Challenges Related to the Transformation of Post-Mining Underground Workings into Underground Laboratories

Abstract

Underground mines are a vital part of the European raw material industry. The subsurface mining process is related to the large-scale development of underground structures like tunnels, chambers, workings, etc. These structures are abandoned or liquidated during the process of exploitation or after the termination of works. Still, due to the unique environment, post-mining facilities may be adopted for different purposes. There are few examples of implementations of this capacity in practical terms such as underground laboratories (ULs), energy storages, landfills of dangerous wastes, or food production plants. Unfortunately, the unique environment offered by underground space is also related to the occurrence of exceptional hazards, like seismicity and ground control problems, gases, floods, the lack of natural ventilation, and high temperatures. This results in low interest in investing in such facilities. Within this paper, some ways to repurpose underground mines have been presented, and possible challenges that need to be faced have been described. An extensive database of threats to post-mining repurposing and ways to mitigate them has been prepared based on surveys and interviews conducted with representatives of currently existing Uls and mining companies and a literature review. Finally, this manuscript provides a general look at post-mining infrastructure in Europe’s current situation and in the future.

Full text

Citation: Konieczna-Fuławka, M.;
Szumny, M.; Fuławka, K.;
Ja´skiewicz-Pro´c, I.; Pactwa, K.;
Kozłowska-Woszczycka, A.;
Joutsenvaara, J.; Aro, P. Challenges
Related to the Transformation of
Post-Mining Underground Workings
into Underground Laboratories.
Sustainability 2023,15, 10274.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151310274
Academic Editors: Deyu Qian and
Zhiyi Zhang
Received: 25 May 2023
Revised: 18 June 2023
Accepted: 27 June 2023
Published: 28 June 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Challenges Related to the Transformation of Post-Mining
Underground Workings into Underground Laboratories
Martyna Konieczna-Fuławka 1, * , Marcin Szumny 2, Krzysztof Fuławka 2, Izabela Ja´skiewicz-Pro´c 2,
Katarzyna Pactwa 1, Aleksandra Kozłowska-Woszczycka 1, Jari Joutsenvaara 3and Päivi Aro 4
1Faculty of Geoengineering, Mining and Geology, Wrocław University of Science and Technology,
15 Na Grobli Street, 50-421 Wrocław, Poland; katarzyna.pactwa@pwr.edu.pl (K.P.);
aleksandra.kozlowska@pwr.edu.pl (A.K.-W.)
2KGHM Cuprum Ltd. Research & Development Centre, 2-8 Sikorskiego Street, 53-659 Wrocław, Poland;
marcin.szumny@kghmcuprum.com (M.S.); krzysztof.fulawka@kghmcuprum.com (K.F.);
izabela.jaskiewicz-proc@kghmcuprum.com (I.J.-P.)
3Kerttu Saalasti Institute, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland; jari.joutsenvaara@oulu.fi
4School of Business and Information Management, Oulu University of Applied Sciences,
Business, Yliopistonkatu 9, 90570 Oulu, Finland; paivi.aro@oamk.fi
*Correspondence: martyna.konieczna-fulawka@pwr.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-71-320-68-87
Abstract:
Underground mines are a vital part of the European raw material industry. The subsurface
mining process is related to the large-scale development of underground structures like tunnels,
chambers, workings, etc. These structures are abandoned or liquidated during the process of
exploitation or after the termination of works. Still, due to the unique environment, post-mining
facilities may be adopted for different purposes. There are few examples of implementations of
this capacity in practical terms such as underground laboratories (ULs), energy storages, landfills
of dangerous wastes, or food production plants. Unfortunately, the unique environment offered
by underground space is also related to the occurrence of exceptional hazards, like seismicity and
ground control problems, gases, floods, the lack of natural ventilation, and high temperatures. This
results in low interest in investing in such facilities. Within this paper, some ways to repurpose
underground mines have been presented, and possible challenges that need to be faced have been
described. An extensive database of threats to post-mining repurposing and ways to mitigate them
has been prepared based on surveys and interviews conducted with representatives of currently
existing Uls and mining companies and a literature review. Finally, this manuscript provides a general
look at post-mining infrastructure in Europe’s current situation and in the future.
Keywords: underground facilities; post-mining repurposing; sustainable development
1. Introduction
The objectives of sustainable development concern harmonised relations between
humans and natural environments. Policy in this matter was officially discussed at the
United Nations (UN) forum and focused on the wide scope of issues related to human well-
being and the health of the planet [
1
]. As a result, the United Nations prepared guidelines
in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The function of the goals is to
stimulate action in areas of critical importance to humankind and the planet. The goals
are global and universal [
2
]. The achievement of the SDGs is strongly supported by the
European Union. All aspects of the SDGs were implemented in long-term European policy,
which was reflected in European treaties, core projects, and sectoral strategies. One of the
objectives listed in the SDGs is related to industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Part of
these initiatives is industrial development, which positively impacts the improvement of
living standards [
3
]. Thanks to this policy, the EU supports activity in the field of research
and development as a source of innovations. This strategy also involves the mining sector,
a significant part of European industries and economies.
Sustainability 2023,15, 10274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310274 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 2 of 14
Different industries and industrial operators commit to the UN SDGs in their opera-
tions and operational practices. However, the potential of the established infrastructure
is often forgotten after the end of its original use. In the case of the mining industry, the
established infrastructure is not limited to surface infrastructure but can consist of quarries,
open pits, and a vast network of underground tunnels, galleries, and workings. Many of
these facilities could be beneficial for non-mining activities, but in reality, most of them
become abandoned during or after the end of the mining activities. Still, as pointed out by
the authors of [
4
], these underground constructions are well fitted to hosting earth science
and astroparticle and particle physics experiments [
5
], which in the long term, could be
profitable as well. One of the most utilised properties of the underground environment
is its natural shielding and even isolation from surface factors, including seasonal and
weather changes, electromagnetic waves, and cosmic radiation [
6
]. All these aspects cre-
ate many chances to adopt these available spaces for different types of activities, which
can create benefits in various branches of science, industry, education, tourism, or even
agriculture [
6
–
9
]. Additionally, facilities located deep underground may be well suited for
long-term or permanent storing of mining and post-flotation [
10
], chemical [
11
], or radioac-
tive wastes [
12
,
13
], which may bring positive effects on local society and the environment.
For example, underground nuclear waste storages are safer than surface storage places.
The extension of the use and the life cycle of infrastructure that has already been
heavily invested in is important for economic and social sustainability. Concerning mines,
investments both before and during operations in the supporting civil infrastructure,
the surface facilities, and the actual underground infrastructures have faced enormous
investment costs, which are much greater than in other industries. The investment cost is
spread over many years of mineral exploitation, and the first profits appear after many
years of operation. Moreover, mining investments are subject to technical and market
uncertainty [
14
,
15
]. Repurposing some parts, or the whole mine site, and having different
businesses after the termination of excavation means a more efficient return of investment
for local societies, mining companies, or other infrastructure operators managing the site.
Using a site for a longer period, even if for a different type of operation, benefits the local
communities and societies in mitigating the negative effects that ending mining operations
has on employment, taxation, and, eventually, accessibility to services. Such a way of
improving typical mining activity will help develop other branches of science and industries
and should help change the public perception of the mining industry. Furthermore, in the
process of transforming the region, it will protect against its degradation (mainly economic
and spatial management).
The reuse of mine infrastructures fits into both the SDGs and the principles of a circular
economy [
16
]. Therefore, post-mining site reuse is significant as long as the risks associated
with the closure of the mine have been identified [17].
Additionally, the underground environment, despite having visible advantages, is also
affected by the harsh and hazardous environment. The biggest challenges in repurposing
underground workings into laboratories, tourist routes, etc., are strongly connected with
safety. According to a report [
18
,
19
], underground mining is characterised by the highest
accident rate among all industrial branches. As pointed out by Lööw et al. [
20
], the
underground environment creates many different hazards, including physical, chemical,
and ergonomic hazards, which may cause health problems connected with musculoskeletal
disorders, hearing loss, and respiratory system diseases [
20
,
21
]. Considering the EU’s
policy concerning safety [
22
] and observed trends in mining companies in recent years,
one may conclude that safety must be prioritised in mine reuse, beginning with initial
plans [
23
]. This means that dealing with risks is currently the most significant challenge
jeopardising new projects.
In this manuscript, the current status of underground mining in Europe has been
analysed, and mines that are planned to be closed in the near future were identified.
Then, data regarding potential risks and challenges related to underground environment
repurposing have been collected and analysed based on a literature review and surveys

