nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Sizewell C nuclear project suffers setback after road building delayed.

Galliford Try replaced as key contractor following disagreement about cost
of work. Construction of two key access roads for Britain’s Sizewell C
nuclear power station has been delayed, and the main contractor replaced,
in a setback at one of the UK’s biggest infrastructure projects.


The delay threatens to prolong disruption around the Suffolk construction site
and comes as Sizewell C seeks to demonstrate that it can avoid the delays
and cost overruns that have plagued its sister project, Hinkley Point C in
Somerset.

The main contractor for the access roads, construction group
Galliford Try, has been replaced after failing to agree with Sizewell C on
the cost of the work. Galliford had been awarded a contract worth between
£150mn and £200mn to build the Sizewell Link Road and Two Village Bypass,
designed to carry construction traffic to the £38bn nuclear plant while
diverting heavy goods vehicles away from nearby villages.

 FT 25th Aug 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/7a83b577-8d67-4435-9798-1e53d7fad4e9

August 28, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

British start-up to help US build nuclear-powered cargo ships.

Core Power has raised $200m from Japanese backers and will use its propulsion systems
in a fleet of American nuclear-powered merchant vessels. A British start-up
based on a west London trading estate is to help the American government
build a fleet of nuclear-powered cargo ships.

A public-private partnership
between the US Maritime Administration and Core Power, based in Chiswick
Park, was signed in Washington DC on Monday. The first-of-its-kind
agreement aims to accelerate construction of a US-flagged fleet of rapid
nuclear-powered merchant vessels, and revive a US shipbuilding industry
that has been decimated by cheaper competitors from China in recent years.

 Times 24th Aug 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/british-start-up-to-help-us-build-nuclear-powered-cargo-ships-8xl7bmnk8

August 28, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Polish billionaire’s financing plans for 14 UK SMRs analysed

“I think the price projections are utterly worthless. If you don’t know the construction cost and time, the cost of capital, the equity structure, not to mention the O&M (operation and maintenance) cost, you have no idea what the power price will be.”

“So if things don’t go to plan, it will be the government’s fault, not theirs. (SGE’s)”

– Stephen Thomas, professor at the University of Greenwich Business School, working in the area of energy policy. 

25 Aug, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/polish-billionaires-financing-plans-for-14-uk-smrs-analysed-25-08-2026/

Financing plans from Polish billionaire Michał Sołowow’s SGE to enable the deployment of 14 small modular reactors (SMRs) in the UK have been revealed by NCE and analysed by an expert.

In July, SGE – described as a dedicated European SMR development and investment platform – announced its plans to build 14 GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactors on three sites in the UK.

In total, the investment is expected to be around £35bn and the first SMRs are hoped to be operational in 2034.

To achieve that, SGE has submitted an application under the UK’s Advanced Nuclear Framework (ANF) to develop the combined 4.2GW fleet which, if successful, could deliver 11% of UK power demand for at least sixty years.

Using the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, New Civil Engineer (NCE) has secured correspondence between SGE and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) where SGE set out more details about its ambitions to finance its SMRs.

SGE’s representatives at etara – a power, energy and infrastructure advisory firm – sent a letter from SGE to DESNZ deputy director for advanced nuclear Andrew Cooke dated 26 June.

The letter was addressed to the then DESNZ secretary of state Ed Miliband.

“We are writing to set out how SGE’s privately led SMR fleet deployment programme can support DESNZ’s priorities on clean power, energy security, industrial growth and reliable nuclear baseload, ahead of our application to the Advanced Nuclear Framework (ANF) which we plan to submit next week on the 1 July 2026,” it said.

SGE said it is “bringing forward one of the UK’s most mature privately led SMR propositions”, and this would be “on better value for money terms helping reduce the long-term impact on UK bill payers”.

It backed up the promise of value for money by saying: “Our fleet approach across Europe, including leveraging our regional exclusivity on the GE Vernova technology deployment and our 14 unit programme in Poland with our JV partner Orlen, gives us confidence that we can deliver on attractive economic terms

Their plans were shown to University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Steve Thomas, who shared his analysis with NCE. SGE provided NCE with responses to his analysis.

SGE’s letter said: “Our preliminary financial modelling is indicating that the CfD (contracts for difference) strike price is expected to be below that of Hinkley Point C with a lesser risk transfer than the Sizewell C Rab (regulated asset base) model, offering better value for money.”

Thomas said: “As I never tire of pointing out, CfD tells you nothing other than that the plant is not bidding into the market. Hinkley has one, so will Sizewell. The very big difference is that for Hinkley, the price is fixed and the investor income will be what it will be and for Sizewell, the investor income is fixed and the electricity price will be what it will be.

“I think the price projections are utterly worthless. If you don’t know the construction cost and time, the cost of capital, the equity structure, not to mention the O&M (operation and maintenance) cost, you have no idea what the power price will be.”

Responding to Thomas’s analysis, SGE said: “It is true that for Hinkley the CfD price is fixed and the pain of overruns is impacting the investors.

“For Sizewell it is true that the consumer will pay whatever it costs, but it is not quite right that there will be a CfD, there already are charges to consumers under the Rab model – well before the plant is constructed or produces power.

“The CfD model proposed by SGE, as with Hinkley pre-sets at FID the strike price, so keeps the completion risk and majority of cost outturn risk with the investors, hence the projections do matter for the investors and for the value for money evaluation by the government.

“As with all standard project appraisals, our financial model underpins the indicative strike price. It is informed by live data from construction of the first BWX300 SMR in Canada and benefits from economies of scale from our projects across Europe.”

The letter said SGE’s offer would involve “lesser risk transfer than the Sizewell C Rab model”.

Thomas said it was “interesting that this is implicit criticism of the Sizewell deal and I wonder how that will go with DESNZ, which sold Sizewell on the basis it was better for consumers than Hinkley, now we are going back to the Hinkley model because it is better than Sizewell.”

Responding to Thomas’s analysis, SGE said: “There is no criticism of the Sizewell model, just a factual reference to the relative risk allocation – the CfD model keeps a greater level of risk (e.g. completion risk) with the investors, not with taxpayers or consumers.

“It is common practice to benchmark, and this is all that the reference does. The proposed model draws on lessons from Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and other reference projects across Europe.”

SGE’s letter said the success of its proposition is “subject to supportive government engagement” and said, “our delivery team with the capability of GE Vernova and Samsung is capable of delivering first power to the grid by 2034”.

Thomas said: “So if things don’t go to plan, it will be the government’s fault, not theirs.”

SGE responded, saying: “This is not a fault allocation point but a simple point that nuclear projects require state engagement – self-evidently, the CfD agreement needs the state’s agreement and signature.

“Delivery of any major infrastructure project requires close collaboration between government and the client organisation across planning, regulation, financing and delivery.”

The letter said: “To convert this mature proposition into delivery, we are seeking government support that is practical, targeted and designed to be off government balance sheet to mobilise our private capital.”

Thomas analysed, saying: “That sounds like the Rab process which didn’t go well as the government ended up having to take near enough half the project, so definitely not off the government balance sheet.”

SGE responded, saying: “The support proposed is not Rab but CfD. The ANF is seeking a structure that mobilises private capital. SGE is offering such private capital under CfD terms.

“Our proposal is designed to mobilise private capital through a structure that is intended to remain off the government balance sheet, subject to the final model and accounting treatment.”

Finally, the letter also said: “Utilising the CfD and SoSIA (Secretary of State Investor Agreement) contractual frameworks with specific modifications that take the lessons learnt from Hinkley Point C (HPC) and from a number of new nuclear projects across Europe that have since HPC been enabled under CfD structures.”

Thomas said: “I will give very good odds that one of the specific modifications is that the strike price is not fixed at the time of FID (final investment decision), but if costs go up, so will the strike price.”

SGE said: “As per the CfD structures in Europe that are referred to, there are pain share mechanisms, as well as gain share mechanisms, but not full pass-through to the strike price.

