DOCSLIB.ORG

Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals EPA 530-R-94-031 NTIS PB94-200979 TECHNICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENT EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION OF ORES AND MINERALS VOLUME 4 COPPER August 1994 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste Special Waste Branch 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Technical Resource Document: Copper DISCLAIMER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The mention of company or product names is not to be considered an endorsement by the U.S. Government or by the EPA. This Technical Resource Document consists of four sections. The first is EPA's Profile of the copper industry; the remaining sections are Reports from several site visits conducted by EPA. The Profile Section was distributed for review to the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI's) Bureau of Mines and Bureau of Land Management; the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; the American Mining Congress (AMC), and environmental organizations. Summaries of the comments and EPA's responses are presented as Appendix 1-A to the Profile Section. The Site Visit Reports were reviewed by individual company, State, and Federal representatives who participated in the site visit. Comments and EPA responses are included as appendices to the specific Site Visit Section. EPA is grateful to all individuals who took the time to review sections of this Technical Resource Document. The use of the terms "extraction," "beneficiation," and "mineral processing" in the Profile section of this document is not intended to classify any waste streams for the purposes of regulatory interpretation or application. Rather, these terms are used in the context of common industry terminology. i Technical Resource Document: Copper TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DISCLAIMER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................. i 1.0 MINING INDUSTRY PROFILE: COPPER ................................................ 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1-1 1.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY ......................... 1-3 1.3 ORE CHARACTERIZATION .................................................. 1-8 1.3.1 Porphyry Copper and Associated Deposits ................................ 1-8 1.3.2 Sedimentary and Metasedimentary Deposits ............................... 1-8 1.3.3 Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits .................................. 1-9 1.3.4 Veins and Replacement Deposits ........................................ 1-9 1.3.5 Ultrabasic and Carbonatite Deposits ..................................... 1-9 1.3.6 Mineral Assemblages ................................................. 1-9 1.4 COPPER EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION PRACTICES ..................... 1-11 1.4.1 Extraction Operations ............................................... 1-11 1.4.1.1 Typical Mining Operations ................................... 1-11 1.4.1.2 Surface Mining Methods ..................................... 1-11 1.4.1.3 Underground Mining Methods ................................ 1-14 1.4.2 Beneficiation Operations ............................................. 1-20 1.4.2.1 Conventional Milling/Flotation ................................ 1-20 1.4.2.2 Leach Operations (In Situ, Dump, Heap, and Vat) ................ 1-42 1.5 WASTES AND OTHER MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH COPPER EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION ...................................................... 1-73 1.5.1 Extraction and Beneficiation Wastes and Materials ........................ 1-76 1.5.1.1 RCRA Wastes ............................................. 1-77 1.5.1.2 Materials ................................................. 1-78 1.5.2 Waste and Materials Management ...................................... 1-81 1.5.2.1 RCRA Units .............................................. 1-81 1.5.2.2 Non-RCRA Units .......................................... 1-85 1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................... 1-88 1.6.1 Potential Sources of Contamination ..................................... 1-88 1.6.1.1 Mine Dewatering ........................................... 1-88 1.6.1.2 Releases from Active Leach Units ............................. 1-88 1.6.1.3 Releases from Leach Units During and After Closure .............. 1-89 1.6.1.4 Releases from Tailings Impoundments .......................... 1-89 1.6.1.5 Acid Drainage ............................................. 1-90 1.6.1.6 Beneficiation Reagents ...................................... 1-92 1.6.2 Factors Affecting the Potential for Contamination ......................... 1-92 1.6.3 Affected Media ..................................................... 1-92 1.6.3.1 Ground Water/Surface Water ................................. 1-92 1.6.3.2 Soil ...................................................... 1-93 1.6.3.3 Air ...................................................... 1-93 1.6.4 Damage Cases ..................................................... 1-94 1.6.4.1 National Priorities List ...................................... 1-94 1.6.4.2 304(l) Sites ............................................... 1-94 1.7 CURRENT REGULATORY AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ................... 1-95 1.7.1 Environmental Protection Agency Regulations ............................ 1-95 1.7.1.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ....................... 1-95 1.7.1.2 Clean Water Act ........................................... 1-96 1.7.1.3 Clean Air Act ............................................. 1-100 1.7.2 Department of the Interior ............................................ 1-101 1.7.2.1 Bureau of Land Management ................................. 1-101 1.7.2.2 National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service ............... 1-103 ii Technical Resource Document: Copper 1.7.3 Department of Agriculture ............................................ 1-103 1.7.3.1 Forest Service ............................................. 1-103 1.7.4 Army Corps of Engineers ............................................. 1-104 1.7.5 State Programs ..................................................... 1-105 1.7.5.1 Arizona .................................................. 1-105 1.8 REFERENCES ............................................................. 1-110 2.0 MINE SITE VISIT: ASARCO/TROY MINE ............................................. 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Background ........................