What are the known areas and types of radiological contamination and
potential sources of radioactive material (RAM) worldwide? Potential
sources of RAM include but are not limited to reactors, weapons
generating plants, reprocessing plants, spent fuel repositories, and
industrial repackaging facilities.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 03 Jan 2005 08:32 PST

lesotter-ga,

What sort of information are you looking for regarding the sources of RAM?

There are certainly too many sources to list them all individually
(even if such a list were available).  And there's a big difference
between actual contamination (a fairly discrete universe of sites) and
potential contamination (an almost unlimited number of sites).

Do you want a list of major known sites and types of radioactive contamination?  

Do you want summaries of the types of facilities known to handle
radioactive materials?

Any additional perspective you can provide on the particulars of what
you need would be most helpful in researching your question.

Thanks.

pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by lesotter-ga on 03 Jan 2005 09:08 PST

For sources of RAM I am looking for reactors, weapons generating
plants, reprocessing plants, spent fuel repositories, and industrial
repackaging facilities. I guess these would be potential sites of
contamination if they had an accident or were blown up. Also any known
sites that are already contaminated for whatever reason.

I do not want summaries of the types of facilities known to handle
radioactive materials, but rather where these facilities are actually
located. The idea is to be able to indicate on a map where
actual/potential sources of RAM are in any given area.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 03 Jan 2005 12:25 PST

Hello lesotter-ga,

Thanks for the clarification.

I can point you to sources that -- taken together -- list well over
1,000 nuclear/radiological facilities around the world.

The lists are not, themselves, highly detailed.  For instance, the
list with the largest number of facilities includes reactors, research
and assembly facilities, conversion plants, fuel fabrication
facilities, reprocessing plants, nuclear R&D facilities, enrichment
plants, storage facilities, and an assortment of miscellaneous
facilities without a clear-cut category heading.

To give you a bit of the flavor for this list, here are some of the
miscellaneous entries for the Ukraine:


Ukraine:
 
Chernobyl unit 4 shelter ..........Chernobyl 
Khmelnitski FF Storage ..........Neteshin 
KHFTI ..........Kharkov 
Rovno FF Storage ..........Kuznetsovsk 
South Ukraine Storage ..........Yuzhnoukrainsk 
Zaporozhe FF Storage ..........Energodar 
Sevastopol subcritical assembly ..........Sevastopol 
IR-100 RR ..........Sevastopol


There are quite a number of other entries in the Ukraine in the other
categories as well.


Would information at this level of detail for more than 1,000
facilities around the world meet your needs?


Let me know.


pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by lesotter-ga on 03 Jan 2005 13:08 PST

Yes, this information looks good. I think if I can determine what city
the facility is in and what type of facility it is, my needs will be
met. Thank you.

Hello lesotter-ga,

I have to start with a story.

Years ago, I was attending a professional meeting in Paris that was
taking place in the same building that housed the International Atomic
Energy Agency.  As I checked in at security, they mistook me for a
dignatary who was late for a presentation he was to give at the IAEA. 
I was quickly ushered into the VIP elevator and up to the grand
conference space of the IAEA, where I was hastily mis-introduced and
expected to give a talk on the Russian radionuclide situation.

I never knew who was more chagrined, them or me.  But still, the IAEA
holds a special place in my heart.

It also happens to be the agency that collates information from more
than 100 countries around the world in terms of nuclear facilities
that could pose a radiation hazard at some time, and thus need special
oversight.  So, I turned to the IAEA website as my first source of
information and -- with a bit of searching -- came up with this:


http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2003/annex_tables.pdf


This is a link to the Annex tables in the IAEA 2003 annual report.  

In particular, Table A24 is titled:  "Facilities under Agency
safeguards or containing safeguarded material on 31 December 2003".

This table is the motherlode.  It lists more than 1,000 facilities
around the world , grouped by country and by the type of facility. 
The list begins with nuclear power reactors, and begins with
Argentina:

Atucha Nuclear Power Plant in Lima

Embalse Nuclear Power Plant in Embalse

and so on.  


Note that many cities have multiple listings, usually indicating
multiple facilities at a single site.  For instance, seven distinct
nuclear power plants are listed for Kashiwazaki-shi, Niigata-ken,
Japan.


==========

As comprehensive as this report is, there are some glaring omissions. 
For the most part, facilities in the US and Russia are not listed in
this report (I believe that's because the nuclear weapons superpowers
are handled in a different framework by the IAEA).  So, a bit of
fishing around is needed to fill in the missing information.

Russian facilities can be found at other IAEA sites:


http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/cnpp2003/CNPP_Webpage/PDF/2002/Documents/Documents/Russian%20Federation%202002.pdf

Information on nuclear facilities in Russia can be found in Figure 3,
which shows a map of Russian nuclear power plants, while this link:



http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Meetings/2001/MSIMorozov-Session4.pdf
Safety Status Safety Status of Russian Nuclear Research Facilities of
Russian Nuclear Research Facilities


provides a list of spent fuel storage facilities and their cities in
which they are located (page 8).


==========

Information on nuclear facilities in the US can be accessed at the
site of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:


http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/


Among the tabs at the top of the page is one called "Facility Info
Finder".  Click on this to take you to:


http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder.html


which allows you to access information about nuclear facilities throughout the US.


This link provides a list of all nuclear power plants, as well as a map:


http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/#AlphabeticalList


Similarly, here is a map and list of fuel facilities as well as uranium mines:


http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/location-maj-facilities.html



==========


Lastly, this site:


http://www.wano.org.uk/WANO_Documents/WANO_Map/WANO_Map.pdf


provides a highly-detailed world map of nuclear power plants.


==========



This is a huge topic, and I've tried to select the most pertinent
sources of information for the query you posted.  I trust this
information will fully meet your needs, and then some.

However, before rating this answer, please let me know if there's
anything else you need.  Just post a Request for Clarification, and
I'll be happy to assist you further.

All the best with your research....


pafalafa-ga



search strategy:  Used bookmarked sites for nuclear power information,
as well as Google searches on [ nuclear facilities russia 2002..2004 ]
and similar searches for other country names.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by lesotter-ga on 04 Jan 2005 13:16 PST

This information is great! You had mentioned before a "fairly discrete
universe of sites" that could be used to create a list of major known
sites of radioactive contamination. Are these sites of known
contamination included in your answer or is your answer more geared
toward potential sources of contamination if there was an accident?

---

Request for Answer Clarification by lesotter-ga on 04 Jan 2005 13:34 PST

Also, do you know if radiological weapons generating plants are
included in your answer? I am particularly interested in the weapons
part of my question.

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 05 Jan 2005 07:50 PST

lesotter-ga,

Thanks for the feedback -- I glad to hear that the links I provided
are what you needed.

As for your follow-up questions, I want to take a while to make sure
I've identified the best sources.  So hang tight for a few days, and
I'll get back to you with an update.

paf

---

Request for Answer Clarification by lesotter-ga on 07 Jan 2005 10:24 PST

Hi paf,

I posted another question a couple of days ago on identifying the
Known or Suspected CBRNE Manufacture, Storage, and Deployment Sites
Worldwide. Since you are already looking into the 'RN' of these sites,
I wonder if you could be assigned this inquiry also? It looks a s
though it has not been assigned to a researcher yet...

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 09 Jan 2005 13:03 PST

lesotter-ga,

Here's some additional information on nuclear sites (both power
plants, and contaminated sites) that I trust will be useful for you in
your project:



http://www.prop1.org/prop1/radiated/drh.htm
Nuclear Radiation Hazards USA [map]


http://www.prop1.org/prop1/radiated/states.htm
[radiation hazard sites listed by state]


==========


http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/
[nuclear power plants -- good international map collection]


==========


http://www.eh.doe.gov/beta/eren/advocacy/faclist/showfacility.cfm
[This resource lists sites in the US contaminated by nuclear materials
as well as chemical substances involving the US weapons/energy
programs -- it seems it would be a terrific resource not only for this
current question, but for your other question involving non-nuclear
hazards as well]

A typical record looks like this:

=====
Ashland Oil 
Also Known As: Ashland #1
Also Known As: Ashland #2
Also Known As: Ashland Oil Company 
Also Known As: Haist Property
Also Known As: E. Haist and co owners
State: New York     Location: Tonawanda 
Time Period: AWE 1944-1960; 1974-1982    
Facility Type:   Atomic Weapons Employer    

Facility Description: In August 1944, the Manhattan Engineer District
purchased the Ashland #1 property, formerly known as the Haist
Property, for use as a disposal site for approximately 7,250 metric
tons (8,000 tons) of uranium ore tailings and concentrate refining
residues generated at the nearby Linde site. When the uranium residues
were transported to the Ashland #1 site, they were spread over
two-thirds of the property to estimated depths of 0.3 to 1.5 meters
(one to five feet). In 1960, the Atomic Energy Commission determined
that the levels of residual radioactivity at Ashland #1 site were
below then­ current criteria and released the land as surplus. The
Ashland Oil Company eventually acquired the property . From 1957 to
1982, the Ashland Oil Company used a portion of the Ashland #2 site as
a landfill for disposal of general plant refuse and industrial and
chemical wastes and materials. Between 1974 and 1982, Ashland Oil
transported from the Ashland #1 site an unknown quantity of soil mixed
with radioactive residues to the Ashland #2 landfill.
Although the Ashland Oil facility was designated for the Formerly
Utilized Site Remediation Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1984, no actual
remediation under this program occurred prior to its transfer to the
Army Corp.
=====

Search for keyword "radioactive" turns up 48 results -- other terms
[e.g. "uranium" ] produce different lists.  It is also possible to see
the full list of all 366 facilities, which include both nucler and
non-nuclear sites.


 
Again, I hope these help you in your efforts.


As for your other question, I have to be honest -- it just seems an
overwhelming task to me to identify all (or even very many) of the
types of sites you asked about.  I imagine there are literally
millions of such facilities around the world.  However, some of the
resources I already identified -- especially the DOE link above --
should at least be a way to get started.

By the way, the questions posted here are not "assigned" to a
particular researcher -- all the Google Answers researchers can see
all the questions posted, and any one of the researchers that feels
they can answer the question can then "lock" it, and work on an
answer.

It may be the case that the other researchers felt as I do about your
new question -- that it is so broad in scope as to be extremely
difficult to answer.

Best of luck with your work...

pafalafa-ga