DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Underground Mines in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER 2 Need and potential for underground disposal – survey of underground mines in Europe D. Kaliampakos1, A. Mavropoulos2 & M. Menegaki1 1School of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece. 2EPEM, Greece. Abstract This chapter considers the need as well as potential for disposal of hazardous waste in underground mines and provides a comparison between surface and under- ground hazardous waste disposal including typical costs. A survey on underground mines in Europe is provided including some that are currently used or considered for disposal of hazardous waste in the future. The survey shows that the number of deep mines that are suitable for disposal of hazardous waste is large in Europe, especially considering that a certain number of currently used mines are expected to cease their operation in the near future. In particular, 15 EU countries are included in this survey: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands and UK. This does not mean that the number of suitable mines in other European coun- tries is negligible, but it only indicates that at this moment there is no sufficient data to report. It is expected that the number of suitable underground mines for hazardous waste disposal in Eastern European countries would be quite high, which offers an alternative and affordable way of dealing with hazardous waste in these countries. 2.1 Surface vs. underground hazardous waste disposal facilities Underground hazardous waste disposal facilities present some significant advan- tages compared to the respective surface installations, which can be summarized WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 26, © 2006 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line) doi:10.2495/978-1-85312-750-2/02 34 DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN UNDERGROUND MINES as follows [1]: • Underground facilities take advantage of the protection, isolation and security of the site. Proper design and geological siting can provide very low pro- babilities of hazardous substances leakage and of any such leakage to the sur- face environment. • Underground structures are naturally protected from severe weather (hurri- canes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and other natural phenomena). Underground structures can also resist structural damage due to floodwaters, although spe- cial isolation provisions are necessary to prevent flooding of the structure itself. Moreover, underground structures have several intrinsic advantages in resisting earthquake motions and they tend to be less affected by surface seismic waves than surface structures [2]. • An underground hazardous waste disposal facility eliminates substantially the visual impacts, which can be of major concern in a surface structure adjacent to residential areas. • Environmental monitoring is limited mainly to air quality within the working area. Other needs for monitoring (e.g. groundwater quality) can be deter- mined during risk assessment. • Long-term and after-care monitoring are usually not necessary since the main protection is provided by the geologic medium. On the contrary, in a surface hazardous waste disposal facility the protection measures have limited life- time. Thus the landfill should be always monitored for possible leaks, even after the end of operation. • During the operation of a surface hazardous waste disposal facility, the main cost drivers are monitoring, wastewater treatment and financial insurance. According to the above-mentioned characteristics of the underground space, operational cost is expected to be cheaper in the case of underground hazard- ous waste disposal. • Moreover, in the case of an existing underground space, as it is an abandoned underground mine, there are some additional benefits that strengthen hazard- ous waste underground disposal, with the most important being the land cost and construction savings. A more detailed comparison between surface and underground hazardous waste disposal facilities is given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, while in Table 2.3 an indi- cative sealing cost for a surface installation, as well as the respective cost for an underground hazardous waste disposal facility are presented. It should be noted that with the use of the techniques selected for the Low- RiskDT Project, the difference between surface and underground disposal of hazardous waste would increase. 2.2 Survey of underground mines in Europe The economic growth that has been observed in all developed European coun- tries since the industrial revolution relied largely on mining activity. This activity WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 26, © 2006 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line) W w w I T w Table 2.1: General and construction issues in surface vs. underground hazardous waste disposal facilities. T . w r a i t n p s r a Surface HW disposal facility Underground HW disposal facility e c s t s i . o c n o s m General issues o , n I StateoftheArtinScienceandEngineering, Vol26, S Availability of space Limited Hundreds of abandoned underground mines S N may be suitable. 1755-8336 (on-line) Sitting Very difficult due to technical and Easier social issues. N Licensing Difficult Depends on country. EED AND Construction issues 5 m artificial geological barrier or Necessary Not necessary, the use of artificial barriers is P equivalent barrier (99/31 EC) limited and it depends on risk assessment. OTENTIAL FOR below the waste body Leachate collection Necessary, because rainfall creates huge Not necessary if water does not enter the system (LCS) quantities of polluted leachate. Normally waste body. A kind of LCS should be LCS constitutes of extended piping and constructed for potential leaks. U NDERGROUND © drainage layer. 2006 WITPress Wastewater treatment Necessary. Treatment level depends on Most of the time, negligible or no wastewater local conditions and potential impacts is generated. Safe storage of wastewater and at water tables and most of the times transfer to wastewater treatment D should be a third level one. facilities is an indicated solution. ISPOSAL Storm water management Necessary, one of the basic components Depends on the underground mine of design and construction. conditions – may also be negligible. 35 36 Table 2.2: Operational and cost issues in surface vs. underground hazardous waste disposal facilities. D W w w I ISPOSAL OF T w Surface HW disposal facility Underground HW disposal facility T . w r a i t n p s r a Operational issues e c s t s i . o c Stability Crucial point for the waste body formulation. Crucial point for the underground space. n o s H m o , Environmental impacts of High impacts to water and ground/soil. Limited or no impacts to water and ground/soil AZARDOUS n I StateoftheArtinScienceandEngineering, Vol26, S S possible major accidents Toxic gases emissions are considered system. Toxic gases emissions may create N 1755-8336 (on-line) (SEVESO) as a high level hazard. problems to workers. Environmental monitoring Extended monitoring is necessary, especially Monitoring is limited to air quality, within the for water and air quality. The sensitivity working area. Risk assessment determines other W ASTE IN of the surrounding ecosystem and natural needs for monitoring. resources determines more specific areas U that should be monitored. NDERGROUND In situ treatment options Easier More difficult due to space limitations. Long-term–after-care All the protection measures have limited The main protection is provided by the use of monitoring life-time, thus the landfill should be always underground space – the deeper the better. monitored for possible leaks, even after the After-care monitoring is not necessary. M end of operation. INES © 2006 WITPress Cost issues Construction cost Artificial barriers, wastewater treatment, The components may be the same, but they will leachate collection system, gas collection probably be cheaper due to limited water entry and treatment system, storm water and utilization of already available space. management and excavations are the main components. Operational cost Monitoring, wastewater treatment and financial It is expected to be cheaper. insurance, are the main cost drivers. NEED AND POTENTIAL FOR UNDERGROUND DISPOSAL 37 Table 2.3: Typical sealing cost in surface and underground hazardous waste disposal facilities. Cost per Thickness unit Cost per 2 (m) Quantity Unit (euros) m (euros) Bottom layer for surface installations Clay barrier (hydraulic 5 8.5 m3 10 85 conductivity < 10–9 m/s) Geotextile – 1 m2 2 2 HDPE geomembrane 0.002 1 m2 6 6 (hydraulic conductivity < 10–9 m/s) Geotextile – 1 m2 2 2 Drainage layer 0.5 0.5 m3 5 2.5 Total cost 97.5 Sealing for underground facilities HDPE geomembrane 0.002 1 m2 15 15 Shotcrete 0.1 1 m2 32 32 Total cost 47 was reflected in a large number of mining exploitations, many of which were underground mines. However, the decline of the mining industry during the last decades has led to the closure of many mining sites throughout most European countries. As a result, there are many abandoned underground mines which most of the times remain inactive and practically useless. In addition, due to the continuous decline of the mining industry, a large proportion of the remaining underground mines are expected to cease their operation in the near future [3, 4]. These mines could also be considered as potential disposal sites. A profile of the mining activity has been formulated for all the 15 EU coun- tries [5]. The profile consists of some general data concerning mining activities, active mines and mineral production, active and inactive mines etc. Special emphasis has been given to identify the underground mines in order to look for more details. More than 70 underground mines were registered and their main characteristics were recorded. Most mines are located in Germany, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, as expected due to the intense mining activity in these countries (Fig. 2.1). In addition, an inventory of inactive underground mines, presently used as waste disposal sites, has been carried out.
Recommended publications
  • Sad Box 31/3 – Imports/Exports

