A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Impacts of Uranium Mining in Virginia on Drinking Water Sources

Similar documents
Phase II Assessment Potential Impacts of Uranium Mining in Virginia on Drinking Water Sources

Document Title. Uranium Mining in Virginia Can Downstream Drinking Water Sources be Impacted?

Uranium Mining in the Roanoke River Basin

Radioactive Water Treatment at a United States. John C Beckman, US Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD 21201

2009 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

2017 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Pasco County Utilities - Lake Jovita Service Area PWS ID No

About Uranium Mining

Town of Middleburg 2016 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

Uranium Mining in Virginia

URANIUM AND URANIUM PROGENY IN GROUNDWATER ASSOCIATED WITH URANIUM ORE BEARING FORMATIONS

CITY OF ORANGE REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS FOR YEARS

Environmental Data Management and Modeling, Niagara Falls Storage Site Lewiston, New York

Village of Middleville 100 E. Main St. Middleville, MI WSSN# 4360 Consumer Confidence/Water Quality Report 2013

Environmental impacts of REE mining and milling

West Orange County System

BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE. Ann Rogers September 26, 2011

Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

Challenges for Protecting Public Health and the Environment in New Mexico From the Colorado Gold King Mine Spill

2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

Clyde Mine Discharge/Tenmile Creek Water Quality Final Report

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Avilla Water Department IN

Borough of Hopewell, New Jersey

TENORM and Shale Oil & Gas Considerations for State Programs

Guidance for NORM industrial activities on how to comply with the radioactive substances exemption regime

Health Concerns of Chronic Ingestion of Uranium in Drinking Water

4. Present Activities and Roles

2016 U.S. Army Garrison- Rock Island Arsenal Consumer Confidence Report For the Period from 01 January to 31 December 2016

Drilling for Natural Gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shales: Environmental Regulatory Basics

ffi Lc.U-, THOMAS C. SLIWOSKI

2016 Report on Public Health Goals Artesia System

Final Total Maximum Daily Load for the Monongahela River, Greene County PCBs and Chlordane

ANNUAL DRINKING WATER QUALITY REPORT For FARMINGTON IL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2017

EVALUATION - SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENTS FROM OR THROUGH A DAM

Earth s Energy and Mineral Resources

Management of Uranium Mine Waste Rock and Mill Tailings. Support Document to DIS-10-01

Kingston Steam Plant-Ash Spill Kingston Fossil Plant Fly Ash Spill

Proposed Rule Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings 40 CFR 192

Buckskin Estates 2016 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report PWS #

Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Monitoring Report 2011 Data

Chapter 10 Project: Pollution in a Chain of Lakes. Name Name. Background:

CHAPTER 7. San Dieguito River Flooding Adaptation

In support of an alternative water supply

Treatability of Organic and Radioactive Emerging Contaminants in Stormwater Runoff

Water Pollution. And Humans are 70% Water! A. Facts 1. 71% of the Earth s surface is water I. Water and the Planet Earth

U.S. EPA RADIATION REGULATIONS UPDATE. Tom Peake Radiation Protection Division ISCORS November 9, 2010

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

Coal Ash 101. Overview

2016 Water Quality Report to Consumers

2011 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report For University of South Florida PWS ID#

Watershed: an area or ridge of land that separates waters flowing to different rivers, basins, or seas. It is the interdependent web of living

Inert Atmosphere Systems A New Approach to controlling AMD Discharges from Underground Mines

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT

2017 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report. Chincoteague Bay Trials End Association PWSID No

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

THOMAS C. SLIWOSKI. Director, Public Works 116 W. BEVERLEY STREET P.O. BOX 58 STAUNTON, VA THOMAS C. SLIWOSKI. Director of Public Works

Assessment of exposure to NORM. Rodolfo Avila

Highlights of a pilot study to investigate natural attenuation of arsenic in the Little River near Norman, Oklahoma, 2012

Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations DRAFT. Presentation to DTMC January 15, 2014

Partizansk Coal Ash Dam Break and Spill - Observations Compiled September 28, 2004

