County council set to withdraw from nuclear waste facility group
Lincolnshire County Council leader announces intention to withdraw from
Nuclear Waste Services’ Community Partnership. This would effectively
cancel the company’s consideration of the Lincolnshire coast for a
Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Cllr Martin Hill OBE, leader of
Lincolnshire County Council, said: “When we took up Nuclear Waste
Services’ (NWS, then called ‘Radioactive Waste Management’)
invitation to join a working group in 2021, we did so with an open mind,
knowing that residents themselves could make the decision as to whether it
was right for the area. “We wanted residents to be able to understand the
full extent of the opportunities and consequences that would come with the
building of a GDF in Lincolnshire.
“At that time, the site earmarked for
the development was an old gas terminal in Theddlethorpe – a brownfield
site. Since then, the area that NWS is considering for the entry point to
the GDF has shifted to open farmland, a couple of miles up the coast and
further inland. “This changes the very nature of the proposal and,
understandably, raised further concerns within the local community.
“Whilst we have tried to maintain an open mind towards the plans, we are
now several years on from this first being suggested, and big questions
still remain to be answered about the scale of the development and how this
waste would get there. “We had planned to put the decision on whether to
remain within the partnership to a public vote next year, but it has become
increasingly apparent that the community is getting frustrated with the
uncertainty and slow pace of this process.
“Unless NWS can provide
significant further details about their plans that would reassure the local
community and comprehensively explain the benefits and costs, it is my
intention to withdraw from the process altogether. “This will need to be
a formal decision, taken at a meeting of the council’s Executive.
Lincolnshire County Council 18th March 2025, https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/news/article/2293/county-council-set-to-withdraw-from-nuclear-waste-facility-group
“South Copeland Community Partnership Area of Focus” on nuclear waste is unravelling
The area is narrowing down to …surprise surprise the exact same spot as
the failed nuclear dump in the 1990s. NIREX was the forerunner of Nuclear
Waste Services and their plan for a Rock Characterisation Facility aka a
Trojan Horse for a full blown nuclear dump for low and intermediate level
wastes was refused as being far too dangerous.
That was at Longlands Farm, Gosforth which is now the Wasdale Mountain Rescue Centre – a far better outcome for the land than a nuclear dump. So what is the state of play now?
There are three Areas of Focus two in Cumbria and one in Lincolnshire. In
Cumbria one of the two Areas of Focus, the so-called “South Copeland
Community Partnership Area of Focus” is unravelling with communities
within the area increasingly saying no to the plan.
A ‘willing’ community is the cornerstone of government’s drive to find a Geological
Disposal Facility aka nuclear dump. Simon Hughes, Nuclear Waste Services
Head of Siting, has stated, “The policy surrounding our search for a safe
and suitable location for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in the UK is
emphatic. It requires the express consent of the people who would be living
alongside a GDF, and gives them influence over the pace at which
discussions progress.”
Residents in the two areas of South Copeland who
will be living alongside the focus area, i.e. Kirksanton and Bank Head
housing estate, have resoundingly said they are NOT a willing community. In
2023 Whicham Parish Council surveyed their residents and found 76% were
opposed to a GDF being sited there. Now, the other area most affected, Bank
Head housing estate near HMP Haverigg, have also rejected the idea and are
asking Millom Town Council, Cumberland Council and their MP Michelle
Scrogham, for help to stop it. After meeting their MP, residents of Bank
Head conducted the survey at her suggestion – Millom Town Council have
refused to conduct a similar survey, so residents took it into their own
hands. With a return rate of 68.3%, 78.7% have said no to a GDF, 11.7% yes
and 5.2% don’t know.”
Radiation Free Lakeland 19th March 2025, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/03/19/pin-the-tail-on-the-nuclear-donkey/
Red light for the greenway

A wildlife corridor plans to connect two Superfund sites at the former Rocky Flats plutonium plant and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that once produced chemical weapons. Locals fear residual contamination could spread.
John Abbotts, March 14, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/red-light-for-the-greenway-locals-oppose-wildlife-corridor-at-plutonium-contaminated-rocky-flats-site/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Plutonium-contaminated%20wildlife%20corridor%3F%20Colorado%20locals%20say%20no&utm_campaign=20250317%20Monday%20Newsletter
n September, the city council of Westminster, Colorado voted not to fund a pedestrian bridge and underpass at the Rocky Flats site due to concerns about residual soil contamination from plutonium and other hazardous materials. In the process, the city council withdrew about $200,000 in financial support for the development of the project, known as the Rocky Mountain Greenway.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed the greenway to connect wildlife refuges at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal through hiking trails via the Two Ponds refuge to Rocky Flats, with plans to eventually connect to the Rocky Mountain National Park. But the plan is controversial: Both Rocky Flats and the Arsenal are still on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List, identified since 1987 as “Superfund” cleanup sites that contain residual contamination.
