Corrosion-hit Civaux most modulated 1.5 GW French unit – study
French utility EDF’s Civaux 2 unit, where EDF recently detected fresh
stress corrosion, was the most modulated of France’s four 1.5 GW nuclear
reactors last year, according to a study by analytics firm Kpler requested
by Montel.
Montel News 3rd July 2025, https://montelnews.com/news/b24ca2fd-a322-4b72-9fc1-de737f3e9fe0/corrosion-hit-civaux-2-most-modulated-1-5-gw-french-unit-study
Seizing Zaporizhzhia: A Meltdown in Nuclear Governance
By Robert Schuett – 30 June 2025, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/30/06/2025/seizing-zaporizhzhia-meltdown-nuclear-governance
This is not just about Ukraine. Robert Schuett argues that Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant signals a broader unravelling of global nuclear governance—one that must urgently be addressed.
“There cannot be a crisis next week,” Henry Kissinger once quipped. “My schedule is already full.”
Decades later, the line reads less like a joke about the work ethic and demands of high office, and more like a grim diagnosis of the current global condition. From the ongoing war in Europe—where Russian armed forces continue their relentless aggression, with recent escalations in Kyiv and Odesa—to the deepening geopolitical fracture in the Middle East, international society is not short on crises, violence, and human suffering.
The real strategic risk for global policy is that when pre-emptive force becomes the de facto tool for upholding non-proliferation principles, the entire framework of nuclear governance begins to fracture.
Yet among them, one threat quietly festers in a war zone on the east bank of the Dnipro River: the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP)—after all, the largest in Europe—located in the city of Enerhodar, in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Overshadowed by battlefield developments and Russia’s broader diplomatic brinkmanship, this overlooked flashpoint risks unravelling the foundational norms of nuclear safety, civilian infrastructure protection, and international law itself.
Captured by Russian forces in March 2022, the facility has become a symbol of everything that should not happen in modern warfare. Russia has consistently ruled out transferring control of the ZNPP—either back to Ukraine, the US, or any international authority. The Kremlin maintains a posture of legal reinterpretation, insisting on its operational authority despite international condemnation.
Although all six reactors remain in cold shutdown, the risk is far from neutralized. The plant now depends on a single functioning high-voltage line to power critical cooling and safety systems, which is a stark contrast to the ten off-site lines it had before the illegal Russian war of aggression. The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023 eliminated its primary cooling reservoir, forcing the plant to rely on makeshift groundwater wells.
Russian forces have reportedly deployed military assets within the facility, further compromising its integrity. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) maintains a presence onsite, its ability to enforce safety protocols is severely limited under conditions of foreign military occupation.
As IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi recently warned, the power supply to Zaporizhzhia remains “extremely fragile,” placing the site, and the entire region, at persistent risk.
This is not merely a technical or regional issue, however. Russia’s nuclear blackmail is a serious threat to global nuclear order.
Russia’s occupation of ZNPP constitutes a rupture in the international legal and regulatory architecture that safeguards civilian nuclear infrastructure. For decades, global norms and laws—rooted in instruments like the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and IAEA guidance—have treated nuclear power plants as protected, non-military assets. Seizing or attacking them was once unthinkable. Russia’s actions have shattered this principle, undermining legal norms from which it has historically benefited.
The twist is as alarming as it is cynical. Russian state entities like Rosatom, which in peacetime present themselves as responsible global stewards of nuclear safety, are now party to an act of strategic subversion and tool of ruthless state power. Rosatom and its subsidiaries regularly construct and operate nuclear plants abroad, complying with international standards and cultivating an image of professionalism. But at Zaporizhzhia, the same actor has helped transfer control of the facility to a newly created Russian-operated entity. The contradiction is jarring: the self-proclaimed guarantor of global nuclear norms is now violating them in pursuit of pseudo-geopolitical gain. Rosatom has recently confirmed its long-term intention to restart ZNPP, despite the unresolved security, political, regulatory, and moral challenges on the ground.
At a strategic level, this selective application of international rules and norms sets a dangerous precedent. If civilian nuclear infrastructure can be seized and operated by military force—while cloaked in the language of regulation—it opens the door to the normalization of impunity. The rulebook governing civilian nuclear conduct risks becoming a tool of expedience rather than a binding constraint. Such erosion undermines not only nuclear safety but also the predictability and trust that underpin broader technical agreements, from arms control to climate-related energy cooperation.
The longer Zaporizhzhia remains a “nuclear hostage,” the more the world risks sleepwalking into disaster. The plant is not operational, but that is no guarantee of safety. The worst-case scenarios, ranging from damage to spent fuel pools, sabotage of safety systems, or collapse of staff morale, are not theoretical. The ongoing uncertainty erodes public trust in nuclear energy, destabilizes non-proliferation efforts, and sends dangerous signals to other regimes watching how the world responds.
Moreover, the moral implications cannot be ignored. Civilian nuclear facilities were never meant to be pawns in geopolitical contests. They exist to serve public needs, not strategic or revanchist ambitions. Allowing one state to weaponize this infrastructure risks eroding the civilian character of nuclear energy itself.
What’s at stake is far more than a single nuclear plant—or even the authority of one international watchdog. This is a stress test for the entire system of rules that keeps the world from tipping into chaos. If the norms protecting nuclear safety can be so casually violated, what’s to stop similar breaches in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, climate regulation, or space?
The responsibility now lies with the international community not only to condemn, but to act. Diplomatic actors—especially those in Europe and within multilateral institutions—must ensure that the Zaporizhzhia crisis remains at the forefront of international attention. It cannot be allowed to drift into the background of conflict fatigue or be buried beneath newer headlines.
Sustained diplomatic pressure, public engagement, and policy innovation are essential to prevent normalization of the unacceptable. The defense of global norms must not be reactive or selective. Rather, it must be proactive, persistent, and principled.
If international society won’t defend longstanding rules at Zaporizhzhia, it may find itself unprepared when those rules collapse everywhere else.
Robert Schuett is co-founder and managing partner at STK Powerhouse, a global risk advisory firm. A former Defence civil servant, he also serves as Chairman of the Austrian Political Science Association and is a long-standing Honorary Fellow at Durham University.
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility’s recommendations opposing the proposed30-year operating licence extension for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (DNGS)
27June 25, Gordon Edwards
Recommendation 1: CCNR urges the Commission to grant Darlington no more than a five-year licence, to incentivize the public to remain engaged on matters of radiological safety, and to pressure the staff of OPG and CNSC to improve their practices related to public heath and safety. In our opinion, under no circumstance should a licence of more than ten years be countenanced.
Comments: The CNSC is expected to review the financial guarantee for decommissioning the Darlington plant every five years. The plant’s safety analysis is expected to be reviewed every 10 years. Why should public input be so underappreciated that it only has to be considered once in three decades?
Suspicions of regulatory capture can only be intensified when regulatory staff meets with industry representatives behind closed doors, decade after decade, without any meaningful public involvement. After all, the CNSC’s primary legal obligations are to the Canadian public, the Canadian environment, and the international community – not to the licencee. Without reasonably frequent public hearings, without listening to the concerns of the public directly, staff may come to regard those legislated responsibilities as more abstract than real. The staff of the licensee and the staff of the regulator become of one mind; the public is seen as an unwelcome intruder.
Ultimately, this is not good for the CNSC or for OPG. CCNR believes it is also not good for the public, or for the trust that CNSC wishes to enjoy from the public.
Recommendation 2: CNSC staff should be required to report to the Commissioners and to the public on a regular basis what efforts are being made to drastically reduce the routine releases of radioactive materials into the environment from Darlington.
Comments: On an annual basis, Darlington releases several hundred trillions of becquerels of radioactive hydrogen (tritium). Tritium is readily incorporated into all living things in the form of radioactive water molecules, as a result of ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin. Tritium emissions from Darlington are far greater than corresponding tritium emissions from any other power reactors in the world, except for other CANDU reactors. Although CNSC and OPG staff are both quick to point out that these tritium emissions are “within regulatory limits”, that does not exonerate CNSC from the responsibility of requiring that such emissions be kept “As Low As Reasonably Achievable”, in accordance with the ALARA principle. All radioactive emissions are ionizing. Ionizing radiation is acknowledged to be a Class 1 carcinogen. No genotoxic carcinogenic material should be disseminated freely into the environment without the strictest possible controls, regardless of whatever regulatory limits may have been established arbitrarily by fiat. There is no science-based rationale for Canada’s tritium standards. It is not honourable to allow such very large releases of radioactive hydrogen to continue unabated for another three decades without any discernible effort to drastically reduce those emissions. Indeed, what efforts have been made in the last 30 years or will be made in the next 30 years to cut these emissions by orders of magnitude? Is that even a goal of the Commission? Or is the operating licence for a nuclear power reactor also a licence to freely pollute ad infinitum?
Similar considerations apply to routine emissions of radioactive carbon-14 from Darlington, which are reported to be at least a trillion becquerels per year or more. Since carbon-14 has a radioactive half-life of 5,700 years, carbon-14 emissions accumulate in the environment year after year as each year’s emissions are simply added to the previous year’s emissions. Carbon-14 from DNGS has been accumulating already for over 30 years, and it will continue to accumulate for the next 30 years if the licence is granted as requested. Thus 1 trillion becquerels per year turns into 60 trillion becquerels overall. What, if anything, is CNSC or OPG doing to prevent this from continuing?
As long ago as 1980, the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs reported that trium and carbon-14 “are easily incorporated into human tissue. Carbon-14 is incorporated into the carbon that comprises about 18 percent of total body weight, including the fatty tissue, proteins and DNA [molecules]. Tritium is incorporated into all parts of the body…. Thus the radiological significance of both elements is not related to their inherent toxicity, as each is a very low energy form of radiation, but to their easy incorporation in the body.”
Recommendation 3: All radioactive releases from Darlington should be posted on-line in real time so the public can be properly notified of those releases as they happen.
Comments: Testimony before the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs in 1979 by Dr. Edward Radford (Professor of Environmental Epidemiology at the Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh) indicated that sudden large pulses of tritium absorbed by a pregnant woman can have a life-long effect on her unborn daughter by causing genetic damage to the baby girl’s eggs – damage that will persist throughout her life and could affect her eventual offspring. In 2023, in just one week, 6,469 curies = 239 trillion becquerels of tritium were released from Darlington. That’s comparable to an entire year’s release of tritium from just one unit happening in just one week. Yet the public has no way of knowing about this sudden massive leak of tritium in order to do what they can to protect themselves and their unborn babies. For these reasons, OPG should be required by CNSC to publicly report all radioactive emissions on-line in real time, so that vulnerable citizens such as pregnant women and parents of young children can choose to vacate the area when sudden large releases of triium or other radionuclides occur.
Recommendation 4: In accordance with its mandate to disseminate objective scientific information, CNSC should publicly declare that it is not correct for anyone to say that nuclear energy is “clean” (or non-polluting).
Comments: In addition to the radioactive hydrogen and radioactive carbon released routinely in large amounts from Darlington, as well as the radioactive iodine, other routine emissions occur. Over 100 million becquerels of radioactive iodine vapour is released annually from Darlington, along with more than 10 million becquerels of radioactive particulates. In addition, millions of becquerels of alpha emitters are released every year from Darlington. Bear in mind that alpha-emitters are hundreds to thousands of times more biologically damaging, per becquerel, than beta-emitters or gamma-emitters. For example, elementary arithmetic shows that one becquerel of plutonium inside the body is about 18,000 times more biologically damaging than one becquerel of tritium at the same location. Tens of trillions of Bq-MeVs of radioactive noble gases are released, that are heavier than air and so stay close to the ground, delivering radioactuve exposures from abve by what is called “skyshine”. Does the Commission ever concern itself with drastically reducing these large routine radioactive emissions? Does the Commission ever feel uneasy when nuclear power is called a “clean” or “non-emitting” energy source in defiance of scientific fact?
Recommendation 5: Darlington Nuclear Generating Station should not be given an operating licence for more than five years. At all future licencing hearings for Darlington, OPG’s detailed plans for dismantling the Darlington reactors should be spelled out in very specific terms and the public should be invited to weigh in on those plans from a community health and safety perspective.
Comments: During a retubing operation at Pickering many years ago, workers were contaminated with carbon-14 dust and carried that contamination into their homes for a period of several weeks. More recently, over 500 workers were contaminated with airborne plutonium dust for a period of several weeks during the refurbishment of Bruce unit 1. In both cases, the contamination was not detected by the standard radiation monitors in place at every nuclear power plant. In both cases, the radioactive contamination was only detected when air samples were analyzed and the offending materials were identified.
Dust that can contaminate the clothing or the lungs of workers, undetected, can equally well blow in the wind and contaminate people and property far from the reactor site. The public should be fully informed of the precise details of OPG’s plans for radioactive demolition, and given a chance to have their own input into those plans. It is possible, indeed likely, that a detailed examination of those plans will lead to the need for a greatly enhanced financial guarantee on the part of OPG to ensure that those plans can be carried out safely and to the complete satisfaction of local residents. It is also important that ratepayers learn the true cost of nuclear decommissioning, which will give a more realistic assessment of the total cost of nuclear-generated electricity.
Recommendation 6: CNSC staff be instructed by the Commission members to commission experts not affiliated with CANDU reactor design, operation, or regulation, to conduct an independent peer review of the calculations that led CNSC staff to conclude that 100 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 is a realistic and acceptable estimate of the “source term” following a severe nuclear accident at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
Comments: CCNR has obtained documentary evidence that this number was arbitrarily chosen by CNSC staff without any credible accident scenario to support that number. CCNR analysts have also examined the 2015 CNSC document Study of Consequences of a Hypothetical Severe Nuclear Accident and Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. In paragraph one of section 3.1, the authors of the report state that a “large release” of radioactivity is, by definition, any release of more than 100 terabecquerels of cesium-137. Anything less than 100 TBq does not even qualify as a large release. Then, in the second paragraph of section 3.1, the authors arbitrarily select that very number, the lowest possible number, namely 100 terabecquerels, as their assumed large release from Darlington. In doing so staff ignores its own definition, that all large releases must be greater than that amount. Please note that the authors of the CNSC report have simply chosen the lowest possible number that can be used to describe a large radioactive release, and they have used that number as an estimate of what a large release at Darlington might actually be. Despite promising to do so, the authors fail to describe or refer to any realistic accident scenario that would in fact result in such a small radioactive release of cesium-137.
Using straightforward calculations, CCNR estimates that a typical Darlington core contains a total of at least 55,000 trillion becquerels of cesium-137. Since there are 480 fuel channels in each Darlington reactor, each channel contains about 114.6 trillion becquerels of cesium-137. At a temperature of 1500 degrees C (well below the melting point of the fuel) the exposed fuel will release about 25% of the cesium inventory in one hour. In the event of severe core damage, all of the cesium released from the overheated fuel will escape from the calandria because the rupture disks on top will have exploded, providing an unfiltered pathway for the cesium vapour to escape into the containment. Given the fact that each of the 480 fuel channels can release 57 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 in one hour, it is impossible to believe that only 100 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 will find its way out into the environment, given the relatively leaky containment system that exists at Darlington.
Recommendation 7: OPG should not be given an operating licence for a period of more than five years, and all future licencing hearings for Darlington should include a detailed re-evaluation of Emergency Measures in accordance with a more realistic estimated source term.
Comments: In the event of a severe accident in a CANDU reactor, leading to a truly large release of radioactivity, emergency measures that are currently predicated on a maximum release of 100 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 will be woefully inadequate. Radioactive cesium contamination of homes and properties will be far greater, more extensive, and persistent, than currently considered possible. Residential and commercial areas closest to the Darlington plant may well remain uninhabitable for decades, as we learned from bitter experiuence at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Considering the enormous volume of radioactively contaminated water that was flushed into the Pacific Ocean following the Fukushima accident, including the 1.2 million tons of radioactive water that is currently being dumped into the Pacific, one can only wonder about the deleterious effects on Lake Ontario and the millions of people that draw their drinking water from the Lake. Canadians deserve an honest, science-based, realistic assessment of what the consequences of a severe nuclear accident might be in Canada. The CNSC has an obligation to provide them with objective scientifically based information, not self-serving efforts to low-ball the risk estimates for public relations purposes. The public will have to be consuilted more frequently rather than less frequently. Their right to a healthy body and a healthy environment cannot be taken for granted for thirty yeards at a time. Shame on OPG for even suggesting such a thing.
One final word. CCNR fully supports the position of Dr. Frank Greening against wasting valuable hearing time by allowing private profit-making parties or other project-supporting groups to have equal time with public or indigenous intervenors who are addressing legitimate matters of public health and safety or environmental integrity that are fundamental to the core mission of CNSC as a regulator. The time saved by eliminating such promotional testimony can be used to extend the time available for other presenters to make their interventions, or to provide closing argumants near the end of the proceedings as would be permitted in a judicial setting.
Revealed: 585 cracks in Torness nuclear reactor
Rob Edwards, The Ferret 26th June 2025
The estimated number of cracks in the graphite core of a nuclear reactor at Torness in East Lothian has risen to 585 – the highest so far – prompting fears of a nuclear “meltdown” and calls for its early closure.
In documents released under freedom of information law, the UK Government’s safety watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), said that the state of the graphite core posed a “significant challenge” to plans to keep Torness and other ageing nuclear stations running over the next five years.
In November 2024 ONR advised the French operator, EDF Energy, to “pause for thought” before deciding to extend the lives of Torness and other nuclear stations in England. Less than a week later EDF decided to extend the life of Torness from 2028 to 2030.
Campaigners accused EDF of putting profits before safety, and warned that keeping “clapped out reactors” running would endanger the public. It was “time for these ageing reactors to be closed”, they said.
EDF, however, insisted that nuclear safety was its “overriding priority” and that it would not consider operating Torness unless it was “confident it was safe”. Planned closure dates for reactors were “kept under review”, it said.
ONR said that cracking was “a well known phenomenon”, and that the number of cracks was “acceptable”. It stressed that the risks were “tolerable”, and that it would not allow any nuclear plant to operate “unless we are satisfied that it is safe.”
The Ferret previously reported that 46 cracks had been detected in April 2024 in the graphite bricks that surround the highly radioactive uranium fuel powering one of the two reactors at Torness. The first three cracks were found in February 2022.
But only a small proportion of the bricks were actually inspected, and no estimate has previously been given for the total number of cracks across the core. Following a freedom of information request by The Ferret, ONR has now disclosed that 59 cracks were found in a similarly limited inspection in March 2025.
In its response, ONR said that this “equated to around 585 cracks when forecast across the central area of the core where cracking is expected”. The high number of cracks did not “challenge safety margins” at Torness, it said.
EDF confirmed that it had found 59 cracks in the graphite bricks it sampled in March 2025. This suggested that in total around a third of the central part of the core had cracking, equivalent to about 585 cracks, it said.
ONR also revealed that another inspection in May 2025 discovered the first crack in the second reactor at Torness. It started generating electricity later than the first reactor.
Torness nuclear power station, near Dunbar, was officially opened in May 1989 by the then Conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. The site had been the target of anti-nuclear protests since 1978.
Scotland’s other nuclear power station at Hunterston in North Ayrshire was closed down in January 2022, more than a year earlier than planned. This followed the discovery of an estimated 586 cracks in its two reactors.
‘Pause for thought’ on Torness
ONR also released to The Ferret the results of its assessment of EDF’s 2024 review of extending the lives of Torness, and other advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) at Heysham, near Lancaster, and Hartlepool, on the north east coast of England.
Three scenarios were reviewed. One assumed Torness closed as planned in 2028, a second assumed its operation was extended to 2030, and a third envisaged keeping it going until 2032.
ONR concluded that because of cracking and other issues, “graphite represents one of EDF’s significant challenges for lifetime extension”. It also highlighted a series of other potential ageing problems with AGRs, including risks from leaking boilers, failing equipment, and corrosion.
“It is possible that safe operation of certain components might be undermined due to life extension,” ONR said. There were a number of issues which had not been fully covered in EDF’s review, it argued.
“Although these are not considered a blocker to potential life extensions, ONR expects EDF to manage and resolve these issues as part of its lifetime management of the AGRs,” ONR added.
“Moreover, coupled with the aspects identified by EDF in the submissions, this should give EDF pause for thought when reaching a decision on AGR lifetime extensions.”
ONR wrote to EDF with its advice on 27 November 2024. On 3 December – less than a week later – EDF decided to extend the life of Torness from 2028 to 2030, and to extend the lives of its English AGR stations.
Another document released by ONR was a June 2024 assessment of the “structural integrity” of the graphite core of the more badly cracked reactor at Torness. The majority of the 35-page document was redacted “for the purposes of safeguarding national security”.
The ONR assessment found “shortfalls” in the crack predictions made by EDF, and concluded that this “raises a question” over the company’s “ability to predict the future core state”. At the time ONR nevertheless gave EDF permission to keep running Torness on the grounds that the risks were “tolerable”.
The nuclear critic and consultant, Peter Roche, argued that there was “a significant design difference” which could make cracking at Torness worse than at Hunterston. “Graphite debris in the fuel channels or misshapen bricks could compromise the operator’s ability to keep the fuel cool and in a worst case lead to a meltdown,” he claimed.
This risked releasing radioactivity into the environment. “Clearly it’s time for these ageing reactors to be closed,” Roche said. “Keeping them open would be gambling with public safety.”
The veteran environmental campaigner, Dr Richard Dixon, accused EDF of trying to cover the costs of building new nuclear plants. “It cannot be a coincidence that running Torness for an extra two years would ease EDF’s major financial woes caused by the massive delays to its reactor projects elsewhere,” he said
“EDF’s inability to complete reactor projects anything remotely like on time or on budget should not mean that the public in Scotland face the extra risk of running clapped out reactors ever further past their sell-by date.”
The Scottish Greens described the Torness cracks as “potentially dangerous”. It was “deeply concerning” that EDF was planning to keep the station going until 2030, according to the party’s energy spokesperson and retiring co-leader, Patrick Harvie MSP.
“It appears that the profits of a giant energy company are being put ahead of safety here in Scotland,” he told The Ferret. EDF is owned by the French government, and earnt £15.6bn (€18.3bn) before interest and taxes in 2024…………………………………………………………..
https://theferret.scot/nuclear-reactor-torness-585-cracks/
EU and UK make contributions to EBRD-managed Chornobyl ICCA fund
EBRD 26th June 2025,
https://www.ebrd.com/home/news-and-events/news/2025/eu-and-uk-make-contributions-to-ebrd-managed-chornobyl-icca-fund.html
- EU and United Kingdom pledge up to €31.7 million to EBRD-managed International Chernobyl Cooperation Account
- Contributions will help fund emergency repairs to New Safe Confinement
- Total cost of emergency repairs could exceed €100 million
The European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom will make contributions to the EBRD-managed International Chernobyl Cooperation Account (ICCA) as part of ongoing international efforts to support the restoration of the key functions of the New Safe Confinement (NSC) at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant (ChNPP) in Ukraine.
The EU will contribute up to €25 million, while the United Kingdom will contribute up to €6.7 million, with both pledges being made at today’s ICCA Assembly meeting in London. The money will be used to fund emergency repairs to the NSC following the Russian drone attack in February 2025.
That strike has severely affected the NSC’s two primary functions: (i) containing radiological hazards and (ii) supporting long-term decommissioning. Key systems designed to ensure the NSC’s 100-year lifespan have been rendered non-operational, with a significant risk of further deterioration in the absence of swift emergency repairs. While it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of repairs to the NSC at the moment, the scale of the damage and the complex radiological environment suggest that the total cost of the emergency works could exceed €100 million.
Balthasar Lindauer, EBRD Nuclear Safety Department Director, said, “These new pledges to the ICCA are a manifestation of the international community’s unwavering support for Chornobyl and its togetherness in the face of the major radiological threat that the damaged NSC poses. We are grateful to the EU and the United Kingdom for their contributions to the ICCA.”
The ICCA was established by the EBRD in November 2020 at the request of the Ukrainian government. It was set up as a multilateral fund to support the development of a comprehensive plan for Chornobyl. The EBRD manages the ICCA, which currently holds some €25 million in donor funds. Following the occupation of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) at the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the scope of the ICCA was broadened to support the restoration of safety and security within the CEZ, as well as wider nuclear safety measures across Ukraine.
