Environmental remediation of uranium production facilities : a joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

323 Pages·2002·3.61 MB·English

by  OECD

Nuclear Development
Environmental Remediation
of Uranium Production Facilities
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 financial 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. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates
indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th
May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd
November 1996) and the Republic of Korea (12th December 1996). The Commission of the European Communities takes
part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC
European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first
non-European full Member. NEA membership today consists of 27 OECD Member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom
and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:
− to assist its Member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the
scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as
− to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to
government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy
and sustainable development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste
management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law
and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for
participating countries.
In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in
Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.
© OECD 2002
Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre français
d’exploitation du droit de copie (CCF), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, Tel. [phone], Fax [phone],
for every country except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center,
Customer Service, [phone], 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, or CCC Online: http://www.copyright.com/. All other
applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal,
75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
PREFACE
Since the mid-1960s, in co-operation with their members, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have jointly prepared the periodic report
Uranium: Resources, Production and Demand. The report commonly known as the “Red Book” is
published by the OECD. The eighteenth edition of the “Red Book” was published in 2000.
In 1999, the Joint NEA/IAEA Uranium Group, which prepares the “Red Book”, established a
Working Group on Environmental Restoration of World Uranium Production Facilities. This was done
in response to the broadened mandate of the Joint NEA/IAEA Uranium Group to foster the exchange
of information on environmental effects and environmental technologies associated with uranium
mining and ore processing.
In order to obtain an overview of the situation, the Working Group sent a questionnaire to
Member countries/states requesting information about remediation activities. The results of the survey
were analysed by the Group and analytical reviews were prepared describing the most relevant issues
involved in the remediation of uranium production facilities. The questionnaire results and analytical
reviews form the basis of this report.
Acknowledgement
The Working Group and the Joint NEA/IAEA Uranium Group would like to acknowledge the
co-operation of all the organisations (see Annex 2) that submitted information for this report.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive summary................................................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 11
2. Site characterisation....................................................................................................................... 13
3. Decommissioning, dismantling and decontamination.............................................................. 31
4. Waste management................................................................................................................... 39
5. Remediation of waste management facilities........................................................................... 51
6. Water remediation.................................................................................................................... 57
7. Long-term stewardship and monitoring.................................................................................... 87
8. Policies and regulations............................................................................................................ 93
9. Costs and Funding.................................................................................................................... 103
National reports
Argentina.................................................................................................................................. 121
Australia.................................................................................................................................... 126
Brazil........................................................................................................................................ 140
Canada...................................................................................................................................... 145
Czech Republic......................................................................................................................... 170
Egypt......................................................................................................................................... 202
Finland...................................................................................................................................... 205
France....................................................................................................................................... 208
Gabon........................................................................................................................................ 217
Germany................................................................................................................................... 222
Hungary.................................................................................................................................... 230
Japan......................................................................................................................................... 233
Kazakhstan................................................................................................................................ 236
Portugal..................................................................................................................................... 241
Romania.................................................................................................................................... 245
Russian Federation.................................................................................................................... 249
Spain......................................................................................................................................... 259
Sweden...................................................................................................................................... 264
Ukraine..................................................................................................................................... 267
United States of America.......................................................................................................... 271
Uzbekistan................................................................................................................................ 303
Viet Nam................................................................................................................................... 308
5
Annexes
1. Members of the Joint NEA/IAEA Working Group............................................................... 313
