SUMMARY, LESSONS LEARNED AND OUTLOOK

From the authors’ experience over many years of work in Central Asia and other developing countries, a few key lessons were learned [17, 18] that can be summarized as follows:

1) In the conceptual phase, the two critical stages “site characterization” and “discussion of the justification and optimization of remedial measures and the agreement of a remedial strategy with all stakeholders” may take a long time that is usually underestimated when the project funding timeline is set-up by international donor organizations and contractors’ initial time planning;

2) Aftercare and follow-up measures should be sufficiently funded, as otherwise the success of remedial measures may be undone.

These lessons fully apply to full extent to remedial measures completed at Mailuu Suu. For site characterization the DHMP greatly was able to draw on work carried out under the TACIS project [3, 10]. However, the in-depth discussion of the justification of remedial measures and the agreement of a strategy that assigns higher priority to some objects and inevitably has to postpone work on others, could have substantially benefited from more time for all involved stakeholders to fully understand the constraints and avoid later disappointment. The contractor had to balance understandable expectations by local stakeholders that physical remediation had to commence with urgency after years of investigation and studies. This would send an important signal to people that the situation would soon improve. Apparently, due to the relatively short timeline of the project and possibly exaggerated expectations of what is achievable under severe time and budget constraints, some issues continue to surface occasionally, such as the local preference of relocating TP 3 to the remote location of TP 15.

9

The rational reasons for rejecting the locally preferred option and relocate the wastes to TP 6 were discussed above.

Regarding aftercare and follow-up measures, riverbank strengthening measures (e.g. at TP 2, TP 13 and others) were clearly presented to all stakeholders as temporary risk reduction measures, and designed as such. They would have been followed by a long term, sustainable solution, it should be stated that lack of follow-up funding has led to a rapid deterioration of the temporary concrete structures. The situation has been informally discussed with local stakeholders and experts at numerous occasions and requires corrective measures. The international community is well aware of the need to continue with remediation works (e.g. at tailings facilities TP2 and 13 that are most vulnerable to erosion) [19].

Stakeholder engagement from the start of the DHMP has clearly paid off. Trust building and communication with communities, training and know-how transfer to regulators and national experts have proven the right strategy to mitigate the risk of delays in the permitting and implementation phase. In this context it should also be noted that careful selection of key personnel of the contractor helped remove language barriers and ensured an intimate understanding of the host country and its political, administrative and cultural specifics.

REFERENCES

[1] BLACKSMITH INSTITUTE, The World's Worst Polluted Places, available from http://www.worstpolluted.org/ New York (2006) (accessed on 15/07/2015)

[2] EDWARDS, R., Flooding of Soviet uranium mines threatens millions, New Scientist (16 May 2002).

[3] VANDENHOVE, H., SWEECK, L., MALLANTS, D., VANMARCKE, H., AITKULOV, A., SADYROV, O., SAVOSIN, M., TOLONGUTOV, B., MIRZACHEV, M., CLERC, J.J., QUARCH, H., AITALIEV, A., Assessment of radiation exposure in the uranium mining and milling area of Mailuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan.

J. Environ. Radioact. 88 2 (2006) 118–139.

[4] BGR (GERMAN FEDERAL AGENCY FOR GEOLOGY AND RESOURCES), Final Report of the Project “Hydrogeochemical Groundwater Monitoring in Mailuu Suu, Kyrgyz Republic”, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Hannover (2008).

[5] CORCHO–ALVARADO, J.A., BALSIGER, B., RÖLLIN, S., JAKOB, A., BURGER, M.,

Radioactive and chemical contamination of the water resources in the former uranium mining and milling sites of Mailuu Suu (Kyrgyzstan), J. Environ. Radioact. 138 (2014) 1–10.

[6] SCHMIDT, P., KUNZE, C., REGNER, J., “Experience gained in transferring WISMUT radiation protection know-how to international projects in uranium mining remediation”, Remediation of Land Contaminated by Radioactive Material Residues, Proc. Int. Conf. Astana, Kazakhstan, 2009, Topical Session 7, IAEA, Vienna (2014).

[7] SCHMIDT, P., KUNZE, C., WALTER, U., Use of radiation protection know-how of Wismut in the frame of remediation projects at Uranium Mining Sites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In: Aspects of Radiation Protection with Natural Radioactivity, Proc. 38th Int. Annual Conf. of the German–Swiss Society for Radiation Protection, Berlin (2006), 320–326.

[8] KUNZE, C., GRUBER, A., SCHMIDT, P., WALTER, U., “The Stabilization/Remediation of Uranium Waste Dumps and Tailings at Mailuu Suu (Kyrgyzstan) within a World Bank Funded Project”, WISMUT2007, Proc. Int. Symp., Gera (2007) 513–521.

