[HN Gopher] The nation's last uranium mill plans to import Eston...
___________________________________________________________________
The nation's last uranium mill plans to import Estonia's
radioactive waste
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 38 points
Date : 2021-11-04 14:13 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hcn.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hcn.org)
| skeletal88 wrote:
| The waste being imported isn't something we created in Estonia,
| so it is not "ours". It was created by a rare earth metal
| processing factory that is owned by an US company.
|
| Actually it is the largest producer of rare earth metals outside
| of china.
| Strom wrote:
| What factory is that and are you sure it's not just the
| Paldiski waste that the government has been dealing with for
| decades, figuring how to get rid of it?
| atomicbeanie wrote:
| I think fission and nuclear waste are problems that technology
| can solve. However, the desire of the country to continue to
| operate old methods and not invest to raise the standards of
| these processes is like Nevada not so long ago contracting for a
| coal plant, sadly behind the times. The West does not have extra
| water to risk. We need new better facilities and investment in
| nuclear that keeps the environment safe and clean for the
| country's residents.
| echelon wrote:
| I sympathize with those living close to the uranium mill, but we
| need to increase our nuclear investments and capabilities, not
| shutter them.
|
| The future of our energy diversification - let alone national
| defense - needs uranium.
| ShrigmaMale wrote:
| Theres some valid concern here tho, people are right when they
| say that net health impact is lower for nuclear than for coal
| but maybe the impact is more concentrated on fewer people for
| nuclear, consider the relative impact of nuclear vs coal plant
| failure, and worst-case failure mode is much worse. So maybe
| some amount of nuclear nimbyism is understandable from some
| single person's point of view if not from society's.
|
| Also nuclear does not make somebody not responsible for
| polluting, if this plant is polluting it is still bad and has
| to be fixed even if nuclear is better than coal.
| [deleted]
| korethr wrote:
| I will not disagree with the premise that our current and
| future energy needs require diversification into more nuclear
| generation, and that nuclear requires uranium. I will however,
| reject the notion that such necessarily means that what is
| happening at the mill and surrounding land is acceptable or
| can't be done any better.
|
| My objections with the situation described in the article are
| twofold.
|
| First, the mill is not a designed as a long-term waste storage
| facility and is being treated as such. My understanding from
| the article is that the mill was originally designed and
| intended to be there for 15 years, then reclaimed. But it's
| still in operation. The holding cells for tailings were
| designed for the original planned life of the mill, and are
| still in use. Generally, I like it when things are useful for a
| long time. But from the OP, the mill and its temporary waste
| storage is running well past its design lifetime, and more
| waste continues to be added to the site, allowing it to be
| treated as long-term radioactive waste disposal by loophole.
| That's not acceptable. I don't disagree with long-term
| radioactive waste storage. I do disagree with it being stored
| long term in a place not properly designed for it and where a
| containment failure, however small, endangers the health and
| safety of surrounding communities or otherwise general
| usefulness of the land. The article describes how the
| groundwater in the area has been acidifying. The locals worry
| that such is because of contamination caused by the mill's
| waste. The mill claims that such is a natural process that just
| happens sometimes. Regardless of who is (more) correct, those
| holding cells were designed when the groundwater (and thus
| soil) were far less acidic, and are being operated decades
| after their intended design lifetime. The water in the cells is
| measuring with a pH as low as 1. You can't tell me that's not
| creating a needless contamination risk.
|
| Second, the age of the mill and thus their processes. As a
| millennial, I read "Built in the 1980s" and reflexively think
| "Oh, of course that's modern," because it's something that
| happened in my lifetime. But it's not; that's 30-40 years ago.
| I would be in no way surprised that the wastes produced by this
| mill are as dangerous as they are because of the process they
| use. From the description in the article, and on the NRC
| website[1][2] it sounds like this mill is using a conventional
| process (crush, leach out the uranium with sulfuric acid). Have
| there genuinely been no improvements in the conventional
| process over 30-40 years that improve its extractive
| efficiency, resulting in less radioactive tailings? Or
| improving the solvent recovery so the tailings don't acidify
| the soil and ground water so much over the long term? Or in
| extracting the other heavy metals, (lead, molybdenum,
| selenium), further reducing the the hazard of the tailings, and
| possibly providing a useful feedstock for other industrial
| processes? I find that unlikely, and would be disappointed if
| that were the case. Even if it doesn't make sense to retrofit
| such improvements to this mill (more capex on something already
| past its original design life, etc), the economic need for
| nuclear capability doesn't mean that this mill must remain. Is
| is genuinely so impossible to build a newer, better one?
|
| 1. https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-
| me...
|
| 2. https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-
| me...
| Strom wrote:
| At least Estonia itself won't be a repeat customer in the short
| to medium term, because it doesn't really produce any significant
| waste.
|
| The radioactive waste in question is most likely what was left
| behind by the Russians when their army finally left Estonia in
| 1995. The Russians developed two closed nuclear port cities in
| Estonia during Soviet occupation. One for mining uranium for
| atomic bomb purposes (Sillamae) and another one for nuclear
| submarines with two reactors (Paldiski). When they finally left,
| these cities were left to decay - along with the nuclear waste.
|
| Sweden helped Estonia build a temporary containment facility in
| 1997, but that is designed to last only until ~2050. So there is
| still a need to figure out a more permanent storage location.
| There is also environmental research going on to see if it's
| feasible to build such a facility in Estonia.
|
| This ship-it-to-Utah plan is quite interesting. It makes sense
| from Estonia's side when you consider that Estonia has no long
| term storage capability itself. Although I imagine the distance
| makes the logistics of transport very interesting. It's "easy" to
| get it on a ship from Estonia, given that the temporary storage
| is next to the sea [1] that is connected to the Atlantic ocean.
| However the transport from US east coast to Utah sounds pretty
| tricky. I guess they could take the ship through the Panama
| canal, which might make it a bit easier.
|
| For those who are interested, there are two local news reports
| that have video showing the temporary storage facility. One in
| Estonian [2] and a different one in Russian [3]. For the deep
| researchers I'll also provide a link to a government report
| detailing some of the history, stats, and potential plans around
| this waste - in Estonian. [4]
|
| --
|
| [1]
| https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3607991,24.1080561,403m/data...
|
| [2] https://www.err.ee/1030469/paldiskisse-tahetakse-rajada-
| lopl...
|
| [3] https://www.err.ee/1156109/insight-radioaktiivsete-
| jaatmete-...
|
| [4] Download "Radioaktiivsete jaatmete kaitlemise riiklik
| tegevuskava | 2.23 MB | pdf" from https://envir.ee/kliima-ja-
| keskkonnakaitse/kiirgus/radioakti...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-04 23:02 UTC)