    Sad Box 31/3 – Imports/Exports

    March 2021 APPENDIX 15 SAD BOX 31/3 – IMPORTS/EXPORTS PORT OF LOADING CODES The information in this document is provided as a guide only and is not professional advice, including legal advice. It should not be assumed that the guidance is comprehensive or that it provides a definitive answer in every case. Appendix 15 - SAD Box 31/3 Port of Loading Codes March 2021 PORT OF LOADING CODES Code Port Name DEAAH1 Aachen NLAAM1 Aalsmeer FRABB1 Abbeville GBABA1 Aberaeron GBABD1 Aberdeen CIABJ1 Abidjan FITKU2 Abo (Turku) AEABU1 Abu al Bukhoosh AEAUH1 Abu Dhabi EGAKI1 Abu Kir EGAUE1 Abu Rudeis EGAZA1 Abu Zenima SVAQJ1 Acajutia GRACL1 Achladi ILACR1 Acre EGADA1 Adabiya TRADA1 Adana AUADL1 Adelaide YEADE1 Aden ESADR1 Adra MAAGA1 Agadir ESAGA1 Agaete GRAEF1 Agia Efimia GRAGM1 Agia Marina GRAPE1 Agia Pelagia GRAKI1 Agios Kirikos GRAKO1 Agios Konstantinos GRANI1 Agios Nikolaos Creta GRAGT1 Agio Theodoroi ESAGU1 Aguilas EGAIS1 Ain Sukhna FRAJA1 Ajaccio AEAJM1 Ajman TRAKB1 Akcaabat NLAKL1 Akersloot BGAKH1 Akhotopol CYAKT1 Akrotiri INALA1 Alang SBY USALB1 ALBANY NLABL1 Alblasserdam ESALD1 Alcudia IEALQ1 Alexandra Quay IEARO1 Alexandra Road Oil Page 2 of 35 Appendix 15 - SAD Box 31/3 Port of Loading Codes March 2021 Code Port Name ESALG1 Algeciras DZALG1 Alger ESALC1 Alicante NUALO1 ALOFI GRALO1 Alonissos EGAQU1 Al Qusayr NLAML1 Ameland GRAMF1 Amfiloxia GRAMI1 Amoliani NLAMS1 Amsterdam USANC1 Anchorage GRAND1 Andros DZAAE1 Annaba (Ex Bone) USANP1 Annapolis USARB1 Ann Arbor TWAPG1 An Ping TRAYT1 Antalya GRATK1 Antikyra GRANP1 Antiparos GRANT1 Antirio CLANF1
  • A Secondary Source of Microcrystalline Magnesite GRECIAN MAGNESITE Case Study

    A Secondary Source of Microcrystalline Magnesite GRECIAN MAGNESITE Case Study

    3rd Greek Raw Materials Community Dialogue Old Tailings – A secondary source of Microcrystalline Magnesite GRECIAN MAGNESITE case study. ATHANASIOS VALATSOS 4-12-2018 Company’s Profile Established in 1959 by Mr G. Portolos Privately owned company Head quarters in Athens - Mines and production facilities in Yerakini, Chalkidiki R&D center in Vassilika, Thessaloniki Primary business activity is the mining, beneficiation and calcination of magnesium carbonate for the production of CCM, DBM, and unshaped basic refractories as well as raw magnesite Annual production capacity of 150.000mt of calcined products - More than 60 different MgO grades Export activity with sales to more than 60 countries in all continents ISO 9001:2015 and GMP+ certificates 370 employees in Greece Yerakini Deposit Microcrystalline magnesite (MgCO3) White color (“lefkolithos”= white stone) “Stockwork type” of orebody Waste rock is mainly serpentine and dunite Main characteristics of Yerakini magnesite: - Low iron content - Very low levels of heavy metals, P, F, Cl Recovery from the ROM material is critical parameter since it affects •The sustainability of the operation •The economic benefit •The lifespan of the mine GM Site – Mining Activity • Total rehabilitated area (1995-2016):165 .000 m2 • Planted trees(1988-2016):122.866 GM Site – Calcination Plant Calcination MgCO3 MgO + CO2 3 rotary kilns - 1 shaft kiln – 1 double inclined shaft kiln CCM is calcined at 800-1.200oC depending on the quality grade DBM is calcined at 1600-1.900oC depending on the quality grade Final processing of CCM and DBM Production of refractory mixes. Mining Activity at Yerakini Mine Within the framework of the Raw Materials Initiative GM aims to : 1.
  • A Compendium of Niosh Mining Research 2002

    A Compendium of Niosh Mining Research 2002

    A COMPENDIUM OF NIOSH MINING RESEARCH 2002 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Washington, DC December 2001 ORDERING INFORMATION Copies of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) documents and information about occupational safety and health are available from NIOSH–Publications Dissemination 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 FAX: 513-533-8573 Telephone: 1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674) E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.cdc.gov/niosh This document is the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted. Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2002-110 FOREWORD The mining community serves the needs of our Nation in virtually every aspect of our daily lives by providing the materials we use for construction, electronics, manufacturing, energy, agriculture, medicine, and electricity. This industry has demonstrated time and time again an almost unbelievable ability to rise to any and all challenges it faces. Productivity has increased over the past 20 years to levels never before imagined, and the industry operates in one of the most difficult and challenging environments imaginable. The professionalism and pride of our mine workers are unmatched throughout the world, and our mining community is held in the highest regard around the globe. Interactions with mining professionals from other countries have always left me with a deep feeling of respect for what our mining community accomplishes. The recent tragedy we faced with the coal mine explosion in Alabama is a reminder to all of us about the dangers of rock and mineral extraction.
  • UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes

    UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes

    EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes VOLUME II Scientific Annexes C, D and E UNITED NATIONS New York, 2009 NOTE The report of the Committee without its annexes appears as Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 46 and corrigendum (A/61/46 and Corr. 1). The report reproduced here includes the corrections of the corrigendum. The designation employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations con- cerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The country names used in this document are, in most cases, those that were in use at the time the data were collected or the text prepared. In other cases, however, the names have been updated, where this was possible and appropriate, to reflect political changes. UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.09.IX.5 ISBN 978-92-1-142270-2 Corrigendum to Sales No. E.09.IX.5 May 2011 Effects of Ionizing Radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2006 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes—Volume II Annex E (“Sources-to-effects assessment for radon in homes and workplaces”), paragraph 460 The ninth sentence should read For residential exposure to 150 Bq/m3, the authors estimated a combined OR of 1.1 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.3).
  • Broad Overview Reputation of Mining and Exploration

    Broad Overview Reputation of Mining and Exploration

    INFACT DELIVERABLE D2.3 BROAD OVERVIEW REPUTATION OF MINING AND EXPLORATION Summary: This study analyses the reputation and attitudes towards mining and mineral exploration in the three reference countries of INFACT Project (Spain, Finland and Germany) and in leading mining countries based on literature review. The report reflects the difference in availability of literature on this matter between Finland and the other reference countries, mainly explained by differences in the evolution and development of the mining sector over the last decades. Mineral exploration is inherently perceived as a prior stage of mining production itself. The general acceptance of mining in Europe is slightly positive, being higher in traditional mining regions. The main factors laying out mining reputation or acceptance are the trust in public governance over mining companies, the potential negative environmental impacts perceived and the fairness of wealth distribution within local communities. Authors: Asistencias Técnicas University of Eastern Suomen Dialogik (DIA) Clave (ATC) Finland (UEF) Ymparistokeskus (SYKE) Virginia del Río Juha M. Kotilainen Sari Kauppi Ludger Benighaus Javier GómeZ Tuija Mononen Kari Oinonen Christina Benighaus Jari Lyytimäki Matti Kattainen Lisa Kastl Spain Finland Germany INFACT DELIVERABLE D2.3 Title: Broad overview reputation of mining and exploration Lead beneficiary: At Clave (ATC) Other beneficiaries: ITA-Suomen Yliopisto – University of Eastern Finland (UEF) Dialogik (DIA) Suomen Ymparistokeskus (SYKE) Due date: 30th April
  • GREECE by Staff1