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT

2017 (CCR) Consumer Confidence Report January 1 st to December 31 st 2017

2017 Elmo Water Report

The Texas A&M University and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Hydrologic Modeling Inventory (HMI) Questionnaire

Pilot Study Report. Z-92 Uranium Treatment Process

Final Total Maximum Daily Load Allegheny River, Allegheny County PCBs

West Cocalico Township Water Authority PWS ID#

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2016 City of Taneytown

Misawa AB, JAPAN Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) 2016

Radford Army Ammunition Plant PWSID # Consumer Confidence Report (Water Quality Report)

Lovington Municipal Water CCR 2013

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

WATER AND THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE

2017 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Pasco County Utilities - Hickory Hill Service Area PWS ID No

CITY OF ST. LOUIS Water Quality Report 2016

Misawa AB, JAPAN Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) 2017

Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA)

CHILLICOTHEMO Annual Water Quality Report Consumer Confidence Report

2018 Consumer Confidence Report Data PRESCOTT WATERWORKS, PWS ID:

Village of Bridgeport. Consumer Confidence Report

Urban Runoff Literature Review

STERLING CITY OF 2017 Drinking Water Quality Report For Calendar Year 2016

MANAGEMENT OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF WASTE ARISING FROM A NUCLEAR/RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY AND LEGACY SITES

TODD CREEK VILLAGE MD 2017 Drinking Water Quality Report For Calendar Year 2016

2017 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)

groundwater. Because watersheds are complex systems, each tends to respond differently to natural or human activities.

Section 5: Water Quality

Purpose Of Characterization Surveys. Professional Training Programs

Consumer Confidence Report 2015

CHILLICOTHEMO Annual Water Quality Report Consumer Confidence Report

WATER TREATMENT PLANTS AND NORM - CZECH EXPERIENCE

Drinking Water Quality Report 2009 Report for Test Results from 2008

to address the environmental and public health

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

Tetiana Lavrova, Oleg Voitsekhovych, Sergey Todosiienko

What is the radiological/ecological impact of NORM residues and effluents on the environment

Gunter Pretzsch - Thorsten Stahl. Radiological Situation at the Chernobyl Shelter Site Thirty Years after the Accident

FRUITLAND DOMESTIC WC 2016 Drinking Water Quality Report For Calendar Year 2015

STORMWATER HARVESTING FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY IN VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription:

A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Impacts of Uranium Mining in Virginia on Drinking Water Sources EXECUTIVE SUMMARY January 28, 2011 ES-0

Executive Summary A large uranium reserve, estimated to be over 100 million pounds, was discovered at the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County, Virginia about three decades ago (see Figure ES-1). This reserve could be large enough to supply the fuel to all nuclear reactors in the United States for two years. There is interest in the mining and milling of these reserves, which are located upstream of John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Reservoir) and Lake Gaston in southern Virginia. This report describes, and provides the results of, a preliminary assessment that investigated the potential impacts of a uranium tailings release on downstream water sources. Specifically, the assessment focused on the potential of a catastrophic failure of a uranium-tailings containment structure and subsequent discharge of uranium tailings into the Banister or Roanoke rivers and the resulting radioactive contamination in downstream water bodies including the Kerr Reservoir. The preliminary assessment aimed to address the following objectives: Estimate the amount of uranium-contaminated sediment and water that might reach Kerr Reservoir under normal and extreme precipitation events; and Estimate the potential increase in radioactivity levels and other contaminants in Kerr Reservoir. Coles Hill Figure ES-1. Location of Coles Hill Uranium Reserve in Virginia and Downstream Drinking Water Sources ES-1

