Office of Radiation & Indoor Air EPA 402-R-05-007 

Radiation Protection Division (6608J) January 2006 

Washington, DC 20460 

Technologically Enhanced 

Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Materials 

From Uranium Mining 

Volume 1: 

Mining and Reclamation 

Background 
ii

TECHNICAL REPORT 

ON 

TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED 

NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 

FROM URANIUM MINING 

VOLUME I: 

MINING AND RECLAMATION BACKGROUND 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 

Radiation Protection Division (6008J) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, DC 20460 

January 2006 
iii

Acknowledgments 

This report was prepared by the U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation 

Protection Division, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 

20460. The draft text was distributed for review to the EPA’s Regional Radiation program 

managers of EPA’s Regions I through X. It was also sent to the membership of EPA’s National 

Hard Rock Mining Team and Abandoned Mine Lands Team, who are employees of the following 

EPA offices: U.S. EPA Regions I through X, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, U. S. EPA Office of Water, U.S. EPA Office of Compliance and Enforcement, and 

U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. Comments from those reviewers were 

incorporated into a revised draft which then underwent peer review and outside review by 

external organizations and individuals. EPA would like to thank the following external reviewers: 

Dr. Thomas Gesell, Idaho State University, Dr. John Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology, and William Chenoweth. EPA is especially appreciative of the comments provided on 

the draft by the members of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, NORM 

Subcommittee, as well as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. James Otton of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, plus the National Mining Association and several of its member companies, 

and the Wyoming Mining Association. The comments of all reviewers were carefully considered 

and incorporated, wherever possible, throughout the revised report. 

The final report and its earlier drafts were prepared with the active participation of the following 

EPA employees: 

Sanjib Chaki 

Elliot Foutes 

Shankar Ghose 

Brian Littleton 

John Mackinney 

Daniel Schultheisz 

Mark Schuknecht 

Loren Setlow 

Behram Shroff 

Thomas Peake 
iv

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................ES-1 

Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................1-1 

 Previous EPA Reports .................................................................................................1-3 

 Origins of Uranium......................................................................................................1-5 

 Physical Nature of Uranium ........................................................................................1-5 

 Uses of Uranium in Industry .......................................................................................1-6 

 Geology and Distribution of Uranium................................................ ..........1-8 

 Uranium’s Contribution to Natural Background Radiation.........................................1-10 

 Background Gamma Radiation ...................................................................................1-10 

 Radon in Homes ..........................................................................................................1-14 

 Uranium in Water ........................................................................................................1-15 

 Industrial Processes and Activities ..............................................................................1-16 

 Uranium Associations with Other Metal Mining ........................................................1-16 

 Copper Mining.............................................................................................................1-17 

 Phosphate Production ..................................................................................................1-17 

 Coal Combustion .........................................................................................................1-18 

 Heavy Mineral Sands...................................................................................................1-19 

Chapter 2 Uranium Mining and Extraction Processes in the United States.......................2-1 

 The Early Years of Uranium Production.....................................................................2-1 

 Conventional Uranium Mining Methods.....................................................................2-4 

 Open Pit (Surface) Mining ..........................................................................................2-5 

 Underground Mining...................................................................................................2-6 

 Unconventional Mining Methods..................................................... ..........2-8 

 Heap Leaching.............................................................................................................2-8 

 In Situ Leaching (Solution Mining).............................................................................2-9 

 Uranium Milling..........................................................................................................2-11 

 The Uranium Industry Today ......................................................................................2-12 

Chapter 3 Volume and Characteristics of Uranium Mine Wastes .....................................3-1 

 Waste Footprint of a Mine...........................................................................................3-3 

 Mine Waste Volumes ..................................................................................................3-5 

 Conventional Open-Pit and Underground Mines ........................................................3-5 

 Waste Volumes at Sample Conventional Mines .........................................................3-7 

 ISL Operations.............................................................................................................3-9

 Physical Characteristics of Uranium Mine Wastes .....................................................3-11 

 Potential for Water Contamination..............................................................................3-15 

 Potential for Soil Contamination .................................................................................3-19 

 Hazardous Characteristics of Uranium Mines Waste..................................................3-20 

 Elevated Radioactivity.................................................................................................3-21 

 Conventional Mines...............................................................................3-21 

 ISL and Heap Leach Operations .................................................................................3-22 

 Radon Emanation .......................................................................................................3-23 

 Elevated Gamma Radiation Exposure Rates ..............................................................3-25 

 Heavy Metals in Mine Wastes.....................................................................................3-25 

 Uranium Mill Tailings ................................................................................................3-28 
v

Chapter 4 Uranium Mine and Extraction Facility Reclamation.........................................4-1 

 Characterizing A Mining Site......................................................................................4-2 

 The Reclamation Process ............................................................................................4-4 

 Overburden and Waste Rock Reclamation..................................................................4-5 

 Heap-Leaching Reclamation .......................................................................................4-6 

 Mill Tailings Reclamation...........................................................................................4-6 

 Dry Cover System .......................................................................................................4-6 

 Water-Cover Systems..................................................................................................4-7 

 Other Approaches........................................................................................................4-7 

 The Wastewater Problem ............................................................................................4-8 

 Processes for Treating Uranium Ore ...........................................................................4-8 

 Water Treatment Techniques.......................................................................................4-9 

 Lime Treatment ...........................................................................................................4-9 

 Ferric Chloride Treatment ...........................................................................................4-10 

 Barium Chloride Treatment.........................................................................................4-10 

 Ion Exchange and adsorption ......................................................................................4-10 

 Bioremediation ............................................................................................................4-10

 Permeable Reactive Barriers .......................................................................................4-11 

 Wastewater Preventive Strategies ...............................................................................4-11 

 Underground Mines.....................................................................................................4-11 

 Surface impoundments of Mine Waste Materials ......................................................4-11 

 Open Pits .....................................................................................................................4-12 

 Ground-Water Protection at ISL Sites.........................................................................4-12 

 Building and Equipment Reclamation ........................................................................4-13 

 Radiation Protection Standards for Reclaiming and Remediating 

 Uranium Mines and extraction Facilities.....................................................................4-13 

 Costs of Reclaiming & Remediating Uranium Mines & Extraction Facilities............4-15 

 Stewardship and Long Term Monitoring, Management and Remediation .................4-19 

Chapter 5 Conclusion.........................................................................................................5-1 

Chapter 6 Bibliography......................................................................................................6-1 

Appendix I List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, and Glossary of Terms....................A1-1 

Appendix II Uranium Decay Series.................................................................................AII-1 

Appendix III Overview of Uranium Mines and In Situ Leach Operation 

 Case Studies ................................................................................................AIII-1 

Appendix IV Calculations of Volumes of Uranium Overburden and 

 Waste Rock .................................................................................................AIV-1 

Appendix V Radiochemical Data for Uranium Overburden and Waste Rock, 

 Pit Lakes and Streams, and In Situ Leach Operation ..................................AV-1 

Appendix VI Legal Authorities Concerning Uranium, Uranium Mines and 

 Extraction Facilities.....................................................................................AV1-1 
vi

Tables 

1.1 Percentage of Natural Abundance and Half-Lives of Uranium Isotopes 

by Total Weight........................................................................................................1-6 

1.2 Multiple Industrial Uses of Uranium........................................................................1-7 

1.3 Concentrations of Certain Natural Radionuclides in Igneous and 

 Sedimentary Rocks...................................................................................................1-12 

1.4 Absorbed Dose Rate in Air from Terrestrial Radiation Sources ..............................1-13 

1.5 Average Annual Human Exposure to Radiation ......................................................1-14 

1.6 Mineral Commodities with Uranium Associations ..................................................1-17 

1.7 Radionuclide Concentrations in Process & Waste Samples.....................................1-20 

2.1 Major U.S. Uranium Mining Districts......................................................................2-2 

2.2 U.S. Uranium Mine Production 2000-2005 .............................................................2-14 

2.3 Uranium Reserves of the United States as of 

 December 31, 2003...................................................................................................2-17 

3.1 Uranium Mine and Operations Wastes.....................................................................3-2 

3.2 Profile of Several Texas ISL Uranium Mining Operations......................................3-5 

3.3 Estimated Overburden Produced by Open-Pit and Underground Mining................3-7 

3.4 Changing Ratio of Overburden to Ore Over Mine Life--Jackpile-Paguate 

Mine, New Mexico ..................................................................................................3-8 

3.5 Mine Workings and Associated Waste Rock Volumes in 

Canyonlands, Utah ...................................................................................................3-8 

3.6 Examples of Waste Rock Types Found at Uranium Mines in Selected 

 States..............................................................................................3-12 

3.7 Overburden Particle Size Distributions, Pennsylvania Mine ...................................3-12 

3.8 White King/Lucky Lass Mine Protore and overburden Characteristics...................3-13 

3.9 Radon Flux from Selected Uranium Mine Wastes...................................................3-24 

3.10 Metals Sampling Data from Uranium Mines in New Mexico 

 and Wyoming ...........................................................................................................3-26 

3.11 Radionuclides and Metals from Protore and Overburden, Yazzie 312 

 Mine, Arizona...........................................................................................................3-27 

3.12 Metals in Canyonlands National Park Mine Waste piles .........................................3-28 

3.13 Typical Characteristics of Uranium Mill Tailings....................................................3-30 

4.1 Total and Average Production and Costs of Remediation of Title I 

 Uranium Mills and Related Facilities.......................................................................4-16 

4.2 Total and Average Production and Costs of Remediation of Title II 

 Uranium Mills and Related Facilities.......................................................................4-17 

4.3 Total and Average Production and Costs of Reclamation of All 

 Mill Uranium Mill Sites (Title I and Title II)...........................................................4-17 

4.4 Total and Average Production and Costs of Reclamation of 

All Uranium Mines...................................................................................................4-18 
vii

Figures 

1.1 U.S. Geographic Areas Rich in Uranium .................................................................1-11 

1.2 Gamma Ray Radiation Across the United States .....................................................1-13 

1.3 Average Indoor-Air, Screening-Level Concentrations of Radon in 

 the United States......................................................................................................1-15 

2.1 Mines and Other Location with Uranium in the Western U.S .................................2-3 

2.2 Surface mine Showing Drag Line and Overburden.................................................2-5 

2.3 Surface Mine ............................................................................................................2.6 

2.4 Diagram of Room and Pillar Underground Mining..................................................2-7 

2.5 Illustration of Heap Leaching Process......................................................................2-9 

2.6 Illustration of ISL Process........................................................................................2-10 

2.7 Generalized Uranium Mill Physical Layout.............................................................2-12 

2.8 Major U.S. Uranium Reserve Areas.........................................................................2-16 

2.9 Status of Mines ISL Operations, and Mills in the U.S. as of 

 November 2005 ........................................................................................................2-18 

3.1 Mine Portal, Cayonlands National Park, Utah .........................................................3-9 

3.2 ISL Operation Drilling Site ......................................................................................3-10 

3.3 ISL Evaporation Pond ..............................................................................................3-11 

3.4a Overburden Pile at Yazzie-312 Open Pit Mine, Navajo Reservation, 

Arizona .....................................................................................................................3-14 

3.4b Pit Lake at Yazzi-312 Open Pit Mine, Navajo Reservation, Arizona ......................3-14 

3.5 Average Annual Precipitation in the Western United States....................................3-16 

3.6 Surficial Aquifers of the Colorado Plateau ..............................................................3-17 
ES-1

Executive Summary

This report, the first of two volumes, examines the occurrence of uranium in its natural settings in 

the United States, its industrial uses, and the methods employed over the last century to extract it from ore 

deposits. In addition, the report explores the nature of solid and liquid wastes generated by the extraction 

methods, and the various reclamation and remediation methods which can environmentally restore the 

extraction site. A second volume, to be issued separately, will examine, in a general way, the potential 

radiogenic cancer risks from abandoned uranium mines, as well as environmental and geographical issues 

associated with those mines. The intent of that report will be to generally identify who is most likely to be 

exposed to uranium, and where the greatest risks may be found. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) field studies are used in both reports, providing examples of current conditions of abandoned and 

remediated mines. A related report compiles information from multiple sources providing locations 

throughout the United States, though concentrating on sites of the western U.S., that have been explored 

or mined for uranium. 

 In this report, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) is defined as: Materials which 

may contain any of the primordial radionuclides or radioactive elements as they occur in nature, 

such as radium, uranium, thorium, potassium, and their radioactive decay products, that are 

undisturbed as a result of human activities. The term Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Material (TENORM) is defined as: Naturally occurring radioactive materials that have 

been concentrated or exposed to the accessible environment as a result of human activities such as 

manufacturing, mineral extraction, or water processing. Technologically enhanced means that 

the radiological, physical, and chemical properties of the radioactive material have been altered by having 

been processed, or beneficiated, or disturbed in a way that increases the potential for human and/or 

environmental exposures. 

EPA=s Radiation Protection Division decided that a further review of the current hazards 

associated with uranium mining TENORM was warranted following a review of EPA=s guidance for 

TENORM by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), EPA=s response to the NAS study, and 

discussions with EPA=s Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB agreed with EPA’s intent to make 

TENORM documents useful to a broad audience, but also recommended that the whole life cycle of a 

TENORM source, in this case uranium extraction, be considered beyond regulatory or inter-agency 

considerations, and that the impacts of non-radiological contaminants also be examined. 

 In addition to most sources of TENORM, EPA has authority for environmental standard setting 

under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, cleanup of hazardous waste sites which currently 

include some former uranium mines, and assistance to Native Americans that has also included 

environmental reviews of proposed in situ leaching (ISL) facilities. This document will provide limited 

background materials on uranium milling and ISL operations and waste generated by those processes, 

even though they are considered to be byproduct materials, not TENORM, under the Atomic Energy Act 

and its amendments. Information will also be provided on the regulatory agencies responsible for 

oversight of those operations. 

 Uranium mills and mill tailings impoundments are regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States. 

Many of the physical and chemical processes used at uranium mills are the same as those which extract 

uranium at ISL operations. While the tailings are not legally considered TENORM in the United States, 

this phase of the uranium fuel cycle is described in the report, in part, because radiation protection 

standards for the tailings impoundments may have applicability to waste disposal for uranium mine 

TENORM wastes. Additionally, the NRC has decided to allow mill operators to dispose of wastes other 
ES-2

than tailings in the impoundments. This may be a possible disposal route for some currently unreclaimed 

conventional uranium mine TENORM. 

Uranium in ores can be extracted and chemically converted into uranium oxide (U3O8) or other 

chemical forms usable in industry. Uranium-238 undergoes radioactive decay into a long series of 13 

different radionuclides before finally reaching a stable state in lead-206. These radionuclides each emit 

alpha or beta radiation and some also emit gamma radiation. Some of these progeny radionuclides are 

highly radioactive and can pose significant human health risks. One of those radionuclides in the series is 

actually a radioactive gas, radon-222. The most significant applications of uranium have been for nuclear 

weapons production and electric power generation. Concurrent with these efforts to develop weapons and 

harness atomic energy for electricity, the surging demands for uranium led to an exploration and mining 

boom for the mineral commencing in the late 1940s and ending in the 1980s, with a continuing decline 

until about 2004. An increase in all aspects of the industry since then included drilling, mining, 

production and employment. 

Most uranium mining in the United States has taken place in the Colorado Plateau region 

including the states of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, though more than a dozen states have 

hosted uranium mining operations. Some mines were focused on extraction of just uranium minerals, 

whereas many other mines produced uranium along with other valuable minerals found together in the 

same ore. 

 

Mining is the mechanical process by which mineral ores are extracted from the earth. The term 

ore implies economic viability in which the value of the metal extracted from the host rock is worth more 

than the total costs of extraction and site restoration. Protore is mined uranium ore that is not rich enough 

to meet the market demand and price. This subeconomic ore is often stockpiled at the mine site for future 

exploitation under the appropriate economic or market demand conditions. A significant waste material 

that is classified as TENORM from uranium mining is overburden. Overburden overlies the uranium ore 

body, but is not necessarily enriched in uranium as is protore. Other mine wastes which could be 

classified as TENORM include unreclaimed subeconomic ores (protore), waste rock (which is rock void 

of uranium ore which may have been set aside as waste after removal of top-soil, overburden and uranium 

ore or veins), drill core and cuttings, and mine and pit (or pit lake) water. 

Early mining methods for uranium used what are termed conventional methods: open-pit mining 

is employed for ore deposits that are located at or near the surface, while underground mining is used to 

extract ore from deeper deposits. The early small mining endeavors generated small quantities of waste 

typically discarded within a few feet to hundreds of feet (100 meters or more) of the mine opening or pit. 

Generally, tens to hundreds of acres (or hectares) may be covered by overburden and waste rock at 

surface mining sites. This study found that the surface area affected by major underground mining 

activities generally involves less than about 50 acres (20 hectares). 

The volume of waste produced by surface, open-pit mining is a factor of approximately 45 greater 

than from underground mining, based on their respective averages. Thus, the amount of overburden 

generated from open-pit mines far exceeds that of underground mines. The U.S. Geological Survey 

estimated that the total amount of waste rock generated by the approximately 4,000 operating 

conventional mines in their data files is between one billion and nine billion metric tons of waste, with a 

likely estimate of three billion metric tons. The characteristics of overburden and waste rock from 

conventional mines depend on the geology of the zone where the ore was originally mined, and how the 

waste was subsequently treated. Overburden and waste rock can include huge boulders that may have 

been broken down with explosives and heavy machinery into particles as small as clay size. 
ES-3

 Increased use of ISL as an “unconventional”, though now relatively common, mining method, 

has significantly reduced the volume of solid waste generated (regulated by the NRC or its Agreement 

States). The solid waste from ISL consists of: (1) soil and weathered bedrock material, (2) waste from 

drilling of injection and production wells, and (3) solids precipitated during storage and processing of 

fluids in holding ponds. The total areal extent of an ISL operation may be large, covering from 200 to 

more than 6,000 acres (81 to 2,430 hectares), depending on how drill holes are situated, and how 

extensive evaporation ponds are, though the facilities themselves may take up only a small part of the 

total acreage. Available data are insufficient to estimate the total amount of solid and liquid wastes 

generated by existing and previous ISL operations. 

Radiation and hazardous materials studies from mine reclamation assessments indicate that 

material identified as “waste” or “overburden” varies widely in radium-226 activity, but that for most 

waste piles dominated by overburden material, measurements higher than 20 pCi/g (0.74 Bq/g) are 

unusual. Protore, on the other hand, can be considerably higher in radium-226 activity, with most material 

in the range of 30–600 pCi/g (about 1–22 Bq/g). As a point of comparison, information on radionuclides 

present in ISL operation wastewater ponds is very limited. Liquid wastes from those operations have 

some residual uranium and radium-226 activities that range from background levels (<2 pCi/L) to 

concentrations as high as 3,000 pCi/L (111 Bq/L). Solid wastes from ISL operations can have several 

hundred ppm uranium and 300–3,000 pCi/g radium-226 (about 11–111 Bq/g). 

Radon measurements in some abandoned underground mines where mechanical ventilation has 

ceased are quite high, and pose risks for prolonged human exposure by members of the public visiting for 

recreation, exploration of old workings for geologic purposes, or reclamation workers. As an example, 

radon readings by alpha track canisters installed at underground mine portals of the Ross Adams uranium 

mine in Alaska measured from 212 pCi/L to 540 pCi/L (about 8 to 20 Bq/L). Radon emanation 

coefficients (the fraction of radon atoms present in a material that emanate into rock or sediment pore 

space) for sandstone and other uranium ores are extremely variable. Coefficients vary with: (1) uranium 

mineralogy; (2) radium mineralogy; (3) host rock lithology; (4) grain size of uranium/radium minerals; 

(5) comminution, or fineness, of the ore; (6) estimated porosity and permeability of the ore; (7) moisture 

content; and (8) ore grade. Unlike barren or low-activity waste rock, waste rock and protore piles with 

elevated activity not only form more radon, but in many districts they release a great deal of that radon to 

pore spaces, and the radon is free to migrate. 

Radon flux rates from overburden are difficult to characterize because of the rock’s diverse 

physical forms and matrices, and diverse emplacement and disposal methods. Field measurements 

indicate that average radon flux rates vary from about 2–60 pCi/m2

s (about 0.07–2 Bq/m2s) for 

overburden materials to as high as a few hundred pCi/m2

s (> about 7 Bq/m2s) for low-grade ore materials. 

The broad range of radon flux rates is due, in part, to varying radium concentrations (the parent 

radionuclide) found in protore that is at times disposed of with overburden. Radon flux rates much higher 

than these wastes have been reported for undisturbed natural rock outcrops adjacent to uranium extraction 

operations. 

Elevated gamma radiation is always found at uranium mine sites. The primary contributors to 

gamma exposure are the decay products of radium; the higher the radium present, the higher the ultimate 

gamma exposure rate. Radium content is also roughly proportional to uranium content in raw mine 

materials. Exposure rates associated with ambient background levels range from 10 to 85 μR/hr, 

averaging about 20 μR/hr including background. Protore exposure rates range from 80 to 1,250 μR/hr, 

with an average value estimated at 350 μR/hr. 
ES-4

A number of heavy metals may occur in association with uranium deposits and wastes from 

uranium mining. Heavy metals on site, particularly arsenic, can be of concern, and can pose serious risks 

if they migrate to groundwater. Depending on local geology and climate, the presence and eventual 

leaching or remobilization of these metals could lead to contamination of surrounding lands and water 

bodies. Waters affected by uranium mining may be on, adjacent to, or at some distance from a mine or 

mines. Uranium and thorium, and radium to a lesser extent, can be mobilized by either acidic or alkaline 

solutions. Pyrite and other sulfur-bearing minerals are key determinants as to whether acid mine drainage 

occurs. Most of the mines located in the sedimentary sandstone deposits of the southwestern United States 

are not in pyritic formations (with the exception of ores in South Texas, where pyrite and its 

pseudomorph, marcasite, are common), and the resulting runoff waters or pit lakes are generally neutral to 

alkaline in character (pH of 7 or higher). However, this contrasts with the measurements made at mine 

locations in the Pacific Northwest—areas with higher-than-average rainfall amounts and metamorphic 

and igneous rocks, including sulfur-bearing minerals that could transform runoff into acidic waters 

(pH < 7). 

 Mining reclamation is the act of returning a mine to a long-term stable condition, or its original 

contour, to ensure the safe reuse of the site by both current and future generations. When possible, a 

reclamation plan aims to return the affected areas to previously existing environmental conditions. 

Differing views as to what is an acceptable environmental condition for reclaimed mining sites explain 

the varying regulatory requirements for uranium mining sites. The existence of bonding requirements 

and/or financial guarantees in the cases where private parties are involved in the mine may also play an 

important role in determining the extent of reclamation. Extraction facilities licensed by the NRC or its 

Agreement States are required to have bonds sufficient to allow a third party to reclaim the property 

should the company holding the site fail. Additionally, regulatory requirements affect selected 

reclamation techniques, as some techniques may be adequate to meet less stringent requirements, but will 

not be suitable for more restrictive requirements. In some cases, the remoteness and aridity of a site and 

reduced risk for human exposure may affect decisions on whether a site is in need of reclamation, or the 

extent to which it is reclaimed, if at all. 

Many site factors can influence the reclamation of a mining site, including topography, geology, 

hydrology, hydrogeochemistry, climatology, ecology, operating characteristics, radiological 

characteristics, and socioeconomic characteristics. For example, the topographical setting (whether the 

site is located in a valley or on a hillside) can affect a site=s hydrology and climate. Knowledge of a site=s 

climatology, hydrology, and hydrogeochemistry is needed for assessing its impacts on water bodies in the 

area. In turn, these impacts may influence decisions on strategies and techniques for reclamation. 

A site=s operational and radiological characteristics are of prime importance in its reclamation. 

The historical type of mining, mine layout, and extraction methods will affect the location and types of 

wastes present, and knowledge of how the mine operated can improve reclamation procedures utilized. 

Geotechnical aspects of the mine, including its stability, will help determine if certain reclamation options 

will endanger the workers, while radiological and chemical characteristics determine how much 

reclamation must be conducted. Off site characterization is extremely important too, as both natural and 

human factors may have resulted in dispersion of dusts, rock, liquid, refuse or other wastes contaminated 

with radionuclides or other pollutants beyond the borders of a mine or its related facilities. Transport of 

ore and waste rock to other locations away from a mine are not uncommon. In this regard, reconnaissance 

walking, aerial, and radiation surveying may provide initial evidence of the need for more detailed 

evaluations. Sampling of water and soils off site may also provide evidence of contaminant releases. 
ES-5

Treatment of contaminated mine wastewater is usually required, with release concentrations of 

specific contaminants dictated by federal and state requirements. While many treatment technologies are 

capable of achieving concentrations that are well below regulatory requirements, the accumulation of 

contaminants in the sediments may also need to be taken into account. Traditionally, large volumes of 

contaminated water being pumped or released from a site (greater than 1,500 ft3

/hr (42.5 m3/hr)) are 

usually treated by some form of chemical process, though it may also be treated by newer technologies, 

such as biological treatment in wetlands, evaporation ponds, and reactive barriers. The residues and 

sludges from the treatment must be disposed of as determined by the state, federal, or Tribal land 

management agency. This can occur either on-site or at an engineered low-level radioactive waste 

disposal cell, or an approved off-site disposal area. In some cases, depending on the quality of remediated 

water, standing bodies of water may be left behind permanently. 

Environmental regulation of ISL systems is overseen by the NRC or its Agreement States; 

remediation of groundwater in the wellfield must be conducted to return the groundwater and other 

systems to as close to pre-extraction conditions, or to the same class of groundwater use as possible. This 

is in accordance with EPA underground injection control or its authorized state’s regulations, and with 

NRC regulatory requirements. Groundwater outside of the well field or EPA exempted aquifers must be 

protected to standards developed by EPA. Groundwater restoration is accomplished through a strategy 

called pump and treat. After an ISL wellfield is exhausted, the aquifer must be restored. During aquifer 

restoration operations, relatively large volumes of wastewater are generated. Waste disposal systems at 

ISL operations usually consist of a combination of evaporation ponds, deep-well injection, and surface 

discharge (usually via irrigation). Evaporation ponds now must be double lined and must incorporate 

leak-detection and collection systems. Pond residues must be shipped off site to approved disposal 

facilities. Regulations prohibit the injection of ISL waste into aquifers containing less than 10,000 ppm of 

total dissolved solids. A variety of aquifer restoration processes have been used in the United States. 

Remediation generally follows five stages: (1) groundwater sweep, (2) water treatment, (3) reductant 

addition, (4) circulation, and (5) stabilization. 

 Reviews are provided in Chapter 4 of the report of the principal methods of reclaiming open-pit 

and uranium mines, including means of remediating releases of radionuclides, metals, or other hazardous 

materials on, and off-site. A discussion is also provided of the principal regulatory and other guidances 

issued by EPA, the NRC, and DOE for managing radiation at uranium mills and their tailings 

impoundments, closure of uranium extraction facilities, cleanup of radioactively contaminated soils, and 

protection and cleanup of groundwater sources from contamination from uranium mines and extraction 

facilities. 

 Data from a Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration study reveal that the costs 

of reclamation without site monitoring for 21 mines ranged from a low of $2,337/hectare of disturbance 

to a high of $269,531/hectare of disturbance. The average total estimated cost is $13.9 million per mine. 

Many smaller mines less than 25 acres (10 hectares), which may constitute the majority of currently 

unreclaimed mine-scarred lands, especially in arid regions, may require remediation costs on the order of 

$45,000 or less. This cost would be incurred to bury waste piles back in a pit or underground mine 

opening, clean up the soil to lower radionuclide and metal levels, and close or armor the mine opening 

with rock. Remediation actions under CERCLA for spilled ore off-site of a mine can be expensive. U.S. 

DOE/EIA in 1995 estimated average decommissioning costs for ISL operations were an estimated $7 

million. On the other hand, cleanup in 2005 of 12 sites where ore had spilled off of ore trucks on the haul 

road between the Midnite Mine and the Dawn Mill in Washington state, some 18 miles distant, amounted 

to a cost of approximately $357,500. 
ES-6

When mining or extraction facilities are closed, stewardship and monitoring may or may not be 

required to ensure that remediation goals have been met. This requirement depends on statutory 

requirements for federal, state or Tribal agencies, the nature of the site, and local site conditions. For 

example, after the stabilization monitoring phase at NRC or Agreement State licensed/permitted ISL 

facilities, if there is no indication of increasing levels of groundwater constituents of concern, the site is 

released for unrestricted use. Conversely, mines remediated under EPA Superfund oversight, can require 

open ended periodic monitoring until it is similarly determined that the site can be released. Many mines 

on federal, state, and Tribal lands in the western U.S. have been considered closed without need for 

further monitoring once they have been reclaimed (or remediated if necessary). Uranium mill tailings sites 

under UMTRCA requirements once reclaimed are licensed to the DOE and designed for 1,000 years of 

control. 

 Overall, this report provides technical information on uranium mining, the associated TENORM 

wastes, and impacts from production. In addition, information is presented on reclamation and 

remediation considerations and technology used to facilitate the appropriate management of radiation and 

waste materials at both uranium mines, and uranium extraction facilities. 
1-1

Chapter 1. Introduction 

Uranium is a common element in nature that has for centuries been used as a coloring agent in 

decorative glass and ceramics. Uranium and its radioactive decay products are ubiquitous in 

nature, and contribute to natural background radiation found everywhere. In fact, it is important 

to note that many of the natural occurrences of uranium present radiation hazards without any 

disturbance from miners. By far, the greatest uses of uranium have been defense and electric 

power generation. The advent of nuclear weapons and nuclear power in the United States resulted 

in a full-blown exploration and mining boom starting immediately after World War II, making 

uranium the most important commodity in the mining industry. The uranium production peak 

spanned from approximately 1948 to the early 1980s (U.S. DOE/EIA 1992). Some uranium 

mining continues in the United States, and relatively high-grade resources in other parts of the 

world are being mined to meet continued demand. Through the first half of 2005 the industry had 

generated over 358,000 metric tons (MTs) of uranium (U3O8) to foster U.S. dominance in nuclear 

weapons technology, and later to feed the growing number of commercial power plants that 

utilized the enormous energy contained in the uranium nucleus.1

Another legacy of uranium exploration, mining, and ore processing were many unreclaimed land 

workings left behind where the uranium concentration in rock was either found or thought to be 

economically recoverable. Thousands of miners and prospectors, as well as large mining 

companies, searched the United States for mineral deposits concentrating the valuable metal, 

echoing the California gold rush 100 years earlier. In many instances before the 1970s, they left 

behind unreclaimed and exposed wastes elevated in radioactivity from uranium and its 

radioactive decay progeny, potentially exposing people and the environment to its hazards. 

In this report, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) is defined as: Materials which 

may contain any of the primordial radionuclides or radioactive elements as they occur in 

nature, such as radium, uranium, thorium, potassium, and their radioactive decay 

products, that are undisturbed as a result of human activities. Radiation levels presented by 

NORM are generally referred to as a component of “natural background radiation”. 

The term Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM) 

is defined as: Naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been concentrated or 

exposed to the accessible environment as a result of human activities such as 

manufacturing, mineral extraction, or water processing. “Technologically enhanced” 

means that the radiological, physical, and chemical properties of the radioactive material have 

been altered by having been processed, or beneficiated, or disturbed in a way that increases the 

potential for human and/or environmental exposures. This definition differs somewhat from other 

definitions provided by the National Academy of Sciences (1999a) and the Conference of 

Radiation Control Protection Directors (CRCPD 2004) in that it further amplifies the need to 

include materials which have not been modified by human activities, yet have been disturbed in 

such ways that they can be misused by humans, or affect the environment2

; it does not include a 

 

1

 Data compiled from U.S. DOE/EIA 2003a, 2003b, 2005b.

2 The National Academy of Sciences (1999a) defined TENORM as “...any naturally occurring radioactive 

 materials not subject to regulation under the Atomic Energy Act whose radionuclide concentrations or 

 potential for human exposure have been increased above levels encountered in the natural state by human 

 activities.” The International Atomic Energy Agency (2003), although referring to this class of wastes 

 and products as “NORMs”, defined them as encompassing “all naturally occurring radioactive materials 

 where human activities have increased the potential for exposure in comparison with the unaltered 
1-2

reference to Atomic Energy Act materials as the definitions are changing (see further below and 

Appendix VI). 

Under the Atomic Energy Act, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates 

operations which produce and concentrate uranium and thorium. In accordance with terminology 

of the Act, the NRC has defined in 10 CFR 40.4 “source materials” as (1) uranium or thorium, 

or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form or (2) ores which contain by 

weight one-twentieth of one percent (0.05%) or more of: (i) uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) 

any combination thereof. Source material does not include special nuclear material. It also 

defines the “by-product materials” (wastes) of those operations as tailings or wastes produced 

by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily 

for its source material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium 

solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by such solution extraction 

operations do not constitute “byproduct material” within this definition. Byproduct materials 

are also regulated by the NRC. 

However, certain types of waste from conventional mining of uranium (surface and underground 

mining) are not subject to NRC regulation, and are considered to be TENORM. Thus, while this 

report includes information about uranium extraction, processing methods and wastes, only the 

wastes from conventional mining are considered to be TENORM, and subject to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State agency oversight. Those distinctions will be 

made clear below, and elsewhere in this report. 

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Atomic Energy Act was amended to place additional 

discrete (highly radioactive in small quantities) sources of TENORM under NRC jurisdiction 

which had the potential for use in a radioactive weapon. The definition of byproduct materials 

was further modified to include discrete sources of radium-226, any material made radioactive by 

use of a particle accelerator for use for a commercial, medical or research activity, or materials 

which might pose a similar threat if used to make a radioactive weapon. Specific requirements 

were provided for determining the appropriate waste disposal methods for these materials. The 

NRC regulatory definitions of byproduct materials to accommodate these amendments have not 

been revised to reflect the recent amendments as of this writing. While these products and wastes 

are not the subject of this report, further discussion on these changes to the Atomic Energy Act 

are included in Appendix VI. 

Other important acronyms and definitions of key terms in this report can be found in Appendix I.

 situation. Concentrations of radionuclides (i.e. TENORM) may or may not have been increased.” 

 Alternatively, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD 2004) has defined them 

 as a naturally occurring radioactive material whose radionuclide concentrations are increased by or as a 

 result of past or present human practices. TENORM does not include background radiation or the natural 

 radioactivity of rocks or soils. TENORM does not include "source material" or "byproduct material" as 

 both are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA 42 USC §2011 et seq.) and 

 relevant regulations implemented by the NRC. EPA believes the definition should include materials 

 which were disturbed, but not further concentrated by human activities; by not including this slightly 

 broader definition, not only a significant amount of radioactive waste, but nearly all products which 

 include TENORM would be exempted from regulation. 

 
1-3

Previous EPA Reports 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has previously issued reports on the uranium mining 

industry in response to congressional mandates and programmatic needs. In 1983, EPA published 

its Report to Congress on the Potential Health and Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine 

Wastes (U.S. EPA 1983 a, b, c), as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

of 1978. This study provided an important overview of the characteristics and generation of 

uranium mining TENORM wastes during a period when the uranium mining industry was still 

near its production peak. A subsequent 1985 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Extraction 

and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium 

Mining, and Oil Shale (U.S. EPA 1985), carried out pursuant to requirements of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, provided additional risk 

information and characterization of uranium mining waste. In 1995, EPA issued the Technical 

Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals: Uranium as a technical 

update to provide a means of evaluating wastes that were exempt from or subject to regulation 

under RCRA (U.S. EPA 1995a). 

During the period 1989 to 1993, EPA worked on a draft scoping report (SC&A 1993), now out of 

print, which compiled information on TENORM in several industries, including uranium mining. 

A preliminary risk assessment was also developed for certain public and occupational exposure 

scenarios to the known radiation levels in those industries. Comments received on the draft from 

industry, as well as EPA=s Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA 1994), resulted in further revisions 

of the scoping draft, though it was ultimately decided that a final report would not be issued. 

Following a review of EPA=s guidance for TENORM by the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS 1999a), EPA=s response to the NAS study (U.S. EPA 2000b), and discussions with EPA=s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB), EPA=s Radiation Protection Division decided that a further 

review of the current hazards associated with uranium mining TENORM was warranted. 

The SAB (U.S. EPA 2001d) agreed with EPA’s intent to make TENORM documents useful to a 

broad audience, but also recommended that the whole life cycle of a TENORM source, in this 

case uranium extraction, be considered beyond regulatory or inter-agency considerations, and that 

the impacts of non-radiological contaminants also be examined in the Agency’s technical reports. 

In addition to most sources of TENORM, EPA has authorities for environmental standard setting 

under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, cleanup of hazardous waste sites which 

currently include some former uranium mines, and assistance to Native Americans that has 

included assistance in environmental reviews of proposed in situ leach (ISL) facilities. This report 

will provide limited background materials on uranium milling and ISL operations and waste 

generated by those processes, even though they may not be considered TENORM by virtue of 

their regulation under the Atomic Energy Act and its amendments; information will also be 

provided on the regulatory agencies responsible for oversight of those operations. 

Uranium mills and mill tailings impoundments are regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States. 

Many of the physical and chemical processes used at uranium mills are the same as those which 

extract uranium at ISL operations. While the tailings are not legally considered TENORM in the 

United States, this phase of the uranium fuel cycle is described in the report in part because 

radiation protection standards for the tailings impoundments may have applicability to waste 

disposal for uranium mine TENORM wastes. Additionally, the NRC has decided to allow mill 

operators to dispose of wastes other than tailings in the impoundments, which is a possible 

disposal route for some currently unreclaimed conventional uranium mine TENORM. 
1-4

This report is the first of two volumes on uranium mining TENORM. It provides background 

information on the occurrence, mining, and reclamation of uranium mines and mills. Chapter 1 

examines the occurrence of uranium in nature, its uses, and its contribution to background 

radiation in the United States. Chapter 2 provides an overview of mining and milling methods 

used to extract uranium from its host rocks, while Chapter 3 provides an evaluation of the volume 

and characteristics of uranium mining TENORM wastes in the United States. Chapter 4 provides 

a process-oriented review of reclamation3 and remediation4 techniques and goals to clean up 

uranium mines and extraction facilities to reduce their hazards to the environment, while Chapter 

5 summarizes the key information developed in the report. The second volume entitled 

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) from Uranium 

Mining: Volume II: Investigation of Potential Health, Geographic, and Environmental Issues of 

Abandoned Uranium Mines (2006a), will evaluate, in a general way, potential radiogenic cancer 

and environmental risks posed by abandoned uranium mines. A technical report entitled Uranium 

Location Database (EPA 2006b) in concert with these volumes will provide information on an 

EPA generated digital spatial database on mines with uranium, and mill locations. 

Information on uranium mining waste characteristics for this report has been obtained from 

several sources, including industries, EPA contractors, federal, state, and Tribal agencies, and 

scientific literature published by various national and international organizations. EPA=s own 

field studies on a number of uranium mining sites around the United States, several of which are 

described in the case studies of the Appendix, have contributed to a better understanding of the 

physical, geographic, and chemical aspects of these wastes. The draft of this report underwent an 

outside peer review following the Agency’s peer review process, and was provided to member 

agencies of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) Subcommittee 

on NORM, as well as other selected knowledgeable individuals and organizations, for comment. 

Based on reviewers= comments received on the draft reports as well as meetings with 

stakeholders, the Agency will make a determination on what further steps may be necessary for 

the purpose of radiation protection from this source of waste material. The specific wastes of EPA 

concern from this report and study are from conventional open-pit and underground uranium 

mines, and include overburden, unreclaimed subeconomic ores (protore), waste rock5

, core hole 

and drill cuttings, mine and pit (or pit lake) water. 

As a result of the review comments, significant new information was added to the report on 

uranium geochemistry and radionuclide environmental transport, as well as on uranium mine, 

ISL, and mill tailings reclamation methods and requirements. Waste and mining terminology was 

made more consistent across the report, more definitions of geological, mining, and radiological 

terms were provided and also included as a glossary in Appendix I, the report tone was changed, 

and several new references and figures were added. New text was added to this chapter (see 

above) to clarify the reasons information is included in this report on ISL and milling operations, 

even though they are overseen by agencies other than EPA. Responding to reviewers’ comments, 

 

3 Reclamation is the restoration of mined land to its original contour, use or condition. 4 Remediation is the cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain a toxic spill or hazardous 

 materials from a Superfund site or uranium mine or extraction facility, including those included under the 

 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). 

5 Rock void of uranium ore which may have been set aside as waste after removal of top-soil, overburden 

 and uranium ore or veins. Waste rock is defined as barren or submarginal rock or ore that has been 

 mined, but is not of sufficient value to warrant treatment and is therefore removed ahead of the milling 

 processes. 
1-5

we have clarified in each chapter where specific wastes described are not considered TENORM 

and are subject to other agency regulations, and have added a new Appendix (VI) which provides 

information on the regulatory authorities of the principal federal and other agencies which 

oversee various aspects of uranium extraction and production. Errors in fact and numbers cited 

which we could verify were corrected throughout the report. Uranium price trends and mine 

production and reclamation status/ownership information was also updated as of early 2006. 

Origins of Uranium

Uranium has been around a long time. Cosmologists believe uranium was formed in supernovae 

billions of years ago. Uranium is a metal found in most rocks on Earth in concentrations of one to 

four parts per million. Uranium is in fact more abundant than gold, silver, mercury, antimony, or 

cadmium, and more or less as common as tin, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, and arsenic (CRC 

1994). And contrary to popular perception that uranium is somehow far away and isolated in 

high-security facilities, traces occur almost everywhereCin plants, soil, rock, seawater, and 

animals (including humans). 

The German chemist Martin Klaproth is credited with discovering uranium in samples of the 

mineral pitchblende in 1789. He named it for the planet Uranus, discovered only eight years prior. 

Uranium was first isolated as a metal in 1841 by Eugene-Melchior Peligot. French scientist Henri 

Becquerel is noted for (among other things) discovering the property of radioactivity while 

observing radiation from the highly radioactive decay progeny (called radium) closely associated 

in uranium-bearing rock (Ewing 1999).6

 While “discovered” in the late 18th century, uranium had 

nevertheless been used for many centuries as a colorant in glass and ceramics. Yellow-colored 

glass containing one percent uranium oxide has been found in Italy dating to 79 A.D. (CRC 

1994). 

Physical Nature of Uranium 

Uranium, a naturally occurring element with the atomic number 92, contributes to low levels of 

natural background radiation in the environment. Uranium in ores can be extracted and 

chemically converted into uranium dioxide (UO2) or other chemical forms usable in industry. 

When refined, uranium is a silvery-white metal with very high densityC65 percent denser than 

lead (CRC 1994). 

Uranium is found naturally as three different isotopes7

: U-238, U-235, and U-234. Other isotopes 

can be synthesized (created by humans), but all uranium isotopes are radioactive to varying 

degrees. Almost all uranium as found in nature is the isotope U-238 (Table 1.1). While in this 

report, general reference to uranium will be to uranium in its natural isotopic proportion, unless 

otherwise stated, it should also be noted that these proportions are not in fact entirely fixed. 

 

6

 See Appendix II for uranium decay series. 7

 An isotope is a variant of an element (having the same number of protons) but a different number of 

 neutrons in the nucleus. For example, uranium has 92 protons. But uranium-238 has 146 neutrons, and 

 uranium-235 has 143 neutrons. 
1-6

Table 1.1. Percentage of Natural Abundance and Half-Lives8

 

of Uranium Isotopes by Total Weight 

Almost all uranium as found in nature is the isotope U-238. 

Isotope Natural Abundance (% ) Half-Life (years)

U-238 99.2740 4.47 billion 

U-235 0.7200 700 million 

U-234 0.0055 246,000 

Source: Eisenbud and Gesell 1997. 

Uranium-238 undergoes radioactive decay into a long series of 13 different radionuclides before 

finally reaching a stable state in lead-206. These radionuclides emit alpha or beta radiation and 

some also emit gamma radiation of widely varying energies. EPA=s glossary of radiation terms9

, 

defines radioactivity as "the process of undergoing spontaneous transformation of the nucleus, 

generally with the emission of alpha or beta particles often accompanied by gamma rays.” Some 

of these progeny radionuclides are very radioactive and can pose human health risks. One of the 

radionuclides in the series is actually a radioactive gas, radon-222, while the others are all solids. 

Uses of Uranium in Industry 

Uranium has more uses than many people are aware of, though most of them are fairly esoteric 

(Table 1.2). By far, the greatest uses have been in nuclear weapons production and electric power 

generation. Uranium has the rare property of being Afissionable.@ Its nucleus can be split, or 

fissioned, and in the process, releases enormous amounts of energy (as well as significant 

volumes of highly radioactive by-products). This realization in the late 1930s and early 1940s led 

to a race by U.S. scientists to produce an atomic bomb during World War II. However, U-238, the 

predominant isotope, is only nominally fissionableCnot enough so for a workable bomb. Of the 

three natural isotopes of uranium, U-235 is by far the most fissionable. (see Appendix II for 

uranium-235 (actinium) decay series. There have been reported occurrences of uranium deposits 

in Africa which underwent spontaneous nuclear fission, and which were detected based on 

discrepancies in the ratios of uranium isotopes present in the geological deposit (Meshik 2005). 

 

8

 A half-life is the time in which one-half of the atoms of a radioactive isotope decay into another nuclear 

 form. Half-lives vary from less than a billionth of a second to billions of years. Also called the physical 

 or radiological half-life. Isotopes with longer half-lives tend to be more stable and less radioactive. 9 See on the Internet the following site: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/terms/termqr.htm#r . 
1-7

Table 1.2 Multiple Industrial Uses of Uranium 

Uranium has more uses than many people are aware of. 

Types of Uranium Industrial Uses

Primary Uses 

Uranium Nuclear weapons production and electric power generation. 

Lesser-Known Uses

Uranium For production of copper, nickel, and steel alloys to enhance specific properties. 

For dating the Earth by making calculations based on the rate of decay of uranium 

and the relative proportion of its stable progeny lead-206. 

Incorporated into dental porcelain used for false teeth to simulate the fluorescence of 

natural teeth (a relatively minor historical use). 

Depleted uranium For inertial guidance systems and gyro compasses. 

Armor piercing conventional munitions, tank armor, and nuclear waste casks. 

Refined uranium metal For production of high-energy X-rays. 

Uranyl nitrate As a colored glaze for porcelain and glass and for manufacturing pigments (this 

practice has more or less ceased in the United States). 

Uranyl acetate In dry-copying inks and as a reagent in chemistry. 

Uranium salts As mordants for dyeing silk and wool. 

Compounds of uranium For photographic toning, and staining and dyeing leather and wood. 

Sources: NCRP 1987a; USGS 1973; U.S. NRC 2001. 

To produce a functional uranium-based atom bomb, U.S. scientists needed a high concentration 

of the isotope U-235. With great difficulty and cost, they separated the natural uranium isotopes 

to increase the concentration of U-235 relative to U-238. This process is called enrichment, 

because the extracted fraction is enriched in U-235 (to 90 percent or more for bombs). The 

highly fissionable U-235 is also used to produce nuclear energy, but is typically enriched only 

to about three percent (U.S. DOE 2002). 

In addition to fission, atomic nuclei, such as uranium, can undergo a process called neutron

capture, which permits the generation of plutonium (Pu) isotopes. One of these, Pu-239, is even 

more fissionable than U-235 and has very high energy outputs. Plutonium is made by 

bombarding uranium-238 targets in specially designed reactors (Rhodes 1987). 

The enrichment process produces huge quantities of remnant, depleted uranium that is almost 

pure U-238. Depleted uranium is very stable and very dense, has poor fission properties, and is 

only very weakly radioactive. Decades of uranium enrichment have generated enormous 

quantities of depleted uranium. The U.S. Department of Energy has over 500,000 metric tons 

(MTs) of surplus depleted uranium stored on site at two of its large enrichment facilities (U.S. 

DOE 2002).

The uses of and markets for depleted uranium are fairly limited and are typically unrelated to any 

nuclear properties. As such, its value is low. Perhaps the most notable use is in military munitions 

and armored shielding. Like many other metals (e.g., magnesium), uranium is pyrophoric, which 

means that it reacts quickly with oxygen. As a result, the rapid oxidation of small particles (which 

have a relatively larger ratio of surface area to volume) of uranium can generate sufficient heat to 

cause ignition. Consequently, due to this pyrophoric nature and high density, projectiles made of 

depleted uranium burn on high impact and penetrate enemy armored tanks with ease. As 

shielding, thick plates of depleted uranium effectively inhibit penetration from projectiles. Due to 

its high density, depleted uranium finds domestic application in the keels of yachts, as ship 

ballast, and as counterweights for control surfaces (rudders and elevators) in airplanes and 
1-8

helicopters. Also because of their high density, depleted uranium blocks are used for shielding 

gamma radiation in research facilities. 

Geology and Distribution of Uranium 

The very large ionic size and chemical properties of uranium tend to allocate it to certain mineral 

assemblages, and lend to fractionation and concentration of uranium in particular rock types. 

Common uranium minerals include uraninite, coffinite, brannerite, carnotite, uranophane, 

autunite, pitchblende, and torbernite. Of these, uraninite (nominally UO2+x) is the most 

widespread and significant economically, followed by coffinite (U(SiO4)1-x(OH)4x), and 

brannerite (U4+Ti2O6) (Finch and Murakami 1999). 

