.D,
ATLAS UPAMIW CO
SHUpr, HOE
r»osT,
STATE Or
STATE OF UTA«
ELLISON »>,
TUSKfR iPOS
TURNER BROS
HELLEY, JAi-E 5.
r, H*BIJLP
5 HI
STOCKS,
8Sl*Lg8 * ME!
»NC,
NICHOI.S
SITION r A
, J.6.
DEietm
+ *.f 1L80N
CL*YTOM
Iff
lARiEP HIM1G CO
21 "MO.
COfORTH, GAY
C»BOT COR?,
URAW
tISBON UPAK, CO"
COUNTY
SAN
BAN JUAN
BA( JUAN
SAI> JUAh
SAH JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAft
SAN JUA4
SAM jui-J
SAN JUAN
BAN JUA'J
SAK JUAN
S*H JUAN
SAN JtfAK
ATLAS
i«tficY runs NUC
StN JUAX
SAN JUA'j
SAM JUA»
SAM JO*"
SAN JUAN
SAN JUA«
S%N JUAM
SAN JUAFl
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAN JIIAI
SAW JUAM
SAM JUAN
SAN JUAN
SAX JUAN
SAN JUXN
n
It
10
2H
11
IS
It
T
14
)4
21 S
}1 S
Jl S
II S
10 S
21
S7 S
21 S
31 S
1} S
31 S
10 S
12 S
15 S
it
2* S
RAMG.E.
ME.RIO. MIMING
TOTAL PRODUCTION
IIETKQD (fONS AS Or 01/01^7
0
0
23.0 t.
2S.O E
0
0
0
0
21*0 r
0
0
0
0
24.9 C
24.0 E
0
23.0 E
0
0
21,0 t
B
0
0
21.0 t
2S.O E
0
24.0 E
26.0 E
0
0
8
0
0
34.0 E
24,0 r
24.0 C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
34,0 E
0
a
UNOERGRO
UKDERGR0
24 UNOERGRO
24 BNOERGRQ
UNCEAGRQ
SURMCE
"UNDERGRO
suprncr
24 UHOERGHO
UNDCKCRC
UNDCMSHO
U*DERG»Q
UNDEAGRO
Z4 UNOEASAQ
24 UKDERGRO
DNOCRCftO
24 UKBERCRO
UKQEKGRQ
SURriCE
24 VHDCflGRO
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
Ut-OCRSRO
34 SURFACE
24 sasrtcr
UrlOERGftO
24 SURFACE
24 UNBESCRO
SUPf ACC
U^QERGRQ
UI*P£BGJSO
UDDERGKO
SOBfACE
34 UMGCRGRO
24 UHOEHGRO
24 UHBERGRC
gCfRTACC
"UKOER6RO
L'NDCRCRO
UNDE80RG
UN3£RG*>0
SURFACE
BMOERGPO
UNDERGKD
HISC.-PB
34 tIKOERGRO
UNDCRSRO
OftOCRCftO
100
100
too
1,000 «
1,000 »
lot
100
i.OOU .
ISO
too
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 «
>100,000
100
too
1,000 -
1(000 »
too
100
>103, 000
1.000 -
100
• 1,000
» 1,000
' J,0«0
100,000
«100
<100
<100
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM MINES IN THE UNITED STATES
ooci 6*A*o juncnon, COLORADO
PACE M
MINE
CONTROLLER NAME
COUNTY
•tC, TOWNSHIP
RANGE MERID.
MINING
METHOD
TOTAL PRQDUCT10H
CTOKS AS OF 01/01/7!!
DEPTH
r
MARY JAlE 1
XAXJNE
KAXINE 2
NAXIHE 3
"AY8E "Ii£
MESA
MEXICAN MAT 5TOC
MI COPAIO".
MIDVALE
MILL
MINERAL 10
KIRADOH-HDMY TO
MITTEN I
HOC 1
XOKI 1
COLLIE, UT. ST. S*
XQNTEtU-A
MONTEZU»A 1
MQXUfOil }
HOONLIGHT 1,2*J
NAP
WE- AL ROGERS
NIPPLES
KONE SUCH-FIG LE
NORTH HfSA
NORTH POI-^T t>
NORTH PT.-CONEA'
OKIE
OLD PQ^PE1*
PAGODA
PANDA
PASCQ, JEN, JACKIE
PAY DAY
PAY orr
PAYDAY-CLOUDY DA
PEACH A I
PEARL
PEAVIMr OUEEN
PEGGf
PETC GPOUP
PETERING
PHILLIP DEE 1
P1CKALO PETE
PICKY
PINCH
PINE TREE
PIUTE
POINT
SMITH, RICHARD F,
HARBISON, JANCJ L
TRAh$ MESTERN UR
TRANS WESTERN UP
NE1LSON. MILTON
GOOD EARTH M1.G.