Background Mined uranium ore is normally processed by first grinding it to a small, uniform particle size (this is called the milling process) and then treating it with chemical solutions to extract the uranium. Because uranium ore is mostly present at relatively low concentrations in the United States (0.05 to 0.3 percent), uranium milling and extraction produces vast quantities of waste material known as tailings, which are typically stored in impoundments formed behind containment structures such as dams. These tailings retain about 85 percent of the original radioactivity for hundreds of thousands of years because of other radioactive materials, such as radium and thorium, which are not extracted during the uranium milling process. These radioactive materials can adversely affect public health if they are not confined properly or are released to the environment. In addition, uranium tailings still contain uranium and other potentially hazardous substances such as arsenic, which are toxic and can affect public health if they leach into groundwater or surface water. Historically, a number of tailings containment structures have failed in the United States and elsewhere, resulting in the release of radioactive (such as uranium tailings) and non-radioactive (such as coal ash, copper, iron, phosphate tailings) materials to downstream surface waters. Although there were a variety of reasons for these failures, such as seepage, structural defects, earthquakes, and foundation settlement, extreme precipitation events caused most of the failures world-wide, which, in many cases, led to loss of life and caused severe contamination downstream. Climatic and geologic conditions surrounding uranium ore deposits in Pittsylvania County make the area prone to extreme rainfall events including tropical storms and hurricanes, some of which have generated substantial flooding. Although presently uranium tailings are required to be stored in specially designed waste disposal facilities called containment cells or structures in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, there is concern that a failure of the uranium tailings containment structures could result in the contamination of the downstream drinking water supply sources along the Banister River, Roanoke River, Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston. Preliminary Assessment Approach In an effort to address this concern, a preliminary assessment was conducted to investigate potential impacts of uranium tailings discharged into Banister and Roanoke Rivers in case of catastrophic failure of a containment structure. The preliminary assessment was based on a one-dimensional (1-D) numerical modeling/simulation of the Banister and Roanoke rivers and the Kerr Reservoir using the CCHE1D model developed by the University of Mississippi for the United States Department of Agriculture. CCHE1D is a software package that can simulate one-dimensional unsteady flows, sediment transport and streambed morphodynamics, and transport and fate of contaminants. The framework employed for the preliminary assessment included simulation of the variation in radioactivity concentrations along Roanoke and Banister rivers and the Kerr Reservoir in case of catastrophic failure of a containment structure under sunny day and extreme flooding conditions throughout a period of one year each. Because the exact location of the potential mine, milling facility and the containment structures were not known at the time of this assessment, it was assumed that the ES-2

containment structures could be located anywhere in the vicinity of Coles Hill and/or somewhere in the proximity of the area where former uranium leases were issued (as shown in Figure ES-1), within either the Banister River or Roanoke River watersheds. Due to lack of site specific data associated with uranium milling, extraction, tailings properties and containment structure (location, volume, etc.), data from literature were used for various parameters needed for the simulations - such as the sediment concentration in tailings, particle size distribution, and radioactivity concentrations for radium-226 and thorium-230. A range of values reported in the literature were used along with variables such as the volume of tailings and flood hydrographs to establish a range of possible scenarios that could potentially be implemented for this project: Volume of tailings 0.8, 2.5, 5.0 and 8 million cubic meters (to account for storage volumes that can be achieved with a dam height of 5 m, 15 m, 30 m, and 50 m, respectively, and a surface area of 40 acres) Sediment concentration by weight of tailings 15- (CSW1), 32.5- (CSW2), 50- (CSW3), and 70-percent (CSW4) as reported in literature Flood hydrographs 10-percent (HYD1), 1-percent (HYD2), and 0.2-percent-annualchance (HYD3) events (maximum discharges recorded by USGS gages in Banister and Roanoke rivers ranged between 58 and 94-percent of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance hydrographs) and an average water year hydrograph for the rivers Particle size distribution of tailings two different particle size distributions reported in literature were used - one represents a wider grain size range and has a higher percentage of coarser sediments (GSC1) and the other has a narrower range of size classes and a higher percentage of finer sediments (GSC2). level and uranium content in tailings minimum (RAD1) and maximum level (RAD2) radioactivity content due to radium-226 and thorium-230, and uranium content as reported in literature for the acid leaching process 1 (for three components of the tailings - sands, slimes and liquids) The simulations were carried out to observe the movement of tailings and the variation of radionuclide concentrations in Banister and Roanoke rivers and Kerr Reservoir for a period of one to two years depending on the scenario. containment failure under sunny day (assumed dam failure without the effect of extreme floods) and extreme flooding (assumed dam failure as a result of an extreme rainfall event) conditions were simulated. For tailings containment failure scenarios under extreme flooding, percent chance hydrographs (which cause the dam failure) were appended by the average water year hydrograph. 1 characteristics of uranium tailings exposed to alkaline leaching are less defined than acid leaching. Data reported for liquid and slime components of tailings fall within the limits used for this assessment for acid leaching. ES-3

