A dramatic development in the Ukraine situation.
18 February 2025 https://theaimn.net/a-dramatic-development-in-the-ukraine-situation/
The shut-down Chernobyl nuclear reactor was hit by a drone on 14th February, and its outer covering was breached. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was quick to gloss over the impact from the latest incident involving the wrecked Chernobyl nuclear reactor – ” Radiation levels inside and outside the so-called New Safe Confinement building “remain normal and stable,”….. and there are no reports of any casualties or radiation leak.”
To be fair, the IAEA did not attribute blame to Russia. Le Monde stated that the cause was a Russian Shahed drone, armed with a high-explosive warhead. So, it actually does look as if the offending drone came from Russia. But that is not certain. However, as far as the Western media goes – the issue is being covered as a deliberate attack by Russia. Youtube after Youtube video, article after article, blames Russia, and repeats Zelensky’s claims –“This is a terrorist attack for the entire world.” Zelensky spoke at the Munich Security Conference accusing Russia of a deliberate attack. Even if it was a Russian drone, there remains the possibility that this was a mistake, rater than intentional. What would Russia have to gain by this? Cui bono?
This event is significant in two ways – First – it could throw a spanner in the works of the current discussions on ending the war in Ukraine . These peace discussion are a whole nother story. Donald Trump is no doubt looking for a way for USA business interests to grab Ukraine resources as one large part of a peace deal in which Russia keeps its invaded territory. Zelensky’s presidency sort of ended on 20 May 2024 – he stays in power because it is war-time – which may well be part of his desire to keep the ear going, no matter what the cost. Zelensky seems to have cast some sort of mesmerising spell over Europe – depicting the Russian bear salivating to gobble up Europe. Good loyal Westerners seem pretty much obligated to oppose Donald Trump on all matters. However a plan to allow some concessions to Russia is a militarily reasonable way to end this war.
Secondly, it could really demonstrate the hypocrisy of the IAEA and its Director Rafael Grossi about nuclear safety
Does anyone really think that this Chernobyl incident is over? All sorted?
“Flames are still raging inside the Chernobyl nuclear station after multiple fires yesterday.” – Luke Alsford and Gergana Krasteva, Metro UK, February 16, 2025
Alsford and Krasteva set out in chilling (perhaps that’s not the right word) detail, the efforts going on, in extreme weather conditions, to prevent a disaster at the power plant, firefighters battling the blaze around the clock. The reactor’s containment shell. now has a 314 square foot gash. With the hermetic seal broken, the ventilation system is affected, and the radiation level will increase.
Those courageous workers at the wrecked Chernobyl nuclear power plant will probably get those fires out before it all gets much, much worse. And mend the hole in the containment shell. And the IAEA and everyone else will breathe sighs of relief. Until the next nuclear near-miss.
Flames are still raging inside the Chernobyl nuclear station after multiple fires yesterday.
Three smoldering fires were detected earlier this morning, forcing teams to jump into action to prevent a disaster at the power plant.
Ukraine’s state agency on exclusion zone management confirmed that no release of radioactive material has been reported yet.
The plant was hit on Friday by a drone carrying a high-explosive warhead, according to Ukraine, 38 years after the nuclear explosion at the site…..
Firefighters continue to battle the blaze round the clock in challenging weather conditions, admitted the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The plant’s fourth reactor now has a 314 square foot gash after the drone strike.
Although no rise in radiation has been reported yet, an expert issued a frightening warning about how Russia’s attack will soon affect nearby radioactivity
Dr Olga Kosharna, founder of the Anti-Crisis Expert Nuclear Centre of Ukraine, said: ‘The hermetic seal has been broken.
‘It is clear that the ventilation systems will [work] differently and the radiation level will increase.
‘But I think that it will not go beyond the industrial site and the exclusion zone.
Chernobyl’s reactors are covered by an outer dome to prevent radioactive leakage after the 1986 disaster – the world’s worst civilian nuclear accident – which sent pollution spewing across Europe.
Video footage shows how the explosion blew a hole in the dome at 1.50am on Friday, before a fire then broke out.
An open fire on the roof structure – officially called the New Safe Confinement (NSC) – was swiftly put out by first responders.
However smouldering fires remain inside the 20ft diameter hole.
The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] said: ‘The ongoing efforts to put out and prevent the spread of any remaining fires – apparently fuelled by inflammable material in the roof cladding – have delayed work to start repairing the damage.’
The organisation’s director Rafael Mariano Grossi added: ‘This was clearly a very serious incident, with a drone hitting and damaging a large protective structure at a major nuclear site.
‘As I have stated repeatedly during this devastating war, attacking a nuclear facility is an absolute no-go, it should never happen.’
Grossi also warned of an ‘increase in military activity in the area around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
‘The IAEA remains committed to doing everything we can to help prevent a nuclear accident. Judging by recent events, nuclear safety remains very much under threat.’…………………………….
Zelensky spoke at the Munich Security Conference yesterday, accusing Russia of flaming the conflict with the alleged drone attack……………………………… https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/16/nuclear-expert-issues-chernobyl-update-emerges-fires-still-burning-22567966/
Restless radioactive remains are still stirring in Chernobyl’s nuclear tomb.
