Search Documents

By Wm. R. Dotson

Forty years ago the atom was split and the Age of Fission dawned. Uranium was the element used in this earth-shaking accomplishment. Thitherto almost unknown to the man in the street, uranium soon became widely and persistently sought. And the quest for this unique material is not likely to diminish during this century. To find is one thing; to own is another. Who owns uranium in the ground? Where no mineral rights in the land have been severed by devise, grant, reservation or lease, the uranium belongs to the fee simple owner of the land. But where there has been a conveyance or reservation of all or part of the "minerals", determining WHAT a substance is has been the traditional way of determining WHO owns it. What, then, is this element called uranium? The 1907 edition of Watts Dictionary of Chemistry calls it "a lustrous, hard, silver-white metal". Of nature's three prime divisions it falls within the embrace of the mineral kingdom - substances neither animal nor vegetable. In its natural state uranium always is combined with other elements or substances in the form of an ore mineral. May we, then, put to rest any doubt or question as to the nature of uranium and classify it for all purposes, including that of ownership, as mineral? Not quite! That self-same logic would find oil and gas primly ensconced in the animal or vegetable kingdom. Technically, oil and gas are not minerals but legally they have been classified as such. Why? The Supreme Court of Tennessee sought the answer in 1897 in the case of Murray v. Allard, 43 S.W. 355. After citing authorities pro and con, and while admitting their origin to be "decomposition of marine or vegetable organises" that court firmly concluded that since they were obtained by a form of mining, oil and gas were minerals. From the above example two elementary truths emerge. First, for purposes of ownership, uranium is and will be whatever the courts say it is. Secondly, the courts historically and currently favor a practical rather than technical test to determine the "mineral" character of a substance. So now we turn to the jurisprudence for enlightenment and definition. EARLY CASES ALLOT URANIUM TO MINERAL OWNERS Two early cases involving the ownership of uranium followed what had been well-settled mineral within the meaning of the conveyances involved, confirming ownership in the mineral owners. In 1956 the U. S. District Court for New Mexico in the case of New Mexico and Arizona Land Company v. Elkins, 137 F. Supp. 767, appeal dism'd 239 F.2d 645 (10th Cir. 1956), found that a 1946 deed reservation of "all oil, gas and minerals underlying or appurtenant to said lands" included uranium and thorium. The court reasoned that uranium and thorium, being minerals within the scientific, geological and practical meaning of the term, would certainly constitute minerals within the purview of the reservation. While agreeing that uranium and thorium were "minerals", defendants argued that at the tine of execution of the conveyance it could not have been the intention of the parties to reserve them because they had no commercial value in the locality and were, in fact, not known to there exist until their later discovery in 1950. The court re¬jected, as a matter of law, this "lack of knowledge" theory citing the Supreme Court of Kentucky holding in Maynard v. McHenry, 113 S.W. 2d 13, that: "The mere fact that a particular mineral has not been discovered in the vicinity of the land conveyed or is unknown at the time the deed is executed rules of construction and held that uranium was a does not alter the rule . . ." that a grant or exception of "mineral" in a deed includes all mineral substances which can be taken from the land unless restrictive language is used indicating that the parties contemplated something less general than all substances legally cognizable as minerals. Further, argued the defendants, the only feasible mining procedure for such substances was open pit or strip mining, which would destroy the value of the land for grazing or agriculture. Finding that the language of the reservation was clear and unambiguous, the court would not permit the admission of extrinsic evidence as to mining procedures required. Elkins is the first uranium case construing the granting clause involved. In 1958 the Texas Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio, in Cain v. Neuman, 316 S.W. 2d 915, no writ, held that a 1918 lease conveying "all of the oil, gas, coal and other minerals in and under" the land involved covered uranium. The lease provided a royalty of 1/10th on "other minerals." "We find no Texas precedent which discusses uranium," said the court, "but the usual arguments that uranium is not embraced within a lease are that the ejusden generis rule excludes uranium from the meaning of the lease

Jan 1, 1979

By James K. Gluck, William E. Galloway, Gary E. Smith, John P. Morton, Christopher D. Henry

