NATO SfPRESCA Project

Peter Stegnar

Jožef Stefan Institute and Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Brit Salbu, UMB, Aas, Norway

NATO SfP Legacy Projects in CA

• RESCA (Radioactivity Environment Security Central Asia): on Legacy of U Extraction and Environmental Security in Central Asia

• JNKKT (Joint Norway Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan) Project (UMB) supported RESCA

• SEMIRAD I (Semipalatinsk)• SEMIRAD II (Semipalatinsk)

UMREG 2012 2

3

U Legacy Related Problems

• Uranium legacy sites in inhabited areas prone to natural disasters

• Majority of sites not properly managed due to lack of money and inadequate regulatory infrastructure

• Low living standard of resident populations, health and social problems, migration, etc.

• Concern of resident population due to lack of information

UMREG 2012 4

RESCA OBJECTIVES

• Characterisation of source-term and determination of local contamination at selected uranium legacy sites

• Radiation dose and impact assessment • Identification of appropriate

mitigation/remediation countermeasures

Budget: NATO – 430,000 EURSlovenia – 150,000 EURNorway – ?

UMREG 2012 5

RESCA PARTICIPANTS

• Volkovgeologiya, Kazakhstan• Al-Farabi, Kazakhstan• CHU EcoLab, Kyrgyzstan• INP, Uzbekistan• Vostokredmet,Tajikistan• J. Stefan Institute,Slovenia• UMB, Norway

RESCA: from 2006 to 2010

UMREG 2012 6

U Legacy Sites Investigated

Kurday // Kadji Sai // Taboshar

Digmai // Minkush // Shekaftar

Charkesar – 15 multinational field missions

UMREG 2012 7

Hazards

• Radioactivity

Gamma, alpha + Rn doses

Drinking water/food intake

Particles/aerosols (JNNKT)

Ecosystem transfer (JNNKT)• Metals – levels, transport, uptake (JNNKT)• Multiple stressor exposures (JNNKT)• Geohazards: earthquakes, landslides,

flooding – physical risk

UMREG 2012 8

Samples - measurements

• Gamma dose rate, alpha track, Rn dose rates• Analysis of radionuclides in environmental samples• Particle analysis: 2D composition, size, structure• Water: In situ fractionation, lakes, rivers, groundwater,

run-off• Fish: gills, organs, trophic levels, BCF• Soils/sediments: sequential extractions• Vegetation: transfer factors

Methods: alpha-, gamma-spectrometry, beta counting, INAA, RNAA, ICP-MS, ICP-OES, FIMS, IRMS, SEM, 2D

synchrotron XRD, XRFUMREG 2012 9

RESULTS

Environmental Impact Assessment

• Radioactivity of the source (tailings): elevated

• Radioactivity of the environment: gamma dose rates and Radon: high at some sites/places; drinking water, food products – clean

UMREG 2012 10

Digmai, high gamma,

Rn emanation, dust

Intervention needed

UMREG 2012 11

CCRnRn = 1500 Bq = 1500 Bq

mm−3−3

CCRnRn = 1000 Bq m = 1000 Bq m−3−3

CCRnRn = 450 Bq m = 450 Bq m−3−3

Digmay – Tajikistan, outdoor Rn

Intervention needed

UMREG 2012 12

Min-Kush; Kyrgyzstan

IAEA TM on 13

Dose rates at Tuyuk-Suu - remediated: 0.2 to 1.0 µGy/h, Rn: up to 10 Bq/m3

Indoor Rn: low (~100 Bq/m3), higher in some public buildings

Tuyuk-Suu tailings dump: landslide threat, transfer to D recommended

Spent filter materials from former U mill: immediate removal needed

U waste rock and coal used for insulation purposes of houses

Charkesar, Uzbekistan Gamma doses

Contaminated mine water drunk by animals and used for irrigation

Gamma dose rates of the soil from 3 - 7 µGy/h

Ra-226 in contaminated soil: 10 kBq/kg,

Ra-226 in water: 2.7 Bq/L

More information needed

Hot spots – Radioactive particles - digital autoradiography

Soil from Kadji-say, Kyrgyzstan

Soil from Kurday, Kazakhstan

Sediment from Taboshar Pit Lake

In situ measurements High gamma doses

Max dose rates = 0.4 µGy/h

U=1384 µg/L

Ra-226= 26 mBq/L

As=31 µg/L

High transfer

Downstream Taboshar extraction site

Drinking water Taboshar village: exceeds WHO U limit

Other findings High U and As levels in

Taboshar pit lake

High 210Po and Hg uptake in fish

226Ra key dose contributor

to terrestrial plants

UMREG 2012 17

Dose and Risk Assessment

Radiation doses low, radiological risk low with no actual health impact on resident populations

Radiological risk versus non-radiological:• Chemical contaminants • Physical risk – due to free access to legacy sites,

geohazard impactPerceived radiological risk versus actual risk:• Perceived risk by population high, based on lacking

information, low living standard, emotions – radiophobia• Actual radiological risk: low

UMREG 2012 18

• Upgrading analytical labs – provision of equipment (some cost-shared with IAEA): ɣ,α spectrometers, radiochemistry, Rn equipment, field instruments, sampling kits, etc.

• Training of personnel - young specialists: on-the-job, basic, advanced (spectrometry, Rn, other techniques)

• Promoting education (several MSc and PhD degrees completed or in progress)

UMREG 2012 19

Intervention Criteria

INTERVENTIONMAY BE

REQUIRED

INTERVENTIONUSUALLY NOT

REQUIRED

INTERVENTIONALMOST ALWAYS REQUIRED

mSv in a year

1,000

300

100

30

10

3

1

INDIVIDUALS’ CURRENT

ANNUAL DOSE

Filtration material - >300 mSv/y

Insulation materials – 10 mSv/y

MINKUSH

Conclusions

• Radiation doses to man relatively low, insignificant radiological risk and no actual health impact on resident populations

• Radiation at investigated sites localised to limited areas, could potentially influence/impact downstream areas due to river and airborne transport

• Metal exposure, especially of As, is high at mining sites, and is transported downstream

• High ecosystem transfer of selected radionuclides and metals

• Multiple stressor aspect should be considered

UMREG 2012 20

RESCA CONTRIBUTIONS

• Upgrading analytical labs – provision of equipment (some cost-shared with IAEA): ɣ,α spectrometers, radiochemistry, Rn equipment, field instruments, sampling kits, etc.

• Training of personnel - young specialists: on-the-job, basic, advanced (spectrometry, Rn, other techniques)

• Promoting education (several MSc and PhD degrees completed or in progress)

UMREG 2012 21

RESCA CONCERNS

• Lack of national financing for self-sustainable activities for follow-up programme/projects, i.e. site specific monitoring

• Leaving of already trained/experienced personnel for other jobs• Utilisation (availability, technical support, repair possibilitis, etc.)

of equipment• QA/QC issues – reliability of results

UMREG 2012 22

FUTURE

• RESCA follow – up: radioactivity + metals

– Comprehensive EIA of investigated sites– EIA of other sites:

• Sumsar (heavy metals pollution), • Shekaftar (radioactivity)• Ak-Tyuz, Orlovka (radioactive tailings from rare earth elements production, heavy metals)• Taboshar• Digmai

UMREG 2012 23

Special Issue Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2012

10 peer review articles