‘It’s like the embers in a barbecue pit.’ Nuclear reactions are smoldering again at Chernobyl https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/nuclear-reactions-reawaken-chernobyl-reactor
By Richard Stone, May. 5, 2021 , Thirty-five years after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine exploded in the world’s worst nuclear accident, fission reactions are smoldering again in uranium fuel masses buried deep inside a mangled reactor hall. “It’s like the embers in a barbecue pit,” says Neil Hyatt, a nuclear materials chemist at the University of Sheffield. Now, Ukrainian scientists are scrambling to determine whether the reactions will wink out on their own—or require extraordinary interventions to avert another accident.
Sensors are tracking a rising number of neutrons, a signal of fission, streaming from one inaccessible room, Anatolii Doroshenko of the Institute for Safety Problems of Nuclear Power Plants (ISPNPP) in Kyiv, Ukraine, reported last week during discussions about dismantling the reactor. “There are many uncertainties,” says ISPNPP’s Maxim Saveliev. “But we can’t rule out the possibility of [an] accident.”
The neutron counts are rising slowly, Saveliev says, suggesting managers still have a few years to figure out how to stifle the threat. Any remedy he and his colleagues come up with will be of keen interest to Japan, which is coping with the aftermath of its own nuclear disaster 10 years ago at Fukushima, Hyatt notes. “It’s a similar magnitude of hazard.”
The specter of self-sustaining fission, or criticality, in the nuclear ruins has long haunted Chernobyl. When part of the Unit Four reactor’s core melted down on 26 April 1986, uranium fuel rods, their zirconium cladding, graphite control rods, and sand dumped on the core to try to extinguish the fire melted together into a lava. It flowed into the reactor hall’s basement rooms and hardened into formations called fuel-containing materials (FCMs), which are laden with about 170 tons of irradiated uranium—95% of the original fuel.
The concrete-and-steel sarcophagus called the Shelter, erected 1 year after the accident to house Unit Four’s remains, allowed rainwater to seep in. Because water slows, or moderates, neutrons and thus enhances their odds of striking and splitting uranium nuclei, heavy rains would sometimes send neutron counts soaring. After a downpour in June 1990, a “stalker”—a scientist at Chernobyl who risks radiation exposure to venture into the damaged reactor hall—dashed in and sprayed gadolinium nitrate solution, which absorbs neutrons, on an FCM that he and his colleagues feared might go critical. Several years later, the plant installed gadolinium nitrate sprinklers in the Shelter’s roof. But the spray can’t effectively penetrate some basement rooms.
Chernobyl officials presumed any criticality risk would fade when the massive New Safe Confinement (NSC) was slid over the Shelter in November 2016. The €1.5 billion structure was meant to seal off the Shelter so it could be stabilized and eventually dismantled. The NSC also keeps out the rain, and ever since its emplacement, neutron counts in most areas in the Shelter have been stable or are declining.
But they began to edge up in a few spots, nearly doubling over 4 years in room 305/2, which contains tons of FCMs buried under debris. ISPNPP modeling suggests the drying of the fuel is somehow making neutrons ricocheting through it more, rather than less, effective at splitting uranium nuclei. “It’s believable and plausible data,” Hyatt says. “It’s just not clear what the mechanism might be.”
The threat can’t be ignored. As water continues to recede, the fear is that “the fission reaction accelerates exponentially,” Hyatt says, leading to “an uncontrolled release of nuclear energy.” There’s no chance of a repeat of 1986, when the explosion and fire sent a radioactive cloud over Europe. A runaway fission reaction in an FCM could sputter out after heat from fission boils off the remaining water. Still, Saveliev notes, although any explosive reaction would be contained, it could threaten to bring down unstable parts of the rickety Shelter, filling the NSC with radioactive dust.
Addressing the newly unmasked threat is a daunting challenge. Radiation levels in 305/2 preclude getting close enough to install sensors. And spraying gadolinium nitrate on the nuclear debris there is not an option, as it’s entombed under concrete. One idea is to develop a robot that can withstand the intense radiation for long enough to drill holes in the FCMs and insert boron cylinders, which would function like control rods and sop up neutrons. In the meantime, ISPNPP intends to step up monitoring of two other areas where FCMs have the potential to go critical.
The resurgent fission reactions are not the only challenge facing Chernobyl’s keepers. Besieged by intense radiation and high humidity, the FCMs are disintegrating—spawning even more radioactive dust that complicates plans to dismantle the Shelter. Early on, an FCM formation called the Elephant’s Foot was so hard scientists had to use a Kalashnikov rifle to shear off a chunk for analysis. “Now it more or less has the consistency of sand,” Saveliev says.
Ukraine has long intended to remove the FCMs and store them in a geological repository. By September, with help from European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it aims to have a comprehensive plan for doing so. But with life still flickering within the Shelter, it may be harder than ever to bury the reactor’s restless remains.
A drone pierced the outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant. Radiation levels are normal
AP News 14th Feb 2025
CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Ukraine (AP) — A drone armed with a warhead hit the protective outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant early Friday, punching a hole in the structure and briefly starting a fire, in an attack Kyiv blamed on Russia. The Kremlin denied it was responsible.
Radiation levels at the shuttered plant in the Kyiv region — site of the world’s worst nuclear accident — have not increased, according to the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which said the strike did not breach the plant’s inner containment shell.
The IAEA did not attribute blame, saying only that its team stationed at the site heard an explosion and was informed that a drone had struck the shell.
Fighting around nuclear power plants has repeatedly raised fears of a nuclear catastrophe during three years of war, particularly in a country where many vividly remember the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which killed at least 30 people and spewed radioactive fallout over much of the Northern Hemisphere.
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is Europe’s biggest, has occasionally been hit by drones during the war without causing significant damage……………………………………………………………………
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied Russia was responsible. “There is no talk about strikes on nuclear infrastructure, nuclear energy facilities. Any such claim isn’t true. Our military doesn’t do that,” Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.
It was not possible to independently confirm who was behind the strike. Both sides frequently trade blame when nuclear sites come under attack. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-chernobyl-zelenskyy-71d781dbd66754d0a548edd388f3447a
‘Deeply Concerned’ Dems Want to Know If DOGE Can Access Nuclear Weapons Data
Common Dreams, Brett Wilkins, 12 Feb 25
“The nation and the world need to know that U.S. nuclear secrets are robustly safeguarded,” argue Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Don Beyer.
A pair of Democratic U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday asked the Trump administration to clarify whether any members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have access to classified information about the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
Responding to U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s admission that he granted DOGE associates access to the Department of Energy, and to reporting that a 23-year-old former intern at Musk’s SpaceX was allowed into DOE’s IT systems without the requisite security clearances, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)—both members of the congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group—wrote to Wright to voice their concerns.
“The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an integral part of the Department of Energy, is entrusted with protecting the nation’s most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets. The nation and the world need to know that U.S. nuclear secrets are robustly safeguarded,” the lawmakers wrote.
“It is, therefore, dangerously unacceptable that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—including individuals lacking adequate security clearances—has been granted access to DOE’s information technology (IT) system despite legitimate security concerns inside the agency,” they added………………………………………………… more https://www.commondreams.org/news/doge-nuclear-access?fbclid=IwY2xjawIbZXRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbA6z6FjvC4GlquaoKQ8r8aITLOLFc__JZxKMtuKaj69sCBrQ9lN5_mJ_A_aem_azkG9HYTMg9NxlbYp67XYA
Safety Issues and Impact on Marine Environment of Extension of British Nuclear Plant Lifespan Queried by NGO
The Celtic League has noted that there was a previous review of a decision to extend Torness’s lifespan, after the discovery of cracks in the graphite bricks, which make up the reactor cores of some advanced gas-cooled power stations.
Afloat 12th February 2025, https://afloat.ie/resources/news-update/item/66295-safety-issues-and-impact-on-marine-environment-of-extension-of-british-nuclear-plant-lifespan-queried-by-ngo
The Celtic League NGO has queried the impact on the marine environment of the British government’s decision to extend the life of four old nuclear power plants.
It has also said that the decision is one that both the Irish and Manx governments should be concerned about, given the potential environmental impact.
Last month, French state-owned company EDF Energy said that the lifespan of Scotland’s last remaining nuclear power station and three other plants in England would be extended.
The company said that Torness, in East Lothian, and its sister site Heysham 2, in Lancashire, would continue generating for an extra two years until 2030.
Two other sites – Hartlepool and Heysham 1 – will continue for an extra year until 2027, it said, and it planned to invest £1.3bn (sterling) across its operational nuclear estate over the next three years.
The Celtic League has noted that there was a previous review of a decision to extend Torness’s lifespan, after the discovery of cracks in the graphite bricks, which make up the reactor cores of some advanced gas-cooled power stations.
Bernard Moffatt of the Celtic League has submitted a number of questions relating to safety to British Chief Nuclear Inspector Mark Foy at the Office of Nuclear Regulation, and says it will publish any response it receives.
Small nuclear reactors: Big safety problems, and who pays the piper?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-wants-russia-china-to-stop-making-nuclear-weapons-so-all-can-cut-defence-spending-by-half-20250214-p5lc59.html 15 February, 2025
As usual, in matters nuclear, the Anglophone news is awash with articles extolling the future virtues of Small Nuclear Reactors. Especially in the UK, where Trumpian antics don’t dominate the news the whole time, nuclear news gets a lot of coverage. As I’ve mentioned before, the UK corporate press is ecstatic about SMRs. SMR critics, (of which there are plenty), usually focus their ire on the subject of costs. Other objections centre on health, climate needs, the environment, and the connection between civil and military nuclear technology.
The nuclear lobby has very successfully touted safety as the big plus for the new (though still non-existent) Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) . Everyone seemed to buy this idea, because, after all, SMRs can’t melt down in the same dramatic way that big ones can. So, there’s been relatively little fuss made by the anti-nuclear movement on the grounds of safety, regarding SMRs.
Imagine my surprise when I opened up my eyes today – to see a corporate media news outlet, New Civil Engineer, usually pro-nuclear, coming out with a damning criticism of SMRs on the grounds of safety. It’s not as if New Civil Engineer actually condemned SMRs. Oh no! – they did indeed point out that the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero ((DESNZ) is confident that SMR developments are subject to “robust controls“. And the Office of Nuclear Security (ONR) “ensures that the highest levels of safety, security and safeguards are met”
It’s just that New Civil Engineer brought up a few points that have escaped notice, following the publication of the draft National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) They note that –
“Despite EN-7 being 64 pages, just two lines are dedicated to specifically addressing the security of SMRs.“
The new regulations for SMRs would allow for many new nuclear sites near communities.
For large nuclear power sites, security is funded by the developers themselves. For SMRs, the security needs would be provided by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and also by local police. But these bodies are not under the direction of the ONR or the DESNZ. The writer quotes a policing expert, John McNeill :
“Not even [the government] can direct them.
Policing of airports and football grounds, even schools and educational campuses, shows how hard this will be to fund fairly.”
The expansion of AI and data centres add another complexity to the question of the amount of security needed, and of who pays for it. The proliferation of nuclear sites, closer to populated areas also means the increase in transport of radioactive materials – again bringing the risks of accidents, theft, and terrorism. And again, bringing the need for more security measures.
There’s some community concern in the UK about the safety of prolonging the life of aging nuclear reactors, and of the safety of coastal reactors and the marine environment. There’s also concern about the safety of the SMRs themselves, as the governments relax regulations.
The highly enriched uranium needed for most SMRs poses another risk – as it is useful for nuclear weapons, and therefore attractive to terrorists, and to countries seeking to get nuclear weapons.
So there has been some awareness of safety and security problems amongst critics, especially in the environmental movement. However, this is the first time that I’ve seen the corporate media speak up about this. As the author quotes questions raised in the House of Lords, it looks as though this issue is at last coming to the fore.
I guess that I should not be surprised that the issue of security of Small Nuclear Reactors is at last going to be taken seriously by The Establishment. After all, the examination of the huge and complicated difficulties raised in trying to organise security of SMRs eventually boils down to costs again – “Finally, who pays the piper?”
Oops! Trump accidentally fired hundreds of federal workers who maintain our nuclear weapons
Mass layoffs now paused at US nuclear weapons agency.
-ABC News’ Jay O’Brien, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/trump-2nd-term-tariffs-trade-war/?id=118643360&entryId=118833343
The Department of Energy has paused the firings of hundreds of employees who work for a key agency maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, multiple sources tell ABC News.
Managers with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are frantically calling employees back and telling them that — as of right now — they’re not fired, despite some receiving termination emails and phone calls on Thursday. Their badges are getting turned back on and access to federal systems is being restored, at least temporarily.
Hundreds of probationary employees were terminated Thursday night in the mass Trump administration layoffs. The move prompted concerns of a national security risk because the agency is responsible for maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons, transporting them, and nuclear counterterrorism, among other missions.
NNSA held an all-staff meeting Friday morning, announcing the DOE had agreed to pause the layoffs, due to the agency’s national security mission.
NNSA staff tell ABC News they are in a holding pattern. They’re still bracing for firings, but possibly not as widespread.
Chernobyl nuclear power station hit by ‘Russian drone’
Despite hitting the nuclear plant, the small fire was quickly contained and officials said
there was no apparent radiation leak. The Chernobyl nuclear power station
was hit overnight in an apparent drone strike, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) has said. Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said a
Russian drone strike with a “high explosive warhead” hit the outer
shelter of the nuclear plant. The IAEA said that a UAV hit the shelter
protecting the site at approximately 1.50am local time.
Footage from lastnight, showing a Russian Drone striking the Containment Structure around
Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) in Northern
Ukraine, as well as the extent of the Damage from inside the Containment
Structure.
iNews 14th Feb 2025,
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/chernobyl-nuclear-power-station-hit-by-russian-drone-3535413
Warning sent about need for strategic policing reform to address security of SMRs
New Civil Engineer, 2 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby
Security concerns have been raised following the publication of the draft National Policy Statement for nuclear energy which would change where small modular reactors (SMRs) could be situated.
National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) was published in draft form on 6 February following an announcement by the prime minister about the slashing of legislation aroudn the development of nuclear energy generation projects………………………………….
Limited details about security in EN-7 raises policing questions
Despite EN-7 being 64 pages, just two lines are dedicated to specifically addressing the security of SMRs.
The proposed proliferation of SMRs in the UK presents a novel nuclear security risk because of there potentially being many more smaller nuclear-licensed sites which are closer to people and property than gigawatt-scale reactors which tend to be in remote coastal locations.
King’s College London Centre for Science & Security Studies research fellow Ross Peel previously told NCE that security planning for SMRs in the UK is “not where it should be”.
In a section titled “Security of Site”, EN-7 says “Ensuring that the proposed nuclear infrastructure will be secure is vital. The Security Considerations section of EN-1 addresses security considerations in detail.
“The applicant should engage with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as part of early engagement on securing a Nuclear Site Licence to understand what steps will be required to comply with relevant site security requirements.”
Recent analysis by the Alan Turing Institute’s Centre for Emerging Technology and Security said that policing capability was not up to scratch to protect SMRs.
Policing SMRs would require a significant uplift in funding and workforce at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) which is run by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority (CNPA). The CNPA is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).
Local police forces, overseen by the Home Office, could also be required to increase their capacity to respond to CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) incidents.
It is currently unclear how any resource uplift would be funded, and which bodies would provide that funding. As things stand, gigawatt-scale nuclear power sites’ security is funded by the developers themselves.
The business model for SMRs is not yet settled, with different developers proposing different management mechanisms.
Existing policing model does not accommodate complex demands of SMRs
Former police investigations and review commissioner Scotland and co-author of the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security analysis on SMR policing John McNeill said: “The ONR can specify security standards for SMRs, but they cannot require policing bodies to comply with their requirements.
“ONR can specify, approve, or reject, security arrangements, and vary these in response to changes in the threat assessments. But they cannot require any Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) or Chief Constable (CC) to assign resources to meet their defined standards. Not even [the government] can direct them.
“Policing of airports and football grounds, even schools and educational campuses, shows how hard this will be to fund fairly…………………………………………………………….
“The existing policing model does not readily accommodate the complex demands of responding to the protection of the critical national infrastructure, nor a spread of SMRs.
It’s an outdated model that is not fit for this purpose. Since 2012 the 43 local (directly elected) policing bodies have set the priorities and assigned the budgets, for their police areas.
