The nation’s last uranium mill plans to import Estonia’s radioactive waste | Hacker News Reader

The nation’s last uranium mill plans to import Estonia’s radioactive waste

hcn.org

46 pointsAmorymeltzer9 comments

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.

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?

I found some info: The Silmet rare metals processing plant in Estonia is more than 5,000 miles from San Juan County, but the White Mesa Mill south of Blanding could soon be receiving radioactive waste from the eastern European facility. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sltrib.com/news/202...

Changed hands several times, was US owned recently but now is Canadian

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silmet

White Mesa..

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.

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.

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...

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.

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 (Sillamäe) 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 jäätmete käitlemise riiklik tegevuskava | 2.23 MB | pdf" from https://envir.ee/kliima-ja-keskkonnakaitse/kiirgus/radioakti...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com