COMMON THEMES, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Some common themes emerging concerning good practice regarding environmental and social aspects of mining and minerals projects, including uranium, are:

— Consider environmental and social aspect from the earliest exploration and planning stages;

— Involve the government and the public, especially people living nearby;

— A clear, fair, independent and transparent regulatory environment is necessary;

— Consider local and international general and specific guidelines and regulations;

— Always consider the local and national circumstances of each project;

— Consider desired outcomes when undertaking regulated actions or implementing standards;

— From the beginning properly plan, account for and finance mine closure;

— Do progressive rehabilitation if at all possible, and use its results to improve rehabilitation practices.

Radiation protection is not just relevant to uranium and thorium mining, but also to mineral sands, oil and gas and other projects where uranium, thorium and their radioactive decay products are present at sub-economic concentrations. This can also include, but is not restricted to, copper, phosphate, rare earth elements and coal deposits.

Environmental and social considerations are key aspects of mining projects, from early exploration through feasibility, operation and closure. They are not the only aspects; without an orebody, suitable and affordable mining and processing methods, markets and financing, there can similarly be no successful mining [36]. All feasibility, mining and indeed closure activities at a mining project require a large number of skills and specialities, which have to be balanced. Geologists, mining engineers, metallurgists, financial and senior management all need to have an appreciation of the importance of the environmental and social aspects of their project. Similarly, the most effective environmental and social engagement specialists need to have an appreciation of the practical and economic aspects of those projects. Only then can a good balance be achieved, and the project given the best chance of ‘triple bottom line’ (social, environmental, economic) success.

The IAEA will continue to promote good practice in all stages of the uranium production cycle.

However, it is the industry and its regulators who must take the lead role to enable the mining, oil and gas industries to supply the world with its raw materials, and most of its energy, or face ongoing, justified and sometimes project-stopping opposition from the society it exists to support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The IAEA’s Best Practice in Environmental Management of Uranium Mining report was the outcome of a technical meeting and four associated consultants’ meetings. The responsible Technical Officer for that publication was P. Waggitt of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology.

Many other sources have been useful in compiling this paper and every attempt has been made to properly acknowledge those sources. The selection is necessarily not comprehensive, as a huge amount of information and opinion is available. My colleagues at and through the IAEA, both current and past, staff and consultants, have assisted greatly; however, the selection of cited source documents, and the opinions expressed here, are my own and may not be official IAEA policy. Many of these ideas have appeared in earlier publications but have been specifically compiled and adapted for this paper.

REFERENCES

[1] WOODS, P., EDGE, R., FAIRCLOUGH, M., FAN, Z., HANLY, A., MIKO DIT ANGOULA, I., MONKEN–FERNANDES, H., PAPPINISSERI PUTHANVEEDU, H., PHANEUF, M., TULSIDAS, H., VOITSEKHOVYCH, O. YANKOVICH, T.

“IAEA Initiatives Supporting Good Practice in Uranium Mining Worldwide”, Uranium — Past and Future Challenges (Proc. Int. Conf. Uranium Mining and Hydrogeology VII, Freiberg, Germany, 2014) (MERKEL, B., ARAB, A., Eds) Springer (2015) 31–39.

[2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Best Practice in Environmental Management of Uranium Mining, Nuclear Energy Series NF–T–1.2, IAEA, Vienna (2010).

[3] UNITED NATIONS WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1987).

[4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards — Interim Edition General Safety Requirements Part 3, STI/PUB/1531 IAEA, Vienna (2011).

[5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Establishment of Uranium Mining and Processing Operations in the Context of Sustainable Development, Nuclear Energy Series NF–T–1.1, IAEA, Vienna (2009).

[6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidebook on Environmental Impact Assessment for In Situ Leach Mining Projects, IAEA–TECDOC 1428, IAEA, Vienna (2005).

[7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidebook on good practice in the management of uranium mining and mill operations and the preparation for their closure, IAEA–TECDOC 1059, IAEA, Vienna (1998).

[8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Environmental impact assessment for uranium mine, mill and in situ leach projects, IAEA–TECDOC 979, IAEA, Vienna (1997).

[9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidebook on the development of regulations for uranium deposit development and production, IAEA–TECDOC 862, IAEA, Vienna (1996).

[10] MONKEN–FERNANDES, H., CARSON, P.M., “The IAEA ENVIRONET Network Supporting the Remediation of Uranium Mining and Milling Sites”, The New Uranium Mining Boom, (MERKEL, B., SCHIPEK, M., Eds), Springer (2012) 239–246.

[11] International Symposium on Uranium Production and Raw Materials for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: supply and demand, economics, the environment and energy security, (Proc. Int. Symp. Vienna, 2005) IAEA, Vienna (2006).

[12] International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle:

Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM–2009), Proc. Int. Symp. Vienna, 2009, IAEA–TECDOC–1739, IAEA, Vienna (2014).

