EPA 530-R-94-032

NTIS PB94-2008987

TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT

EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION OF
ORES AND MINERALS

VOLUME 5

URANIUM

January 1995

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste
Special Waste Branch
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
 Technical Resource Document: Uranium

DISCLAIMER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The mention of company or product names is not to be considered
an endorsement by the U.S. Government or the EPA.

This Technical Resource Document was distributed for review to the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Mines, the Western Governors
Association, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, the American
Mining Congress, and Public Interest Groups. EPA is grateful to all
individuals who took the time to review sections of this Technical Resource
Document.

Since this document was prepared, and prior to publication, EPA issued
final regulations to correct and prevent contamination of groundwater
beneath and in the vicinity of inactive uranium processing sites by uranium
tailings (60 Federal Register 2854, January 11, 1995). These regulations
have been included in Appendix C of this document.

The use of the terms "extraction," "beneficiation," and "mineral processing"

in the Profile section of this document is not intended to classify any waste
streams for the purposes of regulatory interpretation or application. Rather,
these terms are used in the context of common industry terminology.

i
 Technical Resource Document: Uranium

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DISCLAIMER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

1.0 MINING INDUSTRY PROFILE: URANIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 ORE CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.1 Chemical Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.2 Types of Uranium Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.2.1 Stratabound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.2.2 Solution Breccia Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.2.3 Vein Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.2.4 Phosphatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4 URANIUM MINING PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.1 Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.1.1 Open Pit Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.1.2 Underground Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.2 Beneficiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4.2.1 Conventional Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.2.2 Solution Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5 EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION WASTES AND MATERIALS ASSOCIATED
WITH URANIUM MINING OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.5.1 Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.1.1 Waste Rock or Overburden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.1.2 Mine Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.1.3 Tailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.5.1.4 Bleed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.5.1.5 Evaporation Pond Sludges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.5.1.6 Drilling Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.5.1.7 Waste Ion Exchange Resins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.5.1.8 Reverse Osmosis Brines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.5.1.9 Acid/Alkaline Leaching, Solvent Extraction, Stripping and Precipitation
Circuit Wastes and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.5.2 Waste and Materials Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5.2.1 Overburden, Waste Rock, and Ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5.2.2 Mine Pits and Underground Workings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5.2.3 Tailings Impoundments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.5.2.4 Evaporation Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.5.2.5 Settling Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.5.2.6 Land Application Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.5.2.7 Deep Disposal Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.6.2 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.6.2.1 Mine Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.6.3 Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

ii
 Technical Resource Document: Uranium

1.6.4
Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.6.4.1 Radon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.6.4.2 Fugitive Dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.6.4.3 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1.7 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1.7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1.7.2 Federal Regulatory Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.7.2.1 The Uranium Millings Tailings Remediation Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.7.2.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1.7.2.3 Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.7.3 Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1.7.4 Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1.7.5 Safe Drinking Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1.7.5.1 Class I Nonhazardous Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
1.7.5.2 Class III Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
1.7.5.3 Class V Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1.7.6 Selected State Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1.7.6.1 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1.7.6.2 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1.8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A NPL SUMMARIES RELATED TO URANIUM EXTRACTION

AND BENEFICIATION

APPENDIX B ACRONYM LIST

APPENDIX C GROUNDWATER STANDARDS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT INACTIVE

URANIUM PROCESSING SITES (60 FEDERAL REGISTER 2854, JANUARY 11,
1995)

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 1-1. Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Discharges from Mines and Mills in the
"Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure 1-1. Domestic Raw Ore Production–1950 through 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 1-2. Location of Active and Inactive Milling Operations in the U.S. as of 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 1-3. Location of the Four Types of Uranium Deposits Found in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 1-4. Raw Ore Production from Open Pit and Underground Uranium Mines–1950 to 1991 . . . . . . . 15
Figure 1-5. Schematic of a Conventional Mill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 1-6. Comparison of Acid and Alkaline Leaching Circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 1-7. Well-Field Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

iii
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

1.0 MINING INDUSTRY PROFILE: URANIUM

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Industry Profile presents the results of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research into the
domestic uranium mining industry and is one of a series of profiles of major mining industry sectors.
Additional profiles describe other industry sectors, including gold, lead/zinc, copper, iron, and several
industrial minerals. EPA prepared these profiles to enhance and update its understanding of the mining
industry and to support mining program development by states. EPA believes the profiles represent current
environmental management practices as described in the literature.

Each profile addresses extraction and beneficiation of ores. The scope of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) as it applies to mining waste was amended in 1980 when Congress passed the Bevill
Amendment, Section 3001(b)(3)(A). The Bevill Amendment states that "solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals" is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)). The exemption was conditional upon EPA's completion of
studies required by RCRA Section 8002(f) and (p) on the environmental and health consequences of the
disposal and use of these wastes. EPA segregated extraction and beneficiation wastes from processing
wastes. EPA submitted the initial results of these studies in the 1985 Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden From Uranium
Mining, and Oil Shale (U.S. EPA 1985). In July 1986, EPA made a regulatory determination that regulation
of extraction and beneficiation wastes under Subtitle C was not warranted (51 FR 24496; July 3, 1986).
EPA concluded that Subtitle C controls were not appropriate and found that a number of existing Federal and
State programs already addressed many of the risks posed by extraction and beneficiation wastes. Instead of
regulating extraction and beneficiation wastes as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C, EPA indicated that these
wastes should be controlled under Subtitle D of RCRA.

EPA reported their initial findings on mineral processing wastes from studies required by the Bevill
Amendment in the 1990 Report to Congress: Special Wastes From Mineral Processing (U.S. EPA 1990).
This report covered 20 specific mineral processing wastes; none involved uranium processing wastes. In
June 1991, EPA issued a regulatory determination (56 FR 27300) stating that regulation of these 20 mineral
processing wastes as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C is inappropriate or infeasible. These 20
wastes are subject to applicable state requirements. Any mineral processing wastes not specifically included
in this list of 20 wastes no longer qualifies for the exclusion (54 FR 36592).

In addition to preparing profiles, EPA has undertaken a variety of activities to support state mine waste
programs. These activities include visits to a number of mine sites; compilation of data from State regulatory
agencies on waste characteristics, releases, and environmental effects; preparing summaries of mining-related
sites on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL); and an examination of specific waste management

1
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

practices and technologies. EPA has also conducted studies of State mining-related regulatory programs and
their implementation.

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information on the domestic uranium mining industry. It
should be noted that the uranium industry has been depressed since the early 1980s and that the extent of
current operations is limited. The report describes current uranium extraction and beneficiation operations
with specific reference to the wastes associated with these operations. It also refers to activities and impacts
documented when the uranium mining industry was more active. The report is based on reviews of literature
and a limited number of State documents. This report complements, but was developed independently of,
other EPA activities, including those described above. Uranium processing wastes are not addressed in this
profile.

This report briefly characterizes the geology of uranium ores and the economics of the industry. Following
this discussion is a review of uranium extraction and beneficiation methods; this section provides the context
for descriptions of wastes and materials managed by the industry, as well as a discussion of the potential
environmental effects that may result from uranium extraction and beneficiation. The report concludes with a
description of regulatory programs that apply to the uranium mining industry as implemented by EPA,
Federal land management agencies, and selected states.

1.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY

The primary demand for uranium is by commercial power generating facilities for use in fuel rods. Prior to
1942, its primary uses were as a coloring agent in glass manufacturing and in the production of certain
copper, nickel and steel alloys. After the start of World War II, the U.S. began stockpiling uranium
principally for the development of atomic weapons (EIA/DOE, 1991).

In 1946, the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) as the sole
purchasing agent for domestically produced uranium. The AEA also set fixed prices for uranium ore and
provided incentives including access roads, haulage allowances, and buying stations in an effort to bolster
development within the domestic uranium mining industry. The AEC acted as the sole purchasing agent for
uranium from 1948 through 1970. Since the end of the Federal buying program in 1970, private entities have
handled sales of uranium between producers and consumers.

The industry slowed in the late 1960s as a result of the a slowdown of the Federal procurement program
which terminated in 1970. Uranium production in the early 1970s remained steady as commercial markets
began to emerge. The industry was revitalized shortly thereafter by the prospect of supplying fuel to the
developing commercial nuclear power industry. Production and prices peaked in the early 1980s, the same
time period when planning and construction of new commercial nuclear power plants came to a halt
(EIA/DOE, 1992). Domestic raw ore production figures since 1950 are presented in Figure 1

2
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium
Figure 1-1. Domestic Raw Ore Production–1950 through 1991
(Source: DOE/EIA, 1992)
3
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

In the uranium market, references to ore, intermediate, and some final products, are in terms of percent of
uranium oxide or uranium oxide equivalent. Uranium oxide is a generic term for a number of common
chemical forms of uranium, the most common being U3O8. Yellowcake is another generic term, used to
describe the yellow powder generated as the end product of uranium beneficiation. The purity of yellowcake
typically ranges from 60 to 75 percent U3O8 (Merritt, 1971). A discussion of the different chemical forms of
yellowcake is provided in the Extraction and Beneficiation section of this document.

Uranium is sold to commercial utilities in the U.S. by both domestic and foreign suppliers. Government
stockpiles supply at least a portion of the uranium required by the defense industry. Suppliers derive their
sources from operational mines, natural grade uranium stockpiles (as opposed to the processed, enriched form
used as the component of fuel rods) and foreign sources. Domestic suppliers delivered 11,125 metric tons of
U3O8 equivalent to domestic utilities in 1991; commercial mills in the U.S. provided 3,600 metric tons while
suppliers imported almost 2,600 metric tons. Most of the remaining 4,900 metric tons of U3O8 equivalent
supplied to domestic utilities came from commercial stockpiles. Domestic utilities directly imported an
additional 6,400 metric tons of U3O8 equivalent in 1991 (EIA/DOE, 1992).

Commercial inventories of U3O8 equivalent held in the United States at the end of 1991 stood at over 55,500
metric tons. The Federal government held approximately 21,250 metric tons while the remainder was held by
utilities and domestic suppliers (DOE/EIA, 1992).

Uranium mines within the United States produced 522 metric tons (1.4 million pounds) of U3O8 equivalent in
1992. Production figures from 1992 indicate a drop of over 70 percent from 1991 levels and the lowest level
of production since 1951 (see Figure 1). Uranium prices as well as production are down. In 1992, the
average price per pound of uranium oxide equivalent was $8.70, down from an average of $13.66 in 1991
(DOE/EIA, 1993).

In 1981, the United States produced nearly 14,800 metric tons of U3O8 equivalent at an average price of over
$34 per pound. At the time, the uranium industry reported an employment figure of 13,676 person-years.
U3O8 equivalent production in 1991 was approximately 3,600 metric tons sold at an average price of $13.66
per pound. The 1992 employment figure of 682 person-years reflects the current trend in production and
prices. The EIA reports that in 1992, 51 person-years were expended in exploration, 219 in mining activities,
129 in milling operations and 283 in processing facilities. (DOE/EIA, 1992, 1993).

Uranium has primarily been mined in the western United States; Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. A total of 17 uranium mines were operational in 1992; five
conventional mines (both underground and open pits), four in situ, and eight reported as "other" (heap leach,
mine water, mill tailings, or low-grade stockpiles). Uranium was also produced to a limited extent as a
byproduct of phosphoric acid production at four sites (DOE/EIA, 1993). Figure 2

4
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Figure 1-2. Location of Active and Inactive Milling Operations in the U.S. as of 1991

(Source: DOE, 1991)

5
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

illustrates the location of operational (operational in this case includes active and inactive mines and mills
but not decommissioned mills nor closed (reclaimed) mines) mines and mills in the U.S. in 1991. (DOE/EIA,
1992)

Total milling capacity for active and inactive conventional mills in 1991 was 14,550 tons per day (tpd) of ore
(the type of tons was not defined). As of 1991, the two active mills (Hobson, Texas and Shirley Basin,
Wyoming) had the capacity to handle a total of 4,800 tpd yet, the total daily feed averaged 1,920 tpd. The
average grade of ores processed in 1991 was 0.198 percent uranium oxide (USGS, 1990; DOE/EIA, 1991;
DOE/EIA, 1992). These two active mills closed during 1992 and are currently being dismantled.

The percentage of U3O8 equivalent produced by conventional and other mills by State is difficult to
determine. Texas was the largest producer of U3O8 equivalent in 1991 producing 1,063 metric tons of
yellowcake. Wyoming, the second largest domestic producer, produced 1,017 metric tons. Production of
U3O8 equivalent from Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington
combined totalled nearly 2,850 metric tons in 1991 (DOE/EIA, 1992).

6
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

As part of the annual viability assessment of the domestic uranium mining and milling industry required by
10 CFR 761, the Secretary of Energy has declared the uranium mining and milling industry nonviable
annually from 1984 through 1991 (DOE/EIA, 1992a). (A definition of viability was not provided in the
report nor 10 CFR 761). A 1992 summary of various mineral markets published in the Engineering and
Mining Journal (E&MJ) noted that the industry remained depressed with large inventories and low prices.
The report also indicated that the Cigar Lake project in Canada, with ore reserves capable of supplying most
of the uranium needs in the Western Hemisphere, was scheduled to begin production in the near future
(Grisafe, 1992). (The ore grade at Cigar Lake is approximately eight percent uranium oxide.)

Projections of spot-market demand versus production (under 1992 conditions) indicate the continuation of a
depressed market with demand and production near current levels through the year 2000 (DOE/EIA, 1993).

7
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

1.3 ORE CHARACTERIZATION

In order to understand the operations used to mine and concentrate uranium, it is necessary to discuss the
chemical and physical make-up of uranium ores. Understanding the characteristics of uranium ore and their
host rocks also provides insight into the type of waste products that may be produced as a result of specific
mining or beneficiation techniques. This section presents a brief description of the geochemistry of uranium
minerals and the genesis and physical characteristics of different types of uranium ore bodies found in the
United States.

1.3.1 Chemical Characterization

The element uranium is generally found in naturally occurring minerals in one of two ionic states: U6+ (the
uranyl "oxidized" ion) and U4+ (the uranous "reduced" ion). Minerals containing the uranyl ion tend to be
brightly colored (red, yellow, orange and green) and occur in oxidized portions of uranium ore deposits.
Common uranyl minerals include tyuyamunite (Ca(UO2)2V2O8 8H2O), autunite (Ca(UO2)2(PO4)2 8-12H2O),
torbernite (Cu(UO2)2(PO4)2 8-12H2O) and uranophane (H3O)2Ca(UO2)2(SiO4)2 3H2O) (Smith, 1984;
Hutchinson and Blackwell, 1984). Minerals containing the uranous ion are more subdued in color, typically
brown or black, and occur in reducing environments. Common uranous minerals include uraninite (UO2),
pitchblende (a crystalline variant of uraninite) and coffinite (USiO4) (Smith, 1984; Hutchinson and
Blackwell, 1984). Uranium occurs in the minerals as one of three isotopes: U-234, U-235 and the most
abundant of the isotopes, U-238 (Tatsch, 1976).

1.3.2 Types of Uranium Deposits

Economically recoverable uranium deposits in the United States generally fit into one of four types of
deposits: stratabound, solution breccia pipes, vein, and phosphatic. Figure 3

8
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Figure 1-3. Location of the Four Types of Uranium Deposits Found in the U.S.

(Source: DOE, 1991)

9
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

depicts the general geographic location of these four types of uranium deposits within the United States.
Forty percent of the world's uranium reserves occur in the stratabound uranium deposits in the western United
States. These reserves account for more than ninety percent of the U.S. production of uranium and vanadium
(an element that is often present in uranium minerals as well as in accessory minerals) (Guilbert and Park,
1985).

1.3.2.1 Stratabound

Stratabound is a term used to describe ore deposits that are contained within a single layer of sedimentary
rock. In the United States, stratabound uranium ores are found in three major geographic areas: the Wyoming
Basin, south Texas, and the Colorado Plateau. Grades of ore mined from these deposits range from 0.15 to
0.30 percent U3O8.

The ore is found in bodies ranging in size from two tons to more than 10 million tons. Several of these
bodies may make up one uranium deposit (Tatsch, 1976).

The current theory on the genesis of stratabound uranium orebodies proposes that they formed through the
transport of uranium (and associated elements) by oxidizing groundwater. Groundwater flowed through
uranium-containing rocks or sediments, leaching uranium from the rock through the oxidation of U4+ to U6+.
The U6+ ion is soluble in groundwater as one of many different uranyl complex ions. These uranium ions
remained in solution until they encountered and moved through a reducing environment. There the uranyl
ions were reduced and a uranous mineral, such as uraninite, was precipitated.

The uranium deposits of the Wyoming Basin and south Texas are known as "roll-front" deposits, a uranium
ore-body deposited at the interface of oxidizing and reducing groundwaters. These deposits are found in
permeable sandstone beds that are generally interbedded with silty claystones or shales. Tongues of
oxidizing groundwater containing uranium (vanadium, molybdenum, selenium, and sulfur may also be
present) in solution flowed through the sandstone beds until reducing groundwater was reached. Precipitation
of the uraninite and accessory minerals occurred at the interface of the oxidized fluids and the reducing
environment. A zonation of mineralization is typically noted in these deposits; pyrite and calcite are found at
the leading edge of the interface, pyrite and uraninite in the ore-zone and siderite (FeCO3), goethite (FeO OH)
and hematite (Fe2O3) on the trailing edge. The deposits display a crescent shape in plan view, resulting from
the configuration of the interface between the tongues of oxidizing groundwater and reducing groundwater.
As the interface of the oxidizing and reducing environments migrated, the uranous minerals were deposited
over a laterally extended area. The roll-front ore bodies may only be a few meters in height, but may extend
over a hundred meters in length. These deposits are particularly well suited for in situ solution mining
techniques (see Beneficiation section) due to the high permeability of the host sandstones and their generally
shallow depths (Guilbert and Park, 1985; Texas Department of Water Resources, 1984).

The Salt Wash uranium-vanadium deposits of the Colorado Plateau (includes the Uravan Mineral Belt in
Colorado and Utah) were formed when uranium- and vanadium-enriched groundwater flowed through zones

10
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

of high permeability containing solids (organic matter), gases (hydrogen sulfide), or liquids capable of
reducing the uranyl ion. The uranium and vanadium minerals were deposited in the areas where these
substances created reducing environments. The deposits are generally tabular shaped and are found in
sandstones, limestones, siltstones and conglomerates scattered throughout western Colorado, eastern Utah,
northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. Grades of these deposits range from 0.16 percent to
0.25 percent U3O8. Significant vanadium is also associated with these deposits, which grades about one
percent V2O5. Other metals associated with these deposits are copper, silver, selenium, molybdenum,
chromium, lead, zinc, arsenic, cobalt and nickel. Although the primary ore minerals associated with these
deposits are the reduced minerals pitchblende and coffinite, the brightly colored weathering products of these
two minerals are also present, the oxidized uranium and vanadium minerals tyuyamunite, carnotite, and
montroseite (Guilbert and Park, 1985).

The humate uranium deposits of the Colorado Plateau (located in northwestern New Mexico and known as
the Grants Mineral Belt) have provided over 50 percent of the total U.S. uranium production. These deposits
occur in sandstones, arkoses and siltstones of the Morrison Formation. The uranium is found associated with
tabular layers of organic matter (humates) averaging 0.5 to two meters thick and up to hundreds of meters
across. The uranium ore contains the minerals uraninite and coffinite and an organo-uraniferous mineraloid.
These compounds coat sand grains, and fill pore spaces and fractures. Locally, some younger oxidizing "roll
fronts" have advanced through the uraniferous humate deposits and redistributed the uranium into the
characteristic roll-front deposit (Guilbert and Parker, 1985).

1.3.2.2 Solution Breccia Pipes

Solution breccia pipe uranium deposits occur in the Arizona Strip, an area of northern Arizona known for
high grade uranium deposits. Between 1980 and 1992, seven mines in the Arizona Strip produced in excess
of 19 million pounds of uranium ore averaging 0.64 percent U-238. (Pillmore, 1992). No production figures
were available for uranium ores mined prior to 1980.

These solution breccia pipes (not to be confused with breccia pipes of volcanic origin) were created by the
flow of groundwater through limestones. The neutral to acidic groundwater began to dissolve the limestone
along areas of weakness in the rock. As the dissolution progressed, large cavities formed in the limestone
units. The overlying units, no longer supported by the underlying limestone, progressively collapsed into the
cavities. This progressive collapse of the overlying units resulted in cylindrical columns of broken rock
(commonly referred to as solution breccia pipes). Many of these structures extend a vertical distance of more
than 2,000 feet and may reach 250 feet in width (Verbeek, Grout and Gosen, 1988; Pillmore, 1992).

The solution breccia pipes became preferential pathways for fluids as a result of their increased permeability.
Sometime after pipe formation, hydrothermal fluids circulated in the pipes and in fractures surrounding the
pipes, depositing uranous minerals in the presence of reducing solids (ferrous iron, sulfides or organic matter)
or liquids. The source of these hydrothermal solutions and the uranium contained in them is currently open to
debate.

11
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Uraninite or pitchblende coats quartz grains and fills small cavities (vugs) in many of the pipes. A variety of
copper, iron, zinc and lead sulfides are also found in what appears to be deposition contemporaneous with the
uraninite. Following the hydrothermal phase, many of the ore minerals deposited in the pipes were
chemically altered as the geological environment changed. Oxidizing, low temperature groundwater migrated
thorough the pipes and oxidized the primary uranium ores to tyuyamunite, uranophane, torbernite and other
uranyl uranium minerals. Copper and zinc sulfides were altered to carbonate, sulfate and hydrous silicate
compounds. In some pipes, this alteration is nearly complete, eliminating all traces of the primary mineral
assemblages. Many of these deposits

12
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

have been exploited through underground mining methods (Verbeek, Grout, Van Gosen, 1988 and Rich,
Holland and Peterson, 1977).

1.3.2.3 Vein Deposits

Uranium vein deposits are formed by the migration of hydrothermal solutions through faults and fractures at
moderate temperatures (100 to 300 C) and pressures. As geochemical changes occur in the solutions,
pitchblende and other uranium minerals are precipitated in the veins. In addition to the uranium minerals, the
vein may also contain many different types of minerals. These accessory minerals may contain any number
of metals, including copper, lead, iron and zinc.

Vein deposits of uranium ore may be found in any type of host rock: sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous.
Most uranium vein deposits in the U.S. have been relatively unimportant in U.S. production (Rick, Holland
and Petersen, 1977). Exceptions to this are the Schwartzwalder mine in Colorado, the Marysvale District in
Utah and the Midnite mine in Washington. A current accounting of the total U.S. uranium production
originating from vein deposits was not available.

1.3.2.4 Phosphatic

Uranium was extracted to a limited extent, from the phosphate ores of central Florida until recently. In these
ores, uranium is a trace constituent of apatite (Ca5(PO4)), the primary mineral in phosphate deposits. The
uranous ion (U4+) substitutes for calcium in the crystalline structure of apatite and a small amount of U6+ may
be adsorbed onto the mineral surface. (USGS, 1990)

The central Florida phosphate deposits contain uranium concentrations ranging from 90 ppm to 150 ppm in
phosphate pellets, the main form of phosphate ore. The uranium was deposited at the same time as the
apatite and not as a secondary replacement of the calcium. Secondary enrichment of uranium has occurred in
some areas of the phosphate district as a result of leaching by acidic groundwater. As acidic water percolates
through the phosphate rock, uranium and apatite are dissolved and transported to a geochemical environment
favorable for precipitation. This process secondarily concentrates uranium (up to 1,000 ppm) and apatite
(USGS, 1990). Uranium was recovered from the apatite during the manufacture of phosphoric acid. In
1988, two phosphoric acid manufacturing plants recovered about two million pounds of U3O8 (21 percent of
U.S. production for 1988) from the phosphate rock mined in Florida (USGS, 1990). These operations are
now closed.

13
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

1.4 URANIUM MINING PRACTICES

The major operational steps in producing commercial uranium products fall into three broad categories:
extraction, beneficiation and processing. Extraction involves the removal of ore from a deposit and includes
all steps prior to beneficiation. Beneficiation includes the crushing, grinding, leaching of the ore; it also
includes concentration and subsequent precipitation of the uraniferous compounds. During the last stage of
beneficiation the precipitated yellowcake is washed, dried and packaged for shipment. Typically, yellowcake
is shipped to a Federal facility for processing. In the processing step, uranium fluoride (UF6) is produced
from yellowcake. The uranium fluoride is then enriched, an operation that concentrates the U-235 from a
concentration of 0.7 percent to approximately two to three percent. The enriched uranium fluoride is further
refined to ultimately produce the fuel rods used in nuclear reactors. The terms extraction and beneficiation,
for the purposes of this report, are used in the broadest sense and discussions herein should not be construed
for regulatory purposes for any specific waste. Extraction and beneficiation methods are discussed further in
this section; uranium processing is beyond the scope of the report. A discussion of the wastes generated
during each phase of mining and beneficiation is presented in the next chapter.

1.4.1 Extraction

Uranium is typically mined using one of three techniques: surface (open pit), underground, or solution
mining. (Solution mining is discussed below in the Beneficiation section). The method of extraction is
dependent on the grade, size, location, and geology of the deposit and is based on maximizing ore recovery
within economic constraints. A low-grade cutoff point is established on a site-specific basis and depends on
recovery costs at the site, the market price of the ore, and feed requirements at the mill. A survey conducted
in 1986 indicated that low-grade cutoff values ranged from 0.01 to 0.3 percent U3O8 (USEPA, 1986).

Unlike operations in many other mineral sectors, uranium ore production levels from open pit and
underground mines were approximately equal for the period of 1978 through 1985 (see Figure 4

14
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium
Figure 1-4. Raw Ore Production from Open Pit and Underground Uranium Mines–1950 to 1991
(Source: DOE/EIA, 1992)
15
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Production figures since 1985 have been withheld as proprietary information, so, more recent comparisons
between the two methods were not possible (EIA/DOE, 1991). It is likely that as the price of uranium
declines, more costly methods of mining, such as underground, have become less economically feasible.

1.4.1.1 Open Pit Mining

Open pit mining techniques are employed to exploit ore deposits relatively close to the surface of the earth.
Topsoil is typically removed separately and stockpiled. Overburden, the material overlying the deposit is
removed using scrapers or with trucks and loaders or mechanical shovels.

Depending on the extent of consolidation, the overburden may be ripped with bulldozers or blasted prior to
removal. Overburden may be stockpiled outside the pit or placed in mined out portions of the pit once pit
development has progressed to an acceptable point. Mining economics typically require that overburden
haulage be minimized. Once the ore body is exposed, it is ripped, loaded into trucks, and trucked to an onsite
stockpile. The ore can then be moved from the stockpile to the mill site as required.

The depth to which an ore body is mined depends on the ore grade, nature of the overburden, and the
stripping ratio. Stripping ratios describe the amount of overburden that must be removed to extract one unit
of ore. One report indicates that stripping ratios for open pit uranium mines range from 10:1 to 80:1 with an
average of around 30:1 (USEPA, 1983b Vol 2). Stripping ratios at open pit mines currently in operation
were not available. The primary advantage of surface mining is the ability to move large amounts of material
at a relatively low cost, in comparison with underground operations.

1.4.1.2 Underground Mining

A variety of techniques are employed in underground operations depending on the distribution and orientation
of the ore deposit. In general, underground mining involves sinking a shaft (or driving an adit) near the ore
body to be mined and extending levels from the main shaft at various depths to the ore. Shafts, adits, drifts
and cross-cuts, are developed to access and remove the ore body. Levels and adits often slope slightly
upward away from the main shaft to encourage positive drainage of any water seeping into the mine. Ore and
development rock, the non-ore bearing material generated during mining, may be removed either through
shaft conveyances or chutes, and hoisted in skips (elevators) to the surface or used to backfill mined out
areas. Ore is placed in stockpiles while development rock brought to the surface is placed in waste rock. As
underground mining techniques are able to leave much of the non-ore bearing material in place, the ratio of
waste (development) rock to ore is much lower than stripping ratios in open pit mines. Ratios of waste rock
to ore range from 1:1.5 to 1:16 (USEPA, 1983b Vol 2). In shallow underground mines, ore and waste rock
may be brought to the surfaced by train or conveyor belt. Often, mining progresses from the edge of the ore
deposit or property line toward the main shaft (USDOI, 1980).

16
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

As with surface mining operations, ores and sub-grade ores may be stockpiled on the surface. These
materials may be beneficiated as market conditions allow or left with mine development rock in waste rock
piles.

1.4.2 Beneficiation

Beneficiation of ores and minerals is referenced in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) as being the following: crushing;
grinding; washing; dissolution; crystallization; filtration; sorting; sizing; drying; sintering; pelletizing;
briquetting, calcining to remove water and/or carbon dioxide; roasting; autoclaving, and/or chlorination in
preparation for leaching (except where the roasting (and/or autoclaving and/or chlorination)/leaching
sequence produces a final or intermediate product that does not undergo further beneficiation or processing);
gravity concentration; magnetic separation; electrostatic separation; flotation; ion exchange; solvent
extraction; electrowinning; precipitation; amalgamation; and heap, dump, tank, and in situ leaching.
Beneficiation of conventionally mined ores in the uranium industry involves crushing and grinding the
extracted ores followed by a leaching circuit. In situ operations bypass the extraction step and perform the
leaching step using a leach solution to dissolve desirable metals from deposits in-place. The uranium, in this
case, is brought to the surface in solution. Uranium in either case is removed from pregnant leach liquor and
concentrated using solvent extraction or ion exchange techniques and precipitated to form yellowcake. Prior
to 1980, approximately 90 percent of yellowcake production came from conventional mills; as of 1991,
yellowcake production from conventional mills and in situ operations is close to equal (USDOI, 1980;
DOE/EIA, 1992).

Uranium mills have typically been associated with specific mines or functioned as custom mills, serving a
number of mines. The two mills that operated in 1991 closed in 1992 and are in the process of being
decommissioned (Stephenson, 1993). The specific circuits employed by those mills for beneficiation, prior to
their closure, were not determined. Most available information on milling operations were written when a
dozen or more were operational, therefore the following discussions may not precisely describe milling
activities being conducted at present. Figure 5

17
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium
Figure 5-1. Schematic of a Conventional Mill
18
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

illustrates operations at a typical conventional mill.

The chemical nature of the ore determines the type of leach circuit required and, in turn, the extent of
grinding. Most ores are ground to approximately 28 mesh and acid-leached. Ores containing greater than 12
percent limestone require finer grinding (200 mesh) and are leached with an alkaline solution. Mills may use
one type of circuit or the other although in the past, some mills maintained both acid and alkaline leach
circuits. Solvent extraction or ion exchange circuits can be used to concentrate the uraniferous compounds
from either of the leach circuits (USEPA, 1983a; USDOI, 1980).

The literature indicates that solvent exchange was employed more frequently in conventional milling
operations than ion exchange. Where ion exchange was employed by conventional mills, it appears to have
been conducted as a resin-in-pulp operation rather than using columns. In situ operations usually employ ion
exchange columns for concentration of the uraniferous compounds.

Some limitations of ion exchange columns are the inability to treat solutions with solids and the finite life of
the fixed resins. Ion exchange is effective for in situ operations because of the relative ease with which resin
columns can be transported from satellite areas to a centralized uranium stripping/precipitation facility.

Conventional Milling

Crushing and Grinding

The initial step in conventional milling involves crushing, grinding, and wet and/or dry classification of the
crude ore to produce uniformly sized particles. A primary crusher, such as a jaw type, is used to reduce ore
into particles less than 150 millimeters (about 6 inches) in diameter. Generally, crushing continues using a
cone crusher and an internal sizing screen until the ore has a diameter less than 19 mm (3/4 inch). Crushing
in jaw and cone crushers is a dry process, with water spray applied only to control dust. Ore feeds from the
cone crusher to the grinding circuit where ball and/or rod mills, and/or autogenous or semiautogenous
grinding, continue to reduce the size of the ore. Water or leach liquor is added to the system in the grinding
circuit to facilitate the movement of the solids, for dust control, and (if leach liquor is added) to initiate
leaching (USDOI, 1980).

Classifiers, thickeners, cyclones or screens are used to size the finely ground ore, returning coarse materials
for additional grinding. The slurry generated in the grinding circuit contains 50 to 65 percent solids. Fugitive
dust generated during crushing and grinding is usually controlled by water sprays or, if collected by air
pollution control devices, recirculated into the beneficiation circuit. Water is typically recirculated through
the milling circuit to reduce consumption (USEPA, 1983a).

19
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Leaching

After grinding, the slurry is pumped to a series of tanks for leaching. Leaching is defined as dissolving
metals or minerals out of ore (USDOI, 1968). Two types of leaching have been employed by uranium mills,
acid and alkaline. Acid leaching had been the predominant leaching process employed by conventional mills
although the methods in use at the two mills operating in 1991 were not determined. Figure 6

20
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Figure 1-6. Comparison of Acid and Alkaline Leaching Circuits

(Source: Merritt, 1971)

21
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

illustrates process flow diagrams for acid and alkaline leaching. In the discussions that follow, an overview
of leaching is provided followed by a more detailed description of both acid and alkaline leaches. Generally,
leaching is a simple operation. A solvent (lixiviant) is brought into contact with the crushed ore slurry (or, in
the case of in situ, with the ore in the ground). The desired constituent (uranyl ions) is then dissolved by the
lixiviant. The pregnant lixiviant is separated from the residual solids (tails); typically the solids are washed
with fresh lixiviant until the desired level of recovery is attained.

The uranyl ions are recovered (stripped) from the pregnant lixiviant. The final steps consist of precipitation
to produce yellowcake, followed by drying and packaging (Pehlke, 1973). The stripped lixiviant may be
replenished and recycled for use within the leaching circuit or as the liquid component in the
crushing/grinding operation. Ultimately, the solids may be washed with water prior to being pumped to the
tailings pond; this wash serves to recover any remaining lixiviant and reduce the quantity of chemicals being
placed in the tailings impoundment. Wash water may be recycled to the lixiviant or to the crushing and
grinding circuits.

The first step in any uranium leaching operation is oxidation of the uranium constituents. Uranium is found
as uranium dioxide (UO2, U+4 oxidation state) in many deposits (pitchblende and uraninite). Uranium dioxide
is insoluble; to create a soluble form, UO2 is oxidized from the U+4 to the U+6 oxidation state. Iron present
within the ore, and oxygen, are used to perform oxidation via the following reactions:

(1) alkaline UO2 + ½O2 UO3

(2) acid UO2 + 2Fe+3 UO2+2 + 2Fe+2.
(Source: Twidwell et al., 1983)

(Note: iron can be readily reoxidized by the addition of O,

2 sodium chlorate (NaClO3), or manganese oxide
(MnO2) to the lixiviant.)

The second step in leaching is the stabilization of the uraniferous ions in solution. The uraniferous ions form
stable, soluble complexes with sulfate (SO4-2) or carbonate (CO3-2). Sulfuric acid is added as the source for
sulfate ions; sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, or carbon dioxide are added to alkaline leach circuits to
provide a carbonate source. Uraniferous complexes are formed through the following reactions:

(1) alkaline UO3 + CO3-2 + 2HCO3- UO2(CO3)3-4 + H2O

(2) acid UO2+2 + 6SO4-2 UO2(SO4)6-4.
(Source: Twidwell et al., 1983)

In a typical acid leaching operation, sulfuric acid is added to the crushed ore slurry to maintain the pH
between 0.5 and 2.0. Twenty to 60 kilograms of sulfuric acid per metric ton of ore are normally required to
reach the target pH. NaClO3 or MnO2 is added to maintain the oxidation by iron. Because iron is normally
found in uranium deposits, the ore body itself supplies the iron in the leach step (Twidwell et al., 1983;
USEPA, 1983a).

22
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Alkaline leaching is not as effective as acid leaching for uranium recovery and is not used except in cases of
high lime-content ores. Typically, ore bodies containing greater than 12 percent carbonates will be alkaline
leached. Alkaline leaching is primarily employed in in situ mining operations, although a few conventional
mills maintained alkaline leach circuits (Merritt, 1971). Alkaline leaching requires the use of a strong oxidant
and long retention times to oxidize the uraniferous minerals (Twidwell et al., 1983). As stated previously,
oxygen and a carbonate source are added to water to make up the lixiviant. The carbonate (CO3-2) and
bicarbonate (HCO3-) concentrations are typically 40-50 g/L and 10-20 g/L respectively (Merritt, 1971). For
its leaching process, the Highland in situ project injects O2(g) and CO2(g) into the lixiviant prior to
underground injection. The dissolution of CO2 in the lixiviant produces both CO3-2 and HCO3- ions (Hunter,
1991).

Leaching may be performed in tanks, heaps or in situ. In situ leaching is practiced on low grade ores; (after
crushing and grinding) high grade ores are typically leached in tanks. Heap leaching is also applicable to low
grade ores; however, the available literature indicates that the application of this technique to uranium ores is
limited and consequently it will not be discussed in detail. Depending on the grade of the ore, grain size
(amount of grinding), and the method used, the leach times vary. Leaching in tanks may take from four to 24
hours while heap leaching may be measured in days or weeks (Twidwell et al., 1983).

Once the uraniferous compounds have been leached from the ore, the pregnant leach solution is separated
from the solids using classifiers, hydrocyclones and thickeners. Sand-sized particles are removed first and
washed with clean water or raffinate (raffinate is another term used to refer to barren lixiviant). Continued
treatment removes the slimes, which are also washed. Depending on the settling time allowed by
beneficiation operations, flocculants may be added to the process to encourage settling of suspended solids.
After final washing, the solids (sands and slimes) are pumped as a slurry to a tailings pond for further
settling. The pregnant leach solution then enters a solvent extraction or ion exchange circuit. Wash solution
is recycled to reduce consumption of leach chemicals, solute, and water (USDOI, 1980; USEPA, 1983a).

Solvent Extraction

Solvent extraction is an operation that concentrates specific ions. Generally, solvent extraction uses the
immiscible properties of two solvents (the pregnant leach solution and a solvent) and the solubility properties
of a solute (uraniferous ions) in the two solvents. Solvent extraction is typically employed by conventional
milling operations since solvent extraction can be used in the presence of fine solids (slimes). The pregnant
leach solution is mixed in tanks with the solvent. Selection of a solvent in which the target solute
(uraniferous ions) is preferentially soluble allows the solute to migrate to the solvent the pregnant leach
solution while other dissolved compounds remain in the leach solution. Normally, the solvents are organic
compounds that can combine with either solute cations or solute anions. As uranyl-carbonates or sulfates are
commonly generated in the leaching step, anionic solvent extraction solutions are typically employed; cationic
solvent extraction solutions may be employed depending on unique characteristics of the ores or leaching
solutions.

23
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Some anionic SX solutions include:

• Secondary amines with aliphatic side chains

• High molecular weight tri-alkyl tertiary amines
• Quaternary ammonium compounds.

Some cationic SX solutions include:

• Monododecyl phosphoric acid (DDPA)

• Di-2-ethylhexyl phosphoric acid (EHPA)
• Heptadecyl phosphoric acid (HDPA)
• Dialkyl pyrophosphoric acid (OPPA).
(Source: Twidwell et al., 1983).

Typically, the solvent extraction solution is diluted in a low cost carrier such as kerosene with a tributyl
phosphate modifier or a long chain alcohol (Twidwell et al., 1983). The uraniferous ions preferentially move
from the aqueous pregnant leach solution into the organic solvent as the two are mixed and agitated (USDOI,
1980). After the uraniferous compounds are thus extracted from the pregnant leach solution, the barren
lixiviant (raffinate) is typically recycled to the leaching circuit.

After the solute exchange has taken place, the pregnant solvent extraction liquor must be stripped. The
uraniferous solute is typically in an anionic state, and accordingly many solvent extraction solutions are
anionic-based. Amine solvent extraction solutions can be stripped by many different agents such as nitrates,
chlorides, sulfates, carbonates, hydroxides, and acids. Chlorides are used most frequently due to their cost-
effectiveness (Twidwell et al., 1983).

The pregnant stripping liquor is then pumped to the precipitation step while the stripped organic solvent is
recycled to the beginning of the solvent extraction circuit. Solvent exchange can be done as a batch or
continuous process (Twidwell et al., 1983).

Ion Exchange

Like solvent extraction, ion exchange operations make use of organic compounds to perform solute
concentration. Generally, fixed organic resins contained within a column are used to remove uraniferous
compounds from the pregnant leach solution by exchange. After adsorption, the uraniferous compounds
attached to the resins are released (eluted) by a stripping solution and sent to precipitation. Ion exchange is
used by most if not all in situ operations and was employed by some conventional mills. It was not
determined if the currently operational mills employ ion exchange circuits within their operations.

Resins are constructed with anionic or cationic functional groups (typically anionic for uranium compounds)
that have an affinity for the target compound and specifically bind the compound to the resin. Resins are
synthetic polymers in which hydrocarbon groups make up a three-dimensional network that hold stable,
reactive functional groups (e.g., strong acid-SO3H; weak acid-COOH; strong base-NR3Cl; weak base-

24
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

NH2RCl). Resins containing acid groups are called cation exchangers while resins containing basic groups
are termed anion exchangers (Twidwell et al., 1983). Chloride ions can exchange with the anionic component
of all the functional groups, thus providing an inexpensive stripping solution (i.e., any chloride salt solution)
for any of the resins.

As the pregnant leach solution passes through the ion exchange resins, the uraniferous compounds bind to the
resins. The barren leach solution is recycled back to the leaching circuit. As the resins' binding ports are
filled by the uranyl ions, the uranyl ion concentration at the outlet of the ion exchange column increases.
Once the uranyl ions at the outlet reach a predetermined concentration, the column is considered to be loaded
and ready for elution. Typically, the pregnant leach stream is then directed to a fresh vessel of resins. A
concentrated chloride salt solution is then directed through the loaded resins, eluting off the uraniferous
complexes. The pregnant elute liquor can then be directed to the precipitation circuit. The pregnant elute
solution may be acidified slightly to prevent the premature precipitation of uraniferous compounds (Twidwell
et al., 1983).

Yellowcake Production

Once the uraniferous ions have been concentrated by solvent extraction or ion exchange, they are precipitated
out of solution to produce yellowcake. The precipitate is then washed, filtered, dried and drummed. The
chloride stripping solution is recycled back to the stripping circuit. The type of ion concentration solution
(e.g., acid or alkaline solution) governs the precipitation method employed. With acid pregnant stripping
liquors or pregnant elute liquors, neutralization to a pH of 6.5 to 8 using ammonia hydroxide, sodium
hydroxide or lime results in the precipitation of ammonium or sodium diuranate (Merritt, 1971). Hydrogen
peroxide may also be added to an acid pregnant stripping liquor or pregnant elute liquor to precipitate
uranium peroxide (Yan, 1990). All forms of the uraniferous precipitate are known as yellowcake.

Alkaline pregnant stripping liquors or pregnant elute liquors typically contain uranyl carbonates. Prior to
precipitation of the uranyl ions, the carbonate ions must be destroyed. An acid (usually
hydrochloric acid) is added to the carbonate concentrate solution to break down the carbonates to carbon
dioxide; the carbon dioxide is vented off. Once the carbonates have been destroyed, the acidified solution is
neutralized with an alkali or treated with hydrogen peroxide to precipitate the uraniferous compounds.
Precipitation operations based on neutralization of acid solutions are favored because of the higher purity of
the yellowcake product; sodium, carbonate, and, in some cases, vanadium, are impurities that may be present
in yellowcake produced from an alkaline neutralization (Merritt, 1971).

The yellowcake is separated from the precipitation solution by filtration. Thickeners may be used in
conjunction with filtration units. The filtered yellowcake can then be dried and packaged for shipping
(USBOM, 1978). The supernatant generated from precipitation and dewatering circuits can be recycled to
the respective solvent extraction or ion exchange stripping solution.

1.4.2.1 Solution Mining

25
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Solution mining is a general term used in the uranium industry to describe operations in which a leach
solution, referred to as the lixiviant, is employed to extract uranium from subsurface ore deposits. The
chemical reactions involved in in situ leaching are the same as those described in the Leaching section above.
A number of solution mining techniques have been explored since the 1960s, including in situ leaching, stope
leaching, borehole mining, and minewater treatment.

Other than in situ, the application of solution mining techniques has been limited. Stope leaching involves
the injection of lixiviant into mined-out areas or those sections of underground mines that had been backfilled
with low grade ore. The lixiviant can be recovered from a sump or well drilled to the bottom of the mine
workings. Like other solution mining techniques, this method allows the recovery of uranium from ores not
economically minable using conventional methods. Stope leaching was used to a limited extent in Wyoming
(Smith Ranch) and in New Mexico (Quivira) (Michel, 1977; Ingle, 1993; Parker, 1990).

Mine water treatment involves recovery of uranium from mine effluent and was used at one point at the
inactive Schwarzwalder Mine in Colorado. Available information indicates that uranium was recovered using
ion exchange techniques (see above) although the recovered uranium was sent to the Cotter Mill for storage
(Cray, 1990).

Borehole mining (or water-jet mining) is a technique the U.S. Bureau of Mines demonstrated on uranium
deposits in the late 1970s. Borehole mining combines conventional and in situ mining techniques and
involves removal of uranium-containing sandstone from underground deposits using a high-pressure water
jet. The jet, inserted down one borehole, is used to fragment the sandstone, creating a slurry which is moved
to the surface via an adjacent recovery well (USDOI, 1980). No information on the use of borehole
techniques in actual production was obtained.

In situ leaching is the most commonly employed solution technique and continues to be employed at present
by at least two mines in Wyoming. Nebraska's Department of Environmental Control permitted an in situ
operation in 1990; it is currently operable (NDEC, 1990). Texas has 17 mines that are permitted for in situ
operations and only two of these are currently being mined. The rest have groundwater restoration activities
underway (Kohler, 1993). Deposits amenable to in situ leaching are usually (if not always) within an aquifer.
Water quality within a mineral deposit may vary depending on the presence of and boundary between
oxidizing and reducing groundwaters. Ore body characteristics, including chemical constituents, grade, and
permeability, are key considerations in the development of production methods (selection of lixiviants,
arrangement of well patterns). Ideally, the deposit should be confined by impermeable strata above and
below the deposit to prevent contamination of adjacent aquifers by excursions (solution leaks from the ore
zone). In situ production operations consist of three phases: removal of minerals from the deposit,
concentration of uraniferous minerals, and generation of yellowcake. In addition to the production operations,
water treatment and, in some cases, deep well injection facilities, are employed.

26
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

In in situ mining, barren lixiviant is pumped down injection wells into the ore body; production wells then
bring the pregnant leach solution to the surface for further beneficiation. Numerous well patterns have been
investigated since the early 1960s when in situ mining techniques were first employed. Five spot well
patterns, which consist of four injection wells forming the corners of a square, and a production well in the
center, are common in the industry. Alternating injection and production wells are used in narrow deposits
(see Figure 7). The spacing between injection and production wells can range from 20 to 200 feet. The
number of well patterns in a well field varies, and a specific range of numbers was not obtained. Mining units
are portions of the deposit to be mined at one operation, often following "pods" of ore deposited along a roll
front.

Mining units may be mined in sequence or simultaneously. Pumping rates at one in situ operation in
Wyoming ranged from two gallons per minute (gpm) to 30 gpm for injection wells and five gpm to 40 gpm

Figure 1-7. Well-Field Patterns

(U.S. BOM, 1978)

27
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

for production wells. Approximately one percent of the fluid drawn from the well field is removed as a bleed
to generate a cone of depression within the "production zone." Pumping rates can be varied at each well
individually in order to compensate for differences in permeability of the deposit and the gradient being
generated by the production operation.

Lixiviant is introduced to the deposit through

The constituents of the lixiviant used at the Highland
injection wells to initiate the operation. The
Uranium Project in situ operation in Wyoming are as
lixiviant consists of two parts, an oxidizing agent, follows:
which acts to solubilize the target minerals, and a
complexing agent, which binds to the target Na 50-200 mg/l
Cl 50-900 mg/l
minerals, keeping them in solution. In the
SO4 100-400 mg/l
developmental stages of in situ mining, lixiviants TDS 500-1850 mg/l
were selected based solely on their ability to pH 6.2-6.5
dissolve and mobilize the target minerals. Sulfuric HCO3 200-1200
O2 10-600 mg/l
acid, nitric acid, ammonium carbonate/bicarbonate
and sodium carbonate were among the first Source: WDEQ, 1991.
lixiviants used. Sulfuric acid lacked effectiveness
in carbonaceous deposits and, while nitric acid was more effective on carbonaceous ores, the nitrogen
component made aquifer restoration difficult. Ammonium carbonate/bicarbonate leach solutions also
presented problems in the restoration phase. Sodium-based lixiviants allowed for relatively easy aquifer
restoration; however, in some cases, the sodium fraction reacted with clays in the deposits, reducing
permeability of the aquifer (in the immediate vicinity of the injection wells) (USBOM, 1981b). According to
permit documents, Wyoming in situ operations recover uraniferous minerals using oxygen gas as the oxidizer
and carbon dioxide, which ultimately forms complexes with uranium to form uranyl carbonates, as the
complexing agent (WDEQ, 1991).

Operational steps in in situ mining are straightforward. The barren lixiviant is charged with carbon dioxide
as the solution leaves the ion exchange facility (discussed in more detail later in this chapter). Oxygen is
injected to the solution in the wellfields, immediately before the lixiviant moves into the injection wells. As
the solution moves through the deposit, uraniferous minerals are oxidized and move into solution. (A
discussion of the oxidation and complexing is provided in the Leaching section above.) Carbon dioxide in the
lixiviant reacts with water, forming carbonic acid, which in turn complexes with the solubilized uraniferous
ions, forming uranyl carbonates. The uranyl carbonates and gangue minerals solubilized in the operation
remain in solution as the pregnant solution is pumped to the surface through production (recovery) wells.

Pregnant lixiviant is pumped from the production wellheads through sand filters to remove any large
particulates; the lixiviant is then transferred to the ion exchange units. Depending on the facility, the ion
exchange resins may be placed in trailer-mounted tanks or moved via tanker truck from satellite plants to a
central processing facility. Ultimately, the uraniferous compounds are stripped from the resins and
precipitated to form yellowcake. The ion exchange and precipitation steps are discussed respectively in

28
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

sections above. The lixiviant is recharged with carbon dioxide and oxygen following the ion exchange circuit
and injected back into the ore body.

Uranium recovery rates at in situ operations are highest within the first year of operation; economically viable
recovery within a wellfield usually lasts one to three years under recent (1990s) market conditions. The
efficiency of recovery is variable; the Highland Uranium Project in Wyoming reportedly recovers 80 percent
of the estimated uranium reserve at the end of the production cycle (Hunter, 1991).

When uranium recovery drops below a previously determined point, lixiviant injection is terminated and the
restoration phase is established in the wellfield. Aquifer restoration is required under State regulatory
programs (see the Current Regulatory Framework chapter below). Normally, an aquifer must be restored to
its previous water use classification although not all water quality parameters are necessarily returned to
baseline values.

Restoration

Restoration of the aquifer can be conducted using one (or more) of the following techniques: groundwater
sweep, forward recirculation, reverse recirculation, and directional groundwater sweeping. In some cases, a
reducing agent may be injected prior to any restoration to reverse the oxidizing environment created by the
mining process. A reducing agent may also be injected during later stages of restoration if difficulties arise in
stabilizing the aquifer (Lucht, 1990).

A groundwater sweep involves the selective operation of production wells to induce the flow of
uncontaminated groundwater into the mined zone while the withdrawn water continues to be treated through
the ion exchange circuit. Contaminated water withdrawn from the aquifer can be disposed of in lined
evaporation ponds or treated and discharged. Groundwater sweeps are most effective in aquifers with "leaky"
confining layers, since uncontaminated groundwater can be induced to flow into the mined areas. Typically,
two or more pore volumes are required to improve water quality parameters. The disadvantage to
groundwater sweeping is its consumptive use of groundwater (Osiensky and Williams, 1990).

Forward recirculation involves the withdrawal and reinjection of groundwater through the same injection and
production wells that were used during the mining operation. Groundwater withdrawn from the mined
aquifer is treated using ion exchange or reverse osmosis with the clean water being reinjected and recirculated
through the system. The water being reinjected is treated to the extent that it meets or exceeds the water
quality required at the endpoint of restoration. The method does not allow the removal of any lixiviant or
mobilized ions that may have escaped from the mined aquifer. For this reason, forward recirculation is most
effective in restoring the portions of the aquifer associated with the interior of the well field (Osiensky and
Williams, 1990).

Reverse circulation techniques can also be employed in which the function of production and recovery wells is
reversed. Again, "clean" water is injected, this time through the recovery wells, while the injection wells are

29
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

employed to withdraw groundwater from the aquifer. This method is also more effective in restoring the
aquifer in the interior of the well field than along the perimeter (Osiensky and Williams, 1990).

Directional groundwater sweeping techniques involve the pumping of contaminated groundwater from
specific wells while treated water (at or surpassing baseline quality) is injected into the aquifer beyond the
mined sections of the aquifer. The clean water is then drawn into the contaminated portions of the aquifer,
removing the mobilized ions. Clean water injection can progress across a wellfield as the contaminants are
progressively withdrawn (Osiensky and Williams, 1990).

Uranium can be recovered during the early stages of the restoration process as the water from the production
wells passes through the ion exchange system. Eventually, uranium recovery is abandoned while restoration
continues. A rinse of multiple aquifer pore volumes is typically required to reach a satisfactory level of
restoration. The number of pore volumes required depends on ease with which the aquifer returns to baseline
conditions and the permit requirements established in State permits (Osiensky and Williams, 1990; BOM,
1979).

Demonstration of successful restoration is accomplished through extended monitoring. The state of

Wyoming, for example, requires that selected wells be monitored for stability for a period of at least six
months following the return of monitoring parameters to baseline level (WDEQ, 1990).

Monitoring

In situ operations maintain monitor wells and a monitoring plan to detect any migration of the lixiviant from
the production zone. Such movement of the lixiviant or any of its constituents from the mined portion of the
aquifer into adjacent or overlying aquifers is termed an excursion. Excursions may be either vertical or
horizontal. Horizontal excursions typically occur when pumping rates from production wells do not create a
large enough cone of depression to maintain the lixiviant within the production zone. These excursions are
brought under control by adjusting the pumping rates within the injection and production wells. Vertical
excursions occur when lixiviant constituents are detected in an aquifer (typically) above the production zone.
Vertical excursions may develop as a result of a leaky confining layer, improper construction of injection or
production wells, or, more commonly, from wells previously drilled into the aquifer that were not adequately
plugged before mining operations commenced. Vertical excursions are more difficult to remedy and may
require extensive

30
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

testing to identify the source of the 'leak'. Wells may need to be sealed and new wells installed, depending on
the source and severity of the vertical excursion. The number of excursions occurring at in situ operations
has decreased with the growth in understanding of the causes of excursions and methods to avoid them. This
technology developed with expansion of the industry through the 1980s (NRC, 1986).

As part of the monitoring program, upper control limits (UCLs) are established during baseline data
collection. UCLs consist of groundwater parameters that would be expected to rise in the event of an
excursion (NRC, 1986). Total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate and sodium have been used as
UCLs by uranium in situ operations (WDEQ, 1990). Since horizontal and vertical excursions may occur,
monitoring wells are established both above and below the production zone as well as around it. Monitoring
for the purpose of detecting excursions is conducted on a regular basis usually established in the operating
permit.

31
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

1.5 EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION WASTES AND MATERIALS ASSOCIATED

WITH URANIUM MINING OPERATIONS

This section describes several of the wastes and materials that are generated and/or managed at uranium
extraction and beneficiation operations and the means by which they are managed. A variety of wastes and
other materials are generated and managed by uranium mining operations.

Some, such as waste rock and tailings, are generally considered to be wastes and are managed as such,
typically in on-site management units. Even these materials, however, may be used for various purposes
(either on- or off-site) in lieu of disposal. Some quantities of waste rock and tailings, for example, may be
used as construction or foundation materials at times during a mine's life. Many other materials that are
generated and/or used at mine sites may only occasionally or periodically be managed as wastes. These
include mine water removed from underground workings or open pits, which usually is recirculated for on-site
use but at times can be discharged to surface waters. Some materials are not considered wastes at all until a
particular time in their life cycles.

The issue of whether a particular material is a waste clearly depends on the specific circumstances
surrounding its generation and management at the time. In addition, some materials that are wastes within the
plain meaning of the word are not "solid wastes" as defined under RCRA and thus are not subject to
regulation under RCRA. These include, for example, mine water or process wastewater that is discharged
pursuant to an NPDES permit. It is emphasized that any questions as to whether a particular material is a
waste at a given time should be directed to the appropriate EPA Regional office.

Wastes and materials generated by uranium mining operations include waste rock, tailings, spent
extraction/leaching solutions, and refuse. Mining method (conventional versus solution) has a bearing on the
types of wastes and materials produced. Operational mills function independently of specific mines and
generate materials that are, in most cases, unique from those generated at the site of extraction. Under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Control Act (UMTRCA, see Regulatory section below), source handling
licenses place specific requirements on the disposal of radioactive wastes; the design and construction of
tailings impoundments typically address Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for permanent
storage of these wastes. Radionuclide-containing wastes generated by in situ operations are typically shipped
to tailings impoundments at mill sites.

The greatest volume of waste generated by conventional mineral extraction (open pit and underground mines)
is waste rock, which is typically disposed of in waste rock piles. Some waste rock is used for onsite
construction (roads, foundations). The generation of acid mine drainage is one of the principal concerns
surrounding waste rock in other mineral sectors; the potential for generation of acid drainage from uranium
waste rock has not specifically been addressed in the references reviewed for this profile. However, pyrite is
typically a constituent of uranium-containing ores, and may present the potential to great acid mine drainage
in sufficient concentrations. Other materials generated by open pit and underground mining operations,
including low-grade ore and mine water, are typically managed on-site during the active life of the facility.

32
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Low-grade ores that are not beneficiated ultimately become waste rock. If a mill is co-located with a mine,
mine water can be used as makeup water in the beneficiation operation. If a mill is not nearby, mine water
may be treated and discharged (effluent standards are set forth in 40 CFR 440), or used for dust suppression.

The principal waste generated by conventional beneficiation operations are tailings; in situ operations, and to
a more limited extent conventional mills, generate waste leaching solutions. Disposal of these wastes is
dependent on the type of operation; beneficiation wastes generated by in situ operations are disposed of by
one of four management methods: evaporation ponds, land application, deep well disposal, or shipment to
NRC-licensed waste disposal facilities. Most beneficiation wastes generated at conventional mills are
disposed of in tailings impoundments.

Waste constituents of concern include radionuclides (radium, radon, thorium, and to a lesser extent lead),
arsenic, copper, selenium, vanadium, molybdenum, other heavy metals, and dissolved solids. Brines, spent
ion exchange resins, and chemicals used in beneficiation operations are also constituents of wastes generated
during beneficiation.

The first subsection below describes several of the more important wastes (as defined under RCRA or
otherwise) and nonwastes alike, since either can have important implications for environmental performance
of a facility. The next subsection describes the major types of waste units and mine structures that are of
most environmental concern during and after the active life of an operation.

1.5.1 Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes and Materials

1.5.1.1 Waste Rock or Overburden

According to the 1985 Report to Congress: Wastes From the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic
Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale, the greatest quantity of
waste generated as a result of the mining and beneficiation of uranium ore is in the form of overburden and
waste rock. Generally, these materials are deposited in waste rock piles or dumps. Surface mining operations
generate more waste per unit of crude ore extracted than underground operations. During the late 1970s, the
largest open pit uranium mines produced an average of 40,000,000 metric tons of overburden annually.
Underground mines produced an average of 2,000 metric tons of waste rock during the same time period.
Characteristics of the waste rock were not specifically determined although limited data indicated that waste
rock contained higher levels of arsenic, selenium, and vanadium than background levels (USEPA, 1983b
Vol.2).

1.5.1.2 Mine Water

Mine water is generated when water collects in mine workings, both surface and underground, as a result of
inflow from rain or surface water and of groundwater seepage. Surface water is generally controlled using
engineering techniques to prevent water from flowing into the mine. During the life of the mine, water is

33
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

pumped out of the mine as necessary to keep the mine dry and allow access to the ore body for extraction.
This water may be pumped from sumps within the mine pit or underground workings or may be withdrawn
from the vicinity of mining activity through interceptor wells. Interceptor wells are used to remove
groundwater, creating a cone of depression in the water table surrounding the mine; the result is dewatering of
the mine. Mine water may be treated and discharged (subject to 40 CFR 440 Subpart C), or, if a mill is
operating on-site, mine water can be pumped to the beneficiation circuit or to tailings impoundments.

The quantity and chemical composition of mine water generated at mines vary by site. The chemistry of mine
water is dependent on the geochemistry of the ore body and surrounding area. The two principal concerns
surrounding mine water associated with uranium mining are the potential for acid mine drainage and the
presence of radionuclides.

Information on the potential for generation of acid mine drainage from uranium mine workings and waste
rock was not available. While pyrite (an acid-forming mineral) is present in some uranium ore deposits,
many uranium mines are located in arid climates. Low precipitation rates and the resultant lack of water may
reduce the potential for generation of acid drainage (at least in the short term) from waste rock in both the
Colorado Plateau and the Shirley Basin of Wyoming.

The presence of radionuclides in mine effluent has been documented and, in at least one case, uranium was
recovered using ion exchange on effluent seeping from an inactive underground mine. The presence of
elevated levels of radionuclides in alluvial aquifers in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico, were attributed
to authorized discharges from mines (discussed in the Environmental Effects section of this report) (Eadie
and Kaufmann, 1977).

1.5.1.3 Tailings

Most wastes generated by conventional mills are disposed of in tailings impoundments.

Wastes are primarily disposed of in the form of a slurry composed of tailings, gangue (including dissolved
base metals), spent beneficiation solutions, and process water bearing carbonate complexes (alkaline
leaching) and sulfuric acid (acid leaching), sodium, manganese, and iron. The characteristics of this waste
vary greatly, depending on the ore, the beneficiation procedure, and the source of the water (fresh or
recycled). The liquid component is usually decanted and recirculated to the crushing/grinding or leaching
circuit.

Tailings typically consist of two fractions, sands and slimes. The sand and slimes may be combined and
deposited directly in the impoundment or may be distributed through a cyclone such that the sand fraction is
directed toward the dam while the slimes are directed to the interior of the pond (Merritt, 1971).

The fate of radionuclides is of special interest in uranium mill tailings. Radium-226 and thorium-230 are the
principal constituents of concern and are associated with the slime fraction of the tailings. Radon-222 (gas)
is also a tailings constituent. The concentrations of radionuclides in the tails will vary depending on the leach

34
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

method used (thorium is more soluble in acid than alkaline leaches); typically, tailings will contain between
50 and 86 percent of the original radioactivity of the ores depending on the proportion of radon lost during
the operation (Merritt, 1971). Other tailings constituents (including metals, sulfates, carbonates, nitrates, and
organic solvents) would also be present in the tailings impoundment depending on the type of ore,
beneficiation methods, and waste management techniques. (For updated information on specific hazardous
constituents, see 60 Federal Register 2854, January 11, 1995, which is attached in Appendix C).

1.5.1.4 Bleed Solution

Bleed solutions are generated in both the extraction and restoration phases of in situ mining. There are three
pathways that lead to the solution bleeds. During the extraction phase, a one percent bleed is typically
maintained to develop the cone of depression within the mined aquifer (i.e., one percent less barren lixiviant
is injected than the amount of pregnant solution withdrawn). The bleed is drawn from the circuit following
the ion exchange columns and prior to the lixiviant being recharged for reinjection. Aalso, in the early phases
of restoration, lixiviant injection is terminated; however, the solution removed by recovery wells is also sent
through ion exchange to recover uranium remaining solubilized in the deposit. A bleed is maintained through
this operation, again following the ion exchange step. In addition, as recovery of uraniferous components
drops and ion exchange becomes uneconomical, solution (water) withdrawn from the mined aquifer through
recovery wells is treated with reverse osmosis prior to being reinjected to the aquifer (see the discussion of
Restoration above). A bleed is maintained through this point to insure that clean water is drawn into the
aquifer being restored.

In each of the above cases, the bleed is usually pumped from the extraction/restoration circuit to lined settling
ponds where barium chloride is added. Barium chloride reacts with radium to form a barium-radium-sulfate
precipitate which is allowed to settle out of solution. When the radium levels reach acceptable levels
(typically less than 30 mg/l), the water may be pumped to a holding (surge) pond, discharged to surface water
through an NPDES-permitted outfall, land applied, or, may be stored in a storage pond for injection during
the restoration phase.

1.5.1.5 Evaporation Pond Sludges

In situ bleed solutions and lixiviant leaching solutions constitute the major source of wastes directed to lined
evaporation ponds. These solutions consist of barren lixiviant and usually have elevated levels of radium;
other contaminants (metals, salts) are limited to what may have been solubilized by the lixiviant or
contaminants in solutions used for beneficiation. Barium chloride is added to the evaporation ponds which, in
the presence of radium, forms a barium-radium-sulfate precipitate. This precipitate forms the majority of the
sludges in the settling/evaporation ponds at in situ mining operations. Alkali chlorides and carbonates are
other likely constituents (USEPA, 1983b Vol. 2). These sludges are collected at the completion of mining
(unless required sooner) and disposed of at an NRC-licensed disposal facility. The Agency does not have
information regarding the specific chemical composition or radioactive level of these precipitants.

35
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Evaporation pond sludges at conventional mills may also contain barium-radium-sulfate precipitates in
addition to chemical wastes from the leaching and stripping circuits. These sludges may contain metals,
sulfates, chlorides, lime, and amines depending on the leaching methods and waste disposal practices
(Merritt, 1971).

1.5.1.6 Drilling Wastes

The number of wells involved in an in situ mining operation indicates that there may be significant quantities
of wastes associated with drilling operations (drilling muds, cuttings, water). Drilling wastes (muds, cuttings,
produced water) are typically directed into unlined pits adjacent to the wells. Following well completion, the
pits and their contents are typically closed in-place. The majority of the cuttings generated in drilling
operations are non-ore bearing and therefore contain little in the way of radioactive minerals (USEPA, 1983b
Vol. 2).

1.5.1.7 Waste Ion Exchange Resins

Ion exchange resins have a limited life span and must occasionally be replaced. Resins consist of two
portions, an organic structural component and (cationic or anionic) functional groups attached to the organic
framework. The chemical composition of functional groups varies from strong acid groups to strong base
groups. In situ operations typically dispose of spent resins with other so-called "contaminated waste" in
labelled containers prior to disposal at an NRC-licensed disposal facility. Conventional mills would typically
dispose of spent ion exchange resins in the tailings impoundment. The volume of spent ion exchange resins
generated on an annual basis was not determined. At conventional mills, however, the contribution of spent
resins to the volume of a tailings impoundment would be minimal compared to the volumes of tailings.

1.5.1.8 Reverse Osmosis Brines

The reverse osmosis process is used by in situ operations to treat effluent prior to final discharge and to treat
groundwater during the restoration phase. Reverse osmosis wastes are typically high in salts (total dissolved
solids) and may have concentrations of radionuclides that exceed NPDES discharge limits. These wastes are
typically injected into deep disposal wells permitted under the UIC program (UIC permit requirements are
discussed in the Current Regulatory Framework section of this report) (USEPA, 1983b Vol. 2). The
quantities generated and more detailed characteristic data were not obtained.

1.5.1.9 Acid/Alkaline Leaching, Solvent Extraction, Stripping and Precipitation Circuit Wastes and
Materials

Under normal operating procedures, solutions are recycled to the greatest extent possible to conserve water,
chemicals, and uranium. Detailed discussions on the longevity and management of beneficiation solutions
were not obtained. All wastes and materials generated during the beneficiation operation are likely to contain
radionuclides in at least trace quantities as well as other metals dissolved from the ore.

36
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

In addition to radionuclides, solvent extraction solutions include phosphoric acids (cationic ion exchange),
amines and ammonium salts (anionic ion exchange), and organic carriers such as kerosene or alcohol.
Stripping solution could contain nitrates, chlorides, sulfates hydroxides or acids. Wastes from the ion
exchange solution are dependant on the type of resins employed, however, chloride solutions are commonly
used for elution. Constituents that could accumulate in the precipitation circuit are primarily anions -
sulfates, chlorides and possibly, carbonates (Merritt, 1971; Twidwell et al., 1983). Again, information on
quantities and characteristics were not obtained.

1.5.2 Waste and Materials Management

Wastes and nonwaste materials generated as a result of extraction and beneficiation of uranium ore are
managed (treated, stored, or disposed) in discrete units. For the purposes of this report, these units are
divided into six groups: (1) mine structures such as pits and underground workings; (2) overburden, waste
rock, and ore; (3) tailings impoundments; (4) settling/evaporation ponds; (5) land application areas; and
(6) deep disposal wells.

1.5.2.1 Overburden, Waste Rock, and Ore

Overburden and waste rock removed from the mine are stored or disposed of in unlined piles on site. Often
constructed without liners, these waste dumps are generally unsaturated in the arid regions where most
uranium mining occurs. Such dumps could possibly generate acid drainage if pyrites or other sulfide minerals
and moisture are present in sufficient concentrations. Concentrations of radionuclides are likely to be similar
to those in adjacent, undisturbed deposits although radon (gas) levels may be higher as a result of higher
diffusion rates through unconsolidated piles as opposed to undisturbed bedrock. Topsoil may be segregated
from overburden and waste rock and stored for later use in reclamation and revegetation.

Some operations store extracted ore in stockpiles until they are beneficiated as directed by the operator's
mining, operating, or production plan. These piles may be located in or outside the pit. In some cases, low-
grade ore may never be beneficiated and become waste at closure. Ore and sub-ore piles are typically
unlined. States may or may not have required run-on/runoff controls for these piles; however, they are not
required. Constituents of concern for waste rock and ore piles include low concentrations of radionuclides as
well as sulfur-bearing minerals that, under certain conditions, may generate acid and, thus, leach metals.

1.5.2.2 Mine Pits and Underground Workings

In addition to wastes generated during active operations, when the mines close or stop production, pits and
underground workings may be allowed to fill with water, since the need for dewatering is gone. (Mine water
generated during the active life of a mine is usually not considered to be a waste; however, it is generally
considered waste after mine closure.) Radionuclide concentrations are likely to be elevated in mine water
(collected in abandoned pits or underground workings, and in discharges) and acid generation may be a
problem, depending on local geochemistry. Abandoned underground mines and mine shafts may be

37
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

unprotected, and the surface above the mine may, with time, subside, though this is mostly a problem with
historical mines. Deficiencies in mine shaft protection may be caused by the use of unsuitable materials, such
as inadequate shaft cappings, or by unexpected occurrences that break capping seals, such as water surges in
flooded mines (US DOI, Bureau of Mines 1983a).

1.5.2.3 Tailings Impoundments

The requirements for tailings impoundments at operational active mills changed with Title II of UMTRCA.
Among other things, UMTRCA banned the use of mill tailings for off-site construction, the most significant
pathway for human exposure to radionuclides (USEPA, 1983b Vol 2). Through UMTRCA, the NRC
requirements for tailings ponds at active mills include impermeable liners to control the migration of liquids
and soluble constituents, and adequate closure at the termination of milling operations. Prior to UMTRCA,
impoundments were frequently unlined and reclamation (closure) requirements would have been dependant
on State requirements. (For updated information, see 60 Federal Register 2854, January 11, 1995, which is
attached in Appendix C).

Two general classifications of structures may be used to describe a tailings impoundment: water/slurry
retention dams and raised embankments. The choice of impounding structure is influenced by the
characteristics of the mill tailings, beneficiation effluents, and area geology and topography. The size of
tailings impoundments varies between operations and may range up to hundreds of acres. No information
was obtained on the number or sizes of evaporation ponds or on closure/reclamation practices.

1.5.2.4 Evaporation Ponds

Evaporation ponds are used by conventional milling operations to dispose of process water or other solutions
that are unsuitable for discharge or undesirable for addition to the tailings impoundment. Wastes directed to
evaporation ponds include barren leach, solvent exchange and ion exchange solutions. Bentonite or synthetic
liners are typically installed to prevent the migration of fluids from the pond. Sludges removed from
evaporation ponds are deposited in the tailings impoundment. No information was obtained on the number or
sizes of evaporation ponds or on closure/reclamation practices.

1.5.2.5 Settling Ponds

Settling ponds are employed at in situ mining operations to remove radium from the bleed solution prior to
discharge. Waste process water may also be directed to settling ponds after passing through an ion exchange
or reverse osmosis circuit to remove the majority of contaminants. Barium chloride is added to the bleed
solution to precipitate the radium, bringing the effluent within NPDES standards. The effluent can then be
discharged via an NPDES permitted outfall or land applied. During restoration, settling pond effluent may be
pumped to a storage reservoir and ultimately reinjected. Sludges removed from the settling ponds are
containerized and shipped to NRC-licensed disposal facilities.

38
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

1.5.2.6 Land Application Areas

Land application is used as a method of eliminating the volume of water generated in the bleed solution
during extraction and restoration phases of in situ mining. Land application discharges are permitted (in
Wyoming) as a form of wastewater treatment and are required to meet NPDES discharge standards. The
effluent is typically discharged to native grasslands used for grazing or hay production. Volumes of
discharges were not determined.

1.5.2.7 Deep Disposal Wells

Since in situ mining operations usually do not operate a tailings impoundment, an alternative source for
disposal of wastes is necessary. Deep disposal wells are often used to dispose of wastes that cannot be
recycled, treated, and/or discharged. Brines generated by reverse osmosis treatment, laboratory wastes and
other wastes are typically injected. Operation of these wells is regulated under the UIC program described in
the Current Regulatory Framework section of this report. Volumes and characteristics of injected wastes
were not determined.

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

1.6.1 Introduction

Uranium has been associated with mining wastes since the late 1890s when it was discarded as undesirable
component in the mining of radium (and to a lesser extent, vanadium). Twelve mills operated on the
Colorado Plateau for different periods from 1901 through the late 1980s. Initially, these mills beneficiated
radium, although most if not all were also used for beneficiation of uranium as the industry developed
(MINOBRAS, 1978).

Nearly any portion of waste management units at active mines may be a potential source of environmental
contamination. Environmental effects resulting from uranium extraction and beneficiation are chiefly derived
from two sources: mining activities, and radionuclides present in the wastes. Open pit mining activities may
create environmental effects typical of surface disturbances: increased runoff as well as increased erosion by
wind and water. Dewatering operations conducted by surface and underground mines may create
groundwater depressions that may persist after mining ceases. Potential environmental effects from in situ
operations are primarily groundwater-related. Since surface disturbance is not extensive, the impacts of
surface operations associated with in situ mining (e.g. drilling wastes, ponds) are not well documented.

Mill tailings, and particularly the radionuclides contained within, appear to be a major source of
environmental impact to air, soil, surface and groundwater. Findings in the Report to Congress: Potential
Health and Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine Wastes indicated that the most serious threat to
human health was the use of uranium mill tailings in off-site construction. The Department of Energy,
through Title I of UMTRCA, is conducting remedial activities on tailings generated by 24 uranium mills
throughout the western U.S. (except for one site in New Jersey). UMTRCA's Title II licenses and places

39
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

stringent requirements on operations and closure at currently operating (and inactive) mills (USEPA, 1983a).
For a discussion of UMTRCA, see the Current Regulatory Framework section of this report.

A discussion of the potential environmental effects associated with uranium mining is presented in the
following sections. Specific examples from industry are included in this section, as appropriate. Actual
release incidents are described in Appendix A of this report.

This section does not purport to be a comprehensive examination of environmental damages that can occur or
that actually occur at mining operations. Rather, it is a brief overview of some of the potential problems that
can occur under certain conditions. The extent and magnitude of contamination depends on highly variable
site-specific factors that require a flexible approach to mitigation. EPA is aware that many of the potential
problems can be, and generally are, substantially mitigated or avoided by proper engineering practices,
environmental controls, and regulatory requirements.

1.6.2 Surface Water

1.6.2.1 Mine Dewatering

Surface and underground mines may be dewatered to allow extraction of ore. Dewatering can be
accomplished in two ways: (1) pumping from groundwater interceptor wells to lower the water table and (2)
pumping directly from the mine workings. At the end of a mine's active life, pumping typically is stopped
and the pit or underground workings are allowed to fill with water. The mine water may be contaminated
with radioactive constituents, metals, and suspended and dissolved solids.

Prior to being discharged, mine water from uranium mines is usually treated with a flocculent and barium
chloride to reduce suspended solids concentrations and to coprecipitate radium. The chemical quality of mine
waters differs from the receiving surface waters in several ways. For example, in the Grants Mineral Belt of
New Mexico, mine dewatering effluents have been documented to contain elevated concentrations of gross
alpha and beta particles; radionuclides radium-226 and lead-210; natural uranium; molybdenum; selenium;
and dissolved solids, sulfate in particular. On occasion, arsenic, barium and vanadium are detected (Gallaher
and Longmire, 1989). When mine water is discharged to surface waters, it can change the quality of the
surface water. Elevated concentrations of metals and radionuclides, constituents typical of mine waters, have
been detected in surface waters near uranium mines (EPA, 1983).

In arid climates, like New Mexico, the discharge of mine water to a receiving stream can completely change
the hydrologic conditions of the receiving body. Typically, mine water is discharged to ephemeral streams in
arid climates. The mine waters have, in some instances, transformed ephemeral streams to perennial streams.
These newly created perennial streams often lose flow to subsurface alluvial material which recharges shallow
alluvial aquifers. Studies have documented that infiltration of uranium mine dewatering effluents have been
accompanied by a gradual change in the overall chemistry of the groundwater, and the groundwater now bears
a greater resemblance to the mine dewatering effluent (Gallaher and Longmire, 1989).

40
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

The quality of mine water depends upon the dewatering method used. Water removed from wells adjacent to
the mine usually is representative of natural groundwater quality, at least while dewatering continues. Mine
water removed from the mine, however, can be high in radionuclides, metals, and dissolved solids (EPA,
1984). Practices such as recycling mine water to the mill helps reduce the impacts of mine water to surface
water bodies.

1.6.3 Groundwater

Potential and documented effects on groundwater from uranium mining activities vary with the type of
activity being conducted. Operation of open pit and underground mines potentially influence groundwater
through dewatering operations and through approved discharges as discussed in the surface water section
above. Tailings impoundments associated with conventional mills have the potential to leak; while some of
the liquid constituents of the tailings are recycled or evaporated, unlined tailings ponds may allow liquids to
seep into the ground, eventually reaching groundwater. This is also true for evaporation and radium settling
ponds, although some States require liners in all wastewater ponds.

In situ operations inject lixiviant into what is termed the production zone, normally a sandstone aquifer. The
potential impacts of these operations result from the increased solubility of uraniferous and other compounds,
which facilitates migration of these species into neighboring aquifers. As a result, complete restoration of
mined aquifers is not necessarily a simple task.

Dewatering operations at open pit and underground mines may impact local aquifers through drawdowns in
the direct vicinity of the mine with (presumably) little lasting effect. However, depending on the
transmissivity of the aquifer, the size of the dewatering operation, and the number of mines actively
conducting dewatering, impacts to aquifers may be significant. Mining activity from 1970 through 1984 near
the Everest Minerals' Highland Uranium Project reportedly withdrew 39,000 acre-feet of water. Although the
extent of the drawdown was not stated, a 1991 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality document
reported that the potentiometric surface within the area was "recovering" (WDEQ, 1991).

It should be noted that groundwater impacted or potentially impacted by mining activities is not necessarily
suited for domestic use prior to mining. For example, aquifers containing uranium ores in both Wyoming and
New Mexico have been documented as having elevated levels of uranium and other radionuclides prior to the
initiation of mining activities (WDEQ, 1991; Eadie and Kaufmann, 1977).

Dewatering activities in the Grants Mineral Belt, as discussed in the previous section, has impacted both
surface water and alluvial aquifers. Streams receiving mine effluent had higher than baseline concentrations
of uranium, radium, lead, selenium, and molybdenum. Studies completed as recently as 1986 indicate that the
shallow aquifers underlying these streams had begun to chemically resemble mine water; concentrations of
those constituents that may migrate (uranium, selenium, molybdenum) were higher than in "natural waters"
(Gallaher and Longmire, 1989). The extent of recovery of both surface and shallow groundwater in the

41
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Grants Mineral Belt, following the decline of uranium mining activities in the early 1980s, was not
determined.

Mill sites covered under Title I of UMTRCA have been investigated to determine the extent of migration of
tailings constituents. Migration of uranium and other tailings constituents occurs through leaching
(percolation of precipitation) and erosion. Migration caused at least local contamination of groundwater at all
of the 24 sites investigated. The following groundwater quality parameters at these sites were most
frequently exceeded: uranium, molybdenum, manganese, nitrate, sulfate, and gross alpha activity.
Additionally, arsenic, iron, selenium, radium and total solids exceeded drinking water maximum Contaminant
limits (MCLs) at some sites (USEPA, 1987). The degree of migration is related to numerous factors
including the chemistry of the tailings material; the permeability of the impoundment and liner (if present);
the amount of precipitation; the nature of the underlying soils; and the proximity to both surface and
groundwater. (For updated information, see 60 Federal Register 2854, January 11, 1995, which is attached
in Appendix C).

Environmental effects associated with early in situ leaching operations occurred as a result of lixiviant
selection. Early lixiviants included acid solutions and ammonium carbonates. Restoration of aquifers
leached with acid lixiviants proved difficult as pH levels were difficult to raise after being dropped. Aquifers
leached with ammonium lixiviants were also difficult to restore as the ammonium ions readily attached to clay
particles within the production zone and were difficult to remove (Bureau of Mines, 1981b).

Extraction and restoration techniques have evolved and improved since in situ techniques were first
employed. Carbon dioxide and oxygen are commonly used as the lixiviant in current in situ operations;
recovery of the lixiviant itself, may not be a serious problem. However, restoration must remove or otherwise
neutralize the oxidant in order to restore chemical stability within the aquifer. Recovery of the lixiviant and
solubilized constituents at the end of the extraction operation can be complicated if the lixiviant migrates to
an area that has poor hydraulic connections to the rest of the production zone. Lixiviant in these hydraulic
"dead ends" may continue to solubilize enough constituents to preclude attainment of baseline parameters
(Osiensky and Williams, 1990). This type of effect is typically limited to specific wells or portions of the
production zone rather than entire production zones.

Although carbon dioxide and oxygen do not constitute contaminants of an aquifer, they function to oxidize
and solubilize uranium (and other) constituents of the production zone. Once solubilized, the potential exists
for migration of these constituents out of the production zone. Migration of solubilized minerals or lixiviant
out of the production zone is termed an excursion. The severity of an excursion is dependant on the
constituents involved (all solubilized constituents do not necessarily migrate), the use class of the affected
aquifer, and the extent of the excursion. Detecting excursions may be complicated by the fact that
constituents that have been solubilized may migrate out of the production zone and become reduced or
precipitate prior to reaching a monitoring well. For this reason, selection of adequate parameters for use as
upper control limits (UCLs) is critical (NRC, 1986).

42
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

In 1986, the NRC conducted an analysis of excursions at in situ mines in Wyoming and Texas. The
percentage of excursions reported for individual wells compared to all operational wells was not discerned.
The frequency of excursions was also not determined although the duration may range from a period of days
to more that two years (in one case). The study found that the incidence of vertical excursions can be reduced
by fully investigating the integrity of the aquifer prior to initiating extraction. Additionally, the study
indicated that once excursions occur, horizontal excursions are more readily controlled than vertical
excursions (NRC, 1986).

1.6.4 Air

1.6.4.1 Radon

Underground uranium mines produce exhaust, which typically has Radon-222 in measurable concentrations.
Radon-222 is present in the exhaust because it emanates from the ore. The concentration of Radon-222 in
mine exhaust varies depending upon ventilation rate, mine volume, mine age, grade of exposed ore, size of
active working areas, moisture content and porosity of rock, barometric pressure, and mining practices. A
previous EPA study indicates that higher Radon-222 emission rates occur at older mines, probably because
there are larger surface areas of exposed ore and subore. By properly capping the exhaust vents and sealing
the shaft and mine entrances with bulkheads, radon emission rates from inactive or closed underground mines
can be dramatically reduced (EPA, 1983a).

Aboveground sources of radon-222 at both underground and surface extraction and beneficiation operations
include exhalation from ore, waste rock, overburden (at surface mines only), and tailings. The amount of
radon that emanates from these materials into the surrounding atmosphere can depend upon, among other
things, the exposed surface area of the units in which the materials are located; the grade of material; the
control mechanisms used; and, in the case of tailings, the method of deposition (EPA, 1983).

Radon also escapes from drill holes. When the development drill penetrates the ore body, the ore and sub-ore
formations in the drill hole become exposed to air. Consequently, the radon emanates from the ore into the
drill hole and can escape into the atmosphere (EPA, 1983a).

1.6.4.2 Fugitive Dust

A primary source of air contamination at mine sites are fugitive dust emissions from mine pits and
underground workings, overburden, mine rock dumps, ore, sub-ore, and haul roads. Tailings may also be a
potential source of fugitive dust when particulates are transported by wind. Dust emissions vary depending
upon moisture content, amount of fines, number and types of equipment operating, and climate. The
movement of large haul trucks can be a source of dust at most uranium mines. To minimize fugitive dust,
haul roads are frequently sprinkled with water during dry periods or dust suppressants are applied. During
the active life of the mine, water may be applied to these piles to control dust and prevent entrainment. After

43
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

mine closure, revegetation or other stabilizing methods may be used to control dust. The potential
contaminants are heavy metals and other toxics (EPA, 1983).

1.6.4.3 Soils

The migration of radionuclides from mining or beneficiation operations into the soil can cause an increase in
radioactivity of soils. It was found that radium-226 and, to a lesser extent, thorium-232 can adsorb into the
structure of clay particles. These entities can also be desorbed by low concentration salt solutions (USBOM,
1984). Any metals that are present in waste rock, sub-ore, or tailings can be leached to the surrounding soil.

Environmental effects of uranium mining activities on soils includes those derived from surface disturbances.
The most extensive soil disturbances are created by surface mines although surface facilities constructed for
underground or in situ mining operations also impact soil, including a loss of vegetation cover. Loss of
vegetation cover typically results in increased erosion rates unless measures are taken to stabilize topsoil and
divert surface runoff from disturbed areas.

1.7 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

1.7.1 Introduction

Uranium mining activities must meet the requirements of both Federal and state regulations. The first part of
this chapter addresses both the primary statutes that give Federal agencies the authority to regulate these
activities and the regulations themselves. The latter portion of the chapter presents the regulatory programs
of Texas and Wyoming to serve as examples of how State regulatory programs apply to uranium extraction
and beneficiation.

The statutes (and associated regulations) that this chapter examines include: the Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended (33 USC 1251 et seq); the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq); The Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended (42 USC 300 (f) et seq); and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) (42
USC 2021 et seq), as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) (72 USC
7901 et seq). The primary Federal agencies responsible for implementing the aforementioned statutes
include: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the
Department of Energy (DOE). The paragraphs below introduce each of the major statutes, which are
described in more detail in subsequent sections.

The CAA gives EPA the authority to regulate emissions of both "conventional" pollutants, like PM10
(particulate matter less than 10 microns) and hazardous pollutants, such as radon. Both of these air
pollutants are emitted by uranium extraction and beneficiation activities.

The CWA gives EPA the authority to impose effluent limits, via permits, on point-source discharges,
including those from during uranium extraction and beneficiation operations, to waters of the U.S. It also

44
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

gives EPA the authority to regulate, through permits, storm water discharges from both inactive and active
mine sites.

EPA established an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under the authority of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Through this program, EPA established a permit system to ensure underground sources of
drinking water are protected from the injection of process fluids and liquid wastes, including those produced
during uranium extraction and beneficiation, into the subsurface via wells.

Under UMTRCA, EPA has the responsibility to establish standards for exposure of the public to radioactive
materials originating from mill tailings and for cleanup and control standards for inactive uranium tailings
sites and associated vicinity areas. It also gave EPA a mandate to establish standards for managing uranium
tailings and wastes at active sites. Also under UMTRCA, DOE's role is to actually clean up and control
inactive uranium tailings piles to comply with EPA standards.

UMTRCA requires the Nuclear Regulatory Council (NRC) to concur with remedies DOE selects for cleaning
up and controlling inactive sites. Under UMTRCA, the NRC is also responsible for licensing active uranium
mills and licensing inactive uranium tailings sites that have undergone remediation. Although the NRC has
promulgated radiation protection standards that regulate active and inactive uranium milling sites, the NRC
has no regulatory authority over uranium mines, except the aboveground activities of solution mines. The
sections below more fully explore the regulatory roles of each of the aforementioned agencies.

The authority of State agencies to regulate uranium extraction and beneficiation activities comes from two
sources, Federally delegated programs and State statutory authority. The Federal programs applicable to
uranium extraction and beneficiation activities that can be delegated to the States include: the UIC program,
the NPDES program, and NRC licensing and radiation protection
standards. In order for a State to be able to administer any or all of these
UMTRCA Title I Sites
Federal programs, the State must have requirements that are at least as
Salt Lake City, UT
stringent as the respective Federal programs. Green River, UT
Mexican Hat, UT
Durango, CO
1.7.2 Federal Regulatory Program Grand Junction, CO
Rifle, CO (two sites)
1.7.2.1 The Uranium Millings Tailings Remediation Control Act Naturita, CO
Maybell, CO
Slick Rock, CO (two sites)
The U.S. Government began to purchase uranium for defense purposes Shiprock, NM
Ambrosia Lake, NM
in the early 1940s. Since that time, large quantities of tailings have been Riverton, WY
generated by the uranium milling industry. In many cases, these tailings Converse County, WY
Lakeview, OR
have been dispersed from impoundments and piles by natural forces and Falls City, TX
by humans for construction use in or around buildings or for roads. Tuba City, AZ
Monument Valley, AZ
UMTRCA, which in 1978 amended the AEA, established two programs Lowman, ID
Cannonsburg, PA
to protect the public health, safety and the environment from uranium Edgemont, SD
mill tailings. Title I of UMTRCA addresses 22 Congressionally Bowman/Belfield, SD

45
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

designated sites (to which DOE added two more) that are now inactive (e.g., all milling has stopped and the
site is not licensed by the NRC). A list of these sites can be found in the box below. Title II of UMTRCA
addresses active sites (those with NRC or Agreement State licenses) (48 FR 45926).

Risks Posed by Uranium Mill Tailings

Uranium occurs in various minerals as one of three isotopes: U-234, U-235, and the most abundant of the
isotopes, U-238. Yellowcake is a generic term used to describe the yellow powder generated as the end
product of uranium beneficiation. The purity of yellowcake typically ranges from 60 to 75 percent U3O8.1

Historically, conventional uranium mining consisted of extracting uranium bearing rock, then crushing,
grinding, and froth flotation to produce a uranium concentrate yellowcake. This milling process generated
large volumes of tailings which were disposed of in tailings impoundments. Radium-226, thorium-230, and
radon-222 (gas) are the radionuclides present in uranium mill tailings that are of principle concern to human
health and the environment. In American Mining Congress v. Thomas (AMC I), the court recognized the
dangers to human health and the environment from uranium mill tailings when it stated that:

[r]adium decays to produce radon. Radon is an inert gas, some of which escapes from the tailings
particles into the atmosphere. Airborne radon degrades into a series of short half-life decay products
that are hazardous if inhaled. If the radon gas does not escape the mill tailings piles, its decay
products remain in the piles and produce gamma radiation, which may be harmful to people and
animals living near the mill tailings piles. Uranium mill tailings also contain potentially dangerous
nonradioactive materials such as arsenic and selenium. These toxic and radioactive materials may be
ingested with food or water.2

Uranium has primarily been mined in the western United States; Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. A total of 14 uranium mines were operational in 1991; six
underground mines, two open pits, and six in-situ facilities. Uranium was also produced to a limited extent as
a byproduct of phosphoric acid production at two sites in Florida and one in Louisiana.3 Both Florida sites no
longer produce uranium but are still operating as producers of phosphoric acid.

Regulatory Structure

1
Merritt, R.C. 1971. The Extractive Metallurgy of Uranium. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.

2
American Mining Congress v. Thomas (AMC I), 772 F.2d 617, 621 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476
U.S. 1158 (1986). See also 48 Fed. Reg. 590, 592 (1983). See generally Environmental Protection Agency,
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
3-68 (1982).
3
Domestic Uranium Mining and Milling Industry 1992, Viability Assessment. U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Information Administration, 1993. DOE/EIA-0477(92), Distribution Category UC-98,
Washington, DC.

46
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

A complex set of federal and state regulations are applicable to uranium mining and processing. These
include the Atomic Energy Act (AEA)4, as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA)5; the Clean Air Act (CAA)6; the Clean Water Act (CWA)7; and the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)8.

The primary federal agencies responsible for implementing these statutes include: the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE).

The Uranium Millings Tailings Remediation Control Act

In many cases, uranium mill tailings have been dispersed from impoundments and piles by natural forces and
by humans for construction use in or around buildings or for roads. UMTRCA established two programs to
protect the public health, safety and the environment from uranium mill tailings. Title I of UMTRCA
addresses 24 inactive sites. An inactive site means that all milling has stopped and the site is not licensed by
the NRC. Title II of UMTRCA addresses active sites that are required to have a license from NRC or an
Agreement State.9

Title I of UMTRCA10
Residual radioactive material is determined by the Secretary of
Title I defines tailings at inactive uranium milling
Energy to be radioactive and can be either:
sites as residual radioactive material. It requires the
cleanup of offsite tailings and the long-term control (1) Waste in the form of tailings resulting from the processing of
of tailings piles. DOE was charged with ores for the extraction of uranium and other valuable constituents
remediating these designated sites, with the full of the ores; or
(2) Other waste at a processing site which relates to such
cooperation and participation of the states, to processing, including any residual stock of unprocessed ores or
achieve compliance with standards prescribed by low-grade materials.
EPA. EPA has promulgated final health and
environmental standards to govern stabilization, This term is used only with respect to materials at sites subject to
remediation under Title I of UMTRCA.
control, and clean up of residual radioactive
materials (primarily mill tailings) at inactive
uranium processing sites.11 The DOE must meet these standards when remediating Title I sites.

4
42 U.S.C. § 2021 et seq
5
72 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq
6
42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq
7
33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq
8
42 U.S.C. § 300 (f) et seq
9
A state can apply for and obtain permission from the NRC to become an Agreement State under AEA §
274(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2021(a). Otherwise, NRC exclusively regulates source, special nuclear, and byproduct
material. As part of obtaining Agreement status, a state must demonstrate that its statutes and regulations
conform to NRC requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 2021(d)(2).
10
42 U.S.C. § 7918.
11
40 C.F.R. 192 (1992).

47
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

EPA promulgated standards for two types of remedial actions: control and cleanup. Control places tailings
in a situation that will minimize their long-term risk to humans. Cleanup reduces the potential health risks
resulting from dispersed tailings. All remedial actions must be selected and performed with the concurrence
of the NRC. Upon completion of the remedial action at the 24 designated sites, the NRC must issue a license
to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. The license may require DOE to conduct
monitoring, maintenance, or any other actions the NRC deems necessary.12

The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 provides an extension of the
UMTRCA Title I deadline for the DOE to finish remediating the 24 designated sites. It allowed DOE until
Sept 30, 1994 (previously 1990) to perform remedial actions at designated sites. The authority to perform
groundwater restoration was extended without limitation.

The court in AMC I upheld most of EPA's standards except for the groundwater provisions of Title I
regulations.13 EPA is currently issuing new groundwater standards as a result of AMC I.14 The previous
standards for Title I sites were in the form of qualitative groundwater guidance in which DOE chooses the
constituent concentration levels that groundwater must meet. When AMC I remanded EPA's standards, it
instructed EPA "to treat these toxic chemicals that pose a groundwater risk as it did in the active mill site
regulations."15 In 1987, NRC promulgated final rules for groundwater protection at uranium mill tailings
sites that conform to provisions of EPA's standards for groundwater protection at 40 C.F.R. § 192(d) and
(e).16 UMTRCA required agencies to use the available proposed standards until final ones were
promulgated.17

In 1995, EPA issued final regulations to correct and prevent contamination of groundwater beneath and in the
vicinity of inactive uranium processing sites by uranium tailings.18 The regulations apply to tailings at 24
locations that qualify for remedial action. They provide that tailings must be stabilized and controlled in a
manner that permanently eliminates or minimizes contamination of groundwater beneath stabilized tailings,
so as to protect human health and the environment. They also provide for cleanup of contamination that
occurred before the tailings are stabilized. The rule also establishes groundwater protection standards that
include a list of specific hazardous constituents relevant to each waste management area, a concentration limit
for each hazardous constituent, the point of compliance, and the compliance period.

EPA promulgated final standards for the control of residual radioactive material from non-operational
uranium processing sites designated in Title I of UMTRCA in Subpart A of 40 C.F.R. § 192. The purpose of

12
55 Fed. Reg. 45,591 (1990).
13
American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1158
(1986). Title I regulations are found in 40 C.F.R. 192.20(a)(2)-(3).
14
60 Fed. Reg. 2854 (1995).
15
AMC I, 772 F.2d 617, 640 (10th Cir. 1985).
16
52 Fed. Reg. 43,553 (1987).
17
See AMC I at 623. See also 55 Fed. Reg. 45,591 (1990).

18
60 Fed. Reg. 2854 (1995).

48
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Subpart A is to provide for long-term stabilization and isolation in order to inhibit misuse and spreading of
residual radioactive materials, control releases of radon to air, and protect water. These standards require that
the remediation:

be designed to be effective for up to one thousand years to the extent reasonably achievable, but
at a minimum for 200 years,

provide reasonable assurance that releases of radon-222 from residual radioactive material to the
atmosphere will not exceed an average release rate of 20 Pci/m2/s,

provide reasonable assurance that releases of radon-222 from residual radioactive material will
not increase the annual average concentration of radon-222 in air by more than one-half picocurie
per liter.

Under Subpart B of 40 C.F.R. § 192, EPA promulgated final standards for the cleanup of land and buildings
contaminated with residual radioactive materials at the 24 designated inactive uranium processing sites. EPA
requires that remedial actions be conducted to provide reasonable assurance that, as a result of residual
radioactive materials from any designated processing site:19

The concentration of radium-226 in land, averaged over any area of 100 square meters shall not
exceed the background level by more than:

- 5 picocuries per gram (Pci/g), averaged over the first 15 cm of soil below the surface.

- 15 Pci/g averaged over 15 cm thick layers of soil more than 15 cm below the surface.

In any occupied or habitable building:

WL (working level) is:
"Any combination of short-lived radon decay products in
- The objective of the remedial action one liter of air that will result in the ultimate emission of
shall be, and reasonable effort shall be alpha particles with a total energy of 130 billion electron
made to achieve, an annual average volts." (40 CFR 192)
radon decay product concentration
(including background) not to exceed 0.02 WL. Regardless, the radon decay product
concentration, including background shall not exceed 0.03 WL.

- The level of gamma radiation shall not exceed the background level by more than 20
microroentgens per hour.

Subpart C of 40 C.F.R. § 192 allows DOE, with NRC concurrence, to apply supplemental standards in lieu
of the standards in Subparts A and B. Before using these supplemental standards, certain conditions must be
present; for example, the remedial actions required to satisfy Subpart A or B pose a clear risk of injury to
workers or to members of the public.

Title II of UMTRCA20

19
40 C.F.R. § 192(b) (1992).
20
42 U.S.C. § 2022.

49
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Title II of UMTRCA applies to currently operating uranium mill tailings facilities licensed by the NRC or an
Agreement State. Title II regulates uranium byproduct materials such as mill tailings at operating sites. The
Title II program contains requirements for a final disposal of tailings, the control of effluents into
groundwater, and radon emissions during and after milling operations. UMTRCA required EPA to establish
standards for operating sites in a manner consistent with standards established under Subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended.21 However, the tailings as a substance are exempt from EPA's RCRA
Subtitle C regulations.22

The standard setting requirements are divided into two parts. The first part applies to the management of
tailings during the active life of the pile and during the subsequent closure period, which begins after
cessation of milling operations but prior to completion of final disposal. The second part specifies standards
for after the piles are closed, which govern the design of disposal systems.23 The site must be closed in a
manner that meets applicable NRC standards before the NRC or Agreement State terminates the operating
license and issues a long-term care license.24 The NRC requires a detailed Long-Term Surveillance Plan
(LTSP) from DOE or an appropriate State which addresses ownership (whether Federal or State), disposal
site conditions, the surveillance program, required follow-up inspections, and how and when emergency
repairs and, if necessary planned maintenance, will be accomplished.25

In 1983, EPA proposed general environmental standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings sites licensed
by NRC or one of its Agreement States.26 The NRC published amendments to 10 C.F.R. § 40 to conform its
rules to EPA's general standards in 40 C.F.R. § 192, as it affected matters other than ground water
protection.27

EPA promulgated final rules in Subpart D of 40

Byproduct material means the tailings or wastes produced by the
C.F.R. § 192 to establish standards for the
extraction or concentration of uranium from any ore processed
management of uranium byproduct materials at primarily for its source material content, including discrete
Title II sites, pursuant to § 84 of the AEA, as surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction
amended. Industry petitioners challenged these processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by such solution
rules in American Mining Congress v. Thomas extraction operations do not constitute "byproduct material" (40
CFR 192).

21
42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k.
22
There is no permit required by EPA for the disposal of byproduct material. 42 U.S.C. § 2022(b)(2).
Additionally, uranium tailings are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulations (hazardous wastes) by 40
C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(7) (1992).
23
58 Fed. Reg. 32,174 (1993).
24
55 Fed. Reg. 45,591 (1990).
25
Id.
26
48 Fed. Reg. 19,584 (1983). Final standards were published in 48 Fed. Reg. 45926 (1983) and codified
in 40 C.F.R. § 192(D) and (E).
27
50 Fed. Reg. 41,852 (1985).

50
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

(AMC II).28 The AMC II court found that EPA need not make a finding of a "significant risk" prior to
promulgating regulations for mill tailings; that EPA may issue standards to apply within the boundaries of the
mill sites; that the standards do not unlawfully compel specific engineering and design methods by the
implementing agencies; and that EPA properly considered cost and benefit factors in establishing these
standards.29

Uranium byproduct materials include the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of
uranium. The final standards address both uranium ore processing operations and closure and post-closure
for uranium byproduct management facilities. The uranium ore processing operation standards require:

impoundments containing uranium byproduct material such as tailings to meet design criteria
established by EPA for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
(TSD) facilities30

managing uranium byproduct materials to conform to:

- a combined radium-226 and radium-228 standard of 5 Pci/l,

- a gross alpha-particle activity (excluding radon and uranium) standard of 15 Pci/l for
groundwater,

- the groundwater protection standards31 and the monitoring requirements32 that were
established for owners and operators of hazardous waste TSD facilities,

- the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations33, and

- the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores
Subcategory.34

Uranium byproduct management facilities must meet the following closure and post-closure requirements:

28
American Mining Congress v. Thomas (AMC II), 772 F.2d 640 (10th Cir. 1985) 16 Envtl. L. Rep.
20,069.
29
Id.
30
40 C.F.R. § 264.221 (1992).
31
40 C.F.R. § 264.92 (1992).
32
40 C.F.R. § 264.98 (1992).
33
40 C.F.R. § 190 (1992).
34
40 C.F.R. § 440 (1992).

51
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

closure and post-closure requirements for nonradiological hazards, which EPA promulgated for
hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities,35

the disposal areas must be designed to provide reasonable assurance of effective control of
radiological hazards for at least 200 years, and

the disposal areas must be designed to limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct
materials to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 Pci/m2/s (the same
standard as for Title I sites). This requirement, however, is not applicable to any portion of a
disposal site that contains a concentration of radium-226 that, as a result of uranium byproduct
material, does not exceed the background level by more than:

- 5 Pci/g, averaged over the first 15 cm below the surface

- 15 Pci/g averaged over 15 cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface.

1.7.2.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The NRC regulates active uranium milling and inactive uranium mill tailings disposal sites through licenses.
It does not regulate the actual mining of uranium, except the above ground activities associated with solution
mining. The NRC establishes its procedures
and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive title to,
Source material is:
receive, possess, use, transfer, or deliver source and byproduct
36
materials. The authority for issuing these rules comes from the • Uranium or thorium, or any combination
AEA, Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and Titles I thereof, in any physical or chemical form,
and II of UMTRCA. or

• Ores which contain by weight one

In Quivira Mining Company v. NRC (Quivira Mining), the court twentieth of one percent (0.05%) or more
held that NRC can issue regulations under UMTRCA that establish of:
standards to follow in licensing and relicensing uranium mills and - uranium
tailings sites.37 The Quivira Mining court also held that although - thorium, or
- any combination thereof.
NRC performed no new cost-benefit studies in promulgating criteria
for its rules, it reasonably relied on the cost-benefit analysis Source material does not include special
performed by the EPA when it issued its active site regulations.38 nuclear material, for example plutonium or
uranium 233 (10 CFR 40).
In a similar case addressing NRC's implementing criteria from the
1987 amendments to UMTRCA, American Mining Congress v.
NRC (AMC III) held that the NRC properly considered the costs and benefits of its 1987 amendments when it
conformed the amendments to the EPA's UMTRCA regulations concerning public health and safety that had
already assessed costs and benefits.39 The AMC III court held that since Congress has not stated whether the

35
40 C.F.R. § 264.111 (1992).
36
10 C.F.R. § 40 (1992).
37
Quivira Mining Company v. NRC, 866 F.2d 1246 (10th Cir. 1989), 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,778.
38
Id.
39
American Mining Congress v. NRC (AMC III) 902 F.2d 781 (10th Cir. 1990) 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,054.

