Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 258
8
Best Practices
Key Points
• Uranium mining and processing have planning, construc-
tion, production, closure, and long-term stewardship phases, and
best practice requires a complete life-cycle approach during the
project planning phase. Planning should take into account all
aspects of the process—including the eventual closure, site reme-
diation, and return of the affected area to as close to natural con-
ditions as possible—prior to initiation of a project. Good operating
practice is for site and waste remediation to be carried out on a
continuous basis during ore recovery, thereby reducing the time
and costs for final decommissioning, remediation, and reclama-
tion. Regular and structured risk analyses, hazard analyses, and
operations analyses should take place within a structured change
management system, and the results of all such assessments
should be openly available and communicated to the public.
• Development of a mining and/or processing project should
use the expertise and experience of professionals familiar with
internationally accepted best practices, to form an integrated and
cross-disciplinary collaboration that encompasses all components
of the project, including legal, environmental, health, monitoring,
safety, and engineering elements.
258
OCR for page 259
259
BEST PRACTICES
• Meaningful and timely public participation should occur
throughout the life cycle of a project, so that the public is both
informed about—and can comment upon—any decisions made
that could affect their community. All stages of permitting should
be transparent, with independent advisory reviews.
• Development of a comprehensive environmental impact
statement for any proposed uranium mining and processing facil-
ity would be an essential element for public participation and the
transparent sharing of information.
• A number of detailed specific best-practice documents (e.g.,
guidelines produced by the World Nuclear Association, Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, and International Radiation Protec-
tion Association) exist that describe accepted international best
practices for uranium mining and processing projects. Although
these documents are by their nature generic, they provide a ba-
sis from which specific requirements for any uranium mining and
processing projects in Virginia could be developed.
• Some of the worker and public health risks could be miti-
gated or better controlled if uranium mining, processing, and
reclamation are all conducted according to best practices, which
at a minimum for workers would include the use of personal
dosimetry—including for radon decay products—and a national
radiation dose registry for radiation- and radon-related hazards;
and exposure limits lowered to at least the levels for radon, diesel
gas and particulates, occupational noise, and silica hazards rec-
ommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH).
• A well-designed and executed monitoring plan, available
to the public, is essential for gauging performance, determin-
ing and demonstrating compliance, triggering corrective actions,
fostering transparency, and enhancing site-specific understand-
ing. The monitoring strategy, encompassing baseline monitoring,
operational monitoring, and decommissioning and postclosure
monitoring, should be subject to annual updates and independent
reviews to incorporate new knowledge or enhanced understand-
ing gained from analysis of the monitoring data.
• Because the impacts of uranium mining and processing
projects are, by their nature, localized, modern best practice is
for project implementation and operations, whenever possible, to
OCR for page 260
260 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
provide benefits and opportunities to the local region and local
communities.
• Regulatory programs are inherently reactive, and as a re-
sult, the standards contained in regulatory programs represent
only a starting point for establishing a protective and proactive
program for protecting worker and public health, environmental
resources, and ecosystems. The concept of ALARA (as low as
is reasonably achievable) is one way of enhancing regulatory
standards.
T
he committee’s charge requests that the report describe the best practices
that would apply to any uranium mining, processing, and reclamation
operations in Virginia. In responding to this charge and identifying and
briefly describing these best practices, the committee is not implicitly endors -
ing or proposing that the moratorium should be lifted or that uranium mining or
processing in Virginia should be undertaken.
Because the characteristics of any uranium mining or processing facility
in the Commonwealth of Virginia would be highly dependent on the circum -
stances that would apply in any specific case—controlled in large part by the
detailed geological character of an ore deposit and the characteristics of the local
environment—a detailed compilation of internationally accepted best practices
would undoubtedly include many that would not be applicable to a specific situ -
ation in Virginia. Accordingly, rather than assemble an encyclopedic compilation,
the committee has outlined three overarching best-practice concepts, followed by
specific suggestions for best practices that the committee’s analysis has identified
as likely to be applicable should the moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia
be lifted.
The committee recognizes that should Virginia’s uranium mining moratorium
be lifted, mining and processing activities are very unlikely to commence for at
least 5 to 8 years after the initial decision to permit uranium mining and pro-
cessing (Box 8.1). Full use of this period will be essential for development of a
regulatory culture that promotes environmental and human health protection, for
instituting a broad range of human health and environmental baseline monitoring
activities, for development of a robust legal and regulatory infrastructure, and to
assemble a management team that is responsive both to the regulatory process
and to the full range of citizen and stakeholder needs.
