IAEA J9-TR-49517Workshop of the International Working Forum on Regulatory

Supervision of Legacy Sites

Arnaldo Mezrahi | Eduardo da Silva | Paulo Marinho

General Coordination of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN)

Uranium Production

Legacy in Brazil

- Lessons learned and prevention -

Sibiu, Romania

7-10 September 2015

Outline

• The Brazilian Nuclear Programme

• The Licensing Process

• Uranium mining and processing in Brazil

• The Caldas former uranium mining and processing facility

• Caetité uranium mining and milling facility

• Final remarks

• IAEA TCP

Caldas – Former U mining and millingLessons learned (Legacy)

Caetité – Operating U mining and milling(Prevention)

The Brazilian Nuclear Programme

Eletrobrás Termonuclear S.A.

(ELETRONUCLEAR)

NPP´s

ANGRA 1,2,3

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

MINISTRY OF MINES AND

ENERGY

MINISTRY OF DEFENSE

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Eletrobras Companies

(ELETROBRAS)

BrazilianNuclear Energy

Commission

(CNEN)

Brazilian Institute for Environment

(IBAMA)

The NavyTechnological

Center

(CTMSP)

OTHERS MINISTRIES

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITIES

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY AND

INNOVATION

Nuclear Sector in Brazil

Deliberative

Commission

PRESIDENT

DRS

Nuclear and

Radiation Safety

IRD

Institute for Radiation

Protection and Dosimetry

IEN

Institute of Nuclear

Engineering

IPEN

Institute of Nuclear and

Energy Research

CDTN

Center for Development

of Nuclear Technology

CRCN-CO

Midwest Regional Center

for Nuclear Sciences

CRCN-NE

Northeast Region. Center

for Nuclear Sciences

COREJ

Radioactive Waste

Coordination

ESBRA

Brasilia Office

CGRN

General Coordination of

Nuclear Reactors

CGCN

General Coordination of

the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

COSAP

Safeguards and Physical

Protection Coordination

COMAP

Mineral and Material

Coordination

LAPOC

Poços de Caldas

Laboratory

DINOR

Norms Division

CGMI

General Coord of Medical

& Industrial Installations

ESPOA

Porto Alegre Office

DICAE

Caetité District

DIFOR

Fortaleza District

DIRES

Resende Office

DIANG

Angra District

DGI

Infrastructure

Management

DPD

Research and

Development

CNEN

Foreign Affairs

Legal Affairs

Auditing

Communication

Planning and

Finances

The Licensing Process

The Nuclear Licensing Process

• Nuclear installation

– Facility in which nuclear material is produced, processed, reprocessed,

used, handled and stored in substantial quantities, according to CNEN’s

judgment, such as: uranium and/or thorium mining and milling facilities,

fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear power plants, enrichment plants and

research reactors

• The licensing regulation establishes:

– That no nuclear installation shall operate without a license

– The steps of review and assessment process – including the specification

of the documentation to be presented to CNEN at each phase of the

licensing process

– The system of regulatory inspections and the corresponding enforcement

mechanisms – including the authority of CNEN to modify, suspend or

revoke the license

Responsibility of the License Holder

• Operating organization is the prime legal responsible for

the safety of a nuclear or radioactive installation

• To obtain and maintain the licenses, the operating

organization must fulfill all the requirements established

in the legislation and in the ensuing regulations

• All nuclear and radioactive installations licensed by

CNEN shall have an authorized Radiation Protection

Supervisor certified by CNEN

Site Approval

Previous License

Construction License

Installation License

Authorization for Operation

Operation License

CNEN

IBAMA

CNEN x IBAMA

Public Hearings (Environmental Licensing – IBAMA)

• Aim to expose stakeholders to the Environmental Impact Study /

Environmental Impact Report, to answer questions and to collect

critiques and suggestions

• Public hearings may be requested by civil societies, Public

Attorney or 50+ citizens – More than one public hearing may be

conducted

• Hearings are used to support the regulatory assessment that

supports the license

– All requested hearings must be conducted for the license to be issued

– All received documents shall compose the environmental licensing

documentation and shall be cited during the Public Hearing

– Minutes signed by the relevant stakeholders (later)