INTRODUCTION Surface mining and in situ leaching of uranium have the potential to alter ground-water quality around mines and leach sites. Of particular concern is the fate of uranium and its associated trace elements: molybdenum, arsenic, and selenium. We wish to under- stand the natural processes that control trace element concentrations in ground water and how these processes will influence dispersion of the elements from a mineralized zone, both naturally and during and after mining or restoration. For example, it is commonly recognized that the trace elements are soluble in oxidizing ground water but are insoluble, and can be precipitated, in reducing ground water. Thus oxidizing, metal-bearing water leaving a deposit could re- enter reduced ground, causing the water to be re- reduced and the trace elements to be, reprecipitated. In a sense, this is recreating the original mineralization process. To accomplish the above goals, we have (1) examined the theoretical controls of concentrations based on the available geochemical and thermodynamic data, (2) determined the major ion composition and oxidation-reduction status of Oakville waters because of the influence of these factors on trace element solubility, and (3) determined trace element concentrations and distribution in Oakville ground water. The last approach is used to evaluate how well actual behavior follows predicted behavior. This report focuses on two elements, uranium and molybdenum, because they exemplify the results obtained. The report also is restricted to a regional study of Oakville ground water. Results of more de- tailed study in and around major uranium districts in the Oakville and much of the raw data that support the conclusions in this report are presented in Galloway, Henry and Smith (1980). This report is part of that larger study, which concerned the depositional systems, hydrology, and geochemistry of the Oakville. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded the study, under grant numbers R-805357-01 and R-805357-02. Theoretical controls were determined by reviewing the available literature on aqueous chemistry and behavior of uranium and molybdenum. To aid in under- standing water chemistry, Oakville water analyses were run through a modified version of the computer model WATEQF (Plumer, Jones, and Truesdell, 1976). WATEQF calculates speciation of dissolved ions and determines saturation with respect to a variety of minerals. In the discussion below, ion activity products (IAP) are compared with the equilibrium constant (KT) for various reactions and mineral products. Values of log IAP/KT near zero indicate that the water is in equilibrium with a mineral. Values less than -1 indicate considerable undersaturation and values greater than +1 indicate oversaturation. Galloway, Henry, and Smith (1980) give a more complete discussion of the application of this approach to Oakville water chemistry. Eh-pH diagrams have been constructed or adapted from the literature to predict what form -- dissolved ion or stable mineral species -- uranium and molybdenum assume under various conditions. Construction of the diagrams has followed procedures described by Garrels and Christ (1965). This approach is particularly appropriate because the solubility of the elements is Eh-dependent, and Eh varies greatly within the Oakville aquifer. A number of assumptions or approximations are inherent in the use of Eh-pH diagrams and chemical models such as WATEQF and in the interpretation of water chemistry in general. Both Eh-pH diagrams and chemical modeling rely entirely upon available thermo- dynamic data, including free energies of formation and dissociation constants for various reactions. These values are known to varying degrees of accuracy. Most major ions and minerals are relatively well control- led; however, data for trace metals are much poorer. Thermodynamic data are not available for some minerals, and for other minerals, two or more divergent values exist. By necessity, we have relied on the judgment of others to evaluate thermodynamic data. Calculations by WATEQF and constructions of Eh-pH diagrams are based on an assumption of equi1ibrium. Equilibrium may not be comnon in low-temperature aqueous environments; at best, ground-water composi tion may be in a state of dynamic equilibrium, continuously changing due to changes in environmental conditions. Eh-pH diagrams show what phases are stable at equilibrium under given conditions; they do not prove that the phases actually exist. Many minerals persist or form metastably under conditions outside their equilibrium stability field. The kinetics of reactions, which cannot be evaluated here, are important in determining what phases occur. Kinetics may be less of a problem for ground water that travels and evolves slowly through a semihomogeneous matrix than for many other natural systems. Eh-pH diagrams show equilibrium fields only of phases included. They do not indicate anything about stability relative to phases not included in the diagram. WATEQF, obviously, cannot calculate the degree of saturation of a mineral not included in the program or for which the appropriate ions were not analyzed. Thus, a mineral that was not considered may be the most stable phase under a given set of conditions and may control the solubility of a trace element. Also, this study is limited exclusively to in- organic compounds. Organic material is known to be an