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 3 of 14
and interviews conducted with representatives of universities, mining companies, and
research facilities. Finally, the most impactful challenges have been linked to particular
methods of underground space repurposing aimed at creating an underground laboratory.
2. Underground Mines in Europe and Potential Ways of Their Repurposing
The mining industry, including underground projects, has a solid base across Europe,
despite unfavourable conditions that enterprises must deal with, e.g., society’s resistance,
energy prices, and green deal requirements. There is still pressure from the social and
political side to limit activities in this field due to the negative impact on the environment.
This is evident in the case of coal underground mines, many of which are in the middle of
closure processes across Europe. The pressure is connected to energy transformation into
carbon-neutral energy, and critics hope that by 2050 there will be no energy or steaming
coal mines in the present form in any EU countries. Only coking coal mines will still be
open after EU energy transition. This is related to, among other things, the goals of the
European Green Deal to have zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and the decoupling
of economic growth from natural resources [
24
]. On the other hand, mines excavating
critical raw materials are strongly supported by the EU in order to achieve independence
from global raw material dynamics and supply chain challenges [
25
]. According to United
States Geological Survey data, there are more than 100 active underground mines in the
EU, shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of main active underground mines in the EU [25].
No. Country Number of Mines Minerals
1Austria 3 graphite, magnesite, and wolfram
2Bulgaria 6 copper, gold, lead, and manganese,
silver and zinc
3Czech Republic 3 coal
4Estonia 2 oil shale
5Finland 5 chromium, gold, and silver
6France 1 salt
7Germany 10 barite, fluorite, potash, and salt
8Greece 8 bauxite, copper, gold, lead, magnesite,
and zinc
9Ireland 3 gypsum, lead, salt, and zinc
10 Italy 4 potash, salt, and marble
11 Norway 3 coal, dolomite, and iron
12 Poland 26 coal, copper, silver, gypsum, and salt
13 Portugal 2 copper, tin, silver, and wolfram
14 Romania 6 coal, copper, salt, and silver
15 Slovakia 6 gold, magnesite, and talc
16 Slovenia 1 coal
17 Spain 10
coal, copper, fluorite, gold, lead, and
magnesite, potash, tin, zinc, and
wolfram
18 Sweden 8 copper, gold, iron, lead, and zinc
19 United Kingdom 5 barite, fluorite, potash, salt, and tin
Note: There are no significant underground mines in the remaining EU countries.
As one may conclude, underground mines still exist in most European countries. This
kind of exploitation is most prevalent in Poland and Serbia. This is because of the significant
number of coal mines in these countries. Due to the European green transition process, most
of these mines will be closed in the coming years, especially in Poland. This means that
there will be potential possibilities to transform part of these underground infrastructures
for different purposes instead of liquidation, which means, in many cases, permanent and
irreversible destruction of infrastructure. Considering the number of active underground