52
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

NRC must independently assess the costs and benefits of its regulations and the NRC is required to conform
to EPA's health and safety regulations, NRC's interpretation of the UMTRCA is permissible and avoids
replicating EPA's properly conducted cost-benefit analysis.40 The AMC III court also held that EPA acted
permissibly under the UMTRCA when it promulgated regulations that imposed RCRA requirements on
uranium mill tailings.41

Remediated Nonoperating Uranium Mill Tailings Sites

The NRC has issued general licenses for Title I and Title II UMTRCA sites which have undergone
remediation. Title I UMTRCA sites, the 24 designated inactive sites, are not subject to any licensing
requirements during DOE's remediation, but Title II sites, the active sites, are subject to licensing
requirements. The general licenses are for custody and long-term care of:

Residual radioactive material at uranium mill tailings disposal sites remediated under Title I of
UMTRCA

Byproduct material at uranium or thorium mill tailings disposal sites regulated under Title II of
UMTRCA.

These general licenses become effective when the NRC accepts a site's Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP),
from either the DOE or Agreement State. There is no termination of these general licenses. The LTSP must
contain procedures for establishing groundwater monitoring, groundwater protection standards, inspections,
and maintenance measures.

Operating Mill Tailings Sites

Highlights of NRC's Appendix A Requirements:

Operating mills and mill tailings sites must have • Permanently isolate tailings such that active maintenance
site-specific NRC licenses for possessing and using is not necessary,

• Comply with EPA's groundwater protection standards in

40 CFR 192, Subpart D,

• Conduct monitoring, including groundwater monitoring,

• Reduce all airborne effluent releases as low as reasonable

achievable, by means of emission controls on mills and
controlling dust from tailings piles,

• Establish financial surety to carry out decontamination

and decommissioning of the mill and site, and for
reclamation of tailings or waste disposal areas,

• Mills must pay a minimum of $250,000 (1978 dollars) to

US Treasury or appropriate State agency, prior to license
termination, for long-term surveillance costs, and

• Title to the byproduct material licensed in this part and

land used for the disposal of this material must be
transferred to the US or to the State (at its option).

40
Id.
41
Id.

53
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

source or byproduct material.42 The NRC requires the license applicant to file an application for this license
at least nine months prior to commencing construction of a plant or facility in which the activity will be
conducted.43 Further, the NRC has determined that the issuance of a license to possess and use source
material for uranium milling is a major federal action which significantly affects the environment.44
Therefore, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Impact Statement must be
prepared and submitted with the license application.

The license application must contain a proposed decommissioning funding plan or a certification of financial
assurance for decommissioning.45 Each decommissioning funding plan must contain a cost estimate for
decommissioning and a description of the method of financial assurance.46 Each licensee must keep records
of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility which includes records of
spills involving contamination.47

An application for a site-specific license must contain proposed written specifications relating to milling
operations and the final disposal of the byproduct material to achieve the requirements that the NRC set forth
in Appendix A of 10 C.F.R. § 40. Appendix A establishes technical, financial, ownership and long-term site
surveillance criteria relating to siting the operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of
mills and tailings.

Radiation Protection Standards

Pursuant to the AEA and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the NRC established standards for
protection against radiation hazards resulting from Title I and Title II activities licensed by the NRC.48 The
regulations establish standards for permissible doses, and levels and concentrations of radiation for restricted
and unrestricted areas.49 They also establish precautionary procedures to be implemented (e.g. personnel
monitoring, caution signs, procedures for handling packages, instruction of personnel and storage and control
of licensed materials in unrestricted areas). Waste disposal criteria are also established. For example, NRC
requires tailings and associated waste to be disposed of by transfer to an authorized recipient or by applying
for NRC approval of proposed procedures to dispose of licensed material.50 The regulations provide for
criteria for disposal by release into sanitary sewage systems and other methods.51 They also provide

42
10 C.F.R. § 40 (1992).
43
Id.
44
10 C.F.R. § 51 (1992).
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
10 C.F.R. § 20 (1992).
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Id.

54
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

requirements for records, reports and notification on radiation exposure of individuals for whom personnel
monitoring is required; for disposal of licensed materials; for theft or loss of licensed materials; and for
notification of incidents involving source material.52

Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Not Addressed Under UMTRCA

UMTRCA was enacted to provide remediation and protection from uranium tailings produced as a result of
government contracts but not private contracts.53 The 24 Title I sites have a special status because of their
government contract relationship and are explicitly provided funding for remediation under UMTRCA.
However, there are 12 private sites being addressed under Superfund that owe their problems to uranium mill
tailings and other radioactive constituents.54

Because of the intrinsic hazard of many mining wastes, EPA relies primarily on the existing authorities of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to require removal
and remediation at sites where mining wastes pose a hazard to human health or the environment.55 Without
this Superfund safety net, persons suffering environmental damages from mine sites would have to rely on
common-law remedies such as trespass, nuisance, and negligence.

This Superfund safety net was dealt a near fatal blow in the district court decision of Iron Mountain where
the mining industry argued that the Bevill Amendment expanded the exclusion to include CERCLA
liability.56 The Bevill Amendment exempts uranium mill tailings from EPA's RCRA Subtitle C regulations.57
The Iron Mountain court addressed whether Congress intended for the Bevill exclusion to also protect
mining wastes from CERCLA liability. The Iron Mountain court held that "[t]he plain meaning of
[CERCLA] § 101(14) suggests that only wastes not excluded by the Bevill Amendment or by some other
exclusion may be regulated by CERCLA."58 Iron Mountain held that "even if mining wastes are covered by
CERCLA, certain wastes are excluded from coverage by reference to the Bevill Amendment in §
101(14)(C)."59 The Iron Mountain court specifically rejected Eagle-Picher which held that an excluded
mining waste may be subject to CERCLA liability if its components otherwise qualify as a hazardous
substance due to its toxicity or other characteristics.60

52
Id.
53
See Hecla Mining Co. v. U.S., 909 F.2d 1371 (10th Cir. 1990). 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,256.
54
Mining Waste Sites on the NPL, Executive Summary, Preliminary Draft, 1992. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. (Document available from the author.)
55
42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9626 (1988).
56
United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 1528, (E.D. Cal. 1992) reaff'd, recons.
granted, summ. judgment denied, United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1665, (E.D.
Cal. 1993).
57
40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(7) (1992).
58
Iron Mountain at 1540.
59
Iron Mountain at 1540.
60
Eagle-Picher Industries v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

55
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

In an unrelated case addressing the same issue, the Ninth Circuit in Louisiana-Pacific implicitly overruled
Iron Mountain with respect to CERCLA coverage of Bevill exempt mining waste.61 Louisiana-Pacific held
that the Bevill exclusion only provides limited protection from CERCLA liability and that hazardous
constituents released from mining wastes can be regulated under CERCLA.62

Summary of Major Court Actions Applicable to Uranium Mining

The four major cases interpreting UMTRCA are AMC I, AMC II, Quivira Mining, and AMC III. AMC I
addressed EPA's UMTRCA inactive site regulations under Title I and for the most part upheld EPA's
standards. AMC II upheld EPA's standards at active Title II sites. The decisions in AMC I and AMC II
affirm Congress's strong interest in the expeditious control of threats to human health and the environment at
uranium mill tailings disposal sites.63

Quivira Mining addressed and upheld NRC's implementing criteria. AMC III addressed and upheld
amendment to NRC's implementing criteria. The decisions in Quivira Mining and AMC III set forth the
scope of the cost benefit analysis used by EPA and NRC and concluded that it was proper for NRC to rely on
earlier cost benefit analysis developed by EPA.64

The practical effect of Louisiana-Pacific is that private uranium mining activities (non-UMTRCA sites) are
subject to Superfund liability, regardless of management practices and other environmental exemptions. The
net result is that private uranium mine owners and operators are subject to Superfund liability just like most
other industries. The Superfund safety net for uranium and other radioactive mining wastes remains intact.

1.7.2.3 Department of Energy

Under the authority of the AEA, as amended, DOE has promulgated regulations for leasing public lands
controlled by DOE for uranium exploration and mining (10 CFR 760). (Some, but not all, public lands with
known uranium deposits were withdrawn by DOE from other land management agencies; details surrounding
the withdrawal of these lands were not obtained). Only citizens of the U.S. or U.S. corporations are eligible
lessees. DOE issues leases through competitive bidding. DOE may, if it so chooses, require periodic
submissions of plans for controlling environmental impacts. The lessee will be required to conduct
operations to minimize environmental effects, to comply with all applicable State and Federal statutes and
regulations, and to rehabilitate affected areas.

61
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc., 6 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1993), amended 13 F.3d 1378 (1994).
It should be noted that Superfund is not the only safety net. When Iron Mountain held that mining wastes
were exempt from CERCLA, EPA issued a RCRA § 7003 imminent hazard order to address the wastes under
42 U.S.C. § 6973. See Iron Mountain Cleanup Ordered Under RCRA After Court Decides Mining Wastes
Exempt, 24 Env't Rep. (BNA) 184 (May 28, 1993).
62
"It is clear from the plain language and structure of section 9601 that the specific exception for slag in
subsection (C) applies only to that subsection and that slag is regulated by CERCLA to the extent that it falls
under any other subsection of section 9601(14)." Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc., 6 F.3d 1332,
1339 (9th Cir. 1993), amended 13 F.3d 1378 (1994).
63
58 Fed. Reg. 32,174, 32,179 (1993).
64
Id.

56
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

DOE is also responsible for remediating UMTRCA Title I sites to meet EPA standards, as described above.
Any remedy DOE selects to undertake pursuant to the UMTRCA must have NRC approval prior to
beginning remediation activities. As previously mentioned, DOE is responsible for the 24 Title II sites.

1.7.3 Clean Air Act

The three major components of the Clean Air Act program relevant to uranium extraction and beneficiation
operations are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which regulate six criteria pollutants;
the New Source Performance Standards, which regulate newly operating or new expansions of major sources
of air pollutants; and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), which
regulate specific toxic pollutants emitted by specific industries.

Under the CAA (42 USC §7409, Section 109) EPA established national primary and secondary air quality
standards for six "criteria" pollutants. These are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQSs). The NAAQSs are maximum acceptable concentration limits for six air pollutants, one of which
is suspended particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter. To attain the air quality goals set by the
CAA, States and local authorities have the responsibility of ensuring their regions are in compliance with the
NAAQSs. In addition, states may promulgate more stringent ambient air quality standards. Although
fugitive dust control is not an explicit requirement of the Act, most States require fugitive dust suppression
measures as part of their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve the NAAQS for particulate matter.
Fugitive dust is common at uranium mining operations: it arises from mine pits, overburden, mine rock
dumps, ore, sub-ore, and haul roads.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs), authorized under CAA §111, also have been promulgated for
particulate emissions from all new or expanded uranium extraction activities (40 CFR 60, Subpart LL).
However, uranium beneficiation activities and all underground processing facilities are exempt from the
NSPSs. Also, NSPS particulate emission concentration standards only apply to stack emissions. The NSPSs
require operations to contain stack-emitted particulate matter in excess of 0.005 grams per dry standard cubic
meter (dscm). In addition, stack emissions must not exhibit greater than seven percent opacity, unless the
stack emissions are discharged from an affected facility using a wet scrubbing emission control device. Also,
on or after 60 days following the achievement of the maximum production rate (but no later than 180 days
after initial startup), operations must limit all fugitive dust emissions to 10 percent opacity.

Standards have been established for radionuclide emissions from various sources, including uranium
extraction and beneficiation activities, to the ambient air (40 CFR 61) under the authority contained in the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) portion of the CAA. EPA
regulations that apply to uranium extraction and beneficiation activities are outlined below:

• Subpart B sets standards for active underground uranium mines. The standards in this subpart
apply to an owner or operator of an underground uranium mine that has mined, will mine or is
designed to mine over 100,000 tons of ore during the life of the mine, or has or will have an
annual ore production rate greater than 10,000 tons, unless it can be demonstrated to EPA that the
mine will not exceed 100,000 tons during the life of the mine. The regulation sets an emission
standard for radon from the mine not to exceed 10 mrem/y for any member of the public.
Reporting requirements are also specified in the regulation.

• Subpart H sets standards for facilities owned or operated by DOE, excluding inactive facilities
regulated by Titles I and II of UMTRCA, which emit any radionuclide other than radon-222 and
radon-220 into the air. Emissions of radionuclides from these facilities to the ambient air shall

57
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

not exceed those amounts which would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an
effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/yr.

• Subpart I sets standards for NRC-licensed facilities and to facilities owned or operated by any
Federal agency other than the DOE (none were identified), except it does not apply to any Title I
UMTRCA facilities that have undergone remediation as provided for in 40 CFR Part 192.
Emission standards of radionuclides released from regulated facilities to the ambient air shall not
exceed amounts which would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective
dose equivalent of 3 mrem/yr.

• Subpart T sets standards for radon emissions from the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The
regulation applies to the owners and operators for all sites that are used for the disposal of tailings
that are listed in Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of 1978 or regulated under Title
II of the same Act. Radon-222 emissions to the ambient air from uranium mill tailings units that
are no longer operational shall not exceed 20 pCi/m2/s.

• Subpart W sets emission standards for radon emissions from mill tailings at operational mills. It
applies to owners or operators of facilities licensed to manage uranium byproduct materials from
uranium mills and their associated tailings. Radon-222 emissions to the ambient air from
regulated facilities shall not exceed 20 pCi/m2-s. Tailings impoundments built after Dec. 15,
1989 must be designed, constructed and operated to meet either phased disposal in lined tailings
impoundments that are not greater than 40 acres, or continuous disposal of tailings such that
tailings are dewatered and immediately disposed with no more than 10 acres uncovered at any
time. Tailings disposal must be in accordance with 40 CFR 192.32(a).

EPA received several petitions for reconsideration of Subpart T because of concern that it overlapped with
UMTRCA requirements for the management of uranium byproduct materials (Subpart D of 40 CFR Part
192). As a result the EPA, NRC, and Agreement States signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in
October of 1991 that outlines the steps each will take to eliminate regulatory redundancy and to ensure
uranium mill tailings are closed as expeditiously as practicable. On June 8, 1993, EPA proposed amending
UMTRCA regulations contained in 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D (58 FR 32174). These proposed
regulations include a requirement for installing a permanent radon barrier designed to achieve the 20 pCi/m2-
s radon emission standard, a compliance schedule for meeting the 20 pCi/m2-s radon emission standard, and
a monitoring requirement to ensure tailings impoundment designs are effective at achieving the
aforementioned standard. In the preamble to this proposed rule, EPA stated its intentions to eventually
rescind Subpart T of 40 CFR 61 (NESHAPs), once it has been assured that the amended UMTRCA
standards are as protective of public health with an ample margin of safety, as are the NESHAPS rules. NRC
and the Agreement Sates agreed to amend the licenses of all sites whose milling operations have ceased and
whose tailings piles remain partially or totally uncovered. The amended license would require the mill
operator to establish a tailings closure plan.

1.7.4 Clean Water Act

Under section 402 of the CWA (33 USC §1342), all point-source discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States must be permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A

58
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

point source is defined as any discrete conveyance, natural or man-made, including pipes, ditches, and
channels. NPDES permits are issued by EPA or delegated States.

Effluent limits imposed on an NPDES permittee are either technology-based or water-quality-based.

National technology-based effluent guideline limitations have been established for discharges from uranium
mines and mills under the Ore Mining and Dressing Point-Source Category (40 CFR Part 440, Subpart C).
These regulations provide effluent limitations based upon best practicable control technology (BPT) and best
achievable technology (BAT) for uranium mills and open-pit and underground uranium mines, including
mines using in situ leach methods. Discharges from regulated operations must meet best available
technology/best practicable technology (BAT/BPT) standards for zinc, arsenic, ammonia, dissolved radium
226, total radium 226, uranium, total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and pH. The
specific effluent standards for these contaminants are shown in Table 1

59
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Table 1-1. Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Discharges from Mines and Mills in the
"Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory"

(milligrams per liter, except as noted)

Mine drainage Mill discharges

BPT limits BAT limits BPT limits
Effluent characteristic
One-day 30-day One-day 30-day One-day 30-day BAT limits
max average max average max average
TSS 30. 20. N/A 30. 20.
COD 200. 100. 200 100 N/A 500.
As N/A N/A 1.0 0.5
Zn 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
N/A
Ra-226 (dissolved) (pCi/L) 10. 3. 10.0 3.0 10. 3.
Ra-226 (total) (pCi/L) 30. 10. 30.0 10.0 30. 10.
U 4. 2. 4.0 2.0 N/A
pH (s.u.) 6.0 - 9.0 6.0 - 9.0 6.0 - 9.0

New Source Performance Standards

Mine drainage
Effluent characteristic One-day 30-day Mill discharges
maximum average
TSS 30. 20.
COD 200. 100.
Zn 1.0 0.5 No discharges of process wastewater allowed, except:
when net precipitation exceeds annual evaporation, the
Ra-226 (dissolved) (pCi/L) 10. 3.
difference may be discharged subject to BPT limits for
Ra-226 (total) (pCi/L) 30. 10. mine drainage.

U 4. 2.
pH (s.u.) 6.0 - 9.0

N/A Not applicable (no standards promulgated)

NOTE: Limitations apply to discharges from open-pit or underground mines from which uranium, radium, and vanadium ores are
produced; and to mills using the acid leach, alkaline leach, or combined acid and alkaline leach process for the extraction of
uranium, radium, and vanadium. BPT and NSPS mine drainage limitations do not apply toin situ operations; BAT mine
drainage and all mill discharge limitations do apply to such facilities. In addition, overflows from facilities
designed/operated/maintained to contain or treat flows from the 10-year/24-hour storm event may qualify for "storm
exemption."

SOURCE: 40 CFR 440 Subpart C: 440.32 (BPT), 440.33 (BAT), 440.34 (NSPS)

60
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

. EPA has also promulgated effluent guidelines for new uranium mines and mills, known as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPSs). New source performance standards for mines are also listed in Table 1.
New mills using acid leach, alkaline leach, or combined acid and alkaline leach process for uranium extraction
or mines and mill using in-situ leach methods are not allowed to discharge process wastewater, unless annual
precipitation exceeds annual evaporation.

The permit writers must also ensure that the NPDES permit will protect water quality. Permit writers must
also determine whether technology-based effluent limitations i.e., BPT, BAT, and/or NSPS) are adequate to
ensure that applicable water quality standards are met. Where technology-based limits are not sufficiently
stringent, water-quality-based effluent limitations must be developed. As a result, a NPDES permit may
include technology-based effluent limitations for some pollutants and water-quality-based effluent limitations
for other pollutants. Individual states are required to adopt water quality criteria at least as stringent as
Federal levels. The application of these criteria is based on the designated use of a specific receiving water
(drinking water supply, aquatic life, and/or recreational use). Also, each State has been required to develop
instream water quality standards to protect the designated uses of receiving waters.

Contaminated storm water runoff from some mining operations has been documented as causing water
quality degradation. In the past, point source storm water discharges have received limited emphasis under
the NPDES program. However, EPA recently promulgated regulations (55 FR 47990; November 16, 1990)
that specifically address point-source discharges of storm water from industrial facilities, including active and
inactive/abandoned mine sites. These regulations require NPDES permits for all point source discharges of
contaminated storm water from mine sites. The implementation strategy calls for discharges to be covered in
individual (facility-specific) or general (State or EPA Region-specific) NPDES permits. Some of the States
authorized to implement the NPDES program (e.g. Colorado, Wyoming) have developed general permits for
storm water discharges from mining facilities. For States not NPDES-authorized (e.g. Texas, Arizona), EPA
is developing a general permit. EPA is also developing a separate general permit for storm water discharges
from inactive/abandoned mines on Federal lands.

Some discharges from mine sites do not meet the definition of a "point source discharge." These discharges
are nonpoint source discharges. Under Section 319 of the CWA, States are required to prepare nonpoint-
source assessment reports and to develop programs to address nonpoint sources on a watershed-by-watershed
basis. Each State must report to EPA annually on program implementation and resulting water quality
improvements.

1.7.5 Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted in 1974 and amended in 1986. It protects the quality of
drinking water by establishing standards for drinking water quality and treatment and distribution systems,
and by regulating the injection of waste and non-waste materials into disposal or other injection wells. The
SDWA's most direct impact on the uranium industry is through the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program, which aims to protect underground sources of drinking water.

61
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

EPA is responsible for implementing (or overseeing the implementation of) the UIC program. EPA
regulations can be found in 40 CFR Parts 144-146. Upon EPA approval, States can be delegated the
responsibility for implementing all or part of the UIC program in their jurisdiction.

EPA's UIC regulations protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) by prohibiting the direct
injection or migration of foreign fluids into these aquifers. An underground source of drinking water is
defined as any aquifer or its portion that supplies a public water system or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l
total dissolved solids (TDS). An aquifer may be exempted from UIC regulation if it is shown to be
completely isolated with no possible future uses. In general, Federal regulations prohibit any underground
injection unless authorized by permit or by rule. In addition, no owner/operator of a well may construct,
operate, maintain, convert, plug, or abandon an injection well in a manner which allows the movement of
contaminated fluid into underground sources of drinking water.

The program establishes requirements for five injection well categories. Regulations vary according to the
class of well. These categories are outlined below.

Class I: Injection wells for hazardous, industrial, non-hazardous, and municipal wastewater disposal below
the lower most formation, within 1/4 mile of the wellbore, containing an underground source of
groundwater.

Class II: Injection wells for fluids related to oil and gas production such as salt water disposal wells,
enhanced oil recovery wells and hydrocarbon storage wells.

Class III: Injection wells related to mineral extraction such as in situ production of uranium, only for ore
bodies which have not been conventionally mined.

Class IV: Disposal of radioactive or hazardous waste into or above a formation which contains an
underground source of drinking water within 1/4 mile. Section 3020(a) of RCRA prohibits the
construction and operation of Class IV wells.

Class V: Injection wells not included in the other classes. This includes solution mining of conventional
mines, such as stope leaching and low-level radioactive waste wells.

Classes I, III and V are potentially applicable to the uranium extraction and beneficiation industry. The
Federal requirements for these wells are summarized in the subsections that follow.

1.7.5.1 Class I Nonhazardous Wells

Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan

Applicants for permits to inject into Class I wells must identify the locations of all known wells within the
injection wells "area of review" that penetrate the injection zone. The "area of review" is the area surrounding
an injection well described in accordance with listed criteria, or in the case of an area permit, is the project
area plus a circumscribing area (either one-quarter mile or calculated according to criteria in the regulations).

62
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

For wells in the area of review that are improperly sealed, completed, or abandoned, the applicant must also
submit a corrective action plan. The purpose of this is to ensure that pre-existing wells do not provide a
conduit between the injection zone and underground sources of drinking water. An approved plan must
consist of steps or modifications as necessary to prevent movement of fluid into underground sources of
drinking water.

EPA (or the State) may require as a permit condition that injection pressure be limited so that pressure in the
injection zone does not exceed hydrostatic pressure at the site of any improperly completed or abandoned well
within the area of review. This limitation can be part of a compliance schedule and may last until all other
required corrective action has been taken.

The regulations list various factors upon which EPA (or the State) may base its decision that a corrective
action plan is inadequate. They include (1) the nature and volume of injected fluid; (2) the nature of native
fluids or byproducts of injection; (3) the potentially affected population; and (4) abandonment procedures in
effect at the time the well was abandoned. Each plan, for an existing well, must include a compliance
schedule requiring corrective action to be completed as soon as possible. No new injection well may be used
for injection until all required corrective action has been taken.

Mechanical Integrity Testing

Submission of an application for EPA approval of a State UIC program must include a program description,
including an explanation of how the State will implement mechanical integrity requirements required under
the regulations.

A well must meet the following mechanical integrity requirements. First, there can be no significant leak in
the casing, tubing, or packer. One of the following methods must be used to determine that there are no
impermissible leaks: (1) monitoring the annulus pressure; (2) pressure test with liquid or gas; or (3) a method
authorized by the State or EPA other than the above, with the written approval of the Administrator. Second,
there may be no significant fluid movement into an underground source of drinking water through vertical
channels adjacent to the well bore. There must be no significant fluid movement as determined by: (1) the
results of a temperature or noise log; or (2) a method authorized by the State with the written approval of the
Administrator or by EPA.

When conducting and evaluating these tests, the owner or operator and the EPA (or the State) must apply
methods and standards generally acceptable in the industry. In reporting the results of integrity testing to
EPA (or the State), the owner or operator must include a description of the test(s) and the methods used. In
making an evaluation, EPA (or the State) will review monitoring and other test data submitted since the
previous evaluation.

Technical Criteria and Standards

63
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Among the technical criteria that apply to UIC programs to regulate Class I nonhazardous injection wells are
the following: (1) construction requirements, including that wells be sited so that they inject into a formation
beneath the lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water within one quarter mile
of the well bore, and that wells be cased and cemented to prevent movement of fluids into underground
sources of drinking water; (2) operating requirements, including that injection between the outermost casing
protective of underground sources of drinking water and the well bore is prohibited; and (3) monitoring
requirements, including that analysis be conducted of injected fluids with sufficient frequency to yield
representative data of their characteristics.

1.7.5.2 Class III Wells

Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan

Requirements with respect to the establishment of an area of review and the submission of a corrective action
plan described above under Class I nonhazardous wells also apply to Class III wells. Additional requirements
apply to Class III wells: when EPA (or the State) is considering the appropriate corrective action, EPA (or the
State) must consider the overall effect of the project on the hydraulic gradient in potentially affected
underground sources of drinking water. If the decision is made that corrective action is not necessary, the
required monitoring program must be designed to verify the validity of such a determination.

Mechanical Integrity Testing

The same requirements that apply to Class I nonhazardous wells apply to Class III. However, there is one
difference with respect to methods that may be used to determine the absence of significant fluid movement.
Acceptable methods for such purposes include: (1) where the nature of the casing precludes the use of the
logging techniques prescribed in the regulations, cementing records may be used to demonstrate the presence
of adequate cement to prevent such migration; (2) where EPA (or the State) elects to rely on cementing
records to demonstrate the absence of significant fluid movement, the monitoring program required by
regulations shall be designed to verify such an absence; and (3) as finalized in January 1992, EPA allows the
use of the water-brine interface mechanical integrity test for salt solution mining. (57 Federal Register 1109,
January 10, 1992).

Technical Criteria and Standards

Technical criteria applicable to Class III injection wells include (1) construction requirements, including that
wells must be cased and cemented to prevent migration of fluids into or between underground sources of
drinking water and that casing and cementing used for newly drilled wells must be designed to last the life of
the well. Among the factors which must be considered in determining casing and cementing requirements are
depth to injection zone, injection pressure, and type and grade of cement; (2) operating requirements,
including that except during well stimulation, injection pressure at the wellhead must be calculated to assure
that the pressure in the injection zone during injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing
ones; and (3) monitoring requirements, including monitoring of the nature of injected fluids at time intervals

64
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

sufficiently frequent to yield data representative of their characteristics; and (4) reporting requirements,
including quarterly reporting to the EPA (or the State) on required monitoring and reporting on results of
mechanical integrity testing.

1.7.5.3 Class V Wells

In general, Federal regulations state that for Class V wells, injection is authorized by EPA until additional
requirements under future regulations are promulgated. This means that such injection operations are
authorized by rule, so no Federal permit is required. EPA has not yet promulgated regulations governing this
class of wells.

It should be noted that individual States with approved Class V UIC programs may have their own technical
requirements which apply to Class V wells in those States. (See discussion above on General State UIC
Program Requirements). Some States with approved UIC programs may require permits, while other such
States may authorize injection by rule.

A general provision of the UIC regulations that applies to Class V wells, is that no injection may be
conducted in a manner that allows the movement of contaminated fluid into underground sources of drinking
water.

Regulations require that within one year of the effective date of the UIC program in a particular State, the
owners and operators of Class V wells in the State notify the State of these wells and submit required
inventory information, including (1) facility name and location; (2) nature and type of injection wells; (3)
operating status of such wells.

For EPA-administered UIC programs only, additional information must be submitted by owners and
operators of certain types of Class V wells (in addition to other well classes). Among the types of Class V
wells for which additional data may be requested by EPA are brine return flow wells. Data required to be
submitted may include (1) a listing of all wells, including location of wells; (2) dates of completion of such
wells; (3) identification and depth of the formation into which each well is injecting; (4) casing and cementing
record, tubing size, and depth of packer; (5) average and maximum injection pressure at the wellhead; and
date of the last mechanical integrity test, if any.

Under the UIC regulations, each State, in turn, is required to submit a report and recommendations to EPA,
within three years of the approval of the State UIC program, concerning Class V wells. The report must
contain data on (1) construction features of Class V wells in the State and the nature and volume of injected
fluids; (2) an assessment of the contamination potential of such wells, using hydrogeological data available to
the State; (3) an assessment of available corrective alternatives and their environmental and economic
consequences; and recommendations for regulatory approaches and remedial actions where appropriate.

1.7.6 Selected State Regulatory Requirements

65
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

This section addresses applicable laws, regulations and permits that apply to the uranium extraction and
beneficiation industry in Texas and Wyoming since these States contain the vast majority of operating
facilities. The section on State regulation is intended to provide an example of State regulatory programs. It
is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of regulatory programs in these or other uranium mining
States. Wyoming is authorized by EPA to administer NPDES and the UIC program but is not authorized by
the NRC for implementation of a AEA/UMTRCA program. Texas is not an EPA-delegated State for
NPDES permitting but has been delegated responsibility for the UIC program under SDWA and is also
authorized by NRC to implement the AEA/UMTRCA program. Therefore, EPA writes NPDES discharge
permits for uranium extraction and beneficiation in Texas for discharges to surface waters and the NRC
issues permits for uranium milling operations in Wyoming.

1.7.6.1 Texas

Uranium extraction and beneficiation regulation in Texas is in a state of transition. Until recently, the Texas
Water Commission's UIC program had jurisdiction over injection wells, and the Texas Department of
Health's Bureau of Radiation Control handled all radiation and radioactivity at uranium mines and mills,
regardless of media (soil, air, or water). In March of 1992, the State legislature passed Senate Bill 2, which
gave jurisdiction of disposal of radioactive waste at in-situ mines to the Texas Water Commission. The same
legislation created a new agency, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (NRCC) (to
become effective on Sept 1, 1993). The entire Texas Air Control Board, the entire Texas Water Commission
(TWC), and parts of the Texas Department of Health's Bureau of Radiation Control will be moved to the
NRCC. Further, there are new bills currently in the State legislature that could move all of the uranium
extraction and beneficiation regulatory functions, including licensing and inspections, to the NRCC.

Water Commission

The Texas Water Commission regulates some aspects of in situ uranium mining pursuant to the Texas Water
Quality Act, Chapters 26 and 27 of the Texas Water Code. The TWC does not address surface water
discharges associated with uranium extraction and beneficiation because Texas is not a NPDES-authorized
state. The Commission is the State authority administering the EPA-delegated UIC program. Under the UIC
program, the Commission has been responsible for the permitting of non-radiological contaminants in
injection fluids. Recently, however, the Commission has also become responsible for administering NRC's
authority over disposal of radioactive waste at in situ mines, via injection wells. This authority stems from
Texas becoming an NRC Agreement State in the early 1960's. Previously, the Department of Health
administered NRC's radiological contaminant requirements at in situ mines, but the authority was transferred
to the TWC in an effort to minimize the number of permits needed by uranium solution mines (Kohler, 1993).
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies establishes responsibilities for each of
the program elements (Kohler, 1993). The Commission issues site-specific permits for solution mining,
which includes UIC and NRC requirements, and also issues subsequent production area authorizations under
the site-specific permit (TDWR, 1984). Some of the NRC and UIC (Class II wells) solution mining permit
requirements include:

66
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

• Restoration procedures such as plugging of wells and restoration of ground cover

• Liners for all wastewater ponds

• Leakage detection, repair procedures, and freeboard limits for all ponds

• Controlled access to the ponds to prevent entrance by wildlife and unauthorized persons

• Runoff and spill control measures

• Preventive maintenance such as inspection for ponds, pipelines, dikes, trenches, and storage areas

• Disposal of all radioactive wastes pursuant to Department of Health requirements

• Disposal of non-radioactive solid and semi-solid wastes at an authorized waste disposal site in
accordance with the Texas Water Commission rules

• Use of non-ammonia leaching solution at production areas

• Sampling of monitoring wells every 3 months

• Proof of mechanical integrity of all injection wells

• Financial assurance, usually in the form of a bond, for proper plugging and abandonment of wells,
for any surface contaminant cleanup and restoration, including groundwater remediation to levels
that would allow unrestricted use

• Aquifer restoration to pre-mining conditions once mining has ceased.

Department of Health

Texas is a NRC-Agreement State, and the Department of Health's Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC), in
conjunction with the TWC, is responsible for administering the NRC radiation regulatory program for
uranium extraction and beneficiation (see above). Texas has incorporated the NRC regulations pertaining to
uranium extraction and beneficiation into Texas' Regulations for Control of Radiation (Haygood, 1993).

Previously, the BRC licensed (byproduct material) and conducted inspections at in situ mining facilities. As
noted above, both of these responsibilities, however, have been assumed by the TWC in an effort to minimize
the number of licenses (and permits) required from the industry (Haygood, 1993). The BRC, however, is still
responsible for licensing uranium mills. Additionally, the BRC also implements the NESHAPs provisions
for radon at uranium in situ mines and uranium mills. The BRC has no authority over uranium surface
mines.

Railroad Commission (TRC)

67
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

The TRC regulates uranium surface mining, pursuant to the Texas Uranium Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act. It has jurisdiction over private lands, while the General Land Office has jurisdiction over State lands
(through a letter of agreement, the Commission actually regulates operations on State lands under the General
Land Office authority). As part of this responsibility, the TRC issues bonds to ensure reclamation will be
completed after mining has ceased (EPA, 1984). The TRC also regulates the exploration phase of in-situ
uranium mining. Once production of wells begins, however, the Water Commission has regulatory
jurisdiction. The TRC has promulgated its regulations in Rules of the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Division (EPA, 1984).

General Land Office

The General Land Office issues prospecting permits and mining leases on State lands. The General Land
Office has authority to regulate uranium mining on State lands, but does not exercise its authority because it
has turned it over to the Railroad Commission in a letter of agreement between the two agencies. It requires a
plan of operations as part of the mining lease application and may specify certain reclamation requirements
for obtaining a lease. Usually, however, the General Land Office leases simply incorporate by reference the
Railroad Commission's mining requirements (Farr, 1993).

Air Control Board

The Board is responsible for regulating non-radioactive air emissions, and must ensure that Texas complies
with National standards. The Board regulates fugitive dust from "non-agricultural operations," which
includes uranium extraction and beneficiation, and particulate matter emitted from stacks (Betrick Hameron,
1993). The Board's standards parallel those set by EPA (see above). NESHAPs standards for radon
emissions from uranium extraction and beneficiation are implemented by the BRC, as noted above.

1.7.6.2 Wyoming

Most of the permits required by uranium mining and beneficiation operations in Wyoming must be obtained
through the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). The WDEQ consists of four
divisions: land quality, water quality, air quality and solid waste. Permits for impoundments and reservoirs
are issued by the State Engineer's Office (SEO); the SEO also handles issues involving water rights.
Wyoming is not a NRC delegated state, so, uranium milling and in situ operators must apply to the NRC for
a Source Materials License.

Department of Environmental Quality

Land Quality Division (LQD). The LQD is the lead agency in permitting mining operations and is the sole
authority for issuing mining permits. The LQD and WQD jointly issue Groundwater Pollution Control
permits for in situ operations. Groundwater monitoring data are submitted to and reviewed by the LQD. The
LQD is responsible for bonding provisions and annual inspections. In addition, the LQD distributes

68
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

guidelines addressing numerous permit-related topics including In Situ Mining, Hydrology, Soils and
Overburden, and Vegetation. Land Quality Division Mining Permit Requirements include:

• Baseline Groundwater Quality Survey - for the permit area and each mining unit (UCLs are
determined at this time)

• Hydrogeologic Characterization

• Surface Water Baseline (quality and quantity)

• Geological Assessment

• Detailed Mineral Extraction and Reclamation Plan.