HAVAJQ TRIBE
ATLAS NIhCHALS
SHUMWA** OAQE
R * J MINING
SMUfMAY • HESTWO
ELAM J.D,
NAVAJTD TRIBE
BLAKE, DONALD V,
KOKI MNG CO
STATE OF UTAH
BLACK THUNDER 01
SLACK THUNDER 01
JU?f, H,D,
SECURITY tlRA+OIL
tERPELt- » BLACK
K.T.* G.«NG,CO,
TORRES, OAVID
FOOTE MINERALS
NICHOL-APAIRtBR
miTE CANYON MNG
YUBA DEVELOP. CO,
A*ft MIXING CO
HELKAN, HATTtDA
EAST BASIH OIL +
MURST, BOR
ATLAS MINERALS
OUIGLIY, FRANK
KESTWOOO * SMITH
ENERGY FUELS CUC
$zc*iHiry# ifff*
ATLAS MINERALS
KIMHERLE, HOWARD
SHUPC, UADE
CANYONLANDS URAV
BHDHWAV pnr
NAVAJO TRIBE
BLEAK URANIUM CO
STERNS 4 ZASTROf
UNKNOWN COHTRQLR
PETE SHUMKAY
CONSOLIDATED URA
FOOTE MINERALS
SAN
JAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAM
SAN
SAN
SAN
SA"
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAK
SAN
SAh
SAN
SAd
SAH
SAN
SAN
SAt,
SAN
SAH
SAN
SAX
SAM
SAH
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAh
B*»
BAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
BAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAf.
JUA*
JU»1
JUAN
JI1AV
JUA-,
JUA*
JU»N
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JMAN
JI7AV
JUAN
JUAN
JUAH
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JIMM
JUAH
JUA-)
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUA*
JUAK
JUAN
JUA«-
JUAH
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
JUAlb
JUAN
JUAN
JUAH
JUAN
JUAN
JUAN
25
1
26
13
J5
36
1
1C
21
2
3)
2
14
14
7
21
SO
21
4
11 S
17 S
4] S
31 S
36 S
11 £
21 S
ll S
11 S
)5 S
22 3
39 S
5J S
)« S
10 S
16 S
31 S
31 S
39 S
17 S
SURFACE
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,0
24.0
0
0
15.0
0
31,0
0
24.0
0
Z5.0
0
0
21,0
35.0
34.0
0
0
15.0
0
2J.O
0
0
24.0
0
22.0
24,0
0
24,0
39,0
26. C
0
0
0
0
J6.0
0
21.0
0
31,0
E
E
r
t
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
I
E
E
E
C
I
E
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
34
34
24
24
24
24
34
24
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
KlSC.-Pi
UHDEKCKO
UNOERCRD
UNDERGRO
UNOERGRO
UhpERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDEKGHO
UNOERGRO
UNDtRGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UKDERGRO.
ONWRGR0
UNDERSRO
UNDERGKO
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRQ
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UVDERGHO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDERGRO
UHOCfGKO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UKDEHCRQ
JOO
1,000' -
100
i.ooo -
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 »
100
1,000 -
100
100
1,000 -
too
1,000 -
too
1,000 -
i.ooo -
100
MOO, 000
loo
1,000 -
100
MOO.OCO
1,000 -
too
100
100
<100
- 1,000
<100
<100
100,000
<100
- 1,000
joo.aoo
100, one
- 1,000
<100
. 1,100
100,000
- 1(000
100,000
<100
- 1,000
• 1,000
<100
<100
100,000
<100
- 1,000
100,000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
-------
UPAMIUK MIKES JK THE UNITED iTATEi
SOURCE 1 COC, GRAND JUNCTION
PA6t
HIKE
CO«TROLLCP
SEC, TOWNSHIP P.AMCE NERID,
HtTHOO
TOTAt, PRODUCTinN
(tons AS or
OBPTH
trr»)
POINT
POPEYE
PORCUPINE
POPCtlPIf-'E 1
PRICF-LUCk
PRINCE AtBFPT
PRODUCTION
WOFIT CPCUP
PURE t,UCK
R.H.H,
RiQ»METKl*5
RAOOS Hi»T PflCH 5
PAt*BO«*
BiH 1
RAM CROUP
RA1 JET
SAfTtES**»«E J U
p.ATTLK$m*E PIT
RAVE* 1
KP-EL
PECLM«EP ORE
SCO *OX * RED HO
RED CA*YO"J 1
PCD DEVIL 5 * J
pen HOT t-)t
RIO POTT.L
FED PATCH
PCD ROCK
RE9 ROCK GROUP
RtDLMBS G^OUI*
RENEC»Dt
RCNCGAOf 1
RrPRJSC
PEX CROUPCCEM r
REYNOLDS I
PICH»ROSO>.
RIDGE 1
P.IK ROC*
ROAN CRflK
ROSIN
ROC* I * 2
POCK DOOR 1
ROTTEN LOS
RQ¥*L FLUSH
fWf
BUSTY 4
RUSTY C** 5
RUSTK-LlTTLr KAE
YU8A DEVELOP, CO,
JARANILLO, THOS,
HARBISON, JMES L
CHATU URAR.XHS,
SLACTCfl rXPMJRAf
SILVEP EAGI.C HXS
SKYLANO DEVEL.CO
At LAS-A»*X
ED04R EXPI«f>»AT!0
OECURSE, JACK
IPEX FJCPLOR At 10*
ATLAS olkfpALS
SflTHi *.!,
CJ^OTA EXPLOH*T1
lYLC CIOS
t'tSTCtf NIHEDAlik
ATt*S MH-ERAtS
*ooi>t>
SAC
tA*l
SAN
S»"
S^N
SAN
SA>>
3iN
Sf<
Bill
8A*<
JAN
SAN
SA*1
StM
SAH
54V
SAN
SAN
SC-
S>N
SIN
SAM
S/S*
5A^
SA1
SAN
SA<<
SA*
SAN
s*>-
SAh
SAt
SAN
Sltt
IA>>
SAN
SAk
SAH
SA»
>Atl
SAh
JBA1
JUAN
JUAS
JUfc^
JUth
JU*^
JUAf-
JUAN
jy*i
jav.<
JUAN
JU*N
JiA".