“SGE is an equity investor into a new nuclear programme and, along with its strategic partners, it intends to take development and construction risks – it will not simply transfer any cost increase into the CfD.

“Any modifications to the CfD and SoSIA frameworks would be subject to agreement with government and reflected in the agreed contractual and regulatory framework and be subject to the controls that exist for any state support regarding value for money considerations.”

Later in the correspondence between SGE and DESNZ officials, public relations staff working on behalf of SGE asked DESNZ officials to attend their press launch event in July and for a minister to provide a quote for their press release.

Officials were unavailable for the launch event.


In response to the request for a quote, a DESNZ official said: “As the submission of a proposal is part of a routine administrative process, consistent with the department’s approach to comparable processes such as entry into the Generic Design Assessment (GDA), DESNZ does not provide public quotes or commentary at the point of application.

“This approach helps ensure that the department remains impartial throughout the assessment process and avoids any perception that a submission has been endorsed or prejudged prior to the completion of the relevant assessment and decision-making processes.

“Should a proposal be successful, there may be opportunities for communications and stakeholder engagement at the appropriate stage. However, at the point of submission, the department will not be providing a quote.”

An SGE spokesperson told NCE: “SGE’s interactions with DESNZ have been and remain positive and constructive.

“We understand the department’s approach that reflects its standard policy in relation to the ANF process. We look forward to continuing our engagement with DESNZ as we progress our UK project.”

August 27, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Cabinet Office declines to share information it holds about PM’s nuke orders options

Tom Pashby, Aug 26, 2026, https://tompashby.substack.com/p/cabinet-office-declines-to-share?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6735486&post_id=212821041&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The Cabinet Office has confirmed to 20 Working Days that it holds information regarding what options the Prime Minister has in terms of the orders they can give to nuclear-armed submarine captains in their ‘Letters of last resort’, but said it is withholding the information.

It is widely understood that one of the first tasks a Prime Minister has on walking through the door to Number 10 Downing Street is writing the letters to the captains of Trident submarines – the UK’s continuous-at-sea-deterrent.

The letters are written so that, if communications are not possible between the submarine and the wider military and political command and control structure, the submarine captains are able to find out what they should do by reading the pre-written letters which are believed to be sealed until they are needed.

The existence of the letters was confirmed by the MOD in an internal review of a FOI request in 2015. The results of the internal review were addressed to a Mr D Black.

In 2016, just before Theresa May took over the role from David Cameron, the Guardian reported: “The options are said to include the orders “Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there”; “Go to Australia”; “Retaliate”; or “Use your own judgment”.”

On 4 July 2026, using the FOI Act, 20 Working Days asked the MOD to share “any documents which show whether the options include the orders ‘Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there’; ‘Go to Australia’; ‘Retaliate’; or ‘Use your own judgment’,” as per the reporting in the Guardian.

In response, on 16 July, the MOD said: “As the letters are administered by the Cabinet Office, you may wish to approach them regarding […] what options the letters might contain.”

On the same day, 20 Working Days put that question to the Cabinet Office.

On 17 August, the Cabinet Office responded and said: “We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office.

“Information you have requested is exempt under section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 24 exempts information from disclosure if its exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.”

It added that “Section 24 is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information”, and confirmed “we have determined that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this Information”.

The Cabinet Office was approached for comment.

August 27, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

£1.1bn works package lined up as Wylfa nuclear plans gather pace

22 Aug 2026, Mark Mansfield,
https://nation.cymru/news/1-1bn-works-package-lined-up-as-wylfa-nuclear-plans-gather-pace/

Preparatory works worth up to £1.1bn are being lined up as part of plans to build the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors at Wylfa on Ynys Môn.

Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has begun sounding out contractors for a major package of work including site clearance, earthworks, infrastructure and utilities.

The procurement notice does not name the site, but Wylfa has been selected for the UK’s first SMR development, with an initial three Rolls-Royce reactors planned.