“We have already highlighted the complexities of policing a proliferation of SMRs in new areas of the country. Policing will need to extend their capability and capacity to respond. And meet the associated costs. It will not be enough to promise a reduction in their electricity bills sometime in the future!
“In short, the deafening silence from the Home Office and policing bodies is not reassuring to apprehensive communities who may have an SMR (or more) in their back yard.
“Finally, who pays the piper? Contractors will baulk at paying for local security. Site security may be less problematic.”
Sheffield Hallam University hosts the Centre of Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence and Organised Crime Research (Centric).
Centric professor in governance and national security Fraser Sampson co-authored the policing reform analysis with McNeill.
Sampson said: “The introduction of SMRs (and now associated data centres) is being presented as wholly different from whatever has gone before. That means the policing and security arrangements will need to be wholly different as they are the solution to the wrong problem.
“The engineering, environmental and economic noises are deafening but so is the silence on the extraordinary challenges that this will bring for community-level policing and resilience.
Policing and security are a network of systems. Turbocharging one part of a system will only pay off if the rest of the system can keep up – otherwise, the fast bit has to wait for the rest. No one wants to be responsible for the weakest link in the security chain.
“Workforce vetting has proved challenging enough for policing; an exponential increase in both volume and speed of reliable vetting must have a significant resource impact but add in risks from supply chain integrity, cyber-attacks and insider threats.”
Sampson said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “states more than half of radioactive [materials] thefts/losses since 1993 occurred during authorised transit.
“Where is the reassurance coming from that proliferation will improve these figures? We’re not dealing with Swampy anymore.”
Concerns about security of SMRs raised in parliament
In a debate about SMRs in the House of Lords, backbench Labour peer Lord Harris of Haringey asked about the potential increased demand on nuclear policing. The debate took place on 22 January 2025, before the publication of EN-7.
Outside of parliament, Harris is chair of the National Preparedness Commission (NPC), which works “to promote policies and actions to help the UK be significantly better prepared to avoid, mitigate, respond to, and recover from major shocks, threats and challenges”.
In the Lords debate, Harris asked: “What consideration has been given to who will protect and police modular nuclear reactors?
“Will it be the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which would mean covering far more sites than it currently does, or will it be the other police forces?
“What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Home Office?”……………………………………………………………………..
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/warning-sent-about-need-for-strategic-policing-reform-to-address-security-of-smrs-12-02-2025/
Would a fallout shelter really protect you in a nuclear blast?
By Elana Spivack,, 9 Feb 25, https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/would-a-fallout-shelter-really-protect-you-in-a-nuclear-blast
Nuclear bunkers aren’t a foolproof way to stay safe during a nuclear attack. Here’s why.
No other human-made catastrophes can wreak more destruction than a nuclear bomb. Luckily, bomb shelters and bunkers can protect us, right?
The truth is that these structures’ ability to shield people from the potent heat and blast of a nuclear bomb varies.
“It all depends on where the bunker is and the quality of the bomb,” Norman Kleiman, an associate professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Radiation Safety Officer Training course at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, told Live Science
According to Kleiman, bomb shelters came about during the Cold War as the U.S. and the Soviet Union hinted at mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons. Both countries’ governments designed programs to construct shelters in large public buildings, as well as to encourage individuals to build bunkers inside or outside their homes, Kleinman said.
It’s possible that some people marketing these shelters were looking to make a buck amid a crisis. “I’d argue that most of them were being marketed by snake oil salesmen and hucksters,” said Peter Caracappa, executive director of the radiation safety program at Columbia University.
A bomb shelter doesn’t necessarily guarantee safety in the event of a nuclear blast. Its effectiveness comes down to the quality of both the bomb and the shelter.
Modern nuclear weapons are quite different from those of the mid-20th century. Nuclear weapons are much more powerful now, largely because they detonate using a different reaction than they did during World War II and the Cold War. Nuclear bombs in the 1950s had cores made of the radioactive element plutonium or the isotope uranium-235, in which the atoms would split apart in a process called fission, causing a huge explosion. These bombs were a type of nuclear weapon known as atomic bombs, or fission bombs.
“The size of these devices was much smaller, orders of magnitude smaller than current nuclear weapons,” Kleiman said. But now we use bombs that rely on hydrogen fusion to create that boom. These bombs utilize the atomic explosion described merely to trigger a larger, thermonuclear explosion. This explosion can have a blast radius of up to 100 miles (160 kilometers). (For comparison, the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had blast radii of about 1 mile, or 1.6 km.) Between these two nuclear weapons, hydrogen fusion-powered thermonuclear bombs are far more powerful than fission-powered atomic bombs.
“If you are 600 miles [1,000 km] away from a thermonuclear device, maybe a shelter would help you,” Kleiman said. “But if you’re anywhere within that blast radius, the blast, the heat, the explosion — those are going to take you out.”
And then there’s the question of radiation, which is the emission of waves and particles in the wake of the blast. Kleiman said it’s possible to build a bunker to protect you from radiation. The walls must be lined with 3 to 5 feet (0.9 to 1.5 meters) of concrete and steel, as well as lead. This lead is embedded in the shelter’s walls and doorways, so an intact bunker poses little risk of exposure to its occupants.
Moreover, the entrance “has to be kind of zigzaggy,” Kleiman said. Radiation travels in straight lines, so a zigzagging entrance would fend it off.
Capacarra broke down a shelter’s protection ability into three components: It must be effective as a structure to withstand an explosion and weather radiation (which, in part, depends on where it is relative to the explosion), how much material is between you and the radiation the explosion emits, and how well it can keep out fallout material, or the material that’s generated and released in a nuclear explosion.
Lethal radiation persists for days after the explosion, so if you were to survive the initial blast, you would have to stay in the bunker to avoid radioactive fallout. So your shelter would need to not only be equipped with supplies for the time you’d need to stay put — about a week, according to Kleiman — but also ventilate without letting in any radiation. This estimated timeline depends on how far the shelter is from the blast.
However, “that doesn’t mean that it’s safe, it just means that the radiation levels are low enough that you’re not going to die of acute radiation poisoning,” Kleiman continued. He added that cancer is one huge long-term risk of radiation exposure, but that and other consequences may not emerge for decades.
So, while a bunker only a few miles from an explosion wouldn’t be very helpful, a good shelter dozens of miles from a blast could protect inhabitants from radiation for days. “It’s really a question of shielding,” Kleiman said — “shielding from heat, shielding from the blast and shielding from radiation.”
If DOGE Goes Nuclear
The risk of messing with the wrong computer system,
The Atlantic By Ross Andersen, 6 Feb 25
You may have never heard of the National Nuclear Security Administration, but its work is crucial to your safety—and to that of every other human being on the planet. If Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hasn’t yet come across the NNSA, it surely will before too long. What happens after that could be alarming.
As recently as yesterday morning, Musk made clear that DOGE will go line by line through the government’s books looking for fat targets for budget-cutting, including those that are classified—especially those that are classified. DOGE employees are bound to notice NNSA, a 1,800-person organization that sits inside the Department of Energy and burns through $20 billion every year, much of it on classified work. But as they set out to discover exactly how the money is spent, they should proceed with care. Musk’s incursions into other agencies have reportedly risked exposing sensitive information to unqualified personnel, and obstructing people’s access to lifesaving medicine. According to several nuclear-security experts and a former senior department official, taking this same approach at the NNSA could make nuclear material at home and abroad less safe.
The NNSA was created by Congress in 1999 in order to consolidate several Department of Energy functions under one bureaucratic roof: acquiring fissile material, manufacturing nuclear weapons, and preventing America’s nuclear technology from leaking. It has all manner of sensitive information on hand, including nuclear-weapon designs and the blueprints for reactors that power Navy ships and submarines. Even the Australian Navy, which has purchased some of these submarines, is not privy to their precise inner workings, James Acton, a co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me. more https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/02/elon-musk-doge-nuclear-weapons/681581/?fbclid=IwY2xjawISvTBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUrPZFLfiJr2WzSs_b18hBjw_kfvMiryvsRp7oWFDJKwab_ymjGYJOpnww_aem_tGIEBzt9c5Ia-phQtt1Nvw
Russian attacks near Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure heighten scrutiny of Kyiv’s preparedness
Daily Mail 4th Feb 2025
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) – Moscow´s renewed attacks on Ukraine´s electricity infrastructure this winter have heightened scrutiny over the Ukrainian Energy Ministry’s failure to protect the country´s most critical energy facilities near nuclear power sites.
Despite more than a year of warnings that the sites were vulnerable to potential Russian attacks, the Energy Ministry failed to act swiftly, current and former Ukrainian officials in Kyiv told The Associated Press.
Two years of punishing Russian strikes on its power grid have left Ukraine reliant on nuclear power for more than half of its electricity generation. Especially vulnerable are the unprotected nuclear switchyards located outside the perimeters of its three functioning nuclear plants, which are crucial to transmitting power from the reactors to the rest of the country.
“The switchyards that handle electrical routing from nuclear power plants are a vital component of Ukraine´s nuclear energy infrastructure – powering homes, schools, hospitals and other critical civilian infrastructure,” said Marcy R. Fowler, head of the office for research and analysis at Open Nuclear Network, a program of the U.S.-based NGO PAX sapiens that focuses on reducing nuclear risk.
“Given Ukraine´s heavy reliance on nuclear energy, military attacks on these switchyards would be devastating, severely impacting civilian life and undermining the resilience of the energy grid,” she said.
Only in the fall, after Ukrainian intelligence agencies warned of potential Russian strikes targeting the nuclear switchyards, was action taken to begin building protection – far too late in the event of an attack, analysts said…………………..
Even more worrying, nuclear switchyards also have a second critical function: delivering electricity to nuclear plants from the offsite grid that is essential to cooling their reactors and spent fuel. A disruption could potentially spell disaster, the U.N. nuclear agency has repeatedly warned since the Russian attacks began in August.
And while Ukraine’s nuclear plants have backup emergency power systems, these “are designed to provide temporary support,” Fowler said. “Without functioning switchyards, the backup systems alone would not be sufficient to sustain operations or prevent safety risks during an extended outage.”
Lawmakers cited failure to protect these sites in a resolution last month calling for the removal of Energy Minister Herman Haluschenko. The list of grievances, which also censured Haluschenko for alleged systematic corruption and inadequate oversight of the energy sector, must still be voted on by parliament.
Haluschenko maintained at a news conference Tuesday the allegations were “a manipulation” and that fortifications for the electrical grid were “done.” But he would not answer direct questions about whether Ukraine’s nuclear switchyards in particular were protected.
Russian attacks in November and December came dangerously close to the country´s nuclear power plants, causing five out of its nine operating reactors to reduce power generation. The attacks did not strike the nuclear switchyards about a kilometer (half-mile) away from reactor sites but came alarmingly close.