The US Army established the Arsenal to produce chemical weapons to support World War II efforts, and in the 1990s, the federal government leased part of the Arsenal to Shell Chemical Co. to manufacture fertilizer and pesticides. In 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission began operations at Rocky Flats as a federal atomic weapons facility, producing plutonium triggers for hydrogen bombs. (A hydrogen bomb or H-bomb uses fission in the primary—uranium or plutonium—to trigger the secondary into a fusion reaction that combines two atomic nuclei to form a single heavier nucleus, releasing a much larger amount of energy.) Operations started largely in secret at Rocky Flats, located in a sparsely populated area 16 miles upwind and upslope of the city of Denver. But in the late 1970s, the public became more informed about plant operations, and the movement opposing atomic weapons began to focus on the facility, organizing protests and civil disobedience actions.
By the late 1980s, when the federal cleanup program at both sites had been initiated, work had already begun on the new Denver International Airport on Rocky Mountain Arsenal lands, and the Denver suburbs had steadily spread west toward Rocky Flats. Accordingly, there was consensus at each site that expedited cleanup would most effectively protect the metropolitan area, and cleanup standards were looser than “unrestricted use” to develop national wildlife refuges at each site. The consequences were residual contamination, especially at Rocky Flats, where there was no limit on how much plutonium remained below six feet of soil in an industrial area fenced off from the public and with the surrounding land converted to a wildlife refuge. This “cleanup on the cheap” at Rocky Flats, plus a record of cover-ups of accidents at the site, created continuing distrust and controversy over post-remediation uses near Rocky Flats. Cities and citizens opposed different proposals for re-use, even over the issue of public access to the refuge. Now there are concerns that the proposed greenway—a trail between the two tracts—may facilitate cross-contamination, taking radioactive material from the Rocky Flats site to the chemically hazardous Arsenal property, and vice versa.
Contamination—then a raid
Each of the two Rocky Mountain sites has a controversial history. At Rocky Mountain Arsenal, chemical contaminants have been identified as organochlorine pesticides, akin to DDT and its chemical cousins, of which Rachel Carson warned in her classic 1962 book Silent Spring. Other contaminants at the site include heavy metals, organophosphate, and carbamate pesticides—with each of these pesticide classes known to be neurotoxic—along with a potpourri of other chemical contaminants in groundwater.
As for Rocky Flats, a 1972 paper from radiochemist Edward Martell and one of his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado reported that just east of the site boundary levels of radioactive plutonium 239 and americium 241 ranged “up to hundreds of times that from nuclear tests.” In 1969, a highly visible fire at the site’s plutonium processing facility sparked off-site monitoring; at the time, the fire was assumed to be the source of the detected contamination. Later, the Atomic Energy Commission was forced to admit that a 1957 fire in a separate plutonium recovery building or leaks from drums containing plutonium-contaminated waste were more likely the source of off-site soil contamination.
When the Rocky Flats facility was still operating, it accepted contaminated metal from another Atomic Energy Commission facility. In the process of treating and burying the waste, Rocky Flats released tritium into a nearby stream, contaminating the drinking water source for the city and county of Broomfield, five miles west of the facility. The contamination occurred for more than a decade leading up to 1970; the tritium remained undetected until 1973.
In 1986, amendments to Superfund legislation expanded the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to oversee the cleanup of contaminated federal facilities. The following year, the agency designated Rocky Mountain Arsenal as a Superfund site.
Then, in June 1989, the FBI and EPA raided the Rocky Flats plant in response to allegations of multiple environmental crimes at the site. After an investigation, plutonium production ended, the EPA designated Rocky Flats a Superfund site in the same year. In 1992, Rockwell International, the contractor in charge of managing the site, pleaded guilty to environmental crimes and paid a fine of $18.5 million.
Contested cleanup plans
The regulatory agencies responsible for environmental cleanup—the EPA’s Region 8 office, based in Denver, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment—have certified cleanup as partially complete at each site. The “responsible parties” are now the US Army for the Arsenal and the US Department of Energy for Rocky Flats.
At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, cleanup extended to 10 feet below the surface, considered a sufficient depth to prevent burrowing animals from spreading the widespread chemical contamination there. In 2010, the regulatory agencies determined parts of the Arsenal sufficiently remediated to serve as a National Wildlife Refuge and transferred the management of the designated property to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. That service transferred a small herd of bison from a national range in Montana, and bison continue to inhabit the refuge.
