SPECIAL REPORT | ASIA’S URANIUM LEGACY
Right: The government of Uzbekistan is remediating one of the country’s two uranium mines Photo credit: Kadagan/
Shutterstock.com
ERA’s responsibility is to remediate waste rock dumps, open shafts, adits and sinkholes, and demolish contaminated buildings. The preferred remediation options identified in EU’s EIAs and FSs include closure of shafts, adits and sinkholes, demolition of contaminated infrastructure and other legacy facilities, as well as relocation of waste rock dumps. The total cost was estimated at €13m and work was expected to take five years. This is subject to the availability of EBRD funds and fulfilment of the Framework Agreement requirements. A separate project to address the risks from contaminated mining water is planned to be implemented with support from the EU’s INSC. The overall budget is about €3.6m. The Degmay site, with the largest concentrated volume
of tailings material from uranium ore processing in Central Asia is located close to the Syr Daria river. Radon exhalation from the tailings is high and the dry exposed surface creates radioactive dust emissions. Contaminated infrastructure includes former tailings pipelines. The EU’s EIA and FS included tailings pond, tailings pipes, and two abandoned pump stations. The preferred remediation option was to cover the tailings and dam area with a layer of soil and crude rock, with a ditch for the water run-off and demolition of pump stations. The estimated cost was €28m with work expected to take six years. This was also subject to the availability of EBRD funds and fulfilment of Framework Agreement requirements.
Uzbekistan The Charkesar site comprises two mines. Risks include contaminated mine water, which is being used for livestock and irrigation, as well as physical risks to the local population from open shafts and adits. One mine is an ERA’s priority sites and the other is being remediated by the Government of Uzbekistan. The preferred remediation option identified by the EU’s EIA and FS was closure of two shafts with a reinforced concrete plate, closure of
36 | November 2023 |
www.neimagazine.com
five sinkholes with surface concrete plugs, and closure of one adit with waste rock.. The cost was estimated at €0.8m, with the remediation expected to take a year. The Government of Uzbekistan undertook some measures in 2019-2020, including levelling the site and covering it with a layer of neutral soil, and diverting a drainage creek to the underground well. The Yangiabad site covering 5,000-hectare is also an ERA
priority, including separate mines and central dumps of waste rock and low-grade ore. The preferred remediation option identified by the EU’s EIA and FS was closure of four shafts, 23 adits and eight sinkholes; demolition of contaminated buildings and/or processing facilities with debris transferred to central waste dumps or a storage cell; constructing discharge channels for surface water at five locations; reinforcement of the riverbanks at four locations and relocation of several waste rock dumps at Kattasay to a central dump that would be covered. Kattasay remediation accounted for over a half of estimated total costs of €7.7m. A facility was also needed to store contaminated material. Remediation was expected to take two years. In 2021 a €2m grant was agreed to support the PMU that would undertake the remediation. In September 2022 EBRD agreed to provide a grant
of €7m to support the work at Charkesar and Yangiabad. Construction and rehabilitation works is now underway under the supervision of local and German experts. Clearly the IAEA is playing a key role in co-ordinating and overseeing the various European and CIS remediation projects, preventing duplication and monitoring progress. Details are published in the SMP. IAEA says it is currently reviewing the second edition of the SMP with a view to developing a third edition. This will describe latest developments and decide on priorities for the next remediation steps. This third edition should be ready for publication in 2024 or 2025. ■
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
