(PART
II)
By
Glenn Catchpole, Project Manager,
OPI-Western Joint Venture
Roger Garling, Operations Superintendent (Former),
UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc.
Mike Neumann, Senior Licensing Specialist,
Rocky
Mountain Energy
INTRODUCTION
In the first issue of this two part article (see The Mining Claim, June 1984) an introduction to uranium solution mining was presented along with a review of the various groundwater restoration methods and the regulatory requirements that apply to groundwater clean-up. By way of review, solution mining is the process of recovering uranium from a water-saturated, underground orebody in a manner which leaves overlying rock strata and the land surface intact. The process involves the installation of a series of wells through which a chemical solution (lixiviant) is injected into the uranium-bearing formation, passed through the formation, and pumped back to the surface. From the recovery or production well, the uranium-bearing solution is piped to a surface plant where a series of conventional chemical processes extract uranium from the solution. The resulting solution, now barren of uranium, is then refortified with leach chemicals and reinjected into the orebody (See Figure 1). Typically, the leach chemicals consist of nothing more sophisticated (or non-toxic) than sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and, oxygen.
Once all uranium has essentially been recovered from the orebody, groundwater affected by the leaching solution must be "cleaned up" to a condition which allows appropriate future use of the resource. Generally, regulatory agencies require that groundwater be returned to a quality as close to premining (baseline) conditions as can practically be achieved. The State of Wyoming requires that, at a minimum, groundwater be returned to a condition compatible with the premining use or potential use of the water.
The second part. of this two part series will focus on the groundwater restoration results from three Research and Development (R&D) uranium solution mining operations conducted in the late 70s and early 80s at three geographically separated sites in Wyoming. The water quality data from the three sites demonstrate that groundwater affected by solution mining activities can be restored to acceptable conditions. For background information the reader is encouraged to read Part I of this article.
REVIEW OF RESTORATION
TECHNIQUES
To achieve restoration,
constituents added to the groundwater for mining and those mobilized during
the mining process must be removed or rendered nonmobile. In some cases, it
may also be necessary to chemically treat the geologic formation in order to
reverse or inhibit reactions initiated during the mining phase. The optimum
restoration technique for a given site will be largely determined by inherent
geologic and hydrologic conditions of that site, and observations made during
the initial R&D phase. In general, however, combinations of two basic approaches
have been used most extensively within the industry in Wyoming.
The first, and simplest
of these techniques, is referred to as "groundwater sweep" in which both chemical
constituents and groundwater are removed from the affected area by pumping selected
wells. Although this technique has been successfully employed at the R&D
level, several considerations may preclude total reliance on the groundwater
sweep method for commercial- scale operations. Disadvantages of the sweeping
method include consumptive use of large volumes of groundwater and extensive
waste water storage facilities or evaporation ponds which, in turn, require
large surface disturbances.
A more accepted
technique utilizes treatment equipment to remove chemical constituents from
the groundwater which renders the resulting water fit for reinjection into the
aquifer. Several processes exist for continuous water treatment. Those processes
most common to ISL restoration are reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and ion
exchange. The advantages of utilizing continuous water treatment systems in
aquifer restoration, or a combination of groundwater sweeping followed by treatment
and reinjection, include:
SUCCESSFUL CASE
HISTORIES
A.
Bison Basin Mine
The Bison Basin in-situ leach uranium mining project, located in southern
Fremont County, Wyo., is a joint venture between Ogle Petroleum Inc. of Calif.,
the operator, and Western Fuel Inc., a subsidiary of the Duke Power Company.
In the summer and fall of 1979 the OPI-Western Joint Venture conducted an R&D
pilot scale uranium solution mining test to assess both the amenability of the
orebody to in-situ mining, and the technical and economic practicality of restoration
of the groundwater quality following mining.
The Bison Basin R&D
project utilized sodium carbonate/bicarbonate as the lixiviant and oxygen as
the oxidant. Due to the high sodium levels in the groundwater (400-500 mg/ 1)
it was felt that sodium carbonate/bicarbonate would be an excellent choice of
lixiviant from both a mining and restoration standpoint. The R&D wellfield
consisted of four injection wells and three recovery wells arranged in a line-drive
configuration, and operated at a flow rate of about 25 gallons per minute. Wells
were completed within the mineralized zone of the Laney member of the Green
River formation, which is of lower Eocene age.
The mining phase of the
pilot operation lasted three months during which the amenability of the orebody
to solution mining was adequately demonstrated. Target values for total number
of pounds recovered, product purity, and quantity of uranium in solution (head
grade) were achieved.
