Joop Stoutjesdijk

Wisutec

C. Kunze

Joop Stoutjesdijk

Geoconsult

Alexander Gruber

Env Em Centre

JointServices Branch

OCHA

Roy Brooke

PIU

MES

FSU: Former Soviet Union.

PIU DHMP: Project Implimentation Unit for the Disaster Hazard Mitigation Project.

TACIS:

OCHA: Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

UNRC/UNDPRR

UNEP:

IDA: International Development Association.

JV FS??

DC: District of Columbia

PROJECTS

Regional Project on Safe Management of Residues from former mining and milling operations in Central Asia . (Kaz, Tajik, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan). Since 2005. Ends in 2008. In association with NATO Envsec.

Kyrgistan has made the least progress due to internal politics and a lack of reg regime.

National projects include establishing an ecological mionitoring network till 2009.

Assessment of radiation situation and public exposure at former uranium mining sites at Minkush. 2007-09

Maluu Suu and Kara Balta are monitored through other projects.

Plus WB Mallu Suu.

IATF: Inter Agency Task Force: Central Asia Region.

Joint UNEP/OCHA Environmental Unit

Nimrodel-Australia

Completed 100% acquisition of Kyrgizstan exploration company Lina Prava Uranium (LPU). Nimrodel was listed in November 2006.

2004: IDA provides a grant to K-govt towards the cost of the DHMP.

Consultants are Wisutec JV (Germany) and Geoconsult Austria

Concept study approved in May 2006 (WHO???)

Earlier stage that looked at all the options.

Geotechnical and radiological investigation results. Where??

Working Design (The Concept) Feasibility StudyComments

WT and GC Feasibility Study:

Evaluated sites-potential and preferred sites.

Final selection and justification.

Othere considerations: socio-economic.

The preferred option for NO3 tailings was relocation. Therefore a full scale EIA should be carried out under the banks Operational Policy 4.01 and 4.37-Safety of Dams.

29 June 2007

Mike comments

Costs (they updated in view of comments and are close to original assumptions)

Excavation methodology (will be elaborayted in the working design)

Total volume estinmates (they see no uncertainty)

Haulage methods (will be elaborated in the working design)

Is it being sent to the right tailings. e.g. tailings 15.

Response Joop: consultants and PIU looked at this; its technically more difficult and more expensive. MES and PIU agree. There are limited funds and second best is the best we can expect at the moment.

Peter reluctantly accepts Joops position. If second best is acceptable to the client.

Peter 19 July 2007

Responses are petulant.

Many assumptions are not well exoplained.

Lack of detail.

Fundam,ental errors.

Some require clarification in the next round.

August 1

Joop: allow them to go forward.

Draft design will address issues in more detail.

3 August Mike

Unable to endorse JV FS.

Its not the best job for this project.

Peter 3 August

Disinclined to endorse the project.

Mike: the POE is not comfortable; wont recommend they proceed to the next stage. Budget overunns

Propose another meeting to sort out.

6 August: Peter

POE statement:

Not comfortable with responses so far.

POE wants more detailed response before proceeding to the next stage.

Proposes meeting to speed it up.

26 August: Joop:

Its just differences of opinion.

30 August

Fabrizzio: can proceed with design.

Requires more site investigation and geotechnical characterization.

A new site investigation should be initiated asap.

1 September

The design of the technical road and the relocation of WD5 to TP6 are completed.

Wisutec requests that Gulbara gives go ahead for the detailed design.

DHMP-PIU finds it OK for the JV to proceed with the design.

Providing they provide :

More details of methodology

Site investigations

Selection of design criteria

15 September

Wisutec

Additional site investigations are not required for the design of the relocation and final disposal of TP 3/18 to TP6. Sufficient past investigations were carried ouit.

There will be a QA programme in the WD. The remaining uncertainties will be taken care of in the WD.

2 drillholes

20 shear vane drillholes

5 geotecxhnical investigation cuts

all at TP3.

1 drillhole at TP18

6 drillholes at TP6.

7 November- Draft Working Design and Bidding Documents

19 November-Progress Report from Wisutec.

24 November- Comments from Fabrizio.

28 November 2007

Draft WD on the site.

2 January

Peter: cutting corners; underbid.

POE had lots of comments as expected.

Aussie processors??

2 April Second draft WD.

IATF: Inter Agency Task Force: Central Asia Region. 17 April: Neal Walker(UNRC/UNDPRR kyrgizstan).

U tailings and humanitarian issues.

Approach IAEA and UNEP for technical assistance.

Drafting a framework document: define scope,

What must be done

Identify partnerships with private sector.

Ideas on concrete projects.

Will circulate the framework document.

Rene Nijenhuis

Environmental Emergencies Section

Summary

Mailuu-Suu valley in Nooken rayon of the Jalal-Abad oblast in the foothills of the Fergana.Melt water, highest in May-June. Also glaciers in the headwaters.

August to March is low level. Most water April-July plus rain. May and June are the months of spring snow melt.

Landslides, mudflows and cloudbursts.

Soft water and weakly mineralized.

Oil deposits=oily river.