GBE-N signed a contract with Rolls-Royce SMR in April to begin design work on the reactors, which are expected to generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of around three million homes.

The newly disclosed early works package has an estimated value of between £730m and £1.1bn and would prepare the site for the main construction programme.

Work could include species relocation, remediation, site clearance, construction utilities, drainage and haul roads, as well as extensive earthworks.

GBE-N said the work would establish the required ground levels and safe access routes for later construction, creating the physical platform needed for the main development.

The contract is currently expected to run from June 2028 until June 2034, with an option to extend it until June 2037.

GBE-N had considered dividing the work into two contracts but has opted for a single package in an effort to reduce the risks associated with different contractors working across interconnected elements of the project.

However, the organisation cautioned that the scope, timetable and estimated value could change as the programme develops.

The procurement process is expected to formally begin with publication of a tender notice in March 2027.

Webinar

GBE-N is also due to hold a webinar for potential suppliers on September 3 outlining the proposed procurement approach and details of the early works.

The package has been identified as particularly suitable for small and medium-sized businesses, potentially opening opportunities for companies in Wales to become involved in the supply chain.

The latest development follows the signing of the contract between GBE-N and Rolls-Royce SMR earlier this year.

The Wylfa project is expected to support around 8,000 jobs across the UK, including up to 3,000 locally during peak construction, according to industry estimates.

Rolls-Royce SMR chief executive Chris Cholerton said at the time: “This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units at Wylfa and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme.”

The former nuclear power station stopped generating electricity in 2015 after more than four decades of operation.

Previous plans by Japanese company Hitachi for a new large-scale nuclear power station at Wylfa were abandoned in 2020 after funding could not be secured.

The Wylfa scheme is subject to regulatory approvals and a final investment decision, with electricity generation expected to begin in the 2030s.

August 26, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Great British Energy -Nuclear (GBE-N) outlines £730M-£1.1bn early works package

21 Aug, 2026 By Lee Kenny

Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has outlined plans for an early works package with an estimated contract value range of £730M to £1.1bn.

A preliminary market engagement notice published on 20 August sets out the scope of the package, which covers civils, infrastructure, buildings and MEP, and earthworks.

The package covers key enabling activities required to prepare the (unlisted) site for main construction.

The early works package forms part of GBE-N’s Owner’s Scope, which encompasses the planning, licensing, design and construction activities necessary to enable a Technology Partner to install and commission small modular reactor (SMR) technology.

SMR is a category of nuclear fission reactors that are significantly smaller in size and power output than traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. GBE-N has spearheaded a competition to select preferred technologies, naming Rolls-Royce SMR as a preferred designer for projects at sites like Wylfa in North Wales (main image above).

The estimated contract period is from 1 June 2028 to 1 June 2034, with a possible extension to 1 June 2037 and the work includes design from RIBA Stage 4 and delivery of ground-related enabling activities, including species relocation, remediation services, site clearance, site establishment and construction utilities.

The package also includes supporting infrastructure such as drainage and haul roads to support bulk earthworks.

The early works will establish the correct ground levels and create safe access routes for subsequent phases. They will provide the foundational physical platform needed to de-risk, mobilise and accelerate the main works programme, according to the notice.

GBE-N considered splitting the packages into two but has decided to consolidate them into one package to minimise interface risk.

GBE-N cautioned that the positions and timelines presented are based on current information and assumptions. It said the scope, dates, values and sequencing may change as programme maturity develops and further validation is undertaken.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Why Britain and Europe MUST talk to Russia, and why no one wants to make the first move

In conversation with Mark Galeotti

Ian Proud, Aug 21, 2026. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/why-britain-and-europe-must-talk?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=212103666&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

After four and a half years of war in Ukraine, European leaders are still largely stuck repeating the same empty mantras: “as long as it takes,” “no talks until Russia withdraws,” “dialogue is a reward for good behaviour.”

In my latest conversation on The Peacemonger channel, leading Russia expert Mark Galeotti explains why this approach has become deeply self-harming — and why someone, somewhere, is going to have to break the logjam.