Jan 1, 1980

By John W. King

Uranium ore was first discovered in the Edgemont district of the southern Black Hills in the summer of 1951. The discovery was not made known for some time, but after the news leaked out prospecting became intense, and several hundred claims were staked in the spring of 1952. The Hot Springs Sub Office of the Atomic Energy Commission was established at that time and airborne radiometric surveys were commenced by the Government and by private companies. During the succeeding summer another important discovery was made by private airborne surveys in the northern Black Hills, and the area favorable for uranium ore was expanded many times. Between that summer of 1952 and the present, many individuals and groups have explored, developed, and exploited their claims until now uranium ore is produced in significant quantities and substantial reserves have been developed. The Black Hills portion of the geologic map of the U. S. issued by the U. S. Geological Survey is shown in Fig. 1. Sedimentary formations are exposed as a series of cuestas and hogbacks in a roughly annular pattern with the older sediments resting on the pre-Cambrian core, which is exposed in the eastern and southern portions of the dome.

Jan 1, 1956

By H. W. Norman

DURING the first few years of the new atomic age the Colorado Plateau was the focal point of uranium exploration. There was little incentive to expend time and effort in an area so far removed from the known deposits as the Pacific Northwest, and there were too few local prospectors to cover the vast territory involved. In 1949 the AEC established an exploration office in Spokane to evaluate the uranium potential of the northwestern states. Interesting occurrences were found in the Coeur d'Alene district in Idaho and in the Boulder Batholith of central Montana, but the AEC discontinued the Spokane office in 1952, and for the next two years prospecting in the area was negligible. In April 1954 John and James LeBret, prospecting on the Spokane Indian Reservation with an ultra violet lamp, located an occurrence of the fluorescent uranium mineral autunite. This discovery was not announced until the following September, after a lease had been granted by the Spokane tribe. Exploratory drilling carried on by the AEC throughout the winter verified the existence of a commercial orebody. This property, the Midnite mine, has since developed the largest known ore reserve in the district.

Jan 6, 1957

By Franc R. Joubin, D. H. James

Uranium exploration in the North Shore area of Lake Huron goes back to 1847 when J. L. LeConte, a distinguished American geologist, identified a pitchblende-like mineral which he called coracite from specimens sent from a locality north of Sault Ste. Marie. In 1948 a search for the LeConte occurrence resulted in discovery of the Camray field, some 70 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie. Prospecting the Camray field yielded about 30 pitchblende occurrences spread over approximately 200 sq miles. Almost without exception these discoveries consisted of narrow, short, pitchblende-filled fractures, within or along the contacts of diabase dykes cutting pre-Cambrian Archean granite and gneiss. Eight discoveries were diamond drilled and three were explored underground, but none proved to be of economic value. Uranium prospecting at this time spread far afield, and it was in 1949 that radioactive conglomerate was discovered in Long Township of the Algoma district midway between and 90 miles from Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. F. Joubin examined this discovery at that time but could not interest capital in its development.