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 4 of 14
mines in Europe, these issues will appear relatively often. Therefore, communities should
highlight the potential of repurposing available underground workings.
One of the possible uses of closed mines is as deep underground laboratories (DULs).
The definition of deep is related to having access to a depth of more than 1000 m below the
surface level. The main activity that DULs are currently used for is high-energy astroparticle
physics. The locations of DUL facilities in Europe is shown in Figure 1. However, some
mines that are soon to be closing, closed, or even operating, e.g., the copper mine Neves
Covro in Portugal and the coal mine Zinkgrovan in Sweden, in Europe could become DULs.
It could mean new possibilities in terms of mine reuse in Europe.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 4 of 15
As one may conclude, underground mines still exist in most European countries. This
kind of exploitation is most prevalent in Poland and Serbia. This is because of the signi-
cant number of coal mines in these countries. Due to the European green transition pro-
cess, most of these mines will be closed in the coming years, especially in Poland. This
means that there will be potential possibilities to transform part of these underground
infrastructures for dierent purposes instead of liquidation, which means, in many cases,
permanent and irreversible destruction of infrastructure. Considering the number of ac-
tive underground mines in Europe, these issues will appear relatively often. Therefore,
communities should highlight the potential of repurposing available underground work-
ings.
One of the possible uses of closed mines is as deep underground laboratories (DULs).
The denition of deep is related to having access to a depth of more than 1000 m below
the surface level. The main activity that DULs are currently used for is high-energy astro-
particle physics. The locations of DUL facilities in Europe is shown in Figure 1. However,
some mines that are soon to be closing, closed, or even operating, e.g., the copper mine
Neves Covro in Portugal and the coal mine Zinkgrovan in Sweden, in Europe could be-
come DULs. It could mean new possibilities in terms of mine reuse in Europe.
Figure 1. Location of deep underground laboratories in Europe [25].
As recent experiences show, physics is not the only eld of science that can be ex-
plored in underground laboratories [26]. A new area of research is connected with exper-
iments in astrobiology and biology in extreme conditions [27], space research (planetary
or lunar analogue environments) [28], underground food production [29,30], education
[31], tourism [32] and the development of more ecient and environmentally friendly
mining technologies [27]. There are also multipurpose facilities that allow performing var-
Figure 1. Location of deep underground laboratories in Europe [25].
As recent experiences show, physics is not the only field of science that can be explored
in underground laboratories [
26
]. A new area of research is connected with experiments
in astrobiology and biology in extreme conditions [
27
], space research (planetary or lu-
nar analogue environments) [
28
], underground food production [
29
,
30
], education [
31
],
tourism [
32
] and the development of more efficient and environmentally friendly mining
technologies [
27
]. There are also multipurpose facilities that allow performing various
activities in different areas of the mine. Still, repurposing underground space is challenging
due to the unique environment and the number of hazards observed in underground
conditions. Thus, in most cases, there is no interest in taking actions aimed at the further de-
velopment of mines after the termination of excavation activities among society, investors,
and other stakeholders. Moreover, the involvement of these groups is a complex and
demanding task [
33
]. One of the recent initiatives to develop the reuse of underground sites
is the European Underground Laboratories Association (EUL), which gathers underground
research, science, and tourism facilities and promotes this approach to underground mine

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 5 of 14
repurposing. The underground sites belonging to the EUL association are presented in
Figure 2.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 5 of 15
ious activities in dierent areas of the mine. Still, repurposing underground space is chal-
lenging due to the unique environment and the number of hazards observed in under-
ground conditions. Thus, in most cases, there is no interest in taking actions aimed at the
further development of mines after the termination of excavation activities among society,
investors, and other stakeholders. Moreover, the involvement of these groups is a complex
and demanding task [33]. One of the recent initiatives to develop the reuse of under-
ground sites is the European Underground Laboratories Association (EUL), which gathers
underground research, science, and tourism facilities and promotes this approach to un-
derground mine repurposing. The underground sites belonging to the EUL association
are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Underground Laboratories of the EUL association. 1—Hagerbach Test Gallery; 2—Reiche
Zeche; 3—Lab Development by KGHM CUPRUM; 4—GIG Experimental Mine “Barbara”; 5—Callio
Lab; 6—Ruskeala; 7—Khlopinh.
Types of Underground Activities
One of the prospective examples of underground lab applications for post-mining
areas is physics laboratories, which are needed for studying, e.g., astroparticle physics and
dark maer, or conducting low background measurements on material radiopurity
[26,34,35]. Examples of such transitions are Boulby Mine in the UK [36], the Homestake
Mine in South Dakota, USA [37], and Pyhäsalmi Mine in Finland [38], the laer of which
started as the Centre for Underground Physics in Pyhäsalmi. The aforementioned sites
have since turned to be or given access to more multidisciplinary, providing facilities for
various elds of science and engineering.
For the experiments conducted at deep underground laboratories, a common re-
quirement is good shielding against the cosmic-ray background, and adequate shielding
is reached with an overburden of more than 1000 m of rock [5]. The experiments are also
Figure 2.
Underground Laboratories of the EUL association. 1—Hagerbach Test Gallery; 2—Reiche
Zeche; 3—Lab Development by KGHM CUPRUM; 4—GIG Experimental Mine “Barbara”; 5—Callio
Lab; 6—Ruskeala; 7—Khlopinh.
Types of Underground Activities
One of the prospective examples of underground lab applications for post-mining
areas is physics laboratories, which are needed for studying, e.g., astroparticle physics
and dark matter, or conducting low background measurements on material radiopu-
rity
[26,34,35]
. Examples of such transitions are Boulby Mine in the UK [
36
], the Homestake
Mine in South Dakota, USA [
37
], and Pyhäsalmi Mine in Finland [
38
], the latter of which
started as the Centre for Underground Physics in Pyhäsalmi. The aforementioned sites
have since turned to be or given access to more multidisciplinary, providing facilities for
various fields of science and engineering.
For the experiments conducted at deep underground laboratories, a common require-
ment is good shielding against the cosmic-ray background, and adequate shielding is
reached with an overburden of more than 1000 m of rock [
5
]. The experiments are also
increasing in size (e.g., DUNE: four halls of 69.9 m
×
27.4 m
×
19.8 m [
39
] with plans of
detectors systems with up to a 100 m scale. The requirements for the overburden and the
hall sizes put enormous pressure on rock mechanical engineers to mitigate the risks coming
from the shared rock mass-induced gravitational pressure and any horizontal pressures
(see, e.g., [40]).
Another perspective for underground mine reuse is multi- and transdisciplinary
research mines. These facilities are not developed solely for one kind of activity but work as