The international community has contributed around €2 billion to EBRD-managed programmes in Chornobyl since 1995. In addition, the Bank has made more than €800 million of its net income available for Chornobyl-related projects.
‘Conspicuous’ Small Modular Nuclear Reactors need fresh police funding model, security expert warns
23 Jun, 2025 By Tom Pashby New Civil Engineer 23rd June 2025
A proliferation of small modular reactors (SMRs) across England and Wales, expanding the number of reactors and types of locations they are deployed in, means the country needs a fresh police funding model for SMR security, an expert has said.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/conspicuous-smrs-need-fresh-police-funding-model-security-expert-warns-23-06-2025/
From Iran to Everywhere, We Live in Terror of the “Peaceful Atom Apocalypse”
No big city in the US, Europe or Asia is immune to annihilation from the fallout that could be imposed by a single drone, seismic shock or tsunami hitting a single atomic reactor. Millions of downwind humans will die, trillions in economic and ecological damage will threaten the ability of our species to survive on this planet.
Renewables could save a global economy and ecology now death threatened by both atomic warheads and nuclear reactors.
by Harvey “Sluggo” Wasserman, June 22, 2025, https://freepress.org/article/iran-everywhere-we-live-terror-%E2%80%9Cpeaceful-atom-apocalypse%E2%80%9D
Donald Trump has opened the military door to an atomic apocalypse.
But it’s likeliest to come through the “Peaceful Atom Window.”
The 400+ atomic power reactors (94 in the US) now operating worldwide are all sitting ducks for low-tech attack.
Iran or any other nation or terror group, with or without a nuclear warhead, can blow apart any commercial reactor with a single drone.
The resulting apocalypse can be spreading as you read this.
Commercial atomic power makes nuclear warheads ridiculously obsolete. The Trump/Netanyahu attacks on Iran’s alleged bomb factories ae marginal at most to today’s atomic reality.
Once blown apart by a drone, earthquake, tsunami, human error, equipment failure or simple sabotage, any atomic reactor can irradiate a continent, an ocean… the planet as a whole.
All commercial reactors operating in the world today are without comprehensive private insurance.
They are sitting naked ducks…absurdly vulnerable to a simple low-level attack from a single combatant with a drone, mortar, instrument of sabotage.
Fallout from Chernobyl, in 1986, irradiated most of Europe, much of Asia, and was detected all the way across the continental US. Twice.
It killed at least a million humans and cost at least a trillion dollars, probably far more – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2974725
Billions of gallons of lethal radioactive liquid still pour into the Pacific Ocean from the 2011 disaster at Fukushima, with no end in sight, and no credible way to gauge the permanent damage to our global ecosystems. But radioactive tuna did turn up within weeks off the coast of California.
Fukushima spewed more than 100X more radioactive cesium into the air than the combined Bombings at Hiroshima & Nagasaki – https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/ocean-human-lives/pollution/radiation/fukushima-radiation/faqs-radiation-from-fukushima/#:~:text=Cesium%2D137%20and%20%2D134%20were,direct%20threat%20to%20marine%20life.
If Iran or any other nation, however small, with or without actual atomic weaponry, were serious about inflicting unlimited radioactive damage on a perceived enemy or the planet as a whole, it does not need a warhead or a missile….just a single drone to take down an atomic reactor.
Thus the Trump/Netanyahu attack on Iran’s warhead production is of zero military meaning. It offers the world no respite from the threat of atomic annihilation.
Russia’s Putin has already served many warnings. On February 14, 2025, he crashed a drone into the sarcophagus that covers the still-steaming exploded core at Chernobyl, inflicting millions in damage and threatening the world with another apocalyptic release.
Putin’s mortar shells continue to fly around and about the dozen commercial reactors perched like eggshells in the Ukrainian war zone.
None are protected with multi-billion-dollar shields like the one at Chernobyl. After seventy years in development, no US reactor can get private insurance against a catastrophic disaster.
The two reactors at Diablo Canyon, California, are more than 40 years old. They’re internally embrittled, hopelessly fragile, surrounded by seismic faults, violating state and federal environmental laws, gouging California with the continental US’s highest electric bills. An apocalyptic cloud will inevitably pour down the coast into Los Angeles when the “Big One” turns those reactors into radioactive rubble.
The global insurance industry has de facto pronounced these reactors “UNSAFE!” by refusing to cover liability for a major disaster.
No big city in the US, Europe or Asia is immune to annihilation from the fallout that could be imposed by a single drone, seismic shock or tsunami hitting a single atomic reactor. Millions of downwind humans will die, trillions in economic and ecological damage will threaten the ability of our species to survive on this planet.
Thus the Trump/Netanyahu attack on Iran’s atomic weaponry has in no way made our species safer. On a planet filled with atomic reactors, atomic warheads are an afterthought.
Thankfully, ALL these reactors can be rapidly replaced with solar, wind, geothermal, battery storage, efficiency and other Solartopian technologies that are safer, cheaper, cleaner, more reliable, more job producing and faster to build than anything fossil/nuclear.
They could save a global economy and ecology now death threatened by both atomic warheads and nuclear reactors.
Without eliminating BOTH, our species has no future.
———————————————————————-
Harvey “Sluggo” Wasserman wrote SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, & co-wrote KILLING OUR OWN: THE DISASTER OF AMERICA’S EXPERIENCE WITH ATOMIC RADIATION. Most Mondays he co-convenes the Green Grassroots Emergency Election Protection Coalition Zooms (www.grassrootsep.org)
Why does the U.S. get to play nuclear cop?
24 June 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/why-does-the-u-s-get-to-play-nuclear-cop/
I’ve always wondered why the U.S., with its massive nuclear arsenal, gets to dictate who can or cannot join the nuclear club. The airstrikes President Trump ordered on Iran’s nuclear facilities pushed me to dig into this question. Spoiler: it’s less about fairness… it’s more about power.
The Unequal Nuclear Order
The U.S. was the first to build the bomb and is one of five “recognised” nuclear powers under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), alongside Russia, China, France, and the UK. These nations, permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, hold sway over global security rules. The NPT allows them to keep their arsenals while promising eventual disarmament – a promise largely unkept. Non-nuclear signatories agree not to develop weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear tech, but the deal feels rigged when the “haves” modernise their stockpiles.
The U.S., with roughly 3,708 warheads leads this unequal system. From 2013 to 2022, it spent $634 billion upgrading its nuclear arsenal, with plans to continue through to 2030. Yet it demands compliance from others, arguing that proliferation risks global instability. Fair? Hardly.
Iran and U.S. Strategic Interests
Iran’s nuclear program is a flashpoint because of its defiance, anti-Israel rhetoric, and support for groups like Hezbollah. The U.S. and allies – particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia – see a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to Middle East power dynamics. U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, framed as preventing NPT violations, aimed to delay Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. But Iran, an NPT signatory, claimed its program was for energy, a right the treaty technically grants. It is worth noting that the U.S.’s 2018 withdrawal (under Trump) from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal – ”an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief” – undermined diplomacy, pushing Iran toward escalation.
Meanwhile, non-NPT states such as Israel, India, and Pakistan face less scrutiny. Israel’s nuclear arsenal and U.S. alliance shield it, while India’s strategic role against China earns it a pass. This double standard – punishing adversaries while sparing allies – would no doubt fuel resentment.
Sovereignty and Escalation Risks
Unilateral actions like bombing Iran’s facilities bypass international consensus, violate sovereignty and risk wider conflict. A hypothetical Washington Post poll (paywalled) from June 18, 2025, showed only 25% of Americans supporting such strikes, with 45% opposing and 70% fearing war with Iran. The White House argued preemption was necessary to stop a rogue state, but this ignores how U.S. policies, like JCPOA abandonment, escalate tensions.
As someone who fiercely opposes nuclear weapons entirely, I nonetheless find it hypocritical that a nuclear-armed U.S. polices others for seeking the same leverage. The NPT’s structure, enforced by powerful states, prioritises stability over equality. The U.S. claims to protect global security, but its actions often protect its own dominance.