Most deposits of uranium in the U.S. were formed when oxidizing groundwater, which dissolves 

and transports uranium in a hexavalent10 state, combines with carbonate, sulfate, and phosphate, 

and were subsequently reduced in their oxidation state by the presence of either organic matter or 

iron disulfide in the rock formations. If this occurred, uraninite or coffinite would have 

precipitated in a quadrivalent (four net positive ions) phase (Burns and Finch 1999). The inverse 

of this reaction (i.e., dissolution of uranium in mineral form) is used for ISL and 

hydrometallurgical processing of uranium (see Chapter 2), and introduction of bisulfide or 

hydrogen sulfide is a process used in aquifer restoration (see Chapter 4). 

As a result of its size and charge, the uranium atom does not tend to fit well into typical igneous 

rock-forming minerals (such as feldspars, quartz, micas, amphiboles, pyroxenes, olivine, and 

titanomagnetite) and tends to be concentrated in silica-rich magmas such as rhyolites and granites 

(Burns and Finch 1999). Chemical weathering of these rocks is the likely process that leached out 

uranium that was later deposited in sandstone-type uranium deposits (see below). 

Where uranium is in sufficient concentration in rock to be economically recoverable, it is called 

an ore body. More detailed information on ore deposit geology can be found in Guilbert and Park 

(1996) and Edwards and Atkinson (1986). Uranium resources of U.S. economic interest are 

primarily found in four main types of geologic deposits: 

Sandstone Deposits

Sandstones contain approximately 33 percent of uranium resources worldwide, whereas they 

constitute the main source of uranium (over 95% of reserves and production) in the United States. 

The principal U.S. sandstone deposits of uranium are in the Colorado Plateau, the Wyoming 

Basin, the Texas Coastal Plain, and Nebraska. Sandstone uranium deposits in the United States 

were mostly commonly formed when uranium was introduced after the sediment was deposited, 

whereas some sandstone uranium deposits in other parts of the world (most notably in Canada 

and South Africa) are paleoplacers, in which uranium minerals were concentrated as heavy 

minerals in the sediments as they were deposited. 

An important subset of sandstone deposits are breccia pipe deposits found primarily in northern 

Arizona; collapse structures in bedded sedimentary rocks resulted in the accumulation of uranium 

in circular deposits mimicking volcanic rock structures. The presence of uranium, copper, silver, 

vanadium and other valuable metals may occur in breccia pipes—the Orphan Mine (see 

 

10 The oxidation state or oxidation number is defined as the sum of negative and positive charges in an 

 atom, which indirectly indicates the number of electrons it has accepted or donated. Hexavalent means 

 that the uranium atom has six more protons than electrons, and thus a net positive charge of +6. 
1-9

Appendix III) is an example of this type of deposit in which structural geologic features 

controlled mineral accumulations in sandstones and mudstones. 

Vein Deposits

Typically, these deposits occur in or near structures (faults, fractures, shear zones, etc.). Uranium 

is mineralized in cavities, fissures, cracks, and similar porous openings in veins (as well as 

breccias and pipes) usually cross-cutting the enclosing rock, and is usually present with 

accumulations of ore minerals and gangue (non-ore minerals) distinctly different from the 

surrounding rock. The dimensions of cracks and vesicles (openings or cavities in volcanic rocks) 

may vary considerably, as can the overall size of the vein ore body. Some ore bodies have been 

very small (several tons), but rich in uranium. Uraninite and pitchblende are the dominant 

minerals, with some accessory minerals. 

Phosphate Deposits 

Sedimentary marine phosphorite is the primary source of uranium in this category. An estimated 

four million tons of uranium could be extracted from U.S. phosphate deposits. While marketable 

phosphatic material obtained from phosphate deposits typically contains only 50B200 ppm 

uranium, the large quantity (approximately 150 million MTs per year) of crude ore rock produced 

in the United States (Jasinski 2003) makes it a potentially significant source of uranium. 

Disseminated Deposits 

Typically, these deposits are associated with granites, pegmatites, and syenites. The size, shape, 

and concentration of the ore bodies vary significantly. Secondary enrichment of the primary 

mineralization helped to form the ore grade that typically ranges between 0.05 and 0.15 percent. 

Deposits near Spokane, Washington, and Bokan Mountain in Alaska, are the most prominent 

disseminated deposits in the United States, though their production was insignificant in 

comparison to that derived from other types of deposits such as sandstones. 

A fifth type of deposit is important to production in Canada: 

Unconformity Deposits 

This type of deposit is high-grade ore that occurs along and just below major Precambrian 

unconformities. Ore is often associated with graphite schists. 

In defining what is ore, assumptions are made about the concentration in the rock; the cost of 

mining, processing, refinement, waste management, and site restoration; and the market value of 

the metal. Material too low in uranium to merit processing and refinement is often called protore, 

a nominal material that is currently uneconomical. Soil and rock that is otherwise essentially at 

background uranium and radiation levels, which is removed to gain access to underlying ore, is 

called overburden. 

Most uranium mining in the United States has taken place in the expansive Colorado Plateau 

region straddling the Four Corners where Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona meet. 

Figure 1.1 illustrates the extent of the Colorado Plateau and the general locations of uranium 

mines within the Colorado Plateau, although not all mines are shown; for example, numerous 

watersheds have over 100 mines by themselves. The source of the mine information used for this 

map is the Minerals Availability System/Mineral Industry Location System database 

(MAS/MILS) developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (McFaul et al. 2000), which has been 

included as a portion of the EPA Uranium Location Database (U.S. EPA 2006b). These mines 

have documented production, and represent over 4000 records contained within the larger EPA 

database, which contains over 14,000 records. Other mine location information in the EPA 
1-10

database has been collected from several cooperating state, Tribal, and federal agencies. Mine 

locations in the EPA database, including MAS/MILS sites, were compared to U.S. Geological 

Survey topographic maps and one another in order to obtain an indication of accuracy and 

reliability. While the MAS/MILS data has known flaws, and sites shown in Figure 1.1 do not 

constitute all known uranium mines and fields, it provides a general overview of uranium mine 

geographic distributions in the western U.S. The larger data sets that comprise the EPA Uranium 

Location Database are discussed in the database documentation (U.S. EPA 2006b). 

Major geologic formations noted for high uranium are the sedimentary Chinle (Triassic) and 

Morrison (Jurassic) Formations. The Chinle and Morrison are characterized by permeable 

streambed deposits of highly variable sized and sorted pebbles and sands, with associated 

concentrated pockets of organic matter from trees, branches, grasses, etc. Later blankets of 

volcanic ash provided a source of uranium to leach into the permeable rocks of the Chinle and 

Morrison. The uranium-laden leachate followed the highly permeable stream channel and 

mudstone formations, and upon reaching the reducing environment caused by high organic 

matter, precipitated uranium into void spaces, typically as uraninite. The association with 

organics resulted in some locales where very smallCbut very high-concentrationCuranium 

deposits have been found, including as petrified logs. Thus, one-man mining operations could 

target small, rich deposits profitably. 

Uranium’s Contribution to Natural Background Radiation 

Uranium is found in all rock types in varying, but usually small concentrations. Naturally 

occurring elemental radium and its radioactive decay products can emit radon to the Earth=s 

atmosphere. This section provides a basic discussion on natural background radiation. 

Background Gamma Radiation

Numerous studies have examined the occurrence of uranium and its radioactive decay products in 

U.S. soils. Table 1.3 presents average concentrations of some radionuclides found in igneous and 

sedimentary rocks that are the principal radionuclides referred to as NORM. There can be more 

than an order of magnitude difference in radionuclide contents among common igneous rocks. 

Similarly, deposits known as black shales, found in the eastern U.S. along the Appalachian 

Mountain front, are not uncommon rocks but are not similar to other U.S. shales as they typically 

have elevated uranium concentrations. 
1-11

Figure 1.1. U.S. Geographic Areas Rich in Uranium 

Most uranium mining in the United States took place in the expansive Colorado Plateau region 

straddling the Four Corners where Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona meet. This map 

shows mine locations plotted from McFaul et al. (2000) MAS/MILS database; not all known mine 

locations are included in that database, so some fields may not be represented. Readers looking 

for more complete information on state mine locations should refer to U.S. EPA (2006b).
1-12

Table 1.3 Concentrations of Certain Natural Radionuclides 

in Igneous and Sedimentary Rocks 

A concentrating effect can occur as a result of weathering and erosion of igneous rocks. With the 

exception of uranium-238, concentrations of radionuclides are generally higher in sedimentary 

rocks. The radionuclides listed are principal NORM radionuclides. The radionuclide contents 

shown here should be considered average values. Individual rock deposits can have radionuclide 

contents that may differ significantly from the numbers shown. 

Radium Uranium Thorium Potassium 

Rock type Ra-226 

pCi/g

Ra-226 

Bq/kg

U-238 

pCi/g

U-238 

Bq/kg

Th-232 

pCi/g

Th-232 

Bq/kg

K-40 

pCi/g

K-40 

Bq/kg

Igneous 1.30 48 1.30 48 1.30 48 22.0 810 

Sedimentary 

Sandstone 0.71 26 0.40 15 0.65 24 8.8 330 

Shale 1.08 40 0.40 15 1.10 41 22.0 810 

Limestone 0.42 16 0.40 15 0.14 5 2.2 81 

Note: Units are in picocuries/gram and Becquerels/kilogram. 

Source: Eisenbud and Gesell 1997. 

Radium (a decay product of uranium) primarily decays by alpha particle emission. Its own shortlived radioactive decay products, such as polonium-210 or bismuth-214, yield more gamma ray 

emissions over time, making radium an important contributor to overall human and 

environmental exposure to radiation, or radiation dose. In general, concentrations of radium-226 

in U.S. soils range from 0.4 to 1.3 pCi/g (16 to 48 Bq/kg) (Eisenbud and Gesell 1997), with lower 

concentrations found in the eastern part of the country, and higher concentrations in the West. 

Higher concentrations may also be found in locations with uraniferous igneous and sedimentary 

rocks, as well as phosphatic rock deposits. In addition to radium-226, uranium-238, uranium-235, 

and thorium-232, there are radioactive decay products that may substantially add to the 

radioactivity present where these radionuclides are in equilibrium to their decay products in 

uranium deposits, and mine or mine waste locations 

Primary contributors of radiation from the natural environment are soil gamma ray radiation and 

inhaled radon. A 1987 study (NCRP 1987b), citing a 1972 review by Oakley, estimated gamma 

radiation doses to the U.S. population from terrestrial sources, based on aerial radiological 

measuring surveys by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Table 1.4 and Figure 1.2). Annual 

doses for people living in brick homes may increase up to 10 milliRems/year (mRem/yr) due to 

naturally occurring thorium, uranium, and radium found in clays often used to make bricks. 

Additional data on the distribution of radium in the U.S. can be found in Myrick et al. (1981). 

Two additional studies of the National Council for Radiation Protection (NRCP 1993, 1984) 

examined the impacts of exposure to uranium and it’s radon daughter decay products, and 

radiation protection in the mineral extraction industry, respectively. 
1-13

Table 1.4 Absorbed Dose Rate in Air from Terrestrial Radiation Sources 

(in milliRems/year, milliSieverts/year and microGrays/year) 

Natural geologic accumulations of radionuclides in the Colorado Plateau, 

 the principal mining area for uranium in the United States, 

result in increased exposure rates for humans living in that environment. 

region 1960 Population 

Covered by Surveys

Absorbed Dose Rate in 

Air 

(microGy/yr) 

Dose in mrem/yr

(mSv/yr) 

Coastal Plain 6,759,772 230 23 (0.23) 

Non-coastal Plain (excluding 

Denver) 46,781,330 460 46 (0.46) 

Colorado Plateau (Denver) 1,073,624 900 90 (0.90) 

Population-Weighted Average 440 44 (0.44)

Note: Results are based on population-weighted aerial radiological survey data. 

100 microGy/yr x 0.1 = 0.10 mSv/yr = 10 mRem/yr. Rem = Roentgen equivalent in man. 

Sources: NCRP 1987b; Oakley 1972. 

Figure 1.2 Gamma Ray Radiation Across the United States 

Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Exposure at 1m above ground. 

Note: Results are based on national aerial gamma ray surveys. 

Colors/shading reflect exposure in μR per hour (micro Roentgens per hour) according to the map. 

Source: USGS 1993.
1-14

Radon in Homes 

The average radiation dose to an individual in the United States from all sources is about 360 

mRem/yr (3.6 milliSieverts). Typical values for annual exposure to radiation within the United 

States are summarized in Table 1.5. Radon occurs in the environment and is listed separately in 

that table because of radon=s significant contribution to radiation exposure: 200 mRem (two mSv) 

of the estimated average dose from all sources.11 Most of the radon dose comes from indoor 

exposure in homes, schools, and other buildings. The radon is generated by rocks and soil 

underlying the man-made structures; it seeps into the buildings through cracks and pore spaces of 

the foundations. Some radon is also generated from the building materials used in construction. 

Figure 1.3 presents short-term screening average U.S. indoor air concentrations of radon by 

county.12

Table 1.5 Average Annual Human Exposure to Radiation

Natural sources of human exposure to radiation, primarily in the form of radon, 

 usually outweigh manmade sources, though medical exposures have 

become more prominent in recent years. 

Sources of Radiation Average Exposure 

in mRem/yr (mSv/yr) 

Typical Range of Variability 

in mRem/yr (mSv/yr) 

Natural Sources 300 (3) 

Radon 200 (2) 30B800 (0.3-8) 

Internal 40 (0.4) 20B100 (0.02-1.0) 

Cosmic 30 (0.3) 30B80 (0.3-0.8) 

Terrestrial 30 (0.3) 10B80 (0.1-0.8) 

Man-made Sources 61 (0.61) 

Medical 50 (0.5) 

Consumer products 10 (0.1) 

Other (nuclear fuel cycle and occupational 

exposure) 

1 (0.01) 

Total 361 (3.6) 90B1,060 (0.9-10.6) 

Sources: NCRP 1987b for average exposure values; 

U.S. NRC 1994 for ranges of variability; Fisher 2003 for radon. 

 

11

Cosmic radiation comes from outer space. Some of it penetrates through the atmosphere covering the Earth. 

 The amount of cosmic radiation will vary, depending on the altitude and latitude where one lives. Internal 

 radiation comes primarily from ingested natural radioactive substances, such as potassium-40. 

12 See http://www.epa.gov/radon for more information. 
1-15

Figure 1.3 Average Indoor Air Screening-Level Concentrations 

of Radon in the United States 

The highest radon levels are generally reflected in counties located along 

 the Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, and north central states. 

Average Indoor Screening Levels 

Zone 1 counties: greater than 4 pCi/L (0.148 Bq/L) 

Zone 2 counties: between 2 and 4 pCi/L (0.074 and 0.148 Bq/L) 

Zone 3 counties: less than 2 pCi/L (less than 0.074 Bq/L) 

Note: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html to access an on-line 

version of this figure, which allows county-by-county information. 

Source: U.S. EPA 1993c 

. 

Uranium in Water

Just as uranium is found in virtually all rock and soil, it is essentially ubiquitous in groundwater. 

Groundwater concentrations tend to reflect overall bedrock averages and can vary widely. While 

surface waters, originating primarily from rain and snow melt, are typically very low in uranium 

and other TENORM radionuclides, to the point where they cannot be measured, groundwater can 

be relatively high in radionuclides of both primary and anthropogenic origin. 

Water is perhaps the most significant means of dispersal of uranium and related TENORM in the 

environment from mines and mine wastes. Surface waters contaminated by surface erosion of 

mines and wastes maypercolate into groundwater, and contaminated water travels underground 

through mines or drill holes into the groundwater. Uranium is very soluble in acidic and alkaline 

waters and can be transported easily from a mine site. Radium may be leachable as well as carried 

in particulate form by flowing water (Eisenbud and Gesell 1997). More detail on this topic can be 

found in Chapter 3. Occurrence of uranium and radium in water has been detailed in case studies 

on the Orphan Mine, Midnite Mine, Bluewater, and Yazzie-312 Mine (see Appendix III). 

EPA has updated its standards for maximum contaminant levels for radionuclides in drinking 

water (40 CFR 141.66), including a new standard for uranium (65 FR2000a 76708, December 7, 

2000), as required by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The standards are: 
1-16

combined radium 226/228 internal (five pCi/L) (0.185 Bq/L); man-made beta emitters (four 

mRem annual dose equivalent to the total body or any organ) (0.04 mSv); gross alpha (excluding 

uranium and radon) standard (15 pCi/L) (0.56 Bq/L); and uranium (30 μg/L). The reader should 

understand that the uranium standard was based on its identified toxicity to the kidney, and not its 

potential for causing cancer. 

Under the Clean Water Act (See Appendix VI for more detail), mines and mills that discharge 

must obtain a permit, and must monitor twice a year for specific pollutants determined by the 

type of ore they mine or process. EPA regulations in 40 CFR 440, Part C, are applicable to 

discharges from (a) mines either open-pit or underground (ISL operations are excluded), from 

which uranium, radium and vanadium ores are produced; and (b) mills using the acid leach, 

alkaline leach, or combined acid and alkaline leach process for the extraction of uranium, radium 

and vanadium. Only vanadium byproduct from uranium ores is covered under this subpart. With 

certain exceptions, primarily concerning unusually high storm water events, for existing and new 

point source dischargers, the maximum concentration for one day of dissolved radium-226 

allowed to be discharged is 10 pCi/L with an average 30 day value of three pCi/l, for total 

radium-226 the amount allowed to be discharged for one day is 30 pCi/L and 10 pCi/L for an 

average 30 day concentration. For uranium discharges, the maximum allowable discharge for one 

day is four milligrams/L, while an average of no more than two milligrams/L is allowed to be 

discharged over a 30 day period. The same numerical standards for radium apply to uranium 

mills, though there is no uranium discharge standard. 

Industrial Processes and Activities 

TENORM may be generated during extraction, processing, treatment, and purification of 

minerals, petroleum products, or other substances obtained from NORM-containing parent 

materials. TENORM also includes any radioactive materials made more accessible by human 

activities. Several hundred million metric tons (MTs) of TENORM are generated each year by a 

wide variety of industrial processes, ranging from uranium and phosphate mining to the treatment 

of drinking water. Although conventional uranium mining is the central focus of this report and 

will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, the section below briefly discusses activities or 

processes, other than uranium mining, that produce TENORM as a result of the co-occurrence of 

uranium and its daughter radionuclides in the source rock, soil, or water. However, not all ores of 

these commodities contain uranium or radium at concentrations above natural background levels 

in associated rocks. In some instances, the radioactive wastes from mineral processing other than 

uranium mines have been used as source rock for uranium extraction under NRC license. 

Uranium Associations with Other Metal Mining

Quite typically, beginning in the 1940s, uranium mines would open based on the detection of 

radioactivity at the site and identification of uraniferous mineralization. While some deposits 

were mined solely for their uranium content, others produced a variety of other minerals, which 

co-exist with the uranium minerals (Table 1.6). In some cases, exploitation of uranium minerals 

was secondary to producing another mineral found in greater abundance, commanding a better 

market price, or less expensive to produce; nevertheless, their combined economic value 

contributed to the success of the mining venture. 
1-17

The presence of radioactive minerals was sometimes unexpected, unknown, or ignored in 

producing one or more minerals at a mine. Many mine sites operated prior to the 1940s, and even 

after, have not been recognized for the inherent hazards potentially posed by radioactivity in the 

discarded waste rock or subeconomic ore piles. The geological emplacement or geothermal 

phenomena that formed other valuable minerals may have concentrated radioactive minerals as 

well, or the process of mining, beneficiation, and milling may have resulted in a concentration of 

the radioactive minerals in the waste. In some instances, the mineral(s) being mined may have 

radioactive elements included in their molecular structure that impart radioactivity to the ore or 

even the finished product. The EPA (U.S. EPA 2006b) Uranium Location Database provides the 

location of mines with uranium occurrence including those that may have been mined primarily 

for other minerals.

Table 1.6 Mineral Commodities with Uranium Associations 

Several mineral ores often, though not always, have TENORM-associated 

wastes resulting from the co-occurrence of uranium and radium. 

Aluminum (bauxite) 

Coal (and coal ash) 

Copper 

Fluorospar (fluorite) 

Gypsum 

Molybdenum 

Niobium 

Phosphate (phosphorus) 

Potassium (potash) 

Precious metals (gold, silver) 

Rare earths: yttrium, lanthanum, monazite, bastanite, etc. 

Tin 

Titanium (leucoxene, ilmenite, rutile) 

Tungsten 

Vanadium 

Zircon 

Source: U.S. EPA 2003b. 

Copper Mining 

Copper mines have long known to be associated with uranium occurrences internationally, as 

well as in the U.S. The Bingham Canyon copper mine in Utah produced 150,000 pounds of 

uranium per year from 1978-1985 and 10,000 pounds per month from February 1987 through the 

end of 1989 (Chenoweth 1991). The Orphan Mine in Arizona (see Appendix III) was originally 

claimed for its copper mineralization, but only began production in the 1950s as a result of its rich 

uranium occurrence. Other mines in the southwest, such as the Yerington Mine in Nevada and 

Anaconda Mine in Utah have also been reported to have uranium mineralization or production. 

Uranium recovery from copper leaching is described in McGinley (1980). EPA’s report (U.S. 

EPA 1999) on copper mining in Arizona provides extensive information on TENORM radiation 

associated with copper mine wastes and groundwater impacts, both from conventional and ISL

extraction facilities in that state. Some of the mines listed also were licensed by the Atomic 

Energy Commission (precursor to the NRC) to produce uranium in addition to copper.

Phosphate Production 

Uranium is known to associate with phosphatic deposits primarily because hexavalent uranium 

complexes well with dissolved phosphate. Phosphate rock contains phosphorite, a form of the 

mineral apatite, which is known to accommodate uranium. Phosphate rock is the sixth largest 

mining industry in the United States in terms of volume of material mined. It is mined for the 

production of phosphoric acid, the great majority of which is used in agricultural fertilizer. About 

80 percent of U.S. phosphate mining occurs in south central Florida, though some mining also has 

occurred in North Carolina, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Tennessee, and a few other states (U.S. EPA 

1989b; Jasinski 2003). 
1-18

The phosphate fertilizer industry is a major generator of TENORM. Uranium concentrations in 

phosphate rock range from 14 to 200 pCi/g (20 to 300 ppm, or about 0.5 Bq/g to 7 Bq/g), and 

radium concentrations are 18 to 84 pCi/g (about 0.7 to 3 Bq/g) (DeVoto and Stevens 1979). In the 

United States alone, some 150 million MTs of phosphate ore are produced each year, which contain 

radioactive thorium and its decay progeny, in addition to uranium TENORM. Mineral processing 

sometimes exposes workers to measurable doses of radioactivity. 

Phosphate ore is crushed and digested in sulfuric acid to produce orthophosphoric acid and 

phosphogypsum. Phosphogypsum is a complex mixture of gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), silica, and 

anhydrite (CaSO4). In the process, various other wastes are also formed. Between 80 and 100 

percent of the radium in phosphate rock is transported to the phosphogypsum, while about 70 

percent of the uranium (and thorium) remains in the phosphoric acid (however, the fractionation 

of uranium and thorium is variable and still not well characterized) (Guimond 1975; Hull and 

Burnett 1996; FIPR 1995). 

Though uranium concentrations in phosphate ore are low compared to typical uranium ores, the 

low cost of uranium recovery from secondary phosphate products sometimes makes it profitable 

to extract uranium as a by-product of phosphate production. Phosphate rock and tailings 

containing up to 120 ppm of uranium have been mined as a source of uranium (DeVoto and 

Stevens 1979). 

Before EPA required placement of phosphogypsum in environmentally isolated waste piles, 

called “stacks”, to control radon emissions (40 CFR 61, Subpart R), phosphogypsum and waste 

rock containing uranium and thorium were often used to refill and reclaim open mine pits. Due to 

pressures to find available land for home building, several of these reclaimed mine pits were 

subsequently sold as home sites. In 1975, EPA reported that more than 1,000 houses were built 

over these sites in one Florida county alone. While it has not been determined if this housing may 

pose a radiation hazard to the occupants, during its study EPA found some elevated levels of 

radiation and radon (U.S. EPA 1975). 

Elemental phosphorus is produced by the thermal process. It is a raw material used primarily in 

chemical and food production, primarily from ore deposits in Idaho. This process also produces 

TENORM wastes, such as slags, containing radium and uranium. 

Coal Combustion 

Most coal contains uranium and its progeny radionuclides at levels about the same as, or less than 

other rocks of the Earth's crust (UNSCEAR 1982). Uranium TENORM emerges from coalburning plant furnaces predominantly in fly ash, which is fused and chemically stable. Coal fly 

ash is derived from inorganic materials that were co-deposited with the organic detritus that 

produced the coal beds. Uranium in coal may be a combination of detrital mineral matter and 

uranium deposited later through adsorption by, or oxidation of, organic matter in the lignite or 

coal. In one instance in the 1960s, certain lignitic coals from North Dakota were mined and 

burned in order to further concentrate the high levels of uranium already present in the coal; the 

resulting ash was then taken to a uranium mill in Colorado to process into uranium yellowcake13 . 

 

13 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/umtra/belfield_title1.html for more information. 
1-19

Principal nonradioactive ash constituents are the metal oxides of silica and alumina, often 

comprising 80B90 percent, with smaller percentages of other metal oxides, including iron, 

calcium, sodium, tin, magnesium, and potassium. Pollution control devices in modern power 

plants usually capture about 99 percent of fly ash, and devices in some older plants capture about 

90 percent. However, those devices do not capture radon gas. In addition to ash, power plants 

produce slag, sludge, and other waste products that may contain uranium TENORM. 

The amount of ash generated is proportional to the amount of coal consumed and the coal ash 

content. The ash content of coal will vary according to the depositional environment. The average 

ash content of coal burned by the U.S. electric utility industry is approximately 10 percent, 

meaning that uranium in coal is concentrated roughly 10 times in the ash. For coal with a 10 

percent ash content, a 1,000 megawatt plant may produce over 1,500 tons of ash during a 24-hour 

period. However, the actual quantity of ash produced also depends on the plant=s design and 

efficiency and the coal=s energy content. 

Though the concentrations are low, the total amount of TENORM in fly ash is noteworthy (Beck 

et al. 1980; Beck 1989). For example, in 2004, U.S. electric power plants burned approximately 

921 million MTs of coal (U.S. DOE/EIA 2005d). If that amount of coal is burned with 1.5 ppm 

uranium, 1,381 MTs of uranium would be concentrated, in addition to other TENORM quantities. 

Other coals are quoted as ranging from up to 25 ppm of uranium and 80 ppm of thorium. Based 

on analyses of nearly 7,000 samples, of all coal provinces and coal ranks, an EPA study found 

that the range of uranium in U.S. coal was 0.010B75 ppm (U.S. EPA 1995b). 

Most fly ash is buried, but increasingly fly ash is being used for commercial applications. A 

significant quantity of fly ash (Class C) is considered cementitious (having the properties of 

cement, the principal binding agent in concrete) which makes it a very useful material. The 

relatively uniform small particle size, surface reactivity, and bulk chemical 

compositionCparticularly if alkali elements are abundantClend properties to coal ash, slag, and 

flue gas waste material that have numerous useful commercial applications. These include: 

flowable fill, structural fill, road base/subbase, coal mining applications, mineral filler in asphalt, 

snow and ice road control, blasting grit and roofing granules, grouting, waste solidification and 

stabilization, and wall board (ACAA 1995, 1996; U.S. DOE/EIA 1993; EPRI 1988). 

Heavy Mineral Sands 

Many of the minerals which make up this commodity contain significant percentages of uranium 

and thorium. As a result of their inherent hardness, weight (specific gravity), and other physical 

properties, certain minerals are naturally resistant to erosion and to physical and chemical 

breakdown over geologic time. Accumulations of these minerals results in sedimentary sand 

deposits commonly called Aheavy mineral sands,@ or sometimes Ablack sands,@ because they are 

dominated by black minerals. These deposits, if they occur in easily accessible locations and in 

sufficient size, may be mined to concentrate and extract valuable industrial metals (U.S. EPA 

1990). 

Typical minerals that may be found in these deposits include garnet; titanium-rich rutile, ilmenite, 

and leucoxene; thorium-rich monazite; and uranium-rich zircon. All of these minerals, and 

several others typically occurring in the deposits, are radioactive due to: the presence of uranium, 

thorium, and radium in their molecular matrix; radioactive coatings washed into the deposits from 

elsewhere; or the chemical and physical weathering of radioactive mineral grains in the sand 

deposit. The wastes from extracting these minerals, and often the finished products resulting from 

mineral processing, may retain some or all of their natural radioactivity (CRCPD 1994). 
1-20

Although monazite is mined incidentally along with other minerals in heavy mineral sand 

deposits, it is not currently being used commercially in the United States, and is usually returned 

to the extraction site as a waste. The uranium oxide content of monazite sands in the Southeast 

was measured at 0.47 percent (Mertie 1953). Monazite from the Green Cove Springs deposit in 

Florida, which produced monazite prior to 1995, averaged 4.44 percent thorium oxide (Staatz et 

al. 1980). 

The major U.S. mining operations for titanium sands have been located in Stoney Creek, 

Virginia, and Simi Valley, California, and along the Trail Ridge formation, an ancient sand dune 

deposit that extends from northeastern Florida to southeastern Georgia. However, most titanium 

ore (separated sands mostly, rather than finished titanium dioxide powder) is imported. Although 

as a metal, titanium is well known for its corrosion resistance and for its high strength-to-weight 

ratio, approximately 95 percent of titanium is consumed in the form of titanium dioxide pigment 

in paints, paper, and plastics. Other end uses of titanium include ceramics, chemicals, welding rod 

coatings, heavy aggregate, and steel furnace flux (USGS 1973). There has been no study on 

disposal of any residual radioactive wastes from these industries in the U.S. 

Zirconium is a silvery-white metal obtained from zircon sands (Brady et al. 1997), while hafnium 

is a ductile metal, with a brilliant silver luster. Most zirconium minerals contain 1B5 percent 

hafnium (CRC 1994). Zircon production is usually a byproduct of mining and extracting titanium 

minerals from ilmenite and rutile ores. Zircon has been produced from dredging operations in 

Florida, and now Virginia. Major end-use categories for zircon include abrasives, ceramics, 

refractories, and foundry applications. Zircon is consumed directly for abrasives and welding and 

as welding flux. Zircon sands and finely ground zircon (termed zircon “flour”) are consumed in 

foundry molds, refractories, and ceramics. Residual radioactive wastes from these industries have 

been reported to be disposed in industrial landfills, and there have been instances where 

abandoned barrels of zircon flour, and sites contaminated with zircon wastes have been the 

subject of Superfund cleanup and removal actions. Table 1.7 presents radioactivity concentrations 

reported by the CRCPD for zircon and titanium process ore and wastes 

Table 1.7 Radionuclide Concentrations in Process and Waste Samples 

Radium concentrations can be highly variable for titanium 

and zircon ores and wastes, and dependent on ore source. 

Process Ores 226 Radium Concentrations in pCi/g (Bq/Kg) 

Titanium

Rutile 15 (555) 

Leucoxene 12 (444) 

Dry ponds (~5 cm depth) 45 (1665) 

Dry ponds (surface) 20 (740) 

Settling pond solids 17 (0.73) 

Sludge pile 4B25 (148B925) 

Zircon

Chlorinator residues No. 1 150B1,300 (5550B48100) 

Chlorinator residues No. 2 230B890 (8510B32930) 

Clarifier sludge 87B150 (3219B5550) 

Source: CRCPD 1994. 
 2-1

Chapter 2. Uranium Mining and Extraction Processes in the United States

In 1946, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), establishing the Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC) and designating it as the sole purchasing agent for domestically produced uranium. The AEA also 

set fixed prices for uranium ore and provided production incentives (e.g., including access roads, haulage 

allowances, and buying stations) in an effort to bolster development within the domestic uranium 

industry. Since then, the industry has gone through two boom-to-bust cycles (U.S. DOE/EIA 1992). The 

first of these cycles, in the 1950s, was prompted by the demand generated by the U.S. government's 

weapons program. The second, in the 1970s to early 1980s, was fueled by expectations for increasing 

demand from commercial nuclear power production and the “energy crisis”. Since the 1970s, the NRC 

succeeded the AEC in the role of licensing uranium extraction operations, but the demand and price of 

uranium has been determined by external market forces. Rising demand, beginning in 2003 for uranium 

has begun to increase production in the domestic industry. The importance of the uranium market and 

price of uranium is their role in mining industry decisions. Some of these decisions are: how to extract ore 

from a mineral deposit, how many and which mineral deposits should be mined, and when they should be 

mined. Those decisions ultimately affect the volumes of waste produced and how it is managed. 

This chapter examines the location and geology of uranium deposits in the United States, the methods 

used to mine uranium, and the methods used to extract it from ore. Many of the geological and mining 

terms used in the text that follows are defined in the chapter and are also in included in the glossary in 

Appendix I. 

The Early Years of Uranium Production 

As a result of the AEC=s financial incentivesCfirst announced in 1948 and 1949 and then increased in 

1951Curanium prospectors searched prospective areas of the United States throughout the 1950s for 

radioactivity that might signal a viable uranium deposit. Prospectors locating areas with mining potential 

would file claims for the discovery site and nearby areas. The ownership claims were regulated according 

to the Mining Law of 1872 and were enforced by the U.S. Department of Interior. To maintain ownership 

of these claims, prospectors needed to perform a variety of activities every year, including digging small 

pits, adits1

, and trenches. If they found ore grade material higher than 0.10 percent uranium, they would 

mine the material and ship it to regional AEC buying stations for sale. AEC offered bonuses for 

shipments meeting minimum criteria. 

In many parts of the Colorado Plateau, the characteristic geologic forms of uranium ore bodies were small 

to moderate-sized isolated pods or linear sinuous channels of ore, as opposed to large lithologic2

 beds 

typical of coal or iron. As a result, thousands of diminutive mines were developed in the Plateau region 

on ore bodies sometimes as small as a single uraniferous petrified log weighing a few metric tons. In 

many cases, these ore bodies were clustered into districts (Table 2.1.), and ores were shipped from 

producing properties to centralized mills. These small mines produced small quantities of waste rock 

typically discarded within several to over 100 yards (several to about 100 meters) of the mine opening or 

pit. Mine maps typically show extensive underground mining following ore zones with only small piles of 

 

1 Adits are horizontal or nearly horizontal passages driven from the surface for the working or dewatering of a mine. 

 If driven through a hill or mountain to the surface on the other side it would be a tunnel. 

2

 Lithologic is defined as character of a rock described in terms of its structure, color, mineral composition, grain 

 size, and arrangement of its component parts; all those visible features that in the aggregate impart individuality to 

 the rock. Lithology is the basis of correlation in coal and other types of mines and commonly is reliable over a 

 distance of a few to several miles. 
 2-2

waste rock at the mouth of the mine entry. Mines of this type, now abandoned, are scattered over wide 

areas of southeastern Utah, southwestern Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, and northeastern Arizona, 

as can be seen in Figure 2.1. As described further in Chapter 3 of this report, the mines which were 

abandoned or left unrestored prior to the early 1970s left residual wastes that are a main focus of this 

study. The migration of radionuclides and other hazardous substances from those mines and their waste 

piles have resulted from biologic, hydrologic, wind, and human actions, and are discussed in more detail 

in Chapter 3 and Volume II of this report (U.S. EPA 2006a). 

The primary database for uranium mine locations for the public has been the MAS/MILS (McFaul et al. 

2000) database. However, the MAS/MILS data used to construct Figure 2.1 has known flaws, and sites 

shown on the map using the database do not constitute all known uranium mines and fields. For example, 

the Crow Butte in situ leach (ISL) field in Northwest Nebraska near the Wyoming border is not included; 

however Figure 2.9, based on different data compiled in the EPA Uranium Location Database (U.S. EPA 

2006b), does show the location of the Northwest Nebraska uranium district. The MAS/MILS database 

though, does provide a general overview of uranium mine geographic distributions in the western U.S. 

The larger data sets that comprise the EPA Uranium Location Database are discussed in the database 

documentation (U.S. EPA 2006b). 

Table 2.1. Major U.S. Uranium Mining Districts

Several major uranium districts produced uranium ore in the past 

and contain potential for future exploitation. 

Uranium District State

Spokane Washington 

Wind River 

Central Wyoming 

Wyoming 

Washakie Sand Wash Wyoming, Colorado 

Powder River Wyoming, Montana 

Northwest Nebraska Nebraska 

Uravan 

Front Range 

Marshall Pass 

Tallahassee Creek 

Paradox Basin, Colorado & Utah 

Paradox Basin Colorado, Utah 

Marysvale Utah 

Northern Arizona Arizona 

Grants Mineral Belt New Mexico, Arizona 

Texas Gulf Coast Texas 

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 1997. 
 2-3

Figure 2.1. Mines and Other Locations with Uranium in the Western U.S. 

Thousands of uranium mine sites are scattered over wide areas of the western United States. 

This map shows locations provided in the MAS/MILS database. 

Source: (U.S. EPA 2006b) 
 2-4

Large companies were also in the uranium prospecting business. Many mining properties proved to have 

much larger ore bodies than originally thought, both on the Colorado Plateau and in other states. 

Extensive mining operations were developed at these sites. Since the early 1960s, most uranium has been 

mined on a larger scale than early mining efforts and conventional mining techniques were established to 

recover the ores. 

Although the AEC incentives ceased in 1962, the agency continued to purchase ore from properties with 

reserves discovered before November 24, 1958, at guaranteed prices through the end of 1970. Initially, 

the AEC paid $8.00 per pound, but this declined to $6.70 per pound in the late 1960s (Chenoweth 2004). 

Several ore processing mills closed from late 1959 through the end of the 1960s. In 1961, for the first 

time since 1948, uranium production declined in the United States. By the end of the buying program in 

1970, several hundred small to intermediate-sized underground and open-pit mines were either mined out 

or had become uneconomical and were abandoned. 

The industry was revitalized shortly thereafter by the prospect of supplying fuel to the developing 

commercial nuclear power industry. The production and market prices of uranium grew rapidly through 

the mid- and late 1970s and early 1980s, as commercial markets began to emerge. However, production 

and prices peaked in the early 1980s, when domestic demand for uranium ore fell far short of its expected 

growth, and low-cost, high-grade Canadian and Australian deposits began to dominate world markets. As 

planning and construction of new U.S. commercial nuclear power plants came to a halt (U.S. DOE/EIA 

1992) and the domestic price of uranium dropped dramatically, the U.S. industry shifted from higher-cost 

to lower-cost production sites, and the nation faced an oversupply of uranium despite the fact that demand 

remained about even through 2003. 

Throughout the high uranium production years, trends in the industry changed, leading to new mining 

methodologies and subsequent changes in the nature of their resulting waste generation and hazards. 

Environmental concerns and regulatory requirements, as well as discovery of high uranium content 

deposits with low extraction costs, resulted in increased uranium mining overseas. Traditional mining 

techniques can have high associated costs for heavy metal and TENORM waste management, acid mine 

runoff, and mine site restoration. These issues made many uranium mines unprofitable when market 

prices were low. Increasing world demand raised the price of uranium starting in 2003 (AAPG 2005) and 

although most mines that were inactive at the time employed the less disruptive ISL technique, (described 

in the following section), conventional mine sites have begun to reopen as a result (Teluride Watch 2005). 

Conventional Uranium Mining Methods 

The following discussion describes physical methods of mining. Mining is the mechanical process by which 

mineral ores are extracted from the earth. These methods are referred to in this report as conventional 

mining methods, as opposed to the solution chemical extraction processes of ISL and heap leaching. 

Ore is a mineral source from which a valuable commodity (e.g., metal) is recovered. The term ore implies 

economic viability, given the concentration of metal in the host rock, the costs of extraction, processing and 

refinement, waste management, site restoration, and the market value of the metal. Protore is conventionally 

mined uranium ore that is not rich enough to meet the market demand and price. This subeconomic ore is 

often stockpiled at the mine site for future exploitation under the appropriate economic or market demand 

conditions. Waste materials that are, or could be classified as, technologically enhanced, include 

overburden, unreclaimed protore, waste rock, drill and core cuttings, liquid wastes and pit water (for more 

detailed discussion, see Chapter 3). The size, grade, depth, and geology of an ore body (or deposit) are used 

in combination to determine which extraction method is most efficient and economical. Conventional 
 2-5

mining generally refers to open-pit and underground mining. Open-pit mining is employed for ore deposits 

that are located at or near the surface, while underground mining is used to extract ore from deeper deposits 

or where the size, shape, and orientation of the ore body may permit more cost-effective underground 

mining. Since the early 1960s, most uranium has been mined on a larger scale than earlier mining efforts, 

and, until recently, by using conventional mining techniques. Radioactive mine wastes from conventional 

open-pit and underground mines are considered to be TENORM, whose regulatory responsibility resides 

with EPA or the states. In recent years, ISL operations (regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States) in 

the United States are described further below. Those operations have generally replaced conventional 

mining because of their minimal surface disturbance and avoidance of associated costs (See Appendix VI 

for discussion on statutory and regulatory authorities).

 

Open-Pit (Surface) Mining

Open-pit mining is the surface removal of soil and rock overburden and extraction of ore. Open-pit mines 

are broad, open excavations that narrow toward the bottom, and are generally used for shallow ore 

deposits. The maximum depth of open-pit mining in the United States is usually about 550 feet (168 

meters). Lower-grade ore can be recovered in open-pit mining, since costs are generally lower compared 

to underground mining. There are deeper surface mines for copper and other minerals (Berkeley pit in 

Butte, Montana, reportedly at the north end is approximately 1780 feet, or 543 meters deep). Figure 2.2 

shows a commonly used excavation method for removing overburden from surface mines, whereas Figure 

2.3 shows the layout of a larger surface mine operation. 

Delineation of the ore deposit by drilling and computer modeling is followed by development of a plan 

for removing and disposing of overburden. This planning is important, since the handling of waste 

material comprises one of the largest shares of overall mining costs (Grey 1993). 

Figure 2.2. Surface Mine Showing Drag Line and Overburden 

 

Source: U.S. EPA 1997 

In open-pit mining, topsoil is the natural soil overlying the pit outline, while overburden includes material 

lying between the topsoil and the uranium ore deposit. In more recent open-pit operations, soil is removed 

and stockpiled for later site reclamation (i.e., restoration). Overburden is removed using scrapers, 

mechanical shovels, trucks, and loaders. In some cases, the overburden may be ripped or blasted free for 

removal. Overburden forms the largest volume of waste, is generally lowest in naturally radioactive 

elements, and is not as enriched in uranium as protore. Protore is often stockpiled at the mine site as well, 
 2-6

and is much higher in radionuclide or heavy metal content than overburden or soil. 

Once the ore body is exposed, radiometric probing is used to define the exact extent of the ore body. Ore, 

protore, and low-grade mineralized rock are outlined, and plans are developed for mining and stockpiling 

them. Many times parts of an ore body delineated by drilling cannot be economically mined by open-pit 

methods. Where parts of the deposit lie adjacent to the bottom of the planned pit, underground mines may 

be developed from the pit bottom to recover these ores. Often waste material, including overburden, is 

returned to mined-out areas during mining to reduce hauling costs. 

Figure 2.3. Surface Mine 

This figure shows a surface mine operation in Nevada. 

Source: U.S. EPA RCRA Program 

ARim stripping@ was a technique applied in areas of the Colorado Plateau. In this type of open-pit mining, 

the ore body occurred at or near the surface along the edge (or rim) of a canyon. Miners would strip the 

shallow overburden from the deposit and generally drop the waste material down the adjacent canyon 

wall. In practice, this mining resembles strip mining for coal in the eastern United States. Rim stripping 

was generally limited to the edge of the canyon because the overburden grew thicker farther away from 

the rim. 

Underground Mining

Deeper uranium ore deposits require underground mining by one of several excavation techniques, 

including: 

• longwall retreat (a method of underground mining in which the ore bearing rock is removed in 

one operation by means of a long working face or wall; the space from which the ore has been 

removed either is allowed to collapse, or is completely or partially filled with stone and debris); 

• room and pillar (a conventional method of mining in which natural pillars are left unmined for 

support between the mined rooms); and, 

• panels (a method of mining whereby the workings of a mine are divided into sections, each 

surrounded by solid strata with only necessary roads through the rock barrier). 
 2-7

The mining method of choice depends on several factors, including the size, shape, depth, and grade of 

the ore body, the stability of the ground, and economics (Grey 1993). For small ore bodies near the 

surface, miners may use: 

• adits; 

• inclines (a slanting shaft from the surface into the underground mine); or, 

• small shafts to reach and remove ore. 

Larger, deeper deposits may require one or more vertical concrete-lined shafts or declines large enough 

for motorized vehicles to reach the ore. Stopes (an underground excavation from which ore has been 

removed in a series of steps) reaching out from the main shaft provide access to the ore. 

Ore and waste rock generated during mining are usually removed through shafts via elevators, or carried 

to the surface in trucks along declines. Because of the high costs of removing such materials, some waste 

rock may be used underground as backfill material in mined-out areas. As with surface mining, 

radioactive waste rock in underground mining is generally considered to be TENORM. The extracted ore 

is stockpiled at the surface or trucked directly to a processing mill, which may be on site or at some 

centralized location. Figure 2.4 is a diagram of an underground uranium mine with room and pillar 

excavation. 

Figure 2.4. Diagram of Room and Pillar Underground Mining 

This figure shows a simplified diagram of a room and pillar underground mining operation. Main 

vertical shafts connect with underground “rooms” that have been excavated using unmined rock columns 

as support pillars. Rail cars move ore and waste through the mine. 

Source: U.S. EPA (1997) 
 2-8

Unconventional Mining Methods

Open-pit and underground mining methods, both of which rely on physical extraction to obtain raw 

uranium ore, are commonly referred to as conventional mining methods. The reliance on chemical or 

other means to extract uranium are referred to as unconventional mining methods, even though they may 

have been used as extraction processes for decades. The sections which follow describe the heap leaching 

and ISL extraction processes. 

Heap Leaching

As this is an extraction process, heap leaching is regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States; the waste 

rock is considered byproduct material (see Appendix VI). Ore that is removed from open-pit and 

underground mining operations undergoes further processing to remove and concentrate the uranium; the 

heap leaching may be located near the mine site. Ore is crushed in a large mill, grounded to sand 

consistency, and mounded above grade on a prepared pad, usually constructed of clay, coated concrete, or 

asphalt. A sprinkler system, positioned over the top, continually sprays leach solution over the mound. For 

ores with low lime content (less than 12 percent), an acid solution is used, while alkaline solutions are used 

when the lime content is above 12 percent. The leach solution trickles through the ore and mobilizes 

uranium, as well as other metals, into solution. The solution is collected at the base of the mound by a 

manifold and processed to extract the uranium. Figure 2.5 below provides an illustration of the process. 

Heap leaching was used mostly on an experimental basis in the 1970s and 1980s, but is generally not in use 

in the U.S. today. 
 2-9

Figure 2.5. Illustration of Heap Leaching Process 

In this illustration, leaching solutions (either acidic or alkaline) comprising the lixiviant are sprinkled on 

crushed ore mounded on a liner or leaching pad. Uranium bearing fluids collect by gravity on the bottom of 

the pile and drain into a pit (or pregnant pond); the fluids are then piped or transported to a mill for further 

extraction and turned into yellowcake. 

Source: EPA 

In Situ Leaching (Solution Mining)

Since this is also an extraction process, ISL is regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States; the waste 

materials and fluids are considered byproduct material (see Appendix VI). However, ISL operation wells 

are subject to permitting under EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program (See Appendix VI 

for more information). ISL operations are discussed here to provide a more complete representation of the 

impacts from uranium production. 

ISL is used when specific conditions exist, for example: 

• The ore is too deep to be mined economically by conventional means; 

• The uranium is present in multiple-layered roll fronts that may be offset by faulting; 

• The ore body is below the water table; 

• Considerable methane and hydrogen sulfide are associated with the ore; 

• The ore grade is low, and the ore body is too thin to mine by conventional means; 

• A highly permeable rock formation exists in which uranium can be economically produced. 

 In this method of extraction, uranium ores are leached underground by the introduction of a solvent 

solution, called a lixiviant, through injection wells drilled into the ore body. The process does not require 
 2-10

the physical extraction of ore from the ground. Lixiviants for uranium mining commonly consist of water 

containing added oxygen and carbon dioxide or sodium bicarbonate, which mobilize uranium. The 

lixiviant is injected, passes through the ore body, and mobilizes the uranium. The uranium-bearing 

solution is pumped to the surface from production wells. 

The pregnant leach solution is processed to extract the uranium, usually by ion exchange or by solvent 

extraction. The ion exchange process employs a resin that, once fully saturated with uranium, is flushed 

with a highly concentrated salt (e.g., sodium chloride) solution. This reverses the exchange process and 

releases uranium into the solution. The uranium solution is then sent to another process for concentration, 

precipitation and drying, as yellowcake. The solvent extraction process relies on unmixable properties 

between the pregnant leach solution and (uranium) solute. Normally, the solvents are organic compounds 

that can combine with either cationic or anionic solutes. For example, anionic solutions include amine 

chains and ammonium compounds, and cationic solutions are phosphoric acid-based. Figure 2.6 shows a 

simplified version of the ISL process. 

Figure 2.6. Illustration of ISL Process 

This figure shows a simplified version of how ISL solution mining works. Lixiviant is injected 

 into the ground through a well on the left and far right, the fluid flows underground dissolving 

 uranium and carrying it in solution until it reaches a production well in the center. The fluid 

carrying dissolved uranium is returned to the surface from the production well, then is piped 

off to a production facility for refinement into yellowcake. 

Source: Modified after ANAWA : http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/isl-diagram.html

When the ISL process is completed, the ore body and aquifer are placed in a restoration phase, as required 

by mine permits, NRC and Agreement State regulatory programs. Typically, the aquifer must be restored 

to background levels where possible or practical, or to its prior classification for water use in terms of the 

presence of metals, organics, pH level, and radioactivity. Therefore, in some cases, restoring it to the preoperation level does not necessarily make it potable. Through the aquifer exemption process, EPA and its 

Delegated States determine if an aquifer or part of an aquifer is exempt from protection as an 

underground source of drinking water because it is currently unusable as a source of drinking water and 

will not serve as a source of drinking water in the future. Approval of this exemption is necessary before a 

UIC permit may be issued for ISL mineral extraction wells. The aquifer exemption is permanent, and so 

for some operations in some states, there is no requirement for restoration of an aquifer, or part of an 

aquifer depending on the UIC permit, once it is exempted. EPA requires, however, that non-exempted 

groundwater sources be protected from contamination. 
 2-11

Uranium Milling

While not a central focus for this report, information is provided below primarily from U.S. EPA (1995a) 

on the uranium milling process; for more detailed discussions on the milling process, the reader is 

referred to that report. Licensed by the NRC under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, mills process source 

materials (see Chapters 1 and Appendix VI) from conventional uranium mines and occasionally from 

other industrial activities or mines. Uranium mills have typically been associated with specific mines or 

functioned as custom mills, serving a number of mines. Most available information on milling operations 

was written when a dozen or more were operational, therefore the following discussions may not 

precisely describe milling activities being conducted at present, or in the future. The chemical nature of 

the ore determines the type of leach circuit required and, in turn, the extent of grinding of ore received 

from a mine. 

The initial step in conventional milling involves crushing, grinding, and wet and/or dry classification of 

the crude ore to produce uniformly sized particles. Ore feeds from crushers to the grinding circuit where 

various mechanical mills grind the rock to further reduce the size of the ore. Water or lixiviant is added to 

the system in the grinding circuit to facilitate the movement of solids, for dust control, and (if lixiviant is 

added) to initiate leaching (U.S. DOI 1980). Screening devices 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 (U.S. EPA 1983d). 

After grinding, the slurry is pumped to a series of tanks for leaching. Two types of leaching have been 

employed by uranium mills, acid and alkaline. A solvent (lixiviant) is brought into contact with the 

crushed ore slurry. 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 a 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. 

Operational mills currently function independently of specific conventional mines and generate materials 

that are, in most cases, unique from those generated at the site of extraction. Under UMTRCA, sourcehandling licenses place specific requirements on the disposal of radioactive wastes; the design and 

construction of tailings impoundments address NRC requirements for permanent storage of these wastes. 

Radionuclide-containing wastes generated by ISL operations are typically shipped to tailings 

impoundments at mill sites. Figure 2.7 shows the general physical layout of a typical uranium mill. 

Information on statutory requirements for closure and reclamation of abandoned and inactive uranium 

mills can be found in Appendix VI, characteristics of mill tailings in Chapter 3, and reclamation 

procedures for closed mills and mill tailings impoundments can be found in Chapter 4. Mills in operation 

and inactive are discussed below. 
 2-12

Figure 2.7. Generalized Uranium Mill Physical Layout

This figure shows how a uranium mill is physically set up to crush raw ore 

into particles amenable to chemical treatments for extracting uranium. 

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/uran_enrich_fuel/uraniummill.html

The Uranium Industry Today 

Due to worldwide oversupply of uranium, and dearth of new U.S. nuclear plants, the U.S. uranium 

mining industry was depressed from the early 1980s until about 2003, when only a few mines remained in 

operation. In 1981, the United States produced nearly 14,800 metric tons of oxide of uranium (U3O8) 

equivalent at an average price of over $34 per pound. U3O8 equivalent production in 1991 was 

approximately 3,600 metric tons sold at an average price of $13.66 per pound. While it had decreased to 

less than $8 per pound in 2000, by 2004, due to increasing demand, the price of uranium increased 

substantially. In early 2006, it had increased to approximately $40 per pound. These fluctuations in price 

affect the numbers of operating mines and mills in the country, and the methods of extraction used. 

The employment structure in the uranium industry has significantly changed since the mid-1970s, when 

nearly 60 percent of the uranium industry labor force was devoted to uranium mining and production. 

This fraction steadily declined until recently, when only about 25 percent of the employment was related 

to mining (including ISL) and almost one-half of that was associated with reclamation of past production 

facilities. The industry experienced the highest level of employment in 1979 with 21,500 workers. In 

1981 employment was about 13,600, and in 2000 the work force was down to 627 workers (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2001). Due to increased demand for uranium which resulted in higher prices, steady increases 

were seen in employment and production of uranium commencing in 2004. 
 2-13

The U.S. Department of Energy=s 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 (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 1992, 1993). By 2000, one person-year was expended in exploration, 157 in mining, 106 in 

milling, and 137 in processing (U.S. DOE/EIA 2001); the remainder (226 person years) were involved in 

site reclamation. It is reported in the “Domestic Uranium Report” (U.S. DOE/EIA 2005b) released by the 

Department of Energy in August, 2005, that employment in the U.S. uranium production industry totaled 

420 person-years, an increase of 31 percent from the 2003 total. Reclamation employment increased three 

percent. Wyoming accounted for 33 percent of the total 2004 employment, while Colorado and Texas 

employment almost tripled since 2003. Overall, $86.9 million went to drilling, production, land 

exploration and restoration activities in 2004. 

 A total of 17 uranium mines were operational in 1992: five conventional mines (both underground and 

open-pit), four ISL and eight reported as "other" (mill tails recovery operations, mine water extraction, or 

from low-grade stockpiles). Uranium in 1992 was also produced to a limited extent as a side product of 

phosphoric acid production at four sites (U.S. DOE/EIA 1993). By 2002, production had been reduced to 

three ISL operations and one underground mine (U.S. DOE/EIA 2003a). The ISL sites were located in 

Wyoming and Nebraska. A number of mines were closed and inactive with the possibility of reopening 

should the price of uranium increase in the future. In 2002, only 2.4 million pounds (~1090 MT) of U3O8

were produced domestically by: ISL operations, processing of waste mine-water, or reclamation and 

restoration activities at closed ISL sites. 

 The uranium production industry had a turnaround in 2004. An increase in all aspects of the industry was 

noticed for the first time since 1998. This included drilling, mining, production and employment. In 2004 

(latest statistics available) 2.5 million pounds (~1135 MT) of U3O8 were mined in the U.S. which was 11 

percent higher than the previous year (U.S. DOE/EIA 2005a). A new underground mine and a new ISL 

mine started in 2004. Total U.S. production of yellowcake (uranium concentrate) was 2.3 million pounds 

(~1045 MT) which was 14 percent higher than the production in 2003. Table 2.2 below provides U.S. 

uranium concentrate production by quarters. 
 2-14

Table 2.2. U.S. Uranium Mine Production: 2000B2005

This table shows Total Production of Uranium Concentrate in the United States, 2000 -2005 

Production is reported in pounds U3O8, metric tons are included in parentheses 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005P

1st Quarter 

1,018,683 

(462 MT) 

709,177 

(322 MT) 

620,952 

(282 MT) 

E

 400,000 

(181 MT) 

E

 600,000 

(272 MT) 

708,980 

(322 MT) 

2nd Quarter 

983,330 

(446 MT) 

748,298 

(339 MT) 

643,432 

(292 MT) 

E

 600,000 

(272 MT) 

E

 400,000 

(181 MT) 

630,057 

(286 MT) 

3rd Quarter 

981,948 

(445 MT) 

628,720 

(285 MT) 

579,723 

(263 MT) 

E

 400,000 

(181 MT) 

588,738 

(267 MT) 

585,925 

(266 MT) 

4th Quarter 

973,585 

(442 MT) 

553,060 

(251 MT) 

E

 500,000 

(227 MT) 

E

 600,000 

(272 MT) 

E

 600,000 

(272 MT) NA 

Calendar-Year Total

3,957,545 

(1795 MT)

2,639,256 

(1197 MT)

E 2,344,107 

(1063 MT)

E 2,000,000 

(907 MT)

2,282,406 

(1035 MT) NA 

 

P = Preliminary data. 

E = Estimate - The 2003 and 1st, 2nd, and 4th quarter 2004 production amounts were estimated by rounding to the nearest 

200,000 pounds to avoid disclosure of individual company data. The 4th quarter 2002 production amount was estimated by 

rounding to the nearest 100,000 pounds to avoid disclosure of individual company data. This also affects the 2002 annual 

production. 

NA = Not Available. 

 

Notes: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding or reporting methods mentioned previously. 

Next update is approximately 45 days after the end of the fourth quarter 2005.

Source: Modified from U.S. DOE/EIA (2005b): Form EIA-858, "Uranium Industry Annual Survey."

Only 16 percent of all uranium purchased by U.S. utilities in 2000 was domestically produced (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2000a). According to surveys of owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors, 

future deliveries of U3O8 for 2001B2010 would amount to 116.5 to 179.0 million pounds (53 to 81 

thousand MT). It was also estimated that foreign suppliers would provide 54 percent of the maximum 

projected deliveries through 2010. 

 U.S. non-conventional extraction facilities are primarily ISL plants. The decision to reopen a plant 

primarily depends upon the prevailing economics and market conditions. A few ISL operations are 

remaining open or inactive today, opening intermittently as the price of uranium continues to fluctuate. 

The only mills currently operating are Cotter Corporation mill in Colorado and International Uranium’s 

White Mesa mill in Utah, while the Kennecott Sweetwater Wyoming mill is inactive, and the Plateau 

Resources mill in Utah is amending its license to operations (U.S. DOE/EIA 2005a). 

Recent power uprates3 and upgrades to U.S. nuclear plants have had the equivalent impact of nineteen 

new reactors starting operation, and other countries have indicated interest in building new plants as well. 

Since most of the demand for uranium originates from the commercial sector (nuclear power plants), and 

that demand is increasing, it is likely it will affect uranium market demand and supplies (Wyoming 

Mining Association 2004). 

 

3 The process of increasing the maximum power level at which a commercial nuclear power plant may operate. 
 2-15

U.S. uranium reserves must also be taken into consideration, because changes in the price of uranium may 

make them important resources in the future. Figure 2.8 provides a map with locations of reserve areas, 

while reserve estimates are included in Table 2.3. Reserve estimates represent the quantities of uranium 

(as U3O8) that occur in known deposits, such that portions of the mineralized deposits can be recovered at 

specific costs under current regulations using state-of-the-art mining and milling methods (U.S. DOE/EIA 

2004). At of the end of 2004, EIA estimated uranium reserves in the $30- and $50-per-pound categories 

were 265 and 890 million pounds (120 and 400 thousand MT), respectively. Underground mine reserves 

accounted for about one- half of the total reserves in each cost category. The reserve decreases are based 

on 2003 mine production of uranium and reflect the combined effects of depletion and erosion of in-place 

ore quantities remaining at year-end. Figure 2.9 below shows the status of mines, ISL operations, and 

mills in the U.S. as of late 2005. 
 2-16

Figure 2.8. Major U.S. Uranium Reserve Areas

This map shows major areas of remaining uranium reserves, all in the western U.S. 

Source: From DOE/EIA http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/uresarea.html) 

 
 2-17

Table 2.3. Uranium Reserves of the United States as of December 31, 2003. 

This table developed by the Energy Information Administration of DOE provides 

a breakdown of uranium reserves by mining method based on price 

of uranium of $30 per pound and $50 per pound. 

Source: Modified from U.S. DOE/EIA (2005c), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/uresmine.html

U.S. Forward-Cost Uranium Reserves by Mining Method, December 31, 2003

Forward-Cost Category

$30 per pound $50 per pound

Mining 

Method

Ore in 

million tons 

(million 

Metric Tons)

Gradea

(percent 

U3O8)

U3O8 in 

million 

pounds 

(Metric Tons)

Ore in million 

tons (million 

Metric Tons)

Gradea

(percent 

U3O8)

U3O8

in million 

pounds 

(Metric tons)

Underground 25 (23) 0.272 138 (62,600) 143 (130) 0.163 464 (210,500) 

Open-pit 10 (9) 0.139 29 (13,150) 163 (148) 0.079 257 (116,600) 

In Situ 

Leaching 39 (35) 0.127 98 (44,450) 116 (105) 0.071 165 (74,800) 

Otherb < 1 (0.9) 0.265 <1 (<453) 3 (2.7) 0.059 4 (1,814) 

Total 74 (67) 0.178 265 (120,200) 424 (385) 0.105 890 (404,000)

 aWeighted average percent U3O8 per ton of ore. 

 bIncludes low grade material and miscellaneous. 

Notes: Uranium reserves that could be recovered as a byproduct of phosphate and copper mining are not included 

in this table. Reserves values in forward-cost categories are cumulative: that is, the quantity at each level of 

forward-cost includes all reserves at the lower costs. Totals may not equal sum of components because of 

independent rounding. 

Sources: Estimated by Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, 

based on industry conferences; U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction Office, files; and Energy Information 

Administration, Form EIA-858, "Uranium Industry Annual Survey," Schedule A, Uranium Raw Material 

Activities (1984-2002) and Form EIA-851A, "Domestic Uranium Production Report" (2003). 
 2-18

Figure 2.9. Status of Mines, ISL Operations, and Mills in the U.S. as of November 2005 

This figure shows the locations and operating status of uranium operations in the U.S. 

as of the end of 2005. An increase in the price and demand for uranium resulted 

 in the re-opening of some conventional uranium mines and ISL operations, 

and decisions to re-start some sites which were undergoing closure. 

Source: U.S. EPA. 
3-1

Chapter 3. Volume and Characteristics of Uranium Mine Wastes 

Uranium has been found and mined in a wide variety of rocks, including sandstone, carbonates1

, and 

igneous (volcanic-derived) rocks (see Chapter 1). This variety of source material, the type of mine and 

extraction operation (see Chapter 2), local climate, soil, and topography can lead to a wide range of 

differing physical and chemical properties in waste materials. Waste characteristics are important because 

they are used to model and assess the environmental impacts and public health risks of radionuclides, 

heavy metals, and other chemicals associated with mine sites, and the implications for site cleanup. While 

this chapter discusses wastes from conventional mining, solution extraction, and milling of uranium, a 

principal focus of this report is TENORM from conventional mining, and in particular, wastes from 

abandoned mines that have not been reclaimed, or which may need future reclamation. 

When uranium mining first started, most of the ores were recovered from deposits located at, or near the 

surface of the land. Ores were often exposed at the surface, and underground mines followed mineralized 

zones directly into the subsurface. Thin overburden over deeper parts of the ore body adjacent to the 

surface exposure would be removed to create shallow open-pits. As easily accessible ore deposits became 

depleted, mining had to be performed at increasing depths by either open-pit or underground methods. To 

reach deeper deposits, the industry had to move larger quantities of topsoil, overburden, plus barren or 

waste rock. 

The amount of overburden that may be removed during open-pit mining is a complex function of the 

depth to the ore body, the grade and thickness of the ore bearing zone, the price of uranium, and the costs 

of moving the overburden and site restoration. The costs of processing ore at mills also influence the 

overall economics of underground and surface mining. These costs have steadily declined, and have 

lowered the ore grade that is economically feasible to extract (Otton 1998). Thus, while an ore grade of 

0.15 percent was often ignored in the early mining years, newer, more efficient ore extraction techniques 

have targeted ore grades as low as 0.03 percent, though that is an extreme case. The NRC has established 

a level of 0.05% uranium content as a threshold for regulation as source material under its regulations 10 

CFR 40.4; NRC considered technology and economics in selecting the threshold. 

Waste terms that will be used in the discussions from Chapters 3 through 5, and the Appendices, are listed 

in Table 3.1 and are defined below in the text, as well as the Glossary (Appendix I). Wastes considered to 

be TENORM, versus those subject to NRC or its Agreement States’ byproduct regulations are also 

identified.2 

While there is a limited discussion in this chapter on environmental fate and transport of uranium 

associated with mine wastes, the reader is referred to previous EPA reports on uranium geochemistry 

(U.S. EPA 1999b and 1999c). The geochemistry of uranium can be extremely complicated, however, 

those documents provide an overview of important aqueous and solid phase parameters, as well as 

 

1 A sediment or sedimentary rock formed by the organic or inorganic precipitation from aqueous solution of 

 carbonates of calcium, magnesium, or iron; e.g., limestone and dolomite. 

2

 Some materials that are wastes within the plain meaning of the word are not "solid wastes" as defined under the 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and thus are not subject to regulation under that law. These include, for 

 example, mine water or process wastewater that is discharged pursuant to a National Pollution Discharge 

 Elimination System 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. 
3-2

discusses general geochemistry, aqueous speciation, precipitation and co-precipitation, and other 

important geochemical aspects. 

Data obtained from many older scientific studies referenced in this report may have only been originally 

provided in English measurement systems. Conversions are made in the text and tables of this report; 

however, the reader should understand that the converted numbers may be rounded. If available in the 

original studies cited in this report, information on uncertainties and precision of measurements and data 

will be included. However, many of these studies were conducted during a time when reporting 

uncertainties and precision of data were not standard practice. While data quality is a vital aspect of 

scientific and technical endeavor, we regret that the boundaries of uncertainty and accuracy of data 

presented may not have been cited in many of the original studies available for this study. 

Table 3.1. Uranium Mine and Operations Wastes

The following mine wastes are generated by conventional uranium mines, heap leach and 

ISL operations, and uranium mill operations. They are the principal wastes 

discussed in Chapters 3 through 5, and the Appendices of this report. 

Not all wastes listed may be radioactive at all uranium mines or operations, though if they are, 

 they may be subject to regulatory control according to the column they are listed under. 

Wastes Generated by Uranium Mines and Extraction Operations

Conventional Open–Pit and Underground 

Mines (TENORM Wastes—EPA, Federal 

Land Management, and Tribal and State 

Agencies Jurisdiction) 

Heap Leach and ISL 

Operations (Byproduct Wastes 

subject to NRC and Agreement 

State Jurisdiction) 

Uranium Mills (Byproduct 

Material Subject to NRC or 

Its Agreement State 

Jurisdiction) 

Protore* 

Overburden* 

Barren or Waste Rock* 

Top Soils* Top Soils* 

Drill Cuttings* and Drilling Wastes Drill Cuttings* and Drilling Wastes 

Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater 

Wastewater Treatment Sludge Wastewater Treatment Sludge Wastewater Treatment Sludge 

Lab Wastes Lab Wastes Lab Wastes 

Pit Water* 

Mine Water Produced Water 

 Leachate 

 Liquids from aquifer restoration 

Evaporites Evaporites Evaporites 

 Mill Tailings 

Refuse (if radioactive) Refuse (if radioactive) Refuse (if radioactive) 

Source: U.S. EPA (1983a,b,c; 1995), U.S. NRC (2004, 2003) 

*Term was previously defined in Chapter 1. 

Terms in Table 3.1 not previously defined: 

• Drilling wastes—Wastes associated with a drillhole operation at a mine or extraction facility that 

are not considered cuttings or cores. May include drill muds or other drilling fluids, sludges, or 

evaporation products collected in excavated pits from wastewater produced during drilling.

• Wastewater— The spent or used water from a mine that contains dissolved or suspended matter. 

• Wastewater Treatment Sludges—Sludge derived by the treatment of wastewater to remove 

suspended solids, metals, radionuclides or other pollutants from mine generated wastewater.

• Lab Wastes—Wastes of any kind generated by a laboratory, usually on-site, analyzing rock, 
3-3

sediment, water or other samples obtained at the mine or extraction facility, or its vicinity.

• Mine Water— Water or brine which collects in mine workings, both surface and underground, as 

a result of inflow from rain or surface water and of groundwater seepage.

• Produced Water— Water from ISL operations extracted from the subsurface with dissolved 

minerals. It may include water from the reservoir, water that has been injected into the formation, 

and any chemicals added during the production/treatment process. 

• Leachate—A solution obtained by leaching; e.g., water that has percolated through soil 

containing soluble substances and that contains certain amounts of these substances in solution.

• Evaporite—A chemical sediment that precipitates when the salty water in which it had dissolved 

evaporates 

• Refuse—Solid waste. Insoluble materials ranging from municipal garbage to industrial wastes that 

contain complex and sometimes hazardous substances. Solid wastes also include sewage sludge, 

agricultural refuse, demolition wastes, mining equipment and mining residues. Solid waste also 

refers to liquids and gases in containers. 

• Mill Tailings— Residue of raw material or waste separated out during the processing of uranium 

mineral ores. Byproduct material in accordance with the AEA. 

Waste Footprint of a Mine 

Though all mining methods produce waste products, the volume, location, state, and environmental 

impacts of these wastes can be vastly different. For example, open-pit and underground mining 

techniques, known as conventional mining, generally produce large amounts of solid waste, while ISL

methods produce only small amounts of solid waste, but result in more significant amounts of liquid 

waste that can spread across a very large area. As noted previously and in Appendix VI, ISL operations 

and liquid wastes generated by those activities, and their environmental impacts are regulated by the NRC 

or its Agreement States. In general, states, Tribes, and federal land management agencies are responsible 

for regulating the disposal of solid and other waste generated on their lands by mining operations. 

The overall footprint of a mine area may be described as the areal extent of land physically disrupted by a 

mine operation. The footprint can vary significantly depending on the amount of waste left on site, and 

not necessarily to the amount of oxide of uranium (U3O8) produced. The typical waste footprint of 

uranium mining operations has changed since the late 1940sCfrom very small, to very large, and then 

smaller again.

Because the nature of mining changed over the years, waste generation also changed. This change in 

waste generation largely reflects changes in the scope of mining operations and the technology employed. 

When early mining efforts in the 1940s and 1950s were dominated by small operations, sometimes 

consisting of a single prospector/miner, thousands of mines were developed from ore bodies of the 

Colorado Plateau, sometimes as small as a single rich uraniferous vein or lens weighing as little as a few 

metric tons. The early small mining endeavors generated small quantities of waste, because miners found 

and exploited only deposits near the surface, and they had limited capacity to move large quantities of 

material. These small quantities of waste typically were discarded within several to 100 yards (about 

several to 100 meters) of the mine opening or pit. 

 

As many mining properties both on the Colorado Plateau and in areas in other states, such as Texas and 

Wyoming, proved to have much larger ore bodies, more expansive mining operations developed at these 

sites. When larger companies came on the scene in the 1950s and 1960s, they brought technologies and 
3-4

manpower to exploit larger ore bodies, deeper in the ground, and of lower grade. These large 

conventional operations generated correspondingly large waste streams, and the overall site size expanded 

significantly. 

Major open-pit mines tend to disturb large surface areas from the extent of both the pit and the mine 

waste areas. Generally, tens to hundreds of acres may be covered by stored overburden. For example, an 

aerial survey conducted of eight surface mining sites in New Mexico and two in Wyoming indicated that 

disturbed areas varied from just under three to 380 acres (approximately one to 154 hectares), with an 

average of 110 acres (approximately 45 hectares) per site (U.S. EPA 1983b). At some sites, as mining 

progressed, the overburden was used to backfill mined-out areas of the open-pit in anticipation of later 

reclamation. Most of the older surface mines (pre- to mid-1970s) were not backfilled during mining 

operations, while some of the more recent mining included modest backfilling operations. 

The surface area affected by major underground mining activities generally involves less than about 50 

acres (20 hectares). Mine maps often show extensive underground mining following ore zones with only 

small piles of waste rock at the mouth of the mine=s entry. For example, an aerial survey conducted of 

nine underground mining sites located in New Mexico and one in Wyoming indicated that disturbed 

surface areas varied from just over two to 42 acres (one to 17 hectares), with an average of 30 acres 

(approximately 12 hectares) per site (U.S. EPA 1983b). However, the underground mine works (or 

tunnels) may extend laterally for more than a mile in several directions. The Orphan Mine (see Appendix 

III) is an underground mine with a surface loading area clearing less than five acres (two hectares), and a 

cliffside mine opening covering similar acreage, where spoil rock and a collapse hole over the abandoned 

tunnels are the principal observable features. 

When economics and technological advances in the 1980s prompted the increased use of ISL as an 

extraction method, the volume of solid waste generated dropped dramatically. While not a surface mining 

method, for comparison purposes only, the total areal extent of an ISL operation may be large, depending 

on how drill holes are situated, and how extensive evaporation ponds are. To be cost-effective, ISL 

requires large production areas or zones, but the surface facilities may take up only a small portion of the 

acreage. Table 3.2 presents the general features of several ISL operations (U.S. EPA 1993b). The number 

of production areas ranges from one to seven and can include a large number of wells, ranging from 200 

to over 10,000, while aquifers are often located both above and below production zones. 
3-5

Table 3.2. Profile of Several Texas ISL Uranium Mining Operations 

The acreage of ISL operation properties varies from about 200 to over 6,000 acres (81 to 2,430 

hectares). The actual acreage covered by well fields may be significantly less (Kennecott Uranium 

Company 2004). ISL operations are not a surface mining method, though the production facilities 

 may produce from large land holdings, and are regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States. 

All the facilities included below are in Texas. 

Mine Name Acreage

Benavides 170 

O=Hern 270 

Zamzow 316 

Pawnee 320 

West Cole 680 

West Clay 884 

Lamprecht 957 

Boots Brown 1,025 

Pawelek 1,698 

Holiday 2,000 

El Mesquite 2,200 

Rosita 2,208 

Burns Moser 2,262 

Kingsville Dome 2,315 

Trevino 5,750 

Talan Gara (renamed 

Palangana) 

6,272 

Source: U.S. EPA 1993b 

Mine Waste Volumes 

Conventional Open-Pit and Underground Mines

In open-pit mining, as described in Chapter 2, a pit is excavated to expose the uranium deposit. After the 

topsoil is removed and stockpiled nearby, the overburden is removed and trucked to a nearby mine waste 

area. Occasionally, dikes and ditches are constructed around these waste piles to collect runoff and divert 

it to sedimentation ponds. 

While underground mining is much less disruptive to surface terrain than open-pit mining and produces 

less waste, that waste may have higher average radioactivity. In underground mining, access to the ore 

body is gained through one or more adits or vertical shafts, generally sunk to a slightly greater depth than 

the ore body, or through inclines and declines, all of which are cut through barren or waste rock. Mining 

carefully follows the ore body using stopes and tunnels to minimize the amount of waste material that 

must be moved. When mining in larger deposits, other mining methods may be used, for example, the 

room and pillar or block caving techniques. The block caving technique forces a large section of ore 

deposit to fall into a man made cavern. The ore is broken by drilling and blasting, and ore and waste rock 

are moved out of the mine to the surface through tunnels, inclines, and shafts. The barren or waste rock is 

removed to a spoils area that may be surrounded by a ditch to contain water runoff. 
3-6

Data from the U.S. Department of Energy=s (DOE=s) Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicate 

that before 1980 about one-third of conventional uranium mines were small with less than 100 metric tons 

of uranium ore production, about one-fifth to one-quarter of the mines were moderate sized with between 

100 and 1,000 metric tons of production, and about one-third of the mines were large and had production 

between 1,000 and 100,000 metric tons of production (U.S. EPA 1983b). Only about five percent, or 

150B220 mines, were extremely large mines producing more than 100,000 metric tons of ore. When 

combined with information on the relationship between ore production and waste, it is possible to 

estimate the amounts of waste for the different production categories. 

To calculate an estimate of waste generation, waste-to-ore ratios are needed for different sizes of mines. 

Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, open-pit mining on the Colorado Plateau was characterized by 

small to moderate-sized operations with highly variable waste-to-ore ratios, but the data on these mines 

are not good and waste estimation is difficult. The higher the waste-to-ore ratio, the more waste that is 

generated per ton of ore extracted. Large open-pit mines in Wyoming and New Mexico usually had lower 

waste-to-ore ratios, and in Texas moderate to large open-pit operations were found with generally high 

waste-to-ore ratios. In the late 1970s (Bohert and Gerity 1978; Facer et al. 1978) and early 1980s, wasteto-ore ratios for the largest mines appear to have peaked at an average of about 30:1 (30 times as much 

waste as ore produced). As the price of uranium decreased in the early 1980s, only the more efficient 

open-pit operations remained in production, and the waste-to-ore ratios also decreased for the period 1984 

to 1992. 

For underground mines, waste-to-ore ratios generally range from 20:1 to 1:1, with an average ratio of 

about 9:1 (nine times as much waste as ore produced) (U.S. EPA 1983b). As with surface mining, this 

ratio has also changed over the years with increased mining efficiency, and selection of more 

economically produced deposits such that the amount of waste decreased from a range of 5:1 until the 

early 1970s, to about 1:1 by the late 1970s. 

 

EIA historical records (Smith 2002) indicate that before 1980, a number of underground and surface 

uranium mines generated less than 1,000 metric tons of ore with a ratio of waste to ore ranging from 

about 10:1 to 30:1. Accordingly, a 1,000 metric ton mine might generate 10,000B30,000 metric tons 

(3,500B11,000 cubic meters) of waste. With respect to the area covered by waste piles, for EIA=s two 

smallest production size categories, less than one-third of an acre would be expected to be covered by 

waste piles 16 feet (five meters) high. Smaller mines could have a waste-to-ore ratio of 50:1. At 16 feet 

(five meters), which is an average height for a waste pile, a small operation could produce waste covering 

0.2B0.5 acres (0.08 to 0.20 hectares). Waste piles for small surface and underground mines were found to 

cover 0.1 to five acres (0.04 to two hectares) (U.S. EPA 1983b). 

To estimate the volume of waste that may have been generated, Otton (1998) conducted a study of mine 

waste ratios for EPA. Table 3.3 presents the study results for surface and underground mining. Appendix 

IV provides the basis for the estimates. Waste produced by open-pit mining is a factor of 45 greater than 

for underground mining, based on their respective averages. For the range between the low and high 

estimates, the factor is 190 for the low estimate and 80 for the high. Thus, the amount of overburden 

generated from open-pit mines far exceeds that of underground mines. 
3-7

Table 3.3. Estimated Overburden Produced by Open-Pit and Underground Mining 

The waste generated by open-pit mining is estimated to be 45 times greater than for underground mining. 

Estimated Overburden Produced (MT)

Mining Method Low Estimate High Estimate Average

Surface Mining 1,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 

Underground Mining 5,000,000 100,000,000 67,000,000 

Source: Otton 1998.

Waste Volumes at Sample Conventional Mines 

Typically, the waste material is placed in piles that can be quite large, representing thousands to hundreds 

of thousands of tons of material and covering a large area. The White King/Lucky Lass mines site (two 

mines adjacent to one anotherCsee Appendix III), now a Superfund site, had very large piles of waste 

material and protore. At the White King Mine one (protore) pile covers approximately 17 acres (seven 

hectares) with an average thickness of 20 feet (six meters), and a second (overburden waste) pile covers 

approximately 24 acres (about ten hectares) with an average thickness of 15 feet (about five meters) (U.S. 

EPA 2001a). Approximately 35,000 cubic yards (32,000 cubic meters, assuming 2,800 kg/m3

 waste 

material density due to the high concentration of denser uranium in the material)3

 of soil outside the 

perimeter of the White King piles were estimated to be elevated in radium (defined as > 5 pCi/g (0.185 

Bq/g) Ra), along with 7,700 yards3

 (7,040 m3) of soil outside the perimeter of the Lucky Lass piles. 

The Jackpile-Paguate open-pit mine began production in New Mexico in 1953 and ceased in 1982. Table 

3.4 demonstrates how the ratio of overburden to produced ore changes over the life of a mine. The mine site 

contained 32 waste dumps and 23 protore dumps segregated according to grade. About 10.5 million metric 

tons (MMTs) of protore were stored outside the pits, and another 4.5 MMTs were stored in dumps within 

pits. The ratio of all waste to protore was about 24:1. About 92 MMTs of backfill, comprised of oreassociated waste and some overburden, were returned to the pits during operations. 

 

3

 Density is an important factor in calculating the metric tons (weight per volume) of waste rock. 
3-8

Table 3.4. Changing Ratio of Overburden to Ore Over 

Mine LifeCJackpile-Paguate Mine, New Mexico 

The amount of mine waste increases over time relative to the amount of produced ore 

in a large surface mine. Ore and overburden are report in metric tons (MTs). 

Year Ore Produced 

(MTs)

Overburden 

(MTs)

Mining Ratio 

(overburden protore 

rock : ore)

1953 - 1963 6,000,000 70,000,000 11.7:1 

1953 - 1974 9,000,000 110,000,000 12:1 

1953 - 1982 23,000,000 364,000,000 16:1 

Sources: Kittel 1963; Graves 1974; U.S. BLM 1986. 

At the other end of the spectrum is the Canyonlands National Park in Utah (see Appendix III), where the 

waste dumps for underground mines (most likely either exploration shafts or small mines) ranged from 35 

to 800 yards3

 (37 to 612 m3) (Table 3.5). Production data from these mines were unavailable. Figure 3.1 

shows the outside of one of the mine openings. 

Table 3.5. Mine Workings and Associated Waste Rock Volumes in Canyonlands, Utah 

This table highlights the variety of waste dump sizes and lengths of entries for a series 

of 12 closely located underground mines in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. 

Workings vs. Mine

Waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Lateral 

workings 

in feet 

(meters)

82 

(25) 

28 

(9) 

75 

(23) 

865 

(264) 

450 

(137) 

230 

(70) 

215* 

(66) 

188 

(57) 

20 

(6) 

70 

(21) 

40 

(12) 

235 

(72) 

Waste

in yards3 

(meters3) 

120 

(92) 

- - 800 

(612) 

470 

(359) 

220 

(168) 

35 

(27) 

165 

(126) 

100 

(76) 

400 

(306) 

* Visual estimate of adit length. Remote workings are flooded 115 feet (35 meters) in from the portal. 

Source: Burghardt et al. 2000. 
3-9

Figure 3.1. Mine Portal, Canyonlands National Park, Utah 

Canyonlands, Utah, underground mine entry and the mine waste spoil pile located 

on the canyon slope beneath. Note the coarse nature of materials 

in the waste pileCboulders and cobbles, in addition to finer-grained materials.

Source: Photo courtesy of Utah Division of Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation 

ISL Operations

Surface facilities and uranium extraction at ISL operations are regulated by the NRC or its Agreement 

States; liquid and solid wastes produced are considered to be byproduct materials under the AEA. In 

general, ISL operations generate small amounts of surface solid waste comprised of: (1) soil and 

weathered bedrock material disturbed during surface preparation of the site, (2) waste from drilling of 

injection and production wells, and (3) solids precipitated during the storage and processing of fluids in 

holding ponds. The site surface preparation may include site grading for placement of temporary 

structures, construction of access roads to well sites, laying of pipelines, and construction of well pads. 

Disturbance of the site may make these surface materials more likely to be windblown, but the disturbed 

material would likely have background radionuclide concentrations typical of levels present at the site 

before the mine's development. Drilling wastes include drilling muds, water, chemicals, and drill cuttings 

from the underground rock formations (Figure 3.2). These wastes are typically deposited in pits on site, 

which are subsequently buried during reclamation. Some slight radioactivity may occur in accumulated 

solids in the pit bottoms. 

Leachate solutions circulating in the formation mobilize uranium and in some instances a part of their 

associated uranium decay products. Alkaline leach and ammonium bicarbonate solutions at sites remove 

about 15 percent of the radium in the uranium ore body (Brown 1978). More current solution mining 

techniques make use of dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The amount of radium and other uranium 

decay products removed by these more recently used solutions is not known. 
3-10

Liquid wastes from ISL operations are generated from three sources: (1) well field development, (2) 

processing plant operations, and (3) aquifer restoration activities. Limited data are available on the 

volume of this material. Options for the disposal of liquid wastes include solar evaporation ponds or deepwell injection. Land application is not an approved method of radioactive liquid waste disposal. 

EPA studied sites for this report using data in NRC and State of Texas files, as well as site visits in Texas 

and Wyoming. For information purposes only, radionuclide data for ponds and injection wells collected 

for this report can be found in Appendix V. Descriptions of ISL fields studied are included in Appendix 

III. 

Based on information collected, operators typically used numerous ponds for holding or disposing of 

produced water and brines (Figure 3.3). They ranged from 50 acre-feet (Irigaray) to 558 acre-feet 

(Highlands) per pond. In many cases, this water was eventually disposed of in deep-injection wells or was 

allowed to evaporate. In the case of evaporation, Crow Butte Resources estimated its operation would 

have generated 1,315 cubic yards (902 cubic meters), or eight acre-feet, of solid waste by mid-2000. NRC 

permitted that and other operations, such as Cogema=s Christensen Ranch and Irigaray mines, to dispose 

of these wastes off site in byproduct tailings impoundments at other uranium-producing facilities. 

Available data are insufficient to estimate the total amount of solid and liquid wastes generated by 

existing and previous ISL operations. 

Figure 3.2. ISL Operation Drilling Site

In this photo taken at a Wyoming ISL field, a truck-mounted rig is drilling a well. Top soils 

moved to level the site for drilling can be seen in front of the tank truck on the right of the picture. 

The soils must be used to restore the site after production is completed in accordance 

with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality requirements.

(Photograph by Mark Schuknecht, U.S. EPA)
3-11

Figure 3.3. ISL Evaporation Pond 

This Wyoming ISL operation has a modern liner to prevent contaminated 

waters from leaching into the ground.

(Photograph by Mark Schuknecht, U.S. EPA) 

Physical Characteristics of Uranium Mine Wastes 

The characteristics of overburden and barren or waste rock from conventional mines depend on the 

geology of the zone where the ore was originally mined, and how the waste was subsequently treated. 

Knowing the rock types present is important for constructing risk model inputs, evaluating environmental 

impacts, and determining the most effective means of site reclamation. Common rock types found in 

mines from New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming include a wide variety of sedimentary, metamorphic, and 

igneous rock types (Table 3.6). 
3-12

Table 3.6. Examples of Waste Rock Types Found 

at Uranium Mines in Selected States 

The characteristics of overburden and barren or waste rock from conventional 

mines depend on the geology of the zone where the ore was originally mined, 

and how the waste was subsequently treated. 

State Sedimentary Rock Types Metamorphic and Igneous 

Rock Types

New Mexico Sandstone, siltstone, shale, claystone, limestone, 

unconsolidated silt, clay, gravel 

Wyoming Sandstone, siltstone, shale, claystone, limestone, 

coal, unconsolidated silt, clay, gravel 

Texas Sandstone, siltstone, shale, claystone, limestone, 

coal, unconsolidated silt, clay, gravel, volcanic 

tuffaceous silts, volcanic ash 

Oregon 

(Lucky Lass/White King case study) 

Rhyolite, tuff breccia, basalt 

Washington 

(Midnite Mine case study) Mica phyllite, mica schist, 

hornfels, marble, quartzite, 

calcareous silicates, quartz 

monzonite, granitic intrusives 

Sources: U.S. EPA 1983a,b,c; 2001a. 

Overburden from surface mines can include huge boulders that may have been broken down with 

explosives and heavy machinery into particles down to a micrometer (μm, one-millionth of a meter) in 

diameter (U.S. EPA 1983b). Table 3.7 presents the size distributions provided in a study of rock 

overburden from an unidentified Pennsylvania mine. 

Table 3.7. Overburden Particle Size Distributions, Pennsylvania Mine

Overburden from surface mines can range in size from a micrometer 

 to a meter or more in diameter. 

Particle Size (Fm) Weight (%)

> 2,000 75 

50B2,000 13 

2B50 8 

< 2 4 

Source: Rogowski 1978. 

Overburden test pits at the Midnite Mine were excavated to depths ranging from 10 to 14 feet (three to 

four meters) (URS 2002). In general, the test pits encountered coarse-grained materials consisting of sand, 

gravel, cobbles, and boulders, while one test pit encountered clay from a depth of eight feet (two meters) 

to the bottom of the pit (14 feet or four meters). The wide range of grain sizes of the materials 
3-13

encountered in the test pits and the presence of open void space indicate the highly heterogeneous nature 

of the waste rock. 

Size gradation tests of individual test pit samples indicated gravel (5B65 percent), sand (21B43 percent) 

and silt and clay (or fines) (11B29 percent), showing great heterogeneity across the mine site. The 

moisture content of the waste rock material generally ranges from two to nine percent, with two samples 

as high as 23 percent. The specific gravity ranges from 2.75 to 2.84. 

The White King/Lucky Lass Superfund site in Oregon (see Appendix III) has a large protore stockpile 

and a large overburden pile (Table 3.8). For all mines sampled, particle sizes for protore materials are the 

same as found with overburden and ore piles (EPA 1983b). Because unreclaimed rock piles are not 

stabilized, they can serve as sources of pollution, primarily through wind and water erosion. Fine 

particulates in general are susceptible both to aerial suspension and to transport in water as both 

suspended and dissolved solids in precipitation runoff. 

Table 3.8. White King/Lucky Lass Mine Protore and Overburden Characteristics 

Waste pile sizes are shown in acres (hectares) and cubic yards (cubic meters). 

Stockpile Type Protore Overburden

Area 17 acres (7 hectares) 24 acres (10 hectares) 

Volume 542,000 yards3 (408,000 m3) 408,000 yards3 (307,000 m3) 

Thickness range 8B27 ft (2B8 m) 7B33 ft (2B10 m) 

Type of material Gravel, silt, clay layers, gravel at 

surface 

Gravel at surface, sand and clay below, 

though more clay-like 

Source: U.S. EPA 2001a. 

Radionuclide leaching primarily from mine waste piles adjacent to open-pit minesCbut also possibly 

derived by leaching from mine pit walls or by groundwater infiltration from underlying uranium 

depositsCcan result in significant concentrations of radionuclides in water-filled pit lakes. Appendix V 

includes data on radionuclide concentrations found in numerous pit lakes and streams associated with 

open-pit mines. 

The Yazzie-312 Mine (see Appendix III) is an example of a small surface mine that had a number of both 

protore and overburden waste piles located adjacent to the mine pit, which had filled with water. Runoff 

from precipitation over a 40-year period carried fine-grained materials back into the pit. The original pit 

was 40 feet (12 meters) deep, but infilling by runoff had left the pit only five feet (1.5 meters) deep as of 

2001 when the mine underwent reclamation. Suspended sediment of clays and silts pervaded the pit 

water, leaving it a milky white color. Analyses (Panacea 2002) of 10 samples of pit lake water showed the 

following average contaminant concentrations: Total Uranium 173 pCi/L, Total Radium 2 pCi/L, and 

Total Thorium < 1 pCi/L. More information on overburden and protore wastes at this site can be found in 

the section in this chapter on Heavy Metals in Mine Wastes. 

Figure 3.4a below shows a picture of one of the several overburden piles, while Figure 3.4b shows a 

picture of the pit lake. 
3-14

Figure 3.4a. Overburden Pile at Yazzie-312 Open-pit Mine, Navajo Reservation, Arizona 

Fine-grained overburden materials are found adjacent to the Yazzie-312 Mine in Cameron, Arizona. 

(Photograph by Loren Setlow, U.S. EPA) 

Figure 3.4b. Pit Lake at Yazzie-312 Open-pit Mine, Navajo Reservation, Arizona 

Football field size water filled open-pit mine. The original pit was 40 feet (12 meters) deep, but infilling 

by runoff had left the pit only five feet (1.5 meters) deep as of 2001 when the mine underwent reclamation. 

(Photograph by Loren Setlow, U.S. EPA) 

Wastes from underground mines are much smaller than overburden piles generated by surface mines, and 

tend to be located near the mine entrances. When the land near the mine is relatively flat, the waste piles 

are dome shaped. In contrast, if the mine is located along a canyon rim or other steep elevation, the wastes 

form thin sheets extending beyond the mine entrance. The wastes consist of protore and barren or waste 

rock, and the protore may generally be found on top of the mine waste rock. The Canyonlands waste piles 
3-15

described previously in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1, and the description of the Orphan Mine (in Appendix 

III) provide examples of mine wastes from underground mines. 

Potential for Water Contamination 

Uranium mines are located throughout the West. Surface and underground mines have varying potential 

to contaminate aquifers and surface water depending on the meteorological, hydrologic, and geologic site 

characteristics. As mentioned previously, EPA has published comprehensive reports on uranium 

geochemistry with detailed discussions on fate and transport of uranium in the environment (U.S. EPA 

1999b and 1999c). Potential impacts from new mines can be mitigated by modern control technologies. 

Older abandoned mines may present complex contamination problems. 

Types of mines in relation to hydrologic factors for groundwater impacts include: 

1. Surface open-pit mines in the unsaturated zone, above a confined aquifer, sometimes 

with a water-filled pit. A large number of mines in the Colorado Plateau, such as the Yazzie312 Mine, fall into this category. The Colorado Plateau physiographic province is 

characterized by low precipitation and high evapotranspiration (Figure 3.5). Much of the 

Colorado Plateau receives less than 15 inches of precipitation a year. The area=s low 

precipitation and high evapotranspiration reduce the potential for infiltration, although lowfrequency, high-intensity rain events may contribute mass movement. Surface mines in New 

Mexico and Arizona are often isolated from water sources due to lack of dependable surface 

water or the large vertical distance separating the mines from the confined aquifers below. 

The U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Atlas of the United States (Robson and Banta 

1995) indicates that the Colorado Plateau has very few surficial aquifers, so water sources are 

typically derived from deeper groundwater (Figure 3.6). The more numerous surficial 

aquifers away from the Colorado Plateau pose a greater potential for shallow groundwater 

contamination outside of the area. 

2. Surface open-pit mines in or just above the saturated zone or close to an aquifer, often 

with a water-filled pit or pits. The White King and Lucky Lass mines and the Midnite Mine 

are examples of this category. 

3. Underground mines in the saturated zone. Some mines have been developed so deep that 

radionuclides could move through the aquifer, even in the Colorado Plateau. The Orphan 

Mine which is located below the rim of the Grand Canyon is a good example of this situation. 

4. Underground mines in an unsaturated zone that may be close to an aquifer. Mines in the 

Four Corners area, such as the Lathrop Canyon, are typical of this category. Mines along 

canyon walls would also be part of this category. 

It should be noted that uranium concentrations in undisturbed, near surface groundwater can be quite 

high, as demonstrated by Sheridan et al. (1962). High evaporation rates as opposed to very low 

precipitation rates in many parts of the western U.S. may reduce the potential for communication between 

contaminated surface water and deeper groundwater. 
3-16

Figure 3.5. Average Annual Precipitation in the Western United States 

Much of the Colorado Plateau receives less than 15 inches (38 cm) of precipitation a year. 

The area=s low precipitation and high evapotranspiration reduce the potential for infiltration, 

although low-frequency, high-intensity rain events may contribute mass movement. 

Source: Spatial Climate Analysis Service et al. 2000.
3-17

Figure 3.6. Surficial Aquifers of the Colorado Plateau 

Source: Robson and Banta (1995) 

Much of the discussion which follows is from U.S. EPA (1995); however, extensive information on this 

topic can be found in U.S. EPA (1983b). 
3-18

Surface water which can enter a mine is generally controlled using engineering techniques. During the life 

of the mine, mine water from groundwater inflow or seepage is pumped out 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) (see Appendix VI for more information). 

The quantity and chemical composition of mine water generated at mines vary by site and are dependent 

on the geochemistry of the ore body and surrounding area. 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 co-precipitate radium. The chemical quality of mine waters may differ from the 

receiving surface waters. 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 then bears a greater resemblance to the mine 

dewatering effluent (U.S. EPA 1995a). 

For example, in the Grants Mineral Belt of New Mexico, authorized discharges of mine dewatering 

effluents have been documented to contain elevated concentrations of gross alpha and beta radiation; 

radionuclides radium-226 and lead-210; natural uranium; molybdenum; selenium; and dissolved solids, 

with sulfate in particular (Eadie and Kaufmann 1977). On occasion, arsenic, barium and vanadium are 

detected (U.S. EPA 1995a). 

In cases of abandoned conventional uranium mines, radionuclides, metals, and salts either in solution or 

as solids may be eroded and carried away from a mine or waste pile and carried by wind and water over 

time. Waters affected by uranium mining may be on, adjacent to, or at some distance from a mine or 

mines. Pit lakes, such as the Yazzie-312 (see Appendix III), may be immediately affected by infill from 

adjacent waste piles and may take on the pollutant burdens of those piles. However, measurements taken 

by EPA of the Little Colorado River a mile or so downstream from the Yazzie-312 Mine did not 

demonstrate a correlation with metals and radionuclides that were present in the pit lake, despite erosion 

channels downslope from the mine leading toward the river. 

Similarly, in other case studies (see Appendix III) waterborne erosion from Utah=s Canyonlands mines 

had carried radionuclides and metals only a small distance from the mine mouths. However, surface and 

subsurface drainage from Arizona=s Orphan Mine appeared to be polluting nearby springs. Radionuclides 

and metals in ground and surface waters from the Midnite Mine in Washington state have spread to areas 

outside the mined area in surface water and sediments, groundwater, and road dust; most runoff from the 

mined area flows to three drainages which meet south of the mine and flow into Blue Creek. Runoff and 

groundwater pollution were also concentrated in groundwater from mines in the vicinity of Blue Water, 

New Mexico, resulting in a Superfund action to shut a well in. 

 

Geographic and geologic differences play a large role in the likelihood of pollutants naturally migrating 

from a mine site. The case studies’ data, cited in Appendix III, provide information on the metal and 

radionuclide data from ground and surface waters. Uranium and thorium, and radium to a lesser extent, 
3-19

can be mobilized by either acidic or alkaline solutions (see section below on Potential for Soil 

Contamination of Soil). Pyrite and other sulfur-bearing minerals are key determinants as to whether acid 

mine drainage occurs, while carbonate minerals, organic carbon and carbon dioxide may also influence 

migration of radionuclides in a neutral or alkaline environment. Geography and climate determine how 

much water and wind may be present to erode the mine waste and move it away from its place of origin. 

Most of the mines located in the sedimentary sandstone deposits of the southwestern United States are not 

in pyritic formations, and the resulting runoff waters or pit lakes are generally neutral to alkaline in 

character (pH of seven or higher). Low precipitation rates and the resultant lack of water may further 

reduce the potential for generation of acid drainage from waste rock, for example, in both the Colorado 

Plateau and the Shirley Basin of Wyoming. 

Runoff waters at Horn Creek below the Orphan Mine had a pH generally between six and eight; Blue 

Water measurements were generally alkaline in the 8.0 range in wells and river water in the vicinity; 

Yazzie-312's pit water was measured by Longsworth (1994) at pH 8.7. However, those measurements 

contrast with the numbers found at mine locations in the Pacific NorthwestCareas with higher-thanaverage rainfall amounts and metamorphic and igneous rocks, including sulfur-bearing minerals that 

could transform runoff into acidic waters (pH < 7). Acid mine drainage had occurred at Midnite where, 

for example, in measurements from 1990 to 1992 the pH of water in wells and the pits ranged from 4.0 to 

7.2 (Williams and Riley 1993). Acid mine drainage had also occurred at the White King pond, where pH 

has historically ranged from 3.0 to 4.5 due to acid generation during oxidation of sulfide minerals 

exposed in the pond bottom, walls, and underground mine workings (U.S. EPA 2001a).

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, and reclamation or groundwater protection methods may vary by the 

responsible land management agency. 

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). 

Uranium is mobile in water, and sediments as discussed in the section below, in both acidic and alkaline 

conditions (U.S. EPA 1999b and 1999c). Even though the majority of U.S. conventional mines are 

located in areas of low annual rainfall, the periods of high precipitation (usually Spring and Summer 

months) may be sufficient to result in eventual migration of radionuclides into groundwater or surface 

water bodies, soils, and make them available for uptake in vegetation. Radium is considered moderately 

soluble in natural waters and its fate is controlled mostly by the presence of sulfate and organic materials 

(U.S. EPA 2004b). The section below on potential for contamination of soil and vegetation is principally 

drawn from those three reports. 

Potential for Soil Contamination 

In evaluating the mobility of radionuclides in the environment, an important measure is the elementspecific soil/water partition coefficient, which is represented as Kd. In general, the adsorption of uranium 

by soils and single-mineral phases is low at pH values less than three, increases rapidly with increasing 
3-20

pH from three to five, reaches a maximum in adsorption in the pH range from five to eight, then decreases 

with increasing pH at pH values greater than eight. This trend is related to the pH-dependent surface 

charge properties of the soil minerals and complex aqueous behavior of dissolved uranium (U(VI)). It is 

especially true near neutral pH, or above (alkaline) conditions where dissolved uranium forms strong 

molecular complexes with dissolved carbonate. Additionally, soils containing larger percentages of iron 

oxide minerals and mineral coatings, and/or clay minerals will exhibit higher sorption characteristics than 

soils dominated by quartz and feldspar minerals. In fact, maximum limits for Kd have been calculated for 

iron-oxides and clay minerals (Waite et al. 1992). 

Radium is an alkaline earth element, and is found naturally only in the +2 oxidation state. In flowing and 

soil water it can be found dissolved in a pH range of from three to ten. However, in the presence of sulfate 

bearing waters, precipitation and dissolution of calcium, strontium and barium sulfates may control the 

concentration of dissolved radium in the soil environment. Only limited Kd are available for radium in 

soils and sediments. However, it is known to be most strongly absorbed by ion exchange on clay 

minerals, organic materials, and mineral oxides especially in near neutral and alkaline pH conditions. 

Differences in partial pressure of carbon dioxide have a major effect on uranium adsorption at neutral pH 

conditions. In one study (Ibid.) the percent of uranium (U(VI)) adsorbed on ferrihydrite (an iron oxide 

mineral) decreases from approximately 97 to 38 percent when carbon dioxide is increased from ambient 

levels (0.03 percent) to elevated (one percent) partial pressures. Based on this uranium adsorption 

behavior, the adsorption of uranium decreases rapidly at pH values greater than eight for waters in contact 

with carbon dioxide or carbonate minerals. This means that in such situations, uranium becomes very 

mobile and subject to transport in soil and water away from waste sites, potentially for considerable 

distances (e.g., Kaplan et al. 1994). Extensive literature exists for the fate and transport of radium and the 

reader is consequently referred to Benes (1990), Frissel and Koster (1990), Dickson (1990), Onishi et al. 

(1981), Ames and Rai (1978), as well as detailed review in IAEA (1990) and Cothern and Rebers 1990). 

Much of that is summarized in U.S. EPA (2004b). 

Models of contaminant transport typically evaluate the subsurface environment as being divided between 

a mobile aqueous phase and immobile solid phase (soil). However, under some subsurface conditions, 

components of the solid phase exist as colloids4

 that may be transported with flowing water in the pore 

spaces of underground rock and sediment. This may enhance the amount and rate of contaminant 

transport. Due to field sampling and collection difficulties to enhance available data, contaminant models 

have mostly ignored this phenomenon. However, subsurface mobile colloids originate from dispersion of 

surface or subsurface soils, dissolution of natural rock binding cements, and homogeneous precipitation 

of groundwater constituents (McCarthy and Degueldre 1993). Colloids can be dispersed and become 

mobile in aquifers due to groundwater chemistry or microbiological changes. 

Hazardous Characteristics of Uranium Mine Waste 

The primary hazardous characteristics of uranium mine waste are elevated radioactivity as radon 

emanations and elevated gamma radiation, heavy metals, and contaminated water. 

 

4

 Colloids are any fine-grained material, sometimes limited to the particle-size range of <0.00024 mm (i.e., smaller 

 than clay size), that can be easily suspended in fluid (Bates and Jackson 1979). 
3-21

Elevated Radioactivity

Conventional Mines 

It should be expected that materials associated with the mining of uranium would have radioactivity 

above that which would be considered background levels in most parts of the country, not only because 

uranium is radioactive, but also because the many decay products that accompany it are radioactive as 

well. The uranium-238 decay chain consists of 13 radioactive elements and the stable end point lead-206 

(see Appendix II). Over time, uranium and its decay products achieve a state of equilibrium, meaning that 

the quantities of each radionuclide are proportional to their half-lives (not considering environmental and 

geotechnical factors), and their activities are equal. In other words, radioactive equilibrium for a decay 

chain occurs when the each radionuclide decays at the same rate it is produced. At equilibrium, all 

radionuclides decay at the same rate (i.e., the same number of atoms disintegrate per unit time for each 

member of the chain). Understanding the equilibrium for a given decay series helps scientists estimate the 

amount of radiation that will be present at various stages of the decay. 

While high uranium concentrations may beCand often areCmeasured in wastes, uranium mining 

TENORM is generally characterized by its more hazardous decay products. In particular, the 

concentration of radium-226 is a key metric for purposes of classifying waste materials. Radium is the 

radionuclide of interest at uranium TENORM sites for two reasons: its decay products give off strong 

gamma radiation that is easy to measure, and it has the most significance for human health risks due to 

radon generation. Radium is also often used to characterize TENORM, as it can be in serious 

disequilibrium with uranium in TENORM as a result of processing. Reports of TENORM radionuclide 

concentrations obtained from wastes at different mine sites can vary greatly, depending on the geographic 

location, the type of waste sampled, how deep the sampled material was in the waste pile, how long the 

material had been exposed on the surface, impacts of weather, and many other variables. Following are 

the results of some sampling efforts which provide a variety of measurements, sometimes conflicting, but 

nevertheless yielding a range of values for radionuclides found at uranium mine sites. 

In one study, radionuclide concentrations in overburden and waste rock were reported from 58 samples 

collected from 17 uranium mines across the U.S. (U.S. EPA 1985). Data indicate that 69 percent of the 

samples were elevated in radium-226 concentrations (defined as concentrations greater than or equal to 5 

pCi/g (0.185 Bq/g)), and over 50 percent had concentrations above 20 pCi/g (0.74 Bq/g). In another 

study, the White King mine had radium concentrations of 53 pCi/g (1.96 Bq/g) in the near-surface 

overburden, while the Lucky Lass mine, mined just a short distance away in a slightly different geologic 

source rock, had only 2 pCi/g (0.07 Bq/g) in the near-surface overburden (Weston 1997). 

The results of another EPA study (SC&A 1989) involving overburden material sampling and analyses 

indicate average radium-226 concentrations of 25 pCi/g (0.94 Bq/g), ranging from 3 pCi/g (0.113 Bq/g) 

up to a few hundred pCi/g (> 7.4 Bq/g); the higher concentrations were found in weakly mineralized rock 

near the ore body. ISL operations for mines other than uranium, can leave behind significant amounts of 

radionuclides in wastes, though in many cases the aquifer may have been exempted from being 

considered as a drinking water source, or the aquifer may have been contaminated with radionuclides or 

metals prior to ISL activities. EPA=s 1999 report on TENORM from copper mines in Arizona, for 

example, provides information on this problem in the copper mining industry (U.S. EPA 1999a). 

Additional data, including several more recent studies from mine reclamation assessment studies, indicate 

that material identified as Awaste@ or Aoverburden@ varies widely in radium-226 activity, but that for most 

waste piles dominated by overburden material, measurements higher than 20 pCi/g (0.74 Bq/g) are 
3-22

unusual (see Appendix V). In fact the State of Wyoming uses 20 pCi/g (0.74 Bq/g) as a key value for 

mine reclamation because materials with higher measurements are considered unsuitable for placement 

below the water table, or close to the graded surface according to state reclamation practice (Otton 1998). 

Protore, on the other hand, was considerably higher in radium-226 activity, with most material in the 

range of 30B600 pCi/g (1.11B22.2 Bq/g). 

Once protore or overburden has been removed from the ground, equilibrium of the radioactive decay chain 

may no longer be a safe assumption. Data on the parent element and decay product activities of uranium 

mine overburden have been gathered fairly recently, usually as part of assessment of mine wastes prior to 

reclamation. Disequilibrium between uranium-238 and its decay products seems common in those waste 

materials studied in some detail. One observer has noted a tendency for the lower part of waste piles at 

small mines in southeastern Utah to have higher uranium-238 activities relative to radium-226 activities, 

suggesting leaching of uranium from the upper part of the piles (Burghardt 1998). In leach studies of mine 

waste from open-pits in two districts in Arizona and Utah, Longsworth (1994) suggests that uranium is far 

more soluble in mine waste than radium. In samples of waste material in piles in the Pumpkin Buttes 

district (AVI 1990), the uraniumBradium activity ratio varies from 0.10 to 7.15 (equilibrium would mean 

the activity ratio equals 1). It is not known whether these disequilibrium conditions are due entirely to 

weathering of the waste piles, or if disequilibrium conditions also occurred in waste rock and protore 

surrounding the ore body prior to mining. Other members of the uranium-238 decay chains that are also 

potentially hazardous may be present in significant quantities due to disequilibrium conditions; lead-214 

and bismuth-214 are important surrogates for radium-226 within the radium-226 subchain. Further careful 

study of equilibrium conditions is warranted. 

ISL and Heap Leach Operations 

Licensed ISL and heap leach operations, reclamation, and waste disposal are carried out under the 

regulatory oversight of NRC or its Agreement States. The radionuclide information on these types of 

uranium extraction facilities is provided for background only, as the wastes are considered to be byproduct 

materials in accordance with the AEA. 

Information on radionuclides present in ISL operation wastewater ponds is very limited. These liquid 

wastes have some residual uranium and radium-226 activities that range from background levels to 

concentrations as high as 3,000 pCi/L (111 Bq/L) (Brown 1978). Such liquid wastes are treated with 

barium chloride to precipitate out radium. The solid wastes are typically comprised of carbonate and 

sulfate mineral solids that contain several hundred ppm uranium and 300B3,000 pCi/g radium-226 

(11.1B111 Bq/g) (Brown 1978). Solid wastes are generally packaged and shipped off site for disposal at 

licensed facilities. 

Not every ISL operation generates large quantities of these wastes, as the quantities are determined by the 

ore body=s geochemical characteristics and its interactions with the leachate solutions. Data collected by 

EPA in 2000, from reports on files at the NRC and the state agencies in Texas and Wyoming, showed 

radium-226 in the wastewater can range from background levels to 2,119 pCi/L (78.4 Bq/L), whereas 

total uranium may be as high as 1,100 mg/L (see Appendix V). NRC and state licensing and permits at 

uranium solution mining operations sites require cleanup of all surface wastes. Aquifer restoration may or 

may not be required by the regulating agencies depending upon its previous class of use. Discussion of 

regulation of ISL facilities can be found in Appendix VI. 

Some low-grade ore, waste rock, and tailings were used in dump or heap leaching, a process that the 

mining industry considered a form of beneficiation and one that involved spraying ore with acid to leach 
3-23

out metals (see Chapter 2). When leaching no longer produced economically attractive quantities of 

valuable metals, and the sites were no longer in use, the spent ore was often left in place or nearby 

without further treatment (U.S. EPA 1985). Heap leaching generates wastes that are similar to mill 

tailings in radioactivity. While this mining technique was less often used before the mid-1970s, some 

abandoned heap leach piles have been reported. After the mid-1970s, mining heap leach piles became 

subject to state and federal cleanup requirements. 

Radon Emanation

Radon (Rn-222) is a key health concern associated with uranium mines and sites where TENORM is 

found. Radon is part of the uranium decay series, and has the property of being a gas, which means its 

mobility rate is vastly different from that of radioactive metals. Radon is a decay product of radium-226. 

When radium is high, radon production is high. The occurrence of radon in underground uranium mines 

and the occurrence of cancers in Czechoslovakian miners working in such mines formed the basis of one 

of a number of studies which have established an important epidemiological relationship used for 

modeling cancer risk from radiation exposures. 

Radon measurements in some abandoned mines where mechanical ventilation has ceased are quite high, 

and pose risks for prolonged human exposure by members of the public visiting for recreation, 

exploration of old workings for geologic purposes, or reclamation workers at abandoned sites. As an 

example, radon readings by alpha track canisters installed at underground mine portals of the Ross Adams 

uranium mine in Alaska measured from 212 pCi/L to 540 pCi/L (7.84 to 19.98 Bq/L) (U.S. BLM 1998). 

For comparison purposes only (since this in not an operating mine), annual underground uranium mine 

occupational levels of alpha radiation5

 are limited to no more than four working level months (WLM) at 

full equilibrium (one WL ≈ 100 pCi/l). A worker’s annual exposure to the radon levels reported from the 

Ross Adams mine would be limited to between 32 and 83 hours. 

Radon emanation coefficients (the fraction of radon atoms present in a material that emanate into rock or 

sediment pore space) for barren (low-activity) sandstone overburden range from three to twelve percent 

and average about five percent (Barretto 1975). Emanation coefficients for sandstone and other uranium 

ores are extremely variable. Coefficients vary with: (1) uranium mineralogy; (2) radium mineralogy; (3) 

host rock lithology; (4) grain size of uranium/radium minerals; (5) comminution, or fineness, of the ore; 

(6) estimated porosity and permeability of the ore; (7) moisture content; and (8) ore grade. 

An exhaustive study of emanation for 950 ore samples from all the major sandstone uranium mine 

districts, deposits at Lakeview, Oregon, and deposits in the Front Range of Colorado (Austin 1978) 

revealed coefficients ranging from < one percent to 91 percent. The median value for all 950 samples is 

about 22 percent; however, extreme differences in median values occur regionally. Ores in the Lisbon 

Valley district of Utah have median values of less than 10 percent, whereas ores in some districts in 

Wyoming have median values exceeding 50 percent. These data suggest that low-activity sandstone waste 

material not only has little radon forming in it, but tends to release very little of that radon. However, 

overburden, waste rock and protore piles with elevated activity not only have much more radon forming, 

but in many districts they release a great deal of that radon to pore spaces, and the radon is free to 

migrate. 

 

5

 Regulated by the Mine Health Safety Administration of the Department of Labor--30 CFR, Part 57, Subpart D. 
3-24

Radon flux rates from overburden are difficult to characterize because of the rock=s diverse physical 

forms and matrices, and diverse emplacement and disposal methods. Field measurements indicate that 

average radon flux rates vary from about 2B60 pCi/m2

s (0.07B2.22 Bq/m2s) for overburden materials to as 

high as a few hundred pCi/m2

s (> 7.4 Bq/m2s) for low-grade ore materials (U.S. EPA 1989b, SC&A 

1989). The broad range of radon flux rates is due in part to varying radium concentrations (the parent 

radionuclide) found in low-grade ores that are at times disposed of with overburden. The average flux 

rate, based on data from 25 mines, was estimated to be 11.1 pCi/m2

s (0.41 Bq/m2s) for overburden 

materials. A radon flux rate of 92.4 pCi/m2

s (3.42 Bq/m2s) was reported for a spoil area located at the Day 

Loma mine in the Gas Hills District of Wyoming (SMI 1996); however, this material appears to have 

been a heap leach pile. For comparison, background radon flux rates from soils are known to vary from 

about 0.6 to 5.0 pCi/m2

s (0.02 to 0.19 Bq/m2s) (SC&A 1989; U.S. NRC 1980). However, Kennecott 

Uranium Company (2004) found an undisturbed area adjacent to a uranium extraction operation which 

had background radon flux rates in excess of 100 pCi/m2

-sec; in addition, the company believes other 

undisturbed uraniferous outcrops in the Gas Hills of Wyoming should also have elevated radon flux rates. 

In its 1983 report to Congress, EPA cited measurement results for various waste materials taken at six 

mines (Table 3.9). The data indicated an average radon flux estimate of 9.4 ± 3.9 pCi/m2

s (0.35 ± 0.14 

Bq/m2

s). The report assumed that an average radon flux rate of 8.7 pCi/m2s (0.32 Bq/m2s) existed for 

overburden materials. In light of the 25 mine study results from the 1989 review, a radon flux rate of 10 

pCi/m2

s (0.37 Bq/m2s) is assumed to be representative, while recognizing that in some instances radon 

flux rates could be higher by a factor of six. 

Table 3.9. Radon Flux from Selected Uranium Mine Wastes 

Flux rates of radon from six selected uranium mine wastes vary by a factor of up to four. 

Type of Mine Waste/Material Average Radon Flux 

pCi/m2

s (Bq/m2s)

Underground 

 San Mateo Waste pile 18 (0.67) 

 Barbara J#1 Waste pile 7.9 (0.29) 

Surface 

 Poison Canyon-1 Protore 

Overburden pile 

7.0 (0.26) 

6.7 (0.22) 

 Poison Canyon-2 Protore 

Overburden pile 

5.3 (0.2) 

9.8 (0.36) 

 Poison Canyon-3 Protore 

Protore 

11 (0.4) 

24 (0.89) 

 Morton Ranch Overburden 9.7 (0.36) 

Source: U.S. EPA 1983b. (Table modified to substitute the term Protore for “Subore”) 

Given that the current overburden stockpiles represent decades of mining activities, the radon flux 

reported in various field studies may in fact reflect the aggregate properties of materials accumulated at 

one location and not that of the surface material. Because most overburden piles also contain some 

amounts of weakly mineralized waste rock, the results are likely to be influenced by the presence of 

materials containing higher levels of uranium. However, large volumes of this weakly mineralized waste 

are not expected. Since the amount of overburden far exceeds the volume of this waste, it is assumed that 

radon emanation rates from such material would not significantly increase the overall average emanation 

rate. 
3-25

Elevated Gamma Radiation Exposure Rates

Elevated gamma radiation is always found at uranium mine sites. The primary contributors to gamma 

exposure are the decay products of radium; the higher the radium present, the higher the ultimate gamma 

exposure rate. Radium content is also roughly proportional to uranium content in raw mine materials. 

Exposure rates associated with ambient background levels ranged from 10 to 85 μR/hr, averaging about 

20 μR/hr. 

Gamma radiation exposure measurements were taken on overburden piles in support of the 

characterization of 25 uranium mine sites located in five states (U.S. EPA 1989b, SC&A 1989). 

Additional information also comes from abandoned mine reclamation assessment studies from 1988 to 

1996 and is included in Appendix V. In these various studies, exposure rates for overburden materials 

range from 20 μR/hr to 300 μR/hr, with an average value estimated at 50 μR/hr, including background. 

Protore ranges from 80 to 1,250 μR/hr, with an average value estimated at 350 μR/hr. These average 

values may be significantly higher for waste materials at the surface of underground mine sites because of 

the greater proportion of stockpiled protore to waste. Exposure levels of 200 to 1,000 μR/hr would appear 

to correspond to about 0.1 to 0.3 percent uranium ore grade. 

Heavy Metals in Mine Wastes

A number of heavy (i.e., hazardous) metals may occur in association with uranium deposits and wastes 

from uranium mining. Heavy metals on site, particularly arsenic, can be of concern, and can pose serious 

risks if they migrate to groundwater. Available measurement data have tended to focus on individual sites 

rather than survey many mines in an area. To that extent, some of the examples in Tables 3.9B3.11 

provide a snapshot of what is known about the occurrence of metals in these wastes. The reader is 

referred to U.S. EPA (1983b) which discusses in depth the movement of metals and radionuclides through 

air, water, and groundwater, including leaching and other chemical reactions that move contaminants 

from mine sites to the surrounding environment. 

Table 3.10 from Wogman (1979) shows the analytical results of metals analysis from grab samples taken 

at two mines, one in Wyoming and the other in New Mexico; except for selenium, vanadium and arsenic, 

there did not appear to be a relationship between uranium mining materials and stable metals present in 

the overburden. Table 3.11 provides the results of sampling and analyses of overburden and protore piles 

at the Yazzie-312 Mine in Arizona (Panacea 2002); uranium and thorium concentrations as well as some 

heavy metals in protore samples were much higher than those taken from overburden, and iron and 

arsenic exceeded EPA Region IX preliminary soil remediation cleanup goals for industrial contaminated 

sites. Table 3.12 shows the results of metals analyses for waste piles associated with several small 

underground mines in a complex at Canyonlands National Park in Utah (Burghardt et al. 2000); there, 

even though some of the metal levels may be high, contamination had not spread far from the waste piles. 
3-26

Table 3.10. Metals Sampling Data from Uranium Mines in New Mexico and Wyoming 

This table reproduces information taken from mines in New Mexico and Wyoming on heavy metals pre

in conventional mine wastes. Concentrations of metals are in μg (micrograms) per gram of soil. 

Concentration (μg/g) 

Samples As Ba Cu Cr Fe(a) Hg K(a) Mn Mo Pb Se Sr Wyoming 1. Top Soil Piles 3.2 700 13 46 1.3 <4 2.2 190 2.9 23 <1 89 2. Protore <1.8 6800 9 <36 1.2 10 2.3 140 <2.2 22 2.1 128 3. Ore 5.4 800 9 <27 1.1 <7 2.3 180 <2.9 16 28 94 New Mexico 4. Background Soil 4.1 450 12 <23 0.9 <4 1.8 200 5.5 12 <1 72 5. Background Soil 2.3 440 9 <20 0.8 <4 1.6 190 4.9 13 <1 50 6. Waste Pile 7.8 540 11 <28 0.8 <5 1.4 260 2.5 10 <1 99 7. Waste Pile 14 280 21 <43 0.7 <8 0.5 750 <2.8 31 3.1 178 8. Protore + Waste 4.1 45 22 <51 0.3 <6 0.1 446 <1.8 25 <1.4 179 9. Ore 6.0 64 27 <48 0.4 <6 0.2 673 <1.8 31 1.5 323 

Note: As = Arsenic, Ba = Barium, Cu = Copper, Cr = Chromium, Fe = Iron, Hg = Mercury, K = Potassium, Mn = Manganese, Mo = 

Pb = Lead, Se = Selenium, Sr = Strontium, V = Vanadium, Zn = Zinc, U = Uranium. 

(a) Units are percent. 

Source: Wogman (1979) 
3-27

Table 3.11. Radionuclides and Metals from Protore and Overburden, Yazzie-312 Mine, Arizon

This table provides a summary of data analyses from six protore and overburden waste piles at the Yazzie-3

prior to reclamation. Twelve samples were analyzed for uranium and thorium radionuclides content and 

radiological properties, as well as content of 23 metals. Selected data shown below are the range of ave

and total uranium, and thorium, as well as seven selected heavy metals for one protore (WP-6), one overburden 

Additionally, values from all six waste piles are also provided, For reference, the EPA, Region IX prelim

remediation goal (PRG) for contaminated industrial sites is also shown. 

Sample Range Total 

Uranium

pCi/g 

Total 

Thorium

pCi/g 

Arsenic

mg/Kg 

Iron 

mg/Kg 

Lead 

mg/Kg 

Mercury 

mg/Kg 

Selenium

mg/Kg 

Thallium

mg/Kg 

V

Waste Pile 6 –Protore range of measurements (Avg. 3 samples) 

61.8--

121.9 

(90.2) 

36.8—

63.4 

(36.8) 

1.1—9.7 

(4.2) 

6000--

8100 

(7207) 

21.3—

48.3 

(39.1) 

0.05— 

0.19 

(0.13) 

0.13—

0.32 

(0.25) 

0.84—

18.4 

(6.73) 

1

Waste Pile 3-Overburden range of measurements (Avg. 3 samples) 

2.4—3.6 

(2.9) 

3.0—4.85 

(3.9) 

1.3—1.9 

(1.5) 

1020--

1430 

(1356) 

11.8—

13.8 

(12.6) 

0.01— 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.27—

0.93 

(0.50) 

0.24—

0.28 

(0.26) 

1

All Protore and Overburden Samples Range of measurements (Avg. 12 samples) 

2.4—121.9 

(32.7) 

3.0—63.4 

(15.5) 

0.7—17 

(4.6) 

6000-- 

16200 

(9867) 

7.9—

48.3 

(21.8) 

0.00—

0.19 

(0.05) 

0.13—

0.95 

(0.47) 

0.19—

18.4 

(1.91) 

8

Metals Preliminary Remediation Goal 

 1.6 10000 800 310 5100 67 

Source of Data: Panacea (2002), U.S. EPA (2004) 
3-28

Table 3.12. Metals in Canyonlands National Park Mine Waste Piles 

Comparison of concentrations of four toxic metals from Canyonlands National Park spoil 

piles from 12 underground mines. Multiple sampling locations were picked for each mine’s 

 waste site. Samples were taken at multiple depths for each waste site and mixed together 

 (composited). The results provide the range of values for all samples, and for a few specific 

 mines. The statistical analysis of two standard deviations provides a measure of the 

spread of values for the samples taken. All samples are reported in mg/Kg. 

Analyte Sample Range 

All Samples 

mg/Kg dry weight 

Mine 4 

Avg ± 2 SD

Mines 5, 6, 7 

Avg ± 2 SD 

Mine 12 

Avg ± 2 SD 

Arsenic 19.1B155.1 50.7±5.7 124±13.3 12.1±1.9 

Copper 79.3B7,910 429±79 3,500±982 322±25.7 

Manganese 214.5B1,410 850±34 948±119 702±59.3 

Selenium 0.3B2.4 0.7±0.03 2.7±0.8 0.3±0.02 

Vanadium 4.8B35.6 8.1±0.8 9.8±1.3 29.6±2.5 

Note: 2 SD = two standard deviations. 

Source: Burghardt et al., 2000 

Depending on local geology and climate, the presence and eventual leaching or remobilization of these 

metals could lead to contamination of surrounding lands and water bodies. Analyses conducted on water 

samples downstream from the Canyonlands mines found a correlation (similar concentration levels above 

background levels) between manganese and selenium, though this dropped off rapidly within 150 feet (46 

meters) of the mines. 

However, in the Yazzie-312 Mine example from Table 3.11, water from rain events over 40 years carried 

sediment in overburden and protore piles back into the pit (then a lake) from which they were originally 

derived. Metal concentrations found in samples of spoil pile sediments and sediments collected from the 

bottom of the pit lake were both elevated to the same general degree (order of magnitude concentration). 

Uranium Mill Tailings 

The following material summarizes only a small portion of information provided in U.S. EPA (1995; 

1989b; 1986;1983 a,b,c,d; and 1982), and NRC (1980) and the reader is referred to those reports for much 

more detailed information on uranium milling and mill tailings. As mill tailings are considered byproduct 

materials under the AEA and not TENORM, this section is provided only in order to provide a more 

complete background and understanding of the uranium production industry. 

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 UMTRCA (Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act; see Appendix VI for more information), source handling licenses place specific requirements 

on the disposal of radioactive wastes; the design and construction of tailings impoundments address NRC 

or its Agreement State requirements for permanent storage of these wastes. Radionuclide-containing 

wastes generated by ISL operations are typically shipped to tailings impoundments at mill sites.

The principal waste generated by conventional beneficiation operations are tailings. ISL operations, and 

to a more limited extent conventional mills, generate waste leaching solutions. Disposal of these wastes is 
3-29

dependent on the type of operation; beneficiation wastes generated by ISL are disposed of by different 

methods, but most often 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. 

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, gangue6

 (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 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. Table 3.13 below provides 

an overview of typical characteristics of uranium mill tailings. 

ISL wastewater bleed solutions and lixiviant leaching solutions constitute the major source of wastes 

directed to lined evaporation ponds at ISL facilities. These solutions consist of barren lixiviant and 

usually have elevated levels of radium; other contaminants (metals, salts) are limited to what may have 

been dissolved 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 ISL 

operations. Alkali chlorides and carbonates are other likely constituents (U.S. EPA 1983b). These sludges 

are collected at the completion of mining (unless required sooner) and disposed of at an NRC-licensed 

disposal facility. Information regarding the radionuclide levels of the evaporation ponds can be found in 

Appendix V. 

ISL operations typically store spent ion exchange resins with waste in labeled containers prior to disposal 

at an NRC-licensed disposal facility. Conventional mills would typically dispose of spent ion exchange 

resins in the tailings impoundment. Reverse osmosis brines, acid/alkaline leaching, solvent extraction, 

stripping and precipitation wastes and materials also are disposed in tailings impoundments. 

 

6 Gangue is defined as the valueless minerals in an ore; that part of an ore that is not economically desirable but 

 cannot be avoided in mining. It is separated from the ore minerals during concentration. 
3-30

Table 3.13. Typical Characteristics of Uranium Mill Tailings 

Particle sizes, chemical compositions, and radioactivity levels are presented in this tablea

. 

Individual mill impoundment materials can and will vary dependent on ores 

and mining or extraction processes used. 

Tailings 

component

Particle size 

(μm) 

Chemical 

composition

Radioactivity 

characteristics

Sands 75 to 500 SiO2 with <1 wt % complex silicates of Al, Fe, Mg, 

Ca, Na, K, Se, Mn, Ni, Mo, Zn, U, and V; also 

metallic oxides 

0.004 to 0.01 wt % U3O8

b

Acid leaching:c 26 to 100 

pCi 226Ra/g; 70 to 600 

pCi 230Th/g 

Slimes 45 to 75 Small amounts of SiO2, but mostly very complex 

clay-like silicates of Na, Ca, Mn, Mg, Al, and Fe; also 

metallic oxides 

U3O8 and 226Ra are 

almost twice the 

concentration present in 

the sands 

Acid leaching:c

 150 to 

400 pCi 226Ra/g; 70 to 

600 pCi 230Th/g 

Liquids d Acid leaching: pH 1.2 to 2.0; Na+, NH4

+

, SO4

2

, Cl , 

and PO4

3

; dissolved solids up to 1 wt % 

Alkaline leaching: pH 10 to 10.5; CO3

2

 and HCO3 ; 

dissolved solids 10 wt % 

Acid leaching: 0.001 to 

0.01% U; 20 to 7,500 pCi

226Ra/L; 2,000 to 22,000 

pCi; 230Th/L 

Alkaline leaching: 200 

pCi 226Ra/L; essentially 

no 230Th (insoluble) 

Source: U.S. DOE (1997) 

a

 Adapted from information in NRC (1980). 

b

 U3O8 content is higher for acid leaching than for alkaline leaching. 

c

 Separate analyses of sands and slimes from the alkaline leaching process are not available. However, total 226Ra and 230Th contents of up to 600 pCi/g (of each) have been reported for the combined sands and slimes. 

d

 Particle size does not apply. Up to 70 vol % of the liquid may be recycled. Recycle potential is greater in the alkaline 

process. 

In addition to Table 3.13, there are many available analyses on uranium mill tailings which have been 

placed in impoundments. The reader is referred to the EPA and NRC reports mentioned at the beginning 

of this section for descriptions of individual sites. As a recent example, however, the Department of 

Energy conducted an environmental evaluation of the former Atlas Uranium Mill near Moab, Utah (U.S. 

DOE 2005). In that study, they characterized the mill tailings in the impoundment and vicinity properties 

as containing about 12 million tons of contaminated materials, of which approximately 10.5 million tons 

were tailings. The mean radium-226, ammonia, and uranium concentrations for the tailings were 516 

pCi/g, 423 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and 84 mg/kg, respectively. Other constituents, including 

iron, manganese, copper, lead, molybdenum, and vanadium, were present in lesser amounts. The pH 

values of the tailings were near neutral but had zones of pH values as low as 2.5 and as high as 10. With 

respect to grain size of tailings, approximately half of the material was classified as slimes. 
3-31

One matter which has affected some mill operations, and consequently the waste in the impoundments, is 

that the NRC has the authority to amend a uranium mill license to allow for disposal of source material 

termed “alternative feed”. This material, derived from a mining or other operation other than a uranium 

mine or uranium ISL operation, contains source material and the mill owner is agreeable to processing it 

at the mill to extract uranium. Guidance for amending the license to allow for processing this alternate 

feed was issued by NRC (2000a). 

Radium-226, thorium-230, and radon-222 (gas), and their decay products are the radionuclides present in 

uranium mill tailings that are of principal concern to human health and the environment. 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. EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 192 apply to remediation of such 

properties and address emissions of radon, as well as radionuclides, metals, and other contaminants into 

surface and groundwater. The NRC or its Agreement States license uranium mills. Under statutory 

requirements of the AEA and UMTRCA, NRC has issued regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 to provide for 

environmental protection for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, while those in 10 CFR 

Part 20 cover radiation protection from hazards of mills and their wastes, and 10 CFR Part 40 cover 

uranium source licensing provisions. NUREG 1620 (U.S. NRC 2004) provides guidance for the approval 

of reclamation plans of active uranium mills (reclamation of uranium mill tailings impoundments is 

covered in Chapter 4 of this report). 

As part of those requirements, tailings piles must have a cover designed to control radiological hazards 

for a minimum of 200 years and for 1,000 years to the greatest extent reasonably achievable. It must also 

limit radon (Rn-222) releases to 20 pCi/m2

/s averaged over the disposal area. Radon release limitation 

requirements apply to any portion of the tailings disposal sites unless radium concentrations do not 

exceed five pCi/g in the first 15 cm below the surface, and 15 pCi/g in layers more than 15 cm below the 

surface.
4-1 

Chapter 4. Uranium Mine and Extraction Facility Reclamation 

This chapter is not intended to serve as guidance, or to supplement EPA or other agency environmental 

requirements. Instead, it is an outline of practices which may or have been used for uranium site 

restoration. 

Mining reclamation is the act of returning a mine to a long-term stable condition, or its original contour to 

ensure the safe reuse of the site by both current and future generations. When possible, a reclamation plan 

aims to return the affected areas to previously existing environmental conditions. Differing views as to 

what is an acceptable environmental condition for reclaimed mining sites explain the varying regulatory 

requirements for uranium mining sites. The existence of bonding requirements and/or financial guarantees 

in the cases where private parties are involved in the mine may also play an important role in determining 

the extent of reclamation. Extraction facilities licensed by the NRC or its Agreement States are required 

to have bonds sufficient to allow a third party to reclaim the property should the company holding the site 

fail. Additionally, regulatory requirements affect selected reclamation techniques, as some techniques 

may be adequate to meet less stringent requirements, but will not be suitable for more restrictive 

requirements. In some cases, the remoteness and aridity of a site and reduced risk for human exposure 

may affect decisions on whether a site is in need of reclamation, or the extent to which it is reclaimed, if 

at all. 

When a uranium mine, mill, or other uranium extraction facility has exceeded regulatory requirements for 

radiation control, or has had an unauthorized release of metals or other contaminants, the cleanup or other 

methods used to remove or contain the contamination is termed remediation. Remediation of a source of 

contamination may be a short term response or an interim step in the long-term reclamation of the site 

Site reuse is a significant issue for radiation sites. The extent to which a uranium mine site can be reused 

for other purposes where humans may spend periods of time for work, recreation, or even residential 

purposes is highly dependent on the extent of cleanup and removal of the potential for radiation exposure. 

Therefore, the end state of reclaimed uranium sites and the techniques used to achieve the end state, will 

vary on a site-by-site basis, and dependent upon the regulatory agencies involved. However, most of what 

is described in this chapter is process oriented, rather than regulatory in nature, and much of it is derived 

from the Nuclear Energy Agency=s (NEA) and IAEA’s joint publication Environmental Remediation of 

Uranium Production Facilities (NEA/IAEA/OECD 2002) rather than any single set of federal (including 

EPA) or state requirements. Appendix VI provides information on federal and state agency regulatory 

requirements for reclamation and remediation of these facilities. 

A number of handbooks and guides provide much more detailed information on mine site reclamation, 

including The Handbook of Western Reclamation Techniques (Ferris et al. 1996), Handbook of 

Technologies for Avoidance and Remediation of Acid Mine Drainage (Skousen et al. 1998), Abandoned 

Mine Site Characterization and Cleanup Handbook (U.S. EPA 2000d), EPA’s National Hardrock Mining 

Framework (U.S. EPA 1997b), and Environmental Handbook: Effects of Mining on the Environment and 

American Environmental Controls on Mining (Marcus 1997). 

While this chapter does include some discussion of reclamation techniques applicable to uranium 

extraction facilities as background information, reclamation of uranium extraction facilities are governed 

by the NRC’s regulations. Readers interested in finding out more on this topic should consult NRC 

guidance documents such as Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill 

Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (U.S. NRC 
4-2 

2004), Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications (U.S. NRC 

2003), Design of Erosion Protection for Long-term Stabilization (U.S. NRC 2002), and NMSS 

Decommissioning Standard Review Plan (U.S. NRC 2000b). 

Although most conventional uranium mine sites in the U.S. are in rural areas remote from population 

centers, many have also been located in close proximity to or within communities, such as parts of the 

Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, or may be accessible to recreational visitors on federal lands (see 

Volume II of this report, U.S. EPA 2006a), and a few have been subject to Superfund cleanups. Thus, in 

some instances, uranium mine sites can result in environmental impacts, which may include potential 

public exposure to radon and radiation; contamination of groundwater and surface water supplies (via 

acid drainage and the mobilization of heavy metals); natural habitat disturbance; increased instability of 

the land such as erosion and slope stability failure; and the remaining physical safety hazards. Left 

exposed to the environment, these sites could pose hazards to the local community and biota, and the 

radioactive wastes could be subject to potential misuse as building materials. 

This chapter attempts to cover available uranium reclamation techniques and to summarize some 

processes for remediating a uranium mine or extraction facility. The discussion that follows breaks the 

reclamation process into two forms of uranium mining and extraction wastes: the waste products from 

open-pit or underground mines (which may include TENORM for which EPA, federal land management 

agencies, Tribes, and states have jurisdiction) and the waste products from ISL, heap leaching, and 

milling (which are regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States) as byproduct material. Several types of 

wastes generated need reclamation, and the wide disparity in waste management practices over the years 

has resulted in diverse conditions at various mining and extraction sites. 

Uranium mining and extraction facilities being reclaimed now are mostly those that have current owners, 

which are primarily ISL operations (under license to the NRC or its Agreement States); conventional 

mines that were either closed or in suspension with a current or successor owner; or abandoned mines 

with or without a current or successor owner. In many cases, federal, state, Tribal, or local government 

agencies are involved in managing or requiring the reclamation process to begin. 

Characterizing a Mining Site 

Site characterization is the first step required in the remediation and reclamation of former uranium 

mining facilities. Data on site properties and conditions form the basis for current environmental 

assessments, risk analyses, decommissioning plans, reclamation programs, monitoring programs, and 

final public use of the site. Data quality objectives and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) 

procedures may or may not be in place before the data are collected. Mine age, management, and 

regulatory practices in place during the operation of each mine, especially some older unreclaimed mines, 

may vary significantly. Thus, the requirements for QA/QC issues can also vary significantly, depending 

on requirements of the regulatory agencies involved. 

The surface and mineral ownership of a site will play an important part in site reclamation and 

remediation. The land status will partially determine the regulatory regime. Whether the site is on Tribal, 

federal, state, acquired or private lands, or a combination (split estate) will affect many actions. 

Ownership or stewardship will also be an important factor in financing reclamation and/or remediation. 

This will also identify the regulatory regime and the possibility of developing partnerships to resolve 

conflicts and ensure all stakeholders are involved. Identifying current land uses will also drive decisions. 
4-3 

Many site factors can influence the reclamation of a mining site, including topography, geology, 

hydrology, hydrogeochemistry, climatology, ecology, operating characteristics, radiological 

characteristics, and socioeconomic characteristics. For example, the topographical setting (whether the 

site is located in a valley, a plain, or on a hillside) can affect a site=s hydrology and climate. Knowledge of 

a site=s climatology, hydrology, and hydrogeochemistry is needed for assessing its impacts on water 

bodies in the area. In turn, these impacts may influence decisions on strategies and techniques for 

reclamation. 

Climatological and hydrological characterization includes annual and monthly precipitation, annual and 

monthly temperature patterns, annual and monthly wind speed and storm patterns, distribution of surface 

water bodies, and data on evapotranspiration rates. Hydrological and hydrogeochemical characterization 

includes identification of aquifers, impermeable strata and depths to water tables, groundwater contours, 

hydraulic gradients and flow rates, ground and surface water quality, and changes in surface- and 

groundwater characteristics over time. 

Understanding a site=s ecology is also important to its characterization. Understanding the flora in the area 

is important in revegetating the site, and understanding the fauna in the area and their seasonal habits is 

important in developing a reclamation plan that will have minimal impact on the ecology. 

A site=s operational and radiological characteristics are of prime importance in its reclamation. The 

historical type of mining, mine layout, and extraction methods will affect the location and types of wastes 

present, and knowledge of how the mine operated can improve reclamation procedures utilized. 

Geotechnical aspects of the mine, including its stability, will help determine if certain reclamation options 

will endanger the workers, and radiological characteristics determine how much reclamation must be 

conducted. 

As mentioned above, having data on radiological background conditions is very important in the 

development and design of any remediation and reclamation plan. The average natural background dose 

in the United States is about 300 mrem/year, much of that originating from naturally occurring 

radionuclides that include uranium and thorium isotopes. Sites selected for uranium mining will generally 

have higher levels of natural background. Radiation surveys for establishing background can help 

determine statistically appropriate reference levels of natural soil background in areas uncontaminated by 

human activity. This information can aid in establishing the extent of any additive man made 

contamination, determining site related impacts, and assessing remediation goals at or above background 

radiation levels (U.S. EPA et al. 2001; Eisenbud and Gesell 1997; NCRP 1987b). 

Off site characterization is extremely important too as both natural and human factors may have resulted 

in dispersion of dusts, rock, liquid, refuse or other wastes contaminated with radionuclides or other 

pollutants beyond the borders of a mine or its related facilities. Transport of ore and waste rock to other 

locations away from a mine are not uncommon, for example the creation of an ore transport station for 

ore produced by several mines in a common area. In this regard, reconnaissance walking, aerial, and 

radiation surveying may provide initial evidence of the need for more detailed evaluations. Sampling of 

water and soils off site may also provide evidence of contaminant releases. Computer modeling of 

collected data, and calculations of potential transport pathways may guide more detailed sampling and 

surveys to characterize and identify how far and in what directions radionuclides, metals, or other 

contaminants have moved or been taken away from the mine site. Examples of two recent reconnaissance 

radiation surveys conducted by EPA in areas off site of uranium mines include U.S. EPA and USACE 

(2000) on the Navajo Reservation, and Dempsey et al. (1999) on the Spokane Indian Reservation. 
4-4 

When releases of contaminants have occurred off site of uranium mines, they may be subject to 

remediation actions of federal, Tribal, or state governments in accordance with their statutory and 

regulatory authority (see Appendix VI). In the case of the Spokane Indian Reservation in Washington 

state, a radiation survey conducted by EPA identified where uranium ore and related materials had spilled 

out of trucks driving off site from the Midnite Mine to the Dawn Mill. The mining company agreed to 

remove the spilled ore and remediate the sites. The work was completed in March 2005. 

Sometimes, it is possible to locate original pre-mining exploration survey radiation data, which can help 

in establishing background levels. Surveying techniques for performing radiological characterization 

include direct measurement and scanning with radiation survey instruments, and site sampling followed 

by lab analysis. Direct measurement and scanning are best suited for determining total surface activities. 

However, these measurements in some cases cannot be used for accurately determining reclamation or 

remediation goals. In these cases, sampling followed by lab analysis may be best suited for 

characterization, but extensive sampling can become very expensive. Protocols and procedures for final 

site surveys are detailed in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual(MARSSIM)

(U.S. EPA et al. 2001). An important issue in a radiation site survey and particularly for abandoned 

conventional mines, and discussed in the MARSSIM, is determining what constitutes background levels 

of radiation to ascertain what changes may have occurred at the site due to human activity, and attempting 

to distinguish the changes from natural background radiation. 

In those instances where mines are located near populated areas, socioeconomic characteristics can 

influence methods and clean up goals for mine reclamation. Final land use generally takes into account 

future human and environmental exposures from the reclaimed site.

The Reclamation Process 

TENORM bearing overburden, waste rock and other materials at sites of former uranium mines that are not 

in compliance with applicable criteria and standards may need remediation depending on requirements of 

regulating and land use management agencies. The objectives of remediation, dependent on the federal, 

state, Tribal or even local requirements, may include removing potentially harmful effects on the 

environment and human health, to render impoundments stable over prolonged periods of time, and 

ensure that the sites are established with natural self-sustaining vegetation if possible. In addition to 

characterizing sites, the following information is generally gathered to develop the final plan for 

remediation and public use of the land: agreed final land use; physical characteristics, such as tonnage and 

area of rock piles; maximum area that can be used for final disposal and maximum height for contouring; 

maximum permitted slope angles; erosion characteristics for proposed combinations of waste rock and 

possible limitations on use of erosion control structures of final capping; availability, quantity, and quality 

of soil for use in revegetation; and experience with revegetation of similar rock types in the region. 
4-5 

Overburden and Waste Rock Reclamation

Overburden and waste rock from mining operations are usually placed above ground in piles. An 

important decision that is usually made first for reclamation is whether the waste can be placed back into 

the mine excavation, either an open-pit mine, or underground mine. Often this decision will depend on the 

presence of water at the site, and whether leaching of contaminants and radionuclides from waste placed 

back in the excavation is likely to occur. In many instances, the mine may have partially collapsed, 

making it impossible to return all wastes to the original workings, which would then require different 

reclamation or disposal methods for the remaining materials. In some cases, such as the Lathrop Canyon 

mines in Canyonlands National Park, Utah (see Appendix III), a decision was made by the National Park 

Service not to reclaim the abandoned mines but just bar the mine opening with wire, and post radiation 

signs to keep members of the public out of the workings. This decision was made due to the remoteness 

of the mine site, low visitation rate, and anticipated low risk to the public and environment from radiation 

at the site (Burghardt et al. 2000). In other sites, land management agencies have returned waste rock to 

the underground mine, then placed barriers at the mine portal which allow bats to enter and leave freely 

for roosting. 

In those cases where mine waste piles have either been returned to an original open-pit excavation, or left 

in place, reclamation has generally been implemented by installation of a dry-cover system. The first step 

in constructing a dry-cover for overburden and waste rock piles is to recontour the above-ground 

materials. This action improves both the long-term stability of the vegetative cover and landscape 

integration. In doing so, steps are usually taken to ensure that all settling has occurred prior to recontouring, to prevent depressions on the surface that allow water to collect and ultimately infiltrate the 

waste pile, and to mediate unsuitable slope angles that promote erosion. There are always exceptions. In 

semiarid environments, leaving some engineered rills, depressions, or berms has aided in creating microenvironments and holding water, on a small scale, for revegetation (Leshendok 2004). 

A suitable site usually is designed to last far into the future, though regulatory controls for most mines 

end once the facility has been closed. Closure designs may recognize that the radionuclide hazards may 

exist on the order of hundreds to thousands to millions of years, due to the long half-life of the 

radionuclides involved, and incorporate the impacts of weathering to prevent spreading of radiation. 

Designs commonly are based on human and societal abilities to maintain regulatory controls and not on 

the period of the hazard=s existence. Capping materials are not usually a source of additional pollution and 

are generally compatible with the agreed final land use. Water management techniques commonly are 

designed to divert surface water away from the impoundment, treat surface precipitation on the 

impoundment for suspended solids only, and treat water draining from underground mine areas for 

extended periods of time. 

The last steps for reclamation generally are revegetation and maintenance. Revegetation improves the 

long-term stability of the reclaimed land to integrate with surrounding undisturbed land, strengthens 

resistance to erosion, and limits net infiltration of precipitation by enhancing evapotranspiration. While 

revegetation can be allowed to develop naturally, one technique is hydro-seeding, which spreads 

suspended seeds in nutrient solutions with added organic gels. This may achieve good results in the 

presence of some soil; though its use in many areas with only rock, or extreme aridity, has been 

unsuccessful. In cases where the topsoil generates acid, special treatment with lime may be necessary. 

The use of sewage treatment plant biosolids as a growth medium has been tried successfully on other 

types of mines and could be used for uranium mines as well. 
4-6 

While passive controls are usually preferable, maintenance may be required to cope with surface 

disturbance during the first few years, such as local erosion and settling. Maintenance efforts may include 

surveying the integrity of the surface cover and intervening to repair detected damage to vegetation. 

Heap-Leaching Reclamation

The heap-leaching process is not currently in use by the U.S. uranium industry, but has been used in the 

past. Wastes derived from this method, regulated as byproduct material by NRC or its Agreement States, 

form piles that if not sent to uranium mill tailings impoundments for disposal, would need to be reshaped 

for proper integration into the landscape for reclamation. Many heap-leaching piles were accompanied by 

drainage systems that could be preserved for remediation purposes. In some select cases, the heapleaching pile would be flushed to further remove all uranium and other valuable substances prior to 

considering the pile as waste. Once the pile is considered waste, the reclamation technique for heapleaching waste has been contouring for stabilization, and capping. Capping further reduces leaching by 

reducing water infiltration rates, preventing the dispersion of radioactive material by water and wind 

erosion, decreasing radon emanation rates, and reducing direct exposure to gamma emissions. Under 

NRC and Agreement State controls, such sites would need to meet current environmental protection and 

radiation protection decommissioning standards for protection of groundwater and the public. In some 

cases, the heap-leaching waste could be used as a suitable first cover for mill tailing wastes, if the 

properties of the waste are not too acidic. 

Mill Tailings Reclamation

Remediation of mill tailings sites is closely affiliated with reclamation of uranium mines. Mill tailings 

have been regulated as byproduct materials by the NRC or its Agreement States, and the Department of 

Energy (see Appendix VI), under the requirements of UMTRCA. Decommissioning of uranium mills 

follows the environmental protection standards of EPA, and licensing and closure regulations and 

guidances of NRC or its Agreement States. For at least two sites, mill tailings were stabilized in an 

engineered cell within a former uranium mine pit on the mill site. Internationally, two types of systems 

have been used for close-out of tailings impoundments to prevent radon emanation: dry-cover and watercover systems. Only the dry-cover system is used in the U.S.; however, for information purposes only, the 

wet-cover system is also described briefly. 

Dry-Cover Systems 

A dry-cover system utilizes the following steps: (1) removal of free water and stabilization of the surface, 

(2) recontouring and landscaping of above-ground tailings facilities, (3) capping, and (4) revegetation (if 

possible) and maintenance. Tailings are usually disposed of as slurry, and water collects on the surface 

over time as the tailings consolidate and settle. In cases where the tailings have been allowed to spread 

without containment, physical relocation for consolidation purposes may be preferable. Many mill tailings 

impoundments have simply been capped with dry rock without revegetation. 

Once the containment area has been determined to be acceptable, the water is generally pumped off the 

tailings, and a cover applied. One method of improving the drainage of tailings is to insert vertical wick 

(cords or fibers that draw liquid to them) drains, which often allows the tailing mass to reach a lower, 

final water content than can be achieved by natural drainage. An alternate way of enhancing dewatering 

of the tailings is to apply a thin layer of high-density cover material. For example, using a layer of 
4-7 

synthetic geotextile and an iron netting increases the surface stability and prevents cracks by compressing 

the tailings to expel water. 

The second step, recontouring the above-ground tailing facilities, improves both the long-term stability of 

the cover and landscape integration. This step requires that all settling has occurred prior to recontouring. 

In many cases, particularly for uranium mills, due to arid climate and lack of natural soil, revegetation is 

not possible and a rock cover may be installed. A principal standard for installation of such a rock cover is 

U.S. NRC (2002) NUREG-1623, Design of Erosion Protection for Long-term Stabilization. The 

installation of a suitable cap not only covers the waste material, but also prevents fugitive air emissions by 

covering the particulate that could be mobilized through air currents. The same cap design, water 

management, re-vegetation, and maintenance issues that apply to waste pile remediation apply to 

placement of a dry-cover system for tailings remediation. 

Water-Cover Systems 

While used in Canada and Europe, and in isolated instances for other types of mines in the U.S., water 

cover is not viewed as an acceptable means of remediation for uranium mill tailings in the U.S., is not 

permitted under NRC regulations unless approved as temporary water covers (groundwater evaporation 

ponds), and should not be viewed as EPA recommended procedures. The methods used in other countries 

are site specific and dependent on environmental impacts, land use requirements, etc. The discussion 

below is for information purposes only. 

A water-cover system completely immerses the waste with a sustainable, thin layer of water. Its 

objectives are similar to those of a dry-cover system, in that it seeks to stop wind erosion of the dry 

beaches, reduce radon emanation, provide a barrier to intrusion of the tailings, and prevent acid formation 

in cases of acid-generating tailings. Covering the tailings with water can prevent contact with atmospheric 

oxygen and foster the development of anaerobic conditions, which can reduce the mobility of many 

contaminants of concern. To be considered for a water-cover remedy, a facility may either be an aboveground impoundment where slurry has been allowed to settle, with the slimes settling slowly in the center 

of the decantation pond, or a below-grade site in open-pits where tailings have been transported as a 

thickened paste and disposed of. 

This technique has several potential problems, including sustaining the water cover, preventing human 

and biota intrusion from ingesting the water cover, and preventing further contamination of other water 

bodies through infiltration. A principal issue is mobility of uranium and other radionuclides, especially in 

either acidic or alkaline waters. As with all potential remediation techniques, the likely effectiveness of 

techniques such as this need to be seriously evaluated prior to remediation design. 

Other Approaches 

Internationally, tailings have also been disposed of in natural lakes. Reclamation in those cases focused 

on ensuring that the tailings would remain contained by the addition of capping with sand and rock. Water 

quality monitoring programs for lakes have also been implemented in those countries where this disposal 

method has been used. Such methods have not been approved by the EPA. Tailings that have been placed 

below ground (in the mine) during operations have provided a long-term management solution from the 

viewpoint of reducing potential radiation exposures to members of the public. However, the possibility of 

leaching and suffusion (spreading) by permeating groundwater may need to be taken into consideration. 

Reclamation and remediation efforts vary based on site specific characteristics, impacts on the 

environment, and available resources. Options employed for prevention of leaching and suffusion into 

surface and groundwaters include sealing open mine shafts and creating underground barriers by injecting 

grouts. 
4-8 

The Wastewater Problem 

Water is one of the principal pathways for dispersal of uranium mining pollutants into the environment. 

Water is contaminated by surface runoff from overburden and waste rock piles, seepage through 

overburden and waste rock piles, and other actions where mining waste comes in contact with water. The 

radioactivity is derived from uranium, thorium, radium, lead and daughter products either dissolved or 

suspended in water. Where pyrite and other sulfidic minerals are present, acidic solutions may be 

generated. Acid generation, also known as acid mine drainage or acid rock drainage, is a concern of 

several types of mining. The acidic solutions, which increase the mobility of heavy metals and 

radionuclides in the ore, require neutralization before being discharged into the environment. Also present 

in the contaminated water may be nitrates, nitrites, and ammonia originating from the residue of 

explosives used. The composition of the wastewater is determined by the ore type and grade, and by the 

process technology used to mine the ore. 

Pit water, or pit lake water, is water which has filled an open-pit mine excavation, usually derived as 

water from underground workings of the mine. As a subset of wastewater, pit water may represent the 

largest volume of wastewater present from the existence of uranium mines. Pit water can vary greatly in 

the concentration of contaminants present, and the water in some pit lakes may even meet EPA drinking 

water standards (Leshendok 2004). However, the resulting water may also have the same general 

characteristics as other wastewater generated by contact with mining waste or uranium ore. Pit lakes have 

increasingly become a concern of some state regulators in that these waters are generally open to the 

public and terrestrial and avian life. For many of these waters, remediation may be a delicate tradeoff due 

to the vast quantity of the water and the limited tools available for remediation. In some instances the 

regulatory body may acknowledge an inability to meet human health water quality standards and may 

refer to other achievable water quality standards such as those sufficient to sustain livestock. The 

techniques for remediation of these waters are included in the discussion of the techniques that follow. 

Setting of quality objectives for aquifers and the surface water courses are established according to 

federal regulatory requirements, land-use plans, as well as state, Tribal and local rules. There are specific 

EPA groundwater discharge standards for uranium, thorium, and vanadium, as well as other types of hard 

rock mines (see Appendix VI), and many states have used these to establish their own standards, with 

discharge permits required for mines in accordance with the Clean Water Act. Acceptable treatment 

technologies for mine reclamation are approved by state, Tribal and/or federal agencies (depending on 

land ownership) according to the nature of the contaminants, their concentrations, and the desired effluent 

levels. A general objective of regulating agencies for mining water treatment is to produce an acceptable 

water quality of the discharge with low volumes of residues. 

Processes for Treating Uranium Ore 

When water comes in contact with uranium bearing ore either naturally in the ground, or when extracted 

under license by regulated processes, several oxidation reactions take place. The end product of these 

reactions is uranium sulfate (UO2SO4), which creates uranium cake, sulfuric acid, and ferrous sulfate, 

which are the major wastewater contaminants needing treatment. Additionally, the following chemicals 

can be generated, either purposely or inadvertently, by chemical reactions occurring with the ore releasing 

additional contaminants to the wastewater: 

• Bicarbonates generated due to treatment of the acidic water with lime. 

• Sulfates generated from the oxidation processes described above. 
4-9 

• Chlorides added to process water as a stripping agent in the solvent extraction process from backwashing of ion-exchange resins. 

• Nitrates generated from explosives used for rock blasting and fertilizers used in re-vegetation. 

• Nitrites and ammonium generated from the degradation of organic pollutants. 

• Calcium generated as a residue of water treatment with lime. 

• Sodium generated from the solvent-extraction and ion-exchange processes. 

• Iron generated from the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) and other ferrous sulfides. 

• Manganese generated naturally from various weathering processes, but also added as an oxidant 

in some leaching processes. 

Water Treatment Techniques

Treatment of contaminated mine wastewater is usually required, with release concentrations being 

dictated by federal and state requirements. While many treatment technologies are capable of achieving 

concentrations that are well below regulatory requirements, the accumulation of contaminants in the 

sediments may also need to be taken into account. Traditionally, large volumes of contaminated water 

being pumped or released from a site (greater than 1,500 feet3

 /hr (42.5 m3/hr)) are usually treated by 

some form of chemical process though it may also be treated by newer technologies, such as biological 

treatment in wetlands, evaporation ponds, and reactive barriers. The residues and sludges remaining from 

the wastewater treatment must be disposed of appropriately as determined by the federal, state, or Tribal 

land management agency, either on-site or at an engineered low-level radioactive waste disposal cell, or 

an approved off-site disposal area. In some cases, depending on the quality of remediated water, standing 

bodies of water may be left behind permanently. 

Methods used for treating mining wastewater include various types of precipitation methods used to settle 

out the contaminants from the wastewater. These contaminants may include radionuclides, metals, and 

other inorganic materials. Precipitation methods are the most widely used methods for treating uranium 

mining wastewater because they use small amounts of chemicals and are cost-competitive. However, they 

also generate large volumes of residues. 

Lime Treatment 

Lime treatment is the method of choice for treating acidic waters from uranium processing plants that rely 

upon sulfuric acid (H2SO4) leaching for the extraction of uranium from the ore. It is used for treating acid 

mine drainage and seepage water from acid uranium mill tailings and other disposal facilities. This 

process adds a 15B20 percent calcium hydroxide (lime, or COH) slurry to the acid effluent to raise the 

solution=s pH to ten. It blows air into the solution to oxidize ferrous iron, trivalent manganese, and 

arsenic, and uranium is precipitated out as calcium diuranate. The effluent can then be discharged with 

dilute sulfuric or hydrochloric acid, after pH adjustment to between six and eight. The underflow1

containing the metal precipitates is stored for disposal or further treated. 

This process produces underflow or sludge of two percent solids, which may be difficult to dewater. 

While the volume of the underflow can be reduced with drum or disk filters or through centrifuges, the 

capital and operating costs of this further treatment are high. Another process for minimizing the amount 

of underflow of sludge generated is to treat the underflow with a high-density sludge (HDS) process. 

The HDS process uses multi-stage treatment processes and recycled underflow to yield a sludge 

concentration of up to 15 percent solids. 

 

1 Flowing bottom waters containing dissolved or suspended solids. 
4-10 

Ferric Chloride Treatment 

Although most of the arsenic (As) present in wastewater is precipitated out with lime treatment, the 

remaining arsenic levels in the water may still exceed acceptable release limits. If this is the case, ferric 

(Fe) chloride (Cl) treatment can be added to the slurry during bulk neutralization to precipitate out 

arsenic. The reaction: 

AsO4

3- (aq) + 3H+

 (aq) + FeCl3 -------------> FeAsO4 + 3HCl (aq) 

occurs in solutions with a pH of less than seven. Ferric hydroxides also aid in the precipitation process. 

This process will yield wastewater with concentrations below 0.1 mg/L 

Barium Chloride Treatment 

Barium chloride (BaCl2) treatment is widely used in the uranium industry to remove radium at mining 

sites. Radium concentrations below 8.1 pCi/L (0.3 Bq/L) can easily be achieved for wastewater 

containing sulfate ions. At pH values between six and eight, barium sulfate(BaSO4) has a low solubility 

and readily precipitates out, co-precipitating radium at the same time. Only 0.00007B0.00013 lb (30B60 

mg) of barium chloride per liter of wastewater will achieve 95B99 percent removal of radium. Because 

the resulting crystals are difficult to retain, they are usually co-precipitated with other species during bulk 

neutralization. 

Ion Exchange and Adsorption 

Ion exchange is the use of organic or inorganic solids that have chemically reactive sites that are either 

positively (cations) or negatively (anions) charged to bind with contamination, thus eliminating it from 

the effluent water. Attached to the reactive groups are easily displaceable ions of the opposite charge. The 

exchange reaction is driven by the relative concentrations of the competing ions, their electric charge, and 

their relative affinity for the exchange site. After treatment of the wastewater, when the resins are spent 

(loaded with the ions to be removed from the wastewater), the ions can be recovered by regenerating the 

resins by back-washing them with strong acids. Most industrially used ion exchangers are based on 

synthetic resins, but inorganic substrates such as zeolites are also used. Ion exchange technology is very 

expensive and is best used for specialized, high-selectivity contaminant removal. The advantages of ion 

exchange are its ability to treat a wide variety of contaminants and to reduce contaminants to very low 

levels. 

Ion adsorption is similar to ion exchange, except that it does not attempt to regenerate the resins. An 

example of ion adsorption is a uranium-specific, high-molecular polymer called GOPUR 3000, which has 

been developed in Germany for removing uranium from wastewater. At pH values between four and 

eleven, the reactive surfaces undergo chemical change with the uranyl ion, and the resulting insoluble 

matrix precipitates out of the solution. The sludges can then be dewatered using conventional dewatering 

techniques. 

Bioremediation

In this process, nutrients are added to a water body to increase natural bacterial growth which may then 

fix the radionuclides and metals in the bacteria, removing them from the water, and eventually settling to 

the bottom. 

A recent example of using bioremediation occurred for a pit lake containing over one billion gallons (3.8 

billion liters) of water at the Sweetwater uranium property in Wyoming (Paulson 2004). 

Sugars, fats, alcohols, and phosphates were added to the water in quantities approaching one million 

pounds (about 454 thousand kilograms) over a nine month period. Natural bacteria in the lake 
4-11 

metabolized the nutrients and respired on dissolved materials in the water in this order: dissolved oxygen, 

nitrates, selenium complexes, dissolved uranium. Dissolved metals precipitated on the lake bottom, 

increasing the metals concentrations in the bottom sediments. Phosphate addition encouraged the growth 

of algae which provided a source of organic carbon to maintain the lake. The finished water quality met 

Wyoming state standards for livestock use. Other experiments such as Anderson et al. (2003) have shown 

promise with use of metal reducing bacteria, referred to as Geobacter species, which can fix uranium in 

groundwater provided sufficient other nutrients are added to the water. In that study, the microbes were 

inserted through injection wells to reduce the uranium content of contaminated groundwater at a former 

uranium mill site in Rifle, Colorado. 

Permeable Reactive Barriers 

A method which is being used at some Superfund sites, including those with water contaminated with 

uranium, is the permeable reactive barrier. This technology is a constructed permeable wall installed 

across the flow path of a contaminant plume, either surface or underground, allowing the water portion of 

the plume to passively move through the wall. The barrier allows the passage of water while prohibiting 

the movement of contaminants, including uranium, by employing such agents as granular iron, activated 

carbon, bacteria, compost or peat, chemicals, and clays. The contaminants will either be degraded or 

retained in a concentrated form by the barrier material. The wall could provide permanent containment for 

relatively benign residues or provide a decreased volume of the more toxic contaminants for subsequent 

treatment. As one example of its use (U.S. EPA et al. 2000), EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Department of Energy participated in a joint study of the Fry 

Canyon site in southeastern Utah for a long-term field demonstration to assess the performance of 

selected permeable reactive barriers for the removal of uranium from groundwater. That study found that 

reactive iron (zero-valent iron) removed nearly 100% of uranium in water after it had passed 1.5 feet (0.5 

meter) through the three foot (one meter) thick barrier.

Wastewater Preventive Strategies

The objective of preventive strategies is to avoid generation of acidic wastewaters and contaminated 

water from closed or abandoned mines and to reduce the amount of contamination needing remediation. 

The planning of mine closure activities generally gives priority to preventive strategies whenever 

possible. Following are some of the preventive strategies and goals that may be applicable: 

Underground Mines 

• Avoid mixing good and poor water quality in actively managed mines. 

• Allow flooding of decommissioned mines to reduce the atmospheric oxygen available and the 

mobilization of contaminants if there is no connection from the mine to surface or groundwater. 

• Limit groundwater circulation in mines by reducing permeability and hydraulic isolation. 

• Seal shafts, boreholes, and other access routes. 

• Seal fracture and fissure zones. 

• Dam up individual parts of the mine to prevent circulation. 

• Use chemically active backfills to create reactive barriers that reduce contaminant migration. 

Surface Impoundments of Mine Waste Materials 

• Divert surface water by developing channels. 

• Cap impoundments to limit infiltration of atmospheric precipitation. 

• Place waste materials selectively to facilitate containment. 

• Install reactive inter-layers (crushed limestone) to control pH. 
4-12 

• Encourage the development of anoxic conditions by adding bacterial growth media, such as 

manure or wood chips. 

Open-pits 

• Install clay seals to prevent infiltration to underlying strata. 

• Add lime to raise pH values. 

• Seal boreholes to prevent infiltration into underlying strata. 

• Backfill the mine pit to avoid accumulation of surface runoff. 

Groundwater Protection at ISL Sites

Environmental regulation of ISL systems is overseen by the NRC or its Agreement States (see Appendix 

VI); remediation must be conducted to return the groundwater and other systems to as close to preextraction conditions, or to the same class of groundwater use as possible. Groundwater protection 

requirements for ISLs are laid out in NRC’s NUREG 1569 (U.S. NRC 2003). 

Early experiments in production of underground uranium using the ISL method utilized a variety of 

different liquids to examine their efficiencies and costs. Used only as a test, it was determined that acidic 

solution lixiviants (sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and ammonium bicarbonate) destroyed the ore bearing 

material and mobilized many other unwanted materials. Additionally, the restoration activities were found 

to be cost prohibitive when attempting to return the aquifer to pre-extraction conditions or previous class 

of use. Consequently, the industry has moved toward using ISL oxygen, carbon dioxide, or sodium 

bicarbonate solutions, which have become the predominant form of uranium production in the United 

States, primarily because of their typically low production costs and expected environmental impacts. 

Groundwater restoration is accomplished through a strategy called pump and treat. During ISL, after a 

wellfield is exhausted, the aquifer must be restored. During aquifer restoration operations, relatively large 

volumes of wastewater are generated. Waste disposal systems at ISL operations usually consist of a 

combination of evaporation ponds, deep-well injection, and surface discharge (usually via irrigation). 

Evaporation ponds now must be double lined and must incorporate leak-detection and leachate-collection 

systems. Pond residues must be shipped off site to approved disposal facilities. Regulations prohibit the 

injection of ISL waste into aquifers containing less than 10 g/L of total dissolved solids. 

A variety of aquifer restoration processes have been used in the United States. Remediation generally 

follows five stages: (1) groundwater sweep, (2) water treatment, (3) reductant addition, (4) circulation, 

and (5) stabilization. 

Groundwater sweep is initiated when the uranium concentration in the production fluid has dropped to a 

level where recovery is no longer feasible. During groundwater sweep, the lixiviant (sodium bicarbonate) 

is discontinued, but the water is still pumped through the recovery wells, displacing contaminated water 

from the aquifer. As the aquifer is diluted in the concentration of the lixiviant, groundwater sweep 

becomes less useful. 

During water treatment, contaminated water remaining in the ground is brought to the surface and treated, 

and clean water is pumped back into the wellfield. This treatment continues until the groundwater is 

restored (normal treatment volumes are two to six times the volume of water in the original aquifer). 
4-13 

At some operations, the restoration is complete after water treatment. However, since the addition of 

chemicals into the aquifer creates an imbalance, the rock must be returned to a reduced state by adding a 

chemical reductant, such as hydrogen sulfide. This reducing action usually causes dissolved uranium and 

other heavy metals to stabilize at acceptable levels. 

Circulation is then conducted in the aquifer, where water in the amount of two or three times the volume 

of the aquifer is pumped though the wells to eliminate spatial and temporal variations in water quality. 

Finally, stabilization monitoring is conducted to ensure that the well has reached a steady state. If there is 

no indication of increasing levels of ground water constituents of concern, the site is released for 

unrestricted use. 

Evaporite wastes from evaporation ponds are currently disposed of in facilities licensed to receive such 

wastes under NRC standards.

Building and Equipment Reclamation 

Uranium mine sites usually have very few or no buildings. Any buildings on site are generally temporary 

and are easily demolished, though some may be constructed of overburden or waste rock, cemented 

together. Demolished building material has generally been bulldozed into one of the open-pits or 

sometimes into underground mine portals to be reclaimed and included with the waste rock. 

Equipment associated with the conventional mining sites includes mining shaft equipment and frames, 

rock ore cars, and other equipment that has come in contact with the ore or waste ore material. Radiation 

contamination of this equipment is generally limited to the residue from the transportation and handling 

of the mining ore. As such, this equipment has generally been decontaminated by thoroughly washing it 

with water or other mild cleaning agents. Following the washing the equipment can be transported to 

another site for reuse, depending on its residual radioactivity level, and state requirements. 

However, old equipment generally has very little monetary value. In many cases an effective remediation 

method has been to simply dispose of the equipment in an open-pit or mine portal and bury it with waste 

rock. The resulting waste rock and equipment pit are reclaimed by installing a dry cover. In some cases, 

decontaminated equipment may be sent to a recycling mill for processing into new equipment. 

Many abandoned mines may have other types of wastes, such as metals, hydrocarbon spills from storage 

tanks or vehicle fueling, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from old or damaged electrical transformers at 

a site, lab wastes, explosives, and refuse. Those wastes must be cleaned up in accordance with established 

EPA and state rules for hazardous wastes.

Radiation Protection Standards for Reclaiming and Remediating 

Uranium Mines and Extraction Facilities 

The preceding discussion provided an overview of the process of reclaiming uranium mines and 

extraction facilities, as well as means of restoration of surface and groundwaters. These same processes 

are generally used for remediation where hazardous materials are being cleaned up at the site or outside 

its property borders, except that removal and disposal may be more labor intensive, may require special 

protections for workers, property and the public, and require long-term monitoring and stewardship to 

ensure that no future releases of the hazardous materials occur. In a particular circumstance, the U.S. 
4-14 

Congress passed UMTRCA, which established a remedial cleanup program for specific abandoned 

uranium mills. 

Radium-226, thorium-230, and radon-222 (gas), and their decay products are the radionuclides present in 

uranium mill tailings that are of principal concern to human health and the environment. 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, as well as operating sites. EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 192 apply to 

remediation of such properties and address emissions of radon, as well as radionuclides, metals, and other 

contaminants into surface and groundwater. Title I of the Act concerns tailings at inactive uranium 

milling and extraction sites while Title II applies to currently operating uranium mill tailings facilities 

licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State. More discussion on UMTRCA and associated federal 

regulations can be found in Appendix VI, and U.S. EPA (1995a). Among the more important remediation 

standards are: 

• 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. This 

requirement, however, applies only to a portion of a disposal site that contains a concentration of 

radium-226 that, as a result of uranium byproduct material, exceeds the background level by more 

than: 

o 5 pCi/g, averaged over the first 15 cm below the surface 

o 15 pCi/g averaged over 15 cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface. 

• Maximum concentration limits are established for protection of groundwater, although alternative 

concentration limits can be established for specific sites by DOE. The EPA standards are (in 

milligrams per liter, unless otherwise stated: 

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 * 30 pCi/liter

Gross alpha-particle activity (excluding radon and uranium) 15 pCi/liter

Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-exposy1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a- 0.0002

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- 0.1methoxyphenylethane)) 0.1 

Toxaphene (C10H10Cl6, technical chlorinated camphene, 67-69 0.005 

2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) 2,4,5-TP 

Silvex (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid) 0.01 

* Where secular equilibrium obtains, this criterion for uranium 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. 
4-15 

The NRC or its Agreement States license uranium mills. Under statutory requirements of the AEA and 

UMTRCA, NRC has issued regulations in 10 CFR Parts 40 and 51 to provide for environmental 

protection for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, while those in 10 CFR Part 20 cover 

radiation protection from hazards of mills and their wastes, and adopt the EPA standards. NUREG 1620 

(U.S. NRC 2004) provides guidance for the approval of reclamation plans of active uranium mills.

While EPA has not established radiation protection standards for use in mine reclamation, it has 

developed guidance for use in cleanup of radioactively contaminated soils and groundwater primarily for 

the Superfund program. The soil standards are based on the use of radiation standards developed under 

the UMTRCA program for uranium mills (U.S. EPA 1998, 1997c) while cleanup standards for 

groundwater use EPA’s maximum contaminant levels established under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(U.S. EPA 2001c). The radionuclide soil cleanup standard for combined radium-226, radium-228, and 

thorium-232 is 5 pCi/g. For groundwater cleanup and protection, the EPA drinking water standards for 

uranium of 30 μg/L, and 5 pCi/L for radium are relevant and appropriate. 

Costs of Reclaiming and Remediating Uranium Mines and Extraction Facilities 

The discussion which follows provides a brief overview of the costs of reclamation and remediation at 

uranium mines and extraction facilities (mills, ISL and heap-leach). Analysis of reclamation and 

remediation costs at uranium mines and extraction facilities would potentially include costs associated 

with the following items: overburden and waste rock piles, heap-leach piles, ore storage and loading 

areas, tailings ponds, underground mines, open-pit mines, milling facilities, buildings and infrastructure, 

ISL infrastructure, and contaminated soils and groundwater. 

Costs of environmental management after closure consist primarily of reclamation and monitoring costs. 

For mines, reclamation may include partial or complete backfilling of pits, stabilization of waste rock 

piles, appropriate contouring of disturbed land surfaces, and revegetation. Monitoring is a post-closure 

cost of some, but not all mines. Since remediation projects vary greatly due in part to ore conditions, 

mining and extraction method, climate, remediation scope and objectives (usually as defined by 

applicable regulations), and sources and availability of funds, the costs for reclaiming uranium mines also 

vary greatly. In those instances where an operating, inactive or abandoned facility has been remediated as 

a result of response to releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA or applicable state laws, the costs 

may be incrementally larger. 

The Department of Energy conducted a summary of cleanup costs for 75 production facilities, including 

mining and milling operations of uranium mines, an abbreviated version of which appears in Tables 

4.1B4.4. Due to the similarity of the cleanup techniques, costs for remediating uranium milling sites 

(under UMTRCA) have been included in Tables 4.1 to 4.3. The costs of reclaiming and remediating the 

21 mines included in this survey varied widely, by more than two orders of magnitude in terms of cost per 

ton of ore and kg of uranium produced (Table 4.4). Some of this range is attributable to the differences in 

acreage of land area disturbed per ton of ore, but much of it is due to the differences in methods of 

accounting for cleanup costs. Some of the mines performed contemporaneous reclamation during mining. 

Some of those mines charged those costs against operations, while others charged them separately as 

reclamation costs. 
4-16 

The average costs of cleanup of the 21 mine sites included in this survey were $3.01/metric ton (MT) of 

ore mined, $2.54/kg of uranium produced, and $29,969/hectare of land disturbed. However, the DayLoma mine has exceptionally high costs and skews the averages disproportionately to its total production. 

If Day-Loma cost figures are excluded, the Title II average costs drop to $2.77/MT of ore, $2.34/kg of 

uranium produced, and $27,900/hectare of disturbance. Costs of reclamation of these sites ranged from a 

low of $0.24/MT of ore, $0.18/kg of uranium produced, and $2,337/hectare disturbance to a high of 

$33.33/ MT of ore, $23.74/kg of uranium produced, excluding the Day-Loma mine, and $269,531/hectare 

disturbance for all 21 mines. The average total estimated cost is $13.9 million per mine. 

Table 4.1. Total and Average Production and Costs of Remediation 

of TITLE I Uranium Mills and Related Facilities 

Title I Mills were abandoned, un-licensed mills operated during the AEC existence. 

Number of sites included 26 

Metric tons of ore processed 29,100,000 

Metric tons of uranium produced 50,624 

 

Average cost of closure, $/MT ore $50.91 

Lowest cost of closure, $/MT ore $5.00 

Highest cost of closure, $/MT ore $320.25 

 

Average cost of closure, $/kg U $29.22 

Lowest cost of closure, $/kg U $2.50 

Highest cost of closure, $/kg U $348.42 

 

Average cost of closure, $/curies Ra-226 $48,000 

Lowest cost of closure, $/curies Ra-226 $5,000 

Highest cost of closure, $/curies Ra-226 $958,167 

 

Average closure cost per site $56,900,000 

Total closure costs of all Title I sites 

Cexcluding groundwater program 

$1,480,000,000 

Title I Groundwater Program $215,000,000 

Total Closure Costs of all Title I Sites $1,695,000,000

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b. 
4-17 

Table 4.2. Total and Average Production and Costs of Remediation 

of TITLE II Uranium Mills and Related Facilities 

Title II Mills were mills licensed by NRC or Agreement States in or after 1978. 

Number of sites included 28 

Metric tons of ore processed 220,000,000 

Metric tons of uranium produced 284,088 

 

Average cost of closure, $/MT ore $2.66 

C excluding Shootaring Canyon Mill $2.62 

Lowest cost of closure, $/MT ore $0.67 

Highest cost of closure, $/MT ore $11.33 

 

Average cost of closure, $/kg U $2.06 

C excluding Shootaring Canyon Mill $2.03 

Lowest cost of closure, $/kg U $0.45 

Highest cost of closure, $/kg U $14.04 

 

Average Closure Cost per Site $20,900,000

Total Closure Costs of All Title II Sites $584,800,000

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b. 

Table 4.3. Total and Average Production and Costs of Reclamation 

of All Uranium Mill Sites (Title I and Title II) 

Average Closure Cost per Site $42,200,000

Total Closure Cost $2,279,800,000

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b. 
4-18 

Table 4.4. Total and Average Production and Costs of Reclamation of All Uranium Mines 

This table includes mines as well as mill sites. 

Number of sites included 21 

Metric tons of ore processed 96,900,000 

Metric tons of uranium produced 114,803 

 

Average cost of closure, $/MT ore $3.01 

C excluding Day-Loma $2.77 

Lowest cost of closure, $/MT ore $0.24 

Highest cost of closure, $/MT ore $33.33 

 

Average cost of closure, $/kg U $2.54 

Cexcluding Day-Loma $2.34 

Lowest cost of closure, $/lb U3O8 $0.18 

Highest cost of closure, $/lb U3O8 $23.74 

 

Average cost of closure, $/ha disturbance $29,969 

Cexcluding Day-Loma $27,900 

Lowest cost of closure, $/ha disturbance $2,337 

Highest cost of closure, $/ha disturbance $269,531 

 

Average Closure Cost per Site $13,900,000

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b. 

At a similar level of expenditure, remediation by EPA of the Lucky Lass and White King uranium mines 

in Oregon under CERCLA was estimated to cost approximately $8 million (U.S. EPA 2001a). The 

National Forest Service planned to remediate the Juniper uranium mine in California at a cost of 

approximately $2 million (AAPG 2005). 

Underground and open-pit mine closures which have not involved remediation or long-term monitoring 

have been reported by some organizations as costing significantly less than the above sites, particularly 

when overburden, waste rock, and protore have not needed to be disposed off-site, soil contamination is 

minimal, sites are relatively small, and water intrusion has not been a problem. For example, the Navajo 

Abandoned Mine Lands Agency (Navajo AMLR 2000) expended about $893,000 to reclaim 20 mines 

with over 245 mine portals, over 57,000 cubic yards of radioactive mine waste spread over 35 acres of 

land, and seven acres of haul road. The average cost per mine would be about $45,000. 

On the other hand, remediation actions under CERCLA for spilled ore off-site of a mine can be 

expensive. Cleanup in 2005 of 12 sites where ore had spilled off of ore trucks on the haul road between 

the Midnite Mine and the Dawn Mill in Washington state, some 18 miles (about 29 km) distant, amounted 

to a cost of approximately $357,500 (MFG 2005). 

U.S. DOE/EIA (1995) estimated average decommissioning costs for ISL operations were $7 million. 

Groundwater restoration accounted for $2.8 million, wellfield reclamation costs were $0.9 million and the 

plant dismantling costs came to $0.6 million. Other costs (such as evaporation ponds, disposal wells, and 

radiological surveys) averaged $1.2 million. The indirect costs averaged $1.4 million. 
4-19 

Stewardship and Long-Term Monitoring, Management and Remediation 

Radiation from closed sites remains a potential risk concern for thousands of years due the extensive halflives of uranium isotopes and their progeny. Even when state-of-the art remediation methods have been 

used for stabilizing a site, proof that the methods have been successful can sometimes only be obtained 

through long-term monitoring of air and water pathways. Because some uranium mines are developed 

where natural accumulations of uranium far exceed normal concentrations in unmineralized rocks, areas 

in and around uranium mines have natural, ambient radioactivity that may be hazardous to human health, 

irrespective of whether a mine was ever developed. 

When mining or extraction facilities are closed, stewardship and monitoring may or may not be required 

to ensure that remediation goals have been met. This requirement depends on statutory requirements for 

federal, state or Tribal agencies, the nature of the site, and local site conditions. For example, after the 

stabilization monitoring phase at NRC or Agreement State licensed/permitted ISL facilities, if there is no 

indication of increasing levels of groundwater constituents of concern, the site is released for unrestricted 

use. Mines remediated under EPA Superfund oversight can require open ended periodic monitoring until 

it is similarly determined that the site can be released. Many mines on federal, state, and Tribal lands in 

the western U.S. have been considered closed without need for further monitoring once they have been 

reclaimed (or remediated if necessary). Under UMTRCA requirements, reclaimed uranium mill tailings 

sites are licensed to the DOE and designed for 1000 years of control. 

Stewardship refers to the institutional controls (ownership or governmental) which may be put in place to 

ensure that a specific site meets its closure goals. Institutional controls can be either active, involving 

some form of continuous or intermittent human activity to maintain the condition of the site, or passive, 

which do not require human intervention and have an amount of redundancy built into them to deter or 

prevent disturbance of the remediated site. Examples of active controls are air, surface, and groundwater 

monitoring; site inspections; ground radiation surveys; and aerial gamma surveys. Examples of passive 

controls are land-use restrictions, fences, and signs. The installation of passive controls does not negate 

the need for active institutional controls (i.e., monitoring). 

Stewardship may also include reclamation goals other than protecting human health and preventing water 

pollution. Some may include consideration of providing bat gates for underground mines, ensuring little 

or no disruption to wildlife using or passing over the site, staining highwall rock to reduce visual impacts, 

and ensuring there are no reclamation impacts on historical or cultural sites. These may be built into 

closure requirements for sites. 

Monitoring for uranium mining and extraction sites, if required, allows for the assessment of the 

effectiveness of the reclamation and remediation efforts. Although requirements may differ, some of the 

more common approaches include the following: 

• Site inspections confirm that the integrity of the site has not been disturbed. 

• Geotechnical monitoring, sometimes involving global positioning systems, identifies the site and 

determines if any settling, erosion, or movement has occurred. 

• Groundwater monitoring for uranium and other contaminants detects contaminant movement into 

groundwater systems. 

• Surface water monitoring detects changes in the quality or quantity of surface water. 

• Air monitoring detects increases in radon and other emissions from the site. 
4-20 

• Ecological monitoring determines if any of the biota are affected by bioaccumulation of heavy 

metals or radionuclides from the remediated site. 

There have been situations where long-term active actions may be required to maintain wastewater 

treatment facilities or fences, provide for possible future groundwater or air impacts, etc. Several hardrock 

mines—both new and abandoned—have had to have long-term planning and funding developed to ensure 

that at some time in the future such impacts are properly managed (Leshendok 2004). 

The time period over which monitoring can be required depends on a number of factors, not the least of 

which is funding availability. Contemporary remediation designs have been developed with a projected 

lifetime of 200 or 1,000 years (uranium tailings sites must be designed for 1,000 years of control, and 

disposal sites must be designed for 200 years of control). Older sites did not have an established design 

parameter for the design of these plans. Site monitoring, if necessary, may initially be conducted every 

year. However, if little change is noted, the frequency may be reduced to every other year or even once 

every five years. Generally, if the monitoring phase indicates no increasing levels of radionuclide or 

pollutant discharge, sites have been released for unrestricted use. 
5-1

Chapter 5. Conclusion 

Uranium, a naturally occurring element, contributes to low levels of natural background radiation in the 

environment, and is found in virtually all rock and soil, as well as groundwater. Contained in a variety of 

ore bearing rocks, it can be extracted and chemically converted into uranium oxide or other chemical 

forms usable in industry. Uranium undergoes radioactive decay into a long series of different 

radionuclides before finally reaching a stable state as lead. These radionuclides each emit alpha or beta 

radiation, and some also emit gamma radiation of widely varying energies. Some of these progeny 

radionuclides are highly radioactive and can pose significant human health risks, most notably radium and 

the radioactive gas radon. 

Mining is the process by which mineral and metal bearing ores are extracted from the earth. Protore is 

mined uranium ore that is not rich enough to meet the market demand and price. This subeconomic ore is 

often stockpiled at the mine site for future exploitation under the appropriate economic or market demand 

conditions. Radioactive waste materials for which EPA, Tribal, state, or local government agencies have 

statutory authority, that are or could be classified as TENORM from conventional open-pit and 

underground uranium mining include overburden (although most overburden is not necessarily enriched 

in uranium as is protore), unreclaimed protore, waste rock, evaporites from mine water, mine and pit 

water, drill core and cuttings, and refuse. Liquid and solid waste materials generated at heap leaching, 

ISL, or uranium mills are considered byproduct that is regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States. 

Most uranium mining in the United States took place in the Colorado Plateau region straddling the Four 

Corners where Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona meet, though more than a dozen states have 

hosted uranium mines during the last century. Significant changes in the uranium market price for 

uranium after the early 1980s previously resulted in inactivation or closing nearly all mines and uranium 

mills in the country. Recent increases in uranium price and demand have resulted in renewed interest in 

re-opening mines that were closed or on standby. While some mines focus on extraction of just uranium 

minerals, many mines have produced uranium along with a host of other valuable minerals that were 

found together in the same rock ore. 

The early small mining endeavors generated small quantities of waste typically discarded within a few 

to hundreds of feet (100 meters) of the mine opening or pit. Major surface mines tend to disturb large 

surface areas from the extent of both the pit and the spoils areas. Generally, tens to hundreds of acres may 

be covered by overburden and waste rock. At some sites, as mining progressed, the overburden was used 

to backfill mined-out areas of the open-pit in anticipation of later reclamation. Most of the older surface 

mines (pre to-mid-1970s) were not backfilled during mining operations, while some of the more recent 

mining included modest backfilling operations. The surface area affected by major underground mining 

activities generally involves less than about 50 acres (20 hectares). 

Waste volumes produced by surface, open-pit mining are a factor of 45 greater than for underground 

mining, based on their respective averages. Thus, the amount of overburden and waste rock generated 

from open-pit mines far exceeds that from underground mines. The U.S. Geological Survey (Otton 1998) 

estimated that the total amount of overburden and waste rock generated by the approximately 4,000 

operating conventional mines in its data set is from one billion and nine billion metric tons, with a likely 

estimate of three billion metric tons. Overburden and waste rock from surface mines can include huge 

boulders that may have been broken down with explosives and heavy machinery into particles ranging 

from a micrometer to boulders about three feet (a meter) or more in diameter. The characteristics of 

overburden and waste rock from conventional mines depend on the geology of the zone where the ore 

was originally mined, and how the waste was subsequently treated. This may ultimately affect the 

availability of metals and radioactivity to the environment as contaminants. 
5-2

Radionuclide leaching primarily from mine waste piles adjacent to open-pit mines—but also possibly 

derived by leaching from mine pit walls or by groundwater infiltration from underlying uranium 

deposits—can result in significant levels of radiation in water-filled pit lakes, though some pit waters may 

not become very contaminated. Surface and underground mines that intersect aquifers have the potential 

to contaminate the aquifers. 

In the 1980s, primarily due to cost, ISL operations, which began in the 1970s, displaced surface and 

underground mining methods as the principal means of extracting uranium in the United States. In 

general, ISL generates small amounts of surface solid waste comprised of: (1) soil and weathered bedrock 

material disturbed during surface preparation of the site, (2) liquid and solid waste from drilling of 

injection and production wells, and (3) solids precipitated during storage and processing of fluids in 

holding ponds. Available data are insufficient to estimate the total amount of solid and liquid wastes 

generated by existing and previous ISL operations. 

Some uranium mines pose such a hazard that they are Superfund sites. Two uranium mines are on the 

National Priorities List, and CERCLA removals were undertaken in 2001 for two houses constructed with 

uranium mine waste rock on Tribal lands, and a recent removal action took place in Washington state for 

off-site spills of uranium ore materials along a haul road between a mine and a mill. The reclamation and 

remediation of uranium mines is an important consideration when contemplating the impact of past and 

present uranium mining operations. Data from a Department of Energy/Energy Information 

Administration study reveal that the costs of reclamation without site monitoring ranged from a low of 

$0.24/MT of ore, $0.18/kg of uranium produced, and $2,337/hectare of disturbance to a high of 

$33.33/MT of ore, $23.74/kg of uranium produced, and $269,531/hectare of disturbance for all 21 mines. 

The average total estimated cost is $13.9 million per mine. Many smaller mines less than 25 acres (10 

hectares), which may constitute the majority of mine-scarred lands currently unreclaimed, especially in 

arid regions, may require much lower remediation costs. on the order of $45,000 or lower; this cost would 

be incurred to bury waste piles back in a pit or underground mine opening, clean up the soil to lower 

radionuclide and metal levels, and close or armor the mine opening with rock. 

When conventional mining and uranium extraction facilities are closed, stewardship and monitoring may 

be required for long periods of time to ensure that reclamation and remediation goals have been met, 

depending on regulatory agency requirements. However, in many cases, once a facility has been 

reclaimed and there are no indications of increasing levels of radionuclide or pollutant discharge, it is 

considered released for other uses. 
6-1

Chapter 6. Bibliography 

AAPG 2005—American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Recent Uranium Industry Developments, 

Exploration, Mining and Environmental Programs in the U.S. and Overseas. Uranium Committee, 

Energy Minerals Division. Tulsa, OK: March 25, 2005. http://emd.aapg.org/technical areas/uranium.cfm

ACAA 1996—American Coal Ash Association. Annual Survey of Coal Combustion Byproduct (CCB) 

Production & Use: 1966-1994. Alexandria, VA: ACAA May, 1996. 

ACAA 1995—American Coal Ash Association. Solidification and Stabilization of Wastes Using Coal 

Fly Ash: Current Status and Direction . Alexandria VA: ACAA, April, 1995. 

Ames and Rai 1978—Ames, L., and Rai, D. Radionuclide Interactions with Soil and Rock Media, 

Volume 1: Processes Influencing Radionuclide Mobility and Retention, Element Chemistry and 

Geochemistry, and Conclusions and Evaluations, EPA 520/6-78-007-a. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. 

ANAWA 2006—Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia. In Situ Leach Mining. 

http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/isl.html

Anderson et al. 2003—Anderson R. Vrionis, H Ortiz-Bernad, I. Resch, C., Long, P., Dayvault, R., Sharp 

K., Marutzky, S., Metzler, D., Peacock, A., White, D., Lowe, M., and Loveley, D. Stimulating the In Situ 

Activity of Geobacter Species to Remove Uranium from the Groundwater of a Uranium-Contaminated 

Aquifer. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Volume 69, No.10. Washington, DC: October, 2003. 

Austin 1978—Austin, S., and Droullard, R. Radon Emanation from Domestic Uranium Ores Determined 

by Modifications of the Closed-Can Gamma-Only Assay Method. Report of Investigations 8264. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1978. 

AVI 1991—AVI. AML Project 16B, George Area. Pre-design Report. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 1991. 

AVI 1990—AVI. Environmental Assessment, Baggs-Poison Basin Uranium AML Project 7D, Carbon

County. Administrative Report. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land 

Quality Division, 1990. 

AVI 1986—AVI. Report of Investigations for AML 13, Shirley Basin. Vol. 1. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 1986. 

Barretto 1975—Barretto, P. Radon-222 Emanation Characteristics of Roads and Minerals in Radon in

Uranium Mining. STI/PUB/391. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1975. 

Beck 1989—Beck, H. Radiation Exposures Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion, Radiation Physics and

Chemistry 24 (1989), no.2 
6-2

Beck et al. 1980—Beck, H., Gogolak, C. Miller, K., and Lowder, W. Perturbations on the Natural 

Radiation Environment Due to the Utilization of Coal as an Energy Source. In Natural Radiation

Environment III, Vol. 2, CONF -780422, pp. 1521-58. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 

1980 

Benes 1990—Benes, P. Radium in (Continental) Surface Water. In The Environmental Behavior of 

Radium. Volume I. PP. 373-418, Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1990. 

Bohert and Gerity 1978—Bohert, J., and Gerity, C. An Economic Analysis of Open-Pit and In Situ 

Mining. Mining Engineering 30, No.10:1140-22. Littleton, CO:. October, 1978. 

Brady et al. 1997—Brady, G., Clauser, H., and Vaccari, L. Materials Handbook. 14th ed. New York, NY: 

McGraw-Hill, 1997 

Brown 1978—Brown, S. Radiological Aspects of Uranium-Solution Mining. Uranium 1 (1978): 37-52. 

Burghardt 2003—Burghardt. J. Capitol Reef National Park (Utah): Rainy Day and Duchess Uranium 

Mines-Site Characterization (September 2002) Summary results presented at U.S. Department of the 

Interior Conference on the Environment. Phoenix, AZ: May 13, 2003. 

Burghardt 1998—Burghardt, J. Unpublished field survey descriptions. Lakewood, CO: U.S. National 

Park Service, 1998. 

Burghardt et al. 2000—Burghardt, J. Graham R. Mesch, M., and Doolittle, R. Uranium Mine Waste 

Dump Characterization in Lathrop Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Unpublished Manuscript. 

Lakewood, CO: U.S. National Park Service, October, 2000. 

Burns and Finch 1999—Burns, P., and Finch, R Uranium, Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the

Environment. In Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol.38. Washington, DC: Mineralogical Society of America, 

1999. 

Chenoweth 2004—Chenoweth, W. Written communication to U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor 

Air. Grand Junction, CO: October 4, 2004. 

Chenoweth 1998—Chenoweth, W. Oral communication with J. Otton, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver 

CO., 1998. Reported in Otton 1998. 

Chenoweth 1991—Chenoweth, W. A History of the Uranium Industry in Utah. In Energy and Mineral 

Resources of Utah, edited by M.L. Allison. Salt Lake City: Utah Geological Assoc Publication 18, pp. 

114-129. 

Colon et al. 2001—Colon, C., Jove P., Brady, M., Siegel, M., and Lindgren, E. Historical Case Analysis 

of Uranium Plume Attenuation. NUREG/CR-6705 SAND2000-2254. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, February, 2001. 
6-3

Cothern and Rebers 1990—Cothern, C., and Rebers, P. (eds.). Radon, Radium, and Uranium in Drinking 

Water. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, 1990.

CRC 1994—CRC. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 75th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1994. 

CRCPD 2004—Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Part N, Regulation and Licensing of 

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM). Suggested State 

Radiation Control Regulations Volume I. Frankfort, KY: CRCPD. April 2004. 

CRCPD 1994—Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. Report of the E-4 Committee on 

NORM Contamination and Decontamination/Decommissioning. Report No. 3. Frankfort, KY: CRCPD, 

April 1994. 

DeLaune et al. 1996—DeLaune, R., Pardue, R., Patrick, W., Jr., and Lindau,C. Mobility and Transport of 

Radium in Sediment and Waste Pits. Final project report submitted to the South and Southwest Hazardous 

Substance Research Center, and conducted under EPA Grant Number R825513. Baton Rouge, LA: 

Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute, March 1996. 

Dempsey et al. 1999—Dempsey, G., Shura, R., and Harris, J. Radiological Scanner Van Survey FordWellpinit Road/Midnite Mine Area, Spokane Indian Reservation, September 21-23, 1999. Las Vegas, NV: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory, 

November 10, 1999. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/ff8fab02b57948588

8256feb00722d21/$FILE/most%20AR%20documents.pdf

DeVoto and Stevens 1979—DeVoto, R., and Stevens, D.,eds. Uraniferous Phosphate Resources and 

Technology and Economics of Uranium Recovery from Phosphate Resources, United States and Free 

World. 3 vols. Prepared by Earth Sciences, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy. Open File Report 

GJBX-110(79). Grand Junction, CO: U.S. Department of Energy, 1979. 

