Highlights

• Rare earth processing concentrates naturally occurring uranium and thorium into waste streams that trigger strict NORM/TENORM regulations, requiring:
  • Engineered containment
  • Long-term monitoring
  • Financial assurance
• These requirements directly increase capex, opex, and permitting timelines.
• Regulatory frameworks vary dramatically by jurisdiction:
  • The U.S. 0.25% exemption doesn't cover waste
  • Canada delegates disposal to provinces
  • Malaysia shows waste can become political volatility
  • Greenland's uranium ban can stop projects entirely
• Monazite-heavy deposits face:
  • Higher regulatory complexity
  • Capital intensity compared to low-radioactivity ionic clays
• Making residue management plans and disposal pathways critical bankability factors for investors evaluating rare earth projects.

---

Rare earths are marketed as “clean-energy metals,” but many deposits come with a less photogenic companion: naturally occurring uranium (U) and thorium (Th). The challenge isn’t that these radionuclides exist—it’s that mining and processing can concentrate them into residues that cross legal thresholds and trigger licensing, engineered containment, monitoring, and long-tail liability. In regulatory terms, the make-or-break question is blunt: when U/Th ends up concentrated in waste streams, what does the law force you to do next?

The moment “trace” becomes “regulated.”

A useful mental model is simple: geology sets the risk; processing amplifies it. Certain REE minerals—especially monazite (and often xenotime)—commonly carry higher Th/U than many bastnäsite-dominant carbonatites. Mineral sands circuits that separate monazite can generate radioactive concentrates and Th/ Th/U-bearing residues, even when the final REE product is comparatively clean.

Then comes the accelerator: cracking, leaching, purification, and solvent extraction. These steps separate REEs, but they also tend to partition Th/U (and decay products) into filter cakes, sludges, tailings, and leach solutions. That’s why regulators care about Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (opens in a new tab) (NORM)/ Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (opens in a new tab) (TENORM)—the “enhancement” is often the flowsheet itself.

From an operator standpoint, the exposure pathways are predictable: dust control (alpha-bearing particulates), water/leachate management, and tailings impoundment integrity. From an investor standpoint, those same pathways map directly onto REEx scoring logic: more radiation complexity usually means harder licensing, higher capex/opex, longer permitting tails, and bigger closure obligations—a direct hit to “Mineralogy—Impurities” and “ESG—Environmental.”

The global baseline: “contain, control, and pay for the endgame.”

Across most jurisdictions, the regulatory spine looks familiar, even if thresholds and agencies differ:

• Characterize radionuclides in ore, intermediates, residues, and effluent (with defensible QA/QC).
• License/permit operations when thresholds are exceeded.
• Control pathways (dust/air, water, worker dose; radon where relevant).
• Engineer storage/disposal (lined repositories, caps, leachate controls, stability).
• Fund long-term stewardship (closure plans, monitoring, financial assurance).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (opens in a new tab)(IAEA) guidance broadly supports a “contain and control”approach for radioactive residues: isolate them from the biosphere and manage them over the timescales the hazard persists.

What changes—country to country—is whether the system is single-window or fragmented, whether disposal pathways are mature, and whether politics can abruptly rewrite “permission to operate.”

The jurisdictions that matter (and what they really signal)

United States: the 0.25% line is not a get-out-of-jail card

In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) “source material” framework matters when thorium/uranium concentrations cross key triggers—and there is a well-known exemption for rare earth metals/compounds/products containing ≤0.25% by weight U/Th (or combination).  Commonly referred to in NRC regulations as ‘unimportant quantities of source material’ (opens in a new tab) under 10 CFR Part 40).

But the nuance is crucial: NRC guidance (opens in a new tab) has long emphasized that this exemption applies to certain rare earth products and does not apply to incoming ore or waste streams—meaning residues can still force stricter handling or disposal. Environmental pathways (air/water/tailings) also commonly route through state agencies plus federal regimes depending on project specifics.

Investor takeaway: U.S. projects can be financeable, but “low thorium” marketing doesn’t eliminate regulatory friction—especially once you model waste volumes, residue classification, and closure.

Canada: provinces hold the keys to disposal

Canada often sounds “straightforward” until you follow the waste. Canada is explicit (opens in a new tab) that handling/disposal of NORM within Canada is regulated by provinces/territories, while transport/import/export must follow CNSC requirements.  That means the hardest part—where the waste goes, under what conditions, and who signs off—can be provincial and locally political, not just technical. Social license and indigenous consultation can become schedule-critical, even when geology is strong.

Investor takeaway: Canada isn’t one regulatory environment; it’s a federation of them. “Location” scoring should reflect province-level realism, not just country flags.

Brazil: a nuclear lens layered onto mining reality

Brazil’s framework is widely described as graded by activity concentration, with tighter requirements as radioactivity rises (radiation protection programs, monitoring, and stricter waste controls). Even if REEs are the primary commodity, Th/U pushes projects into a dual world: conventional mining permitting plus CNEN-linked radiological rules—while tailings governance remains sensitive nationally.

Investor takeaway: Monazite-heavy flowsheets can become capital-intensive quickly. Brazil can be a contender, but the “waste endgame” must be bankable from day one.

