TRS419 Web

Technical Reports SeriEs No.
4I9
Extent of Environmental
Contamination by Naturally
Occurring Radioactive
Material (NORM) and
Technological Options
for Mitigation
EXTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION BY
NATURALLY OCCURRING
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (NORM)
AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS
FOR MITIGATION
The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency:
AFGHANISTAN GREECE PARAGUAY
ALBANIA GUATEMALA PERU
ALGERIA HAITI PHILIPPINES
ANGOLA HOLY SEE POLAND
ARGENTINA HONDURAS PORTUGAL
ARMENIA HUNGARY QATAR
AUSTRALIA ICELAND
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
AUSTRIA INDIA
ROMANIA
AZERBAIJAN INDONESIA
BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BELARUS IRAQ SAUDI ARABIA
BELGIUM IRELAND SENEGAL
BENIN ISRAEL SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
BOLIVIA ITALY SEYCHELLES
BOSNIA AND JAMAICA SIERRA LEONE
HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SINGAPORE
BOTSWANA JORDAN SLOVAKIA
BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SLOVENIA
BULGARIA KENYA SOUTH AFRICA
BURKINA FASO KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SPAIN
CAMEROON KUWAIT SRI LANKA
CANADA KYRGYZSTAN
SUDAN
CENTRAL AFRICAN LATVIA
SWEDEN
REPUBLIC LEBANON
CHILE LIBERIA SWITZERLAND
CHINA LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
COLOMBIA LIECHTENSTEIN TAJIKISTAN
COSTA RICA LITHUANIA THAILAND
CÔTE D’IVOIRE LUXEMBOURG THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
CROATIA MADAGASCAR REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
CUBA MALAYSIA TUNISIA
CYPRUS MALI TURKEY
CZECH REPUBLIC MALTA UGANDA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MARSHALL ISLANDS UKRAINE
OF THE CONGO MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
DENMARK MEXICO UNITED KINGDOM OF
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONACO GREAT BRITAIN AND
ECUADOR MONGOLIA NORTHERN IRELAND
EGYPT MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC
EL SALVADOR MYANMAR OF TANZANIA
ERITREA NAMIBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ESTONIA NETHERLANDS
URUGUAY
ETHIOPIA NEW ZEALAND
FINLAND NICARAGUA UZBEKISTAN
FRANCE NIGER VENEZUELA
GABON NIGERIA VIETNAM
GEORGIA NORWAY YEMEN
GERMANY PAKISTAN ZAMBIA
GHANA PANAMA ZIMBABWE
The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute
of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957.
The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and
enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’.
© IAEA, 2003
Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may be
obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100,
A-1400 Vienna, Austria.
Printed by the IAEA in Austria
December 2003
STI/DOC/010/419
TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 419
EXTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION BY
NATURALLY OCCURRING
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (NORM)
AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS
FOR MITIGATION
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA, 2003
IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Extent of environmental contamination by naturally occurring radioactive
material (NORM) and technological options for mitigation. —
Vienna : International Atomic Energy Agency, 2003.
p. ; 24 cm. — (Technical reports series, ISSN 0074–1914 ; no. 419)
STI/DOC/010/419
ISBN 92–0–112503–8
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Radioactive substances — Safety measures. 2. Radioactive
substances — Environmental aspects. 3. Radioactivity —
Environmental aspects. 4. Radiation, Background. I. International
Atomic Energy Agency. II. Series: Technical reports series
(International Atomic Energy Agency) ; 419.
IAEAL 03–00343
FOREWORD
The IAEA attaches great importance to the dissemination of information

that can assist Member States with the development, implementation,
maintenance and continuous improvement of systems, programmes and
activities that support the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear applications, including
the legacy of past practices and accidents.
In keeping with this, the IAEA has initiated a comprehensive programme
of work covering all aspects of environmental remediation:
— Factors important for formulating strategies and selecting technologies

for environmental remediation;
— Site characterization techniques and strategies;
— Assessment of remediation technologies;
— Assessment of technical options for cleanup of contaminated media;
— Post-restoration compliance monitoring;
— Remediation of low level dispersed radioactive contamination in the
environment.
However, radioactive residues are found not only in fuel cycle activities,
but also in a range of other industrial activities, namely:
— Mining and milling of metalliferous and non-metallic ores;

— Production of non-nuclear fuels, including coal, oil and gas;
— Extraction and purification of water, for example for the generation of
geothermal energy, as drinking and industrial process water, and in paper
and pulp manufacture;
— Production of industrial minerals, including phosphate, clay and building
materials;
— Use of radionuclides, such as thorium, for properties other than their
radioactivity.
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) may be present in

these activities and may lead to exposures at some stage of the processes and
in the use or reuse of products, residues or wastes. The present publication
attempts to give an international overview of the relevant processes, the types
of residues and wastes generated, and the pertinent management strategies and
technologies, with a view to identifying shortcomings that may lead to the need
for remediation. An overview of applicable abatement and remediation
technologies and strategies is given, together with a brief discussion of the
possible socioeconomic impact.
The intention is to help Member States gain perspectives regarding the
industrial processes that may lead to NORM generation and where, within
those processes, NORM can accumulate and eventually may lead to increased
potential for exposure of the general public to radioactivity. It is also hoped to
make decision makers in radiation protection aware of the industrial and
socioeconomic implications of their decisions. Furthermore, it is hoped that this
report will help to identify those process steps that are amenable to improved
radiation protection and the type of residue and waste and the associated
disposal sites that may be of concern and in need of remediation.
The Scientific Secretary for this publication was W.E. Falck of the Waste
Technology Section, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management.
The IAEA is grateful to all contributors and reviewers.
EDITORIAL NOTE
Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information con-
tained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsi-
bility for consequences which may arise from its use.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any
judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territo-
ries, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated
as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be
construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Related IAEA publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. PROCESSES ENHANCING CONCENTRATIONS AND

THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NORM . . . . . 7
3.1. Enhanced concentrations versus

enhanced exposure potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Technologically enhanced concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Enhanced potential for human exposure to NORM . . . . . . . . . 11
4. FUELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Oil and gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.4. Management of residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.5. Residue management technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2. Coal mining and combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. WATER ................................................. 33
5.1. Geothermal energy production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.1.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.1.5. Environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2. Drinking water treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.3. Wastewater treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.4. Industrial process waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5. Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6. METALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1. Mining and processing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.1.1. Open pit mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1.2. Underground mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.1.3. Solution mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.1.4. Beneficiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.1.5. Mining and milling residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.2. Mine waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.3. Aluminium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.3.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.3.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.4. Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.4.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.4.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.5. Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.5.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.5.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.6. Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.6.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.6.3. Residues and their management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.6.4. Radionuclide contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.7. Mineral sands and related industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.7.2. Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.7.3. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.7.4. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.7.5. Radionuclide contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.7.6. Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7. INDUSTRIAL MINERALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1. Phosphate mining and fertilizer production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

7.1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1.2. Basic processes in the phosphate industry . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1.3. Processing of phosphate ore: Acid leaching . . . . . . . . . . 88
7.1.4. Elemental phosphorus production with the
thermal process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.1.5. Environmental impact of residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.1.6. Concentrations of radionuclides in fertilizers . . . . . . . . 99
7.1.7. Utilization of by-products and residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.1.8. Measures for improvement and remediation . . . . . . . . . 102
7.2. Clay, ceramics and building materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.2.2. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.2.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
8. USE OF VARIOUS RADIO-ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
8.1. Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

8.1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
8.1.2. Mining processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.1.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.2. Radium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.3. Thorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
9. VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
9.1. Sulphuric acid production by burning pyrites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

9.1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
9.1.2. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
9.1.3. Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
9.2. Burning of shales to extract oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
9.3. River and harbour dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
9.4. Wastes from the decommissioning of industrial facilities . . . . . 117
10. REGULATORY ASPECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
11. IMPACTS OF NORM CONTAINING RESIDUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
12. SELECTED MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION

STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
12.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

12.2. Cleanup technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
12.2.1. Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
12.2.2. Immobilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
12.2.3. Dilution/dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
12.2.4. Natural attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
12.2.5. Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.2.6. Treatment of waters and effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.3. Cleaner technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
12.3.1. Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
12.3.2. Reuse/recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
12.3.3. Avoidance at source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
13. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT AND

REMEDIATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
APPENDIX I: TIN MINING AND RELATED PROCESSES

IN MALAYSIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
APPENDIX II: TITANIUM PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
APPENDIX III: RARE EARTH ELEMENT PROCESSING

IN MALAYSIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
APPENDIX IV: NIOBIUM PROCESSING IN BRAZIL . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Naturally occurring radionuclides are present in many natural resources.

Elevated concentrations of these radionuclides are often found in certain
geological materials, namely igneous rocks and ores. Human activities that
exploit these resources may lead to enhanced concentrations of radionuclides
(often referred to as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive
material (TE-NORM)) and (or) enhanced potential for exposure to naturally
occurring radioactive materials in products, by-products, residues and wastes.
Such activities may include, for instance, the mining and processing of ores, the
combustion of fossil fuels, or the production of natural gas and oil. If these
residues containing naturally occurring radionuclides are not managed
properly and safely, contamination over large areas is possible given the large
quantities of such residues.
Definition of NORM:
For brevity and clarity the acronym NORM is used in this report to encompass
all naturally occurring radioactive materials where human activities have
increased the potential for exposure in comparison with the unaltered situation.
Concentrations of radionuclides may (i.e. TE-NORM) or may not have been
increased.
These residues containing NORM as altered by human activities from

outside the nuclear fuel cycle have developed over the past three decades from
a little known issue to an issue that is receiving a considerable amount of global
attention. Important reasons for the increasing levels of concern are the:
— Large amounts of such NORM containing wastes and other materials;

— Potential long term hazards resulting from the fact that NORM is
comprised of long lived radionuclides with relatively high radiotoxicities;
— Higher likelihood for members of the public to be exposed to NORM
contained in wastes and products than to most other sources of radiation.
A significant step that should promote the development of mechanisms

to implement effective management of wastes and residues, including those
containing NORM, is Agenda 21, the action plan prepared by the governments
participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro [1]. Agenda 21 contains
1
several sections related to waste management. Two general themes are the
need to:
— Reduce the amount of all types of waste being generated;

— Manage all waste in a manner that protects human health and the
environment.
Notwithstanding the ongoing discussion about whether and when NORM

containing residues and wastes are or are becoming ‘radioactive waste’ [2], a
number of the principles formulated for radioactive waste management would
be directly applicable [3]:
— “Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way as to provide an

acceptable level of protection of the environment”;
— “Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way that it will not impose
undue burdens on future generations”;
— “Interdependencies among all steps in radioactive waste generation and
management shall be appropriately taken into account”;
— “The safety of facilities for radioactive waste management shall be
appropriately assured during their lifetime”.
Hence, an important first step for industry and regulatory bodies in a

country is to understand when and where NORM can occur within a given
process and also to identify the locations where concentrations of NORM can
be greatest within a given process. This report is intended both to identify the
industries which may involve NORM and to provide perspective on the
amounts, characteristics and radionuclide concentrations which can be found in
products, by-products and residues associated with a variety of different
processes.
Determining at what concentration for a given exposure situation NORM
becomes a potential radiological concern is a high priority in many countries. A
number of countries have established concentration levels at which NORM is
considered ‘radioactive’ and must be controlled; however, there is no interna-
tional consensus on approaches to determine these concentration levels or on
the specific concentration levels. This has proved to be problematic firstly due
to the potential economic impacts associated with control of NORM containing
residues in a manner consistent with management of other radioactive wastes
and secondly due to the disagreement on appropriate exposure scenarios and
models [4].
The task is further complicated by the fact that the relevance of exposure
to NORM depends very much on local or regional circumstances and
2
behavioural patterns. For example, an oil well or mine located in an
unpopulated, remote area poses less of a risk for potential exposures to the
general public than similar facilities located near a populated area. Likewise,
rural populations in tropical developing countries will face a different potential
for exposure than a rural family in Europe (different types of homes, amount
of time spent at home, etc.). Thus, exposure scenarios to be considered when
determining the concentration levels at which NORM related doses are
considered significant will depend on living conditions and human behaviour in
that region.
As a result of region specific considerations, the amenability of NORM to
regulatory control and the mode for the implementation of such controls are
subject to scientific and technical debate. Attempting to set up a system of
clearance levels for NORM is further complicated by the fact that introducing
new regulations or extending existing controls to residues containing TE-
NORM is likely to have a significant technological and socioeconomic impact,
given their wide occurrence and often large volumes.
1.2. OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this report are:
(a) To provide the first step in an effort to develop a global knowledge base
on the occurrence and characteristics of NORM in a wide variety of
industrial and domestic activities;
(b) To identify and assess potential technologies that have been or could be
used to help reduce the potential for or magnitude of potential exposures.
Such technologies could be applied:
(1) At the source to limit the amount of radioactivity extracted with the raw
material;
(2) During the process in the form of recycling/reuse or treatment;
(3) At the back end of the process through special disposal practices;
(4) In the form of remediation approaches in cases where some form of
remediation is needed.
This report is intended to help Member States gain perspective regarding

the industrial processes that may lead to NORM generation and where, within
these processes, NORM can accumulate and may eventually lead to an increased
potential for exposure of the general public to radioactivity. To this end, this
3
report includes a summary of a variety of processes that may involve NORM
and some examples of the amounts and characteristics of NORM containing
feedstocks, residues, by-products and products associated with these processes.
1.3. SCOPE
Industrial processes potentially involving NORM are addressed in this

report. The emphasis is on processes involving NORM that, depending on
country, may or may not be regulated in respect of their radioactive properties.
Products, by-products and residues associated with industrial processes
involving NORM are of interest here in so far as they may become wastes
eventually. Past and future practices are considered in the context of either
remediation of previously disposed residues or management of newly
generated residues. Some information on uranium mining and milling is
included in order to provide some perspective on how NORM is managed in
that industry.
In order to identify suitable remediation strategies and technologies, an
assessment is required of the potential sources of NORM, the typical processes
leading to concentration enhancement and dispersal of NORM in the
environment, and the resulting human exposure patterns (Fig. 1). To this end,
the scope also includes an analysis of when and where in the relevant processes
the concentrations of NORMs can be significantly enhanced or there is an
enhanced potential for human exposure. Understanding these activities and
Material
Source Processing Application Disposal
Effect
Original Enhanced Increased level Environmental
concentration concentration of exposure impact
Abatement
Avoid at Change Take precautions Condition or
source process or avoid use remediate
FIG. 1. Logic for the development of remediation technologies for NORM

contamination.
4
processes is the basis for understanding the waste arisings, waste forms
produced, related modes of disposal, and thus the potential for contamination
situations that can lead to enhanced public exposure. In general, the types of
information needed are those required to conduct an environmental impact
statement, although in a more general sense.
The report also addresses possible changes in production and waste
management technologies in order to reduce the arisings of wastes or their
radioactivity, or to change their form into one more manageable or less
harmful. Recycling and reuse of NORM containing residues is also addressed
with an emphasis on the need for proper consideration of the potential for
human exposures to recycled or reused NORM.
This report also serves as a source of information regarding technologies
that have been or are being considered for use to remediate sites contaminated
with NORM. Furthermore, because contaminated sites result from TE-NORM,
technologies that have been applied, or are being considered for application, to
limit the amount of residues and/or the activity concentration of NORM
containing residues resulting from a given process are also discussed.
Technological options discussed include changes in the industrial process and
feedstocks for the process in addition to changes in waste handling and
management procedures, and the cleanup/remediation of historical wastes.
While it is understood that exposure of the public can be kept low under
normal operational conditions for most industries, absence or loss of institu-
tional control over contaminated lands on which large amounts of NORM
containing residues have been placed can result in redevelopment, intrusion
and uncontrolled reuse of NORM containing materials. Thus, this report will
also discuss the importance of properly considering such possibilities in the
scenarios used to define the clearance levels to be applied for NORM.
Development of specific criteria related to the issues of clearance,
exemption and transborder movement of radioactive materials will not be
discussed. Similarly, issues such as radiation protection at the workplace and
direct exposure to NORM in consumer products are not subjects of this report.
In the European context such issues have already been discussed extensively
[5–7] and are the subject of a variety of IAEA guidelines now in draft form.
Likewise, the sources, impacts and abatement technologies associated
with Rn accumulation in buildings resulting from decay of 226Ra which has
222
not been enhanced in concentration as a result of human activity will not be

covered in this report. However, radon exposures that may occur as a result of
NORM containing residues which have been deposited on the ground surface
or not sufficiently covered to attenuate the radon dose are relevant in the
context of this report. For the case of NORM disposed near or on the ground
surface or used in building materials, radiogenic radon can be a major source of
5
potential exposure, and thus, radiological dose to the public. Typical cases are,
for example, plasterboard made from phosphogypsum or slag and fly ash
additives in concrete.
Although not specifically addressed in this report, the issue of co-contam-
inants, such as heavy metals, also needs to be addressed, as these can have
technological as well as regulatory implications. Remediation and waste
management strategies and techniques have to be tailored in such a way that,
when solving the NORM problem, no additional problems arise. For example,
thermal waste treatment processes, which may be effective for the volume
reduction of many wastes, will lead to the volatilization and subsequent
accumulation/enhancement of polonium and lead isotopes along with mercury
in residues.
1.4. RELATED IAEA PUBLICATIONS
The IAEA has developed a comprehensive programme, aiming at the

collation and dissemination of knowledge about contaminated sites. The
programme addresses appropriate methods for their characterization [8],
assessment of their potential environmental and radiological impact [9], and
applicable methods for their cleanup [10], quality control and monitoring [11]
in accordance with internationally recommended safety criteria [12].
It is intended to list selected sites contaminated by NORM, for instance
uranium mining and milling sites, in the Directory of Radioactively
Contaminated Sites (DRCS) [8]. However, NORM containing wastes that have
already been declared ‘radioactive wastes’ would be reported in the IAEA’s
Net-Enabled Waste Management Database (NEWMDB) [13].
1.5. ORGANIZATION
The main text of this report begins with an overview of naturally

occurring radionuclides, followed by a brief summary of processes that can lead
to enhanced concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides. Individual
sections are then provided for the different industries that can involve such
processes. Each of these industry specific sections includes a brief summary of
the process, a description of where enhancement can arise within the process,
ranges of amounts and activity concentrations of the NORM, and an overview
of technologies that have been applied, or are being considered for application
in order to limit the amount or activity concentration of NORM that arises. A
number of issues associated with potential public exposures to residues
6
containing NORM are summarized following the specific discussions for
individual industries. A series of appendices describe in more detail specific
examples of industries involving NORM in selected Member States.
2. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDES
NORM comprises radionuclides associated with the 238U and 232Th decay
chains as well as 40K. These radionuclides are very long lived and have some
progeny that are long lived, such as 226Ra. The distribution of radionuclides in
the geosphere depends on the distribution of the geological media from which
they are derived and the processes which concentrate them at a specific
location in specific media. The key to understanding these distributions,
therefore, is to understand the distribution of the source materials and the
physical and geochemical processes that lead to elevated concentrations of
radionuclides under specific conditions.
The tables that follow provide a perspective regarding the concentrations
of radionuclides in different natural materials. Table I includes a summary of
typical concentrations of radionuclides in different geological media. Table II
includes a summary of concentrations of radionuclides in natural resources that
when exploited can result in enhanced NORM concentrations. It should be
noted that the NORM problem often goes hand in hand with elevated concen-
trations of other elements that are considered toxic or hazardous, such as
arsenic or heavy metals. Thus, in a comprehensive approach, the potential
hazards associated with non-radioactive substances should also be considered.
3. PROCESSES ENHANCING CONCENTRATIONS AND

THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NORM
3.1. ENHANCED CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS ENHANCED

EXPOSURE POTENTIAL
NORM in its unaltered natural state can pose potential radiological

concerns. However, such unaltered NORM is mostly not amenable to
regulatory control. On the other hand, exposures to NORM that has been
altered in the course of exploitation of natural resources to meet human needs
can, in principle, be controlled. There are two effects of human exploitation that
7
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR RADIO-
NUCLIDES IN MAJOR ROCK TYPES AND SOIL
(data from Ref. [14], other references are given therein)
40K 87Rb 232Th 238U
Rock type Total K Bq/kg ppm Bq/kg ppm Bq/kg ppm Bq/kg
(%)
Igneous rocks
Basalt,
crustal 0.8 300 40 30 3–4 10–15 0.5–1 7–10
average
mafic 0.3–1.1 70–400 10–50 1–40 1.6, 2.7 7, 10 0.5, 0.9 7, 10
salic 4.5 1100–1500 170–200 150–180 16, 20 60, 83 3.9, 4.7 50, 60
Granite >4 >l000 170–200 150–180 17 70 3 40
(crustal average)
Sedimentary rocks
Shale,
sandstones 2.7 800 120 110 12 50 3.7 40
Clean quartz <1 <300 <40 <40 <2 <8 <1 <10
Dirty quartz 2? 400? 90? 80? 3–6? 10–25? 2–3? 40?
Arkose 2–3 600–900 80–120 80 2? <8 1–2? 10–25?
Beach sands <1 <300? <40? <40? 6 25 3 40
(unconsolidated)
Carbonate rocks 0.3 70 10 8 2 8 2 25
Continental 2.8 850 112 100 10.7 44 2.8 36
upper crust
(average)
Soils 1.5 400 65 50 9 37 1–8 66
Note: Question marks indicate estimates in the absence of measured values.
are relevant in the case of potential effects of NORM on human health and the
environment:
(1) The concentrations of NORM can be enhanced above its natural levels in
a product, by-product or residue.
(2) The availability for release into the biosphere of the NORM in products,
by-products or residues can be enhanced through physicochemical
changes or simply due to the method by which the residues are managed.
8
TABLE II. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDES IN MINERAL
RESOURCES [15]
Element/mineral Source Radioactivity
Aluminium Ore 250 Bq/(kg U)

Bauxitic limestone, soil 100–400 Bq/(kg Ra)
Bauxitic limestone, soil 30–130 Bq/(kg Th)
Tailings 70–100 Bq/(kg Ra)
Copper Ore 30–100 000 Bq/(kg U)
Ore 20–110 Bq/(kg Th)
Fluorspar Mineral Uranium series
Tailings 4000 Bq/(kg Ra)
Iron Uranium series
Thorium series
Molybdenum Tailings Uranium series
Monazite Sands 6000–20 000 Bq/(kg U)
Thorium series (4% by weight)
Natural gas Gas, average for groups 2–17 000 Bq/(m3 Rn)
of US and Canadian wells
Gas, individual US and 0.4–54 000 Bq/(m3 Rn)
Canadian wells
Scale, residue in pumps, 100–50 000 Bq/(kg 210Pb/210Po)
vessels and residual gas
pipelines
Oil Brines or produced water Ranging from mBq to
100 Bq/(L Ra)
Sludges Ranging up to 70 000 Bq/(kg Ra)
(scales) Typically 103–104 Bq/kg, ranging
up to 4 × 106 Bq/(kg Ra)
Phosphate Ore 100–4000 Bq/(kg Unatural)
Ore 15–150 Bq/(kg Thnatural)
Ore 600–3000 Bq/(kg Ra)
Potash Thorium series
40K
Rare earths Uranium series

Thorium series
Tantalum/niobium Uranium series
Thorium series
9
TABLE II. (cont.)
Element/mineral Source Radioactivity
Tin Ore and slag 1000–2000 Bq/(kg Ra)

Titanium (rutile, Ore 30–750 Bq/(kg U)
ilmenite) Ore 35–750 Bq/(kg Th)
Uranium Ore 15 000 Bq/(kg Ra)
Slimes 105 Bq/(kg Ra)
Tailings 10 000–20 000 Bq/(kg Ra)
Vanadium Uranium series
Zinc Uranium series
Thorium series
Zirconium (zircon) Sands 4000 Bq/(kg U)
Sands 600 Bq/(kg Th)
4000–7000 Bq/(g Ra)
This section includes a brief overview of these two concepts and their
impact on the potential for and the magnitude of radiological effects associated
with the management of residues resulting from exploitation of natural
resources. Emphasis is placed on the fact that it is not only technologically
enhanced concentrations of NORM that are a concern but also NORM that
has been altered from its natural state, and is thus more available for release
into the biosphere or for direct human exposure.
3.2. TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED CONCENTRATIONS
The concentration or dispersal of radionuclides, like that of any other

chemical element, is controlled by its physicochemical properties in relation to
the ambient conditions. Human activities change these ambient (environmental)
conditions intentionally, for example in situ leaching of uranium ore, or uninten-
tionally, for example the extraction and production of oil and gas. Changes in the
physicochemical conditions can lead to the enrichment of the concentration of
radionuclides, in particular products or residues in the course of industrial
activities. A range of principal processes can be identified, for example:
(a) Extraction of groundwater (for drinking water purposes, as formation

water in oil and gas recovery) typically changes the chemical boundary
10
conditions (pH, redox potential and gas partial pressures), and chemical
equilibria are disturbed, which can lead to the precipitation of scales
(which scavenge, for instance, radium); conversely, ‘mixing corrosion’
resulting from the mixing of waters with different CO2 partial pressures
can lead to the dissolution of scales.
(b) Combustion processes volatilize certain nuclides, such as lead and poloni-
um, and concentrate non-volatile nuclides, such as radium, in the ash.
(c) Physical disaggregation enhances dissolution and dispersal owing to
increased surface areas.
(d) Sedimentation can lead to accumulation of naturally occurring radionu-
clides, which are often associated with heavy minerals, for example, rutile
and zircon.
(e) (Preferential) adsorption on clays or organic sedimentary fractions can
lead to enhanced concentrations in these fractions; size fractionation
(sieving, floatation, etc.) leads to further concentration enhancement in
fines and slimes.
3.3. ENHANCED POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE TO NORM
The activities described in Section 3.1 could also lead to an increased

availability of the radionuclides for potential human exposures. In some cases,
the enhancement in concentration of NORM may be insignificant or relatively
small, but a large amount of NORM could be disrupted from their natural state.
This is most apparent in the case of the enhanced potential for human exposure
as a result of metal or mineral mining. Mining activities often involve extraction
of a given valuable fraction of a very large ore body, leaving the remainder as
a residue. In this case, the concentrations of the NORM may not be signifi-
cantly enhanced in the mining residues (e.g. tailings and gangue), but very large
amounts of NORM are more available for release into the biosphere than they
were in the undisturbed natural state. This illustrates human activities that do
not necessarily enhance the concentration of NORM in products, by-products
or residues can also be a concern, simply due to the increased potential for
human exposure.
It should be noted that, when compared with the amount of declared
radioactive waste that is disposed in radioactive waste repositories, the
amounts of NORM containing residues are orders of magnitude larger.
Management of such large amounts of residues poses a significant challenge for
these industries.
The following sections provide a summary of the material flows for
selected processes, including examples of the primary feed materials, end
11
products, and the ensuing residues and existing contamination problems with
an emphasis on the fate of the NORM. The intention is not to give a compre-
hensive description of each process, rather to describe the various processes or
product streams in enough detail to raise the awareness of NORM within
different industries and provide a perspective on areas where concentrations of
radionuclides can be enhanced in products, by-products or residues or where
the potential for human exposure to NORM in these materials is enhanced as
a result of industrial activity. Indications are also given of where these
exposures could be decreased.
4. FUELS
4.1. OIL AND GAS
4.1.1. Introduction
Oil and gas are used in a number of different ways, including: fuel for
electricity production and transport, lubricants, and numerous industrial and
consumer products. In terms of the raw materials, gas and oil originate from the
breakdown of organic matter in a sedimentary formation (the source rock) and
may become trapped in a suitable reservoir structure. Many types of reservoir
structures are known, but all require that the vertical migration of oil and gas
from the porous reservoir rock be prevented by an impervious covering known
as the caprock (often rock salt or clay) [16]. Global crude oil production for
2000 is summarized in Table III and crude oil production since 1971 is
illustrated in Fig. 2. Global natural gas production for 2000 is summarized in
Table IV and production since 1971 is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Table I provided ranges of typical concentrations of radionuclides in
different geological materials. Radionuclide concentrations are not exceptionally
high in common sedimentary materials; however, elevated levels can be found in
shales. The radionuclides tend to exist in equilibrium in rock formations. The
formation water, often a brine with low sulphate concentration, preferentially
dissolves radium relative to the parents uranium and thorium. Thus, radium and
its progeny are present in larger concentrations than uranium and thorium in the
water. As noted above, the fraction of water in the oil–gas–water mixture tends
to increase during the time in which a reservoir is exploited. Thus, NORM in
extraction and separation facilities for a specific reservoir becomes more
prevalent over time. Radon emanating from the rock formation and resulting
from decay of radium in the water will be present in the gas phase.
12
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
OECD Middle East Former USSR Non-OECD Europe
China Asia Latin America Africa
FIG. 2. Global crude oil production (in Mt) since 1971 (from Ref. [17]).
4.1.2. Processes
The general components of the oil and gas extraction and front end
production process are illustrated in Fig. 4. In general, the oil–gas–water
TABLE III. GLOBAL CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION IN 2000

(from Ref. [17])
Percentage
Producer Mt
of world total
Saudi Arabia 427 12.0
United States of America 354 10.0
Russian Federation 322 9.1
Islamic Republic of Iran 186 5.2
Venezuela 172 4.8
Mexico 171 4.8
China 163 4.6
Norway 158 4.4
Iraq 127 3.6
United Kingdom 127 3.6
Rest of the world 1348 37.9
World total 3555 100.0
13
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
OECD Middle East Former USSR Non-OECD Europe
China Asia Latin America Africa
FIG. 3. Global natural gas production (in Mm3) since 1971 (from Ref. [17]).
mixture is brought to the surface through the well tubing. This mixture is then
processed through a separator which removes the gas. The gas is then processed
and transported to a gas plant where it is divided into the different gas
TABLE IV. GLOBAL NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION IN 2000

(from Ref. [17])
Percentage
Producer Mm3
of world total
Russian Federation 584 200 23.0

United States of America 548 044 21.6
Canada 180 618 7.1
United Kingdom 115 065 4.5
Algeria 89 348 3.5
Netherlands 72 864 2.9
Indonesia 67 830 2.7
Iran 63 744 2.5
Uzbekistan 56 001 2.2
Saudi Arabia 52 811 2.1
Rest of the world 706 341 27.8
World total 2 536 866 100.0
14
products. After the gas has been removed, the oil–water mixture is sent to a
heater/treater and divided into the oil and water phases. The separated crude
oil phase is distributed to stock tanks prior to being transported to a refinery.
Additional gas which can be obtained in the heater/treater and in the stock
tanks is also routed to the gas plant. After being separated from the oil, the
formation water is routed to a water treatment plant and then discharged to the
sea or held in (often unlined) open storage basins for further use or reinjected
into the oil/gas bearing formation.
4.1.3. Residues
Oilfield equipment can contain hard radioactive scales and softer scale
bearing sludges which appear as coatings or sediments [18]. Gas field
equipment may be contaminated internally with films, coatings or plating of
concentrated NORM [19]. The scales and sludges containing NORM are
formed primarily during the extraction and production stages, starting when
the oil–gas–water mixture is brought to the surface and also forming during the
separation process. Initially, NORM is brought to the surface through the
downhole tubing as part of the oil–gas–water mixture. Hard scales precipitate
from the formation water onto the downhole tubing in response to changes in
temperature, pressure and salinity as the water is brought to the surface. The
scale is typically a mixture of carbonate and sulphate minerals. One of these
sulphate minerals is baryte (BaSO4), which is known to readily incorporate
radium in its structure. When compared with other NORM containing wastes
in the oil and gas industry, the concentrations of 226Ra are the largest in these
scales and are enhanced substantially from concentrations found in the natural
environment.
During the separation process, different radionuclides in the decay chain
are also separated. Figure 4 provides a rough illustration of the flow of the
different radionuclides in the separation process. In the separation process, the
deposits tend to be in the form of soft scales, sludges or films. Radium sludges
tend to accumulate on the oil and water side of the separation process,
especially in areas where there are changes in pressure or temperature and
where the oil products are stored or water is discharged into (unlined) surface
pits.
Likewise, radon and its progeny can be found in the gas and in films on
the inside of the gas handling equipment. The radon appears to concentrate
preferentially in the ethane and propane streams relative to the natural gas
output of the plant [20]. Lead-210 and 210Po that accumulate in films are
especially problematic because they are more difficult to measure on the inside
of piping and equipment due to the lack of a strong gamma decay. These
15
Residual or
Sales Gas (Rn + D)
To Storage
Chiller Flare
Rn + d
Ethane (Rn + d)
Absorber
Treater
Propane (Rn + d)
Gas Plant
LNG Butane
Rn + d Plant Fuel
Sales
Gas Compressor Gas Plants
Stations
Well Flare
Rn + d
Head Rn + d
Gas Rn + d Gas
Crude Gas Rn + d
Gas Crude
Separator
Treater
Heater
H 2O H2O Crude Stock Pipe Line

U + Ra + U + Ra U + Th Tanks
Rn + d + + Th
Th + d
Many Days
Ra + d
Th + d
Well
Head Water Injection
Treatment or Discharge
Plant Ra +d, Th + d
FIG. 4. Example flows of NORM in oil, gas and water separation (‘d’ stands for daughters).
(By courtesy of M. Scott (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA).)
deposits can be found throughout the natural gas systems. In order to measure
for 210Pb and 210Po, it is necessary to open the piping or valves and to swab the
inside of the pipe or to use a pancake type Geiger–Müller detector [19].
As introduced above, the process residues containing technologically
enhanced NORM associated with the oil and gas industry occur in the form of
scales, sludges and films. There are also additional NORM containing residues
or contaminated soils from the water discharges produced. The amounts and
characteristics of these residues vary considerably in different installations [18].
Data for oil wells in the United States of America suggest that an average of
roughly 100 t of scale per well is generated each year. Many wells are known to
not currently yield residues containing NORM. Accounting for this yields an
estimate of roughly 400 t of scale per year for each NORM generating well. Van
Weers and co-authors [16] provide a number of examples of amounts of scales.
It is known that the amount of scale increases as a well ages due to the
increasing ratio of water to oil and in some cases the introduction of salt water
into the formation to enhance recovery.
An American Petroleum Institute report [21] estimated that more than
140 000 drums (roughly 28 000 m3) of technologically enhanced NORM
containing residues (~ > 3300 Bq/kg) accumulate on an annual basis in the USA.
16
Estimates for the North Sea [22] suggest a somewhat lower value of 20 t of
scale per well each year, although this value is based on a single, new well field
which would be expected to generate less scale than some of the fields that
have been operating for longer periods of time.
Another residue is the formation water that has been separated from the
oil–gas–water mixture. Studies of the large quantities of water produced from
wells at oil and natural gas drilling and production sites have indicated that a
number of the wells yielded water with an average radium concentration in
excess of 1.85 Bq/L [23]. Other data suggest that average radium concentra-
tions in water from some wells can be as high as 111 Bq/L [24]. As a
comparison, the radium concentration limit for discharges of water from US
commercial nuclear facilities is approximately 2.2 Bq/L [25].
As noted above, the separated water is often re-injected into the oil
bearing formation, which is considered in some Member States a sound waste
management approach posing minimal potential impacts to human health,
provided that there is no hydraulic connection to usable groundwater resources
and that once the well is abandoned, the casing is properly cemented to prevent
leakage into these aquifers. However, in many cases, the water is discharged
into holding surface ponds (in the case of a land based well) or discharged
directly into the sea (in the case of an offshore well). When discharged into
ponds, the water is generally allowed to percolate into the ground or to
evaporate. In this case, NORM in the water will concentrate in the bottom
sludges or residual salts of the ponds. Thus, the pond sediments can become a
residue posing a potential radiological health concern. The activity concentra-
tions of radionuclides in these soils have been reported to be in the range from
1×104 to 4×104 Bq/kg.
Table V includes illustrative ranges for the activity concentrations of
radionuclides in different residues associated with oil and gas. The largest
concern in terms of radionuclide activity concentrations for NORM in the oil
and gas industry involves the hard scales which form on the inside of the down-
hole tubing. At many oilfield sites the downhole tubing can become coated with
scale deposits that contain radium. Because of the loss of flow capacity in the
downhole tubing, these scales must be removed occasionally. When they are
removed, they become a waste management concern. The composition of scale
has been studied in detail for a number of years. NORM scale and sludges in
production equipment have been shown to have radionuclide activity concen-
trations as high as several million Bq/kg [24, 26], which would place them at the
upper end of the concentrations suitable for near surface disposal (these are
extreme cases and not indicative of typical values).
Average radionuclide concentrations of 1000–100 000 Bq/kg are more
common [23]. In terms of exposure, the scales tend to be relatively insoluble,
17
TABLE V. REPRESENTATIVE NORM ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS
IN OIL AND GAS RESIDUES
(adapted from Ref. [29])
Material Example activity concentrations (Bq/kg)
Scale in downhole tubing, pipes and other 226Ra:
equipment for handling oil/gas and Background to 15 000 000

formation waters (average 1000 to hundreds of thousands)
Sludges in separations and production 226Ra:
equipment 10 000 to 1 000 000

Sludges, films in natural gas supply 210Pb:
equipment Background to about 40 000

Sludges from soils beneath ponds of 226Ra:
produced water 10 000 to 40 000
thus the radionuclides would only be released slowly into the environment [27].
Furthermore, owing to the nature of the scales, the emanation coefficient of
radon is substantially less than that of other materials such as mill tailings or
sludges [28].
Sludges that accumulate in tanks and other settling areas within the
production equipment tend to have less enhancement of NORM than the
scales; however, the concentrations can still be a concern. Table V indicates
ranges from background to roughly 1×104 to 4×104 Bq/kg. Sludges and films in
natural gas equipment show a similar range of concentrations. Films of 210Pb
and 210Po in gas plants have been found in higher concentrations [26]. The
radionuclides in sludges are more available for release into the environment
than was the case for the scales. Thus, although radionuclide activity concentra-
tions are less than those of scales, potential exposures via the food chain and
radon pathways are more likely.
4.1.4. Management of residues
Figure 5 illustrates the relative isolation of residues containing NORMs

from the general public for a variety of possible disposal options. As the degree
of isolation increases so does the capability for disposing of higher radium
concentrations. Surface spreading and dilution of low activity NORM is a past
practice that is now disallowed by most States in the USA with NORM
regulations. The American Petroleum Institute has prepared a NORM disposal
cost study [21] that includes an evaluation of different disposal options as
18
NORM CONCENTRATION LIMIT
low high
Surface Licensed Low Plugged
spreading NORM level and Deep
Surface with Industrial disposal waste Surface Injection abandoned Hydraulic geological
spreading dilution Burial landfill facility facility mine well well fracture repository
low
Degree of
isolation from
the public — and cost!
Actual costs may vary according
to circumstances and do not always
increase in this order.
high
FIG. 5. Disposal alternatives for NORM wastes. Disposal of more concentrated wastes
requires greater isolation of waste from the general public (from Ref. [30] based on an
original American Petroleum Institute figure [31]).
illustrated in Fig. 5. An additional method of disposal is direct discharge into

the sea of scales that have been ground to a small size. Although, in principle,
this dilute and disperse management approach should lead to minimal health
impacts, data have shown that large mounds of the scale can accumulate
beneath a drilling and production platform.
Landfarming (Fig. 6) or other approaches involving mixing of NORM
containing residues in surface soils are used for management of lower activity
sludges and some scales. In this approach, the concentration of NORM is
diluted in the soil to a level considered acceptable on the basis of applicable
regulations.
Management approaches for the ‘produced’ water that is separated from
the oil and gas vary from location to location. In some cases, both onshore and
offshore, the separated water is reinjected into the oil/gas bearing formation.
However, in other cases it is discharged into surface ponds for evaporation or
discharged directly into the sea in the case of offshore rigs. When discharged
into evaporation ponds, the resulting NORM containing sludges and salts
require proper treatment and disposal.
The decommissioning of oil and gas production facilities gives rise to a
waste stream of contaminated metal materials, mainly tubing and fittings [32].
19
microbes +
nutrients waste retaining
material walls
leachate
collector
sand filter
line
(geomembrane)
to water treatment plant
FIG. 6. Landfarming to treat oil production scales and sludge.
Here, contamination with 210Pb is also of concern, as this can only be detected
from the inside, owing to the low penetration depth of its radiation. However,
sludges and scales present in a facility should be dealt with appropriately as
part of the decommissioning strategy (Fig. 7). Some options for disposal of
decommissioned offshore platforms are deep water disposal, creation of
artificial reefs and partial removal to depths of 26 m or more [33]. These
approaches take advantage of natural dilution in the vast amounts of sea water,
but may have implications vis-à-vis the London Convention (LC) [34].
In reviewing the analysis of the NORM situation in the oil and gas industry
in the European Union, and more specifically for North Sea offshore production
[18, 29], one can conclude that very little need for environmental remediation is
likely to arise. The routes of disposal for both operational and decommissioning
residues vary from country to country and include discharge into the sea as well
as land storage in low level storage facilities, such as COVRA in the Netherlands
[35]. The agreements under OSPARCOM [36] aim to eliminate sea disposal and
discharge. The situation is similar in the USA, although national requirements
have not been developed for disposal of residues containing NORM from the oil
and gas industry [21]. However, only limited information is available for other
areas, where there may still be concerns about how these residues are managed
and the issue of NORM has only recently gained more attention. Environmental
contamination problems may arise when scales are dumped into the sea from
offshore platforms or dispersed in terrestrial environments. The windborne
dispersal of scales, when not properly managed, can be a problem in arid
countries [37]. Abandoned sites with NORM contaminated soil, where produced
20
Offshore Installation Onshore Facilities
Offshore Offshore Cleaning/ Onshore

Decontamination Maintenance Decontamimation
Discharge to
Temporary the Sea as Production
On-Site Storage Waste
On-Shore Storage
Temporary
Off-Site Storage
Repository
Onshore
Disposal Disposal
Offshore: On-Site Offshore: Off-Site
FIG. 7. Disposal chart — NORM waste in oil and gas production [33].
water was discharged into unlined ponds, could be of radiological concern when
people move onto the site.
4.1.5. Residue management technologies
The interest in mobilization processes leading to deposition of scales is not

exclusively related to NORM, as considerable scale formation interferes with the
production process by reducing the free diameter of tubing and consequently
increasing the flow resistance. Scale deposition also poses a risk by affecting the
proper functioning of valves. The oil and gas industry has been developing and
applying ‘scale inhibitors’ to help limit the amount of scale that forms on the
inside of the pipe. A variety of different inhibitors have been applied to limit
precipitation of the solids, which keeps the radium in solution rather than
concentrated in the solid phase (see, e.g. Ref. [38]). Such inhibitors have been
used with varying levels of success. In addition, methods for scale inhibition by
injecting chemicals into reservoirs to change the formation/injection water
chemistry have been developed and are now being tested in practice.
The same applies to the use of acids and proprietary mixes to dissolve
scale in situ [16, 39]. The effective use of scale inhibitors, however, carries the
radium isotope with the produced water through the production system. The
21
radium can still accumulate, although in lower concentrations, in sludges or
other residues associated with water handling.
Decontamination methods include mechanical scrubbing, shot blasting
and high pressure water jetting. The resulting slurries are collected for disposal
in low level radioactive waste disposal facilities. At least in the past, scales were
also ground up and discharged from offshore installations or reinjected down-
hole. In certain instances scrap melting is also possible, when the NORM is
collected in the slags and by scrubbing off-gases [16]. However, in some
Member States recycling of radioactive contaminated metals is not an
acceptable practice, and the materials must be disposed of.
Facilities where scale from pipes, tanks and other oilfield equipment was
mechanically removed without awareness of its radiological contamination,
and where the scale was left on-site, may also pose public health hazards to
future occupants and nearby residents due to redistribution by dust generation
or water erosion. Reuse of contaminated pipes as structural elements in
buildings or playground equipment, or melting of contaminated metals for
recycling to other uses, may also expose the public to unsuspected radiological
hazards.
4.2. COAL MINING AND COMBUSTION
4.2.1. Introduction
Extraction of hard coal worldwide is about 3.7–3.8 Gt (Table VI) with

consumption likely to increase in the future (Fig. 8). The biggest producers of
coal are China, USA and India, which together produce more than two thirds
of the world total.
Fossil fuels such as coal contain naturally occurring radioactivity from the
uranium and thorium series and 40K. The concentration of NORM in the coal,
waste rocks and waste waters depends on the geological formation of coal
seams. The concentration of NORM in the ash and other residues is closely
TABLE VI. WORLDWIDE PRODUCTION OF COAL (Gt)
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
All types of coal 4.580 4.492 4.559 4.682 4.686 4.703 4.652 4.532 4.538
[40]
Hard coal [41] 3.486 3.431 3.553 3.715 3.797 3.821 3.758 3.666 3.639
22
Billion Short Tons
10
High
8
Economic Growth
Reference Case
6
Low
4
Economic Growth
History Projections
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
FIG. 8. Consumption of coal worldwide, with prognosis up to 2020 [40].
related to the NORM concentrations in the coal used as fuel. In order to

accurately address these questions and to predict the mobility of radioactive
elements during the coal fuel cycle (from mining to coal combustion), it is
important to determine the concentration, distribution and form of radioactive
elements in coal, waste rocks, waste waters, ash, slag and other residues [42].
As with other fuels, the concentration of NORM in coal or lignite
depends on the geological setting. Coal forms by the accumulation of non-
marine plant debris. As this organic sediment buried under stagnant swamp
waters, increased pressure and temperature begin to break down the organic
matter. The formation of coal involves a series of steps with the progressive
release of volatile components, enriching the residue in carbon. These
released gases include water, carbon dioxide and methane. As temperature
and pressure increase, peat is transformed successively into lignite;
bituminous or soft coal; and finally anthracite, or hard coal. Coal is charac-
terized by the degree of carbonization, or in other words by its contents of
carbon, ash (non-combustible inorganic matter), moisture and volatile
materials. Heavy metals and radionuclides are often associated with the
sulphidic accessories in coal.
Some examples of NORM concentrations in coal from selected countries
are provided in Table VII. Note that the concentrations can be significantly
23
TABLE VII. EXAMPLE RANGES AND/OR AVERAGES OF RADIO-
NUCLIDE ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN COAL (Bq/kg)
Country 238U 230Th 226Ra 210Pb 210Po 232Th 228Ra 40K
Australia [44] 8.5–47 21–68 19–24 20–33 16–28 11–69 11–64 23–140
Brazil [45]a 72 72 72 62 62
Egypt [46] 59 26 8 8
Germany 10–145 10–63 10–700
[48, 49] 32a 21a 225a
Lignite <1–58 <1–58 <4–220
Former
East Germany 10a 8a 22a
Greece [5]b 117–390 44–206 59–205 9–41
Hungary [48] 20–480 12–97 30–384
Italy [49]c 23 ± 3 18 ± 4 218 ± 15
Poland [50] <159 <123 <785
18d 11d
Romania [5] <415 <557 <510 <580 <170
80a 126a 210a 262a 62a
UK [44] 7–19 8.5–25.5 7.8–21.8 7–19 55–314
USA [44] 6.3–73 8.9–59.2 12.2–77.7 3.3–51.8 3.7–21.1
a Average.
b Lignite.
c Lignite, average.
d Average for all coal seams.
higher in some areas. For example, concentrations of NORM greater than

1000 Bq/kg in coal have been reported in Croatia [43]. Examples of coal
concentrations in gangue or waste rock from coal mining in China are provided
in Table VIII.
TABLE VIII. OUTPUT-WEIGHED AVERAGE OF RADIOACTIVITY

CONTENT IN GANGUE IN CHINA
Origin of Number of Content

gangue samples 226Ra 232Th 40K
Mining 526 53.1 61.2 530

Preparation 117 50.9 55.0 344
Total 643 53.0 61.0 524
24
4.2.2. Processes
Coal is excavated in open pits (mainly in the USA and Australia) or in

underground mines (mainly in China, Europe and Brazil). The excavation of
coal is accompanied by production of comparable quantities of waste rocks and
large volumes of drainage water (Fig. 9) that can contain enhanced radioac-
tivity. The mining activity can affect the overlying geological strata, creating
new pathways for radon exhalation and, hence, its entry to dwellings. In such
cases elevated radon concentrations in buildings can be observed [51].
A flow chart of the materials in a typical coal mining process is shown in
Fig. 10.
The radioactivity of coal in seams is generally not enhanced compared
with the average values for earth crust [53]. The same is true for most of the
overlying and underlying rocks excavated together with coal and deposited on
the surface as spoils (Table IX).
The conventional combustion of coal in coal fired power plants results in
the generation of bottom ash, which is collected at the bottom of power plant
boilers, and fly ash, which is collected prior to being discharged from the stack.
Fine particles, or fly ash, are also emitted from the stack. Flue gas desulphur-
ization (FGD), which is commonly being implemented on coal fired power
112
212
40
13
coal solid wastes ashes waste water
FIG. 9. Quantities of coal and wastes (in Mt) in the coal fuel cycle in Poland [52].
25
tailings and sludges settling ponds discharge
waste rock piles sediment water treatment water
process
gangue
water
overburden and waste rock
backfill material
beneficiation coal
path with
unchanged
raw coal radioactivity
path with
coal drainage increased
mine water radioactivity
FIG. 10. Flow chart of the materials in the coal mining process.
plants, results in additional residues in the form of sludges or dry solids. The
process flow for a typical coal fired power plant is shown in Fig. 11.
4.2.3. Residues
As shown in Fig. 11, most of the waste from a typical coal fired power
plant is generated as fly ash, which is entrained with the hot flue gases of the
combustion process. The remainder of the ash is heavier and settles to the
TABLE IX. AVERAGE ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION OF COAL AND

WASTE ROCKS (Bq/kg)
(from Ref. [54])
Material 226Ra 228Ra 40K
Coal 18 11 63
Waste rocks* 44–69 41–63 339–609
Soil in mining area* 20–25 20–23 252–307
* Values from two areas.
26
fly ash
STACK
At time of mass balance study 1 kg/h
50% of the flue gases were

river water
desulphurised, with the FGD 46.4 m3/h
plant configured as shown in the
diagram. 1.7
m3/h
5.2
100% of the flue gases are now m3/h
MAIN GYPSUM LIMESTONE
desulphurised using two 19.9 SCRUBBER THICKENER SUSPENSION
scrubbers. m3/h
lye gypsum
66 kg/h 4400 kg/h limestone
coal 2560 kg/h
188 000 kg/h
fly ash 19 kg/h 8.7 21.6

flue gases 1 717 000 m3/h PRE- m3/h m3/h
SCRUBBER WASTEWATER
24.8 TREATMENT
m3/h
BOILER ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
(ESP)
lime water effluent sludge
fly ash 9 kg/h 80 kg/h 30.3 m3/h 56 kg/h
bottom ash fly ash flue gases 807 000 m3/h
2700 kg/h 19 800 kg/h
FIG. 11. Example of material flows in a coal fired power plant [55].
bottom of the boiler to form what is referred to as bottom ash. Volatile radionu-
clides, such as 210Pb and 210Po, accumulate in the fly ash and on the smaller
particles emitted with the stack emissions. They can also accumulate on the
inside of the stack as the exhaust gases cool. For the volatile radionuclides,
there tends to be an inverse ratio between the particle size and the activity
concentration. Table X provides some examples of the enhancement ratios for
different radionuclides. The source in process materials and the subsequent
partitioning of different elements in the various FGD residues is illustrated in
Fig. 12. FGD residues are generated in large amounts as sludges and gypsum
[47]; however, the NORM concentrations tend to be lower than in the ashes.
Given that water and limestone are introduced into the system as part of FGD,
it is important to understand the distribution of the elements in the source
materials.
Tables XI and XII give examples of typical radionuclide concentrations
found in residues resulting from coal combustion in a number of countries.
These concentrations, however, can vary widely depending on the mineral
27
100
90
80
70
60
[%]
50
40
30
20
10
0
Al Ca Cl F Fe Mg Na Si Ti As B Be Br Cd Cr Cu Hg I Mn Ni Pb Sb Sc Se Sm U V W Zn
Limestone River Water Flue Gases
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
[%]
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Al Ca Cl F Fe Mg Na Si Ti As B Be Br Cd Cr Cu Hg I Mn Ni Pb Sb Sc Se Sm U V W Zn
Gypsum Sludge Waste Water Flue Gases
FIG. 12. Partitioning of elements in FGD process materials and resulting residues [45].
TABLE X. ENHANCEMENT FACTORS FOR RADIONUCLIDES IN

ASH PARTICLES [5]
238U 226Ra 210Po 210Pb 232Th 40K
1–10 5–15 30–200 20–120 1–10 10–50
28
TABLE XI. MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS (Bq/kg) OF RADIO-
NUCLIDES IN VARIOUS COAL BURNING RESIDUES
238U 234U 230Th 226Ra 228Ra 210Pb 210Po 235U 232Th 40K Total
Fly ash emitted to the atmosphere from UK power stations [56]:

Drax 109.7 121 34.5 53 188 171.3 <3.6 39.6
Eggborough 84.9 88 30.6 74 125.4 139.8 <1.9 19.1
Alberthaw 43.3 47.9 38.2 44.3 98 64.2 2.08 28.6
High Marnham <200 208 74
Drakelow <200 220 92
West Burton <400 290 158
Polish coal fired power stations (1195 ash and 645 slag samples) [54]
Ash (average) 146 102 631
Ash (median) 131 101 654
Ash (range) 18– 16– 35–
870 275 1484
Slag (average) 108 79 549
Slag (median) 97 79 561
Slag (range) 17– 17– 23–
487 261 1103
Croatian coal fired power plants [43]
Fly ash 8700 2400 20 400 150 11700
Bottom ash 3400 2000 60 200 290 5900
and slag
Brazilian coal and combustion products [57]
Coal 72 72 62 72 62
Bottom ash 156 120 84 70 96
Fly ash 144 192 144 440 80
US coal combustion wastes [58]a
Fly ash 96 96 67 111 96 200 207 5 63 1003b
Bottom ash 26 26 19 26 22 52 52 1 15 255b
and slag
a Assumes that 80 wt% of the concentration is fly ash.
b Excludes contributions from other (short lived) radionuclides in decay chains.
29
TABLE XII. ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION RANGE (Bq/kg) IN COAL
POWER PLANT RESIDUES (ASH, SLAG)
Country 238U series 232Th series 40K
Hungarya,b [59] 200–2000 20–300 300–800

USAa [60] 100–600a 30–300a 100–1200a
Egypt [61] 16–41a 9–11a
41–90b 24–34b
Germany [56] 6–166a 3–120a 125–742a
68–245b 76–170b 337–1240b
a Fly ash or ash.
b Slags.
content of the coal, which, in turn, can vary with mining location and region of
the country. There are also notable differences in residues from hard coal and
lignite. Data from Brazil [57] show some enrichment during the combustion
process for most radionuclides, but a significant enrichment for the volatile
210Po in fly ashes. Ash data from Croatia for coal with relatively high concen-
trations of radionuclides are also provided in Table XI.

Depending on the hydrogeological conditions, the coal seams can be
accompanied by waters containing high concentrations of radium. Radium is
found in highly mineralized waters [62, 63], and in general radioactivity is
correlated with water salinity. For example, in mine waters from the Upper
Silesian Coal Basin the total salinity (total dissolved solids (TDSs)) may be
sometimes higher than 200 g/L. The radium concentration in these waters can
reach 390 Bq/L of 226Ra and 120 Bq/L of 228Ra. Radioactivity values in mine
waters and associated sediments are exemplified in Table XIII. The radium in
such brines can co-precipitate as (Ra, Ba)SO4, provided that sufficient sulphate
and barium are available. The radioactivity of these deposits can be thousands
of times higher than that in waste rocks.
TABLE XIII. MAXIMUM VALUES OF RADIOACTIVITY IN MINE

WATERS AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS DISCHARGED TO THE
ENVIRONMENT
(data from Refs [64, 65])
226Ra 228Ra
Discharge water (Bq/L) 63 28

Underground sediments (kBq/kg) 400 —
Sediments at discharge point (kBq/kg) 55 15
30
800
Radium in
600 Deposits
Outflows
MBq·d–1
Inflows
400
200
0
226 226
Ra Ra
FIG. 13. Balance of radium in Polish coal mine waters [66].
The mining process itself, however, may lead to the dispersal of radionu-
clides from brines associated with either the coal or the host rock. Owing to the
co-precipitation effects and dilution with other waters, the mine waters pumped
from the mine to the surface are typically less radioactive (Fig. 13).
Nevertheless high radium concentrations in the outflows were reported, for
example, in Poland [51, 65] and Germany [64] (Table XIII). Thus, accumulation
of 226Ra and 228Ra was observed in settling ponds and river beds in Poland [64]
and Germany [67].
Most of the residues from coal mining are deposited onto the land
surface. Only a fraction of the waste rocks is used for backfilling and for other
purposes. The radioactive sediments generated underground are emplaced
mainly in mined-out voids. In mines, where radium co-precipitates in settling
ponds, the sediments are mixed with material used for backfilling and
transported back underground [66].
Given the extent of solid fossil fuel burning and the amount of residues
produced by power plants [45], the amount of residues in countries with many
coal power plants is very large. The absence or inadequacy of flue gas filtering
and scrubbing, in particular at smaller and older units, may result in the
atmospheric dispersal of fly ashes. The scrubbing of flue gases in many larger
31
Basaltic rock
US coals
Common shales
Granitic rock
Fly ash = 10 x US coals
Black shales
Phosphate rock
0.1 1.0 10 100 1000
URANIUM CONCENTRATION (ppm)
FIG. 14. Typical range of uranium concentrations in coal, fly ash, and a variety of com-
mon rocks [71].
coal power plants appears to be efficient enough that no significant contami-

nation around the plants was found in Brazil [68], India [69] and Poland [70].
Other solid residues are either disposed of in engineered surface
impoundments and landfills, or are backfilled into the mines. To a degree fly ash
and gypsum are recycled as building materials, for instance, as additives to
concrete or in lightweight building materials [20]. If used for the construction
of houses, this may lead to exposure of the inhabitants to the radiation from the
NORM contained in this material. While use of fly ash in concrete blocks for
building construction may not be of concern in some Member States, others
regulate the levels of permissible radiation in such concrete blocks. Re-
suspension of fly ash and other flue gas scrubbing residues from open disposal
pits could be relevant pathways for exposure.
While coal burning power plants are mostly now fitted with flue gas
scrubbing and ash management systems, the situation for domestic coal burning
is quite different. The particulate emissions from coal based domestic heating
systems and the potential for exposure can be considerable, in particular in less
developed countries [72].
32
However, as the vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not
significantly enriched in radioactive elements (Fig. 14), or in associated radioac-
tivity, compared with common soils or rocks [71], there does not seem to be any
great reason for investigating abatement technologies.
5. WATER
5.1. GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
5.1.1. Introduction
Geothermal energy is heat produced and stored in the earth. This energy
can be economically extracted from high temperature crustal rocks, sediments,
volcanic deposits, water, steam and other gases found at accessible depths from
the earth’s surface. The heat carrier is typically either groundwater or water
injected into the system with direct contact to, and hence reacting with, the host
rock. The three technology categories used to do this are geothermal heat
pumps, direct use applications and power plants. Direct use applications and
power plants utilize groundwater which either occurs naturally in an
underground geothermal reservoir, heated by surrounding rocks, or that is
injected into the underground geothermal reservoir. World locations where
geothermal energy can be utilized are classified into three principal systems:
(1) Hot igneous systems — created by the buoyant rise of molten rock
(magma) from deep in the crust. In hot igneous systems, the rock is either
completely or partly molten, with temperatures greater than 650°C.
(2) Hot dry rock systems — heated low permeability rocks that may or may
not have been molten at one time, with temperatures less than 650°C.
(3) Hydrothermal systems — consist of high temperature water and/or steam
trapped in porous and permeable rock reservoirs usually found in porous
sedimentary rock or in fractured rock systems, such as volcanic forma-
tions. Hydrothermal systems are vapour dominated systems, which con-
tain mostly steam (with temperatures ranging from 180 to 270°C), and
liquid dominated systems (with temperatures ranging from 30 to 350°C).
The first two categories contain the most heat energy, but the technology
does not yet exist to exploit them. Research is currently being conducted to
remove the technological barriers that prevent the development of these
33
resources. Geothermal energy, though not yet a significant source of total world
energy, is used in a wide number of countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia and
Africa. Electricity generation in the calendar year 2000 from 22 countries was
reported as 7974 MW [73]. Individual producing sites, using wells to extract the
underground heat or fluids, can range from a single well to as many as hundreds
in the geothermal fields of the USA.
The radioisotopes associated with geothermal energy are principally
radon and radium. There are no available measurements of these radionuclides,
which are found unconcentrated in the original ground fluids.
5.1.2. Processes
The utilization of geothermal energy requires boreholes to be drilled for

the withdrawal of high temperature fluids from the ground, surface utilization
equipment (e.g. steam turbines or heat exchangers and associated fluid
handling equipment) and a fluid disposal system (e.g. percolation ponds or
reinjection wells). The following discussion on the power plant process is
modified from Ref. [74]:
(a) Dry steam power plants (Fig. 15). Steam plants use hydrothermal fluids,
primarily steam. The steam goes directly to a turbine, which drives a gen-
erator that produces electricity. Water in the form of steam enters the
power plant through underground extraction wells, and the steam which
turns the turbine, thus losing its heat energy, is returned to the
Dry Steam Power Plant

Load
Turbine Generator
Rock layers
Production Injection
well well
FIG. 15. Dry steam power plant [74].
34
underground reservoir by injection wells. These plants emit only excess
steam and very minor amounts of gas.
(b) Flash steam power plants (Fig. 16). Hydrothermal fluids above 200ºC
extracted from underground reservoirs by extraction wells can be used in
flash plants to generate electricity. Fluid is sprayed into a tank held at a
much lower pressure than the fluid, causing some of the fluid to rapidly
vaporize, or ‘flash’, to steam. The steam then drives a turbine, which drives
a generator. If any liquid remains in the tank, it can be flashed again in a
second tank to extract even more energy. Only excess steam and trace
gases are emitted. The fluids now cooled on the surface are reinjected by
wells into the underground reservoir.
(c) Binary cycle power plants (Fig. 17). Most geothermal areas contain mod-
erate temperature water (below 200ºC). Energy is extracted from these
fluids in binary cycle power plants. Hot geothermal fluid derived from an
underground production well and a secondary man-made (hence, ‘bina-
ry’) fluid with a much lower boiling point than water pass through a heat
exchanger. Heat from the geothermal fluid causes the secondary fluid to
flash to steam, which then drives the turbines. Because this is a closed
loop system, virtually nothing is emitted to the atmosphere. Moderate
temperature water is by far the most common geothermal resource, and
most geothermal power plants in the future will be binary cycle plants.
‘Spent’ geothermal fluids are returned to the underground reservoir by
an injection well.
Flash Steam Power Plant

Flash Load
Turbine Generator
tank
Rock layers
well well
FIG. 16. Flash steam power plant [74].
35
Binary Cycle Power Plant
Load
Turbine Generator
Heat exchanger
Rock layers
well well
FIG. 17. Binary cycle power plant [74].
On the other hand, geothermal reservoirs of low to moderate

temperature at 20–150ºC provide direct heat for residential, industrial and
commercial uses. This resource is widespread around the world, and is used to
heat homes and offices, commercial greenhouses, fish farms, food processing
facilities, mining operations, and a variety of other applications. A recent survey
of ten western US states identified more than 9000 thermal wells and springs,
more than 900 low to moderate temperature geothermal resource areas, and
hundreds of direct use sites. Direct use systems are typically composed of three
components:
(1) A production facility — usually a well — to bring the hot water to the sur-
face;
(2) A mechanical system — piping, heat exchanger and controls — to deliver
the heat to the space or process;
(3) A disposal system — injection well or storage pond — to receive the
cooled geothermal fluid.
5.1.3. Residues
NORM is found in the solid residues generated by the exploration and

development of geothermal systems and in the extraction of the earth’s
geothermal energy for use in either producing electric power or supplying
direct heat. Changes in the thermodynamic properties, such as pressure,
36
temperature and volume, can cause precipitation and gas evolution because of
the varying solubilities of some of the constituents present in fluids. The
resulting fluids have different physicochemical properties than the original, and
it is these properties that are passed on to subsequent processing stages. Scale
can form by precipitation within equipment used for extraction and distri-
bution to power systems. Sludge is formed by precipitation and sedimentation
during the cooling process. Gas evolution can occur at any stage under
appropriate conditions. These NORM containing residues include minerals
that precipitate out of solution and form scale or sludge on the inside surfaces
of the drilling and production equipment (e.g. steam turbines, heat exchangers,
process lines, valves, turbines and fluid handling equipment) used to extract
geothermal heat. Such residues contain barium, calcium and strontium salts
(carbonates, sulphates and silicates), and silica, as well as significant concentra-
tions of radium and radium decay products. Radium is slightly soluble and,
consequently, can be brought to the surface and co-precipitated with barium
and calcium salts onto the inside surfaces of drilling and production equipment,
similar to the case of oil and gas production. The principal residues of concern
are the scales in pipework and production equipment and the filter cake
produced from treatment of spent geothermal fluids prior to their reinjection.
Scales are hard, insoluble sulphate deposits that form on the inside of pipes,
tubulars, filters, pumps, well heads and other water handling equipment.
Concentrations of TE-NORM in geothermal residues will vary with the
geology and mineralogy of a geothermal resource area along with the physical
and chemical changes that occur during energy extraction. As the TE-NORM
is contained in a mineral matrix, this may lessen the radon emanation rates and
leachability; however, few data are available on these particular scales.
Drilling operations for the production and injection wells require the use
of special drilling mud and produce cuttings mixed with drilling mud. During
the extraction process, geothermal fluids containing dissolved and suspended
constituents are brought to the surface. Solids, such as rock cuttings, are
removed from used drilling muds by circulation through special equipment,
such as shale shakers, sand traps, hydrocyclones and centrifuges. After cleaning,
the mud is recycled to the drilling operation and the removed solids are
disposed of as waste. When drilling is completed, the used muds are discharged
to reserve pits for storage or disposal. Although the solid waste generated
during the drilling phase can be significant, precipitation and sedimentation
from the geothermal fluids are the primary contributors to solid waste
formation during energy extraction.
The only available estimate for annual waste generation is about 45 500 t
for Imperial Valley, California, based on 1991 data [75]. The total can be
subdivided into five waste streams, including: filter cake, 18 318 t; sulphur,
37
16 240 t; drilling, 9571 t; scale, 946 t; miscellaneous, 113 t. For filter cake and
scale, these amounts translate to generation rates of 87 t per MW(net) and
0.58 t per MW(net), respectively. Power plants operating in Imperial County
are estimated to produce approximately 19 200 t of filter cake and scale waste
annually. On the basis of the average density of 1.3 g·cm–3, obtained from the
final environmental impact statement for a disposal site receiving waste from
liquid dominated geothermal facilities in Imperial Valley [76], this is equivalent
to a waste volume of about 14 800 m3. There are indications that up to an
additional 40 000 t of silica scale may be produced annually from Imperial
Valley [75]. This potential additional waste represents a source of significant
uncertainty.
Similar to the case when oil and gas are produced, uranium and thorium
and their radioactive decay products may be present in formations from which
geothermal fluids are extracted. However, the available information indicates
that no significant quantities of uranium and thorium are dissolved or
entrained in geothermal fluids [75]. The primary radionuclides present in
geothermal fluids are 224Ra, 226Ra, 228Ra, 210Pb, 212Pb and 222Rn from the 238U
and 232Th decay chains [77]. In addition, 40K is often the only detectable
radionuclide in water produced from Californian formations exploited for both
geothermal energy and oil and gas [75], which suggests that 40K may also be a
significant contributor to NORM in geothermal waste, but there are no data to
confirm this.
Very little information is available on the concentrations of TE-NORM in
geothermal solid waste such as filter cakes, scale in piping and production
equipment, and gases. Concentrations of NORM in geothermal residues will
vary with the geology and mineralogy of the geothermal resource area along
with the physical and chemical changes that occur during energy extraction.
Table XIV (based on Ref. [58]) gives a breakdown of typical radionuclide
concentrations found in residues from geothermal energy production.
An environmental impact report on four geothermal power plants
located in the Imperial Valley of California [78] provides the results of analyses
of filter cake and clarifier sediment samples. The data are summarized in
Table XV.
Data for 222Rn indicate that an emission rate of 1 mBq·d–1 per megawatt
of power occurs at the Geysers field [76] in northern California. Radon flux
rates were estimated to be 5.92 Bq/(m2·s) from uncovered waste disposed of in
a regulated landfill. The radon emanation coefficient was estimated to be 0.25.
Radon concentrations in dry steam and ejector gas have been reported to vary
widely, ranging from about 0.37 Bq/L to as low as 0.74 nBq/L. Average radon
concentrations were tabulated and compared for different geothermal systems
[79]. The results (Table XVI) indicate that concentrations are significantly
38
TABLE XIV. RADIONUCLIDE CONCEN-
TRATIONS IN GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
PRODUCTION WASTE [58]
Residue concentration
Nuclide
(Bq/kg)
228Th 930
228Ra 3440
226Ra 4880
210Po 3550
210Pb 3550
Total* 16 350
* Excludes contributions from other (short lived)

radionuclides in decay chains.
higher in dry steam fields. In addition, wide variations were noted, even within
individual geothermal fields.
Information on disposal of brines, sludges and other solid waste from

these fields is not generally available, though the annual geothermal solid waste
production rate in the USA is estimated to be between about 20 000 and
50 000 t. Over half of that is managed at a single disposal landfill facility, which
TABLE XV. RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION

RANGES IN GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
WASTE FROM GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS IN
IMPERIAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, USA [78]
Nuclide Residue concentration range (Bq/kg)

228Th Below detection level to 1628
228Ra Below detection level to 6771
226Ra 370–9398
212Po Below detection level to 999
212Pb Below detection level to 1554
214Pb 0.037–7622
214Bi 0.037–6401
39
TABLE XVI. AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATIONS BY TYPE OF
GEOTHERMAL SYSTEM [79]
Type of geothermal Average radon concentration

Location
system (10–9 Bq/L)*
Dry steam Larderello, Italy 1.28

Dry steam The Geysers, USA 0.62
Flashing brine Salton Sea KGRA, USA 0.11
Hot water East Mesa, USA 0.01
* Concentrations given in condensed geothermal fluids. In steam fields, the concentra-

tion is inversely proportional to the corresponding volume of steam at the well head
temperature and pressure.
receives waste from power plants located in Imperial County, California. The
amount of TE-NORM waste generated annually is assumed to be equivalent to
the estimate characterizing the production of filter cake and scale. Data on
other world production facilities are not currently available.
Advanced biochemical processes have been investigated and are being
developed commercially for geothermal brines and sludge [79, 80]. The purpose
of these processes is to take advantage of certain biochemical agents that can
extract trace metals and valuable salts, produce pigment free silica, and remove
radioactivity to levels within exemptions. These biochemical processes may
yield significant benefits to the geothermal industry by reducing the volumes of
specific waste streams, producing cleaner waste fractions, generating secondary
markets for processed waste, and reducing processing costs.
5.1.5. Environmental impacts
Environmental impacts from the generation of TE-NORM in the

geothermal industry will continue to grow around the world as this resource is
exploited. Radon gas emissions from the power plant stacks and facilities, as
well as solid waste materials, provide the potential for human and environ-
mental exposures. Most produced waters are re-injected into the geothermal
source formation, so this should not represent a significant problem. Within the
power plant, similar to the oil and gas industry, scales can accumulate in tubular
piping, separators and steam containment vessels. The handling of the mineral
scales can constitute environmental problems at sites where the scales are
removed and stored, primarily through dust emissions and direct gamma
radiation. As the TE-NORM is contained in a mineral matrix, this may lessen
the radon emanation rates and leachability; however, few data are available on
40
these particular scales. Disposal into landfill facilities has the potential for long
term radionuclide transport through groundwaters should a site liner fail.
Sludges containing TE-NORM from geothermal steam plants may be
stored on-site in pits or barrels. In addition to inhalation and direct exposure,
any brines or sludges stored in ponds have the potential for site leakage into
the ground, and potential for contamination of groundwater. Any sludges
disposed in landfill facilities have the potential for more rapid leakage into
surrounding land and groundwater should the landfill liner fail.
Potential misuse of the solid waste outside the boundaries of production
plants could result in increased public and environmental exposures. Historical
information indicates that silica scale produced in one US field has been used
for roads, dykes and levees [81]. Mixing of the silica scale with asphalt and
cement for road surfacing and bricks has also been reported [82]. In other
applications, small amounts of silica scale have been used to construct artistic
objects as part of the Community Geothermal Technology Program in Hawaii
[83].
5.2. DRINKING WATER TREATMENT
5.2.1. Introduction
Public water supply systems derive their water from surface water bodies
such as rivers, streams and reservoirs, or underground sources through drilled
wells. Vast amounts of drinking water are obtained underground each year. For
example, the fraction of drinking water obtained from groundwater in
Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK was 65, 60, 50, 20 and 25%, respec-
tively, in 1995 [84]. 5800 Mm3 of water were delivered for 80 million inhabitants
in Germany in 1995. About 78% of this water required treatment. In the USA,
1500 Mm3 are produced annually, of which 50% is groundwater, nearly all
requiring treatment for removal of impurities.
In most developed countries (public) water suppliers are required to limit
the occurrence of contaminants such as metals and pesticides, and sometimes
also radiation in drinking water. In the USA limits have been set for radium,
uranium, alpha, beta and photon emitters in drinking water, and a draft
standard has also been developed for limiting radon in those supplies [85]. In
the European Union the need to, and the technical possibilities to, treat raw
water were investigated in a recent project [86]. Water treatment plants occur
in a variety of different sizes based on the population served. In Ref. [86] a
summary is provided of the different classifications of waterworks in Germany
and the populations served.
41
Surface water discharges by industries with NORM in their wastewater is
suspected, but information on this is generally unavailable.
Groundwater is found almost everywhere on the earth. Albeit, the depth
to the groundwater and the quality of different groundwaters vary greatly.
Likewise, the concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater will vary
depending on the local geology. For example, higher concentrations can be
found in granite and uranium bearing formations. Naturally occurring radionu-
clides are leached into waters when they come in contact with uranium and
thorium bearing geological media. Hence, the predominant radionuclides
found in water include those of uranium, radium, radon and their decay
products [87]. In general, the radionuclides of concern in groundwater are
226Ra and its progeny (including 222Rn). Concentrations of 226Ra are known to
vary in the USA from 4 × 10–4 to 4 × 10–2 Bq/L in surface water and from 0.02
to 0.93 Bq/L in groundwater [88–91]. Reports of 226Ra concentrations as high
as 7.4 Bq/L have been documented, but in most instances concentrations rarely
exceed 1.85 Bq/L [88]. See also Ref. [92] for more references on radioactivity
levels in water. The 228Ra to 226Ra concentration ratio has been reported to
vary from 0.2:1 to 5:1; however, a ratio of 1.2:1 is most likely representative of
average conditions in water extracted for human or agricultural use [87, 93].
The higher 228Ra concentration is mostly due to the average crustal 232Th and
238U activity ratio of about 1.2:1 to 1.5:1. Natural geochemical enrichment or
depletion processes may either increase or decrease this ratio. When present in
groundwater, 228Ra cannot be used to deduct the concentration of 226Ra.
Although radium tends to be more soluble in typical water compositions,
uranium and some 232Th progeny may be found as well, and uranium activity
levels as high as 24.1 Bq/L have been observed in both surface and
groundwater samples [93, 94]. Concentrations of total uranium, 238U plus 234U,
as high as 1.48 Bq/L have been described in groundwater samples from the
Newark Basin in New Jersey [91]. Uranium concentrations in US surface and
groundwater average about 0.037 and 0.11 Bq/L, respectively [94]. The isotopic
ratio of 234U to 238U is known to vary, with higher concentrations of 234U in
both surface and groundwater. Ratios up to 28 have been reported, but more
commonly a range of 1–3 has been found [88]. Higher 234U concentrations are
due to the alpha recoil process, which enhances the mobilization and solubility
of the decay product (234U) relative to the parent (238U). After the alpha
particle has been emitted, the uranium is often stabilized in solution as a very
mobile uranyl carbonate complex.
The isotopes 230Th and 234Th are usually not detected in groundwater
samples and are estimated to have upper mean concentrations of only 0.001
and 4 × 10–4 Bq/L, respectively [95]. Similarly, the presence of 232Th in
groundwater is believed to be very low, about 4 × 10–4, and is rarely above
42
0.04 Bq/L, when detected [94]. The decay products of 222Rn, the relatively long
lived 210Pb and 210Po, are also generally found at very low concentrations in
groundwater, 7 × 10–4 to 4.4 × 10–3 Bq/L [88, 95].
The concentration of radon in groundwater is known to vary significantly.
In the USA again, for 2457 groundwater samples analysed for 222Rn, statewide
average concentrations ranged from 29.6 Bq/L in Mississippi to 513.6 Bq/L in
New Hampshire [96]. Radon concentrations have been reported to be as high
as 588.3 Bq/L in groundwater samples taken from the Newark Basin in New
Jersey [94].
Although radionuclides are found in surface water, it has been found that
groundwater is more likely to contain higher levels of this material due to the
difference in chemical compositions. Some waters may require treatment to
reduce concentrations to levels accepted by the regulators concerned. The
principal problem with water treatment is that the very processes that are
designed to remove radionuclides from the finished product — drinking or
process water — concentrate those radionuclides in filters and sludges, and
contaminate filtration equipment. The now contaminated equipment may
require treatment and cleaning, and the concentrated waste, residual sludges,
filters and other residues appropriate disposal.
Even in cases where radionuclide concentrations are significant, but not
above standards, the customary water treatment, for example to remove
hardness, can result in accumulation of NORM in process residues.
5.2.2. Processes
There are many different processes used for drinking water treatment.
Some of these processes are specifically designed to remove NORM, such as
226Ra. Many of these processes are designed to remove other contaminants and
often also remove NORM at the same time. In general, the NORM specific
processes will lead to wastes with higher NORM activity concentrations. In
some cases, these concentrations can be substantial [97].
Radium is the most common target for removal by cation exchange resins
and by a lime softening process [98]. A report prepared for the United Sates
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [97] describes several processes
used to remove radionuclides from drinking water. The processes and target
radionuclides are cation exchange (radium), greensand filtration (radium), co-
precipitation with barium sulphate (radium), hydrous magnesium oxides
(radium), anion exchange (uranium), coagulation/filtration (uranium), lime
softening (radium and uranium), reverse osmosis (radium and uranium),
granular activated carbon (GAC) (radon) and aeration (radon). A report
prepared for the European Commission describes a general procedure for
43
water treatment [97] which is not specifically directed at removing NORM. The
process comprises four steps: aeration, removal of iron and manganization, pH
adjustment and filtration. Figure 18 provides an overview of how this process is
applied in Germany and the fate of NORM at each step of the process.
5.2.3. Residues
Examples of NORM containing residues from municipal water treatment

are radioactive contaminated sludges and solids including filter sludges, spent
ion exchange resins, spent granular activated carbon, as well as waters from
filter backwash. Radium-selective ion exchange resins result in residues with
much higher activity concentrations than those found in sludge, but in smaller
Raw Water (median values)

Rn-222 5.9 Bq/L
(10% > 60 Bq/L
1% > 470 Bq/L)
Ra-226 4 mBq/L
U-234 5 mBq/L
Pb-210 1 mBq/L
Po-210 0.5 mBq/L
Removal of:
carbon dioxide,
If necessary:
Air methane and/or
Aeration, Stripping
radon
to the environment
If necessary:
Collection from different
sources, mixing and interim
storage
Removal of Fe and Mn
CaCO3 pH-adjustment to > 6.5
together, partial removal
NaOH Rn-222 < 50 Bq/L
of Ra, Pb, Po
Precipitation
Sludge containing
Flocculation
Ra-226, Po, Bi, Pb
(finally) Filtration
Slight degassing of Rn-222

Interim storage for later
due to high surface to
delivery
volume ratio
Polishing Disposal
In Germany:
37% landfill
(25% public,
Delivery 12% private)
30% discharge as sewage
15% recycling
FIG. 18. Typical sequence of drinking water treatment [97].
44
quantities. In general, the more efficient and more specific the method of cation
removal, the higher the specific activities are likely to be, resulting in a
significant waste management problem. The concentrations can vary consid-
erably from location to location because of the varying geological character-
istics of different water sources in different regions of a country.
Water treatment sludges are placed in lagoons and may include lime
sludge, backflush water, spent ion exchange media and sand filter elements.
Disposal of sludges in lagoons results in the accumulation of radium in the
bottom sediments, which may have to be dredged and disposed of properly.
NORM containing sludge is also disposed of in sanitary landfills, discharged to
sewers, injected in deep wells or spread on agricultural soils, while the decanted
water is recycled. Some of these practices, however, are now forbidden in
certain Member States due to the resulting contamination with heavy metals.
Given the amounts of water that are treated in a typical water treatment
plant, the amounts of residues can be substantial. Surveys conducted by the
American Water Works Association (AWWA), which conducts periodic
surveys of the largest US water utilities [99–101], provided information on the
volumes of waste generated through water treatment in that country. On the
basis of survey data, the USEPA has estimated that, with some uncertainty, as
much as 260 000 t of NORM contaminated residues are produced annually.
That number may increase incrementally because new regulations now require
additional treatment for uranium. For example, for the whole of the USA, it
was estimated that roughly one million tonnes of NORM residues would be
produced over a 20 year period from drinking water treatment, i.e. roughly
50 000 t/a [102]. Table XVII provides some examples of the amounts and
radionuclide contents of NORM waste from different processes used in the
USA.
In Germany, it is estimated that roughly 125 000 t of different types of
sludge arise from surveyed waterworks each year for a throughput of
3600 Mm3 of drinking water [67]. For the purposes of an assessment, it was
assumed that roughly 800 t of dry sludge would result from delivery of about 20
Mm3 of drinking water on an annual basis (a large waterworks). Medium and
small waterworks were estimated to generate roughly 200 and 70 t of sludge,
respectively, on an annual basis. Typical data for the concentrations of radionu-
clides for German water treatment are provided in Table XVIII.
The USEPA has addressed disposal management options, based on

existing practices, for waste generated by water treatment and purification
systems [103].
45
TABLE XVII. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED WATER TREAT-
MENT WASTES (COMPUTED LEVELS) [86]
(waste amounts based on an average throughput of 1 million gallons
(ª380 000 L) of water per day)
NORM concentration Approximate

Treatment method in water (Bq/L) Waste volume
radioactivity
(kg/d)
Raw Finished (Bq/L)
Coagulation/filtration (U) 1.85 0.37 10a 148

Lime softening (Ra) 0.93 0.46 22a 20.6
Ion exchange (Ra)b 0.93 0.19 97c 7.7
Reverse osmosis (U) 1.85 0.56 130c 11.8
a Sludges.
b Does not include ion exchange resins, which have much higher radioactivity levels.
c Waste.
The USEPA [104] indicates that NORM residues from drinking water
treatment may be disposed of in landfills or lagoons or can also be used as
agricultural conditioners. In the case of lagoons, evaporation is used as the
means to reduce the volume of the waste. However, this results in a lower
volume of residues with a higher activity concentration of radionuclides. In
TABLE XVIII. TYPICAL DATA FOR SLUDGE CONTAINING

NATURAL RADIONUCLIDES PRODUCED BY A LARGE WATER-
WORKS IN GERMANY [97]
Weekly throughput of water 420 000 m3

Total activity of this water assuming very conservative 3 654 000 000 Bq
estimate of concentration
Total activity taking maximum measured radionuclide content 588 000 000 Bq
in Germany
Total activity using median value for tap water in Germany 8 400 000 Bq
Produced sludge per week 15 t
Dry solids in sludge 6t
Specific activity of dried sludge for different water concentrations:
— High conservative concentration 600 000 Bq/kg
— Maximum measured concentration 100 000 Bq/kg
— Median concentration for tap water 1 400 Bq/kg
46
cases where the concentrations of radionuclides are higher, it may be necessary
to dispose of the residues in a licensed radioactive waste disposal facility. Given
that NORM is long lived, it may be a problem to dispose of these wastes in a
near surface repository [30]. Table XIX summarizes potential disposal practices
for NORM containing residues resulting from drinking water treatment in the
USA. In Germany, it is estimated that 37% of sludges are disposed of in
landfills, 30% are treated with sewage and roughly 15% are recycled [97].
The vast majority of residues from water treatment are in the form of
sludges. However, ion exchange resins and filter media can be a significant
radiological concern given that very high concentrations of radium are possible
in those residues. From a groundwater protection perspective, disposal of
sludges is likely to be the greatest concern, because the radionuclides on resins
or filter media would not be expected to be as mobile. The use of lagoons and
evaporation ponds to dispose of residues may result in contamination of
underlying groundwater bodies. This then may require long term stewardship
or other measures to prevent future human and environmental exposures due
to migration, or due to re-use of the water or residues. Disposal of TE-NORM
into sanitary sewer systems can potentially result in accumulations of those
radionuclides in sewage sludge. Depending on the concentration levels found
in the sludge, special considerations may need to be given to the re-use or
disposal of this waste. External exposure and potential radon exposures are
TABLE XIX. DISPOSAL PRACTICES FOR NORM FROM WATER

TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE USA [86]
Liquid waste disposal Solids/sludge disposal

Direct discharge to surface water Temporary lagooning (surface
impoundment)
Deep well injection Disposal in landfill
Drying or chemical precipitation — without prior treatment (resins, filter
media, granular activated carbon)
Irrigation — after temporary lagooning
Sanitary sewer discharge — after mechanical dewatering
Application to land (soil spreading/
conditioning)
Disposal at licensed low level waste
facility
47
likely to be of more concern for resins and filter media, because the
concentrations of NORM would not be expected to decrease substantially over
time.
5.3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
It was noted during screening exercises that sewage sludges and ashes
from incinerated sludges sometimes have elevated levels of radionuclides [105].
The sources are either elevated levels of NORM in groundwater or
(authorized) discharges into the sewerage system by various industries. The
organic solids in the sewage concentrate radionuclides, and the incineration of
the sludge further concentrates them.
The common practice of dispersing sewage sludges or incinerator ashes
onto agricultural land can lead to the accumulation of radionuclides and, in
particular, heavy metals, in the soils and eventually their uptake into crops. For
this reason various countries have regulated this practice over the last few years
or are in the process of doing so; see, for example, Ref. [106].
5.4. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WATERS
Several industries, for instance the paper industry, are heavy users of
process water. Owing to the substances involved, significant radionuclide
concentrations can accumulate in various products, intermediates and wastes.
Paper pulp, for instance, is capable of scavenging heavy metals and radionu-
clides. Certain chemical processes may lead to the precipitation of scales inside
tubes and other vessels, which have to be removed and require special
treatment when radioactively contaminated.
For instance, in December 1999, the radiation detectors at a steel
recycling yard in eastern Ontario found scrap piping from a pulp and paper mill
to be radioactive [107]. The piping was returned to the mill, where the owners
started an investigation and found that the pipes had been removed from the
pulp bleaching process some years previously. The field on-contact with the
scale inside the pipe was 200 mR/h. A scale sample contained about 15 kBq/kg
of 226Ra and about 4 kBq/kg of 230Th.
48
5.5. IRRIGATION
As with drinking water, (ground)waters used for irrigation may contain

NORM that may accumulate in certain soil fractions and eventually transfer
into plant materials.
For instance, in irrigated areas along the Arkansas river valley in south-
eastern Colorado, uranium and salts are actively leached from marine shales
(Fig. 19). These contaminated saline irrigation waters eventually return to the
river, where uranium levels increase to concentrations as high as 200 ppb and,
because of the accompanying high salinity, wetlands in this area do not trap
uranium. In other much publicized wetland areas such as the Kesterson
Wildlife Refuge in California, uranium and selenium contamination is
responsible for wildlife death and deformities [108]. Many other irrigation
systems in semi-arid areas that drain farmland on marine shales face similar
stresses on water quality.
6. METALS
6.1. MINING AND PROCESSING METHODS
6.1.1. Open pit mining
Open pit mining techniques are employed to exploit ore deposits

relatively close to the surface of the earth. Topsoil is typically removed
FIG. 19. Uranium in surface waters of the Arkansas river valley, southeastern Colorado,
April 1991 (from Ref. [108]).
49
separately and stockpiled. Overburden, the material overlying the deposit, is
removed using scrapers, or with trucks and loaders or mechanical shovels.
Depending on the extent of consolidation, the overburden may be broken up
by bulldozers or blasted prior to removal. Overburden may be stockpiled
outside the pit or placed in mined-out portions of the pit once pit development
has progressed to an acceptable point. Mining economics typically require that
overburden haulage be minimized. Once the ore body has been exposed, it is
ripped, loaded into trucks and transported to an on-site stockpile. The ore can
then be moved from the stockpile to the mill site as required.
The depth to which an ore body is mined depends on the ore grade,
nature of the overburden and stripping ratio. Stripping ratios describe the
amount of overburden that must be removed to extract one unit of ore. One
report indicates that stripping ratios for open pit uranium mines range from
10:1 to 80:1 with an average of around 30:1 [109]. The primary advantage of
surface mining is the ability to move large amounts of material at a relatively
low cost, in comparison with underground operations.
Waste material, including overburden, is often returned to mined-out
areas during mining to reduce haulage costs. Ore, protore and low grade
mineralized rock are outlined, and plans developed for mining and stockpiling
these materials. Often parts of an ore body delineated by drilling cannot be
economically mined by open pit methods. Where parts of the deposit lie
adjacent to the bottom of the planned pit, underground mines may be
developed from the pit bottom to recover these ores.
6.1.2. Underground mining
A variety of techniques are employed in underground operations

depending on the distribution and orientation of the ore deposit. In general,
underground mining involves sinking a shaft (or driving an adit) near the ore
body to be mined and extending levels from the main shaft at various depths to
the ore. Shafts, adits, drifts and cross-cuts are developed to access and remove
the ore body. Ore and development rock, the non-ore bearing material
generated during mining, may be removed either through shaft conveyances or
chutes, and hoisted in skips (elevators) to the surface or used to backfill mined-
out areas. Ore is placed in stockpiles while development rock brought to the
surface is placed in waste rock dumps. As underground mining techniques are
able to leave much of the non-ore bearing material in place, the ratio of waste
(development) rock to ore is much lower than stripping ratios in open pit
mines. Ratios of waste rock to ore range from 1:1.5 to 1:16 [109]. As with
surface mining operations, ores and subgrade ores may be stockpiled on the
50
surface. These materials may be beneficiated as market conditions allow or left
with mine development rock in the waste rock piles.
Because of the high costs associated with moving rock underground, a
minimum of waste rock is generated, some weakly mineralized rock is
generated, and a high proportion of subore and ore is mined. Because of the
high costs of moving such materials, some waste rock may be used underground
as backfill material in mined-out areas [109]. The extracted ore is stockpiled at
the surface or transported by truck directly to the mill, protore may be
stockpiled on-site for later shipment if economic conditions warrant this, while
the waste rock is placed in different areas.
6.1.3. Solution mining
Solution mining is a general term used in the uranium and some other
mining industries to describe operations in which a leach solution, referred to
as the lixiviant, is employed to extract the target metal from subsurface ore
deposits. The chemical reactions involved during in situ leaching are the same
as those involved in the chemical aspects of a metal ore mill. A number of
solution mining techniques have been explored since the 1960s, including in situ
leaching, stope leaching and borehole mining. Stope leaching involves the
injection of lixiviant into areas that have previously been hydraulically isolated
and backfilled with low grade ore or that contain low grade ores to begin with.
The lixiviant can be recovered from a sump or well drilled to the bottom of the
mine workings. Like other solution mining techniques, this method allows the
recovery of metal from ores not economically mineable using conventional
methods.
During in situ mining, barren lixiviant is pumped down injection wells
into the ore body; production wells then bring the pregnant leach solution to
the surface for further beneficiation. Numerous well patterns have been inves-
tigated since the early 1960s, when in situ mining techniques were first
employed. They are intended to create a hydrodynamically well controlled flow
regime for the lixiviant, thus minimizing dispersion losses and the contami-
nation of surrounding aquifers. When in situ leaching is completed, the ore
body and aquifer are placed in a restoration phase, as required under State
regulatory programmes and mine permits. Typically, the aquifer must be
restored to its prior classification for water use regarding the presence of
metals, organics, pH level and radioactivity.
In some instances, it has been impossible to return the water quality to its
original baseline conditions. The contaminants most often found in
groundwater that exceed the drinking water contaminant limits include
uranium, radium, selenium, molybdenum, manganese, nitrate, sulphate, arsenic
51
and iron [110]. The target metal can be recovered during the early stages of the
restoration process as the water from the production wells passes through the
ion exchange system. Eventually, uranium recovery is abandoned while
restoration continues. A rinse of multiple aquifer pore volumes is typically
required to reach a satisfactory level of restoration. The number of pore
volumes required depends on the ease with which the aquifer returns to
baseline conditions and the permit requirements established in the State
permits [111, 112]. Wastewater that is not recirculated in the wells is usually
placed in an impoundment (usually with a liner to prevent groundwater
seepage) and evaporated. This water and the evaporite or sludge at the pond
bottom is considered mining waste and thus NORM in most countries, and
treated as solid or hazardous waste depending on national or local govern-
mental requirements. In some cases this material is removed for disposal, in
other cases it is left on the site after being covered with a capping material.
6.1.4. Beneficiation
Beneficiation of ores and minerals means crushing; grinding; washing;

dissolution; crystallization; filtration; sorting; sizing; drying; sintering;
pelletizing; briquetting; calcining to remove water and/or carbon dioxide;
roasting; autoclaving, and/or chlorination in preparation for leaching (except
where the roasting (and/or autoclaving and/or chlorination)/leaching sequence
produces a final or intermediate product that does not undergo further benefi-
ciation or processing); gravity concentration; magnetic separation; electrostatic
separation; flotation; ion exchange; solvent extraction; electrowinning; precipi-
tation; amalgamation; and heap, dump, tank and in situ leaching. Beneficiation
of conventionally mined ores involves crushing and grinding the extracted ores
followed by a leaching circuit.
6.1.5. Mining and milling residues
The mining and processing of metal ores, other than uranium, may also
generate large quantities of NORM wastes. These wastes include ore tailings
and smelter slag, some of which contain elevated concentrations of uranium,
thorium, radium and their decay products that were originally part of the
process feed ore. The extraction process for some ores can yield a waste
product (e.g. tailings or slag) that has a higher radionuclide concentration than
that of the original ore. Tailings are the solid materials remaining after physical
or chemical beneficiation (washing, flotation, grinding and drying) has removed
the valuable metal constituents from the ore. Slag is the vitreous residue mass
left from the smelting (blast furnace melting and conversion) of metal ore for
52
extraction and purification. A USEPA study [58] describes NORM wastes from
the mining and processing of three categories of metals: rare earth metals (see
below), special application metals and metals produced in bulk quantities (i.e.
large volumes) by industrial extraction processes. Special application metals
are regarded as metals that have unique commercial and industrial uses, and
include hafnium, tin, titanium and zirconium. Metals mined and processed in
bulk for industrial applications include aluminium, copper, iron, lead, zinc, and
precious metals such as gold and silver. The level of NORM found in metal ores
depends more on the geological formation or region than on the particular
mineral being mined. The mining technique and its selectivity can be an
important variable that controls the NORM content in wastes. For instance, the
NORM content of adjacent ore veins or other deposits might vary considerably
and selecting the appropriate portion can reduce the NORM in the waste
stream. Table XX, based on Ref. [58], gives a breakdown of typical radionuclide
concentrations found in NORM wastes from each of the three categories of
mined metals.
Research at South African gold mines has shown that up to 70% of the
chemical contaminant load found in mine water discharges to the environment
TABLE XX. RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN METAL

