MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3020296522 · doi:10.1115/icem2001-1256

Environmental Assessment Perspective of Decommissioning and Long-Term Management of Uranium Mine Tailings in Saskatchewan, Canada

2001· article· en· W3020296522 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Malcolm K. Ross, Don Hovdebo

Notice bibliographique

RevueVolume 3: Hazardous Waste; Engineered/Geological Barriers in Disposal Systems; L/ILW; Radioactive Waste From Research/Industries; Spent Fuel/HLW Disposal; Public Involvement; Remediation of Uranium Mining/Milling; LL/ILW; Clearance/Exemption Levels; Mgmt. of Fissile Material; HLW; Dismantling; Reversible/Irreversible Disposal; Waste Avoidance/Minimization; Decontamination; Liquid Waste; Radioactive Waste Processing; Transport of Spent Fuel/HLW; Solid HLW Confinement; QA/QC · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMaterials Science
ThématiqueGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Établissements canadiensSaskatchewan Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNuclear decommissioningTailingsUraniumLand reclamationUranium oreEnvironmental scienceUranium mineEnvironmental impact assessmentMining engineeringEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningWaste managementEngineeringGeographyArchaeologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Uranium was initially mined in Canada as a strategic mineral, primarily for export to the United States. Currently, uranium is produced for the global energy market and Saskatchewan is the sole producing province in Canada. Uranium development in Saskatchewan dates from 1953 and in 2000 accounted for 31% of global mine production. In the 1990’s the Saskatchewan Government Environmental Assessment Branch reviewed a new generation of uranium mines with large reserves and extremely high average grades. Technically, the development of these mines has required the development of innovative technologies to manage the environmental and occupational health and safety issues associated with the mining of high-grade uranium ores. While the development of these innovative technologies posed a challenge to science and engineering, the potential environmental impacts and level of public concern associated with the development of the high grade uranium deposits equally challenged the ability of the Province of Saskatchewan’s environmental assessment process to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed mines. During the assessment process a major technical, and public, issue was the decommissioning and long-term management of uranium tailings containing high levels of radionuclide and metal contaminants. While technically decommissioning and reclamation are phases of mining that are considered at the end of mine life, scrutiny of these issues during the assessment process contributed significantly to the public and technical acceptability of the proposed mine developments. The design, construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation of uranium tailings management facilities for the proposed high-grade mines were subject to critical analysis during the technical and public review phases of the environmental assessment processes. Advances in tailings management design, incorporating innovative in-pit disposal methods capable of isolating decommissioned tailings from local groundwater regimes, presented a technical solution to concerns about long-term tailings containment after decommissioning. Public awareness and acceptance of the proposed mine developments was enhanced by the creation of an independent, public inquiry which ran concurrently with the existing federal and provincial assessment processes. The public inquiry was a critical factor, providing an independent forum where the technical acceptability of the proposed long-term tailings management methodologies was discussed. In retrospect the development of the new mines reflects the successful application of an assessment and review process in that the projects met the tests of technical and public acceptability in a process that was seen to be fair, timely, rigorous and public.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,614
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle