The Condisoil recipe makes a legitimate fertilizer out of the three LAMP residues:
The fertilizer formulation (at this time) is to be 1:2:7.
But the wastes are generated at rates of 3:8:3.
So while they could use up 100% of the last, doing so would still leave 86% of the first.
The first is the radioactive one, unfortunately.
So while Condisoil frees up land space, it doesn't do much for mitigating the need for long term Permanent Disposal Facility, which is what the $50 million bond is for.
Bottom line here: Lynas doesn't get the bond back even if Condisoil is approved.
btw, I think they've deposited about half the $50M.
That also concerns me because it's a point of contention which opens the door to complaints about Lynas NOT taking long term radioactivity storage seriously.
Also a potential can of worms that could be opened up during FOSL renewal, which I seriously doubt will be a rubber stamp operation.
If it is expected to be, I'd be VERY glad to be corrected.
To get the 5-year figure, I looked at google satellite imagery for the facility, then guesstimated and extrapolated, using data made public in late 2017, which is available on the SMSL website. I believe the radioactive waste must be enclosed and under a roof and two buildings stand out as likely candidates. The onsite storage facility is being built piecemeal, so those two buildings are only sufficient for the short term. Big caveats being I don't know the date of the imagery and I'm doing a lot of guessing.
That's one of the big questions I have been asking: How much on-site storage remains at the current rate of operation?
"Do you think the RSF was designed as a PDF with only 5 years storage capacity in mind?"
Five more years would get them to ~ten years operations. Yes, I think they might have thought a plan for getting the non-radioactive wastes off site would materialize more quickly. This was a fairly active issue earlier apparently, with multiple plans coming and going (being shot down).