2. List of Reporting Organisations............................................................................................. 317
3. Glossary.................................................................................................................................. 319
List of Tables
2.1 Average contents of U and other selected chemical elements in the tailings
and rocks of the area of the Cunha Baixa Mine................................................................ 25
2.2 Average contents of U and other selected chemical elements in stream sediments
of the area of the Cunha Baixa Mine…………................................................................ 26
2.3 Average contents of U and other selected trace elements in alluvial soils around
the Cunha Baixa Mine....................................................................................................... 26
2.4 Average values of selected hydrochemical parametersin groundwater around the
Cunha Baixa Mine............................................................................................................ 27
2.5 Average values of selected hydrochemical parameters in water bore holes and wells
under the influence of the Cunha Baixa Mine.................................................................. 27
6.1 Examples of national effluent concentration limits.......................................................... 59
6.2 Approximate wet season concentrations of selected solutes in Retention Pond 4
of Ranger Uranium Mine and in regional backgroundwater from Magela Creek............ 67
6.3 Mean analytical data for all sampled sites........................................................................ 68
6.4 Lodève remediation study results, 1998........................................................................... 71
6.5 Water quality at the Lodève water treatment plant........................................................... 73
6.6 Contaminant concentrations in raw and treated mine water at Schlema-Alberoda.......... 75
6.7 Average aquifer characteristics within the ISL site.......................................................... 78
6.8 Average aquifer characteristics within the aureole of residual solutions.......................... 79
6.9 Data of radionuclides and critical parameters................................................................... 80
9.1 Decommissioning and remediation costs of selected mines I........................................... 106
9.2 Decommissioning and remediation costs of selected mills II........................................... 108
9.3 Decommissioning and remediation costs of selected integrated operations..................... 112
9.4 Decommissioning and remedation costs of selected special facilities.............................. 114
9.5 Exchange rates USD vs. local currencies.......................................................................... 115
List of Figures
6.1 Flow sheet of the HDS process......................................................................................... 62
6.2 Schematic flowsheet for treatment of strongly acidic ISL solutions at Stra(cid:1)................... 70
6.3 Schematic flowsheet of the water treatment plant in Lodève........................................... 73
6.4 Schematic flowsheet of the Schlema-Alberoda water treatment plant.............................. 74
6.5 Schematic flowsheet for the water treatment process at Ciudad Rodrigo......................... 80
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Remediation programmes for uranium production facilities being conducted or planned in the
world have a major objective of establishing long-term, stable conditions to ensure the safe use of the
site by both current and future generations. Wherever possible, the remediation plan aims to achieve
the return of affected areas to previously existing environmental conditions or to a land use that will be
sustainable in the long term.
This report provides a summary of the most relevant issues and practices in remediation
programmes of uranium production facilities and an overview of activities and plans in countries that
participated in the study. Twenty-two countries (12 OECD and 10 non-OECD countries) provided
information on historical, ongoing and future remediation activities and on relevant governmental
policies and regulations.
Remediation of uranium production facilities encompasses activities to restore areas including
mines, mills, waste management facilities, tailings containment, and land and water resources. At the
outset of a remediation programme, the final land use for the site is agreed with the stakeholders.
Every effort is made to ensure that the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders are fully
taken into account. At the same time, care is taken to ensure that the agreed outcome is practicable
within the constraints of environment, economics or finance that may apply in the specific instance at
the time of planning or in the foreseeable future. The principles of environmental protection,
sustainable development and intergenerational equity should be taken into consideration at all stages
of the remediation process.
A remediation programme typically includes considerations such as the following:
• Remediation is carried out with appropriate plans and specifications that must comply with
relevant laws, regulations, license provisions, and established criteria.
• Remediation limits the residual impact to as low as can be reasonably achieved (ALARA),
economic and social factors being taken into account. Most countries have defined an
acceptable level of impact to the public and the environment.
• All residual contaminants are properly contained or controlled as long as necessary. Many
countries have regulations or guidelines for the design and construction of containment
systems used for contaminants.
• Radon and radioactive dust emissions are properly controlled and/or contained in view of
future land use scenarios or site development plans.
• All water resources, both above and below ground, are protected from contamination to
appropriate levels and extents.
• For final land use, radiation doses and exposure pathways for individuals who might live at,
work on or visit the site, are assessed.
• The site is remediated in such a way that future maintenance requirements are minimised to
the extent practicable.
• There should be a minimum limitation to public access to remediated land and site.
7
In the report, relevant topics are discussed in the following areas: site characterisation;
decontamination, dismantling and decommissioning; waste management; water remediation;
long-term stewardship and monitoring; policies and regulations; and costs.
Clean-up criteria, policies and regulations
Given the increased awareness of environmental and health issues in general, many countries
have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, policies aimed at the improving and reinforcing the:
health and safety of workers and the public; protection of the environment; sustainable economic,
social and environmental development; and public participation in environmental decision-making.
The policies and legislation pertinent to the uranium mining industry tend to be rather complex in
most countries and they typically include sometimes competing requirements from a number of
diverse fields, such as mining law, environmental law, toxic and / or radioactive waste regulations,
radiation protection at the work place, etc.
Risk analysis and management
The remediation of uranium mining and milling facilities is an activity that calls for the
application of proper risk analysis and management at all stages of the process. Environmental risk
management in particular should be applied to ensure that optimised outcomes are achieved from the
remediation work. The scope of environmental risk analysis in this context is very broad and should
consider adjacent communities as part of the environment, which means that health risks become an
integral part of the risk analysis.