As part of the planning
and procedures for the aquifer restoration phase of the project, the OPI-Western
Joint Venture followed a step-by-step program designed to terminate each leaching
reaction in the proper sequence. Following the sequential mining termination
process, the restoration activity of circulating clean, surface treated water
through the orebody aquifer was initiated. The surface water treatment system
consisted of a reverse osmosis (R.O.) unit rated at 30,000 gallons per day (21
gpm).
TABLE I
BISON
BASIN MINE
R
& D RESTORATION DATA
(units:
mg/l unless otherwise indicated)
| Parameter | Average Baseline Concentration | Post Restoration Concentration | DEQ Restoration Requirement |
| pH | 9.8 | 8.3 | 10.8 |
| TDS | 1500 | 1325 | 1650 |
| Ammonia (as N) | 0.72 | -0.10 (2) | 0.79 |
| Nitrate (as N) | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.12 |
| Bicarbonate | 71.8 | 152.5 | 500 |
| Carbonate | 29.5 | 12.1 | (3) |
| Calcium | 36.1 | 53.8 | 500 |
| Chloride | 34.1 | 36.5 | 250 |
| Boron | -1.0 | -1.0 | -1.0 |
| Fluoride | 0.95 | 0.79 | 1.04 |
| Magnesium | 4.5 | 8.2 | 5.0 |
| Potassium | 9.75 | 6.8 | 10.7 |
| Sodium | 442 | 390 | 486 |
| Sulfate | 906 | 773 | 997 |
| Aluminum | -0.05 | -0.05 | -0.05 |
| Arsenic | -0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 |
| Barium | -0.05 | -0.05 | 1.0 |
| Cadmium | -0.002 | -0.002 | -0.002 |
| Chromium | -0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 |
| Copper | -0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 |
| Iron | -0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Lead | -0.05 | -0.05 | -0.05 |
| Manganese | -0.01 | 0.04 | -0.01 (4) |
| Mercury | -0.001 | -0.001 | -0.001 |
| Nickel | -0.04 | -0.04 | -0.04 |
| Selenium | -0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 |
| Zinc | -0.01 | 0.03 | 5.0 |
| Molybdenum | -0.05 | -0.05 | -0.05 |
| Vanadium | -0.05 | -0.05 | -0.05 |
| Uranium | 0.002 | 0.17 | 5.0 |
| Radium-226 (pCi/l) | 94.5 | 97.9 | 104 |
NOTES
(1) The
majority of the restoration requirements are baseline
plus
ten percent.
(2) "-" means not
detected at level indicated.
(3) The restoration
requirement for total carbonate (carbonate
plus
bicarbonate
is
500 mg/l.
(4) The 0.04 mg/
I manganese value was not considered a significant
factor in the overall
restoration results as 4 of the 5 restoration
sampling wells had final restoration values of -0.01 mg/l for
manganese
Groundwater restoration
values acceptable to both the NRC and the DEQ were met in a little over one
month of restoration after circulating about six pore volumes of R.O. treated
water through the aquifer. A pore volume is simply an estimate of the quantity
of groundwater contained within a specific volume of formation material. A total
of nine pore volumes during a two month time period were eventually circulated
through the aquifer to collect additional data on the slope of the restoration
curves, and to obtain cost-benefit information. Table I presents the baseline
and restoration water quality data at the Bison Basin R&D project.>
The two main regulatory
agencies concerned with solution mining in Wyoming, the NRC and DEQ, both found
the results of the OPI-Western Joint Venture aquifer restoration test acceptable
which led to their respective approvals of a commercial scale license for the
Bison Basin project. The DEQ expressed their approval of the restoration results
in correspondence dated April 9, 1980 and May 5, 1980. The NRC expressed their
approval of the restoration results in the Final Environmental Statement (FES)
on the commercial scale license application (NUREG-0687).
B. Reno Creek Project
The Reno Creek R&D in-situ leach project is a joint venture between
Rocky Mountain Energy Company (RME), Halliburton Company, and Mono Power, a
subsidiary of Southern California Edison Company. RME operates the project which
is located in southern Campbell County, approximately nine miles southwest of
Wright, Wyo. Uranium in this portion of the Powder River Basin is found within
the Wasatch Formation of Tertiary Age, as a typical roll front deposit.
Testing to evaluate the
amenability of the ore deposit to solution mining with a sodium carbonate/bicarbonate
lixiviant began in October of 1980. The wellfield consisted of two recovery
wells ringed by four injection wells and an outer ring of monitor wells. This
well configuration is known as a modified "five-spot pattern," illustrated in
Figure 2.