JUAN
JU»N
JU»t-
4tlA*J
JU»N
JU»«
JUAN
JtfA^
JiJAN
JUkN
JUA)
JUA1
JUA<1
.1WA1
J'Uh
JUAN
JOAK
JUAN
JUAN
JUA"
JWAfc
JUAN
JUA>.
JUAN
JUI*
JUAN
JU»1
JUAN
JUA1*
JUAX
JUAM
JUJtx
JUAM
JUA*
JUAX
Jt 3
4 12 S
? 21 8
-
16 3« 5
30 31 S
35 J* S
29 S9 S
13 29 s
f 31 S
14 ,21 S
14 21 S
} 10 S
21 2« S
IS J! S
3« 21 S
14 }5 S
!« It 8
l«,o
21,0
25,0
0
0
n.o
a
2S,«
28,0
0
0
24.0
0
0
0
0
12
21.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
35.0
0
0
e
»».<>
21, «
24,0
e
6
24,0
21 ,n
0
0
22,0
24.0
0
0
0
0
0
25,0
0
E
f
E
E
F
E
r
E
E
r
E
E
I
z
r
E
C
24
24
24
34
24
34
34
24
24
24
24
24
34
24
24
24
24
8URTACE
SURFACE
UXDERCRO
SURFACE
UNQCRCRO
UMOEIGRO
UKDCRGRQ
UXDERSRQ
UMDER&RO
SURFACE
UNDERGPQ
UNDERGP.Q
UNDERGRO
ONDtRCRO
SURFACE
UKDCRGRQ
UKDEtGRQ
UiiDEftCRO
SURFACE
UKOERGRQ
MISC.-P1
U*JCSC?tGRO
UMICRGHO
SURfACC
UKOCHSHO
SURFACE
UhDGRCRO
UKDCDCRO
Ud'tJEilCllO
SURFACE
UKDCRGRO
UNOERGRO •
UNOERGRO
UNOE8GP.O
SURFACE
UXDERCRO
(JNDIRCHD
UlI05, 000
100
JOB
100
»ioo,ooo
j.oao -
ICO
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
1,000 «
H0t»,0§0
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
«100
<100
<100
€100
-------
INACTIVE tiHAHtUH MINIS i.
SAX
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
BAP
SAX
SUN
SAN
SA*
BAN
SAN
SAN
SAN
SAK
JUAV
JUA-)
JUi*
JUAN
JUA*
JUA«
JUAK
JUAN
JUAii
JU»»I
JUAI;
JUAM
JUAN
JCM
-------
XHICTIVC vRJikiuf MINES IN THE OHITCD attics
•DURCCl DOE, B*A*0 JUVCTIOW,
PAGE 64
NINE
COUHTT
UTAH
SPRING CfCTK
»PR1»Q HATER GBO
SSL 14HO
ST.LSC. s*»i UTA
STATE LINE
SfliKO
STONC IOC 1
4
SUHny Bit
SUXHTSIDE
SUNNJSE
SUJIflJSE
SJKSEt
SURPPISE
lAftcm FEID 1»J
TC OOIERD
TtPGIKA
TCXSTAQ
TOP
TRIA3URE TROVE
UNIT 1
UHKNQ^s
UPACQi* l-J
VSAt»lU>* *1«&
UTAH ST.LSC 2291
UTAH ST.L3F, 215
UTAH 5T.LSE, 510
UTAH ST.L3E.17«*
UIA« SI.L3F.31I,}
VAL VIST* 1
YALLEI POIKT
VAllE* VIE*
VAMAQIUH 9UCCN
VIHIOUS
VARIOUS
vtDunt
VEtorRS I
VELVET
VICTOR
V!Cw
NORTH i
(CO^T'D)
CBC HJNIfcC CO.
SHUI»<*T WOS.15
STATE OF Uf*H
1HUPE, |Kf K,
UtlLSON,
, rf>EO L,
NkTUHki, pnwtn&
STC«*Bf,
, OQNiVJ V,
MIKEPktS
RTi hl
HIC* J, MI'P
»»VIJO TBIBC
*00«*N P J
JOHSSOI., o
151KU3, C.C.
BLKlt, CHAfLFS
LEWIS, W.E
uu»>i,sy»;Di
O* F,J.
•« C
STATE OF UT»H
STATE or UTAH
AKOEB50* i»US,PH
CONrEDEBATEO KtT
TMQKPSOHi NOrL
ATOMIC SE80UBCES
mtUKKEi >«<¥«
«,C,f»ENGJ».CE!>lH
PARAMOUHT URUN.C
JOM>>
HIKEBALS
i OtfO
fOQTE MINEPAIS
CROJ3 LI
J'Jlf,
ftkN JUA.s
SAH JOIN
54" JU»>.
3AN
&AH
SUN JU1',
S»'« JUH
«*n JUAN
S»" JUHt
SAW JU*1-
5»>- J'Jkit
3»N JUM
4A^ JUA>
S»>> JUAd
SAM
SAH
Si,* JVl#
(AN JL'»1
SAH JUAN
St« JUIN
llf JUAH
SAP Jl'H»
S»^ JU*«.
8AN JUAK
SAN JUA1*
• AJI JUAM
S»' JUl>i
SAN JUAH
SAH
8AM JUAN
SAN JUA*
SAN J|}*«
SAH
SAK
SAM JUAM
8«N JU»N
9A1' JUAN
SC« TOWNSHIP
J
3
26
j
14
1
11
11
14
30
76
IS
Jl
t
11
14
11
J?
37
11
JO
27
24
21
11
27
Jl
35
41
tl
J7
31
J5
It
3
£
S
s
s
s
s
a
s
s
£
S
a
s
^
s
t
s
KAKCE
21
21
21
If
2}
24
2]
24
21
2!
24
14
21
16
,
34
as
35
0
,0
,0
ft
0
0
,0
.0
0
0
,0
0
,0
.0
,0
0
.0
.0
.0
0
,0
0
0
0
»'
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
6
j)
V
,0
c
,0
0
0
0
r
E
E
E
c
t
E
t
E
r
r
E
e
r
r
E
E
MCRID.
2*
2*
24
14
24
24
1*
24
24
24
2*
2*
24
24
24
24
24
MINING
METHOD
UNOERGRO
UKDE8GRD
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UfcDfcRGRO
SURFACE
UWfflRGRQ
UNBCiiSVO
ONQgRGRO
SURFACE
USDtaCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
UHOES5RO
UNOCHCPO
UN&CACRQ
SURFACE
U^DERGRO
UKOERCRO
SURFACE
UNDERGBO
UNOEBCRO
SURFACE
UNOCRCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
OI«OERGRO
SURFACE
UNDErfGfiO
UHDEBGBO
OXDERGRO
SURFACE
SURF^E
UNDERORO
UNOERGHO
UNDERGRO
UNpERGRQ
SURFACE
UNDCRGRO
UNDERGRO
UkDERGRO
SOIIFACI:
UWDWGRO
UNpCRSRO
UNDCRSRO
SURFACE
UMDCKGRO
UNDERGRD
TOTAL PROBUCTtON
jTa«a AS or ejm/i*j
1,000 - ICO.000
1,000 - 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
•rf I A *
-------
URAtaU* WINES IH THE UNITED STATES
aOU»Ctt POI/ GP»«-D JUNCTION, COLOAtEO
PAGE tS
nine KAPC
*,w.
WARAN MINE
MTEHLQr
KATCRI.O^-STCPLJO
BEST PAY DAY
WHEFLER
WHIBLWIhD
WHITE CAf-YO STk
WHITE HCSSE GJ-nU
MbblE
MIND BLQk'l
klfOFALL 31
HOELTER
WOODPOV, KILSCih
¥yo»I«G
YCLLO" 8A*Y
YELLa* &IHL
YELLQrf JDKK
YELLO* PSI1 t
Zlfi ZAG
P,«.R.
FLAT TIKE 2
BflBO
BPtNDi CPOUP.
BUZZARD 1
CPO* I
DtVJLS CAVE
EURCK A«"C»l"*f'Y A
GRbEN POCK
HOP3E EAR
LION 5
tOHE P£»f
R.»TTl,£SK'A|eF
SANDY
SATIi. GROUP
STEPHENS
ANtfAS PRIOE
KOLQB
LOCALOPF I
SItVER POINT UDD
BILVEP.i'AH 2
YANOERBILT
BIG JIM-1.IIT(,C J
BLACK JACK
BLUE PJ6BQ*
BLUE StO«E
CONTROLLER »AME
CASTOB » STEWART
YUBA PEVEiOP.CD.
PILPH J NOOKJiN
"ALEV »«|J*J^C CP.
DUNC*'1 «»LTE» JP
PJA'lEl P.P.
OSULLIVHN»THISK£
XAVlJO TRIBE
FOOTC KIdFRALS
BARPY, POPERT *,
UNKt-OWS CPNtRpLI1
SAN dicuiL XINES
ATtAS-FOPTE
LYM>s, BOB
NEILSOu, "ILTD«
HEIlSOj,, CILTOX
xr.RZ -* KNCK
KSOX, HAPPY
JI1 C. BUTT
F.» C.»ESTEPN KG
M'lGU*, ORL
APk"IEP, DAVID
HAfctSVlLE URAN.C
TEXAS PLU1GERS«A
^ErtNSB CO.
HAHILTO* AS8DC.
HAilLTOfc, STEVE
"ARTINSEfj.P.Lyfc
cnntEB « SATS
S»D>TS( tl>RPELli
MQTT r CR&OH
rQSG£TTS,SU*NEP
CRRISA L,M,
HAKRISON J.H.
ANSON, DILHtP C,
COLOTAH UPANIUf
TLUfEi » PUNT
LA FLOPECITA MHG
STATE OF UTAH
tk vanri* VNG.
LA FLQRFCITA *5 30 S 24.0 E
0
0
1} 44 K 20,0 h
0
0
0
0
24 26 S 4.0 *
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 41 S 13,0 X
11 41 S U.O v
0
0
0
0
HER1D,
34
24
24
24
24
24
22
24
24
24
KIMING
METHOD
UNDEftGRO
UNDCPGRO
UNDEPGPO
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UNDER&ftO
SURFACE
UMDEHGftO
UNOCRGKO
UMBERGRQ
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNftERGRO
SURFACE
UKDCRGRO
UNDEHCRQ
USDEKGHO
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
UKCENGKO
UH£)EP,GRO
3URF*CE
UHQCflCflQ
UNOCP.GRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURTACC
UNDEtGPQ
UKOCRGRO
SURFACE
5USTACC
SURFACE
SURfiCE
SURFACE
SUpfACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNOEP.GRO
SURFACE
iUSF.CC
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
UNDIRGRD
SURFACE
SURFACE
sufirtce
IOTAI. PRODUCTION
(TONJ AS Of 01/01^79)
100 - 1,000
100 - 1,000
1,000 » 100,000
1,000 - 100,000
<1CC
100 - 1,000
100,000
100
200
190
too
o
2SO
250
2SO
150
0
0
0
0
too
0
0
a
o
o
50
0
0
so
100
0
o
0
50
50
0
so
0
0
0
0
9
100
0
0
59
o
o
ISO
a
so
JO
50
100
cr>
en
-------
merm UPHNIU* nines IN THE tin mo sum
~ SOURCEi 001. CRAWO JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE «*
NINE
CONTP.OLIFR
*£C. TOWNSHIP
KERJO,
METHOD
TOTAL PRODUCTION
(TONS AS Of 01/01/7S!
DtPIH
UIIH
BP.IOGEH
CONGRESS It
CRCCM FONS1FR
KCCLf
KEliM CROUP
H1W.ERS 1
» KIM
JANUARY
LA VELL i
LAST CHANCE 1
LOVtU, t
LUSCOPftE 2
WOPTO*
OAK caetr
OAK RIDGE
OLD CPO»
ORAL t * J
POOR ROY I
SOUTH
TURRET !
KILO HORSE
»nc o*«r
SUkS. DOS 1
CAT I
CUi I
HOLE *
8US11 4ELL
i€A«
(COkT>0) *«
BRJDSIR,J*CK IhC
MTIt UR*
URA
EL-LCTT, UllON S,
HtCLA HJMNC CO,
+ CL
ISlBEt fhC.CO,
CHE*T VCStERh US
PCLICAV UPANIWK
S> + f>
Roc*r
tYHAK, BOP
1KG
JEKSE1 * HOIJP1S
CO
TACOMY UBlfttUf
UTAH SOVTHLRIi Of
US CO^'P
COPIIS
tUSHER MINtNC CD
RETIY «NC « EXPfc
lAOObf-K, 6Qtt
YAYNt
KAYi.E
iijiywr
• Aift'C
UNDERCRO
SURFACE
UNPERSRQ
UkOERCRO
UNDCRGRQ
UNOEFtGRO
USDEPCRO
SURFACE
SURfACC
SURFACE
'ilpf •CPO
StSlflCE
UNOEMCRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SDRfACE
UNQCR5R0
SURFACK
SURFACE
UfBENGRO
- 1,000
(100
100 - 1,000
<100
<100
180 • 1,000
otto
ooo
100 -
<100
-------
INACTIVE u**«iax MINES t» TKE UWZTEB STATES
SOURCE! ODE, GP»ND JUNCTION, CpLOIUDO
PACE 67
MINE HAVE
CONTROLLER NAME
COUNT?
1
tEHMBECAER LEASE LtHfSKfCf , K.C,
KOUiiXIKG LEASE
LDWLC1 LEASE
AJAX 42
ALBANY
DESERT ROSE LOS
NIOHi Oht
HASHAKW 2
SROKfl. HEART 9
HICK NOON 3
HQSSESHOE JOH«r
JET «
LEO 1-S
MIKE ^KKfy
SAKQUlliE 13
IRr-PACER
ABLC.BAKED.CHARL
tl.O»"»Ly26l,*-4J-
ANO«»fcr«», !»-•«§•
AXE 10
a GROUP
BAR MOKE )]
BIG HORi, J
SlbL « flftL CLU
8t,»CK STAC-BLUF
8«UCE CLII^S
CAM8LIA 2
CAtSHH tfEST
CHRySOPSl, Jq-4t-
COLO «POI 4 .. 5
COLORADO ChRIStE
COLUMBUS CROUP
CQSA * BETTK
POE + CHRI5TENSK
DOME BUTTE
CAP GROUP
HAtRUTH SCHLAUf-^
HOC CLAJPS
INhES LEASE
I«A 1
JA MNS,*
WOOfRN HIKES OEV
FINK, HFRV*«
HANSON
HOLLAfD.RPPERT I
TITAN ("thus CO.
HIGHLAND URAKIUH
KERR-«C6EE CORP,
KERH-MC&EE CORP.
AXE URA*>l1lii CO.
LOGA1 CHUFCH1LL
U«FiiO«N COHTRDLR
BIG HILL H1NIMG
GARDNFH( F.L.
POMEI.KEPIDQN H,
ROsrHBt.RCEB.GENF
kHlTAOT P«OaPECT!
KURD K.F.* ASSOC
KERR-HCCEF CORP,
CILBEDT, HORSE C
»0iNC.
KESTCPH UFANtUH
ITLSOK « -EP:C*N MCL.CP
HESTERN UBA^IUH
BUTLER, RYBUfN
KtJIC.JiCCEF CORP,
BO^fNiMFRlDON H,
CORPELL E,0,
CJLBERT/f'DRSE C
SPOICAWC
SPOKANE
STEVENS
ALBANY
ALBANY
ALBANY
ALBANY
8IG HORf
me MORK
BIG HORN
B1C MCfX
BIG Wnt,
BIG HClR"!
BIC HOH-'
BIO HORN
SIC HO
-------
INACTIVE URANIUK HINTS IN THE UNiiro STATES
SOUP-CCl DQCi SKAHD JUNCTION, COltQfUOQ
PACE
NACE
CONTROLLER NAME
LAU8Y
LAUD 5. 19
IUCK* E1CHT 1 -
HAPY i
MC CLAIMS
KIRACLE PILE
MYSTERY 2
*E»C> 5 * n
O»R j
OSAGE LEASE
PUT 1
PEtE fiPOUP
PRAESf LEASt
CULEN 3
H.H.O, TEHPA
nr.no LOSE
S»SLE
SCPtT 1
SEC. J6.43S-T6*
8IH*O«lS 3
SUE I
SYl, BEL
TPJX G»OUP
VAN 8UGCE\U« SCO
WHITE KULE i
JUC
BALD Khoe
CCD*R MLS-J*C«»A
(MVE LEAf ORE
PAVE SEC 9*|0»IS
OEL ORO 1
HELEN HAY
KETTCHU* SUITE L
UTTLE LHL-JB D
&ITTLE *Ak 1
NAib LCI re
POISON BASIW
SEC 10
SIB I
lac I
TSG HEAP LEACH
UHAMlli* HVC 1
HALKEH-SULLIVAfc
«NOK>t,Y01 3»"}7-
BCttY
(CO^TI0!
IITTLC SttR «tEilLOn< K.
BUttt MUG
>«OB3C
».ESTtR-l
K,
GILflEOT, f-ORSE
*!CD ROC DEVRL
BO'CK, H,h,
fASEK, J,[ .
SYU DEL PINTS
UPA«i,CO
CURD H,R,» JSSOC
-ESTRK
res JOJI.T
CETJY"S*EtLY OJV
PCLUS, RICHARD 1
AS15IRONG, H.T,
KENP ilCCEC
«N COt-TCOLP
UTILITIES
KOKESTCAD
RG8 JOIM
BAILEY, ROBERT V.
MD1ESTEAD HINCLi
KSS JOINT VENTUP
KCS JOINT VEHIUP
HCCCC
ItEPN-HCGEr CORP,
cafe,
CAMPBELL
CAMpRELt
CAHPBILL
CA"PBELt
CAMPftE.il,
CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL
CAMPHELL
CAHP8ELL
CAffSCLL.
CAKPfiELL
CAMPBELL
CAPBO"
CH.RBON
CARBON
CACRD-.
CARBON
CAPSO*
CIRBU*
CABBO'*
CAR8Q'.
CARBON
CARBON
CARBON
CQMVCRSE
iEC, TOWNSHIP
87
i«
10
22
J7
31
21
!i
S
12
4
1
n
22
J9
34
9
11
It
as
10
H
3
28
2V
It
JO
M
32
10
n
i*
4
6
«
11
21
3S
49
41
«t
4S
«1
45
4)
43
45
4«
4]
41
44
4S
43
43
42
44
41
44
4J
44
4i
41
4)
44
44
23
n
27
21
21
12
12
2T
27
17
41
N
»
K
N
N
N
N
li
N
H
t.
K
N
«
N
N
N
H
h
V
h
N
N
N
H
N
V
h
H
N
K
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
RANGE
75
74
16
7S
T6
75
76
It
74
74
75
7*
IS
75
71
73
75
75
74
15
75
7S
7«
7J
75
75
75
81
91
71
92
71
92
«2
11
71
51
74
,0
,0
,0
,0
.0
.0
.1)
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
• 0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
,0
,0
.0
.0
0
.0
.a
0
.0
0
,0
C
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
«
0
.0
.0
,0
w
V
w
N
H
rf
M
K
K
W
M1
*
u
K
U
u
4
M
W
M
U
«
VI
H
J
06
06
06
06
06
06
96
06
06
MINING
METHOD
SURFACE
5URFACC
6UKFACR
100,000
>100,QOO
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,400 •
1,000 -
>]00,000
1,000 •
100,000
• l.ooo
ooo
«100
100,000
100,000
100,000
ioo,ooo
1,000 - 100,000
<100
DEPTH
err,5
50
50
SO
so
so
50
50
50
50
ISO
50
SO
50
100
SO
50
30
100
30
SO
50
50
SO
100
100
JO
0
30
SO
200
200
50
50
ja
o
50
J50
50
210
so
100
190
250
Q
200
150
56
1
tn
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM WINES IN THE UNITED STATES
OOE, 6KA1D JUNCTION, COLORADO
PAGE S»
MINE
BOX CHECK
CANON BALL 1
CURRIER 1
H»»0t tir 37-3B-
JACKALOOE 13
JOE GROUP
JUDt i«l«
LAMB
HI* 1UZZ
LUCK* *I-K
MINE 1 (D-Bl
XINE 20-8 S1-J1-
MORTM POLE 1
REYNOLDS f 36H-P1
SEC, 1,31*-13'
SEC, 9,37'."71»,
SCC, 10, J7'(«7J' 0
SEC,1S,37;<-71*
SEC.16,17^-71*1
3EC.21, J1«.-13- *
8HEEPSHEP GROUP
SPOOK
CROUP
TRAIL d>EE*
ZEE 1 + 3
A,«H.
A.t.SlSSON
LE*SE
C»5IN CSEE* 6
OEXNJS 2 LEASE
OBlrriTH LEASt
XAUBEP HIVE UG
HELKER KA*CH
HOLMES LEASE
HO-tESTAKE J-4
< CROUP
LAtHON LfASE
LE»IS DENNIS Ltt
MEYERS LEASE
NEil HkVf.fi 20-SEC
NORtK SLOPE
P0ISHN CPEEK CLA
SADDLE GROUP
CONTROLLER KAMI
(CDM'D)
« DllJS
UKITED KUCLEtR
CCHTHOL.
COUMTX
CORP,
JkCMLOPC OIL*M.
C)l»BTREE, JOH1 H
J,L,
t-EOCO
SUCVFS, JOCt
JARhCTT ENTCRPRI
KrRP-MCGEE CQPP.
BFN60" + CAHBLIN
KERP-HCCEF CORP.
KERf-^CCE! COUP.
•tERd-«CCEE CORP.
KCKf>-fccr.r CORP.
KERP-HCCEr COPP.
COOP.
COPP.
MM H,
»S
AI LSUP,
JDH"
KERH-«*CGEF CORP,
CORP,
KER*
rcOERAL PF80UPCE
TRI STATE HIKING
HIKING C
KNS CO
CHRIS HELPER
f €
-------
INACTIVE URANIUM HJNES IK THE UNITED STATES
SOURCE! BQI, 6SANO JUNCTION, COLORADO
PACE 10
MINE KAt-C
CONTROLLER «A«E
COUNT*
SEC, TO'NSHIP RANGE HER1D.
KETHOO
TOTAL PRODUCTION
{TOHS AS OF Ol/Ot/793
DEPTH
(FT.)
sure LEASF
LS
16
AnDRIA (C Pit)
ANDR1A CROUP
B,»H, 1
B.H.HALL-eOKAS'ZA
BEATRICE 1
BIG RED 4
RLACKSTCm SI
iLARCC
RLOE J>UCK-RE0. HP
PDUNTJFUL 1.9*10
BULLRUSH rU"P
BULLRUSH 5RDUP
C*L IS
C1"C« I*
CLEANUP MATERIAL
D*t 26
DAY-lERGEll LEASE
OAY-I.OHA
DISCOVERY
DONNA LEE
oueois i
CUREHA-1MPERIAL
FAIMI 1-4
Ai-iC CB
GEURGE » VFP CSC
GEORGE 1 AXD 2
GEORGE 12 * 14
HADE* 11
HAPPY 19
HAZEL GROJP
HEAP LEACH {UTAH
HESITATION
HOPE-STAR
HUNTER LEASE
IDIOTS DELI5HT
JACK 2
JAY CROUP
JE« l
JOHN-GUNNEL
JOY CROUP
LAST, CHANCF
LITTLE STORK *
STATE OF fcYQMlNG
HDMESTAKE UNO CO
ROUNDS * SHPINEP
POCK* HTN.URAH,
FEDtRAL AMERICA"
AMERICAN
HAYS, RICKARO
rORD,ROBERT»ASOC
ABMSTPOJiG. H.Ti
SRIDCER HH'G CO
•ESTERS NUCLEAR
VIPONT PINJUC CO
"ESTEI". Nl-CLEAR
HESTERH MirciitAB
FJIJCLEAR
»-rtLj»»S, A.E,
PETFRS, atX
HB3TERN f'UCLEAR
REEVES, H.J.
ECIRCV ruELS «UC
"TLtS, JOht,
PETERS, RfX
MINERALS I1*
6TA»!I, ED
TEOMAL A"|RIC*»
• esTERw NUCLEAR
FEDERAL AfERKAf
UNION CARBIDE CP
UNION CARBIDE CP
REX PETERS
net LANG UR»N,C
WESTERN NUCLEAR
PATHFINDER
GENEVA UP An CORP
UMKNO«K CONTROLS
DALE B. ttVI
UMION ORPIDE CP
fEDERAL AMERICAN
HERRJTROM »,0,
FEDERAL AXERJCAN
DWION CARBIDE CP
SAN Jm» lipAH.EX
J-ITTLF, BfOPY CRP
CROOK
CROOK
CROOK
CROOK
F«E«0>>'f
r«C»0\T
rREin,JT
FPCKOsT
fHEM0«T
rRE''ONT
rREMDNT
rnE-o».T
FFtHOM
fBEHONT
FREKOKT
rptHOt>T
FREMONT
FREMQ^T
TREHOf-T
FREKONT
FREMONT
FREMOKT
FPEKDHT
17
6
IS
32
1
21
1
13
22
12
9
22
24
29
24
J
24
29
5
24
29
2
27
22
30
10
9
71
12
i
12
6
26
13
25
6
54
55
S4
S7
32
40
31
40
}]
32
33
13
11
11
12
39
33
40
31
41
1]
39
13
31'
3)
»J
23
40
12
12
32
J2
31
J9
13
12
N
N
N
h -
N
*
K
H
N
N
N
N
H
fi
N
H
N
h
V
N
N
N
H
k
H
N
M
N
N
M
H
N
N
N
N
N
60
«<
66
64
91
92
95
92
14
91
19
19
90
90
91
92
91
92
HI
01
90
92
9»
90
90
90
92
93
90
tl
91
91
90
92
90
90
.0
.0
,0
.0
0
.0
.0
,0
.0
0
0
,0
.0
.0
,o
0
, 0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
0
.0
,0
,0
,0
0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.8
.0
.0
0
0
u
v
N
H
i
kl
t
K
M
h
X
H
rf
V
V
•'
V
»
k
M
M
V
V
H
W
W
M
W
N
H
M
1*
N
06
06
06
06
06
04
06
06
06
06
06
06
66
66
6
06
06
06
06
06
Oi
06
0«
C6
04
06
06
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDEHGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
LOtiGRADE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
HISC.-PB
SURFACE
UNOERGRO
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
HL-OUXP3
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
UNDERGRO
SURFACE
SUFFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 -
»ioo, ooo
1,000 -
1,000 "
1,080 -
1,000 -
100
MOO, 000
1,000 -
100
MOO. 000
1,000 -
MOO, 000
1,000 •
100
1,000 •
MOO, 000
1,000 -
1,000 •
1,000 •
ICO
100
l.ooo •
1.000 .