The task of building protections for energy transmission substations, both nuclear and non-nuclear, fell to state and private companies, with the Energy Ministry supervising.
Three layers of fortifications were ordered: sandbags followed by cement barricades capable of withstanding drone attacks and – the most costly and least complete – iron-and-steel-fortified structures.
Following a government decree in July 2023, many state energy companies began immediately contracting to build first- and second-layer fortifications for their most critical power facilities. In the spring of 2024, the government repeated the urgent call to get the work done.
But nuclear switchyards, under the responsibility of Ukraine’s state nuclear company Energoatom, did not issue contracts to build second-layer concrete fortifications until this fall. By then, state energy company Ukrenergo, which manages the high-voltage substations that transmit power from the nuclear reactors to the grid, had already completed 90% of its 43 sites.
The bidding process for two nuclear plants – in Khmelnytskyi and Mykolaiv – only started in early October, according to documents seen by the AP. The tender for the Rivne Nuclear Power Plant was even later, at the end of November.
Construction is not expected to be completed until 2026, the contract documents said.
Concerns over the delays were raised repeatedly in closed-door meetings and letters sent to energy officials over the last year, three current and former government officials told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the foot-dragging by the Energy Ministry………………………………………………………………
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-14357703/Russian-attacks-near-Ukrainian-nuclear-infrastructure-heighten-scrutiny-Kyivs-preparedness.html
Ministers will relax rules to build small nuclear reactors
Ministers are preparing to relax planning rules to make it easier to build mini nuclear
power plants in more parts of the country in order to hit [?] green energy
targets and boost the industry.
They are also examining whether it is
possible to streamline the process for approving the safety of new nuclear
power plants as a way to reduce construction delays. At present rules state
that only the government may designate sites for potential nuclear power
stations, of which there are eight, severely limiting where they can be
built. T
his is seen as a serious barrier to developing small modular
reactors (SMRs) that could be placed in various locations across the
country, providing power for remote areas or power-hungry developments such
as data centres for artificial intelligence.
Under plans to update the
planning regime with a new national policy statement on nuclear power,
companies would be free to develop SMRs in most areas of the country
outside built-up areas and would also benefit from fast-tracked planning
approval, as the power plants would be designated nationally significant
infrastructure.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is expected to use the
government’s spending review to announce funding for one of two small
modular reactors designs. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Rolls-Royce are
among companies competing for the funding in a process being run by Great
British Nuclear. Reeves is also expected to make a final funding decision
on Sizewell C.
Times 5th Feb 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/labour-ministers-rachel-reeves-relax-nuclear-reactor-rules-92cpcc6wj
IAEA chief, in Kyiv, warns of nuclear risk from attacks on Ukraine grid
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said late on
Monday that he was on his way to visit Kyiv and inspect a key substation
that is critical for the safety of Ukraine’s nuclear power. “On my 11th
visit to Ukraine since the war began,” Grossi wrote on X. “I’m heading to
Kyivska substation, critical for the safety of Ukraine’s nuclear power, to
assess damage and help prevent a nuclear accident.” Last week, the IAEA
said in a statement that Grossi would visit Kyiv for “high-level” meetings
to ensure nuclear safety in the war that Russia started in February 2022.
Reuters 3rd Feb 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaeas-grossi-heads-kyiv-crucial-nuclear-safety-inspection-2025-02-03/
Are Drones a Threat to Nuclear Power Plants? Examining Risks to the U.S. Electric Grid
Yet, in recent months highly placed government officials have expressed their concerns over the possibility that drones flying near or over conventional and nuclear electric generating facilities could cause damage to the facilities, leading to power blackouts or worse.
drones operated with malicious intent present two distinct threats to critical infrastructure sites such as power-generating facilities.
drones can be equipped with weapons or explosives to devastating effect.
drone life, January 31, 2025 by Miriam McNabb
Are nuclear power plants, other electric facilities at risk from drones?
By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill
This is the third in a series of articles, examining the problems posed to critical infrastructure sites and other significant potential targets of drone incursions by hostile actors. Part one described current federal laws pertaining to the use of counter-drone technology. Part two looked at the threats from UAVs faced by jails and prisons.
This article will explore whether drones operated with malicious intent present a danger to nuclear power plants and other facets of the U.S. electric grid.
Counter-drone series – Part 3
Earlier this month the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out a statement in an effort to reassure the public that nuclear power plants are safe from potential attacks from the sky in the form of drones flown by bad actors.
“While nuclear power plant security forces do not have the authority to interdict or shoot down aircraft, including drones, flying over their facilities, commercial nuclear power plants are inherently secure and robust, hardened structures,” the statement reads.
They are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Nuclear plants maintain high levels of security measures, which ensure they can defend against threats,” up to and including threats to the plant’s basic structure.
The statement notes that last year, the NRC updated its regulations to require its nuclear power plant licensees, which are largely private companies, to report sightings of drones over their facilities. These reports are sent to the NRC, the FAA, the FBI and local law enforcemen
Yet, in recent months highly placed government officials have expressed their concerns over the possibility that drones flying near or over conventional and nuclear electric generating facilities could cause damage to the facilities, leading to power blackouts or worse. In early January, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry brought the question up to then President-elect Donald Trump at a dinner meeting of Republican governors at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. Landry reported that suspicious drone activity had been spotted over or near Entergy’s River Bend nuclear power plant in West Feliciana Parish.