– Public hearings recordings are added to the licensing documentation

– Written comments: 10 days to be sent to IBAMA

Uranium Mining and Processing

in Brazil

PB

RR AP

AM

AC

PA

RO

MT

MS

MA

TO

GOMG

BA

SP

PR

SC

RS

ES

RJ

DF

SE

RN

PEAL

PI

CE

Figueira

RioCristalino

Sta. Quitéria

Caetité/Lagoa Real

Quadrilátero Ferrífero

Poços deCaldas

Amorinópolis

Campos BelosRio Preto

ORE/DEPOSIT

RESOURCE CATEGORY

TOTAL REASONABLY ASSURED

RESOURCES (RAR)

ESTIMATED

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES (EAR)

U3O8 <20

US$/lb

U3O8 <40

US$/lbTOTAL U3O8 <40 US$/lb

Poços de Caldas - 500 500 4.000 4.500

Caetité/Lagoa Real 24.200 69.800 94.000 6.770 100.770

Sta. Quitéria 42.000 41.000 83.000 59.500 142.500

Others b - - - 61.600 61.600

TOTAL 66.200 111.300 177.500 131.870 309.370a Metric tons of U3O8b Reserves related to deactivated projects such as: Rio Cristalino (PA); Amorinópolis and Rio Preto/Campo Belo (GO); Poços de Caldas and

Gandarela (MG); Figueira (PR) and Espinharas (PB)

• Tinguaytes and alcaline volcanic rocks

• Collapse Breccia Pipe/Rollfront type

• Metassomatic albityte rocks

• Granitic metassomatyte type

• Phosphatic rocks (colophanyte)

• Phosphate deposit type

Location of U deposits and resourcesa

The Caldas uranium mining and

processing facility

Caldas (INB) – Main Characteristics

• Located close to important tourist cities; between two

major drainage basins (Antas & Verde rivers)

• Water is used to irrigation and cattle drinking

• Acid mine drainage generation

Caldas – Operation History

• The installation was operated by state-owned company:

Nuclear Industries of Brazil (INB)

• 1982 to 1995: Operation phase

• Open pit mining / sulfuric acid leaching

• 1995 onwards: Decommissioning phase

Mine PitChemical Processing Plant

Caldas – Current situation

• Liquid effluent treatment plant still in operation

• Main sources of contamination:

– Mine pit

– Waste rock piles

– Tailings dam

– Ore processing and storage facilities

WASTE ROCK PILES

FLOODED MINE PIT

Caldas – the licensing situation

• Licensing took place in late 1970’s / early 1980’s

no decommissioning planning was made

• Mining and processing were developed before

establishment of environmental legislation

• At that time, the operator did not have the legal

obligation of presenting an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) prior to the operation of the

mining and processing facilities

Caldas – Technical challenges

• The mining site high precipitation rates

• Acid Mine Drainage + High precipitation rates great

volumes of water need be treated (heavy metals and

radionuclides)

• Large amounts of sludge need to be disposed off

(containing radionuclides and heavy metals)

