--- CHAPTER

EIGHT
-----
URANIUM ORE MILL TAILINGS MANAGEMENT

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Uranium mining is the starting point for the nuclear fuel cycIe. Uranium is widely dis-
tributed in the earth's crust with an average abundance of about 2 g/ton. In general,
uranium ore deposits considered suitable for mining contain 0.03-0.5% uranium by
weight. Whether it is economical to mine a particular ore deposit depends on several
factors incIuding the richness of the ore, the market price for uranium, the mining tech-
nique used, and the associated healjh and environmental costs. Two methods have been
commonly used for mining uranium ore: underground mines and open pit mines. Both
techniques have been used historically to mine other ores or coal, and both are well un-
derstood. Another uranium mining method called in situ or solution mining has been
tried on an experimental basis. Underground mining of uranium has associated with it
all of the hazards of underground mining of other natural resources as well as elevated
concentrations of radon gas, radon being a radioactive decay product in the uranium
chain. Open pit mining requires moving large amounts of overburden to reach the ore
bOdyand then replacing the soil, an expensive process that can leave scars if the site is
nor properIy reclaimed. Most of the uranium mined in the United States has come from
°pen pit mines. The in situ mining involves pumping a solvent through the ore body in
t~e ground and removing the uranium in solution. This method avoids the dangers asso-
C¡~ted with underground mining and the environmental damage done by open pit
lll¡ning. However, it does not recover as much of the uranium present as the other two
lllethods, and there are concerns about contaminating groundwater with the solvent.
If the uranium ore is removed from the ground, it is sent to a mili for processing to re-
cOYerthe uranium. For every ton of uranium ore that is milled in the United States, not

277
278 URANIUM ORE MILL TAILINGS MANAGEMENT
8.2 HISTORY ANO CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF TAILINGS 279

more than 2 kg (or 5 lb) of uranium is extracted, leaving the rest to be discharged as finely
distant future. The behavior of the wastes must be considered over times that are unusu-
ground, sandy tailings. The tailings contain other naturally radioactive substances (e.g
Jly long compared with human experience. Radon-222, an inert radioactive gas with a
radium), which are responsible for more than three-fourths of the radioactivity that wa~
;.8-day half-life, and the decay product of radium-226 continually escape to the atmos-
originally in the ore (for the decay series of uranium, see Table 2.2, Section 2.2.3). Frorn
. here from surface soils. The escape rate from uranium mili tailings is usually higher
the mili, the tailings go as a slurry into a tailings pond. Through drying, they form a large
J'hanthat from normal soils, depending on the physical properties of the tailings and any
spreading delta around the pond, and in this way huge tailings piles have been created'
t overover the tailings.' The radiologic risk to the public from 222Rn results from the
About 90,000 rrr' (3 X 106 fr') oí' tailings is created in producing the yellowcake, U30 .
Crradiationoí"lungs by its short-lived airborne alpha-emitting daughters. At and very close
needed for each gigawatt-year of electric power generation (corresponding to the annu:i
power output oí' a 1250-MW plant operating at 80% capacity factor). These tailings are
;0 the tailings, the concentration of their nuclides in air can be measurably greater than
normal background levels. The risk to an individual living close to tailings areas can be
typically left near the uranium milI. Should they ever have to be moved, they would fill ten
estimated.6 For instance, the individuallifetime risk of lung cancer associated with living
l-mile-Iong trains of hopper cars.' The amount of tailings generated in fueling a large
continuously about 1 km (0.6 miles) downwind from a tailings pile releasing 500 TBq of
nuclear power plant is almost one-third greater than the total amount of f1yash, bottom ash
radon per year is 0.2%. This is about the same as the individual lifetime risk of the lung
and scrubber sludge left from the operation of a coal-fired electric plant of the same size.I,i
cancer arising frorn exposure to levels of radon indoors in an average U.S. or European
In the United States some 121 million rrr' (4.3 X 109 fr') of tailings had accumu,
house. Beyond a few kilometers frorn a tailings area any increase in radon concentration
lated by the end of 1983, distributed among piles at 24 active or recently active sites and
owing to releases from that area cannot be distinguished from background levels.
at more than a score of sites shut down some years ago. The largest pile is at the
Ke'r-r-McGee mill near Grants, New Mexico. It covers 250 acres and rises to a height of
Aquatic dispersa) of soluble tailings material. Radionuclides such as 230Th,226Ra,
about 100 ft. 1 Failures of containment at mili tailings impoundments have occurred'
2IOPb,and 2IOpOmay be leached from waste or tailings piles; the ratio depends on the
For instance, in July 1979, when a tailings dam gave way at the mili near Churchrock,
hydrogeochemistry of the tailings and surrounding rock or unconsolidated sediments,
New Mexico, the escape of some 100 million gallons of tailings solution left 60 miles or
on the integrity of any retaining structure, and on the permeability of any capping mate-
more of the Rio Puerco contaminated along its course through Navajo lands in New
rial. The exposure to radiation from these leached radionuclides may be a result of trans-
Mexico and Arizona. The actual hazard was found to be slight, although the Navajos suf-
fer along aquatic food chains and through contamination of drinking water. Aquatic
fered much inconvenience and anxiety, particularly with regard to stock watering. An
exposure pathways are particularly important in wet c1imates. The concentration of
especially troublesome and costly problem associated with abandoned mili tailings piles
these radionuclides may be measurable only close to a tailings site, while farther away
has been the tendency of unwitting or irresponsible individuals to use them as sources of
such contributions to normallevels in diet and the environment are only calculable.
landfill in construction of homes, commercial buildings, and even schools. This happened
in numerous cornmunities near uranium mining and milling sites in the West.
Dispersal of insoluble waste rock and tailings material. Radionuclide in waste rock
particles or tailings dust may be dispersed by wind and waste erosion if the waste piles
8.1.1 Content of the Wastes are not contained by dams and cappings or if such containment has been breached as a
result of natural erosion or human intrusion. The rates of erosion of cap material s for tail-
Uranium mill tailings are the materialleft after uranium has been removed from the ore.
ings depend on the engineering design of the capping and on geomorphologic processes.
As noted earlier, only about 5 lb of uranium is recovered from 1 ton of ore, leaving ap-
The estimates would become speculative if tailings were uncovered after having under-
proximately 1995 lb oí' tailings. To remove the uranium from ore, the ore is crushed and
gene hundreds or thousands of years of internal geochemical activity.? As mentioned ear-
leached with acid. The uranium dissolves in the acid, and the solution is drained frorn
lier, tailings can also be removed by humans for misuse. Prediction of exposures in the
the solids. The remaining solids are then washed in c1ean water, and the resulting slurry
future also requires prediction of the behavior of the tailings and associated structures.
is pumped to a tailings pond where the water evaporates or seeps into the ground. The
dry tailings are about 70-80% by weight sand-sized particles and the other 20-30% fine.
c1aylike particles called slimes." The daughter products of uranium remain in the tail-
ings and represent about three-fourths of the radioactivity in the ore. 8.2 HISTORY AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF TAILINGS

8.2.1 History
8.1.2 Nature of Hazards
tJranium mines and milis operating between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s sup-
Radiological hazards of radon (222Rn). Many of the radioactive daughters of uraniurn-
Plied uranium to the U.S. government for use in its nuclear weapons programo In later
while of little direct consequence environmentally, pose a radiologic health risk to hu-
Years, the mines and milIs also supplied uranium for commercial nuclear power
mans that in most cases is small compared with other risks routinely experienced.
Plants. Early regulations governing radioactive materials did not address mili tailings.
Because of the long half-lives of the parents, these potential impacts continue into rhe
l'ailings were the rock and soil left after the uranium had been removed and were not
280 URANIUM ORE MILL TAILlNGS MANAGEMENT

considered to be dangerous. In fact, some contractors used the tailings as fill material
to level the land before constructing homes, schools, and other buildings. In 1966 high
levels of radon discovered in buildings in Grand Junction, Colorado, were determined
to have come from uranium mili tailings beneath the buildings. In 1972, the U.S
Congress passed the Grand Junction Remedial Action Program (Public Law 92-314):
Eo
which provided funds to remediate about 1000 structures with high radon levels ()

ci
Tailings were removed or solidified to keep the radon from moving through them: o.
.o¡¡
Ventilation systems were installed in many of the buildings to pump out the rado-; "o
"O
laden air. ~
~
After the Grand Junction discovery, studies were conducted to determine hazards ~
:::::
associated with mili tailings. In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mili Tailings Radi-
~
..c::
ation Control Act (UMTRCA; Public Law 95-604), which was designed to minimize
those hazards. Title I of the act made the Department of Energy responsible for c1eaning '~