[13] International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle:

Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM–2014), Proc. Int. Symp. Vienna, 2014, IAEA, Vienna (in press).

[14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Uranium Mining Remediation Exchange Group (UMREG) Selected Papers 1995–2007, STI/PUB/1524, IAEA, Vienna (2011).

[15] WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, World Nuclear Association Members, http://www.world-nuclear.org/WNA/About-WNA/WNA-Membership/

[16] WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, Sustaining Global Best Practices in Uranium Mining and Processing, Principles for Managing Radiation, Health and Safety, Waste and Environment, World Nuclear Association, London (2008).

[17] SAINT–PIERRE, S., KIDD, S., WNA's worldwide overview on front–end nuclear fuel cycle growth and health, safety and environmental issues, Health Physics 100 1 (2011) 39–45.

[18] ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Managing Environmental and Health Impacts in Uranium Mining, NEA No. 7062, OECD, Paris (2014).

[19] COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, Australia’s in situ recovery uranium mining best practice guide, Canberra, (2010).

[20] AUSTRALIAN URANIUM ASSOCIATION, AUA Code of Practice, AUA, Melbourne (2009) ⁷.

[21] URANIUM MINING IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, Recommencement of uranium mining in Queensland — a best practice framework, The State of Queensland (Department of the Premier and Cabinet), Brisbane (2013).

[22] URANIUM ADVISORY GROUP, Independent Review of Uranium Mining Regulation, Prepared for the Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia, DMP0281009–A, Perth, Western Australia (2012).

[23] NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT, Uranium Exploration Information on uranium exploration in New South Wales, Sydney (2012) http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/434489/Uran ium-Exploration.pdf.

[24] WAGGITT, P., Regulating the Northern Territory’s uranium industry, AusIMM Bulletin, 3 (June 2013), Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne (2013). 24, 26.

[25] ECKERMANN, D., South Australia — the home of uranium, AusIMM Bulletin, 2 (April 2014), Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne (2014) 49.

7 The Australian Uranium Association was integrated into the Minerals Council of Australia in late 2013

[26] CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION, Environmental Protection Policies, Programs and Procedures at Class I Nuclear Facilities and Uranium Mines and Mills, Regulatory Standard S–296 (2006).

[27] CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION, Developing Environmental Protection Policies, Programs and Procedures at Class I Nuclear Facilities and Uranium Mines and Mills, Regulatory Guide G–296 (2006).

[28] SCHRYER, D., “The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission compliance programme for uranium mines and mills”, Proc. Int. Symp. on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM–2009), IAEA–TECDOC–1739, IAEA, Vienna (2014) 190–208.

[29] CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION, Fact Sheet — Uranium mining and milling: The facts on a well-regulated industry, CNSC, Ottawa, Canada (July 2012) http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Fact_Sheets/Uranium-Mining-and-Milling-The-Facts-on-a-Well-Regulated-Industry-July-2012-eng.pdf

[30] CSA GROUP, Environmental monitoring programs at Class I nuclear facilities and uranium mines and mills, Standard N288.4–10, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Canada (2010).

[31] MCKEE, M., PHANEOUF, M., “Risk based environmental assessment for uranium mines — the Canadian experience”, Proc. Int. Symp. on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM–2014), IAEA, Vienna, (in press).

[32] NAMIBIAN URANIUM ASSOCIATION, Good Practice Health, Environment, Radiation Safety and Security (HERSS) Standards, Swakopmund, Namibia (2014),

http://namibianuranium.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2014/HERSS_Standards_2014.pdf.

[33] NAMIBIAN URANIUM ASSOCIATION, HERSS Standards, Swakopmund, Namibia (2014), http://namibianuranium.org/5908-2/.

[34] SWIEGERS, W., “The Namibian Uranium Mining Model: Voluntary sector initiatives underpinned by a regulatory safety net ensures best practice”, International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM–

2009), Abstracts IAEA–CN–175/71, IAEA, Vienna (2009) 173.

[35] SWIEGERS, W., “The ‘Namibian Uranium Mining’ Model”, Proc. Int. Symp. on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM–2014), IAEA, Vienna, (in press).

[36] WOODS, P., “Environmental and social aspects of feasibility studies, mining operations and closure; balancing realities and expectations from different angles”, ALTA 2015 Uranium–REE Proceedings (Proc. Conf. Perth, Western Australia, 2015), ALTA Metallurgical Services, Melbourne (2015) 2–16.