Scott Parker, chief of unmanned aircraft systems at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), said drones operated with malicious intent present two distinct threats to critical infrastructure sites such as power-generating facilities.
A drone “can be used to either compromise the site’s secret protocols, or it can also be used to capture information that that organization may want to protect, like intellectual property,” Parker said. “There’s also the added capability of cyber-attack tools.” Drones can easily be equipped with a number of capabilities that could identify and exploit wireless communications to gain access into sensitive systems or networks.
Earlier this month the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out a statement in an effort to reassure the public that nuclear power plants are safe from potential attacks from the sky in the form of drones flown by bad actors.
“While nuclear power plant security forces do not have the authority to interdict or shoot down aircraft, including drones, flying over their facilities, commercial nuclear power plants are inherently secure and robust, hardened structures,” the statement reads.
“They are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Nuclear plants maintain high levels of security measures, which ensure they can defend against threats,” up to and including threats to the plant’s basic structure.
The statement notes that last year, the NRC updated its regulations to require its nuclear power plant licensees, which are largely private companies, to report sightings of drones over their facilities. These reports are sent to the NRC, the FAA, the FBI and local law enforcement.
“Additionally, in late 2019, the nuclear industry began coordinating with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the FAA to restrict drone overflights over certain nuclear power plants,” the statement says.
Yet, in recent months highly placed government officials have expressed their concerns over the possibility that drones flying near or over conventional and nuclear electric generating facilities could cause damage to the facilities, leading to power blackouts or worse. In early January, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry brought the question up to then President-elect Donald Trump at a dinner meeting of Republican governors at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. Landry reported that suspicious drone activity had been spotted over or near Entergy’s River Bend nuclear power plant in West Feliciana Parish.
Scott Parker, chief of unmanned aircraft systems at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), said drones operated with malicious intent present two distinct threats to critical infrastructure sites such as power-generating facilities.
A drone “can be used to either compromise the site’s secret protocols, or it can also be used to capture information that that organization may want to protect, like intellectual property,” Parker said. “There’s also the added capability of cyber-attack tools.” Drones can easily be equipped with a number of capabilities that could identify and exploit wireless communications to gain access into sensitive systems or networks.
In addition, as demonstrated in overseas conflicts in recent months, drones can be equipped with weapons or explosives to devastating effect. “It could also be used to some degree in order to attack critical infrastructure, especially when you think about a close-in blast capability of a drone targeting a specific asset,” Parker said……………
Are Drones a Threat to Nuclear Power Plants? Examining Risks to the U.S. Electric Grid
January 31, 2025 by Miriam McNabb Leave a Comment
Are nuclear power plants, other electric facilities at risk from drones?
By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill
This is the third in a series of articles, examining the problems posed to critical infrastructure sites and other significant potential targets of drone incursions by hostile actors. Part one described current federal laws pertaining to the use of counter-drone technology. Part two looked at the threats from UAVs faced by jails and prisons.
This article will explore whether drones operated with malicious intent present a danger to nuclear power plants and other facets of the U.S. electric grid.
Counter-drone series – Part 3
Earlier this month the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out a statement in an effort to reassure the public that nuclear power plants are safe from potential attacks from the sky in the form of drones flown by bad actors.
“While nuclear power plant security forces do not have the authority to interdict or shoot down aircraft, including drones, flying over their facilities, commercial nuclear power plants are inherently secure and robust, hardened structures,” the statement reads.
“They are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Nuclear plants maintain high levels of security measures, which ensure they can defend against threats,” up to and including threats to the plant’s basic structure.
The statement notes that last year, the NRC updated its regulations to require its nuclear power plant licensees, which are largely private companies, to report sightings of drones over their facilities. These reports are sent to the NRC, the FAA, the FBI and local law enforcement.
“Additionally, in late 2019, the nuclear industry began coordinating with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the FAA to restrict drone overflights over certain nuclear power plants,” the statement says.
Yet, in recent months highly placed government officials have expressed their concerns over the possibility that drones flying near or over conventional and nuclear electric generating facilities could cause damage to the facilities, leading to power blackouts or worse. In early January, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry brought the question up to then President-elect Donald Trump at a dinner meeting of Republican governors at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. Landry reported that suspicious drone activity had been spotted over or near Entergy’s River Bend nuclear power plant in West Feliciana Parish.
Scott Parker, chief of unmanned aircraft systems at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), said drones operated with malicious intent present two distinct threats to critical infrastructure sites such as power-generating facilities.
A drone “can be used to either compromise the site’s secret protocols, or it can also be used to capture information that that organization may want to protect, like intellectual property,” Parker said. “There’s also the added capability of cyber-attack tools.” Drones can easily be equipped with a number of capabilities that could identify and exploit wireless communications to gain access into sensitive systems or networks.
In addition, as demonstrated in overseas conflicts in recent months, drones can be equipped with weapons or explosives to devastating effect. “It could also be used to some degree in order to attack critical infrastructure, especially when you think about a close-in blast capability of a drone targeting a specific asset,” Parker said.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the trade association for nuclear power industry, downplays the potential hazards associated with UAV flights over its facilities. ……………………………
If nuclear power plants are not easy targets for drones operated by bad actors, the same cannot be said for other components of the electric grid, such as small electric relay stations. …………………………………. more https://dronelife.com/2025/01/31/are-drones-a-threat-to-nuclear-power-plants-examining-risks-to-the-u-s-electric-grid/
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (173)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 