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 6 of 14
suitable places for any projects that may benefit from different underground environments.
Currently, in the EU, there are few facilities of that type. Some examples include the Äspö
Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden; Experimental Mine Barbara, Poland; Callio Lab, Finland;
and Reiche Zeche, Germany.
As pointed out by Pactwa et al. [
16
], underground space is also suitable for sustainable
food production. Selected methods for underground space repurposing are presented in
Figure 3.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 6 of 15
increasing in size (e.g., DUNE: four halls of 69.9 m × 27.4 m × 19.8 m [39] with plans of
detectors systems with up to a 100 m scale. The requirements for the overburden and the
hall sizes put enormous pressure on rock mechanical engineers to mitigate the risks com-
ing from the shared rock mass-induced gravitational pressure and any horizontal pres-
sures (see, e.g., [40]).
Another perspective for underground mine reuse is multi- and transdisciplinary re-
search mines. These facilities are not developed solely for one kind of activity but work as
suitable places for any projects that may benet from dierent underground environ-
ments. Currently, in the EU, there are few facilities of that type. Some examples include
the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden; Experimental Mine Barbara, Poland; Callio Lab,
Finland; and Reiche Zeche, Germany.
As pointed out by Pactwa et al. [16], underground space is also suitable for sustaina-
ble food production. Selected methods for underground space repurposing are presented
in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Methods for underground space repurposing [27,30–32,41–48].
It is also worth mentioning that, in the light of the EU policy of greenhouse gas emis-
sion reduction, there is also the potential to achieve this target by means of using under-
ground space as energy storage. Many dierent technologies can be considered like un-
derground gas storage (UGS), hydrogen storage (HS), compressed air energy storage
(CAES), underground pumped hydro storage (UPHS), and thermal energy storage (TES)
[49].
3. Materials and Methods
The analysis presented herein was based on a literature review, surveys, workshops,
and webinars performed within the following international projects:
• Baltic Sea Underground Innovation Network (BSUIN);
• Empowering Underground Laboratories Network Usage (EUL).
3.1. Data Collection and Identication of Challenges
Information about obstacles and challenges that must be faced during underground
space repurposing has been collected during international webinars and workshops (i.e.,
[50]). In the whole data collection process, the representatives of ULs in Europe, mining
Trending ways of undergoud
space repurposing
Tourism
Development of mining technologies and tetsing of equipment
Physics and astrophysics
Food production
Energy storages
Education
Research and development
Figure 3. Methods for underground space repurposing [27,30–32,41–48].
It is also worth mentioning that, in the light of the EU policy of greenhouse gas
emission reduction, there is also the potential to achieve this target by means of using
underground space as energy storage. Many different technologies can be considered
like underground gas storage (UGS), hydrogen storage (HS), compressed air energy stor-
age (CAES), underground pumped hydro storage (UPHS), and thermal energy storage
(TES) [49].
3. Materials and Methods
The analysis presented herein was based on a literature review, surveys, workshops,
and webinars performed within the following international projects:
•Baltic Sea Underground Innovation Network (BSUIN);
•Empowering Underground Laboratories Network Usage (EUL).
3.1. Data Collection and Identification of Challenges
Information about obstacles and challenges that must be faced during underground
space repurposing has been collected during international webinars and workshops
(i.e., [
50
]). In the whole data collection process, the representatives of ULs in Europe,
mining companies, and scientists were involved. Chosen entities that took part in the
preparation of this research are presented in Figure 4.

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 7 of 14
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 7 of 15
companies, and scientists were involved. Chosen entities that took part in the preparation
of this research are presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Underground labs from which representatives took part in the data preparation process.
What is worth mentioning is that the above presented underground laboratories have
been developed for dierent purposes. Experimental Mine Barbara, Hagerbach Test Gal-
lery, and Reiche Zeche are facilities that are directly related to R&D activities. Ruskeala
Underground Lab works as an underground tourism route. Khlopin Low Background
Lab focuses on environmental radiation, while Äspö HRL is used as a test site for dierent
technologies and practices related to underground nuclear waste storage. There are also
multipurpose facilities such as Callio Lab, which reuses built or excavated mining-related
infrastructures as research, testing, and validation environments. There is no under-
ground lab in its standard form in KGHM copper mines. However, numerous interna-
tional and national research projects are still performed that progress the exploitation of
copper ore.
3.2. Preliminary Risk Evaluation
Safety is the crucial parameter for any eld of activity or industry, whether evaluated
on the surface, in the air, or underground. However, many of the threats in underground
environments are not typical for other industries or research elds and, therefore, are not
Figure 4. Underground labs from which representatives took part in the data preparation process.
What is worth mentioning is that the above presented underground laboratories
have been developed for different purposes. Experimental Mine Barbara, Hagerbach Test
Gallery, and Reiche Zeche are facilities that are directly related to R&D activities. Ruskeala
Underground Lab works as an underground tourism route. Khlopin Low Background Lab
focuses on environmental radiation, while Äspö HRL is used as a test site for different
technologies and practices related to underground nuclear waste storage. There are also
multipurpose facilities such as Callio Lab, which reuses built or excavated mining-related
infrastructures as research, testing, and validation environments. There is no underground
lab in its standard form in KGHM copper mines. However, numerous international and
national research projects are still performed that progress the exploitation of copper ore.
3.2. Preliminary Risk Evaluation
Safety is the crucial parameter for any field of activity or industry, whether evaluated
on the surface, in the air, or underground. However, many of the threats in underground
environments are not typical for other industries or research fields and, therefore, are not
fully recognised [
19
]. Thus, a detailed process of risk identification has been performed.
Surveys and workshops were conducted with experts from the underground mining

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 8 of 14
industry and users of underground laboratories in Europe. In total, 106 unwanted threats
were identified in a risk identification worksheet, and a list of analysed hazards may be
found in [
51
]. These threats were classified into four groups and 18 hazard categories
(Figure 5).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 8 of 15
fully recognised [19]. Thus, a detailed process of risk identication has been performed.
Surveys and workshops were conducted with experts from the underground mining in-
dustry and users of underground laboratories in Europe. In total, 106 unwanted threats
were identied in a risk identication worksheet, and a list of analysed hazards may be
found in [51]. These threats were classied into four groups and 18 hazard categories (Fig-
ure 5).
Figure 5. Groups and categories of risks identied in underground conditions.
Then, each risk was analysed qualitatively using the risk matrix method. As pointed
out in [19], the risk matrix method is one of the most commonly utilised approaches in
establishing risk severity. There are many types of risk matrixes, but the so-called two-
dimensional risk matrix is most commonly used due to the ease of its preparation and in
interpreting its results. Such an approach allows not only to determine the impact of each
event but also to identify the risk’s probability or consequence. This information is of high
importance during the process of mitigation procedure development. The risk assessment
method based on a risk matrix for ULs can be applied as early as the design stage of a
given facility. Still, it is crucial that evaluation is carried out exclusively by specialists in a
particular eld to achieve reliable results. The greatest advantage of the proposed ap-
proach is the possible implementation of appropriate risk prevention and minimisation
measures at the design stage and just after preliminary evaluation. At the same time, there
are no technical limitations to using it as the basic method of classifying selected events
as part of the periodic risk assessment of the operation of underground facilities through-
out their entire life cycle.
For the purpose of this analysis, the risk evaluation worksheet was developed and
sent to researchers, scientists, and UL users. In the risk matrix method, the risk may be
dened according to the following formula:
RISK = Rp × Ri
(1)
where:
Rp—the probability of unwanted event occurrence;
Ri—expected/predicted consequences of the event.
Figure 5. Groups and categories of risks identified in underground conditions.
Then, each risk was analysed qualitatively using the risk matrix method. As pointed
out in [
19
], the risk matrix method is one of the most commonly utilised approaches in
establishing risk severity. There are many types of risk matrixes, but the so-called two-
dimensional risk matrix is most commonly used due to the ease of its preparation and in
interpreting its results. Such an approach allows not only to determine the impact of each
event but also to identify the risk’s probability or consequence. This information is of high
importance during the process of mitigation procedure development. The risk assessment
method based on a risk matrix for ULs can be applied as early as the design stage of a
given facility. Still, it is crucial that evaluation is carried out exclusively by specialists in a
particular field to achieve reliable results. The greatest advantage of the proposed approach
is the possible implementation of appropriate risk prevention and minimisation measures
at the design stage and just after preliminary evaluation. At the same time, there are no
technical limitations to using it as the basic method of classifying selected events as part of
the periodic risk assessment of the operation of underground facilities throughout their
entire life cycle.
For the purpose of this analysis, the risk evaluation worksheet was developed and
sent to researchers, scientists, and UL users. In the risk matrix method, the risk may be
defined according to the following formula:
RISK =Rp×Ri(1)
where:
Rp—the probability of unwanted event occurrence;
Ri—expected/predicted consequences of the event.