• Radiological control of the site is maintained by the

Operator, especially at effluent discharge points– Waste dam

– Units of treatment of rainwater drainage from mining area and

waste rock piles

Caldas – Technical challenges

• Acid Drainage

– Represents a very important amount of resources spent per year

– Additional resources will be needed to implement adequate solutions

• The Plan for Recovery of Degraded Areas was submitted for approval

• Relevant information about the site is dispersed

• Decisions are needed concerning the dismantling of the industrial area

and site remediation

Caldas – Challenges for decommissioning

• Funding mechanism for decommissioning and remediation

needs to be well defined

• Compliance endpoints are established on a case by case

basis

• Political and psychosocial aspects involved

– Although operation ceased in 1995, population is still concerned

– AMD and presumed watershed contamination are always on the

local news, raising population concern

– Population believes in unconfirmed high levels of cancer occurrence

– The municipality created a multidisciplinary group to assess local

water bodies in terms of radiological, chemical and biological

contamination, which includes the regulators

– Need to establish a structured, systematic, long term communication

and a stakeholder involvement programme

Publications about the water quality studies

Studies on cancer epidemiology in Poços de Caldas

The Caetité uranium mining and

milling facility

Efforts to prevent Legacy

Caetité – uranium mining and milling facility

Open Pit

Mine

Waste Rock

PileTailing Ponds

and Recycling

Effluent Tanks

Milling Facility

The site low precipitation rates: ~ 650 mm/year

• The facility has been in operation in Caetité since 2000

• Operated by state-owned company: The Brazilian Nuclear

Industries (INB)

• Reserves of 100,000 t of U3O8

• Capacity of 400 t/year of yellow cake

• Open pit mining / heap leaching

• A Remediation and Decommissioning Plan is required by

the Environmental Legislation, containing:

– Remediation goals and criteria and methods for dose assessment

– Description and assessment of the remediation strategy for all

areas: mine pit, industrial area, tailing ponds and waste rock piles

• Remediation activities and operation of the facility are

performed simultaneously, in order to prevent future

legacy.

Caetité – general information

Focus: Waste Rock Pile and Tailing Ponds

Open pit mine

Milling Area

Tailing Ponds

Heap

Leaching

Pile

Waste Rock Pile

Caetité – mining/milling waste management

Waste Rock

Photo source: INB

Caetité – remediation of waste rock pile

• Measures to ensure long term stability:

– The waste rock pile is being built on a natural slope of a dry valley in

order to ensure the geological and geotechnical stability

– The rain water infiltration is directed to a sump by an underlying

drainage system. After monitoring, the collected effluents can either be

treated or directly discharged to the environment

– The leached ore is emplaced into specific sectors of the waste rock

piles so that such material remains encapsulated, in order to reduce

the transport of fine material due to infiltration

Leached Ore

Waste Rock

Caetité – remediation of waste rock pile

Installation biodegradable

blanketTopsoil cover

Revegetation

• The main steps of remediation of Waste Rock Pile are:

– After waste rock and leached ore piles reach the final elevation, they

are covered with a semi-compacted layer of soil (clay)

– After sealing with the clay layer, the topsoil cover is emplaced and

revegetation is carried out. This procedure aims to prevent erosion of

the surface layer.

Photos source: INB

Caetité – remediation of waste rock pile

• Safety analysis of waste rock pile:

– Radiological Environment Impact Assessment (Source term

characterization, Radionuclide migration studies, etc.)

• Environmental Monitoring Programme (EMP)

- Surface water and

groundwater are

monitored in several

points around the waste

rock pile

- EMP is dynamic

(periodically reassessed)

- Intervention measures

are established, if

required

Caetité – remediation of the tailing ponds

• Tailing ponds characteristics:

– HDPE-lined ponds with a drainage

system which retains the solid phase

and allows the recycling of the liquid

– When the ponds are full, they will be

closed with compacted clay and topsoil

covers, and revegetated

Caetité – remediation of the tailing ponds

• Remediation of the pond slopes:

– During the operation of the facility the slopes of the ponds are

covered with topsoil and revegetated (simultaneous

decommissioning and remediation)

2011 2013

Photos source: INB

Caetité – Remediation of waste rock pile

• Safety Analysis of Tailing Ponds:

– Radiological Environment Impact Assessment (Source term

characterization, Radionuclide migration studies, etc.)

• Environmental Monitoring Programme (EMP)

- Surface water and

groundwater are monitored

in several points around

the waste rock pile

- EMP is dynamic

(periodically reassessed)

- Intervention measures are

established, if required

Caetité – Remediation: Arboretum

• Most plants and seeds used in vegetation cover are

grown at the facility’s arboretum

Seeds

Sowing

Seedlings

Arboretum

Photos source: INB

Final Remarks

• A strong legal and regulatory framework is

important to the safe operation and credibility

of the uranium mining industry

• Clear mining regulations are needed:

– That are based on a set of rational, uniform, and risk-based principles

– To ensure that mining activities are conducted safely

• Regulatory standards and guides should be clear and

consistent to allow licensees to interpret and adequately

implement the safety requirements

• Coordination among regulators is important

to avoid duplication of efforts, omission,

and gaps or overlaps of competences

Final Remarks

• Specific regulations defining clearance levels and

unconditional release criteria need to be established

• Compliance endpoints for remediation need to be

established

• The remediation project / decommissioning plan should

assess and demonstrate safety, including site

characterization, dose assessment, future land use

restrictions, long-term maintenance and monitoring, required

administrative controls and specified institutional control

period

• Remediation activities and operation of the facility should be

performed simultaneously, in order to prevent future legacy

situations (Caetité example)

• A radioactive waste disposal strategy should be defined at

the early phases of (or prior to) the operation, including for

the decommissioning wastes

Final Remarks

• The technology selection for new projects shall consider

the experience already established, with know-how transfer

for core-business areas

• Partnerships with the Technical Support Organizations

(TSO) need to be targeted towards enhancing their

technical assistance for the regulatory body, to be achieved

through capacity building of the TSO in regulatory issues

• Financial provisions for decommissioning and remediation

needs to be well defined and established

• Public perception of radiation risks has shown that scientific

arguments are not enough to address social and political

concerns

• Stakeholder engagement provides a valuable focus on

aspects that need to be addressed by operator and

regulators

IAEA TCP 2014-2015

Insufficient HR trained on safety of present and

planned NCFC

HR training on safety is not up

to date in current NFCF technologies

Lack of trained HR in the near future due to

retirement

New employees lack experience in NFCF safety

Most available standards/ technical protocols/safety

guides were not developed for NFCF (originally developed for NPP)

Some NFCF safety issues are not up to date in standards/technical

protocols/safety guides

Transparency and public engagement on NFCF

safety issues do not meet civil society expectations

NFCF are not fully aligned to the new international best

practices in some safety issues

Suboptimal operation of

NFCF

Specific NFCF safety issues do not meet international

best practices in NCFC standards/technical

protocols/safety guides

Slow licensing process

Public opposition to the nuclear

field due to misinformation

Coreproblem

EFFECTS

Lack of accredited labs, high-tech measuring

equipment and safety assessment software

Delays in uranium production and

nuclear fuel fabrication

Potential problems in nuclear power

generation

Lack of investment over the past 20 years

Growth in other types of energy

Cold war

Coalitions between CNEN and other

institutions are not fully developed

Licensing process is not undertaken in an integrated manner

Competences conflicts among

regulatory bodies

Competence gaps among regulatory

bodies

Excess bureaucracy

Insufficient infrastructure in all

involved institutions

CAUSES

Difficulty in implementing

technical cooperation in

NFCF safety due industrial secrets

Insufficient TSO support to

regulatory bodies

Chernobyl and TMI

accidents

Fukushima accident

Public opposition to the nuclear

field

HR trained on safety of present and planned NCFC

HR safety training is up to

date to NFCF current

technology

New employees are trained in NFCF safety

Most important standards / technical protocols / safety

guides are developed for NFCF

NFCF safety issues are up to date in

standards/technical protocols/safety guides

Transparency and public engagement on NFCF

safety issues meet civil society expectations

NFCF are aligned to the best international practices on

safety

Optimal safe operation of

NFCF

NFCF safety comply to the best international practices

in standards/technical protocols/safety guides

Efficient licensing process

No public opposition to the nuclear field due to

misinformation

Project objective

ENDS

Accredited labs, high-tech measuring equipment and

safety assessment software are available

Timely uranium production and nuclear

fuel fabrication

Adequate nuclear power generation

Coalitions between CNEN and other

institutions are in place

Licensing process is developed in an

integrated manner

No competence conflict among

regulatory bodies

No competence gap among regulatory

bodies

Reduced bureaucracy Adequate infrastructure in all

involved institutions

MEANS

Technical cooperation on NFCF safety is implemented

(IAEA support)

Sufficient TSO support to

regulatory bodies

Welcome to Brazil, the host nation of the Olympic Games 2016!

Thank you for your attention.