Jun 1, 1956

By Charles C. Towle, Irving Rapaport

URANIUM mineralization along the north flank of the Zuni Uplift, in the vicinity of Haystack Butte, was discovered by Paddy Martinez, a Navajo Indian, in the spring of 1950. The find was reported to the Santa Fe Railway Co., which initiated a program of exploration upon its holdings in the district in December of 1950. The Anaconda Copper Mining Co. secured numerous leases in January and February, 1951, and began an intensive exploration and development program in March 1951. The district was extended into the Lucero Uplift in August of 1951 by the discovery of uranium mineralization in Todilto limestone by Joy Sinyella, a Supai Indian living on the Laguna Reservation. Initial reconnaissance was performed in the district by the Atomic Energy Commission in November 1950. A field office under the direction of the Denver Exploration Branch of the AEC was established at Prewitt, N. Mex. in January 1951 to study regional and detailed guides to ore, to evaluate the ore deposits, and to promote the development of the district by providing geologic services for the companies and individuals engaged in exploration. With the development of sufficient ore to warrant construction of a mill, the Grants area of New Mexico has come of age as a full fledged uranium mining district. The carnotite-type deposits of Grants, the first of major economic importance found in limestone, have extended the Colorado Plateau carnotite field into the more complex structure of the Basin and Range Province. General Geology The Grants uranium district is in northwestern New Mexico, along the southern flank of the San Juan Basin, between the cities of Gallup and Albuquerque. The region is at a mean altitude of about 6800 ft, vegetation is sparse, and outcrops are excellent. Mt. Taylor volcanic peak, at an elevation of 11,400 ft dominates the surrounding area. The overlying cliff-forming Dakota sandstone is the most resistant formation in the Grants District and characteristically erodes into dissected mesas as much as five miles wide. The principle uranium ore-bearing horizons are found in the underlying Morrison formation, and the Todilto limestone of the San Rafael group. The Morrison weathers into. a series of steep slopes and precipitous cliffs near the lower part of the Dakota-capped rims, while in contrast, the relatively resistant underlying. Todilto [ ] limestone forms broad benches extending out from the base of these Dakota rims as much as five miles wide. The Todilto benches are covered with overburden to an average depth of about 5 ft in the first thousand ft away from the Dakota rim, but increases to about 200 ft at the base of the rim. In many places however, a thick mantle of upper Cretaceous sediments and Tertiary volcanics "obscures the ore-bearing Jurassic, and precludes exploration. . The known uranium deposits of the Grants District are distributed throughout a zone 85 miles long and about 10 miles wide. Stratigraphy Rocks from pre-Cambrian through Tertiary are exposed in the uplifted areas, but uranium appears to be restricted chiefly to two zones in Jurassic sediments. The Jurassic sediments of the Colorado Plateau have been subdivided into three units, in ascending order: (1) Glen Canyon group, (2) San Rafael group, (3) Morrison formation. The Todilto limestone zone within the San Rafael group has produced the bulk of ore to date, but the promise of the Morrison zone is rapidly increasing. The Todilto formation extends about 300 miles east-west and about 100 miles in a north-south direction. It is composed of a lower, extensive, limestone member and a central, more restricted, thick, pure gypsum member. The Todilto is believed to be of lacustrine origin. The Morrison formation in this area is subdivided, rather arbitrarily, into three members: Recapture Creek, Westwater Canyon, and Brushy Basin. Ore

Jan 1, 1952

By E. Dow Whitney, Ravrinda M. Chhatre, George Y. Onoda

Phosphate deposits in Florida are a possible source of byproduct uranium. In this paper, the distribution of uranium in several recently mined areas is described. Flowsheets are established for several mines describing how the uranium becomes distributed during the beneficiation of the phosphate matrix.

Jan 1, 1981

By R. A. MacGregor

The Stanrock mine of Stanrock Uranium Mines Ltd. is located on Quirke Lake in the Elliot Lake area of northern Ontario, about 25 miles north of Lake Huron. The property was developed and brought into production at a rate of 3000 tons of ore per day during the uranium boom of the mid-1950's. The mine workings are from 1200 to 2100 ft below sea level. Mining was done by the room-and-pillar method with 65 to 80% extraction. The plant is located at an elevation of 1400 ft above sea level. The orebodies are conglomeratic beds, 6 to 40 ft in thickness and dipping 5º to 40º. The ore is a quartz pebble conglomerate with a pyritized sericitic matrix. The ore minerals are brannerite, frequently intergrown with anatase or rutile, uraninite, and some monazite and minor coffinite and thucolite. Sulfides constitute 5 to 10% of the ore as pyrite with minor amounts of pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and galena.

Jan 3, 1969

By B. J. Guarnera

There have been major changes in the makeup and nature of the uranium exploration industry in recent years. Significant price increases precipitated an increase in exploration activity-according to the Department of Energy, exploratory drilling in 1977, by 140 companies, was almost 8 million m (26 million ft). This represents a 37% increase over the prior year's drilling. Projections for 1978 indicate at least 9 million m (30 million ft) of exploratory holes will be drilled in the US. Exploration expenditures in 1979, including land acquisition, drilling, and other costs, were estimated by DOE at over $236 million. Domestic expenditures for 1978 are estimated at over $250 million.

Jan 10, 1978

By Richard N. Grigsby

INTRODUCTION The Chord property was acquired in 1975 from Roy Chord, an early prospector and miner of the area. He had staked numerous claims on the southern flank of the Black Hills in the early 19501s, and by the late 50’s, many small open pit and underground mines had been or were in operation. By the mid 1960's small tonnages of high-grade oxidized uranium ore had been mined from the property. Starting in 1975, Union Carbide conducted a series of exploration programs to determine the remaining economic potential. The previously mined areas were re-examined in order to define additional oxidized mineralization. Meanwhile, a wide-spaced drilling program was initiated to determine the potential for deeper unoxidized deposits. Through the exploration program of 1979, measured minable reserves in excess of two million pounds of contained uranium had been discovered. GEOLOGY The Edgemont District is located on the southern end of the Black Hills Uplift. A succession of pre-Cambrian to Cretaceous Formations is exposed within the core and across the flanks. The uranium host is the lower Cretaceous Inyan Kara Group which is divided into two formations, the Lakota and Fall River Formations (Figure 1). The basal Lakota Formation rests unconformably on the Jurassic Morrison Formation and consists of fluvial channel sandstones

Jan 1, 1983

By L. B. Bramlett, S. L. Reyher, G. G. Southard

The Archean (2.65 billion years) aged Canning Stock at Copper Mountain, WY, contains an average of 20 ppm U. The North Canning and Fuller deposits occur within the enriched interibr of the stock. Post-Laramide development of supergene enrichment blankets occurred in 25-100 m (82-328 ft) crushed zones. Hematite and chlorite accompany pyrite and sooty pitchblende in the mineralized zones. Reduction mechanism proposed for deposition of pitchblende are sulfides, hydro-carbons, bacteria, the water table, or some combination of these. Abundant tar-type organics appear to have preserved the enrichment blankets from degradation. Trace element and radio-metric data define target zones, but exploration models focus on favorable structure.

Jan 1, 1983

By Philip W. Simmons

THE Colorado Plateau uranium province is in a mining boom rivaling the most colorful days of the early West. The application of scientific skills and the use of modern and novel mechanical equipment, however, is unique. No metal has ever received such concentrated effort from geologists and mining engineers. Moreover, no other metal has had the variety of tools available for finding and mining ores. Radiation detection equipment, bull- dozers, truck-mounted wagon and core drills, jeeps, airplanes, helicopters, tractor loaders, self -propelled 3-wheeled dump cars, front-end loaders and fleets of modern trucks are some of the present-day tools of the uranium prospector and miner. Because uranium is so vital to our national defense, the Atomic Energy Commission has offered many incentives for its mining. Through a series of circulars, the AEC has established base price schedules and various incentive payments. The incentive payments for acceptable ores from domestic mines are: (1) a guaranteed base price of $3.50 per Ib for ores assaying 0.20 pct U3O8 and more; (2) premiums based on grades above 0.20 pct U3O8 as for example, ores assaying above 0.50 pct U3O8 receive $1.00 per lb premium; (3) a development allowance of 506 per Ib of U3O8 contained in ores assaying over 0.10 pct U3O8 (4) an ore haulage allowance of 64 a ton mile for a maximum of 100 miles; and (5) an initial production bonus which may amount to as much as $35,000 in addition to all other payments. The producers have been guaranteed this policy until Feb. 28, 1957. The other four will continue until April 1962.

Jan 4, 1954

By H. R. Steacy, A. H. Lang

Growth of general interest in uranium during the last ten years has been unparalleled in mining history, outranking the popular gold rushes and mining booms of bygone years. This is not surprising, considering the spectacular advances in nuclear research and the fact that a small amount of uranium can provide great quantities of energy for peaceful purposes. There are, however, a number of misconceptions and exaggerations regarding uranium. Many novices have highly exaggerated ideas of the ease of finding workable deposits, as opposed to mere occurrences, and reports of insignificant discoveries are sometimes given much publicity. Beginning about ten years ago mining for uranium has assumed a major place in Canadian and U. S. mineral industries. Uranium is now high on the list of metals produced in Canada. The gross value of uranium production in Canada in 1958, when additional plants now under construction are operating, will probably exceed 180 million dollars.