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 General Facility Description ........................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Environmental Setting ................................................ 2-7 2.1.3.1 Surface Water .............................................. 2-7 2.1.3.2 Geology ................................................... 2-8 2.1.3.3 Hydrogeology .............................................. 2-8 2.2 FACILITY OPERATIONS .................................................... 2-11 2.2.1 Mining Operations .................................................. 2-13 2.2.2 Milling Operations .................................................. 2-15 2.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................... 2-18 2.3.1 Types of Waste ..................................................... 2-18 2.3.2 Solid Waste Management Units ........................................ 2-18 2.3.2.1 Tailings Thickener .......................................... 2-18 2.3.2.2 Tailings Pipeline ........................................... 2-19 2.3.2.3 Tailings Impoundment ...................................... 2-19 2.3.2.4 Waste Rock ............................................... 2-24 2.3.2.5 Waste Oil Storage Tanks .................................... 2-24 2.3.2.6 Burn Pit .................................................. 2-24 2.3.3 Waste Water Management Units ....................................... 2-24 2.3.3.1 Mine Water ............................................... 2-24 2.3.3.2 Sanitary Sewage ........................................... 2-25 2.3.3.3 Assay Laboratory Wastes .................................... 2-25 2.3.4 Hazardous Waste Management Unit .................................... 2-25 2.3.4.1 Waste Solvent Tanks ........................................ 2-25 2.4 MONITORING ............................................................. 2-26 2.4.1 Surface Water ...................................................... 2-26 2.4.2 Ground Water ...................................................... 2-29 2.4.3 Air ............................................................... 2-29 2.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLIANCE ......................... 2-30 2.5.1 Operating Permit ................................................... 2-30 2.5.2 Solid Waste ....................................................... 2-30 2.5.3 Surface Water ...................................................... 2-31 2.5.4 Ground Water ...................................................... 2-31 2.5.5 Air ............................................................... 2-31 2.5.6 Hazardous Waste ................................................... 2-32 2.6 REFERENCES ............................................................. 2-33 3.0 MINE SITE VISIT: SAN MANUEL FACILITY MAGMA COPPER COMPANY .................... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Background ........................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 General Description .................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Environmental Setting ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium
    In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium (June 2009) l Most uranium mining in the USA and Kazakhstan is now by in situ leach methods, also known as in situ recovery (ISR). l In USA ISL is seen as the most cost effective and environmentally acceptable method of mining, and Australian experience supports this. l Australia's first ISL uranium mine is Beverley, which started operation late in 2000. The proposal for Honeymoon has government approval and it is expected to be operating in 2008. Conventional mining involves removing mineralised rock (ore) from the ground, breaking it up and treating it to remove the minerals being sought. In situ leaching (ISL), also known as solution mining, or in situ recovery (ISR) in North America, involves leaving the ore where it is in the ground, and recovering the minerals from it by dissolving them and pumping the pregnant solution to the surface where the minerals can be recovered. Consequently there is little surface disturbance and no tailings or waste rock generated. However, the orebody needs to be permeable to the liquids used, and located so that they do not contaminate ground water away from the orebody. Uranium ISL uses the native groundwater in the orebody which is fortified with a complexing agent and in most cases an oxidant. It is then pumped through the underground orebody to recover the minerals in it by leaching. Once the pregnant solution is returned to the surface, the uranium is recovered in much the same way as in any other uranium plant (mill). In Australian ISL mines (Beverley and the soon to be opened Honeymoon Mine) the oxidant used is hydrogen peroxide and the complexing agent sulfuric acid.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Fluid–Rock Interactions and Lixiviant/Oxidant Behaviour for the In-Situ Recovery of Metals from Deep Ore Bodies
    School of Earth and Planetary Science Department of Applied Geology Understanding Fluid–Rock Interactions and Lixiviant/Oxidant Behaviour for the In-situ Recovery of Metals from Deep Ore Bodies Tania Marcela Hidalgo Rosero This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Curtin University February 2020 1 Declaration __________________________________________________________________________ Declaration To the best of my knowledge and belief, I declare that this work of thesis contains no material published by any other person, except where due acknowledgements have been made. This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Tania Marcela Hidalgo Rosero Date: 28/01/2020 2 Abstract __________________________________________________________________________ Abstract In-situ recovery (ISR) processing has been recognised as a possible alternative to open- pit mining, especially for low-grade resources. In ISR, the fluid–rock interaction between the target ore and the lixiviant results in valuable- (and gangue-) metal dissolution. This interaction is achieved by the injection and recovery of fluid by means of strategically positioned wells. Although the application of ISR has become more common (ISR remains the preferential processing technique for uranium and has been applied in pilot programs for treating oxide zones in copper deposits), its application to hard-rock refractory and low-grade copper-sulfide deposits is still under development. This research is focused on the possible application of ISR to primary copper sulfides usually found as deep ores. Lixiviant/oxidant selection is an important aspect to consider during planning and operation in the ISR of copper-sulfide ores.
    [Show full text]
  • Sell-1559, Leaching
    CONTACT INFORMATION Mining Records Curator Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., Suite 100 Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-770-3500 http://www.azgs.az.gov [email protected] The following file is part of the James Doyle Sell Mining Collection ACCESS STATEMENT These digitized collections are accessible for purposes of education and research. We have indicated what we know about copyright and rights of privacy, publicity, or trademark. Due to the nature of archival collections, we are not always able to identify this information. We are eager to hear from any rights owners, so that we may obtain accurate information. Upon request, we will remove material from public view while we address a rights issue. CONSTRAINTS STATEMENT The Arizona Geological Survey does not claim to control all rights for all materials in its collection. These rights include, but are not limited to: copyright, privacy rights, and cultural protection rights. The User hereby assumes all responsibility for obtaining any rights to use the material in excess of “fair use.” The Survey makes no intellectual property claims to the products created by individual authors in the manuscript collections, except when the author deeded those rights to the Survey or when those authors were employed by the State of Arizona and created intellectual products as a function of their official duties. The Survey does maintain property rights to the physical and digital representations of the works. QUALITY STATEMENT The Arizona Geological Survey is not responsible for the accuracy of the records, information, or opinions that may be contained in the files. The Survey collects, catalogs, and archives data on mineral properties regardless of its views of the veracity or accuracy of those data.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ
    GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IN-SITU LEACH URANIUM MILLING FACILITIES SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT JUNE 2008 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland 1. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects to receive a number of new license applications for uranium milling at sites in the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico over the next several years. NRC anticipates that most of these potential license applications will involve uranium milling facilities that would use the in-situ leach (ISL) process. Because there are environmental issues common to ISL milling facilities, NRC has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning at future ISL milling facilities in specific regions of interest within these four western states, where NRC is the licensing authority for uranium milling. In the ISL process, a leaching agent, such as oxygen with sodium bicarbonate, is added to native ground water for injection through wells into the subsurface ore body to dissolve the uranium. The leach solution, containing the dissolved uranium, is pumped back to the surface and sent to a processing plant, where ion exchange is used to separate the uranium from the solution. The underground leaching of the uranium also frees other metals and minerals from the host rock. Operators of ISL facilities are required to restore the ground water affected by the leaching operations. The milling process concentrates the recovered uranium into the product known as "yellowcake" (U3O8). This yellowcake is then shipped to uranium conversion facilities for further processing in the overall uranium fuel cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual of Acid in Situ Leach Uranium Mining Technology
    IAEA-TECDOC-1239 Manual of acid in situ leach uranium mining technology August 2001 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria MANUAL OF ACID IN SITU LEACH URANIUM MINING TECHNOLOGY IAEA, VIENNA, 2001 IAEA-TECDOC-1239 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2001 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2001 FOREWORD An important part of the IAEA programme for reactor fuels involves eliciting and circulating information on innovative uranium production technologies. As compared with conventional mining, in situ leach (ISL) technology is both innovative and relatively young. It is recognized as having economic and environmental advantages when properly employed by knowledgeable specialists to extract uranium from suitable sandstone type deposits. In recent years ISL uranium mining has been producing about 13 to 15 per cent of world output. Because of its potential for both low cost recovery and having environmental advantages, the use of the technology will very probably increase. This may occur because sandstone hosted uranium deposits amenable to ISL recovery are relatively widespread in the world. ISL technology recovers uranium using two alternative chemical leaching systems — acid and alkaline. Acid leach is the more widely employed and has historically produced a majority of the world’s ISL production. This technology, with its origins in the 1960s, was developed and employed in the former Soviet Union and the successor states, as well as in central and eastern Europe. The report describes operational practices developed under the economic systems, together with the governmental policies and programmes prevailing over this period.