MINING AND PROCESSING WASTES
(from Ref. [58])
Special application Large volume

Rare earth metals
Nuclide metals industry metals
(Bq/g)
(Bq/g) (Bq/g)
238U 33.3 1.59 0.37
235U 1.67 0.08 0.02
234U 33.3 1.59 0.37
231Pa 1.67 0.08 0.02
232Th 74 0.81 0.37
230Th 33.3 1.59 0.37
228Th 74 0.81 0.37
227Ac 1.67 0.08 0.02
228Ra 74 0.81 0.37
226Ra 33.3 1.59 0.19
210Po 23.3 1.11 0.13
210Pb 23.3 1.11 0.13
Note: Original data where given in pCi/g.
53
originate from pyritic oxidation processes in the underground stopes [113]. The
impact of ore remains during dewatering of some underground areas and
flooding following mine closure may hence be significant and has been investi-
gated in various regional studies in South Africa, especially with regard to the
amount of salts discharged to river systems [114, 115]. Chemical (especially
heavy metal) pollution, caused by the penetration of such water from
abandoned mines into adjacent operating mining areas, is of particular concern.
Radioactivity still needs to be integrated into many studies on chemical
pollution problems.
The systematic analysis of certain industrial processes is complicated by
their complex and interlinked materials streams. Typical examples are the
heavy mineral, rare earth and ceramics industries that are discussed later on.
The primary feed material in all cases may be placer deposits, the heavy
mineral content of which is split into different processing streams which may
become reunited further on as waste streams of one industry join the feed
streams of another. A discussion based on individual radionuclides may also
not be appropriate, as frequently several occur together.
In the following sections the material flows for selected processes, types
of primary feed materials or particular end products, and the ensuing waste and
contamination problems, are discussed in more detail. The intention is not to
give a comprehensive geographical coverage, but to describe the various
processes or product streams in detail, in order to raise the awareness for the
potential occurrence of NORM.
6.2. MINE WATERS
Mine waters can be of particular environmental concern, even a long time

after the mining operation has ceased. Water is one of the main pathways by
which NORM may be dispersed from mining and milling operations into the
environment. Mining, be it open pit or underground mining, almost always
requires the dewatering of the zone to be mined. Many (sedimentary) rocks
contain sulphidic minerals and many ores are either sulphidic or associated
with such mineral parageneses. Upon exposure to ambient air these sulphides
are oxidized — a process generating acid. The acid in turn dissolves other
mineral constituents. Also, many metallic elements, including radionuclides,
exhibit higher solubility at low pH values. These phenomena, subsumed under
the terms acid mine drainage (AMD) or acid rock drainage (ARD), have been
in the focus of scientific and technical attention for some time [116, 117]. AMD
is a worldwide problem.
54
Elevated radionuclide concentrations have been reported frequently in
AMD/ARD. For instance, 238U and 226Ra concentrations of 175 and 0.29 Bq/L,
respectively, have been measured in the ARD of the uranium mining and
milling facility of Poços de Caldas, Brazil [118]. Similar 238U concentrations in
AMD of a coal mine in Brazil are reported in Ref. [39], but saline waters from
German hard coal mines have even higher radium concentrations, up to
63 Bq/L of 226Ra and up to 28 Bq/L of 228Ra [67].
In situ leaching processes may result in the development of contaminated
water plumes that extend beyond the boundary of producing well fields.
Examples of this have been reported in the copper and uranium mining
industries [119, 120].
Several options were explored for conditioning and disposal of residues
from the treatment of mine waters and leachates from tailings ponds at the
former Wismut uranium mines in Germany [121]. Near surface disposal in
waste rock piles was considered less favourable due to the lower specific
activity of the waste rock. Either disposal underground in the mines, above the
final groundwater level, or in tailings ponds are the chosen solutions.
6.3. ALUMINIUM
6.3.1. Introduction
Aluminium is mined on a large scale as bauxite (containing about 50%

Al2O3·2H2O). Australia, Guinea and Brazil are the largest producers of bauxite
ore in the world (Table XXI).
The uses for aluminium in modern society are countless: cans and foils,
kitchen utensils, building cladding, structural engineering applications where a
strong, light, easily machined material is needed. Although its electrical conduc-
tivity is only about 60% that of copper per area of cross-section, it is used in
electrical transmission lines because of its lightness and price. Its various alloys
are of vital importance in the construction of modern aircraft and rockets.
Evaporated in a vacuum, it forms a highly reflective coating for both visible
light and radiant heat. These coatings form a thin layer of protective oxide and
do not deteriorate as do silver coatings. These coatings are used for telescope
mirrors, decorative paper, packages and toys, and in many other applications.
The oxide, alumina, occurs naturally as ruby, sapphire, corundum and emery,
and is used in glass making and for refractories. Synthetic ruby and sapphire are
used in the construction of lasers.
The high electricity consumption for the electrolytic refining step
(Section 6.3.2) has caused environmental concern, and recycling is strongly
55
TABLE XXI. WORLD BAUXITE MINE
PRODUCTION ESTIMATES (103 t) [122]
Country 1999 2000

Australia 48 400 49 000
Guinea 15 000 15 000
Brazil 12 900 13 200
Jamaica 11 700 11 200
China 8 500 8 000
India 6 200 6 200
Venezuela 4 190 4 400
Suriname 4 000 4 000
Russian Federation 3 750 3 900
Guyana 3 300 3 300
Other countries 9 200 8 900
World total 127 000 127 000
encouraged, in particular for ‘disposable’ or one way products, such as cans and
foils.
The bauxite ore can contain significant concentrations of radioactivity as
shown in Table XXII. This radioactivity can be due to either or both of 238U and
232Th, depending on the ore gangue mineralogy. Some of the contained radioac-
tivity may be associated with trace quantities of minerals which commonly have
radioactivity associated with them, such as ilmenite and monazite. Some
disequilibrium of the radionuclides in bauxites has also been observed.
TABLE XXII. SOME REPORTED CONCENTRATION RANGES OF

RADIOACTIVITY (Bq/kg) IN BAUXITE ORE AND RED MUD [123]
Bauxite Red mud
Uranium series radionuclides 10–9000 100–3000

Thorium series radionuclides 35–1400 100–3000
Actinium series radionuclides 120–130 —
40K 10–600 10–100
56
6.3.2. Processes
Bauxite is washed, ground and dissolved in caustic soda (sodium

hydroxide) at high pressure and temperature (Bayer process). The resulting
liquor contains a solution of sodium aluminate and undissolved bauxite
residues containing iron, silicon and titanium. These residues (so-called ‘red
mud’) sink gradually to the bottom of the tank and are removed (Fig. 20). The
clear sodium aluminate solution is pumped into a large tank, the precipitator.
Fine particles of alumina are added to seed the precipitation of pure alumina
particles as the liquor cools. The particles sink to the bottom of the tank, are
removed, and are then passed through a rotary or fluidized calciner at 1100°C
to drive off the chemically combined water. The result is a white powder, pure
alumina (Al2O3). The basis for all modern primary aluminium smelting plants
is the Hall–Héroult process, invented in 1886. Alumina is dissolved in an
electrolytic bath of molten cryolite (NaAlF4) within a large carbon or graphite
lined steel ‘pot’. A very high current, typically 150 000 A, is passed through the
electrolyte at low voltage. This electric current flows between a carbon anode,
made of petroleum coke and pitch, and a cathode, formed by the thick carbon
or graphite lining of the pot. Molten aluminium is deposited at the bottom of
the pot and is siphoned off periodically, taken to a holding furnace, often but
Bayer process
NaOH alumina ‘seeds’
rotary
crusher digester precipitator
kiln
bauxite mine residues alumina

‘red mud’ (Al2O3)
anode
off-gas collection
and treatment
carbon
molten
cathode
flux
molten insulation
aluminium
generic arrangement of smelter
FIG. 20. Aluminium refining and smelting.
57
not always blended to an alloy specification, cleaned and then generally cast
[124].
6.3.3. Residues
This residue, red mud, accumulates in large quantities on a worldwide scale:

since the average alumina content in bauxite ore is 50%, the figures in Table XXI
can be halved to give an estimate of the red mud arisings.The disposal of red mud
presents a major problem, from both an ecological and an economic point of view
[125]. Depending on the quality of the bauxite and the layout of the Bayer
process, between 1.1 and 6.2 t of red mud are generated per tonne of alumina
produced. Depending on the feed materials to the Bayer process (i.e. the bauxite
ore and chemicals added), the resulting red mud is made up of a mixture of some
original ore minerals and process determined precipitates, but consists of up to
60% hydrous ferric oxides, which have a high affinity for cations, including
radionuclides and heavy metals. Reported concentrations of radioactivity in red
mud are given in Table XXII [6, 8, 126, 127]. In some cases, depending on the
bauxite ore grade, a threefold increase in the radionuclide content from ore to
red mud is reported, and it is generally assumed that most of the radioactivity
in the ore arises from the fine particle sized red muds. Uranium has been
observed in alkaline leach solutions and may need to be given further consid-
eration in regard to the potential for egress as seepage water to the
environment and/or contamination of products and/or waste streams from
sodium aluminate solution purification and alumina manufacture. There is no
literature available which describes the nature of the radioactivity in the red
mud. The siting of the radioactivity, and whether or not it is in equilibrium, is a
subject for further study.
The major environmental issue in the industry is associated with the

disposal of the red mud, which arises as an alkaline slurry. More than 70 million
dry tonnes are produced each year [125]. The typical procedure is to dispose of
the red mud onto waste heaps or in surface depressions. However, these red
mud heaps can result in the percolation of caustic leachates into underlying
aquifers. A more recent development has been to build engineered tailings
ponds with clay and geotextile liners. These ponds, which may be 40–50 hectares
in area, create other problems. Ponds were designed to hold several years
production of mud, but they had poor settling characteristics and drained
slowly only after they were full. Some have consequently been abandoned.
58
Without proper close-out procedures, this can result in airborne dust pollution
once the surface layer has dried out.
Airborne dusts are a major potential pathway to exposure from the
radioactivity in red mud. During operation the heaps are kept wet to minimize
dust and after the heaps have been built the waste is covered with coarser
residue and soil to reduce dust arising and radon/thoron emanation to meet
regulatory requirements for the end use of the land.
Considerable attention has been given towards making further use of red
mud. It has been used in the past, for example, in the manufacture of building
materials [123], although this may lead to exposure under local conditions due
to higher than average radionuclide levels. Red muds are also being used to
improve the cohesive and water retention properties of sandy soils (soil
conditioner) [127, 128], although there is some resistance to this [129], primarily
because of the presence also of other potentially polluting constituents. There
are also moves to use the mud for the treatment of acidic mine wastewaters
[130, 131]. The potential exists for further useful applications of red mud;
however, the NORM content of the mud needs close consideration in any
application, for example the potential to have 210Po and 210Pb in dusts if the
mud is thermally processed.
6.4. IRON
6.4.1. Introduction
Iron ore almost always consists of iron oxides, the primary forms of which
are magnetite (Fe3O4) and haematite (Fe2O3). Iron ore is the primary source of
pig iron for the world’s iron and steel industries. It is therefore essential for the
production of steel, which in turn is essential to maintain a strong industrial
base. Almost all (98%) iron ore is used in steel making. Iron ore is mined in
about 50 countries, but the seven largest of these produce about three quarters
of total world production (Table XXIII). Australia and Brazil together
dominate the world’s iron ore exports, each having about one third of total
exports [112].
Owing to their geochemical properties, iron ores, in particular when they
are weathered, are good scavengers for radionuclides and heavy metals.
6.4.2. Processes
Owing to the large quantities produced and the nature of the deposits,
iron ore mines are typically open pit mines. Lump iron ore is exported around
59
TABLE XXIII. WORLD IRON ORE MINE
Country 1999 2000
China 209 215

Brazil 190 190
Australia 155 158
Russian Federation 81 80
India 68 68
USA 58 61
Ukraine 48 50
Canada 34 34
South Africa 30 30
Sweden 19 19
Mauritania 12 12
Kazakhstan 9 10
Other countries 82 80
World total 994 1010
the world, but is sometimes pre-treated thermally to improve its characteristics

in the blast furnace for the production of iron. At many sites iron ore fines are
thermally processed, after agglomeration, in pelletizing or briquetting
processes.
There is an increasing trend to carry out a substantial degree of pre-
reduction of ore to enable its use in various direct steelmaking processes. The
thermal pre-treatment processes give rise to fumes and dusts, which are
recovered and recycled. Recycling can give rise to accumulation of volatile
components, including volatile radionuclides such as 210Po and 210Pb. An
overview of the process is shown in Fig. 21.
6.4.3. Residues
Ferrous slags are valuable co-products of iron and steel making. In 2000,
about 19 Mt of domestic iron and steel slags were consumed in the USA. Of
this, iron or blast furnace slag accounted for about 57% of the tonnage sold.
Steel slags, produced from open hearths, basic oxygen furnaces and electric arc
furnaces accounted for the remainder.
The presence of small concentrations of uranium in feedstocks (iron ore,
coke, limestone, etc.) for iron and steel making can result [132] in enhanced
60
Emissions
NORM
Iron ore,
coke,
limestone, Sintering Gas Cleaning
raw materials
(NORM)
Stack
Dust (Po, Pb)
Sinter
Bleed to waste
NORM
Wet Gas
Blast Furnace Iron to Steel making
Scrubbing Gas
Slag
Waste Solids
Low level
NORM Slag Applications NORM
FIG. 21. Generalized flowsheet of iron production from iron ore.
levels of 210Po and 210Pb in recirculated thermal processing plant off-gas

cleaning dust. Depending on the site specific gas cleaning processes used, the
concentrations of these radionuclides in the small quantities of collected dust
can be such that any bleed-off dust must be examined for its potential to
contribute to human exposure and environmental pollution. However, most of
the uranium progeny, and therefore radioactivity, occurs at lower concentra-
tions in downstream process streams including slags and off-gas cleaning
sludges, as they are not recirculated and therefore do not accumulate. Although
the concentrations in iron and steelwork slags are low, there may be potential
for exposure if such products are subsequently used by other industries, such as
in cement manufacture, where the workforce might be exposed to a dusty
workplace. The major uses of iron slag were for road bases (29%), asphaltic
aggregates (19%), cement and concrete applications (18%) and fill (9%). Steel
slags were mainly used for road bases (30%), asphaltic aggregates (27%) and
fill (13%) [122]. In older houses in Europe, metal smelting slags were also
widely used, for example, for infilling the space between the ceiling of one floor
and the floorboards of the floor above. Radium-rich slags from metal
production (100–200 Bq/kg) were sometimes used. Slag was also used in earlier
years as a building material. Owing to the mineralogical, i.e. glassy, properties
of slags, any radioactivity contained in them is unlikely to migrate.
61
Radioactivity has been measured in iron sintering plants in the
Netherlands and the UK [133–135], but some major world producers have not
indicated whether there is radioactivity in their processes. The ores used for
metal production in, for example, Sweden at present normally have low levels
of natural radioactivity [136]. Some steel companies deal with NORM (in
association with other hazardous components) in their processes at concentra-
tions of less than 100–1 000 000 Bq/kg in quantities of up to millions of tonnes
per annum. Concentrations of radioactivity in wastes for disposal of up to
100 000 Bq/kg have been reported. The quantities of NORM waste involved
were recently published in an EU report [6].
Consideration has been given to the recovery of valuable metal from
steelwork wastes, and treatment options were reported on from furnaces in the
Netherlands [134]. Studies are under way on the potential to treat wastes, such
as dusts containing 210Po and 210Pb, to reduce the volumes of waste and possibly
to condition the waste into an appropriate form for disposal.
Downstream intermediates and wastes containing low concentrations of
radioactivity will need to be assayed to ensure that activity is not accumulating
as TE-NORM, such as 226Ra bearing scales in gas scrubbing processes, which
need to be handled appropriately.
6.5. COPPER
6.5.1. Introduction
Copper continues to be one of the most important base metals in

industrial societies because of its high electrical and heat conductivities, its
corrosion resistance and ductile properties. The major application is in
electrical installations and electronics as wires and conductive layers. It is also
used extensively as a major compound and alloying metal in brass, bronze,
German silver for armatures, mechanical parts, coinage, etc. Copper
compounds, such as copper sulphate, are used as anti-foulants in agriculture
and marine engineering, and as a precipitation agent in water treatment.
Copper is sometimes found as the native element and is present in many
minerals. Important production deposits are listed in Table XXIV. The most
important copper ores are the oxides, sulphides and carbonates.
Owing to their geochemical properties, silver, gold and uranium are often
associated with copper. Historic copper mining wastes are processed at various
places for these elements. In more recent projects, such as at Olympic Dam in
Australia, separation is integrated into the overall milling process, thus
62
TABLE XXIV. WORLD COPPER ORE MINE
Country 1999 2000
Chile 4 382 4 500

USA 1 600 1 450
Indonesia 740 850
Australia 735 760
Canada 614 650
Peru 536 530
Russian Federation 530 520
China 500 510
Poland 460 480
Mexico 362 390
Kazakhstan 374 380
Zambia 260 260
Other countries 1 500 1 600
World total 12 600 12 900
enhancing the commercial value of the operation and reducing the radionu-
clide contents in the waste stream (by 30%).
6.5.2. Processes
Much modern copper mining is done in open pits from where the ore is
hauled to a mill. In some locations, the in situ leaching process has also been
used successfully to extract copper from deep ore horizons [119]. The method
of extracting copper from ore has been improved with modern technology, the
exact process varying with the type of ore. The non-copper minerals in the ore,
called gangue, also vary.
The first step in milling is crushing. The crushed ore is mixed with water
and ground down in a ball mill. The next step is a flotation process, where the
copper minerals are suspended in a froth and then skimmed off, while the
unwanted components of the ore sink into the slurry. The unwanted
components, called tailings, sink to the bottom and are separated. The froth
containing the copper is dried, and the product is called copper concentrate. It
contains 15–33% copper.
Sometimes the ore cannot be processed by flotation. In such cases
leaching processes, for example heap leaching, with or without microbiological
63
action (bioleaching) are employed. After leaching, the solution is processed by
solvent extraction and electrowinning to produce metal cathodes. Older
technologies would have resulted in less pure products (concentrate) that must
be smelted or refined to remove the rest of the impurities.
Copper sulphide concentrates can be smelted using several technologies,
depending inter alia on the concentrate mineralogy. In the smelting furnace,
volatile impurities rise to the surface as gas bubbles. Other impurities form a
liquid — molten slag — that is less dense than the copper melt and rises to the
top. The slag containing impurities such as iron, calcium oxide and silica is
skimmed off the top. The melt containing up to 50% copper, called copper
matte, still contains impurities including iron and sulphur. The copper matte
goes through a converter. Applying air forces silica back into the copper matte
to gather up the impurities and make more slag, which is then separated off.
The resulting metal contains up to 99.5% copper and is known as blister
copper.
For use in electrical wire and instruments, copper must be of even higher
purity, which is achieved by electrolytic refining. Blister copper is poured into
molds to make slab-like anodes of about 1 m × 1 m and 7 cm thick. The copper
anodes are lowered into tanks containing a solution of copper sulphate in
sulphuric acid. They are arranged so that hanging between them are sheets of
pure copper that act as the cathodes. An electric current is passed through the
tank. The anode copper slabs dissolve. Impurities sink to the bottom as sludge.
Pure copper is deposited on the cathode sheets.
6.5.3. Residues
Copper slags, like other metal smelting slags, may find further uses, for
example as grits for ‘sand’ blasting applications [137].
Investigations at gold and copper mines in Cuba [138] have indicated that
the 226Ra concentrations range between 53 and 7216 Bq/kg in various minerals
and residues. Water samples had a 226Ra concentration of between 4 and
160 Bq/L. A study on NORM in the copper industry of Arizona in the USA
[119] reported that groundwater from six mines had 226Ra concentrations
ranging from non-detectable to 4.81 Bq/L, 228Ra from non-detectable to
4.51 Bq/L and total uranium from non-detectable to 7.73 Bq/L. That same
study found extremes for NORM in surface water, particularly for uranium
nuclides such as 238U, that ranged from 0.004 Bq/L to 25 Bq/L in 19 samples
taken from five mines. Some of the uranium deposits exploited in eastern
Germany are associated with copper shales. Uranium concentrations in these
shales are quite variable, but may reach up to 2 g/kg [113].
64
6.6. GOLD
6.6.1. Introduction
The major use of gold is in the manufacture of jewellery, while a

significant amount of gold is also retained by central banks in Member States
to support the value of their currencies. Industrial uses relate to the high
electrical conductivity of gold, together with its malleability and resistance to
corrosion, for example the manufacture of components for electrical products
and equipment. The high reflective power of gold is relied upon when used in
window pane coatings, as shielding material to protect spacecraft and satellites
from solar radiation, and in industrial and medical lasers using gold coated
reflectors to focus light energy. Because gold is biologically inactive it has tradi-
tionally been used in dental care, has become a tool in medical research, and is
also used in the treatment of arthritis and other intractable diseases. More
recent research seems to indicate a useful application for gold in catalytic
converters to reduce vehicle emissions.
While only low levels of NORM are associated with gold deposits in some
geological formations (e.g. in the Archaean greenstone belts at Kalgoorlie in
Australia and in parts of Africa), it was found that the detailed information
available warranted its inclusion in the discussion here as an example of what
can be done in other types of mining. The discussion below will, therefore, focus
on those formations with enhanced levels of NORM. A classification of such
formations as uranium deposits is presented, for instance, in Refs [140, 143].
Some of the better known deposits are the placer gold deposits of the
Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa [142] and, together with copper, the
predominantly lode gold deposits in the Jacobina and Carajás regions of Brazil,
the Copper Belt of Arizona, USA [119], and Olympic Dam in Australia [141].
World annual gold production at the end of the twentieth century
amounted to around 2400 t/a, with details for the larger producers indicated in
Table XXV. In South Africa the average gold ore grade is around 5 g·t–1 [143].
Extrapolating this to the world gold production above gives a global raw
materials extraction rate of around 5 × 108 t/a or 3 × 108 m3/a. Because the
volumes of waste rock, products and by-products permanently removed from
the ore are relatively small, tailings production would not be much different
from the amount of ore extracted. The total inventory of mine tailings in South
Africa is estimated for gold mines alone at around 6 × 109 m3 [143]. The global
extraction of raw materials may be more difficult to obtain except through
extrapolation from the gold production information.
65
TABLE XXV. WORLD GOLD PRODUCTION [122]
1999 2000 2000

Country
(t/a) (t/a) (%)
South Africa 449 440 18
USA 341 330 14
Australia 303 300 12
China (estimated) 170 170 7
Canada 158 150 6
Peru 128 140 6
Indonesia 130 120 5
Russian Federation 104 105 4
Other countries 735 665 27
World total (rounded) 2500 2400 99
6.6.2. Processes
Small scale mining seems to be a diminishing practice, but may still be

relevant in some developing countries. In large scale mining, shallow and deep
deposits are still mined mostly through conventional open pit and underground
mining methods, respectively, in some cases on a very large scale. Almost all ore
and waste rock is brought to the surface for processing.
Gravity concentration was generally used as the main extraction process
for gold in the early days. At present, cyanide leaching (mostly in leach tanks,
but also through heap leaching) is almost exclusively being used together with
carbon adsorption and elution, followed by gold precipitation and melting,
otherwise by electrowinning from the leach solution. Gravity concentration
may still be used in small scale operations or as an initial step in large scale
operations to prepare a low cost cyanide leach solution for electrowinning, but
the low gravity stream will probably still go through a cyanide leaching process.
Mined ore, pulped and milled, is the main feed material for gold
extraction. Various but generally small amounts of pyrites from the same ore
body may be present in the process stream. Occasionally (e.g. at some South
African mines previously or still involved in uranium production), pyrites may
be separated and calcined to iron oxide in sulphuric acid plants (Section 16.1).
The calcined material is usually subsequently also processed for gold
extraction.
When performed in a slightly alkaline environment, the selectivity of the
cyanide leaching process for gold and other precious metals is good and only
66
insignificant amounts of radioactivity are partitioned into this stream. These
may end up in slimes from the electrowinning process or in slag from melting
furnaces. Activity concentrations are, however, very low.
Disregarding the relatively small amount of radioactivity that may be in
extracted uranium products (e.g. at some mines in South Africa) and the minor
residues mentioned above, the radionuclide content of the tailings remains very
similar to that of ore.
6.6.3. Residues and their management
6.6.3.1. Form
The residues from gold mines include tailings, waste rock and wastewater
from either dewatering operations or as fissure water, the latter, however,
usually ending up as process water. The remaining underground ore also
constitutes a residue to be considered in terms of its influence on mine water.
6.6.3.2. Tailings
During their use, the maintenance of tailings impoundments includes the

maintenance of drainage systems and paddocks to control seepage and surface
run-offs and even the slime discharge operations. Tailings impoundments,
which cannot be reprocessed economically, can also serve as burial sites for
limited quantities of other homogeneous waste. In South Africa residues with
activity concentrations below 1 × 106 Bq/kg and diluted to below 1 × 105 Bq/kg,
either created during normal operations or during demolition (e.g. building
rubble), can be diluted or buried in tailings impoundments. Materials with
concentrations above 1 × 106 Bq/kg are presently stored pending a solution for
their disposal. Their impact when disposed of in tailings impoundments is
presently being investigated [144].
Rehabilitation of tailings impoundments involves the stabilization of
impoundments and the establishment of vegetation, which sometimes requires
specialized pre-treatment and selection of suitable plant species. Owing to the
large areas involved and the associated cost, capping may only be performed on
a limited scale, based on site specific assessments (e.g. to prevent chemical
pollution of shallow groundwater sources or where exhaled radon affects
inhabitants living very close to the source). While rehabilitation of tailings
impoundments sometimes starts during their use, for others this process only
follows when the impoundment becomes redundant. Better located impound-
ments are created through the reclamation of the older impoundments still
containing economically recoverable gold.
67
6.6.3.3. Waste rock
The inventory of waste rock is usually much smaller than that of the
tailings. In South Africa it amounts to an estimated 6 × 108 m3 (minus the
amount reused) from underground mines [145]. Water ingress into waste rock
dumps may generate significant chemical pollution due to seepage of contami-
nated water requiring implementation of active water management measures
[113].
It is important to note that many waste rock dumps are of a temporary
nature, often being processed through the plant at the end of life of a mine or
being crushed for use in civil construction projects. When applicable, measures
to prevent the unauthorized use of the material may be appropriate.
In South Africa waste rock has been used in the past for construction
work on mines, and contractors were also allowed to crush and sell waste rock.
Re-use still presents a useful management option, but is presently only allowed
following formal authorization for unrestricted use (e.g. residential
construction) or restricted use (e.g. the construction of roads and bridges).
External gamma radiation and indoor radon doses around 20 and 80 µSv/a,
respectively, have been assessed for residential floor slabs containing waste
rock with nuclide concentrations within the range 10–50 Bq/kg as an aggregate
[146]. The use of waste rock as capping material for tailings impoundments is
also being investigated [147].
6.6.3.4. Exposed ore and residual ore
This section relates to reef sections and ore not removed from mining
areas and exposed to water and oxygen. Underground water is typically
collected in settlers at the bottom of the mine, where lime is added to
precipitate heavy metals. This also reduces radioactivity, especially uranium and
thorium concentrations [148]. The sludge is sometimes removed to gold or
uranium extraction plants for processing, but may also be pumped onto tailings
impoundments. Overflow water from settlers is mainly recycled as process
water, but excess water may be discharged to the environment.
For the larger dewatering and post-closure mine flooding problems,
various methods for water treatment have been investigated (e.g. reverse
osmosis, ion exchange, precipitation methods and anaerobic bacterial
techniques) [149]. The GYPSIX method starts with the addition of lime, with
subsequent treatment of the water with cation and anion ion exchange resins
for regeneration. Various alternative acid and alkali regeneration and
subsequent precipitation processes may result in marketable products [149].
Other investigations [114,115] stress the importance of proper planning of mine
68
closure on a regional basis, with the objective of minimizing the volumes and
improving the quality of contaminated water that may require treatment prior
to discharge. Radiological impacts are treated as part of some studies but still
need to be integrated into others.
6.6.3.5. Contaminated areas and materials
NORM contamination in ore processing areas mainly relates to

inevitable spills of process materials or scales formed during operations.
Activity concentrations are mainly similar to those of the associated process
materials but are higher in scales or where selective sedimentation has caused
concentration. Although cleanup operations are performed continuously, final
cleanup operations are more likely only to be performed during the decommis-
sioning phase.
A typical process area may cover several hectares of land, while each
mine may have several process areas. The combined surface area of process
areas at South African gold mines is estimated to be of the order of a thousand
hectares. Excavations to clean up such areas typically go down from a fraction
of a metre to a few metres.
Enhanced concentrations of radionuclides in the underground water of
gold mines contaminate some materials such as underground wood. When
ending up in process water, the underground water also produces radioactive
scales on pipes and process equipment from underground areas and gold
plants. Uranium nuclides seem to be the dominant source of radioactivity in the
scale. Subsequent detachment of scales normally also causes the contamination
of surrounding soils, especially in mine salvage yards but in the past also during
storage and processing at recyclers. During an investigation of the upper range
of the problem in South Africa, scales with total activity concentrations within
the range 9.0 × 104–3.3 × 105 Bq/kg have been collected in the salvage yard of
a gold plant, causing activity concentrations up to around 1 × 104 Bq/kg of scrap
[150]. The average value for the complete gold industry is, however, estimated
at only a few per cent of this [151]. Following studies which indicated that doses
from the resulting steel are trivial, most of the scrap from gold mines in South
Africa is presently recycled via authorized smelters [150, 151]
An estimated 4 × 104 m3 of bulk wastes (e.g. scales, rubbers, plastics, wood,
ceramics, but also decommissioning waste) will eventually be produced by
South African gold mines, including associated uranium and sulphuric acid
plants [144]. While most of these may find their way to tailings impoundments,
those with activity concentrations above 1 × 106 Bq/kg are presently stored on
different mining sites pending a solution for their disposal. The profitable
recovery of gold from residues, subsoil, scales, concrete surfaces and even wood
69
during demolition of gold reduction plants provides a great financial incentive
for proper cleanup operations [152]. This involves the recycling of these
materials through the milling and extraction plants. The recycling and reuse of
equipment (e.g. metal scrap and electric motors) is normally also maximized.
6.6.3.6. Former mine land
These are lands from previous mining operations, including sites contam-
inated through previous metallurgical plant operations and sites from which
tailings impoundments have been removed for reprocessing. Cleanup criteria
are aimed in the first instance at decontamination to legally defined levels
below which the land can be excluded outright from any further regulatory
concern, but they may also be influenced by future land use (e.g. suitability for
residential development or restricted to industrial use only). More than 20 such
sites have been or are in the process of being remediated in South Africa [153].
Cleanup of former mine land and other contaminated sites is mainly
performed by excavating the contaminated soil to approved levels, predeter-
mined by pathway modelling of doses associated with residential, industrial,
recreational or other use [154]. Other options include cleanup to levels statisti-
cally indistinguishable from those of surrounding unaffected land or to an
optimized level below a given reference level. When economic values justify
this, excavated residues may be recycled for the recovery of gold. Otherwise
material has been removed to a tailings impoundment of a nearby licensed
mine [155].
6.6.4. Radionuclide contents
Globally, NORM levels within gold deposits vary greatly within an

overall range of 10–15 000 ppm with smaller variations within specific deposits.
Within the Witwatersrand Basin the overall range is 10–750 ppm with the
average contents for a reef more likely to be in the range 20–350 ppm [144].
Uranium may be extracted as a by-product from these reefs if they contain
above about 350 ppm of the metal. NORM concentrations in the Jacobina and
Carajás deposits are lower at around 9 ppm U and 12 ppm Th [156]. In Arizona,
NORM is associated with various metal deposits, for example porphyry and
vein deposits of copper, lead and precious metal sulphide ores. The estimated
uranium contents range widely, from around 55 ppm in copper sulphide ore in
schists and porphyry copper deposits at Globe and Miami to 7600–14 000 ppm
in copper oxide veins in altered andesite at the Copper Squaw underground
mine [118]. In Australia the average grade of the Olympic Dam breccia
complex deposit is given as 600 ppm U3O8 [141].
70
Where gold is extracted as a by-product from primary copper ore, the
radioactivity problem with regard to gold mainly originates from NORM in the
anode slimes generated during the final stage of the copper extraction process,
from which gold is extracted. In Australia, the slimes can in extreme cases
contain 210Pb at (1–3) × 105 Bq/kg and 210Po at 6 × 105 to 1 × 106 Bq/kg, but
these are refined on-site. More of a problem are slimes containing 210Pb at
(1.5–2) ×104 Bq/kg and 210Po at (6–8) × 103 Bq/kg produced in relatively small
quantities, which are removed from the site for refining elsewhere [157]. No
published information is available and the problem is currently being investi-
gated.
The impacts of oxidized pyrites and associated acid leaching from tailings,
waste rock piles and ore remains on aquatic systems are likely to cause the
largest impacts from gold mining. A general discussion on this subject is
presented in Section 3. The impact of the South African gold mining industry in
terms of water consumption from a river was found to be represented by age
weighted annual doses within the range 0–0.5 mSv/a [158], with the higher
doses coming from mine release points. That study seems to confirm results of
an earlier study concluding that the radiological impact of South African gold
mine releases on surface water sources is reduced over relatively short
distances to almost background levels [159]. Presently the study is being
extended to the river sediments [160]. Studies done as a regulatory requirement
at South African mines indicated the radon and dust doses to be even lower.
For radon, background concentrations were also measured within the range
14–111 Bq/m3 with an average of 48 Bq/m3 and a standard deviation of
19 Bq/m3 [161]. With this background distribution the contribution of the mine
tailings sources became statistically insignificant at the locations of the critical
groups. The studies covered only the existing situation at mines, and post-
closure assessments still need to be done.
6.7. MINERAL SANDS AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
6.7.1. Introduction
Heavy minerals, defined as those with a density above 2.8 g·cm–3, are
minor constituents of a wide range of rocks, and comprise a wide variety of
minerals, including oxides, phosphates and silicates. They are typically harder
than the other minerals in the rocks from which they originate and, therefore,
71
survive the erosion and transport processes. Hence, economic deposits of heavy
minerals occur predominantly when they have been concentrated by marine,
alluvial and/or wind processes and are called placer deposits.
Heavy minerals such as monazite, zircon, xenotime, ilmenite and rutile
and ores such as cassiterite are the raw materials in the extraction processes of
certain metals or their compounds. Zirconium, titanium, thorium, tin and the
rare earth elements (REEs) are the major target elements. REEs comprise 16
chemical elements, including those with atomic numbers 57 (lanthanum)
through 71 (lutetium), as well as yttrium (atomic number 39), which has similar
chemical properties.
Indicative production quantities of these minerals worldwide are given in
Table XXVI. Thorium production is discussed in more detail in Section 8.3.
Tin is used to coat other metals to prevent corrosion. It is also used as an
alloying agent, for example in bronze, and as a biocide in antifouling paint. A
crystalline tin–niobium alloy is superconductive at very low temperatures.
Titanium metal is used for alloys with aluminium, molybdenum,
manganese, iron and other metals. These alloys of titanium are used principally
in the aerospace industry. Titanium is a component of human joint replacement
parts, including hip ball and sockets. It has excellent resistance to sea water and
is used for propeller shafts, rigging and other parts of ships exposed to salt
water. A titanium anode coated with platinum provides cathodic protection
TABLE XXVI. APPROXIMATE PRODUCTION FIGURES FOR

VARIOUS HEAVY MINERALS [162]
Zircon ZrSiO4 100 000 t/a in the USA

400 000 t/a in Australia
400 000 t/a in South Africa
150 000 t/a from various other sources
ZrO2 1 070 000 t worldwide in 2001
Rutile TiO2 414 000 t worldwide in 1998
Ilmenite FeO·TiO2 3 966 943 t worldwide in 1990,
includes leucoxene
Baddeleyite ZrO2 20 000 t/a in South Africa (now discontinued)
with by-products such as
Monazite (Ce,La,Y,Th)PO4 ~23 000 t worldwide in 1990,
excluding the USA
Xenotime Y(PO4)2 Total world Y production from xenotime
and monazite was 2400 t in 2001.
72
from corrosion by salt water. Titanium dioxide is used extensively as white
paint pigment, as it is permanent and has good covering power, and is not toxic
as opposed to, for example, lead white. TiO2, in fact, accounts for the largest use
of the element (>95%).
The last few decades have seen an increasing use of REEs, for instance as
polishes, catalysts, incandescent and other special glasses, steel additives and as
burnable poisons in nuclear reactors. EuVO4 and Eu2O3 phosphors provide the
red colour in colour television tubes.
Of world zirconium production, more than 95% is used as zircon in
foundries (30%), refractory manufacture (30%), ceramics (30% as glazes) and
glass making. The majority of the zircon used is consumed as a zircon ‘flour’
with a particle size of around 1 µm. Zirconium metal is used in the nuclear
industry for cladding fuel elements since it has a low absorption cross-section
for neutrons.
Niobium metal is a component of some stainless steels and also alloys
with non-ferrous metals. These alloys have good strength and other properties,
and are used in pipeline construction.
6.7.2. Occurrence
Heavy minerals occur in mineral sand placer deposits and in veins, or are
disseminated predominantly in alkaline intrusions in hard rock. Well known
placer deposits in the Indian Ocean region are the cassiterite sands of
Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia), the tin province of
Australia along the West Pacific, heavy mineral placers on the coasts of
Mozambique, South Africa [163], western Australia, northeast Sri Lanka and
the western and eastern coasts of India, with other smaller deposits in the USA.
Ilmenite (FeTiO3), rutile, leucoxene and sphene are sources of titanium
and are usually associated with iron. Titanium is also readily mined in one of
the purest forms, rutile (TiO2), from beach sand. The deposits are mainly
located in the Americas, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, Scandinavia and
Malaysia.
Monazite ([Ce,La,Y,Th]PO4), xenotime (YPO4), bastnaesite ([Ce,
La][CO3]F) and others are the source of REEs. Since some REEs behave
(geo-)chemically rather similarly to uranium or thorium, the latter may be
found associated with them. Monazite forms in phosphatic pegmatites but is
actually a standard trace constituent in many ordinary igneous, metamorphic
and vein filling rocks. Notable occurrences of monazite are widespread and
diverse. They include beach and river sand deposits in India, Australia, Brazil,
Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Florida and North Carolina, USA. In
Malaysia [164] the minerals are also by-products of ‘amang’ processing plants.
73
There are notable occurrences of xenotime in Arendal, Hittero and
Tvedestrand, Norway; Madagascar; several locations in Brazil; and in Colorado,
California, Georgia and North Carolina, USA.
Large resources of yttrium in monazite and xenotime are available
worldwide in both ancient and recent placer deposits (monazite and xenotime),
weathered clay deposits (ion adsorption ore), carbonatites and uranium ores. It
is probable that the world’s resources are very large relative to expected
demand.
Cassiterite occurs in the form of placers in alluvium, as well as lodes in
hard rock. Granites have been shown to contain significant amounts of radium
[165]. According to Ref. [166], accessory minerals containing uranium and
thorium are commonly found in granitoids, alluvium and residual soils derived
from granitoids. Thus, it is not surprising to observe that alluvial tin ores, in for
example Malaysia, are associated with NORM due to the presence of minerals
such as monazite, zircon (ZrSiO4), xenotime, ilmenite, struverite (Ta/Nb
bearing TiO2), columbite ([Fe,Mn][Nb,Ta]2O6), tourmaline and others.
Bastnaesite deposits in China and the USA constitute the largest
percentage of the world’s rare earth economic resources, while monazite
deposits in Australia, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Thailand and the USA constitute the second largest segment. Xenotime, rare
earth bearing (ion adsorption) clays, loparite, phosphorites, apatite, eudialyte,
secondary monazite, cheralite and spent uranium solutions make up most of
the remaining resources. Undiscovered resources are thought to be very large
relative to expected demand.
6.7.3. Processes
There are different types of processes, depending on the source types

(hard rocks or placers), to concentrate minerals or to process them to produce
various products at hydrometallurgical plants. These processes usually produce
residues containing certain levels of radionuclide concentrations. Heavy
minerals are extracted from mineral sand placer deposits or from hard rock
using separation techniques. An example of the complex separation scheme is
shown in Fig. 22. The mineral products are in turn used as raw materials in the
production of mineral flour (e.g. zircon), refined metals or metal oxides.
The mining methods that can be employed are dictated by the type and
location of the ore body. Placer and similar near surface deposits can be conve-
niently exploited by various dredging methods, while mineralizations in hard
rocks require conventional deep mining techniques. Tin ore concentrates may
also be recovered from re-working mineral sand that was originally mined for
74
Ore Mining Process
Primary Separation Intermediate

(ore processing)
Product
Heavy Mineral Concentrate

(HMC) Waste Stream
Oversize HMC
Mill Dust Screening
Tailings
Clay Fines (Slimes) Dry and Wet
Mill Dust Separation
Stack Particulates Monazite
Mineral Spillage concentrate
Rutile Ilmenite Leucoxene Zircon Xenotime Monazite
Synthetic Rutile Zircon Monazite

Production Processing Processing
(ilmenite processing)
Titanium Dioxide Zirconium Rare Earths

(TiO2) Production Synthetic Rutile Zirconia
TiO2 Pigment
FIG. 22. Flow sheet showing separation of heavy mineral ore into pigment, zirconia/
zirconium and rare earths, as well as the associated major waste streams (after Ref. [167]).
a different mineral value. Appendix A gives details of, as an example, the

related mining and processing practices in Malaysia.
Dredging and hydraulic processes are mostly used to collect heavy
mineral sands after the removal of topsoil. In general, mine sand residues are
returned to the mined-out areas after removal of the heavy minerals, but very
often the sand is stored and sold for other industrial purposes (e.g.
construction).
In hard rock mining at Palabora (South Africa) baddeleyite is obtained
from an open cut operation and is separated from other commercial minerals
including copper and phosphate minerals. This operation may be extended to
an underground operation.
In several areas of the world mining activities have developed to recover
raw materials from different types of deposits and to produce marketable
concentrates. Depending on the geological sources, special flowsheets for the
recovery and concentration of the raw materials (hard rock, placers, by-product
concentrates) have been developed. A generalized secondary separation
process flowsheet for heavy minerals production is also given in Fig. 22.
Heavy minerals in sands are initially concentrated by wet gravity
processes and then separated by a combination of dry magnetic and electro-
static processes into concentrates of the various minerals. Improved
75
separation/upgrading might be required using further comminution and
recycle, magnetizing, roasting and/or leaching. The mineral concentrates can
then be sold or chemically processed further.
6.7.3.1. Titanium
Rutile can be sold directly into the market, but ilmenite is often further
chemically processed to produce synthetic rutile [167], or pyrometallurgically
treated to produce a titania slag — see Fig. 22 and Appendix II. Most of the
titanium minerals (>95%) are chemically processed into pigment [167]. The
titanium minerals are isolated from the raw ore by various hydrometallurgical
processes, the layout of which is illustrated in Fig. 22. The further processing
into the metal or purified TiO2 takes different dry and wet chemical routes that
are discussed in detail in Appendix II. The wet TiO2 production process
employs either sulphuric or hydrochloric acid.
6.7.3.2. Zircon
Zircon (ZrSiO4) is predominantly sold and used as zircon without further

processing, other than possibly milling to produce zircon flour. It is generally
believed that there is little benefit in trying to remove radionuclides from
zircon prior to downstream applications or before waste disposal because the
zircon matrix is probably the most stable form in which to keep the radionu-
clides. A general flowsheet from heavy minerals to zircon end products is
presented in Fig. 22 [167].
6.7.3.3. Tin
At tin smelting plants, tin ore concentrates from tin mining or tin tailing
processing plants (see Appendix A for examples from Malaysia) are used as
feed materials to produce metal tin. At the end of the process, tin slag is
produced as residue. Tin smelting, dating back to prehistoric times in Britain,
has resulted in millions of tonnes of glass-like slag in various parts of the
country, but the hazard from this material is likely to be low [168]. Tin slag
typically contains significant amounts of tantalum and niobium. It can be used
as raw material to the tantalum extraction plants. Struverite is also a good raw
material for tantalum extraction. However, secondary residue containing
naturally occurring radionuclides is expected to be produced from the
extraction plants.
76
6.7.3.4. Niobium and tantalum
Niobium minerals usually contain both niobium and tantalum. Since they
are rather similar chemically, it is difficult to separate them. Niobium can be
extracted from the ores by first fusing the ore with alkali, and then extracting
the resultant mixture into hydrofluoric acid, HF. Current methodology involves
the separation of tantalum from these acid solutions using a liquid–liquid
extraction technique. Electrolysis of molten fluorides is also used [136].
A detailed description of the niobium production processes in Brazil,
which is the most important producer in the world, is given in Appendix IV.
Operational environmental impacts associated with discharges of liquid
effluents into the environment can be considered negligible. In a broad way it
can be said that at least 60% of each individual radionuclide total activity
leaves the operational process along with the residues generated in the
floatation step. In the case of 238U this figure reaches 70% of the total. This
finding has a very relevant bearing concerning economic recovery of uranium.
However, the contamination of groundwater by 226Ra and 228Ra in the area of
influence of the settling ponds containing barium sulphate precipitate is a
relevant issue. Typical concentrations of about 5.0 Bq/L for each of the above
mentioned radionuclides have been observed. In this case, the adopted
management strategy/mitigation used by the company is to pump the water
from the aquifer and treat it before release into the environment. The niobium
industries described in Appendix IV did not show any relevant environmental
radiological impact due to the release of effluents into the environment. The
main concern relates to the potential use of some of the process residues as
landfill for house construction sites, for which very high effective doses may be
observed. The contamination of groundwater, as has been reported for one of
the industries, is also of concern if people come to have direct assess (ingestion)
to this water.
6.7.3.5. Rare earth elements
The main minerals used as sources of REEs are monazite, xenotime from
placers and bastnaesite (China), coperite and pyrochlore from hard rock.
Specific extraction processes have been developed by the local industries. An
overview of the extraction processes is given in Fig. 21 and more details are
available in Appendix III.
77
6.7.4. Residues
Dredging of surface deposits has left behind thousands of mined-out

ponds worldwide. Typically such ponds have thick layers of slime. The slurries
contain heavy minerals such as ilmenite, monazite, zircon and xenotime. The
mined-out ponds are very large in size and most of them are quite deep.
Remediation is often necessary before the former mining sites can be re-used.
Residues are produced from mining, beneficiation and chemical
processing of mineral sands and minerals (Fig. 22). They are produced as
tailings, fine dust, sludge (oxides, hydroxides or sulphates), scales and slag
containing concentrated natural radionuclides. Residues from all types of
production can cause a disposal problem because of the radioactivity content.
Research and development is carried out to study the disposal impact on the
environment.
The volume and the activity level of radionuclides in residues varies
depending on the processing methods applied. In the mining of placer deposits,
the volume of tailings generated can be very large. The tailings are usually
dumped above ground in the form of huge heaps.
The main waste generated during the wet and dry processing of heavy
mineral sands is the waste from the dry plant, where the activity contained can
be enhanced. Slime and sand tails from wet processing are generally low in
radioactivity and can be returned to the mined-out sites. The issue of whether
mineral processing residues should be recombined, kept separate and/or
covered needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
Details of the management of the waste streams generated during mining
and processing of heavy minerals are given in Table XXVII.
6.7.4.1. Titanium
Thorium-232 and 238U could potentially go to liquid waste streams arising

from further chemical processing of the ilmenite/rutile process intermediates,
but expected doses are very low. Disposal of solid residues from processing is
expected not to contribute significantly to pollution caused by the dissolution
and migration of radionuclides. There are exceptions to this, where the sands
contained significant amounts of sulphide, and acid mine drainage has subse-
quently mobilized pollutants such as manganese.
The nature of natural rutile, ilmenite and zircon, i.e. their chemical
stability, means that for most groundwater environments there is little
likelihood of radionuclides contaminating the waste disposal sites generally
used as repositories for the heavy minerals, refractories containing zircon or
foundry waste.
78
In ilmenite processing to produce synthetic rutile and titanium dioxide
pigment, large amounts of hydrated iron oxide (30 000 t/a is produced in
Malaysia) and gypsum residues are produced and stored in ponds or dumped
above ground on the plant premises.
The dumping at sea of the waste from TiO2 production, dilute sulphuric
acid, caused serious environmental concern and has been stopped, at least in
Europe. Per tonne of TiO2 produced, 6–8 t of a dilute (20–22%) acid are
generated. The acid is too dilute for further commercial use and often contam-
inated by heavy metals and, indeed, NORM. In a process with a relatively high
energy consumption the acid is concentrated and accessory salts, mainly ferric
sulphates and co-precipitates, are removed. The acid is fed back into the
production process, while the ferric sulphate is used commercially as a
flocculant for wastewater treatment, mainly for removal of phosphates as
sparingly soluble ferric phosphates. Any ferric oxides produced are landfilled.
Fewer environmental pollution problems are encountered when pigment
is produced from rutile rather than ilmenite. The chloride process, using a rutile
feed, generates about 0.2 t of waste per tonne of TiO2 product; the sulphate
process, using ilmenite, generates about 3.5 t of waste per tonne of product.
Producing synthetic rutile from ilmenite results in about 0.7 t of waste, mainly
iron oxide, per tonne of product. Direct chlorination of ilmenite generates
about 1.2 t of waste, mainly ferric chloride, per tonne of TiO2 [125].
In the chemical processes described above, the titanium is removed from
the other metals present. All radionuclides present in the feedstock (and in
other process inputs, for example, petroleum coke) go to the chemical
processing waste stream. The final commercial products therefore seldom have
radiation issues associated with them. A range of by-product minerals
produced in smaller quantities are either sold, stored or disposed of.
In some cases the radionuclides can be removed to varying degrees from
the titanium intermediate products prior to being sold commercially [169].
However such processes have proved in practice to be technically difficult and
costly. The waste created from this removal is similar to that produced from the
downstream pigment and metal manufacturing processes. Therefore the
removal of the radionuclides by the producer often serves only to move the
location of the waste production, rather than to produce a waste which has less
environmental risk. The early removal of radioactivity adds, possibly unneces-
sarily, to the overall cost of the final products. The relative quantities and the
characteristics of the wastes need to be scrutinized.
The waste arising from the chemical processing of titanium feedstocks
can be considered as ‘mixed industrial waste’, as it contains metals such as Pb,
As, Zn, Mn, Mg, V and Nb, in addition to the radionuclides and neutralized acid
effluent. This waste is kept in designated waste disposal areas, many of which
79
TABLE XXVII. MANAGEMENT OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED
DURING MINING AND PROCESSING OF HEAVY MINERALS
ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED FOR THE
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN HEAVY MINERALS INDUSTRY [169]
Mining and primary separation*
Oversize from Dry mining: Buried below sand tailings or overburden, usually
screening process at a depth of at least 3 m. Occasionally, if of a suitable quality,
used for constructing on-site roads.
Dredging: Direct discharge into the dredging pond.
Clay fines (slimes) Dry mining: Pumped, either directly or as an underflow from
thickeners, to shallow solar drying slime impoundments.
Subsequently disposed of in mined-out pit areas. An amount may
be incorporated into the subsoil as part of the rehabilitation
process.
Dredging: Portion is entrained in tailings, trapped under tailings or
pumped to a thickener and combined with sand tailings. The
remainder is discarded into the dredging pond.
Sand tailings Dry mining: Pumped as slurry from the wet concentrator to the
mined areas for disposal.
Dredging: As above, but directly discharged in the dredging pond.
Secondary separation
Screen oversize Oversize from screening of minerals is transported to the spiral

plant tails stockpile for subsequent disposal in designated dry
plant tailings disposal sites at the mine site.
Mill dust Dust extracted from dry mill dust extraction systems is transport-
ed pneumatically to a holding bin. From there the dampened dust
is trucked to a stockpile, where it is mixed with the spiral plant
tails. That mixture is transported to designated dry plant tailings
disposal sites at the mine site.
Dust from the monazite plant is drawn out by a dedicated dust
extraction system into, for example, 2 t bulk bags. Subsequently it
is transported for disposal at designated dry plant tailings disposal
sites at the mine site.
Spiral plant tailings Pumped as slurry to hydrocyclones and onto a stockpile, from
where they are trucked to designated on-site disposal sites that are
designed so that they can be covered by at least 3 m of sand tail-
ings and/or overburden.
Monazite plant Separately collected, blended with mine sand tailings and
tailings disposed of into the mine pit.
For footnote see p. 81.
80
TABLE XXVII. (cont.)
Monazite concentrate Either stored below ground on-site in discrete, well documented
sites for subsequent reprocessing into monazite or, if treated as
waste, blended with mine sand tailings before disposal in the mine
pit.
Clay fines (slime) Clay solids removed from the mill water system are pumped to
shallow solar drying ponds. When partially dry, the solids are dug
out and deposited on the spiral plant tails stockpile and treated as
above.
Stack particulates Atmospheric emissions are mitigated by equipping stacks with
bag houses or cyclones to trap particulates. Alternatively, stack
outlets may be connected to the dry mill dust extraction system.
Intercepted material is disposed of with mill dust.
Mineral spillage Collected throughout dry mills mechanically (e.g. by sweeper,
‘bobcat’ and front end loader) or by vacuuming. Dry spillage is
recycled back into the process through a dry feed bin. Wet spillage
can be fed back through the wet heavy mineral concentrate or
feed retreatment systems. Alternatively, spillage can be taken
back to the mine site as part of the dry mill tailings, or as a con-
centrator feed that is then spread on the mine face and re-mined.
* The radiologically benign nature of these wastes does not require delineation of the
waste disposal sites other than the delineation of the former mine pit.
are lined with impermeable material to prevent leaching from the repository.
In Malaysia gypsum is produced as a residue. It is estimated that about 1000 t/d
of gypsum residue is produced. At the time of maintenance, small amounts of
radioactive scales are also collected.
6.7.4.2. Zircon
The wastes associated with zircon processing are primarily those arising
from mineral processing usually in association with the mining operation.
Zircon itself along with foundry and refractory wastes are the subject of
examination but generally do not represent a significant environmental
problem, as they are chemically inert. Extensive studies [170] have been carried
out on the landfill disposal of zircon foundry waste. Measures to minimize the
inhalation of dust during handling must be adopted. When zircon is fused, in
81
refractories or technical ceramics manufacture, the silica fume produced is
collected in bag houses. The fume contains enhanced concentrations of 210Pb
and 210Po. The production can result in the accumulation of radionuclides in
off-gas systems [171], pipework and filters and in some cases in discharge to the
stack gases. Protective equipment may need to be considered in some plants.
The small volume of waste produced during zirconia and zirconium metal
manufacture is of some concern [171] and must be stored in metal containers
in special repositories. There are reports [170] that these residues are high in
226Ra and that such facilities need to be licensed in the USA. Gamma radiation
levels are a principal concern there, and environmental regulatory enforcement

and removal actions for zircon contamination have taken place at abandoned
industrial waste sites. Fused zirconia is used especially in ceramics manufacture
and in glazes. About 600–700 t/a of zircon/zirconia containing bricks are
produced in the UK, half for the glass industry. The bricks can contain up to
10 Bq/g of 238U. A further 100 t/a of specialty zircon/zirconia technical ceramics
are produced in the UK. Both bricks and ceramics are disposed of into landfill.
Glazes used on fine ceramics can have concentrations of up to 6 Bq/g U and Th,
which could represent a problem if present in bulk quantities. An estimate of
the zircon waste in Europe [6] is about 100 000 t/a. The powder waste from
filters in fused zirconia refractory plants [172] is estimated to be 20 t/a for a
2000 t refractory plant in Europe, i.e. 1 wt% of feed. This waste was assayed to
contain 200 Bq/g of 210Pb and 600 Bq/g of 210Po. Discharge to the atmosphere
is typically 150 and 50 MBq/a, respectively, for the two radionuclides. The other
radionuclides remain in the refractory.
6.7.4.3. Tin
In tin ore smelting, large amounts of tin slag containing significant

amounts of radionuclides are stored above ground. Tin slags are of importance
owing to their niobium and tantalum content. Some tin slags are also used as
landfill.
6.7.4.4. Rare earth elements
In the rare earth production industries, large volumes of thorium

hydroxide have been produced. A small quantity of residue containing lead and
radium is also produced through the process. The thorium hydroxide waste is
normally stored awaiting the availability of final disposal facilities (inter alia
Malaysia, Brazil, India and China). In Malaysia, the quantity of thorium
hydroxide and lead cake wastes stored in the storage facility is estimated to be
82
about 12 000 t. Other contaminated materials (including soils contaminated
with thorium hydroxide) are estimated to amount to 11 000 t.
6.7.5. Radionuclide contents
The concentration of radionuclides in heavy minerals can vary from very

low to appreciably higher depending on the sources and the extraction
processes applied. Uranium and thorium are generally structurally bound into
the zircon crystals with some, more accessible, radioactivity being located in
weathered zones of the mineral grains, for example in ilmenite. The titanium
minerals tend to contain lower concentrations of radioactivity than zircon. In
most cases the titanium minerals have a low uranium content (<50 ppm) and
any activity is derived from thorium and its daughters. Commercial titanium
minerals generally have a total specific parent activity of less than 2 Bq/g, and
many products have activities well below 1 Bq/g. The radioactivity of mineral
concentrates can be significantly influenced by the presence of small amounts
of other minerals, such as monazite, containing high concentrations of 232Th
and its progeny.
The activity concentrations of radionuclides in products and residues in
the heavy mineral processing are shown in Tables XXVIII and XXIX, and in
Appendix IV (Tables IL and L). It is clear that the radioactivity is related to the
238U and 232Th series. Thorium is the main constituent in monazite and
pyrochlor but is less prominent in xenotime and zircon. Thus, processing of

minerals can lead to enhancement of activity concentration of radionuclides in
the residues.
Tin slags contain significant concentrations of naturally occurring
radionuclides. The concentration of NORM in residues from the tin mine
related processes is shown in Table XXIX.
Zircons typically can have an activity concentration of 100–10 000 Bq/kg
as 238U or 232Th. Some Malaysian zircons [6] can contain higher concentrations
of radioactivity and some South African zircons can be lower. There is some
evidence that some zircon from China may contain considerably higher concen-
trations of radioactivity [164]. A broader range of radionuclide concentrations
in zircons is given elsewhere in the literature [8, 173]
6.7.6. Remediation
The potential for dispersion of radionuclides by the reuse of old sites is

recognized [6]. Guidelines [167] for modern operating mineral processing and
chemical plants recommending appropriate cover of waste sites and other
remediation measures, depending on the proposed land usage, might still need
83
TABLE XXVIII. VARIOUS HEAVY MINERAL PROCESS PRODUCTS
AND THEIR RADIONUCLIDE CONTENTS [172]
Th U
Material
(ppm) (Bq/kg) (ppm) (Bq/kg)
Mining
Ore 5–70 40–600 3–10 70–250
Primary separation
Product Heavy mineral 80–800 600–6600 <10–70 <250–1700
concentration
Waste Sand tailings <10 £ 50 <100 £ 400 <10 <250
Oversize <10 £ 50 <100 £ 400 <10 <250
Clay fines (slimes) <30 <250 <10 <250
Products Ilmenite 50–500 400–4100 <10–30 <250–750
Leucoxene 80–700 600–5700 20–50 500–1200
Rutile <50–350 <400–2900 <10–20 <250–500
Zircon 150–300 1200–2500 150–300 3700–7400
Monazite 50 000– 41 000– 1000– 25 000–
70 000 575 000 3000 75 000
Monazite 10 000– 80 000– 500–2500 12 000–
concentrate 55 000 450 000 60 000
(a semi-product
that may either
become a waste
or be refined into
monazite)
Xenotime ~15 000 ~120 ~4000 ~100
Waste Tailings 200–6000 1500–50 000 10–1000 250–25 000
(incl. monazite tails)
Clay fines (slimes) ~600 ~5000 ~30 ~750
Oversize 80–650 700–5300 50–150 1200–3700
Mill dust ~250–2500 ~2000–21 000 ~10–250 ~250–6200
Stack particulates ~500–5000 ~4000-41 000 ~10–500 ~250–12 500
Synthetic rutile production

Product Synthetic rutile <50–350 <400–2900 <10–20 <250–500
Waste Iron oxide solids <50 £ 100 <400–2800 <10 <250
Inert solids ~45 ~400 ~5 ~100
84
TABLE XXVIII. (cont.)
Th U
Material
(ppm) (Bq/kg) (ppm) (Bq/kg)
Synthetic rutile production
Waste Neutralized acid ~90–540 ~700–4400 ~10–60 ~250–1500
effluent solids
Non-magnetic fines 50–600 400–5000 10–100 250–2500
Kiln scrubber solids ~25–270 ~200–2200 ~3–30 <100–750
Kiln discharge ~135 ~1100 ~15 ~400
oversize
TiO2 pigment production

Product TiO2 pigment Nil
Waste Residue slurry 300 2500 30 750
(wet weight)
Filter cake 230–350 1900–2900 30–40 750–1000
(dry weight)
World mean Soils and rocks 10 ~80 3 ~80
to be used for the rehabilitation of old, legacy mine sites and/or at closed
processing sites. Disposal of solid wastes from the treatment of baddeleyite in
Europe is considered to have the potential to give the highest doses.
Pressures for land use along coastal regions and for water use are
common. These pressures are also major drivers of the waste disposal and land
rehabilitation techniques selected. Potential for exposure is reduced by burying
and/or covering, followed by revegetation to reduce the chance of erosion.
Coverage and revegetation (to stabilize against erosion) are required by
local regulatory requirements designed to limit radon emanation and/or ingress
of surface water and the formation of acid mine drainage containing pollutants
not normally containing radionuclides, depending on the mineralogy of the
residues.
85
TABLE XXIX. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDE
CONCENTRATIONS (Bq/kg) OF MATERIALS IN TIN MINE RELATED
PROCESSES
Raw materials Product Residues

Process
226Ra 228Ra 226Ra 228Ra 226Ra 228Ra
Tin mining Mining soil Tin ore concentrates Amang

— — 50 700 100 100
Amang Amang Tin ore concentrates Monazite

re-treatment 1 1 50 700 0.2% U 5% Th
Zircon
13 000 2200
Xenotime
71 000 14 000
Struverite
29 000 7700
Ilmenite
700 500
Tin smelting Tin ore concentrates Tin metal Tin slag

50 700 30 20 2000 3200
PbCl2
60 40
TiO2 pigment Ilmenite TiO2 pigment Gypsum

production 700 500 <10 100 60
Ilmenite (Australia) Scale
80 360 75 000 61 000
Synthetic rutile Ilmenite Synthetic rutile Iron oxide

production 700 500 300 200 700 900
Rare earth Monazite Thorium hydroxide

production 0.2% U 5% Th 0.45% U 15% Th
Lead cake
26 000 —
Tri-calcium phosphate
100 600
Yttrium oxide Xenotime Yttrium oxide Thorium hydroxide
production 71 000 14 000 Not 190 000 50 000
available
86
7. INDUSTRIAL MINERALS
7.1. PHOSPHATE MINING AND FERTILIZER PRODUCTION
7.1.1. Introduction
NORM containing residues are generated by the mining and processing

of phosphate rock (phosphorite) that is processed to phosphoric acid or
elemental phosphorus. These two intermediates are then further processed into
phosphate fertilizers, detergents, animal feeds, food additives, pesticides and
other phosphorous chemicals [174].
Phosphate fertilizers are primarily derived from phosphate rock mined as
naturally occurring ores. The principal constituent of phosphate rock (or
phosphorite) is the mineral apatite (francolite or carbonate–fluorapatite). The
typical phosphate (P2O5) concentration of the rock is of the order of 15–30%,
with clay, sand, carbonate and other impurities present in varying quantities.
Phosphate in mineable quantities is concentrated by sedimentary,
igneous, weathering and biological processes (e.g. guano). Uranium may be
incorporated in sedimentary phosphorite ores through ionic substitution into
the carbonate–fluorapatitic crystals or by adsorption. Igneous phosphorite
contains less uranium, but more thorium. High phosphate contents usually
correspond to high uranium contents (50–300 ppm).
Approximately 30 countries produce phosphate rock for use in domestic
markets or for exports. The principal countries supplying phosphate rock are
North African countries, the USA, China and the Former Soviet Union (FSU).
Sedimentary rocks are mostly found in North and West Africa, the USA, China
and Australia (amounting to approximately 90% of world production); igneous
rocks are found in the Kola Peninsula, FSU, South Africa, China, Finland and
South America (notably Brazil). Almost all phosphate rock is mined in open pit
mines. Figure 23 shows P2O5 production and consumption figures for different
regions. Table XXX presents worldwide reserves and annual production of
phosphate rock. Radionuclide concentrations in ores are given in Table XXXI.
7.1.2. Basic processes in the phosphate industry
7.1.2.1. Beneficiation
Generally, the starting material for the production of phosphoric acid (see
below) is beneficiated phosphate ore, referred to as marketable phosphate
rock. During beneficiation, phosphate particles are separated from the rest of
87
Production / consumption of phosphate fertilizers
in 1997/98
12 million tonnes P206 Production Consumption
10
0
W Eur C Eur/ N Am L Am N East S Asia E Asia China
FSU
FIG. 23. World annual phosphate (P2O5) production and consumption [175].
the ore. Beneficiation can be very simple, just screening or sieving the material
and the overburden can be piled up or returned to the mine, or very elaborate,
including washing, flotation steps, producing phosphatic clay tailings (clay slime
from washer stages of beneficiation) and sand tailings (from flotation stages of
beneficiation). Phosphatic clay tailings are stored in large settling areas. Sand
tailings are either returned to the mine and used as a backfill in mined-out
areas, used for construction of clay tailings retention dams or mixed with clay
tailings to increase the solids content of the clay tailings and reduce settling
times. In general, beneficiation does not reduce the radionuclide concentration
in the ore. Figure 24 provides a flow diagram with an example of the radionu-
clide balances during beneficiation [181].
7.1.3. Processing of phosphate ore: Acid leaching
Processing of phosphate ore in order to produce intermediate products

can be done by acid leaching of the ore resulting in phosphoric acid or by the
production of elemental phosphorus by furnacing.
The commercial production of phosphoric acid and of phosphatic
application products proceeds from natural phosphatic ore deposits (above
all, apatite, 3Ca3(PO4)2·CaF2, and phosphorite, 3Ca3(PO4)2·Ca(OH,F,Cl)2),
88
TABLE XXX. WORLDWIDE RESOURCE BASE AND ANNUAL
PRODUCTION OF PHOSPHATE ROCK
(data from IFA 2000)
Annual production Geological resource estimates

Country
(103 t P2O5) (106 t P2O5)
Finland 277 42
Total Europe 277 69
FSU (70% from Kola) 4 405 3 197
Canada 125 64
USA 11 419 8 026
Total North America 11 544 8 090
Brazil 1 687 235

Columbia 12 156
Mexico 301 195
Peru 2 450
Venezuela 105 —
Total South America 2 107 1 036
Algeria 262 120

Morocco 6 902 15 750
Senegal 462 57
South Africa 1 051 1 080
Togo 493 36
Tunisia 2 491 480
Zimbabwe 42 —
Total Africa 11 703 17 649
Egypt 317 660

Iraq 90 891
Israel 1 305 260
Jordan 1 811 441
Saudi Arabia 0 1 576
Syrian Arab Republic 656 —
Turkey 0 42
Total Middle East 4 179 4 090
China 5 470 2 850

India 336 3 378
Korea, Rep. of 46 —
Sri Lanka 10 —
Vietnam 243 —
Total Asia 6 447 —
89
TABLE XXX. (cont.)
Annual production Geological resource estimates

Country
(103 t P2O5) (106 t P2O5)
Australia 225 615

Christmas Islands 197 —
Nauru Islands 194 —
New Zealand 0 22
Total Oceania 616 715
Total World 41 278 26 095
TABLE XXXI. CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR RADIONUCLIDES

FOR DIFFERENT PHOSPHATE ROCKS
Uranium Thorium 226Ra 228Ra

Country
(Bq/kg) (ppm) (Bq/kg) (ppm) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg)
FSU 44–90 — 78–92 — 30–70 —

USA [176, 177] 259–3700 62–156 3.7–22.2 — 1540 —
Florida [178] 1500–1900 — 16–59 — 1800 —
South and central 847–1980 — — — 881–1980 —
Florida [173]
North Florida [173] 241–981 — — — 229–884 —
Idaho [178] 1850 — 30 — 300 —
Wyoming [178] 2300 — 10 — 1200 —
Brazil 114–880 27–71 204–753 55–185 330–700 350–1550

Chile [178] 40 — 30 — 40 —
Algeria [178] 1295 — 56 — 1150 —

Morocco [178] 1500–1700 — 10–200 — 1500–1700 —
Senegal [178] 1332 — 67 — 1370 —
South Africa [178] 163–180 — 483–564 — — —
South Africa [179] 100–200 — — — — 300–500
Tanzania [178] 5000 — — — 5000 —
Togo [178] 1360 — 110 — 1200 —
Tunisia [178] 590 — 92 — 520 —
Egypt [178] 1520 — 26 — 1370 —

Israel [178] 1500–1700 — — — — —
Jordan [178] 1300–1850 — — — — —
Australia [180] 15–900 — 5–47 — 28–900 —
90
MINING SITE Overburden
Matrix to
Weightrrfraction:100% overburden
226
Ra:1406rBq·g–1 piles
Beneficiation plant Clays

waste to clay
WASHER Weightrrfraction:30%
material 226 settling
Ra:962rrBq·g–1
Flotation Feed
waste SandrTailings
to sand
FLOTATION Weightrrfraction:40%
material 226 disposal
Pebble Ra:185rBq·g–1
Weightrfraction:10%
226
Ra:2109rBq·g–1
Rockrconcentrate
Weightrrfraction:20%
226
Ra:1369rBq·g–1
ROCK STORAGE
AND LOADING
To dryer,
chemical plant,
or customer
FIG. 24. Simplified flow diagram of mass and radioactivity balances for phosphate min-
ing and beneficiation (after Ref. [181]).
by means of a treatment with strong acids (sulphuric acids, hydrochloric acid

and nitric acid). The conversion of apatite takes place according to the
following general equation (X = acid):
3Ca3(PO4)2·CaF2 + 20 HX ¤ 10 CaX2 + 6 H3PO4 + 2HF
The phosphoric acid (H3PO4) arising from the treatment with acid (HX) is
separated and further processed.
7.1.3.1. Material and radionuclide flows following sulphuric acid acidulation
Most acidulation (95%) is done with sulphuric acid, which leads to the
formation of gypsum (CaSO4·xH2O), which is not very soluble in the resulting
reaction mixture. Solid gypsum crystals precipitate and can be easily separated
91
from the raw phosphoric acid by filtration following a washing step. A neutral-
ization step may be included. Unless the phosphoric acid is used for fertilizer
production, it is further purified to the extent needed for its further use.
Purification of the phosphoric acid is achieved by solvent extraction. In terms
of rounded figures, the production of 1 t of phosphate (P2O5) results in the
generation of 4–5 t of phosphogypsum [6, 18, 182–185]. A number of variations
on this scheme (Fig. 25) are in use, mainly to reach higher yields and cleaner
and more concentrated phosphoric acid.
In general, about 80% of the 226Ra, 30% of the 232Th and 14% of the 238U
is left in the phosphogypsum. Uranium and thorium become enriched in the
fertilizer to about 150% of their original value (70% of the total U and Th
budget) [6, 182, 183, 186]. However, the amounts of radioactivity that are
fractionated to gypsum vary significantly.
7.1.3.2. Residues from the sulphuric acid process
Phosphogypsum (calcium sulphate) is the principal waste product

generated by wet process phosphoric acid production. The phosphogypsum
arises as slurry and is typically either deposited in piles or discharged into rivers
or the sea [187, 188]. These disposal areas, which are referred to as phospho-
gypsum stacks, are generally constructed directly on virgin or mined-out land,
with little or no prior preparation of the land surface [191]. Each phosphoric
Sulphuric acid
Rock Gypsum
Neutralisation
Matrix Acid treatment Filter (optional)
Raw Acid
238
U 100%
232
Th 100% Gypsum pile
226
Concentration and
Ra 100%
228 Purification Steps
Ra 100%
238 238
U 70% U 30%
232 232
Th 86% Th 14%
Phosphoric acid 226
Ra 20% 226
Ra 80%
228 228
Ra 20% Ra 80%
Fertiliser Other
production applications
FIG. 25. Flow diagram of the sulphuric acid phosphorus extraction process.
92
TABLE XXXII. EXAMPLES OF RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN PHOSPHOGYPSUM (Bq/kg)
Country (source) 226Ra 238U 210Pb 210Po 232Th
USA [183]
South and central Florida 507–1358 41–366 577–1853 437–1765 11
North Florida 270–599 22–451 348–551 355–566
Europe [191, 192, 178] 15–1700 500 1300 900 10
South Africa [193]
Local rock 45–48 64–73 76–132 205–284
Togo rock 17 61
Australia [180] 280–350 10–24 320–440 150–360 4–7
acid production facility may have one or more phosphogypsum stacks. Stacks
may be covered, with water covering up to 60% of the top section of the stack
[190]. Radium activity concentrations in the gypsum range from background to
1700 Bq/kg (Table XXXII).
Additional waste streams in the phosphoric acid process arise from scale
deposited in small quantities in process piping and in filtration receiving tanks,
and from filter cloths used to filter the solid gypsum from the acid liquid, which
have to be removed regularly because of wear. Worn out pipes and other parts
containing scales are also to be removed from the plant. Even though these
wastes do not add much compared with the volume of phosphogypsum
produced, they involve concentrations up to 1000 times higher (Table XXXIII).
TABLE XXXIII. EXAMPLES OF RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS

IN SCALES (Bq/kg)
South Africa [195] 918–

Local rock 70–4470 66–3510 11 000
Togo rock 129 000– 0.62 470–2730
139 000
USA [191] 333 000
Europe [182] 370 000–
3700 000
Australia [180] 3–3900 30–1300 5–112
Brazil [194, 195] 52–889 52–132 45–186 24–189
93
Wastes of this kind are presently disposed of on gypsum piles along with
the gypsum, or in normal landfills in cases where the gypsum is discharged into
the sea or rivers [191]. Table XXXIV shows that for a given facility most of the
226Ra originates in the phosphogypsum (98.9% of the total 226Ra inventory).
Filter cloths and filter parts contribute only 0.083 and 0.0006%, respectively, to
the total 226Ra. Hence, the disposal of these odd wastes does not contribute
significantly to the resulting radiation exposure via releases of radioactive
materials to surface or groundwaters and/or via atmospheric releases of radon,
as long as they are not removed from the pile. In the long term, radiological
problems may arise due an unauthorized removal of wastes.
Some countries have elaborate systems to manage these wastes. In the
Netherlands, for instance, scales are packed into containers for long term
storage at the COVRA facility [35].
7.1.3.3. Material and radionuclide flows in and residues from the hydrochloric
acid process
The hydrochloric acid process was developed by the Israel Mining

Institute (IMI) from the 1950s onwards [196, 197]. It is generally not in use in
the EU, nor in the USA. In this process the ore is treated with hydrochloric
acid, bringing both phosphoric acid and calcium chloride into solution. The
CaF2 solids are disposed of together with the CaCl2 waste stream as waste. The
material flowsheet for the hydrochloric acid leaching process is comparable to
the flowsheet presented in Fig. 24 except for the types of wastes produced and
the partitioning of the radionuclides. All the 226Ra in the raw phosphate is
released with the CaCl/F2 effluent and most of it will leave the site.
At Tessenderlo Chemie in Belgium, the hydrochloric acid process is used
for the production of dicalciumphosphate, which is predominantly used as an
TABLE XXXIV. DISTRIBUTION OF 26Ra IN MATERIALS DEPOSITED

IN PHOSPHOGYPSUM PILES AT IMC FERTILIZER, INC., MULBERRY,
FLORIDA [191]
226Raflux 226Ra concentration

Material Annual quantity
(GBq/a) (Bq/g)
Phosphogypsum 8 250 000 t 7922 0.96

Miscellaneous scale 2500 t 83.2 33.3
Filter cloths 1170 cloths 6.7 —
Pipe/equipment 20 t 0.67 33.3
Filter parts 3 pans 0.044 —
94
additive in animal fodder [198]. During the phosphorus extraction, CaCl2 and
CaF2 salts are produced as by-products, containing most of the radionuclides.
In the first phase of the phosphorus extraction process, the formation of
monocalciumphosphate, CaF2 is formed, which is then separated, filtered and
disposed of as waste. About 0.5 t CaF2 is formed per tonne of treated P2O5. In
the second phase of the process the monocalciumphosphate is precipitated as
dicalciumphosphate and filtered off.
The CaCl2 solution (the filtrate) is always discharged in the surface water
because dried calcium chloride cannot be disposed of due to its high efficiency
in attracting water from air. Contact with even the smallest amount of
rainwater would have the effect of washing away the pile very quickly. The most
commonly applied treatment step prior to discharge of the calcium chloride
solution is its neutralization by addition of calcium carbonate. In that step most
of the toxic metals in the ore form insoluble hydroxide/carbonate sludges that
can be removed by allowing the solution to settle. This waste stream has to be
disposed of as toxic solid waste with a high solubility under acidic conditions.
The slurry containing heavy metals and 2000–4000 Bq/kg of 226Ra is disposed
of. Also the 238U released from the ore will be precipitated by the addition of
lime and buildup of CaF2 on the dump site, resulting in uranium levels ranging
from 3600 to 6000 Bq/kg in fluorophosphate precipitates [182]. The wastewater
contains after this neutralization step predominantly CaCl2, which remains in
solution and is disposed of in the surface water. The CaCl2 solution still
contains ª20 Bq/L of 226Ra. Another possible step prior to discharge is the
specific removal of radium. The addition of barium sulphate or barium chloride
to the calcium chloride solution allows for the separation of a co-precipitate
(Ra,Ba)SO4. This can be removed by filtering, and the separate crystals can be
disposed of. Owing to the fact that the radium mass in solution is very low (less
than 1 ppb) the process is very effective but leaves a relatively low volume
waste with a very high radon production requiring safe long term disposal
[182].
Some additional wastes are to be expected from the extraction liquids
used in the extraction process, the elevated metal corrosion due to the use of
hydrochloric acid and contaminated piping and metal service parts. Scales are
to be expected in relatively low amounts compared with the sulphuric acid
process. For the other waste streams from this process no detailed description
of the volumes and masses involved is available, nor information on the distri-
bution of radioactivity among the different streams.
The CaF2 is disposed of in stacks which are generally constructed directly
on virgin or mined-out land with little or no prior preparation of the land
surface.
95
7.1.3.4. Material and radionuclide flows in and residues from the nitric acid
process
The nitric acid process was developed by BASF (Ludwigshafen,

Germany) and has only very recently come into operation. The ore is treated
with nitric acid and minor soluble salts are washed out. Further treatment with
ammonia for neutralization and carbon dioxide to precipitate calcium
carbonate yields ammonium phosphate and ammonium nitrate, which are
directly used for fertilizer production. The solid carbonate formed can be used
to again produce the carbon dioxide used in the process, leaving calcium oxide
as residue. This can principally be used in cement production.
The main waste stream in the nitric acid process is the calcium oxide
leaving the process. No detailed analysis of the radioactivity is available so far,
as the process has only come into use very recently. Uranium is also expected
in the remaining calcium oxide, whereas other contaminants can be expected to
precipitate during the neutralization step with ammonia (as insoluble
hydroxides). If there is no special removal of radium, all the radium entering
the process is to be expected in the calcium oxide residue leaving the process.
Calcium oxide is not deposited due to its solubility in water (after it has
reacted with water) and due to the extremely high pH value (11–12) of the
resulting leachate solution, nor can it be discharged into rivers or seas. It has to
be reused, either for mine backfilling purposes or for the production of cement.
If the carbon dioxide used in the process is not made from calcium carbonate
but comes from other sources, the remaining calcium carbonate can be easily
disposed of. Calcium carbonate is even more stable and less leached under
normal environmental conditions than gypsum.
7.1.4. Elemental phosphorus production with the thermal process
7.1.4.1. Material flows during the thermal process
Phosphate rock can be melted in a furnace (1400°C) with sand, iron oxide
and coal for the production of elemental phosphorus. Phosphorus and carbon
monoxide, driven off as gases, are vented out of the furnace via a stack. Furnace
off-gases pass through dust collectors and then through water spray
condensers, where the phosphorus is condensed and trapped in water. The
residual solids in the furnace contain ferrophosphorus and calcium silicate
(CaSiO3), also known as slag. Slag is the principal waste by-product of
elemental phosphorus, and ferrophosphorus is considered to be a by-product.
The latter is used in specialty markets, such as speciality steels, cast alloys and
paint pigments [199]. The slag holds nearly all the uranium, thorium and radium
96
and some of the lead isotopes, while part of the lead and polonium isotopes
leave the oven in the gas stream due to the elevated temperatures. The electric
dust filter separates part of the radionuclide content from the gas stream, while
polonium leaves the process mainly with the off-gas. A flow scheme of the
furnace process is given in Fig. 26.
7.1.4.2. Radionuclide flows and contents in residues from the thermal process
The quantity of the slag amounts to 85% of the raw phosphate ore and
contains the major fraction (93%) of 238U and 226Ra [6, 182, 183, 186]. The slags
find use as substitutes for valuable raw materials, for instance as road building
aggregate, ballast in concrete and in wallboards.
The quantity of dust produced with thermal processing is less than 1% of
the raw phosphate ore and contains levels of 210Pb and 210Po of the order of
1000 Bq/kg [200]. Lead-210 and 210Po can be immobilized with cement.
According to Baetslé [182], the 226Ra concentration in the slag is
1300–1500 Bq/kg and the 238U concentration is 1100 Bq/kg. Higher concentra-
tions were found in slag at a US plant. A flow diagram on the radioactivity
balances in that plant is shown in Fig. 27. Table XXXV presents some data on
radionuclide concentrations in different residues from the furnace process.
7.1.4.3. Residue management
The general management practice for slag at an elemental phosphorus

production plant is storage or disposal in waste piles. The separated stack dust
210 Off gas

Po
CO2
Ore Dust Water spray CO Gas
Sand Furnace separation burner
filter
FeCO3
Coal slag dust
Furnace slag Dust for Elemental

238
U for disposal backfeed or phosphorous
232Th or re-use disposal used as
226 intermediate in
Ra
228
Ra chemical industry
238
U 210
Pb
(232Th) 210Po
226
Ra
228
Ra
FIG. 26. Flow diagram of thermal production of elemental phosphorus.
97
Coke Phosphate Rock
226
Ra: 37 Bq·g–1 226
Ra: 1369 Bq·g–1
238
U: 74 Bq·g–1 238
U: 1184 Bq·g–1 Silica
ELECTRIC Silica
FURNACE
Slag Ferrophosphorous
226
Ra: 2257 Bq·g–1 226
Ra: 74 Bq·g–1
238
U: 2257 Bq·g–1 238
U: 1517 Bq·g–1
FIG. 27. Flow diagram and radioactivity balances for elemental phosphorous production
in a US plant [186].
may be backfed into the oven (re-feed of the contaminants to the slag) or has
to be disposed of with the slag. The 210Po and 210Pb in the dust can be
immobilized with cement.
7.1.5. Environmental impact of residues
The environmental impact from (phosphate) fertilizer production has

recently been summarized in a UNEP/UNIDO report [207]. The release of
TABLE XXXV. RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION IN VARIOUS

RESIDUES FROM THE FURNACE PROCESS (Bq/kg)
Furnace slag:
USA [201–206] 407–1517 444–2072 56 31 9–41
Europe [191, 192, 200] 1000 1000–1500 — — —
Ferrophosphorus:
USA [201–206] 7–44 359–407 27–144 37 3
Calcined dust:
Europe [200] — — 1000 — —
98
radium ions into leachate and surface run-off from phosphogypsum piles is
mainly determined by the solubility of the gypsum, which is generally very low.
The dose resulting from ingestion of contaminated drinking water or food
products after contamination of surface or groundwater is generally of no
concern even for a member of a critical group living close to the pile. Exposure
due to dust inhalation and radon is generally low due to the predominantly
liquid stage of the gypsum stack. Furthermore, gypsum hardens out when dry.
Intrusion may result in high exposure, predominantly due to radon, and
external radiation (gamma radiation levels up to 0.3 mSv/h at the stack [178,
181]).
The river dumping of gypsum as was formerly carried out in Huelva,
Spain [188], may result in the contamination of the river borders and increased
exposure to the people living close by, mainly due to external exposure and
exposure to radon.
The problems linked with the disposal of CaF2 sludge are comparable
with the potential exposure problems linked with the gypsum deposits, except
that the former also contains uranium and may contain higher levels of radium
if BaSO4 is used for radium recovery from CaCl2 liquid waste. Doses to a
critical group living close to a CaF2 dump reached a maximum of 0.5 mSv/a and
were mainly due to radon [6]. The surface water disposal of the CaCl2, if no
BaSO4 radium recovery step is included, may result in an important contami-
nation of river sediments and borders or alluvial areas.
The furnace slag is a glassy material containing the radioactivity in a
vitrified matrix, resulting in limited leaching of radionuclides. In addition, the
slag has a high carbonate content, which also reduces radionuclide solubility
[208]. However, USEPA’s Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral
Processing [209] documents groundwater contamination at several phosphate
slag waste management sites. Therefore, despite its properties, slag may still be
susceptible to significant leaching, depending on weathering conditions.
Following land pressure, former phosphate mines and historic phospho-
gypsum dumps and CaF2 heaps may be reallocated for industrial or domestic
use [200].
7.1.6. Concentrations of radionuclides in fertilizers
The most traditional phosphate fertilizer, the production of which is

gradually being phased out, consists of adding H2SO4 or H3PO4 to phosphate
rock until the formation of Ca(H2PO4)2. This product is then used as such as
fertilizer. This type of fertilizer contains variable amounts of U–Ra–Th
depending on the acid used for acidulating the natural phosphate ore. For the
production of normal superphosphate, high grade phosphate ore (ª33% P2O5)
99
is required for the production of a product containing 20% available P2O5 after
acidulation of the rock with sulphuric acid. In triple superphosphate (TSP),
phosphoric acid is used as an acidulating agent. The uranium content in the TSP
compared with that in the initial phosphate rock depends on the uranium
concentration in the acid used to produce the TSP. Dicalcium phosphate and
diammonium phosphate are produced from wet phosphoric acid by neutral-
ization with lime and ammoniac.
The radioactivity content of fertilizers is highly variable and depends on
the radionuclide content of the marketable phosphate ore and on the method
of production. Table XXXVI shows some values reported by Baetslé [182],
extracted from a number of references. Moreover, several liquid extraction
processes have been developed to recover uranium from H3PO4, resulting in
uranium free fertilizer [182].
Fertilizers are generally depleted in 226Ra content and display a uranium
concentration pattern which is the result of either the dilution or the concen-
tration effects of the fertilizer production process on the initial phosphate
concentration in the ore. Being a natural product at the onset, fertilizers are not
considered radioactive materials.
Although most of the uranium and thorium remain in the fertilizer,
fertilizer application does not contribute to the general dose (max. 2 mSv/a for
an individual [182]). Commercial calcium phosphates from furnace grade
phosphoric acid do not contain any of the radionuclides present in natural
phosphate.
Work carried out in Finland has shown that the annual contribution of
238U contained in NPK fertilizers was about 0.25% of the total uranium
TABLE XXXVI. RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS (Bq/kg) IN PHOSPHATE