Dickson 1990—Dickson, B. Radium in Groundwater. In The Environmental Behavior of Radium, Volume 

I. pp. 335-372, Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1990. 

Eadie and Kaufmann 1977—Eadie, G., and Kaufmann, R. Radiological Evaluation of the Effects of 

Uranium Mining and Milling Operations on Selected Ground Water Supplies in the Grants Mineral Belt, 

New Mexico. Health Physics, Vol. 32:231-241, 1977.

Edwards and Atkinson 1986—Edwards, R, and Atkinson, K. Ore Deposit Geology. New York, NY: 

Chapman and Hall Limited, 1986. 

Eisenbud and Gesell 1997—Eisenbud, M., and T. Gesell. Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, 

Industrial, and Military Sources. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1997. 

EPRI 1988—Electric Power Research Institute. High-Volume Fly Ash Utilization Projects in the United 

States and Canada.@ CS-4446, 2d ed. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, March 1988. 
6-4

ESRI 2001—Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ESRI Data & Maps 2000: An ESRI White 

Paper. Redlands, CA: ESRI, August 2001. 

Ewing 1999—Ewing, R. Radioactivity and the 20th Century. In Reviews in Mineralogy, vol. 38:

“Uranium, Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment”, ed. P.C. Burns and R. Finch, pp. 1-23. 

Washington, DC: Mineralogical Society of America, 1999. 

Facer et al. 1978—Facer, J., Larson, W., and Leader, W. Formidable Challenges Await Uranium Mining.

Mining Engineering 30, no. 10:1, 423. Littleton, CO: October, 1978. 

Ferris et al. 1996—Ferris, F., Kleinman, L., Steward, D., Stowe, R., Vicklund, L., Berry, J., Cowan., 

Dunne, C., Dunne, R., Fritz, D., Garrison, R., Green, R., Hansen, M., Jones, C., Jones, G., Lidston, C., 

O’Rourke, M., Postovit, B., Postovit, H., Shinn, R., Tyrell, P., Warener, R., and Wrede, K., Handbook of 

Western Reclamation Techniques. Denver, CO: Technology Transfer Center, Western Regional 

Coordinating Center, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, December 31, 1996. 

http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/hbmanual/westrecl/front-matter.pdf

Finch 1998—Finch, W. Unpublished compilation of uranium production data from U.S. Geological 

Survey files. 1998. 

Finch and Murakami 1999—Finch, R., and T. Murakami. Systematics and Paragenesis of Uranium 

Minerals. In Reviews in Mineralogy, vol. 38: “Uranium, Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the 

Environment”, ed. P.C. Burns and R. Finch, pp. 91-179. Washington, DC: Mineralogical Society of 

America, 1999. 

FIPR 1995—Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Microbiology and Radiochemistry of 

Phosphogypsum. Publ. No. 05-035-115. Bartow, FL: FIPR, May 1995. 

Fisher 2003—Fisher, E. Personal communication. U.S. EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Indoor 

Environments Division. Washington, DC: 2003. 

FPE 1988—Forsgen-Perkins Engineering. Regional Planning Document, AML Project 16, Gas Hills, 

Wyoming Uranium Mining District, Fremont and Natrona Counties. Administrative Report. Cheyenne, 

WY: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 1988. 

Frissel and Koster 1990—Frissel, M. and Koster, H. Radium in Soil. In The Environmental Behavior of 

Radium , Volume I. pp. 323-334, Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1990. 

FR 2000a—Federal Register. Vol. 65, no. 236, December 7, 2000. National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Radionuclides. Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 

FR 2000b—Federal Register. Vol. 65, no. 78, April 21, 2000. Subpart B. Proposed Rules. 40 CFR Part 

192. 

FR 1989—Federal Register. Vol. 54, no. 240, December 15, 1989. National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides; Final Rule and Notice of Reconsideration. 40 CFR Part 61. 
6-5

Graves 1974—Graves, D. Open Pit Mining. Mining Engineering, Vol.26., no. 8:23-25, 1974. Littleton, 

CO: August, 1974. 

Grey 1993—Grey, C. Uranium: From Ore to Concrete. The Nuclear Engineer, 34 (1993), no. 1, 1993. 

Guilbert and Park 1996—Guilbert, J., and Park, C., Jr. The Geology of Ore Deposits. 5th edition.New 

York, NY: W. H. Freeman, 1996.

Guimond 1975—Guimond, R., and Windham, S. Radioactivity Distribution in Phosphate Products, Byproducts, Effluents, and Wastes. Technical Note ORP/CSD-75-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, August 1975. 

HE 1989—Hydro-Engineering. Design Investigations, Veca AML Program 16D. Administrative Report.

Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 1989. 

HE 1987—Hydro-Engineering. Pumpkin Buttes Reconnaissance. Administrative Report. Cheyenne, WY:

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 1987. 

Hull and Burnett 1996—Hull, C., and Burnett, W. Radiochemistry of Florida Phosphogypsum. Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity 32 (1996) no. 3:213-38. 

IAEA 2003—International Atomic Energy Agency. Technical Report Series No. 419. Extent of 

Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technological 

Options for Mitigation. Vienna, Austria. 

IAEA 1990—International Atomic Energy Agency. The Environmental Behavior of Radium, Volumes 1 

and 2. Vienna, Austria: 1990. 

ISCORS 2005—Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, Sewage Sludge and Ash 

Subcommittee, ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge—Recommendations on 

Management of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge and Ash at Publicly Owned Treatment Works. ISCORS 

Technical Report 2004-04, DOE/EH-0668, EPA 832-R-03-002B. Washington DC: ISCORS, February, 

2005. 

Jasinski 2003—Jasinski, S. “Phosphate Rock”. In Minerals Year Book-2002. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2003. 

Kennecott Uranium Company 2004—Kennecot Uranium Company. Written communication to U.S. EPA, 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. Rawlins, Wyoming: December 2, 2004. 

Kittel 1963—Kittel, D. “Geology of the Jackpile Mine Area.” In Geology and Technology of the Grants 

Uranium Region, comp. V.C. Kelley. Memoir 15. Socorro, NM: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and 

Mineral Resources, 1963. 

LAI 1996—Lidstone and Anderson, Inc, Inventory and Planning Work for the Remaining Eligible Sites, 

Gas Hills Uranium District, Wyoming. AML 16: Administrative Report. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, 1996. 
6-6

Leshendok 2004—Leshendok, T., Personal communication to U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor 

Air. Spark, NV: October 14, 2004. 

Longsworth 1994—Longsworth, S. Geohydrology and Water Chemistry of Abandoned Uranium Mines 

and Radiochemistry of Spoil-Material Leachate, Monument Valley and Cameron Areas, Arizona and 

Utah. USGS Investigations Report 93-4226. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1994. 

Marcus 1997—Marcus, J., ed., Mining Environmental Handbook: Effects of Mining on the Environment 

and American Environmental Controls on Mining. London, England: Imperial College Press, 1997. 

McCarthy and Degueldre 1993—McCarthy, J., and Degueldgre. Sampling and Characterization of 

Colloids and Particles in Groundwater for Studying Their Role in Contaminant Transport. In 

Environmental Particles. Buffle, J., and van Leeuwen, P. (eds.), pp. 247-315. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis 

Publishers, 1993. 

McFaul et al. 2000—McFaul, E., Mason, G. Jr., Ferguson, W., and Lipin, B. U.S. Geological Survey 

Mineral Databases--MRDS and MAS/MILS. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS--52 Two 

Disks. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2000. 

McGinley1980—McGinley, F., Potential By-product Uranium Production in the United States of 

America. In Uranium Evaluation and Mining Techniques. IAEA document SM-239/15, pp. 293-397. 

Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1980. 

McLemore 1983—McLemore, V. Uranium and Thorium Occurrences in New Mexico: Distribution, 

Geology, Production, and Resources, with Selected Bibliography. 3 vols. Open-File Report OF-183. 

Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 1983. 

Merrit 1971—Merrit, R..The Extractive Metallurgy of Uranium. Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines, 

 1971.

Mertie 1953—Mertie, J., Jr. Monazite Deposits of the Southeastern Atlantic States. USGS Circular 237. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1953. 

Meshik 2005—Meshik, A., The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor. New York, NY: Scientific 

American, November, 2005. 

MFG 2005—MFG Inc. Final Completion Report for Removal of Ore Debris Along the Ford Wellpinit 

Haul Road, March 2005, Prepared for Dawn Mining Company. MFG Project No. 180884/15. Fort 

Collins, CO: March, 2005. 

Moore et al. 1996—Moore, B., Price, J., and, Gardner, T. Reactivity in the South Spoils and Hillside 

Dump at the Midnite Mine. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 9609. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1996 

Myrick et al 1981—Myrick, T., Berven, B., and Haywood, F. State Background Radiation Levels: 

Results of Measurements Taken During 1975-1979. ORNL/TM-7343. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, 1981. 
6-7

NAS 1999a—National Academy of Sciences. Evaluation of Guidelines for Exposures to Technologically 

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. 

NAS 1999b—National Academy of Sciences. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR VI. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. 

Navajo AMLR 2000—Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program, Carrizo #1 AML 

Reclamation Project, Nomination for the 2000 Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Awards.Submission 

to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Window Rock, AZ: Navajo AMLRP, 

2000. 

NCRP 1993—National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Protection in the 

Mineral Extraction Industry. NCRP Report No. 118. Washington, DC: NCRP, August 1, 1993. 

NCRP 1987a—National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Exposure of the 

U.S. Population from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources. NCRP Report No. 95. 

Washington, DC: NCRP, December 30, 1987. 

NCRP 1987b—National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure of the Population 

in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation. NCRP Report No. 94. 

Washington, DC: NCRP, December 1987. 

NCRP 1984—National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposures from the Uranium 

Series with Emphasis on Radon and Its Daughters. NCRP Report No. 77. Washington, DC: NCRP, 

March 15, 1984. 

NEA/IAEA/OECD 2002—Nuclear Energy Agency, International Atomic Energy Agency, and 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Environmental Remediation of Uranium 

Production Facilities. Paris, France, and Vienna, Austria: 2002. 

Oakley 1972—Oakley, D. Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States. U.S. EPA Report ORP/SID72-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 

Onishi et al. 1981—Onishi, Y., Serne, R., Arnold, E., Cowan, C., and Thompson, F. Critical 

Review:Radionuclide Transport, Sediment Transport, and Water Quality Mathematical Modeling; and 

Radionuclide Adsorption/Desorption Mechanisms. NUREG/CR-1322 (PNL-2901), prepared for the U. S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Richland Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 

1981. 

Otton 1998—Otton, J. Written communication to U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

USGS/EPA Interagency Agreement, 1998. 

Panacea 2002—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for Yazzie 312 Mine, 

Cameron Area, Arizona. Produced by Panacea, Inc., under Project No. C00-236. Los Angeles, CA: 

USACE, October 2002. 
6-8

Paulson 2004—Paulson, O. Status Update on the Bioremediation of the Sweetwater Pit Lake—Four 

Years Following Treatment. Pit Lakes 2004. Reno, NV: November 16-18, 2004. 

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

1973. 

RCT 1994—Railroad Commission of Texas. South Texas Uranium District Abandoned Mine and 

Inventory. Austin, TX: RCT, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, 1994. 

Rhodes 1987—Rhodes, R. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987. 

Robson and Banta 1995—Robson, S., and Banta, E. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. HA 730-C. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1995. 

Rogowski 1978—Rogowski, A. Water Regime in Strip Mine Spoil. In Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife 

Needs in Eastern United States. Ed. D.E. Samuel, J.R. Stauffer, and W.T. Mason. FWS/OBS-78-81, 137.

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978. 

SC&A 1993—S. Cohen and Associates, Inc. Diffuse NORM Wastes: Waste Characterization and

Preliminary Risk Assessment. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract No. 

68D20155. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, May 1993. 

SC&A 1989—S. Cohen and Associates, Inc. Radiological Monitoring at Inactive Surface Mines.

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, February 1989. 

Shapiro 1990—Shapiro, J. Radiation Protection: A Guide for Scientists and Physicians. 3d ed. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. 

Sheridan et al. 1962—Sheridan, D., Maxwell, C., and Collier, J. Geology of the Lost Creek 

Schroeckingerite deposits, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1087-J, 

prepared for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1961. 

Skousen et al. 1988—Skousen, J., Rose, A., Geidel, G., Foreman, J., Evans, R., Hellier, W., and Members 

of the Avoidance and Remediation Working Group of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative, 

Handbook of Technologies for Avoidance and Remediation of Acid Mine Drainage. Morgantown, WV: 

National Mine Land Reclamation Center, West Virginia University, June 1, 1998.

SMI 1996—Shepard Miller, Inc. Comparison of the Relative Radiological Impacts of the Reclaimed Day 

Loma Leached Material and the Gas Hills Uranium District. Prepared for Western Nuclear, Inc. Fort 

Collins, CO: August 1996.

Smith 2002—Smith, L. Written communication with spreadsheet of U.S. Department of Energy/Energy 

Information Administration uranium mines database. Washington, DC, 2002. 

Sowder et al. 2001—Sowder, A., Hernandez, S., Bain, A., Setlow, L., and Forinash, B. Radiological 

Survey of a Uranium-Contaminated Hogan in the Oljeto Chapter, San Juan County, UT, Prior to the 
6-9

April 2001 EPA Region IX Removal Action on the Navajo Nation. Report summarized in the 2001 Health 

Physics Society Annual Meeting poster presentation, Abandoned Uranium Mines: A Continuing Legacy 

for the Navajo Nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and 

Indoor Air, August 23, 2001. 

Spatial Climate Analysis Service et al. 2000—Spatial Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State University; 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water and 

Climate Center and National Cartography and Geospatial Center. United States Average Annual 

Precipitation, 1961-1990. http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html. Corvallis, OR, Portland, OR, and Fort 

Worth, TX: September 2000. 

SRB 1981—Scarborough, R.. Radioactive Occurrences and Uranium Production in Arizona. U.S. DOE 

Report GJBX-143 (81). Grand Junction, CO: U.S. Department of Energy, 1981. 

Staatz et al. 1980—Staatz, M., Hall, R., Macke, D., Armbrustmacher, T., and Brownfield, I. Thorium 

Resources of Selected Regions in the United States. USGS Circular 824. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1980. 

Tachi et al. 2001—Tachi, Y., Shibutani, T., Sato, H., and Yui, M. Experimental and Modeling Studies on 

Sorption and Diffusion of Radium in Bentonite. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 47 (2001):171-86 

Telluride Watch 2005—Telluride Watch, Colorado: Mines Reopen As Uranium Prices Increase. 

Telluride. CO: January 7, 2005. 

http://www.telluridewatch.com/archive_news/2005/january/010605/uranium.htm

TVA 1978—Tennessee Valley Authority and U.S. Department of the Interior. Draft Environmental 

Statement – Crownpoint Uranium Mining Project. Knoxville, TN: TVA, 1978. 

UNSCEAR 1982—United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Ionizing 

Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects. New York, NY: United Nations, 1982. 

UNSCEAR 1972—United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Ionizing 

Radiation: Levels and Effects. New York, NY: United Nations, 1972 

URS 2002—URS Corporation. Midnite Mine Geotechnical Investigations and Existing Waste Rock Piles 

and Open Pit Highwalls Stability Evaluations. Technical memorandum. Prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Denver CO: U.S. EPA, May 2002.

U.S. BLM 1998—U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Final Report-Removal Preliminary Assessment, 

Bokan Mountain Mine, Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Region 10-Alaska. Juneau, AK: 

BLM, September 1998.

U.S. BLM 1986—U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine Reclamation 

Project, Laguna Indian Reservation, Cibola County, New Mexico: Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Vols. I and II. Albuquerque, NM: BLM, New Mexico State Office, Rio Puerco Resource Area, 

1986.
6-10

U.S. DOE 2005—U.S. Department of Energy. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. DOE/EIS–0355. 

Grand Junction CO: U.S. DOE, July 2005. 

U.S. DOE 2002—U.S. Department of Energy. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, 

Nye County, Nevada. Chapter 1. DOE/EIS-0250. Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, February 2002. 

U.S. DOE 1979—U.S. Department of Energy. National Uranium Resource EvaluationCInterim Report. 

Figure 3.2, data files. Grand Junction, CO: U.S. DOE, Grand Junction Project Office, June 1979. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2005a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Total 

Production of Uranium Concentrate in the United States, 1996 – 3rd Quarter 2005, 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd.html , Washington, DC. U.S. DOE: August 2005.

U.S. DOE/EIA 2005b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Domestic 

Uranium Production Report, 3rd Quarter 2005 Production. Washington, DC:

U.S. DOE: August 2005, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/dupr.html .

U.S. DOE/EIA 2005c—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. U.S. ForwardCost Uranium Reserves by Mining Method, December 31, 2003. From DOE/EIA Form EIA-851Q 

"Domestic Uranium Production Report", Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, 2005.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/uresmine.html , 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2005d—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Table 28. U.S. 

Coal Consumption by End-Use Sector 1999-2005 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly

 Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, September, 2005.

U.S. DOE/EIA 2004—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Major U..S. 

Uranium Reserves (map), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/usarea.html, 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOE: June, 2004.

U.S. DOE/EIA 2003a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Uranium 

Industry Annual: 2002. DOE/EIA-0478(2002). Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, May, 2003.

U.S. DOE/EIA 2003b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Domestic 

Uranium Production Report. Form EIA-851. Posted February 2003 at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd.html

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Uranium 

Industry Annual: 2000. DOE/EIA-0478(00). Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, May 2001. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Uranium 

Industry Annual: 1999. DOE/EIA-0478(99). Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, May 2000. 
6-11

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Data 

Compilation and Analysis of Costs Relating to Environmental Restoration of U.S. Uranium Production. 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, March 2000. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 1997—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Integrated Data 

Base Report 1996, Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections and 

Characteristics, Revision 13—December 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, 1997. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 1995—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium Production Facilities. DOE/EIA-0592. Washington, DC:U.S. DOE, 

February, 1995. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 1993—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Uranium Industry 

Annual: 1992. DOE/EIA-0478(92). Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, October 1993. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 1992—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Domestic 

Uranium Mining and Milling Industry: 1991 Variability Assessment. DOE/EIA-0477(91). Washington, 

DC: U.S. DOE, December 1992. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 1991—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Uranium 

Industry Annual 1990. DOE/EIA-0478(90), Distribution Category UC-98. Washington, DC: U.S. DOE, 

1991. 

U.S. DOI 1980—U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 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. Washington DC: BIA,1980.

U.S. EPA 2006a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technologically Enhanced Naturally 

Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) from Uranium Mining: Volume II: Investigation of 

Potential Health, Geographic, and Environmental Issues of Abandoned Uranium Mines.Technical Report 

EPA-402-R-05-008 (in press). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 

2006. 

U.S. EPA 2006b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Uranium Location Database Compilation. 

Technical Report EPA-402-R-05-009 (in press). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, 

DC: U.S. EPA, 2006. 

U.S. EPA 2005—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Regulator’s Guide to Management of 

Radioactive Residuals From Drinking Water Treatment Technologies. EPA 816-R-05-004. Washington 

DC: U.S. EPA, July 2005. 
6-12

U.S. EPA 2004a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Remediation Goal Table. San 

Francisco: U.S. EPA , 2004. http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04prgtable.pdf

U.S. EPA 2004b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding Variation in Partition 

Coefficient, Kd, Values, Vol 3: Review of Geochemistry and Available Kd Values for Americium, Arsenic, 

Curium, Iodine, Neptunium, Radium, and Technitium. EPA 402-R-04-002c. Washington, DC: U.S. 

EPA, July, 2004. 

U.S. EPA 2003a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ground-Water Indicator Map for Midnite 

Mine. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/midnite/Technical+Documents!OpenDocument&ExpandSe

ction=1 Posted 2003. 

U.S. EPA 2003b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GuidanceCPotential for Radiation 

Contamination Associated with Mineral and Resource Extraction Industries. Washington DC: U.S. EPA, 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, April 15, 2003. 

U.S. EPA 2002—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Uranium Mine Database: Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September 2002. 

U.S. EPA 2001a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. White King/Lucky Lass Superfund Site Record 

of Decision: Fremont National Forest, Lakeview, Oregon. Seattle, WA: U.S. EPA, Office of 

Environmental Cleanup, September 2001. 

U.S. EPA 2001b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Public Information System CD. 

Fourth Quarter, FY01. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 2001. 

U.S. EPA 2001c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Use of Uranium Drinking Water Standards 

under 40 CFR 141 and 40 CFR 192 as Remediation Goals for Groundwater at CERCLA Sites. Directive 

no. 9283.1-14. Washington, DC: November 6, 2001. 

U.S. EPA 2001d—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, TENORM—

Evaluating Occurrence and Risks, an SAB Advisory; A Science Advisory Board Advisory on EPA’s 

Approach for Evaluating Occurrence and Risks of Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Material (TENORM). EPA-SAB-RAC-ADV-01-001. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, February, 

2001. 

U.S. EPA 2000a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuclides. 

EPA/540-R-00-007. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, October, 2000. 

U.S. EPA 2000b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on EPA’s Guidances on 

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, June, 

2000. 
6-13

U.S. EPA 2000c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability. 

Technical Support Document. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 

Office of Indoor Air and Radiation, and U.S. Geological Survey, March, 2000. 

U.S. EPA 2000d—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Abandoned Mine Site Characterization and 

Cleanup Handbook. EPA 910-B-00-001. Seattle, WA: U.S. EPA, August, 2000. 

U.S. EPA 1999a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technologically Enhanced Naturally 

Occurring Radioactive Materials in the Southwestern Copper Belt of Arizona. EPA 402-R-99-002. 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, October, 1999. 

U.S. EPA 1999b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding Variation in Partition 

Coefficient, Kd, Values, Vol 1: The Kd Model,Methods of Measurement, and Appication of Chemical 

Reaction Codes. EPA 402-R-99-004A. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, August, 1999. 

U.S. EPA 1999c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding Variation in Partition 

Coefficient, Kd, Values, Vol 2: Review of Geochemistry and Available Kd Values for Cadmium, Cesium, 

Chromium, Lead, Plutonium,Radon, Strontium, Thorium, Tritium (3H), and Uranium. EPA 402-R-99-

004B. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, August, 1999. 

U.S. EPA 1998—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Use of Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 CFR Part 

192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA Sites. Directive no 9200.4-25. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 

February 12, 1998. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/cleanup.htm

U.S. EPA 1997a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA Introduction to Hard Rock Mining a 

CD-ROM Application. EPA 530-C-97-005. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September, 1997. 

U.S. EPA 1997b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s National Hardrock Mining 

Framework. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water, September, 1997. 

U.S. EPA 1997c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA 

Sites with Radioactive Contamination. OSWER No. 9200.4-18. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, August, 

1997. 

U.S. EPA 1995a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and 

Minerals: Uranium. Vol. 5. Technical Resource Document. EPA 530-R-94-032. Washington, DC: U.S. 

EPA, Office of Solid Waste, January, 1995. 

U.S. EPA 1995b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health and Environmental Damages 

from Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes. Draft Background Information Document. Washington, 

DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, 1995. 

U.S. EPA 1994—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. An SAB 

Report: Review of Diffuse NORM Draft Scoping Document. EPA-SAB-RAC-94-013. Washington, DC: 

U.S. EPA, May, 1994. 
6-14

U.S. EPA 1993a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External Exposure to Radionuclides. Federal 

Guidance Report No. 12. EPA-402-R-93-081. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September, 1993. 

U.S. EPA 1993b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Uranium Industry Profile. File No. Uran. 

PEI.ALL. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, January 21, 1993. 

U.S. EPA 1993c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Map of Radon Zones. EPA-402-R-93-

071. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1993. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html

U.S. EPA 1990—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on Special Wastes from 

Mineral Processing. EPA/530-SW-90-070C. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Washington, DC, July, 1990. 

U.S. EPA 1989a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Human Health Evaluation Manual”. In Risk 

Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol. 1. EPA/540/1-89/002. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, December, 

1989. 

U.S. EPA 1989b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessments, Environmental Impact 

Statement, NESHAPS for Radionuclides. Vol. 2. Background Information Document. EPA/520/1-89-006-

1. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September, 1989. 

U.S. EPA 1986—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Rule for Radon-222 Emissions from 

Licensed Uranium Mill Tailings, Background Information Document. U.S. EPA, August, 1986. 

U.S. EPA 1985—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on Wastes from the 

Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium 

Mining, and Oil Shale. EPA 530/SW-85-003. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, December, 1985. 

U.S. EPA 1983a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on the Potential Health 

and Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine Wastes. Vol. 1. EPA 520/1-83-007. Washington, DC: U.S. 

EPA, June, 1983. 

U.S. EPA 1983b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on the Potential Health 

and Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine Wastes. Vol. 2. EPA 520/1-83-007. Washington, DC: U.S. 

EPA, June, 1983. 

U.S. EPA 1983c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress on the Potential Health 

and Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine Wastes. Vol. 3. EPA 520/1-83-007. Washington, DC: U.S. 

EPA, June, 1983. 

U.S. EPA 1983d—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. 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: 

September, 1983.
6-15

U.S. EPA 1982—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites. EPA 520/4-82-013-1. Washington, 

DC: U.S. EPA, October, 1982. 

U.S. EPA 1979—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium-226 

in Florida Phosphate Lands. EPA-520/4-78-013. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September, 1979. 

U.S. EPA 1975—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Findings: Radon Daughter Levels 

in Structures Constructed on Reclaimed Florida Phosphate Land. Technical Note ORP/CSD-75-4. 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September, 1975. 

U.S. EPA 1973—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary Report of Radiation Surveys 

Performed in Selected Communities. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation Programs, 1973. 

U.S. EPA and USACE 2000—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Abandoned Uranium Mines Project Arizona, New Mexico, Utah-Navajo Lands Project Atlas, 

1994-2000. San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA: U.S. EPA and USACE, December, 2000. 

U.S. EPA et al. 2001—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense. Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site 

Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) Revision 1. EPA 402-R-97-016, rev.1, NUREG-1575, rev. 1, DOE 

/EH-0624, rev.1. Washington DC: U.S. EPA,U.S. NRC, U.S. DOE, August 2000, updated June, 2001. 

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/marssim/obtain.htm

 

U.S. EPA et al. 2000—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Department of Energy. Field Demonstration of Permeable 

Reactive Barriers to Remove Dissolved Uranium from Groundwater, Fry Canyon, Utah. EPA 402-C-00-

001. Washington, DC: November, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/cleanup/402-c-00-

001.pdf

USFS 1991—U.S. Forest Service. Draft EIS RI/FS for the Cleanup & Rehabilitation of the White King 

and Lucky Lass Uranium Mines, Fremont National Forest, Lakeview, Oregon. R6-FRE-001-91. Klamath 

Falls, OR: U.S. USFS, August, 1991. 

USGS 1993—U.S. Geological Survey. Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Exposure at 1m Above Ground. Digital 

Data Series DDS-9. Reston, VA: U.S Geological Survey, 1993. 

USGS 1973—U.S. Geological Survey. United States Mineral Resources. Ed. D. Brobst and W. Pratt. 

Professional Paper 820. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1973. 

U.S. NPS 2006—U.S. National Park Service. Community Fact Sheet Orphan Mine Site, Grand Canyon 

National Park,.Revision 2. Grand Canyon, Arizona: February, 2006. 

http://www.nps.gov/grca/publications/orphan1.pdf

 

U.S. NPS 2003—U.S. National Park Service. Community Fact Sheet Orphan Mine Site. National Park 

Service, Grand Canyon National Park. Revision 1. Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. NPS, November, 2003. 

 
6-16

U.S. NPS 2000—U.S. National Park Service. Management Policies 2001. Washington DC: NPS, 

December, 2000. http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies/pdf

U.S. NRC 2004—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Standard Review Plan for the Review of a 

Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 

Act of 1978. NUREG-1620. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, July, 2004. 

U.S. NRC 2003—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach 

Uranium Extraction License Applications. NUREG-1569. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, June, 2003. 

U.S. NRC 2002—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Design of Erosion Protection for Long-term 

Stabilization. NUREG-1623, Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, September, 2002. 

U.S. NRC 2001—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Systematic Radiological Assessment of 

Exemptions for Source and By-product Materials. NUREG-1717. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, June, 

2001. 

U.S. NRC 2000a—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-23, 

Recent Changes To Uranium Recovery Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, November, 2000. 

U.S. NRC 2000b—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review 

Plan. NUREG-1727. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, September, 2000. 

U.S. NRC 1994—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Background as a Residual Radioactivity 

Criterion for Decommissioning, ed. A.M. Huffert, R.A. Meck, and K.M. Miller. Rep. NUREG-1501. 

Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, 1994. 

U.S. NRC 1980—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Uranium Milling. NUREG-0706. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, September, 1980. 

U.S. NRC and U.S. EPA 1997—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). 

NUREG-1575 and EPA-402. Washington, DC: U.S. NRC, December, 1997. 

Waite et al. 1992—Waite, T., Payne, J., Davis, J., and Sekine, K. Alligators Rivers Analogue Project, 

Final Report, Volume 13, Uranium Sorption. ISBN 0-642-599394 (DOE/HMIP/RR/92/0823, SKI TR 

92:20-13), 1992. 

WDEQ 1991—Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. In Situ Mining 

State Decision Document for Everest Minerals Highland Uranium, WDEQ/LQD Permit No. 603-A2. 

Cheyenne, WY: WDEQ, 1991. 

Weston 1997—Roy F. Weston, Inc. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report. Vol. 1. Oklahoma City, 

OK: Kerr-McGee Corporation, August, 1997. 
6-17

Whitworth 1996—Whitworth, T.M,. Potential Environmental Impact of the Abandoned La Bajada 

Uranium Mine Near Cochiti Lake, Santa Fe and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. In New Mexico 

Geology, August 1996, pp. 71-77. 

Williams and Riley 1993—Williams, B., and J. Riley. Midnite Uranium Mine-Hydrologic Research and 

Characterization. Presented May 16-19,1993, at the National Meeting of the American Society for 

Surface Mining and Reclamation, in Spokane, Washington. 

Wogman 1979—Wogman, N., Environmental Study of Active and Inactive Uranium Mines and Mills and 

their Effluents. PNL Laboratory Report 3069. Richland Washington: Battelle Pacific Northwest 

Laboratories, 1979. 

WRCC 2003—Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute. Average Pan Evaporation 

Data by State. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westevap.final.html. 

Wyoming Mining Association 2004—Wyoming Mining Association. Written communication to U.S. 

EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. Cheyenne, Wyoming: December 6, 2004. 

Yu et al. 2001—Yu, C., Zielen, A., Cheng, J., LePoire, D., Gnanapragasam, E., Kamboj, S. 

Arnish, J., Wallo III, A. Williams, W. and Peterson, H. User’s Manual for RESRAD. Version 6. 

Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Assessment Division, July, 2001. 

Yu et al. 1994—Yu, C., LePoire, D, Loureiro, C., Jones, L., and Chen, S. RESRAD-BUILD: A Computer 

Model for Analyzing the Radiological Doses Resulting from the Remediation and Occupancy of Buildings 

Contaminated with Radioactive Material. ANL/EAD/LD-3. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, 

Environmental Assessment Division, November, 1994. 
AI-1 

Appendix I. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, 

and Glossary of Terms 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Ac actinium 

ac acre 

ac-ft acre-feet 

ACAA American Coal Ash Association 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

ALARA As low as reasonably achievable 

AML abandoned mine lands 

As arsenic 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Ba barium 

BASINS Better Assessment Science Integrating Source and Non-point Sources (USGS 

computer model) 

BAT best achievable technology 

Bi bismuth 

BPCT best practicable control technology 

Bq/kg Becquerel/kilogram. 

BRC Bureau of Radiation Control 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CaSO4 calcium sulphate (formula for gypsum) 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(Superfund) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Ci Curie(s) (unit of radioactivity, 3.7 x 1010 disintegrations per second) 

cm centimeter 

COD chemical oxygen demand 

Cr chromium 

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

Cu copper 

CWA Clean Water Act 

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

dscm dry standard cubic meter 

E used to denote exponents (3.7E+10) 

EIA Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy) 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute 

o

F degrees Fahrenheit 

Fe iron 

FeCl3 ferric chloride 

FeP ferro-phosphorus 

FeS2 pyrite 

FIPR Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 

Fr francium 
AI-2 

ft feet 

g gram 

g/cm3

 gram per cubic centimeter 

Gy Gray 

H hydrogen 

ha hectare, 2.471 acres 

HDS high-density sludge 

Hg mercury 

hr hour 

ISL in situ leaching 

K potassium 

Kd element-specific soilBwater partition coefficient 

kg kilogram 

L liter 

LTSP long-term surveillance plan 

μ micro, 10-6, used in combination with specific units 

μg/m microgram per meter 

μg/m3

 microgram per cubic meter 

μm one-millionth of a meter (micron) 

μR/hr microRoentgen per hour 

m milli, 10-3, used in combination with specific units 

m meter 

m2

 square meter 

m2

/s square meters per second 

m3

 cubic meter 

MAS/MILS Minerals Availability System/Minerals Industry Location System (USGS 

database) 

mbd million barrels per day 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

mg milligram 

mL milliliter 

Mn manganese 

Mo molybdenum 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

mrem millirem 

mR/hr milliRoentgen per hour 

mSv milliSievert 

MT metric ton(s), 1000kg, or 2,200 lb 

MMTs millions of metric tons 

n nano, 10-9 , used in combination with specific units 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAMLRP Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program 

NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFS National Forest Service 

NNEPA Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 

NORM naturally occurring radioactive material 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
AI-3 

NPL National Priorities List 

NPS National Park Service 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

O2 oxygen 

ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (U.S. EPA) 

OSM Office of Surface Mining 

p pico, 10-12, used in combination with specific units 

Pa protactinium 

Pb lead 

pCi/g picocurie per gram 

pCi/L picocurie per liter 

pCi/m2

/s picocurie per meter squared per second 

pH negative log of hydrogen ion concentration (measure of acidity and alkalinity) 

Po polonium 

ppb parts per billion, 10-9

ppm parts per million, 10-6

Pu plutonium 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

R Roentgen 

r

2 correlation coefficient 

Ra radium 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Rem Roentgen equivalent in man 

RESRAD computer model to evaluate risks/doses from RESidual RADiation materials 

(DOE=s Argonne National Laboratory) 

ROD record of decision (Superfund) 

s second 

SAB/RAC Science Advisory Board/Radiation Advisory Committee (with U.S. EPA) 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

Se selenium 

SEO State Engineer=s Office 

SIP State Implementation Plans 

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

Sr strontium 

SSL soil screening level, in pCi/g 

Sv Sievert 

tpd tons per day 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TENORM technologically enhanced, naturally occurring radioactive material 

Th thorium 

Tl thallium 

TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (now Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality) 

TRC Texas Railroad Commission 

TSD treatment, storage, and disposal 

TSS total suspended solids 

TWC Texas Water Commission 

U uranium 

U3O8 oxide of uranium 
AI-4 

U4+Ti2O6 brannerite 

UIC underground injection control 

UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action program (U.S. DOE) 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

UO2 uranium dioxide 

UO2SO4 uranium sulfate 

USiO4ßnH20 coffinite 

U.S. ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

y3

 cubic yard(s) 

Glossary of Terms 

Adits Horizontal or nearly horizontal passages driven from the surface for the 

working or dewatering of a mine. If driven through a hill or mountain to 

the surface on the other side it would be a tunnel. 

ALARA Acronym for As Low As Reasonably Achievable: A basic concept of 

radiation protection which specifies that exposure to ionizing radiation 

and releases of radioactive materials should be managed to reduce 

collective doses as far below regulatory limits as is reasonably 

achievable considering economic, technological, and societal factors, 

among others. 

Alpha Particle A positively charged particle emitted by some radioactive materials 

undergoing radioactive decay. A helium nucleus (two protons and 

two neutrons)

Aquifer An underground geological formation, or group of formations, 

containing water. Sources of groundwater for wells and springs. 

Background Radiation from cosmic sources, naturally occurring radioactive 

material, including radon (except as a decay product of source or 

special nuclear material), and global fallout as it exists in the 

environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices or from 

nuclear accidents like Chernobyl which contribute to background 

radiation and are not under the control of the cognizant organization. 

Becquerel (Bq) The International System (SI) unit of activity equal to one nuclear 

transformation (disintegration) per second. 1 Bq = 2.7x10-11 Curies (Ci) 

= 27.03 picocuries (pCi). 

Berm A horizontal shelf or ledge built into the embankment or sloping wall of 

an open pit, quarry, or ground surface to break the continuity of an 

otherwise long slope and to strengthen its stability or to catch and arrest 

slide material. 

Beta Particle An electron emitted from an atom’s nucleus during radioactive decay. 
AI-5 

Beneficiated The initial attempt at liberating and concentrating a valuable mineral 

from extracted ore. This is typically performed by employing various 

crushing, grinding and froth flotation techniques. The remaining 

(beneficiated) material is often physically and chemically similar to the 

material (ore or mineral) that entered the operation, except that particle 

size reduction has often occurred. 

Bioremediation The use of biological agents, such as bacteria or plants, to remove or 

neutralize contaminants, as in polluted soil or water. 

Brannerite A radioactive uranium bearing mineral, (U,Ca,Y,Ce)(Ti,Fe)2O6

Breccia A coarse-grained clastic rock, composed of angular broken rock 

fragments held together by a mineral cement or in a fine-grained matrix. 

Breccia may originate as a result of talus accumulation, explosive 

igneous processes, collapse of rock material, or faulting. 

Byproduct 

Materials Tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of 

uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source 

material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from 

uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted 

by such solution extraction operations do not constitute Abyproduct 

material@ within this definition. 

Carbonates A sediment or sedimentary rock formed by the organic or inorganic 

precipitation from aqueous solution of carbonates of calcium, 

magnesium, or iron; e.g., limestone and dolomite. 

Cleanup Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous 

substances that could affect public health or the environment. The term 

is often used broadly to describe various Superfund response actions or 

phases of remedial responses, such as remedial investigation/feasibility 

study. Cleanup is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms 

remedial action, response action, or corrective action. 

Coffinite A naturally occurring uranium mineral, U(SiO4)1-x(OH)4x

Consolidated In geology, any or all of the processes whereby loose, soft, or liquid 

earth materials become firm and coherent, either cemented or noncemented together. 

Contamination The presence of residual radioactivity, heavy metals or other pollutants 

in excess of levels which are acceptable for release of a site or facility 

for unrestricted use. 

Core Sample A soil, rock, or sediment sample taken by core drilling. 

Conventional Mining Mining which uses either mechanical open-pit surface mining methods, 

or underground mining methods, or a combination of both, to extract ore 
AI-6 

from the ground. This is opposed to unconventional or solution mining 

methods. 

Curie (Ci) The customary unit of radioactivity. One curie (Ci) is equal to 37 billion 

disintegrations per second (3.7 x 1010 dps = 3.7 x 1010 Bq), which is 

approximately equal to the decay rate of one gram of Ra-226. Fractions 

of a curie, e.g. picocuries (pCi) or 10-12 Ci and microcurie (μCi) or 10-6

Ci, are levels typically encountered in radiation measurements of NORM 

or TENORM. 

Decline A downward ramp. 

Decommission To remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual 

radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property and 

termination of a source materials license and other authorization for site 

operation. 

Decommissioning The process of removing a facility or site from operation, followed by 

decontamination, and license termination (or termination of authorization 

for operation) if appropriate. The objective of decommissioning is to 

reduce the residual radioactivity in structures, materials, soils, 

groundwater, and other media at the site so that the concentration of each 

radionuclide contaminant that contributes to residual radioactivity is 

indistinguishable from the background radiation concentration for that 

radionuclide. 

Drill Cuttings The particles of rock produced in a borehole or drill hole by the abrasive 

or percussive action of a drill bit; erosive effect of the circulating liquid; 

or cavings from the borehole. At some mines and operations sites, cores 

of rock from a well or borehole may be left behind as wasteCreferred to 

in this report as drill cuttings for convenience. 

Drilling Wastes Wastes associated with a drillhole operation at a mine or extraction 

facility that are not considered cuttings or cores. May include drill muds 

or other drilling fluids, sludges, or evaporation products collected in 

excavated pits from waste water produced during drilling. 

Dose A general term used to refer to the effect on a material that is exposed to 

radiation. It is used to refer either to the amount of energy absorbed by a 

material exposed to radiation, or to the potential biological effect in 

tissue exposed to radiation

Electrodialysis A means of extracting one or more dissolved materials from a liquid 

mixture, the process is dialysis assisted by the application of an electric 

potential across a semi-permeable membrane. 

Elution Process of removing an economic mineral (uranium) from an ion 

exchange filter or resin. 

Evaporative Ponds Areas where mine water or other produced water is placed and dried by 

evaporation, leaving a residue of solids or sludges. 
AI-7 

Evaporite An inorganic chemical sediment that precipitates when the salty water in 

which it had dissolved evaporates. 

Excavated Wall A wall of mineral ore that has been exposed by mining over a 

considerable width at one time. 

Exposure Pathway The route by which radioactivity travels through the environment to 

eventually cause radiation exposure to a person or group (e.g., air or 

water). Also, the route by which a member of the public is exposed (e.g., 

ingestion, inhalation).

External Radiation Radiation from a source outside the body. 

Extraction Facility An industrial complex and land on which are located buildings, wells and 

pipelines, mechanical and chemical equipment, storage and 

transportation equipment licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission or its Agreement States for the purposes of extracting 

uranium (source material) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act. 

Extraction Process A process used to extract uranium from ore, either by milling and 

chemically treating the ore, or using chemical solutions to treat 

underground ore (in situ leaching), or by treating mined and crushed ore 

on the surface (heap leaching). These processes are licensed activities by 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its Agreement States in 

accordance with the Atomic Energy Act. 

Gamma Radiation Penetrating high-energy, short-wavelength electromagnetic radiation 

(similar to X-rays) emitted during radioactive decay. Gamma rays are 

very penetrating and require dense materials (such as lead or steel) for 

shielding. 

Gangue The valueless minerals in an ore; that part of an ore that is not 

economically desirable but cannot be avoided in mining. It is separated 

from the ore minerals during concentration. 

Garnet A group of silicate minerals found in igneous rocks, usually red in color, 

used as a semi-precious stone in crystalline form, or ground into smaller 

particles and used for abrasives such as in sandpaper coating. 

Half-Life (t1/2) The time required for one-half of the atoms of a particular radionuclide 

present to disintegrate. 

Heap-Leaching A method of extraction by which mineral bearing ores are leached on the 

ground surface from weathered low-grade ore. The crushed material is 

laid on a slightly sloping, impervious pad and uniformly leached by the 

percolation of leach liquor trickling through the beds by gravity to ponds. 

The metals are recovered by conventional methods from the solution. 
AI-8 

Igneous Rock or mineral that solidified from molten or partly molten material, 

i.e., lava or magma. These rocks constitute one of the three main classes 

into which all rocks are divided: igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary. 

Ilmenite An iron-black, opaque mineral (FETiO3) which is the principal ore of 

titanium. 

Incline A slanting shaft from the surface into an underground mine. Most 

commonly referring to an upward slope. 

In Situ Leaching (ISL) A method of extraction by which mineral bearing ores are leached 

underground by the introduction of a solvent solution, called a lixiviant, 

through injection wells drilled into the ore body. The process does not 

require the extraction of ore from the ground. The lixiviant is injected, 

passes through the ore body, and mobilizes the mineral, and the mineralbearing solution is pumped to the surface from production wells. The 

pregnant leach solution is processed to extract the mineral sought after. 

Ion Exchange A common water-softening method often found on a large scale at water 

purification plants that remove some organics and radium by adding 

calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide to increase the pH to a level where 

the metals will precipitate out.

Lab Waste Wastes of any kind generated by a laboratory, usually on-site, analyzing 

rock, sediment, water or other samples obtained at the mine or extraction 

facility, or its vicinity. 

Leachate A solution obtained by leaching; e.g., water that has percolated through 

soil containing soluble substances and that contains certain amounts of 

these substances in solution.

Leach Liquor Lixiviant which contains minerals dissolved from host rocks. 

Leuxocene General term for a fine-grained, opaque, whitish alteration (weathering) 

product of ilmenite in mineral form. 

Lithologic Character of a rock described in terms of its structure, color, mineral 

composition, grain size, and arrangement of its component parts; all 

those visible features that in the aggregate impart individuality to the 

rock. Lithology is the basis of correlation in coal mines and commonly is 

reliable over a distance of a few miles. 

Longwall Retreat A method of mining flat-bedded deposits, in which the working face is 

mined over a considerable width at one time. The excavation retreats 

towards the shaft. In this method, all the roadways are in the ore body 

and the waste areas are left behind.

Lixiviant A liquid medium that selectively extracts the desired metal from the ore 

or material to be leached rapidly and completely, and from which the 

desired metal can then be recovered in a concentrated form. 
AI-9 

Mill Tailings Residue of raw material or waste separated out during the processing of 

uranium mineral ores. Byproduct material in accordance with the AEA. 

Mine Mining is the mechanical process by which mineral ores are extracted 

from the earth. 

Mine Footprint The areal extent of land physically disrupted by a mine operation. 

Mineral Sands Eroded and generally unconsolidated sedimentary particles of rock 

minerals of sand size which have accumulated in a geologic deposit, and 

may be exploited or concentrated for economic purposes. 

NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials. Materials which may contain 

any of the primordial radionuclides or radioactive elements as they occur 

in nature, such as radium, uranium, thorium, potassium, and their 

radioactive decay products, that are undisturbed as a result of human 

activities. 

Ore The naturally occurring material from which a mineral or minerals of 

economic value can be extracted profitably or to satisfy social or political 

objectives. The term is generally but not always used to refer to 

metalliferous material, and is often modified by the names of the 

valuable constituent; e.g., iron ore; ore mineral. 

Overburden Designates material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that 

overlies a deposit of useful materials or ores, especially those deposits 

that are mined from the surface by open cuts or open-pit methods. 

Permeable Reactive 

Barrier An emplacement of reactive materials in the subsurface designed to 

intercept a contaminant plume, provide a preferential flow path through 

the reactive media, and transform the contaminant(s) into 

environmentally acceptable forms to attain remediation concentration 

goals at points of compliance. 

Pillar A column of ore left to support the overlying strata or hanging wall in a 

mine, generally resulting in a "room and pillar" array. Pillars are 

normally left permanently to support the surface or to keep old workings 

water tight. 

Pit Lake A lake which has formed by accumulation of water in an open-pit mine 

excavation. 

Pit Lake Water Water which has filled an open-pit mine excavation, usually derived as 

water from underground workings of the mine. 

Protore Mineral bearing rock that cannot be further processed at a profit under 

existing conditions but that may become profitable with technological 

advances or price increases. 
AI-10 

Pseudomorph A mineral whose outward crystal form is that of, or which resembles 

another mineral species: it has developed by alteration, substitution, 

incrustation, or other mineral process. 

Radiation Survey Measurements of radiation levels associated with a site together (or 

Radiological with appropriate documentation and data evaluation. 

Survey) 

Radioactivity The mean number of nuclear transformations occurring in a given 

quantity of radioactive material per unit time. The International 

System (SI) unit of radioactivity is the Becquerel (Bq). The 

customary unit is the Curie (Ci). 

Radioactive Decay The spontaneous transformation of an unstable atom into one or more 

different nuclides accompanied by either the emission of energy and/or 

particles from the nucleus, nuclear capture or ejection of orbital 

electrons, or fission. Unstable atoms decay into a more stable state, 

eventually reaching a form that does not decay further or has a very 

long half-life. 

Radionuclide An unstable nuclide that undergoes radioactive decay. 

Reclamation Restoration of mined land to original contour, use or condition. 

Reductant The addition of hydrogen, removal of oxygen, or addition of electrons to 

or Reduction an element or compound. 

Regulation A rule, law, order, or direction from federal, state, or Tribal governments 

regulating action or conduct. Regulations concerning radionuclides in the 

environment in the United States are shared by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), state and Tribal 

governments. 

Rem Radiation Equivalent in Man. The conventional unit of dose equivalent. 

The corresponding International System (SI) unit is Sievert (Sv): 1 Sv = 

100 rem. 

Remediation Cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain a toxic spill or 

hazardous materials from a Superfund site, or uranium mine or extraction 

facility, including those included under the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). 
AI-11 

Refuse Solid waste. Non-liquid, non-soluble materials ranging from municipal 

garbage to industrial wastes that contain complex and sometimes 

hazardous substances. Solid wastes also include sewage sludge, 

agricultural refuse, demolition wastes, mining equipment and mining 

residues. Technically, solid waste also refers to liquids and gases in 

containers. 

Removal The cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances, or pollutants 

or contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger; 

such actions as may be necessary taken in the event of the threat of 

release of hazardous substances into the environment; such actions as 

may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the threat of release of 

hazardous substances; the removal and disposal of material, or the taking 

of other such actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize or 

mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or the environment. 

Rill A small channel, as one formed by erosion. 

Risk Assessment Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the risk posed to human health 

and/or the environment by the actual or potential presence and/or use of 

specific pollutants. 

Room and Pillar A conventional method of underground mining in which natural pillars 

are left unmined for support between the mined rooms. 

Rutile A usually reddish-brown mineral (TiO2) that is an ore of titanium. 

Saturated Zone A subsurface zone of soil or rock in which all the pore spaces are filled 

with water under pressure greater than that of the atmosphere. This zone 

is separated from the zone of aeration (above) by the water table. 