.D

up uranium mili tailings sites that were already inactive when the law was passed. Most "~
of those tailings had been generated while processing uranium for use by the federal E
o
government. Title II made the owners/operators of privately owned milis still active at <l::
o:
t'he time the law was passed responsible for c1eaning up their own sites. Most of those o
.~
milis processed uranium primarily for use in commercial nuclear reactor fuel, although §
so me of the uranium was for the U.S. Department of Energy. <2
.S
Under the Uranium Mili Tailings Radiation Control Act, the Environmental Protec- o:
o
tion Agency (EPA) was required to establish c1eanup standards for the mili tailings sites "O

and did so in 40CFRl92. Since the privately owned milis were required to hold licenses ~
o:l'"
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the NRC was to ensure that they rnet u;
:o
the c1eanup standards. In addition, the NRC was also to review remedial action plans at
~
the Title I sites and license any mili tailings disposal cells. The NRC's regulations re- o:
o
lated to uranium mili tailings can be found in lOCFR40. .~
The cost of c1eaning up inactive (Title 1) sites is to be shared by DOE and the gov- ~ :.a

v:
a:
8a: "E
ernment oí"the state in which the site is located. DOE will pay 90% oí"the cost, and the Q.
~
state government is to pay 10%.8 If the inactive site is on Indian tribal lands, DOE will e ~¿C5~~~ ~ "O
o:
'" -z
U>
~ "' ••...
pay 100% of the cost. The cost of c1eaning up Title II sites was to be borne primarily by o
!~eja:",
•~• ::;
'"a: "O

-" -
O

"
O
Q.
VJ
(!l n VJ f-
o O
o '" "!o
the milis' owners. If some portion of the tailings at a site was generated when milling w a: "¿¡; ~
a: Q.
uranium sold to DOE, then the federal government is to reimburse the owners for the a:
i±'VJ
~
VJ
Oll'P
o:-¡;;
f-
~ ~
cost of c1eaning up those mili tailings. See lOCFR765 for details. z -'
'" f-o
a:
f-
o w
o
-"'-
-"
()
1
z a: ]:::.
-"
'~
'" a:
w
8.2.2 Current Management o i±'
VJ ~
o z
O
f- '"
a: '¡::l
" o:
"
Twenty-four sites are covered by Title l. Over 5000 properties near the sites have been o
w
VJ
Z
f-
f-
,.
W ~]
...• -
found to be contaminated by mili tailings and will also be cleaned up by DOE. The Title W f-
ü
::¡ z
o oO~
I mili tailing site locations and remediation status are shown in Figure 8.1. Current plans
call for the mili tailings to be stabilized in place or stabilized on site at 11 of these sítes.
w
f-
w
f-
üi üi
.. ~
'::
" Oll
E
e o Ollo

At the other 13, the mili tailings will be removed from site and disposed of at a rernote ~a
location, probably one also owned by the DOE. Long-term surveillance and mainte-
nance will be required for all of the permanent disposal sites.
Twenty-six sites are covered by Title II. The locations of these sites are shown in
Figure 8.2. After the owners have c1eaned these sites, they will be turned over to rhe

281
 8.3 CASE STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT ANO DlSPOSAL OF MILL TAILlNGS ANO WASTES 283