Galeotti, honorary professor at UCL, director of Mayak Intelligence and host of the widely followed podcast In Moscow’s Shadows, is characteristically clear-eyed.

The war is no longer delivering strategic benefits for Europe (I’d argue that it has been a disaster from the start).

Russia is slowly advancing in the Donbas.

Ukraine is paying a catastrophic human and economic price.

Europe is bankrolling the conflict while outsourcing its diplomacy to Washington and preparing to phase out the last of its Russian gas imports — a move with predictably severe economic consequences.

Yet no one wants to be the first to say out loud what many now admit privately: that a negotiated end is necessary, and that talking to Russia is not a concession but a necessity.

Galeotti is particularly interesting on Britain’s potential role.

Outside the European Union and still regarded by Moscow as both a serious antagonist and a serious player, the UK has a rare opportunity to act as a pragmatic interlocutor.

The “only Nixon could go to China” logic applies.

Under a possible Burnham government more focused on domestic priorities, that opportunity may be greater than under previous administrations — but it will still require political courage.

The conversation ranges widely beyond the battlefield.

We discuss the urgent need to restore military-to-military contacts, law-enforcement cooperation and academic exchanges — the practical, professional channels that have been allowed to atrophy.

Galeotti is scathing about the hollowing-out of British diplomatic and academic expertise on Russia, and the long-term cost of cutting off the next generation of specialists from time on the ground.

He is equally clear-eyed about the Russia–China relationship: transactional, competitive and far more fragile than the “friendship without limits” rhetoric suggests.

Western policymakers who talk of a seamless “Dragon Bear” alliance are, in his view, peddling dangerous nonsense.

When the war eventually ends — and Galeotti, like me, does not expect it this year — European politicians will face the awkward task of polishing a strategic failure as success, as I have long said.

The longer the fighting continues, the more expensive and politically toxic the post-war period will become.

This is a sober, realistic conversation free of both Russophobia and wishful thinking.

If you want to understand why Europe is stuck, and what it would actually take to start moving toward a settlement, I strongly recommend watching the full discussion which you can find here.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Iranian hackers shut down UK power plant

 Telegraph 22nd Aug 2026

Unprecedented cyber attack believed to be most successful of its kind

Iran shut down a British power plant for four days in an unprecedented cyber attack, The Telegraph can disclose.

It is thought to be the first time that hackers affiliated to the Iranian regime have succeeded in closing down such a facility in the UK, and is believed to be the most successful cyber attack of its kind.

The Telegraph understands that the incident took place at the same time as a series of attacks on US water infrastructure last month, which affected 12 states and caused concern in the White House.


Iran shut down a British power plant for four days in an unprecedented cyber attack, The Telegraph can disclose.

It is thought to be the first time that hackers affiliated to the Iranian regime have succeeded in closing down such a facility in the UK, and is believed to be the most successful cyber attack of its kind.

The Telegraph understands that the incident took place at the same time as a series of attacks on US water infrastructure last month, which affected 12 states and caused concern in the White House.

Advertisement

British officials refused to be drawn on which power plant had been affected, citing security concerns, but it is understood that the facility was disabled for four days while staff fought to bring it back online.

It is understood that the plant affected was relatively small and that the outage had no impact on the UK’s wider power supply or energy generation.

In response, the Government briefed the chief executives of power companies and wrote to businesses with advice, direction and next steps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/22/iranian-hackers-shut-down-uk-power-plant/

August 25, 2026 Posted by | incidents, UK | Leave a comment

‘Can we justify £15bn on nuclear weapons?’

By Andrea Dow, Rothesay1, 20 Aug 2026,
https://argyllbute24.co.uk/can-we-justify-15bn-on-nuclear-weapons/

EVEN if you believe in the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Even if you think a nuclear base on the Clyde is a deterrent rather than a likely potential target.

Even if the phrase “increased readiness, availability and lethality” gives you a warm fuzzy glow rather than prostrating you with terror – does £15 billion not seem a lot to spend on something supposedly designed to never be used?