OCR for page 261
261
BEST PRACTICES
OVERARCHING BEST-PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
During committee deliberations, there were themes that recurred during the
discussions, often transcending specific disciplinary areas, which are the focus
of this section.
Complete Life-Cycle Planning and Regular Reevaluations
Development of a uranium mining and/or processing facility has planning,
construction, production, closure, and long-term stewardship phases. The com-
plete life cycle of the facility and its activities should be conceived as one
integrated process from the start (i.e., when the design begins) to the end (i.e.,
when long-term stewardship starts). Good operating practice is for site and waste
remediation to be carried out on a continuous basis during ore recovery, thereby
reducing the time and costs for final decommissioning, remediation, and reclama-
tion. Project management should not be stagnant, but should evolve in an iterative
manner to take full advantage of international advances. Regular and structured
risk analyses, hazard analyses, and operations analyses should take place within a
structured change management system. The results of all such assessments should
be openly available and communicated to the public. All stages of permitting
should be transparent, with independent advisory reviews. In addition, ongoing
communication with other facilities, both operating and in closure, is essential to
capture lessons learned and incorporate them through an adaptive management
approach to avoid public health or environmental consequences that were not
anticipated at the outset of the project.
Need for Qualified Experts
Development of a mining and/or processing project should use the expertise
and experience of professionals familiar with internationally accepted best prac -
tices, to form an integrated and cross-disciplinary collaboration that encompasses
all components of the project, including legal, environmental, health, monitoring,
safety, and engineering elements. As a corollary to the first best practice, above,
this collaboration of highly qualified persons or organizations should incorporate
experience that encompasses all stages of a project—design, operation, closure,
and long-term stewardship. Although this best practice would apply generally
throughout the United States, where no new uranium mines have been developed
for decades and there is no experience with a positive water balance environ-
ment, this best practice is particularly important in Virginia where there is no
background or local experience with uranium mining, processing, or reclamation.
OCR for page 262
262 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
BOX 8.1
Life-Cycle Analysis and Holistic Planning
The development of a regulatory infrastructure that can specifically focus
on and specialize in the entire life cycle of any proposed uranium mine will un-
doubtedly be at first a lengthy political process and then a demanding regulatory
buildup. The former will span different administrations and legislative cultures that
may vary in policy view and political stamina. Moreover, the regulatory buildup may
have to overcome established and entrenched regulatory cultures and increas-
ingly limited resources. A generic scenario (Figure 8.1) would suggest that devel-
opment of a comprehensive regulatory infrastructure might take at least 4 years.
Concurrent development of the regulatory structure would need to occur at least
by the early stages of the permitting phase, because the time to mine operations
may be at least 6 years in this scenario. Note that recent experiences worldwide
indicate that these time estimates are optimistic, and there can be delays for many
reasons. The timing of both development of the regulatory structure and permitting
are crucial, so that the convergence point results in a viable operation that is safe
for public health and the environment. If the Commonwealth of Virginia chooses
to simply rely on the existing regulatory agencies and the patchwork of existing
applicable public health and environmental protection authorities, although many
do not apply to uranium mining and production, then the time line to an operational
mine and mill will be more dependent on the development of the mine and as-
sociated facilities themselves and be much less influenced by any infrastructural
needs of the regulatory entities involved.
OCR for page 263
BEST PRACTICES
FIGURE 8.1 Possible stages and timing for development of a conceptual uranium mine as well as the stages and timing for develop-
Possible develop -
ment of a regulatory infrastructure specific for uranium mining and processing.
263
OCR for page 264
264 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
Transparency, Information Exchange, and
Meaningful Public Involvement
Meaningful and timely public participation should occur throughout the
life cycle of a project, beginning at the earliest stages of project planning. This
requires creating an environment in which the public is both informed about, and
can comment upon, any decisions made that could affect their community. One
important contribution to transparency is the development of a comprehensive
environmental impact statement for any proposed uranium mining and process-
ing facility. Another requirement is that notice is given to interested parties in
a timely manner so that their participation in the regulatory decision-making
process can be maximized. This requirement would include substantial advance
notice, including sufficient detail about the status of the project so that members
of the public can easily understand the information that will be conveyed to them.