Jun 1, 1956

By Donald L. Everhart

Beginning in 1906, data has been compiled on the distribution of uranium in phosphate de- posits. Particular emphasis has been placed on uranium in phosphate by a number of geologists and geochemists in the US Geological Survey in research sponsored by the US Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and the US Department of Energy (DOE) during the 30-year period from 1951 to 1981. A comprehensive study of uraniferous phosphate resources the United States and the Free World was completed, under the auspices of DOE, in 1979. Apatite is the main carrier of uranium in phosphate. Uranium generally replaces calcium in the mineral lattice. In marine phosphorite throughout the world, the uranium content is characteristically in the range of 0.005 to 0.02% by weight. Phosphorite takes in uranium by structural substitution in apatite or other mineral phases, by absorption, or by the formation of independent mineral phases. Apatite derived from the interaction of ground water, guano and limestone is typically relatively low in uranium content-in the 0.001 to 0.005% range. In primary accessory apatite of igneous rocks, as well as magmatic and metasomatic apatite segregations of alkalic rocks and carbonatite, uranium content is generally between 0.001 and 0.01%. In all these phosphate deposit types, secondary enrichment of uranium through

Jan 1, 1983

By J. B. Goddard

In situ leaching of uranium by aqueous ammonium carbonate containing oxygen or hydrogen peroxide as oxidant results in the partial dissolution of sulfides. While some of the sulfide sulfur is oxidized to sulfate, a considerable portion is oxidized only to thiosulfate and polythionates. Polythionates poison the ion exchange resin used to extract uranium. At the Palangana operation in south Texas, the trithionate ion (S3062-) was found by infrared spectrometry to be the major resin poison. Treatment of ion exchange feed solutions with hydrogen peroxide only resulted in partial conversion of reduced sulfur species to sulfate. Trithionate conversion was particularly slow. Poisoning of the resin also occurred from the ammonium chloride eluant, which built up trithionate because of recycling. This was essentially eliminated by chlorinating the eluant before yellow cake precipitation.

Jan 1, 1986

By Paul F. Kerr

Uranium mineralization occurs in the footwall of the Sunshine vein from the 2900 to the 3700 level. Veinlets of uraninite associated with pyrite and jasper have been so extensively divided and recemented that units more than a few feet in length are seldom observed. The wall rock is St. Regis quartzite of the Belt series. The age of the uraninite, on the basis of isotopic analyses, is 750 t- 50, which agrees with geological data suggesting that phases of the Sunshine mineralization are pre-Cambrian.

Jan 5, 1953

In 1975, the US produced 10 900 tons (12,000 st) of U3O8 from ores whose grade ranged from a low of 0.160% to a high of 0.196% U3O8. By the early 1980's if the current mining projects described here are allowed to go on stream, Australia will be able to produce at least 10 900 tons of U3O8 annually from ores whose grade ranges from a low of 0.150%to a high of 2.300%. As pointed out in the previous article, this initial rate of production could have been reached now-giving an immense boost to the depressed Australian economy. So, let's have a close look at current mining projects.

Jan 1, 1977

By Ta M. Li, John D. Wiebmer

Record high prices, burgeoning exploration programs, mine-mill openings, and plant expansions have all characterized a dramatic: resurgence of the US uranium industry in recent years. But while the bull is leading the way on the production side of the nuclear fuel cycle, there is reason for caution from the end-users' viewpoint. How fast will electrical demand grow in the years to come, and what portion of that will nuclear generators supply? How do utilities play their cards when the government holds two of the largest jokers in the deck-a policy on spent fuel reprocessing and a timetable for the fast breeder reactor? Is there a shortfall in domestic uranium supplies on the horizon?