PRODUCTS [178, 182]
Product 238U 226Ra 232Th
Phosphoric acid 1200–1500 300 —

Normal superphosphate 520–1100 110*–960 15–44
Triple superphosphate 800–2160 230*–800 44–48
Mono-ammonium phosphate 2000 20 63
Diammonium phosphate 2300 210 <15
Dicalcium phosphate — 740 <37
PK fertilizers 410 370 <15
NP fertilizers 920 310 <30
NPK fertilizers 440–470 210–270 <15
* Low value for FSU countries.
100
naturally occurring in the upper 10 cm of the soil. Similar results have been
reported in Belgium, where it was found that 226Ra contamination in phosphate
fertilizers added to the soil represents only 0.25% for 14 kg/ha of phosphorus
and 0.96% for 54 kg/ha of phosphorus of the total 226Ra in the upper 20 cm
layer of the soil. The long term effects of phosphate fertilization on radioac-
tivity have been studied in the USA. TSP produced from Florida phosphate
rock and applied at the rate of 30 kg/ha of phosphorus during more than 50
years did not change the concentrations of U, Th and Ra in corn leaves and
grain, wheat grain and straw, or soybean leaves and beans, in comparison with
non-fertilized plots [210].
7.1.7. Utilization of by-products and residues
7.1.7.1. Utilization of phosphogypsum
Since there are large quantities of phosphogypsum, the industry

encourages its use in order to minimize the disposal problem. Phosphogypsum
is used as a fertilizer, soil conditioner and for backfill for road construction, and
as a construction material, for example for the production of plasterboard and
as a cement aggregate and as road construction material.
In the USA, the primary use of phosphogypsum is in agricultural applica-
tions (1–2% of phosphogypsum generation), while other uses of phospho-
gypsum in construction and building materials are now banned [209] due to the
resulting radon emanation. Other applications being considered include
sulphur recovery from gypsum, introduction of gypsum into municipal landfills
to increase biological decomposition, construction of artificial reefs, and
conversion of phosphogypsum to calcium carbonate and ammonium sulphate
[185].
Radon exhalation (reuse as building material) and the direct radiation
(reuse for road construction) may be radiologically relevant. Phosphogypsum
is also used in road construction. However, radiation survey measurements
made on finished road sections have shown that exposure rates were not
discernible from background levels [209, 211].
Some additional information on the use of phosphogypsum in building
materials is given in Section 7.2.
7.1.7.2. Slag utilization
Phosphate slag is used as an aggregate in asphalt manufacture and as an

aggregate for Portland cement concrete in making construction blocks and
driveways. Slag has been incorporated in roofing shingles, septic tank fields and
101
in the manufacture of rock wool insulation. Phosphate slag is also used as
railroad ballast and as stabilization material for stockyards [209, 211]. Forty
percent of the phosphate slag produced in the USA is used in construction
materials.
CaSiO3 slags from the furnace process might be used for road
construction. Exposure increases above that of asphalt containing slag are of no
concern.
For some additional information on the use of slag in building materials
the reader is referred to Section 7.2.
7.1.8. Measures for improvement and remediation
In most EU countries the phosphate industry is not subject to the

radiation protection measures common for a number of other industries
handling materials with comparable hazards [191]:
— The operation of the facilities does not require radiation protection

licenses;
— Effluents from those facilities and the associated radiation doses are not
limited to common individual protection levels, and no monitoring
requirements are in place;
— Wastes and disposal sites do not require radiation protection licensing for
handling and disposal;
— Handling, repair and disposal of equipment used in the phosphate
industry does not require licenses, even though doses may be of
regulatory concern.
Three major environmental hazards from phosphogypsum waste have to

be considered:
(1) The potential for releasing radium and non-radioactive contaminants into
the environment;
(2) The radon exhalation into the atmosphere;
(3) The potential reuse of materials due to the loss of institutional control,
see, for example, Refs [212, 213].
There are several properties of these wastes that long term management
options have to cope with:
— The large volumes of the wastes;
102
— The long time persistence of the potential hazards due to the long half-
lives of the relevant radionuclides;
— The solubility of the wastes in water.
Options for remedial action on phosphogypsum piles can be guided by

the state of the art in remediation of wastes from uranium mining and milling
[214–217], because the various hazards and requirements are quite similar.
There are processes, involving the concentration of the phosphoric acid
and sedimentation, for the production of uranium in the form of yellowcake.
However, theses processes are not economically viable at the present price of
uranium [218].
7.2. CLAY, CERAMICS AND BUILDING MATERIALS
7.2.1. Introduction
Building materials can contain NORM. This can be of natural origin, that
is contained in the raw material (e.g. natural stone), or it can be due to the
addition of industrial products (e.g. zircon sand), intermediates or by-products
(e.g. coal ash, phosphogypsum and furnace slags). Recycling of industrial
residues and wastes has been encouraged for reasons of minimizing resource
use and is often favoured by industry since it adds value to a material for which
otherwise disposal costs might arise. Concern has arisen, however, over the
potential content of radiological and other contaminants in the recycled
materials. Owing to the wide variety of raw and recycled materials and their
possible NORM content, no general data are presented here. The NORM
content in natural resources may also vary considerably over short distances,
for example in granite quarries.
The abstraction of sediments, such as sands and gravel, which typically
have low radioactivity content, per se does not lead to elevated concentrations
in the product or waste stream. However, it could be envisaged that slimes and
fines from aggregate plants may be relatively enriched, as typically the NORM
resides in these fractions. Quarried rocks, such as granite or tuff, which may be
rich in natural radionuclides, can either directly expose the population to
NORM, or increase the exposure due to radon release when applied indoors. It
is unlikely that quarrying and stone cutting residues are of significant radio-
logical concern. However, very little information is available on this type of
scenario. Indeed, the majority of radiological investigations published in the
international literature on building materials is concerned with scenarios of
residential exposure, i.e. gamma, radon and eventually thoron exposure of the
103
inhabitants. Some studies and estimates are available on the occupational
exposures in some particular industrial working environments [171, 219] and
for construction work [175], which are, however, outside the scope of the
present report.
In the international literature, activity concentrations are not readily
available for the raw material used for the production of building material,
whereas they are abundant for building material in use, i.e. the final product. As
regards recycling of by-products (e.g. coal ash, phosphogypsum and furnace
slag) their production is discussed elsewhere in this report, but their possible
activity concentrations are also summarized in Table XXXVII and Fig. 28.
Table XXXVII gives an idea of natural radionuclide concentrations in
building materials as final products. The table was constructed using a recent
compilation of data from European Union member and non-member states
[253] as well as a range of European and international papers. This range can
give an idea of the ‘normal’ distribution of these values. It is worth noting that
values of activity concentration of the 238U chain in building materials are
published generally as 226Ra concentration, but sometimes also as 238U. It is
TABLE XXXVII. ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS (Bq/kg) OF NATURAL

RADIONUCLIDES IN BUILDING MATERIALS
(compiled from Refs [213, 219–252])
226Ra 232Th 40K
Concrete 1–250 1–190 5–1570

(5000 238U)a
Aerated and lightweight concrete 9–2200 <1–220 180–1600
Clay (red) bricks 1–200 1–200 60–2000
(590 238U)b
Sand–lime bricks and limestone 6–50 1–30 5–700
(90 238U)c (60)c
Natural building stones 1–500 1–310 1–4000
(870)d (540)e
Natural gypsum <1–70 <1–100 7–280
Cement 7–180 7–240 24–850
Tiles (glazed and unglazed) 30–200 20–200 160–1410
Phosphogypsum (plasterboard) 4–700 1–53 25–120
Blast furnace slag stone and cement 30–120 30–220 —
Notes: Some extreme values have been reported in the literature and are marked:
(a), [220]; (b), [236]; (c), [233]; (d), [239]; (e), [242].
104
1925
Shale 219
116
1410
Tiles 130
190
1241
Mudstone 141
130
1005
Concrete 127
200
938
Clay 127
161
686
Sand 76
75
608
Cement 138
154
540
Limestone 23
26
534
Clinker 41
121
396
Marl 27 K-40
37
331
Lime 19
Ra-228
47
295 Ra-226
Chalk 14
42
279
Gypsum 30
64
51
Marble 7
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
[Bq/kg]
FIG. 28. Radionuclide contents in various Polish building materials (courtesy of

J. Skowronek).
worth noting that some materials have higher 232Th than 238U activity concen-
tration [242]. When buildings or other structures such as roads are being
demolished, i.e. when the material is converted into rubble, the given activity
concentrations can be considered the concentrations in the residues.
Table XXXVII does not claim to provide a statistically representative picture
of the situation for two reasons: firstly, because very few national represen-
tative investigations have been made in different countries; secondly, because
analytical efforts are typically focused on samples and materials that are
expected to show high activity concentrations.
Aerated or lightweight concretes are produced mainly with the same raw
materials as ordinary concrete, but a small quantity of aluminium powder is
added to create cell structure in the final product. It is mainly used for non-
supporting walls in residential construction. Lime bricks (called also white
bricks) are used as building material in house construction only in some
European countries [253]. Tuff is consolidated volcanic ash composed largely of
fragments (less than 4 mm size) resulting directly from volcanic eruptions [241].
The production and use of alum shale concrete was banned in Sweden in 1975
[220] because its disposal and possible residues of past processing could
105
constitute a serious concern. Use of phosphogypsum in building materials was
also banned in some countries, for example Belgium and Romania [224].
More than 280 Mt of coal ash (fly ash and bottom ash combined) are
produced annually. About 40 Mt of these are used in the production of bricks
and cement [254]. Since most of the process residues further processed into
building materials do not meet the required technical specifications, they are
typically mixed with pristine raw materials. The net effect is a dilution of the
NORM content relative to the process residues.
In 1996 it has been estimated that up to 15% of phosphogypsum was
recycled and that within the European Union some 2 Mt were recycled
annually [6]. Its activity concentration depends on the origin and the chemical
treatment of the raw material: for example, phosphogypsum from phosphate
rocks generally contains considerably higher concentrations of 226Ra than
gypsum from carbonate rocks. In any case, not only the radium concentration
but also the radon exhalation from it can be higher than normal [253].
Zircon sand extraction and milling are discussed above, where an
estimate of their activity concentration is given. Zircon flour is used in the
ceramic and refractory materials industry, particularly for glazing tiles.
7.2.2. Processing
Very little information is available on the processing of building materials

with respect to the possible radiological significance of their residues or of the
wastes generated. However, this does not mean that the procedures need not
be examined for possible exposure scenarios. For instance, processing of clays
(where uranium and other nuclides can be present bound by sorption to clay
mineral surfaces) into a variety of ceramics, bricks and similar products can
lead to concentration of radionuclides in certain products or residues.
Moreover, technical processes, such as grain size separation, floatation and
other purification steps, can lead to the accumulation of radioactivity in either
wastes, in certain fractions of the feedstocks or in products. Finally, firing and
other types of heat treatment typically lead to the volatilization of for example
210Po [219], which then accumulates in dust extraction systems, precipitates on
chimney walls or is dispersed around the facilities. Otherwise, concentrations in

products and wastes do not differ significantly from those in feed materials.
7.2.3. Residues
Residues can arise as waste from processing (solid and liquid), including
substandard products, and the actual building materials in the form of rubble
106
or debris from demolished buildings or dug-up pavements and similar
structures.
Operators are frequently unaware of the presence of any radiation
hazards and, hence, manage residues without any special precautions. In
addition to the relevant necessary occupational or residential radiation
protection, which is treated in other IAEA reports, care has to be taken that the
NORM cannot be further dispersed in the environment. However, due to the
ceramic or glassy nature of the products and residues from many thermal
processes, radionuclides bound in them typically have very low release rates for
the aquatic exposure pathways. Upswept dust, radon exhalation and direct
exposure may be still of concern. On the other hand, materials that do not
originate from thermal processes, such as phosphogypsum, tend to have higher
release rates for aqueous exposure pathways.
Blast furnace slags are used mainly as aggregate in concrete (crushed) as
well as an additive in cement (finely ground). The activity concentration in
them depends on the ore type, the origin of the raw material and the
metallurgic processes. The use of (coal) fly ash and slags in concrete is a well
recognized source of gamma exposure that is due to the presence of activity
concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th and, to a lesser extent, 40K, while its effect via
radon exhalation is controversial, due to the low emanation coefficient from
the ash [255]. Phosphopgypsum and gypsum from flue gas desulphurization
used, for example, in the production of plasterboard may give rise to similar
concerns.
On the other hand, the use of zircon sand as an opacifier in glazes for tiles
does not seem to significantly increase the exposure of the general public to
gamma radiation [256, 257] or to exhaled radon, owing to the typically
relatively low 226Ra concentrations [257] and low emanation factors from the
glaze. However, measurements performed by some Chinese researchers in
rooms with and without glazed tiles [256] showed that the average area density
of total beta radionuclides in tile glaze was 12–13 times as much as that in
ordinary building material. Similar results were obtained in a very recent study
from China [258]. This causes an increase in external beta radiation dose
received by the public in buildings and, therefore, a possible exposure pathway
to the public from residues due to processing or possible waste material.
107
8. USE OF VARIOUS RADIO-ELEMENTS
8.1. URANIUM
8.1.1. Introduction
For obvious reasons the radiological implications of uranium mining and

milling are well established, and in most of the countries concerned some form
of regulatory control exists. Therefore, there is no need to discuss this in the
present context. However, the working practices in this industry and the
handling of the respective residues might be of interest so that attention is
drawn to this.
A self-evident source for NORM are the mining and milling activities for
the radionuclides uranium and thorium. Owing to the incomplete removal of
the target nuclides and due to the selectivity of the milling process for these
nuclides rather than their daughter products, milling residues may contain
considerable amounts of radioactivity. Below-grade ore and sometimes ‘barren’
rock may also contain significant amounts of radioactivity and heavy metals,
and may have an acid generation potential adding further to the hazard.
The production situation for uranium has been analysed in great detail in
the so-called Red Book, jointly produced by the OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency and the IAEA [218]. An assessment of the environmental activities
around uranium mining and milling on a worldwide basis is provided by two
joint OECD-NEA/IAEA publications [120, 259]. The situation is summarized
here in Section 8.
The major uses of uranium are fuel for nuclear reactors and in nuclear
weapons. There have been other, minor, uses of uranium mainly historical, for
example as colouring agents in glasses [260] and glazes for tiles. Owing to the
small scale of related operations they are not treated separately here, the major
concern being the mining and milling activities.
World uranium resources found in 49 countries of the world have been
classified by the IAEA [140] into fifteen major geological deposit categories.
Of the 582 entries in an IAEA database used to create a world uranium distri-
bution map, 159 (25.1%) were in Europe, 167 (29%) in North America, 111
(19.2%) in Asia, (of which 78 (12%) were in Central Asia (primarily
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan)), 34 in Australia (6%), 61 (10%) in Africa, 18
(3%) in South America, and 32 (5%) in the Russian Federation.
Estimated cumulative world production of uranium up to 1999, based on
information provided in Refs [140, 261], amounted to approximately
1 966 900 t. With these data, it is estimated that 33.1% had come from North
108
America, 28.2% from Europe, 13.5% from Asia (including the Central Asian
states), 17.1% from Africa, 4.8% from the Russian Federation, 3.1% from
Australia and 0.2% from South America.
8.1.2. Mining processes
The majority of all past and present world uranium mining has taken
place using conventional (underground and open pit) mining methods. The use
of in situ teaching (ISL), phosphate or metal ore by-product and mine water
recovery combined has averaged since 1994 less than 21% of all production,
whereas the once predominant underground mining method has been
decreasing relative to open pit mining over the same period [261].
In milling, the ore from the mine is crushed and is then subject to a
leaching process. The solvent is usually H2SO4, or NaOH for carbonate-rich
rocks. After the uranium minerals (typically pitchblende, UO2(s)) have been
dissolved, the pregnant solution is separated from the residual solids (tails).
Typically the solids are washed in several steps with fresh solvent until the
desired level of metal value recovery is attained. The dissolved uranium is
recovered from the pregnant solution by neutralization, followed by precipi-
tation, non-aqueous solvent extraction or ion exchange. The final marketable
product normally is yellowcake [262]. The stripped solution may be replenished
and recycled for use within the leaching circuit or as the liquid component in
the crushing/grinding operation. Ultimately, the residual solids are neutralized
or washed with water prior to being pumped to the tailings pond. This wash
serves to recover any remaining solvents and reduce the quantity of acid being
placed in the tailings impoundment and thus to stop further leaching reactions.
The wash water may be recycled.
ISL combines the mining and part of the milling process. The solvent is
injected underground and the pregnant solution is extracted in a specially
designed array of boreholes. The array is designed such that outward migration
of process solutions into adjacent aquifers is prevented. In some countries,
namely Germany and the Czech Republic, a combination of underground
mining and ISL was also applied.
8.1.3. Residues
Residues from uranium mining consist of overburden and barren rock

materials excavated from underground and open pit mines to provide access to
economic deposits of U3O8 ore. The spoil material, usually deposited in piles
adjacent to the mine, may also consist of gangue and ore that was considered
uneconomic (of little or no likely value), sub-economic (ore of lower grade
109
than what was economic to extract at time of mining, often called ‘protore’), as
well as drill cuttings from exploration or production drill holes. Many of these
materials contain radium, uranium and thorium, and their radioactive decay
products, and emit radon gas. The uranium bearing ore is processed at a mill
and the depleted ore residue is placed in a mill tailings impoundment. Heap
leaching as a milling process will result in a similar class of materials. These
materials generally still contain various radionuclides and often (toxic) heavy
metals.
ISL does not lead to significant amounts of radionuclide bearing spoils
and tailings, but there is a risk of incomplete control over the hydraulics of
systems that may lead to the spread of contaminated solutions into adjacent
aquifers. Some Member States have separate regulatory classifications for the
residues generated by ISL processes.
Given the diversity of depositional environments of uranium ores
described above, it is quite likely that the levels of radiation and radionuclide
distributions at national sites will be highly variable. Therefore, it is difficult to
state the radionuclide concentrations in residues.
On the international level there are a large number of both reclaimed and
unreclaimed uranium mining sites [259]. The possibility exists, and has been
documented, that members of the public will ignore advice and planning
regulations and locate houses on or immediately adjacent to such a mine or mill
tailings site. Mill tailings present a hazard in that the sand sized material
appears perfect for use as an aggregate for construction. Similarly, their ready
availability, without much need for crushing, etc., makes mining residues an
attractive building material. When used in road construction the radiological
impact may not be of concern, but this changes when the material is used for
building purposes. Examples exist from around the world where private homes
have been built from such material and then had to be demolished when this
was discovered. In cases where mining and milling sites have been redeveloped
for industrial or residential purposes, radon emissions from below may be of
concern. Section 11 discusses the various radiation exposure pathways that may
possibly be found at such settings. The relevant safety aspects are laid out in
detail in Safety Guide WS-G-1.2 [263].
The management of uranium mining and milling residues typically
involves isolation by capping in order to reduce radon exhalation and to
minimize acid generation by infiltration of atmospheric water. Relocation into
underground mines or mined-out pits is typically a good option for current
operations, but often difficult and expensive in retrospect.
110
8.2. RADIUM
Certain natural radionuclides, such as radium, have been in use for decades
outside the nuclear industry for their special properties. The use of sealed radium
sources, which found widespread use in clinical chemotherapy and materials
sciences, is of particular significance, though outside the scope of this report. The
IAEA has developed an extensive programme for making such sources safe
through conditioning and proper disposal, which is still ongoing [264].
People have also deliberately exposed themselves to radium in, for
example, spas over several decades (see Ref. [265] for a selection of links). A
selection of data and a discussion of exposure scenarios is given in Ref. [92].
However, not much information appears to be available on the downstream
fate of the radoactivity discharged from spas.
In the context of the present report only contamination of the
environment by the production and disposal of either production wastes or of
the final products after the end of their useful life is considered.
For several decades, until the late 1960s, radium was used as a luminizing
agent on watch and clock dials and arms, and on car, aircraft and shipboard
instruments. Of concern here are obsolete operations to extract radium from
ores and its further processing, factories and other establishments performing
the luminizing operations, and scrap yards handling large numbers of
instruments. The latter became a localized problem after both world wars at
defence establishments that decommissioned military hardware. Both during
and after World War II, there were many examples of informal in situ disposal
on defence sites of defective or surplus equipment, including luminized
components [266]. At various defence establishments in the UK, for instance,
dials were burnt in the open to recover the metal scrap by processes loosely
termed ‘bash, burn and bury’. The residual ashes, containing the radium, were
spread on fields, requiring remediation later [267]. However, it is believed that,
as a contaminant, buried radium from luminizing processes is largely immobile
[266].
About half of all radium extracted worldwide was handled at a factory in
Olen, Belgium. The resulting contamination and remedial activities following
the closure of the factory and its waste management facilities has already been
discussed in detail elsewhere, for example, Ref. [268].
8.3. THORIUM
The thorium content of monazite produced, around 1500 t/a, greatly

exceeds the demand for thorium. Large stocks of thorium bearing residues
111
exist. The largest reserves of thorium are in monazite in India, the USA,
Australia, Norway and the Russian Federation, and also, not yet exploited, in
Canada in the form of uranothorianite.
A sample of its current applications are [269]:
— Combined with magnesium alloys and in tungsten filaments for light

bulbs and electronic tubes.
— Adding thorium makes ceramic items, such as laboratory crucibles, more
heat resistant.
— Makes carbon arc light lamps burn brighter.
— Added to bulb filaments to help sunlamps mimic the light emitted from
the sun.
— Makes tungsten welding electrodes burn hotter.
— Forms strong but less brittle (magnesium) alloys.
— Added as thoria (thorium oxide (ThO2)) to help gas mantles burn hotter
and brighter.
— Added to make high refractive index glass, camera and binocular lenses
[270].
— Used as a catalyst for the oxidation of ammonia to nitric acid and other
industrial chemical reactions.
— Used as a breeder reactor fuel.
Possible future growth can be seen in the two areas of gas mantles and
nuclear energy. Biogas production in developing countries is growing slowly.
Extensive use for lighting as well as cooking could lead to significant new
demand for mantles and for thorium. On the other hand, yttrium can be
substituted for this use, leading to less radioactive waste to be managed.
Thorium has become an important alloy for aluminium in high-tech applica-
tions, such as structural parts in aircraft. The cutting, turning, milling and
drilling processes produce swarf that has to be either recycled or disposed of.
Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel in breeder reactors and in
closed fuel cycles. Although research had been conducted for over 30 years,
these systems have not yet reached full commercialization. This fuel cycle,
however, may provide the only practicable way of disposing of the large stocks
of 239Pu. In the longer term, therefore, thorium reactors may be built for this
purpose, even though they may be less attractive economically as electricity
producers.
112
9. VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
9.1. SULPHURIC ACID PRODUCTION BY BURNING PYRITES
9.1.1. Introduction
Radiological problems in sulphuric acid production originate from

NORM in the raw materials from which the SO2 is produced. This can be either
pyrites specially recovered for acid production or from off-gases generated
during the melting of sulphide minerals (e.g. sulphide copper concentrate).
Only pyrites as a raw material will be treated here. Other metal sulphides are
discussed in the sections on the respective metals.
Pyrites is present in many mineral deposits worldwide. Generally it
cannot be recovered economically on its own and is mostly extracted as a by-
product or for local use. Pyrites burning is globally used for the production of
sulphuric acid. Radiological problems only occur when the pyrites contains
enhanced concentrations of NORM. The problem is, for instance, considered to
be minor in Sweden [271] due to the selection of low activity raw materials. On
the other hand, when the extraction of uranium from the gold bearing ore
deposits of the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa started in the 1950s, the
presence of pyrites in the same ore bodies made this method an attractive
option for the production of sulphuric acid to leach the uranium. The discussion
below mainly relates to radiological problems associated with the latter
deposits. This material generally contains nuclide concentrations around
3000–8000 Bq/kg.
Because pyrites is not an internationally traded mineral, information on
global production is not available. In South Africa, pyrites burning sulphuric
acid production decreased with the uranium production with only two 250 t/a
plants and one 500 t/a plant still operational.
9.1.2. Processes
NORM containing pyrites would probably not be mined as a primary

product. If extracted as a by-product, the mining method will rather relate to
the primary product. Pyrites is extracted from milled ore through a flotation
process, which can be either alkaline or acidic. The latter process may, for
instance, follow an acidic uranium leaching process on the South African gold
ore. After being repulped, the pyrites is injected into fluidized bed roasters,
where the sulphur is burned off as SO2, also producing calcine (Fe2O3). The
SO2 gas is next cleaned from the calcine flue dust through dry cyclones, wet
113
scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators. Eventually the clean SO2 is converted
first to SO3 in a converter with V2O5 as a catalyst and subsequently to H2SO4
by the progressive concentration of sulphuric acid in absorption towers.
9.1.3. Residues
9.1.3.1. Form and concentrations
The residues from a pyrites extraction process will mainly be the tailings
of the primary extraction process. Residues from sulphuric acid production
mainly consist of calcine. Pyrites flotation and sulphuric acid production from
pyrites may also cause the formation of highly active scales on the walls of
vessels and pipes, and on ceramics, plastics and rubber linings of the flotation
and sulphuric acid plants. These scales are generated mainly due to the
decreasing solubility of radium sulphates with decreasing temperatures and the
presence of co-precipitation agents in the process water.
The masses of the pyrites input and the calcine output are normally about
the same and around 15–20% higher than the mass of the acid produced.
While alkaline pyrites flotation processes do not cause any enhancement
of radionuclides, the acidic process creates scales with enhanced levels of
radioactivity (especially 226Ra) on the walls of pipes, vessels and especially
flotation cells. While the pyrites from Witwatersrand ore has specific alpha
activity concentrations of around (24–64) × 103 Bq/kg, alpha activity concentra-
tions within the range (36–86) × 104 Bq/kg have been observed in scales
collected in flotation plants [272]. Much higher alpha activity concentrations,
generally within the range (1–100) × 106 Bq/kg, have been observed in scale on
the walls of pipes and vessels of, in particular, the gas cleaning sections of
sulphuric acid plants. Similar levels, but with some impregnation, were found on
rubber linings, polypropylene and ceramic saddles and spirals used to enhance
the gas cleaning process and on refractory linings used to isolate surfaces from
the effect of high temperatures. While 226Ra dominated in those samples
analysed for various nuclides, all the subsequent progeny analyses were around
40–80% of the 226Ra activity concentrations [272]. Calcine should have similar
concentrations to pyrites, but enhancement, up to alpha activity concentrations
of (5–50) × 104 Bq/kg, has been observed in calcine both in some plant sections
and in calcine sediments [272].
While pyrites and calcine consist of milled material, contaminated
materials can be in a variety of physical forms corresponding to the items
mentioned above.
114
9.1.3.2. Environmental impacts
High levels of occupational exposure were observed in South African

sulphuric acid plants, especially during maintenance operations [273]. This
requires careful planning and control of such operations. Some plants in South
Africa have also been modified to replace scrubber tower walls, containing
refractory linings, with stainless steel walls while changing to glass fibre stripper
towers. Ceramic inserts, to improve contact surface areas in scrubbers, have also
been replaced with polypropylene inserts. With these in place and with
improved handling and control measures, occupational exposures were
drastically reduced. Detached scales have also caused the contamination of
recycling and refurbishing sites.
Lower impacts have been observed where SO2 was recovered from
copper sulphide smelting furnaces.
9.1.3.3. Management of residues
The calcine may be recycled to extract gold or other minerals, which

normally become more accessible through the roasting process. The calcine is
subsequently mainly discarded with the tailings of the primary extraction
process, from which the pyrites was extracted as a by-product, or with the
tailings of the mineral extracted with the sulphuric acid produced. Where this
is not the case, calcine impoundments or piles are created, which require
maintenance similar to that of other tailings impoundments containing
elevated levels of NORM. The composition of the material will normally not
allow normal vegetation to grow easily on the impoundments. On the other
hand, the oxidized state will restrict acid drainage. Limited reuse as a colorant
in paving bricks and paints may be possible but needs further investigation
when elevated levels of NORM are present.
The scale, refractory material, plastic, rubber and concrete containing
high activity concentrations also need special management. In South Africa
high activity concentration scales on contaminated surfaces of objects from
sulphuric acid plants need aggressive decontamination to allow unrestricted
release. Otherwise such objects may be reused at other licensed facilities or are
stored. Volume contaminated residues below 106 Bq/kg can be diluted into
licensed tailings impoundments following steps to improve amenability if
required (e.g. shredding of rubber). Residues above 106 Bq/kg are presently
retained in interim storage areas (Section 6.6.3.5).
115
9.2. BURNING OF SHALES TO EXTRACT OIL
In about a hundred places in Sweden there are deposits of burnt alum

shale. Alum shale has been used for the extraction of alum, for burning
limestone in the field and, for a short period during World War II, as a raw
material for oil production. These deposits are in some places very large,
several hundred square metres and up to 20 m thick. The gamma radiation
above these deposits is about 0.5–1.2 mSv/h. The radon levels in the soil air in
these deposits can be very high, up to 2000 kBq/m3. In some places in Sweden
large numbers of residential buildings have been erected on such deposits
[274].
9.3. RIVER AND HARBOUR DREDGING
Rivers and estuaries are the recipients of discharges and effluents from
industry and geological materials eroded by natural processes. Owing to their
geochemical behaviour, many metals, including heavy metals and radionu-
clides, accumulate in river sediments, typically in the fine grained or organic-
rich fractions. In order to ensure unobstructed shipping, sediments are
periodically dredged from shipping lanes, harbour basins and canals. The
dredged materials are used for civil engineering or land reclamation purposes
(e.g. dykes), are landfilled or are disposed of at sea.
The amount of dredged material annually dumped in waters covered by
the London Convention (LC) [34] varies between 150 and 400 Mt. Dumping of
these materials in internal waters adds another 100–150 Mt annually. Annual
fluctuations occur due to the variation in maintenance dredging and new works
associated with shipping activities, or with exceptional projects such as the huge
dredging activities in recent years in connection with the extension of Hong
Kong airport. Probably two thirds of the material is connected with
maintenance operations to prevent silting of harbours, rivers and other
waterways. Approximately 10% of the dredged material is moderately to
heavily contaminated from a variety of sources including shipping, industrial
and municipal discharges, and natural erosion of soils and rocks. Dredged
material has always had a special position under the LC. About 70% of all
dumping permits notified to the Office for the LC in 1972 concerned dredged
material. Although the LC prohibits dumping of material exceeding exemption
levels, no numerical criteria are available and permits are based on individual
risk assessments and expert opinion [274].
Development of sites that have received such dredged material can lead
to residential or intrusion exposure scenarios. In addition, dredging bottom
116
sediments, which are typically ‘reduced’, and disposing of them may oxidize
ferrous oxides and sulphides, leading to acidification of the material and, hence,
release and enhanced migration of radionuclides.
9.4. WASTES FROM THE DECOMMISSIONING OF

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Building and other structural materials, for example steel, may have
become contaminated during their use with NORM containing materials,
residues (e.g. scales, 210Pb/210Po containing soot in exhaust stacks and
chimneys) and products or may contain a priori elevated levels of radioactivity.
The relevant scenarios leading to the presence of radioactivity have already
been discussed in the preceding sections. A common problem is the joint
occurrence of hazardous substances (e.g. asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and heavy metals) and NORM in decommissioning wastes.
The wastes arising from the decommissioning of industrial and housing
structures require separate attention as their contamination may pass
undetected. A recent report for the European Commission summarizes the
hazardous materials associated with decommissioning and demolition wastes
[278]. The implications for the decommissioning of mining and milling facilities
and the close-out of respective waste management facilities have been treated
extensively in an IAEA technical report [215] and a Safety Standard [276]. The
disposal of wastes from the decommissioning of the numerous offshore instal-
lations for oil and gas production around the world has already been
mentioned. The problem of radiologically contaminated wastes from the
decommissioning of fertilizer plants has also been highlighted by a recent
UNEP/UNIDO report [207].
Further information on decommissioning and the handling of decommis-
sioning wastes can be found in Refs [277–281].
10. REGULATORY ASPECTS
This section is intended to describe the current situation and state of the
debate concerning the regulation of NORM containing materials and to
highlight some of the problems encountered.
Differences in national and international NORM regulations and
standards appear to be the result of differences in risk management policy
rather than differences in underlying scientific information. Radiation
117
originating in NORM containing materials has effects on humans and the
environment that are no different from those of any other source of radiation.
There exists, however, the problem of distinguishing and accounting for
background radiation from the same radionuclides present in the NORM
material and in the surrounding environment.
Waste management methods and approved disposal sites appear to vary
widely for specific industries, waste forms (sludge, scales, liquids and dusts) and
Member States. Statutory and regulatory controls in Member States also vary
widely, with some countries having complete schemes of NORM radiation
protection and waste management, and other countries having no separate
regulatory arrangements whatsoever. One underlying problem is the different
national approaches to what constitutes NORM, and consequently which
industries, wastes and products are covered by relevant guides and regulations.
In other words, there is at present no international consensus on the scope of
regulations.
Details of the generic principles and criteria for exclusion, exemption and
clearance have been given in a Safety Standard [282].
There is general concern and uncertainty over potential impacts of
regulations on international trade and industry. While some believe that a
‘clearance’ of materials would open up the markets for these materials, others
fear that an explicit statement that a material contains radioactivity, if only
below a specified level, would brand it by implication as radioactive. It is also
feared that specification of one or the other numerical value could be used as
a political and economic instrument to influence market positions. On the other
hand, there is a variety of national and international regulations concerning
toxic and hazardous substances, such as heavy metals and certain organic
compounds, in commodities and other materials.
Notwithstanding the applicability of general radiation protection
principles, owing to the variety in occurrence and possible exposure scenarios
for members of the public, deriving allowable doses from radionuclide concen-
trations appears to be a difficult task. Related to this problem is the question of
multiple exposures of members of the public to different sources that in
themselves may not pose a concern.
Concerning workplaces, the situation is much clearer. The general
principles as laid out in Ref. [282] are applicable and often national regulations
do exist. In addition, international guidelines on radiation protection in certain
industries, such as oil and gas and uranium and thorium mining, are currently
being developed.
118
11. IMPACTS OF NORM CONTAINING RESIDUES
Abatement and remediation strategies and technologies are usually

developed with a view to eliminating certain or all exposure scenarios for the
site under consideration. Exposures to radiation originating from NORM may
occur at several points during domestic or industrial activities. Direct exposure
at the workplace and similar scenarios, however, are not the subject of this
report. The main target of remediation measures are liquid and airborne
releases that may end up in the environment. Table XXXVIII illustrates the
consideration given to the residues from uranium mining and milling. Uranium
mining and mill tailings tend to have a very advanced regulatory regime and
relatively strict regulatory requirements when compared with other NORM, on
both the national and the international level [276]. Owing to concerns
regarding potential exposures, it is quite common to have long term land use
restrictions applied to uranium mining and milling sites.
Relevant pathways of exposure to radiation originating from NORM in
process residues and wastes depend on the mode of disposal, the local
environment, the demographics of the population in the region and any institu-
tional measures that may be applied to a given site. Disposal practices may be
industry specific and may also depend on the state of the development in the
industry and the specific socioeconomic circumstances. The vast amounts of
NORM which are generated, however, tend to limit the choices for disposal
options. Landfilling or landspreading, surface impoundments and surface
mounding (waste piles) are the most common forms of waste management for
NORM. Sometimes the wastes are covered, but in many cases the NORM
containing wastes are disposed of without cover. The disposal method chosen
determines the potential for direct exposure to the NORM and also the
potential for surface water and groundwater contamination arising from it.
Table IXL provides a perspective on the relationship between different
disposal practices and releases. The table emphasizes the level of isolation
provided by different disposal methods. Once a radionuclide is released into
the environment, it can also migrate via multiple pathways, thus leading to
other types of exposure. The potential exposure pathways also depend on the
local environment and demographics. For example, the rural population in
Europe has different habits and living conditions from the rural population in
sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, the prevalence of manual labour, subsistence
farming and homes made of local soil may lead to exposure scenarios quite
different from those in industrialized countries. Such differences are important
considerations when developing abatement and remediation solutions.
For instance, increased exposures could be expected in tropical developing
countries because more time is spent near the home. It is interesting to note that
119
TABLE XXXVIII. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC ON OR ADJACENT TO A URANIUM MINE OR A URANIUM
MILL TAILINGS SITE
Exposure Environmental
Description Comments
pathway pathway/subpathway
External Direct exposure from Agricultural field Radioactive materials
radiation ground and surface adjacent to house, may serve as
water used for and/or home construction material,
bathing/recreation constructed with mine located under and
wastes; open pits collect adjacent to house.
water used by residents. Gamma and alpha
radiation
Inhalation Resuspended dust Dust entering house or Alpha exposure to lungs
breathed by inhabitants and skin
Indoor radon From walls of the base-
ment and the foundation
Outdoor radon Ambient levels entering
windows
Ingestion, Groundwater Wells may be
water contaminated by
uranium mine waste site
plumes
Surface water Bathing and cooking
(runoff or pit water)
Ingestion, Water Plants watered from pit
plants or wells
Soil Plants grown on waste soils
Ingestion, Water Animals drink water from
meat/milk wells or pit lake.
Plants Water From well or pit lake
(fodder)
Ingestion, Surface water
fish (contamination flowing
to pond, lake or river)
Ingestion, Direct contamination
soil
Note: Many of the these pathways would also be applicable to other types of mining.
120
accumulation of radon in tropical homes built on or near NORM containing
residues may be less of a concern, because the homes are often open and allow
free air circulation. Table XL provides some examples of considerations related
to exposure scenarios in different regions.
Misuse of NORM containing residues and waste materials, or in other
words failure of institutional control, may constitute one of the major causes of
human exposure. Owing to their accessibility and sometimes favourable prop-
erties, mining and milling residues are often used for building or fill materials.
Unless access restrictions are placed on a contaminated area, such human activ-
ities are likely to occur and thus warrant consideration when specifying appro-
priate exposure scenarios. Likewise, partially decommissioned facilities, such as
facilities that have been stripped of valuable materials (steel, copper wiring,
etc.) but have not been decontaminated, may lead to exposure in a variety of
ways: buildings may be re-occupied or contaminated materials may be reused.
Certain waste materials, such as fly ash, slag or phosphogypsum, are being
used for civil engineering purposes. While this use may not lead to appreciable
exposure, decommissioning or rebuilding such structures and the ensuing dust
generation or landfilling of secondary wastes may lead to exposure. The same
waste materials are used to make a variety of mainly lightweight construction
materials. Lightweight building blocks and plasterboard are typical examples
with a potential to result in external exposures.
The failure of institutional control over disposal sites resulting in a failure
of the containment may lead to a release of NORM into groundwaters or as
airborne dusts. Again, in settings where the nearby population obtains drinking
water and foodstuffs predominantly from local sources, this may lead to
exposure. Given the long half-lives associated with NORM, institutional
controls may need to be maintained for a long time [276].
12. SELECTED MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION

STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES
12.1. PRINCIPLES
Two main strategies to mitigate adverse effects on human health and the
environment from NORM containing residues can be envisaged:
(1) An ‘end of pipe’ strategy, whereby residues, wastes and effluents are
treated or whereby contaminated sites are remediated.
121
TABLE IXL. CORRELATION BETWEEN DISPOSAL PRACTICES, WASTE FORMS, RELEASE MECHANISMS
122
AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Release mechanism from waste/disposal facility into natural environmenta

Overland Waste
Leaching to runoff to exposed
Disposal practiceb Waste form Volatilization Suspension
on surface
Deep to to
Ground- Surface Surface (surface soil)
groundwater Soil air air
water water water
geosphere
Surface disposal (without cover)

Waste piles, open mines, Solid, stabilized ✓c d ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
farms, uncovered or unstabilized
landfills and disposal
on ground surface
(landspreading)
Impoundments, slurry Aqueous and ✓c d ✓
lagoons, wastewater aqueous slurries
ponds, mud pits and
evaporation ponds
Near surface disposal (with cover)e
Landfills and shallow Unstabilized or ✓c f
land burial stabilized solids

Above ground or Special containers c,g f
near surface concrete and/or enclosed in

vaults, lined landfills, engineered barriers
near surface tunnels
and near surface
mined cavities
For footnotes see next page.

TABLE IXL. (cont.)
Release mechanism from waste/disposal facility into natural environmenta

Overland Waste
Leaching to
runoff to exposed
Disposal practiceb Waste form Volatilization Suspension
on surface
Deep to to
Ground- Surface Surface (surface soil)
groundwater Soil air air
water water water
geosphere
Geological disposal
Deep well injection Unstabilized/stabilized ✓
and disposal at solids, aqueous
abandoned mines and aqueous slurries
Mined cavity Special containers g
disposal and deep and/or engineered

tunnel disposal barriers
Notes: These recommendations should be appropriate in most cases; however, some special cases may exist that would require special con-
sideration.
✓ Release mechanism requires consideration in an assessment, if appropriate.
a These are the first media to be considered when identifying transport pathways through the natural environment (Table VIII).
b Condition at the time of assessment (note, for example, that a covered landfill would need to be treated as uncovered surface disposal
after erosion of the cover).

c Releases to vadose zone when waste is disposed of above the water table and to aquifer when waste is disposed of below the water table.
d Direct release only if waste is in contact with surface water body.
e ‘With cover’ implies that the waste is not exposed at the surface.
f Volatilization through a cover may occur in some cases (persistent substances).
g Leaching may occur after failure of container and/or engineered barriers; some limited releases may occur while barrier is intact.
123
TABLE XL. EXAMPLES OF LIFESTYLE DIFFERENCES AND
RESULTING EXPOSURES FOR HOMES BUILT ON NORM WASTES
Urban/suburban, temperate
Rural, tropical developing country
developed country
Less time at home (work away from Majority of time near the home, which
home) results in reduced external maximizes external exposure.
radiation exposure.
Home constructed of soil (may actually
More robust home which provides some enhance external exposure rather than
shielding while inside the home; less air providing shielding).
circulation, however, so that radon can
accumulate. Open air design of home, so that indoor
radon concentrations are not significantly
Food purchased away from home, only a enhanced.
fraction may be contaminated with
NORM. Subsistence farmer can obtain essentially
all food and milk from around the home.
(2) A ‘change the process’ strategy, whereby (industrial) processes and prac-
tices are re-engineered so as to avoid or minimize contaminated wastes,
effluents, emissions, etc.
Or, in other words, cleanup technology versus clean(er) technology.