REMEDIATION OF URANIUM MINING AND MILLING LEGACIES AT THE MAILUU SUU SITE (KYRGYZSTAN) — ACHIEVEMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ‘DISASTER AND HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECT’ 2005–2012⁸

C. KUNZE

AMEC Foster Wheeler Earth & Environmental UK Ltd Ashford, Kent

Remediation measures at the former mining and processing site of Mailuu Suu (Kyrgyzstan) under the “Disaster Hazard Management Project” of the World Bank are the first large scale works that have successfully been implemented at Central Asian uranium legacy sites. This paper summarizes the approach to justification and optimization of the environmental remediation strategy at the Mailuu Suu, financial and timing constraints, the various remedial measures that have been implemented to date, and lessons learned that may inform the way forward at this and other legacy sites in Central Asia. The paper provides an overview of temporary and sustainable remediation works. The relocation of the geotechnically unstable tailings facility TP 3 to a new site with long term stability (TP 6) is described in more detail, and illustrates the methodological, technical and stakeholder related challenges. The key role of stakeholder involvement, trust building and communication at all stages of the conceptual preparation, planning and implementation of the remediation measures is addressed. The paper also provides useful lessons that were learned in relation to temporary stabilization works that could not be followed up with more sustainable measures due to administrative and financial constraints.

1. INTRODUCTION

The town of Mailuu Suu is located in the north-eastern part of the Fergana valley, in the valley of the Mailuu Suu River at an altitude between 900 and 1000 m asl. The Mailuu Suu River reports to the Syr Darya River which discharges to Lake Aral. The border with the Republic of Uzbekistan is within a distance of around 25 km. Today, approximately 25 000 inhabitants live in Mailuu Suu, a town that has seen a serious decline in living standard since the end of uranium mining that had lasted from the late 1940s to the 1960s.

As a result of uranium mining and processing, 13 waste dumps and 23 tailings ponds are scattered in the valleys of the Mailuu Suu River and its tributaries Kara Agach, Kulmen Sai und Aylampa Sai (see Fig. 1). The wastes are subject to erosion, especially during snowmelt and heavy rains, landslides, mudflows and seismic events.

8 Paper first presented at the Technical Meeting of the UMREG in Vienna, Austria, November 2012 (updated

FIG. 1. Location of the waste objects.

The uranium mining legacy, and in particular the radioactive wastes that were left behind, have attracted international attention for many years. Rather alarmist news reports about what was called one of the “world’s 10 most polluted sites” [1] “threatening the drinking water supply of

millions” [2], their scientific validity notwithstanding, have helped mobilize funding for many national and international projects. Since the mid-1990s, several initiatives have been launched to investigate the environmental and health impacts of the wastes and propose remediation measures. Most notably the TACIS program funded by the European Commission [3] and the Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program (DHMP) funded by the International Development Agency (IDA) of the World Bank Group, but also other donors such as some western governments [4, 5] have greatly contributed to a better understanding of the environmental and radiological situation at Mailuu Suu. Under the DHMP, remediation works at waste facilities of highest priority were finally implemented.

The authors of this paper have been involved in the IDA funded DHMP, Component A, from 2005 through 2012, as part of the JV Geoconsult–WISUTEC (‘the contractor’ in the following).

This paper summarizes the activities of the contractor during the conceptual planning and engineering design stage and focuses on the remediation works that were finally implemented.

As the remediation measures under the DHMP are, to the authors’ knowledge, the first physical remedial works at uranium legacy of significant scale in Central Asia (apart from minor works carried out at Kaji Sai, that have rapidly deteriorated since completion in mid-2000s), it is worthwhile to take stock of the achievements, lessons learned and challenges that have remained since the DHMP was finished in 2012. This paper builds upon a series of publications devoted to Mailuu Suu and other uranium legacy sites in Central Asia and the former Soviet Union [6–9], where further details on the site can be found that are omitted here for the sake of brevity. Other valuable sources of the historic background information of Mailuu Suu and site description include [10, 4].

The purpose of this paper is to describe the approach to justification and optimization of the environmental remediation strategy, financial and timing constraints, remedial measures implemented to date, and lessons learned that may inform the way forward at the Mailuu Suu site.

The remaining sections of this paper are structured as follows:

— Section 2 provides a brief summary of the various legacy waste facilities at Mailuu Suu;

— Section 3 describes the results of the risk analysis for the waste facilities and the resulting justification and prioritization of remediation measures;

— Section 4 describes the remedial measures that were implemented under the DHMP.

While Section 4.1 summarizes the temporary works and quick fixes that could be carried out in a short time and with limited budget, Section 4.2 describes the optimization process to develop sustainable removal of the geotechnical risks associated with TP 3, whereas Section 4.3 summarizes the radiological impacts of the remediation works completed under the DHMP;

— Section 5 recaps the stakeholder engagement strategy and specific measures of communication, trust building, know-how transfer and capacity building that have proven very helpful in the implementation of the works;

— Section 6 finally summarizes the lessons learned and provides an outlook to future activities necessary at Mailuu Suu to arrive at a truly sustainable solution.

The relocation of tailings pond #3 (TP 3) to a safer disposal site (TP 6) was the most challenging part of the DMHP, both at the conceptual and engineering stage perspective and from an implementation perspective. Therefore, this aspect is discussed in more detail in this paper than other measures at other waste objects.