• Bonding (for the cost of reclaiming affected land or ground water disturbed by mining)

• Vegetation survey (including Threatened and Endangered Species)

• Soils Assessment

• Wildlife Inventory.

Water Quality Division (WQD). Since Wyoming has been delegated NPDES and UIC programs, the WQD
issues all permits for surface water discharges (i.e., NPDES) and underground injection (injection/production
wells and disposal wells). The operation of injection and production wells are also covered under the
LQD/WQD Groundwater Pollution Control permits. Wastewater Land Application Facility permits are
required by in situ operators who dispose of excess process water through land application.

State Engineer's Office

The SEO requires that all dams and impounding structures be certified by a professional engineer. The office
is also the lead agency for impacts on water rights.

69
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

1.8 REFERENCES

Cray, E. 1990. Personal communication between Mr. Ed Cray, Colorado Department of Health, and Ms.
Laurie Lamb, Science Applications International Corporation, October 19, 1990.

Eadie, G.G. and R.F. Kaufmann. 1977. Radiological evaluation of the effects of uranium mining and milling
operations on selected groundwater supplies in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Health Physics,
32(April):231-241.

Farr, B. 1993. Personal Communication between Mr. Bill Farr, Texas General Land Office, and Ms. Chris
Lewicki, Science Applications International Corporation, on May 4, 1993.

Fredrickson, H.K. 1992. Midwest Joint Venture high-grade uranium mining - underground. CIM Bulletin
85(960):43-47.

Grisafe, D.A. 1992. Industrial minerals and uranium. Geotimes 37(2):17-18.

Guilbert, J.M. and Park, C.F. Jr. 1985. The Geology of Ore Deposits. W.H. Freeman and Company. New
York.

Haygood, J. 1993. Personal communication between Mr. John Haygood, Texas Department of Health,
Bureau of Radiation Control, Division of Compliance and Inspection, and Ms. Chris Lewicki, Science
Applications International Corporation, on May 4, 1993.

Hunter, J. 1991. Highland in-situ leach mine. Mining Magazine 165(2):58-63.

Hutchinson, R.W. and J.D. Blackwell. 1984. Time, crustal evolution and generation of uranium deposits.
In: Uranium Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology, Exploration and Resources. The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London, England.

Ingle, S. 1993. Personal communication between Mr. Steve Ingle, Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality, Land Quality Division and Mr. Gene Weglinski, Science Applications International
Corporation, on May 8, 1993.

Jelinek, R.T. and T.J. Sorg. 1988. Operating a small full-scale ion exchange system for uranium removal.
American Water Works Association Journal 80(7):79-83.

Kaufmann, R.F., G.G. Eadie and C.R. Russell. 1976. Effects of uranium mining and milling on groundwater
in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Groundwater, 14(5):296-307.

Kohler, D. 1993. Personal communication between Mr. Dale Kohler, Texas Water Commission, Industrial
and Hazardous Waste Division, and Ms. Chris Lewicki, Science Applications International
Corporation, on April 27, 1993.

Landa, E.R. 1991. Leaching of 226Ra from components of uranium mill tailings. Hydrometallurgy
26(3):361-368.

Landa, E.R. 1987. Influence of ore type and milling process on 222Rn emanation coefficients of U mill
tailings. Health Physics 53(6):679-683.

70
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Lucht, R. 1990. Personal communication between Mr. Robert Lucht, Underground Injection Control
Coordinator, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and Ms. Laurie Lamb, Science
Applications International Corporation, September 12, 1990.

Merritt, R.C. 1971. The Extractive Metallurgy of Uranium. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.

Michel, P. 1977. Methodes de lixiviation sans broyage prealable dans le traitment des minerais d'uranium.
In: Geology, Mining and Extractive Processing of Uranium, M.J. Jones (ed). The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy and the Commission of the European Communities. London, England.

Miller, L.L. and L.A. Davis. 1987. Hydrogeologic aspects of reclamation of the Ray Point Tailings Facility:
A case study. In: Geotechnical and Geohydrological Aspects of Waste Management, D.J.A. van Zyl,
S.R. Abt, J.D. Nelson and T.A. Shepard (eds.), Lewis Publishers, p. 299-310.

Nash, J.T. 1986. Geology and genesis of uranium deposits, Saguache County, Colorado. In: Vein Type
Uranium Deposits, Report of the Working Group on Uranium Geology Organized by the International
Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC 361. IAEA, Vienna, Austria. pp. 169-179.

Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1990. Authorization for Underground Injection and
Mineral Production Wells. Permit No. NE0122611 issued to Ferret Exploration Company of Nebraska,
Inc., April, 1990.

Osiensky, J.L. and R.E. Williams. 1990. Factors affecting efficient aquifer restoration at in situ uranium
mine sites. Groundwater Monitoring Review, p. 107-112.

Osiensky, J.L., K.A. Peterson and R.E. Williams. 1988. Solute transport simulation of aquifer restoration
after in situ uranium mining. Groundwater Monitoring Review, 8(2):137-143.

Parker, J. 1990. Personal conversation between Mr. John Parker, New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division, and Ms. Ingrid Rosencrantz, Science Applications International Corp, on August 22, 1990.

Pehlke, R.D. 1973. Unit Processes of Extractive Metallurgy. Elsevier North, New York, NY.

Pillmore, D.M. 1992. Arizona strip uranium mining district northern Arizona. The Professional Geologist
29(4):8.

Pool, T.C. 1991. Uranium: You thought '89 was bad... E&MJ 192(3):57-60.

Rich, R.A., H.D. Holland and U. Peterson. 1977. Hydrothermal Uranium Deposits. Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Oxford and New York.

Silver, M., G.M. Ritcey, and M.P. Cauley. 1985. A lysimeter comparison of the effects of uranium tailings
deposition methods on the release of environmental contaminants. Hydrometallurgy 15(2):159-172.

Smith, D.K, Jr. 1984. Uranium mineralogy. In: Uranium geochemistry, mineralogy, geology, exploration
and resources. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England.

Staub, W.P. 1987. Excursion control at in situ uranium mines. In: Geotechnical and Geohydrological
Aspects of Waste Management, D.J.A. van Zyl, S.R. Abt, J.D. Nelson and T.A. Shepard (eds.), Lewis
Publishers, p. 171-177.

71
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Stephenson, J.B. 1993. Personal communication between Mr. J.B. Stephenson, Pathfinder Mine (Mill), and
Mr. Gene Weglinski, Science Applications International Corporation, on June 25, 1993.

Tatsch, J.H. 1976. Uranium deposits. Tatsch Associates, Sudbury Massachusetts.

Texas Department of Water Resources. 1984. Uranium Solution Mining Wells (Chapter 4). In:
Underground Injection Operations in Texas, a Classification and Assessment of Underground Injection
Activities. Texas Department of Water Resources Report 291, by D.P. Kohler.

Twidwell, L.G., H.H. Huang and J.D. Miller. 1983. Unit Processes in Extractive Metallurgy,
Hydrometallurgy. Supported by National Science Foundation Grant SED75-04821.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1985. Domestic Uranium Mining and
Milling Industry 1984, Viability Assessment. DOE/EIA-0477, Distribution Category UC-98,
Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1990. Domestic Uranium Mining and
Milling Industry 1989, Viability Assessment. DOE/EIA-0477(89), Distribution Category UC-98,
Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1991. Uranium Industry Annual 1990.
DOE/EIA-0478(90), Distribution Category UC-98, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1992. Domestic Uranium Mining and
Milling Industry 1991, Viability Assessment. DOE/EIA-0477(91), Distribution Category UC-98,
Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1993. Domestic Uranium Mining and
Milling Industry 1992, Viability Assessment. DOE/EIA-0477(92), Distribution Category UC-98,
Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1992. Uranium Industry Annual 1991.
DOE/EIA-0478(91), Distribution Category UC-98, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1980. Uranium Development in the San Juan
Basin, a Report on Environmental Issues. Prepared by San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Study,
Office of Trust Responsibilities, US Bureau of Indian Affairs.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1968. The Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related
Terms. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1978. Uranium In Situ Leach Mining in the United
States, prepared by W.C. Larson. Information Circular 8777.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1979. Environmental Assessment of In Situ Leach
Mining, Final Report. Prepared by PRC Toups and Mountain States Research and Development. 292
p.

72
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1981a. Restoring groundwater quality following in situ
leaching, by D.R. Tweeton. In: In Situ Mining Research, Proceedings: Bureau of Mines Technology
Transfer Seminar, Denver CO, August 5, 1981. Information Circular 8852. pp. 27-37

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1981b. Selection of lixiviants for in situ leach mining, by
D.R. Tweeton and K.A. Peterson. In: In Situ Mining Research, Proceedings: Bureau of Mines
Technology Transfer Seminar, Denver CO, August 5, 1981. Information Circular 8852. pp. 17-24.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines 1984. Adsorption of radium and thorium from New
Mexico uranium mill tailing solutions, prepared by H.R. Beard, H.B. Salisbury and M.B. Shirts.
Report of Investigations 8914.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1979. Effects of uranium development on erosion and
associated sedimentation in southern San Juan Basin, New Mexico, by M.E. Cooley. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 79-1496.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1988. Structural evolution of a Grand Canyon breccia
pipe: the Ridenour Copper-Vanadium-Uranium Mine, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Coconino County,
Arizona. By E.R. Verbeek, M.A. Grout and B.S. Van Gosen. U.S. Geological Survey Open File
Report 88-006.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1990. Uranium in phosphate rock - with special
reference to the central Florida Deposits, by J.B. Cathcart. In: Short Papers of the U.S. Geological
Survey Uranium Workshop, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1069.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. 1983a. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40
CFR 192). Volumes I & II. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. 1983b. Report to Congress:
Potential Health and Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine Wastes. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. 1987. Groundwater Protection
Standards for Inactive Uranium Tailings Sites, Background Information for Proposed Rule. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 1995. Groundwater Standards
for Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (60 FR 2854). U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste.
1986. Site Specific Data Summary Forms, Facilities Involved in the Extraction and Beneficiation of
Ores and Minerals, prepared by PEI Associates.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. 1985. Report to Congress: Wastes From
the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from
Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

73
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management. 1986. An Analysis of Excursions at
Selected In Situ Uranium Mines in Wyoming and Texas. Prepared by W.P Staub, N.E. Hinkle, R.E.
Williams, F. Anastasi, J. Osiensky and D. Rogness.

Wallace, A.R. 1986. Geology and origin of the Schwartzwalder uranium deposit, Front Range, Colorado,
USA. In: Vein Type Uranium Deposits, Report of the Working Group on Uranium Geology
Organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC 361. IAEA, Vienna,
Austria. pp. 159-168.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1991. In Situ Mining State
Decision Document for Everest Minerals Highland Uranium, WDEQ/LQD Permit No. 603-A2.
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1990. Guideline No. 4, In Situ
Mining.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1989. Non-coal Rules and
Regulations.

Yan, T.Y. 1990. Uranium precipitation from eluate using hydrogen peroxide. American Institute of Mining
and Metallurgical Engineers, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing 288:222-224.

74
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

APPENDIX A

NPL SUMMARIES RELATED TO URANIUM EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION

 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Appendix A
NPL Summaries Related to Uranium Extraction and Beneficiation

This Appendix includes summaries of Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites related to extraction and
beneficiation of uranium. The original summaries were prepared by EPA in 1991. Excerpts from these
summaries are included in this profile as case study examples of select mining operations. The summaries
provide a brief description of the operation, but focus on site-specific environmental effects and, in several
cases, provide a brief summary of EPA actions at the site. The NPL examples illustrate some of the
problems associated with uranium mining. As stated in the introduction, uranium processing wastes are not
addressed in this profile. Although there are uranium processing-related sites on the NPL, they have not been
discusses in this Appendix. At some sites discussed, however, both tailings and processing wastes
contributed to the environmental hazards that resulted in their listing on the NPL.

Homestake Mill; Grants, New Mexico

Operating History

The Homestake Mill Superfund Site is located in Cibola County, New Mexico, approximately 5.5 miles north
of Milan, New Mexico. The site consists of an uranium processing mill and two tailings embankments at an
elevation of approximately 6,600 feet. The mill began operating in 1958, and was originally licensed by the
Atomic Energy Commission. The Mill has a nominal design capacity of 3,400 tons per day (tpd). The site
was placed on the NPL in September 1983. In June 1990 the Mill stopped operating and went on "standby
status."

When operating, the Mill employed an alkaline leach-caustic precipitation process for extracting and
concentrating uranium oxide (yellow cake) from ores that historically averaged from 0.05 to 0.30 percent
U3O8, to produce yellowcake. Tailings from the process are composed of uranium-depleted fine and coarse
sand and slimes.

Two separate embankments have been used to dispose of tailings generated at the mill. The most recently
used embankment consists of two impoundments, and covers approximately 175 acres with tailings that total
17 million cubic yards (21 million tons) and measure 90 to 100 feet high. The tailing embankment is
constructed of coarse tailing material, and at least 60 acres were covered by water. The second embankment,
which has not been in use since 1962, covers approximately 45 acres, measures 25 feet high, and contains
1.225 million tons of tailings. More than 95 percent of the top of this embankment is covered with at least 6
inches of soil.

Tailings were slurried from the Mill to the embankments. The tailings were deposited on (and within) the
embankment by means of wet cyclones, which separate the material into coarse and fine splits. The tailing
piles have been stabilized with solid materials such as erosion control blankets and used tires, wetting the
piles with water, and chemical-stabilization agents that form a crust on the surface to reduce water and wind
erosion.

An injection and collection effort has resulted in a decrease in the groundwater contaminant plume, which no
longer extends past the facility boundary.

Environmental Damages and Risks

A-1
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

The EPA evaluated risks to public health from exposure to the levels of radon found during the study. Lung
cancer lifetime risks per year for the 17 residents of the 8 houses [with more than 4 pCi/l average annual
indoor radon concentrations] range from 0.000031 to 0.00059 and center around 1 in 10,000 per year of
residency for all age groups. The evaluation indicates that this is not considered a significant risk, as the
models used are very conservative. Further, the mill site is not believed to be the main source of the radon
contamination.

Lincoln Park Site; Canon City, Colorado

Operating History

Uranium milling began at the Cotter site in 1958. The first mill operated until 1979 using an alkali process.
An acid leach mill process began in 1979, but has been inactive since 1986. The site covers approximately
1.4 square miles in south central Colorado and consists of two inactive mills, a partially reclaimed tailings
pond disposal area, and an inactive tailings pond disposal area.

During the milling process, molybdenum and vanadium were recovered as by-products during uranium
concentrate production. During the period of alkali milling (prior to 1979), 10 ponds were used for storage of
process liquid and fresh water, for the disposal of tailings, and for storage of fresh water. These ponds are
unlined except for Pond 2 (lined in 1972); Pond 3 (lined in 1981); and Pond 10 (lined in 1976).

In December 1979, when the acid milling process began, a double-lined impoundment was installed with
drains above the synthetic membrane and below the clay layer and synthetic membrane. Tailings from this
acid leach process and water collected from ground-water interceptors are stored in this impoundment. It
consists of two sections: (1) a 91-acre primary impoundment for the storage of acid leach mill wastes; and
(2) a 44-acre secondary impoundment. During the period between April 1981 to August 1983, the contents
of Ponds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 (2.2 million cubic yards of tailings) were moved to a double-lined secondary
impoundment. Ponds 9 and 10 were removed in 1978 during construction of the secondary impoundment.

Reagents used in the milling process included sulfuric acid, ammonia, ammonium sulfate, kerosene, tertiary
amines, sodium and calcium salts, potassium permanganate, zinc sulfate, and organic flocculents.

The Mill occasionally processed custom ores such as waste raffinate from other mills and precipitates or slags
from other processes. In one instance, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated ore was processed,
which contaminated some of the plant areas. Trichloroethylene was used to extract the PCBs from the
contaminated soils. This issue was being investigated by EPA at the time the Remedial Investigation was
prepared in 1986.

A catalyst plant on the Mill site was operated briefly in 1978 and 1979 to recover metal values from spent
catalyst material. Spent sulfuric acid catalyst material is currently stockpiled north of the old Mill.

Sources of contamination include the uranium ore stockpile, tailings, and raffinate; contaminated soils and
groundwater; leaks from the old tailings ponds; and suspected leaks from the new impoundment area.
Contaminants include radium, nickel, molybdenum, cobalt, copper, arsenic, zinc, lead, and cadmium. The
Cotter site is located south and almost adjacent to the semirural area of Lincoln Park and 3.5 miles south of
Canon City. The site is located in a topographic bowl known as "Wolf Park Basin." Offsite ground-water
contamination from the Cotter site was first noted in the Lincoln Park area in 1968. Prior to a 1988 State-
ordered clean-up, a number of residences used water from wells on their property, either in addition to their

A-2
2
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Canon City tap water or as their sole supply. Homes in the impacted area are presently supplied with Canon
City water. Most land around the Mill is used for grazing livestock and wildlife habitat.

Environmental Damages and Risks

The AEC was the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the facility from 1958 to 1968. Between
1959 and 1966, the site was cited 18 times for failing to track radioactive releases. The State of Colorado
Department of Health assumed regulatory oversight in 1968 and cited Cotter Corporation 82 times for
various violations under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulatory process between 1968 and 1984.
Among the state citations were exceedance of "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" particulate emissions,
discharge and releases from tailings discharge pipes, and poor recordkeeping on control of off-site surface-
water contamination.

Contaminated groundwater at the site is transported downgradient into the Lincoln Park area. Ground-water
contamination was first noted in Lincoln Park in 1968. Concentrations of molybdenum in Lincoln Park
groundwater were in the range of 24 to 60 mg/l (compared to a background level of about 0.005 mg/l). These
levels were described as injurious to cattle and unsuitable for irrigation of crops used for cattle feed. A
contaminant plume of uranium and molybdenum extends from the Cotter site (in the shallow pathway along
the Sand Creek drainage) into Lincoln Park and eventually to the Arkansas River. Concentrations of
molybdenum and uranium at the Mill site from 1981 to 1984 ranged up to 231 and 116 mg/l, respectively, in
Lincoln Park. Concentrations in Lincoln Park ranged up to 0.92 and 13.2 mg/l. Maximum concentrations in
Lincoln Park of lead and selenium, as well as gross alpha and beta, exceeded Maximum Contaminant Levels
for drinking water.

Wind transport of contaminants has been observed since 1958. Emissions of radionuclides and hazardous
metals have been measured through air and soil sampling. Offsite soil concentrations of metals are at (or
above) a level of concern for agriculture use, cattle grazing, and wildlife. In particular, soil concentrations
were above critical values for molybdenum, cobalt, nickel, arsenic, copper, zinc, and cadmium. In general, it
was found that contamination decreased with distance from the Cotter site. Contaminated offsite soils are, in
turn, entrained in surface flow, and contaminants are transported in the intermittent streams to the Arkansas
River.

Offsite vegetation samples were also shown to be contaminated, with levels exceeding levels toxic to plants
and/or animals of molybdenum, zinc, and cadmium.

Uravan Uranium Mill; Uravan, Colorado

Site Overview

The Uravan Uranium mill complex is located approximately 90 miles southwest of Grand Junction along
State Highway 141 in Montrose County, Colorado. The mill was built at Club Mesa, west of the San Miguel
River canyon.

Standard Chemical Company began operating the Uravan Mill facility in 1915 to recover uranium, vanadium,
and radium from mined ores. Ore was received at the Uravan Mill from approximately 60 different
underground mines in the Uravan mineral belt, most of which were within 35 to 40 miles of the mill. Union
Carbide bought the facility from Standard Chemical through the U.S. Vanadium Company in 1936 and
continued to process uranium and radium at the site. While in operation, the mill processed approximately
1,000 tons of ore per day.

A-3
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

Stockpiled ore was crushed, ground, and then beneficiated onsite. Beneficiation at the mill included hot,
strong acid leaching in a two-stage circuit followed by the recovery of pregnant solutions in thickeners.
Uranium was recovered from the pregnant solution and separated from vanadium by column ion exchange,
with the final yellowcake product precipitated with ammonia. The uranium yellowcake and crude vanadium
precipitate was then further processed at another Union Carbide facility in Rifle, Colorado.

Plant tailings from the thickener circuit were pumped into tailings piles which, by late 1984, covered over 80
acres and contained approximately 10 million tons of tailings. The tailings have a low pH and are
contaminated with both metals and radionuclides.

Raffinate, a liquid or crystallized waste of primarily hydrated ammonium sulphate from the milling and
extraction process, contains ammonium-aluminum salts, dissolved ore elements, and spent processing
reagent. These wastes contain hydrated ammonium sulfate, uranium, vanadium, iron, sodium, radium,
calcium, silver, silicon, potassium, sulfate, carbon, mercury, lead, molybdenum, manganese, zinc, cobalt,
copper, chromium, and nickel. The liquid form of this waste was stored in evaporating ponds, while the
crystallized waste was stored in onsite repositories. The river ponds along the San Miguel River are below
the level of the potential maximum flood. Analyses of liquid and solid components of Uravan wastes show
high levels of many metals.

The principal waste management areas onsite and in associated areas are:

• Atkinson Creek Crystal Disposal Area - Unlined storage pit along the San Miguel River
containing 200,000 cubic yards of raffinate crystals.

• Club Ranch Ponds - Six unlined ponds covering 32 acres located along the San Miguel River that
contain 30 million gallons of liquid raffinate and 560,000 cubic yards of raffinate crystals.

• River Ponds - Seven unlined ponds constructed in old tailings piles containing 200,000 cubic
yards of neutralized mill sludge and contaminated soils. The seven ponds are located along both
sides of the San Miguel River. These were used as holding areas for liquid waste collected in the
mill area before they were discharged into the San Miguel River.

• Tailings Piles - About 10 million tons of mill tailings contained in three piles (at two sites) that
are located on the Club Mesa, 400 feet above and west of the mill site.

• Club Mesa Area - Disposal area on Club Mesa consisting of two clay-lined sludge storage areas,
storage ponds, raffinate spray evaporation area, and associated contaminated soils; contains
250,000 cubic yards of raffinate crystals, 150,000 cubic yards of neutralized sludge, 40,000 cubic
yards of contaminated pond material, and 44,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil.

• Plant Areas - Two plant locations with surficial contamination including containment structures,
ore stockpile area, equipment and auxiliary wastes, and heap leach sites containing 15,000 tons of
ore.

• Town and Adjacent Areas - Several small communities and three larger population centers
located along the San Miguel River are within 50 miles of the site. Old tailings and contaminated
soil have been found in these areas.

Mining, milling, and waste disposal activities have resulted in:

A-4
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

• Wind and surface-water dispersal of the tailings materials and the uncontrolled release of radon
from the Tailings Piles

• Seepage of contaminated liquids into soils and groundwater from several areas in the mill
complex and waste disposal areas

• Concentrations of large quantities of wastes in locations that pose a risk to public health and the
environment, based on considerations of the potential for release of hazardous materials to the
environment.

Environmental Damages And Risks

Initial interest in the site was prompted by the State of Colorado's belief that contamination (resulting from
poor waste management practices at the Uravan facility) was impacting the State's natural resources.

Several small communities (Nucla, Naturita, Vancorum, Redvale, Norwood, Placerville, Saw Pit, Paradox,
Bedrock, Gateway, Olathe, Whitewater, Glade Park, Monticello, and Moab) and three larger population
centers (Grand Junction, Delta, and Montrose) are within 50 miles of the site. The total area population is
thought to be around 3,000 people, down from 5,500 in 1960. (According to EPA, residents of Uravan were
advised to move away in 1985 due to the high levels of radioactivity measured in the area. By 1986, only 50
permanent residents remained. In 1988, after all permanent residents had relocated, all company homes and
buildings in Uravan were demolished.) No drinking water is drawn from the San Miguel River downstream
of the facility site, although water is drawn to irrigate local hay fields.

Without remediation, the potential risk to human health as a result of the site contamination is thought to be
moderate. This is because of the modest size of the population actually residing in the risk area. It was
concluded that even if the facility experienced a large release of contaminants into the environment, based on
present population, very few people would be affected. Radiological and nonradiological contaminants in the
tailings area represent the source or origin of the greatest potential human health hazard associated with the
Uravan Mill.

Potential radiological environmental hazards arise from the radioactivity released during the milling of natural
uranium and are primarily associated with the natural decay of uranium 238, the parent isotope, and its
radioactive daughters present in the ore. In the tailings pile specifically, the decay and ingrowth of the short-
lived radon gas and its daughters represent major contributions to the potential radiological hazard associated
with the Uravan Mill. As of 1986, radiation sources associated with the tailings piles constituted over 50
percent of the total airborne radioactivity released from the Uravan uranium milling operation. This was
expected to increase to 90 percent of the total airborne radioactivity released from the mill, which
permanently closed in 1991. The longer the operational or active open surface lifetime, the greater the
potential hazard of the tailings pile radiation source due to potential releases. However, according to EPA,
nearly all tailings piles have been capped, and are not as large a source of airborne radioactivity.

Both forage and vegetables in the site area are consumed by wildlife and livestock. These contaminants will
bioaccumulate as a result of consumption by either animals or humans that are primary or secondary
consumers. The high dispersion of contaminants in the area is attributed to wind transport of contaminated
particles.

Monticello Mill Site; San Juan County, Utah

Operating History

A-5
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

The Monticello Mill Tailings site is an abandoned uranium/vanadium mill occupying 78 acres in, and
adjacent to, the City of Monticello, San Juan County, Utah. The tailings and residual ore remaining at the site
have contaminated soils, groundwater, and surface water in Montezuma Creek, which flows through the Mill
site. An additional 300 acres of peripheral properties (properties adjacent to the Mill site and a 3.3-mile
reach of Montezuma Creek between the Town of Monticello and Vega Creek) have been contaminated by
airborne particles from tailings and water-transported tailings and ore from leftover piles.

The Monticello Mill site began operation as a vanadium ore-buying station in the 1940's. As ore production
increased, a vanadium mill was constructed with government funding. The Mill began vanadium production
in 1942 and uranium-vanadium sludge production in 1943 for the Manhattan Engineer District. The mill was
closed in February 1944; it was reopened in 1945 and produced uranium-vanadium sludge until 1946. A
salt-roast process was used to convert vanadium minerals to soluble form. After pyrite was added to react
with some of the calcium (in the excess lime in the ore) to form calcium sulfate, the hot ore was quenched in
sodium carbonate to dissolve most vanadium and precipitate out calcium carbonate. Remaining sands, after
successive washings, were transferred to tailings ponds. The addition of sulfuric acid to the "pregnant liquor"
(i.e, the vanadium-bearing solution) induced the precipitation of vanadium pentoxide. The precipitate was
washed to remove sodium chloride and sodium sulfate, and the wash water was discharged to the creek.

In 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) bought the Monticello Mill site from the War Assets
Administration and operated a uranium mill at the site until January 1960. Numerous uranium milling
processes were used during this period to accommodate the wide variety of ore types received at the mill. Up
to 1955, processes included raw ore carbonate leach, low-temperature roast/hot carbonate leach, and salt
roast/hot carbonate leach; acid leach-resin-in-pulp (RIP) and raw ore carbonate leach from 1955 to 1958; and
a carbonate pressure leach RIP process from August 1958 until closure of the mill in 1960. The ore-buying
station remained open until March 31, 1962. Other than parts of the land transferred to the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, since 1949 the site has remained under the control of the AEC and its successor agencies
[first the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration and, more recently, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE)].

Four tailings impoundments were constructed at the Monticello Mill site. Two tailings impoundments, the
Vanadium Pile and the Carbonate Pile, received waste material prior to the 1955 installation of the acid leach
RIP plant. The Carbonate Pile received tailings from the AEC salt roast/hot carbonate leach milling process.
It is not known which of the several milling processes in use prior to acid leach-RIP produced the tailings in
the Vanadium Pile. The Vanadium Pile and the Carbonate Pile may have been used simultaneously. The
Acid Tailings Pile received waste in 1955 and 1956 from the operation of both the acid leach-RIP and
carbonate-leach plants. Tailings from the acid leach process were combined with carbonate plant tailings and
calcium hydroxide for neutralization and then pumped to the Acid Pile (where a portion of pond overflow was
recycled through the leach circuit). The remaining overflow was discharged to Montezuma Creek. To reduce
discharges to Montezuma Creek, the Acid Pile was constructed with a 6-inch liner of compacted bentonite to
prevent seepage; tailings-pond effluent was partially recycled. A fourth tailings impoundment, referred to as
the East Pile, was constructed to increase capacity. It received tailings from 1956 to 1960.

During the Mill's period of operation, the tailings impoundments were moist. However, within a year of
shutdown, the surfaces dried out and tailings sand began to migrate as sand dunes. In addition, water erosion
"became a problem."

AEC began stabilizing the piles in the summer of 1961 by grading, adding 8 to 12 inches of fill, adding
topsoil, and planting native grasses. Concurrent with the tailings-pile stabilization, the Mill facilities were
dismantled. Equipment was sold, burned, or buried onsite in trenches excavated near the Carbonate Pile (and
covered with tailings).

A-6
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

During the summer of 1965, contaminated surface soil was removed from peripheral properties previously
used for ore storage. This soil may have been used as fill material to partially bury the mill foundations.
Following a radiation survey of the South Stockpile Area and Ore-buying Station in 1972, contaminated soil
was removed from these areas in May 1974 and August 1975. Nearly 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil, which was placed on top of the East Pile, was graded, contoured, and reseeded. Mill foundations were
demolished and bulldozed into adjacent pits.

The Monticello Mill site was accepted into the Surplus Facilities Management Program in 1980 and the
Monticello Remedial Action Project was established to restore the government-owned Mill site to safe levels
of radioactivity; to dispose of (or contain) the tailings in an environmentally safe manner; and to perform
remedial actions at offsite (vicinity) properties that had been contaminated by radioactive material from mill
operations. Site characterization activities commenced in 1981.

According to EPA, approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of tailings and contaminated soil are located in the
tailings-impoundment area on the east side of the mill. An additional 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated
materials have been identified in the Mill area. The tailings and contaminated soils contain elevated levels of
both radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants of concern. These constituents are products of the uranium
238-decay cycle (including radium 226) arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.

As of 1990, the population within 1.5 miles of the site was estimated at 1,900. The population is
concentrated north and west of the Monticello Mill site. The Mill site is located in a controlled land zoning
district that permits a mix of agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial use. The average annual
precipitation in the Monticello area is 18.3 inches. Prevailing annual winds are generally from the south,
west-southwest, and northwest.

Environmental Damages and Risks

Radiological Contamination

The Public Health Assessment identified radon gas and gamma radiation as the major radiologic
contaminants of concern. Adverse health effects arise from the inhalation of radon gas (a decay product of
the radium 226 found in the tailings), as the lungs are exposed to the full radiation dose of the radon
daughters. In contrast, gamma radiation creates adverse health effects as a result of full-body exposure.

Five potential exposure pathways were identified and considered for quantitative analysis:
(1) inhalation and ingestion of airborne radioactive particulates; (2) ingestion of contaminated foods (plant
and animal) produced in areas contaminated by wind-blown tailings; (3) ingestion of surface water
contaminated by tailings; (4) inhalation of radon and radon daughters; and (5) direct exposure to gamma
radiation emitted from the tailings.

The first two pathways were concluded to present insignificant exposure to humans since radiologic analysis
of air particulate samples typically yielded levels below detection. The third pathway (ingestion of
contaminated surface water) was not considered a "probable pathway" because: (1) elevated radium
concentrations have not yet been detected in Montezuma Creek; and (2) although elevated concentrations of
uranium have been detected in the Creek, the uranium dose rate is low at low concentrations and it has a very
long half-life (because of this, uranium exposure was examined under nonradiological risks).

Two pathways remained: (1) inhalation of radon and radon daughters; and (2) direct exposure to gamma
radiation emitted from the tailings. The cancer risk associated with inhalation of radon and radon daughters

A-7
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

from the Mill site and peripheral properties was estimated to be 0.0038 excess annual cancer incidences to
the Monticello population. Cancer risks from whole-body gama radiation exposure were an estimated 0.02
excess annual cancer incidences for the Monticello population. (The Radiological Risk Assessment was
performed on a population basis prior to later EPA guidance on performing radiological risk assessments on
an individual basis).

Nonradiological Contamination

The following nonradioactive elements were selected as "highest risk" or indicator contaminants at the Mill
site or peripheral properties: arsenic, copper, lead, molybdenum, selenium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc.
Noncarcinogenic health effects can arise from acute and chronic exposures to all eight elements; only arsenic
was considered to be a human carcinogen.

Four potential exposure pathways were identified based on the population and activity patterns in the vicinity
of the Mill site: (1) resuspended dust inhalation; (2) soil ingestion; (3) vegetable ingestion; and (4) beef
ingestion. The first pathway was excluded from further quantitative analysis because particulate
concentrations were at background levels or below, and the Remedial Investigation determined that lead
concentrations were well below NAAQS. The second pathway was also excluded because current and
expected future access to the site (it is currently fenced) is, and will be, very limited. The vegetable and
animal ingestion pathways were retained for quantitative analysis, since the pathways are considered to be
indirect exposure routes resulting from contaminated surface water used to irrigate fields and water livestock.

A human "dose" (intake) was calculated for each indicator metal and pathway (vegetable and beef ingestion)
for both adults and children based on the average and maximum concentrations of indicator metals found in
soils. Each "dose" was compared to an EPA- developed reference dose for chronic (long-term) exposure to
each metal. This comparison revealed that no reference doses were exceeded based on average metal
concentrations; and therefore, the calculated doses are not likely to be associated with health risks. However,
when maximum metal concentrations were used, uranium, copper (including the vegetable pathway), and zinc
(the beef pathway, including or excluding the vegetable pathway) "doses" for children were exceeded. It was
concluded, however, that it was unlikely that individuals would receive chronic exposure to these maximum
concentrations (because the site is uninhabited and because of past land-use patterns). Thus, there was "no
apparent health risk".

Arsenic is the only Mill site contaminant of concern that was considered a carcinogen by EPA. Cancer risk
due to ingested arsenic (via the vegetable pathway) was calculated using soil concentrations. At maximum
soil concentrations, the excess lifetime cancer risk is 2.7 x 10-5; and it is 7.0 x 10-6 for average soil
concentrations. Calculated cancer risk due to ingested arsenic (via the beef pathway) was calculated using
soil concentrations. At maximum soil concentrations, the cancer risk is 2.0 x 10-5; and it is 2.0 x 10-6 for
average soil concentrations. It was concluded that "arsenic may pose a public health impact under the
existing conditions at the site".

United Nuclear Corporation, Churchrock Site; Gallup, New Mexico

Operating History

The United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Churchrock Site is an inactive uranium mill and tailings-disposal site
located in an isolated area of McKinley County, 15 miles northeast of Gallup, New Mexico. The Mill was
operational from 1977 to 1982. The Mill, designed to process 4,000 tons of ore per day, used the
conventional acid-leach solvent-extraction method to extract uranium. The ore processed at the site (average
ore grade 0.12 percent uranium oxide) came from UNC's Northeast Churchrock and Old Churchrock mines

A-8
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

as well as the nearby Kerr-McGee Quivera mine. The waste tailings were pumped to a 100-acre tailings-
disposal area. According to radioactive materials license records, between 3.4 and 3.6 million tons of acidic
tailings were disposed of at the site.

UNC's tailings-disposal area is located directly east of Pipeline Canyon. The tailings-disposal area was
subdivided by cross-dikes into cells identified as the South Cell, Central Cell, and North Cell areas. Two
soil-borrow pits are in the Central Cell area. In July 1979, the dam on the South Cell breached, releasing
approximately 93 million gallons of tailings and pond water to the Rio Puerco River. The dam was repaired
and clean-up actions were taken.

In October 1979, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (NMEID) ordered UNC to
implement a discharge plan to control contaminated tailings seepage which was responsible for ground-water
contamination. Ground-water pumping and evaporation was initiated in 1981. From 1979 to 1982, UNC
neutralized tailings with ammonia and/or lime. In May 1982, UNC announced that it was going to
temporarily close the Churchrock Uranium Mill due to depressed uranium market conditions. The market did
not recover, and UNC closed the facility. In 1987, UNC submitted a closure plan to NRC to decommission
the Mill. In 1983, EPA designated the Churchrock site an NPL Site and initiated a Remedial Investigation
effort.

Environmental Damages And Risks

Arsenic, cadmium, lead, molybdenum, cobalt, manganese, chromium, and radionuclides (including uranium
and thorium) are the constituents of concern at the site. Although no people reside within the site boundary,
adjacent land includes the Navajo Indian Reservation to the north and land to the east and south held in trust
for the Navajo Tribe and administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Ten wells are located in slightly over
a 3-mile radius of the site; the closest is 12,000 feet northeast of the site. Four of these wells are operational,
and are used for both livestock and domestic purposes. Land use is primarily grazing for sheep, cattle, and
horses. Contaminants in the Alluvial Aquifer and/or deeper aquifers at concentrations exceeding clean-up
standards include aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, nitrate,
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), radium 226 and radium 228, and gross alpha.

A Risk Assessment, based on ingestion of groundwater contaminated at 1985 levels, estimated excess
lifetime cancer risks for arsenic and radionuclides (the only carcinogens among the contaminants). The
excess lifetime cancer risk from arsenic ingestion was estimated as 1 x 10-1 (based on a maximum arsenic
concentration) to 1.2 x 10-3 (average concentrations).

For radionuclides, the excess cancer risks was estimated to be 1.8 x 10-1 to 6.5 x 10-5. In addition, estimated
daily intakes of cadmium, manganese, and nickel were estimated to exceed health-based standards for
noncarcinogens. These estimates were all based on a "future-use scenario," in which it was assumed that
wells would be constructed for domestic use in each of the clean-up target areas. However, EPA has found no
current exposure from ground-water ingestion from currently operating domestic and livestock wells within 4
miles of the site.

A-9
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

APPENDIX B

ACRONYM LIST
Acronym List
AMD acid mine drainage
BAT/BPJ best available technology/best professional judgment
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP best management practice
BPJ best professional judgment
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CIP carbon-in-pulp
CWA Clean Water Act
FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act
FS Forest Service
GPM gallons per minute
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
HRS Hazard Ranking System
ICSs individual control strategies
IM instruction memorandum
kg kilogram
MCL maximum contaminant level
mg/l milligrams per liter
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NMEID New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NPS National Park Service
NSPSs new source performance standards
NTIS National Technical Information Service
oz/t troy ounces per ton
ppm parts per million
PSD prevention of significant deterioration
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS remedial investigation and feasibility study
RIP resin-in-pulp
ROD record of decision
SIPs State implementation plans
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
TDS total dissolved solids
TSS total suspended solids
UCL upper control limit
USC United States Code
US DOI United States Department of the Interior
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Control Act

B-1
 Mining Industry Profile: Uranium

APPENDIX C

GROUNDWATER STANDARDS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT INACTIVE URANIUM

PROCESSING SITES (60 FEDERAL REGISTER 2854, JANUARY 11, 1995)
 FEDERAL REGISTER
Vol. 60, No. 7

Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

40 CFR Part 192

[FRL-3510-1]
RIN 2060-AC03

Groundwater Standards for Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites

Part IV

60 FR 2854

DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 1995

ACTION: Final rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To view the next page, type .np* TRANSMIT.
To view a specific page, transmit p* and the page number, e.g. p*1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing In 1994, EPA issued final
regulations to correct and prevent contamination of groundwater beneath and in the
vicinity of
inactive uranium processing sites by uranium tailings. EPA first issued regulations
(40 CFR part 192, subparts A, B, and C) for cleanup and disposal of tailings
from these sites on January 5, 1983. These new regulations replace existing
provisions at 40 CFR 192.20(a)(2) and (3) that were remanded by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 3, 1985. They are promulgated
pursuant to Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by Section 206 of
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-604).

The regulations apply to tailings at the 24 locations that qualify for

remedial action under Title I of Public Law 95-604. They provide that tailings
must be stabilized and controlled in a manner that permanently eliminates or
minimizes contamination of groundwater beneath stabilized tailings, so as to
protect human health and the environment. They also provide for cleanup of
contamination that occurred before the tailings are stabilized.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Background Documents. A report ("Groundwater Protection Standards for

Inactive Uranium Tailings Sites, Background Information for Final Rule," EPA
520/1-88-023) has been prepared in support of these regulations. Another report
("Groundwater Protection Standards for Inactive Uranium Tailings Sites, Response
to Comments," EPA 520/1-88-055) contains the detailed responses of the
Environmental Protection Agency to comments on the standard by the reviewing
public. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from the Program
Management Office (6601J), Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S.
 PAGE 3
60 FR 2854, *

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 233-9354.

Docket. Docket Number R-87-01 contains the rulemaking record. The docket is
available for public inspection between 8 a.m.-4 p.m., weekdays, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (LE-131), Room M-1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan C.B. Richardson, Criteria and Standards
Division (6602J), Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 233-9213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On November 8, 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act of 1978 (henceforth called "UMTRCA"). In UMTRCA, Congress found that
uranium mill tailings "* * * may pose a potential and significant radiation
health hazard to the public, and * * * that every reasonable effort should be
made to provide for stabilization, disposal, and control in a safe and
environmentally sound manner of such tailings in order to prevent or minimize
radon diffusion into the environment and to prevent or minimize other
environmental hazards from such tailings." The Act directs the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set "* * * standards of general
application for the protection of the public health, safety, and the environment
* * *" to govern this process of stabilization, disposal, and control.

UMTRCA directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct such remedial

actions at the inactive uranium processing sites as will insure compliance with
the standards established by EPA. This remedial action is to be selected and
performed with the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Upon
completion of the remedial action program, the depository sites will remain in
the custody of the Federal government under an NRC license.

The standards apply to residual radioactive material at the 24 processing

sites designated, as provided in the Act, by DOE. Residual radioactive material
is defined as any wastes which DOE determine to be radioactive, either in the
form of tailings resulting from the processing of ores for the extraction of
uranium and other valuable constituents of the ores, or in other forms which
relate to such processing, such as sludges and captured contaminated water from
these sites. (Additional wastes that do not meet this definition may be subject
to regulation as hazardous waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).)

Standards are required for two types of remedial actions: disposal and
cleanup of residual radioactive material. Disposal is here used to mean the
operation that places tailings in a permanent condition which will minimize risk
of harmful effects to the health of people and harm to the environment. Cleanup
is the operation that eliminates, or reduces to acceptable levels, the potential
health and environmental consequences of tailings or their constituents that
have been dispersed from tailings piles or disposal areas by natural forces or
by human activity, through removal of residual radioactive materials from land,
buildings, and groundwater.
 PAGE 4
60 FR 2854, *

On January 5, 1983, EPA promulgated final standards for the disposal and
cleanup of the inactive mill tailings sites under UMTRCA (48 FR 590). These
standards were challenged in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by several
parties (Case Nos. 83-1014, 83-1041, 83-1206, and 83-1300). On September 3,
1985, the court dismissed all challenges except one: it set aside the
groundwater provisions of the regulations at 40 CFR 192.20(a)(2) and (3) and
remanded them to EPA "* * * to treat these toxic chemicals that pose a
groundwater risk as it did in the active mill site regulations." On September
24, 1987, EPA proposed new standards to replace those remanded. A public hearing
was held in Durango, Colorado, on October 29, 1987. In response to requests from
several commenters at the public hearing and a later request by the American
Mining Congress, the public record for comments on the proposed standard was not
closed until January 29, 1988. With this notice, EPA is establishing final
standards to replace those set aside.

II. Summary of Background Information

Beginning in the 1940's, the U.S. Government purchased large quantities of

uranium for defense purposes. As a result, large piles of tailings were created
by the uranium milling industry. Tailings piles pose a hazard to public health
and the environment because they contain radioactive and toxic constituents
which emanate radon to the atmosphere and may leach into groundwater. Tailings,
which are a sand-like material, have also been removed from tailings piles in
the past for use in construction and for soil [*2855] conditioning. These
uses are inappropriate, because the radioactive and toxic constituents of
tailings may elevate indoor radon levels, expose people to gamma radiation, and
leach into ground and surface waters.

Most of the mills are now inactive and many of the sites were abandoned.
These abandoned sites are being remediated under Title I of UMTRCA. Congress
designated 22 specific inactive sites in Title I of UMTRCA, and the DOE
subsequently added two more. Most remaining uranium mill tailings sites are
regulated by the NRC or States and will be reclamated under Title II of UMTRCA.
(DOE also owns one inactive site at Monticello, Utah, that is not included under
UMTRCA). The Title I sites are located in the West, predominantly in arid areas,
except for a single site at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. Before disposal operations
began, tailings piles at the inactive sites ranged in area from 5 to 150 acres
and in height from only a few feet to as much as 230 feet. The amount at each
site ranges from residual contamination to 2.7 million tons of tailings. The 24
designated Title I sites combined contain about 26 million tons of tailings
covering a total of about 1000 acres.

Under the provisions of Title I of UMTRCA, the DOE is responsible for the
disposal of tailings at these sites, which will then be licensed to DOE by NRC
for long term surveillance and maintenance, following NRC approval of the
remediation. In addition, tailings that were dispersed from the piles by natural
forces or that have been removed for use in or around buildings or on land are
being retrieved and replaced on the tailings piles prior to their disposal.

UMTRCA, as originally enacted, required that DOE complete all these remedial
actions within 7 years of the effective date of EPA's standards, that is, by
March 5, 1990. At the end of 1993 disposal actions had been completed at ten
sites: Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, one of two sites in areas of high precipitation
(Falls City, Texas is the other); Shiprock, New Mexico; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Lakeview, Oregon; Green River, Utah; Spook and Riverton, Wyoming; Lowman,
 PAGE 5
60 FR 2854, *2855

Idaho; Tuba City, Arizona; and Durango, Colorado. Disposal actions were well
advanced at eight other sites: Rifle (two piles), Grand Junction, and Gunnison,
Colorado; Monument Valley, Arizona; Mexican Hat, Utah; Falls City, Texas; and
Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico. The remaining sites are in the advanced stages of
planning and should be under construction within the next two years. In view of
the rate of progress with remedial work, Congress in 1988 extended the
completion date for disposal and most cleanup activities until September 30,
1994, and provided further "* * * that the authority of the Secretary to perform
groundwater restoration activities under this title is without limitation."
(Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988, P.L. 100-616,
November 5, 1988; 42 U.S.C. 7916). Section 1031 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
further extended the completion date for UMTRCA surface stabilization (disposal)
activities to September 30, 1996.

The most important hazardous constituent of uranium mill tailings is radium,

which is radioactive. Other potentially hazardous substances in tailings piles
include arsenic, molybdenum, selenium, uranium, and, usually in lesser amounts,
a variety of other toxic substances. The concentrations of these materials in
tailings vary from pile to pile, ranging from 2 to more than 100 times local
background soil concentrations. A variety of organics is also known to have been
used at these sites.

Exposure to radioactive and toxic substances may cause cancer and other
diseases, as well as genetic damage and teratogenic effects. Tailings pose a
risk to health because: (1) Radium in tailings decays into radon, a gaseous
radioactive element which is easily transported in air and the radioactive decay
products of which may lodge in the lungs; (2) individuals may be directly
exposed to gamma radiation from the radioactivity in tailings; and (3)
radioactive and toxic substances from tailings may leach into water and then be
ingested with food or water, or inhaled following aeration. It is the last of
these hazards that is primarily addressed here. (Although radon from radium in
groundwater is unlikely to pose a substantial hazard at these locations, these
standards also address that potential hazard.) The other hazards are covered by
existing provisions of 40 CFR part 192.

EPA's technical analysis was based on detailed reports for 14 of the 24

inactive uranium mill tailings sites that had been developed by late 1988 for
the Department of Energy by its contractors. Preliminary data for the balance of
the sites were also examined. Those data showed that the volumes of contaminated
water in aquifers at the 24 sites range from a few tens of millions of gallons
to 4 billion gallons. In a few instances mill effluent was apparently the sole
source of this groundwater. Each of the 14 sites examined in detail had at least
some groundwater contamination beneath and/or beyond the site. In some cases the
groundwater upgradient of the pile already exceeded EPA drinking water standards
for one or more contaminants due to mineralization sources or due to
anthropogenic sources other than the uranium milling activities, thus making it
unsuitable for use as drinking water without treatment and, in some extreme
cases, for most other purposes before it was contaminated by effluent from the
mill. Some contaminants from the tailings piles are moving offsite quickly and
others are moving slowly. The time for natural flushing of the contaminated
portions of these aquifers was estimated to vary from a couple of years to many
hundreds of years. Active restoration was estimated to take from less than 5
years at most sites to approximately 50 years at one site.
 PAGE 6
60 FR 2854, *2855

DOE currently estimates that there is approximately 4.7 billion gallons of

contaminated water, but this estimate does not include all sites. One site,
Lowman, Idaho, shows no sign of contamination related to the processing
activities, while the site with the largest amount of contamination, Monument
Valley, Arizona, has an estimated 0.75 billion gallons of contaminated water.
The DOE estimate does not include those sites where current assessments indicate
that supplemental standards should be applied, because contamination at these
sites has been hard to quantify.

Contaminants that have been identified in the groundwater downgradient from a

majority of the sites include uranium, sulfate, iron, manganese, nitrate,
chloride, molybdenum, selenium, and total dissolved solids. Radium, arsenic,
fluoride, sulfide, chromium, cadmium, vanadium, lead, and copper have also been
found in the groundwater at one or more sites.

UMTRCA requires that the standards established under Title I provide

protection that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
requirements of RCRA. In this regard, regulations established by EPA for
hazardous waste disposal sites under RCRA provide for the specification of a
groundwater protection standard for each waste management area in the facility
permit (see 40 CFR part 264, subpart F). The groundwater protection standard
includes a list of specific hazardous constituents relevant to each waste
management area, a concentration limit for each hazardous constituent, the point
of compliance, and the compliance period. The subpart F regulations specify that
the concentration limits may be set at [*2856] general numerical limits
(maximum concentration limits (MCLs)) for some hazardous constituents or at
their background level in groundwater unless alternate concentration limits
(ACLs) are requested and approved. ACLs may be requested based upon data which
would support a determination that, if the ACL is satisfied, the constituent
would not present a current or potential threat to human health and the
environment. This standard incorporates many of these provisions into the
regulations for the Title I sites.

III. Changes and Clarifications in Response to Comments

These final standards modify and clarify some of the provisions of the
proposed standards as a result of information and views submitted during the
comment period and at the public hearing. EPA received many comments on the
proposed standards. Twenty-three letters were received and eight individuals
testified at the public hearing. Comments were submitted from private citizens,
public interest groups, members of the scientific community, and representatives
of industry and of State and Federal agencies. EPA has carefully reviewed and
considered these comments in preparing its detailed Response to Comments and the
final Background Information Document and in developing the final standards.
EPA's responses to major comments are summarized below.

Uranium Concentration Limit

Several commenters pointed out that the Agency used inappropriate dose
conversion values (nonstochastic) for uranium and radium (instead of the more
appropriate stochastic values) in developing the proposed concentration limit
for uranium. These comments were correct. We have reevaluated the risks
associated with ingestion of uranium, using current risk factors for
radiocarcinogenicity of uranium, and have also considered the chemical toxicity
of uranium. We have concluded that the level proposed, 30 pCi/liter, provides
 PAGE 7
60 FR 2854, *2856

an adequate margin of safety against both carcinogenic and toxic effects of

uranium, and that the level should be expressed in terms of the concentration of
radioactivity, because it is related to the principal health risk, and can
accommodate different levels of radioactive disequilibrium between uranium-234
and uranium-238.

EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water has also examined these
factors, and, on July 18, 1991, proposed the MCL for uranium in drinking water
be set at a chemical concentration comparable to the limit on radioactivity
promulgated in this regulation. Should the MCL for drinking water, as finally
promulgated, provide a level of health protection different from that provided
by the limit in this regulation, EPA will reconsider the limit at that time. On
the basis of the above considerations, the limit for uranium has been
established at 30 pCi/liter for this regulation.

Molybdenum Concentration Limit

Several reviewers objected to the proposed inclusion of a limit on

molybdenum. They pointed out that EPA has not established a drinking water
standard for this element. While this is true, the drinking water regulations
also make provision for health advisories in the case of contaminants that are
problems only in special situations. Molybdenum in the vicinity of uranium mill
tailings is such a special case. Uranium mill tailings often contain high
concentrations of molybdenum that can leach into groundwater in concentrations
that may cause toxic effects in humans and cattle. This rule therefore continues
to contain a limit on the concentration of molybdenum in groundwater. The value
chosen remains the same as that proposed, as discussed in Section IV below.

Other Groundwater Limits

These groundwater limits incorporate MCLs issued under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) (42 USC 300f, et seq.) and in effect for sites regulated under
RCRA from the time these limits were proposed on September 24, 1987, to the
present. However, on January 30, 1991, EPA issued new MCLs for some of the
inorganic constituents included in the present limits, and proposed new drinking
water standards for radioactive constituents were published on July 18, 1991 (56
FR 3526 and 33050). Following publication of final drinking water standards for
radioactive constituents, EPA will consider whether the benefits and costs
implied by differences between these limits and the new drinking water standards
warrant proposing to incorporate the new values into both the Title I and the
Title II limits for groundwater.

Application of These Regulations to Vicinity Properties

Several commenters questioned the wisdom of applying these regulations to

vicinity properties. (Vicinity properties are real properties or improvements in
the vicinity of a tailings pile that are determined by DOE, in consultation with
the NRC, to be contaminated with residual radioactive materials.) They indicated
that if the portion of the proposed rule requiring detailed assessment and
monitoring were applied to all vicinity properties, it would greatly expand the
cost of the program without providing additional benefits. Since only a few
vicinity properties contain sufficient tailings to constitute a significant
threat of groundwater contamination, we have concluded that detailed assessment
and monitoring, followed by identification of listed constituents and
groundwater standards, is not required at all vicinity properties. It is
 PAGE 8
60 FR 2854, *2856

necessary only at those vicinity properties with a significant potential for

groundwater contamination, as determined by the DOE (with the concurrence of
NRC) using factors such as those in EPA's RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance
document. It should be noted that this modification applies to the requirement
for detailed assessment and monitoring only; the standards for cleanup of
groundwater contamination are not changed. In addition, we note that the minimal
quantities of residual radioactive materials left behind at vicinity properties
after compliance with subpart B do not constitute disposal sites under subpart
A.

Application of State Regulations to These Sites

Some commenters expressed the view that these regulations should require
consistency with State laws and regulations. EPA's regulations for licensed mill
tailings sites under Title II of this Act do not contain such a provision.
(Although NRC Agreement States may, under the Atomic Energy Act, adopt standards
which "* * * are equivalent to the extent practicable or more stringent * * *,"
they have not done so under UMTRCA.) We have decided that decisions regarding
consistency with State laws and regulations should be made by DOE in
consultation with the States, as provided by Section 103 of the Act. In making
these decisions in cases where an approved Wellhead Protection Area, under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, is associated with the site, however, DOE must comply
with the provisions of that program, unless an exemption is granted by the
President of the United States. In addition, contamination on the site that is
not covered by UMTRCA (because it is not related to the processing operation)
may be covered by Federal or State RCRA programs.

Application of Institutional Controls During an Extended Remedial Period

Several comments were received concerning the effectiveness, reliability,

[*2857] and enforceability of institutional controls to be applied during a
remedial period that has been extended to take advantage of natural flushing.
EPA recognizes that some institutional controls, such as advisories or signs,
although desirable as secondary measures, are not appropriate as primary
measures for preventing human exposure to contaminated water. For this reason,
the regulations permit institutional controls to be used in place of remediation
only when DOE is able to ensure their effectiveness will be maintained during
their use. The standards require that institutional controls "* * * effectively
protect public health and the environment and satisfy beneficial uses of
groundwater * * *" during their period of application. In this regard, we note
that tribal, state, and local governments can also play a key role in assuring
the effectiveness of institutional controls. In some cases this may be effected
through changes in tribal, state, or local laws to ensure the enforceability of
institutional controls by the administrative or judicial branches of government
entities. One State indicated that some institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, should not be viewed as restrictions since they do not empower any
agency to prohibit access to contaminated water. However, judicial enforcement
of deed restrictions can be as effective as administrative enforcement of other
institutional controls by a government agency. Therefore, deed restrictions are
an acceptable institutional control if they are enforceable by a court with
jurisdiction over the site at which they are used, and if the implementing
agency will take appropriate steps to assure their effective application.

Some commenters expressed the view that, if institutional controls are used,
this use must be restricted to the 7-year period for remediation authorized in
 PAGE 9
60 FR 2854, *2857

Section 112(a) of UMTRCA. EPA believes that it is not possible to achieve

cleanup of groundwater at all of the sites within 7 years, no matter what
reclamation scheme is employed. It is therefore necessary to consider time
frames other than that originally contemplated in UMTRCA for completion of
remedial actions. Congress, in granting an extension of the authorization in
Section 112(a) of UMTRCA for disposal and cleanup actions from March 5, 1990 to
September 30, 1994, provided further "* * * that the authority of the Secretary
to perform groundwater restoration activities under this title is without
limitation." (Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 7916)). In addition, under Section 104(f)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
7919(f)(2)), the NRC may require maintenance of corrective and institutional
measures that are already in place at the time authorization under Section
112(a) expires, without time limitation.

The provisions for use of natural flushing when appropriate institutional

controls are in place are consistent with existing regulations under Title II,
although they are not explicit in those regulations. In cases where groundwater
contamination is detected, the Title II regulations specify when corrective
actions must begin, but do not specify a time when corrective actions must be
completed. These provisions under Title I provide additional guidance on the
length of time over which institutional control may reasonably be relied upon,
and further guidance on the kinds of institutional provisions that would be
appropriate at any uranium tailings site. In addition, use of institutional
controls is not limited to extended remedial periods. Interim institutional
controls may also be used to protect public health or the environment, when DOE
finds them necessary and appropriate, prior to commencing active remedial
action, during active remedial action, or during implementation of other
compliance strategies.

Other comments addressed a variety of matters, including the monitoring of

institutional controls, the relationship between long-term maintenance
responsibilities and the 100-year limit on use of institutional controls, types
of institutional controls, longer or shorter extended remedial periods, and the
legality of institutional controls under UMTRCA. These matters are addressed in
the Response to Comments, published separately as a background document.

Point of Compliance

Several commenters objected to the definition of the point of compliance in

the disposal standards (subpart A), and suggested that it be defined at some
finite distance from the edge of the remediated tailings instead of at the
downgradient edge of the pile, as in regulations established under RCRA. They
indicated that the remediated tailings may seep a minor amount of contamination,
which may cause the standards to be exceeded at the proposed point of
compliance, under conditions where there would be no detriment to human health
or the environment at small distances away. This difficulty can be solved, as
proposed, by moving the point of compliance or, alternatively, by granting an
ACL if it can be shown that such levels of contamination will not impair human
health or damage the environment. We have concluded the latter is more in
keeping with the regulations established under RCRA. The standards provide that
DOE may request an ACL under such circumstances and NRC may approve such a
request if contamination of groundwater will not endanger human health or
degrade the environment. It is our view that this requirement would usually be
satisfied at any site where the minor seepage noted above is not projected to
extend beyond a few hundred meters from the waste management area and will not
 PAGE 10
60 FR 2854, *2857

extend outside the site boundary. This could occur under a variety of
circumstances where important roles are played by attenuation, dilution, or by
vapor transport in unsaturated zones.

Under the cleanup standard (subpart B), the DOE is required to characterize
the extent of contamination from the site and clean it up wherever it exceeds
the standards. This characterization and confirmation of cleanup will be carried
out through the monitoring program established under @ 192.12(c)(3). Although
the DOE is not required to clean up preexisting contamination that is located
beneath a remediated tailings pile, they are required to consider this
contamination when developing their plan(s) for remedial action and will have to
clean up any contamination that will migrate from beneath the pile and exceed
the concentration limits established in accordance with @ 192.02(c)(3).

Alternate Concentration Limits

Several reviewers commented that EPA should not, for a variety of reasons,
delegate the responsibility for approving ACLs to the NRC. Others stated that
the standards were so strict that ACLs would be needed at every site. EPA
considered a number of approaches to the provision for granting ACLs. These
included deleting the ACL provision, establishing (by regulation) generic
criteria for ACLs to be implemented by NRC, providing for some form of EPA
review or oversight of ACL implementation, and (as in the proposed regulation)
providing for no EPA role in setting ACLs at individual sites.

EPA has decided not to delete the ACL provision because it is clearly needed,
if for no other reason than to deal with the possibilities of unavoidable minor
projected seepage over the extremely long-term design life (1000 years) of the
disposal required, in most cases, by these standards, and of [*2858] cleanup
situations involving pollutants for which no MCLs exist. Establishment of a
complete set of regulations specifying generic criteria for granting ACLs
presents difficulties for rulemaking, since ACL determinations often involve
complex judgments that are not amenable to being reduced to simple regulatory
requirements. In this regard we note that such regulations do not yet exist in
final form for sites directly regulated under RCRA. However, the Agency has
issued interim final Alternate Concentration Limit Guidance (OSWER Directive
9481.00; EPA/SW-87-017), and has proposed several relevant rules, e.g., under 40
CFR parts 264, 265, 270, and 271, for Corrective Action for Solid Waste
Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (55 FR 30798; July 27,
1990). In addition, the NRC proposed a draft Technical Position on Alternate
Concentration Limits for Uranium Mills at Title II sites on March 21, 1994 (59
FR 13345). EPA has reviewed the NRC draft Technical position, and we find that
it is consistent, in general, with EPA's own guidance and proposed rules. The
NRC draft position does not, however, specify an upper limit on risks to humans
from carcinogens. We have reconsidered the issue of EPA review or oversight of
ACLs at Title I sites in light of this review, and concluded that, in the
interests of assuring that public health is adequately protected while at the
same time minimizing the regulatory burden on DOE, the best course of action is
to specify that upper limit in this regulation and assign the responsibility for
making determinations for ACLs at individual sites to NRC. Accordingly, in this
rule, in the implementing guidance contained in subpart C, @ 192.20(a)(2), we
now specify that the criterion for known or suspected carcinogens contained in
the above-referenced RCRA documents should be applied in granting ACLs. That
criterion specifies that ACLs should be established at levels which represent an
excess lifetime risk, at a point of exposure, no greater than 10 supra -4 to
 PAGE 11
60 FR 2854, *2858

10 supra -6 to an average individual.

EPA is required by UMTRCA (Section 206) to be consistent, to the maximum

extent practicable, with RCRA. For this reason, relevant portions of the RCRA
regulations have been incorporated. For example, these regulations provide for
the use of ACLs when it can be shown that the criteria specified in @
192.02(c)(3)(ii) are satisfied. It remains the view of the Agency that, as at
the Title II sites, an ACL is appropriate if the NRC has determined that these
criteria are satisfied when the otherwise applicable standard will be met within
the site boundary (or at a distance of 500 meters, if this is closer). It is
clear that ACLs will usually be appropriate to accommodate the controlled minor
seepage anticipated from properly designed tailings disposal within such
distances, when public use is not possible.

Cost

Greater consideration of cost and cost-benefit analysis was requested by

several commenters. In 1983, Congress amended UMTRCA to provide that when
establishing standards the Administrator should consider, among other factors,
the economic costs of compliance. We have considered these costs in two ways.
First, we compared them to the benefit, expressed in terms of the value of the
product-processed uranium ore-which has led to contamination of groundwater at
these sites. We estimate the present value of the processed uranium ore from
these sites as approximately 3.9 billion dollars (1989 dollars). The estimated
cost of compliance is approximately 5.5% of this value, and we judge this to be
a not unreasonable incremental cost for the remediation of contamination from
the operations which produced this uranium. As a second way of considering the
economic costs of compliance, we examined the cost of alternative ways to supply
the resources for future use represented by these groundwaters. As noted
earlier, water is a scarce resource in the Western States where this cleanup
would occur. When other resources have been exhausted, the only remaining
alternative to cleaning up groundwater in the vicinity of these sites is to
replace this water by transporting water from the nearest alternative source.
Our analysis of the costs of doing this indicates that it is significantly more
costly to supply water from alternative sources than it would be to clean up the
groundwater at these sites. We have concluded, therefore, that this final rule
involves a reasonable relationship between the overall costs and benefits of
compliance.

The RCRA subpart F regulations do not include cost as a consideration for the
degree of cleanup of groundwater, and these regulations also do not provide for
site-specific standards based on site-specific costs. Nonetheless, it is clearly
desirable and appropriate to apply the most cost-effective remedies available to
meet these standards at each site, and we anticipate that DOE will make such
choices in choosing the remedies it applies to satisfy these standards. Further,
once the basic criteria for establishing ACLs set forth in @ 192.02(c)(3)(ii)(B)
have been satisfied, if a higher level of protection is reasonably achievable,
this should be carried out. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to
apply detailed cost/benefit balancing judgments to justify lesser levels of
protection for ground water. The benefits of cleaning up groundwater are often
not quantifiable and may not become known for many years; therefore,
site-specific cost-benefit analyses are difficult to apply in such situations.
Moreover, Congress provided no authority that protection of ground water at each
site should be limited by cost/benefit considerations, even after reconsidering
the question in the 1984 amendments.
 PAGE 12
60 FR 2854, *2858

Some reviewers raised the issue of additional costs arising from use of these
standards in other applications, such as CERCLA cleanups. We recognize that
there may be costs associated with using these standards as precedents for other
waste cleanup projects. However, the reasonableness of incurring such costs
should be assessed when it is possible to do so with complete information, that
is, at the time of application of these standards as precedents for situations
other than the one for which they were developed.

Natural Restoration

The use of natural restoration of an aquifer was discussed by several

reviewers. Some felt that it was a viable and desirable alternative, because it
is easy and inexpensive to apply, for groundwaters that are not expected to be
used for drinking or other purposes during the cleanup period. Others felt that
it should be prohibited because it required a reliance on institutional controls
and would circumvent active cleanup of groundwater. EPA believes that the use of
natural restoration can be a viable alternative in situations where water use
and ecological considerations are not affected, and cleanup will occur within a
reasonable time. We have concluded that institutional controls, when enforced by
government entities, or that otherwise have a high degree of permanence, can be
relied on for periods of time up to 100 years, and that adequate safeguards are
provided through NRC oversight of the implementation of these standards to
prevent this alternative from being used to circumvent active cleanup of water
that will be used by nearby populations.

Commenters suggested that natural restoration was not adequate to restore

water quality at these sites. DOE has indicated that they expect that natural
restoration may be all that is necessary at up to eight sites and could be used
[*2859] in conjunction with active remedial measures at several other sites.
Natural restoration is most valuable when the contaminated aquifer discharges
into a surface water body that will not be adversely affected by the
contamination.

Pile and Liner Design

The design of the remediated pile and the use of a liner was of concern to
several commenters, and recommendations were given for suitable designs. These
commenters feared that water would continually infiltrate the remediated piles
and contaminate groundwater.

These EPA standards would not be satisfied by designs which allow

contamination that would adversely affect human health or the environment.
Further, current engineering designs for covers incorporate a number of features
that control infiltration to extremely low levels. These may include an erosion
barrier (with vegetation, where feasible) to transpire moisture and reduce
infiltration; rock filters and drains to drain and laterally disperse any
episodic infiltration; very low permeability infiltration barriers to intercept
residual infiltration; and finally, the thick radon barrier, which further
inhibits infiltration. The combined effect of these features is to reduce the
overall hydrological transmission of covers to levels on the order of one part
in a billion, with a resulting high probability that there will be no saturated
zone of leachate in or below the tailings. EPA expects DOE to use such
state-of-the-art designs wherever it is appropriate to do so because of the
proximity of groundwater.
 PAGE 13
60 FR 2854, *2859

Under the provisions of UMTRCA, the detailed design of the pile and its cover
is the responsibility of DOE, and confirmation of the viability of the design to
satisfy EPA's standards is the responsibility of NRC. EPA's responsibility is to
promulgate the standards to which the disposal must conform. It would be
inconsistent with the division of responsibilities set forth in UMTRCA to
specify actual designs for the piles in these regulations. In this connection,
the requirement to provide a liner when tailings are moved to a new location in
a wet state is properly seen as a generic management requirement. Any liner for
this purpose would only serve a useful purpose for the relatively short time
over which the moisture content of the pile adjusts to its long-term equilibrium
value, after which the cover design would determine the groundwater protection
capability of the disposal.

Restricted List of Constituents

Commenters were overwhelmingly opposed to a restricted list of radioactive or

toxic constituents and recommended that the entire list of constituents be
relied upon. It is the Agency's experience that, under RCRA, no changes in this
list have been requested based on the criteria provided in @ 264.93(b). These
criteria allow for hazardous constituents to be excluded based on a
determination that the constituent does not pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment. Therefore, that portion of
the RCRA standards which specify conditions for the exclusion of constituents
from the RCRA list of hazardous constituents has been excluded as unnecessary.

However, a short list of compounds has been developed by EPA for use in
monitoring groundwater under RCRA. This rule incorporates that list of
constituents (Appendix IX of part 264) in place of the complete list in Appendix
I for the monitoring programs required at @@ 192.02(c)(1), 192.03, and
192.12(c)(1). However, the rule still requires that all hazardous constituents
listed in Appendix I be considered when corrective action is necessary.

IV. Summary of the Final Standard

These final standards consist of three parts: a first part governing

protection against future groundwater contamination from tailings piles after
disposal; a second part that applies to the cleanup of contamination that
occurred before disposal of the tailings piles; and a third part that provides
guidance on implementation and specifies conditions under which supplemental
standards may be applied.

A. The Groundwater Standard for Disposal

The standard for protection of groundwater after disposal (subpart A) is

divided into two parts that separately address actions to be carried out during
periods of time designated as the disposal and post-disposal periods. The
disposal and post-disposal periods are defined in a manner analogous to the
closure and post-closure periods, respectively, in RCRA regulations. However,
there are some differences regarding their duration and the timing of any
corrective actions that may become necessary due to failure of disposal systems
to perform as designed. (Because there are no mineral processing activities
currently at these inactive sites, standards are not needed for an operational
period.) The disposal period, for the purpose of this regulation, is defined as
that period of time beginning on the effective date of the original Title I part
192 standard for the inactive sites (March 7, 1983) and ending with completion
 PAGE 14
60 FR 2854, *2859

of all actions related to disposal except post-disposal monitoring and any

corrective actions that might become needed as a result of failure of completed
disposal. The post-disposal period begins with completion of disposal actions
and ends after an appropriate period for the monitoring of groundwater to
confirm the adequacy of the disposal. The groundwater standard governing the
actions to be carried out during the disposal period incorporates relevant
requirements from subpart F of part 264 of this chapter (@@ 264.92-264.95). The
standard for the post-disposal period reflects relevant requirements of @
264.111 of this Chapter. The disposal standard also includes provisions for
monitoring and any necessary corrective action during both disposal and
post-disposal periods. These provisions are essentially the same as those
governing the licensed (Title II) uranium mill tailings sites (40 CFR 192,
subparts D and E; see also the Federal Register notices for those standards
published on April 29, 1983 and on October 7, 1983). Several additional
constituents are regulated, however, in these final Title I regulations.