    [Show full text]
  • A Certification System for Sustainable Copper Production
    A CERTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SUSTAINABLE COPPER PRODUCTION Master’s Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the academic degree “Master of Science” at the University of Graz for the “Erasmus Mundus Master's Programme in Industrial Ecology“ by SANNE NUSSELDER at the Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research Supervisor: Prof. Baumgartner Second Reader: R. Aschemann Graz, 2015 INTRODUCTION 6 Literature Review on Certification Systems for Metals 6 Outline Research 7 CHAPTER 1 - COPPER MARKET 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 The Copper Supply Chain 9 1.3 Mines 10 1.3.1 Mining in Chile 11 1.3.2 Mining in China 12 1.3.3 Mining in Peru 12 1.3.4 Mining in the USA 13 1.3.5 Mining in Australia 13 1.3.6 Mining in Russia 14 1.3.7 Mining in the DRC 14 1.3.8 Mining in Zambia 15 1.3.9 Mining in Canada 15 1.3.10 Mining in Mexico 16 1.3.11 Mining in Kazakhstan 16 1.3.12 Mining in Poland 16 1.3.13 Mining in Indonesia 16 1.3.14 Conclusion Mines 17 1.4 Smelters 17 1.4.1 Smelting in China 18 1.4.2 Smelting in Japan 18 1.4.3 Smelting in Chile 18 1.4.4 Smelting in Russia 19 1.4.5 Smelting in India 19 1.4.6 Smelting in South Korea 19 1.4.7 Smelting in Poland 19 1.4.8 Smelting in Zambia 19 1.4.9 Smelting in the USA 20 1.4.10 Smelting in Germany 20 1.4.11 Smelting in Australia 20 1.4.12 Smelting in Bulgaria 20 1.4.13 Smelting in Kazakhstan 21 1.4.14 Smelting in Peru 21 1.4.15 Smelting in Canada 21 1.4.16 Smelting in Indonesia 21 1.4.17 Conclusion Smelting 22 1.5 Refiners 23 1.5.1 Refining in China 23 1.5.2 Refining in Chile 23 1.5.3
    [Show full text]
  • A Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach for in Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees
    NUREG/CR-6733 A Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555-0001 .oG.o AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special NUREG-series publications and other technical NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at books, journal www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. articles, and transactions, Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and Publicly released records include, to name a few, congressional reports. Such documents as theses, NUREG-series publications; FederalRegister notices; dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and non-NRC correspondence; conference proceedings may be purchased NRC correspondence and internal from their sponsoring organization. memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event Copies of industry codes and standards used in a reports; and Commission papers and their substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are attachments. maintained at The NRC Technical NRC publications in Library the NUREG series, NRC Two White regulations, and Title 10, Flint North Energy, in the Code of 11545 Rockville Pike FederalRegulations may also be purchased from one Rockville, MD 20852-2738 of these two sources. 1. The Superintendent of Documents These standards are available U.S. Government in the library for Printing Office reference use by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • An Environmental Critique of in Situ Leach Mining
    An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining : The Case Against Uranium Solution Mining By Gavin Mudd Victoria University of Technology A Research Report for Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy) with The Australian Conservation Foundation July 1998 Uranium In Situ Leaching : The Case Against Solution Mining i Preface The mining and export of Australian uranium has been a controversial issue for many years, and will continue to remain an intense political issue for many more years to come. With a depressed world uranium market, the mining industry has been seeking to cut costs in order to make projects more economically viable. One such method of achieving this is a mining process known as In Situ Leaching (ISL) or Solution Mining. It involves pumping chemicals into the ground to dissolve the uranium mineral “in situ” and then pumping these uranium-laden solutions back to the surface for extraction and processing of the uranium into yellowcake for export. It is claimed by the industry to be “a controllable, safe, and environmentally benign method of mining which can operate under strict environmental controls and which often has cost advantages”1. This ignores the reality of many former ISL trials and mine sites across Europe and North America, and the history of ISL trial mines in Australia. The technique of In Situ Leaching is not always controllable, safe, nor environmentally benign, and the hidden costs are usually borne by the underground environment. The process of ISL can lead to permanent contamination of groundwater, which is often used by local people and industries for drinking water supplies, and can also contaminate land which was otherwise good agriculturally productive land.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Environmental Impacts of the Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining Process