The public should also be able to understand how the information they convey to
the operators or regulators will be used in decision making. All stages of permit -
ting should be transparent, with independent advisory reviews. As part of this
best practice, the facility or regulatory agency should consider whether it is
appropriate to appoint an ombudsman to facilitate communication. An additional
important consideration is that because mining projects and mining impacts are
by their nature localized, modern best practice is for project implementation and
operations to—wherever possible—provide benefits and opportunities to the local
region and local communities.
Literature Resources
Although not seeking to endorse or recommend any specific best practices in
existing literature, the committee noted that many of the overarching themes that
it identified coincide with concepts put forward by the World Nuclear Association
(WNA; see Appendix C), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2010),
and the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA; see Appendix D).
The WNA, based in London, is an international industry group that has the goal
of promoting nuclear energy, and a mission to seek to foster interaction among
top industry leaders to help shape the future of nuclear power. The IAEA, based
in Vienna, Austria, is an autonomous international organization that seeks to
promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is not under the direct control of
the United Nations, but it does report to both the U.N. General Assembly and
Security Council. The IRPA, based in France, is an international professional
association focused on radiation protection. Although the WNA, IAEA, and IRPA
documents are by their nature generic, they provide a basis from which specific
requirements for any uranium mining and processing projects in Virginia could
be created.
OCR for page 265
265
BEST PRACTICES
SPECIFIC BEST PRACTICES
At a more specific level, best-practice guidelines that encompass a diverse
range of issues that should be considered during planning for any uranium min -
ing and processing project in Virginia are described below (e.g., the development
of a site-specific conceptual and/or numerical model and baseline environmental
characterization; comprehensive analysis, and predictive assessment of potential
off-site water, soil, air, and ecological impacts, with specific attention to acid
mine drainage control; design standards that address potential natural disasters;
spill prevention and response strategies; the utility of personal dosimeters, etc.).
These examples are not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of best-practice
guidelines, but rather represent a range of issues and suggestions that the commit-
tee considers important for operational and regulatory planning if the moratorium
on uranium mining is removed. In addition, two specific examples are presented
in more detail—on the overarching best practices for closure and postclosure and
best practices for emergency management.
Best Practices for Minimizing Potential Health Effects
This section presents a series of best practices for minimizing the potential
adverse health effects, described in Chapter 5, resulting from radiation exposure,
exposure to diesel particulates, hearing loss, and silica exposure.
Radiation
Uranium mines and processing facilities should have a radiation program in
place that safeguards the health and safety of workers as well as the general pub -
lic. Radiation doses and risks should be kept as low as is reasonably achievable
(ALARA), while taking economic and social factors into account. Best practices
also include the use of personal dosimetry for radon decay products, rather than
area monitors, to record workers’ exposures to radiation. A continuous personal
alpha activity dosimeter is already in routine use outside the United States for
uranium mining and processing operations. Such dosimetry represents a best
radiation safety practice, as opposed to relying on area level sampling as has
been typical in uranium mining in the United States. When calculating a dose to
an individual, all potential sources of exposure should be identified (Chambers,
2010). In developing best practices for setting radon decay product exposure
limits for uranium miners and processors, it is important to consider that NIOSH
recommended in 1985 a permissible exposure limit 75 percent lower than the
current U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exposure
limit of 4 working level months (WLM) per year, and that the NIOSH director
at that time stated that a permissible exposure limit as low as 1 WLM/yr did not
OCR for page 266
266 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
satisfy NIOSH’s commitment to protect the health of all the nation’s miners.
Unlike Canada, although the USNRC does require tracking of dose, a formal
national U.S. radiation dose registry does not currently exist. A radiation dose
registry represents a best practice, allowing the tracking of individual workers as
they move from site to site.
Diesel Particulates
Reducing diesel exposure-related risks requires engineering controls to guar-
antee adequate ventilation and to reduce emissions at their source by ensuring
that newer diesel engine technologies are used that generate lower amounts of
particulate and other combustion byproducts. Appropriate industrial hygiene
assessments of potential exposures should be carried out on a routine basis.
Hearing Conservation
Protection from the adverse effects of excess occupational noise exposure
has been previously summarized by NIOSH; a cornerstone of such practices is
the recognition that exposure at levels currently allowable under OSHA regula-
tions will result in noise-induced hearing loss (NIOSH, 1988). NIOSH has also
generated extensive recommendations for injury reduction and risk control that
reflect best practices in that regard.