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 9 of 14
Such an approach is suitable for preliminary analysis and allows for a general point
of view for hazards in a particular facility. The exemplary worksheet for evaluating risks
related to ground control in underground facilities is presented in Figure 6.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 9 of 15
Such an approach is suitable for preliminary analysis and allows for a general point
of view for hazards in a particular facility. The exemplary worksheet for evaluating risks
related to ground control in underground facilities is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Qualitative evaluation of ground control risk using the risk matric method.
A risk evaluation worksheet with a list of all 106 risks and a detailed report [52] may
be found on the following webpage: hps://bsuin.eu/2021/01/08/bsuin-nal-reports/ (ac-
cessed on 20 September 2022) [52]. It must be highlighted here that the risk matrix method
is a very general approach and should be used to determine risk categories that have to
be evaluated in a more detailed (quantitative) way. For example, in the case of roof falls,
risk may be analysed with the use of numerical methods or with a systematic approach,
as presented, respectively, by Ghasemi et al. in [53] or by Sakhno et al. in [54]. In the case
of more general analyses that are not focused on only one group of hazards, a hierarchical
analysis may be performed, as presented by Siahuei et al. [55].
4. Results and Discussion
Within this research, 29 surveys were completed by representatives of ULs and un-
derground mines, scientists, and UL users. The ULs within these surveys are unique in
their usage (R&D, tourism, education, and excavation), environmental conditions (physi-
cal depth and rock overburden, geomechanics, hydrogeology, seismic, and social ac-
ceptance), and local threats. The most signicant challenges related to the readaptation of
underground workings into non-mining facilities are presented in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Qualitative evaluation of ground control risk using the risk matric method.
A risk evaluation worksheet with a list of all 106 risks and a detailed report [
52
] may
be found on the following webpage: https://bsuin.eu/2021/01/08/bsuin-final-reports/
(accessed on 20 September 2022) [
52
]. It must be highlighted here that the risk matrix
method is a very general approach and should be used to determine risk categories that
have to be evaluated in a more detailed (quantitative) way. For example, in the case of
roof falls, risk may be analysed with the use of numerical methods or with a systematic
approach, as presented, respectively, by Ghasemi et al. in [
53
] or by Sakhno et al. in [
54
].
In the case of more general analyses that are not focused on only one group of hazards, a
hierarchical analysis may be performed, as presented by Siahuei et al. [55].
4. Results and Discussion
Within this research, 29 surveys were completed by representatives of ULs and un-
derground mines, scientists, and UL users. The ULs within these surveys are unique in
their usage (R&D, tourism, education, and excavation), environmental conditions (physical
depth and rock overburden, geomechanics, hydrogeology, seismic, and social acceptance),
and local threats. The most significant challenges related to the readaptation of under-
ground workings into non-mining facilities are presented in Figure 7.
After analysing all surveys and issues pointed out by the respondents, it was con-
cluded that safety issues (13.43%) and legal obstacles (12.50%) were most often mentioned.
While the safety aspects may be limited at the user level, the problems of national legal
regulations in most cases are beyond the influence of the users of underground laboratories.
Still, as Paat and Joutsenvaara [
54
] pointed out in the report “Underground laboratories
working environment, a common standard”, underground laboratories work under the
same laws and regulations as mining companies in most EU countries. In such a case, the
revitalisation of underground workings or transition from the mining company to the UL
site may be smooth. Responsibilities and liabilities between the different parties need to be
agreed upon for the transition’s planning.
By involving the local experts from the mining industry, the activities and management
of the revitalised mining environment can be performed in safe and sustainable ways and
according to local laws and regulations. Contacting the mining authority may be helpful
as well.
The next group of challenges is related to the economic aspects of underground
laboratory management. Many respondents pointed out that the investment costs (9.72%)
may exceed the incomes (6.48%). Moreover, there are significant doubts in terms of the
business (11.11%) model, which could attract stakeholders and investors (7.87%) in the long