deral government for long-term monitoríng and maintenance. The NRC is to work
e
f .th rhe owners to ensure that they provide adequate funds to pay for the long-term careo
W1
F deral funds are not be used to pay for the long-term care."
e Both surface and groundwater remediation are required by the Uranium Mili
-
""§
<l)
e
Tailings Radiatíon Control Act of 1978 ', Surface remediation generally i~volves cov-
tng the tailings with a sloped cap oí compacted clay and then adding rocks or
<l) en
egetation on top of the clay. The cover substantially reduces the release of radon,
j ~ontrols erosion, minimizes leaching of the tailings by minimizing infiltration of rain
S;
E water, and discourages people or animals from digging in the tailings. The caps will
~
O
be used on piles of mill tailings that are left in place or on those which are moved to
a disposal cell in a new location. Burying mili tailings is another way to minimize
~O their irnpact on human health or the environment. However, that is a much more
u
Ó
e, expensive option and is not Iikely to be used extensively. Surface remediation at all
'bil
<l)
O
Title 1 sites, which have been inactive for more than two decades, was nearly com-
"O
:i plete by the 1998 target date.
~ Once the mili tailings are stabilized and material from the tailings ceases to leach
• ~
~e, into the groundwater, that water can be cleaned. Groundwater contamination will be
,g
measured and monitored. Results will be used to conduct a risk assessment, select
.~ cleanup methods, and prioritize remediation efforts. Two options are considered for
.o
<l)
~ groundwater remediation: (1) letting the water clean itself over time, called natural
«
¡¡: <l)
-5 flushing, and (2) actively treating the water by pumping it out of the ground, removing
~
éñ « E the contaminants, and returning it to the ground. Groundwater remediation at the Title 1
r-------r"-ºo eel
r;J
O
I UJ <.':; sites has not yet begun at most sites and is to be completed by 2014.
bct ~u. e
O
.~
\<1
o tue:. ~e,
" z -:;:; 2 ...
E
UJ ¡¡; I 1 ;:¡ <2

·:f~l~
8 ~
UJ

-"'a:
I
~ ~
<; > co

/::c
o le (/)
Ó (/)
...J
~
I
UJ

":5
«
~~
cc .S
e
o
"O
:';l
8.3 CASE STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
OF MILLTAILINGS AND WASTES

~ ~ '"
I:!< 8.3.1 Reference Sites and Management Scenarios
« o
r--I Q (f (5 ~c;- '"
~
.;;; To illustrate the engineering factors that have to be considered, the following hypothet-
Q-ffi-
o >- ..11 bJj
ct ~ ;§ ical reference sites are defined for three distinctive regions with environments (i.e, geol-
I UJ
() :>
ct -' '[3 ogy, hydrology, climate, demography) reasonably characteristic of a real, possibly com-
:> al
I
o '§
posite region:
~ 4-.
<l) "O
";:: e, 1. A reference site with a tropical monsoon climate-a ring dike with a waste rock
~N cover.
M
~
.~
oc5"V5 2. A reference site with a northern temperate climate-a valley dam impoundment
.,.. -'"'" with a vegetable cover .
6't, ~I
3. Two reference sites in a semiarid desert region: (a) an unconfined deposit with a
~ .~
smaU starter dam and (b) a deposit below grade in a specially dug pit.

The management options selected for the study, of necessity, are either presently in
use or those for which research has been carried out and reasonable estimates of costs
are available. Three kinds of management strategies aimed at reducing radiation doses