Silica
The appropriate control measures for silica hazard abatement include the
use of wet as opposed to dry operations, enclosure of toxicant point sources that
present a potential exposure hazard, local ventilation to draw dust away from the
worker’s breathing zone, and appropriate respiratory protection including exter-
nally supplied air for jobs that have the potential for high exposure. For workers
with ongoing silica exposure—in particular, exposures approximately half the
lower level of recommended exposure limits—ongoing health surveillance pro-
grams are appropriate. The NIOSH recommended exposure limit for respirable
silica dust is considerably lower (in the direction of health protection) than cur-
rent U.S. Department of Labor MSHA or OSHA legally enforceable standards
as currently promulgated.
Best Practices for Environmental Monitoring
A well-designed and -executed monitoring plan is essential for gauging
performance, determining and demonstrating compliance, triggering correc-
tive actions, fostering transparency, and enhancing site-specific understanding.
Additionally, a well-designed and adequately supported monitoring program
OCR for page 267
267
BEST PRACTICES
can lead to better-informed management, public, and regulatory decisions. The
three main phases of a monitoring strategy include baseline monitoring, opera -
tional monitoring, and decommissioning and postclosure monitoring. Ideally, the
monitoring strategy (including details of sampling locations, frequency, moni -
tored parameters, sampling methods) would be developed through collaboration
among facility staff, technical experts, regulatory officials, community members,
and public interest groups to meet the overall goals of the many stakeholders. A
multitiered strategy that follows a rigorous sampling protocol, where the mining
and processing facility, local community groups, and local government agencies
conduct parallel monitoring programs, can be an effective strategy to address
multiple concerns and maintain trust. Accordingly, before any uranium mining
and/or processing facility is established, modern best practice requires that a
comprehensive baseline environmental monitoring and assessment program be
conducted, incorporating three components:
1. Baseline environmental characterization (both on- and off-site), including
chemical, physical, and radioactive elements of the water, air, and soil; biological
indices (e.g., benthic index); habitat characterization; and identification of spe -
cies or communities of special interest that could be affected by construction or
operation. The establishment of natural background for uranium, its decay prod -
ucts, and other nonradiological contaminants associated with uranium mining is
essential in order to compare operational and postreclamation levels (see also
NCRP, 2011). The length and frequency of baseline monitoring needs to be of
sufficient duration to capture the natural variability (both inter- and intra-annual)
of measured parameters. The spatial extent of baseline monitoring should encom-
pass the mine site and offsite areas with potential for environmental impacts.
Because Virginia is a positive water environment (i.e., precipitation exceeds
evapotranspiration on an annual basis), particular attention should be paid to
downgradient groundwater resources and downstream water resources that could
be affected by water pollutants released from the mining operations.
2. Development of a site-specific conceptual and/or numerical model to
guide development of a site-specific monitoring program.
3. A comprehensive analysis and predictive assessment of potential off-site
water, soil, air, and ecological impacts, such as that performed for an environ-
mental impact assessment.
In addition, best practice is to undertake an assessment of the appropriate
mitigation and remediation options that would be required to minimize predicted
environmental impacts, including but not limited to
• Acid mine drainage (AMD) control. The production of AMD is a seri-
ous and nearly ubiquitous environmental problem associated with many types of
mining, with the potential to adversely affect downstream water resources. Iden -
OCR for page 268
268 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
tifying the amount of metal sulfides present in the ore or waste rock is a first step
in mitigating potential impacts; uranium ores containing lesser amounts of metal
sulfides can be mined and processed more safely with lesser impacts on down -
stream systems. To reduce the production of AMD and the associated leaching
of heavy metals and radionuclides, very careful handling (including temporary
storage and landfilling) is necessary for materials containing metal sulfides. Strict
segregation and burial of such wastes in low-permeability strata might be con-
sidered as an option. Discharge of all wastewaters from mining and processing
operations into a carefully engineered and appropriately sized treatment facility
should be used to neutralize AMD and precipitate contaminants prior to release
to receiving waters off-site to meet discharge standards.
• Tailings and waste management. Modern tailings management facili-
ties differ significantly from those used in the past. Engineered tailings facilities
for both belowgrade and partially abovegrade facilities employ, among other
things, geomembranes, leachate collection systems, and hydraulic isolation using
a combination of extraction wells and materials of contrasting permeability (see
Golder Associates, 2008). In Virginia’s positive water balance environment, best
practices would not include long-term tailings storage aboveground. Instead, the
tailings could be emplaced and compacted so that they have a much lower per-
meability than the surrounding aquifers to lessen the potential for groundwater
contamination. Tailings management systems should be designed to withstand the
extreme event scenarios that could reasonably occur at a site.