Assessment Results The preliminary assessment shows that radiological contaminants (radium-226 and thorium-230) in the water column and sediments in Banister and Roanoke rivers and the Kerr Reservoir could result in water column concentrations exceeding the regulatory maximum contaminant level 2 (MCL) for combined radium-226 and 228 in drinking water for an extended period of time. However, the radioactivity concentrations in the water column subsided after a certain period of time and fell below the MCL for combined radium by the end of simulations (which were run for approximately 364 days) as shown in Figure ES-2 and Table ES-1. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 in the Water Column from Radium-226 and Thorium-230 Banister + Dam 15m + CSW3 50% + HYD2 1% + GSC1 + RAD2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Day) Node 286 - At Mouth of Kerr Reservoir Node 397 - At Kerr Dam MCL for Combined Radium-226 and 228 100 in the Water Column from Radium-226 and Thorium-230 Roanoke + Dam 15m + CSW3 50% + HYD2 1% + GSC1 + RAD2 90 80 70 60 Node 311 - At Mouth of Kerr Reservoir 50 Node 420 - At Kerr Dam MCL for Combined Radium-226 and 228 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Day) Figure ES-2. Variation in (dissolved and particulate) from Radium-226 and Thorium-230 in Banister and Roanoke Rivers for a Typical Scenario. 2 There is no MCL for thorium; however, MCL for alpha/photon emitters is 15 pci/l. ES-4

Table ES-1. Results Obtained for a Typical Scenario for Banister and Roanoke Rivers at Mouth of Kerr Reservoir and at Kerr Dam. Long-Term Simulation Results (365 days) - Banister River CSW=50% - GSC1 - HYD2 (1%) Location Dam Height (Represents Volume) (meters) Initial Level of Highest of Column During Simulation (pci/l ) Column at End of Simulation Initial Level of Highest of Column During Simulation (pci/l ) Column at End of Simulation At Mouth of Kerr Reservoir At Kerr Dam 15 39 0.1 171 0.4 30 81 0.2 383 0.6 RAD1 (Min) RAD2 (Max) 15 12 0.3 47 0.8 30 24 0.5 101 1.6 Long-Term Simulation Results - Roanoke River CSW=50% - GSC1 - HYD2 (1%) Location Dam Height (Represents Volume) (meters) Initial Level of Highest of Column During Simulation Column at End of Simulation Initial Level of Highest of Column During Simulation (pci/l ) Column at End of Simulation At Mouth of Kerr Reservoir At Kerr Dam 15 30 15 30 RAD1 (Min) MCL for Combined Radium-226 and 228 = 5 pci/l 89 0.1 397 0.4 150 0.3 RAD2 (Max) 711 0.8 24 0.3 88 0.9 39 0.5 153 1.7 It was also observed from the simulations that while the radioactivity concentrations in the water column diminish over time as river flow flushes the radionuclides from the system to Lake Gaston and further downstream, a significant amount of the radionuclides remain in the river/reservoir system adsorbed to the sand and slime components of the tailings that settle at the river bottom and in the reservoir. Table ES-2 shows how much of the initial radionuclides that entered each river as a result of tailings containment failure remain in the system after a one year of simulation for the same scenario provided in Table ES-1. As can be seen in Table ES-2, approximately 78 percent or more of the initial radioactivity released into the river/reservoir system still remains in the system and mostly in the sediments at the bottom of the river and in the reservoir after one year. The radioactivity remaining in the sediments of bed layers will be prone to re-suspension multiple times over the years as large flows and extreme flood events are experienced by the rivers. To validate this phenomenon, a series of simulations were carried out in which a 1-percent annual chance hydrograph was ES-5

