DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION GROUND WATER PROJECT Volume I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION GROUND WATER PROJECT Volume I DOE/EIS-0198 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION GROUND WATER PROJECT Volume I October 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.0 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 8.0 REFERENCES 9.0 GLOSSARY 10.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 11.0 PREPARERS OF THE FINAL PEIS 12.0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED DURING PEIS PREPARATION 13.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES OF THE PEIS Appendices Appendix A - Comments and Responses Appendix B (electroic copy is unavilable) SUMMARY This programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) was prepared for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water Project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This PEIS provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the alternatives and ground water compliance strategies as well as potential cumulative impacts. On November 8, 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, Public Law, codified at 42 USC '7901 et seq. Congress found that uranium mill tailings ". may pose a potential and significant radiation health hazard to the public, and that every reasonable effort should be made to provide for stabilization, disposal, and control in a safe, and environmentally sound manner of such tailings in order to prevent or minimize other environmental hazards from such tailings." Congress authorized the Secretary of Energy to designate inactive uranium processing sites for remedial action by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Congress also directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the standards to be followed by the DOE for this process of stabilization, disposal, and control. On January 5, 1983, EPA published standards (40 CFR Part 192) for the disposal and cleanup of residual radioactive materials. On September 3, 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit set aside and remanded to EPA the ground water provisions of the standards. The EPA proposed new standards to replace remanded sections and changed other sections of 40 CFR Part 192. These proposed standards were published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1987 (52 FR 36000). Section 108 of the UMTRCA requires that DOE comply with EPA's proposed standards in the absence of final standards. The Ground Water Project was planned under the proposed standards. On January 11, 1995, EPA published the final rule, with which the DOE must now comply. The PEIS and the Ground Water Project are in accordance with the final standards. The EPA reserves the right to modify the ground water standards, if necessary, based on changes in EPA drinking water standards. Appendix A contains a copy of the 1983 EPA ground water compliance standards, the 1987 proposed changes to the standards, and the 1995 final rule. Under UMTRA, DOE is responsible for bringing the designated processing sites into compliance with the EPA ground water standards and complying with all other applicable standards and requirements. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must concur with DOE's actions. States are full participants in the process. The DOE also must consult with any affected Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium processing activities at most of the inactive mill sites resulted in the contamination of ground water beneath and, in some cases, downgradient of the sites. This contaminated ground water often has elevated levels of constituents such as but not limited to uranium and nitrates. The purpose of the UMTRA Ground Water Project is to eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels the potential health and environmental consequences of milling activities by meeting the EPA ground water standards. The first step in the UMTRA Ground Water Project is the preparation of this PEIS. This document analyzes the potential impacts of four alternatives for conducting the Ground Water Project. These alternatives do not address site-specific ground water compliance strategies because the PEIS is a planning document only. It assesses the potential programmatic impacts of conducting the Ground Water Project, provides a method for determining the site-specific ground water compliance strategies, and provides data and information that can be used to prepare site-specific environmental impacts analyses more efficiently. Participation by affected states, tribes, and local government agencies will be encouraged during preparation of this PEIS, and during implementation of the alternative selected in the Record of Decision. This PEIS differs substantially from a site-specific environmental impact statement because multiple ground water compliance strategies, each with its own set of potential impacts, could be used to implement all the alternatives except the no action alternative. In a traditional environmental impact statement, an impacts analysis leads directly to the defined alternatives. The impacts analysis for implementing alternatives in this PEIS first involves evaluating a ground water compliance strategy or strategies (Figure 1), the use of which will result in site-specific impacts. This PEIS impacts analysis assesses only the potential impacts of the various ground water compliance strategies, then relates them to the alternatives to provide a comparison of impacts. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) AND ALTERNATIVES Table 1. Ground water compliance strategies that apply under each alternative Alternative Active remediation Strategy Passive Proposed action No actiona to background remediation levels Active ground water remediation methods % %b Natural flushing C % % No ground water remediation % % Sites that qualify for supplemental standards d or alternate concentration limitse. Sites that meet maximum concentration limits or % % background levels (no impacts).f aThe analysis of the no action alternative is required by the CEQ and DOE. bActive remediation methods would not be used at sites where contamination does not exceed background and likely would not be used at sites that qualify for supplemental standards based on the existence of limited use ground water. cNatural flushing means allowing the natural ground water movement and geochemical processes to decrease contaminant concentrations. dSupplemental standards applicable for certain site conditions, as identified in the EPA standards, that are protective of human health and the environment, and may be applied in lieu of prescriptive levels. eConcentrations of contaminants that may exceed the maximum concentration limits; or, limits for those constituents without maximum concentration limits. If DOE demonstrates, and NRC concurs, that human health and the environment would not be adversely affected, DOE may meet an alternate concentration limit. f"No remediation" at sites that do not exceed maximum concentration limits or background levels is not the same as "no action" because these sites would require activities such as site characterization to show that no remediation is warranted. The PEIS considers four programmatic alternatives for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project: 1) the proposed action (DOE's preferred alternative), 2) no action, 3) active remediation to background levels, and 4) passive remediation. A Record of Decision will identify the alternative that will become the programmatic foundation for conducting the Ground Water Project at all sites. All the alternatives listed except the no action alternative would use one or more ground water compliance strategies to meet the EPA ground water standards. Table 1 shows the alternatives and the strategies that are described below. 1) Proposed action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action which is DOE's preferred alternative would use ground water compliance strategies tailored for each site to achieve conditions that are protective of human health and the environment. The proposed action would consider ground water compliance decisions in a step-by-step approach, beginning with consideration of "no remediation" strategy and proceeding, if necessary, to the passive strategy, such as natural flushing with compliance monitoring and institutional controls, and to a more complex, active ground water cleanup method, such as pump and treat or other engineered approaches to cleaning up contaminated ground water. For example, under the proposed action, if a site risk assessment and site observational work plan indicate that the strategy of "no remediation" would still be protective of human health and the environment, a more complex and potentially disruptive strategy involving active cleanup methods would not be necessary. The proposed action is intended to establish a consistent risk-based framework for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project and determining appropriate ground water compliance strategies at the UMTRA Project former processing sites. The determination of site-specific ground water compliance strategies would take into account site-specific ground water conditions; human and environmental risks; participation of the tribes, States and local communities; and cost. This approach is sufficiently flexible to allow for interim actions, such as alternate water supply systems, should these activities be necessary in order to reduce risk and/or support institutional controls.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THESIS URANIUM CONTAMINATION VALUES and LIMITS Submitted By
    THESIS URANIUM CONTAMINATION VALUES AND LIMITS Submitted by Aaron Paul Miaullis Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2012 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Thomas Johnson Co-Advisor: Alexander Brandl Thomas Borch Copyright by Aaron Paul Miaullis, 2012 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT URANIUM CONTAMINATION VALUES AND LIMITS Hypothesis: Current soil contamination limits for non-enriched uranium are not consistent and are not optimized to allow the beneficial use of uranium while protecting the health of the public. Objective: Assess available health impact data regarding non-enriched uranium ingestion and inhalation as well as past soil contamination recommendations to determine if the regulatory limits for uranium are optimized, as recommended by the ICRP. Provide supporting data for keeping current soil contamination limits for non-enriched uranium, or suggest new limits based upon chemical uptake ratios. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following persons for their help, guidance, mentoring, and support during the research and compilation of this paper: The Lord God My family: Maureen, Nicholas, Caitlin and Helena Miaullis My parents: J. Bart Miaullis and Laura White The United States Army Dr. Tom Johnson Dr. Alexander Brandl An additional thank you to the following people for providing their time and effort in obtaining and providing much needed reference material: LTC Andrew Scott, PhD, US Army MAJ(R) Carlos Corredor Steve Brown The Armour Archive Finally, thanks to the significant number of other individuals with whom I have conversed and discussed many additional points within this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides from the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives
    Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives By Edward Landa GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 814 A critical review of the literature dealing with uranium mill tailings, with emphasis on the geologic and geochemical processes affecting the long-term containment of radionuclides 1980 United States Department of the Interior CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary Geological Survey H. William Menard, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 79-600148 Free on application to Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey 1200 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 Acknowledginents ---------_----------------------------------------------- 2 Quantity and location of the tailings --------------------------------------­ 2 Radioactivity in tailings --------------------------------------------------­ 4 Sources of potential human radiation exposure from uranium mill tailings ------ 6 Radon emanation ----------------------------------------------------- 6 VVind transport ------------------------------------------------------- 6 Surface water transport and leaching ----------------------------------- 7 External gamma radiation -------------------------------------------­ 8 Contamination of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation ---------------------- 8 Seepage ----------------------------------------------------~--------
    [Show full text]
  • Measurement and Calculation of Radon Releases from Uranium Mill Tailings
    I I I I I I I I I io-1 ^*"^^-dL ^-. : tfl ^^ ^-----^_ • . w 2 E 10- _o^ Q • " ^N^^v +-*m "•'•^^N• ^«Nr \ S 10-3 0 • •• VN V it; 0 . • •• *>*v* * O • ^* \ O 10 vV\ \ • 1 ^ • Measured diffusion coefficients # X\ >« CO 3 p = 0.41 • ,\v i\N TJ P - 0.55 (top), 0.26 (bottom) N C 0 10-5 ~ Fitted function: r -, • *• 2 5 QC D = 0.07 exp -4 (m - mn + m ) • • • 10-6 ! I I 1 I I I I I c ) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Moisture saturation, m TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No 333 Measurement and Calculation of Radon Releases from Uranium Mill Tailings if sk\ \ %}$?J INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1992 MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION OF RADON RELEASES FROM URANIUM MILL TAILINGS The following States are Members of the Internationa! Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN HAITI PANAMA ALBANIA HOLY SEE PARAGUAY ALGERIA HUNGARY PERU ARGENTINA ICELAND PHILIPPINES AUSTRALIA INDIA POLAND AUSTRIA INDONESIA PORTUGAL BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR BELARUS IRAQ ROMANIA BELGIUM IRELAND RUSSIAN FEDERATION BOLIVIA ISRAEL SAUDI ARABIA BRAZIL ITALY SENEGAL BULGARIA JAMAICA SIERRA LEONE CAMEROON JAPAN SINGAPORE CANADA JORDAN SOUTH AFRICA CHILE KENYA SPAIN CHINA KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA COLOMBIA KUWAIT SUDAN COSTA RICA LEBANON SWEDEN COTE D'lVOIRE LIBERIA SWITZERLAND CUBA LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC CYPRUS LIECHTENSTEIN THAILAND CZECHOSLOVAKIA LUXEMBOURG TUNISIA DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA MADAGASCAR TURKEY DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S MALAYSIA UGANDA REPUBLIC OF KOREA MALI UKRAINE DENMARK MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MEXICO
    [Show full text]
  • REGULATORY GUIDE 3.59 (Task WM 407-4)
    0 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION March 1987 )0C REGULATORY GUIDE 11-1 , ****41r' OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH REGULATORY GUIDE 3.59 (Task WM 407-4) METHODS FOR ESTIMATING RADIOACTIVE AND TOXIC AIRBORNE SOURCE TERMS FOR URANIUM MILLING OPERATIONS USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES The guides are issued in the following ten broad divisions: Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementing 1. Power Reactors 6. Products specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate tech 2. Research and Test Reactors 7. Transportation niques used by the staff In evaluating specific problems or postu 3. Fuels and Materials Facilities 8. Occupational Health lated accidents or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory 4. Environmental and Siting 9. Antitrust and Financial Review Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with 5. Materials and Plant Protection 10. General them is not required. Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or Copies of issued guides may be purchased from the Government license by the Commission. Printing Office at the current GPO price. Information on current GPO prices may be obtained by contacting the Superintendent of -This guide was issued after consideration of comments received from Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box the public. Comments and suggestions for improvements in these 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082, telephone (202)275-2060 or guides are encouraged at all times, and guides will be revised, as (202)275-2171.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining in Virginia
    Nontechnical Summary Uranium Mining in Virginia In recent years, there has been renewed interest in mining uranium in the Common- wealth of Virginia. However, before any mining can begin, Virginia’s General Assembly would have to rescind a statewide moratorium on uranium mining that has been in effect since 1982. The National Research Council was commissioned to provide an independent review of the scientific, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, processing, and reclamation in Virginia to help inform the public discussion about uranium mining and to assist Virginia’s lawmakers in their deliberations. eneath Virginia’s convene an independent rolling hills, there committee of experts to Bare occurrences of write a report that described uranium—a naturally occur- the scientific, environmental, ring radioactive element that human health and safety, and can be used to make fuel for regulatory aspects of mining nuclear power plants. In the and processing Virginia’s 1970s and early 1980s, work to uranium resources. Addi- explore these resources led to tional letters supporting this the discovery of a request were received from large uranium deposit at Coles U.S. Senators Mark Warner Hill, which is located in and Jim Webb and from Pittsylvania County in southern Governor Kaine. The Virginia. However, in 1982 the National Research Council Commonwealth of Virginia study was funded under a enacted a moratorium on contract with the Virginia uranium mining, and interest in Center for Coal and Energy further exploring the Coles Hill Research at Virginia deposit waned. Polytechnic Institute and In 2007, two families living in the vicinity of State University (Virginia Tech).