• Treatment of all water discharged. All water generated from dewatering
and ore processing should be treated in an on-site water treatment facility and
held in an on-site facility pending verification that it meets water quality criteria
prior to being discharged to the environment (CNSC, 2010). Modern industry
practice is for much of the water from dewatering and ore processing to be
recycled within the processing plant, often numerous times, prior to eventual
discharge.
• Spill prevention and response strategies. Best practices should emphasize
sound management practices and administrative and engineering controls that
prevent the release of hazardous substances to the environment, such as employee
training, periodic inspections of storage tanks, adequate secondary containment,
and standard operating procedures for routine operations and maintenance. Both
regulatory and mine- and processing-site employees should be empowered to
report and address deficiencies that occur. In addition, response plans, trained
personnel, and emergency equipment should be at hand to respond to any incident
that occurs (see also Box 8.2).
• Dust control. During construction and throughout all the other uranium
mining and processing steps where dust may be generated, control measures
would include dust suppression systems, spraying or wetting dust, use of tacti -
fiers, and washing construction equipment before it leaves the site. Underground
mines should have extensive exhaust systems to protect workers from exposure
OCR for page 269
269
BEST PRACTICES
to dust and radon, and air pollution control systems can be installed on vents to
prevent dispersion to ambient air. Control measures for uranium mills include
enclosure of dusty operations, dust collection systems, dust suppression systems,
spraying or wetting dust, and ventilation systems specific to conveyor belts and
other rock-moving systems. Fugitive dust from overburden, uranium ore that is
not economically viable for processing, and waste piles should be controlled
through capping or other means (Martin Marietta Laboratories, 1987).
A comprehensive environmental monitoring and assessment program
should be conducted throughout all phases of project development, from con -
struction through closure (see also Box 8.3). The monitoring and assessment
program should include chemical, physical, and biological sampling and analy-
sis. Monitoring during the operational lifetime should cover the same spatial
extent as described for baseline monitoring. The postclosure monitoring plan
may need to be amended (e.g., different spatial extent or temporal frequency) to
account for site reclamation efforts and cessation of active operations. Specific
components of a best-practices monitoring and assessment program include
the following:
• Public involvement. Public involvement in the design and implementa-
tion of the monitoring program is valuable to build credibility and ensure that
stakeholders’ concerns are addressed. In addition to the primary on- and off-site
monitoring program, funding should be provided to potentially affected commu -
nities to conduct independent monitoring of attributes of particular concern to the
community.
• Annual independent monitoring data assessment and review. An inde-
pendent annual assessment and trending analysis should be performed to test
the accuracy of predictions and, if need be, to recommend modifications to the
operations and remediation practices. The annual assessment can also be used to
refine the predictions and adaptively modify the monitoring plan as needed. For
example, on the basis of data collected, this independent review panel might rec -
ommend expanding the monitoring of pathways or potential impacts that appear
more significant and to reduce monitoring of pathways or potential impacts that
appear of lesser importance.
• Transparency and accessibility. All data and independent reviews should
be available to the public, and this information should be discussed at annual
public meetings for transparency and to build credibility.
Site-specific conceptual and numerical models are essential to quantify the
understanding of the full earth system, determine appropriate mitigation and
response strategies, and develop and modify a monitoring plan. Therefore, these
models need to undergo annual updates and independent reviews, to incorporate
new understanding gained from analysis of the monitoring data or new knowl-
edge (e.g., changes to process design and operation).
OCR for page 270
270 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
BOX 8.2
Overarching Best-Practice Principles of Emergency
Management
Emergency management planning is crucial to all aspects of uranium mining,
processing, reclamation, and long-term stewardship. Emergency management
plans should cover how to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from an
emergency. Systematic emergency management preparations are needed for both
on-site uranium mining and processing activities and off-site transport of materials.
There are common elements in emergency management for any industrial
f
acility. Emergency response planning is always a work in progress. The emer-
gency plan should be viewed as a living document, with annual reviews to incor-
porate lessons learned at the facility and from similar facilities worldwide to make
continuous improvements in safety. Although planning is critical, there are other
elements that are equally important: training, exercising, testing equipment, and
coordination with off-site responders. Best practices dictate that linkages between
people and equipment need to be well established before an emergency occurs.
The types of emergencies that should be considered for planning purposes
range from natural events (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, floods) to manmade
events (e.g., spills or releases of hazardous substances, whether due to human
error or terrorism). The initiating event could be from a variety of reasons, but
response to the emergency can be standardized, so that regardless of the cause,
the event can be properly handled. The root cause of the emergency can be
investigated after the situation is stabilized.
The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recommends a
four-step process for planning for emergencies.a The first step is to establish an
emergency planning team, including representatives from all aspects of the pro-
cessing facility or mine—management, labor, engineering, safety/environmental,
public affairs, human resources, security, legal, community relations, finance, and
purchasing.
The second step is to identify the hazards that require planning and the re-
sources that are available for response. This step should include consultation with
off-site agencies such as fire, police, hospitals, utilities, and community service
organizations such as the Red Cross. A vulnerability analysis that determines the
probability and potential impact of each emergency will help guide the planning
process. The vulnerability analysis will be informed by historical data for emergen-
Best Practices for Regulation and Oversight
Regulatory programs are inherently reactive. Accordingly, standards con -
tained in regulatory programs represent only a starting point for establishing a
protective and proactive program for defending worker and public health, and
the environment. Embracing the concept of ALARA1 is one way of enhancing
1 ALARA (acronym for ‘as low as is reasonably achievable’) is defined as “means making every
OCR for page 271
271
BEST PRACTICES
cies that have occurred in the area, as well as using geographic information for
proximity to seismic faults, dams, floodplains, other industrial facilities with haz-
ardous materials, etc. Technological failure of mining and processing processes
and human error should be considered. The assessment of impact should include
human impact, property impact, and business impact. The resource list should
include internal and community resources.
Step three is to develop the plan, which should include the following:
• Direction and control—who is in charge under various emergency conditions
• Communication—warning systems, notification systems
• Life safety—evacuation, accountability, shelter
• Property protection—emergency shutoffs, fire suppression, water-level moni-
tors, preservation of vital records
• Community outreach—training, exercising with counterparts, mutual aid
agreements, community service, public information, media relations
• Recovery and restoration—essential equipment repair, contractual ser-
vices, continuity of management, insurance, employee support, resumption of
operations
• Administration and logistics—maintenance of written plan, notification lists,
equipment and supplies, backup utilities, backup communications
Step four is to implement the plan, which involves integrating emergency plan-
ning into the operation of the mine and mill. The plan should be reviewed at regular
intervals and after any event at any similar facility for lessons learned that could
be applied. Training and exercising with off-site responders will allow them to be
comfortable responding to emergencies at the facility.
In Canada, because there is consistency of regulatory authority in the regula-
tion of uranium mining, processing, reclamation, and long-term stewardship, emer-
gency planning for uranium mines and mills is summarized in a single regulatory
guide. The guidance is in general agreement with the U.S. FEMA guidance, but is
more specific about radiation exposure, limiting the spread of radioactive contami-
nation, postaccident monitoring for radioactive contamination, and maintaining the
security of radioactive materials.
aSee http://www.fema.gov/business/guide/section1a.shtm; accessed September 2011.
regulatory standards. In addition, a culture in which worker and public health,
protection of environmental resources, and preservation of ecological resources
reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits . . . as is practical
consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the
state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics
of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socio-
economic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the
public interest” (10 CFR § 20.1003).
OCR for page 272
272 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
BOX 8.3
Best Practices in Closure and PostClosure
When a uranium mining or processing site reaches the end of its active
operation, the ultimate goal is to ensure that the site will be safe and ecologi-
cally healthy indefinitely into the future. Hazards may include nonradiological as
well as radiological hazards to workers, members of the public, and the envi-
ronment; both types of hazards should be addressed during decommissioning
(IAEA, 2006b). Decommissioning activities for a uranium mine may include, for
example, capping shafts, removing chemicals and fuels from the site, filling and
contouring water treatment ponds, removing structures, revegetating, and restor-
ing normal water flow (IAEA, 1998). Postclosure stewardship activities also will
be required. These activities may include, for example, ongoing monitoring, col-
lecting and treating contaminated water, managing and storing water treatment
sludges, and maintaining covers, water diversion structures, etc. (see IAEA, 2010).
Decommissioning and subsequent stewardship activities should be done within
the context of a site-specific closure plan.
Three broad principles should guide closure planning for uranium processing
or mining sites:
• Closure planning should be anticipatory.
• Closure planning should be iterative and adaptable.
• Closure planning should recognize the need for and limits of long-term
stewardship.