    Review of Environmental Impacts of the Acid In-situ Leach Uranium Mining Process Graham Taylor1, Vic Farrington2, Peter Woods2, Robert Ring3 and Robert Molloy1 1CSIRO Land and Water, 2Parsons Brinckerhoff and 3ANSTO CSIRO Land and Water Client Report August 2004 Important Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this document and associated services performed by CSIRO is to provide scientific knowledge to the South Australian Government. Work has been carried out in accordance with the scope of services identified in the agreement dated 22 October 2003, between South Australian Government through the EPA (‘the Client’) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This document provides a review of environmental impacts of the in-situ acid leach uranium mining process. The material presented in this document has been derived from information supplied to CSIRO by the Client and from consultation with stakeholders and research conducted by CSIRO and other agencies and consultants. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impact of future events may require further exploration and re-evaluation of the findings, observations, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this document. This document has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Client, and is subject to and issued in conjunction with the provisions of the agreement between CSIRO and the Client. CSIRO accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this document by any third party. Cover Photograph: Description: Well field at the Beverley ISL Uranium Mine operated by Heathgate Resources, South Australia, December 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • In Situ Leach Mining Rules Question and Answer Sheet
    In Situ Leach Mining Rules Question and Answer Sheet Why are the new in situ leach mining rules drafted? The rules were drafted in response to a renewed interest in South Dakota’s uranium deposits, especially those that can be mined by in situ leaching. To prepare for the possibility of in situ leach mining operations moving into the state, the 2006 Legislature passed Senate Bill 62. Senate Bill 62 was designed to fill gaps in the state laws that govern uranium exploration and mining. This legislation authorized the Board of Minerals and Environment to promulgate rules for the construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of uranium and other in situ leach mines under the South Dakota Mined Land Reclamation Act (SDCL 45-6B). The Board of Minerals and Environment approved the new rules in 2007 and subsequently approved revisions to the rules in 2008. Do the new rules open up the state to this type of mining? No. In situ leach mining was already authorized under the existing state mining laws that were enacted in 1982 (SDCL 45- 6B). The new rules are designed to fill in regulatory gaps by identifying the specific requirements an applicant must meet to obtain a permit for and to operate an in situ leach mine. What is in situ uranium leach mining? In situ leach mining involves injecting solutions into an ore body through wells to leach the uranium out of the rock, then collecting the fluid through recovery wells and processing it on the surface to remove the uranium. The solutions used to leach the uranium vary depending on the nature of the ore deposit.
    [Show full text]
  • IAEA Nuclear Energy Series in Situ Leach Uranium Mining: an Overview of Operations
    IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-1.4 Basic In Situ Leach Principles Uranium Mining: An Overview Objectives of Operations Guides Technical Reports INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–102716–0 ISSN 1995–7807 @ IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are available in English on the IAEA Internet site: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of in Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium in New Mexico and Post-Mining Reclamation Omar Ruiz, Bruce M
    Investigation of in situ leach (ISL) mining of uranium in New Mexico and post-mining reclamation Omar Ruiz, Bruce M. Thomson, Jose M. Cerrato Center for Water & the Environment, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico Abstract peroxide) and a carbonate-complexing agent. It is The purpose of this study was to consider the injected into the aquifer to solubilize U by oxidizing effectiveness of two methods of restoring groundwater it to more soluble phases, which then dissolve through quality in a subsurface uranium-bearing formation a series of complexation reactions. The soluble U following in situ leach (ISL) mining. To accomplish complexes are transported by groundwater flow to the this it was necessary to develop an understanding of extraction wells where they are pumped to the surface the geochemical characteristics of an aqueous solution and are recovered in a mill. The barren lixiviant is then that might be produced by an ISL mine. Samples pumped back into the aquifer through injection wells of material from three different uranium (U) mines and the process is repeated. were collected and their acid leachable elemental The major advantages of ISL mining are that (U.S. concentration determined. Additional samples Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009): 1) it produces were then leached with aerated sodium bicarbonate little disturbance of the land surface, 2) construction costs (NaHCO3) solutions at concentrations ranging from 1 mM to 500 mM. The fraction of the acid-leachable are much less than conventional underground mining, 3) U and other trace elements released by this leaching it is much safer for workers than underground mining, 4) very little solid waste is generated because there is process depended on NaHCO3 concentration, U mineralogy, and the amount of solid organic matter virtually no excavation, and 5) there is little impact on in the samples.
    [Show full text]