Leaching operations were
conducted over a 10-week period during which the feasibility of recovering uranium
using a sodium carbonate/bicarbonate lixiviant was confirmed. Groundwater restoration
began in December 1980 by pumping production fluid from the wellfield through
the surface plant facilities where an ion exchange (IX) process was used to
remove undesirable constituents. This process continued for a one-month period
and was followed by a groundwater sweep which also continued for about one month.
At the close of the restoration
program, all groundwater constituents, except uranium, were restored to levels
below or within baseline ranges. Uranium was reduced to less than five parts
per million which is the standard for drinking water in Wyoming. This was accomplished
through the circulation of about seven pore volumes of groundwater through the
aquifer. Total groundwater consumption during restoration was equivalent to
5 pore volumes or 1.3 million gallons. A representative comparison of premining
and restored groundwater quality is shown on Table 2.
Groundwater restoration
and stabilization monitoring data were thoroughly evaluated by the Land and
Water Quality Divisions of the DEQ and by the NRC. Both agencies concluded that
the goal of restoring groundwater to premining baseline conditions was achieved
for all parameters except uranium which met WDEQ's water use class standards.
Further, the NRC and DEQ acknowledged that restoration results would be suitable
to support commercial-scale operations at Reno Creek. See copies of DEQ and
NRC correspondence approving the restoration results pages 18 and 19.
C. Leuenberger Project
The Leuenberger site is
located approximately seven miles northeast of Glenrock in the southern portion
of the Powder River Basin. The R & D project was originally a joint venture
between NEDCO and UNC Teton, operator, designed to evaluate the feasibility
of solution mining within the Fort Union Formation of Paleocene Age.
UNC Teton began test operations
in April 1979 also using a sodium bicarbonate/carbonate lixiviant. Uranium mineralization
within this portion of the Fort Union Formation frequently occurs as "stacked"
or layered zones in different sand units so two separate test patterns were
constructed at different depths. Both wellfield configurations were typical
five-spot patterns consisting of four injection wells surrounding a central
recovery well (see Figure 2).
The first of the patterns
to undergo active groundwater restoration was the N sand which is the shallower
sand unit. The test pattern was successfully restored using a groundwater sweep
method initiated June 1980 and completed in November 1980. Following a 14-month
groundwater stability monitoring period, DEQ agreed that the aquifer restoration
had been effective and met license requirements. Although restoration was successful,
groundwater consumption was high due to the sweep method.
Leaching operations within
the lower ore zone, or M sand, were terminated in February 1981 after confirming
the viability of uranium recovery using the sodium bicarbonate/carbonate lixiviant.
The restoration program was designed to recapture all groundwater affected by
leaching constituents while minimizing the consumptive use of groundwater. This
was accomplished through the use of electrodialysis (ED) treatment which is
basically a water purification process. The ED concentrates undesirable groundwater
constituents into an effluent or brine for disposal and produces "clean" water
which can be reinjected into the wellfield.
By the end of the restoration
program, approximately half (46 percent) of the affected groundwater recovered
from the pattern was sent to the ED unit for treatment. Of this amount, approximately
8 percent was disposed of in an evaporation pond. The ED product, or "clean"
water was then mixed with untreated groundwater from the pattern and reinjected
to improve overall groundwater quality. The total restoration process resulted
in the consumption of 1.7 million gallons of groundwater which represents a
90 percent improvement in water conservation compared to the groundwater sweep
method.
Restoration was terminated
in December 1981 when water quality in all pattern wells was at or below restoration
goals contained in the R & D permit. Comparison of baseline and post restoration
water quality indicated that all parameters except radium were restored to specified
levels or well within baseline water quality ranges. Radium levels were reduced
to an average of 350 pCi/l compared to a baseline average of 185 pCi/I. Wyoming
DEQ standards for Class I (Domestic), Class II (Agricultural), and Class III
(Livestock) groundwaters are 5 pCi/ 1. Therefore, post restoration radium levels
did not impair groundwater use suitability.
The Final Environmental Statement (FES) prepared by the NRC for the commercial-scale license application concluded that " . . . the applicant has demonstrated that restoration of the ore zone aquifers to their original potential use condition is achievable."