[9] KUNZE, C., WALTER, U., WAGNER, F., SCHMIDT, P., BARNEKOW, U., GRUBER, A., “Environmental impact and remediation of uranium tailings and waste rock dumps at Mailuu Suu (Kyrgyzstan)”, The Uranium Mining Remediation Exchange Group (UMREG) Selected Papers 1995–2007, STI/PUB/1524, IAEA, Vienna (2011) 223–237.

[10] TACIS PROJECT N° SCRE1/N°38: Remediation of Uranium Mining and Milling Tailing in Mailuu Suu District of Kyrgyzstan, Consortium SCK–CEN (Belgium), 2001–2003, Final Report (May 2003).

[11] DISASTER HAZARDOUS MITIGATION PROJECT (DHMP), JV Geoconsult — WISUTEC, Conceptual study on remediation of waste dumps and tailings ponds (Work Packages A2 and A6 of the DHMP Component A) (April 2006).

[12] DISASTER HAZARDOUS MITIGATION PROJECT (DHMP), JV Geoconsult — WISUTEC, Component A, Relocation of TP 3/18 to TP 6, Environmental Impact Assessment (July 2008).

[13] VOIGT G., FESENKO, S. (Eds.), Remediation of Contaminated Environments, Radioactivity in the Environment 14, Elsevier, Oxford (2009) 1–477.

[14] INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION Recommendations of the Commission, ICRP Publication 60, Ann. ICRP 21 (1991) 1–

3.

[15] WORLD BANK, Implementation Completion and Results Report on an IDA Grant for a Disaster Hazard Mitigation Project (30 November 2013).

[16] TORGOEV, I.A., ALESHIN, Y.G., MELESHKO, A.V., HAVENITH, H.B., Hazard Mitigation for Landslide Dams in Mailuu Suu Valley (Kyrgyzstan). Italian J.

Engineering Geology and Environment, Special Issue 1 (2006) 99–102.

[17] KUNZE, C., WALTER, U., “Challenges of Mine Remediation Programmes In Developing Countries — A Life Cycle Perspective”, Waste Management 2015 (Proc.

Conf. Phoenix, Arizona, USA (2015) Paper 15371.

[18] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Lessons Learned from Environmental Remediation Projects, Nuclear Energy Series NW–T–3.6, IAEA Vienna (2014).

[19] VOITSEKHOVICH O., JAKUBICK, A., “Preliminary Hazards Analyses at the Uranium Production Legacy Sites Minkush and Mailuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan.” Paper presented at IAEA Tech. Meeting of the Uranium Mining and Remediation Exchange Group 2014, Freiberg, 2014.

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS AFFECTING

WATER RESOURCES IN MAILUU SUU VALLEY, KYRGYZSTAN¹⁰

F. WAGNER, S. ALTFELDER, T. HIMMELSBACH Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

Hannover H. JUNG

NUKEM Technologies GmbH Alzenau

Germany

Abstract

Residual waste dumps and tailings from previous uranium mining activities in Mailuu Suu represent a potential risk on local water resources. In 2006, a monitoring program was initiated to determine the contamination status of local water resources in order to establish a baseline to assess the impact of coming remediation activities. Field data supplemented by laboratory experiments shed light on uranium mobilization and transport paths. The observed status of the local water resources and recommendations for necessary mitigation measures has been presented to local authorities as well as citizens.

1. INTRODUCTION

From 1946 to 1968, uranium ore was mined and processed in Mailuu Suu (Kyrgyzstan). The resulting tailings and waste rocks were deposited in nearby dumps together with below grade ore material of uneconomically low uranium content. Altogether, around 3 Mm³ of waste materials [1] was deposited in morphologic depressions and provisionally covered.

Due to their location in a tectonically active region, the stability of rock dumps and tailings is threatened by landslides, triggered by seismic events or seasonal heavy rains. Their radioactive contents might be eroded and transferred into the river. Furthermore, landslides may block the local river Mailuu–Say and its tributaries such as Kulmin–Say, resulting in flooding of nearby dumps and tailing impoundments. This has already happened, in 1992 and 2002. Both scenarios are combined with erosion and solution processes and, thus, mobilization of the radioactive inventory. Besides affecting local water resources, mobilized radionuclides might be transported downstream beyond the Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan border.

Against this background, the World Bank has initiated a US $17M Disaster Hazard Mitigation Project (DHMP). In this context, the presented study was carried out in cooperation with the Kyrgyz Ministry of Emergency Situations (MOE) in order to provide a baseline to assess the contamination status of water resources. Major activities were carried out 2006 to 2009, comprising implementation of a monitoring network as well as laboratory experiments. The remediation activities of the DHMP project have been recently completed. Nevertheless, the threat from uranium mining residues is still reported to be high [2]. Therefore, the results of this study are still of actual relevance and useful for designing future remediation activities as well as assessing their impact.

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