Jan 10, 1978

By J. Randel Hill

The 64th Texas Legislature passed the "Texas Surface Mining and Reclamation Act," Chapter 131, Texas Natural Resources Code (subsequently referred to as "the Act"), at a point in time when little surface mining had taken place within the state. Thus, enactment of regulatory control governing mining operations in our state has, for the most part, preceded widespread, intensive mining activity. I should point out that the statute applies only to the extraction of coal, lignite, uranium and uranium ore. A recent opinion rendered by the Attorney General's office has stated that extraction of the named elements, when it occurs incidental to the extraction of other materials, e.g., clay, is not not an activity subject to the Act. An important theme of the Act, frequently overlooked in other environmentally oriented legislation, is recognition of the Act's affect on the mining industry. The Act states that "the extraction of minerals by surface mining operations is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of the state and nation" and, in reference to reclamation being accomplished contemporaneously with mining, provides a recognition that "the extraction of minerals by responsible mining operations is an essential and beneficial economic activity." This legislative recognition is, of course balanced against the need for proper mined land reclamation, the rights of surface owners, the need to guard against unreasonable degradation to land and water resources and numerous other actions or events that the Legislature wanted protected. Another rather pervasive general theme that is established in the Act is the concept that the agency is entitled to obtain whatever information, or take whatever action, that appears reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. This concept, coupled with the detailed requirements placed on mining operations in the portions of the Act dealing with Permit Applications, Reclamation Plan and Reclamation Standards, easily insures that surface mining activities can and will be regulated to the extent necessary. Section 131.102(b)(2) is probably the most relevant provision in the Act which deals with the preclusion of mined lands becoming waste lands. This portion of the Act states that the surface mining operator shall: ". . . restore the land affected to the same or a substantially beneficial condition. ." In this language the Legislature had made it abundantly clear that the abandoned or orphaned lands found in some of the Eastern states, will not be tolerated in this State, and provided the Commission with a degree of latitude to determine what condition would be appropriate in each individual mining situation. I bring this area of the Act to your attention because it is the area which has received the most inquiries and concern by operators, i.e. what does "substantially beneficial" constitute? The Commission's staff has spent a considerable amount of time wrestling with the statutory language "substantially beneficial" to determine the legislative intent and provide operators with guidance of what they can expect. In this regard, the most definitive criteria in our opinion lies in the Act's legislative hsitory. The Legislature had before it basically three reclamation standards namely: House Bill 656, considered to provide the most stringent reclamation standard and identical to Senate Bill 66; House Bill 1717 which was supported by industry spokesmen and was considered to contain the least stringent reclamation standard; and Senate Bill 55 which was adopted by the Legislature. During the Bill's initial hearing before the House Environmental Affairs Committee, the House sponsor of the Senate Bill 55, which was the Bill eventually adopted, made the following statement: (I am quoting verbatim from the Committee's transcript although substituting the speaker's reference to the authors names with the Bill's numbers.) "An example of the differing approaches of the four bills can be seen in the area of reclamation standards and this is critical. House Bill 656, talking about restoring the surface of the land, House Bill 656 has this statement: 'At least fully capable of supporting the use to which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining or any higher or better use.' In other words you have to restore it to the level it was prior to the mining. Senate Bill 55: 'Restore the land to the same or substantially beneficial use.' Substantially beneficial use. (Emphasis his) House Bill 1717 says: 'Restore insofar as practical to appropriate beneficial post-mining use.' So that House Bill 1717 said to, 'restore insofar as practical to appropriate beneficial use. I think that's too weak, whereas I think the House Bill 656 that would call you to restore it to at least the use it had prior to the mining may also be too tight the other way. I think the Senate Bill 55 approach is down the middle of the road which says that you do restore it to the 'same or substantially beneficial use,' is a proper way to go there." Therefore, the conclusion that we have drawn from the legislative history of the bill is that the extent of reclamation required by "substantially beneficial" may be something other than the use it was prior to

Jan 1, 1979

By Thomas N. Walthier

ROSPECTING for uranium in the East is hampered by the lack of bedrock exposure due to extensive overburden and residual soil. But, despite the problems of this physiographic province, it has not been ignored in the search for radioactive materials. Since 1951 both the U.S. Geological Survey and the Atomic Energy Commission have had field parties in the eastern U.S. Tempo of private prospecting is increasing, and many discoveries have resulted. AEC work so far has been concentrated in the areas of most numerous discoveries-Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. Accounts of uranium mineralization in the eastern U.S. are found in the old literature and one site in the Mauch Chunk area of Pennsylvania has been known since 1874. In 1949 McKeown examined the original occurrence there and found another southeast of the town. The deposit appeared to have commercial possibilities and a short period of production began in July 1954

Jun 1, 1955