A Path Forward
The nuclear order needs reform. Instead of airstrikes or sanctions, the U.S. should lead by example, pursuing multilateral disarmament and strengthening diplomatic frameworks such as the JCPOA. Until nuclear powers honour their NPT commitments, their enforcement will smack of hypocrisy, alienating nations and risking conflict. True security lies in a world free of nuclear weapons, not one where bullies set the rules.
Trump’s “Unleashing Atomic Power” is Unhinged
June 19, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/trumps-unleashing-atomic-power-unhinged/
Without explanation, on June 16, 2025, President Trump unceremoniously fired Democrat Commissioner Christopher Hanson from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as the first senior manager causality initiating a slash and burn attack on commercial nuclear power regulatory oversight. Hanson’s second term of office was to have expired in 2029. Hanson’s abrupt removal follows a barrage of White House Executive Orders by decree of the Trump Administration “to unleash nuclear power” from a federal regulator pilloried by industry and its bipartisan political allies as “risk-averse” and “safety zealots” preventing the rapid expansion of new reactor licensing and extending operating license renewals of deteriorating reactors to an extreme 80 years.
None of these industry lobbied accusations are true. For years, the NRC has in fact been shifting away from prescriptive regulation to “risk-informed” regulation that Beyond Nuclear and other public interest organizations have criticized as “gambling” at the expense of public safety margins to protect nuclear industry profit margins. After all, what is gambling but considering risk to gain monetary reward which in this case is for an inherently dangerous and aging technology.
Following the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct2005), Congress and President G.W. Bush provided billions of US taxpayer dollars to incentivize a so-called “nuclear renaissance” of new “advanced” reactor construction with federal loan guarantees, new reactor production tax credits, and streamlined new reactor licensing to grease the skid. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) published its 2007 report to Congress “Nuclear Power: Outlook for New Reactors” assessing EPAct2005’s impact to prop up the federal revival and cited the industry pledge to cash in on taxpayer money for 34+ units in new reactor projects. The NRC staff and Commissioners took full advantage of the politics. NRC speeded up its license review process that now combined construction and operating applications (COL) into one convenient licensing hearing while cutting back on the public’s due process. Of those pledges, only two projects for four units [V.C. Summer 2 & 3 (SC) and Vogtle 3 & 4 (GA)] managed to muster the financing and only then by using electricity rate hikes paid by utility customers in advance for construction work in progress.
Here’s the reality check: of those 34+ units, only two units awarded COLs by NRC, Vogtle 3 & 4, that were originally estimated at total completion costs of $14 billion, managed to finish construction seven years behind schedule in 2023 and 2024 at a total construction cost well exceeding $35 billion.
Of the remaining 32 units identified in the CRS report, an additional 12 units were provided COLs by NRC licensing boards to start construction. Only V.C. Summer 2 & 3 started construction that was abandoned mid-construction with $10 billion in sunk cost, again, largely at the expense of its captured ratepayers. The remainder were cancelled, withdrawn or terminated by construction cost-averse utilities. As of March 2025, the NRC reports that five US nuclear power companies still hold NRC-approved COL applications for 8 “advanced” reactor units that have not been acted upon because of the projected uncontrollable construction costs.
The NRC did its part to fast track reactor licensing. It was the utilities that by and large financially chickened out.
Still, to some Commissioners’ credit, it was NRC Democrat then Chairman Christopher Hanson and Democrat Commissioner Jeff Baran who on February 24, 2022 astutely heeded Beyond Nuclear’s and other intervenors appeals filed in response to the dismissal of their request for relicensing hearings on a contention illuminating a glaring “error of law” that was being ignored and ramrodded by the NRC. The NRC relicensing process was simply carrying over its environmental review completed for the “initial” or first 20 years of license renewal (40 to 60 years of operation) into the “subsequent” or second 20 year extension of operations (60 to 80 years) without adequately upgrading its environmental review analysis, more specifically for impacts of “climate change” projected into that future operating period. The piling up a regulatory train wreck of seriously flawed Subsequent License Renewal Applications and bungled regulatory decisions.
The agency and their licensees were repeatedly violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by NRC staff, the Office of General Counsel, numerous Atomic Safety Licensing Boards and the previous Commission to ramrod operating licensing renewals for a second 20 year extension (60 to 80 years) without updating the letter of the law to require environmental reviews to take a “hard look” at the projected extension period and do the analysis on the potential impacts of climate change (sea level rise, increasing intense hurricanes and storms, floods, etc.) on increased severe nuclear accident risk and frequency of nuclear accidents as a result.
In the 2 to 1 vote the seated Commission vote (Hanson and Baran vs. Republican Commissioner David Wright) issued NRC Orders to send the federal agency back to the drawing board to rewrite the Subsequent License Renewal Rule’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) to specifically make it relevant to the 60 to 80 year projected operating time frame. The NRC spent nearly two years in it rewrite of the license renewal rule to comply with NEPA only to remain a stubbornly captured federal agency by industry lobbyists funding and Congress. The rewrite of the GEIS came back without the agency addressing climate change and now claiming that climate change is “out of scope” of reactor operation environmental reviews. Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club are currently before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in request of a judicial review of the NRC’s flagrant and continued violation of NEPA by ignoring climate change impacts on increasingly extreme relicensing periods.
Unfortunately for nuclear safety, Hanson and Baran’s attention to the letter of the law earned them both the enduring scorn and ultimately revenge of the nuclear industry and their devoted political champions.
The energy trade journal Nuclear Intelligence Weekly reported June 6, 2025 that, “[t]he White House campaign to erode the NRC’s independence comes alongside fresh fears that President Donald Trump might fire some or all of the five NRC commissioners.” Meanwhile, Trump’s scandalous Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is now plotting to make deep cuts in NRC staffing levels and divert more attention from public safety margins and environment protection to focus a leaner agency work force on expanding the industry production agenda and gold plated science. Shortly after Hanson’s abrupt dismissal, Trump renominated NRC Chairman David Wright, a Republican whose current term of office as NRC Chairman expires on June 30, 2025, and renewed his post for another 5-year term as one of the Commissioners.
Which raises the question, will President Trump fill the NRC Chair seat once empty with his handpicked Republican nominee to swing the Commission vote back to a 3-2 Republican advantage? The goal being to erase any notions of a “risk-averse” NRC, shutdown the agency’s public transparency and regulatory accountability and dangerously unhinging the national nuclear energy policy.
Improvements required following Barrow nuclear submarine site fire
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has served an enforcement notice
on BAE Systems Marine Ltd (BAESML) following a fire at the
Barrow-in-Furness site in Cumbria. ONR’s enquiries found that five
employees entered an area in the Devonshire Dock Hall facility when the
fire was still in progress on 30 October 2024. As a result, two employees
were taken to hospital for treatment. Both employees were discharged and
returned to work on the same day. Enquiries concluded that the licensee’s
arrangements for ensuring workers did not enter places of danger without
the appropriate safety instructions were inadequate. There was also a lack
of guidance to inform staff of their required actions in the event of a
fire.
ONR 16th June 2025, https://www.onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2025/06/improvements-required-following-barrow-fire/
Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites ‘risk radioactive releases’
Nuclear chiefs warn that Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites mark a dangerous violation of international protocol.
Kieron Monks, June 14, 2025
Nuclear chiefs warn that Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites mark a
dangerous violation of international protocol. Israeli attacks on Iranian
nuclear sites are a ‘deeply concerning’ development, the IAEA says.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said his agency was in contact with
Iranian authorities to assess the impact of Israeli strikes on “nuclear
security and safety.” Grossi reported that there were no “elevated
radiation levels” at the Natanz complex after it came under fire. Another
key nuclear site, Fordow, was reportedly also targeted.
“This development is deeply concerning,” said Grossi. “I have repeatedly stated that
nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or
circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.” He
further noted “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in
radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the
boundaries of the State which has been attacked” and called for
“maximum restraint to avoid further escalation.” US intelligence
currently assesses that Iran has not moved to weaponise its nuclear
programme, although it has enriched uranium beyond the level required for
civilian use.
iNews 14th June 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/world/israeli-strikes-on-iran-nuclear-sites-risk-radioactive-releases-3749016
Sellafield failing to address ‘intolerable risks’, damning parliamentary report warns
Sam Baker, Staff reporter, The Chemical Engineer, 6 June 25
MANAGEMENT of the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria, UK is not responding quickly enough to “intolerable risks” at the site posed by ageing assets, a damning new report has warned.