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 10 of 14
term, providing efficient and stable profits during the whole life cycle of the underground
facility (8.80%).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 10 of 15
Figure 7. The biggest challenges related to seing up new underground non-mining facilities.
After analysing all surveys and issues pointed out by the respondents, it was con-
cluded that safety issues (13.43%) and legal obstacles (12.50%) were most often mentioned.
While the safety aspects may be limited at the user level, the problems of national legal
regulations in most cases are beyond the inuence of the users of underground laborato-
ries. Still, as Paat and Joutsenvaara [54] pointed out in the report “Underground laborato-
ries working environment, a common standard”, underground laboratories work under
the same laws and regulations as mining companies in most EU countries. In such a case,
the revitalisation of underground workings or transition from the mining company to the
UL site may be smooth. Responsibilities and liabilities between the dierent parties need
to be agreed upon for the transition’s planning.
By involving the local experts from the mining industry, the activities and manage-
ment of the revitalised mining environment can be performed in safe and sustainable
ways and according to local laws and regulations. Contacting the mining authority may
be helpful as well.
The next group of challenges is related to the economic aspects of underground la-
boratory management. Many respondents pointed out that the investment costs (9.72%)
may exceed the incomes (6.48%). Moreover, there are signicant doubts in terms of the
business (11.11%) model, which could aract stakeholders and investors (7.87%) in the
long term, providing ecient and stable prots during the whole life cycle of the under-
ground facility (8.80%).
According to surveys and workshops, environmental issues are also signicant when
considering underground space repurposing. Over 10.19% of all answers were related to
environmental restrictions of underground workings such as the lack of natural ventila-
tion, lack of natural light, high humidity, etc. Also, space limitations were mentioned by
respondents. In this case, 5.09% of votes pointed out that space limitations may be chal-
lenging, especially in the case of ventures that could be potentially developed in the fu-
ture.
Surprisingly, the issues related to a lack of social acceptance (4.17%) and lack of qual-
ied sta (3.24%) were mentioned the least. This could be justied by the social awareness
of advantages and disadvantages related to underground activities in the mining and
post-mining regions.
As pointed out in numerous studies, safety issues are the factors that most signi-
cantly jeopardise projects that are planned to be conducted in underground conditions.
Figure 7. The biggest challenges related to setting up new underground non-mining facilities.
According to surveys and workshops, environmental issues are also significant when
considering underground space repurposing. Over 10.19% of all answers were related to
environmental restrictions of underground workings such as the lack of natural ventilation,
lack of natural light, high humidity, etc. Also, space limitations were mentioned by respon-
dents. In this case, 5.09% of votes pointed out that space limitations may be challenging,
especially in the case of ventures that could be potentially developed in the future.
Surprisingly, the issues related to a lack of social acceptance (4.17%) and lack of
qualified staff (3.24%) were mentioned the least. This could be justified by the social
awareness of advantages and disadvantages related to underground activities in the mining
and post-mining regions.
As pointed out in numerous studies, safety issues are the factors that most significantly
jeopardise projects that are planned to be conducted in underground conditions. Therefore,
a detailed analysis of risks and a categorisation of their significance have been performed.
During the data collection, 29 representatives, including those from the mining industry
and supervisors of underground laboratories, filled in the risk evaluation worksheet. They
determined the probability and expected impact of each of the 106 identified risks classified
into 18 groups. The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 8.
Based on the detailed analysis of the severity of risks and their listed categories, one
may conclude that more hazardous events are related to ground control issues (24% of
risks classified as severe) and the presence of ground vibrations induced by natural (40%
of events classified as severe) and anthropogenic seismicity (31.25% of events classified as
severe). This is mainly because any type of rockburst, roof fall, or spalling of the rock layers
may generate significant negative consequences including fatal or serious injuries and
economic losses. Particular attention should also be paid to ventilation issues. According
to the risk evaluation surveys, the most dangerous events in this group are related to
the possibility of fire occurrence. Thus, safety chambers or at least self-rescue breathing
apparatuses should be available on site.
Extensive preventive measures should also be undertaken in case of technological as-
pects and accidents related to machinery movement in underground conditions. Periodical
testing of ground support performance and proper traffic organisation could significantly

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 11 of 14
minimise these hazard levels. Noise (9.1%) and lightning (8.0%) issues were also classified
as severe. In the case of these events, expected consequences are not very high, but the
probability and intensity of these events are relatively high and affect all people working in
underground conditions.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274 12 of 15
Figure 8. Preliminary analysis of the severity of risks classied in each of the identied groups.
5. Conclusions
This paper analyses the challenges and threats related to seing up an underground
laboratory in post-mining areas. An analysis has been performed with experts from the
mining industry, scientists, and representatives of underground laboratories that operate
successfully in Europe and the Baltic Sea region. Safety issues are of the highest im-
portance and should be analysed and possibly mitigated rst. Also, imprecise local law
regulations, the lack of awareness of stakeholders, and nancing problems of the whole
venture may be problematic and aect the project’s feasibility.
Still, as recent experiences have shown, the scope of activities that may be success-
fully performed in underground conditions is very extensive and covers many aspects of
tourism, education, science, R&D or mining technology, and extraction method develop-
ment.
Repurposing may be greatly facilitated by experiences gathered by other under-
ground laboratories that already operate. Analyses of business models, a SWOT analysis
of dierent UL operations, or detailed risk evaluations may familiarize users with not only
possible threats but also opportunities. Extended advice on this topic may be found on
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%
Ground Control
Gases
Seismic Activity
Radiation
Water
Lightening…
Technological
Infrastructure…
Noise
Vibration
Blasting Works
Ventilation and…
Machinery
Dust
Economic
Social
Political Risk
Pollution
Unacceptable Serious Medium Low Acceptable
Figure 8. Preliminary analysis of the severity of risks classified in each of the identified groups.
The last group of risks classified as severe is related to political aspects such as local laws
and regulations, which may considerably constrain the activities of the
underground facility
.
It is worth mentioning that there were no events in which risk was classified as
unacceptable. In turn, most of the evaluated risks were categorised as acceptable or low,
which stands for their low impact on the project’s feasibility.
5. Conclusions
This paper analyses the challenges and threats related to setting up an underground
laboratory in post-mining areas. An analysis has been performed with experts from the
mining industry, scientists, and representatives of underground laboratories that operate
successfully in Europe and the Baltic Sea region. Safety issues are of the highest importance