282
284 URANIUM ORE MILL TAILlNGS MANAGEMENT 8.3 CASE STUOIES OF MANAGEMENT ANO DlSPOSAL OF MILL TAILlNGS AND WASTES 285

from tailings were used: ere assumed to be zero, is obviously preferred over the base case. The incremental
VI st_effectiveness for this option with respect to the base case with breakeven operation
1. Increasing the isolation of the tailings from the biosphere (e.g., below-grade ~or the last year was $11,500 per person-Sv, The possible options with various thick-
options). ~sses of soil/rock cover could incur incremental costs of $100,000 per person-Sv. With
2. Reducing the activity of radionuclides associated with the tailings by changing the °he integrating time of 10,000 years for the collective dose, the selection of optimum
mining method or by removing radionuclides for disposal during processing (e.g., t ould therefore vary with the value assigned to unit reduction in collective dos e a in the
VI .
radium, thorium remova\). oae $10,000-100,000 per person-Sv. The uncertainties in the estimates of collective
3. Allowing the radionuclides to disperse in a predictable way (e.g., waterborne Con- :s~ could only be guessed; it is conceivable that the dose estimates were an order of
taminants to be lost to deep lake or ocean sediments, where they are buried by nat- magnitude high. This factor is similar to the relative range of values of incremental cost-
ural sedimentation processes). effectiveness, which renders the comparison less decisive except for the extreme op-
tioos. The maximum dose rates to the most highly exposed individual were predicted to
8.3.2 Results for the Reference Site in the Tropical Region be from 20 to 620 j1-Sv/year, depending on the options, and to occur several thousand
years in the future.
With management options consisting of various types of erosion-resistant engineered
soil/clay/rock covers (Figure 8.3), the possible optimum management strategy involves
the burial of the waste rock. This option arises because the waste rock at this site was as- 8.3.3 Results for the Reference Site in the Northern Temperate Region
sumed to contain low-grade uranium mineralization, and it is optimum only when col- With management options consisting of improved engineering work to render the dam
lective doses are assessed into the far future (10,000 years) but not far enough for the more impermeable, provision of a vegetable cover, and removal of radium and thorium
collective dose commitments to have become dominated by deflated (wind-dispersed) from the tailings (Figure 8.4) for all integrating times, a dam with low permeability was
tailings. In addition, a final stage of operation of the mili at breakeven grade provided the most cost-effective option with respect to the base case. The estimated costs varied
some small reduction in collective dose, so this option, for which the incremental costs from $230 to $3600 per person-Sv for integrating times in the range of 100-10,000
years. It should be noted that the occupational doses and the costs associated with han-
dling and storing of the removed radium and thorium were not considered; the actual in-
OPTION 1 OPTION3 OPTION 5
cremental cost-effectiveness would thus be higher than indicated. Because of the large
,.<'i'lnn!!u->'--+ 0.3 factor between the values of incremental cost-effectiveness for these options, the choice
1.5 of optimum was fairly insensitive to integrating time and the choice of a. It was also in-
sensitive to the modeling of radon distribution globally since aquatic pathways were
1.2
also important for this reference site. The estimates of maximum doses to the most
OPTION 2
2.0
highly exposed'ndividuals were very sensitive to modeling parameters in the aquatic
0.2LOOSESO'L
pathways, which were not well known. They ranged from 100 to 4400 j1-Sv/year,
....:-=.:-:.~::~. O.2COMPACTEDSOIL"· •.••..•.•.. -
• __ • _ 0.3GRAVEL o o 00 oC depending on the option, and were predicted to occur within the first few hundred
~{ T;'LlNGS 0.3 COMPACTED CLAY ~ years.

WASTE ROCK STAENGTHENING

(COMPACTEDI
SEE OPTIONS 8.3.4 Results for the Reference Site in the Semiarid Region
1 TOS
10
o 15 15 Two base cases were considered: an uncovered above-grade pile with a small starter
o o o o o o dam, and a oovered below-grade pit. Management options for both cases consisted of
TAILlNGS DAM
: TAI~IN~S ~ÚR~AC'E.~l46.5. ':
FINALSTAGE
various soil/clay/rock covers (Figure 8.5). Also, for the below-grade pit, the options
'.

ALL DIMENSIONS
Figure 8.3 Management scenarios for the reference site in the tropical region with a monsoonal c1imate.
Options: (1) base case, rock cover 2 m; (2) soil/gravel cover I m thick; (3) soil/rock cover 2 m thicl<;
(4) soil/rock cover 3 m thick; (5) soil/rock cover 5 m thick. From Long-Term Radiological Aspects of Man-
agement ofWaste from Uranium Mining and Milling by NEA, OECD, Report ofthe Committee on Radiation
Protection and Public Health and the Radioactive Waste Management Committee, September 1984. COpyright
1984 by NEA, OECD~ Reprinted by permission.
IN m
of having a pit available for backfilling with tailings and of having a specially dug one
~ere considered. For an integrating time of 100 years a sequence of management op-
tlons can be identified with increasing impermeability to radon and increasing cost,
With values of incremental cost-effectiveness from $15,000 per person-Sv up. If
longer integrating times were chosen, the above-ground erodible covers deteriorated
sUfficiently that the reductions in collective dose rate were no longer attained. Only
those options with gravel cappings and suitably engineered side slopes were then
286 URANIUM ORE MILL TAILlNGS MANAGEMENT 8.4 COMPUTER CODES 287

~-a
(BARE TAILlNGS)
BASE
CASE
OPTION
1
OPTlON
2

am SAND,'SILT\l\\';~':-~\':-~ \.\J.. \ \'

..,;~}~)t:~}~~~~¿.~:j~~.···~.~~:·
OPTlON

1
3 8.3.5 Uncertainties of the Analysis
tJncertainties in the predicted values of collective doses are the major limitation on the
m CLAY'
ractical application of the formal quantitative approach to opLimization of radiation
Protection, and in many cases they obscure any differences between the effectiveness of
~arious management options in reducing collective doses. The choice of the manage-
OPTION OPTION OPTION ment option for managing tailings can be very sensitive to the choice of time for which
4 5 6
rhe collective dose commitment is calculated, to values placed on detriment from radia-
non. and to the value judgments that might be made with respect to the different distri-
butions of dose in the exposed population.
Estimates of the costs of protection are subject to many uncertainties, which are not
uncommon in economic assessments. Estimates of dosimetric quantities involve
modeling of the release and transport of contaminants from tailings and various uncer-
OPTlON
7
tainties: errors in the models used and errors in values of quantities, or parameters, used

<:«
in the model. The importance of the various uncertainties for the outcome of the opti-
mization depends to some degree on whether a change in exposure route is involved. As
long as the principal transport mechanisms are the same, errors associated with various
steps in the transport chain tend to have a proportional influence on the doses for all
alternatives and should not influence the relative ranking of the options. When different
(IMPERMEABLE DAM)
transport mechanisms are involved, as in the case comparing doses from isotopes hav-
Figure 8.4 Management scenarios for the refer- Figure 8.5 Management scenarios for the refer- ing different chemical properties and thus different transport behavior, the effects of the
ence site in the northern temperate area. Base case, ence site in the semiarid desert area. Base case, uncertainties are much more difficult to predict. Sometimes direct validation of a model
bare dry tailings behind a permeable dam. Options: above grade, no cover. Options: (1) above grade,
and estimation of uncertainties are possible by comparison with new experimental data.
(1) vegetated dry tailings behind a permeable dam; 1 m sand/silt cover; (2) above grade, 3 m sand/silt
(2) fuUy saturated tailings behind a low-permeability cover; (3) above grade, 1 m clay cover; (4) above Otherwise, indirect methods ha ve to be used to estimate uncertainties.
dam; (3) bare dry tailings, from which 90% of the grade, 1 m sand/silt, riprap 15 cm gravel cap;
leachable radium and thorium has been removed, (5) above grade, 3 m sand/silt, riprap 15 cm gravel
retained behind a permeable dam; (4) vegetated dry cap; (6) above grade, 3 m clay, 15 cm riprap gravel
tailings, from which 90% of the leachable radium cap; (7) below grade, 3 m clay/shale; (8) below 8.4 COMPUTER CODES
and thorium has been removed, retained behind a grade, 3 m clay/shaJe, 15 cm; (9) below grade in ex-
permeable dam; (5) fully saturated tailings, frorn isting pit, 3 m clay/shaJe, 15 cm. From Long-Term MILDOS-AREA. Calculation of radiation dose from uranium recovery operations
which 90% ofthe leachable radium and thorium has Radiological Aspects of Management of Waste
for large-area sources. Available at http://www-rsicc.ornl.gov/nrc/allcodes/codes/ccc/
been removed, retained behind a low-permeability from Uranium Mining and Milling by NEA,
dam. From Long-Term Radiological Aspects of OECD, Report of the Committee on Radiation Pro-
ccc6/ccc%2D608.html. "MILDOS-AREA estimates the radiological impacts of air-
Management of Waste from Uranium Mining and tection and Public Health and the Radioactive borne emissions from uranium mining and milling facilities or any other large-area
Milling by NEA, OECD, Repon of the Committee Waste Management Committee. Septernber 1984. source involving emissions of radioisotopes of the uranium-238 series. Wind frequency
on Radiation Protection and Public Health and Copyright 1984 by NEA, OECD. Reprinted by data are provided by the user. The transport model includes the mechanisms of dry dep-
the Radioactive Waste Management Committee, permission.
asition of particulates, resuspension, radioactive decay and progeny ingrowth, and
September 1984. Copyright 1984 by NEA, OECD.
Reprinted by permission.
plume reflection. Deposition buildup and ingrowth of radioactive progeny are consid-
ered in estimating surface concentrations, which are modified by radioactive transfor-
mation, weathering, and other environmental processes. MILDOS-AREA allows the
selected as a possible optimum. For an integrating time of 10,000 years, disposal into user to vary the emission rates of the sources as a step-function of time. Impacts to
an available pit would be selected in preference to disposal into a specially dug pit. hUmans through such pathways as inhalation, external exposure, and ingestion are esti-
The former would clearly be a very site-specific option. The maximum dose rates to mated based on calculated annual average air concentrations of nuclides. Individual, to-
the most highly exposed individuals from the options with erodible covers increased tal individual, annual population, and environmental dose cornmitments are calculated
with time over the period modeled, ranging up to 1500 j.LSv/yr.The need to ensure that With conversion factors derived from recornmendations of the International Commis-
hule erosion takes place may be an important constraint on the optimization for this sion on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Age-
kind of tailings site. sPecific dose factors are calculated,"
 288 URANIUM aRE MILL TAILINGS MANAGEMENT ADDlTIONAL READINGS 289