Closure planning should be anticipatory. According to the IAEA (1998),
closure plans should be developed for prospective uranium mining projects before
a project proceeds. Decommissioning principles should be identified: for example,
the maximum acceptable effective dose to any person at any time, the use of
state-of-the-art engineering practices even if analyses suggest that lesser efforts
may be sufficient. The plan should be prepared by the facility operator and dis-
cussed with and approved by the regulatory agencies (IAEA, 1998). Similarly,
early consideration of stewardship issues and preparation for a stewardship pro-
gram is important: According to the IAEA (2006a), stewardship plans typically are
required as part of the licensing procedure for a new operation.
Closure planning should be iterative and adaptable. A closure plan devel-
oped at the time of permit application is, in effect, an interim plan that is based
on forecasts and projections. The plan for closure and decommissioning should
be reevaluated periodically as the operation goes on (IAEA, 1998). Similarly, a
postclosure stewardship program needs to be capable of responding and adapting
to changes in societal and governance structures, stakeholders and perceptions of
risk, economic circumstances, and state-of-the-art science and technology (IAEA,
2006a). Allowance also should be made for the possible need for emergency
interventions—that is, actions taken to avert or reduce exposure to radiological
and nonradiological risks as a consequence of an accident or uncontrolled prac-
tice (IAEA, 2006b).
OCR for page 273
273
BEST PRACTICES
Closure planning should recognize the need for and limits of long-term
stewardship. Within the context of sites with long-term radiological and non-
radiological hazards, stewardship in its broadest sense includes all of the activities
required to manage any potentially harmful residual contamination left on-site after
a facility has stopped operating and its site has been remediated (NRC, 2000).
These activities may include the following:
• Measures to maintain isolation of residual contamination
• Measures to monitor the migration and attenuation or evolution of residual
contamination
• Restrictions on land use and site access
• Conducting oversight and, if needed, enforcement
• Gathering, storing, and retrieving information about residual contami-
nants and other conditions on-site, as well as about changes in relevant off-site
conditions
• Disseminating information about the site, including any use restrictions
• Periodically evaluating how well the protective system is working
• Evaluating new technological options to eliminate, reduce, prevent the
migration of, or monitor residual contaminants (NRC, 2000)
Long-term stewardship of residually contaminated sites also has been described
as entailing the following roles (NRC, 2003, p. 2, emphasis in the original):
• A guardian, stopping activities that could be dangerous
• A watchman for problems as they arise, via monitoring that is effective in
design and practice, activating responses and notifying responsible parties as
needed
• A land manager, facilitating ecological processes and human use
• A repairer of engineered and ecological structures as failures occur and are
discovered, as unexpected problems are found, and as re-remediation is needed
• An archivist of knowledge and data, to inform the future
• An educator to affected communities, renewing memory of the site’s history,
hazards, and burdens
• A trustee, assuring the financial wherewithal to accomplish all of the other
functions
Together with this broad spectrum of activities and roles, effective stewardship
programs appear to have a common set of attributes: long-term reliability; clarity of
objectives and roles; adequate and dependable funding; ease of implementation;
transparency; flexibility, iterativity, adaptability, and the ability to deal with contin-
gencies; durability or replaceability; and means to incorporate scientific, technical,
and societal changes (IAEA, 2006a).
The nature and duration of the necessary activities and roles will depend on
the nature and duration of the residual contamination. It is quite possible, however,
that the duration of risks from residual contamination will exceed the institutional
capacity to reliably perform stewardship activities. It is widely recognized that
OCR for page 274
274 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
BOX 8.3 Continued
predicting how economic, social, and institutional systems will evolve is fraught
with uncertainty—uncertainty that grows larger as the time frame grows longer
(NRC, 2000, 2003; Falck, 2008; IAEA, 2006a). A major challenge for a successful
stewardship program is to reduce the risks arising from this uncertainty (IAEA,
2006a).
One suggestion is to focus the stewardship program on a realistic time frame,
such as 100 years, and on short-term solutions that will keep people involved in
the site while allowing for evaluation of changes needed over time (IAEA, 2006a).
A complementary decision-aiding tool is to rate the risks of the site if active control
of its residual contamination were to break down in the future (Falck, 2008). In
addition, defining the stewardship program from the bottom up, at the practical
level of implementation, is essential (IAEA, 2006a).
are highly valued, and continuously assessed and strengthened, is the ultimate
goal of a regulatory program. To encourage and facilitate best management
practices and social responsibility commitments to local communities, it is nec -
essary to take advantage of continual improvement in technologies and develop
performance-based and risk-informed regulations and policies. In the event that
the uranium mining moratorium is lifted, the statutes and regulations that enable
the development of a mining and/or processing facility would ideally be written to
ensure minimal permanent impact on the environment and protect public health.