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 12 of 14
and should be analysed and possibly mitigated first. Also, imprecise local law regulations,
the lack of awareness of stakeholders, and financing problems of the whole venture may be
problematic and affect the project’s feasibility.
Still, as recent experiences have shown, the scope of activities that may be successfully
performed in underground conditions is very extensive and covers many aspects of tourism,
education, science, R&D or mining technology, and extraction method development.
Repurposing may be greatly facilitated by experiences gathered by other underground
laboratories that already operate. Analyses of business models, a SWOT analysis of different
UL operations, or detailed risk evaluations may familiarize users with not only possible
threats but also opportunities. Extended advice on this topic may be found on the open
web platform of the European Underground Laboratories Association, where numerous
reports from international projects BSUIN and EUL are freely accessible. These reports may
be found at the following webpage: https://undergroundlabs.network/ (accessed on 15
July 2022).
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation, M.K.-F., M.S., K.F., and K.P.; methodology, M.K.-F., M.S.,
K.F. and P.A.; software, K.F.; validation, M.K.-F. and J.J.; formal analysis, K.F., I.J.-P. and J.J.; investiga-
tion, M.K.-F., M.S. K.F., I.J.-P., K.P., A.K.-W., J.J. and P.A.; resources, K.F., J.J. and P.A.; data curation,
M.K.-F., K.F., I.J.-P., A.K.-W. and P.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.-F., M.S., K.F., I.J-P.,
K.P., A.K.-W., J.J. and P.A.; writing—review and editing, M.K.-F., M.S., K.F., I.J-P., K.P., A.K.-W., J.J.
and P.A.; visualisation, M.K.-F. and M.S.; supervision, K.F.; project administration, K.F.; funding
acquisition, K.F. and J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), grant number
Interreg Baltic Sea Region #X010 EUL project and number Interreg Baltic Sea Region #R2.073 BSUIN
project. The research was also cofounded with the research subsidy from the Polish Ministry of
Science and Higher Education granted for 2023 for WUST.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
All data presented herein in an extended version will be freely accessi-
ble at the webpage of the European Underground Laboratories Association: https://undergroundlabs.
network/ (accessed on 1 November 2022).
Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank all partners and contributors from the European Under-
ground Laboratories Association who responded to our questionnaires and took part in interviews
and surveys.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021; United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2021; p. 115.
2.
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembly 2015. p. 70. Available online:
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 15 November 2022).
3.
European Commission; Statistical Office of the European Union. Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report
on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context, 2021st ed.; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2021.
4.
Pactwa, K.; Wo´zniak, J.; Dudek, M. Sustainable Social and Environmental Evaluation of Post-Industrial Facilities in a Closed
Loop Perspective in Coal-Mining Areas in Poland. Sustainability 2020,13, 167. [CrossRef]
5. Bettini, A. New Underground Laboratories: Europe, Asia and the Americas. Phys. Dark Universe 2014,4, 36–40. [CrossRef]
6.
Kaliampakos, D.; Mavropoulos, A.; Menegaki, M. Need and Potential for Underground Disposal–Survey of Underground Mines
in Europe. In WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering; Popov, V., Pusch, R., Eds.; WIT Press: Southampton,
UK, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 33–258, ISBN 9781853127502.
7.
Menéndez, J.; Loredo, J.; Galdo, M.; Fernández-Oro, J.M. Energy Storage in Underground Coal Mines in NW Spain: Assessment
of an Underground Lower Water Reservoir and Preliminary Energy Balance. Renew. Energy 2019,134, 1381–1391. [CrossRef]
8.
Pirkkanen, J.; Zarnke, A.M.; Laframboise, T.; Lees, S.J.; Tai, T.C.; Boreham, D.R.; Thome, C. A Research Environment 2 Km
Deep-Underground Impacts Embryonic Development in Lake Whitefish (Coregonus Clupeaformis). Front. Earth Sci.
2020
,8, 327.
[CrossRef]

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 13 of 14
9.
Ró˙
zycki, P.; Dryglas, D. Mining Tourism, Sacral and Other Forms of Tourism Practiced in Antique Mines—Analysis of the Results.
Acta Montan. Slovaca 2017,22, 58–66.
10.
Kotarska, I.; Mizera, B.; Stefanek, P. Mining Waste in the Circular Economy—Idea Versus Reality. E3S Web Conf.
2018
,41, 02013.
[CrossRef]
11.
Fitzgerald, K.M. Hazardous Waste. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 487–490,
ISBN 9780123694003.
12.
Da Gama, C.D. Post-Mining Use of Underground Space for Waste Storage. In Proceedings of the 7th ISRM Congress, Aachen,
Germany, 16–20 September 1991.
13.
Thurner, E. The Role of Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory for the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management’s Research, Developing
and Demonstration Programme for a Final Repository of Spent Nuclear Fuel—15378. In Proceedings of the Annual Waste
Management Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 15–19 March 2015.
14.
Kudełko, J.; Wanielista, K.; Wirth, H. Ocena Ekonomiczna Projektów Wydobycia Kopalin z Pól Eksploatacyjnych w Okresie
Operacyjnym. J. Sust. Min. 2013,12, 41.
15.
Espinoza, R.D.; Morris, J.W.F. Towards Sustainable Mining (Part II): Accounting for Mine Reclamation and Post Reclamation Care
Liabilities. Resour. Policy 2017,52, 29–38. [CrossRef]
16.
Pactwa, K.; Konieczna-Fuławka, M.; Fuławka, K.; Aro, P.; Ja´skiewicz-Pro´c, I.; Kozłowska-Woszczycka, A. Second Life of Post-
Mining Infrastructure in Light of the Circular Economy and Sustainable Development—Recent Advances and Perspectives.
Energies 2021,14, 7551. [CrossRef]
17. Laurence, D. Optimisation of the Mine Closure Process. J. Clean. Prod. 2006,14, 285–298. [CrossRef]
18.
European Commission. Health and Safety at Work in Europe (1999–2007)—A Statistical Portrait; Publications Office of the European
Union: Luxembourg, 2010.
19.
Pytel, W.; Fuławka, K.; Pałac-Walko, B.; Mertuszka, P.; Kisiel, J.; Jalas, P.; Joutsenvaara, J.; Shekov, V. Universal Approach for Risk
Identification and Evaluation in Underground Facilities. Min. Sci. 2020,27, 165–181. [CrossRef]
20.
Lööw, J.; Johansson, B.; Andersson, E.; Johansson, J. Designing Ergonomic, Safe, and Attractive Mining Workplaces; CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis Group: Oxford, UK, 2019.
21.
Elgstrand, K.; Vingård, E. Safety and Health in Mining, In Occupational Safety and Health in Mining: Anthology on the Situation in
16 Mining Countries; Elgstrand, K., Vingård, E., Eds.; Arbete & Hälsa, University of Gothenburg: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013;
pp. 1–14.
22.
EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2021–2027|Safety and Health at Work EU-OSHA. Available online:
https://osha.europa.eu/en/safety-and-health-legislation/eu-strategic-framework-health-and-safety-work-2021-2027 (accessed
on 25 April 2023).
23.
Shooks, M.; Johansson, B.; Andersson, E.; Lööw, J. Safety and Health in European Mining—A Report on Safety and Health, Statistics,
Tools and Laws, Produced for the I2 Mine (Innovative Technologies and Concepts for the Intelligent Deep Mine of the Future) Project;
Division of Human Work Science: Luleå, Sweden, 2014; pp. 3–10.
24.
The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; The European Green Deal: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; p. 649.
25.
Minerals Yearbook, Volume III, Area Reports—International—Europe and Central Eurasia. United States Geological Survey.
Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/europe-and-central-eurasia (accessed
on 20 July 2022).
26. Ianni, A. Science in Underground Laboratories and DULIA-Bio. Front. Phys. 2021,9, 612417. [CrossRef]
27. EUL Website. Available online: https://undergroundlabs.network/about/ (accessed on 25 September 2022).
28.
Bessone, L.; Sauro, F.; Stevenin, H. Training Safe and Effective Spaceflight Operations Using Terrestrial Analogues. In Space
Safety Is No Accident; Sgobba, T., Rongier, I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 313–318,
ISBN 9783319159812/9783319159829.
29. BBC Website. Available online: www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46221656 (accessed on 15 July 2018).
30. Langefeld, O.; Tegtmeier, M. Underground Farming. Min. Rep. Glückauf 2019,155, 13–17.
31.
Rosenthal, S.; Knudsen, P. Montana Tech’s Underground Mine Education Center. In Proceedings of the SME Annual Meeting,
Denver, CO, USA, 24–27 February 2018; p. 13.
32.
Bralewska, K.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Mucha, D.; Badyda, A.J.; Kostrzon, M.; Bralewski, A.; Biedugnis, S. Propertiesof Particulate
Matter in the Air of the Wieliczka Salt Mine and Related Health Benefits for Tourists. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2022
,19,
826. [CrossRef]
33.
Akbar, D.; Rolfe, J.; Lechner, A.M.; Everingham, J.-A.; Kinnear, S. Workshop Processes to Generate Stakeholder Consensus about
Post-Mining Land Uses: An Australian Case Study. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021,64, 334–358. [CrossRef]
34. Goodman, M. The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment. Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015,2015, 256351. [CrossRef]
35.
Lubsandorzhiev, S.; Enqvist, K.; Hissa, J.; Joutsenvaara, J.; Kutuniva, J.; Virkajärvi, A.; Bezrukov, L.; Kuusiniemi, P.; Kazalov, V.;
Krokhaleva, S.; et al. A New Low Background Laboratory in the Pyhäsalmi Mine: Towards 14C Free Liquid Scintillator for Low
Energy Neutrino Experiments. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference—PoS (ICRC2017); Busan,
Republic of Korea, 16 August 2017, p. 1044.