The major challenge associated with many NORM containing residues or
NORM contaminated sites is the large volumes of material and the typically
relatively low specific activities. These properties make conditioning of residues
according to practices in nuclear or hazardous waste management costly,
difficult or inefficient. Many remediation technologies typically applied to
environmental contamination [10] would also be inefficient.
For ongoing operations, residue management methods may need to be
adjusted to remove or reduce exposure risks. Retrospective conditioning of
historical wastes, in particular those from mining or milling, appears to be not
practical in many circumstances, unless an immediate threat to the surrounding
population occurs and hence a protective action is justified. However, resources
may need to be, and often can be, made available to treat historical wastes
associated with ongoing operations.
The main objectives of proper residue management and remedial
activities are to protect the environment and the public by preventing dispersal
of radionuclides, either through water or as gaseous or dust emissions [9].
Shielding against direct irradiation may also be required. Owing to their
124
physical properties as loose materials and because they are apparently ‘free’,
many mining and milling residues may be attractive local sources of building
material. Unauthorized reuse of such residues has been observed in both
developing and developed countries. Thus, effective passive institutional
control to prevent or discourage access to and use of the NORM containing
materials may be an important objective of remediation measures.
Remediation is typically preceded by a proper assessment of the site or of
the process in question [283]. This assessment begins with the identification and
consultation of records, if available. The historical assessment is then confirmed
by a scoping physical site characterization, for example by walk-over gamma
ray surveys. Detailed sampling and analysis may follow to more clearly identify
hot spots and to delineate materials or areas that do not require further
attention. In recent years strategies and technologies for efficient site charac-
terization have been developed [284, 285].
Similarly, residue and waste characterization is a basic step in developing
effective management techniques. Their physical, chemical and radiological
characteristics are determined. Of particular importance is the form in which
the radionuclides are present, i.e. whether they form a separate mineral phase,
are sorbed, or bound in precipitates or slags, etc. This is assessed carefully in
order to evaluate the associated risk and to decide on appropriate management
measures. For instance, radionuclides bound in a vitreous matrix, such as slag,
have a low probability to become solubilized, hence migration and subsequent
uptake in organisms is an unlikely scenario. Similarly, radionuclides may be
bound in vitreous components of fly ashes, making water mediated migration
unlikely but inhalation of unconsolidated dusts possible.
The concurrent presence of other contaminants, such as heavy metals,
arsenic, acid generating minerals and toxic organics, is taken into account when
developing a remediation plan (Table XLI). The abatement and remediation
TABLE XLI. NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS IN

NORM WASTES
(as quoted in a questionnaire sent to relevant industries in the EU and adjacent
countries [134])
Industry/users Component
Oil and gas Hg, heavy metals, hydrocarbons
Phosphate Cd, Zn, Pb, F
Iron and steel Pb, Zn, Cr, Cd, Cu, As, Hg, Ni
Institute/regulator Hg, heavy metals, sulphides, organic compounds
Others Hg, PCBs, asbestos, tungsten
125
technology is chosen such as to prevent impacts from these contaminants as
well as from NORM. That is, it is ascertained that the chosen management
strategy and technology is compatible with all the contaminants present and
that no detrimental interaction between different contaminants occurs. The
presence of such contaminants often imposes additional legal constraints on
the acceptable remediation methods and related waste disposal routes. An
available disposal site may not be licensed to accept ‘mixed’ wastes.
In addition to technical constraints, there may be a wide range of
regulatory and socioeconomic constraints on choosing the appropriate
remediation or residue management strategy [286]. Regulations in Member
States may prescribe certain techniques and prohibit or discourage others.
International agreements may also preclude or restrict other strategies, for
instance ‘dilute and disperse’ see, for example, Refs [34, 36]. As has been
discussed in great detail elsewhere [6], public reassurance and acceptability can
be a major factor for selecting a particular remediation or residue management
technique (Table XLII).
TABLE XLII. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY

AND PUBLIC REASSURANCE
(from Ref. [6])
Remediation technology Public reassurance
Removal of waste
Soil excavation High
Soil scraping High
Turf harvesting High
Separation and removal of waste
Soil washing Moderate–high
Flotation Moderate–high
Chemical/solvent extraction Moderate
Containment
Capping Low
Slurry walls Low
Grout curtains Low
Immobilization
Cement based solidification
Ex situ Low
In situ Low
Chemical immobilization
Ex situ Low
In situ Low
126
Technically feasible remediation and management techniques and
strategies have to be evaluated in any one case with respect to their imple-
mentability in a given socioeconomic context. As has been discussed in
Ref. [28], a variety of non-technical factors control the implementability of
remediation measures in practice. For instance, the technique preferred from a
technological point of view may not be available in a given Member State,
because of lack of infrastructure, skilled personnel or equipment.
The siting of management and disposal facilities for NORM containing
residues requires careful assessment of the geological and other environmental
properties. The siting and design process is usually controlled by a variety of
legislation in Member States and guidance on an international basis [287, 288].
12.2. CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES
In the following sections a selection of remediation and residue

management techniques are presented (Fig. 29) and their applicability to
current practices and in a remediation context is discussed. It should be pointed
out that these strategies and techniques are not to be seen as mutually exclusive
alternatives, but they may need to be applied in support of each other.
Recycle and
reuse
clear ance
Solidification
(chemical, thermal)
radio nuclides
Separation radio nuclides
or
Extraction segregation Treatment
clean soil
clean water
Excavation
Solidification Disposal
and Isolation
Containment Stabilisation Groundwater
table
Groundwater
pumping
FIG. 29. Classification of remediation techniques by function.
127
12.2.1. Containment
The objective of containment is to prevent the outward migration of

contamination, into either water or air, and to prevent or hinder the inward
migration of the transporting agent, i.e. water or air (Fig. 30(b)). Reducing the
infiltration of water or air reduces the mass turnover and, hence, release rates
and may also reduce the availability of fresh reactant, such as oxygen.
Preventing or discouraging human intrusion can also be an important
objective of containment. The objective is typically achieved by providing a low
permeability boundary around the waste or the contaminated material, by
reducing the permeability of the contaminated material itself (Fig. 30(a)). In
addition, groundwater flow can be diverted around the emplaced material by
artificially constructed high permeability zones around it (pervious surround).
The effectiveness of such measures largely depends on the permeability
contrast between the waste material and the surrounding host rock or
engineered barriers.
Infiltration of atmospheric precipitation and exhalation of airborne
radionuclides, namely radon, are reduced by the application of surface
cappings. By hindering the outgassing of radon, it will decay in situ and remove
the associated potential exposure. Preventing atmospheric precipitation from
infiltrating the body of waste reduces the potential for waterborne releases and
migration of contaminants.
In addition to physical barriers, use can be made of chemical or
geochemical barriers. Many of the low permeability materials used in the
construction of physical barriers, such as clays, also retain contaminants owing
to their sorptive properties. Other chemical reactions, such as precipitation,
(a) (b)
pervious waste groundwater impervious waste groundwater
material material stream lines material material stream lines
FIG. 30. The concept of (a) pervious surround and (b) containment with impervious barrier.
128
may also occur. In recent years, reactive chemical barriers have been developed
that affect, for example, precipitation of contaminants while being consumed.
Certain hydraulic properties and layouts are required to direct the
groundwater movement towards the barriers and to bring the contaminants
into contact with the reactive material.
Containment can be planned for at the design stage of new waste
management facilities or can be put into place retrospectively, that is to say in
a remediation context. For backfitting facilities still in operation, there may not
be such a clear distinction between the two situations.
Engineered disposal facilities may be constructed above or below ground
level and typically consist of a bottom liner with drainage and some form of
engineered cap. Bottom liners, which would extend up to the side walls in below
ground facilities, are constructed in one or more layers of low permeability
geological material, such as clays, and/or synthetic geomembranes. Layers of
geotextiles to improve the stress resilience of the liner may be added. The
drainage systems typically consist of a layer of coarser geological material
and/or synthetic drainage mats and a collecting system of pipes or similar.
The engineered cap may also be made up of several layers: a low perme-
ability layer to prevent infiltration of atmospheric precipitation and the
exhalation of radon gas, a (coarser) drainage layer to aid surface run-off,
geotextiles to improve the mechanical stability of the capping and, depending
on the climatic conditions, a substrate for (re-)vegetation. Intermediate coarse
layers may be introduced to hinder burrowing by animals and to discourage
human access.
Rehabilitation of underground impoundments may be undertaken along
similar engineering lines. However, putting in bottom liners may not be feasible
for technical and cost reasons in most NORM related situations. Confining
wastes and contamination by slurry walls, injection screens or sheet piling, on
the other hand, is common practice. The reverse is also possible: installing a
high permeability zone, for example sand filled trenches, around the
impoundment will effect a diversion of groundwater flow.
Backfilling of mined-out materials into mine voids may have a number of
advantages. First of all, it would remove the material from the surface and thus
reduce the amount of land used, i.e. the footprint of the facility. Secondly, if the
geochemical conditions of the mined-out material and the host rock can be
brought back to near pre-mining conditions, a stable system should arise.
Mining, however, severely disturbs the hydrogeology of the surrounding area,
creating additional pathways and changing the hydrochemistry, for instance
through aeration. Before backfilling any reactive material, an assessment of the
likely consequences is required. Certain additional measures, such as sealing of
mine openings and fractures, may be needed. The additional measures may also
129
extend to confining the mine by slurry walls or injection screens. These
confinement measures may be combined with reactive barriers to condition
any drainage waters. Alternatively, special drainage systems to divert ground-
waters around the mine may be put in place.
12.2.2. Immobilization
12.2.2.1. Concept
Immobilization, as opposed to containment, is intended to affect the

waste material itself. Two basic options can be distinguished: in situ and ex situ
treatment. In fact, a number of treatment technologies can be used for both in
situ and ex situ treatment, the method of application varying in each case. In
situ treatment leads to immobilization without the contaminated material
being removed, while ex situ treatment proceeds in some sort of plant, either
on-site or off-site. After treatment, the material is either returned to the place
of its origin or disposed of in an engineered repository.
The underlying objective of immobilization is to change the waste form
into one that is less likely to release any radionuclides contained and/or to
reduce the (reactive) surface area.
12.2.2.2. In situ treatment
Two major methods to implement in situ immobilization are available,

based on chemical and heat treatment, respectively. Chemical immobilization is
based on the injection of a variety of grouts. These grouts can be based inter alia
on ordinary Portland cement (OPC), water glass (sodium silicate), gypsum or
organic polymers, for example acrylic or epoxy resins. Prices probably increase
in this order, but this may vary and depend on the availability of the agent as a
waste product from some industrial processes.
The applicability of immobilizing agents via injection depends largely on
the hydraulic properties of the contaminated material. OPC and epoxy resins
typically have a high viscosity, while water glass and gypsum solutions, or
acrylic acid suspensions, can be made up with a viscosity close to that of water.
Heat treatment aims at in situ vitrification, whereby loose sand is fused
into a lump containing the contaminants, see for example Ref. [10]. Resistance
or inductive heating methods are available. However, the logistics and cost
involved make this method less applicable to NORM contamination. Another
problem with heat treatment may be the volatilization of 210Po and Hg. This can
be overcome, however at additional cost, with the installation of abstraction
130
hoods and exhaust gas scrubbing. The wastes from the scrubbing will require
special treatment and proper disposal.
12.2.2.3. Ex situ treatment
A wide variety of agents have been used, or proposed, for the solidifi-
cation of excavated waste materials. Often the objective is not only to
immobilize the contaminants, but to add value to the waste material by
converting it into a useful product, for example for construction purposes. The
use in general construction as a substitute for valuable raw materials requires
special testing and licensing procedures to ensure environmental compatibility
and compliance with quality criteria, such as compressive strength, freeze–thaw
cycle stability and leacheability. Solidified wastes may also be used in the
construction of, for example, cappings for (hazardous waste) landfills, or road
bases. If only small volumes arise, the material may be combined with material
from other waste streams requiring a similar immobilization treatment.
Combining waste streams can make the process more viable economically as
products in marketable quantities are produced.
The treatment may be undertaken on-site or off-site at dedicated
facilities. For off-site treatment, the material has to comply with the applicable
transport regulations and has to meet the appropriate safety criteria when
being handled.
As for in situ immobilization, possible (cold bonding) solidification agents
include OPC and other hydraulic binders, such as certain fly ashes, gypsum,
silicate gels (water glass) and organic polymers, particularly acrylic and epoxy
resins. The overall cost of treatment obviously depends on the amounts or
volumes requiring treatment. Some binders are more economic in larger
quantities than others. Organic polymers, in most cases, appear to be applicable
only to smaller volumes of material. It should also be noted that the long term
stability of organic binders is largely unknown.
The conversion of contaminated gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) slurries, for
example from flue gas desulphurization, into semi-hydrate/plaster of Paris
(CaSO4·½H2O) requires heat treatment in a kiln. It is only the plaster that
exhibits the necessary curing properties. It must be remembered that heat
treatment of contaminated gypsum may lead to the volatilization of 210Pb or
210Po, if present, as can be the case in flue gas desulphurization residues.
An important conclusion from a recent report [133] on the European

perspective of NORM waste treatment was that “immobilization is not widely
used or accepted as a treatment. Many companies regard this type of
technology as less feasible for the NORM waste material itself. Hence, they do
not pursue the development of immobilization techniques as a waste treatment
131
process of its own. However, for treating the radioactive remainder of a
separation step, immobilization is widely seen as a treatment with a high
potential.”.
12.2.3. Dilution/dispersion
Many NORM containing geological materials have been dispersed in the

environment since the formation of our planet, and continue to be by the
natural processes of erosion. Therefore, release of residues with unaltered
concentrations of NORM and unaltered forms of binding is unlikely to have an
environmental impact. Increased erosion rates and hence sediment loads and
sedimentation rates, however, do have an environmental impact, but this is not
related to the NORM content as such. Changed binding forms of NORM that
facilitate its release from the mineral matrix can have an impact.
Dilution and dispersion into surface waters has been a waste disposal
option commonly practiced for centuries. Its effectiveness depends on the
assurance that the contaminants remain dispersed. It has been observed,
however, for a number of contaminants, notably lipophilic organic compounds,
mercury and certain metal–organic compounds, that they reconcentrate and
accumulate in some environmental compartments, including body tissue. The
problem is aggravated by accumulating effects along the food chain. Another
uncertainty that to date remains unresolved is the potential effect of prolonged
exposure to very low concentrations. In the light of these concerns, discharges
and releases have been prohibited (declared radioactive waste) or significantly
curtailed in some regions of the world through international agreements, for
example the London convention [34] and agreements under OSPARCOM [36].
The dumping of 1.5–7 Mt annually of inert geological materials such as mine
tailings is reported to the International Maritime Organization [289].
A generic study on the environmental impact of well injection of oil and
gas industry derived NORM wastes concluded that this impact would be below
regulatory concern in the USA [290], and there are commercial companies
offering such services. Injection of radioactive liquids into deep boreholes has
been practised in the FSU countries for many years.
The re-use of conditioned residuals can be considered under some
circumstances as ‘dilute and disperse’. Down-blending to reduce the specific
activity in combination with immobilization would reduce the potential radio-
logical risk from direct exposure or ingestion. However, in some Member
States down-blending to achieve clearance or exemption levels is forbidden.
Landspreading of sewage treatment sludges had been practised for many
decades around the world. However, the resulting accumulation of heavy
metals in soils became a concern in some countries and this practice was
132
terminated. It can be expected that radionuclides would behave similarly under
such conditions. However, landspreading of scales and sludges originating in
the oil and gas industry is a practice that is allowed in the USA in a few states
and in some other countries, but is not generally accepted. The main objective
is to dilute the material and to foster degradation of hydrocarbons. A recent
study [290] addressed the radiological impact depending on the radon concen-
trations for a variety of industrial, residential and agricultural scenarios. The
main recommendation from the study was for institutional controls to limit
exposures over the long term.
12.2.4. Natural attenuation
Natural attenuation is akin to the dilute/disperse concept in that it relies

on geochemical mechanisms to retain the radionuclides in a particular environ-
mental compartment. The concept of natural attenuation or monitored natural
attenuation has received quite some attention in recent years in the context of
environmental remediation, but is by no means new. It forms an integral
feature of the current design criteria for geological and other repositories that
rely on the geosphere to prevent or delay radionuclides from reaching the
biosphere.
Owing to the changes with time in any natural system and to our
incomplete understanding of natural systems in most cases, the use of natural
attenuation requires monitoring of its effectiveness. Hence, the general
reference to monitored natural attenuation.
The concept of natural attenuation relies on the incorporation of the
contaminant within the environment, rather than isolation from it. The
mechanisms involved are sorption, precipitation and dilution/dispersion.
While dilution/dispersion in ground and surface waters may not be a
(politically) acceptable method as such, its macroscopic effects are often
difficult to distinguish from sorption or precipitation. (Deep) plowing or soil
mixing can be an efficient method for dilution in soils and in particular for
reduction of direct surface gamma exposures [177]. It would also reduce the
potential for unwanted plant uptake if the soil concentrations are reduced in
the root zone of agricultural plants. In all cases the concentrations arriving at
a given point in space at a given time are less than those that would be
observed without such mechanisms working. In the case of radionuclides the
radioactive decay has an additional effect. Often the arrival of a radionuclide
can be delayed for so long that it will have decayed to insignificant activity
levels. The decay into daughters that are of concern, however, has to be taken
into account. Table XLIII indicates the time frame for various decay chains of
potential interest.
133
TABLE XLIII. RADIONUCLIDE DECAY CHAINS TO BE CONSIDERED
IN ASSESSMENTS OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
238U series 235U series

Nuclide Half-life Radiation Nuclide Half-life Radiation
238U 4.468 × 109 a Alpha 235U 703.8 × 106 a Alpha
234Th 24.1 d Beta 231Th 25.52 h Beta
234mPa 1.17 min Beta 231Pa 32 760 a Alpha
234U 244 500 a Alpha 227Ac 21.773 a Beta
230Th 77 000 a Alpha 227Th 18.718 d Alpha
26Ra 1600 a Alpha 223Ra 11.434 d Alpha
222Rn 3.8235 d Alpha 219Rn 3.96 s Alpha
218Po 3.05 min Alpha 215Po 778 ms Alpha
214Pb 26.8 min Beta 211Pb 36.1 min Beta
214Bi 19.9 min Beta 211Bi 2.13 min Alpha
214Po 63.7 ms Alpha 207Tl 4.77 min Beta
210Pb 22.26 a Beta 207Pb Stable —
210Bi 5.013 d Beta
210Po 138.378 d Alpha
206Pb Stable —
Note: Nuclides with half-lives of more than a year are marked in bold.
The decision on the application of monitored natural attenuation as

management strategy depends on an array of scientific, economic and political
criteria and should be based on a risk analysis for the specific site [291]. To
evaluate the potential applicability of monitored natural attenuation as an
environmentally sound solution, it is necessary to make use of a technical
protocol to confirm and quantify its efficacy. In particular, methods such as
deep plowing have to be evaluated carefully in order to assess potential
migration pathways for the radionuclides concerned. Before a backdrop of
scarce resources, various initiatives to promote the acceptance of natural
attenuation as part of a cost effective and environmentally sound solution for
contaminated sites on the basis of a risk based application of monitored natural
attenuation are being undertaken (see, e.g., Ref. [292]).
The concept of (monitored) natural attenuation and its applicability in a
remediation context is discussed in more detail in a forthcoming IAEA
technical publication [13].
134
12.2.5. Separation
The objective of separating NORM from wastes is to minimize the

volume of waste requiring management and disposal in an engineered facility
or a similar option. This applies to current practices as well as an intervention
in the remediation context. In this sense, separation is both an ‘end of pipe’ and
a ‘change of process’ strategy. Reworking of legacy residues can have the added
incentive of recovering mineral value, or conversely the residue volume
reduction is a beneficial side effect of processes to recover mineral value [164].
On the basis of a workshop and of a questionnaire sent to the EU and
other countries, it was reported [137] that “separation is being used or studied
by almost all companies which are already dealing with NORM wastes. There
is a need for more development of immobilization techniques for the
remainder of separation. Furthermore, several new separation techniques are
currently under development by industries that were recently confronted with
the NORM problem.”.
Melting of scrap metal can be used to separate the radionuclides [134],
which accumulate either in the slags or in the flue gas dusts.
In essence, the treatment of effluents and other waters amounts to
separation, and a lower volume of waste to be managed is achieved. Water
treatment issues are discussed in Section 12.2.6.
12.2.6. Treatment of waters and effluents
The main effect from any water treatment is the concentration of

radionuclides into a residue. These residues have to be brought into a waste
form that is amenable to further handling and eventual disposal. The increase
in specific activity may lead to increases in doses to operators and other
personnel. Hence appropriate precautions may have to be taken.
The implications from the treatment of drinking and industrial process
waters, including those used for geothermal energy production, have already
been discussed in Section 5.
Drainage waters from waste management facilities and contaminated
sites may require treatment. Frequently such drainage waters are low in pH, in
particular those from mining residues, where acid generation due to sulphide
oxidation is a problem. For active management facilities and in cases where
active remediation takes place, conventional treatment techniques are likely
to be applicable [293]. In certain cases, conventional water treatment
techniques would be inefficient. This would be particularly the case where
radionuclide concentrations are low and the treatment plant would be
required to run for extended times to prevent accumulation of radionuclides
135
in certain environmental compartments. In such cases, artificial wetlands,
phyto-remediation and similar passive treatment methods might hold the
answer. Reactive barriers might also be used to prevent further dispersal of
contaminated seepage waters. Such methods and their applicability in a
remediation context will be discussed in more detail in a forthcoming IAEA
technical publication [13].
12.3. CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES
12.3.1. Tools
The basic step in changing (industrial) processes towards lower resources

use and hence less waste generation or to improve residue properties is an
assessment of the substance flows involved. The concepts of materials flow
analysis (MFA) and substance flow analysis (SFA) were developed to this end
and consist of assessing where a substance enters or leaves an environmental
compartment in a (industrial) process, and where it appears in products, inter-
mediates, residues and wastes [294]. In the present context this requires, of
course, that the respective materials be analysed for relevant radionuclides.
Such MFAs can be undertaken at various levels, ranging from single plants or
mines to whole countries (as illustrated in Fig. 31 for example). As a matter of
fact, many industrial operations routinely apply MFA techniques to manage
and control their materials requirements during the production process. This
can form a good starting point for environment related MFAs.
While MFA and SFA are substance oriented, life cycle analysis (LCA)
focuses on a product or a service and is a method for evaluating the impacts this
product or service might have on the environment and natural resources. This
evaluation method takes into account the impacts that go from the extraction
of natural resources to waste disposal, including the end of life of a product
(cradle to grave). LCA is a decision making tool that is promoted inter alia by
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14000 series [295]).
LCA was developed in response to enterprises for which environmental
protection was a prime concern in the production, improvement and
development of their products or their processes. Environmental certification
according to the ISO 14000 series is seen by many companies as a means
to exhibit an environmentally friendly image and thus increase their
competitiveness.
Typically an LCA consists of four elements:
(1) Goal definition (ISO 14040) — the basis and scope of the evaluation,
136
wastes and emissions soil
air
exports
water
supply accumulation
accumulation agricultural products
in products
in products
withdrawal
residuals
exports
sales
balancing item,
wastes, sales
sales
emissions
exports
minerals
minerals ++ end
end prod.
prod.metallic
metallicZn
Zn
prod.
prod.Zn-comp.
Zn-comp.
exports
agric.
agric.prod
prod
Zn-comp.
Zn-comp.
aalsls
iidduu
ress
zinc
zinc oxide
oxide
works
works of
ofzinc
zinc hot
hot-dip
-dip galvaniz.
galvaniz. brass
brass
exports
zinc metal
zinc metal
zinc metal
zinc metal
zinc production
zinc production
zinc ore
zinc ore and
andzinc
zincsludge
sludge
imports
im ports
semi-
semi-
Zn- m anuf.
manuf.
zinc
zinc zinc ore
zinc ore and
andzinc
zincsludge
sludge
comp. Zn metal
metal
metal
metal
etc.
etc. goods
goods
etc.
etc.
FIG. 31. Example for MFA: flow chart for zinc in the Netherlands in 1990 (simplified after
Ref. [296]).
137
(2) Inventory analysis (ISO 14041) — process trees and material balances,
(3) Impact assessment (ISO 14042) — resources use and emissions as related
to impacts,
(4) Improvement assessment/interpretation (ISO 14043) — identification of
corrective actions.
On the basis of the results from such analyses, the potential for changing
the (industrial) process to direct the NORM into those waste streams where it
can be managed best can be assessed. There may be scope for adjusting the
process so that the NORM mainly ends up in an inert form, or, for instance,
digestion procedures may be altered such that NORM is not released or not
converted into a mobile form. Concentrating the NORM into a single residue
stream, or at least a small number of residue streams, would also make its
management more efficient. Depending on the type of radionuclide and
available disposal options, either increasing or decreasing the specific NORM
concentrations may be of advantage. The first would reduce the volumes of
waste to be treated, while the second might be desirable in a dilute and disperse
scenario, or where disposal in a conventional landfill may then become possible.
Frequently raw material abstraction and processing takes place at
different locations, even in different parts of the world. This results in residues
and wastes being generated away from the source of the raw materials, and thus
precludes such options as backfilling into the mined-out voids. Provided that
adequate waste conditioning and waste management facilities are available to
prevent the generation of environmental contamination, processing at or near
the mining location might be of advantage. While until the recent past many
developing countries relied on exports of raw materials, they now generate
added value by exporting refined materials or semi-products. This development
is frequently driven by the tightening environmental legislation in developed
countries, which often makes the management of process residues expensive.
Therefore, these changes have to be closely monitored for their environmental
implications. Again, MFA would be a useful tool on a more global basis.
It should be pointed out that MFA does not require sophisticated
computer simulation models, although they would be useful. Simple
bookkeeping of masses or volumes would be sufficient, together with radio-
logical and chemical analyses of the materials concerned.
12.3.2. Reuse/recycle
Reuse and recycling of NORM containing geological material has been

already discussed to some extent in the context of immobilization/solidifi-
cation. Residues typically require some sort of binder to give them useful
138
mechanical properties. Application is restricted to situations where direct
exposure and radon release are not of concern, for instance in road
construction or for backfilling in mines. Recycling in nuclear waste
management related applications, for example as structural materials or liners
in repositories, might also be considered. From a logistic point of view, this
might also be an option for various types of landfills, but national legislation
typically prevents the mixing of hazardous and radioactive materials.
It has been indicated in the industry and material specific sections that at
least nowadays the mining industry has become very resources conscious and
screens its residues for potential value and reuse. Often residues are stockpiled
for later reworking, when market conditions at a given time make processing
not commercially viable. It should be noted that such stockpiles must not give
rise to environmental contamination or human exposure, for example due to
acid drainage formation or radon exhalation.
An example of re-using residues (iron oxides) from titanium oxide
production is given in Appendix III.
12.3.3. Avoidance at source
In certain instances, the generation of NORM contaminated residues can

be avoided at source, by selecting appropriate raw materials. This is probably
the most desirable option, as it avoids exposures and the need to manage
residues. Its economic viability, however, has to be evaluated and the resulting
environmental benefits carefully balanced against any detriments.
In mining, NORM is often associated with particular parts of the
geological strata. If these can be avoided during the mining operation by
careful excavation, no contamination will be brought to the surface. For
instance, in coal mining, seams high in sulphides such as pyrites can be avoided,
and they are typically avoided to minimize the amount of sulphur in flue gases.
Another example is peat, used as bio-fuel in Sweden, albeit on a rather small
scale. Peat excavation is controlled by the Swedish Geological Survey and
sampling for uranium is required before a concession is granted. Therefore the
peat that is used in Sweden usually has low levels of uranium [271]. Similarly,
in Sweden low activity materials are chosen for the production of sulphuric
acid.
Since NORM is frequently associated with these sulphidic minerals, the
side effect would be less NORM in flue gas desulphurization residues. Users
can also make choices on the suppliers of raw materials. Market forces will thus
disfavour suppliers with commodities of high NORM content. In addition to
this, governments have taken in some instances measures to phase out
139
hazardous substances, such as lead, cadmium or asbestos, from non-essential
uses. MFA provided an essential tool to this end.
13. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT AND

REMEDIATION MEASURES
Notwithstanding the criteria for the justification of remedial action as

stipulated in the relevant safety guides [263], the benefit of changing industrial
processes and of remediating NORM contaminated sites must be judged
against the associated socioeconomic costs and other impacts. This probably
needs to be undertaken on a case by case basis, rather than for industries in
general. Costs and benefits will vary considerably, depending on the socioeco-
nomic circumstances in any one country and for any one operation. Defining
the scope of the cost–benefit analysis will significantly determine its outcome.
It is important not to restrict it to purely radiation, health or environmental
protection benefits, but to include the wider local and societal context. The
implications of remedial actions, in particular when they affect ongoing
practices, have to be analysed carefully. Remediation, which may entail removal
of homes or closure of industries, will have a significant impact on the quality
of life of the local population. The net benefit from such remediation has to be
carefully weighed against the benefits from other ways of spending the same
money, for instance better health care or education. On the national level the
allocation of resources thus might follow other priorities. The resolution of this
debate between remediation and other actions may depend heavily on the
availability of national resources as well as of international aid.
The factors to be considered in remediation projects and relevant
decision aiding techniques have been discussed in a dedicated IAEA
publication [286]. There it was pointed out that decisions relating to the priority
of environmental remediation of NORM contaminated sites will have to
accommodate the realities of budget constraints and the relative importance of
remediation compared with other (national, regional, etc.) needs. Land use
considerations can be very important. Availability and allocation of other
resources, such as technical or workforce investments, are other important
considerations. Tools have been developed to predict and analyse the societal
and economic outcome of decisions made on a technological, institutional or
regulatory basis. Some of these tools have also been discussed in Ref. [291] and
further references can be found therein.
A recent UNEP sponsored conference on abandoned mines, although not
addressing explicitly the radiation problems, explored possible funding
140
mechanisms for remediating orphaned contaminations [297]. In cases where
remediation costs cannot be absorbed into operating cost, i.e. mainly in cases of
orphan and historical wastes, a cost–benefit analysis is particularly useful to
minimize and target public expenditure. As has been discussed in more detail
in Ref. [286], the relative benefit derived from public expenditure on
alternative projects has to be carefully judged. In many cases, however, it may
not be clear who has the responsibility to remediate historical waste sites with
the originator having ceased to exist, as is the case for example with many
industries in Eastern Europe or the FSU countries. Acknowledging that such
wastes and associated contamination may have arisen from activities in the
public interest, for example defence related activities, governments have
assumed responsibility even if the contamination was caused by a private
company. The idea is that the government, i.e. the society that received the
benefit from exploiting a natural resource, would retrospectively bear the cost.
Other mechanisms discussed at the UNEP workshop [297] include levying a tax
on current raw material use to pay for legacy wastes. This surcharge could be
paid into a remediation fund, managed either nationally or internationally. As
an additional form of insurance, consortia may be formed in a particular
industry to pay for remediation.
In many Member States at present the granting of operation licenses or
other authorizations is tied to proper waste disposal and closure plans.
Financial provisions have to be arranged for the disposal of wastes and
eventual cleanup of sites. These provisions may take the form of bonds or other
securities that will ensure adequate cleanup, even if a company ceases to
operate prematurely. In addition, governments may require the treatment and
remediation of historical wastes originating from an ongoing concern, for
example in the context of renewal of their licenses, and these activities may
have to be costed in, i.e. all (environmental) costs have to be internalized.
Given the widespread and century long occurrence of mining, the
potential need to address the problem in any one Member State may be
enormous. The potential size of the task requires a careful assessment and site
characterization in order to be able to target resources and to prioritize the
problem sites. Such cadastral surveys of mining residues have been developed,
for instance, in Germany [298].
As can be seen in the previous sections, many NORM related problems
are associated with the mining industry. The mining industry has typical socio-
economic patterns associated with it, such as the dependence of local
communities on a single industry, i.e. the mine. Very often the industry operates
under a ‘boom and bust’ scenario that is controlled by the availability of the
resource and the competitiveness of the commodity prices. Often the profit
margins are rather low and any additional cost incurred, for example by more
141
stringent environmental or radiation protection standards, can price a company
out of the market. Closure of the sole primary source of income usually has
disastrous effects on the local communities affected, as has been observed in
many primary resource based industries around the world.
MFAs, together with cost and economic analyses, may help to select an
optimized strategy for abating the NORM problem. While full remediation and
adjustment of waste streams to zero emission are desirable in the context of
environmental sustainability, the socioeconomic feasibility of such under-
takings must be carefully assessed. Objective assessment, however, is difficult
and the judgment of what is feasible and what not is often rather subjective. The
controlling variable is the profitability of the business concerned. The expected
return on investments vary over time and between different cultures and
different parts of the world. Among other factors, the economic viability of a
treatment facility or a remediation project depends on the size of the
operation.
The specific costs of various treatment and remediation technologies
have been investigated in a recent IAEA publication [286]. It was concluded
that very little detailed information on the various cost elements is available.
The major source of data is still the Historical Cost Assessment System
(HCAS) in the USA [299].
14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A picture of the worldwide scale of potential problems with NORM in a

variety of industries has been developed on the basis of literature surveys and
the contributions by experts from various Member States (Table LXIV). A
comprehensive survey has been undertaken for Europe [6] and data are also
available for North America. The knowledge base, however, for most less
developed countries remains scarce. For several reasons the following circum-
stances in less developed countries are of particular concern:
(a) A large proportion of the world mining operations and to a lesser degree
also milling operations are located in these countries.
(b) Environmental and radiation protection standards may be less stringent,
or their enforcement may be less strict.
(c) Artisanal mining and milling and other artisanal industries with less strin-
gent occupational health and safety precautions are widespread. As
opposed to developed countries, such activities are still more integrated
with private and family life, potentially leading to exposure of the public
142
TABLE LXIV. ACTIVITIES THAT MAY LEAD TO NORM CONTAMI-
NATED RESIDUES AND SITES
Mineral ores and extracted materials Other processing/manufacturing
Aluminium (bauxite) Rare earths Water treatment

Copper Tin Sewage treatment
Fluorospar Titanium Spas
Gypsum Tungsten Paper and pulp
Iron Vanadium Ceramics manufacture
Molybdenum Zircon Paint and pigment manufacture
Phosphate Coal (and coal ash) Metal foundry facilities
Phosphorus Oil and gas Optics
Potassium (potash) Geothermal energy Incandescent gas mantles
Precious metals Uranium and thorium Refractory and abrasive sands
(gold, silver) Electronics manufacture
Building materials
(e.g. residential/garden plots on or adjacent to ‘industrial’ sites and re-use

of contaminated materials to optimize resource use).
(d) Limited or no resources are available to deal with legacy wastes and for
upgrading plants and waste management infrastructure.
(e) Responsibilities for legacy wastes and contamination are unclear.
Regardless of the socioeconomic circumstances, NORM containing

materials, residues and wastes pose particular technological challenges owing to:
(a) Their often large volumes;

(b) The long half-lives of the radionuclides concerned;
(c) Their widespread occurrence in many industrial and societal areas;
(d) The vast number of legacy sites.
Changing the processes to avoid NORM containing raw materials, to

generate better waste forms or to reduce workplace exposure typically is not so
much a technological challenge as an economic one. Sometimes it can also be a
societal or socio-psychological one, as it may for instance involve replacing
manual labour by machinery. Several studies and conferences have concluded
that by proper workplace protection measures and good industrial practice, the
majority of exposure scenarios can be eliminated.
For (geo)chemical reasons NORM related problems are mainly
associated with the abstraction and processing of raw materials, including
water, and in particular with the early stages of their processing. The processing
143
of ores and other geological materials aims at arriving at the pure product,
which typically means that most radionuclides end up in slags, fly ashes, scales,
slurries and other residues. As a result the oil and gas industry, coal mining and
burning, many metal ore and industrial mineral industries, as well as water
users were identified as major producers of NORM containing residues and
wastes.
Technologies to condition and dispose of NORM residues and wastes do
exist in principle, but their (economic) applicability largely depends on the
volumes of material arising. This report provides a broad overview of suitable
technologies and strategies. While such technologies do exist in principle, and
their application to legacy wastes and NORM contaminated sites is possible,
the necessary resources are often not available in regions where there is a
major need for them. The report briefly describes also low-tech and low
maintenance solutions. More details on such technical solutions will be found
in a forthcoming IAEA publication [13].
Given the long half-lives of the relevant radionuclides (mainly the
uranium series) and the limited resources and technical options to deal with
legacy wastes, the question of long term stewardship and monitoring arises.
Hence the concept of monitored natural attenuation and its implications is
increasingly being discussed.
No simple solution can be found for funding the remediation of legacy
sites. In some developed countries a decisive effort has been made over the last
two decades or so. The limited gross national products of many other Member
States has prevented them carrying out similar activities. The multinational
character of many mining operators has often made it difficult to hold them
accountable for cleanup of historical wastes in particular. The situation is slowly
changing, however, as these operators try to promote a green image of
themselves. On the other hand, the contamination legacy from small scale
artisanal mining and other artisanal industrial activities remains a difficult
problem to solve.
144
Appendix I
TIN MINING AND RELATED PROCESSES IN MALAYSIA
I.1. INTRODUCTION
Malaysia has long been known as one of the world’s leading tin
producers. However, the overall trend of tin ore concentrate production has
been declining (from 10 000 t in 1993 to 6000 t in 1998). This is partly due to
price decreases, depletion of high grade reserves and rising production costs.
The number of operating tin mines decreased to 38 in 1998. This has left behind
more than 2000 mined-out ponds. The lengths of the ponds are up to 500 and
1000 m for gravel pump and dredge mines, respectively. Most of the ponds have
thick layers of slurry slime at the bottom. The slurry contains heavy minerals
such as ilmenite, monazite, zircon and xenotime.
I.2. MINING AND EXTRACTION METHODS
I.2.1. Dredging
Depending on the type of dredger (bucket or suction) continuous digging

at water depths of up to 400 m is possible. The material brought to the surface is
spread on revolving or oscillating screens and disaggregated using high pressure
water jets. Large stones and rubble are retained by these screens and discarded.
The tin bearing material (the undersize portion) passes to a separating plant
consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary jigs, where tin ore concentrates are
separated from tailings containing sand, mud, clay and gravel. The usual content
of cassiterite in the dredge concentrate at this stage is of the order of 5–25%
[300]. The average mineral composition of the dredge concentrate is shown in
Table XLV. The flow chart of the dredging process [301] is shown in Fig. 32. The
dredge concentrate is transported to a treatment plant commonly known as a tin
shed, where the marketable ore containing at least 76% tin is separated out,
leaving tin tailings, locally known as amang (Fig. 33). At the tin shed, unrefined
zircon, monazite, columbite and ilmenite ores are also separated out.
I.2.2. Gravel pumps
In gravel pump mining, powerful jets of water are used to wash out gravel
containing tin ore from the exposed face of a quarry or hillside. The slurry is
145
TABLE XLV. MINERAL COMPOSITION OF THE DREDGE
CONCENTRATE BY wt (%)
Mineral Values from Ref. [302] Values from Ref. [301]
Cassiterite 9.7 8.4

Ilmenite 41.5 53.1
Monazite 2.0 0.5
Zircon 2.1 0.7
Tourmaline 0.8 —
Rutile 0.5 —
Pyrite — 1.3
Silica (sand) 43.4 36.0
collected in a sump at the base of the slope and is then pumped by a gravel
pump to a long sloping sluice box (locally called a palong) for gravity
separation of heavy minerals. Stones are extracted and ejected from the feeder
palong, while the remaining material is evenly distributed to the different
compartments of the palong. The concentrate accumulating behind the wooden
bars on the palong is collected and taken to the tin shed for further treatment
to separate out marketable tin concentrate leaving behind tailings. The
unwanted matter — sand, mud, clay and gravel — flows to the lower end of the
palong and away along the channel to the tailings area [300].
I.2.3. Open cast
In this method, the tin bearing material is excavated and conveyed as it is

by mechanical means to the treatment plant. Water is then added to enable the
heavier tin concentrate to be separated from the remainder of the material.
I.2.4. Underground mining
In underground mines, tin bearing rock is obtained after blasting and is

then transported to a mine head mill. There the rock is crushed and tin ore
concentrate is extracted.
I.2.5. Re-working of residues
Amang contains tin ores, quartz sand, monazite, zircon, xenotime

ilmenite, struverite and other minerals, including those containing uranium and
thorium (table XLVI). Amang processing plants started operations in the 1950s.
146
BUCKET
DISCHARGE
Spillage
Drop chute
To Save-all Trommel Oversize

System Screen
Undersize
Splitter Oversize
Distributor to waste
Primary Tails
Jigs
Concentrate
Concentrate Secondary Tails

Jigs
Middlings
Tails
Tertiary
Jigs
Concentrate
CONCENTRATE Tailings
to to waste
Shore Plant
FIG. 32. Flow chart of the dredging process [301].
147
Dredge concentrate
Concentrate
hoppers
Pyritic ore
stockpile
Willoughby
Underflow Rod Flotation
Box Pyrites
To Lanchutes mills (batch)
Vibrating
tables Silica
Underflow Willoughby
To Lanchutes Box
Rotary
dryers
McLean Middle
magnetic separators Ilmenite
Lanchutes
Tails Non - magnetic Tail
vibrating tables
Head
Willoughby Rotary SnO2 Product

Underflow
Box dryer bagging & shipment
To Lanchutes
Rotary
dryers
Carpco
high-tension Zircon
separators
Rapid
magnetic separators
Ilmenite Monazite
FIG. 33. The tin shed process [302].
In 1989, there were 66 amang plants operating in Malaysia and these produced
3% of the total tin concentrate in the country. However, the number of amang
plants is decreasing due to the decline of the tin mining industry.
In these plants, tin ores are separated from other minerals using magnetic
separators, a classifier, shaking tables for gravitational separation, dryers and
high tension electrostatic separators (Fig. 34). After drying in the sun, the
amang is processed by using magnetic separators to separate ilmenite
(magnetic) from other non-magnetic materials (monazite, zircon, xenotime and
cassiterite). Using a Willoughby classifier, the materials are separated into an
overflow and an underflow. Both material streams are further treated in the
same manner. Alternatively, rapid magnetic separators discriminate between
magnetic (xenotime) and non-magnetic (monazite, zircon and cassiterite)
148
TABLE XLVI. MINERAL COMPOSITION (%) OF AMANG [304]
Mineral Jelapang, Perak Petaling, Selangor Pucong, Selangor
Zircon <0.5 3.5 5.5

Monazite 0.5 0.5 <0.5
Xenotime 4.0 <0.5 <0.5
Ilmenite 85.5 76.5 60.5
Rutile <0.5 0.5 1.5
Quartz <0.5 4.5 19.0
Pyrite <0.5 0.5 —
minerals. On shaking tables the heavy minerals are separated out into a
concentrate and the remainder discarded as tailings. After drying, the
concentrate is treated in a high tension electrostatic separator to separate
conducting minerals (cassiterite) from non-conducting minerals (monazite,
xenotime, zircon and quartz). The electrostatic separator effluents are then
treated in a rapid magnetic separator to separate (non-magnetic) cassiterite
and zircon from (magnetic) ilmenite and monazite.
AMANG
AMANG
sun-drying
Maclean
Maclean Magnetic Separator
Magnetic Separator
mag netic non- magnetic
Ilmenite
Ilmen ite ** Willoughby Classifier
Classifier
under flow
Overflow
Maclean
Maclean Magnetic
Magnetic Separator
Separator similar treatment
con centrate as underflow
Tailings
Tailings
(discard)
(discard) Vertical Dryer
Dryer
High-Tension
High-Tension Separator
Separator
con ductor non- conductor
midd lings
Rapid Magnetic Separator

Rapid Magnetic Separator Rapid
Rapid Magnetic
Magnetic Separator
Separator
mag netic non- magnetic mag netic non- magnetic
Ilmenite
Ilmen ite Cassiterite
Cassiterite Monazite
Monazite Zircon
Zircon
(mainly) **
(main ly) ** for sale
saletotosmelter
smelter
Product
Product
* Sold to mineral traders for export
** Stockpiled for sale or further treatment Waste Stream
Waste Stream
FIG. 34. Flow chart for the recovery of cassiterite and heavy minerals from amang [306].
149
I.3. TIN SMELTING
Malaysia did have two tin smelters. At their peak both plants were
capable of processing 60 000 t/a of tin ore concentrates. However, one of the
plants ceased operation in 1999. The tin ores recovered as described above
form the feedstock for the smelters producing tin metal. The residue produced
is slag. The total accumulated tin slag in 2000 was estimated to be 120 000 t.
I.4. DISPOSAL OF RESIDUES
Prior to the enforcement of the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 (Act
304) in 1985, minerals and slag were not considered as radioactive. The residues
were disposed of in landfills that were subsequently redeveloped. A study [305]
showed that a public park has been contaminated with radioactive minerals
down to a depth of more than 30 cm. The study also showed that, to some
extent, the soil outside the tin mine perimeter was contaminated with NORM
from the mining activities. Following the establishment of the Malaysian
Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) in February 1985, the disposal of tin
slag in landfills has required a radiological impact assessment prior to the
AELB’s approval.
I.5. REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
The dredged ponds can be extensive in size and most of them are quite
deep. Remediation is necessary before the former mining sites can be re-used.
Some of the mining sites have been used for the development of residential
areas after landfilling. A feasibility study on remediation of mined-out land in
Malaysia is planned, but it has not yet started.
Tin slags and contaminated soils from the former tin smelter site were
removed and transported to another site. The work was monitored by the
national regulatory authority. The site was then covered with local red soil and
can now be used for other purposes.
150
Appendix II
TITANIUM PROCESSING
II.1. INTRODUCTION
The mining methods and resources of titanium have already been

discussed in the main part of this report. In the following the different
processing methods for titanium metals and pigment will discussed, together
with their radiological implications.
II.2. PRODUCTION OF TITANIUM METAL
The Kroll method is used on large scales for titanium production and
involves the action of chlorine and carbon upon ilmenite (TiFeO3) or rutile
(TiO2). The resultant titanium tetrachloride, TiCl4, is separated from the ferric
chloride, FeCl3, by fractional distillation. Finally TiCl4 is reduced to metallic
titanium by reduction with magnesium. Air is excluded so as to prevent
contamination of the product with oxygen or nitrogen,
2 TiFeO3 + 7 Cl2 + 6 C (900°C) Æ 2 TiCl4 + 2 FeCl3 + 6 CO≠
TiCl4 + 2 Mg (1100°C) Æ 2 MgCl2 + Ti0
Excess magnesium and magnesium dichloride is removed from the

product by treatment with water and hydrochloric acid to leave a titanium
‘sponge’. This can be melted under a helium or argon atmosphere to allow
casting as bars.
II.3. PRODUCTION OF TITANIUM DIOXIDE PIGMENTS
In a first step the ore is crushed to a grain size of about 12 mm and then
ground to a fine powder. Sulphides and magnetite as ore accessories are
separated by floatation and in magnetic separators, respectively, leading to an
increase of ore concentration from 18 to 45% (Fig. 35).
Two methods are used to produce TiO2 from the ore, employing either
sulphuric or hydrochloric acid.
151
crushing skimming off the ore
air
ilmenite
gangue
grinding
floatation
magnetic separation
FIG. 35. Generic scheme of titanium ore dressing.
The sulphate process (Fig. 36) was developed in 1915 by the Norwegians
Farup and Jebsen and has been used on an industrial scale since 1919. The finely
ground and pre-concentrated ore is digested with concentrated sulphuric acid,
converting the ferric and titanium oxides into sulphates. The large quantities of
sulphur dioxide generated are neutralized by adding sodium hydroxide. Ferric
and titanium sulphate are separated by re-crystallization. Titanium sulphate
can be converted into an oxyhydrate by boiling in water, and is then dehydrated
by roasting at 800–1000°C in a rotating furnace. The resulting TiO2 may
undergo further purification steps, depending on the intended application.
Sea dumping of the waste from the boiling step, dilute sulphuric acid,
caused serious environmental concern and has been stopped, at least in
Europe. Per tonne of TiO2 produced, 6–8 t of a dilute (20–22%) acid are
generated. The acid is too dilute for further commercial use and often contam-
inated by heavy metals and, indeed, NORM. In a relatively energy consuming
process the acid is concentrated and accessory salts, mainly ferric sulphates and
co-precipitates, are removed. The acid is fed back into the production process,
while the ferric sulphate is used commercially as a flocculant for waste water
treatment, mainly to remove phosphates as weakly soluble ferric phosphates.
Any ferric oxides produced are used as landfill.
In the chloride process (Fig. 37) the pre-concentrated titanium ore or
rutile is mixed with coke and heated to 1000°C in the presence of chlorine gas.
The chlorine reacts with the ore to give titanium tetrachloride and carbon
dioxide:
TiO2 + C + 2 Cl2(g) (1000°C) Æ TiCl4(g) + CO2(g)≠
152
Sulfuric Cinder
Ilmenite
acid
Digestion Roasting Filtration
Clarifi- Sulfuric Concen-

cation acid tration
Crystalli- Evapo- Crystalli-

sation Filtration sation
ration
Fe-sulfate
Calci-
nation
Water
treatment After- Pigment
chemicals treatment user
FIG. 36. The sulphate process for TiO2 production [306].
Iron (II) chloride formed during the chloride process is dissolved in water
and separated. Any hydrochloric acid formed by the dissolution of chlorine in
the residual cinders is separated and sold. The gaseous TiCl4 is condensed and
purified by re-destillation, before being re-oxidized to give pure TiO2. The
freed chlorine is fed back into the production process.
Fewer environmental pollution problems are encountered when pigment
is produced from rutile rather than ilmenite. The chloride process, using a rutile
feed, generates about 0.2 t of waste per tonne of TiO2 product; the sulphate
process, using ilmenite, generates about 3.5 t of waste per tonne of product.
Producing synthetic rutile from ilmenite results in about 0.7 t of waste, mainly
iron oxide, per tonne of product. Direct chlorination of ilmenite generates
about 1.2 t of waste, mainly ferric chloride, per tonne of TiO2.
For a number of technological reasons related to pigment application,
both processes, which generate different mineralogies of TiO2, have retained
their validity.
153
Titanium Coke
ore
Fresh Chlori- Conden- Distil-

Chlorine nation sation lation
Chlorine Sepa- Oxida- Oxy-

ration tion gen
After- Filtra-
treatment tion
Grin-
Packing Drying
ding
Pigment
user
FIG. 37. The chloride process for TiO2 production [306].
II.4. SYNTHETIC RUTILE PRODUCTION
Ilmenite is a mixed oxide containing both titanium and iron. As an inter-

mediate on the way to titanium pigment, synthetic rutile is produced, resulting
in a fivefold increase in the value per ton of material [307]. While Australia is
probably the world’s biggest producer, in Malaysia synthetic rutile is produced
from the ilmenite separated out in the amang plants.
The Becher process is generally used, in which the iron oxide contained
in the ilmenite is reduced to metallic iron by adding coal and then re-oxidized
to iron oxide. In the process, the titanium dioxide separates out as synthetic
rutile of about 91–93% purity. The process involves a high temperature kiln to
heat the ilmenite with coal and sulphur. After screening, the mixed slurry of
metallic iron and titanium dioxide in water is oxidized with air and separated
in settling ponds. The resultant synthetic rutile is acid washed to remove other
metal oxides and then dried and sold for conversion to the pigment.
Some plants, for example in Malaysia, convert ilmenite directly with
chlorine and dispose of the resulting ferric chloride in landfill sites. In countries
154
where electricity is cheap (such as Canada, South Africa or Norway) electric
furnaces are used to produce a titanium dioxide rich slag, and the iron, instead of
being returned to the mine as waste as in the Becher process, is sold as pig iron.
The electric furnace route is very competitive and is seen as depressing synthetic
rutile prices, but also provides incentives to add value to residues otherwise
ending up in waste streams. Proprietary methods for process improvement have
been developed, for example the process shown in Fig. 38 [308].
The management of waste streams from the production of synthetic rutile
in Australia is illustrated in Table XLVII. The low value iron oxide (which
represented at least 40% of the ilmenite) is returned to the mine site as waste
or landfill. It is estimated that 30 000 t/a of iron oxide residue is produced in
Malaysia.
Briquetting of fine iron oxide dust residues allows their use in blast
furnaces to produce pig iron, rather than an environmentally sensitive disposal
[307]. The heat roasting process as employed in Australia is illustrated in Fig. 39.
Limited amounts of iron oxide can also be used as an ingredient for making
paving bricks or as soil additives, as in the case of red muds from aluminium
production.
llmenite Process
Kiln Scrubber Solids Intermediate

Ilmenite Reduction
(Kiln) Kiln Discharge Oversize
Product
Non-Magnetic Fines
Magnetic Separation Waste Stream
Inert Solids
Aeration Iron Oxide Solids
Neutralised Acid
Acid Leaching
Effluent Solids
Product Drying Inert Solids
Synthetic Rutile
FIG. 38. Generalized synthetic rutile process flow chart [166].
155
TABLE XLVII. MANAGEMENT OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED
DURING SYNTHETIC RUTILE PRODUCTION [167]
Waste stream Management
Kiln scrubber solids Wet scrubbers: pumped as slurry to a lined pond.

Subsequently, either rehabilitation in situ or, still wet, dug
out and trucked to final disposal site.
Dry scrubbers: directly trucked to final disposal site. Wetted
prior to trucking to prevent dusting during transport.
In any case, solids must be allowed to settle and dry before
capping and rehabilitation.
Kiln discharge oversize Collected into bounded paddock from where trucked to
lined dry waste disposal site. Alternatively, it can be crushed
and recycled, or used as a road base.
Non-magnetic fines Collected into plant storage bins, loaded into trucks, wetted
and transported to final disposal site. Alternatively,
transported as slurry through pipeline to lined pond at the
disposal site. They must be allowed to settle and dry before
Inert solids Collected from plant dust extraction system via wet or dry
scrubbers, followed either by intermediate storage in ponds
or by final disposal in lined sites. Dry scrubber solids are
wetted prior to trucking to prevent dusting during transport.
Iron oxide solids Stored in lined ponds to allow settling and drying. Dry
material can either be rehabilitated in situ or trucked for
final disposal to repository site. Alternatively, they may be
transported as a slurry through a pipeline directly to the
lined ponds of the final disposal site. Thus dust generation
from handling the dry material is eliminated. They must be
allowed to settle and dry before capping and rehabilitation.
A promising commercial scale technology of processing the
iron oxide solids to produce iron has been under
development. If successful, it could result in practical
elimination of this largest solid waste stream.
Neutralized acid Pumped to solar drying ponds, from where, still wet, they
effluent solids are dug out and trucked to final disposal site. Alternatively,
transported as slurry through pipeline to lined pond at the
disposal site. They must be allowed to settle and dry before
A recently developed alternative is the option to utilize the
solids as a slow release sulphur fertilizer.
156
heavy mineral
concentrate
Simplified flow diagram of
the ERMS and EARS process
ERMS roast
(patented)
Non-magnetic
Minerals magnetic
(e.g. rutile, zircon separation
chromite, silicates)
ilmenite
FeCl3
EARS acid
hydrochloric
Regeneration
acid leach
(patented)
inert iron HCl ERMS synthetic
oxide pellets Rutile (~96% TiO2)
FIG. 39. A proprietary process for ilmenite separation and conversion into rutile [308]
(ERMS, enhanced coasting and magnetic separation; EARS, enhanced acid regeneration
system).
II.5. DOSES DURING PROCESSES
The exposure risk of producing and using titanium feedstocks is also low.
The highest potential exposure occurs during the maintenance of plant or the
removal of process scales containing high concentrations of radium.
157
Appendix III
RARE EARTH ELEMENT PROCESSING IN MALAYSIA
III.1. INTRODUCTION
Monazites are processed for REEs such as cerium, lanthanum and

yttrium. Xenotime, on the other hand, is used to extract yttrium. The rare earth
plant in Malaysia was capable of processing 4000 t/a of monazite. This enabled
it to produce 4200 t of rare earth chloride and 550 t of rare earth carbonate
[309]. Xenotime processing in Malaysia started in 1976. Thorium hydroxide was
produced as residue. The operation was terminated in 1986. Operation of the
monazite processing plant started in 1982 and terminated in 1992.
III.2. EXTRACTION METHODS
III.2.1. Mixed rare earths
Mixed rare earth carbonates and chlorides are mainly produced from
the digestion of monazite. About 24 000 t of monazite (70% local) were
processed in Malaysia. The process uses acidic and alkaline digestion,
filtration, precipitation and solvent extraction. After alkaline digestion and
filtration, the phosphate solution is separated from solid hydroxide cake
containing elements such as thorium, uranium, radium, lead and REEs. The
phosphate solution undergoes crystallization and filtration processes to
produce tri-calcium phosphate (used for the manufacture of fertilizer) and
wastewater. The hydroxide cake undergoes acid digestion and filtration to
produce a chloride solution of REEs, lead and radium and a solid thorium
hydroxide residue containing uranium, thorium and REEs. Precipitation of
the chloride solution removes lead sulphide and barium radium sulphates as
lead cake residue. Solvent extraction followed by precipitation of the solution
produces rare earth carbonates and chlorides separately. The process flow
chart [310] is shown in Fig. 40. Thorium hydroxide and lead cake are
radioactive residues that need to be managed safely. A typical composition of
thorium hydroxide from a monazite and xenotime cracking plant is shown in
Table XLVIII.
158
MONAZITE
Alkaline Digestion
Filtration
Hydroxide cake -
Phosphate Solution
Thorium, Uranium,
Radium Rare Earth Element
Crystallisation
Acid digestion Filtration
Filtration
Tri-Calcium Phosphate Wastewater
Chloride Solution - Thorium Cake -

Rare Earth, Thorium, Uranium,
Radium Rare Earth
& Pb Hydroxide
Precipitation Lead Cakes -

PbS,
Ba(RaSO4)
Solvent Extraction
Rare Earth
Precipitation
Carbonate
Rare Earth
Chloride
FIG. 40. Flow chart for the recovery of rare earths from amang derived monazite [303].
III.2.2. Yttrium
Yttrium oxide is obtained from the processing of xenotime (YPO4).

About 2000 t of xenotime have been processed in Malaysia. The process
involves milling, roasting, digestion, leaching, filtration, precipitation and
calcination. Thorium hydroxide is produced as residue. The process flow chart
for the recovery of yttrium oxide [304] is shown in Fig. 41.
159
TABLE XLVIII. TYPICAL COMPOSITION (%) OF THORIUM
HYDROXIDE WASTES
Content From monazite From xenotime
Insoluble residue 21 45
Rare earth chloride 8 15
Thorium hydroxide 14 1.6
Uranium hydroxide 0.6 1.6
Moisture 54 22
III.3. WASTE MANAGEMENT
Initially the residues from the xenotime and monazite processing plants
were dumped in a trench on the plant premises. Later, the dumped residues
were dug out and drummed. The residues from later operation were stored in
drums. Finally, the drummed residues were stored in an above ground concrete
Xenotime Process
Intermediate
Milling
Product
Roasting
Waste Stream
Digestions
Slurry
Leaching
Radioactive Waste
Filtration (Thorium Hydroxide)
Precipitation
Yttrium Oxalate
Calcination
Yttrium Oxide
FIG. 41. Process flow chart for the recovery of yttrium oxide [304].
160
bunker, known as the long term storage facility (LTSF). The quantity of
thorium hydroxide and lead cake wastes is estimated to be about 12 000 t.
At the end of its operation, the rare earth plant left 32 m3 diethylhexyl
phosphoric acid (DEHPA) residues, an organic solvent used to extract rare
earths from the monazite. The residue was transported to the National
Radioactive Waste Management Centre at the Malaysian Institute for Nuclear
Technology (MINT) in Bangi for treatment and disposal.
III.4. DECOMMISSIONING AND REMEDIATION
As the operation of the xenotime and monazite processing plants has

been terminated, the plants need to be decommissioned. Decommissioning will
result in large amounts of slightly contaminated plant equipment, building
materials and soils. The decommissioning waste is planned to be disposed of in
an engineered cell built next to the existing LTSF.
Remediation of the plant site would be carried out together with the
decommissioning process. After the decommissioning of the plant equipment
and buildings, the contaminated soils within the plant vicinity would be
excavated to an approved acceptable limit by the regulatory authority. The
plant site would then be covered with local soils.
With regard to the stored thorium hydroxide residues, no decision has
been made as to what to do with them yet. Studies have been carried out to
extract residual REEs as well as separating uranium and thorium from them
[311]. The process flow chart is shown in Fig. 42. A method to extract uranium
(95%) and thorium (98%) quantitatively from the thorium hydroxide residue
has been developed [309]. In addition, a study to use ordinary Portland cement
for the conditioning of the waste was carried out [312] in preparation for the
disposal of the thorium hydroxide wastes. Furthermore, studies on the
possibility of using local Malaysian soils as radionuclide adsorbent for uranium
and thorium from thorium hydroxide wastes have been undertaken [313, 314].
Radioactively contaminated DEHPA used in the solvent extraction of
rare earths in the monazite processing plant was left over as waste at the end
of the operation. The waste was sent to the National Radioactive Waste
Management Center at MINT for treatment and disposal. Pre-treatment of
DEHPA waste prior to incineration has been studied [315].The flow chart for the
pre-treatment of DEHPA waste is shown in Fig. 43. Another study on the
cleaning and recycling of the contaminated DEHPA was also carried out [301].
DEHPA was found to be contaminated with significant amounts of U (990 ppm).
Interestingly, it was also found that the DEHPA residues still contain 9600 ppm
Sm, 7320 ppm Nd, 680 ppm Y and 290 ppm Dy.
161
THORIUM CAKE
chemical pretreatment NaOH
filtration
Concentrated HNO3
leaching
filtration
10% TBP / kerosene
extraction of uranium
Aqueous
40% TBP / kerosene
Organic (U)
extraction of thorium scrubbing
Aqueous
Organic (RE)
(Th)
HCl stripping
NH4OH
scrubbing precipitation
(RECl3)
precipitation
(Ammonium
Diuranate)
stripping
heat
precipitation thorium nitrate
H2C2O4 NH4OH
thorium thorium
oxalate hydroxide
FIG. 42. Experimental extraction scheme for U, Th and REEs from thorium cake
(Th(OH)4 ) [309].
162
DEHPA
in
kerosene
(800-1000ppm U)
Stage 1
Treatment with Na2CO3 Solution
top layer middle layer bottom layer

(Kerosene: (DEHPA in Na (Aqueous + Precipitate:
<0.2 ppm U) from: 20 - 30 ppm U) 250-350 ppm U)
Further treatment with Na2CO3

Incineration
NaDEHPA aqueous layer

layer(1 ppm U) (10-20 ppm U)
Stage II
DEHPA in acid acidic aqueous
Regeneration of from (2 ppm U) (<1 ppm U)
DEHPA Neutralization,
(Treatment co-precipitation
with acid) (double)
Regenerated
DEHPA
Ca-precipitate aqueous
(extractant)
(High U content) (<1 ppm U)
Neutralization
Storage
Drain
FIG. 43. Flow chart for experimental pre-treatment of DEHPA waste [315].
163
Appendix IV
NIOBIUM PROCESSING IN BRAZIL
IV.1. INTRODUCTION
The process of niobium isolation appears to be complicated. Niobium

minerals usually contain both niobium and tantalum. Since they are so similar
chemically, it is difficult to separate them. Niobium can be extracted from the
ores by first fusing the ore with alkali, and then extracting the resultant mixture
into hydrofluoric acid, HF. Current methodology involves the separation of
tantalum from these acid solutions using a liquid–liquid extraction technique.
In this process, tantalum salts are extracted into the ketone MIBK (methyl
isobutyl ketone, 4-methyl-pentan-2-one). The niobium remains in the HF
solution. Acidification of the HF solution followed by further extraction in
MIBK gives an organic solution containing niobium. After conversion to the
oxide, metallic niobium can be made by reduction with sodium or carbon.
Electrolysis of molten fluorides is also used [316].
The two industries that are reported here are located in Brazil. One in the
state of Minas Gerais, located in the southeast region of the country – which
will be treated as Niobium Industry I — and the other located in the west
central region — Niobium Industry II.
IV.2. NIOBIUM INDUSTRY I
Magmatic and pneumatolitic processes have shaped the appearance of

most of the radioelements in the earth’s crust. In the magmas and their
hydrothermal derivatives, uranium and thorium may appear together in
pyrochlore minerals, (Ca,Na)2(Nb,Ta)2O6F. In Niobium Industry I the element
occurs as barium pyrochlore which comes to be essentially an oxyhydroxide of
niobium, barium, titanium, rare earths from the cerium group and thorium. The
industry mines the ore to produce Fe–Nb concentrate, niobium oxide and
metallic niobium.
The industry has six main units: mining, concentration, calcination and
acid leaching, production of Fe–Nb league, production of niobium oxide and
metallic niobium. The installation has two settling ponds where the residues
from the physical and chemical processing are disposed of, and a slag deposit.
None of the settling ponds release liquid effluents into the environment.
164
Mining of the ore is carried out in an open cast pit and the waste rock is
deposited in waste rock piles.
The operational process is depicted in Fig. 44. It includes the steps of ore
mining, grinding/crushing, magnetic separation, de-sliming, floatation, calcina-
tions, leaching, drying and aluminothermic reduction. After floatation the
content of pyrochlore in the concentrate is about 96%. Table IL depicts the
radioactivity concentrations in the residues generated in each step of the
operational process. Table L shows the radioactivity fluxes generated in each
step of the operational process.
Subsequently, the pyrochlore concentrate is transferred to the calcina-
tions unit and leached with 5% HCl in order to remove impurities such as
phosphorus, sulphur and lead. In this step the solubilization of barium is
observed. Afterwards, barium is precipitated by means of adding sulphuric acid
to the process. The precipitated material is then disposed of in a settling pond.
The concentrate from the leaching process is sent to the metallurgical unit
for aluminothermic reduction. The recovery of niobium in this step is about
95% efficient. The slags are removed from the unit by trucks and deposited in
a provisional pond.
ORE Product
Waste Stream
Milling
Magnetic
separation
Settling
De-sliming Environment
pond
Flotation
Settling
Barium sulphate Acid leaching Environment
pond
Aluminothermic
Calcination slags
reduction
Slag deposit
Niobium Metal Niobium Oxide Nb/Fe league
FIG. 44. Operational flow chart of Niobium Industry I.
165
TABLE IL. RADIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF RESIDUES
GENERATED IN THE OPERATIONAL PROCESSES OF NIOBIUM
INDUSTRY I
(data from Ref. [317])
Operational Activity concentration (Bq·kg–1)

step/residue 238U 226Ra 210Pb 232Th 228Ra
Ore 930 805 1 330 6 390 5 176

Magnetic separation 1 091 340 720 863 750
De-sliming 1 265 1 381 2 029 8 996 5 278
Floatation 770 990 2 440 3 100 1 440
Pyrochlore concentrate 14 620 1 370 710 83 000 8 900
Barium sulphate 42 26 250 7 400 43 197 300
Slags 23 138 3 290 2 400 117 600 20 200
The radiological impacts associated with this activity can be divided into
occupational and environmental exposures (operational and post-operational
scenarios). In the first case the main aspects are associated with external
exposure to gamma radiation in the case of the slags, where exposure rates of
about 4.0 mR/h have been recorded. Operational environmental impacts
associated with discharges of liquid effluents into the environment can be
considered negligible. However, the contamination of groundwater by 226Ra and
228Ra in the area of influence of the settling ponds containing barium sulphate
precipitate is a relevant issue. Typical concentrations of about 5.0 Bq/L for each
of the above mentioned radionuclides have been observed. In this case, the
TABLE L. RADIOACTIVITY FLUXES GENERATED IN THE OPERA-

TIONAL PROCESSES OF NIOBIUM INDUSTRY I
Operational Radioctivity fluxes (1012 Bq·a–1)

Ore 1.1 0.98 1.6 7.8 6.3

Magnetic separation 2.0 0.063 0.13 0.16 0.14
De-sliming 0.18 0.20 0.29 1.3 0.77
Floatation 0.58 0.75 1.8 2.3 1.1
Barium sulphate 0.00021 0.13 0.037 0.00022 0.99
Slags 0.58 0.083 0.061 3.0 0.51
166
adopted management strategy/mitigation used by the company is to pump the
water from the aquifer and treat it before release into the environment. If it is
assumed that an individual from the general public drinks groundwater at a rate
of 2 L/d, the effective dose is estimated to be about 2.0 mSv/a.
In terms of future (potential) exposures, the main concern is the use of
some of the operational process residues as building material in the foundation
of houses. Effective doses of about 400 mSv/a are predicted for the slags and
about 50 mSv/a in the case of the use of waste rock and the residues deposited
in other settling ponds. The main contributor to the total dose would be
external exposure to gamma radiation (especially 232Th daughters), accounting
for about 50% of the total dose in the case that slags are used for the above
mentioned purposes. It is important to observe that at time T0 the dose attrib-
utable to 232Th daughters will be approximately zero and will increase up to
250 mSv/a after 50 years. The main issue here is that the exposures to be
observed in the long term have to be considered carefully. Besides external
exposure to gamma radiation, the exposure associated with the inhalation of
radon will also be of concern, amounting to about 100 mSv/a, this value being
constant along the simulated period of time, i.e. 1000 years.
The company concerned is taking care to bury the residues properly to
avoid the general public having access to them in the future, as well as to avoid
undue external exposures to gamma radiation in the case of the site being
occupied. The main concern is finding a permanent solution to the avoidance
of groundwater contamination by radium isotopes once the pumping and
treatment strategy cannot be considered as a permanent solution. Remediation
may include removal of the material and isolation of the floor of the settling
pond with some sort of impermeable/semi-impermeable liner, or reduction of
the infiltration of rainwater through the deposited residues. The niobium
mineralization utilized by Niobium Industry II is the result of a residual
enrichment, caused by the leaching of carbonatites, which have apatite and
pyrochlore as main constituents. The niobium reserves are estimated as being
of about 20 Mt with an ore grade above 1.3% in Nb2O5 or 40 Mt with the ore
grade above 0.5%.
IV.3. NIOBIUM INDUSTRY II
Unlike Niobium Industry I, this industry produces Fe–Nb league mainly

for export to be used in the production of speciality steels. All the residues
generated in the process are disposed of in only one tailings dam. In the past,
the slags used to be disposed of in blocks in a separated ore. The ore is mined
167
in an opencast pit. Drainage water from the mine pits is directly discharged to
the open environment. The waste rock is deposited in a waste rock dump.
The operational process is similar to that of Niobium Industry I and is
shown in Fig. 45. As the niobium ore content is lower than that of Niobium
Industry I, there is an additional step that includes the grinding of the slags to
recover the niobium still present in this material. Table LI shows the activity
concentrations of different radionuclides in the materials generated in the
operational process and Table LII the radioactivity fluxes.
Unlike in Niobium Industry I, the uranium content is higher than that of
thorium. This finding has very important implications in terms of radiological
impacts and also on the possible management of residues, as will be discussed
later. It also illustrates that any projection to be made in terms of TE-NORM
generation in the mining industry has to be done on a case by case basis even
Open pit
Open pit
ORE Environment
drainage
drainage
Milling
Product
Product
Magnetic
separation Waste Stream
Waste Stream
Tailings
Tailings
De-sliming
pond
pond
Flotation
Leaching
Aluminothermic Separation of Slag

Slag
reduction League/Slag deposit
deposit
Final Grinding
Product of slag
FIG. 45. Operational flow chart of Niobium Industry II.
168
TABLE LI. RADIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF RESIDUES
GENERATED IN THE OPERATIONAL PROCESSES IN NIOBIUM
INDUSTRY II
Operational Activity concentration (Bq·kg–1)

Ore 4 550 3 390 7 890 904 2 040

Magnetic separation 843 941 1 730 293 315
De-sliming 6 700 6 900 6 180 1 754 3 080
Floatation 4 985 3 400 7 530 1 040 1 840
Slags 34 819 5 160 435 16 700 6 450
Final product 64 41 — 23 258
if the metal to be extracted is the same and also if the ore mineral is of identical
composition.
In a broad way it can be said that at least 60% of the total activity of each
individual radionuclide leaves the operational process along with the residues
generated in the floatation step. In the case of 238U this figure reaches 70% of
the total. This finding has a very relevant bearing on the economic recovery of
uranium.
On the basis of the same assumptions as were considered in the case of
the use of the process residues for landfill and the subsequent construction of
houses on such sites, the predicted doses in this case will show quite different
TABLE LII. RADIOACTIVITY FLUXES GENERATED IN THE

OPERATIONAL PROCESSES OF NIOBIUM INDUSTRY II
Operational Radioctivity fluxes (1012 Bq/a)

Ore 2.5 1.9 4.3 0.49 1.1

Magnetic separation 0.092 0.10 0.19 0.032 0.034
De-sliming 0.45 0.46 0.42 0.12 0.21
Floatation 1.8 1.2 2.7 0.38 0.66
Slags 2.4 0.036 0.0030 0.12 0.44
Final product 0.00025 0.00016 — 0.000088 0.0015
169
patterns. Initially they will be lower than those of the Niobium Industry I study
case — of about 100 mSv/a. However, after 100 years the dose related to the use
of the slags begins to increase, reaching a maximum of about 800 mSv/a after
5000 years, while the doses associated with the tailings and waste rock materials
remain constant for 1000 years, beginning to decrease after that.
In the case of slags, the external gamma irradiation represents 34% of the
total dose while exposure to radon is responsible for approximately 66% of the
total dose in time T0. As time passes the contribution of radon (inhalation)
increases due to the 230Th decay.
Liquid effluent release at the present time does not constitute a major
concern if only river water consumption by cattle is considered. In this situation
the estimated doses would be negligible (below the exemption levels of
10 mSv/a as stipulated in Ref. [282]).
However, if other exposure pathways are introduced in the assessment
(such as the use of river water for irrigation) the estimated doses can reach
values up to 0.9 mSv/a.
Consideration of the exposure of the workforce [318] showed that
niobium concentrations in faeces and urine samples from workers were 42.4 ±
39.6 and 1.34 ± 0.45 mg/d, respectively. The average niobium concentrations in
faeces and urine samples from the control group were 3.4 ± 3.2 and 0.60 ±
0.45 mg/d, respectively. The amounts of niobium excreted by the workers were
significantly different from the control group. The niobium concentration in
faeces samples from workers suggests that the workers inhale coarse particles
and ingest mineral dust particles, probably as they touch their mouths with
dirty hands. The niobium concentrations in urine samples indicate that there is
systemic incorporation of the element.
Thorium was present at all stages of the process, with average concentra-
tions of less than 0.5 mg/m3 and with a mass medium aerodynamic diameter
from 0.8 to 14 mm. All workers presented measurable thorium concentrations
in their faeces. However, the results did not correlate with the personal air
sample data. The authors concluded that the thorium excreted in faeces is not
a consequence of inhalation exposures during work. On the other hand, the
amounts of uranium excreted in the faeces of workers were significantly higher
than the average concentrations excreted by the members of the control group.
Workers involved in mining operations presented the highest uranium concen-
trations in faeces, 110 mBq/gash, the lowest concentration values being reported
for the personnel involved in ore crushing operations, about 20 mBq/gash.
170
IV.4. SUMMARY
The niobium industries cited in this report did not show any relevant
environmental radiological impact due to the release of effluents into the
environment. The main concern relates to the potential use of some of the
process residues as landfill for house construction, a use for which very high
effective doses may be observed. The contamination of groundwater, as was
reported for one of the industries, is also of concern, when people have direct
access (ingestion) to this water. Exposures (external gamma irradiation) of the
workforce to radiation were relevant in the case of workers manipulating the
slags of the metallurgical process. In terms of inhalation and ingestion of
radionuclides by the workforce, the doses estimated did not seem to be of
major concern.
Adequate management of residues so as to avoid undue exposure (use
for building purposes) is envisaged in future scenarios.
171
REFERENCES
[1] UNITED NATIONS, Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de
Janeiro, 1992, Rep. A/CONF.151/26, UN, New York (1992).
[2] COOPER, J., GONZÁLEZ, A.J., LINSLEY, G., WRIXON, T., “What waste is
“radioactive”: Defining the scope of the regulatory system”, IAEA Bull. 42 3
(2000) 35–44.
[3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Principles of
Radioactive Waste Management, Safety Series No. 111-F, IAEA, Vienna (1995)
24 pp.
[4] SEITZ, R., “Disposal of waste containing technologically enhanced concentra-
tions of naturally occurring radioactive materials — When is it a concern?”, paper
presented at Waste Management 2000, Tucson, AZ, 2000.
[5] MARTIN, A., MEADE, S., WADE, B.O., Materials Containing Natural
Radionuclides in Enhanced Concentrations, Rep. EUR 17625EN, Commission of
the European Communities, Luxembourg (1997) 88 pp.
[6] VANDENHOVE, H., et al., Investigation of a Possible Basis for a Common
Approach with Regard to the Restoration of Areas Affected by Lasting
Radiation Exposure as a Result of Past or Old Practice or Work Activity —
CARE, Final Report to the European Commission, Contract 96-ET-006,
Radiation Protection 115 (2000) 242 pp.
http://europa.eu.int/.
[7] HOFMANN, J., LEICHT, R., WINGENDER, H.J., WERNER, J., Natural
Radionuclide Concentrations in Materials Processed in the Chemical Industry
and the Related Radiological Impact, Rep. EUR 19264EN, European
Commission, Luxembourg (2000) 30 pp.
[8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design Criteria for a
Worldwide Directory of Radioactively Contaminated Sites (DRCS), IAEA-TEC-
DOC-1251, Vienna (2001).
[9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Factors for Formulating
Strategies for Environmental Restoration, IAEA-TECDOC-1032, Vienna (1998).
[10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Technologies for the
Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Sites, IAEA-TECDOC-1086,
Vienna (1999).
[11] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Compliance Monitoring
for Remediated Sites, IAEA-TECDOC-1118, Vienna (1999).
[12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Application of Radiation
Protection Principles to the Clean-up of Contaminated Areas — Interim Report
for Comment, IAEA-TECDOC-987, Vienna (1997).
[13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Remediation of Sites with
Dispersed Radioactive Contamination, Technical Reports Series (in preparation).
[14] NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASURE-
MENTS, Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from
Natural Background Radiation, Rep. 94, NCRP, Bethesda, MD (1988).
173
[15] MEINHOLD, C., Table presented in opening address to International
Conference, Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in the
Mining and Minerals Processing Industries, Johannesburg, 1995, Session 2, quoted
on http://www.ansto.gov.au/ansto/environment1/research/remov01.html.
[16] VAN WEERS, A.W., et al., Current Practices of Dealing with Natural
Radioactivity from Oil and Gas Production in EU Member States, Rep. EUR
17621EN, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1997) 99 pp.
[17] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, Paris,
http://www.iea.org/statist/key2001/key2001/keystats.htm.
[18] US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Estimates of domestic diffuse NORM waste
generation, material density, total inventory, and radioactive concentration, Office
of Environmental Management, Washington, DC,
http://www.em.doe.gov/idb97/tab713.html.
[19] GRAY, P.R., NORM contamination in the petroleum industry, J. Petrol. Technol.
45 1 (1993) 12–16.
[20] GESELL, T.F., Occupational radiation exposure due to 222Rn in natural gas and
natural gas products, Health Phys. 29 (1975) 681–687.
[21] AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, A Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Material (NORM) Disposal Cost Study, 1st edn, API Publication 7100, API,
Washington, DC (1996).
[22] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, EXTERNE — Externalities of Energy, Vol. 4, Oil
and Gas, Rep. EUR 16524EN, CEC, Luxembourg (1994).
[23] WHITE, G.J., Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Oil and
Gas Industry Equipment and Wastes — A Literature Review, Rep.
DOE/ID/01570-T158, prepared by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for
US Department of Energy, Bartlesville, OK (1992).
[24] SPAITE, P.W., SMITHSON, G.R., Jr., Technical and Regulatory Issues Associated
with Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in the Gas and Oil
Industry, Rep. GRI-92/0178, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, IL (1992).
[25] US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Code of Federal Regulations,
10 CFR 20, USNRC, Washington, DC (1995) Appendix B.
[26] GRAY, P.R., “Regulations for the control of NORM”, SPE paper 26272, present-
ed at the SPE/EPA Exploration and Production Environmental Conf., San
Antonio, TX, 1993, http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/normbibl.pdf.
[27] RAABE, O.G., “Studies of the solubility of naturally-occurring radionuclides in
petroleum scale”, NORM/NARM: Regulation and Risk Assessment (Proc. 29th
Midyear Top. Mtg Scottsdale, 1996), Health Physics Society, Scottsdale, AZ (1996)
121–128, http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/normbibl.pdf.
[28] ROOD, A.S., KENDRICK, D.T., “Measurement of 222Rn flux, 222Rn emanation,
and 226Ra concentration from injection well pipe scale”, ibid., pp. 139–144,
http:.//www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/normbibl.pdf.
[29] SEITZ, R., “Comparative assessment modelling”, Toxic Waste (Proc. GTDC
Workshop Vienna, 1996), Global Technology Development Center, Vienna (1996)
178–199.
174
[30] US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(NORM) in Produced Water and Oil-Field Equipment — An Issue for the Energy
Industry, USGS Fact Sheet FS–142–99, USGS, Denver, CO (1999),
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0142-99/fs-0142-99.pdf.
[31] AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Bulletin on management of natural-
ly occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in oil & gas production, API Bull. E2,
API, Washington, DC (1992) 45 pp.
[32] QUADE, U., KLUTH, T., “Melting of NORM-contaminated equipment of an off-
shore oil platform”, NORM II (Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Krefeld, 1998), Siempelkamp,
Krefeld (1998) 95–101.
[33] STRAND, T., LYSEBO, I., “NORM in oil and gas production — Waste manage-
ment and disposal alternatives”, ibid., pp. 137–141.
[34] INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, London Convention
1972: Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,
IMO, London (1972), http://www.londonconvention.org/.
[35] CODEE, H.D.K., LAGERWERF, H., “The realisation of a management system
for industrial NORM waste in the Netherlands”, Radioactive Waste Disposal —
DISTEC 2000 (Proc. Conf. Berlin, 2000) 339–343.
[36] OSPAR COMMISSION, London, http://www.ospar.org/.
[37] FADEL, M.A., “Effect of NORMs on the natural radiation levels in petroleum
producing countries”, High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas:
Radiation Dose and Health Effects (Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Munich, 2000) Abstract
P1.3-261, p. 138.
[38] ODDO, J.E., et al., “NORM scale formation: A case study of the chemistry pre-
diction, remediation, and treatment in wells of the Antrim gas field”, paper pre-
sented at Exploration and Production Environmental Conf. San Antonio, TX,
1993.
[39] EYLANDER, J.G.R., et al., “Further developments in the in-situ removal of
TENORM from E&P production facilities”, NORM II (Proc. 2nd Int. Symp.
Krefeld, 1998), Siempelkamp, Krefeld (1998) 83–89.
[40] ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, Annual Energy Outlook
2002 with Projections to 2020, EIA, Washington, DC, http://www.eia.doe.gov/.
[41] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, Coal Information 2001, OECD/IEA,
Paris (2001).
[42] SMITH, K.R., et al., Radiological Impact on the UK Population of Industries
Which Use or Produce Materials Containing Enhanced Levels of Naturally
Occurring Radionuclides, Part I: Coal-fired Electricity Generation, Rep. NRBP-
R327, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton (2001).
[43] SUBASIC, D., et al.,“Restoration of radioactively contaminated sites in the
Republic of Croatia”, Planning for Environmental Restoration of Radioactively
Contaminated Sites in Central and Eastern Europe, Vol. 2, IAEA-TECDOC-865,
Vienna (1996) 55–79.
[44] SMITH, I.M., Trace Elements from Coal Combustion: Emissions, Rep. IEA
CR/01, IEA Coal Research, London (1987).
175
[45] CLARKE, L.B., Management of FGD Residues, IEA CR/75, IEA Coal Research,
London (1993).
[46] WISMUT, Sanierungskonzept Standort Dresden-Gittersee, September 1992,
Wismut GmbH, Chemnitz (1992).
[47] LEHMANN, R., “Radiation exposure due to natural radionuclides in building
materials, fossil fuels and fertilizers”, Umweltradioaktivität (SIEHL, A., Ed.),
Ernst, Berlin (1996).
[48] JUHÁSZ, L., SZERBIN, P., Analyses and Survey of Technology Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in Hungary, Collection of Data for the
Preparation of Legislation, Special report for Hungarian Atomic Energy
Authority, National Research Institute for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene,
Budapest (2001) (in Hungarian).
[49] BORIO, R., CAMPOS VENUTI, G., RISICA, S., SIMULA, S., Radioactivity
connected with coal burning, Sci. Total Environ. 45 (1985) 55–62.
[50] WYSOCKA, M., SKOWRONEK, J., “Analysis of the natural radioactivity of coal
from the Upper Silesian Coal Basin”, Nuclear Techniques in the Exploration and
Exploitation of Energy and Mineral Resources (Proc. Symp Vienna, 1990),
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1991) 457–462.
[51] WYSOCKA, M., Assessment of Radon Risk in Upper Silesia — Influence of
Geology and Mining Activity, PhD Thesis, Central Mining Institute, Katowice
(2002) (in Polish).
[52] SKOWRONEK, J., DULEWSKI, J., “NORM in Polish industry”, NORM III
(Proc. Conf. Brussels, 2001).
[53] UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS OF
ATOMIC RADIATION, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United
Nations Sales Publication No. E.94.IX.2, UN, New York (1993) 912 pp.
[54] MICHALIK, B., A Complex Method of Estimation of Risk due to the Natural
Radioactivity of Mining Waste Tailings, PhD Thesis, Central Mining Institute,
Katowice (2002) (in Polish).
[55] CLARKE, L.B., Legislation for the Management of Coal-use Residues, Rep. IEA
CR/68, IEA Coal Research, London (1994).
[56] PUCH, K.-H., KELLER, G., BERG W. V., “Radioactivity of combustion residues
from coal fired power stations”, paper presented at Int. Symp. on Radiological
Problems in the Non-nuclear Industry, Amsterdam, 1997.
[57] GODOY, M.L.D.P., ROLDÃO, L.A., GODOY, J.M., CONTI, L.F.C., “Natural
radionuclides and heavy metals in surface soils around a coal fired power plant in
Brazil”, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon
Areas: Radiation Dose and Health Effects, Munich, 2000 (Abstract P1.3–118,
p. 122).
[58] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, Diffuse NORM Wastes — Waste Characterization and Preliminary
Risk Assessment, Draft RAE-9232/1-2, SC&A, Inc. and Rogers & Associates
Engineering Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT (1993).
[59] SZERBIN, P., JUHÁSZ, L., Radiological Survey Prior to Utilization of Area of
Ponds of Residues and Evaluation for the Possibility of Utilization Concerning
176
Radiation Protection, National Research Institute for Radiobiology and
Radiohygiene, Budapest (2001) (in Hungarian).
[60] SCOTT, M., “NORM in the non-nuclear industries in the USA”, NORM-II (Proc.
2nd Symp. Krefeld, 1998), Siempelkamp, Krefeld (1998) 102.
[61] IBRAHIEM, N.M., NADA, A., ABD EL MAKSOUD, T.M., EL EZABY, B.,
ABD EL AZEEM, S.A., “Concentration of natural radionuclides in coal and its
end products in steel production”, paper presented at 10th Int. Congr. on
Radiation Protection, Hiroshima, 2000.
[62] TOMZA, I., LEBECKA, J., “Radium-bearing waters in coal mines: Occurrence,
methods of measurements and radiation hazard”, Radiation Hazards in Mining:
Control, Measurements, and Medical Aspects (GOMEZ, M., Ed.), American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York (1981)
945–948.
[63] GANS, I., et al., “Radium in waste waters from coal mines and other sources in
FRG”, paper presented at 2nd Symp. on Natural Radiation in the Environment,
Bombay, 1981.
[64] WIEGAND, J.W., SEBASTIAN, F., “Origin of radium in high-mineralised
waters”, Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR II) (Proc. Int.
Symp. Rio de Janeiro, 1999), IAEA-TECDOC-1271, International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna (2002) 107–111.
[65] MICHALIK, B., CHALUPNIK, S., SKUBACZ, K., WYSOCKA, M., MIEL-
NIKOW, A., “Contamination of settling ponds of coal mines caused by natural
radionuclides”, Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR II), (Proc.
Int. Symp. Rio de Janeiro, 1999), IAEA-TECDOC-1271, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna (2002) 19–29.
[66] SKOWRONEK, J., GIG Central Mining Institute, Katowice, personal communi-
cation.
[67] ANNANMÄKI, M., TURTIAINEN, T., JUNGCLAS, H., RAUSSE, C., Disposal
of Radioactive Waste Arising from Water Treatment: Recommendations for the
EC, Final Report of the WP8 of the TENAWA Project, Rep. STUK-4175, STUK,
Helsinki (2000) 77 pp.
[68] MORAES, V.R., MAZZILLI, B., “Radioactivity measurements on coal, bottom
and fly ashes and soil from a coal-fired power plant in Parana, Brazil”, Proc. 5th
Int. Conf. on High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose
and Health Effects, Munich, 2000 (Abstract. P1.3-119, p. 123).
[69] RAMACHANDRAN, T.V., MISHRA, U.C., “Technologically enhanced natural
radiation due to coal-fired power plants in India”, ibid., Abstract P1.3-120, p. 123.
[70] BEM, H., WIECZORKOWSKI, P., BUDZANOWSKI, M., “Evaluation of tech-
nologically enhanced natural radiation near the coal-fired power plants in the
Lodz region of Poland”, TENORM II (Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Technologically
Enhanced Natural Radiation, Rio de Janeiro, 1999) (Abstract, p. 28).
[71] US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash:
Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance, USGS Fact Sheet FS-163-97
(1997) 4 pp. http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/FS-163-97.pdf.
177
[72] CLARKE, L.B., Applications for Coal-use Residues, Rep. IEA CR/50, IEA Coal
Research, London (1992).
[73] INTERNATIONAL GEOTHERMAL ASSOCIATION, Table of Geothermal
Electricity Generation, IGA, Pisa,
http://iga.igg.cnr.it/electricitygeneration.php.
[74] US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Geothermal Power Plants and Electricity
Production, USDOE, Washington, DC,
http://www.eren.doe.gov/geothermal/geopowerplants.html.
[75] LESLIE, B.W., HAMMOND, D.E., KU, T.L., Temporal changes in decay series
isotope concentrations in response to flow conditions in the SSSDP well, Salton
Sea, California, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 212 (1991) 719–726.
[76] ROSEN, L.C., MOLENKAMP, C.R., An Environmental Overview of
Geothermal Development: The Geysers — Calistoga KGRA, Vol. 2, Air Quality,
Rep. UCRL-52496, Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab., CA (1978) 16 pp.
[77] CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A Study of NORM
Associated with Oil and Gas Production Operations in California, Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Sacramento, CA (1996) 62 pp.
[78] ERC ENVIRONMENTAL ENERGY SERVICES Co., Final Environmental
Impact Report for General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Conditional Use
Permit, prepared for Planning Department, County of Imperial, California,
Brawley, CA (1990).
[79] KRUGER, P., STOKER, A., UMANA, A., Radon in geothermal reservoir engi-
neering, Geothermics 5 (1977) 13–19.
[80] PREMUZIK, E.T., Advanced Biochemical Processes for Geothermal Brines,
Rep. BNL-61534, Brookhaven Natl Lab., Upton, NY (1995) 23 pp.
[81] SUESS, R.E., WARDLOW, C.L., “Geothermal waste issues in RCRA reautho-
rization”, Geothermal Resources Council Trans. 17 October (1993) 75–79.
[82] LUND, J.W., BOYD, T., MONNIE, D., “Use of silica waste from the Cerro-Prieto
geothermal field as construction material”, Geo-Heat Center Quart. Bull. 16 2
(1995) 15–22.
[83] MILLER, N., IRWIN, B., “Community Geothermal Technology Program: Hawaii
Glass Project”, Rep. DOE/SF/15798-T5, US Department of Energy, Washington,
DC (1988) 37 pp.
[84] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Classification of
Radioactive Waste, Safety Series No. 111-G-1.1, IAEA, Vienna (1994).
[85] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Current Drinking Water
Standards, USEPA, Washington, DC, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#ra.
[86] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Management of Water
Treatment Plant Residuals, Rep. EPA/625/R-95-008, USEPA, Washington, DC
(1995).
[87] GILKESON, R.H., et al., Isotopic Studies of the Natural Sources of Radium in
Groundwater in Illinois, Rep. UILU-WRC-84-183, University of Illinois Water
Resources Center, Springfield, IL (1984).
[88] HESS, C.T., et al., The occurrence of radioactivity in public water supplies in the
United States, Health Phys. J. 48 5 (1985) 553–586.
178
[89] REID, G.W., et al., Treatment, waste management and cost of radioactivity
removal from drinking water, Health Phys. J. 48 5 (1985) 671–694.
[90] LOWRY, J.D., LOWRY, S.B., Radionuclides in Drinking Water, American Water
Works Association, Denver, CO (1988).
[91] SZABO, Z., ZAPECZA, O.S., “Relation between natural radionuclide activities
and chemical constituents in ground water in the Newark Basin, New Jersey”,
Radon in Ground Water — Hydrogeologic Impact and Indoor Air Contamination
(GRAVES, B., Ed.), Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI (1987) 283–310.
[92] SOHRABI, M., “Environments with elevated radiation levels from natural
radioactive substances”, Restoration of Environments with Radioactive Residues
(Proc. Int. Symp. Arlington, 1999), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
(2000) 113–132.
[93] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Water Pollution Control;
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Regulation 40 CFR 141, Federal Register 51(189),
USEPA, Washington, DC (1986).
[94] COTHERN, C.R., LAPPENBUSCH, W.L., Occurrence of uranium in drinking
water in the US, Health Phys. J. 45 1 (1983) 89–99.
[95] AIETA, E.M., et al., Radionuclides in drinking water: An overview, Am. Water
Works Assoc. J. 79 4 (1987) 144–152.
[96] LOWRY, J.D., LOWRY, S.B., Modeling point-of-entry radon removal by GAC,
Am. Water Works Assoc. J. 79 10 (1987) 85–88.
[97] HOFMANN, J., LEICHT, R., WINGENDER, H.J., WÖRNER, J., Radiological
Impact Due to Wastes Containing Radionuclides from the Use and Treatment of
Drinking Water, Directorate General Environment, Rep. EUR 19255, European
Commission, Luxembourg (2000) 88 pp.
[98] HAHN, N.A., Jr., “Disposal of radium from drinking water treatment”, Radon,
Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water (COTHERN, C.R., REBERS, P.A.,
Eds), Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI (1990) 249–267.
[99] AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, 1984 Water Utility Operating
Data, AWWA, Denver, CO (1986).
[100] AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, 1985 Water Utility Operating
Data, AWWA, Denver, CO (1987).
[101] AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, Research needs for small
water supply systems: A survey, Am. Water Works Assoc. J. 89 1 (1997) 101–113.
[102] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, A Spreadsheet Program to
Ascertain Residual Radionuclide Concentrations (SPARRC), USEPA,
[103] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Suggested Guidelines for
the Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing Naturally-occurring
Radionuclides, USEPA, Washington, DC (1990).
[104] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Radioactive Waste
Disposal — An Environmental Perspective, Rep. EPA-402-K-94-001, USEPA,
179
[105] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Joint NRC/EPA Sewage
Sludge Radiological Survey: Survey Design and Test Site Results, Rep. EPA 832-
R-99-900, USEPA, Washington, DC (1999),
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/docs/sludgereport.htm.
[106] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Sewage Sludge, Directorate General for the
Environment, EC, Brussels,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/sludge/index.htm.
[107] HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY, NORM Deposition in the Pulp and Paper
Industry, HPS, MacLean, VA (2000),
http://www.hps.org/newsandevents/newsarchive/oldnews76.html.
[108] UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Natural Radioactivity in the
Environment, USGS Factsheet, USGS, Denver, CO (1994)
http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/ Radioactivity/radioact.html.
[109] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Potential Health and
Environmental Hazards of Uranium Mine Wastes, Report to Congress, Office of
Radiation Programs, US Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC (1983).
[110] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Technical Resource
Document — Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals, Vol. 5, Rep. 530-
R-94-032, USEPA, Washington, DC (1995).
[111] OSIENSKY, J.L., WILLIAMS, R.E., Factors affecting efficient aquifer restoration
at in situ uranium mine sites, Groundwater Monitoring Rev. (1990) 107–112.
[112] US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Environmental Assessment of In Situ
Leach Mining, Final Report, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC (1979) 292 pp.
[113] PULLES, W., Pulles, Howard and De Lange, Auckland Park, South Africa, person-
al communication, 2002.
[114] PILSON, R., VAN RENSBURG, H.L., WILLIAMS, C., An Economic and
Technical Evaluation of Regional Treatment Options for Gold Mine Effluents
Entering the Vaal Barrage Catchment, Rep. 800/1/2000, South African Water
Research Commission, Pretoria (2000).
[115] PULLES, W., WYMER, D., “Planning alternative scenarios concerning present
and future impacts of gold mining on the water environment”, in Mining Related
Water Research (Proc. Strat. Workshop Johannesburg, 2000), South African Water
Research Commission, Pretoria (2001).
[116] PIRAMID, Passive In-situ Remediation of Acidic Mine/Industrial Drainage, A
Research Project of the European Commission Fifth Framework Programme, EC,
Brussels, www.piramid.org/.
[117] ALPERS, C.N., BLOWES, D.A. (Eds), The Environmental Geochemistry of
Sulfide Oxidation, American Chemistry Society, Washington, DC (1994).
[118] FERNANDES, H.M., FRANKLIN, M.R., Acid mine drainage as an important
mechanism of natural radiation enhancement in mining areas, Technologically
Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR II) (Proc. Int. Symp. Rio de Janeiro, 1999),
IAEA-TECDOC-1271, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2002)
39–44.
180
[119] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Technologically Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in the Southwestern Copper Belt of
Arizona, (1999), http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/docs/TENORM.pdf.
[120] OECD ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY
AGENCY, Environmental Remediation of Uranium Production Facilities,
OECD, Paris (2002).
[121] LARUE, J., WEISS, D., KIESSIG, G., “Methods for storage and disposal of
residues from wastewater treatment of former uranium mining and milling facili-
ties in Germany”, Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR II) (Proc.
Int. Symp. Rio de Janeiro, 1999), IAEA-TECDOC-1271, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna (2002) 181–186.
[122] UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Mineral Commodity Summaries,
2001, USGS, Denver, CO,
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2001/mcs2001.pdf.
[123] PINNOCK, W.R., Radon levels and related doses in a prototype Jamaican house
constructed with bauxite waste blocks, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 81 4 (1999) 291–299.
[124] INTERNATIONAL ALUMINIUM INSTITUTE, Aluminium Production, IAI,
London, http://www.world-aluminum.org/production/index.html.
[125] HAUSBERG, J., et al., Global red mud reduction potential through optimised
technologies and ore selection, Miner. Res. Eng. 9 4 (2000) 407–420,
http://ejournals.wspc.com.sg/mre/09/0904/S0950609800000354.html.
[126] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Evaluation of EPA’s
Guidelines for Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials (TENORM), Report to Congress, Rep. EPA 402-R-00-01, USEPA,
Washington, DC (2000), http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/docs/nas_resp.pdf.
[127] COOPER, M.B., CLARKE, P.C., ROBERTSON, W., McPHARLIN, I.R., JEF-
FREY, R.C., An investigation of radionuclide uptake into food crops grown in
soils treated with bauxite mining residues, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 194 2 (1995)
379–387.
[128] THE ALUMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., Technology Roadmap for Bauxite
Residue Treatment and Utilization, Washington, DC (2000),
http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/The_Industry/Technology
_Resources/Technology_QandA/bauxite.pdf.
[129] THE WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER, Farmers damn mud trial, Red mud
studies raise questions, Polluted, toxic mud, Jan. 21, Perth (2002) 29.
[130] CHEMICAL ENGINEERING IN AUSTRALIA, Red mud for waste treatment,
Chem. Eng. Aust. 27 2 (2002) 1.
[131] INSTITUTION OF MINING AND METALLURGY, New developments in acid
mine drainage, IMM Bull. Jan./Feb. (2002) 50.
[132] CROCKETT, G.M., SMITH, K.R., OATWAY, W.B., MOBBS, S.F., “The radiolog-
ical impact of the steel production industry in the UK”, NORM III (Proc. Conf.
Brussels, 2001), Siempelkamp, Krefeld (2001).
[133] HARVEY, D.S., “Natural radioactivity in iron and steel production”, NORM II
(Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Krefeld, 1998), Siempelkamp, Krefeld (1998) 62–66.
181
[134] WIEGERS, R., ROELOFS, L., KUGELER, E., A Feasibility Study on the
Technical and Economical Aspects of Treating Natural Radioactive Waste
Materials (NORM), Rep. 19130EN, Commission of the European Communities,
Luxembourg (2000) 53 pp.
[135] BHP BILLITON Ltd, Environment and Community Report, Melbourne,
Australia (2000), http://envcommreport.bhp.com/homepage.htm.
[136] WEBELEMENTS PERIODIC TABLE, Niobium, WebElements Ltd, Sheffield,
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Nb/.
[137] PAN ABRASIVES GROUP, Commercial advertisement for JetBlast™ copper
slag based abrasives, PAG, Singapore,
http://www.pan-abrasives.com/english/Printable/pdf_files/slag.pdf.
[138] PÉREZ SÁNCHEZ, D., PRENDES ALONSO, M., CORCHO ALVARADO,
J.A., “Exposure to natural radiation in gold–copper mines located in areas with
high levels of natural radiation”, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on High Levels of Natural
Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and Health Effects, Munich, 2000
(Abstract P1.3-239, p. 135).
[139] TONNDORF, H., Metallogenie des Urans im ostdeutschen Zechstein, Abh.
Säsischen Akad. Wiss. Leipzig 58 3 (1994).
[140] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidebook to Accompany
the IAEA Map: World Distribution of Uranium Deposits, IAEA, Vienna (1996)
225 pp.
[141] DAHLKAMP, F.J., Uranium Ore Deposits, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993).
[142] COETZEE, C.B. (Ed.), Mineral Resources of the Republic of South Africa,
Department of Mines Geological Survey, 5th edn, DOM, Pretoria (1976).
[143] CHAMBER OF MINES OF SOUTH AFRICA, Statistical Tables, Johannesburg
(2000), http://www.bullion.org.za/Level3/StatsTables/StatsTables2000.pdf.
[144] WYMER, D., BOTHA, J.C., “Managing the environmental impacts of low activ-
ity wastes from the South African gold mining industry”, Radioactive Waste
Management and Environmental Remediation (Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Bruges, 2001).
[145] WYMER, D., International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, personal communi-
cation, 2002.
[146] DE BEER, G.P., STRYDOM, R., Assessment of the Radiation Dose from Floor
Slabs of Concrete Mixtures Containing an Aggregate from the Waste Rock Pile at
Western Areas Ltd., Rep. PR-VLG-10/98/12, South African Atomic Energy
Corporation, Pretoria (1998).
[147] DE JAGER, M.J., Placer Dome Western Areas Joint Venture, South Deep
Operations, Westonaria, South Africa, personal communication, 2002.
[148] COLLIER, D.E., RING, R.J., TAPSELL, G.J., BROWN, P.L., “Improved neutral-
isation methods for the treatment of acidic process waters for recycle”, (Proc.
Biomine/Wammo Conf. 1999), Australian Mineral Foundation, Perth (1999)
214–224.
[149] ROBINSON, R.E., BARNARD, R., LE RICHE, F.J., The treatment of acid efflu-
ent from the Grootvlei mine using novel IX techniques, J. South African Inst.
Mining Metall. 98 6 (1998) 343–348.
182
[150] DE BEER, G.P., Report on the Assessment of the Radiological Hazards
Associated with the Recycling of Contaminated Mining Scrap via a Smelter, Rep.
RAD/R/9509, South African Atomic Energy Corporation, Pretoria (1995).
[151] WYMER, D.G., DE BEER, G.P., BOTHA, J.C., “Authorized recycling of radioac-
tively contaminated scrap steel from South African gold mines”, Release of
Radioactive Material from Regulatory Control (Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Hamburg,
1999), TÜV Nord Akademie, Hamburg (1999) 416–427.
[152] MAREE, H., “Demolition of redundant metallurgical plants and the associated
rehabilitation activities”, Clean-up of Uranium and Precious Metal Plants (Proc.
Coll. Randfontein Sports Club, 1995), South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Johannesburg (1995).
[153] KRUGER, I.D., National Nuclear Regulator, Centurion, South Africa, personal
communication, 2002.
[154] STRYDOM, R., Parc Scientific, Ifafi, South Africa, personal communication,
2002.
[155] LIEBENBERG, G.R., Project Proposal for the Clean-up of the Contaminated
Areas on a Site Indicated as Riverley Extension 3, Doc. AEC-RIV-P-SY-10, South
African Atomic Energy Corporation, Pretoria (1997).
[156] FERNANDEZ, H.M., IRD, Rio de Janeiro, personal communication, 2001.
[157] COLLIER, D., Austalian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Lucas
Heights, personal communication, 2002.
[158] SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR WATER QUALITY STUDIES, Report
on the Radioactivity Monitoring Programme in the Mooi River
(Wonderfonteinspruit) Catchment, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
and Environmental Conservation, Pretoria (1999).
[159] DE JESUS, A.S.M., MALAN, J.J., ELLERBECK, V.T., VAN DER BANK, D.J.,
MOOLMAN, E.W., An Assessment of the Radium-226 Concentration Levels in
Tailings Dams and Environmental Waters in Gold/Uranium Mining Areas of the
Witwatersrand, Rep. PER-159, South African Atomic Energy Corporation,
Pretoria (1987).
[160] WADE, P.W., WOODBORNE, S., MORRIS, W.M., VOS, P., JARVIS, N.V., Tier 1
Risk Assessment of Selected Radionuclides in Sediments of the Mooi River
Catchment, Project No. K5/1095, South African Water Research Commission,
Pretoria (2000).
[161] DE BEER, G., SELBY, J., COETZEE, H., SRYDOM, R., “Estimation of a statis-
tically significant dose in terms of variations in natural background radiation lev-
els”, paper presented at SARPA Congr., Gordon’s Bay, South Africa, 2000.
[162] UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Commodity Statistics and
Information, USGS, Reston, VA (2003),
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity.
[163] DE BEER, G.P., SELBY, J.H., “Shallow land burial as an option for the disposal
of mineral sands waste”, NORM II (Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Krefeld, 1998),
Siempelkamp, Krefeld (1998) 147–151.
183
[164] MEOR YUSOFF, M.S., NORAISHAH, P., “The role of hydrometallurgy in the
treatment of Malaysian TENORM waste”, paper presented at 5th Radioactive
Waste Mangement Sem., Manila, 1999.
[165] OMAR, M., HASSAN, W.F.W., Naturally occurring radionuclides in Malaysian
granites, Nucl. Sci. J. Malaysia 17 2 (1999) 73–77.
[166] CHOONG, Y.C.A., Radiometric survey of natural background radiation in the
Kinta Valley Perak, Annual Report, Geological Survey Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
(1985).
[167] THE CHAMBER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY OF WESTERN AUS-
TRALIAN Inc., Best Practice in Radioactive Waste Management Guidelines in
the Western Australian Mineral Sands Industry, Jan. revision, Titanium Minerals
Committee, CMEWA, Perth (2000).
[168] DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS)
Historic Practices in the UK which have Utilised Radioactive Materials, Rep.
DETR/RAS/00.005, DEFRA, London (2001), http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ-
ment/radioactivity/research/complete/historic/index.htm.
[169] HUDSON, R.L., “The reduction of radionuclides in titaniferous feedstocks”,
paper presented at 11th Int. Congr. on Industrial Minerals, Berlin, 1994.
[170] UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Mineral Commodity Summaries
2001, Zirconium and Hafnium, USGS, Reston, VA (2001),
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2001/mcs2001.pdf.
[171] HARVEY, M.P., Radiological Consequences of Waste Arising with Enhanced
Natural Radioactivity Content from Special Metal and Ceramic Processes, Rep.
EUR 15613EN, European Commission, Luxembourg (1994).
[172] LISCHINSKY, J., VIGLIANI, M.A., ALLARD, D.J., Radioactivity in zirconium
oxide powders used in industrial applications, Health Phys. 60 6 (1991) 859–862.
[173] FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH, personal communica-
tion with FIPR staff reported in SCHMIDT et al. (1995) [191].
[174] TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, “Fertilizer trends”, Bull. TVA/OACD-
86/12, TVA, Knoxville, TN (1986).
[175] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Practical Use of the Concepts of Clearance and
Exemption, Part II, Application of the Concepts of Exemption and Clearance to
Natural Radiation Sources, Annex, EC, Luxembourg (2002) 84 pp.
[176] DE VOTO, R.H., STEVENS, D.N. (Eds), Uraniferous Phosphate Resources and
Technology and Economics of Uranium Recovery from Phosphate Resources,
United States and Free World, Rep. GJBX-110(79), 3 Vols, US Department of
Energy, Washington, DC (1979).
[177] BLISS, W.A., EPA Las Vegas Facility, personnal communication, 1988.
[178] PENFOLD, J.S.S., DEGRANGE, J.P., MOBBS, S.F., SCHNEIDER, T.,
“Establishment of reference levels for regulatory control of workplaces where
minerals are processed which contain enhanced levels of naturally occurring
radionuclides”, Radiation Protection No. 107, Commission of the European
Communities, Luxembourg (1999) 234 pp.
184
[179] DE BEER, G., Report on a Radiological Screening Survey of the Foskor
Processing Plants, Rep. RAD/R/004, South African Atomic Energy Corporation,
Pretoria (1994).
[180] COLLIER, D., Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Lucas
Heights, personal communication, 2001.
[181] ROESSLER, C.E., “The radiological aspects of phosphogypsum”, Natural
Radiation and Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (Proc. Symp.
Daytona Beach, 1987) 320–338.
[182] BAETSLÉ, L.H., Study of Radionuclides Contained in Waste Produced by the
Phosphate Industry and their Impacts of the Environment, Rep. EUR 13262,
Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1991).
[183] FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH, Microbiology and
Radiochemistry of Phosphogypsum, Publ. No. 05-035-115, FIPR, Bartow, FL
(1995).
[184] US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Annual Report, Phosphate Rock, 1991,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC (1992).
[185] FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH, Phosphogypsum Fact-
Finding Forum (Proc. Forum Tallahassee, 1995), Publ. No. 01-132-117, FIPR,
Bartow, FL (1996).
[186] HULL, C.D., BURNETT, W.C., Radiochemistry of Florida phosphogypsum, J.
Environ. Radioact. 32 3 (1969) 213–238.
[187] WORLD BANK GROUP, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook –
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, WBG, New York (1998),
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/PPAH/$File/76_phosp.pdf.
[188] CANCIO, D.F., GUTIERREZ, J., RUIZ, C., SAINZ, A., “Radiological consider-
ations related with the restoration of a phosphogypsum disposal site in Spain”,
Remediation and Restoration of Radioactively Contaminated Sites in Europe
(Proc. Int. Symp. Antwerp, 1993), Rep. XI-5027/94, European Commission,
Brussels (1994).
[189] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Background Information
Document, Radionuclide Emissions from Phosphogypsum Stacks — Risk
Assessment, USEPA, Washington, DC (1988).
[190] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Risk Assessments —
Environmental Impact Statement for NESHAPS Radionuclides — Background
Information Document, Vol. 2, Rep. EPA 520/1-89-006-1, USEPA, Washington,
DC (1989).
[191] SCHMIDT, G., KUPPENS, C., ROBINSON, P., Handling of Radium and
Uranium Contaminated Waste Piles and Other Wastes from Phosphate Ore
Processing, Rep. 15448EN, Commission of the European Communities,
Luxembourg (1995).
[192] SCHOLTEN, L.C., Approaches of Regulating Management of Large Volumes of
Waste Containing Natural Radionuclides in Enhanced Concentrations, Rep. EUR
16956EN, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1996).
[193] LALKHAN, M.J., Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa, Pretoria, person-
al communication, 2001.
185
[194] SILVA, N.C., DE NADAI FERNANDES, E.A., CIPRIANI, M., TADDEI,
M.H.T., “Leaching assessment of radioactive and non-radioactive elements from
Brazilian phosphogypsum”, Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR
II) (Proc. Int. Symp. Rio de Janeiro, 1999), IAEA-TECDOC-1271, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2002) 142–148.
[195] ROSA, E., AMARAL, E.C.S., “Disequilibrium implications on dose assessment
in the use of NORM as building materials”, ibid., pp. 128–136.
[196] ISRAEL MINING INSTITUTE, “Process for the preparation of phosphoric
acid”, A Patent History of IMI: Phosphoric Acid, Israeli Patent IL 009661, IMI,
Haifa Bay (1956),
http://www.tami-imi.com/patents-phosphoric%20acid.html for related IMI patents.
[197] ISRAEL MINING INSTITUTE, “A short description of the IMI process for
cleaning of wet process phosphoric acid”, ISMA Technical Conference Seville,
Rep. LTE/72/4, International Superphosphate Manufacturers’ Association, Paris
(1972) 14 pp.
[198] PARIDAENS, J., VANMARCKE, H., “Inventory and characterisation of
increased concentrations of natural radionuclides from industrial origin in
Flanders”, Rep. BLG-884, SCK/CEN, Mol (2001) 46 pp.
[199] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Characterization and
Control of Radionuclide Emissions From Elemental Phosphorus Production,
Rep. EPA-450/3-88-015, USEPA, Washington, DC (1989).
[200] ERKENS, W.H.H., “Electrothermal phosphorus production, radioactivity in the
environment and workplace”, paper presented at Int. Symp. on Radiological
Problems with Natural Radioactivity in the Non-Nuclear Industry, Amsterdam,
1997.
[201] HORTON, T.R., et al., A Long-term Study of Radon and Airborne Particulates at
Phosphogypsum Stacks in Central Florida, Rep. EPA 520/5-88-021, USEPA,
[202] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Emissions of Naturally
Occurring Radioactivity from Stauffer Elemental Phosphorus Plant, Rep.
ORP/LV-81-4, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, NV (1981).
[203] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Emissions of Naturally
Occurring Radioactivity from Monsanto Elemental Phosphorus Plant, Rep.
ORP/LV-81-5, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, NV (1981).
[204] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Evaluation of Radon
Sources and Phosphate Slag in Butte, Montana, Rep. EPA 520/6-83-026, USEPA,
[205] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Emission Standards for Emission Standards for Elemental
Phosphorus Plants, Rep. EPA 520/1-84-025, USEPA, Washington, DC (1984).
[206] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Background Information
Document, Radionuclide Emissions from Phosphogypsum Stacks — Risk
Assessment, USEPA, Washington, DC (1988).
[207] INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, UNITED
NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, UNITED NATIONS
186
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, Mineral Fertilizer
Production and the Environment, Part 1, The Fertilizer Industry’s Manufacturing
Processes and Environmental Issues, Tech. Rep. No. 26, IFA/UNEP/UNIDO
(1998) 66 pp.
[208] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Report to Congress,
Wastes from the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock,
Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale, Rep. EPA/530-SW-
85-033, USEPA, Washington, DC (1985).
[209] US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Report to Congress on
Special Wastes from Mineral Processing, Rep. EPA/530-SW-90-070C, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC (1990).
[210] INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER/UNITED
NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, Fertilizer
Manual, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (1998).
[211] FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH (Eds), 3rd Int. Symp.
on Phosphogypsum, Orlando, FL, 1990.
[212] HIGGY, R.H., “Natural radionuclides in Egyptian phosphogypsum”, 5th Int.
Conf. on High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and
Health Effects, Munich, 2000, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Neuherberg (2000)
Abstract P1.3-124, p. 126.
[213] GHEORGHE, R., MILU, C., GHEORGHE, D., MODORAN, G., “Exposures
due to phosphogypsum and fly ash used as building materials”, High Levels of
Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and Health Effects (Proc.
5th Int. Conf. Munich, 2002), Vol. 2, Rep. BfS-SCHR-24/2002, Bundesamt für
Strahlenschutz, Neuherberg (2002) 331–334.
[214] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safe Management of
Wastes from the Mining and Milling of Uranium and Thorium Ores, Safety Series
No. 85, IAEA, Vienna (1987).
[215] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Decommissioning of
Facilities for Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores and Closeout of Residues,
Technical Reports Series No. 362, IAEA, Vienna (1994).
[216] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Closeout of Uranium
Mines and Mills: A Review of Current Practices, IAEA-TECDOC-939, Vienna
(1997).
[217] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidebook on Good
Practice in the Management of Uranium Mining and Mill Operations and the
Preparation for Their Closure, IAEA-TECDOC-1059, Vienna (1998).
[218] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY, Uranium 1999, Resources, Production and Demand,
OECD, Paris (1999).
[219] NATIONAL GROUP FOR STUDYING THE RADIOLOGICAL IMPLICA-
TIONS IN THE USE OF ZIRCON SAND, Sci. Total Environ. 45 (1985) 135–142.
[220] ÅKERBLOM, G., HARDELL, L., FREDRIKSON, M., AXELSON, O., “On the
exposure circumstances and some further risk estimates regarding leukemia in
ages 0–19 years and exposure to ionizing radiation in homes of uranium-containing
187
alum shale-based concrete”, Natural Radiation Environment (Proc. 7th Conf.
Rhodes, 2002), Radioactivity in the Environment Series, Elsevier (2003),
http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/series/rie.
[221] AL-JARALLAH, M., Radon exhalation from granites used in Saudi Arabia, J.
Environ. Radioact. 53 (2001) 91–98.
[222] AMRANI, D., TAHTAT, M., Natural radioactivity in Algerian building materials,
Appl. Radiat. Isot. 54 (2001) 687–689.
[223] BERETKA, J., MATHEW, P.J., Natural radioactivity of Australian building mate-
rials, industrial wastes and by-products, Health Phys. 48 1 (1985) 87–95.
[224] BOTEZATU, E., IACOB, O., MIRON, C., GRÃDINARU, M., “Increased indoor
radiation exposures — Consequences of NORMs contained in building materials”,
High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and Health
Effects (Proc. Conf. 2002), Vol. 2, Poster Presentation, Rep. BfS-SCHR-24/2002,
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Neuherberg (2002) 355–358.
[225] HEWAMANNA, R., SUMITHRARACHCHI, C.S., MAHAWATTE, P.,
NANAYAKKARA, H.L.C., RATNAYAKE, H.C., Natural radioactivity and
gamma dose from Sri Lankan clay bricks used in building construction, Appl.
Radiat. Isot. 54 (2001) 365–369.
[226] IANNI, A., et al., “Natural radiation in building materials from the volcanic area
of the Italian Lazio region – Occupational safety”, High Levels of Natural
Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and Health Effects (Proc. Conf.
2002), Vol. 2, Rep. BfS-SCHR-24/2002, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz,
Neuherberg (2002) 351–354.
[227] KAHN, B., EICHHOLZ, G.G., CLARKE, F.J., Search for building materials as
sources of elevated radiation dose, Health Phys. 45 2 (1983) 349–361.
[228] KHAN, K., ASLAM, M., ORFI, S.D., KHAN, H.M., Norm and associated radia-
tion hazard in bricks fabricated in various localities of the north-west frontier
province (Pakistan), J. Environ. Radioact. 58 (2002) 59–66.
[229] KHATIBEH, A.J.A.H., MA’LY, A., AHMAD, N., MATIULLA, H., Natural
radioactivity in Jordanian construction materials, Radiation Prot. Dosim. 69 2
(1997) 143–147.
[230] KUMAR, V., RAMACHANDRAN, T.V., PRASAD, R., Natural radioactivity of
Indian building materials and by-products, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 51 (1999) 93–96.
[231] MALANCA, A., PESSINA, V., DALLARA, G., Radionuclide content of building
materials and gamma ray dose rates in dwellings of Rio Grande Do Norte, Brazil,
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 48 2 (1993) 199–203.
[232] MAN, C.-K., LAU, S.-Y., AU, S.-C., NG, W.-K., Radionuclide contents in building
materials used in Hong Kong, Health Phys. 57 3 (1989) 397–401.
[233] MOLLAH, A.S., AHMED, G.U., HUSAIN, S.R., RAHMAN, M.M., The natural
radioactivity of some building materials used in Bangladesh, Health Phys. 50 6
(1986) 849–851.
[234] MUSTAPHA, A.O., NARAYANA, D.G.S., PATEL, J.P., OTWOMA, D., Natural
radioactivity in some building materials in Kenia and the contributions to the
indoor external doses, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 71 1 (1997) 65–69.
188
[235] O’BRIEN, R.S., PEGGIE, J.R., LEITH, I.S., Estimates of inhalation doses result-
ing from the possible use of phospho-gypsum plaster-board in Australian homes,
Health Phys. 68 4 (1995) 561–570.
[236] OMAR, M., “Natural radioactivity of building materials used in Malaysia”, High
Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and Health
Effects (Proc. Conf. 2002), Vol. 2, Rep. BfS-SCHR-24/2002, Bundesamt für
Strahlenschutz, Neuherberg (2002) 347–350.
[237] OTHMAN, I., MAHROUKA, M., Radionuclide content in some building mate-
rials in Syria and their indoor gamma dose rate, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 55 4 (1994)
299–304.
[238] PANTELICA, A., GEORGESCU, I.I., MURARIU-MAGUREANU, M.D.,
MARGARITESCU, I., CINCU, E., Thorium determination in intercomparison
samples and in some Romanian building materials by gamma ray spectrometry,
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 97 2 (2001) 187–191.
[239] PETROPOULOS, N.P., ANAGNOSTAKIS, M.J., SIMOPOULOS, S.E., Photon
attenuation, natural radioactivity content and radon exhalation rate of building
materials, J. Environ. Radioact. 61 (2002) 257–269.
[240] PINNOCK, W.R., Measurements of radioactivity in Jamaican building materials
and g dose equivalents in a prototype red mud house, Health Phys. 61 5 (1991)
647–651.
[241] RISICA, S., NUCCETELLI, C., Building materials as a source of population
exposure to ionising radiation, Physica Med. 17 1 (2001) 3–8.
[242] RISICA, S., BOLZAN, C., NUCCETELLI, C., Radioactivity in building materi-
als: Room model analysis and experimental methods, Sci. Total Environ. 272 1–3
(2001) 119–126.
[243] RIZZO, S., BRAI, M., BASILE, S., BELLIA, S., HAUSER, S., Gamma activity
and geochemical features of building materials: Estimation of gamma dose rate
and indoor radon levels in Sicily, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 55 (2001) 259–265.
[244] SAM, A.K., ABBAS, N., Assessment of radioactivity and the associated hazards in
local and imported cement types used in Sudan, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 93 3 (2001)
275–277.
[245] SKOWRONEK, J., DULEWSKI, J., “NORM in Polish industry”, NORM III
(Proc. 3rd Conf. Brussels, 2001), Siempelkamp, Krefeld (2001).
[246] TUFAIL, M., AHMAD, N., ALMAKKY, S., ZAFAR, M.S., KHAN, H.A., Natural
radioactivity in the ceramic used in dwellings as construction material, Sci. Total
Environ. 127 (1992) 243–253.
[247] TUFAIL, M., AHMAD, N., MIRZA, S.M., MIRZA, N.M., KHAN, H.A., Natural
radioactivity from the building materials used in Islamabad and Rawalpindi,
Pakistan, Sci. Total Environ. 121 (1992) 283–291.
[248] VENTURINI, L., NISTI, M.B., Natural radioactivity of some Brazilian building
materials, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 71 3 (1997) 227–229.
[249] WALLEY EL-DINE, N., EL-SHERSHABY, A., AHMED, F., ABDEL-
HALEEM, A.S., Measurement of radioactivity and radon exhalation rate in dif-
ferent kinds of marbles and granites, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 55 (2001) 853–860.
189
[250] YU, K.N., GUAN, Z.J., STOKES, M.J., YOUNG, E.C.M., The assessment of the
natural radiation dose committed to the Hong Kong people, J. Environ. Radioact.
17 (1992) 31–48.
[251] ZAIDI, J.H., ARIF, M., AHMAD, S., FATIMA, I., QURESHI, I.H., Determination
of natural radioactivity in building materials used in the Rawalpindi/Islamabad
area by g-ray spectrometry and instrumental neutron activation analysis, Appl.
Radiat. Isot. 51 (1999) 559–564.
[252] ZIKOVSKY, L., KENNEDY, G., Radioactivity of building materials available in
Canada, Health Phys. 63 4 (1992) 449–452.
[253] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Enhanced Radioactivity of Building Materials,
Radiation Protection Report 96, EC, Luxembourg (1999).
[254] INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION,
“Protection of the public in situations of prolonged radiation exposure. The appli-
cation of the Commission’s system of radiological protection to controllable radi-
ation exposure due to natural sources and long-lived radioactive residues”,
Publ. 82, Ann. ICRP 29 1–2 (1999).
[255] RISICA, S., BOLZAN, C., NUCCETELLI, C., “The Italian investigation, radia-
tion protection and legislative approach to contaminated scrap metal and build-
ing material rich in natural radionuclides”, NORM III (Proc. 3rd Conf. Brussels,
2001), Siempelkamp, Krefeld (2001).
[256] DENG, W., TIAN, K., ZHANG, Y., CHEN, D., Radioactivity in zircon and build-
ing tiles, Health Phys. 73 2 (1997) 369–372.
[257] O’BRIEN, R.S., ARAL, H., PEGGIE, J.R., Radon exhalation rates and gamma
doses from ceramic tiles, Health Phys. 75 6 (1998) 630–639.
[258] YAHONG, M., YIGANG, L., GUANG, Z., XIAOLEI, H., The studies on radio-
logical limits of color-glazed tiles used in home decoration, Health Phys. 82 4
(2002) 510–512.
[259] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY/INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY, Environmental Issues in Uranium Mining and Milling,
OECD/NEA, Paris (1999).
[260] TOMABECHI, K., Uranium Glass Gallery,
http://www.parkcity.ne.jp/~ken-toma/.
[261] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY, Uranium 1999 Resources, Production and Demand,
OECD/NEA, Paris (2000) 340 pp.
[262] PEHLKE, R.D., Unit Processes of Extractive Metallurgy, Elsevier, Amsterdam
and New York (1973).
[263] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Management of
Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores, Safety Standards Series
No. WS-G-1.2, IAEA, Vienna (2002).
[264] AL-MUGHRABI, M., “IAEA programme on radium conditioning”, paper pre-
sented at 1st Asian and Oceanic Cong. for Radiation Protection, Seoul, 2002,
http://www.aocrp-1.com.
190
[265] RADIUM SPAs: Jáchymov: The First Radon Spa in the World,
http://www.lazne-kur-spa-jachymov.cz/MetodyU.htm
http://www.thermaesylla.gr
http://www.orau.com/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm.
[266] UK RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, RWMAC’s
Advice to Ministers on The Ministry of Defence’s Arrangements for Dealing with
Radioactively Contaminated Land,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/mod/summary.htm.
[267] BAKER, A.C., DARWIN, C.J., JEFFRIES, N.L., TOWLER, P.A., WADE, D.L.,
Best Practice Guidance for Site Characterisation: Managing Contaminated Land
on Nuclear-Licensed and Defence Sites, Rep. W001.01, SAFEGROUNDS
Network, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London
(2000).
[268] COTTENS, E., et al., “Contamination and possibilities for remediation in the
vicinity of the former radium extraction plant in Olen — A case study”, Radiation
Protection 94, Vols 1–2, Doc. XI-5027/94, European Commission, Luxembourg
(1994).
[269] PERMA-FIX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, The Complete Thorium Web
Site,
http://www.thorium-waste.com/.
[270] NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASURE-
MENTS, Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population from Consumer Products
and Miscellaneous Sources, Rep. No. 95, NCRP, Bethesda, MD (1995) Section
3.2.8.3, p. 47.
[271] MJÖNES, L., “Radiation protection at workplaces with increased natural radia-
tion exposure: The situation in Sweden”, paper presented at Workshop on
Radiation Protection at Workplaces with Increased Natural Radiation Exposure:
Recording, Monitoring, Protection Measures, Salzgitter, Germany, 1998.
[272] DE BEER, G.P., BEYLEVELD, J.F., Survey Results on Categories, Quantities
and Radiological Hazards of Radioactive Waste from Acid and Uranium Plants,
Chamber of Mines of South Africa, Johannesburg (1993).
[273] BASSON, J.K., SELTZER, A., Unexpected radium-226 build-up in pyrite-burning
sulphuric acid plants, Health Phys. 28 (1975) 123–126.
[274] THIERFELDT, S., DECKERT, A., BRÖCKING, D., “Exemption levels for
dredged materials: Further developments in the in-situ removal of TENORM
from E&P production facilities”, NORM II (Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Krefeld, 1998),
Siempelkamp, Krefeld (1998) 77–81.
[275] SYMONDS GROUP Ltd, Construction and Demolition Waste Management
Practices, and Their Economic Impacts, Annex 7: Some Potentially Hazardous
Elements in C&DW, Report to DGXI, European Commission, Brussels (1999),
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/cdw/c&dw_annexes7-13.pdf.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-2.4, IAEA,
Vienna (2001).
191
[277] US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Decommissioning Handbook, Rep.
DOE/EM-0142P, Office of Environmental Restoration, Washington, DC (1994).
[278] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, State of the Art Technology
for Decontamination and Dismantling of Nuclear Facilities, Technical Reports
Series No. 395, IAEA, Vienna (1999).
[279] HÉBERT, J.P., et al., Decommissioning of Old Uranium Ore Extraction and
Treatment Installations, Rep. EUR 16885EN, Commission of the European
Communities, Luxembourg (1996) 303 pp.
Medical, Industrial and Research Facilities, Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-2.2,
IAEA, Vienna (1999).
[281] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Predisposal Management
of Radioactive Waste, Including Decommissioning, Safety Standards Series No.
WS-R-2, IAEA, Vienna (2000).
[282] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, International Basic Safety
Standards for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of
Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996).
[283] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Characterization of
Radioactively Contaminated Sites for Remediation Purposes, IAEA-TECDOC-
1017, Vienna (1998).
[284] JOHNSON, R., SMITH, K.P., QUINN, J., The Application of Adaptive Sampling
and Analysis Program (ASAP) Techniques to NORM Sites, Rep. DOE/BC/W-31-
109-ENG-38-9, OSTI ID: 14169, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
(1999).
[285] VOGEL, G.A., GOLDFARB, A.S., MALONE, G.A., LUNDQUIST, D.E., A sur-
vey of technical aspects of site remediation: Site remediation strategy”, Waste
Manage. 14 1 (1994) 61–66.
[286] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Non-Technical Factors
Impacting on the Decision Making Processes in Environmental Remediation —
Influences on the Decision Making Process such as Costs, Planned Land Use and
Public Perception, IAEA-TECDOC-1279, Vienna (2002).
[287] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Siting of Near Surface
Disposal Facilities, Safety Series No. 111-G-3.1, IAEA, Vienna (1994).
[288] COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Management of
Waste from the Extractive Industries, Brussels (2003),
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0319en01.pdf.
[289] INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, London,
http://www.imo.org.
[290] SMITH, K.P., BLUNT, D.L., ARNISH, J.J., Potential Radiological Doses
Associated With the Disposal of Petroleum Industry NORM via Landspreading,
Rep. DOE/BC/W-31-109-Eng-38-5 (DE98000550) US Department of Energy,
[291] SWINDOLL, M., STAHL, R.G., Jr., ELLS, S.J. (Eds), Natural Remediation of
Environmental Contaminants: Its Role in Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk
192
Management, SETAC Publ. Order #GP00-1, The Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels (2000) 480 pp.
[292] NICOLE, Project: Natural Attenuation: Guidelines for Acceptance, Apeldoom,
Netherlands, http://www.nicole.org/.
[293] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Technical Options for the
Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater, IAEA-TECDOC-1088, Vienna
(1999).
[294] STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Material Flow
Accounting — Experience of Statistical Institutes in Europe, EUROSTAT,
Luxembourg (1997).
[295] INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, ISO
14000 — Meet the whole Family!, ISO, Geneva,
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/iso9000-14000/pdf/iso14000.pdf.
[296] GORTER, J., “Zinc balance for the Netherlands, 1990”, Material Flow
Accounting — Experience of Statistical Institutes in Europe, Statistical Office of
the European Commission, Luxembourg (1997) 205–220.
[297] UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, Summary Report on
Workshop on held on Abandoned Mines: Problems, Issues and Policy Challenges
for Decision Makers, Santiago de Chile, 2001,
http://www.mineralresourcesforum.org/docs/pdfs/abandoned_report.pdf.
[298] GEHRCKE, K., BIESOLD, H., “Development of a computer-based information
system for the registration, investigation and radiological assessment of mining
residues”, Environmental Contamination in Central and Eastern Europe (Proc.
3rd Int. Symp. Warsaw, 1996), Florida State University, Tallahassee (1996) 769.
[299] ENVIRONMENTAL COST ENGINEERING COMMITTEE, Historial Cost
Assessment System (HCAS), Remedial Action Breakdown Structure, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC (2000),
http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/ec2/index.html.
[300] THE PUBLICITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, Tin Mining in Malaysia,
Tin Industry Research & Development Board, Kuala Lumpur (1984).
[301] PHOON, V.S.O., “Efficiency of tin treatment plant on bucket-line dredges”,
Research and Development in Extractive Metallurgy of Tin and Related Metals
(Proc. Int. Symp. Ipoh, 1990) 177–197.
[302] WAN, L.C., “Tin dredging operations at Berjuntai Berhad, Selangor, Peninsular
Malaysia”, paper presented at 5th World Conf. on Tin, Kuala Lumpur, 1981.
[303] DAHAN, A.R., “Recovery and production of ilmenite, xenotime, monazite and
zircon from amang of the tin industry in Malaysia”, paper presented at Sem. on
Radiation Protection for Radioactive Mineral Processors, Kuala Lumpur, 1990.
[304] MEOR YUSOFF, S., “Rare earth resources and beneficiation in Malaysia”, paper
presented at Asean–Indian Workshop on NdFeB Magnets and Materials —
Advancements, Applications and Market Growth, Malaysia, 2000.
[305] OMAR, M., IBRAHIM, M.Y., HASSAN, A., LAU, H.M., AHMAD, Z.,
“Enhanced radium level in tin mining areas in Malaysia”, High Levels of Natural
Radiation (Proc. Int. Conf. Ramsar, 1990) 191–195.
193
[306] KRONOS Inc., Information Material on Titanium Pigments, Chelmsford, MA,
http://www.nl-ind.com/.
[307] CHEMLINK Pty Ltd, Rutile and Ilmenite — Australian Production and Potential
Profile, Chemlink, Perth (1977), http://www.chemlink.com.au/rutile.htm.
[308] AUSTPAC RESOURCES N.L., ERMS: Enhanced Roasting and Magnetic
Separation, and EARS: Enhanced Acid Regeneration System, AUSTPAC,
Sydney, http://www.austpacresources.com/technologies/default.htm#erms.
[309] MEOR YUSOFF, M.S., NORAISHAH, P., “The role of hydrometallurgy in the
treatment of Malaysian TENORM waste”, paper presented at 5th Sem. on
Radioactive Waste Management, Manila, 1999.
[310] OMAR, M., “The distribution of radionuclides in monazite processing wastes”,
Nucl. Bull. Malaysia 1 4 (1985) 7–10 (in Malay).
[311] MEOR YUSOFF, M.S., SOINGIP, A.R., “Extraction and production of strategic
elements from radioactive waste of tin-tailing mineral processing industry”, paper
presented at Int. Symp. on Research and Development in Extractive Metallurgy
of Tin and Related Metals, Ipoh, Malaysia, 1990.
[312] MALIK, S.A., MARZUKEE, N., AHMAD, Z., “A preliminary study on immobil-
isation of thorium bearing waste using ordinary Portland cement (OPC)”, paper
presented at Natl Sem. on NORM in the Environment, Kuala Lumpur, 1994.
[313] SYED, H.S., “Comparison studies adsorption of thorium and uranium on pure
clay minerals and local Malaysian soil sediments”, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 241
1 (1999) 11–14.
[314] SYED, H.S., “Extrapolation studies on adsorption of thorium and uranium at dif-
ferent solution compositions on soil sediments”, J. Radioanal. & Nucl. Chem. 237
1–2 (1998) 125–128.
[315] YUNUS, M.N.M., HAMZAH, S., ZAIN, S.M.S., MOHAMAD PUAD, H.A.,
KUMAR, R., “Thermal processing of waste and related activities in MINT: A
review”, paper presented at 2nd Int. Symp. on Incineration and Flue Gas
Treatment Technologies — Combustion, Sheffield, 1999.
[316] WEBELEMENTS™ PERIODIC TABLE, http://www.webelements.com/.
[317] PIRES DO RIO, M.A., AMARAL, E.C.S., FERNANDES, H.M., ROCHEDO,
E.R.R., Environmental radiological impact associated with non-uranium mining
industries: A proposal for screening criteria, J. Environ. Radioact. 59 (2002) 1–17.
[318] LIPZTEIN, J.L., et al., Exposure of workers in mineral processing industries in
Brazil, J. Environm. Radioact. 54 1 (2001) 189–199.
194
GLOSSARY
Please note that some of the definitions given below are broader than those given
in the current IAEA Waste Safety and Waste Management Glossaries in order to
accommodate the specific subject matter considered in this report.
amang. Malay term for tin ore processing tailings.

barren. Said of rock devoid of ore.
by-product. Any product from an (industrial) process that is not the intended
primary product, but inevitable given the process implemented.
comminution. The mechanical process of rock breakage, excluding blasting, as
ore is mined and prepared for mineral processing.
gangue. Those minerals in an ore body that are not the ore itself.
industrial process. This term is used very broadly in the present report to
denote any human activity involving the application of technology, for
example the mining, processing and drinking water treatment industries.
LCA. Life cycle analysis, a systematic set of procedures for compiling and
examining the inputs and outputs of materials and energy, and the associ-
ated environmental impacts directly attributable to the functioning of a
product or service system throughout its life cycle.
MFA. Material flow accounting or analysis, a method whereby the streams of,
for example, materials, chemical elements and energy are assessed and
possibly balanced. It is centred on the material/chemical compound,
rather than on the product or service like LCA. MFA covers approaches
such as substance flow analysis (SFA), product flow accounting, material
balancing and overall material flow accounts.
milling (of ore). Understood here to include all the processes necessary to
remove the metal sought from the ore.
NOR. Naturally occurring radionuclide.
NORM. Naturally occurring radioactive material.
overburden. Any rock or soil above the vein, seam or stratum of material of
interest that has to be (partially) removed to provide access.
product. The intended output from an (industrial) process.
pregnant. In solution mining and in milling, the solution containing the dis-
solved metals, etc., of interest.
195
protore. Rock containing subeconomic material from which economic miner-
al deposits may form by geological concentration processes such as super-
gene enrichment. A protore may become profitable with technological
advance or change in market value.
REE. Rare earth elements (or lanthanides), comprising 16 chemical elements,
including those with atomic numbers 57 (lanthanum) through 71
(lutetium), as well as yttrium (atomic number 39).
SFA. Substance flow analysis. Similar to MFA.
tailings. Residues of a milling process that usually involves grinding, sieving,
flotation and/or other physical or chemical treatment and is intended to
remove as much as is feasible of the target mineral or chemical com-
pound. Tailings consist of gangue and may include process water, process
chemicals and portions of unremoved minerals and chemical compounds.
TE-NORM. Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive
materials.
UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme.
waste. Any material that is:
(a) The unwanted/substandard output from an (industrial) process that
cannot be utilized under given circumstances (technological/economic
perspective);
(b) Declared as unwanted and/or unusable (regulatory perspective).
196
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW
de Beer, G. NECSA, South Africa
Collier, D. ANSTO, Australia
Falck, W.E. International Atomic Energy Agency
Fernandes, H.R. Instituto de Radioproteção e Dosimetria, Brazil
Harris, F. International Atomic Energy Agency/ANSTO,

Australia
Juhász, L. National Research Institute for Radiobiology and

Radiohygiene, Hungary
Kaasik, T. ÖkoSil Ltd, Estonia
Mrabet, T. Institut Mondial du Phosphate (IMPHOS), Morocco
Msatef, D. Office Chérifien des Phosphates, Morocco
Omar, M. Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research

(MINT), Malaysia
Pires do Rio, M.A. Instituto de Radioproteção e Dosimetria, Brazil
Reisenweaver, D. International Atomic Energy Agency
Risica, S. Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy
Seitz, R. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL), United States of America
Setlow, L.W. US Environmental Protection Agency,

United States of America
Skowronek, J. Central Mining Institute, Poland
Szerbin, P. National Research Institute for Radiobiology and

Radiohygiene, Hungary
Thoste, V. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural

Resources (BGR), Germany
197
Vandenhove, H.G. SCK-CEN, Belgium
Wymer, D. International Atomic Energy Agency/South African

Chamber of Mines, South Africa
198

TRS419 Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRS419 Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRS419 Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Reports SeriEs No.

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

The IAEA attaches great importance to the dissemination of information

— Factors important for formulating strategies and selecting technologies

— Mining and milling of metalliferous and non-metallic ores;

Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) may be present in

2. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. PROCESSES ENHANCING CONCENTRATIONS AND

3.1. Enhanced concentrations versus

4.1. Oil and gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.1. Geothermal energy production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6.1. Mining and processing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

7.1. Phosphate mining and fertilizer production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

8. USE OF VARIOUS RADIO-ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

8.1. Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

9. VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

9.1. Sulphuric acid production by burning pyrites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

11. IMPACTS OF NORM CONTAINING RESIDUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

12. SELECTED MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION

12.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

13. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT AND

14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

APPENDIX I: TIN MINING AND RELATED PROCESSES

APPENDIX II: TITANIUM PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

APPENDIX III: RARE EARTH ELEMENT PROCESSING

APPENDIX IV: NIOBIUM PROCESSING IN BRAZIL . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Naturally occurring radionuclides are present in many natural resources.

These residues containing NORM as altered by human activities from

— Large amounts of such NORM containing wastes and other materials;

A significant step that should promote the development of mechanisms

— Reduce the amount of all types of waste being generated;

Notwithstanding the ongoing discussion about whether and when NORM

— “Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way as to provide an

Hence, an important first step for industry and regulatory bodies in a

The main objectives of this report are:

Such technologies could be applied:

This report is intended to help Member States gain perspective regarding

Industrial processes potentially involving NORM are addressed in this

Source Processing Application Disposal

FIG. 1. Logic for the development of remediation technologies for NORM

not been enhanced in concentration as a result of human activity will not be

1.4. RELATED IAEA PUBLICATIONS

The IAEA has developed a comprehensive programme, aiming at the

The main text of this report begins with an overview of naturally

2. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIONUCLIDES

3. PROCESSES ENHANCING CONCENTRATIONS AND

3.1. ENHANCED CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS ENHANCED

NORM in its unaltered natural state can pose potential radiological

40K 87Rb 232Th 238U

Note: Question marks indicate estimates in the absence of measured values.

Element/mineral Source Radioactivity

Aluminium Ore 250 Bq/(kg U)

Rare earths Uranium series

Element/mineral Source Radioactivity

Tin Ore and slag 1000–2000 Bq/(kg Ra)

3.2. TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED CONCENTRATIONS

The concentration or dispersal of radionuclides, like that of any other

(a) Extraction of groundwater (for drinking water purposes, as formation

3.3. ENHANCED POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE TO NORM

The activities described in Section 3.1 could also lead to an increased