    GREECE by Staff1

    THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF GREECE By Staff1 The metals sector of Greek industry is a small but Trade important part of the national economy. Bauxite is the most important of Greek metal deposits, but there are also some The U.S. Bureau of Mines has not received any detailed deposits of chromium, gold, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc. trade data for Greece in the recent past, but general Aluminum is the only refined metal produced, other than information indicates that the other members of the European steel, and therefore is of greatest importance in the Union (EU) have continued to strengthen their positions as domestically integrated metals sector since the steel is the principal destinations and sources of Greek mineral produced from mostly imported scrap. Most of the exports and imports. Typically, Greece exports slightly more companies in Greece that deal in metals production, than one-half of its steel production, about one-half of that fabrication, or processing are fairly well established and going to other EU countries and the remainder going to the weathered the recent global recession that affected so many rest of the world. With regard to the semimanufacture sector companies in other nations. of the steel industry, typically about 90% of crude steel The Greek industrial minerals sector is far more prominent imports by Greece originate in other members of the EU. in the national economy than is the metals sector. Products Exports of semimanufactures to nonmembers of the EU are which are, or can be competitive internationally again, typically to the United States (about 45% of the non-EU include asbestos, bentonite, common clays, magnesite, total), other Europe (about 3%), and other countries (about marble, perlite, and pumice, while bentonite, magnesite, 52%).
  • Mining Camps: Myth Vs

    Mining Camps: Myth Vs

    Mining Camps: Myth vs. Reality BY DUANE ALLAN SMITH Hidden in the vastness of the Rocky Mountains survive skeletal remains of what once were live, restless mining camps. People lived, worked, played, and died in some as early as 1859 and in others even later than the turn of the century. Mark Twain, in his delightful book Roughing It, has left a vigorous account of what life was like then. Although the topic of his examination, Virginia City, Nevada, was slightly west of the Rocky Mountains, the description he gave holds true for all camps going through "flush times." Virginia had grown to be the "livest" town, for its age and population, that America had ever produced. The sidewalks swarmed with people.... The streets themselves were just as crowded with quartz wagons, freight teams and other vehicles. The procession was endless .... Joy sat on every countenance, and there was a glad, almost fierce intensity in every eye, that told of the money-getting schemes that were seething in every brain and the high hope that held sway in every heart.1 Money was plentiful, Twain noted, and every individual considered himself potentially a mining nabob. Street fights, wide-open gambling palaces, saloons, theaters, and hurdy-gurdy houses enlivened the scene, and there was even "some talk of building a church." These were people busily engaged in that most popular of all American vocations, making a fortune, but they were also participating in the joy of spending it with relish. Life here had the quality of a frontier adventure alloyed with the gambling excitement of mining.
  • A Journal of the Lake Superior Region

    A Journal of the Lake Superior Region

    Upper Country: A Journal of the Lake Superior Region Vol. 3 2015 Upper Country: A Journal of the Lake Superior Region Vol. 3 2015 Upper Country: A Journal of the Lake Superior Region EDITOR: Gabe Logan, Ph.D. PRODUCTION AND DESIGN: Kimberly Mason and James Shefchik ARTICLE REVIEW BOARD: Gabe Logan, Ph. D. Robert Archibald, Ph. D. Russell Magnaghi, Ph. D. Kathryn Johnson, M.A. PHOTOGRAPHY CREDITS Front cover photograph by Gabe Logan AVAILABILITY Upper Country: A Journal of the Lake Superior Region, can be viewed on Northern Michigan University's Center for Upper Peninsula Studies web site: www.nmu.edu/upstudies. Send comments to [email protected] for screening and posting; or mail written comments and submit manuscripts to Upper Country, c/o The Center for Upper Peninsula Studies, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Room 208 Cohodas, Marquette, MI 49855. COPYRIGHT Copyright © Northern Michigan University. All rights reserved. Photocopying of excerpts for review purposes granted by the copyright holder. Responsibility for the contents herein is that of the authors. AUTHOR GUIDELINES Please address submissions in print form to Upper Country, c/o The Center for Upper Peninsula Studies, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Room 208 Cohodas, Marquette, MI, USA 49855. Original papers welcomed. Short photo-essays considered; image format information available upon request. Images with misleading manipulation will not be considered for acceptance. Concurrent submissions accepted. All papers reviewed by the Article Review Board. Copyright is assigned to the Journal's copyright holder upon acceptance. Format should follow the MLA/APA/Chicago Manual guidelines. Length, 6000 words maximum.
  • Prefix (Port) Codes[Rc006a]