Aside from the repeated leaks of tritium and the inevitable cover-ups by both the MOD and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (military bases are exempt from civilian pollution controls), the watchdog organisation, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, published a damning report stating the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas, having “major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.

Faslane is the home of the nation’s nuclear deterrent and the new generation of hunter-killer submarines. Each submarine carries up to 16 missiles. Each missile carries up to eight warheads. Each warhead has a yield of 100 kilotons of TNT, six times greater than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima – is it just me, or does this make the case for increased lethality seem a little shaky?

To quote the independent organisation Scientists for Global Responsibility, “Nuclear weapons are the epitome of an unsustainable security strategy and create enormous risks for humanity and the global environment.” The case for abandoning this grandiose project and committing the UK to a future without weapons of mass destruction is becoming stronger by the day.

Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but as a child the regular sight of nuclear subs patrolling the Clyde during the Cold War did not make me feel safe.

They were the stuff of nightmares – nightmares I’d hoped we were beginning to collectively waken from. Apparently not so. And despite the clear and obvious risks to all, some few will continue to benefit richly from this folly (just as they will from the proposed data centre at Ardyne). Just another example of what author Kapka Kasabova calls the “genocidal, ecocidal greed” of the global industrial-military complex whose appetites are incompatible with the survival of a human Earth.

Frightened anyone? Or is it just me?

August 25, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Building on shaky foundations – Whistleblower highlights serious safety and staffing concerns after Dounreay reorganisation

 
 John O’Groat Journal, By David G Scott – david.scott@hnmedia.co.uk, 19 August 2026

Serious concerns have been raised regarding safety governance, staffing levels, and workplace culture at the Dounreay nuclear decommissioning site following a major organisational overhaul.

A former employee at the site warned that recent reorganisations have eroded independent oversight, drained vital institutional knowledge, and created what they describe as “a perfect storm for a disaster.”

At the heart of the concerns is a major site reorganisation known internally as Fit For the Future (FFF). According to the insider, the restructure resulted in the abolition of the dedicated Health and Safety Assurance Department. Historically, this department provided independent checks on project governance, ensured compliance with safety procedures, and tracked lessons learned from previous site incidents.

“The assurance department’s role is to check that people are following procedure, learning from incidents, and maintaining governance,” the source stated. “These were independent people overseeing projects to ensure nobody was cutting corners. Removing that independent oversight leaves the site dangerously exposed.”

Critics within the workforce have alleged that the costly restructuring failed to deliver improvements, claiming that leadership roles were increasingly filled by managers lacking hands-on nuclear safety expertise.

“Egos are driving the leadership team,” the whistleblower claimed. “They have been promoted into positions not because they were competent, but because they were confident. They have people running projects who aren’t experts in the field and won’t listen to the people who are.”

The site has also seen a significant drain of experienced staff through voluntary redundancy schemes including the so-called mutually agreed voluntary exit (MAVE). Decades of operational knowledge built up by long-serving local workers have been lost, leaving remaining teams stretched and reliant on less experienced personnel.

‘I would be perfectly justified in sending you to prison’: Community service for man who ran amok with fire extinguisher at Wick hospital‘I would be perfectly justified in sending you to prison’: Community service for man who ran amok with fire extinguisher at Wick hospital

“I truly believe that a good lot of the people who left under MAVE were people who spoke up about concerns,” said the former employee. “They want people in positions who will just say ‘yes sir, no sir’ – they don’t want to know something is wrong, they want you to cover it up.”

This turnover has driven a decline in the proportion of Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEP) holding technical management and safety leadership positions across the site, they suggested. “For positions where years ago you had to have specific degrees and years of hands-on experience, they have watered those standards down across the board,” added the source.

At the same time, accusations have emerged that experienced personnel who voiced concerns about safety protocols or restructuring plans were sidelined or encouraged to leave.

Reports also highlight ongoing workplace bullying alongside a management culture that prioritises public image over addressing root-cause operational issues.

“The bullying that goes on is swept under the carpet. HR know about it, but what they do is move the victim to another area and allow the bully to continue.”