U mining and Processing at Mailuu-Suu from 1946 to 1968. 23 tailings piles and 13 Waste Rock dumps. 1.96 E6 m3 of tails and 0.8E6 m3 of waste rock. 44 hectares of tails.

Near Mayluu-Su and Ailampa-Sai rivers.

26000 people. Free access plus grazing.

High levels of radionuclides in the waters and sediments in the MS river.

Groundwater??

Main concern is tailings No 3 near the River.

Seismic liquefaction.

~120 years of records. On av 3 equakes every 10 years >6

Aims: Isolation, stabilization and protection from natural forces.

Work from July –November only.

Year 1: 96 days

Year 2: 144 days 12+ hours a day 6 days a week.

Year 1: 50-60000 m3 from TP3.

Skip moulds and tarpaulins.

Pulpy tails in watertight lockable containers.

Will require the movement of ~130000 tons of tails, soils, and mine wastes. Plus 5000 m3 from TP18.

TP3 and TP18 will be mixed with inert materials and trucked to TP6.

TP3 is overlain by alluvial sediments washed down hill. Mostly loess type soils that are eroded downhill. 2.4 ha and 111E3 m3.

150-200 m from inhabited area. Opposite Isolit.

TACIS project added bulwarks and fence.

Constructed 54-58. Included waste from ores in Europw. ~150E3 tons. Sig water seepage 58-65.

63-65 they removed ~35000 tons to stabilize it.

They used gravel cover up to 1 metre and then clay 0.2 metre. Plus 0.8m of gravel.

Also aconcrete cap 30 cm.

Later protection dam up to 95 and after.

Lower third of number 3 is saturated with water.

Bedrock is calcrete and impermeable.

TP.18 is very small only 4000m3 but subsoil is contaminated another 1000 m3. ^ cover criteria is radon exhalation . Use a store and release cover plus erosion protection.

1.5 metres plus 0.5 metres erosion protection layer

1991: Original closeout criteria:State Inspection Committee of the FSU: Sanitary Instructions for the Liquidation, Conservation and reorganisation of Enterprises, on Minig/Processing of Radioactive Ores USSR.

No English translation. Reported by local regulator as comprehensive and in line with international standards.

TP6

Approxim 80000 m3. Includes rubbish and scrap metal in the dams.

Is dry therefore dam will not fail due to liquefaction.

To maximise stability the foundation soils must be removed and replaced with material from WD5.

Low doserates: 0.1 uSv.h-1. to maxof 4.26

Rn: 2001-2002: 2 detectors: 167 and 282 Bq.m-3.

Tacis did Rn so did the JV-results?

Diversion channels to WTP.

Must lower the GW table.

Water treatment-gypsum sludge disposal. Overflow capacity 500 m3 in ditches.

Cover

Prevent intrusion

Gamma

Radon release.

1995: WB: National Envoronmental Action Plan for Kyrgystan.

1995: EU TACIS Programme. Uranerz report. Development and Training Activities for the Environmental Improvement of the former Uranium Mill Site at Tuyuk-Suu.

Hazard Ranking and Remedial Action Plan for the Uranium Tailings Impoundments for the republic of Kygistan. World Bank Industry and Mining Unit. File S1110 Dec 1998.

Clifton Associates were the consultants and Kara Balta Mining Combinate (KMC).

The KG requested the WB to review the status of abandoned tailings facilities.

1946-1993 u production or ore export.

Principal U mines were in Min-Kush, Kadzhy-Sai and Tuyuk-Su.

Kara-Balta plant: 60 km from Bishkek processed radioactive ores from Kazakstan and other countries.

Examined 5 locations with 33 tailings sites.

Kara-Balta (open plains)

Ak-Tuz

Kaji-Say

Ming-Kush

Mayluu-Suu

Last four are in valleys.

Highest priority sites were:

MS 5, 7 and 6-large landslide potential near river.

MS 3, 9, 10, 17,18,19.

Ak Tuz: 4.

Ak-Tuz: 2.

Radiation: 15-380 uR.h-1 up to 600 oc in diversion ditches. No radon measurements; dry therefore probably low.

In 1991 monitoring ceased with the Russians.

Needs:

Monitoring system: key priority.

Phy security

Erosion and intrusion

Stabilisation

Repair sub surface drainage.

Recover

Revegetate.

Fencing signs etc.

Close to or upstream of population centres.

Political impact of movement into the rivers on agriculture and the Ferghana valley (esp MS) breadbasket.

Needs a public education programme re the potential hazards and the radiation.

Institutional reform.

Costs for the above sites was 16.5E6 US. Plus 500000US per annum.

Other problem was the poor regulatory control and technical backup. Departmental infighting. Lack of historical info (its in Moscow). No local archive.

Other sites: Shekaftar and Sumsar- not radioactive-non U.

Key problems: erosion and spring runoff.

Tectonic activity.

Most tailings were constructed in an active flow channel of a watershed.

3 Hazard Classification Criteris were used.

MS was top of the lists especially 5, 6 and 7.

KMC has determined the Possible Extent of Impact Area if the tailings fail (how determined??).