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings Impoundment Technologies
    Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings Impoundment Technologies Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates 1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 Vienna, VA 22182 Under Contract Number EP-D-05-002 Work Assignment No. 4-11, Task 5 Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Reid J. Rosnick Work Assignment Manager September 25, 2008 In accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan: Technical and Regulatory Support to Develop a Rulemaking to Modify the NESHAP Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions from Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.25), this document has been reviewed and approved by the following individuals: Work Assignment Task Manager: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Harry Pettengill Project Manager: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Abe Zeitoun Corporate Quality Assurance Mgr: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Gregory Beronja Work Assignment QA Manager: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Stephen Ostrow WA 4-11, Task 4 – NESHAPs History i SC&A – September 25, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Historical Conventional Tailings Impoundments ............................................................... 1 2.0 Profile of the Existing Industry........................................................................................... 2 3.0 Anticipated Changes in the Industry Profile....................................................................... 3 4.0 Comparison of Uranium Tailings Disposal
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling
    Nuclear Development Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling A Joint NEA/IAEAReport NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY OECD, 1999. Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue AndrÂe-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING A JOINT REPORT BY THE OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: ± to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining ®nancial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; ± to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and ± to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining
    Nuclear Development 2014 Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Extended Summary NEA Nuclear Development Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Extended Summary © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7063 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN MODERN URANIUM MINING Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Introduction Producing uranium in a safe and environmentally responsible manner is not only important to the producers and consumers of the product, but also to society at large. Given expectations of growth in nuclear generating capacity and associated uranium demand in the coming decades – particularly in the developing world – enhancing awareness of leading practice in uranium mining is important. This extended summary of the report Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining provides a brief outline of the driving forces behind the significant evolution of uranium mining practices from the time that uranium was first mined for military purposes until today. Uranium mining remains controversial principally because of legacy environmental and health issues created during the early phase of the industry. Today, uranium mining is conducted under significantly different circumstances and is now the most regulated and one of the safest forms of mining in the world. The report compares historic uranium mining practices with leading practices in the modern era, and provides an overview of the considerable evolution of regulations and mining practices that have occurred in the last few decades. Case studies of past and current practices are included to highlight these developments and to contrast the outcomes of historic and modern practices. With over 430 reactors operational worldwide at the end of 2013, more than 70 under construction and many more under consideration, providing fuel for these long-lived facilities will be essential for the uninterrupted generation of significant amounts of baseload electricity for decades to come.
    [Show full text]
  • P-05-837 Green Energy for the Wellbeing of Future Generations in Wales – Correspondence from the Petitioner to the Committee, 01.10.18
    P-05-837 Green Energy for the Wellbeing of Future Generations in Wales – Correspondence from the Petitioner to the Committee, 01.10.18 Dear Kayleigh Further to your email of September 24th and attachment I attach our response to the correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs in line with your deadline of October 2nd for the Petitions Committee meeting on October 9th. Most of the evidence backing our response is outlined under the appropriate section in the attachment but I also attach a further document which to date has not yet been published backing our arguments about uranium mining. The Author is Pete Roche who has prepared the article for Greenpeace International . As you can see it is a complex topic and we would be delighted to attend any future Meetings of the Petitions Committee to present our points in more and illustrative detail. We have kept to the 4 page outline as requested but would be happy to elaborate further . Please confirm you have received and can open both attachments Thank you for your support and I look forward to further information about the process in due course Yours sincerely Mag Richards (Secretariat to Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance) https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wana.wales&data =02%7C01%7CSeneddPetitions%40Assembly.Wales%7Ccbdcdfe58b514fd5b58c08d6 277b2f1b%7C38dc5129340c45148a044e8ef2771564%7C1%7C0%7C63673980840 9606583&sdata=Lx3lXzeOEqjrhhI7Gxnx2kGX3X0LtlG7gPVjOitKdqc%3D&r eserved=0 PO Box 90. Llandrindod Wells. Powys LD1 9BP [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Uranium
    URANIUM 273 5. PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSAL 5.1 PRODUCTION No information is available in the TRI database on facilities that manufacture or process uranium, because this chemical is not required to be reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) (EPA 1998a). Uranium is present in the earth’s crust at approximately 3 ppm (2 pCi/g) (Clark et al. 2006; du Preez 1989; WNA 2011). Of the more than 100 uranium ores, the primary (brannerite, carnotite, coffinite, davidite, pitchblende, thucholite, uraninite) and secondary (tobernite, autunite, tyuyamunite) are the main ores of commercial interest. The main ores are described in Table 5-1. The most economically attractive uranium ores have uranium concentrations >1,000 ppm (700 pCi/g) (Clayton and Clayton 1981; Weigel 1983; WNA 2011). In the United States, the major ore deposits are located in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas (EPA 1985a). The steps necessary to produce uranium for its various uses include mining, milling, conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF6), enrichment, reduction to metal or oxidation to uranium oxide, and fabrication into the desired shape. The steps for preparing commercial reactor grade, submarine reactor grade, or weapons-grade uranium are the same, except the last two require a more aggressive enrichment process. Depleted uranium metal is produced by reducing the depleted uranium hexafluoride byproduct. Conventional fabrication methods are used to configure the uranium for specific uses, such as rectangular solid blocks for helicopter rotor counterbalances and parabolic or cylindrical solids for military depleted uranium projectiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of the Western Slope
    ~~ MESco,A STATE '-"'~G'-"'~ -- JOURNAL OF THE WESTERN SLOPE VOLUME 8, NO. 1 WINTER 1993 NEW IIIEXICO URANIU". MI LLS in I~ ' FOUR CORNERS AREA ~ "" •• "'" ~ "L • •. " •. $ . , ........ ~- JOURNAL OF THE WESTERN SLOPE is published quarterly by two student organizations at Mesa State College: the Mesa State College Historical Society and the A1pha-Gamma-Epsilon Chapter of Phi Alpha Theta. Annual subscriptions are $ I O. ISingle copies are available by contacting the editors of the Journal.) Retailers are encouraged to wrlte for prices. Address subscriptions and orders for back issues to: Mesa State College Journal of the Western Slope P.O. Box 2647 Grand Junction, CO 8 1502 GUIDEUNES FOR CONTRIBUTORS, ~ purpose: of THE JOURf'VoL. OF THE 'W'ESTERN SlOPE is to MCourage scholarly sW<tj of CoIorado's western Slope. ~ prirM!y pis to pre'SeIVe and record ~ hIstoty: however, iIfticIes on antlYopoiogy. economics. governrnent. natural histoIy. and sociology 'Will be considefed. ~ip is open to anyone >Mlo wishes to submit oOgi"la1 and scholarly material about the Westem SIopIe. The editor> encourage ~ of inquily from prospective authors. send materials and ~en; 10 THE JOt..IR~ Of THE ~mRN SLOPE. Mesa College. P.O. Box 2647. Grand Junction. CO 8 1502. I ) ConlIibutors must send two copieS of articles. DO NOT SEND THE ORIGINAL Editors 'Will not ren-n manuscripts. Material ~ be typed, double spaced (inCk.lding footnotes), and footnoted. The editors v.tI glYe preference to submissions of about 25 pages. 2) NDN the editors 60 clays to r~ manuscripls. cung this trne, the editors ask that )'OU not submit the anIde to anothef pubIstIef.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Rule for Radon-222 Emissions from Licensed Uranium Mill Tailings
    ,,,, Fiadisrion ,-,,-, -" Final Rule for Radon - Emissions from Licensed Uranium Mill Tailings Background Information Document 40 CFR Part 61 EPA 520/1-86-009 National Emission Standards for Harzardous Air Pollutants BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT STANDARD FOR RADON-222 EMISSIONS FROM LICENSED URANIUM MILL TAILINGS August 15, 1986 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs Washington, D.C. 20460 Figures v i Tables viii 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 History of Standard Development 1.2 Content 1.3 Other EPA Standards Affecting Uranium Mills 1.4 Other Regulations Affecting Uranium Mills 2. ESTIMATING THE RISK DUE TO EXPOSURE TO RADON-222 DECAY PRODUCTS 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Radon-222 Exposure Pathways 2.2.1 Physical Considerations 2.2.2 Characterizing Exposures to the General Population Vis-a-vis Underground Miners 2.3 Health Risk From Exposure to Radon-222 Decay Products 2.3.1 Risk Models 2.3.2 The EPA Relative Risk Model 2.3.3 Comparison of Risk Estimates 2.3.4 Selecti.on of Risk Coefficients 2.4 Estimating the Risks 2.4.1 Exposure 2.4.2 Risk Esti.rnation References 3. RADON-222 SOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT, AND RISK ESTIMATES 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Origin and Properties of Radon-222 3.3 Sources of Radon-222 Emissions in the Milling Process 3.4 Characterization of Emissions 3.4.1 Ore Handling and Preparation 3.4.2 Mill Emissions 3.4.3 Emissions From Tailings Disposal 3.5 Transport and Risk Assessment 3.5.1 Air Dispersion Estimates 3.5.2 Risk Estimates CONTENTS (cant inued) 3.6 Measurement of Radon-222 3-22 3.6.1 Ambient Air Samplers 3-23 3.6.2 Concentrating Samplers That Measure Radon-222 Emanation From Surfaces 3-23 References 3-25 4.
    [Show full text]