Sustainability 2023,15, 10274 14 of 14
36.
Boulby Underground Laboratory Website. Available online: https://www.boulby.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/home.aspx (accessed on 10
February 2022).
37. Sanford Underground Research Facility Website. Available online: www.sanfordlab.org (accessed on 1 May 2022).
38. Callio Lab. Available online: https://calliolab.com/ (accessed on 25 April 2023).
39.
Indico CERN. Available online: https://indico.cern.ch/event/493989/contributions/2005327/attachments/1253900/1850955/16
0407-LBNF.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2022).
40.
Nuijten, G. Large Underground Experiments: Engineering Point of View Pyhäsalmi + Homestake. In Proceedings of the 15th
International Workshop on Next generation Nucleon Decay and Neutrino Detectors (NNN14), Paris, France, 4–6 November 2014.
presentation by Guido Nuijten—Rockplan/LBNO-DEMO.
41.
Shekov, V.; Shekov, K.; Ivanov, A.; Fulawka, K.; Witold, P. Safe use of mining-and-industrial heritage and underground space in
tourism sector. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConference SGEM 2019,19, 569–577.
42.
Shekov, K.; Shekov, V. Ruskeala Mining Park Phenomenon. In Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation, Proceedings of
the16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference SGEM Book 5, Albena, Bulgaria, 30 June–6 July 2016; International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences (SGEM): Albena, Bulgaria; Volume III, pp. 515–522.
43.
Kramarczyk, B.; Pytlik, M.; Mertuszka, P.; Jaszcz, K.; Jarosz, T. Novel Sensitizing Agent Formulation for Bulk Emulsion Explosives
with Improved Energetic Parameters. Materials 2022,15, 900. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Baranowski, P.; Mazurkiewicz, Ł.; Małachowski, J.; Pytlik, M. Experimental Testing and Numerical Simulations of Blast-Induced
Fracture of Dolomite Rock. Meccanica 2020,55, 2337–2352. [CrossRef]
45.
Polaczek-Grelik, K.; Walencik-Łata, A.; Szkliniarz, K.; Kisiel, J.; J
e¸
drzejczak, K.; Szabelski, J.; Kasztelan, M.; Orzechowski, J.;
Tokarski, P.; Marszał, W.; et al. Natural Background Radiation at Lab 2 of Callio Lab, Pyhäsalmi Mine in Finland. Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 2020,969, 164015. [CrossRef]
46.
Jalas, P.; Enqvist, T.; Isoherranen, V.; Joutsenvaara, J.; Kutuniva, J.; Kuusiniemi, P. Callio Lab, a New Deep Underground
Laboratory in the Pyhäsalmi Mine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017,888, 012156. [CrossRef]
47. Saigustia, C.; Robak, S. Review of Potential Energy Storage in Abandoned Mines in Poland. Energies 2021,14, 6272. [CrossRef]
48.
Szabłowski, Ł.; Krawczyk, P.; Badyda, K. Energy Storage Using Underground Mining Caverns. E3S Web Conf.
2019
,108, 01004.
[CrossRef]
49.
Matos, C.R.; Carneiro, J.F.; Silva, P.P. Overview of Large-Scale Underground Energy Storage Technologies for Integration of
Renewable Energies and Criteria for Reservoir Identification. J. Energy Storage 2019,21, 241–258. [CrossRef]
50.
EUL Webinar—Many Faces of Underground Laboratories, Helsinki, Finland, 27 January 2022. Available online: https://bsuin.
eu/2022/01/19/eul-closing-webinar/ (accessed on 10 December 2022).
51.
Fuławka, K.; Pytel, W.; Szumny, M.; Mertuszka, P.; Hanzel, S.; Madziarz, M.; Joutsenvaara, J. Health & Safety in Underground
Environment, Final Report of Activities Performed under Baltic Sea Underground Innova-Tion Network Project. 2020. Available
online: https://bsuin.eu (accessed on 10 July 2022).
52.
Ghasemi, E.; Ataei, M.; Shahriar, K.; Sereshki, F.; Jalali, S.E.; Ramazanzadeh, A. Assessment of Roof Fall Risk during Retreat
Mining in Room and Pillar Coal Mines. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2012,54, 80–89. [CrossRef]
53.
Sakhno, I.; Sakhno, S.; Vovna, O. Assesing a Risk of Roof Fall in the Development Mine Workings in the Process of Longwall Coal
Mining in Terms of Ukrainian Mines. Min. Miner. Depos. 2020,14, 72–80. [CrossRef]
54.
Ameri Siahuei, M.R.; Ataei, M.; Rafiee, R.; Sereshki, F. Assessment and management of safety risks through hierarchical analysis
in fuzzy sets type 1 and type 2: A case study (faryab chromite underground mines). MGPB 2021,36, 1–17. [CrossRef]
55.
Paat, A.; Joutsenvaara, J. Underground Laboratories Working Environment Common Standard, Final Report of Activities Performed under
Baltic Sea Underground Innovation Network Project; BSUIN: Oulu, Finland, 2020.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.