The risk analysis and resulting management steps need also to take into account coventional as
well as radiological risk emerging from the actual remediation operation, such as the operation of
heavy equipment and the transport of contaminated materials between sites.
Site characterisation
Pre-operational and post-operational characterisation of the site forms the basis of any
environmental remediation programme. This characterisation included the collection of data on the
hydrological, climatological, geological, geotechnical and ecological properties of the site and its
surroundings. The type of mining and processing methods employed over time and the types of waste
generated need also to be assessed.
In many instances communities, ranging in size from small camps to large cities, have been
developed in association with, or became dependent on the mining operations. The cessation of mining
and milling operations may have a substantial social impact on such communities and such effects
must be taken into account when planning the overall remediation process.
The collection and use of site characterisation data are indispensable and their availability is
crucial to ensure the successful implementation of remediation.
8
Decontamination, dismantling and decommissioning
Based on the agreed land use plan, a decision on the future use of the mine-related infrastructure
will have been made. All buildings, mills, laboratories, chemical and product stores, airfields, etc.,
which are not needed any more are often decommissioned and removed in a remediation programme.
Roads may also need to be removed, although they are often left to provide access for monitoring and
surveillance after the works programme has been completed and for community use. Many elements
of an uranium mining and processing facility are likely to be below ground level. These may include
the mine workings itself, basements, storage facilities, explosives magazines, crushers, silos, service
tunnels, cable ducts etc. Such installations may be either left underground and perhaps, backfilled, or
may need to be removed to clear the ground for new foundation work.
Radioactively contaminated sites will require decontamination as part of the decommissioning
process. The rules and regulations relating to public and worker safety must be strictly observed in all
decontamination work. Decontamination techniques include scraping or jack hammering, sand
blasting, washing and high pressure hosing, chemical solvent washing, strippable paints, water
treatment, etc.
Waste management
Mining operations produce waste of different types, all of which require appropriate management.
These waste materials include development waste from initial excavations such as soil materials, un-
mineralised rock materials, ores with sub-economic levels of mineralisation or high levels of
contaminants, as well as processing wastes, the largest volume of which are mill tailings. Wastes from
water treatment, and residues from cleaning and dismantling processes also need to be managed. Upon
closure, mining and milling waste management facilities need to be decommissioned and sometimes
remediated, in order to ensure their long-time stability.
Mill tailings are a type of processing waste associated with uranium production that pose
particular problems. The final containment of tailings is usually one of the largest issues in uranium
mine site remediation due to the risk to the environment and to the public in terms of the physical
volume, radiological and chemical contaminants.
Water remediation
One of the principal pathways by which contamination may reach the environment from uranium
mining and milling operations is by water. In mining operations, dewatering underground and open pit
mines might produce water contaminated with radioactive or other materials. Contaminated water
might also occur as a consequence of surface water runoff from, and seepage through, the waste rock
piles and ore stockpiles, and as seepage through tailings impoundments. Therefore, the environmental
restoration of any uranium production facility may need to include the restoration of surface and
groundwaters and the treatment of effluents from waste management facilities, such as tailings
impoundments.
Long-term stewardship and monitoring
Monitoring has become a standard principle by the uranium industry and governmental
authorities in countries all over the world. This is to ensure and verify that the public and environment
9
are protected from the effects of radiation exposure during operation and after uranium related
facilities have been closed and decommissioned. When mining facilities are closed, monitoring may
be required for an extended period to verify that closed facilities are not causing adverse impacts to
human health or the environment.
The use of long-term monitoring as a part of the decommissioning plan is, in effect, long-term
stewardship or institutional control, which is often provided by the country. Decisions on whether
controls should be “active” or “passive” are made during the planning process. The period for which
monitoring is to be part of these controls is also a question that must be determined, as is the question
of how frequently monitoring will take place, what will be measured, what kind of equipment will be
used, what measurements will trigger a response action, and who is responsible for the monitoring and
emergency actions.
Costs and funding
The statutory framework regulating modern uranium mining in many countries makes it
mandatory for uranium producers to take into account the costs of decommissioning and remediation
and to make appropriate funding provisions during the operating life of facilities to cover these costs.
Although cost data are provided in the report for a number of countries, it should be noted that
meaningful comparison of costs could not be made between sites or countries without additional
detailed data and analysis, as these costs were found to be very site specific. The cost data reported are
primarily to provide a global perspective and information base for policy and decision makers so that
such costs can be accounted for and allocated as with any other social costs.
10