    Prefix (Port) Codes[Rc006a]

    PREFIX (PORT) CODES Manual Declarations ......................................... not applicable CES Modules which uses this data ..................... MANIFEST • Prefix Code Reference Data:........................The table below shows the prefix (port) codes which are available in the Manifest module of the CES System. Code to Input in Manifest Port Port Country and Port Code Description Albania > Durres ALDRZ1 AL-Durres Albania > Sarande ALSAR1 AL-Sarande Albania > Shengjin ALSHG1 AL-Shengjin Albania > Vlora ALVOA1 AL-Vlora Algeria > Alger DZALG1 DZ-Alger Algeria > Annaba (Ex Bone) DZAAE1 DZ-Annaba (Ex Bone) Algeria > Arzew DZAZW1 DZ-Arzew Algeria > Bejaia (Ex Bougie) DZBJA1 DZ-Bejaia (Ex Bougie) Algeria > Benisaf DZBSF1 DZ-Benisaf Algeria > Bethoula DZBTA1 DZ-Bethoula Algeria > Cherchell DZCHE1 DZ-Cherchell Algeria > Collo DZCOL1 DZ-Collo Algeria > Dellys DZDEL1 DZ-Dellys Algeria > Djen-Djen DZDJE1 DZ-Djen-Djen Algeria > Djidjelli DZDJI1 DZ-Djidjelli Algeria > Ghazaouet DZGHA1 DZ-Ghazaouet Algeria > Mostaganem DZMOS1 DZ-Mostaganem Algeria > Oran DZORN1 DZ-Oran Algeria > Skikda (Ex Philippeville) DZSKI1 DZ-Skikda (Ex Philippeville) Algeria > Tenes DZTEN1 DZ-Tenes American Samoa > Pago Pago ASPPG1 AS-Pago Pago Angola > Ambriz AOAZZ1 AO-Ambriz Angola > Baia dos Tigres AOBDT1 AO-Baia dos Tigres Angola > Barra do Dande AOBDD1 AO-Barra do Dande Angola > Benguela AOBUG1 AO-Benguela Angola > Cabinda AOCAB1 AO-Cabinda Angola > Dombe Grande AODGR1 AO-Dombe Grande Angola > Landana (Cacongo) AOLAA1 AO-Landana (Cacongo) Angola > Lieura AOLIE1 AO-Lieura
  • References Agricola, G

    References Agricola, G

    RADON 241 4.5 Evaluation! There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of radon and its decay products in experimental animaIs. There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of radon and its decay products in humans. Overall evaluation Radon and its decay products are carcinogenic ta humans (Group 1). 5. References Agricola, G. (1556) De Re Metallca, New York, Dover Publications, pp. 214-218 Alter, H.W. & Fleischer, R.L. (1981) Passive integrating radon monitor for environmental monitoring. Health Phys., 40, 693-702 Alter, H.W. & Oswald, R.A. (1987) Nationwide distribution of indoor radon measure- ments: a preliminary data base. J. Air Pol/ut. Control Assac., 37,227-231 Andreev, S. V. (1966) Accumulation of long-lived daughter products of radon in human body in drinking of radon waters (Russ.). Gig. Sanit., 31, 36-42 Anthoine, D., Braun, P., Cervoni, P., Schwartz, P. & Lamy, P. (1979) Can we consider bronchial cancer in iron ore miners of Lorraine an occupational cancer? On 270 new cases observed in 1964-1978 (Fr.). Rev.fr. Mal. respir., 7,63-65 Aoyama, T., Y onehara, H., Sakanoue, M., Kobayashi, S., lwasaki, T., Mifune, M., Radford, E.P. & Kato, H. (1987) Long-term measurements ofradon concentrations in the living environments in Japan. A preliminary report. ln: Hopker, P.K., ed., Radon and lts Decay Products. Occurrence, Properties, and Health Effects (A CS Symposium Series 331), Washington DC, American Chemical Society, pp. 124- 136 Archer, V.E., Magnuson, H.J., Holaday, D.A. & Lawrence, P.A. (1962) Hazards to health in uranium mining and miling. J.
  • Exploration Key to Growing Greek Industry Greece Is Opening Its Doors to Private Investment to Boost Domestic Industries