Such statutes and regulations would encompass the following points:
• Ensure that life-cycle costs as well as long-term stewardship needs are
reflected in the type of, and amount of, the financial surety. Financial security
needs are set at the level necessary to maintain the integrity of the integrated
system so that the system is a sustainable enterprise. Cost estimates need to be
reviewed and updated throughout the life cycle of the project to ensure that they
accurately reflect the costs and resources that are needed. The burden is on the
facility to demonstrate that the amount of the financial surety is sufficient. Instru -
ments to demonstrate financial surety should have the flexibility to be applied
in temporary shutdown conditions as well as planned closure. In the event that
remediation is necessary and complete cleanup is not possible, the facility would
have to demonstrate financial capability to proceed with remediation as well as
having resources dedicated to long-term stewardship activities.
• Ensure that inspection and enforcement tools are transparent, practical,
sufficient, available, independent, and sustainable. “Transparency” requires that
the enforcement tools be clear and comprehensible to the regulated community,
the public, and the regulator; “practical” requires that the enforcement tools be
OCR for page 275
275
BEST PRACTICES
easily implemented; “sufficient” means that the enforcement tools are effective
in producing deterrence; “available” means that regulatory agencies should have
available adequate funding and other resources to function in an environment of
continuous improvement to enable them to take full advantage of international
uranium mining and processing innovations; “independent” means that the regu-
latory agency would provide independent verification of compliance and not be
overly influenced by the industry that it is regulating, even if the funding for the
regulatory agency is derived from a fee placed on the industry; and “sustainable”
requires that enforcement actions be supported by strong scientific and other
evidence that will meet legal standards.
• In the event that the uranium mining moratorium is lifted, Virginia will
be required to establish a regulatory program for uranium mining. It might also
establish a regulatory program for uranium processing and reclamation. Develop-
ment of this new regulatory structure could theoretically be based on existing
laws, but the optimum approach would be for an entirely new uranium min-
ing, processing, and reclamation law or laws to be enacted. In addition, a new
regulatory program would be required to implement this law or laws.
• In the event that Virginia decides to lift its uranium mining moratorium, it
is possible that regulatory authority could be distributed among several agencies.
If this is the case, effective interagency integration and coordination will be
imperative. Interagency integration and coordination will require more than
co-location in the same facility; it will require commitment and leadership
by the legislative and executive branches of the government, and it will also
require that sufficient resources be available for developing and fine-tuning a
regulatory program.
• The committee recognizes that the federal regulations governing ura-
nium processing are currently under consideration for revision by the USNRC.
Additionally, the USEPA is reviewing and potentially revising its health and
environmental standards for uranium processing facilities. Virginia should be
actively involved in the regulatory processes of these federal agencies to ensure
good federal–state coordination. The international community has consider-
able knowledge of regulating uranium mines and mills and can offer additional
insight into regulatory best practices.
• At present, the laws applicable in Virginia do not require that an envi-
ronmental impact assessment be undertaken before hard-rock mining opera-
tions commence. Modern best international practice requires an environmental
impact assessment prior to the commencement of any mining activities.
OVERARCHING CONCLUSION
The committee’s charge was to provide information and advice to the Virginia
legislature as it weighs the factors involved in deciding whether to allow uranium
mining. This report describes a range of potential issues that could arise if the
OCR for page 276
276 URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
moratorium on uranium mining were to be lifted, as well as providing information
about best practices—applicable over the full uranium extraction life cycle—that
are available to mitigate these potential issues.
If the Commonwealth of Virginia rescinds the existing moratorium on ura-
nium mining, there are steep hurdles to be surmounted before mining and/or
processing could be established within a regulatory environment that is appropri -
ately protective of the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environ-
ment. There is only limited experience with modern underground and open-pit
uranium mining and processing practices in the wider United States, and no such
experience in Virginia. At the same time, there exist internationally accepted best
practices, founded on principles of openness, transparency, and public involve -
ment in oversight and decision making, that could provide a starting point for
the Commonwealth of Virginia were it to decide that the moratorium should be
lifted. After extensive scientific and technical briefings, substantial public input,
reviewing numerous documents, and extensive deliberations, the committee is
convinced that the adoption and rigorous implementation of such practices would
be necessary if uranium mining, processing, and reclamation were to be under-
taken in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