imposed at the end of a sunny day failure scenario to evaluate the effect of an extreme flood on resuspension of contaminated sediments. The results showed that the re-suspension of contaminated sediments from the river bed can cause radioactivity concentration levels to rise as shown in Figure ES-3. For example, simulations for Roanoke River revealed that radioactivity concentrations could increase by up to an order of magnitude that would be three times higher than the regulatory limit of 5 pci/l. Table ES-2. Remaining in the System for Banister and Roanoke Rivers for a Typical Scenario Banister Roanoke DAM = 15m DAM = 30m DAM = 15m DAM = 30m RAD1 RAD2 RAD1 RAD2 RAD1 RAD2 RAD1 RAD2 Released from the Containment Failure Ci 94 548 186 1086 91 533 183 1066 Out of the System at the end of Simulation Ci 10 35 18 69 22 74 36 130 Remaining in the Water Column Ci 0.3 0.8 0.5 1.5 0.3 1.9 0.5 1.7 Percent Remaining in the System % Units 89 93 89 93 78 87 80 87 Figure ES-3. Variation in from Radium-226 and Thorium-230 as a Result of Re-Suspension of Contaminated Sediments In addition to the radioactivity impacts of uranium tailings (due to radium and thorium) on the rivers and Kerr Reservoir, the transport and fate of uranium was also simulated since uranium is a toxic substance that can impact human health. The results show that uranium concentrations in the water may temporarily reach or exceed the regulatory limit of 30 μg/l throughout the river/reservoir system depending on its solubility as shown in Figure ES-4. Similar to radium and thorium, the majority of uranium in tailings settle in the bed sediments. Therefore, uranium-contaminated sediments will also be ES-6

prone to resuspension multiple times over the years as discussed earlier in the case of radioactivitycontaminated sediments. Uranium in the Water Column Banister, Dam 15m, CSW3 50%, GSC1, RAD2, HYD2 1% + Average Water Year, K d = 10 1 ml/g 1.0E+05 (μg/l) 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 Node 191 - At Halifax Node 286 - At Kerr Reservoir Node 397 - At Kerr Dam MCL=30μg/L 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time (Day) Figure ES-4. Variation in Uranium in Banister River for a Typical Scenario Using Soluble form of Uranium Conclusions Simulation results and conclusions derived as a result of the preliminary assessment were based on the best available information. These conclusions could be impacted depending on the variation in key parameters, such as the dam height for the uranium tailings containment structure, sediment concentration in the tailings, radioactivity level, uranium content, solubility characteristics of radiological elements and uranium, and the particle size distribution. A catastrophic failure of a uranium tailings containment structure could significantly increase radioactivity concentrations in the river/reservoir system and exceed the MCL established for radiological contaminants for drinking water for an extended period of time. The MCL for gross alpha activity in Kerr Reservoir (water column) could be exceeded by an order of magnitude. The gross alpha activity in Kerr Reservoir (water column) could remain above the MCL for several months or more after the failure. A significant amount of radioactivity remains in the river/reservoir system after a year following a catastrophic tailings dam failure. The majority of radioactivity that enters the river/reservoir system as a result of a failure remains in bed sediments a year after the failure while dissolved and suspended radionuclides in the water column are flushed downstream. ES-7

Subsequent floods could re-suspend sediments and increase radioactivity concentration in the water column above the MCL established for radiological components for drinking water. Uranium concentrations in the water column may temporarily reach or exceed the MCL limit of 30 μg/l depending on its solubility. Solubility of uranium appears to significantly affect its presence in the river/reservoir system. The more soluble the uranium, the faster it flushes out of the river/reservoir system to downstream water bodies. If the uranium is less soluble, the majority remains in the system deposited at the bottom of the river/reservoir system and can be resuspended by subsequent floods. Reservoir operations (varying reservoir level to accommodate operational demands) may affect the arrival and residency time of radioactivity in Kerr Reservoir. Length of radioactivity residence time in the reservoir depends on the inflows higher flows flush radionuclides faster and reduce residence time; lower flows, on the other hand, increase residence time. ES-8