The Army retains responsibility for a central area, along with smaller contaminated locations covered for monitoring and groundwater remediation. In 2019, the Colorado Department of Public Health sued Shell and the Army in the US District Court for hazardous chemicals from the Arsenal leaking into groundwater. The suit alleged that unsafe levels of organochlorine pesticides, heavy metals, chlorinated and aromatic solvents, and chemical agent degradation products and manufacturing byproducts had been found in groundwater. Litigation on that case is still ongoing.
At Rocky Flats, the controversy over the site’s past activities extended into its cleanup, with some opponents characterizing the proposed plans as “bait-and-switch.” Early in the cleanup process, the Energy Department funded an advisory committee that, in turn, established a “future site uses” working group. One of the working group’s recommendations was for residual plutonium contamination to be cleaned down to background level, to protect future area residents, no matter how long it would take. However, state officials assessed that a speedy cleanup that converted some areas into a National Wildlife Refuge was the desirable approach to protect outer metropolitan areas expanding toward the site boundaries.
The Energy Department and the site’s federal and state regulators agreed to limit the total costs of remediation and established a residual plutonium contamination limit in the top three feet of soil and a higher limit between three and six feet. (There was no contamination limit below six feet.) These limits were sufficient to qualify outer areas of Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge, and those areas were released to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006. Since then, the controversy has remained because the residual contamination is too high for unlimited uses of Rocky Flats.
Opposing the greenway
The city of Westminster is now the third municipal government to express concern over residual contamination at Rocky Flats. In 2016, the town of Superior, north of the site, voted to withdraw from the Rocky Mountain Greenway, a Federal Lands Access Program grant and project. The city and county of Broomfield followed suit in October 2020, unanimously approving a resolution for the withdrawal from the greenway. The Broomfield city council hired an environmental consultant to conduct soil sampling along the proposed Greenway, and the resolution expressed concern over the high levels of plutonium detected in the soil. After the resolution, the city stated that it would not contribute the $105,000 that was supposed to go to the Greenway project and would not allow Greenway-related construction work on Broomfield property.
The city of Broomfield also opposed another post-cleanup proposal—the Jefferson Parkway Highway Authority—described on its web page as a “privately-funded, publicly-owned regional toll road.” The proposed road would pass just outside the wildlife refuge, which was the eastern boundary of the former plutonium facility. The parkway authority had no plans to sample soil nearby until both Broomfield and a citizens advisory board recommended doing so before construction began. The authority then started sampling and, in September 2019, reported a sample containing 264 picocuries of plutonium per gram. (A picocurie is one trillionth of a curie, a measure of radioactivity.) This was much higher than the maximum limit of 50 picocuries per gram for surface contamination within the former industrial zone. Although this was the only sample above the limit, given the authority’s earlier resistance to sampling, the community lost faith in the project’s safety.
The Broomfield city council voted unanimously in February 2020 to withdraw from the Jefferson Parkway Association, removing a $70,000 annual payment in the process. In 2022, the county of Jefferson and city of Arvada sued Broomfield in response, claiming the parkway could not continue without that county’s continued participation. But a Colorado District Court judge dismissed that suit in December 2023, urging the parties to negotiate over Broomfield’s participation. The city and county of Broomfield expressed satisfaction with that decision, and the parkway’s future was described as “uncertain.”
In an escalatory move, in January 2024, the Colorado state chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility and five other groups filed a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C., seeking to prevent the greenway from coming through Rocky Flats. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the US Federal Highway Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and their respective cabinet departments (Transportation and Interior), from constructing an eight-mile trail through the most heavily plutonium-contaminated area of the wildlife refuge. (The filing assumed that the greenway would proceed from Westminster, but that city’s most recent decision to withdraw funds seems to require a different route.) According to the complaint, the city of Boulder has suggested since at least 2016 that the greenway path avoid Rocky Flats entirely.
The presiding judge, Timothy J. Kelley, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in September 2024. The case now awaits trial.
So far, concerns over Rocky Flats and its wildlife refuge have already limited public access to the refuge. Since April 2018, the Denver School District, the largest in the area, has forbidden its nearly 100,000 students from visiting Rocky Flats on field trips. Other school districts, including Boulder’s, had previously issued similar orders to protect their students.
It is still uncertain how the Trump administration will regard public participation, public protest, and the rule of law at Rocky Flats and other Superfund sites. The new Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is the former chief executive of a fracking company based in Denver, a known climate change denier, and was on the boards of EMX Royalty, a Canadian company that seeks royalties from extractive mineral mining, and Oklo, Inc., which designs small modular nuclear reactors. Wright is now responsible for overseeing atomic weapons production, cleanup of former weapons facilities, and US energy policy in general. How Wright will interact with Colorado peace activists and environmental protection groups concerned about the defunct plutonium-contaminated weapons facility at Rocky Flats is unclear. But the fight over the future of this legacy site appears far from over.
Court upholds two legal challenges to the Chalk River Radioactive Megadump.

Gordon Edwards, 14 Mar 25
The radioactive megadump planned for Chalk River (an “engineered mound” intended to contain about one million tonnes of so-called “Low-level” radioactive waste in a permanent landfill-like toxic waste dump just one kilometre from the Ottawa River) was planned by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and approved by CNSC.
Three legal challenges against this decision were launched in the Federal Appeals Court. The first had to do with the inadequacy of the safety case and the lack of adequate monitoring of the contents of the megadump. The second had to do with the failure to consult the Indigenous Algonquin peoples as required by the “Duty to Consult” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The third challenge had to do with the failure to consider alternative sites for such a toxic waste facility to provide adequate protection for endangered species.
Although the first challenge was not successful, the good news is that the second and third challenges were upheld by the court and CNSC and CNL will have to re-open the regulatory process to correct the inadequacies that have been noted. This does not mean that the existing megadumo has been forbidden but that more work must be done by both the proponent and the regulator to satisfactorily address these inadequacies.
The success of the third challenge was only announced yesterday.
The Federal Court overturned the Species at Risk permit for the nuclear waste facility planned for Chalk River, just 180 km up the Ottawa River from Ottawa.
The project proponent, CNL, said that the construction would harm, harass, or kill the endangered Blanding’s Turtle and 2 endangered bat species.
The Court found that CNL did not consider all reasonable alternative locations, and CNL admitted that it picked Chalk River even though it was less favourable for protecting species at risk than two other viable sites.
This violated s. 73(3)(a) of the Species at Risk Act, which says that “all” reasonable alternatives that would reduce the impact on species at risk must be considered and the best solution must be adopted.
There’s a lot to parse, but essentially, Justice Zinn agreed about the first 2 issues (not all reasonable locations were considered, and the best option was not chosen), but disagreed about the others (bat boxes, wildlife corridors, bird nests, the Monarch).
The win on the location issue is huge, of course. If they have to pick a new location, they have to start over from scratch and none of the other issues matter. See para 48 (of the decision) for some good reasoning by Zinn J:
“During both the hearing and public consultation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNL conceded that it would only consider non-AECL properties if no suitable AECL-owned site was identified. This admission confirms that CNL’s default approach was to confine its search to AECL lands unless compelled to broaden it. This methodology is directly at odds with the statutory mandate under paragraph 73(3)(a). The Minister failed to reconcile this self-imposed limitation with the statutory requirement for a comparative assessment of ecological impacts on protected species. I am of the view that, even if a non-AECL site posed greater logistical challenges, such as increased transportation distances, the Act would still require CNL to consider it if it offered reduced harm to at-risk species. Administrative or logistical difficulties do not absolve the project’s proponent of its duty to evaluate such alternatives under paragraph 73(3)(a), even if those factors later justify rejecting them.”
Unfortunately, this does not mean that ECCC will not approve the permit for Chalk River. The decision is being sent back for redetermination, as is normal in admin law cases. From Zinn’s interpretation of the statutory language, it’s hard to see how it could be approved for Chalk River, given CNL’s deficient siting process, but Zinn seemed to be aware of these massive implications and tried to avoid these repercussions. He goes out of his way to say that it could be possible for ECCC to approve the permit for Chalk River if 1) they give appropriate justification for only looking at AECL sites (para 50) and 2) interpreted “best option” differently than ECCC has in the past, to include non-species-at-risk factors, and justified this different interpretation (paras 57-61).
Governor urges contaminated soil be disposed of outside Fukushima by 2045

Soil from radiation decontamination work after the 2011 nuclear reactor
meltdowns in Fukushima Prefecture should be disposed of outside the
prefecture by the deadline set by law, Fukushima Gov. Masao Uchibori said
in a recent interview. A law stipulates that all such soil must be disposed
of outside Fukushima by March 2045.
“The final disposal must be completed
within 20 years, no matter whether the soil is reused (within Fukushima) or
not,” the governor said. However, Shiro Izawa, the mayor of Futaba — one
of the towns hosting Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ crippled
Fukushima No. 1 plant — said lasts month that soil from radiation
decontamination work should be reused in Fukushima. The mayor said this was
his personal opinion. Uchibori pointed out the heavy burden placed on
Futaba and the neighboring town of Okuma for accepting interim storage
facilities for soil from decontamination work.
