Advertisement

Assessment of rehabilitated uranium mine sites, Australia

  • Bernd Lottermoser
  • Paul Ashley

Abstract

Recent research on rehabilitated uranium mine sites located in wet climates has revealed the varied success of the applied rehabilitation efforts. In comparison, there is little knowledge of the status and environmental impacts of rehabilitated uranium mines in dry climates. Mary Kathleen and Radium Hill represent first generation Australian uranium mines, which are located in semi-arid regions. The aim of this communication is to report on the current environmental status and potential hazards of these former uranium mine sites.

Keywords

Waste Rock Uranium Mine Mine Closure Mill Tailing Current Environmental Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Flanagan JC, Morton WH, Ward, TA (1983) Groundwater management around uranium mine waste areas, Mary Kathleen, Australia. In: International Conference on Groundwater and Man, Australian Water Resources Council Conference Series no 8. Australian Water Resources Council, pp. 81-88Google Scholar
  2. Lottermoser BG, Ashley PM (2005) Tailings dam seepage at the rehabilitated Mary Kathleen uranium mine, Australia. J Geochem Explor 85: 119-137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lottermoser BG, Ashley PM (2006) Physical dispersion of radioactive mine waste at the Radium Hill uranium mine site, South Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 53: 485-499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lottermoser BG, Ashley PM, Costelloe MT (2005) Contaminant dispersion at the rehabilitated Mary Kathleen uranium mine, Australia. Environ Geol 48: 748-761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Menzies NW, Mulligan DR (2000) Vegetation dieback on clay-capped pyritic mine wastes. J Environ Qual 29: 437-442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. MINENCO (1986) Mary Kathleen uranium mine rehabilitation water quality prediction studies. Unpublished report, Australian Groundwater Consultants Pty LtdGoogle Scholar
  7. MKU (Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd) (1986) Rehabilitation of the Mary Kathleen Mine. Unpublished report, Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Richards RJ, Applegate RJ, Ritchie AIM (1996) The Rum Jungle rehabilitation project. In: Mulligan D (ed.) Environmental Management in the Australian Minerals and Energy Industries 1996. University of New South Wales Press, pp. 530-553Google Scholar
  9. Taylor G, Spain A, Timms G, Kuznetzov V, Bennett J (2003) The medium-term performance of waste rock covers - Rum Jungle as a case study. In: Farrell T, Taylor G (eds.) 6th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage 2003. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, pp. 383-397Google Scholar
  10. Ward TA, Hart KP, Morton WH, Levins DM (1984) Factors affecting groundwater quality at the rehabilitated Mary Kathleen tailings dam, Australia. In: 6th Symposium on Uranium Mill Tailings Management. Colorado State University, Denver, pp. 319-328Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Lottermoser
    • 1
  • Paul Ashley
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Earth & Environmental SciencesJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Earth SciencesUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations