Switzerland plans controversial nuclear waste dump all too close to German border
A plan for a nuclear waste storage facility in Switzerland is raising
safety concerns among Germans close to the border. The project, which is
backed by power plant operators, requires approval by the Swiss government.
Switzerland has announced plans to build a nuclear waste storage facility
on the border with Germany, leaving communities concerned about the issues
of safety and clean drinking water supply. The National Cooperative for the
Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Nagra) is behind the proposal. It suggested
the region of Nördlich Lägern, north of Zurich and close to the border
with Germany, the Swiss Federal Office of Energy said.
Deutsche Welle 10th Sept 2022
Nuclear Waste: DOE Needs to Improve Transparency in Planning for Disposal of Certain Low-Level Waste
GAO-22-105636 Sep 29, 2022,
Fast Facts
The Department of Energy is responsible for disposing of certain low-level nuclear waste from medical equipment, metals in nuclear reactors, and cleanup sites. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required DOE to assess the potential environmental effects of various disposal options. No legal options currently exist.
DOE’s assessments were extensive but didn’t give rationales for preferring certain disposal options. They also weren’t clear on the amount of waste that will need disposal—key information for decision makers.
We recommended ways to improve transparency. We also suggested that Congress consider addressing legal barriers to waste disposal……………………………………………….. more https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105636
Radioactive Waste ‘Everywhere’ at Ohio Oilfield Facility, Says Former Worker
Community groups present health and environmental justice concerns to the EPA, alleging workers at Austin Master Services are coated in dangerous levels of radioactive waste.
DeSmog, By Justin Nobel, Aug 31, 2022 ,
As Bill Torbett and his colleagues went about their work, handling the sloppy radioactive detritus of oilfields in a cavernous building in eastern Ohio, their skin and clothing often became smothered in sludge. Waste was splattered on the floor and walls, even around the electrical panels. At the end of their shifts, they typically left their uniforms in the company washing machine, which didn’t always work, and left their sludge-caked boots and hard hats in the company locker room. But when the men arrived home after a long day, the job came with them too.
“We were literally ankle-deep in sludge and a lot of times knee-deep in different spots. All that shit is dripping down on you,” says Torbett, a 51-year-old former employee of Austin Master Services, a radioactive oilfield waste facility in Martins Ferry, Ohio. “You’re saturated in it, your hands are covered in it, the denim of your uniform would hold it, and the moisture would soak right through your under-clothes and into your skin.”
“How wet?” Torbett says. “Like if you got caught outside in the rain without an umbrella. Soaking wet.”
In fact, so alarming are the conditions at Austin Master and so lax is the oversight that workers have taken things into their own hands. In one case, a second former worker has covertly passed along their dirty boots, hard hat, and headlamp for independent radiological analysis. The levels of the radioactive element radium found in the sludge on this worker’s boots was about 15 times federal cleanup limits for the nation’s worst toxic waste sites.
And yet, Austin Master appeared to keep workers in the dark about what they were handling. “They really didn’t tell me the gist of the material, I just knew it came from frack sites,” according to Torbett, who worked at the facility from November 2021 to February 2022. “There was no discussion of the material and its radioactivity.”
In April, DeSmog revealed that Concerned Ohio River Residents, a local advocacy group, had documented elevated levels of radium outside the main entrance to the Austin Master facility, that state inspection reports showed a lengthy history of concerning operating practices, and that rail cars leaving the facility for a radioactive waste disposal site in the Utah desert had arrived leaking on five occasions.
The situation at the Ohio facility appears so severe that top officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, which covers much of the Midwest, joined local organizers in a conference call in July and made an in-person visit to the area earlier this month.
The state of Ohio has authorized Austin Master Services to receive 120 million pounds of radioactive oilfield waste at its Martins Ferry location each year.
Austin Master has not replied to questions regarding the reported radioactivity levels on worker clothing. “There is nothing unusual or harmful about AMS’s process,” Chris Martin, a company spokesperson, told DeSmog in response to questions sent in March regarding work practices at the facility. “Austin Master Services takes a responsible approach to providing valuable waste remediation services and jobs in the Martins Ferry community.” Martin maintained that “there are no known complaints from AMS employees concerning work conditions.”
On July 1, American Energy Partners, a Pennsylvania-based energy and infrastructure services company, acquired Austin Master Services. In a press release, American Energy Partners describes Austin Master as “a full-service, comprehensive environmental services firm specializing in radiological waste management solutions” that provides “professional safety, industrial hygiene and health physics services.” The company has not replied to questions.
The conditions documented by state inspection reports and the contamination revealed by advocacy groups raise questions about the risks to first responders and the community should the Martins Ferry facility have an accident……………………………………
Welcome to the Messy World of Radioactive Oilfield Waste
The Austin Master facility is located in a former steel mill on the Ohio River, not far from the city of Martins Ferry’s drinking water wells and the football stadium of the local high school team, the Purple Riders. Austin Master receives truckloads of drill cuttings bored out of the Marcellus and Utica shale and of radioactive sludge that forms at the bottom of tanks and trucks that hold toxic liquids brought to the surface of fracked oil and gas wells. Right now, more than a third of America’s natural gas supply comes from wells in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Some of it is converted to liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and shipped overseas to customers in Europe and elsewhere.
Processing radioactive oilfield waste has proven enormously problematic for the oil and gas industry and its regulators, and given rise to a booming service sector of facilities like those run by Austin Master that collect, treat, and process the waste. Part of the problem is that a significant amount of oilfield waste is too radioactive to be shipped directly to traditional landfills. Instead, it must be “down-blended,” or mixed with material like lime or a corn cob base to lower the radioactive signature. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) does regulate the state’s roughly two dozen oilfield waste processing facilities, but in a limited way. In 2014, Austin Master received an ODNR order, known as a Chief’s Order, giving the company temporary approval to “process, recycle, and treat brine” and other oilfield waste.
At Austin Master’s Martins Ferry facility, Torbett says, trucks regularly dumped the more sludge-like or solid radioactive oilfield waste directly onto the floor of the former steel mill, and workers used common heavy construction equipment like Bobcats to maneuver it into various bins or pits. Waste that was more liquid-like was often dumped into metal containers called half-rounds, says Torbett. In one state inspection photo from August 2018, a worker with bare arms and no face protection or respirator holds a push broom……………………………….
It is work like this that has Massachusetts-based nuclear forensics scientist Dr. Marco Kaltofen deeply concerned about worker health risks. He said any time oilfield waste is moved around in piles at a processing facility such as Austin Master, dust is inevitably created and is likely to contain the radioactive element radium, which is commonly found in oilfield waste..
In addition to dust and wet spatter from the facility’s waste processing practices, Kaltofen voiced worries about the risk of radioactivity exposure to the people interacting with employees outside of work. “Workers’ skin can also become coated with this radioactive material, and either absorb it, or contaminate their families,” he added.
Earlier this year, a second former employee of Austin Master, who prefers to remain anonymous because they still work in the region, provided the boots, hard hat, and headlamp they used while working at the Martins Ferry facility to the organization Concerned Ohio River Residents, members of which have been previously instructed by Kaltofen in how to safely handle such items. The group then sent the worker items along to Kaltofen, who sent sludge from the boots to Eberline Analytical, a radiological analysis lab in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The lab returned the results in May, and they were startling, according to Kaltofen. They showed levels of radium-226 at 76.3 picocuries per gram, and levels of another form of radium common in oilfield waste, radium-228, at 8.66 picocuries per gram. This placed the radioactivity values at roughly 15 times EPA cleanup limits for topsoil at uranium mills and Superfund sites. ………………………………….
“Radium is commonly referred to as a bone seeker,” states a report of the National Research Council Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. If accidentally inhaled or ingested, the radioactive element tends to accumulate in the bones, where it continues emitting radiation and can lead to cancer…………………………..
“These results are alarming and it signifies the need for appropriate radiation protection measures in the oil and gas workplace,” adds Bemnet Alemayehu, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) staff scientist with a PhD in radiation health physics and co-author of a 2021 report on this issue. DeSmog provided NRDC with Eberline Analytical’s analysis of the worker’s clothing. “Based on the data provided,” says Alemayehu, “it appears the radioactivity levels are high enough to cause” exposure risks to the oil and gas workers…………………………….
Raising Red Flags
Concerned Ohio River Residents, which received the clothing items from the former worker and sampled the soil on the public road outside the facility, has long been worried about the risks the Austin Master facility posed to workers and the community at large and is in touch with a number of former workers. In mid-August, members of the group toured officials with EPA Region 5 around the area, including a drive-by of the Austin Master facility in Martins Ferry.
Despite the dangers this type of oil and gas waste poses, a 1980 provision enacted by Congress has deemed it non-hazardous and therefore exempt from federal rules that would otherwise apply to hazardous waste. ………………………………
Meanwhile Ohio regulatory agencies appear to be equally hamstrung in their ability to manage or even systematically assess the situation. ………………………………
Industry workers and residents across the Marcellus and Utica shale tell DeSmog it is this general tone of dismissal and inaction from regulators that has them feeling aggravated when it comes to oilfield radioactivity and its harms………………………
DeSmog presented the Health Physics Society with information and documents concerning the situation at Austin Master, but the group has not replied to questions.
…………………………………. fixing this issue in the United States goes beyond just personal protective equipment and straight to lawmakers, says Amy Mall, a senior advocate at NRDC. “We need Congress to act to end the dangerous oil and gas loopholes in our federal laws, including the gap for naturally occurring radioactive materials,” says Mall. “In addition, we urge the EPA to investigate this situation and other oil and gas waste sites around the country, and to revise its rules to reflect current knowledge about the risks to human health and the environment.”…………………………
While Waiting for Governments to Act, Citizens Are Stepping in
In July, Concerned Ohio River Residents and other Ohio advocacy groups sent a letter about Austin Master to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
“We have identified environmental justice and human rights abuse under President Biden’s Executive Order 13985,” the letter stated. “Understanding your values and heavy emphasis on pushing for environmental justice, we call upon the United States Environmental Protection Agency to address disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental impacts on low-income populations here in Appalachia…We call upon your Office to investigate these issues because no other governmental or regulatory agency is stepping up.”……………………………. https://www.desmog.com/2022/08/31/worker-radioactive-waste-austin-master-services-ohio/
WHAT HAPPENED AT CAMP LEJEUNE
I grew up drinking and bathing in the toxic waters around a military base in North Carolina. Thirty years later, I went back to investigate.
BY LORI LOU FRESHWATER, AUG 21, 2018
In the autumn of 1980, a contractor showed up to grade a parking lot. He had no idea he was about to start digging up the radioactive bodies of dead beagles. But the forked bucket on his bulldozer started pulling up more than soil, and it turned out he was digging in a pit of strontium-90 and dog carcasses that had been buried in an ash-gray tomb: a nest of dead dogs and laboratory waste labeled “Radioactive Poison.”
The new parking lot was on the site of the former Naval Research Laboratory dump and its associated incinerator in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina—and it was just one of many areas contaminated by an assortment of hazardous waste and chemicals on the base.
About half a mile away from the dump, soon to be known as Site 19, my friends and I were living in our neighborhood, called Paradise Point. We spent our time putting other girls’ bras into freezers at slumber parties, playing the Telephone Game, riding our bikes all over the place: to the golf course to steal a cart, to swim at the pool, to play soccer on Saturdays.
During the same autumn the dead beagles were found, I was sitting in front of a fake backdrop of rusty colored leaves, a slight 11-year-old girl with spaces between my teeth and freckles spritzed across my nose and cheeks, to take my school photo.
Under normal circumstances, this entirely unremarkable fifth-grade photo, in a plaid shirt and fragile gold necklace, would have likely ended up where most school photos do, in an old album or a drawer or simply lost to time. Instead, the photo would become a marker in the medical history of my family and my community, a reminder of the crime that was being committed on the day the photo was taken—and also for decades before, and for years after.
The place was Camp Lejeune, a United States Marine Corps base wrapped around the New River in Onslow County that served as an amphibious training base where Marines learned to be “the world’s best war fighters,” picking up skills that would allow them (for example) to make surprise landings on the shores of far away countries. From the 1950s until at least 1985, the drinking water was contaminated with toxic chemicals at levels 240 to 3400 times higher than what is permitted by safety standards.
There may never be a true accounting of the suffering caused at Lejeune. As with many other hometown environmental disasters, the Marines and family members poisoned on this military base were not born here, nor did they settle here to make a permanent life and raise their children. Instead, they were often here just for a short time, literally stationed at Lejeune for weeks, months, or, at most, a few years. From the 1950s through at least 1985, an undetermined number of of residents, including infants, children, and civilian workers and personnel, were exposed to trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, and other contaminants in the drinking water at the Camp Lejeune. These exposures likely increased their risk of cancers, including renal cancer, multiple myeloma, leukemias, and more. It also likely increased their risk of adverse birth outcomes, along with other negative health effects. Now the sick and the dying are all over the world, and an untold number will never be notified about what happened. Instead, we are left to rely on scientific models and data trickling out of public-health agencies and the slow process of adding one story at a time, person-by-person, to the cold data representing an environmental and public-health disaster.
In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency placed 236 square miles of North Carolina’s coastal soil and water on the list of toxic areas known as Superfund sites. The agency cited “contaminated groundwater, sediment, soil and surface water resulting from base operations and waste handling practices” as reasons for including it on the National Priorities List.
Camp Lejeune remains a sprawling Superfund site, and it is also the place where my mom and I spent years drinking a terrible mix of chemicals from our faucet. In the book A Trust Betrayed: The Untold Story of Camp Lejeune, author Mike Magner gives special attention to my mother’s story: “A woman with the ironic name of Mary Freshwater may have had the most ghastly experiences at Camp Lejeune.”
Of course, I share her ironic name, which can still seem like more of a curse. Nearly my entire childhood was consumed by tragedy. The chemical contamination can be linked to the deaths of my two baby brothers, Rusty and Charlie, and to my mom’s own difficult final years, when she was dying from two types of acute leukemia. My mother also suffered from mental illness, which was intensified—understandably—by our family’s brutal losses. Sometimes it seems that, behind me, there is nothing but inescapable grief. …………………..more https://psmag.com/.amp/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune
$Multibillion costs in the struggle to deal with nuclear wastes across the globe
Nuclear power is undergoing a revival with more than 50 reactors being
built around the world, close to half in India and China. But the problem
of how to dispose of lethal nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for
up to 300,000 years, remains remarkably difficult.
A quarter of a million metric tonnes of spent fuel rods are believed to be spread across 14
countries. South Korea is investing $1bn in R&D aimed at having a High
Level Waste treatment plant ready by 2060. The US spent $15bn into Yucca
Mountain. Finland has made the fastest progress. France has identified a
site 300km east of Paris. So far it has spent $2.5bn over 25 years on R&D,
but public opposition may put a stop to it,
FT 31st Aug 2022
https://www.ft.com/video/c6be962e-ce91-4954-afad-a9b6bf86d7c8
As Japan builds nuclear dumping facilities, Pacific groups say ‘stop’
https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-seeks-stronger-us-guarantees-revival-2015-nuclear-deal-2022-08-31/ Pacific civil society groups are calling on Japan to halt its plans to dump radioactive nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.
Earlier this month the Japanese government started building facilities needed for the discharge of treated, but still radioactive, wastewater from the defunct Fukushima nuclear power plant.
In a joint statement, civil society groups, non-governmental organisations and activists described the Fumio Kishida Government’s plans as a fundamental breach of Pacific peoples’ right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
Joey Tau from the pan-Pacific movement Youngsolwara Pacific said this breaches Pacific peoples’ rights to live in a clean environment.
Tau told Pacific Waves the Pacific Ocean is already endangered and Japan’s plan will have devastating impacts.
“We have a nuclear testing legacy in the Pacific. That continues to impact our people, our islands and our way of life, and it impacts the health of our people.
“Having this plan by Japan poses greater risks to the ocean which is already in a declining state.
“The health of our ocean has declined due to human endured stresses and having this could aggravate the current state of our region.
“And also, there are possible threats on the lives of our people as we clearly understand in this part of the world, the ocean is dear to us, it sustains us,” Tau said.
Tau said both the opposition in Vanuatu and the president of the Federated States of Micronesia have expressed serious concerns at Japan’s plans, and the Pacific Islands Secretariat this year has appointed an international expert panel to advise the Forum Secretary-General and national leaders.
The Northern Marianas’ House of Representatives has also condemned Japan’s plan to dump the nuclear waste.
Tau said the plans should not proceed without the Pacific people being able to voice their concerns and being better advised.
City of Aiken provides will receive more than $168M in plutonium storage settlement
by: Dixie Dawson, Joey Gill, Aug 30, 2022 “………………………………… The community also got an update on plutonium settlement money. Aiken County will reportedly receive more than $168 million, or 30% of $525 million, from the federal government’s settlement with the state over plutonium storage.
“They secured 168-million-850-thousand dollars for projects through Aiken County from the South Carolina plutonium settlement funds,” said David Jameson, President and CEO of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, “Aiken County citizens will benefit from the catalytic impact of your efforts to many, many years.”……………………… https://www.wjbf.com/news/aiken-county/city-of-aiken-provides-updates-on-city-will-receive-more-than-168m-in-plutonium-storage-settlement/
The long process of shutting down Hunterston B nuclear power station
Experts say that the site of the current Hunterston B power station could
be available for use again in around 90 years. Details of the upcoming
decommissioning process for the nuclear site have been revealed as part of
a public consultation over the next stage of the power station site’s
life. Defuelling of the site is currently under way, with decommissioning
expected to start in 2025/26 and it will take around 12 years to demolish
the majority of buildings. A long period of inactivity, thought to be
around 70 years, will follow before the remaining site will be
decommissioned and potentially ready for reuse. Following defuelling,
operators EDF will hand over responsibility to the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority. The authority’s subsidiary Magnox will deliver decommissioning
activities for the decades to come. A report drawn up for the consultation
reveals that a giant ‘safestore’ will be created from the existing
reactor building, which can shield decaying radioactive materials for up to
100 years. It says: “Buildings and structures will be demolished to ground
level, with basement areas and tunnels backfilled and regraded using
material produced from the decommissioning process.
Largs & Millport News 26th Aug 2022
https://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/20777753.hunterston-b-site-available-use-90-years/
All About Groundwater – Hanford part 2
In Part 1 we covered the basics of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report, Adaptive Site Management Strategies for the Hanford Central Plateau Groundwater, that outlines an innovative strategy to tackle the challenge of groundwater cleanup. In Part 2 we’ll cover the history of Hanford’s soil and groundwater contamination, current cleanup strategies, and the various challenges to cleaning up the soil and groundwater.
Hanford’s history of soil contamination
The Hanford Site has a history of dumping radioactive and chemical waste directly into the ground on site. About 450 billion gallons of nuclear and chemical waste were dumped directly into the soil during the plutonium production years—the equivalent of more than 680,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. Manhattan Project workers dumped waste in unlined cribs, ponds, ditches, and trenches—four different types of holes in the ground used for disposing of waste. Injection wells pumped the toxic waste directly into the soil to dispose of it.
Workers constructed 177 underground tanks (149 single-shell tanks and 28 double-shell tanks) to hold the most dangerous, high-level waste. However, the soil contamination didn’t stop there. These enormous underground tanks were connected in a row of three or four tanks. The Manhattan Project workers used a process called cascading—which allowed them to fill up one tank with waste, and while the waste solids settled to the bottom, the liquids would flow from one tank to another. If too much waste was added to the final tank, it would overflow to the soil. “From 1944 through the late 1980s, Hanford generated nearly 2 million cubic meters (525 million gallons) of high-level tank waste. Liquid evaporation, discharge to the ground, chemical treatment, and tank leakage reduced this volume by 90%—to 204,000 cubic meters (54 million gallons).”[1]
Cascading wasn’t the only way that waste reached the soil from the tanks. The tank farms were backfilled under an 8-to-10-foot layer of soil before waste was added. Workers built the single-shell tanks between 1943 and 1964. As their name suggests, they only have one liner of carbon steel to contain the waste. Sixty-seven single-shell tanks are known or suspected to have leaked 1 million gallons of waste into the surrounding soil. Two single-shell tanks—B-109 and T-111—are currently leaking. The single-shell tanks were designed to contain the waste for 20-25 years, and they are now more than 40 years past their design life. As these tanks get older and older, they are more likely to fail—causing the waste to leak out into the soil. Once the waste gets into the soil it may remain there—making it very hard to remove—or it may travel with water through the soil and reach the groundwater.
Current cleanup of the groundwater
Today, the soil at the Hanford Site (particularly in the Central Plateau) remains heavily contaminated. Some radioactive and chemical contaminants are more mobile in water, which means a rainstorm may cause those contaminants to move with the water through the soil—reaching the groundwater and ultimately the Columbia River.
One of the cleanup methods to prevent contaminants from spreading and reaching the groundwater is to remove contaminated soil by digging it up and disposing of it in the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. Hanford Challenge is concerned that USDOE will decide that it doesn’t need to dig up all of the contaminated soil and will leave it in place—which would increase the risk of harm to future generations.
USDOE implements specific strategies for cleaning up the groundwater. One of those strategies is pump and treat. Pump and treat is the process of pumping contaminated water to the surface, filtering out some of the contaminants, and injecting the water back into the ground. Monitoring wells, extraction wells, and injection wells are interspersed throughout the Hanford Site to implement the pump and treat process. There are six pump and treat facilities on site.
Soil flushing is one strategy used to enhance the pump and treat process. Some contaminants remain in the soil and may take a long time to reach the groundwater. Until the contaminants hit the groundwater, they are impossible to capture with the pump and treat system. Soil flushing speeds up the process by using 225 gallons of water per minute to force—or flush—these hard-to-reach contaminants down to the groundwater where they can be brought up to the surface with the pump and treat system. USDOE has found success using soil flushing to push hexavalent chromium to the groundwater to treat it.
An additional strategy for meeting water quality standards is monitored natural attenuation. Contamination is left to naturally attenuate, which means letting the radiation decay over time. It sounds like a do-nothing approach, and it basically is.
Challenges to groundwater cleanup
USDOE faces many challenges when pursuing groundwater cleanup. As previously mentioned, there are hundreds of contaminated soil sites at Hanford due to past dumping practices and leaking underground tanks. The extent of groundwater contamination is vast.
- There are significant data gaps regarding the number of contaminants in the vadose zone (the area of soil between the ground surface and the water table), the depth and location of the contamination, and the risk the contamination poses to groundwater.
- Some hard-to-control, persistent contaminants, such as technetium-99, iodine-129, uranium, nitrate, and chromium, are located in the deep vadose zone and pose a long-term risk to the groundwater.
- There are extensive groundwater plumes with intermixed contaminants (or contaminants located together), making it difficult to accurately measure the total amount in the aquifer and the contaminant distribution.
Depending on the contaminant, one specific treatment may work better than another. When contaminants are intermixed, the treatment process becomes more complex. Multiple technologies used in tandem or various treatment methods may need to be used to effectively treat intermixed contaminants.- The soil underneath the tank farms is contaminated by tank leaks, accidental spills, and intentional releases, which creates an additional pathway for contaminants in the soil to reach groundwater. As tanks leak—potentially more frequently—they become an additional complexity in groundwater cleanup.
- A borehole is a circular hole drilled into soil or rock that draws samples from deep below ground. USDOE uses boreholes to characterize, or identify, the physical and chemical properties of the contaminants in the vadose zone. Unfortunately, deep borehole characterization is limited in certain areas due to the high price of drilling—contributing to the lack of information regarding the amount, location, and strength of contaminants in the soil.
Geological challenges to groundwater cleanup
Hanford’s geology poses unique challenges to groundwater cleanup. Manhattan Project managers chose the site partially for its geology and proximity to the Columbia River. The reprocessing facilities were sited in certain areas at Hanford because the gravelly soil allowed them to dump waste into the ground, where it percolated down and vanished without a trace. It was a handy way of disposing of the waste—it just disappeared—but the dumped waste now requires a complicated cleanup strategy.
The 200 Area in the Central Plateau contains a high hydraulic conductivity zone that consists of porous soils and rocks that allow contaminants to quickly move through the soil to groundwater and eventually to the Columbia River. USDOE doesn’t know the exact size and location of the hydraulic conductivity zone in the 200 Area, which means that the underground movement of liquids between the Central Plateau and the Columbia River is still an area of considerable uncertainty. On the other hand, some places at Hanford’s Central Plateau have less permeable soils that trap specific contaminants, making it difficult to separate the contaminants from the soil and treat them using the most common cleanup strategies.
Ancient lake beds are hidden underneath the surface and cause contaminants to move laterally (horizontally) instead of vertically down to the groundwater. Lake beds cause contaminants to take longer to reach the groundwater because they aren’t taking the most direct route straight down, and are instead moving sideways. USDOE uses models to predict when specific contaminants will reach groundwater. USDOE bases its models on the assumption that contaminants move vertically to the groundwater. However, ancient lake beds and the lateral flow of contaminants challenge that assumption and highlight the need for USDOE to update its models to better account for the geologic conditions underneath the site.
Perched water also complicates groundwater cleanup. Imagine a bird’s nest that is perched or sitting in a tree. Now, imagine that bird’s nest perched in a tree underground and filled with water. As contaminants move through the soil they can get caught and trapped in that underground bird’s nest. The underground nest creates a pocket of contaminants that is hidden and hard to reach. USDOE is aware of several contaminated perched water areas at Hanford, but lacks information about the size, what contaminants they hold, and how full the perched water areas are. USDOE must incorporate perched water areas into its strategies to ensure a comprehensive cleanup plan for groundwater.
Groundwater cleanup at Hanford is incredibly complex due to the history of waste disposal, the inherently dangerous nature of the contaminants, and the challenges created by the site’s geology. Hanford Challenge urges USDOE to update its groundwater models to include the intricacies of Hanford’s geology, such as ancient lake beds and perched water. Hanford Challenge also encourages USDOE to recognize, investigate, and resolve the uncertainties present in groundwater cleanup.
If you are interested in learning more about Hanford’s geology, check out Tim Connor’s presentation on the cataclysmic floods that shaped the Hanford Site and Vince Panesko’s presentation on the ancient lake beds that impact cleanup.
This blog post is funded through a Public Participation Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The content was reviewed for grant consistency, but is not necessarily endorsed by the agency.
[1] Gephart, Roy. E. (2003). A Short History of Hanford Waste Generation, Storage, and Release. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-13605.
All About Groundwater- Hanford Part 1
https://www.hanfordchallenge.org/inheriting-hanford 9 Aug 22, [good diagrams]
Part 1
The Hanford Nuclear Site is one of the most complex and arduous cleanup efforts in the history of the United States. Hundreds of billions of gallons of radioactive and chemical waste were dumped into the ground on site. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) issued a report in September 2021, Adaptive Site Management Strategies for the Hanford Central Plateau Groundwater, that outlines an innovative strategy to tackle the challenge of groundwater cleanup. The report suggests adopting a new approach—Adaptive Site Management—to address groundwater cleanup in Hanford’s Central Plateau.
Adaptive Site Management is centered on thorough site planning and a robust understanding of site conditions and uncertainties. Large and complex hazardous waste sites often implement this approach. Adaptive Site Management would create a groundwater cleanup framework of planning, implementation, and assessment to nimbly adapt to new information and changing site conditions at Hanford. The goal would be to develop effective cleanup strategies that achieve the required outcomes while staying on schedule and budget.
The Adaptive Site Management approach attempts to reduce uncertainty by comprehensively characterizing the contaminants in the soil and groundwater. Characterization identifies the physical and chemical properties of the waste and the extent of contaminants in the vadose zone and groundwater. Characterization also identifies the geological makeup of the site, which can influence the movement of contaminants. The characterization process gathers information that then informs waste treatment and cleanup strategies.
An Adaptive Site Management approach for Hanford’s Central Plateau would include:
- Establishing site objectives or end goals that are consistent with the overall Hanford Site goals and that support the development of a long-term management approach;
- Developing interim objectives that provide step-by-step progress toward the overall site cleanup strategy; and
- Identifying key cleanup actions to reduce uncertainty, address site complexities, and analyze data gaps.
The report proposes various long-term site and interim objectives for the Central Plateau to provide examples for implementing the Adaptive Site Management approach at Hanford. These objectives are based on the primary goal of Hanford cleanup operations—protecting the Columbia River.
The objectives must also be consistent with the United States Department of Energy’s (USDOE) decision about future land use when cleanup finishes. For example, USDOE decided that the Central Plateau is designated exclusively for industrial use, meaning manufacturing, processing, or storing materials. The decision to have the Central Plateau remain solely for industrial use means that the cleanup strategy doesn’t have to be as protective as for other areas of the Hanford Site, such as the River Corridor. USDOE can leave some contamination in place because it’s assuming that the land won’t be openly accessible to the public. However, that is a big assumption considering that some radionuclides remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. It’s impossible to know what the world will look like that far into the future, but USDOE probably won’t be around to prevent future generations from staying out of the Central Plateau.
In conclusion, the report makes the case that the Adaptive Site Management approach is an appropriate tool for a large and complex site, such as Hanford. Since many of the cleanup activities in the Central Plateau are still early in the decision process and not set in stone, the report states that now is an appropriate time to implement the Adaptive Site Management approach.
In addition to outlining the Adaptive Site Management approach, the report dives into the history of Hanford’s soil and groundwater contamination, current cleanup strategies, and the various challenges to cleaning up the soil and groundwater. Read on to Part 2 to learn more about soil and groundwater contamination at Hanford.
This material is funded through a Public Participation Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The content was reviewed for grant consistency, but is not necessarily endorsed by the agency.
The US Navy is looking at scrapping the ‘Big E,’ the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, at a private shipyard
Jake Epstein , Insider 22 Aug 22,
- The US Navy is thinking about how best to scrap its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise.
- It is looking at sending it to a private shipyard given existing maintenance demands and challenges, a new report shows.
- Washington state’s Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has historically handled disposing of nuclear-powered naval assets.
……………………………………….Washington state’s Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF) has historically managed the disposal of nuclear-powered ships, but a Naval Sea Systems Command spokesperson previously told Insider that other work could delay the process for years.
The Bremerton shipyard might not be able to even start work on scrapping the ex-Enterprise until sometime between 2030 and 2040, according to The Kitsap Sun, which first reported the plans.
…………………………… “The workforce of the public shipyards of the Navy has been under tremendous pressure to execute their primary mission of maintaining the operational fleet,” the report said, explaining that letting a private shipyard handle the scrapping work would keep the Navy yard “focused on high-priority fleet maintenance work and submarine inactivations.”…………………. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-considers-scrapping-first-nuclear-powered-carrier-private-shipyard-2022-8
California nuclear power plant extension challenged in legislative proposal
“This is too little too late, a sham process designed to circumvent citizen enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act,”
Watchdog groups contend that regardless of the review, the NNSA will march ahead with its production plans for plutonium cores at Los Alamos
S nuclear policy | US nuclear stockpile | Environment protection
AP | Albuquerquue (US) August 20, 2022
The US government is planning to review the environmental effects of operations at one of the nation’s prominent nuclear weapons laboratories, but its notice issued Friday leaves out federal goals to ramp up production of plutonium cores used in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
The National Nuclear Security Administration said the review being done to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act will look at the potential environmental effects of alternatives for operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory for the next 15 years.
That work includes preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide and other projects related to national security and global stability, the notice said.
Watchdog groups contend that regardless of the review, the NNSA will march ahead with its production plans for plutonium cores at Los Alamos.
The northern New Mexico lab part of the top secret Manhattan Project during World War II and the birthplace of the atomic bomb is one of two sites tapped for the lucrative mission of manufacturing the plutonium cores. The other is the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
The US Energy Department had set deadlines for 2026 and 2030 for ramping up production of the plutonium cores, but it’s unclear whether those will be met given the billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements still needed.
Watchdog groups that have been critical of Los Alamos accused the NNSA of going through the motions rather than taking a hard look at the escalating costs of preparing for production, the future consequences to the federal budget and the potential environmental fallout for neighbouring communities and Native American tribes.
This is too little too late, a sham process designed to circumvent citizen enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act,” said Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico.
The Los Alamos Study Group, another New Mexico-based organisation that monitors lab activities, said there is no indication that NNSA will pause any preparations for the sake of complying with National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates some scrutiny before moving ahead with major federal projects.
The group pointed to more than $19 billion in new construction and operational costs for Los Alamos’ new plutonium core production mission through fiscal year 2033. They say the price tag is expected to grow.
According to planning documents related to the sprawling Los Alamos campus, lab officials have indicated that they need more than 4 million square feet (371,612 square metres) of new construction to bolster one of its main technical areas and the area where the lab’s plutonium operations are located. Several thousand new staff members also would be needed.
This is a completely bogus process in which NNSA seeks to create a veneer of legitimacy and public acceptance for its reckless plans,” said Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group……….. more https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/plutonium-cores-review-at-us-nuclear-lab-sham-process-watchdog-groups-122082000062_1.html
Twelve months, one meeting – the complete lack of accountability on nuclear in Copeland
In fact, the Rolls-Royce fronted consortium developing a 470-MW so-called ‘Small’ Modular Nuclear Reactor still faces considerable challenges in bringing a design to market. The design still needs to be approved by the Office of Nuclear Regulation after a comprehensive Generic Design Assessment. If approved, the consortium would need to build and test an actual working prototype; establish facilities to fabricate the parts; master the fabrication and on-site assembly process; secure funding; navigate the siting, planning and Development Consent process; and actually build the first plant. So hardly a rose in fragrant bloom!
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/twelve-months-one-meeting-the-complete-lack-of-accountability-on-nuclear-in-copeland/ 19 Aug 22, Despite Copeland Council being at the heart of plans to develop a new nuclear plant and a nuclear waste dump in the borough, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities were surprised to see that the Council’s Strategic Nuclear and Energy Board has only met once in the last twelve months.[1]
Only last month, Copeland Borough Council’s Portfolio Holder for Nuclear and Commercial Services Councillor David Moore described how “the future looks rosy” for new nuclear in Copeland as talks progress on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.[2]
Unfortunately, for the members of the Board, there was no opportunity to explore how ‘rosy’ the future was as the scheduled 9 August meeting was subsequently cancelled. Since the last meeting of the Board on 6 October 2021, meetings have been cancelled on 9 December; 10 February; 28 April; 7 June; and latterly on 9 August 2022.
In fact, the Rolls-Royce fronted consortium developing a 470-MW so-called ‘Small’ Modular Nuclear Reactor still faces considerable challenges in bringing a design to market. The design still needs to be approved by the Office of Nuclear Regulation after a comprehensive Generic Design Assessment. If approved, the consortium would need to build and test an actual working prototype; establish facilities to fabricate the parts; master the fabrication and on-site assembly process; secure funding; navigate the siting, planning and Development Consent process; and actually build the first plant. So hardly a rose in fragrant bloom!
Perhaps the infrequency of the meetings of the Board can be related to the disquiet expressed by some members over the lack of accountability over plans for Copeland Borough Council to partner with Nuclear Waste Services to bring a nuclear waste dump (a so-called Geological Disposal Facility or GDF) to Copeland. The Board minutes for 9 October 2021 record that three Councillors wanted the final decision taken by a meeting of the Full Council rather than reserved to the Executive; with a tied vote, this proposal was defeated only on the Chair’s casting vote. To placate the objectors, Councillor Moore promised that ‘this committee and full Council would be updated on a regular basis’.[3] The Board has since never met.
Commenting, Councillor David Blackburn said: “At a cost of up to £53 billion, the GDF would be the biggest engineering undertaking to take place in Copeland, since the creation of the Sellafield complex. It would be a repository for Britain’s high-level nuclear waste from seven decades of civil nuclear operations, and also take waste from future generation. Taking up to 150 years to build, fill and seal, it would have massive implications for, and be completely disruptive to, any host community in Copeland for generations.
“The GDF process is fast moving on apace. Since October 2021, first a Working Group and then a Community Partnership have been formed with Copeland’s involvement. In the last month, seismic testing has been taking place off the coast of West Cumbria, an activity which has rightly been hugely controversial for its adverse impact on marine life. Yet during this whole time, this Board, the very body charged by Copeland Council to provide oversight on the GDF and nuclear projects, has not met; no reports on these and other important issues have been brought before this Board for debate; and there has been no opportunity for members of the public to sit in on deliberations. Hardly democracy at its finest.”
For more information, please contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email on richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or telephone 07583 097793
Commenting, Councillor David Blackburn said: “At a cost of up to £53 billion, the GDF would be the biggest engineering undertaking to take place in Copeland, since the creation of the Sellafield complex. It would be a repository for Britain’s high-level nuclear waste from seven decades of civil nuclear operations, and also take waste from future generation. Taking up to 150 years to build, fill and seal, it would have massive implications for, and be completely disruptive to, any host community in Copeland for generations.
“The GDF process is fast moving on apace. Since October 2021, first a Working Group and then a Community Partnership have been formed with Copeland’s involvement. In the last month, seismic testing has been taking place off the coast of West Cumbria, an activity which has rightly been hugely controversial for its adverse impact on marine life. Yet during this whole time, this Board, the very body charged by Copeland Council to provide oversight on the GDF and nuclear projects, has not met; no reports on these and other important issues have been brought before this Board for debate; and there has been no opportunity for members of the public to sit in on deliberations. Hardly democracy at its finest.”
For more information, please contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email on richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or telephone 07583 097793
“The New Space Race is Going Nuclear”
“The space nuclear industry is flying blind—blinded by its devotion to profit and power,” Gagnon declared. “Their hard hearts have no concern about the negative impacts they might create on Earth, to the people and environment, nor any long-term impacts their high-tech nuclear power ‘visions’ might have in space. Their vision is so myopic, so limited, so tunnel like, because their minds are closed to the idea that space is alive and is an environment that we humans who are on this tiny spinning orb called Earth live in. They are colonizers, much like the long-history of earth-bound colonizers, who have raped and pillaged our lovely planet home.“
https://www.thesentinel.com/communities/the-new-space-race-is-going-nuclear/article_3fc861da-1da5-11ed-b190-4ffd12c4bafa.html By Karl Grossman, Aug 16, 2022
“The New Space Race is Going Nuclear” was the title of a recent hour webinar presented by the American Nuclear Society. The U.S. government is pouring money into the development of space nuclear power—for commercial, exploratory and military purposes—as described in the panel discussion featuring five very enthusiastic advocates of using atomic energy in space.
“So, it’s really an exciting time,” said the moderator for the American Nuclear Society, Jeffrey King, a professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Nuclear Science and Engineering Center at the Colorado School of Mines, and also past chair of the society’s Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division.
“It’s actually a time I didn’t expect that we’d end up seeing in my lifetime,” King said. “But we have now multiple companies—everything from government to the large contractors, small companies to start-up companies all interested in space nuclear power and different aspects of space nuclear power. It’s truly an exciting renaissance time for the field.”
As to the impacts of using nuclear power in space, comments made 44 minutes into the webinar were telling. King said “several people asked about,” in questions they sent in, “if anyone could comment on decommissioning plan or briefly what the plan is when we are done with these.”
Brad Rearden, director of the Government R&D Division of x-Energy, a company based in Rockville, Maryland and, previously, for 20 years, with the Reactor and Nuclear Systems
Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said: “So, at this point, I mean, you’re going to have a reactor that’s potentially stationed on the moon and operating for a decade. You know there’s no [nuclear waste] repository in America. There’s also no repository on the moon. And, so, it’s certainly a policy that needs to be examined. There’s always the possibility of removing it from the Moon at some point for disposal and disposing of it or doing some sort of disposal in place. So, I think it’s a really relevant question and something that certainly needs to be decided on the policy level. We can provide technical answers for that.”
Moderator King followed declaring: “Certainly in lunar you don’t have water, you don’t have wind. You don’t have anything that drives the motion of material and you don’t have an ecosystem that we have to worry about protecting but it is going to be a long-term concern.”
Asked by me in a question about that statement, King wrote back: “Specifically, the moon does not have an ecosystem. While there are what we might consider concerns is terms of leaving things pristine and or long-term human habitat, the moon is sterile and the worry about damaging in ecosystem is largely non-existent.”
And, Sebastian Corbisiero, senior technical advisor in the Nuclear Science and Technology Directorate at Idaho National Laboratory and the leader of the laboratory’s “Fission Surface Power” program, added in the webinar: “I don’t think anything has been officially decided on that. However, I will say that having a reactor on the Moon is less risky than having spent fuel in the vicinity of large population.”
About the webinar, Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, said: “I am reminded by the agents of nuclear power in space how the aerospace industry has viewed outer space during the 40 years I have been organizing on these issues. They’ve maintained that space is vast and limitless and has no real ecosystem or environment that we should be concerned about. So, their philosophy has essentially been ‘full speed ahead’.”
Now today,” Gagnon said, “NASA, the military, and some in the aerospace industry, are worriedly tracking the growing amount of space debris orbiting the Earth. They are beginning to talk about the ‘Kessler syndrome’ that predicts cascading collisions due to increasingly crowded orbits which could at some point make getting a rocket through the debris field encircling our planet nearly impossible.”
“So as the nuclear industry cavalierly undertakes their plan for nuclear-powered mining colonies on the Moon, Mars and other planetary bodies they easily brush off any concerns about impacts,” said Gagnon. “As they make plans to test nuclear reactor rocket engines just over our heads in Lower Earth Orbits (LEO) they discount any concerns of environmental impacts if the tests go wrong. They never talk about the Department of Energy laboratories where these nuclear devices are fabricated with a long history of radioactive contamination of workers, local water tables and air contamination.”
“The space nuclear industry is flying blind—blinded by its devotion to profit and power,” Gagnon declared. “Their hard hearts have no concern about the negative impacts they might create on Earth, to the people and environment, nor any long-term impacts their high-tech nuclear power ‘visions’ might have in space. Their vision is so myopic, so limited, so tunnel like, because their minds are closed to the idea that space is alive and is an environment that we humans who are on this tiny spinning orb called Earth live in. They are colonizers, much like the long-history of earth-bound colonizers, who have raped and pillaged our lovely planet home.”
The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org) founded 30 years ago, in 1992, at a conference in Washington, D.C. is the leading organization internationally challenging the weaponization and use of nuclear power in space. In its description of the August 4th webinar, the American Nuclear Society asserts: “For decades, nuclear energy has played a role, sometimes minor and sometimes major, in humanity’s exploration and research of outer space. Many space experts, scientists, astronauts, and researchers believe that nuclear energy can fundamentally change how we live and work in extraterrestrial environments and that some missions, projects, and endeavors are nearly impossible without the involvement of nuclear technologies. As federal funding is being applied to nuclear projects for various space-based applications and opportunities, an expert panel will discuss how nuclear companies and researchers are poised to capitalize.”
A video recording of the webinar can also be viewed at https://www.ans.org/webinars/view-space2022/
Among the panelists was Michael Anness who, as biographies on the webinar website described, “leads the development new nuclear fuel products and services at Westinghouse Electric Company.” He has been a licensed nuclear reactor operator, it says. Anness spoke of space nuclear projects of Westinghouse Electric, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including “microreactors” that would provide “fission surface power.” Anness said: “I’m kind of a fuel guy so I believe fuel is an enabling platform for space nuclear.”
Also on the panel was Kate Kelly, director for Space and Emerging programs at Lynchburg, Virginia-based BWXT Advanced Technologies and, previously, at BWX was “the Advanced Nuclear Systems Program Manager focused on the development of nuclear project to promote the company’s R&D interests in advanced manufacturing and nuclear thermal propulsion technologies.” She spoke about an “inflection point” on the use of nuclear power in
space having arrived. Said Kelly: “Over the last several years there’s been this re-emerging interest and investment by the government in fission systems for in-space power and propulsion.”
The sixth participant in the webinar was Alex Gilbert who has “expertise in space mining, nuclear innovation, energy markets and climate policy,” says his biography on the webinar website. “As Director of Space & Planetary Regulation at Zeno Power [based in Washington, D.C.], Alex oversees regulatory approvals for space launch, maritime, and terrestrial applications of radioisotope power systems…He was lead author of the U.S. Advanced Nuclear Energy Strategy, which outlined how government and industry can establish U.S. leadership in next generation nuclear reactor markets.”
Gilbert said “we are at a unique moment. I call it a space opportunity.” “He said “we could actually see exponential growth. Right now the space economy is around $400 billion globally. By the middle of the century it could be $4 trillion.” This expansion is a result of factors including a “resurgence in science and exploration and defense activities…and commerce. That is what is driving the interest in space nuclear technologies.” The American Nuclear Society describes itself as comprised of 10,000 members dedicated to “exploring possibilities within the realm of nuclear science and technology.”
King recounted that “I’ve been in and around the space nuclear community for quite a while, ever since 1997, for about 25 years. I remember it was space nuclear that got me into nuclear,” and being told by a nuclear engineer advisor that “space nuclear is going to be the future.”
Nuclear Free Local Authorities support dry storage for safety at Hinkley plant
In a rare example of synergy, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities has
written in support of a proposal by the developer of Hinkley Point C, EDF
Energy, to change the storage of spent fuel at the new plant from wet to
dry.
The NFLA was responding to a consultation called by the Environment
Agency when EDF submitted a request to change one of its agreed operational
conditions relating to storage. The NFLA has always been concerned at the
dangers attendant to storing spent nuclear fuel in cooling ponds and feels
that dry storage is better.
Fuel stored in ponds at nuclear plants in
Ukraine have come under threat in recent months, with fears that
bombardment could release radioactivity. Speaking about the NFLA
submission, Chair Councillor David Blackburn said: “The NFLA remains
opposed to new civil nuclear plants, including Hinkley Point C, but the
reality is that nuclear plants produce waste, and our practical concern is
to ensure that this is stored as safely as possible.
“Our policy on the
storage of nuclear waste differs from that of the UK Government. We favour
the ongoing near-site, near-surface storage of waste, to eliminate the need
for rail transportation and to ensure that waste can be actively monitored,
rather than the government’s preferred ‘dispose and disregard’ approach
of depositing waste in an underground or undersea dump and forgetting about
it.
“The situation at Hinkley Point C may remain unclear for some time.
EDF Energy has announced that the plant will not now be completed until the
summer of 2027 at the earliest, and very possibly later, and the company
will now be required to carry out a redesign of its reactor for safety
reasons following the accident at Taishan-1 in China last year.”
NFLA 17th Aug 2022
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (138)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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
nuclear-news 