"A validation study afMILDOS-AREA was conducted using measured Rn-222 cOn,
centration and flux data from the Monticello, Utah uranium mill tailings impoundm-g,
The results of this study demonstrated that use of MILDOS-AREA can result in generan;
good agreement between model-generated and measured Rn-222 concentrations,"
AREAC. Radiological emission analysis code system. Available at http://www,
rsicc.ornl.gov/nrc/allcodes/codes/ccc/ccc4/ccc%2D438.html. "AREAC was designed lo
calculate potential radiological impact of atmospheric releases of radionuclides frotn
area sources. It represents an initial attempt at developing a quantitative model for ana,
U S. Department of Energy, lntegrated Data Base Report-1996: U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive
4. waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOEIRW-0006. Rev. 13, December 1997.
Thornas, V. W., K. K. Nielson, and M. L. Mauch, Radon and Aerosol Release from Open Pit Uranium
5. Mining, NUREG/CR-2407 (PNL-4071), 1982; available from National Technical Information Service
springfield, Va.
U.S. EPA, Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium
6. Processing Sites, Report EPA 520/4082-013-1, Washington, D.C., 1982.
NEA, OECD, Long-Term Radiological Aspects of Management of Waste from Uranium Mining and
7. MiJling, Report of the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health and the Radioactive Waste

Iyzing the potential radiological impact of airborne, constant, continuous releases or Management Committee, Septernber 1984.
8. V.S. Department of Energy, 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report. Available at http://
gaseous radionucIides from area sources (principally inactive uranium tailings piles). It www.em.doe.gov/bemr96/index.html.
can calculate radionuclide concentrations and individual inhalation doses at up to six
specific receptor locations and at up to 192 general locations around an area Source.
Population doses can also be calculated," ADDITIONAL READINGS
"AREAC is useful for more accurately assessing close-in doses from large area
sources, such as uranium mili tailings piles. Results are more accurate than those calcu, V.S. Department of Energy, Linking Legacies, Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production
lated with existing air pathway models," Processes to Their Environmental Consequences, DOEIEM-0319, January 1997 .
• U.S. General Accounting Office, Uranium MilI Tailings-Cleanup Continues, but Future Costs Are Uncer-
tain, GAO/RCED-96-37, December 1995.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Uranium Mili Tailings-Status and Future Costs of Cleanup, Testimony
8.5 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Comrnittee on Commerce, U.S. House ofRepresentatives,
February 28, 1996.s
1. Name two common methods used for mining uranium ore and an experimen- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, IOCFR40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 1991.
tal method. Briefly describe these methods.
2. What radioactive gas is found in elevated concentrations near uranium ore mili
sites?
3. What is the ratio of extracted uranium to uranium ore removed from the
ground? What is done with the excess?
4. Describe three hazards associated with mili tailings.
5. How many atoms of radon per Iiter are in the EPA radon Iimit of 4 pCi/L?
6. If tailings are 0.1 % radium by weight, how many atoms of radon would be
produced in 1 kg of tailings in 1 day?
7. What is the difference between Title 1 and Title II sites under UMTRCA?
8. What are the advantages of putting caps on mili tailings?
9. What contaminants might be found in ground water near mili tailings? How ís
the ground water contaminated and how is it cIeaned up?
10. How would surface water be contaminated?

REFERENCES

1. Carter, L. J .• Nuclear Imperative and Public Trust-Dealing with. Radwaste, Resources for the Future,
Washington, D.C., 1987, p. 12.
2. U.S. Health Physics Society, Proceedings of the LLW Management Conference, EPA/520/3-79-002, V.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C., 1979.
3. Walter, W. H., Overland Erosion ofUranium-MilI Tailings Impoundments: Physical Processes and CorIl-
putational Methods, NUREG/CR-3027 (PNL-4523), 1983; available from National Technical Inforrna-
tion Service, Springfield, Va.