Japan Times 11th March 2025. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/03/11/japan/fukushima-gov-soil-disposal/
At Haverigg Today – the Nuclear LIE of a “Safe” and “Secure” Sub-Sea Nuclear Dump.
The sub-sea area involved would be 26 to 50 km square. The “smaller” area proposed would be the size of Tuvalu at 26 km square. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of ongoing research projects into, for example, the release of radioactive gases, how the heat generated would impact the geology, the steel containments and the bentonite backfill.
These ongoing research projects throw up more questions regarding the safety of long term containment. Nuclear Waste Services are asking locals who are now in reciept of nuclear dump community funds, to express support for an experiment. An experiment which will impact their health and the environment for generations to come. Those who are not “local” who would also be impacted are deliberately excluded from “having a say.”
Councillors oppose nuclear dump site near Louth
‘Six more communities are now facing this devastation
By Peter Craig, Reporter, 10 Mar 25
Councillors have voted to oppose a nuclear dump site near Louth. East
Lindsey District Council want to persuade Lincolnshire County Council to do
the same and say NO to the proposed 1,000 acre site at Great Carlton.
Grimsby Telegraph 11th March 2025, https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/councillors-oppose-nuclear-dump-site-10001353
American companies profit from Canada’s radioactive waste

Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada’s contract to clean up itslegacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada’s AtkinsRéalisand Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weaponsfacilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.
Parliament’s payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025.
The consortium operates “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories” (CNL) in a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada’s GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.
When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour. From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for “contractual expenses.” The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.
Canada’s liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.
The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium’s ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”
The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety.
AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.
Commission.
Supreme Court wrestles with nation’s frustrating search for nuclear waste storage

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, looking ahead to the United States’ 250th anniversary next year, said, “I hope that we make it another 250, but if it takes 40 or 80 years for a solution to come, it would still be temporary, correct?”
By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 6 March 2025 ,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-14464455/The-Supreme-Court-confronts-national-headache-What-growing-pile-nuclear-waste.html
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with whether to restart plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico even as some justices worried about safety issues and the lack of progress toward a permanent solution.
The justices heard arguments in a case that reflects the complicated politics of the nation´s so far futile quest for a permanent underground storage facility. A plan to build a national storage facility northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain has been mothballed because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.
The court took up a challenge by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a private company with a license for the Texas facility to an appellate ruling that found the commission had no authority to grant the license. The outcome of the case will affect plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles (65 kilometers) away.
The licenses would allow the companies to operate the facilities for 40 years, with the possibility of a 40-year renewal.
“That doesn’t sound very interim to me,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said, while also questioning the advisability of storing spent nuclear fuel “on a concrete platform in the Permian Basis, where we get all our oil and gas from.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Gorsuch in asking questions suggesting they were the most likely to uphold the ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Roughly 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide and growing by more than 2,000 tons (1,800 metric tons) a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground.
The NRC has said that the temporary storage sites are needed because existing nuclear plants are running out of room. The presence of the spent fuel also complicates plans to decommission some plants, the Justice Department said in court papers.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, looking ahead to the United States’ 250th anniversary next year, said, “I hope that we make it another 250, but if it takes 40 or 80 years for a solution to come, it would still be temporary, correct?”
Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart agreed, noting that the spent fuel has to be kept somewhere, whether at operating and decommissioned plants or elsewhere.
Security also is cheaper with the waste in one or two locations, Stewart said, relying on arguments made by Interim Storage Partners LLC, the company with the Texas license.
Sotomayor, along with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, seemed most inclined to reverse the 5th circuit. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett said little or nothing to reveal where they stand.
The NRC’s appeal was filed by the Biden administration and maintained by the new Trump administration. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott,. a Republican, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, are leading bipartisan opposition to the facilities in their states.
The justices will consider whether, as the NRC and Interim Storage Partners argues, the states and a private energy company forfeited their right to object to the licensing decisions because they declined to join in the commission´s proceedings.
Two other federal appeals courts, in Denver and Washington, that weighed the same issue ruled for the agency. Only the 5th Circuit allowed the cases to proceed.
The second issue is whether federal law allows the commission to license temporary storage sites. Opponents are relying on a 2022 Supreme Court decision that held that Congress must act with specificity when it wants to give an agency the authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance. In ruling for Texas, the 5th Circuit agreed that what to do with the nation´s nuclear waste is the sort of “major question” that Congress must speak to directly.
But the Justice Department has argued that the commission has long-standing authority to deal with nuclear waste reaching back to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.
The NRC granted the Texas license to Interim Storage for a facility that could take up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and 231 million tons of other radioactive waste. The facility would be built next to an existing dump site in Andrews County for low-level waste such as protective clothing and other material that has been exposed to radioactivity. The Andrews County site is about 350 miles (560 kilometers) west of Dallas, near the Texas-New Mexico state line.
The New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad. The NRC gave a license for the site to Holtec International.
Alito, who said the interim sites could remove the incentive to find a permanent solution, asked Brad Fagg, a lawyer for Interim Storage Partners, for a prediction of when a permanent site would open.
“I’ve been in this stew for a lot of years,” Fagg said. “I would be kidding myself and this court if I said I had a date.”
A decision is expected by late June.
East Lindsey overwhelmingly backs GDF withdrawal call to Lincolnshire County Council

At their March meeting, East Lindsey District Councillors backed a motion calling on their colleagues at County Hall to join them in withdrawing from the nuke dump plan.
Leader Councillor Craig Leyland confirmed that he shall recommend to his Executive that East Lindsey District Council withdraws from the process when it next meets on 23 April.
Were Lincolnshire to follow suit that would draw a line upon the issue; Nuclear Waste Services would no longer be able to investigate potential sites for the Geological Disposal Facility within the Theddlethorpe Search Area, or indeed any area within the East Lindsey District, as there would no longer be any Relevant Principal Local Authority backing the plan…………………….
NFLA 6th March 2025,
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/east-lindsey-overwhelmingly-backs-gdf-withdrawal-call-to-lincolnshire-county-council/
‘Vote out!’: Protestors win motion at ELDC full council to urge county council to withdraw from nuclear dump talks

East Lindsey District Council
is to urge Lincolnshire County Council to follow the authority’s lead and
withdraw from the process exploring proposals for a nuclear dump site in
the district.
This follows a debate lasting more than one hour on a motion
presented to full council by Coun Travis Hesketh – a district councillor
representing communities that would be affected. Ahead of the meeting,
‘Vote Out’ protestors gathered outside the offices in Horncastle to
show their opposition to the dump and support the councillors fighting for
them.
Coun Hesketh’s motion urged the Executive and Leader of East
Lindsey District Council “to issue a statement opposing the Geological
Disposal Facility for nuclear waste in Lincolnshire and urge Lincolnshire
County Council to withdraw from the project.
Lincolnshire World 5th March 2025, https://www.lincolnshireworld.com/news/people/vote-out-protestors-win-motion-at-eldc-full-council-to-urge-county-council-to-withdraw-from-nuclear-dump-talks-5019541
Bank Head Estate residents attend public meeting over nuke dump blight
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities wish to congratulate our
friends in Millom and District Against the GDF for organising a successful
meeting last month at which the residents of the Bank Head Estate, Millom
met with local Councillors to raise their concerns that in the future a
nuclear waste dump might become their unwanted neighbour.
Although for
several years, Nuclear Waste Services has been working, first with a local
Working Group and then through a Community Partnership, on plans to bring a
Geological Disposal Facility, or GDF, to the South Copeland Search Area it
was at the end of January that NWS revealed the Area of Focus in which more
detailed investigations will be conducted to determine its potential as the
eventual site for a waste receiving centre. Nuclear Waste Services have
previously revealed that the surface site will approximately one kilometre
square; once built the facility would from the 2050s, receive regular
shipments of radioactive waste which would be transported underground and
through access tunnels out under the seabed.
NFLA 5th March 2025 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/bank-head-estate-residents-attend-public-meeting-over-nuke-dump-blight/
Most Contaminated U.S. Nuclear Site Is Set to Be the Largest Solar Farm.

Plans to transform Hanford, which was integral to the nation’s nuclear arsenal after World War II, had just begun inching forward when President Trump started his second term.
New York Times, By Keith Schneider, Reporting from Richland, Wash, March 5, 2025,
In the weeks since President Trump has taken office, he has pushed to unleash oil and gas production and has signed executive orders halting the country’s transition to renewable energy.
But in Washington State, a government-led effort has just started to build what is expected to be the country’s largest solar generating station. The project is finally inching forward, after decades of cleaning up radioactive and chemical waste in fits and starts, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a sweep of desert that was pivotal to the nation’s weapons arsenal from 1943 until it was shut down in 1989. A developer, Hecate, was brought on last year to turn big stretches of the site into solar farms.
Hecate will have access to 10,300 acres that the government has determined sufficiently safe to redevelop. The company has already started site evaluation on 8,000 acres, an area nearly 10 times the size of Central Park in New York and enough space for 3.45 million photovoltaic panels. (Hanford’s site is nearly 400,000 acres.)
If all goes according to plan, the Hecate project, which is expected to be completed in 2030, will be by far the largest site the government has cleaned up and converted from land that had been used for nuclear research, weapons and waste storage. It is expected to generate up to 2,000 megawatts of electricity — enough roughly to supply all the homes in Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver — and store 2,000 more in a large battery installation at a total cost of $4 billion. The photovoltaic panels and batteries will provide twice as much energy as a conventional nuclear power plant. The nation’s current biggest solar plant, the Copper Mountain Solar Facility in Nevada, can generate up to 802 megawatts of energy.
The big unknown still hanging over the plan is whether the Trump administration will thwart efforts that the Biden administration put in place to develop more clean electricity generation………………………………………….
While a clean energy project may clash with Mr. Trump’s policies, there’s a reason the administration may allow Hecate’s solar development to move forward: the revenue the government will get for the land lease. Hecate and the Energy Department declined to discuss the land’s market value, but private solar developers in the region said such easements typically paid landowners $300 an acre annually.
Two officials at the Energy Department, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, said that neither the president nor the leaders of the administration’s effort to reshape federal agencies had yet to intervene in the solar project, but that the future of the initiative was uncertain. One of the officials said the new energy secretary, Chris Wright, a former oil executive, had not yet reviewed the project as of late February.
Alex Pugh, Hecate’s director of development, said the company was moving ahead despite shifting political winds. “The fundamentals of the project are strong regardless of policy direction,” he said. “The region needs the project. There is a huge demand for electricity here.”
…………………….Hecate identified the large expanse of open ground alongside high-voltage transmission lines at Hanford as a potential site for its plant several years ago, Mr. Pugh said — long before the Energy Department solicited proposals. The potential benefits, he said, were plainly apparent.
………………….What they also have, however, is risk. The site where Hecate plans to build its photovoltaic panels is near an area where groundwater and soil were decontaminated and alongside an experimental 400-megawatt nuclear reactor complex that was decommissioned in 2001. It’s also about 20 miles south of B Reactor, the world’s first full-scale nuclear reactor, which produced the plutonium for the atomic
First shipment of 280,000 tons Aggregate arrives by rail at Cumbria low-level nuclear waste site for final capping

The first shipments via rail of 280,000t of aggregate by Nuclear Transport
Solutions (NTS) have been delivered to the Low Level Waste Repository
(LLWR) site in Cumbria, which will form a 100-year barrier for nuclear
wastes.
Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) is responsible for managing the
disposal of the UK’s low-level radioactive waste including at the LLWR
site. NTS is a transport and logistics provider which operated Direct Rail
Services (DRS) which transports nuclear and radioactive materials via rail.
Both NWS and NTS are part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which
itself is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). The LLWR is the only
facility in the UK permitted to receive all categories of radioactive and
nuclear low level waste (LLW) and NWS describes it as “the nation’s
principal disposal facility for LLW”.
New Civil Engineer 26th Feb 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/aggregate-arrives-by-rail-at-cumbria-low-level-nuclear-waste-site-for-final-capping-26-02-2025/
The Supreme Court faces the absurdly difficult problem of where to put nuclear waste

And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.
America’s worst NIMBY problem comes to the Supreme Court.
by Ian Millhiser, Vox , 26th Feb 2025,
https://www.vox.com/scotus/399304/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-texas-nrc-nimby
On March 5, the Supreme Court will hear a case that may involve one of the most toxic examples of NIMBYism in American history. The issue at the heart of Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas arises out of a predictable problem: Absolutely no one wants radioactive waste anywhere near where they live or work, but that waste has to go somewhere.
Texas, as the case name suggests, involves an effort by the federal government to store nuclear waste in Texas, and at the same time, solve a problem it’s struggled with for nearly 40 years.
To fully understand what’s before the Supreme Court in Texas, we need to go back to 1982, when Congress passed a law that was supposed to establish a permanent repository for all of the radioactive waste produced by America’s nuclear power plants. This waste remains dangerous for thousands or even tens of thousands of years after it is produced, so it made sense to find a spot far from human civilization where it can be buried.
But then NIMBY — that’s “not in my backyard” — politics set in.
The US Department of Energy identified several possible sites for the waste, and eventually culled those sites down to three — one in Texas, one in Washington state, and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But, in 1987, before these officials could complete the selection process, Congress stepped in and chose the Nevada site for them.