Reno Creek
Pattern 2 Production Wells
Restoration
Data
| Parameter (1) | Baseline Range | Well P-10
4/1/82 NML ------- CDM |
Well P-11
4/1/82 NML ------ CDM |
| Field | |||
| pH | 8.2 - 8.9 | 7.6 ------ 8.1 | 7.7 ------ 8.0 |
| Conductivity | 1890 - 2234 | 2000 ------ 2500 | 1990 ------2400 |
| Major Constituents | |||
| Bicarbonate (HCO3) | 89 - 1780 | 187 ------ 160 | 159 ------ 130 |
| Carbonate (CO3) | 0 - 14 | 0 ------ 0 | 0 ------ 0 |
| Alkalinity (as CaCO eq) | 73 - 146 | 153 ------130 | 130 ------110 |
| Calcium | 108 - 153 | 118 ------ 110 | 92 ------ 105 |
| Chloride | 7.0 - 18.8 | 18 ------ 11 | 16 ------ 12 |
| Magnesium | 19 - 33 | 17 ------ 25 | 16 ------ 22 |
| Potassium | 5.8 - 9.5 | 7.5 ------ 8.1 | 6.8 ------ 7.3 |
| Sodium | 287 - 360 | 295 ------ 350 | 282 ------ 330 |
| Sulfate | 818 - 1002 | 783 ------ 960 | 644 ------ 910 |
| TDS | 1340 - 1580 | 1330 ------ 1510 | 1160 ------ 1410 |
| Anion/Cation Balance | - | 101 ------ 99 | 105 ------ 101 |
| Minor Constituents | |||
| Ammonia (as N) | <0.2 | <0.2 | <0.2 |
| Nitrate (as N) | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| Nitrate (as N) | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| Aluminum | <0.2 | <0.5 | <0.5 |
| Arsenic | 0.001 - 0.016 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Barium | 0.08 - 0.40 | <0.2 | <0.2 |
| Boron | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 |
| Cadmium | 0.01 - 0.02 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Chromium | 0.02 - 0.11 | <0.005 | <0.005 |
| Copper | 0.01 - 0.02 | <0.005 | <0.005 |
| Fluoride | 0.09 - 0.15 | 0.1 | <0.1 |
| Iron | 0.03 - 0.61 | 0.08 ------ 0.13 | 0.03 ------ 0.08 |
| Lead | 0.03 - 0.11 | <0.005 | <0.005 |
| Manganese | 0.01 - 0.14 | 0.068 | 0.071 |
| Mercury | <0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.0001 |
| Molybdenum | 0.01 - 0.11 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Nickel | 0.01 - 1.10 | 0.02 | <0.02 |
| Selenium | 0.009 - 0.017 | <0.005 | <0.005 |
| Vanadium | 0.05 - 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.43 |
| Zinc | 0.01 - 0.09 | <0.005 | <0.005 |
| Radiochemistry | |||
| Uranium (1) | 0.012 - 0.287 | 3.51 ------ 3.5 | 2.11 ------ 2.3 |
| Radium-226 | 106 - 768 | 320 | 250 |
| Thorium-230 | 0 - 1.9 | 6.1 | 31 |
All values expressed as
mg/I except pH (standard units), conductivity (umhos/cm), radium and thorium
(pCi/1).
Baseline range
is for all pattern production zone wells following outlier
removal.
NML values are
U308; CDM values are U nat.
Conclusion
In-situ leaching of uranium
is a mining method undergoing rapid technological development. Experience to
date confirms that this method can compete favorably with traditional open pit
or underground mine operations from an economical standpoint. An advantage of
solution mining is that surface facilities and disturbances are significantly
less extensive than those associated with open pit or other surface mining methods.
Consequently, protection of groundwater resources is of greatest environmental
concern, particularly the restoration of affected groundwater to premining conditions.
At least three different operators in Wyoming have demonstrated, in different
geographical and geological settings, that groundwater restoration to the original
use suitability can be achieved.
Domestic marketplace requirements
for uranium are currently quite depressed as imported uranium is readily available
and utilities are deferring construction on existing and proposed power plants.
When market demand increases, however, the domestic industry is expected to
rely heavily on in-situ mining as an economical means of production. As documented
in this article, the mining industry has shown that in-situ mining can be done
in an environmentally acceptable manner which protects land and water resources
for future use.
Final
Environmental Statement
related to the operation of
Bison Basin Project
Docket No. 40-8745
Ogle Petroleum, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
April 1981
(This is one page
of the above titled document.)
Restoration baseline for each parameter
shown in Table 3.22 shall be the highest value obtained from three rounds of
samples (four rounds, at NRC option, if significant variation has occurred)
collected from all of the restoration baseline monitoring wells in each well-field
unit, except that baseline for radium-226 shall be established on a well-by-well
basis following the same sampling procedure. In comparing restoration determination
values with baseline values, the average of each parameter for each round of
samples from the restoration monitoring wells must be equal to or less than
the baseline value.