Chile: world-class tailings discipline, case-by-case radiological oversight

Chile’s comparative advantage is not just geology—it’s a mature culture of tailings engineering and permitting. For REEs, radiological handling is typically case-by-case, driven by characterization, environmental approvals, and any permissions needed around radioactive substances or transport.

Chile’s ionic-clay narrative—“little to no radioactivity”—can be a real advantage if independently validated because it reduces both technical and political exposure.

Investor takeaway: Chile may reward “clean” deposits, but if radioactivity shows up later in residues, public perception can turn fast even in a strong engineering jurisdiction.

Australia: strict but investable

Australia is often the template for “strict but financeable.” The anchor reference is ARPANSA’s Radiation Protection Series No. 9 (RPS 9) (opens in a new tab) for radiation protection and radioactive waste management in mining and mineral processing.

States implement via mining/environment and radiation regulators; serious radiation and residue plans are expected in approvals and closure design.

Investor takeaway: Australia doesn’t ban the problem; it prices it in. Credible engineered containment and closure planning can clear the bar—at a cost.

Malaysia: Lynas shows how “waste” becomes politics

Malaysia is the global case study because it hosts the most scrutinized ex-China REE processing operation. Legally, Malaysia’s Atomic Energy Licensing Act (opens in a new tab) requires authorization for the disposal of radioactive waste.

Politically, Malaysia has shown that licensing can become rolling conditionality. Reuters has reported (opens in a new tab) that Malaysia amended Lynas’ operating license to allow importing NORM-bearing raw materials and processing until March 2026, amid ongoing scrutiny of residue handling (including the government’s “thorium extraction” framing).

Malaysia also illustrates the federal–state reality: national licensing authority exists, but land-use decisions for siting are politically sensitive and practically require state alignment. The IAEA’s public review remains foundational in how Malaysia framed risk.

Investor takeaway: Malaysia proves radioactive residue can be less of a technical risk than a legitimacy risk. “Location” scoring should reflect that volatility.

China: unusually direct statutory duty—build the repository

China’s statutory language is explicit (opens in a new tab): its law on prevention/control of radioactive pollution requires tailings repositories for tailings from the exploitation of uranium/thorium and associated radioactive minerals, with monitoring/reporting obligations.

Investor takeaway: China’s rulebook supports tight control; investors still price enforcement consistency and transparency. As always, enforcement consistency, transparency, and broader political considerations materially affect investor risk assessment in this nation.

Indonesia: big monazite opportunity, disposal still maturing

Indonesia’s REE thesis often points to monazite in tin-tailings. BAPETEN rules commonly cited as Regulation No. 16/2013 (opens in a new tab) address radiation safety in TENORM storage, and IAEA-linked materials discuss implementation and remaining gaps. This framework is discussed in IAEA conference proceedings (opens in a new tab) on the implementation of NORM regulation in Indonesia.

A persistent issue: policy has historically focused on temporary storage, while final disposal frameworks remain under development or split across institutions.

Investor takeaway: upside is real, but the bankability hurdle is the radioactive residue endgame.

Vietnam: building a governed rare earth state

Vietnam has moved toward tighter state-directed control. Rare Earth Exchanges reported that on Dec. 11, 2025, Vietnam approved revisions restricting exports of refined rare earths and reaffirming the ban on ore exports, aiming to build domestic processing and a modern industrial ecosystem.

Investor takeaway: governance is tightening; timelines may lengthen; early monetization may be constrained by policy.

Greenland/Denmark: the outlier where radioactivity can stop the project

Greenland’s uranium policy (opens in a new tab) has been widely reported as banning development above 100 ppm uranium, impacting Kvanefjeld-type REE deposits; it remains politically contested with legal dispute overhang.

Investor takeaway: Greenland shows the extreme: the regulatory answer can be “don’t produce it.” Location risk can be binary.

Some implications for REEx rankings

If you want one sentence to anchor the scoring model: radioactivity is the impurity that drags permitting, capex, and politics into the same room.

• Monazite/xenotime-heavy projects should be treated as regulatory-capex intensive unless the residue plan is already bankable and permitted.
• Low-radioactivity clays can score better—but only if residue chemistry and monitoring plans are validated and disclosed.
• The highest risk isn’t whether a country has laws; it’s whether the jurisdiction has credible disposal pathways, institutions that execute, and political durability (Malaysia/Greenland are the cautionary bookends).

Disclaimer (Legal / Regulatory)

Rare Earth Exchanges™ provides news, analysis, and investor-oriented commentary for informational purposes only. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice, regulatory advice, environmental compliance guidance, or a substitute for professional counsel. Rare earth and critical mineral projects—especially those involving naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM/TENORM)—are governed by jurisdiction-specific laws, permits, licensing requirements, and enforcement practices that can change rapidly and vary by region, agency, and project design. Readers and project stakeholders should consult qualified legal counsel, permitting and licensing specialists, radiological experts, and environmental compliance professionals in the relevant jurisdiction(s) before making decisions or taking action.

REEx’s mission is to help accelerate the emergence, dynamism, and success of ex-China rare earth element—and by extension critical mineral—supply chains, supporting a more balanced, resilient, and transparent global materials ecosystem.

© 2025 Rare Earth Exchanges™ – Accelerating Transparency, Accuracy, and Insight Across the Rare Earth & Critical Minerals Supply Chain.