These regulations do not change existing requirements at Title I sites for

the period of time disposal must be designed to comply with the standards, and
therefore remain identical to the requirements for licensed (Title II) sites in
this respect. The Agency also recently promulgated final regulations for spent
nuclear fuel, and high level and transuranic radioactive wastes (40 CFR part
191; 58 FR 66398, December 20, 1993). Those standards specify a different design
period for compliance (10,000 years versus 1000 years) for two principle
reasons: (1) The level of radioactivity, and therefore the level of health risk,
in the wastes addressed under 40 CFR part 191 is many orders of magnitude
greater than those addressed here. (The radioactivity of tailings is typically
0.4 to 1.0 nCi/g, 40 CFR part 191 wastes are always greater than 100 nCi/g, and
are typically far higher.) (2) The volume of uranium mill tailings is far
greater than the waste volumes addressed under 40 CFR part 191. The containment
that would be required to meet a 10,000 year requirement is simply not feasible
for the volumes of tailings involved (the option of underground disposal was
addressed and rejected in the original [*2860] rulemakings for the Title I
and Title II sites).

These regulations require installation of monitoring systems upgradient of

the point of compliance (i.e., in the uppermost aquifer upgradient of the edge
of the tailings disposal site) or at some other point adequate to determine
background levels of any listed constituents that occur naturally at the site.
The disposal should be designed to control, to the extent reasonably achievable
for 1000 years and, in any case, for at least 200 years, all listed constituents
identified in residual radioactive materials at the site to levels for each
constituent derived in accordance with @ 192.02(c)(3). Accordingly, the elements
of the groundwater protection standard to be specified for each disposal site
include a list of relevant constituents, the concentration limits for each such
constituent, and the compliance point.

These standards provide for consideration of ACLs if the disposal cannot

reasonably be designed to assure conformance to background levels (or those in
Table 1) over the required term. ACLs can be granted provided that, after
considering practicable corrective actions, a determination can be made that it
satisfies the values given by implementing the conditions for ACLs under @
192.02(c)(3)(ii).

The standards for Title II sites require use of a liner under new tailings
piles or lateral extensions of existing piles. These standards for remedial
 PAGE 15
60 FR 2854, *2860

action at the inactive Title I sites do not contain a similar provision. EPA
assumes that the inactive piles will not need to be enlarged. Several, however,
will be relocated. However, unlike tailings at the Title II sites, which
generally may contain large amounts of process water, the inactive tailings
contain little or no free water. Such tailings, if properly located and
stabilized with a cover adequate to ensure an unsaturated zone, are not likely
to require a liner in order to protect groundwater.

However, a liner would be needed for an initial drying-out period to meet

these groundwater standards if a situation arose where the tailings initially
contained water above the level of specific retention. For example, tailings to
which water was added to facilitate their removal to a new site (i.e., through
slurrying), or for compaction during disposal. (It is anticipated that piles
will never be moved to areas of high precipitation or situated within a zone of
water table fluctuation.) Section 192.20(a)(3) requires the remedial plan to
address how any such excess water in tailings would be dealt with. In such
circumstances it will normally be necessary to use a liner or equivalent to
assure that groundwater will not be contaminated while the moisture level in the
tailings adjusts to its long-term equilibrium value. Currently, however, DOE
plans do not include slurrying any tailings to move them to new locations.
Further, for all but two sites, of which one has already been closed
(Canonsburg) and at the other (Falls City) disposal actions are well advanced,
the tailings are located in arid areas where annual precipitation is low.

Disposal designs which prevent migration of listed constituents in the

groundwater for only a short period of time would not provide appropriate
protection. Such approaches simply defer adverse groundwater effects. Therefore,
measures which only modify the gradient in an aquifer or create barriers (e.g.,
slurry walls) would not of themselves provide an adequate disposal.

Section 192.02(d) requires that a site be closed in a manner that minimizes

further maintenance. Depending on the physical properties of the sites,
candidate disposal systems, and the effects of natural processes over time,
measures required to satisfy these standards will vary from site to site. Actual
site data, computational models, and prevalent expert judgment may be used in
deciding that proposed measures will satisfy the standards. Under the provisions
of Section 108(a) of UMTRCA, the adequacy of these judgments is determined by
the NRC.

For the post-disposal period, a groundwater monitoring plan is required to be

developed and implemented. The plan will require monitoring for a period of time
deemed sufficient to verify, with reasonable assurance, the adequacy of the
disposal to achieve its design objectives for containment of listed
constituents. EPA expects this period of time to be comparable, in most cases,
to that required under @ 264.117 of Title 40 for waste sites regulated under
RCRA (i.e., a few decades). However, there may be situations where longer or
shorter periods are appropriate. Installation and commencement of the monitoring
required under @ 192.03 will satisfy this EPA standard, for the purposes of
licensing of the site by the NRC.

With regard to this monitoring, UMTRCA provides that, after remediation is

completed and custody is transferred to a Federal agency, NRC may require that
the Federal agency having custody of each remediated tailings site "* * *
undertake such monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures * * *and other
actions as [NRC] deems necessary to comply with [EPA's standards]" (UMTRCA,
 PAGE 16
60 FR 2854, *2860

Section 104(f)(2)). Although it is not intended that routine monitoring be

carried out as a requirement for conformance to these standards for the 200- to
1000-year period over which the disposal is designed to be effective, NRC may
require more extensive monitoring to comply with EPA's standards, as NRC deems
necessary under @ 104(f)(2) of the Act.

During the post-disposal period, if listed constituents from a disposal site

are detected in excess of the groundwater standards, these regulations require a
corrective action program designed to bring the disposal and the groundwater
into compliance with the provisions of @ 192.02(c)(3) and subpart B,
respectively. In designing such a corrective action program, the implementing
agencies may consider all of the provisions available under subparts A, B, and
C. A modification of the monitoring program sufficient to demonstrate that the
corrective measures will be successful is also required. In designing future
corrective action programs, the implementing agencies may also wish to consider
the guidance provided by new regulations now being developed for the RCRA
program that will be proposed as subpart S to Title 40. However, the
requirements of Part 192 will still govern regulatory determinations of
acceptability.

Additional Regulated Constituents

For the purpose of this regulation only, the Agency is regulating, in

addition to the hazardous constituents referenced by @ 264.93, molybdenum,
nitrate, combined radium-226 and radium-228, and combined uranium-234 and
uranium-238. Molybdenum, radium, and uranium were addressed by the Title II
standards because these radioactive and/or toxic constituents are found in high
concentrations at many mill tailings sites. These regulations add numerical
limits for these constituents. Nitrate was added because it had been identified
in concentrations far in excess of drinking water standards in groundwater at a
number of the inactive sites.

The concentration limit for molybdenum in groundwater from uranium tailings

is set at 0.1 milligram per liter. This is the value of the provisional Adjusted
Acceptable Daily Intake (AADI) for drinking water developed by EPA under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (50 FR 46958). The Agency has established neither a
maximum concentration limit goal [*2861] (MCLG) nor a maximum concentration
limit (MCL) for molybdenum because it occurs only infrequently in water.
According to the most recent relevant report of the National Academy of Sciences
(Drinking Water and Health, 1980, Vol. III), molybdenum from drinking water,
except for highly contaminated sources, is not likely to constitute a
significant portion of the total human intake of this element. However, as noted
above, uranium tailings are often a highly concentrated source of molybdenum,
and it is therefore appropriate to include a standard for molybdenum in this
rule. In addition to the hazard to humans, our analysis of toxic substances in
tailings in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (EPA 520/4-82-013-1) found that,
for ruminants, molybdenum in concentrations greater than 0.05 ppm in drinking
water would lead to chronic toxicity. This concentration included a safety
factor of 10; the standard provides for a safety factor of 5, which we consider
adequately protective for ruminants.

The standard for combined uranium-234 and uranium-238 due to contamination

from uranium tailings is 30 pCi per liter. The level of health risk associated
with this standard is equivalent to the level proposed as the MCL for uranium
 PAGE 17
60 FR 2854, *2861

in drinking water by EPA (56 FR 33050, July 18, 1991). The standard promulgated
here applies to remedial actions for uranium tailings only. When the Agency has
established a final MCL for isotopes of uranium in drinking water, we will
consider whether this standard needs to be reviewed.

The limit for nitrate (as nitrogen) is 10 mg per liter. This is the value of
the drinking water standard for nitrate.

B. The Cleanup Standard

With the exception of the point of compliance provision, the standard

(subpart B) for cleanup of contaminated groundwater contains the same basic
provisions as the standard for disposal in subpart A. In addition, it provides
for the establishment of supplemental standards under certain conditions, and
for use of institutional control to permit passive restoration through natural
flushing when no public water system is involved.

Although the standards specify a single point of compliance for conformance

to the groundwater standards for disposal, this does not suffice for the cleanup
of groundwater that has been contaminated before final disposal. Instead, in
this case compliance must be achieved anywhere contamination above the levels
established by these standards is found or is projected to be found in
groundwater outside the disposal area and its cover. The standards require DOE
to establish a monitoring program adequate to determine the extent of
contamination (@ 192.12(c)(1)) in groundwater around each processing site. The
possible presence of any of the inorganic or organic hazardous constituents
identified in tailings or used in the processing operation should be assessed.
The plan for remedial action referenced under @ 192.20(b)(4) should document the
extent of contamination, the rate and direction of movement of contaminants, and
consider future movement of the plume. The cleanup standards normally require
restoration of all contaminated groundwater to the levels provided for under @
192.02(c)(3). These levels are either background concentrations, the levels
specified in Table 1 in the rule, or ACLs. In cases where the groundwater is not
classified as of limited use, any ACL should be determined under the assumption
that the groundwater may be used for drinking purposes. In certain
circumstances, however, supplemental standards set at levels that would be
achieved by remedial actions that come as close to meeting the otherwise
applicable standards as is reasonably achievable under the circumstances may be
appropriate. Such supplemental standards and ACLs are distinct regulatory
provisions and may be considered independently. The regulations provide that
supplemental standards may be granted if:

. Groundwater at the site is of limited use (@ 192.11(e)) in the absence of

contamination from residual radioactive materials; or

. Complete restoration would cause more environmental harm than it would

prevent; or

. Complete restoration is technically impracticable from an engineering

perspective.

The use of supplemental standards for limited use groundwater applies the
groundwater classification system proposed in EPA's 1984 Groundwater Protection
Strategy. As proposed for use in these standards (52 FR 36003, September 24,
1987), Class III encompasses groundwaters that are not a current or potential
 PAGE 18
60 FR 2854, *2861

source of drinking water because of widespread, ambient contamination caused by

natural or human-induced conditions, or cannot provide enough water to meet the
needs of an average household. These standards adopt the proposed definition of
limited use groundwater. However, for the purpose of qualifying for supplemental
standards, human-induced conditions exclude contributions from residual
radioactive materials.

Water which meets the definition of limited use groundwater may,

nevertheless, reasonably be or be projected to be useful for domestic,
agricultural, or industrial purposes. For example, in some locations higher
quality water may be scarce or absent. Therefore, @ 192.22(d) requires the
implementing agencies to remove any additional contamination that has been
contributed by residual radioactive materials to the extent that is necessary to
preserve existing or reasonably projected beneficial uses in areas of limited
water supplies. At a minimum, at sites with limited use groundwater, the
supplemental standards require such management of contamination due to tailings
as is required to assure protection of human health and the environment from
that contamination. For example, if the additional contamination from the
tailings would cause an adverse effect on drinkable groundwater that has a
significant interconnection with limited use groundwater over which the tailings
reside, then the additional contamination from the tailings will have to be
abated.

Supplemental standards are also appropriate in certain other cases similar to

those addressed in Section 121(d)(4) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). SARA recognizes that cleanup of
contamination could sometimes cause environmental harm disproportionate to the
effects it would alleviate. For example, if fragile ecosystems would be impaired
by any reasonable restoration process (or by carrying a restoration process to
extreme lengths to remove small amounts of residual contamination), then it
might be prudent not to completely restore groundwater quality. Such a situation
might occur, for example, if the quantity of water that would be lost during
remediation is a significant fraction of that available in an aquifer that
recharges very slowly. Decisions regarding tradeoffs of environmental damage can
only be based on characteristics peculiar to the specific location of the site.
We do not yet know whether such situations exist in the UMTRCA program, but EPA
believes that use of supplemental standards should be possible in such
situations, after thorough investigation and consideration of all reasonable
restoration alternatives. [*2862]

Based on currently available information, we are not aware that at least

substantial restoration of groundwater quality is technically impracticable from
an engineering perspective at any of the designated sites. However, our
information is incomplete. For example, there may not be enough water available
in a very small aquifer to carry out remediation and retain the groundwater
resource, or, in other cases, some contaminants may not be removable without
destroying the aquifer. EPA believes that DOE should not be required to
institute active measures that would completely restore groundwater at these
sites if such restoration is technically impracticable from an engineering
perspective, and if, at a minimum, protection of human health and the
environment is assured. Consistent with the provisions of SARA for remediation
of waste sites generally, the standards therefore permit supplemental standards
in such situations at levels achievable by site-specific alternate remedial
actions. A finding of technical impracticability from an engineering perspective
requires careful and extensive documentation, including an analysis of the
 PAGE 19
60 FR 2854, *2862

degree to which remediation is practicable. It should be noted that the phrase

"technically impracticable from an engineering perspective" means that the
remedial action cannot reasonably be put into practice; it does not mean a
conclusion derived from the balancing of costs and benefits. In addition to
documentation of technical matters related to cleanup technology, DOE should
also include a detailed assessment of such site-specific matters as
transmissivity of the geologic formation, aquifer recharge and storage,
contaminant properties (e.g., withdrawal and treatability potential), and the
extent of contamination.

Finally, for aquifers where compliance with the groundwater standards can be
projected to occur naturally within a period of less than 100 years, and where
the groundwater is not now used for a public water system and is not now
projected to be so used within this period, this rule permits extension of the
remedial period to that time, provided institutional control and an adequate
verification plan which assures satisfaction of beneficial uses is established
and maintained throughout this extended remedial period.

Active restoration should be carefully considered when evaluating the use of

such passive restoration. The provision to permit reliance on natural
restoration is based on the judgment that sole reliance on active cleanup may
not always be warranted under these standards promulgated pursuant to UMTRCA.
This may be the case for situations where active cleansing to completely achieve
the standards is impracticable, environmentally damaging, or excessively costly,
if groundwater can reach the levels required by the standards through natural
flushing within an acceptable period of time. This mechanism may be considered
where groundwater concentration limits can be met through partial (or complete)
reliance on natural processes and no use of the water as a source for a public
water system exists or is projected. Any institutional control that may be
required to effectively protect public health and the environment and assure
that beneficial uses that the water could have satisfied are provided for in the
interim must be verified for effectiveness and modified as necessary. Alternate
standards are not required where final cleanup is to be accomplished through
natural flushing, since those established under @ 192.02(c)(3) must be met at
the end of the remedial period.

The regulations establish a time limit on such extension of the remedial

period to limit reliance on extended use of institutional controls to manage
public access to contaminated groundwater. Following the precedent established
by our rule for high-level radioactive wastes (40 CFR 191.14(a)), use of
institutional controls is permitted for this purpose only when they will be
needed for periods of less than 100 years.

The effectiveness of institutional controls must be verified and maintained

over the entire period of time that they are in use. Examples of acceptable
measures include use restrictions enforceable by the administrative or judicial
branches of government entities, and measures with a high degree of permanence,
such as Federal or State ownership of the land containing the contaminated
water. In some instances, a combination of institutional controls may be needed
to provide adequate protection, such as providing an alternate source of water
for drinking or other beneficial uses and restricting inappropriate use of
contaminated groundwater. However, institutional control provisions are not
intended to require DOE to provide water for uses that the groundwater would not
have been available or suitable for in the absence of contamination from
residual radioactive materials. Institutional controls that are not adequate
 PAGE 20
60 FR 2854, *2862

by themselves include such measures as health advisories, signs, posts,

admonitions, or any other measure that requires the voluntary cooperation of
private parties. However, such measures may be used to complement other
enforceable institutional controls.

Restoration of groundwater may be carried out by removal, wherein the

contaminated water is removed from the aquifer, treated, and either disposed of,
used, or re-injected into the aquifer, and in situ , through the addition of
chemical or biological agents to fix, reduce, or eliminate the contamination in
place. Appropriate restoration will depend on characteristics of specific sites
and may involve use of a combination of methods. Water can be removed from an
aquifer by pumping it out through wells or by collecting the water from
intercept trenches. Slurry walls can sometimes be put in place to contain
contamination and prevent further migration of contaminants, so that the volume
of contaminated water that must be treated is reduced. The background
information document contains a more extensive discussion of candidate
restoration methods.

Previously EPA reviewed preliminary information for all 24 sites and detailed
information for 14 to make a preliminary assessment of the extent of the
potential applicability of supplemental standards and the use of passive
remediation. Approximately two-thirds of the sites appear to be located over
potable (or otherwise useful) groundwater and the balance over limited use
groundwaters. DOE, based on more recent information, feels that up to ten sites
are candidates for supplemental standards, and that the rate at which natural
flushing is occurring at up to eight of the sites permits consideration of
passive remediation under institutional control as the sole remedial method.
Some sites exhibit conditions that could be amenable to a combination of
strategies. Further, EPA is not able to predict the applicability of provisions
regarding technical impracticability or excess environmental harm, since this
requires detailed analysis of specific sites, but anticipates that wide
application is unlikely. It is emphasized that the above assessment is not based
on final results for the vast majority of these sites, and is, therefore,
subject to change.

RCRA regulations, for hazardous waste disposal units regulated by EPA,

provide that acceptable concentrations of constituents in groundwater (including
ACLs) are determined by the Regional Administrator (or an authorized State).
EPA's regulations under Title II of UMTRCA provide that the NRC, which regulates
active sites, replace the EPA Regional Administrator for the above functions
when any [*2863] contamination permitted by an ACL will remain on the
licensed site or within 500 meters of the disposal area, whichever is closer.
Because Section 108(a) of UMTRCA requires the Commission's concurrence with
DOE's selection and performance of remedial actions to conform to EPA's
standards, this rule makes the same provision for administration by the NRC of
those functions for Title I as it did in the case of the Title II standards, and
also provides for NRC concurrence on supplemental standards.

V. Implementation

UMTRCA requires the Secretary of Energy to select and perform the remedial
actions needed to implement these standards, with the full participation of any
State that shares the cost. The NRC must concur with these actions and, when
appropriate, the Secretary of Energy must also consult with affected Indian
tribes and the Secretary of the Interior.
 PAGE 21
60 FR 2854, *2863

The cost of remedial actions is being borne by the Federal Government and the
States as prescribed by UMTRCA. The clean-up of groundwater is a large-scale
undertaking for which there is relatively little long-term experience.
Groundwater conditions at the inactive processing sites vary greatly, and, as
noted above, engineering experience with some of the required remedial actions
is limited. Although preliminary engineering assessments have been performed,
specific engineering requirements and detailed costs to meet the groundwater
standards at each site have yet to be determined. We believe that costs
averaging about 10-15 million (1993) dollars for each of the approximately
fourteen tailings sites at which remedial action may be required are most
likely.

The benefits from the cleanup of this groundwater are difficult to quantify.
In some instances, groundwater that is contaminated by tailings is now in use
and will be restored. Future uses that will be preserved by cleanup are
difficult to project. In the areas where the tailings were processed,
groundwater is an important resource due to the arid condition of the land.
However, much of the contamination at these sites occurs in shallow alluvial
aquifers. At some of these sites such aquifers have limited use because of their
generally poor quality and the availability of better quality water from deeper
aquifers.

Implementation of the disposal standard for protection of groundwater will

require a judgment that the method chosen provides a reasonable expectation that
the provisions of the standard will be met, to the extent reasonably achievable,
for up to 1000 years and, in any case, for at least 200 years. This judgment
will necessarily be based on site-specific analyses of the properties of the
sites, candidate disposal systems, and the potential effects of natural
processes over time. Therefore, the measures required to satisfy the standard
will vary from site to site. Actual site data, computational models, and expert
judgment will be the major tools in deciding that a proposed disposal system
will satisfy the standard.

The purpose of the groundwater cleanup standard is to provide the maximum

reasonable protection of public health and the environment. Costs incurred by
remedial actions should be directed toward this purpose. We intend the standards
to be implemented using verification procedures whose cost and technical
requirements are reasonable. Procedures that provide a reasonable assurance of
compliance with the standards will be adequate. Measurements to assess existing
contamination and to determine compliance with the cleanup standards should be
performed with 1 reasonable survey and sampling procedures designed to minimize
the cost of verification.

The explanations regarding implementation of these regulations in @@

192.20(a)(2) and (3) have been revised to remove those provisions that the Court
remanded and to reflect these new requirements.

These standards are not expected to affect the disposal work DOE has already
performed on tailings. On the basis of consultations with DOE and NRC, we
expect, in general, that a pile designed to comply with the disposal standards
proposed on September 24, 1987, will also comply with these disposal standards
for the control of groundwater contamination. DOE will have to determine, with
the concurrence of the NRC, what additional work may be needed to comply with
the groundwater cleanup requirements. However, any such cleanup work should not
adversely affect the control systems for tailings piles that have already been
 PAGE 22
60 FR 2854, *2863

or are currently being installed.

However, at three sites (Canonsburg, PA; Shiprock, NM; and Salt Lake City,
UT) the disposal design was based on standards remanded in part on September 3,
1985. We have considered these sites separately, based on information supplied
by DOE, and reached the tentative conclusion that modification of the existing
disposal cells is not warranted at any of them. Final determinations will be
made by DOE, with the concurrence of NRC.

The disposal site at Canonsburg, PA, is located above the banks of Chartiers
Creek. Contamination that might seep from the encapsulated tailings will reach
the surface within the site boundary, and is then diluted by water in the creek
to insignificant levels. Under these circumstances, this site qualifies for an
ACL under @ 192.02(c)(3)(ii), and modification of the existing disposal cell is
not warranted.

The site at Shiprock, NM, which is located above the floodplain of the San
Juan River, is over an aquifer that may not be useful as a source of water for
drinking or other beneficial purpose because of its quality, areal extent, and
yield. Most of the groundwater in this aquifer appears to have originated from
seepage of tailings liquor from mill impoundments and not to be contributing to
contamination of any currently or potentially useful aquifer. Additionally, the
quality of this water may be degraded by uncontrolled disposal of municipal
refuse north and south of the site. DOE is currently in the process of
completing its characterization of this groundwater, and may or may not
recommend use of a supplemental standard under @ 192.21(g). In any case,
however, it appears unlikely that modification of the existing disposal cell
will be necessary.

The site containing the tailings from the Salt Lake City mill is located at
Clive, Utah, over groundwater that contains dissolved solids in excess of 10,000
mg/l and is not contributing to contamination of any currently or potentially
useful aquifer. Under these circumstances, this site also qualifies for a
supplemental standard under @ 192.21(g), and modification of the existing
disposal cell is not warranted.

VI. Relationship to Other Policy and Requirements 1In July 1991 EPA completed
development of a strategy to guide future EPA and State activities in
groundwater protection and cleanup. A key element of this strategy is a
statement of EPA Groundwater Protection Principles' n1 that has as its overall
goals the prevention of adverse effects on human health and the environment and
protection of the environmental integrity of the nation's groundwater resources.
To achieve these [*2864] goals, EPA developed principles regarding
prevention; remediation; and Federal, State, and local responsibilities. These
principles are set forth and their implementation by this rule summarized below.

n1 Protecting the Nation's Groundwater: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s, The
Final Report of the EPA Groundwater Task Force, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, (Report 21Z-1020), July 1991.

(1) With respect to prevention: groundwater should be protected to ensure

that the nation's currently used and reasonably expected drinking water
supplies, both public and private, do not present adverse health risks and are
preserved for present and future generations. Groundwater should also be
protected to ensure that groundwater that is closely hydrologically connected
 PAGE 23
60 FR 2854, *2864

to surface waters does not interfere with the attainment of surface water
quality standards, which is necessary to protect the integrity of associated
ecosystems. Groundwater protection can be achieved through a variety of means
including: pollution prevention programs; source controls; siting controls; the
designation of wellhead protection areas and future public water supply areas;
and the protection of aquifer recharge areas. Efforts to protect groundwater
must also consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well as
social and economic values.

This rule for uranium mill tailings protects groundwater by requiring that
disposal piles be designed to avoid any new contamination of groundwater that
would threaten human health or the environment in the future. Water is scarce in
the Western States where these disposal sites occur. Currently almost half of
the water consumed in Arizona and New Mexico and 20 to 30 percent of the water
consumed in Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and Texas is groundwater. The population in
the Mountain States is expected to increase more than that of any other region
between now and the year 2010. In particular, the population in Colorado, New
Mexico, Arizona, and Utah is expected to increase dramatically. Thus, in order
to ensure that all currently used and reasonably expected drinking water
supplies near these sites, both public and private, are adequately protected for
use by present and future generations, these rules apply drinking water
standards to all potable groundwater. The rule also requires that
hydrologically-connected aquifers and surface waters, including designated
wellhead protection areas and future public water supply areas, be identified
and protected, and that other beneficial uses of groundwater besides drinking be
identified and protected, including the integrity of associated ecosystems. In
this regard we note that DOE has not identified any critical aquatic habitats
that have been or could be adversely affected by contamination from these sites.

(2) With respect to remediation: groundwater remediation activities must be

prioritized to limit the risk of adverse effects to human health risks first and
then to restore currently used and reasonably expected sources of drinking water
and groundwater closely hydrologically connected to surface waters, whenever
such restorations are practicable and attainable.

Pursuant to our responsibilities under Section 102(b) of UMTRCA, EPA advised

DOE in 1979 concerning the criteria which should govern the order in which these
sites should be cleaned up. Those criteria specified, in essence, that sites
capable of affecting the health of human populations the most should be
remediated first. As a result DOE has divided the 24 sites into three levels of
priority, based on the populations affected. In order to facilitate
implementation of these principles, we have, in this rule, provided DOE with
flexibility to prioritize their cleanup activities so as to first minimize human
exposure, then restore reasonably expected drinking water sources, and finally
to clean up groundwater only when restoration is practicable and attainable.
This has been done by relaxing the requirements for cleanup of water:

(a) If it is not a current or potential source of drinking water (i.e., it

meets the definition of limited use),

(b) Where natural processes will achieve the standards and there is no
current or planned use,

(c) Where adverse environmental impact will occur, and (d) where cleanup is
technologically impracticable.
 PAGE 24
60 FR 2854, *2864

(3) With respect to Federal, State, and local responsibilities: the primary
responsibility for coordinating and implementing groundwater protection programs
has always been and should continue to be vested with the States. An effective
groundwater protection program should link Federal, State, and local activities
into a coherent and coordinated plan of action. EPA should continue to improve
coordination of groundwater protection efforts within the Agency and with other
Federal agencies with groundwater responsibilities.

In the case of the sites covered by these regulations, UMTRCA specifies a

primary role for Federal rather than State agencies. However, since these
regulations are modeled after existing RCRA regulations, this will serve to
insure coherence and coordination with similar prevention and remediation
actions by EPA, the States, and other Federal agencies. For example, the
concentration limits in groundwater for listed constituents at the sites covered
by this rule are the same as those specified for cleanup and disposal at RCRA
sites by EPA and the States and at uranium mill sites licensed by NRC.

Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether a rule is "significant" and therefore subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or

adversely effect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action

taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that
this rule is may be a "significant regulatory action," because it may qualify
under criterion #4 above on the basis of comments submitted to EPA by letter on
January 15, 1993, as a result of OMB review under the previous Executive Order
12291. This action was therefore resubmitted to OMB for review. Comments from
OMB to EPA for their review under the previous Executive Order and EPA's
response to those comments are included in the docket. Any changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations as a result of the current review
will be documented in the public record.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1986, the Agency is required to state
the information collection requirements of any standard published on or after
July 1, 1988. In response to this requirement, this standard contains no
information collection requirements and imposes no reporting burden on the
 PAGE 25
60 FR 2854, *2864

public.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 192

Environmental protection, Groundwater, Radiation protection, Uranium.

[*2865]

Dated: December 14, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 192 is amended as
follows:

PART 192--HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR URANIUM AND THORIUM
MILL TAILINGS

1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2022, as
added by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Pub. L.
95-604, as amended.

Subpart A--Standards for the Control of Residual Radioactive Materials From

Inactive Uranium Processing Sites

2. Section 192.01 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e) and adding
paragraphs (g) through (r) to read as follows:

@ 192.01 -- Definitions.

(a) Residual radioactive material means:

(1) Waste (which the Secretary determines to be radioactive) in the form of

tailings resulting from the processing of ores for the extraction of uranium and
other valuable constituents of the ores; and

(2) Other wastes (which the Secretary determines to be radioactive) at a

processing site which relate to such processing, including any residual stock of
unprocessed ores or low-grade materials.

* * * * *

(e) Depository site means a site (other than a processing site) selected
under Section 104(b) or 105(b) of the Act.

* * * * *

(g) Act means the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as
amended.
 PAGE 26
60 FR 2854, *2865

(h) Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency.

(i) Secretary means the Secretary of Energy.

(j) Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(k) Indian tribe means any tribe, band, clan, group, pueblo, or community of
Indians recognized as eligible for services provided by the Secretary of the
Interior to Indians.

(l) Processing site means:

(1) Any site, including the mill, designated by the Secretary under Section
102(a)(1) of the Act; and

(2) Any other real property or improvement thereon which is in the vicinity
of such site, and is determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the
Commission, to be contaminated with residual radioactive materials derived from
such site.

(m) Tailings means the remaining portion of a metal-bearing ore after some or
all of such metal, such as uranium, has been extracted.

(n) Disposal period means the period of time beginning March 7, 1983 and
ending with the completion of all subpart A requirements specified under a plan
for remedial action except those specified in @ 192.03 and @ 192.04.

(o) Plan for remedial action means a written plan (or plans) for disposal and
cleanup of residual radioactive materials associated with a processing site that
incorporates the results of site characterization studies, environmental
assessments or impact statements, and engineering assessments so as to satisfy
the requirements of subparts A and B of this part. The plan(s) shall be
developed in accordance with the provisions of Section 108(a) of the Act with
the concurrence of the Commission and in consultation, as appropriate, with the
Indian Tribe and the Secretary of Interior.

(p) Post-disposal period means the period of time beginning immediately after
the disposal period and ending at termination of the monitoring period
established under @ 192.03.

(q) Groundwater means water below the ground surface in a zone of saturation.

(r) Underground source of drinking water means an aquifer or its portion:

(1)(i) Which supplies any public water system as defined in @ 141.2 of this
chapter; or

(ii) Which contains a sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public

water system; and

(A) Currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or

(B) Contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids; and
 PAGE 27
60 FR 2854, *2865

(2) Which is not an exempted aquifer as defined in @ 144.7 of this chapter.

3. Section 192.02 is revised to read as follows:

@ 192.02 -- Standards.

Control of residual radioactive materials and their listed constituents shall

be designed n1 to:

n1 Because the standard applies to design, monitoring after disposal is not

required to demonstrate compliance with respect to @ 192.02(a) and (b).

(a) Be effective for up to one thousand years, to the extent reasonably

achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and,

(b) Provide reasonable assurance that releases of radon-222 from residual

radioactive material to the atmosphere will not:

(1) Exceed an average n2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per
second, or

n2 This average shall apply over the entire surface of the disposal site and
over at least a one-year period. Radon will come from both residual radioactive
materials and from materials covering them. Radon emissions from the covering
materials should be estimated as part of developing a remedial action plan for
each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissions from residual
radioactive materials to the atmosphere.

(2) Increase the annual average concentration of radon-222 in air at or above

any location outside the disposal site by more than one-half picocurie per
liter.

(c) Provide reasonable assurance of conformance with the following

groundwater protection provisions:

(1) The Secretary shall, on a site-specific basis, determine which of the

constituents listed in Appendix I to Part 192 are present in or reasonably
derived from residual radioactive materials and shall establish a monitoring
program adequate to determine background levels of each such constituent in
groundwater at each disposal site.

(2) The Secretary shall comply with conditions specified in a plan for
remedial action which includes engineering specifications for a system of
disposal designed to ensure that constituents identified under paragraph (c)(1)
of this section entering the groundwater from a depository site (or a processing
site, if residual radioactive materials are retained on the site) will not
exceed the concentration limits established under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section (or the supplemental standards established under @ 192.22) in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the site beyond the point of compliance established
under paragraph (c)(4) of this section.

(3) Concentration limits:

(i) Concentration limits shall be determined in the groundwater for listed

constituents identified under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The
 PAGE 28
60 FR 2854, *2865

concentration of a listed constituent in groundwater must not exceed:

(A) The background level of that constituent in the groundwater; or

(B) For any of the constituents listed in Table 1 to subpart A, the

respective value given in that Table if the background level of the constituent
is below the value given in the Table; or

(C) An alternate concentration limit established pursuant to paragraph

(c)(3)(ii) of this section.

(ii)(A) The Secretary may apply an alternate concentration limit if, after
[*2866] considering remedial or corrective actions to achieve the levels
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, he has determined
that the constituent will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health and the environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is
not exceeded, and the Commission has concurred.

(B) In considering the present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment of alternate concentration limits, the following factors shall be
considered:

(1) Potential adverse effects on groundwater quality, considering:

(i) The physical and chemical characteristics of constituents in the residual

radioactive material at the site, including their potential for migration;

(ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the site and surrounding land;

(iii) The quantity of groundwater and the direction of groundwater flow;

(iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users;

(v) The current and future uses of groundwater in the region surrounding the
site;

(vi) The existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of

contamination and their cumulative impact on the groundwater quality;

(vii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to

constituents;

(viii) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical

structures caused by exposure to constituents;

(ix) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects;

(x) The presence of underground sources of drinking water and exempted

aquifers identified under @ 144.7 of this chapter; and

(2) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface-water

quality, considering:

(i) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the residual
radioactive material at the site;
 PAGE 29
60 FR 2854, *2866

(ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the site and surrounding land;

(iii) The quantity and quality of groundwater, and the direction of

groundwater flow;

(iv) The patterns of rainfall in the region;

(v) The proximity of the site to surface waters;

(vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the region surrounding
the site and any water quality standards established for those surface waters;

(vii) The existing quality of surface water, including other sources of

contamination and their cumulative impact on surface water quality;

(viii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to

constituents;

(ix) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical

structures caused by exposure to constituents; and

(x) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.

(4) Point of compliance: The point of compliance is the location at which the
groundwater concentration limits of paragraph (c)(3) of this section apply. The
point of compliance is the intersection of a vertical plane with the uppermost
aquifer underlying the site, located at the hydraulically downgradient limit of
the disposal area plus the area taken up by any liner, dike, or other barrier
designed to contain the residual radioactive material.

(d) Each site on which disposal occurs shall be designed and stabilized in a
manner that minimizes the need for future maintenance.

4. Section 192.03 is added to read as follows:

@ 192.03 -- Monitoring.