Furthermore, critics argue the scheme represents a false economy, as replacing experienced staff with newer personnel fails to yield genuine savings once additional workforce numbers and extensive training are factored in to fill the capability gap.

Highlighting the practical impact of weakened governance, the source pointed to a recent incident in the site’s laboratories which resulted in staff being exposed to a chemical leak………………………………………….
https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/building-on-shaky-foundations-whistleblower-highlights-ser-442770/

August 24, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Anglers win Hinkley information battle

Hinkley generation company must now respond to requests for information

Tuesday 18th August 2026,
https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/environment-news/angling-fishing-environment-hinkley-point-938586

An anglers’ pressure group has won a landmark legal ruling confirming that the company building Hinkley Point C cannot refuse to answer environmental information requests simply because it is privately owned.

A London tribunal ruled this week that NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for Hinkley Point C, must now respond to requests for information about the power station’s cooling water intake, environmental protection measures and possible environmental compensation.

A spokesperson for the pressure group Fish Legal, which uses environmental law to protect rivers, lakes and coastal fisheries on behalf of anglers, said: “The company must now either provide the information or identify specific legal grounds under environmental law for withholding it”

“The judgment confirms that when a private company is entrusted with major public functions and granted exceptional statutory powers, private ownership does not necessarily place its decisions beyond public scrutiny.

“The ruling may influence future cases involving other private companies exercising comparable functions and powers.”

Zoe Wedderburn-Day, head of policy and strategy at Fish Legal, said: “The new government wants essential infrastructure built more quickly. Much of that programme will depend on private companies using powers granted to them by the state.

Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”

Ms Wedcderburn-Day added: “This judgment does not decide which environmental protection technology should be used at Hinkley Point C. It confirms that NNB cannot avoid answering environmental information requests simply by saying that it is a private company.

“The immediate issue is whether the company will now provide the information or explain clearly why it believes any part of it should remain withheld.”

NNB may seek permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

August 23, 2026 Posted by | legal, UK | Leave a comment

British Foreign Policy on Autopilot: Escalating in Ukraine Without Strategy, Consent or Hard Power

In conversation with Mary Dejevsky

Ian Proud, Aug 19, 2026

I spoke with veteran journalist and commentator Mary Dejevsky about the mounting sense of drift in British foreign policy. Our discussion ranged widely—from her recent travels to Greenland and an upcoming trip to Mongolia—to the sharpening tensions with Russia and the quieter but consequential contest unfolding in the Arctic. What emerged most clearly was a picture of a United Kingdom continuing to deepen its military commitment to Ukraine while lacking a coherent strategy, public consent, or the hard power to underwrite the risks it is taking.

Mary described a Whitehall that appears to be on autopilot. Neither the new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, nor the Prime Minister rushed to Kyiv as an opening gesture, yet both have doubled down on the previous government’s maxim that “Ukraine’s defence is our defence.”

In recent days this has extended to reports of British-made drones striking deep inside Russia. The Russian embassy in London responded with warnings of consequences; British officials expressed indignation.

Mary found both the escalation and the surprise at Russia’s reaction astonishing.

There has been no meaningful parliamentary debate, no clear statement of heightened risk to the United Kingdom itself, and no recognition that such support may actually prolong a proxy war that is already catastrophic for Ukraine’s demographics and future viability as a state.

This policy sits uneasily alongside Britain’s diminished military capacity. Submarines are in repair, stocks of munitions have been drawn down, and the army is a fraction of its former size.

Russia, by contrast, fields a far larger force and a shipbuilding programme that eclipses our own. Any retaliation is more likely to occur in the legal grey zone of the high seas—seizing vessels—than through direct attack on British soil.

Yet the absence of a defence attaché in Moscow for over a year, and the collapse of earlier post-Cold War naval cooperation, leaves little room for de-escalation.

As Mary observed, Europe has forfeited any plausible role as mediator in the Ukraine war and now appears content to keep the conflict alive long after American enthusiasm has cooled.