In the report published yesterday, the UK Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a group of MPs tasked with evaluating the cost-effectiveness of public spending projects, said that deteriorating assets are making the site “increasingly unsafe”.
Sellafield, the UK’s oldest nuclear site, has been in the long process of decommissioning since it stopped generating power in 2003, overseen by wholly state-owned Sellafield Ltd, and now works primarily in processing spent nuclear fuel.
The PAC’s report found that sluggish progress in decommissioning Sellafield has meant Sellafield Ltd has missed most of its annual targets in retrieving waste. This includes radioactive waste currently stored in Sellafield’s Magnox Swarf Storage Silo (MSSS), the UK’s most hazardous building.
After setting a target to have emptied the MSSS of waste by 2046, Sellafield Ltd now does not expect to achieve this until between 2054 and 2059. Problems at the MSSS are also behind the plant’s “single biggest environmental issue” – radioactive water has been leaking into the ground since 2018. Sellafield Ltd has confirmed that radioactive particles are “contained” in the soil and that there is no risk to the public…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Money not well spent
The current estimate for the total cost to the public of decommissioning Sellafield is £136bn (US$184bn), with completion expected no earlier than 2125, although problems identified by the PAC are likely to see the cost rise and the completion delayed.
One example of overspend highlighted in the report was the water sample lab refurbishment, which the PAC said was “very poorly managed” leading to a “waste” of £127m.
The report also resurfaced past issues of bullying and harassment at Sellafield, which the NDA settled in 2023-24 for £377,200. The PAC pointed out that Sellafield Ltd has signed 16 non-disclosure agreements in the last three years. These are separate from the Official Secrets Act which most staff routinely sign when joining Sellafield.
Clifton-Brown acknowledged the “early indications of some improvement” at Sellafield but said that the “government must do far more to hold all involved immediately accountable to ensure these do not represent a false dawn, and to better safeguard both the public purse and the public itself”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Not going underground
Sellafield’s troubles this week do not end with the PAC report. On Tuesday, Lincolnshire County Council withdrew its candidacy to host a geological disposal facility (GDF) that could store radioactive plutonium for thousands of years once retrieved from stockpiles at Sellafield.
As recently as July 2024, a site in Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire was a leading candidate to build the GDF. However, the newly elected council, led since May 2025 by Reform UK, this week revoked its membership of the nuclear waste community partnership, which council leader Sean Matthews described as a “nuclear nightmare”.
Announcing the results of the vote to withdraw membership, Matthews, a former London police officer, said: “Now, Lincolnshire people can get back to living their lives, assured that this nuclear nonsense is over.” https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/sellafield-failing-to-address-intolerable-risks-damning-parliamentary-report-warns/
Zaporizhzhia ‘extremely fragile’ relying on single off-site power line, IAEA warns
Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has just one remaining power line for essential nuclear safety and security functions, compared with its original 10 functional lines before the military conflict with Russia, warned Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The off-site power situation at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is “extremely fragile,” Grossi said, since its last 330-kilovolt backup line has remained disconnected since the plant lost access to it on May 7. It is unclear when it will be restored.
As a result, Zaporizhzhia is entirely dependent on the last remaining 750-kV line for the external electricity required to operate the plant’s nuclear safety systems and cool its nuclear fuel.
After Russia took control of Zaporizhzhia in early 2022, the plant has lost all access to off-site power eight times, but it was usually restored within a day, according to the IAEA.
Quotable: “We are actively engaged. I have been discussing with the [energy] minister, with the Ukrainian regulator, and also, of course, with the Russian side, because they are in control of the plant. The idea is to be talking to everybody when it comes to safety,” Grossi said during a press conference Tuesday during his visit to Kyiv, Ukraine.
Grossi warned that even though Zaporizhzhia has not been operating for some three years now, its reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel still require continuous cooling, for which electricity is needed to run the water pumps.
“There are only two [power lines] in operation—one 750-kV and another 330-kV—which are intermittently down because of a number of situations… attacks or interruptions, we do not know,” Grossi added in his remarks. “The repair works have been performed but what we expect is this quite unpredictable situation will continue.”
“We have to move to a more stable situation, and this, of course, depends on overall political negotiation, which will lead to less—or, ideally, no—military activity around the plant.” Grossi said. “Absent that, what we are doing [and] what everyone is doing is (trying) to avoid the worst (and) repair it as soon as possible. Try to ensure outside power supply whenever it falls down.” Grossi plans to visit Russia as part of his regular contacts with both sides to ensure nuclear safety and security during the conflict.
A closer look: In addition to the lack of off-site power backup, on May 22 the IAEA reported a drone strike at Zaporizhzhia’s training center—the third such incident so far this year. There were no casualties or major damage; however, one person died in April 2024 when a drone struck the plant’s main containment building.
Ukraine blames Russia for the strikes, but Russia has denied responsibility.
The Zaporizhzhia-based IAEA team continues to monitor and assess other aspects of nuclear safety and security at the plant. They conducted a walkdown last week to measure and confirm stable levels of cooling water in the site’s 12 sprinkler ponds and visiting its two fresh fuel storage facilities, where no nuclear safety or security issues were observed.
The IAEA team has reported hearing military activities on most days over the past week, at different distances away from the power plant, Grossi said.
At Ukraine’s three operating nuclear plants—Khmelnytskyi, Rivne and South Ukraine—three of the nine total reactors are in planned outage for refueling and maintenance.
IAEA team members at these sites also continue to hear military activities nearby. At South Ukraine, the IAEA team saw a drone being shot at by antiaircraft fire on May 23, and plant workers reported that 10 drones were observed 2.5 kilometers (about 1.55 miles) south of the site the same evening. Also on May 23, Chernobyl workers saw two drones flying just a few miles from the site. And the IAEA team at the Khmelnytskyi plant was required to shelter on-site last Monday.
A superhighway to nuclear hell
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/06/02/a-superhighway-to-nuclear-hell/
Trump’s reckless and accelerated nuclear orders would destroy safety oversight and endanger the public, writes Linda Pentz Gunter
On May 23rd, with several strokes of his pen, President Trump issued orders that would roll back US energy policy about 50 years.
On that day, Trump signed five Executive Orders (EOs): Restoring Gold Standard Science; Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base; Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy; and Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security. (This page keeps a running tally of all the White House executive orders.
All of this madness was announced in a press release headlined “President Trump Signs Executive Orders to Usher in a Nuclear Renaissance, Restore Gold Standard Science.” Just in case there was any confusion about what this meant, the press release included an explanation that read: “Gold Standard Science is just that—science that meets the Gold Standard.”
Collectively, the four orders that focused on the nuclear sector would: reduce and undermine the already inadequate safety oversight authority of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); fast-track unproven new reactor projects without regard for safety, health or environmental impacts; curtail or possibly even end public intervention; weaken already insufficient radiation exposure standards; and reopen the pathway between the civil and military sectors, all while “unleashing” (Trump’s favorite verb) nuclear power expansion on a dangerous and utterly unrealistic accelerated timeline.
The precursive warning shot to all this had been fired on February 5th with Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s own Executive Order: Unleashing the Golden Era of American Energy Dominance, ‘dominance’ being another of Trump’s favorite big beautiful words, along with ‘big’ and ‘beautiful’ (—see his One Big Beautiful Bill Act.) “It’s time for nuclear, and we’re going to do it very big,” Trump told industry executives when he signed the orders.
Perhaps it’s no surprise to find that ‘dominance’ appears 35 times in the Heritage Foundation’s 2023 handbook, Authoritarianism for Dummies, officially known as Project 2025. Variations on the word ‘unleash’ appear 19 times. ‘Tremendous’ shows up 11 times. So does ‘gold standard’.
Which brings us to the fifth executive order of May 23, Restoring Gold Standard Science. While it does not specifically reference nuclear power, the order determines a hierarchy that will put political appointees in charge of specialized federal agencies, including the NRC. The order also itemizes a set of requirements on how scientific research and activities must be conducted, including “without conflicts of interest.”
But guess whose stocks soared after the release of Trump’s nuclear Executive Orders? Answer: Oklo, the company attempting to deliver the first US micro-reactors. Guess who was on the board of Oklo before his appointment as Trump’s Energy Secretary? Yes, Chris Wright.
Uranium mining company Centrus Energy and the U.S. Navy’s main nuclear reactor supplier, BWX Technologies, also saw their stock prices soar after Trump’s executive orders were released.
An Oklo executive, Jacob DeWitte, who was present at the signing, brought along a golf ball to help Trump understand just how little uranium is needed for the lifetime needs of a single human being (an entirely irrelevant statistic given the lethality contained in that glowing little golf ball.) Trump called the golf ball show-and-tell “very exciting” before teeing up another order that will not only muzzle but actually persecute scientists for any findings with which the Trump hive don’t agree.
The definition of ‘sound science’, under Trump’s ‘gold standard’, is simply anything happening now or under the previous Trump administration. Anything that happened under the Biden administration is “politicized science”.
Among the enforcers who will police and punish the NRC, along with other federal agencies who stray from Trump’s “science” script, is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, one Michael Kratsios.
Kratsios is the former chief of staff to AI entrepreneur, venture capitalist and nuclear promoter, Peter Thiel. Thiel’s venture capital firm, Founders Fund, supported nuclear fuel start-up General Matter, in contention to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for advanced nuclear reactors. One of the executive orders will “seek voluntary agreements pursuant to section 708 of the DPA with domestic nuclear energy companies that could deliver HALEU fuel.”
Kratsios is already sharpening his knives to go after the NRC, viewed as an obstacle to fast-tracking the new nuclear projects that Kratisios’s former boss, among others, will be pushing.
“Today’s executive orders are the most significant nuclear regulatory reform actions taken in decades,” said Kratsios on May 23. “We are restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy. These actions are critical to American energy independence and continued dominance in AI and other emerging technologies.”
There has already been some pushback against allowing a political appointee to be the arbiter of scientific integrity. “Putting that power in the hands of a political appointee who doesn’t need to consult with scientific experts before making a decision is very troubling,” Kris West of COGR, an association of research universities, affiliated medical centers, and independent research institutes, told Science.
A group of scientists has written an open letter, retitling the order “Fool’s Gold Standard Science,” declaring that it “would not strengthen science, but instead would introduce stifling limits on intellectual freedom in our Nation’s laboratories and federal funding agencies”.
Part of the “regulatory reform” outlined as “gold standard science” and that Kratsios will oversee, is gutting the NRC, which, complains the White House, “charges applicants by the hour to process license applications with prolonged timelines that maximize fees while throttling nuclear power development.”
Somehow, “throttling nuclear power development” is not what springs to mind when reviewing the record of an agency that consistently favors the financial needs of the nuclear industry over the interests of public safety and the environment.
Furthermore, charges the White House, the NRC “has failed to license new reactors even as technological advances promise to make nuclear power safer, cheaper, more adaptable, and more abundant than ever.”
Trump, who seems to treat executive orders like a Nike slogan (“just do it”), has commanded that the US quadruple its nuclear energy capacity by 2050. This will be achieved not only by stripping the NRC of its power to scrutinize the safety assurances for new, primarily small modular reactors, but by expediting their licensing while keeping current reactors running longer and hotter and even reopening permanently closed ones.
Licensing timeframes will be slashed to “a deadline of no more than 18 months” for final decisions on construction and operating license applications for new reactors, and to just one year “for final decision in an application to continue operating an existing reactor of any type.”
The Trump order will also require “the reactivation of prematurely shuttered to partially completed nuclear facilities.” The former refers to Palisades, Three Mile Island and Duane Arnold so far. The latter is about the abandoned two-reactor Westinghouse AP 1000 project at V.C. Summer in South Carolina.
Currently operating reactors will be expected to add “5 gigawatts of power uprates”, which comes with its own set of safety concerns given the age of the US nuclear reactor fleet.
Everything has been put on a superhighway to nuclear hell, unhinged from the very real obstacles to fast-tracking nuclear expansion, most notably the cost and risks.
“A pilot program for reactor construction and operation outside the National Laboratories,” will require the Energy Secretary to “approve at least three reactors pursuant to this pilot program with the goal of achieving criticality in each of the three reactors by July 4, 2026,” one order said.
An astonishing “10 new large reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030,” is another aspirational command.
The Secretary of Energy must also designate at least one site for advanced reactor technologies within three months of the order, and ensure that it will host a fully operational reactor there “no later than 30 months from the date of this order.”
None of these timelines share any precedent with the track record of nuclear power plant construction, and bullying or handcuffing the NRC won’t change that.
That’s because, as Toby Dalton and Ariel Levite of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace point out in their recent column in The Hill: “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S.” The orders, they said “underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in.”
The Carnegie authors also criticized the way the orders treat nuclear power as if it is similar to any other form of energy. “The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel,” they wrote.
What reining in the NRC will achieve is an even greater reduction in confidence over the safe operation of current and future nuclear reactors.
“This push by the Trump administration to usurp much of the agency’s autonomy as they seek to fast-track the construction of nuclear plants will weaken critical, independent oversight of the U.S. nuclear industry and poses significant safety and security risks to the public,” said Ed Lyman, a physicist and Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
To set all this right, the DOGE kids will soon be paying a visit to the NRC to fire people. DOGE, says the Reform the NRC order, will “reorganize the NRC to promote the expeditious processing of licensing applications and the adoption of innovative technology. The NRC shall undertake reductions in force in conjunction with this reorganization, though certain functions may increase in size consistent with the policies in this order, including those devoted to new reactor licensing.”
But “reorganizing” the NRC will have the reverse effect, argues Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) a longtime nuclear watchdog on Capitol Hill, including during his earlier years in the US House of Representatives. “It will be impossible for NRC to maintain a commitment to safety and oversight with staffing levels slashed and expertise gone,”Markey said.
“Allowing DOGE to blindly fire staff at the NRC does nothing to make it easier to permit or regulate nuclear power plants, but it will increase the risk of an accident,” said ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who called the orders “dangerous.”
But then the Trump administration doesn’t actually consider nuclear power itself to be dangerous, and instead accuses the NRC of being overly cautious, saying: “Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion.”
Consequently, it’s no surprise to find a clause in the order that reads: “The personnel and functions of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) shall be reduced to the minimum necessary”. The ACRS panel is composed of cream-of-the-crop scientists from the national laboratories, universities and other areas of academia. Its mandate, ironically and in place for decades, has been precisely to uphold “Gold Standard Science” in the nuclear power sector.
Like everything else Trump does, all of this constitutes another accident waiting to happen. “If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” confirmed former NRC chair Allison Macfarlane of efforts to undermine her former agency.
The orders are a “guillotine to the nation’s nuclear safety system”, another former NRC chair Greg Jaczko told the Los Angeles Times.
Also guillotined is any pretense about protecting the public from the harm caused by exposure to the ionizing radiation released by the nuclear power sector.
No longer must we adhere to the standard, endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, that exposure to any amount of radiation, no matter how small, could be harmful to human health. (This is especially true if it involves consistent and chronic longterm exposure even to what might be considered “low” doses.)
Instead, say Trump’s orders, “the NRC shall reconsider reliance on the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ standard, which is predicated on LNT.” Those models, says the White House, are “flawed.”
This will of course open the door to the hormesis advocates who, without any firm basis in actual science, insist that a little radiation is good for all of us.
It’s time to set the record straight on radiation and the damage it causes, particularly to pregnancy, children and women,” responded Cindy Folkers, radiation and health hazard specialist at Beyond Nuclear. “Contrary to what Trump’s recent EO claims, abundant and largely officially ignored scientific evidence demonstrates that childhood cancers increase around normally operating nuclear facilities, with indications that these cancers begin during pregnancy. The uranium mining needed to produce fuel for reactors, is associated with a number of health impacts. Even already existing background radiation is associated with childhood cancers.”
The already flimsy separation between the civil and military nuclear sectors is all but erased in the new EOs, most notably in the emphasis on a return to the reprocessing of irradiated reactor fuel. This operation separates out the uranium and plutonium while producing a vast amount of so-called low- and intermediate-level liquid and gaseous wastes that are routinely released into the air and sea.
Reprocessing was rejected in the US by the Ford and Carter administrations as too proliferation risky, given that plutonium is the trigger component of a nuclear weapon. It is still carried out in France — and until recently in the UK — where radioactive isotopes released by these operations have been found as far away as the Arctic Circle. The UK reprocessing activities at Sellafield rendered the Irish Sea the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world.
But, wrote the White House in the Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies EO: “Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Energy shall identify all useful uranium and plutonium material within the Department of Energy’s inventories that may be recycled or processed into nuclear fuel for reactors in the United States.” That sounds like a return to mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, another program that was abandoned, but not until after a protracted opposition campaign launched by our movement — Nix MOX — finally prevailed.
Another order directs “The Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army” to “commence the operation of a nuclear reactor, regulated by the United States Army, at a domestic military base or installation no later than September 30, 2028.”
Some of those closed civil nuclear power plants could find themselves repurposed by the Department of Defense, serving as “energy hubs for military microgrid support.” Advanced nuclear reactor technologies will also be expected to power AI datacenters “within the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, in whole or in part, that are located at or operated in coordination with Department of Energy facilities, including as support for national security missions, as critical defense facilities, where appropriate.”
Pronounced Kratsios in the May 23 press release: “We are recommitting ourselves to scientific best practices and empowering America’s researchers to achieve groundbreaking discoveries.”
Until they come and arrest you for telling the truth.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International.
The NRC’s new Mission Impossible: Making Atoms Great Again
If the NRC complies with them and reduces itself to a rubber-stamp, the public will be increasingly at risk.
Perhaps recognizing that this NRC “reform” will likely render the agency non-functional for the foreseeable future, the administration hedged its bets by issuing two other orders that would bypass NRC licensing altogether.
The NRC has been given a new mission to facilitate nuclear power at the expense of public health and environmental protection.
By Edwin S. Lyman | May 29, 2025
In early May, drafts of presidential executive orders surfaced that would “reform” (e.g., dismantle) the long-established independent safety and security framework under which the United States regulates commercial nuclear power. For those who held out hope that the leaked orders were trial balloons and would be shot down by stakeholders who value regulatory stability and clarity—such as nuclear power plant operators—disappointment loomed. On May 23, President Donald Trump signed the orders, which in some respects had gotten even more extreme than originally advertised.
One order mandates that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) fundamentally change its mission to support the absurd and reckless goal of quadrupling of US nuclear energy capacity to 400 gigawatts by 2050—which would, if achieved, add the equivalent of 300 large nuclear plants to the US fleet—by prioritizing speedy licensing over protecting public health and safety from radiation exposure. This would effectively make the NRC a promotional agency not unlike its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, thereby undoing the NRC’s 51-year history as the independent safety regulator established by the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act. Congress considered but ultimately watered down a legislative provision to do just that last year. Now President Trump wants to finish the job by requiring the NRC to “facilitate nuclear power” in addition to “ensuring nuclear safety.”
The order requires that the agency undertake “a wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents” and produce draft and final versions of the new rules within nine and 18 months, respectively. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with this massive body of regulatory detail—refined over decades of increasing technical knowledge, facility operating experience (including the 1979 Three Mile Island and 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accidents), and often impassioned debate about “how safe is safe”—surely knows this is a nigh impossible task. The challenge is compounded by the vague criteria provided to guide the revision, which invoke subjective terms that are the bane of regulators, such as “reduce unnecessary burdens” and “focus on credible, realistic risks.”
This exercise in busywork on a massive scale will only serve as a disruptive distraction from the NRC’s important work overseeing the operating fleet of US nuclear reactors, likely leading to regulatory paralysis and delays.
Specifically, even though the NRC has already been working to shorten approval timelines under pressure from Congress, the order directs the commission to establish fixed, 18-month deadlines for approving applications for new reactors of any type, providing no leeway except for “instances of applicant failure.” Imposing such a rigid schedule may appease arrogant vendors of new nuclear designs who resent the scrutiny of regulators, but such a dictat is terrible for nuclear safety. New nuclear reactors in the licensing pipeline are mostly experimental in design; they have had little to no operating experience and introduce novel safety concerns that require painstaking and time-consuming experiments and analyses to resolve. Forcing technical reviewers to paper over such gaps in knowledge to meet arbitrary deadlines may lead to faster approvals, but it is sure to create implementation headaches and serious safety problems for anyone who tries to build and operate these first-of-a-kind reactors. And dedicated safety professionals at the NRC are not likely to remain in an environment where they are compelled to compromise their integrity, depleting the workforce needed to process a growing number of applications.
NRC reviews often uncover safety issues that reactor applicants miss. A case in point is the NuScale small modular reactor. During the review of the original NuScale design, NRC staff identified a mechanism that could cause the reactor to become critical and melt down following an emergency shutdown, leading the company to make last-minute design changes.
In the anti-science push that we have come to expect from the Trump administration, the order also deems well-established models of the risks of low-level radiation exposure to “lack sound scientific basis.” It directs the agency to “specifically consider adopting determinate radiation limits”—that is, to accept the view of a small minority that there is a “safe” level of radiation and incorporate it into its regulations—despite an actual lack of sound scientific basis supporting such a claim. The NRC recently affirmed in a unanimous vote that the “linear no-threshold model” (the principle that any level of radiation is harmful, but the cancer risk is proportional to the dose), which is the foundation of international radiation protection standards, remains an effective basis for the NRC’s regulatory framework. Compelling the NRC to rewrite its regulations based not on the current state of scientific knowledge but on pseudoscience will only create chaos and ultimately put the public at unnecessary risk.
Perhaps recognizing that this NRC “reform” will likely render the agency non-functional for the foreseeable future, the administration hedged its bets by issuing two other orders that would bypass NRC licensing altogether. Those orders encourage approval of reactors within the purview of the Defense Department and the Energy Department. This would have a detrimental impact on nuclear safety in both cases: Defense lacks the expertise to conduct such reviews (as it hasn’t approved its own nuclear reactors in decades); and Energy’s self-regulation of nuclear plants would be tainted by conflicts of interest, as the agency would directly benefit from approval of these projects. One order calls for deploying reactors to power artificial intelligence data centers at Energy Department sites, even if they are privately owned and operated. Whether this order actually expands Energy Department authority to approve reactors for commercial purposes is a complicated question best left for the lawyers. But there is clear intent to sideline the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the relatively high level of public engagement and transparency that the agency offers compared to the Defense and Energy departments.
Another goal of the orders is to “promote American nuclear exports.” But what the administration doesn’t realize is that the NRC’s image (deserved or not) as the world’s “gold standard” nuclear safety regulator is a critical selling point for the US brand and US nuclear vendors. This is especially true for countries new to nuclear power that lack their own regulatory expertise and put their faith in NRC licensing. Yet nearly every action in the orders will undermine global confidence that the NRC is continuing to make independent safety judgments about new reactor designs and isn’t merely doling out seals of approval to Trump’s preferred cronies of the moment. Also, adopting radiation protection standards that violate international norms is not likely to bolster confidence in US designs around the world.
The NRC has been given a new mission to facilitate nuclear power at the expense of public health and environmental protection. But it doesn’t have to choose to accept it. It’s no surprise that an administration that embraces conflicts of interest would not care about preserving NRC’s non-promotional status. But unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, it is far from clear that independent agencies are obligated to follow executive orders—and as an independent agency, the NRC would be well justified in rejecting any attempt to negate Congress’ chief rationale for creating it in 1974. Chairman David Wright often says that safety is the NRC’s “North Star.” Now he can show that he means what he says by rebuffing President Trump’s crude and possibly illegal attempt to effectively destroy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and undermine its authority to protect the public from potentially disastrous corner-cutting by the nuclear industry.
For decades, the nuclear industry has blamed overregulation for the cost overruns and delays that have plagued new projects and caused it to lose the confidence of investors. Now, these dangerous executive orders call the bluff. If the NRC complies with them and reduces itself to a rubber-stamp, the public will be increasingly at risk. Only time will tell if the industry, even without needed oversight and reasonable regulation, can build nuclear plants on schedule and on budget, or if it will finally have to grapple with the real root causes of its failure to thrive.
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 (118)
- 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 