    Exploration Key to Growing Greek Industry Greece Is Opening Its Doors to Private Investment to Boost Domestic Industries

    Greek mineral prospects A fisherman near Sarakiniko beach in Milos, Greece. The surrounding volcaniclastic rocks could be developed for their industrial mineral applications Exploration key to growing Greek industry Greece is opening its doors to private investment to boost domestic industries. Ananias Tsirambides and Anestis Filippidis discuss the country’s key exploration targets for industrial minerals development reece avoided bankruptcy with the to make the terms of the European Financial surplus above 5.5% and a programme of public agreement of the 17 leaders of the Stability Fund (EFSF) more flexible. property use and privatisations of €50bn for the Eurozone on 21 July 2011 for the Privatisation, imposition of new taxes and period 2011-2015. Therefore, the fiscal repair and second aid package of €158bn. Of spending cuts in the period 2011-15, totalling recovery of the national economy is not infeasible. this, €49bn will be from the €28.4bn, to hold the deficit to 7.5% of gross Despite the short-term costs, the reforms that Gparticipation of individuals. Many crucial details as national product (GNP), are foreseen. have been implemented or planned will benefit regards the new loan have not been clarified yet, In particular, the following reforms are expected: Greece for many years to come, as they will raise but it is obvious that Europe has given Greece a streamlining wage costs, operating cost reductions, growth, living standards and equity. A basic second chance, under the suffocating pressures of closures/mergers of bodies, decreased subsidies, prerequisite of success is that the burden and the markets and fears that the debt crisis may reorganisation of Public Enterprises and Entities benefits of reform broadly may be fairly shared.
  • Hellenic Geosphaera Exploration (I.G.M.E.) Special Issue March 2008

    Hellenic Geosphaera Exploration (I.G.M.E.) Special Issue March 2008

    Institute of Geology and Mineral Hellenic Geosphaera Exploration (I.G.M.E.) Special Issue March 2008 CONTENTS Newsletter of the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.) Introductory address from the General 1 L.E.P.L. Supervised by the Ministry Director of the I.G.M.E. of Development (L. 272/76) Director General Prof. A. Georgakopoulos Hellenic industrial minerals and rocks: 2 current research performed by the I.G.M.E., Editorial Board: by N. Kaklamanis EurGeol Alecos Demetriades The modern filler laboratory of I.G.M.E. 6 Dr. Irene Zananiri Alexandra Zervakou Potential industrial applications of vein- 7 Athanasios Makris quartz resources in Northern Hellas, Dr. Michalis Patronis by N. Arvanitidis Dr. Athanasios Hatzikirkou Mineralogical - Petrographical laboratories 14 Editing of this issue: Applied mineralogy for the efficient 15 EurGeol Alecos Demetriades exploitation of wasted magnesite Run-Of- Fotini Chalkiopoulou Mine fines, by F. Chalkiopoulou, M. Grossou-Valta, S. Karantassi I.G.M.E. Central Offices: “LITHOS”: The accredited ornamental stone 20 1, Spirou Loui, str. quality control laboratory of the I.G.M.E. Olympic Village, Entrance C 136 77 Acharnae Hellenic marble through the ages: an 21 overview of the marble producing areas and Tel. +30 210 2413000 the stone sector of today, Fax +30 210 2413015 by K. Laskaridis http://www.igme.gr/ The contribution of petrography to the 27 Edition distributed free of charge. evaluation of carbonate aggregates for Articles represent the views of the author(s). concrete production, by M. Dimitroula Quotation / reproduction is permitted only with proper citation of the source.