According to a Slate article on the eventual collapse of the Yucca Mountain plan, this choice is easy to explain when you look at who ran Congress at the time. The House speaker was Jim Wright, a representative from Texas. The House majority leader was Tom Foley, from Washington. So Nevada, which had the weakest congressional delegation at the time, lost out.
Indeed, according to Rod McCullum of the Nuclear Energy Institute, “the 1987 Amendment is now commonly referred to as the ‘screw Nevada’ bill.”
By the time President Barack Obama took office, however, the balance of power in Congress had changed. Sen. Harry Reid, of Nevada, was the majority leader. He set out, with the Obama administration’s support, to kill the Yucca Mountain project. Congress, at Obama’s urging, zeroed out funding for Yucca Mountain. Then, just in case the project wasn’t already dead enough, a 2013 court decision ordered the government to stop collecting taxes that would have funded the permanent storage facility until it could figure out where that facility would be located.
And that brings us to the present date, and to the issue before the Supreme Court in the Texas case. Without a permanent storage facility on the horizon, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned to an older statute which has been understood to allow it to authorize temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste since the 1970s, licensing a private facility to handle storage in Andrews County, Texas.
Texas eventually sued to block this facility, as did a nearby landowner. Their case wound up before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Two of these judges are from Texas. It’s not hard to guess what happened next.
And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.
Indeed, the 1954 law’s language allowing the NRC to license possession of these three kinds of material is quite broad. The NRC may license possession of special nuclear material for reasons that it “determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes” of the law. It may license possession of source material for any “use approved by the Commission as an aid to science or industry.” And it may license possession of byproduct material for “industrial uses” or for “such other useful applications as may be developed.”
Though both Texas and the landowner claim that this language should not be read to permit the kind of license at issue in the Texas case, they are swimming against at least a half-century of precedent. The landowner’s brief concedes that the NRC first claimed the authority to license facilities under the 1954 law in 1975 (it claims that this fact cuts against the government’s case, because the NRC waited two decades to claim this power, but the fact remains that this question has been settled for 50 years). The landowner’s brief also concedes that the NRC finalized regulations governing licenses for such facilities in 1980.
That said, the landowner’s brief does make a plausible — if not, exactly, airtight — argument that the 1982 law overrides the 1954 law’s provisions concerning private storage facilities. (Texas’s brief, by contrast, is heavy on overwrought rhetoric claiming that nuclear waste must be stored at Yucca Mountain, and light on the kind of statutory analysis that a responsible judge would rely upon in deciding this case.)
Among other things, the landowner’s legal team points to three provisions of the 1982 law which say that the NRC shall “encourage” storage of nuclear waste “at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor,” and take other steps to promote such onsite storage. They also point to a provision calling for a federal storage facility. And, they highlight a provision stating that the 1982 law should not be read to “encourage” or “authorize” private storage facilities away from a reactor.
As the landowner’s legal team writes, allowing the Texas facility to exist would “discourage” creating new storage capacity at reactor sites, the opposite of what the 1982 law was supposed to accomplish.
It’s safe to say that, when Congress wrote the 1982 law, they imagined a world where nuclear waste would be stored either at reactor sites or at a federal facility, and not at a private facility like the one at issue in Texas. But the 1982 law also does not explicitly repeal the 1954 law’s provisions governing the three kinds of nuclear material. So the government has a very strong argument that it can still rely on those provisions to license the facility in Texas.
There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will simply make this case go away
There’s a real possibility that the Supreme Court will get rid of this case on procedural grounds, effectively handing a victory to the government.
Briefly, the federal law that both Texas and the landowner relied upon to bring their case to the Fifth Circuit permits “any party aggrieved by the final order” of the NRC to challenge that decision in a federal appeals court. The government argues that, to qualify as a “party,” Texas or the landowner must have participated “as a litigant” in the NRC’s internal proceeding governing the Andrews County license.
While both the state and the landowner took some steps to make their views known to the NRC during that proceeding, neither ever officially became litigants. Thus, the government argues, they do not count as a “party” to that proceeding which can appeal the NRC’s decision, and the Court should toss the case out. The key thing to know about this legal argument is that it may be enough to prevent the justices from reaching the merits of this particular case.
If the Court does reach the merits, however, it faces a difficult decision. Allowing the Andrews County project to move forward will undoubtedly trigger the same kind of political backlash that has accompanied every other attempt to pick a site to store nuclear waste. But, if this project is not allowed, it’s far from clear where the waste would go.
-
Archives
- May 2026 (163)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