Historical catastrophes:

1958: MS No 7 breached. 600E5 m3 lost to the river. Pollution plus several fatalities??

1996: No 17 was covered by a landslide.-no loss to the river.

Wisutec Summary

Component A Feasibility Study-Remediation of Tailings Pond 3 September 2006.

Design principles of the store and release cover.January 2007.

TACIS samples of TP3 were reanalyzed. JV made correction to 226Ra value and other data.

Av 226Ra: 35.8 Bq.g-1

90% <99.6

Max 175

Calculated average of 20 uSv.hg-1

Therefore 90% = up to 60 uSv.h-1.

Water treatment

Capacity: 3 m3 per hour (this is the pump capacity)

Batch discharge <0.5 mg.l-1 limit. Kyrgyz standard is 1.8.

Truck wash 1 and 2: 48 m3 per day.

T15 rain event 243 m3 per event. Plus additional material from wells in TP3.

Storage pond: 500m3 capacity.

Estimated 2 mg.l U seepage concentration.

POE to provide:

Review the technical appropriatness of the recommended option.

Provide an opinion on the feasilbility study.

Recommend improvements.

And endorse proposals.

Review the status of implementation of design and civil works.

See Appendices.

III. Scope of Services of the POE

The POE will review the materials on partial off-loading of the Tectonic Landslide and Tectonic stabilization options in order to get an overall impression of the possible options;
The POE will review the feasibility study on remediation of the Tailing No.3;
The POE will review the option of the Tailing No. 3 in-situ stabilization and protection and give an opinion whether rejection of this option by the Consultant was correct;
The POE will make evaluation of potential sites for tailings relocation;
The POE will consider recommendations on the preferred site for relocation of radioactive wastes;
The POE will review considerations of economic, social, and environmental factors and overall assessment of suitability in line with current best practice;
The POE will review documentation on detailed Environmental Impact Assessment;
The POE will review the status of implementation of design and civil works.

IV. The POE Missions

The POE will closely work with the staff of the PIU and the Consultant for design and supervision services. The POE is expected to provide for several short-terms inputs about 4,5 weeks total.

Mission 1 (one and a half week)

The first mission of the POE is to be conducted after the feasibility study is completed.

The first mission will comprise:

Travel to Mailuu-Suu to review the location and condition of the various tailings to form overview of the situation;

Review the feasibility study and other material,give recommendations, as needed, for improvements and endorse the proposals;

Review technical appropriateness of the recommended by the Consultant option for the long-term solution to reduce critical risks and hazards related to the Tailing No.3;

Prepare conclusions on methodology for the potential landslide body stabilization and carried out operational solutions to minimize possible ground movement on the Tailing No.3;
Make recommendations on environmental safety arrangements for transportation of the radioactive wastes to a relocation site;

Review the final details of the design of the removal methodology and the new tailing containment, as well as a transport corridor study, baseline monitoring (radiological and chemical), operational monitoring program, and a detailed EIA;

One of options looked at by the Consultant is the in-situ stabilization and protection of the Tailing No. 3, although rejected by the Consultant the Panel will review the in-situ stabilization and protection option and give an opinion whether rejection was correct;
Prepare a mission report with findings and recommendations.

Mission 2 (one and half week)

The second mission of the POE is expected when the detailed design is completed.

The second mission will comprise:

Review whether the final feasibility study includes all the recommendations and improvements proposed by the POE;

Review the quality of the design presented, conformity of the design to the international standards and provide advice for improvements as needed;
Prepare a mission report with findings and recommendations.

Mission 3 (one week)

(with input of a Tailings Relocation Expert and a Waste Safety Expert if relocation option is selected and a Geotechnical Expert and a Waste Safety Expert if in-situ stabilization and protection option is selected)

The third mission of the POE is expected during middle phase (about June 2008) of implementation of the working design.

The third mission will comprise:

Travel to Mailuu-Suu to review status of implementation of the works;
Review the progress and determine the quality of works and provide technical advice, as needed;
Review the adequacy of the construction supervision arrangements;
Prepare a mission report with findings and recommendations.

Mission 4 (one week)

The fourth mission of the POE is expected during pre-final phase (about Aug 2009) of implementation of the working design.

The fourthmission will comprise:

Travel to Mailuu-Suu to review status of implementation of the works;
Review the progress and determine the quality of works and provide technical advice, as needed;
Review the adequacy of the construction supervision arrangements;
Prepare a mission report with findings and recommendations.

V. The POE Qualification Criteria

Knowledge and experience in international projects with the actual relocation of contaminated material, related safety issues and removal of material in relation to the surrounding areas.

VI. The POE Composition

The POE will comprise experts corresponding on the qualification to the type of works to be carried out. The POE shall include a Geotechnical Expert, a Tailing Relocation Expert and a Wastes Safety Expert.The composition of the POE shall be agreed upon with the Client by name. The POE will have short-term inputs. The final composition for a particular panel input will be determined before the start of each input.

VII. Reporting

Consultant shall provide a mission report with findings and recommendations at the end of each input, to be submitted to the Client before departure from the KyrgyzRepublic.