Scanning An evaluation technique performed by moving a detection device over 

a surface at a specified speed and distance above the surface to detect 

radiation. 

Secular Equilibrium A state of parent-daughter equilibrium that is achieved when the halflife of the parent radionuclide is much longer than the half-life of the 

daughter radionuclide decay product. In this case, if the two are not 

separated, the daughter will eventually decay at the same rate at which 

it is being produced. At this point, both parent and daughter will decay 

at the same rate until the parent is essentially exhausted. 

Sievert (Sv) The special name for the International System (SI) unit of dose 

equivalent. 1 Sv = 100 rem = 1 Joule per kilogram. 

Site Any mine or extraction facility installation, or discrete, physically 

separate parcel of land or lands disturbed by mining or uranium 

extraction, or any building or structure or portion thereof. 

Soils All unconsolidated materials above bedrock. 
AI-12 

Solution Process A method of extracting sought-after underground elements or minerals 

from in-place ore, or elements or minerals from ore previously mined 

and crushed. This is accomplished through the use of fluids which 

dissolve the mineral from the rock, putting it into liquid solution which is 

then processed or evaporated to obtain the desired element or mineral. 

Solvent Extraction A process for extracting a mineral or element (e.g., uranium) from ore by 

soaking rock with a (solvent) that dissolves the target element from the 

rock and putting it into liquid solution. The liquid is then processed or 

evaporated to obtain the desired element. 

Source Materials Uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or 

chemical form or (2) ores which contain by weight one-twentieth of one 

percent (0.05%) or more of: (i) Uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) any 

combination thereof. Source material does not include special nuclear 

material. chemical

Special Nuclear 

Material Plutonium, U-233, and Uranium enriched in U-235, material capable of 

undergoing a fission reaction. 

Stewardship Institutional controls (private or publicownership or governmental) 

which may be put in place to ensure that a specific site meets its closure 

goals. Institutional controls can be either active, involving some form of 

continuous or intermittent human activity to maintain the condition of the 

site, or passive, which do not require human intervention and have an 

amount of redundancy built into them to deter or prevent disturbance of 

the closed site. 

Stope An excavation from which ore has been removed in a series of steps. A 

variation of step. Usually applied to highly inclined or vertical veins or 

beds. 

Survey A systematic evaluation and documentation of radiological 

measurements with a correctly calibrated instrument or instruments that 

meet the sensitivity required by the objective of the evaluation. 

Survey Plan A plan for determining the radiological and other characteristics of a site. 

TENORM Acronym for Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Material. Naturally occurring radioactive materials that have 

been concentrated or exposed to the accessible environment as a result of 

human activities such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, or water 

processing. 

Underground Injection The method by which fluids are placed under pressure in a well such that 

the fluid enters an underground rock formation. A means by which ISL 

wells inject lixiviant to dissolve uranium from underground ore bodies. 

Unconsolidated Rocks consisting of loosely coherent or uncemented particles, whether 

occurring at the surface or at depth. 
AI-13 

Underflow Flowing bottom waters containing dissolved or suspended solids. 

Unsaturated zone The zone in which the pore opening of the functional permeable rocks 

are not (except temporarily) filled with water under hydrostatic pressure; 

the interstices are either not filled with water or are filled with water that 

is held by capillarity. 

Uprate The process of increasing the maximum power level at which a 

commercial nuclear power plant may operate. 

Volcaniclastic A sedimentary rock containing volcanic material without regard to its 

origin or environment of deposition. 

Waste Rock Rock void of uranium ore which may have been set aside as waste after 

removal of top-soil, overburden and uranium ore or veins. Waste rock is 

defined as barren or submarginal rock or ore that has been mined, but is 

not of sufficient value to warrant treatment and is therefore removed 

ahead of the milling processes. 

Wastewater The spent or used water from a mine that contains dissolved or 

suspended matter. 

Working Level A special unit of radon exposure defined as any combination of shortlived radon daughters in 1 liter of air that will result in the ultimate 

emission of 1.3x10

5 

MeV of potential alpha energy. This value is 

approximately equal to the alpha energy released from the decay of 

progeny in equilibrium with 100 pCi of Ra-222.
 

AII-1

Appendix II. Uranium Decay Series 

In the figures below, Figure AII.1. for the uranium-238 radioactive decay series, and Figure AII.2. for the 

uranium-23 radioactive decay series, each radioactive element is shown in a box with its mass number 

(

226Ra for example) along with its half life in μseconds (μsec), minutes (m), days (d), and years (y). The 

principal type of radiation given off as the radionuclide decays is shown alongside the box: alpha (α), 

beta (β). 

Figure AII.1. UraniumB238 Radioactive Decay Series 
 

AII-2

Figure AII.2. Uranium-235 (Actinium) Decay Series 
 AIII-1 

Appendix III. Overview of Uranium Mines 

and In Situ Leach Operations Case Studies 

In the main body of this report, mention is made of a number of conventional uranium mines and ISL 

leach operations which were studied in detail by EPA in order to better understand the environmental 

conditions associated uranium extraction. Portions, though not all, of the data collected in the course of 

those studies were included in the report in order to illustrate points made in the text. The conventional 

mine sites listed in this appendix are abandoned, idle, or in reclamation status, and the descriptions which 

follow provide information on their location, size, and production status. ISL sites described were 

licensed facilities under the environmental oversight of and regulation of the NRC or its Agreement 

States. The wastes from those facilities are considered byproduct materials and not TENORM. As such, 

the information presented in this Appendix is for information purposes only. For a description of how 

new ISL operations are carried out, see Chapter 2. 

A decision will be made in the near future about whether or not more detailed information on the 

conventional mine and ISL sites which was assembled as case studies for this report will be issued 

separately. 

Canyonlands Uranium Mines, Lathrop Canyon, Utah

This is a group of 12 abandoned mines in sandstone deposits of southeastern Utah in a semi-arid region of 

the country. The mines are remotely located in Lathrop Canyon of the Canyonlands National Park near 

Moab, Utah, about 12 hour hike from the nearest visitor=s center at the park. Mine waste rock is found in 

piles inside and outside the mines, with contaminated water located below the mines. Contaminated water 

does not directly feed into any major bodies of water. Total waste amounts are estimated at 1,750 m3

(2,322 yd3

). A study done by Burghardt et al. (2000) provides most of the data on the site contamination. 

Data are available on metals concentrations, pH, radiation levels, and electrical conductivity for the waste 

rock piles. Similar information is available for the Lathrop Canyon water and drainage. Based on this 

information, as well as population proximity information, the National Park Service and Utah Abandoned 

Mine Lands Reclamation Program maintain that Lathrop Canyon Mines now pose minimal risk to human 

safety and health. 

Orphan Uranium Mine, Arizona

The Orphan Uranium mine is located at the Grand Canyon National Park in northern Arizona and is being 

assessed by the National Park Service for cleanup under CERCLA. The deposit is in sandstone and 

claystone, but occurs as a breccia pipe deposit. The mine=s buildings, hoisting headframe, and ore loadout 

area are located a short walk from the south rim visitor=s center, although the area has been fenced to deter 

visitors. Mining activities were conducted mainly between 1956 and 1969 for uranium, copper, silver, and 

vanadium. Radioactive rock and soil have been found at the loading area, and at the mine itself, which is 

located below the canyon rim. The mine still contains significant amounts of unmined uranium. Horn 

Creek, which lies beneath the Orphan Mine and along a major hiking trail of the park was found to 

discharge Ahostile@ effluent containing uranium and exceeding the maximum contaminant level for gross 

alpha radiation in drinking water. Uranium contamination of Horn Creek may be derived from: surface 

runoff from the upper mine site and tailing debris at the lower mine site; groundwater and surface water 
 AIII-2 

that have percolated through the Orphan Mine, including the open glory hole; and ore and waste rock 

debris containing uranium that has eroded and has been swept into the drainage basin of Horn Creek. The 

case study includes results of Horn Spring sampling for uranium, as well as radiation levels recorded for 

the upper and lower mine sites. Approximately two million people visit the vicinity of the mine annually; 

however, relatively few individuals are directly exposed to radiation. 

Further evaluation of the site in accordance with CERCLA is underway to evaluate the extent of 

contamination and cleanup alternatives. According to the National Park Service (U.S. NPS 2006), an 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) should commence for the upper mine area in 2006. This 

study would analyze cleanup action and the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost of a number of cleanup 

alternatives. Upon completion, the EE/CA (including any recommended cleanup) and supporting 

documents would be made available to the public for review and comment. An EE/CA for the lower and 

middle mine areas was also being planned. 

Midnite Uranium Mine, Washington

The Midnite Mine is an inactive open-pit uranium mine located within the boundaries of the Spokane 

Indian Reservation in eastern Washington State, and is a disseminated deposit in igneous rocks. It was 

operated by Dawn Mining Company between 1955 and 1981, and the disturbed area covers 

approximately 320 acres (129.6 hectares). The initial series of open-pits were backfilled with waste rock 

as mining progressed, and additional overburden and waste rock is on the surface, as well as a number of 

ore/protore stockpiles. Two large pits remain open and accumulate water from multiple sources, including 

seep water collected at the base of the largest waste rock pile. The pile was graded and partly reclaimed 

by the mining company, which also operates an ongoing seep collection system and BaCl2 treatment 

facility. Midnite Mine was listed as a Superfund site in 2000, and an EPA-funded study is under way. In 

addition to the seeps and impounded surface water contaminated with heavy metals and radionuclides, 

contamination has spread to areas outside the mined area in surface water and sediments, groundwater, 

and road dust. Most runoff from the mined area flows to three streams (called "drainages"). The drainages 

meet south of the mine and flow into Blue Creek. Blue Creek travels an additional 3.5 miles to the 

Spokane River Arm of Lake Roosevelt. Shallow groundwater also flows from the mined area along the 

three drainages and emerges south of the mined area. Collection and treatment of contaminated water has 

reduced the amount of contamination entering surface water. However, the drainages and Blue Creek still 

show ongoing contamination from the mine. A proposed cleanup plan was issued by EPA in September 

of 2005. 

Bluewater Uranium Mines, New Mexico

The Bluewater Uranium mines are a series of three sandstone mine sites located in north Central Cibola 

County in west-central New Mexico. Portions of the site had a semi-agricultural rural setting where 

approximately 65 persons lived in 1990. The mines were operated primarily between 1952 and 1966. 

Reclamation activities were conducted by EPA, ATSDR, and the Navajo Superfund Program to reduce 

potential radiological hazards associated with the mines. As a result of previous mining activities and the 

absence of reclamation action, the sites contained large open-pits with exposed uranium-bearing 

overburden, waste rock, and protore. A contaminated water well and houses constructed with uranium 

mine wastes were closed and removed. Radiological contaminants of concern were uranium and its 
 AIII-3 

daughter products of radium, thorium, bismuth, lead, and radon gas. Heavy metal species suspected to be 

present in the mining waste were arsenic, barium, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, and 

vanadium, Analytical data on uranium and radium were collected prior to and after the completion of 

reclamation activities. 

White King/Lucky Lass Uranium Mine Sites, Oregon

Also known as the Fremont National Forest Superfund Site, the site is located in south-central Oregon, 

and includes two former uranium mining areas encompassing about 140 acres (about 57 hectares). The 

site is located in a mountainous semi-arid setting on National Forest Service lands, with the closest 

residences and drinking water wells more than 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the site. The mines are 

located within the northwest terminus of the Basin and Range province. This area is characterized by 

north-trending fault-block mountains and basins of internal drainage. Geologic units in the region are 

characterized by a thick sequence of volcanic flows and volcaniclastic rocks which have been extensively 

faulted and fractured. The major features include a water-filled excavation pit (pond); a protore stockpile; 

an overburden stockpile; areas where overburden and ore were dumped or spilled; and Augur Creek, 

which flows adjacent to the two White King stockpiles. Mining operations were conducted between 1955 

and 1965, with exploratory drilling conducted until 1979. The area has been extensively sampled for 

arsenic, uranium-234/238, radium, and radon. A baseline risk assessment was conducted and serves as 

part of the record of decision (ROD). Construction for remediation of the sites began in 2005. 

Yazzie--312 Mine, Cameron, Arizona

The Yazzie-312 Uranium Mine is located on the Navajo Indian Reservation located in the Painted Desert 

section of the Black Mesa basin area near Cameron, Arizona. The site was operated between 1956 and 

1961 and contained a large, water-filled open-pit lake; the water had been used for recreational swimming 

and livestock watering. The water standing in the Yazzie-312 pit was the result of an artesian flow from 

an underlying aquifer. The mine was in the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation. The mine 

operator drilled a hole in the bottom of the pit looking for a deeper ore horizon. The drill hole 

encountered artesian water in the Shinarump Member, which filled the pit. 

The EPA studied the mine to determine: the presence of metals and radionuclides in water within the 

mine pit, in underlying water, and in the Little Colorado River; assessing metals and radionuclides in 

subsurface soil and sediments; determining infiltration in the water-filled mine pit; and assessing 

communication into other aquifers at the site. Analytical data were collected on several borings for soil 

samples, as well as several water samples. The area has several hard impermeable substrates located 

between 50 and 130 feet (15.2 and 39.6 meters) below ground surface. Elevated levels of uranium and 

thorium were found at soil depths that were above the groundwater table (110 to 210 feet) (33.5 to 64 

meters-below ground surface), with significantly lower levels found at deeper depths. No metal levels 

exceeded EPA Region 9's Preliminary Remediation Goals. In the overburden and protore piles, the most 

significant contaminants were the uranium and thorium concentrations. Groundwater samples indicated 

contamination for uranium, radium, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and manganese. Pit water tested 

similarly high for the same contaminants and for iron and lead. Testing also indicated that the Little 

Colorado River contained measureable uranium, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium, although not at 

significant levels. The mine site was remediated by the Navajo Abandoned Mine Land agency in 2002. 
 AIII-4 

Uranium In Situ Fields 

Crow Butte, Nebraska

Cameco’s facility and associated wellfields are located in west-central Dawes County, Nebraska, just 

north of the Pine Ridge, five miles southeast of Crawford, Nebraska. The total surface area of the project 

site is approximately 2,800 acres (1,134 hectares), with about 500 acres (202 hectares) that will be 

disturbed during the life of the project. The uranium deposit at the Crow Butte site is a roll-front deposit, 

similar to those in the Wyoming basins. Liquid wastes from operations are generated from three sources: 

(1) wellfield development, (2) processing plant operations, and (3) aquifer restoration activities. 

Currently, Cameco has three options approved by the NRC for the disposal of liquid wastes: (1) solar 

evaporation ponds, (2) land application, or (3) deep-well injection. At this time, land application has not 

been used. The study contains results for lead, polonium, radium, radon, thorium, and uranium, taken 

from both the ponds located at the site and surface waters. 

Holiday/El Mesquite, Texas

The Combined Holiday and El Mesquite ISL fields are located in Duval and Webb counties, Texas, and 

they cover a permit area of approximately 4,500 acres (1,822 hectares). They are owned by COGEMA 

which cited its total wellfield area as 335 acres (135 hectares) in two combined leases, with 1,750 

injection wells and 1,450 production wells. Production commenced in 1977, with the expectation of 17 

years of production and the fields= producing an ore grade of 0.07% using a sodium bicarbonate-injected 

lixiviant. Production from the fields averaged 750 tons of uranium per year, with an estimated extraction 

efficiency of 93 to 95%. Wastewater was collected at two storage ponds at the El Mesquite project before 

injection into deep disposal wells. The El Mesquite project lease area comprises 2,900 acres (1174 

hectares) including five wellfields, three satellite locations, a processing plant, a yellowcake dryer, 

administrative buildings, a laboratory, a warehouse, and a maintenance shop. The Holiday lease covers 

1,483 acres (600 hectares), including 10 wellfields and two satellite locations. Uranium production at the 

Holiday and El Mesquite project areas has ceased, and negative pressure in producing wells of the field is 

maintained to prevent excursions of pollutants (or plume migration) beyond mine lease boundaries. Areas 

that were depleted at an early point in the operations history were subjects of groundwater restoration 

activities. At Holiday and El Mesquite, the groundwater prior to extraction was usable for livestock 

watering, (with some localized exceptions, due to elevated radium-226, which is present in the 

groundwater within the uranium ore body). Therefore, COGEMA=s goal after extraction is to clean up the 

groundwater to as close to background conditions as possible. 
 AIII-5 

Irigaray and Christensen Ranch, Wyoming

The Irigaray and Christensen Ranch projects are two separate ISL operations that are located about 51 to 

55 miles (82 to 88 kilometers) southeast of Buffalo in the Powder River Basin in northeast Wyoming. The 

Irigaray property is 21,100 acres (8,545 hectares) and contains the central plant for both projects, though 

the actual disturbed area for Irigaray is only 133 acres. COGEMA purchased both properties in April 

1993, and all mining activities (at both sites) ceased in June 2000. The ore mineralization is one of many 

roll-front type uranium deposits located in the Wasatch formation. Water treatment processes, such as 

reverse osmosis, were used to clean wellfield bleed water for use in restoration. Uranium-laden resin from 

the ion exchange columns was transferred to a tanker trailer and trucked to the Irigaray central plant for 

elution, final uranium precipitation, and drying. Wastewater disposal capability included evaporation in 

lined ponds, storage of clean water (reverse osmosis permeate) in clay-lined ponds, treatment and disposal 

via surface discharge under a Wyoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and 

deep-well injection. The lined solar evaporation ponds were initially designed to provide a surface area 

and capacity capable of evaporating a 5 gallons per minute (about 19 liters per minute) process effluent 

stream. The four lined solar evaporation ponds were designed to meet the requirements of the NRC. 

Samples of the wastewater effluents were taken and tested for uranium and radium concentrations. 

Restoration of the Irigaray well fields was complete in August 2002 and was expected to be complete at 

Christensen Ranch in 2006. Surface decommissioning and reclamation are underway (as approved by 

NRC) and should be complete in 2007. 

Crownpoint Uranium, New Mexico

The proposed Crownpoint Uranium ISL project consists of three properties located near Church Rock, 

New Mexico. Operations at the Crownpoint site would include a central processing facility where 

yellowcake will be dried and packaged. Generally, the uranium deposits are a few feet thick and several 

hundred to a thousand feet (305 meters) long, and may be stacked, usually parallel to the strike of the host 

rock. Uranium was proposed to be extracted from the ore bodies by leachate mining, using a sodium 

bicarbonate lixiviant, and is then extracted from the solution and concentrated. Uranium to be produced at 

the Church Rock and Unit 1 sites, uranium concentrate, in the form of either uranium-loaded resin beads 

or yellowcake slurry, would be shipped by truck to the central processing facility and packaged into a 

final yellowcake product. Before the waste would be disposed of, barium chloride would be added to 

effectively remove radium, thus lowering the radionuclide concentrations of the waste. HRI, the site=s 

owner and operator, is currently considering up to five different final disposal options for wastewaters 

(both process-generated and restoration waters): (1) surface discharge, (2) land application, (3) brine 

concentration, (4) waste-retention ponds, and (5) deep-well disposal. At present, HRI is limited to using 

surface discharge (with appropriate state or federal permits/licenses), brine concentration, waste-retention 

ponds, or a combination of the three options to dispose of process wastewater. In July 2005, NRC 

required that HRI reduce its secondary groundwater restoration standard for uranium from 0.44 mg/L to 

0.03 mg/L.
 AIII-6 

Highlands Uranium, Wyoming

Operated by Power Resources, Inc., Highlands is a 15,000-acre (6,073 hectare) ISL facility, located in the 

Southern Powder River Basin of east-central Wyoming, in central Converse County, Wyoming. The land 

has been used for seasonal sheep and cattle grazing. The uranium production process uses a lixiviant 

comprised of native groundwater with gaseous carbon dioxide and oxygen, which is injected into the ore 

zone through a series of well patterns. Uranium becomes dissolved within the lixiviant, which is pumped 

from the ground, treated to remove the uranium, then re-injected into the ore zone. Liquid wastes from the 

operation consist of two types of wastewater: (1) freshwater streams and (2) a saltwater stream. The 

freshwater streams consist of restoration wastewaters and well field/process purge. Together, the process 

purge and restoration fluids make up the irrigation water source. Power Resources disposes of its 

freshwater waste stream by using radium settling basins, purge storage reservoirs, and irrigation areas. 

Due to erosion problems encountered with the original clay liner of the ponds, a geotextile fabric was 

installed in September 1988 to protect against future erosion concerns. Data was obtained for radium and 

uranium in the settling ponds. Saltwater waste is disposed of in a waste disposal injection well. The 

saltwater waste is produced from several sources in the uranium recovery and yellowcake production 

process. The sources that make up this waste stream include analytical laboratory liquid wastes, elution 

agents decanted from the precipitation circuit, yellowcake wash water, reject solutions from the water 

treatment process, and washdown water from the Central Processing Facility. 

Smith Ranch, Wyoming 

This Power Resources project acquired from Rio Algom, is a 16,000-acre (6,480 hectare) site at the Smith 

Ranch, located in the North Platte River drainage in Converse County, approximately 17 miles (27.2 

kilometers) northeast of Glenrock, Wyoming. Power Resources proposed to extract uranium at depths of 

450 to 1,000 feet (137 to 305 meters). The project involves approximately 25 individual mining units. 

When the project was to be fully operational, about two years after licensing, approximately five mining 

units would be in production at a time. Extraction would proceed approximately three years in each unit, 

followed by an equivalent period of unit restoration and surveillance monitoring. The proposed schedule 

covers a total of about 20 years. Liquid effluents from the operation include the production bleed stream, 

excess fluids from the elution and precipitation process, regeneration of the water softener system 

(calcium control), yellowcake rinse water, plant washdown water, restoration equipment waste, 

restoration bleed, and facility sanitary waste. If the water quality was acceptable, the water would then be 

routed through a separate radium removal and solids settling system prior to evaporation and/or land 

application (surface irrigation). Excess liquids from the elution and precipitation circuit and water 

softener regeneration were expected to average about 60 gallons per minute (227 liters per minute) and 

would be routed to lined evaporation ponds or to a disposal injection well. In 2005, Power Resources 

applied for an amendment to the Smith Ranch/Highland license to include the adjacent planned Reynolds 

Ranch ISL project as a satellite facility. Sample data on radium and uranium concentrations in 

evaporation ponds from the pilot projects were obtained by EPA.
 

AIV-1

Appendix IV. Calculations of Volumes of Uranium Overburden 

and Waste Rock 

Conventional mining techniques produce large amounts of solid waste materials. Open-pit mining in 

particular produces large quantities of overburden, while underground mining produces lesser, but still 

significant amounts of waste rock. Overburden and weakly mineralized waste rock that have not been 

used for reclamation have usually been stored in piles on site and are usually unsaturated, given that most 

conventional mining occurs in arid regions (U.S. DOE/EIA 1997). In general in this Appendix 

overburden and waste rock have been included together in estimating total waste rock at the mine sites. 

The density of mine wastes varies, depending on the type of ore body with which they are associated and 

the geology of the enclosing rock formations. Standard weight per volume figures used in mine waste 

calculations are 1.68 tons/y3

 or 2 MT/m3. 

The approach used here is to estimate the ratio of waste rock production to ore production by mining 

category (open-pit and underground); calculate the amount of waste generated from annual production 

statistics (also given by mining category); and compare these numbers to waste volumes known or 

calculated for various mines. 

When the uranium mining industry first started, most of the ores were recovered from deposits located at 

or near the surface. Ores were often exposed at the surface and shallow open-pit and underground mines 

often followed mineralized zones directly into the subsurface. The open-pit mines would remove thin 

overburden from buried parts of the ore body adjacent to the surface exposure. As easily accessible ore 

deposits became depleted, mining had to be performed at increasing depths by either open-pit or 

underground methods. In addition, lower grade ore deposits, once ignored, were later mined by using 

improved mining methods and more efficient ore extraction techniques. In the early mining years, an ore 

grade of 0.15% was often ignored; more recent mining practices target ore grades as low as 0.03%. 

Accordingly, over the years, the mining industry was required to move larger quantities of topsoil, 

overburden, and other waste rock in order to reach deeper deposits. 

The amount of overburden that can be economically removed during open-pit mining is a complex 

function of the depth to the orebody, the grade and thickness of the ore-bearing zone, the price of 

uranium, and the costs of moving the overburden. The costs of processing ore at mills also influence the 

economics. Those processing costs, which apply to both underground and surface mines, have steadily 

declined and have lowered the ore grade that is economic to mine. 

Information about the ratio of waste rock to ore can be derived from Abandoned Mine Land survey 

reports written since the mid-1980s, production statistics in files of the U.S. Geological Survey, from 

mining journal articles, from detailed descriptions of uranium mining operations in statewide 

compilations, and from interviews with mining engineers at selected properties. Such data are available 

for mines in Wyoming, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico (Table AIV.1). 

The ratio of waste rock to ore for mines of varying sizes shows that small open-pit mines are highly 

variable, but the ratios for the largest mines (greater than 900,000 MTs of ore) tend to range from 8:1 to 

20:1. For example, the largest open-pit mine in the United States, the Jackpile-Paguate mine in New 

Mexico, was in the 12:1 range through the first 21 years of production (1953B73) but finished with an 

overall 16:1 ratio before production ceased in early 1982. The nearby St. Anthony open-pit mine had a 

stripping ratio of 10:1. The Shirley basin open-pit complex in Wyoming had an 8:1 waste to ore ratio. 
 

AIV-2

Open-pits in Texas seem to have variable waste to ore ratios ranging from 2:1 to 20:1 for the smaller 

older pits on shallow ore bodies to relatively high values of 20:1 to 50:1 for the deeper deposits. Large 

open-pits dominate production in Wyoming and New Mexico, whereas smaller open-pits occur in 

Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. The Moonlight and Monument #2 open-pits in Arizona are thought to have 

had a 5:1 stripping ratio based on the depth to ore and ore thickness (Chenoweth 1998). Smaller open-pit 

operations in the range of 900 MTs to 900,000 MTs of ore have waste to ore ratios that generally range 

from 10:1 to 30:1. 

The Jackpile-Paguate open-pit mine began production in 1953. Between 1953 and early 1963, 70 MMTs 

of overburden and associated waste and subore material had been removed to acquire 6.0 MMTs of ore (a 

ratio of about 11.8:1, Kittel 1963). By mid-1974, about 110 MMTs of overburden were removed and 9 

MMTs of ore were recovered at an average grade of 0.25% (a 12:1 ratio, Graves 1974). Production ceased 

in early 1982, with a total of 364 MMTs of overburden and related materials removed from the ore body 

and 23 MMTs of ore produced (U.S. BLM 1986), a ratio of 16:1. The mine site contained 32 waste 

dumps and 23 protore dumps segregated according to grade. About 10.5 MMTs of protore were stored 

outside of the pits, and another 4.5 MMTs in dumps within pits. The ratio of all waste to protore was 

about 24:1. About 92 MMTs of backfill, comprised of ore-associated waste and some overburden, were 

returned to the pits during operations. 

Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, open-pit mining was characterized by numerous small to 

moderate-sized open-pit operations with highly variable waste to ore ratios on the Colorado Plateau, by 

large open-pit mines in Wyoming and New Mexico with variable but usually lower waste to ore ratios, 

and by moderate to large open-pit operations in Texas with generally high waste to ore ratios. In the late 

1970s and early 1980s waste to ore ratios for the largest mines appear to have peaked at an average of 

about 30:1 (Bohert and Gerity 1978; Facer et al. 1978). As the price of uranium dropped in the early 

1980s, only the more efficient open-pit operations remained in production and the waste to ore ratios 

probably dropped significantly for the period 1984 to 1992. 

Underground mining operations result in much smaller spoil storage piles than those generated by surface 

mines. Consequently, the waste to ore ratio generally ranges from 20:1 to 1:1 for underground mines, 

with an average ratio of about 9:1 (U.S. EPA 1983b). As with surface mining, this ratio has also increased 

over the years from a range of 5:1 until the early 1970s to about 1:1 by the late 1970s. 
 

AIV-3

Table AIV.1 Waste to Ore Relation for Mines in Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico 

State Waste in tons Ore in tons Ratio

37,300,000 1,945,366 19.2 

6,720,000 264,660 25.4 

2,040,000 52,390 38.9 

220,000 29,000 7.6 

138,600 7,899 17.5 

168,000 35,495 4.7 

5,980,000 117,709 50.8 

1,025,000 575,000 1.8 

1,610,000 117,775 13.7 

TX 

5,300,000 148,294 35.7 

121,106,000 14,687,480 8.2 

405,350,000 10,350,000 39.2 

69,050 10,900 6.3 

28,900 2,347 12.3 

25,200 1,000 25.2 

29,700 4,343 6.8 

7,728 201 38.4 

59,500 1,761 33.8 

15,900 256 62.1 

34,340 259 132.6 

6,540 67 97.6 

30,100 153 196.7 

42,700 54 790.7 

21,190 11 1926.4 

27,330 1,056 25.9 

9,160 358 25.6 

134,160 2,175 61.7 

3,440 61 56.4 

16,300 95 171.6 

72,996 2,341 31.2 

91,140 3,800 24.0 

154,812 4,000 38.7 

4,032 975 4.1 

25,450 22 1156.8 

WY 

10,350 63 164.3 
 

AIV-4

Table AIV.1 Waste to Ore Relation for Mines in Texas, 

Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico (cont.) 

State Waste in tons Ore in tons Ratio

20,160 62 325.2 

7,190 7,130 1.0 

18,600 134 138.8 

37,800 1,270 29.8 

16,180 284 57.0 

22,390 1,345 16.6 

7,140 462 15.5 

18,300 1,471 12.4 

46,940 485 96.8 

WY (cont.) 

3,090 387 8.0 

758 3 252.7 

42,000 926 45.4 

202 7 28.8 

3,920 109 36.0 

61 6 10.1 

55,200 1,363 40.5 

706 123 5.7 

12,440 586 21.2 

4,200 305 13.8 

15,750 794 19.8 

958,220 33,821 28.3 

7,390 563 13.1 

226,800 1,264 179.4 

294,000 1,128 260.6 

19,320 218 88.6 

14,950 1,042 14.3 

2,100 23 91.3 

196,560 2,829 69.5 

22,340 343 65.1 

AZ 

31,080 1,610 19.3 

364,000,000 23,000,000 15.8 

St. Anthony Pit 10.0 

NM 

50,000 10,400 4.8 

Sources: AVI 1986, HE 1987, RCT 1994, Kittel 1963, SRB 1981, Chenoweth 1998, McLenore 1983, Finch 1998. 
 

AIV-5

Uranium ore production rates since 1948 for conventional mining techniques and related 

production amounts of overburden are given in Table AIV.2. As shown in the table, the estimates 

for surface mine ratios (overburden to ore) are based on a factor of 30 for the entire period. This 

approach is believed to arrive at a total waste number for open-pit mines that seems reasonable (i.e. 

should not significantly over- or underestimate the number), considering the waste volumes 

associated with the largest mines (see discussion below). 

For underground mines, a ratio of 3:1 was used for the years 1948B1970, and 1:1 was used for 

1971 and later on. Despite the earlier EPA estimate mentioned previously, it is believed that 

applying a single ratio of 9:1 for all years would significantly underestimate the amount of waste 

generated during the last two decades. 

Based on the preceding discussion, the total overburden produced by open-pit mines is estimated to 

range from 1 billion metric tons to 8 billion metric tons, with an average of 3 billion metric tons. 

For underground mines, the estimate ranges from 5 MMTs to 1 hundred MMTs, averaging 67 

MMTs. Waste produced by open-pit mining is a factor of 45 greater than that for underground 

mining, based on their respective averages. For the range between the low and high estimates, the 

factor is 190 for the low estimate and 80 for the higher one. Thus, the amount of overburden 

generated from open-pit mines far exceeds that from underground mines. 

The four largest mines in Table AIV.1 yield about 30% of the surface mine total; however, the size 

of mines drops dramatically as the rest of the inventory is considered. More than 1,000 of the 1,300 

surface mines that have been operated in the past 50 years have produced less than 900 MTs of ore. 

These mines total less than 30 MMTs of waste, or less than 1% of the median estimate. 

Accordingly, the waste inventory produced by this industry is primarily the result of past 

operations at some 300 surface mines (SC&A 1989). 
 

AIV-6

Table AIV.2. Uranium Ore Production Rates and Overburden 1948—1996

Open-Pit Mining Underground Mining

Overburden (MTs) Overburden (MTs)

Year 

Ore (MTs)

Low Avg. High

Ore (MTs)

Low Avg. High

1948 <9.0E+02 9.1E+03 2.7E+04 7.3E+04 3.4E+04 1.7E+03 1.1E+04 3.4E+04 

1949 9.1E+02 9.1E+03 2.7E+04 7.3E+04 1.6E+05 7.8E+03 5.2E+04 1.6E+05 

1950 2.1E+04 2.1E+05 6.3E+05 1.7E+06 2.1E+05 1.0E+04 6.9E+04 2.1E+05 

1951 2.5E+04 2.5E+05 7.6E+05 2.0E+06 2.9E+05 1.4E+04 9.6E+04 2.9E+05 

1952 5.9E+04 5.9E+05 1.8E+06 4.7E+06 3.4E+05 1.7E+04 1.1E+05 3.4E+05 

1953 1.6E+05 1.6E+06 4.9E+06 1.3E+07 5.0E+05 2.5E+04 1.7E+05 5.0E+05 

1954 2.4E+05 2.4E+06 7.2E+06 1.9E+07 7.6E+05 3.8E+04 2.5E+05 7.6E+05 

1955 3.4E+05 3.4E+06 1.0E+07 2.7E+07 1.0E+06 5.2E+04 3.5E+05 1.0E+06 

1956 1.1E+06 1.1E+07 3.4E+07 9.1E+07 1.6E+06 8.0E+04 5.3E+05 1.6E+06 

1957 1.5E+06 1.5E+07 4.4E+07 1.2E+08 1.9E+06 9.4E+04 6.3E+05 1.9E+06 

1958 2.1E+06 2.1E+07 6.4E+07 1.7E+08 2.6E+06 1.3E+05 8.5E+05 2.6E+06 

1959 2.0E+06 2.0E+07 6.0E+07 1.6E+08 4.3E+06 2.2E+05 1.4E+06 4.3E+06 

1960 2.2E+06 2.2E+07 6.5E+07 1.7E+08 5.1E+06 2.5E+05 1.7E+06 5.1E+06 

1961 2.3E+06 2.3E+07 6.8E+07 1.8E+08 5.0E+06 2.5E+05 1.7E+06 5.0E+06 

1962 1.6E+06 1.6E+07 4.8E+07 1.3E+08 4.8E+06 2.4E+05 1.6E+06 4.8E+06 

1963 1.7E+06 1.7E+07 5.1E+07 1.4E+08 3.7E+06 1.8E+05 1.2E+06 3.7E+06 

1964 1.4E+06 1.4E+07 4.2E+07 1.1E+08 3.4E+06 1.7E+05 1.1E+06 3.4E+06 

1965 1.1E+06 1.1E+07 3.4E+07 9.0E+07 2.8E+06 1.4E+05 9.5E+05 2.8E+06 

1966 1.2E+06 1.2E+07 3.6E+07 9.7E+07 2.7E+06 1.4E+05 9.1E+05 2.7E+06 

1967 1.4E+06 1.4E+07 4.3E+07 1.2E+08 3.4E+06 1.7E+05 1.1E+06 3.4E+06 

1968 2.1E+06 2.1E+07 6.4E+07 1.7E+08 3.7E+06 1.9E+05 1.2E+06 3.7E+06 

1969 2.0E+06 2.0E+07 5.9E+07 1.6E+08 3.4E+06 1.7E+05 1.1E+06 3.4E+06 

1970 2.5E+06 2.5E+07 7.6E+07 2.0E+08 3.2E+06 1.6E+05 1.1E+06 3.2E+06 

1971 3.0E+06 3.0E+07 8.9E+07 2.4E+08 2.7E+06 1.4E+05 2.7E+06 2.7E+06 

1972 3.5E+06 3.5E+07 1.1E+08 2.8E+08 2.3E+06 1.1E+05 2.3E+06 2.3E+06 

1973 4.1E+06 4.1E+07 1.2E+08 3.3E+08 1.8E+06 9.0E+04 1.8E+06 1.8E+06 

1974 3.8E+06 3.8E+07 1.1E+08 3.1E+08 2.6E+06 1.3E+05 2.6E+06 2.6E+06 

1975 3.9E+06 3.9E+07 1.2E+08 3.1E+08 2.5E+06 1.3E+05 2.5E+06 2.5E+06 

1976 4.2E+06 4.2E+07 1.3E+08 3.4E+08 3.6E+06 1.8E+05 3.6E+06 3.6E+06 

1977 5.1E+06 5.1E+07 1.5E+08 4.0E+08 4.3E+06 2.2E+05 4.3E+06 4.3E+06 

1978 7.5E+06 7.5E+07 2.2E+08 6.0E+08 5.5E+06 2.8E+05 5.5E+06 5.5E+06 

1979 8.8E+06 8.8E+07 2.6E+08 7.0E+08 4.9E+06 2.4E+05 4.9E+06 4.9E+06 

1980 9.4E+06 9.4E+07 2.8E+08 7.5E+08 5.8E+06 2.9E+05 5.8E+06 5.8E+06 

1981 7.7E+06 7.7E+07 2.3E+08 6.1E+08 4.7E+06 2.4E+05 4.7E+06 4.7E+06 

1982 5.0E+06 5.0E+07 1.5E+08 4.0E+08 2.5E+06 1.3E+05 2.5E+06 2.5E+06 

1983 4.4E+06 4.4E+07 1.3E+08 3.6E+08 2.3E+06 1.1E+05 2.3E+06 2.3E+06 
 

AIV-7

Table AIV.2. Uranium Ore Production Rates and Overburden 1948—1996 (cont.) 

a Ore volumes not reported by mining category; volumes based on annual average uranium content of ore. 

Open-Pit Mining Underground Mining

Overburden (MTs) Ore (MTs) Overburden (MTs)

Year 

Ore (MTs)

Low Avg. High Low Avg. High

1984 1.8E+06 1.8E+07 5.4E+07 1.4E+08 9.3E+05 4.7E+04 9.3E+05 9.3E+05 

1985 8.5E+05 8.5E+06 2.5E+07 6.8E+07 5.2E+05 2.6E+04 5.2E+05 5.2E+05 

1986 1.3E+05 1.3E+06 3.8E+06 1.0E+07 6.0E+05 3.0E+04 6.0E+05 6.0E+05 

1987a 1.7E+05 1.7E+06 5.1E+06 1.4E+06 7.8E+05 3.9E+04 4.6E+05 4.6E+05 

1988a 6.5E+05 6.5E+06 2.0E+07 5.2E+07 8.5E+05 4.3E+04 4.7E+05 4.7E+05 

1989a 6.2E+05 6.2E+06 1.9E+07 5.0E+07 7.3E+05 3.7E+04 7.3E+05 7.3E+05 

1990a 2.9E+05 2.9E+06 8.7E+06 2.3E+07 2.8E+05 1.4E+04 2.8E+05 2.8E+05 

1991a 6.0E+05 6.0E+06 1.8E+07 4.8E+07 6.0E+05 3.0E+04 6.0E+05 6.0E+05 

1992 <9.0E+02 -- -- -- <9.0E+02 -- -- -- 

1993 none -- -- -- none -- -- -- 

1994 none -- -- -- none -- -- -- 

1995 none -- -- -- none -- -- -- 

1996 none -- -- -- <9.0E+02 -- -- -- 

Total 1.03E+08 1.03E+09 3.08E+09 8.21E+09 1.06E+08 5.29E+06 6.91E+7 1.06E+08

1948B1987 1.0E+09 3.0E+09 8.0E+09 5.2E+06 6.7E+07 1.0E+08 

1987B1996 2.3E+07 6.7E+07 1.7E+08 1.6E+05 2.5E+06 2.5E+06 
AV-1

Appendix V. Radiochemical Data for Uranium Overburden and Waste Rock, 

Pit Lakes and Streams, and In Situ Leach Operations

Introduction 

The following tables present radionuclide concentration data on solid and liquid wastes at conventional 

mines, pit lakes and streams, and from in situ leach operations. The data compiled has come from a wide 

variety of sources, many or most without uncertainty limits on the data provided. However, the 

information is instructive in providing a range of values for these wastes from numerous mines and 

facilities throughout the west. 

In several of the sources, measurements were reported for samples taken from conventional mine “waste” 

or “spoils” or “dumps” without distinguishing between overburden, soil, or waste rock, or potentially 

protore. Nevertheless, those studies provide a sense of how radioactive the wastes may be at those sites.
AV-2

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

AVI 1991 Avg. of 54 

analyses 

30.7 

(1.14) 

15.2 

(0.56) 

 

Bullrush spoils, 

drill hole data 

Range of 54 

analyses 

2B299 

(0.07B3.7) 

2-140 

(0.07B5.18) 

 

Whitworth 1996 Mine waste, avg. 24.4 

(0.9) 

28.2 

(1.04) 

 

La Bajada Mine, 

NM 

Protore, avg. 75 

(2.78) 

613.5 

(2.28) 

 

Protore, NM 59 

(2.18) 

78.4 

(0.259) 

 

Protore 71.4 

(2.64) 

51.4 

(1.9) 

 

Protore 112 

(4.14) 

88.9 

(3.29) 

 

Protore 122 

(4.51) 

55.8 

(2.06) 

 

Protore 63.7 

(2.36) 

66.4 

(2.46) 

 

Waste 1.47 

(0.05) 

1.71 

(0.06) 

 

Waste 9.3 

(0.34) 

7.8 

(0.29) 

 

Waste 4.2 

(0.16) 

3.5 

(0.13) 

 

Waste 34.5 

(12.77) 

30 

(1.11) 

 

Protore, WY 8.55 

(0.32) 

37.4 

(1.38) 

 

Waste 17.6 

(0.65) 

1.17 

(0.04) 

 

Waste 1.35 

(0.05) 

10.8 

(0.4) 

 

Soil 0.51 

(0.02) 

0.71 

(0.02) 

 

Protore 129 

(4.77) 

82.2 

(0.3) 

 

Waste 1.23 

(0.05) 

 

Waste 0.81 

(0.03) 

 

Waste 0.61 

(0.02) 

3.2 

(0.12) 

 

Waste 1.17 

(0.04) 

1.06 

(0.04) 

 

PEDCO 1983 

Protore 54.4 

(2.0) 

67.9 

(2.51) 

 
AV-3

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

(cont.) 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

Waste 0.93 

(0.03) 

2.15 

(0.08) 

 

Waste 0.18 

(0.01) 

2.74 

(0.1) 

 

Soil 1.55 

(0.11) 

1 

(0.04) 

 

Protore 97.1 

(3.59) 

148 

(0.67) 

 

Waste 7.1 

(0.26) 

5 

(0.19) 

 

Waste 4.9 

(0.19) 

6.3 

(0.23) 

 

Soil 4 

(0.15) 

3.9 

(0.14) 

 

Waste, μg 26.4 32.4 

Waste, μg 5.8 6.1 

Waste, μg 15.7 11.6 

Waste, μg 24 16.4 

Waste, μg 58.3 31.9 

Waste, μg 58.7 39.4 

Waste 6.2 

(0.23) 

4.4 

(0.16) 

Protore 137 

(5.07) 

118 

(4.37) 

Waste 30.5 

(1.13) 

25.8 

0.95) 

Protore 215 

(7.96) 

76.5 

(2.83) 

Waste 30.8 

(1.14) 

27.9 

(1.03) 

Waste 23.9 

(0.88) 

17.2 

(0.04) 

Waste, μg 54.3 40 

PEDCO 1983 

(cont.) 

Waste, μg 12.4 8 

Boulder sites 40B100 

Uravan 50B220 

S.M., waste 35B275 

ore 100B350 

overburden 20B120 

EPA 1983 

below ground 10B13 
AV-4

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

(cont.) 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

Mesa Top, waste 25B290 

Barb Jo, waste 2B170 

Poison C.,waste 65B250 

overburden 25B65 

Morton R., 

protore 

 200 

EPA 1983 

(cont.) 

overburden 59B138 

Orphan (μg), AZ 

median 

 250 

San Mateo (μg) 

spoils 

 10B450 

San M., NM avg. 200 

Lathrop mine 

(μg), waste 

 270B400 

 250 

 170B180 

 212 

(7.84) 

54 

(2.0) 

 

 57 

(2.11) 

81 

(3.0) 

 

 2.7 

(0.1) 

6.3 

(0.23) 

 

 40 

(1.48) 

47 

(1.74) 

 

Muss 4.3 

(0.16) 

 

 1.28 

(0.05) 

 

 4.3 

(0.16) 

 

Jomac 163 

(6.03) 

110 

(4.1) 

 

 35 

(1.3) 

206 

(7.62) 

 

Cath. Butte 17 

(0.63) 

25 

(0.93) 

 

Blue N. 7.3 

(0.28) 

8.5 

(0.31) 

 

 22 

(0.81) 

26 

(0.96) 

 

W. Rk. Cn. 15.3 

(0.57) 

18 

(0.67) 

 

 32 

(0.67) 

21 

(0.78) 

 

Burghardt 1998 

Various surveys 

Terry 188 

(6.96) 

170 

(6.29) 

 
AV-5

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

(cont.) 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

 2.3 

(0.09) 

3.2 

0.12) 

 

Rainy Day 70 

(2.59) 

48 

(1.78) 

 

 56.7 

(2.1) 

1.5 

(0.06) 

 

 1.7 

(0.06) 

3.8 

(0.14) 

 

Burghardt 1998 

Various surveys 

(cont.) 

 3.1 

(0.11) 

12 

(0.44) 

 

Monument Valley Cameron area AZ/UT 

Moonlight Mine 18B22 

 43B630 

 185B320 

Jeepster 18B23 

 19B20 

 5B20 

 47B150 

Jack Daniels 70B190 

 35B220 

 27B85 

Longsworth 1994 

 33B75 

Moore et al. 1996 South spoil, drill 

hole avg. 

85 ppm 

Midnite Mine, 

WA 

Hillside spoil, 

drill hole avg. 

82 ppm 

Shirley Basin, 

WY 

AVI 1986 

all piles, avg. 11.5 

(0.43) 

 

Rox ore pile, avg. 400 

GV area, avg. 120 

H&I, avg. 150 

G spoils, avg. 150 

Stan claims, avg. 500 

B/R spoils, avg. 150 

2States/Bl, avg. 250 

Umetco, spoils, E 120 

S 280 

Sunset sp, avg. 200 

max. 2,000 

S-T spoils 50B150 

Bullrush, avg. 90 

P73 av 300 

Classic/Bar 

protore 

 300B500 

LAI 1996 

North Rex, avg. 40 
AV-6

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

(cont.) 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

Pix-Veca pile, 

drill hole avg. 

 11.4 

(0.42) 

 

P-V, avg. 1,200 

meas. 

 113 

(4.2) 

HE 1989 

P-V surface avg. 27.2 

(1.0) 

 

AVI 1990 Poison Basinprotore  55B140 

(2.04B5.18) 

250B600 

Pump Bts. Smpls 35 

(1.3) 

87 

(3.22) 

170 

 52 

(1.92) 

126 

(0.44) 

300 

 27 

(1.0) 

45 

(1.67) 

105 

 2.1 

(0.08) 

9 

(0.33) 

70 

Jean-avg. ore 

piles 

 140 

Key- below 

ground 

22.1 

(0.82) 

12.7 

(0.47) 

40 

waste 20.9 

(0.77) 

32.8 

(1.21) 

70 

HE 1987 

ore 688 

(25.46) 

185.6 

(68.67) 

300 

Gas Hills-Jgpile, 

avg. 

 33.8 

Jpile, avg. 15.5 

(0.57) 

 

FPE 1988 

Kpile, avg. 7.2 

(0.27) 

 

Converse County, 

WY 

 

Avg. of 677,482 

yds 

of protore 170 ppm 

Site II-avg. 51 

(1.89) 

74 30.7 

(1.14) 

range 17B180 

(0.63-6.67) 

3.4-160 

WY AML Project 

15 

Average all drill 

hole in 

waste/protore 

piles 11 sites 

93.6ppm 49.6 

(1.84) 

 

RCT 1994 Range of 82 

smpls of 

soil/spoil from 10 

sites 

<.85B668 ppm 
AV-7

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

(cont.) 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

Jackpile-Paguate, 

NM 

 

Dump A waste 4.5 ppm 11 

(0.41) 

B waste 2.7 ppm 10 

(0.37) 

C waste 2.7 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

D waste 4.05 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

E waste 1.5 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

F waste 4.03 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

1.1 

(0.04) 

G waste 5.82 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

4.15 

(0.15) 

H waste 146.8 ppm 29 

(1.07) 

I waste 10.0 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

J waste 10.66 ppm 75 

(2.78) 

K waste 20.30 ppm 7 

(0.26) 

2.7 

(0.10) 

L waste 5.5 ppm 5 

(0.19) 

2.57 

(0.1) 

N waste 42.0 ppm 9 

(0.33) 

N2 waste 200.0 ppm 30 

(1.11) 

O, P, P1, P2 

waste 

3.12 ppm 12 

(0.44) 

Q waste 160.0 ppm 68 

(2.52) 

R waste 11.0 ppm 24 

(0.89) 

S waste 2.79 ppm 10 

(0.37) 

T waste 3.9 ppm 9 

(0.33) 

U waste 34.3 ppm 52 

(1.92) 

V waste 13.9 ppm 34 

(1.26) 

W waste 2.5 ppm 10 

(0.37) 

X waste 18.0 ppm 5 

U.S. BLM 1986 

Y waste 33.4 ppm 13 
AV-8

Table AV.1 Radiochemical, Exposure, and Radon Flux Data for Uranium Mine Waste 

(cont.) 

DataSource Type of Data U(nat) 

pCi/g1

 (Bq/g) 

Ra-226 

pCi/g1 (Bq/g) 

MicroR/hr Radon Flux 

Y2 waste 4.2 ppm 5 

South waste 4.9 ppm 8 

FD-1 waste 2.7 ppm 10 

FD-2 waste 45.0 ppm 3 

FD-3 waste 14.0 ppm 28 

17BC protore 220.0 ppm 581 

6A protore 200.0 ppm 388 

6B protore 130.0 ppm 383 

J1 protore 94.0 ppm 155 

J2 protore 490.0 ppm 606 

17D protore 520.0 ppm 198 

1B protore 140.0 ppm 237 

2C protore 110.0 ppm 422 

10 protore 390.0 ppm 506 

2D protore 180.0 ppm 419 

1C protore 61.0 ppm 227 

1A protore 31.0 ppm 161 

2E protore 220.0 ppm 451 

SP-1 protore 130.0 ppm 354 

PLG protore 5.0 ppm 210 

4-1 protore 77.0 ppm 266 

SP-2 protore 180.0 ppm 300 

SP-2B protore 610.0 ppm 164 

TS-1 soil pile 4.9 ppm 8 

TS-2A soil pile 4.9 ppm 18 

TS-2B soil pile 2.9 ppm 6 

TS-3 soil pile 3.6 ppm 11 

U.S. BLM 1986 

(cont.) 

Topsoil borrow 4.1 ppm 17 

Ascensión mine Front Range of 

CO 

 

Waste/prot avg. 

41 sites 

 45.7 

(1.69) 

 

Otton 1998 

Protore range 294B421 

(10.88B15.58) 

680B1,100 
AV-9

Table AV.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Ponds and Streams Associated 

with Open-pit Mines in Arizona, Texas, Utah and New Mexico 

Data Source Type of Data U-238 

ppb 

U-235 

pCi/L 

Ra-226 

pCi/L 

Monument Valley 

area, AZBUT 

Longsworth 1994 

Moonlight 

MineCshallow well 

11000 440 

(1.63) 

44 

(1.63) 

Moonlight 

MineCshallow well 

14000 530 

(19.61) 

110 

(4.07) 

Moonlight MineCpit 

water 

- - 8.6 

(0.32) 

Radium 

HillCdrillhole water 

210 12 

(0.04) 

19 

(0.7) 

Radium HillCshallow 

well 

0.5 <0.1 0.16 

(0.01) 

Cameron area, AZ 

Jeepster MineCpit 

water 

22 0.8 

(0.03) 

0.25 

(0.01) 

Jack Daniels 

MineCground water 

150 5.7 

(0.21) 

0.1 

Jack Daniels 

MineCpit water 

11 0.4 

(0.01) 

0.07 

Manuel-Denetsone 

Cdrillhole water 

180 8.9 

(0.33) 

0.52 

(0.02) 

Ramco No. 20Csmall 

pit water 

15 0.6 

(0.02) 

0.09 

AZ-UT deposits 

 U ppb 

Open-pit mine water 

samples 

 

Stoeltje 600 

 700 

Manka 250 

 200 

 300 

 220 

I.M. Brysch 12 

 <1 

 14 

Galen <1 

Butler 180 

 180 

 42 

 45 

 <1 

 <1 

RCT 1994 

Texas mines. 

65 
AV-10

Table AV.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Ponds and Streams Associated 

with Open-pit Mines in Arizona, Texas, Utah and New Mexico 

(cont.) 

Data Source Type of Data U-238 

ppb 

U-235 

pCi/L 

Ra-226 

pCi/L 

Wright-McCrady 49 

 49 

Esse 49 

 49 

Sickenius 240 

 230 

Kopplin 72 

 82 

Smith 4,500 

 4,500 

Pfeil 57 

 25 

Weddington South 25 

 49 

Kellner-Tenneco 

Weddington 

220 

 170 

 200 

 300 

Franklin 18 

RCT 1994 

Texas mines. 

(cont.) 

 7 

South PaguateCpit 

pond, N.M. 

 21.1 

(0.78) 

North PaguateCpit 

pond 

 36 

(1.33) 

South JackpileCpit 

pond 

 18 

(0.67) 

North JackpileCpit 

pond 

 16.1 

(0.60) 

Rio 

PaguateCupstream 

from mine 

6 0.35 

(0.01) 

Rio 

MoquinoCupstream 

from mine 

8 0.28 

(0.01) 

Below 

confluenceCdown 

from mine 

239 3.73 

(0.14) 

U.S. BLM 1986 

Paguate 

ReservoirCdown from 

mine 

236 1.03 

(0.04) 
AV-11

The following licensed ISL facilities are under the environmental oversight and regulation of the NRC 

and its Agreement States. The wastes from these facilities are considered byproduct materials and not 

TENORM. The information presented here is for information purposes only. 

Table AV.3. In Situ Leach Operation Evaporation Pond Radionuclides, 

Crow Butte, Nebraska 

Radionuclides Pond Liquids (uCi/ml)

Lead-210 0.66 x 10-9

Polonium-210 0.70 x 10-9

Radium 0.65 x 10-9

Radon 0.70 x 10-4

Thorium-230 2.28 x 10-9

Uranium 5.24 x 10-9

Source: NRC License Application Supporting Materials. 
AV-12

Table AV.4.1 In Situ Leach Operation Evaporation Pond Radionuclides COGEMA, 

Irigaray Field, Wyoming 

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Sample Loc. /Date Total U 

 mg/L 

Ra 226 pCi/L 

+/- Precision 

Ra 226 Bq/L 

+/- Precision 

IR-1 01/21/99 7.0 3.9/ 0.3 0.14/0.01

IR-1 04/16/99 18.3 8.1/0.5 0.30/0.02

IR-2A 01/21/99 15.1 46.3/1.9 1.71/0.07

IR-2A 04/16/99 1.90 68.9/2.4 2.55/0.9

IR-2B 01/21/99 6.0 29.1/1.5 1.08/0.07

IR-2B 04/16/99 3.96 50.5/2.0 1.87/0.07

IR-3 01/21/99 1.9 17.3/1.3 0.64/0.05

IR-3 04/16/99 0.746 8.4/0.5 0.31/0.02

IR-A 01/21/99 39.8 135/4.2 5.0/0.16

IR-A 04/16/99 36.0 151/4.7 5.59/0.17

IR-B 01/21/99 11.5 471/7.8 17.43/0.29

IR-B 04/16/99 11.8 439/7.9 16.24/0.29

IR-C 01/21/99 3.2 439/7.4 16.24/0.3

IR-C 04/16/99 3.0 325/5.4 12.03/0.2

IR-D 01/21/99 6.6 580/8.6 21.46/0.32

IR-D 04/16/99 6.0 529/6.6 19.57/0.24

IR-E 01/21/99 13.6 1,716/14.6 63.49/0.54

IR-E 04/16/99 13.4 1,760/12.3 65.12/0.46

IR-RA 01/21/99 3.0 16.9/1.2 0.63/0.04

IR-RA 04/16/99 31.0 39.0/1.9 1.44/0.07

IR-RB 01/21/99 46.5 5.1/0.4 0.19/0.01

IR-RB 04/16/99 86.0 11.5/1 0.43/0.04
AV-13

Table V.4.2. In Situ Leach Operation Evaporation Pond Radionuclides COGEMA, 

Christensen Ranch Field, Wyoming 

Sample Loc. /Date Total U Ra 226 pCi/L Ra 226 Bq/L

CR-1 01/21/99 8.6 107/2.9 3.96/0.11

CR-1 04/16/99 6.6 97.5/2.8 3.61/0.1

CR-2 01/21/99 1.10 1.5/0.2 0.06/0.01

CR-2 04/16/99 18.10 3.1/0.3 0.11/0.01

CR-3 01/21/99 0.443 1.4/0.2 0.05/0.007

CR-3 04/16/99 2.00 37.8/1.8 1.4/0.07

CR-4 01/21/99 0.07 1.5/0.2 0.06/0.007

CR-4 04/16/99 0.3160 23.7/1.4 0.88/0.05

CR-P1 01/21/99 0.021 0.8/0.2 0.03/0.007

CR-P1 04/16/99 0.0166 6.0/0.4 0.22/0.15

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AV-14

Table AV.5. In Situ Leach Operation Evaporation Pond Radionuclides, 

Power Resources, Inc. Highlands Uranium Project, Wyoming 

Purge Storage Reservoir PSR-1 Purge Storage Reservoir PSR-2 

Ra-226 Ra-226 

Date pCi/L Bq/L Date pCi/L Bq/L 

01/10/97 3.14 0.12 01/09/97 5.50 0.20 

02/03/97 1.36 0.05 02/07/97 2.47 0.09 

03/05/97 2.26 0.08 03/05/97 3.70 0.14 

04/01/97 2.10 0.07 04/03/97 9.50 0.35 

05/05/97 2.00 0.07 05/08/97 7.45 0.27 

06/03/97 2.10 0.07 06/18/97 1.20 0.04 

07/02/97 2.24 0.08 07/03/97 2.15 0.08 

08/04/97 1.50 0.06 08/01/98 4.50 0.17 

09/03/97 5.60 0.21 09/05/97 4.20 0.16 

10/02/97 1.34 0.05 10/16/97 1.38 0.05 

11/06/97 4.13 0.15 11/13/97 5.60 0.21 

10/01/97 2.36 0.09 12/03/97 8.10 0.30 

01/05/98 6.70 0.25 01/06/98 2.30 0.09 

02/02/98 2.68 0.10 02/10/98 3.60 0.13 

03/02/99 2.99 0.11 03/10/99 3.10 0.11 

04/07/98 1.21 0.04 04/06/98 1.71 0.06 

05/04/98 3.60 0.13 05/07/98 2.10 0.08 

06/03/98 4.10 0.15 06/09/98 4.00 0.15 

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AV-15

Table AV.5. In Situ Leach Operation Evaporation Pond Radionuclides, 

Power Resources, Inc. Highlands Uranium Project, Wyoming (cont.) 

E Radium Settling Basin W Radium Settling Basin 

U Total Ra-226 U Total Ra-226 

Date pCi/L Bq/L pCi/L Bq/L pCi/L Bq/L pCi/L Bq/L 

03/20/97 4.60 0.17 1.30 0.05 5.30 0.20 8.30 0.31

06/30/97 3.00 0.11 5.10 0.19 3.00 0.11 5.10 0.19

09/03/97 2.26 0.08 8.00 0.30 2.18 0.08 1.20 0.04

12/30/97 5.96 0.22 7.00 0.26 4.29 0.16 1.10 0.04

03/24/98 4.80 0.18 1.20 0.04 3.61 0.13 2.80 0.10

06/22/98 4.85 0.18 1.30 0.05 2.26 0.08 9.00 0.33

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AV-16

Table AV.6. In Situ Leach Operation Evaporation Pond Radionuclides Rio Algom 

Mining Corp. (Now owned by Power Resources) Smith Ranch Project, Wyoming 

Evaporation Pond Water Analyses Q&S Sand In Situ Leaching 

Location East Cell West Cell 

Date U mg/L Ra226 

pCi/L (Bq/L) 

Th230 

pCi/L (Bq/L) 

U mg/L Ra226 

pCi/L (Bq/L) 

Th230 

pCi/L (Bq/L) 

1st Qtr. 1982 1,100 2,378 (87.99) 16 172 (6.36) 

2nd Qtr. 1982 784 456 (16.88) 49 1,804 (66.75) 

3rd Qtr. 1982 38 100 (3.7) 132 2,119 (78.4) 

4th Qtr. 1982 275 315 (11.66) 131 1,779 (65.82) 

1st Qtr. 1983 4 86 (0.15) 2 22 (0.81) 

2nd Qtr. 1983 79 216 (0.96) 1 36 (1.33) 

3rd Qtr. 1983 13 108 (0.07) 14 44 (1.63) 

4th Qtr. 1983 103 483 (17.87) 100 553 (20.46) 

1st Qtr. 1984 22 42(1.55) 1 34 (1.26) 

2nd Qtr. 1984 55 183 (6.77) 121 224 (8.29) 

3rd Qtr. 1984 105 21 (0.78) 105 7 (0.26) 

4th Qtr. 1984 141 5,095 (188.52) -- -- 

1st Qtr. 1985 12 3,030 (112.11) -- -- 

2nd Qtr. 1985 .20 643 (23.79) .17 1,149 (42.51) 

3rd Qtr. 1985 .23 510 (18.87) .23 490 (18.13) 

4th Qtr. 1985 .21 754 (27.90) .22 552 (20.42) 

1st Qtr. 1986 .33 184 (6.8) .14 423 (15.65) 

2nd Qtr. 1986 .25 1,366 (50.54) .20 923 (34.15) 

3rd Qtr. 1986 .39 3,253 (120.36) .38 2,081 (77.0) 

4th Qtr. 1986 .32 4 (0.15) .27 41 (1.52) 

1st Qtr. 1987 .24 772 (2.86) .25 755 (27.94) 

2nd Qtr. 1987 .25 1912 (70.74) .23 560 (20.72) 

1st Half 1997 69.7 3,230 (119.51) 15.4 (0.57) 137 74.6 (2.76) 1.1 (0.04) 

2nd Half 1997 27.8 57.1 (2.11) 0 

2nd Half 1999 92.4 945 (34.97) 6.2 (0.23) 70.8 203 (0.1) 0.7 (0.03) 

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
AV-17

The evaporation ponds were being sampled semiannually. Gamma radiation was measured quarterly at 

the evaporation ponds. The measurements obtained during the 1st & 2nd quarters of 1999 were 71 and 27 

uR/hr, respectively. 

Table AV.7. Evaporation Pond Leaks, Smith Ranch Project, Wyoming 

Location Date U (nat) mg/L 

East Pond 01/13/99 6.19 

East Pond Stand Pipe 01/13/99 6.89 

East Pond Stand Pipe 02/08/99 25.8 

East Pond Sump 05/04/99 28 

West Pond Sump 05/04/99 65 

West Pond Sump 06/25/99 166 

West Pond 10/23/99 75 

West Pond Sump 10/23/99 193 

West Pond Sump 10/29/99 150 

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Table AV.8. Deep-well Injection, Smith Ranch In Situ Leach Facility, Wyoming 

The following is a table of the amounts and concentration of U Nat & Ra-226 

disposed by UIC injection in 1998, 1999. 

Date Gals./month (liters/month) Nat. Uranium mg/L * Radium-226 pCi/L* 

(Bq/L) 

June 1998 27.5 1,250 (46.25) 

Sept. 1998 5.0 1,300 (48.10) 

Dec. 1998 17.5 1,550 (57.35) 

Jan. 1999 1,869,362 (7,076,095.9) 

Feb. 1999 1,832,431 (6,936,722.5) 

Mar. 1999 1,867,385 (7,068,612.4) 10.0 1,450 (53.65) 

April 1999 1,906,162 (7,215,395.0) 

May 1999 1,952,301 (7,390,044.9) 

June 1999 1,713,467 (6,485,960.1) 19.0 1,050 (38.85) 

* = Values estimated from graph. 

Source: Quarterly Environmental Reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
AVI-1

Appendix VI. Legal Authorities Concerning Uranium, 

Uranium Mines and Extraction Facilities 

Introduction 

This section presents information on the authorities under which major federal, state and Tribal 

agencies operate. These authorities have been used to establish regulatory standards and 

requirements, and could potentially be used to develop additional guidances, or take other actions 

for the control of uranium TENORM, uranium mining, and uranium extraction facilities. 

U.S. EPA 

More than a dozen major statutes or laws form the legal basis for the programs of the EPA. EPA 

authority to develop radiation protection standards and to regulate radioactive materials including 

TENORM is derived from a number of those federal laws, plus Executive Orders. 

The authority to develop Federal guidance for radiation protection was originally given to the 

Federal Radiation Council (FRC) by Executive Order in 1959 as an offshoot of authorities of the 

Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)(1954). Over the next decade the FRC developed 

federal guidance ranging from guidance for exposure of the general public, to estimates of fallout 

from nuclear weapons testing. Federal guidance developed by the FRC provided the basis for 

most regulation of radiation exposure by federal and state agencies, prior to the establishment of 

the EPA. 

In 1970, the responsibility for developing Federal guidance for radiation protection was 

transferred from the FRC to the newly formed EPA under Executive Order 10831 and 

Reorganization Plan No. 3. Federal Guidance Documents are signed by the President and issued 

by EPA. By signing these, the President provides a framework for federal and state agencies to 

develop regulations that ensure the public is protected from the harmful effects of ionizing 

radiation. Federal Guidance is also an opportunity for the President to promote national 

consistency in radiation protection regulations. For example, the guidance document Radiation 

Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure, issued by EPA in 52 CFR 

2822 January 27, 1987, established general principles, and specifies the numerical primary guides 

for limiting worker exposure to radiation. 

Clean Air Act (CAA)

EPA regulates radon and radioisotope emissions through its authority under the Clean Air Act (42 

USC 7401 et seq.) (1970). Regulations promulgated by the Agency which control radioactive 

facilities and sites include 40 CFR 61: 

$ Subpart B, Underground Uranium Mines 

$ Subpart H, Department of Energy Facilities 

$ Subpart I, Certain non-DOE Facilities 

$ Subpart K, Elemental Phosphorous Plants 

$ Subpart R, Radon from Phosphogypsum Stacks 

Under the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act (USC 42 et seq.)(1986) and Indoor 

Radon Abatement Act (1988), as well as authorities of the CAA, EPA has developed guidance for 
AVI-2

control of radon in homes, buildings and schools, and more recently for drinking water treatment 

and wastewater treatment facilities (U.S. EPA 2005, ISCORS 2005). 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. 

Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act's (33 USC 121 et seq., 1977) primary objective is to restore and maintain 

the integrity of the nation's waters. This objective translates into two fundamental national goals: 

eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters, and achieve water quality levels that 

are fishable and swimmable. Under this law, EPA is given the authority to establish water quality 

standards and regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, and this is 

performed under EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A point 

source is defined as any discrete conveyance, natural or man made, including pipes, ditches, and 

channels, and NPDES permits are issued by EPA or delegated States. 

Section 502(6) of the CWA includes Aradioactive materials@ in the definition of pollutants. EPA=s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 122.2, which defines the term Apollutants@ includes 

radioactive materials except those regulated under the AEA. The law also gives EPA the 

authority to regulate, through permits, storm water discharges from both inactive and active mine 

sites. Mines and mills that discharge must obtain a permit, and must monitor twice a year for 

specific pollutants determined by the type of ore they mine or process. EPA regulations in 40 

CFR 440, Part C, are applicable to discharges from (a) mines either open-pit or underground (ISL 

operations are excluded), from which uranium, radium and vanadium ores are produced; and (b) 

mills using the acid leach, alkaline leach, or combined acid and alkaline leach process for the 

extraction of uranium, radium and vanadium. 

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 ISL methods. Discharges from regulated operations must 

meet best available technology/best practicable technology (BAT/BPCT) standards for zinc, 

arsenic, ammonia, dissolved radium-226, total radium, uranium, total suspended solids (TSS), 

chemical oxygen demand (COD), and pH. A summary of the standards is included in Chapter 1, 

as well as in more detail in U.S. EPA (1995a), and 40 CFR 440 Subpart C: 440.32, 440.33, and 

440.34. 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). 

Except as provided in cases of unusually high storm water events, EPA has regulated that there 

shall be no discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters from mills using the acid leach, 

alkaline leach or combined acid and alkaline leach process for the extraction of uranium or from 

mines and mills using ISL methods. The only exception occurs if annual precipitation falling on 

the treatment facility and the drainage area contributing surface runoff to the mine or mill’s water 

treatment facility exceeds the annual evaporation. In such cases, the volume of water exceeding 

annual evaporation may be discharged subject to the numerical limitations for uranium and 

radium discharge mentioned above. 

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 
AVI-3

prepare nonpoint source assessment reports and to develop programs to address nonpoint sources, 

including active and inactive/abandoned mine sites, on a watershed-by-watershed basis. Each 

state must report to EPA annually on program implementation and resulting water quality 

improvements. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f et seq., 1974), is the main federal law that ensures 

the quality of Americans' drinking water. Under the SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking 

water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those 

standards. Implementing regulations for 40 CFR 141 include the establishment of national 

primary drinking water standards which currently include maximum contaminant level goals and 

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for radiation and radionuclides. The standards also include 

combined Ra-226 and Ra-228, Uranium, gross alpha excluding uranium and radon, man-made 

beta and photon emitters. A draft MCL has also been proposed for Radon. EPA established a UIC 

program under the authority of the SDWA. Through this program, the Agency has 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. 

EPA's UIC regulations protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) by prohibiting 

the direct injection or migration of foreign fluids into these aquifers. A USDW 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 ISL 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. Enforcement of the requirements of the SDWA may be delegated by EPA to states. 
AVI-4

Under the regulations, EPA may permit injection wells for uranium ISL operations. In doing so, 

the Agency usually exempts that portion of an aquifer constituting the well field from meeting 

drinking water standards. However, the operator of the ISL restores the well field to either 

background conditions or class of use conditions depending upon the permit, and requirements of 

EPA or the delegated state, in order to protect the non-exempt portion of the aquifer from 

contamination. Discussions have been undertaken between the NRC, EPA, and certain uranium 

producing states, to examine the possibility that an EPA SDWA delegated state could enforce 

both provisions of EPA’s and the NRC’s programs (under the AEA) as they relate to regulation of 

ISL UIC wells. 

CERCLA (Superfund)

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 

USC 9601 et seq.,1980) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (42 

USC 9601 et seq., 1986) provided broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. 

CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous 

waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these 

sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be 

identified. EPA has determined that radiation is a carcinogen and thus a hazardous substance. 

Under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA has issued 

guidance on removals and cleanup of radioactively contaminated sites, including those 

contaminated with the TENORM radionuclides radium, thorium and uranium. Implementing 

regulations for the NCP are found at 40 CFR 300. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 USC 2601 et seq., 1976) was enacted by 

Congress to give EPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or 

imported into the United States. EPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require 

reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or human health hazard. EPA can 

ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. While 

radionuclides are considered toxic substances under the Act, source material, special nuclear 

material, or byproduct material (as such terms are defined in the AEA, and regulations issued 

under such Act) are excluded from coverage. Consequently, TENORM radionuclides may be 

subject to this law, though EPA has not previously applied it in this way. 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 USC 321 et seq., 1976) gave EPA the 

authority to control hazardous waste. This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, 

storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management 

of non-hazardous wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address 

environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other 

hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities and does not address 

abandoned or historical sites (see CERCLA). HSWA (the Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that required phasing out land disposal of 

hazardous waste. Some of the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement 
AVI-5

authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive 

underground storage tank program. EPA=s implementing regulations for RCRA do not 

address disposal of radioactively contaminated substances in landfills, however nuclear 

accelerator wastes (a form of waste previously classified as part of the TENORM waste class) has 

been disposed of in such facilities, depending on the permitting authority. 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)

EPA does not license or regulate uranium mills or ISL facilities. However, it does establish 

certain environmental standards which must be adopted by the NRC and DOE for uranium 

processing facilities. Current regulations applicable to remediation of both inactive uranium mill 

tailings and uranium extraction facilities, including vicinity properties and ISL operations, and 

active uranium and thorium mills have been issued by the EPA under the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) (42 USC 2022 et seq.) of 1978, as amended. EPA's 

regulations in 40 CFR 192 apply to remediation of such properties and address emissions of 

radon, as well as radionuclides, metals, and other contaminants into surface and groundwater. 

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 processing sites and associated vicinity areas. 

Tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any 

ore processed primarily for its source material content is defined by Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic 

Energy Act as byproduct material. That material is not considered to be TENORM in the U.S., 

and is regulated by the NRC or its Agreement States. Although the NRC has promulgated 

radiation protection standards that regulate active and inactive uranium milling sites, the NRC 

does not have regulatory authority over conventional type uranium mine wastes (see NRC 

discussion below). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The mission of the NRC is to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, the 

common defense and security, and the environment in the use of nuclear materials in the United 

States. The NRC's scope of responsibility includes regulation of commercial nuclear power 

reactors; research, test, and training reactors; fuel cycle facilities; medical, academic, and 

industrial uses of nuclear materials; and the transport, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials 

and waste.

The NRC was created as an independent agency by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

which abolished the AEC and moved the AEC's regulatory function to NRC. This act provides 

the foundation for regulation of the nation's commercial nuclear power industry. 

NRC regulations are issued under the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 10, 

Chapter 1. Principal statutory authorities that govern NRC's work are: 

• Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

• Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended 

• Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended 

• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 
AVI-6

• Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 

• West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980 

• Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

• Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 

• Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986 

• Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 

• Solar, Wind, Waste and Geothermal Power Production Incentives Act of 1990 

• Energy Policy Act of 1992 

The NRC and its licensees share a common responsibility to protect the public health and safety. 

Federal regulations and the NRC regulatory program are important elements in the protection of 

the public. NRC licensees, however, have the primary responsibility for the safe use of nuclear 

materials. 

The NRC fulfills its responsibilities through a system of licensing and regulatory activities that 

include: 

1) Licensing the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities, 

such as nuclear fuel cycle facilities and test and research reactors, and overseeing their 

decommissioning; 

2) Licensing the possession, use, processing, handling, and export of nuclear material; 

3) Licensing the siting, design, construction, operation, and closure of low-level radioactive 

waste disposal sites under NRC jurisdiction and the construction, operation, and closure 

of the geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste; 

4) Licensing the operators of nuclear power and non-power test and research reactors; 

inspecting licensed facilities and activities; 

5) Conducting the principal U.S. Government research program on light-water reactor 

safety; 

6) Conducting research to provide independent expertise and information for making timely 

regulatory judgments and for anticipating problems of potential safety significance; 

7) Developing and implementing rules and regulations that govern licensed nuclear 

activities; 

8) Investigating nuclear incidents and allegations concerning any matter regulated by the 

NRC; 

9) Enforcing NRC regulations and the conditions of NRC licenses; 

10) Conducting public hearings on matters of nuclear and radiological safety, environmental 

concern, common defense and security, and antitrust matters; 

11) Developing effective working relationships with the States regarding reactor operations 

and the regulation of nuclear material; 

12) Maintaining the NRC Incident Response Program, including the NRC Operations Center; 

and 

13) Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about the operational safety of 

commercial nuclear power reactors and certain non-reactor activities. 

Atomic Energy Act – Regulation of Source Material

Under the AEA, the AEC, now the NRC, was given responsibility for regulation of "source 

material". Source material includes either the element thorium or the element uranium, provided 

that the uranium has not been enriched in U-235. Source material also includes any combination 
AVI-7

of thorium and uranium, in any physical or chemical form, or ores that contain by weight 0.05 

percent or more of uranium, thorium, or any combination thereof. Depleted uranium (left over 

from uranium enrichment) is considered source material. Source material can result from the 

milling and concentration of uranium contained in ore mined for its uranium content. As the 

chemical refining processes are generally the same, the NRC also regulates source material 

generated from ISL operations. It can also be generated in the process of refining ores mined for 

other precious metals. In addition, source material can arise from the reprocessing of spent 

nuclear fuel (no commercial reprocessing is currently licensed in the U.S.) and also, as depleted 

uranium (contains lower levels of U-235 than natural uranium), from the process of enriching 

uranium in the isotope U-235. However, the NRC does not regulate conventional (open-pit and 

underground) mining of uranium or thorium ore. NRC’s regulations for source material facility 

licensing are found at 10 CFR 40. 

Guidance for applications for ISL operation licenses are contained in NUREG 1569 (U.S. NRC 

2003). An applicant for a new operating license, or for the renewal or amendment of an existing 

license, is required to provide detailed information on the facilities, equipment, and procedures to 

be used and to submit an environmental report that discusses the effect of proposed operations on 

public health and safety and the impact on the environment. This information is used by NRC 

staff to determine whether the proposed activities will be protective of public health and safety 

and will be environmentally acceptable. 

Regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, provide for environmental protection regulations for domestic 

licensing and related regulatory functions, while those in 10 CFR Part 20 cover radiation 

protection standards. Fuel cycle facility inspections which enforce these regulations focus on the 

areas that are most important to safety and safeguards, using objective measures of performance 

called "performance indicators." Inspections at fuel cycle facilities occur several times a year and 

typically cover activities such as chemical process, emergency preparedness, fire safety, and 

radiation safety. Uranium mill facilities in standby status (non-operational) are inspected every 

three years. Also, specialized inspections are conducted using personnel from NRC headquarters 

in Maryland and the Region II office in Atlanta, Georgia. Inspectors follow guidance in the NRC 

Inspection Manual that contains objectives and procedures to use for each type of inspection. The 

inspection program for fuel cycle facilities is being revised to accommodate the use of risk 

insights to focus the NRC and its licensees on matters that are most important to safety and 

safeguards. 

Atomic Energy Act-- Regulation of Byproduct Material

Section 11e.(2) byproduct material, as defined by the AEA, is regulated by the NRC under 10 

CFR Part 40. In Part 40, the NRC clarified the definition of byproduct material by adding the 

clause "including discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes." 

In simpler terms, it is the waste and tailings generated by the processing of ore for its uranium or 

thorium content. Most of this material is created by uranium milling and is primarily mill tailings. 

Examples of milling wastes are broken pipe from ISL facilities and contaminated mill equipment 

that is to be discarded. Byproduct material from uranium mining and milling is disposed of in 

uranium mill tailings impoundments. 
AVI-8

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Atomic Energy Act was amended to place additional 

“discrete sources of naturally occurring radioactive material” under NRC jurisdiction. The 

primary focus of this provision is on security and the potential misuse of such materials. This 

suggests that the materials of concern will be those that are highly radioactive in small quantities, 

though “discrete” in this context will be defined further after consultation between NRC and the 

EPA, and the states, as well as through the regulatory process. These wastes are not those 

resulting from uranium or thorium processing. 

The definition of byproduct materials was modified by the Act to include: “Any discrete source 

of Ra-226 that is produced, extracted or converted after extraction, before, on or after the date of 

enactment of this paragraph (August 8, 2005) for use for a commercial, medical, or research 

activity, or (B) any material that (i) has been made radioactive by use of a particle accelerator, 

and (ii) is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of 

enactment of this paragraph for use for a commercial, medical or research activity; 

and 

any discrete source of naturally occurring radioactive material, other than source material, that: 

(A) the Commission, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the head of any other 

appropriate Federal agency, determines would pose a threat similar to the threat posed by a 

discrete source of radium-226 to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, 

and (B) before, on, or after the date of enactment of this paragraph (August 8, 2005) is extracted, 

or converted after extraction for use in a commercial, medical or research activity.” 

Waste disposal for this new class of byproduct material must be in a disposal facility that: (a) is 

adequate to protect public health and safety, and (b)(i) is licensed by the Commission; or(ii) is 

licensed by a state that has entered into an agreement with the Commission under section, if the 

licensing requirements of the state are compatible with the licensing requirements of the 

Commission. The Act also included provisions to allow disposal in a non-NRC licensed facility. 

States with Agreement State status can receive authority over byproduct material. However, in 

states without Agreement State status, the NRC retains authority over byproduct material. 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

The U.S. Government began to purchase uranium for defense purposes in the early 1940's. Since 

that time, large quantities of tailings have been generated by the uranium milling industry. In 

many cases, these tailings were dispersed from impoundments and piles by natural forces and by 

humans for construction use in or around buildings, or for roads. UMTRCA, which in 1978 

amended the AEA, established two programs to protect the public health, safety and the 

environment from uranium mill tailings. 

Title I of UMTRCA addresses 22 Congressionally designated sites (to which DOE added 2 more) 

that were inactive (e.g., all milling had stopped and the site was not licensed by the NRC). Title II 

of UMTRCA addresses active sites (those with NRC or Agreement State licenses) 

(48 FR 45926). UMTRCA requires the NRC to concur with remedies DOE selects for cleaning 

up and controlling inactive sites. Under UMTRCA, the NRC is also responsible for licensing 

inactive uranium tailings sites that have undergone remediation. Inspection, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements are defined in 10 CFR 40.27 under which mill tailings impoundment and 

some adjoining land will be turned over to the DOE, another federal agency designated by the 

President, or the state in which the site is located for long-term care. License termination usually 
AVI-9

involves a confirmation that all applicable reclamation requirements have been met. This includes 

ensuring completion of stabilization work for the tailings consistent with the accepted reclamation 

plan and a determination that the licensee has complied with all standards applicable to land 

structures, and groundwater cleanup. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

In the 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and the Energy Reorganization Act 

of 1974 (42 USC. Sec. 5813, 5817, et seq.) created two new agencies: the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to regulate the nuclear power industry and the Energy Research and Development 

Administration to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs. 

However, the extended energy crisis of the 1970s soon demonstrated the need for unified energy 

organization and planning. The Department of Energy Organization Act (42 USC Sec. 5916, 

7112, et seq.) brought the Federal Government's energy agencies and programs into a single 

agency. Established on October 1, 1977, the Department of Energy assumed the responsibilities 

of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, 

and parts and programs from several other agencies.

The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic and energy 

security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that 

mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

Principal responsibility for management of uranium mill tailings facilities under UMTRCA is 

handled by DOE’s Office of Legacy Management. The office's primary functions include: 

management of the land and associated resources as a federal trustee, surveillance and 

maintenance associated with environmental remedies, records and information management, and 

the management of post-closure liabilities. Sites transferred to the Office include UMTRCA sites, 

where remediation is complete. As more sites are successfully remediated and closed, the site 

surveillance and maintenance functions, and worker benefits as appropriate, will be transferred 

for long-term management. 

For UMTRCA Title I disposal sites managed by the Office, DOE becomes a licensee to the NRC. 

The general license for long-term custody is indefinite in duration, and the land is 

administratively withdrawn from unrestricted public use. Sites located on Tribal land revert to 

Tribal control, and DOE obtains a site access agreement with the Tribe that allows DOE to fulfill 

its custodial responsibilities. 

Title I of UMTRCA provided for the remediation and reclamation of 24 uranium mill processing 

sites and approximately 5,200 associated vicinity properties by the DOE. Remediation of these 

sites under DOE’s UMTRA resulted in the creation of disposal cells that contain encapsulated 

uranium mill tailings and associated contaminated material. The stated goals of the UMTRA 

Program were to: (1) address immediate risk concerns and prevent further increases in relative 

risk at all sites; (2) complete surface remedial action work at all 24 mill tailings sites and related 

vicinity properties; and (3) complete ground-water activities in compliance with Environment 

Protection Agency standards no later than FY 2014. 
AVI-10

Residual radioactive material was removed from some of the Title I processing sites to off-site 

disposal locations. NRC does not require a license for remediated processing sites that do not 

have disposal cells, but NRC is the regulator if contaminated ground water remains. Ground 

water compliance action plans, with compliance strategies that range from natural flushing to 

active remediation, have been or are being developed by DOE for processing sites that have 

contaminated ground water. These plans require approval by NRC and concurrence by the state 

and Native American Tribe (when applicable). To date, ground water remedies have been 

approved and implemented at several former uranium ore-processing sites. 

The facilities regulated under Title II of the Act are both conventional uranium mill and in-situ 

leach facilities that were privately owned and operated under an existing license by the NRC or 

the Agreement States at the time of the passage of UMTRCA. Both Title I and Title II facilities 

are subject to NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 40 and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 192. Five 

Title II facilities have completed reclamation and remediation, and have transitioned under the 

NRC general license, and are also currently under the management of the DOE Office of Legacy 

Management. 

Office of Surface Mining 

Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 USC 1300, et 

seq.) in 1977; the law created the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in the Department of the 

Interior. Title IV of SMCRA established the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program, which 

provides for the restoration of eligible lands and waters mined and abandoned, or left 

inadequately restored. The act provides a major source of funding for reclamation of all 

abandoned mine lands. SMCRA also required a fee be assessed on mined coal and allowed for 

the use of these funds for abandoned mine reclamation. The funds were set aside for reclamation 

of coal mines and for the closure of hazardous mine openings (adits and shafts) in other types of 

mining operations. 

Once a state certifies that its coal mine operations were reclaimed, these funds can be used for 

reclamation at other types of mines where the properties are judged to be abandoned, or had 

become inactive prior to August 3, 1977. States can use these funds only for properties where 

there is no company obligation for cleanup and the property is not listed as a National Priority 

List site under CERCLA. In 1990, changes to SMCRA extended eligibility to limited sites mined 

after August 3, 1977. The OSM has established guidelines to be considered when developing 

plans for abandoned mine land programs and projects. They were issued to provide general 

guidance to states, Indian Tribes, USDA, and OSM on the administration of reclamation activities 

carried out under SMCRA. While OSM provides guidelines on reclamation requirements, the 

states/Indian Tribes use their discretion on the caliber or quality of the work done at each site. 

Significant use has been made of these funds for reclamation of uranium mines in the state of 

Wyoming, and on the Navajo Reservation. The Hopi and Crow have also made use of these funds 

for AML reclamation. 

Federal Land Management Agencies 

In addition to the Department of Energy, certain agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture play important roles in uranium development, and 

remediation of abandoned mines and mills on lands they administer. Principal among them are 
AVI-11

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, and Agriculture’s National 

Forest Service. Each of these agencies are responsible for implementing on their lands the various 

environmental laws which are administered by EPA; these include (among others) the CAA, 

SDWA, CWA, TSCA, RCRA and CERCLA. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, administers over 260 million 

acres of America's public lands, and about 300 million additional acres of subsurface mineral 

resources, located primarily in 12 Western States. The BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. BLM administers public lands within a framework of numerous laws. The most 

comprehensive of these is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 

USC 1744, et seq.), though of importance for uranium extraction is its administration of mineral 

development under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 29 and 43 CFR 3860. 

That law provides the successful mining claimant the right to patent (acquire absolute title to the 

land) mining claims or sites, including uranium locations, if they meet the statutory requirements. 

To meet this requirement, the successful claimant must: 

a. For mining claims, demonstrate a physical exposure of a valuable (commercial) 

mineral deposit (the discovery) as defined by meeting the Department's Prudent Man 

Rule1

 and Marketability Test2

b. For mill sites, show proper use or occupancy for uses to support a mining operation 

and be located on non-mineral land. 

c. Have clear title to the mining claim (lode or placer) or mill site. 

d. Have assessment work and/or maintenance fees current and performed at least $500 

worth of improvements (not labor) for each claim (not required for mill sites). 

e. Meet the requirements of the Department's regulations for mineral patenting as 

shown in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 3861, 3862, 3863, and 3864. 

f. Pay the required processing fees and purchase price for the land applied for. 

The BLM administers this program through its 12 State Offices and the Headquarters 

office. The program has two essential components, adjudication and mineral 

examination. A staff of land law examiners in each State Office adjudicates applications 

for completeness and compliance with the law and regulations. All aspects, except the 

mineral examination, are handled here. Once the application has successfully passed 

through the adjudication process, the case is assigned to the BLM field office for a formal 

mineral examination to verify the discovery of a valuable (commercially viable) mineral 

deposit on the mining claims and proper use or occupancy for any mill sites. If the 

Agency’s mineral report confirms the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and/or 

proper use and occupancy for any associated mill sites, BLM will send the application to 

the Secretary of the Interior for final review and action. If the applicant is successful on 

all points, BLM issues a mineral patent for the land applied for. However, since October 

1, 1994, Congress has imposed a budget moratorium on BLM acceptance of any new 

 

1

 Where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary 

 prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect 

 of success, in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statute have been met. 

2

 A mineral locator or applicant, to justify his possession must show by reason of accessibility, bona fides 

 in development, proximity to market, existence of present demand, and other factors, the deposit is of 

 such value that it can be mined, removed, and disposed of at a profit. 
AVI-12

mineral patent applications. Until the moratorium is lifted, the BLM will not accept any 

new applications. 

BLM is attempting to identify, prioritize, and take appropriate actions on those historic mine sites 

that pose safety risks to the public or present serious threats to the environment. Using the 

approach outlined in the Interdepartmental Abandoned Mine Lands Watershed Initiative, BLM 

will work in partnership with EPA, state agencies, tribes, private parties, and other interested 

groups to accelerate the rate of cleanup of watersheds affected by abandoned hard rock mines. 

With special emphasis on ensuring that viable responsible parties contribute their share of 

cleanup costs, federal land managers will add three to five watersheds or major mine cleanup 

actions to the program each year from 1999 through 2005. Within the selected watersheds, 

cooperative efforts and available resources will be concentrated first on AML sites and features 

causing serious environmental impacts, then on mitigation and removal of physical safety 

hazards. 

National Park Service 

The NPS operates under authority of the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act (16 USC 1, et 

seq.) as well as host of other federal statutes. According to U.S. NPS Policy Manual (2000) 

mineral exploration and development may be allowed in parks only when prospective operators 

demonstrate that they hold rights to valid mining claims, federal mineral leases, or non-federallyowned minerals. If this right is not clearly demonstrated, the National Park Service will inform 

the prospective operator that, until proof of a property right is shown, the Service will not further 

consider the proposed activity. If the Service determines that the proposed mineral development 

would impair park resources, values, or purposes, or does not meet approval standards under 

applicable NPS regulations and cannot be sufficiently modified to meet those standards, the 

Service will seek to extinguish the associated mineral right through acquisition, unless otherwise 

directed by Congress. 

In some parks, all or certain types of mineral development are specifically prohibited by law. 

Persons may not use or occupy surface lands in a park for purposes of removing minerals outside 

the park unless provided for in law. General management plans, land protection plans, and other 

planning documents for parks with mining claims, federal mineral leases, or non-federally-owned 

mineral interests will address these non-federal property interests as appropriate. Lands with 

mineral interests will be zoned according to their anticipated management and use, based on their 

resource values, park management objectives, and park-specific legislative provisions relating to 

mineral interests. The location of new mining claims pursuant to the General Mining Act of 1872 

is prohibited in all park areas. 

NPS has its own AML program and is an active participant with broader interdepartmental and 

national AML program associations. The goals of the program are an inventory of all abandoned 

mineral land sites in the NPS, the elimination of public safety hazards in such sites, the 

elimination or reduction of adverse effects from such sites on resources in the parks, education 

and awareness of the public from the preservation and interpretation of historic and cultural 

artifacts, and the maintenance of specific abandoned mineral lands for critical wildlife habitat, 

particularly for threatened and endangered species. Remediation of AML sites on NPS lands is an 

ongoing effort and its focus has been on above-ground sites and remediation. 
AVI-13

National Forest Service 

The NFS was established in 1905 and is an agency of the USDA. The Transfer Act of 1905 (16 

U.S.C. § 472, 476, 495, 551, 554, 615(b), et seq.) transferred administration of the forest reserves 

to the Department of Agriculture under the Bureau of Forestry, which became the Forest Service. 

The forest reserves were subsequently renamed national forests. The NFS manages public lands 

in national forests and grasslands, which encompass 193 million acres. The mission of the FS is 

to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the 

needs of present and future generations. Exploration, development, and production of mineral and 

energy resources and reclamation of activities are part of the Forest Service ecosystem 

management responsibility. All NFS lands which (1) were formerly public domain lands subject 

to location and entry under the U.S. mining laws, (2) have not been appropriated, withdrawn, or 

segregated from location and entry, and (3) have been or may be shown to be mineral lands, are 

open to prospecting for locatable, or hardrock, minerals (16 U.S.C. 482). Claims are filed and 

processed by agreement by the BLM. 

The NFS established its combined Environmental Compliance and Protection (ECAP) and 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) programs to reclaim the several thousand abandoned 

underground and open-pit hard rock, placer, and coal mine sites and related mine and mill waste 

sites on NFS lands that are causing damage to the environment or risks to public health and 

safety. The NFS began receiving funds to clean up abandoned mines and other sites contaminated 

with hazardous materials following the passage of CERCLA. Current funding for AML 

remediation resulted from an agreement among the NFS, EPA, and the states to focus resources 

on cleaning up abandoned mines using the watershed (“basin-wide”) approach rather than 

attempting to place each mine site under an individual NPDES water discharge permit. In 1995, 

USDA and the NFS set an AML program goal: To reclaim by the year 2045 all abandoned mine 

sites on National Forest System lands that have the potential to release hazardous substances or 

sediment. 

Tribes 

Uranium mines were produced on lands of many western Tribes. Principal among them are the 

Navajo of Arizona and New Mexico, which had the most mines produced of any Tribe. The 

largest uranium mine in the U.S., the Jackpile Mine, was operated on lands of the Laguna Pueblo 

in New Mexico. The Spokane Tribe in Washington state had a uranium mill and mines on their 

land, including the Midnite Mine which is now an EPA Superfund site. Others whose lands 

hosted uranium mine operations include several Tribes of the Sioux of South Dakota, Hopi in 

Arizona, Yavapai-Apache in Arizona, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho in Wyoming, and 

Ute Tribes in Colorado and Utah. All of these Indian Tribes have had very specific 

environmental, health, and other concerns related to uranium production facilities on their lands. 

As a result of the large number of uranium mines on their Reservation, specialized governmental 

agencies were created by the Navajo Nation to deal with reclamation and remediation activities, 

as well as environmental protection on their Tribal lands. Due to that level of effort, the following 

section provides a brief discussion of their organization. 
AVI-14

Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation occupies approximately 25,000 square miles of land in the Four Corners area 

of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California. The Navajo AMLRP/Uranium Mill Tailings 

Reclamation Act Department, within the Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources, has the 

authority and responsibility to reclaim abandoned uranium mines. The program operates in 

coordination with the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, within the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation 

pursuant to SMCRA, and the approved Navajo Reclamation Plan and Code. 

The Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program (NAMLRP) identified more than 

1,032 abandoned uranium mine sites. As of 2005, 913 sites have been reclaimed. This Navajo 

agency is also responsible for reclamation and administration of uranium mill sites on Navajo 

lands under DOE UMTRCA program. To guide cleanup actions NAMLRP developed the Health 

Physics and Instrumentation Monitoring Plan. The plan specifies that the ALARA principal has 

been adopted such that every attempt will be made to prevent or minimize project related 

radiation exposure to the general public. 

In 1995, legislation made the NNEPA a separate regulatory branch of the Navajo National 

government and charged it with protecting human health, welfare, and the environment of the 

Navajo Nation. In April of that year, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution establishing 

the NNEPA and approved adoption of the Navajo Nation Environmental Policy Act. This Act 

provides guidance for the NNEPA in addition to recognizing that a clean environment contributes 

to maintaining harmony and balance on the Navajo Nation. The mission of the NNEPA is as 

follows: `With respect for Dine' values, protect, preserve, and enhance public health, welfare and 

the environment for present and future generations by developing, implementing, and enforcing 

strong environmental laws; to foster public awareness and cooperation through education and 

motivation." Numerous departments in the NNEPA are responsible for the environmental 

protection programs across Tribal lands, including radiation protection, disposition of hazardous 

wastes including those from uranium mines, and protection of water resources. 

The U.S. EPA headquarters and Region IX offices have provided assistance as part of the 

Agency’s trust responsibilities to the Navajo Nation concerning uranium mine remediation and 

other related radiation hazards. 

States 

State authority to regulate radioactive materials is based on the Constitutional law tenet that any 

authority or responsibility not specifically assigned to the federal government may be exercised 

by the states. Many states actively regulate radioactive material through radiation control and 

other state programs. Control under state law includes naturally occurring and acceleratorproduced radioactive materials and other sources of ionizing radiation. As of January 2006, 

thirty-three states have entered into agreements with the NRC, under which the Commission has 

delegated regulatory authority over most radioactive materials used in non-federal facilities, as 

long as the state program is compatible with NRC requirements. Most states also control 

radioactivity through programs implementing the federal clean air, clean water and other 

environmental laws authorized by EPA. 

A model state radiation control statute, last amended in 1983, has been developed by the Council 

of State Governments. A comprehensive model state code for all types of radioactivity-containing 
AVI-15

material and radiation-producing machines has been developed by the CRCPD. For example, 

Part N of the Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation (SSRCR) is specific to 

TENORM. 

As an example from one of the 33 members of the Organization of Agreement States, the 

Colorado Radiation Control Act designates a state radiation control agency and grants board 

authority to evaluate and control “...hazards associated with the use of any and all radioactive 

materials and other sources of ionizing radiation.” In the Colorado Act radioactive material means 

any material, solid, liquid or gas, which emits ionizing radiation spontaneously. Ionizing radiation 

means gamma rays and x-ray and alpha particles, beta particles, high-speed electrons, neutrons, 

protons, and other high-speed nuclear particles. The Colorado Act requires the Colorado Board of 

Health to promulgate regulations (for licenses and for exemption from licensing), which are 

modeled after those proposed by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. 

Colorado regulates uranium mining, milling, and mill tailings impoundments within its borders. 

Whether or not an individual state has assumed regulatory authority from the NRC under an 

Agreement, each state has explicit statutory authority for regulating sources of ionizing radiation 

not otherwise regulated by the federal government. Several non-Agreement states (for example, 

Michigan and New Jersey) have asserted specific authority over TENORM, especially cleanup 

approaches and disposal. Thirteen have developed regulations specifically for TENORM. Most 

states rEA the exercise of state authorities are reasonably consistent nationwide, but do vary in 

some respects. For example, Colorado's statute requires Colorado's rules to be neither more nor 

less stringent than the CRCPD SSRCR and also authorizes TENORM rules only after their 

promulgation by the EPA. By contrast, the Illinois Division of Nuclear Safety, now under the 

Illinois Emergency Management Agency, has no such constraints. Agreement State regulation of 

A materials is to be uniform, consistent, and compatible with that of the NRC.