In the event that significant variation in water quality is indicated during
baseline sampling or during restoration determination sampling, the NRC reserves
the option to require well-by-well restoration determination.
4.3.2 Applicant's
restoration test
Starting August 5, 1979, approximately
one nominal pore volume was pumped from the pilot well field to the evaporation
pond. This operation, completed on August 9, 1979, represented the lixiviant
that would be transferred to a new well field during commercial operation. From
August 10 through September 14, 1979, fluids from the recovery wells were routed
to a reverse osmosis (RO) unit. The clean water from the RO unit was reinjected
into the pilot well field, and the concentrated brine from the RO unit was discharged
to the evaporation pond, as would be the case for commercial-scale wellfield
restoration.
The results for the major ionic
constituents from production well P-22 are shown in Fig. 4.2. The restoration
test demonstrated that staff objectives for restoration could be realized. Bicarbonate
and chloride exceed baseline as shown in Fig. 4.2, because neither is at levels
unacceptable for any water use. (For public drinking water, the chloride maximum
is 250 mg/liter, and no standard exists or is needed for bicarbonate.)
Conductivity, a reasonable measure
for total ionic content, was restored to baseline after a nominal five pore
volumes of RO treatment.
None of the minor constituents or
trace elements exceeded drinking water standards after restoration.
Monitoring through March 18, 1980,
showed either no increase or an insignificant increase for the constituents
in monitored wells (Fig. 4.1). Radium-226 exceeded applicable standards both
before and during mining.
The applicant calculated the nominal pore volumes of 437 in' (115,000 gal), using only 0.6 to 0.76 in (2 to 2.5 ft) for lixiviant penetration from the well bore external to the well-field dimensions. From a cursory material balance for sulfate, chloride, and sodium ions over the restoration phase, the staff estimates that at least twice this pore volume was affected by the lixiviant during mining. The staff conclusion is that fewer treated pore volumes will be needed for restoration than appears necessary from Fig. 4.2 because the percentage volume affected external to the injection well perimeters decreases radically with an increase in well-field area. The applicant was able to reinject only 62% of the RO unit input. An estimated improvement to 90% reinjection would further reduce the treatment pore volumes required.
4.3.3 Staff conclusions
In the opinion of the staff, the applicant has demonstrated that restoration
of the aquifer to its original potential use condition is achievable. The staff
believes that the applicant can improve RO unit performance to achieve 90% reinjection;
this improvement would reduce the water consumption for restoration as well
as the evaporation pond volume and surface requirements. The staff considers
it necessary for the applicant to mine sequentially, commencing restoration
of each mined-out area as mining begins on the next mine area or as soon as
feasible. Sequential mining will be a condition of the license.
The staff's conclusion is that this
proposed operation is state-of-the-art and, with monitoring and proposed mitigating
measures, will pose no major risk to the environment.
MEMORANDUM
TO FILE: License to Explore No. 38
FROM: Ed Francis, District III Engineer
DATE: April 9, 1980 (Finalized May 5, 1980)
SUBJECT: Restoration Report Response. Refer to Ogle's Final Restoration
Report of May 2, 1980.
COMMENT:*
Radiological results from Land Quality Division sampling are not available at this date. This report will be finalized upon receipt of radiologic data.
See Hereford memo of April 11, which comes to similar conclusions through mathematical
and graphic analyses.
SUMMARY
Upon Ogle's request for a Land Quality Division decision concerning satisfaction
of Ogle's groundwater restoration, District III undertook a three- fold analysis
of the restoration situation:
1. Statistical analysis of restoration sampling results versus baseline results.
a. Evaluation of specific values for individual species.
b. Analysis of mean value comparisons.
2. Value by value comparison between
final round and baseline means.
3. Analysis of environmental implications of those species determined to be
more than 10% out of range of baseline conditions.
The conclusions from the above studies
are that Ogle Petroleum, Inc., has demonstrated capability to restore groundwater
to an acceptable quality of original use following sodium bicarbonate leaching.
Technology used was reverse osmosis and reintroduction of treated water into
the aquifer. Declaration of capability has no relevance to bond release (which
is not sought) because this declaration has nothing to do with surface reclamation,
which is not intended at this time.
*Radiological data was obtained by phone on 5-5-80. LQD results served to confirm (even enhance) the Ogle data. As a result of this confirmation, this report stands as the final report documenting restoration capability.