1,000 «
>10Q,OOQ
MOO, goo
MOO, 000
- 1,000
100,000
100,000
<]00
100,000
100,000
<100
100,000
<100
<100
<10P
100,000
100,900
100,000
• »,ooo
100,000
«JOO
- 1,000
100,000
4100
<100
<] 00
100,000
* 1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
" 1,000
< 100
• 1,000
<100
<10P
100, otio
100,040
<100
100,000
<100
<100
<100
90
so
so
0
0
so
100
20
so
so
so
so
0
50
ISO
0
100
200
so
0
JSO
50
too
so
so
so
100
50
100
300
ISO
too
so
0
so
50
200
50
150
100
JOO
50
200
10
100
150
50
0
I
*-J
o
-------
r«*CTIVC URAPIVM 11HC3 IH THE UNITED 3TAK3
3OUP.CCI DDE, GRIND JUNCTION, COLORADO
FACE It
KlNt HIVE
COUNTS
LOMA HEAP LEACH
KIONIGHT 1
«ELS GROUP
tiEVl* Cf»
PA*-P»T
PEACH GRPL'PCUai
PHIL (P-l I
PIT A-6
PIT K-l
OUEEN5 GP^UP
R*Y fc
REX CLAI*3
KIM GROUP
RING * S*!>DUSXY
BOX GROUP
SOX
WTO" INC (COI-T'O) ••
NESTEB* Nl'CLCKP
BIG SKt UBAHIU"
CONTROL,
c.z,
Y KUUSPETH
SEC. 16, J3.-89-
STAN
STOCKPILE CLS.IVU
SUN-S^Of-ALl
TORCH*
T»0 C
•IA.5HHKIE
WASHOUT I
TELLOH
GPO
4
N,SI*C I Src^fJYt'O
P CLM" 8-45-
RED ROCK 3
SNAKEflTE !->
t aait
VANCE 1
YANK 4
ASTEtOPE *
BAKFP J,4,S««
BRIDCER TRAIL
BUSS-RUSS
our IAKC
HEAP LtACH B.2
JERRIE
KELL BOY
LUCKY
MASCK t
"ISSEY CROUP
U»ltiS C»SCIDC CP
u«ro-i e*
gw*NTD'.|
P»Ti'FIl100,ODO
>loo,oro
1,000 »
100
1,000 -
1,000 -
100
1,000 -
1,000 •
100
100
too
1,000 -
1,000 *
01/OU795
<100
<]00
100,000
- 1,000
- i.ooo
100,000
loo, oac>
100.000
- IjOOO
<1 00
<10D
100,000
<100
100.000
<100
100,000
* 1,000
ICO, 0*0
1100
< t 00
100,000
<100
• liOOfl
<100
100,000
100,000
<1GO
-------
K.ACTIVC
DOE,
«i(.fs i» THF UMIEO STATES
GPANn JU«CTIO»-, CfLORADO
PAGE 72
cou«.Tr
ftc.
PAhGC ftPID.
METHOD
TOTAt PRODUCT 10.
(ions AS oi
DEPTH
{FT,5
-INC
p»y - ALJI E-
?It,C
PIT *-2
PIT N-2
SMrlf p
SPft SAGE
TH. GPUl'P
VKA PITf
90-EP »
I-»L
»LT
C01, )E>. *P->, >4.-14 ,
UNIO'J CAPPIDE
f XPL.Cd
CF
CP
fFCFRAf, A'FBICA
FF.lFXjr, »fcF»ICA"
ASS"Ct*1£P OKVEL
• f'STFP < UM».IU*
HI.*CP,
JOHI.SO. *
S»ITH,
Jl lit xt.K.C
fr.ACK ShE'.P UPA''
RLiCK aiiTTFS UB*
PAG'1'?, Fl'irK
5,* «. 'I»C.» FXPL
>' H P 0 • t
MATP'J-A
n>T«n,x i
'JATPIK*
l.ATfPft
•/ATRO^A
* il^l^s, ^
N»Tnl»A
"JAIPI"""*
N jtHISA
WATrtiTlA
I, jpo^tP |
NinppiPA
)»IOI>i>