A groundwater monitoring plan shall be implemented, to be carried out over a

period of time commencing upon completion of remedial actions taken to comply
with the standards in @ 192.02, and of a duration which is adequate to
demonstrate that future performance of the system of disposal can reasonably be
expected to be in accordance with the design requirements of @ 192.02(c). This
plan and the length of the monitoring period shall be modified to incorporate
any corrective actions required under @ 192.04 or @ 192.12(c).

5. Section 192.04 is added to read as follows:

@ 192.04 -- Corrective Action.

If the groundwater concentration limits established for disposal sites under

provisions of @ 192.02(c) are found or projected to be exceeded, a corrective
action program shall be placed into operation as soon as is practicable, and in
no event later than eighteen (18) months after a finding of exceedance. This
corrective action program will restore the performance of the system of disposal
to the original concentration limits established under @ 192.02(c)(3), to the
 PAGE 30
60 FR 2854, *2866

extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, as a minimum shall:

(a) Conform with the groundwater provisions of @ 192.02(c)(3), and

(b) Clean up groundwater in conformance with subpart B, modified as

appropriate to apply to the disposal site.

6. Table 1 is added to subpart A to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart A.--Maximum Concentration of

Constituents for Groundwater Protection
Constituent concentration fn 1 Maximum
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Cadmium 0.01
Chromium 0.05
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
Nitrate (as N) 10.
Molybdenum 0.1
Combined radium-226 and radium-228 5 pCi/liter
Combined uranium-234 and uranium-238 fn 2 30 pCi/liter
Gross alpha-particle activity (excluding radon and uranium) 15 pCi/liter
Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-exposy- 0.0002
1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-1,4-endo,endo-5,8-
dimethanonaphthalene)
Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma insomer) 0.004
Methoxychlor (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2'-bis(p- 0.1
methoxyphenylethane))
Toxaphene (C10H10Cl6, technical chlorinated camphene, 67-69 0.005
percent chlorine)
2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) 0.1
2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid) 0.01

fn 1 Milligrams per liter, unless stated otherwise.

fn 2 Where secular equilibrium obtains, this criterion will be satisfied by a

concentration of 0.044 milligrams per liter (0.044 mg/l). For conditions of
other than secular equilibrium, a corresponding value may be derived and
applied, based on the measured site-specific ratio of the two isotopes of
uranium.

Subpart B--Standards for Cleanup of Land and Buildings Contaminated with

Residual Radioactive Materials from Inactive Uranium Processing Sites

7. Section 192.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph

(e) to read as follows:

192.11 -- Definitions.
 PAGE 31
60 FR 2854, *2866

(a) Unless otherwise indicated in this subpart, all terms shall have the same
meaning as defined in subpart A.

* * * * * [*2867]

(e) Limited use groundwater means groundwater that is not a current or

potential source of drinking water because (1) the concentration of total
dissolved solids is in excess of 10,000 mg/l, or (2) widespread, ambient
contamination not due to activities involving residual radioactive materials
from a designated processing site exists that cannot be cleaned up using
treatment methods reasonably employed in public water systems, or (3) the
quantity of water reasonably available for sustained continuous use is less than
150 gallons per day. The parameters for determining the quantity of water
reasonably available shall be determined by the Secretary with the concurrence
of the Commission.

8. In @ 192.12, the introductory text is republished without change and

paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

192.12 -- Standards.

Remedial actions shall be conducted so as to provide reasonable assurance

that, as a result of residual radioactive materials from any designated
processing site:

* * * * *

(c) The Secretary shall comply with conditions specified in a plan for
remedial action which provides that contamination of groundwater by listed
constituents from residual radioactive material at any designated processing
site (@ 192.01(1)) shall be brought into compliance as promptly as is reasonably
achievable with the provisions of @ 192.02(c)(3) or any supplemental standards
established under @ 192.22. For the purposes of this subpart:

(1) A monitoring program shall be carried out that is adequate to define

backgroundwater quality and the areal extent and magnitude of groundwater
contamination by listed constituents from residual radioactive materials (@
192.02(c)(1)) and to monitor compliance with this subpart. The Secretary shall
determine which of the constituents listed in Appendix I to part 192 are present
in or could reasonably be derived from residual radioactive material at the
site, and concentration limits shall be established in accordance with @
192.02(c)(3).

(2) (i) If the Secretary determines that sole reliance on active remedial
procedures is not appropriate and that cleanup of the groundwater can be more
reasonably accomplished in full or in part through natural flushing, then the
period for remedial procedures may be extended. Such an extended period may
extend to a term not to exceed 100 years if:

(A) The concentration limits established under this subpart are projected to
be satisfied at the end of this extended period,

(B) Institutional control, having a high degree of permanence and which will
effectively protect public health and the environment and satisfy beneficial
uses of groundwater during the extended period and which is enforceable by the
 PAGE 32
60 FR 2854, *2867

administrative or judicial branches of government entities, is instituted and

maintained, as part of the remedial action, at the processing site and wherever
contamination by listed constituents from residual radioactive materials is
found in groundwater, or is projected to be found, and

(C) The groundwater is not currently and is not now projected to become a
source for a public water system subject to provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act during the extended period.

(ii) Remedial actions on groundwater conducted under this subpart may occur
before or after actions under Section 104(f)(2) of the Act are initiated.

(3) Compliance with this subpart shall be demonstrated through the monitoring
program established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section at those locations
not beneath a disposal site and its cover where groundwater contains listed
constituents from residual radioactive material.

Subpart C--Implementation

9. In @ 192.20, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) and the first sentence of

paragraph (b)(l) are revised and paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(4) are added to read
as follows:

192.20 -- Guidance for implementation.

* * * * *

(a)(1) * * *

(2) Protection of water should be considered on a case-specific basis,

drawing on hydrological and geochemical surveys and all other relevant data. The
hydrologic and geologic assessment to be conducted at each site should include a
monitoring program sufficient to establish background groundwater quality
through one or more upgradient or other appropriately located wells. The
groundwater monitoring list in Appendix IX of part 264 of this chapter (plus the
additional constituents in Table A of this paragraph) may be used for screening
purposes in place of Appendix I of part 192 in the monitoring program. New
depository sites for tailings that contain water at greater than the level of
"specific retention" should use aliner or equivalent. In considering design
objectives for groundwater protection, the implementing agencies should give
priority to concentration levels in the order listed under @ 192.02(c)(3)(i).
When considering the potential for health risks caused by human exposure to
known or suspected carcinogens, alternate concentration limits pursuant to
paragraph 192.02(c)(3)(ii) should be established at concentration levels which
represent an excess lifetime risk, at a point of exposure, to an average
individual no greater than between 10-4 and 10-6.

Table A to @ 192.20(a)(2)--Additional Listed Constituents

Nitrate (as N)
Molybdenum
Combined radium-226 and radium-228
Combined uranium-234 and uranium-238
Gross alpha-particle activity (excluding radon and uranium)
 PAGE 33
60 FR 2854, *2867

(3) The plan for remedial action, concurred in by the Commission, will
specify how applicable requirements of subpart A are to be satisfied. The plan
should include the schedule and steps necessary to complete disposal operations
at the site. It should include an estimate of the inventory of wastes to be
disposed of in the pile and their listed constituents and address any need to
eliminate free liquids; stabilization of the wastes to a bearing capacity
sufficient to support the final cover; and the design and engineering
specifications for a cover to manage the migration of liquids through the
stabilized pile, function without maintenance, promote drainage and minimize
erosion or abrasion of the cover, and accommodate settling and subsidence so
that cover integrity is maintained. Evaluation of proposed designs to conform to
subpart A should be based on realistic technical judgments and include use of
available empirical information. The consideration of possible failure modes and
related corrective actions should be limited to reasonable failure assumptions,
with a demonstration that the disposal design is generally amenable to a range
of corrective actions.

(4) The groundwater monitoring list in Appendix IX of part 264 of this

chapter (plus the additional constituents in Table A in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section) may be used for screening purposes in place of Appendix I of part 192
in monitoring programs. The monitoring plan required under @ 192.03 should be
designed to include verification of site-specific assumptions used to project
the performance of the disposal system. Prevention of [*2868] contamination
of groundwater may be assessed by indirect methods, such as measuring the
migration of moisture in the various components of the cover, the tailings, and
the area between the tailings and the nearest aquifer, as well as by direct
monitoring of groundwater. In the case of vicinity properties (@ 192.01(l)(2)),
such assessments may not be necessary, as determined by the Secretary, with the
concurrence of the Commission, considering such factors as local geology and the
amount of contamination present. Temporary excursions from applicable limits of
groundwater concentrations that are attributable to a disposal operation itself
shall not constitute a basis for considering corrective action under @ 192.04
during the disposal period, unless the disposal operation is suspended prior to
completion for other than seasonal reasons.

(b)(l) Compliance with @ 192.12(a) and (b) of subpart B, to the extent

practical, should be demonstrated through radiation surveys. * * *

* * * * *

(4) The plan(s) for remedial action will specify how applicable requirements
of subpart B would be satisfied. The plan should include the schedule and steps
necessary to complete the cleanup of groundwater at the site. It should document
the extent of contamination due to releases prior to final disposal, including
the identification and location of listed constituents and the rate and
direction of movement of contaminated groundwater, based upon the monitoring
carried out under @ 192.12(c)(1). In addition, the assessment should consider
future plume movement, including an evaluation of such processes as attenuation
and dilution and future contamination from beneath a disposal site. Monitoring
for assessment and compliance purposes should be sufficient to establish the
extent and magnitude of contamination, with reasonable assurance, through use of
a carefully chosen minimal number of sampling locations. The location and number
of monitoring wells, the frequency and duration of monitoring, and the selection
of indicator analytes for long-term groundwater monitoring, and, more generally,
the design and operation of the monitoring system, will depend on the
 PAGE 34
60 FR 2854, *2868

potential for risk to receptors and upon other factors, including

characteristics of the subsurface environment, such as velocity of groundwater
flow, contaminant retardation, time of groundwater or contaminant transit to
receptors, results of statistical evaluations of data trends, and modeling of
the dynamics of the groundwater system. All of these factors should be
incorporated into the design of a site-specific monitoring program that will
achieve the purpose of the regulations in this subpart in the most
cost-effective manner. In the case of vicinity properties (@ 192.01(l)(2)), such
assessments will usually not be necessary. The Secretary, with the concurrence
of the Commission, may consider such factors as local geology and amount of
contamination present in determining criteria to decide when such assessments
are needed. In cases where @ 192.12(c)(2) is invoked, the plan should include a
monitoring program sufficient to verify projections of plume movement and
attenuation periodically during the extended cleanup period. Finally, the plan
should specify details of the method to be used for cleanup of groundwater.

10. In @ 192.21, the introductory text and paragraph (b) are revised,
paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph (h), and new paragraphs (f) and (g)
are added to read as follows:

@ 192.21 -- Criteria for applying supplemental standards

Unless otherwise indicated in this subpart, all terms shall have the same
meaning as defined in Title I of the Act or in subparts A and B. The
implementing agencies may (and in the case of paragraph (h) of this section
shall) apply standards under @ 192.22 in lieu of the standards of subparts A or
B if they determine that any of the following circumstances exists:

* * * * *

(b) Remedial actions to satisfy the cleanup standards for land, @ 192.12(a),
and groundwater, @ 192.12(c), or the acquisition of minimum materials required
for control to satisfy @@ 192.02(b) and (c), would, notwithstanding reasonable
measures to limit damage, directly produce health and environmental harm that is
clearly excessive compared to the health and environmental benefits, now or in
the future. A clear excess of health and environmental harm is harm that is
long-term, manifest, and grossly disproportionate to health and environmental
benefits that may reasonably be anticipated.

* * * * *

(f) The restoration of groundwater quality at any designated processing site

under @ 192.12(c) is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective.

(g) The groundwater meets the criteria of @ 192.11(e).

* * * * *

11. In @ 192.22, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised and paragraph (d) is
added to read as follows:

192.22 -- Supplemental standards.

* * * * *
 PAGE 35
60 FR 2854, *2868

(a) When one or more of the criteria of @ 192.21(a) through (g) applies, the
Secretary shall select and perform that alternative remedial action that comes
as close to meeting the otherwise applicable standard under @ 192.02(c)(3) as is
reasonably achievable.

(b) When @ 192.21(h) applies, remedial actions shall reduce other residual
radioactivity to levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable and conform
to the standards of subparts A and B to the maximum extent practicable.

* * * * *

(d) When @ 192.21(b), (f), or (g) apply, implementing agencies shall apply
any remedial actions for the restoration of contamination of groundwater by
residual radioactive materials that is required to assure, at a minimum,
protection of human health and the environment. In addition, when @ 192.21(g)
applies, supplemental standards shall ensure that current and reasonably
projected uses of the affected groundwater are preserved.

12. Appendix I is added to part 192 to read as follows:

Appendix I to Part 192--Listed Constituents

Acetonitrile

Acetophenone (Ethanone, 1-phenyl)

2-Acetylaminofluorene (Acetamide, N-9H-fluoren-2-yl-)

Acetyl chloride

1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (Acetamide, N-(aminothioxymethyl)-)

Acrolein (2-Propenal)

Acrylamide (2-Propenamide)

Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile)

Aflatoxins

Aldicarb (Propenal, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio)-,O-[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxime

Aldrin (1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene,
1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro(1 alpha ,4 alpha ,4a beta ,5
alpha,8 alpha,8 alpha beta)-)

Allyl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol)

Allyl chloride (1-Propane,3-chloro)

Aluminum phosphide

4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-amine)

5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol (3(2H)-Isoxazolone,5-(aminomethyl)-)
 PAGE 36
60 FR 2854, *2868

4-Aminopyridine (4-Pyridineamine)

Amitrole (lH-1,2,4-Triazol-3-amine)

Ammonium vanadate (Vanadic acid, ammonium salt)

Aniline (Benzenamine)

Antimony and compounds, N.O.S. n1

n1 The abbreviation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members

of the general class not specifically listed by name in this appendix.
[*2869]

Aramite (Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl

2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester)

Arsenic and compounds, N.O.S.

Arsenic acid (Arsenic acid H sub 3AsO sub 4)

Arsenic pentoxide (Arsenic oxide As sub 2O sub 5)

Auramine (Benzamine, 4,4'-carbonimidoylbis[N,N-dimethyl-])

Azaserine (L-Serine, diazoacetate (ester))

Barium and compounds, N.O.S.

Barium cyanide

Benz[c]acridine (3,4-Benzacridine)

Benz[a]anthracene (1,2-Benzanthracene)

Benzal chloride (Benzene, dichloromethyl-)

Benzene (Cyclohexatriene)

Benzenearsonic acid (Arsenic acid, phenyl-)

Benzidine ([1,1'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine)

Benzo[b]fluoranthene (Benz[e]acephananthrylene)

Benzo[j]fluoranthene

Benzo[k]fluoranthene

Benzo[a]pyrene

p-Benzoquinone (2,5-Cyclohexadiene-1,4-dione)

Benzotrichloride (Benzene, (trichloro-

 PAGE 37
60 FR 2854, *2869

methyl)-)

Benzyl chloride (Benzene, (chloromethyl)-)

Beryllium and compounds, N.O.S.

Bromoacetone (2-Propanone, 1-bromo-)

Bromoform (Methane, tribromo-)

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether (Benzene, l-bromo-4-phenoxy-)

Brucine (Strychnidin-10-one, 2,3-dimeth-

oxy-)

Butyl benzyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarbozylic acid, butyl phenylmethyl ester)

Cacodylic acid (Arsinic acid, dimethyl)

Cadmium and compounds, N.O.S.

Calcium chromate (Chromic acid H sub 2CrO sub 4, calcium salt)

Calcium cyanide (Ca(CN) sub 2)

Carbon disulfide

Carbon oxyfluoride (Carbonic difluoride)

Carbon tetrachloride (Methane, tetrachloro-)

Chloral (Acetaldehyde, trichloro-)

Chlorambucil (Benzenebutanoic acid, 4-[bis(2-chloroethyl)amino]-)

Chlordane
(4,7-Methano-1H-indene,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-2,3,3a,4,7,7a-hexahydro-)

Chlorinated benzenes, N.O.S.

Chlorinated ethane, N.O.S.

Chlorinated fluorocarbons, N.O.S.

Chlorinated naphthalene, N.O.S.

Chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.

Chlornaphazin (Naphthalenamine, N,N'-bis(2-chlorethyl)-)

Chloroacetaldehyde (Acetaldehyde, chloro-)

Chloroalkyl ethers, N.O.S.

 PAGE 38
60 FR 2854, *2869

p-Chloroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-chloro-)

Chlorobenzene (Benzene, chloro-)

Chlorobenzilate (Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro- alpha -(4-chlorophenyl)- alpha

-hydroxy-, ethyl ester)

p-Chloro-m-cresol (Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl)

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)-)

Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-)

Chloromethyl methyl ether (Methane, chloromethoxy-)

beta -Chloronapthalene (Naphthalene, 2-chloro-)

o-Chlorophenol (Phenol, 2-chloro-)

1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea (Thiourea, (2-chlorophenyl-))

3-Chloropropionitrile (Propanenitrile, 3-chloro-)

Chromium and compounds, N.O.S.

Chrysene

Citrus red No. 2 (2-Naphthalenol, 1-[(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)azo]-)

Coal tar creosote

Copper cyanide (CuCN)

Creosote

Cresol (Chresylic acid) (Phenol, methyl-)

Crotonaldehyde (2-Butenal)

Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), N.O.S.

Cyanogen (Ethanedinitrile)

Cyanogen bromide ((CN)Br)

Cyanogen chloride ((CN)Cl)

Cycasin (beta-D-Glucopyranoside, (methyl-ONN-azoxy)methyl)

2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-)

Cyclophosphamide (2H-1,3,2-Oxazaphosphorin-2-amine,N,N-bis(2-chloroethyl)

tetrahydro-,2-oxide)
 PAGE 39
60 FR 2854, *2869

2,4-D and salts and esters (Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-)

Daunomycin (5,12-Naphthacenedione,8-acetyl-10-[(3-amino-2,3,6-trideoxy- alpha

-Llyxo-hexopyranosyl)oxy]-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,8,11-trihydroxy-1-methoxy-,(8S-
cis))

DDD (Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-)

DDE (Benzene, 1,1-(dichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-)

DDT (Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethlyidene)bis[4-chloro-)

Diallate (Carbomothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-,S-(2,3-dichloro-2-propenyl)

ester)

Dibenz[a,h]acridine

Dibenz[a,j]acridine

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene

7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole

Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene (Naphtho[1,2,4,5-def)crysene)

Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene (Dibenzo[b,def]crysene)

Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene (Benzo[rst]pentaphene)

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-)

Dibutylphthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester)

o-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-)

m-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-)

p-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-)

Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S. (Benzene; dichloro-, N.O.S.)

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ([1,1'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro-)

1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-)

Dichlorodifluoromethane (Methane, dichlorodifluoro-)

Dichloroethylene, N.O.S.

1,1-Dichloroethylene (Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-)

1,2-Dichloroethylene (Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-,(E)-)

Dichloroethyl ether (Ethane, 1,1'-oxybis[2-chloro-)

 PAGE 40
60 FR 2854, *2869

Dichloroisopropyl ether (Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[2-chloro-)

Dichloromethoxy ethane (Ethane, 1,1'-[methylenebis(oxy)bis[2-chloro-)

Dichloromethyl ether (Methane, oxybis[chloro-)

2,4-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-)

2,6-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-)

Dichlorophenylarsine (Arsinous dichloride, phenyl-)

Dichloropropane, N.O.S. (Propane,

dichloro-,)

Dichloropropanol, N.O.S. (Propanol, dichloro-,)

Dichloropropene; N.O.S. (1-Propane, dichloro-,)

1,3-Dichloropropene (1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-)

Dieldrin
(2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b]oxirene,3,4,5,6,9,9-hexachloro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,
7,7a,octahydro-,(1a alpha ,2 beta ,2a alpha ,3 beta ,6 beta ,6a alpha ,7 beta
,7a alpha)-)

1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane (2,2'-Bioxirane)

Diethylarsine (Arsine, diethyl-)

1,4 Diethylene oxide (1,4-Dioxane)

Diethylhexyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxlyic acid, bis(2-ethylhexl) ester)

N,N-Diethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diethyl)

O,O-Diethyl S-methyl dithiophosphate (Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl

S-methyl ester)

Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Phosphoric acid, diethyl 4-nitrophenyl ester)

Diethyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester)

O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-diethyl

O-pyrazinyl ester)

Diethylstilbesterol (Phenol, 4,4'-(1,2-diethyl-1,2-ethenediyl)bis-,(E)-)

Dihydrosafrole (1,3-Benxodioxole, 5-propyl-)

Diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP) (Phosphorofluoridic acid, bis(1-methyl ethyl)

ester)
 PAGE 41
60 FR 2854, *2869

Dimethoate (Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino) 2-oxoethyl]

ester)

3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1,1'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethoxy-)

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-)

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12-dimethyl-)

3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine ([1,1'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethyl-)

Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride (carbamic chloride, dimethyl-)

1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl-)

1,2-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl-)

alpha , alpha -Dimethylphenethylamine (Benzeneethanamine, alpha , alpha

-dimethyl-)

2,4-Dimethylphenol (Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-)

Dimethylphthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester)

Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester)

Dinitrobenzene, N.O.S. (Benzene, dinitro-)

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol and salts (Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-)

2,4-Dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-)

2,4-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro-)

2,6-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3-dinitro-)

Dinoseb (Phenol, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitro-)

Di-n-octyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester)

1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)

Diphenylamine (Benzenamine, N-phenyl-) [*2870]

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-)

Di-n-propylnitrosamine (1-Propanamine,N-nitroso-N-propyl-)

Disulfoton (Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] ester)

Dithiobiuret (Thioimidodicarbonic diamide [(H sub 2N)C(S)] sub 2NH)

Endosulfan (6,9,Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin,6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,
6,9,9ahexahydro,3-oxide)
 PAGE 42
60 FR 2854, *2870

Endothall (7-Oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid)

Endrin and metabolites

(2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b]oxirene,3,4,5,6,9,9-hexachloro1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a
-octa-hydro,(1a alpha ,2 beta ,2a beta ,3 alpha ,6 alpha ,6a beta ,7 beta ,7a
alpha)-)

Epichlorohydrin (Oxirane, (chloromethyl)-)

Epinephrine (1,2-Benzenediol,4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl]-,(R)-,)

Ethyl carbamate (urethane) (Carbamic acid, ethyl ester)

Ethyl cyanide (propanenitrile)

Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters (Carbamodithioic acid,

1,2-Ethanediylbis-)

Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)

Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)

Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether (Ethanol, 2-ethoxy-)

Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)

Ethylene oxide (Oxirane)

Ethylenethiourea (2-Imidazolidinethione)

Ethylidene dichloride (Ethane, 1,1-

Dichloro-)

Ethyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester)

Ethylmethane sulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester)

Famphur (Phosphorothioic acid, O-[4-[(dimethylamino)sulphonyl]phenyl]

O,O-dimethyl ester)

Fluoranthene

Fluorine

Fluoroacetamide (Acetamide, 2-fluoro-)

Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt (Acetic acid, fluoro-, sodium salt)

Formaldehyde (Methylene oxide)

Formic acid (Methanoic acid)

Glycidylaldehyde (Oxiranecarboxyaldehyde)
 PAGE 43
60 FR 2854, *2870

Halomethane, N.O.S.

Heptachlor (4,7-Methano-1H-indene,
1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-)

Heptachlor epoxide ( alpha , beta , and gamma isomers)

(2,5-Methano-2H-indeno[1,2-b]-oxirene,
2,3,4,5,6,7,7-heptachloro-1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a-hexa-hydro-,(1a alpha ,1b beta ,2
alpha ,5 alpha ,5a beta ,6 beta ,6a alpha)-)

Hexachlorobenzene (Benzene, hexachloro-)

Hexachlorobutadiene (1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro-)

Hexachlorodibenzofurans

Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins

Hexachloroethane (Ethane, hexachloro-)

Hexachlorophene (phenol, 2,2'-Methylenebis[3,4,6-trichloro-)

Hexachloropropene (1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexachloro-)

Hexaethyl tetraphosphate (Tetraphosphoric acid, hexaethyl ester)

Hydrazine

Hydrocyanic acid

Hydrofluoric acid

Hydrogen sulfide (H sub 2S)

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Isobutyl alcohol (1-Propanol, 2-methyl-)

Isodrin (1,4,5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene,
1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro, (1 alpha ,4 alpha ,4a beta ,5
beta ,8 beta ,8a beta)-)

Isosafrole (1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)-)

Kepone (1,3,4-Metheno-2H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one,
1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-decachlorooctahydro-)

Lasiocarpine (2-Butenoic acid,

2-methyl-,7-[[2,3-dihydroxy-2-(1-methoxyethyl)-3-methyl-1-oxobutoxy]methyl]-
2,3,5,7a-tetrahydro-1H-pyrrolizin-l-yl ester)

Lead and compounds, N.O.S.

 PAGE 44
60 FR 2854, *2870

Lead acetate (Acetic acid, lead(2+) salt)

Lead phosphate (Phosphoric acid, lead(2+) salt(2:3))

Lead subacetate (Lead, bis(acetato-O)tetrahydroxytri-)

Lindane (Clohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, (1 alpha ,2 alpha ,3 beta ,4 alpha

,5 alpha ,6 beta)-)

Maleic anhydride (2,5-Furandione)

Maleic hydrazide (3,6-Pyridazinedione, 1,2-dihydro-)

Malononitrile (Propanedinitrile)

Melphalan (L-Phenylalanine, 4-[bis(2-chloroethyl)aminol]-)

Mercury and compounds, N.O.S.

Mercury fulminate (Fulminic acid, mercury(2+) salt)

Methacrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-)

Methapyrilene (1,2-Ethanediamine,
N,N-dimethyl-N'-2-pyridinyl-N'-(2-thienylmethyl)-)

Metholmyl (Ethamidothioic acid, N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]thio-, methyl

ester)

Methoxychlor (Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-methoxy-)

Methyl bromide (Methane, bromo-)

Methyl chloride (Methane, chloro-)

Methyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonchloridic acid, methyl ester)

Methyl chloroform (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-)

3-Methylcholanthrene (Benz[j]aceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-)

4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebis(2-

chloro-)

Methylene bromide (Methane, dibromo-)

Methylene chloride (Methane, dichloro-)

Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (2-Butanone)

Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (2-Butanone, peroxide)

Methyl hydrazine (Hydrazine, methyl-)

 PAGE 45
60 FR 2854, *2870

Methyl iodide (Methane, iodo-)

Methyl isocyanate (Methane, isocyanato-)

2-Methyllactonitrile (Propanenitrile, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-)

Methyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, methyl ester)

Methyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester)

Methyl parathion (Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl O-(4-nitrophenyl) ester)

Methylthiouracil (4(1H)Pyrimidinone, 2,3-dihydro-6-methyl-2-thioxo-)

Mitomycin C
(Azirino[2',3':3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a]indole-4,7-dione,6-amino-8-[[(aminocarbonyl)
oxy]methyl]-1,1a,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-8a-methoxy-5-methy-, [1aS-(1a alpha ,8 beta
,8a alpha ,8b alpha)]-)

MNNG (Guanidine, N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitroso-)

Mustard gas (Ethane, 1,1'-thiobis[2-chloro-)

Naphthalene

1,4-Naphthoquinone (1,4-Naphthalenedione)

alpha -Naphthalenamine (1-Naphthylamine)

beta -Naphthalenamine (2-Naphthylamine)

alpha -Naphthylthiourea (Thiourea, 1-naphthalenyl-)

Nickel and compounds, N.O.S.

Nickel carbonyl (Ni(CO) sub 4 (T-4)-)

Nickel cyanide (Ni(CN) sub 2)

Nicotine and salts (Pyridine, 3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)-, (S)-)

Nitric oxide (Nitrogen oxide NO)

p-Nitroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-nitro-)

Nitrobenzene (Benzene, nitro-)

Nitrogen dioxide (Nitrogen oxide NO sub 2)

Nitrogen mustard, and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine,

2-chloro-N-(2-chloroethyl)-N-methyl-)

Nitrogen mustard N-oxide and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine,

2chloro-N-(2-chloroethyl)N-methyl-, N-oxide)
 PAGE 46
60 FR 2854, *2870

Nitroglycerin (1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate)

p-Nitrophenol (Phenol, 4-nitro-)

2-Nitropropane (Propane, 2-nitro-)

Nitrosamines, N.O.S.

N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (l-Butanamine, N-butyl-N-nitroso-)

N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (Ethanol, 2,2'-(nitrosoimino)bis-)

N-Nitrosodiethylamine (Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-1)

N-Nitrosodimethylamine (Methanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)

N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea (Urea, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-)

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine (Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)

N-Nitroso-N-methylurea (Urea, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)

N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane (Carbamic acid, methylnitroso-, ethyl ester)

N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Vinylamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)

N-Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine,

4-nitroso-)

N-Nitrosonornicotine (Pyridine, 3-(1-nitroso-2-pyrrolidinyl)-, (S)-)

N-Nitrosopiperidine (Piperidine, 1-nitroso-)

Nitrosopyrrolidine (Pyrrolidine, 1-nitroso-)

N-Nitrososarcosine (Glycine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-)

5-Nitro-o-toluidine (Benzenamine, 2-methyl-5-nitro-)

Octamethylpyrophosphoramide (Diphosphoramide, octamethyl-)

Osmium tetroxide (Osmium oxide OsO sub 4, (T-4)-)

Paraldehyde (1,3,5-Trioxane, 2,4,6-tri

methyl-)

Parathion (Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-diethyl O-(4-nitrophenyl) ester)

Pentachlorobenzene (Benzene, pentachloro-)

Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins

Pentachlorodibenzofurans
 PAGE 47
60 FR 2854, *2870

Pentachloroethane (Ethane, pentachloro-)

Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) (Benzene, pentachloronitro-)

Pentachlorophenol (Phenol, pentachloro-)

Phenacetin (Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-)

Phenol

Phenylenediamine (Benzenediamine)

Phenylmercury acetate (Mercury, (acetato-O)phenyl-) [*2871]

Phenylthiourea (Thiourea, phenyl-)

Phosgene (Carbonic dichloride)

Phosphine

Phorate (Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl S-[(ethylthiomethyl] ester)

Phthalic acid esters, N.O.S.

Phthalic anhydride (1,3-isobenzofurandione)

2-Picoline (Pyridine, 2-methyl-)

Polychlorinated biphenyls, N.O.S.

Potassium cyanide (K(CN))

Potassium silver cyanide (Argentate(l-), bis(cyano-C)-, potassium)

Pronamide (Benzamide, 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-)

1,3-Propane sultone (1,2-Oxathiolane, 2,2-dioxide)

n-Propylamine (1-Propanamine)

Propargyl alcohol (2-Propyn-1-ol)

Propylene dichloride (Propane, 1,2-

dichloro-)

1,2-Propylenimine (Aziridine, 2-methyl-)

Propylthiouracil (4(1H)-Pyrimidinone, 2,3-dihydro-6-propyl-2-thioxo-)

Pyridine

Reserpinen (Yohimban-16-carboxylic acid,

11,17-dimethoxy-18-[(3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoyl)oxy]-smethyl ester, (3 beta ,16
 PAGE 48
60 FR 2854, *2871

beta ,17 alpha ,18 beta ,20 alpha)-)

Resorcinol (1,3-Benzenediol)

Saccharin and salts (1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 1,1-dioxide)

Safrole (1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)-)

Selenium and compounds, N.O.S.

Selenium dioxide (Selenious acid)

Selenium sulfide (SeS sub 2)

Selenourea

Silver and compounds, N.O.S.

Silver cyanide (Silver cyanide Ag(CN))

Silvex (Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophen

oxy)-)

Sodium cyanide (Sodium cyanide Na(CN))

Streptozotocin (D-Glucose, 2-deoxy-2-[[methylnitrosoamino)carbonyl]amino]-)

Strychnine and salts (Strychnidin-10-one)

TCDD (Dibenzo[b,e][1,4]dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-)

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-)

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins

Tetrachlorodibenxofurans

Tetrachloroethane, N.O.S. (Ethane, tetrachloro-, N.O.S.)

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane (Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-)

Tetrachloroethylene (Ethene, tetrachloro-)

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol (Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-)

Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate (Thiodiphosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester)

Tetraethyl lead (Plumbane, tetraethyl-)

Tetraethyl pyrophosphate (Diphosphoric acid, tetraethyl ester)

Tetranitromethane (Methane, tetranitro-)

 PAGE 49
60 FR 2854, *2871

Thallium and compounds, N.O.S.

Thallic oxide (Thallium oxide Tl sub 2O sub 3)

Thallium (I) acetate (Acetic acid, thallium (1+) salt)

Thallium (I) carbonate (Carbonic acid, dithallium (1+) salt)

Thallium (I) chloride (Thallium chloride TlCl)

Thallium (I) nitrate (Nitric acid, thallium (1+) salt)

Thallium selenite (Selenius acid, dithallium (1+) salt)

Thallium (I) sulfate (Sulfuric acid, thallium (1+) salt)

Thioacetamide (Ethanethioamide)

3,Thiofanox (2-Butanone, 3,3-dimethyl-1-(methylthio)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl]

oxime)

Thiomethanol (Methanethiol)

Thiophenol (Benzenethiol)

Thiosemicarbazide (Hydrazinecarbothioamide)

Thiourea

Thiram (Thioperoxydicarbonic diamide [(H sub 2N)C(S)]2S sub 2, tetramethyl-)

Toluene (Benzene, methyl-)

Toluenediamine (Benzenediamine, ar-methyl-)

Toluene-2,4-diamine (1,3-Benzenediamine, 4-methyl-)

Toluene-2,6-diamine (1,3-Benzenediamine, 2-methyl-)

Toluene-3,4-diamine (1,2-Benzenediamine, 4-methyl-)

Toluene diisocyanate (Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-)

o-Toluidine (Benzenamine, 2-methyl-)

o-Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine, 2-methyl-, hydrochloride)

p-Toluidine (Benzenamine, 4-methyl-)

Toxaphene

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-)

 PAGE 50
60 FR 2854, *2871

Trichloroethylene (Ethene,trichloro-)

Trichloromethanethiol (Methanethiol, trichloro-)

Trichloromonofluoromethane (Methane, trichlorofluoro-)

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-)

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-)

2,4,5-T (Acetic acid, 2,4,5- trichloro-

phenoxy-)

Trichloropropane, N.O.S.

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro-)

O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, O,O,O-triethyl ester)

Trinitrobenzene (Benzene, 1,3,5-trinitro-)

Tris(1-aziridinyl)phosphine sulfide (Aziridine,

1,1',1"phosphinothioylidynetris-))

Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (1-Propanol, 2,3-dibromo-, phosphate (3:1))

Trypan blue (2,7-Naphthalendisulfonic acid,

3,3'-[(3,3'-dimethyl[1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diyl)bis(azo)]bis(5-amino-4-hydroxy-,
tetrasodium salt)

Uracil mustard (2,4-(1H,3H)-Pyrimidinedione, 5-[bis(2-chloroethyl)amino]-)

Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium oxide V sub 2O sub 5)

Vinyl chloride (Ethene, chloro-)

Wayfarin (2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 4-hydroxy-3-(3-oxo-1-phenlybutyl)-)

Zinc cyanide (Zn(CN) sub 2)

Zinc phosphide (Zn sub 3P sub 2)

[FR Doc. 95-546 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]