Threaded through our conversation was the Arctic dimension, where commercial rather than purely military competition is gathering pace.

Mary’s recent voyage along Greenland’s west coast revealed a sparsely populated, logistically forbidding territory still heavily dependent on Danish subsidies.

Chinese attempts to secure mineral footholds failed on commercial grounds.

Yet Beijing has now announced a regular “Silk Ice Road”—a summer trade route hugging Russia’s Arctic coast and destined, in practical terms, for European ports such as Felixstowe.

This is not primarily a challenge to American maritime primacy in the Pacific; it is a bid to tighten commercial ties with Europe and reduce transit times.

Therefore, Washington’s renewed interest in Greenland—bases, the Northwest Passage, and the so-called Golden Dome—can be read partly as a bid to lock in European allegiance in the face of a growing reality of Eurasian interconnectedness, driven by China.

Russia, already possessed of the world’s longest Arctic coastline and its own Northern Sea Route, has little incentive to seek additional territory but does, ultimately, see itself as a key Eurasian power broker.

Taken together, these strands expose a deeper problem.

Britain continues to trade on past martial glories while its strategic reviews dissolve into unfunded pick-and-mix lists and domestic voices—concerned with jobs, infrastructure and everyday security—remain largely unheard.

The result is policy that heightens risk in the absence of strategy.

Conversations such as this one with Mary Dejevsky are a small counterweight: an insistence that peace, not perpetual escalation, remains the more responsible national interest for Britain and Britons alike.

You can watch the full conversation here:

August 22, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Special investigation: UK’s nuclear waste a ‘calamity for future generations’.

 Plans to dispose of high-level nuclear waste over the long
term remain uncertain. Plans to deal with nuclear waste must be considered by the new energy secretary Miatta Fahnbullaeh.

Britain is planning a new fleet of nuclear reactors – without a repository for high-grade legacy waste. The UK’s efforts to find a location for an underground nuclear waste burial site have stalled. New energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh must review two remaining areas in Cumbria, after three were abandoned following community pushback, Energy Voice has learned.

Two sites, Mid Copeland and
South Copeland, near existing nuclear waste storage facilities at
Sellafield, are being assessed for “permanent” nuclear waste storage in
a planned geological disposal facility (GDF), the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA) confirmed in an  emailed statement.

With a UK nuclear burial site undetermined, storage at Sellafield time-limited, and three major nuclear projects expected to operate beyond 2055, government has been accused of “kicking the can down the road”. Further, the National Wealth Fund (NWF) did not factor long-term waste disposal into decisions to invest in Sizewell C, Energy Voice has also learned.

The state-owned body backed the UK’s new 3.2GW nuclear power station in Suffolk with £36.6 billion in debt finance. Its chief investment officer Ian Brown told Energy Voice during an interview in March, months after the project reached a final investment decision: “I wouldn’t say it’s not something we look at, but at the moment… the proposal is that the waste material will just stayon site.

“It’s going to take a while to work out where in the country
we’re able to drop the stuff into the ground, if ever.” Professor Andrew
Blowers, co-chair of the NWS/NGO Exchange and former member of RadioactiveWaste Management Advisory Committee, said: “The new build programme is costly, risky with long timescales and makes little sense as a part of the energy mix needed to achieve net zero.

“Far from helping to deal with
climate change, the wastes from such a programme will add yet more calamity o future generations.”

NDA subsidiary National Waste Services (NWS),
created in 2022 to handle the UK’s “future radioactive waste”, has
submitted a decision to the energy secretary on where to locate a
high-grade nuclear waste burial site, a spokeswoman said. The energy
secretary must now formally respond to its proposal.

However, the Office
for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) told Energy Voice that NWS needs to “find a
suitable site and a willing community” to host nuclear waste. It said:
“No site has yet been identified.” Of five potential sites, three were
ruled out, including the coastal region of Seascale, a site near Sellafield
in Cumbria, and another in Lincolnshire, where the county council voted
unanimously to withdraw from the plans. “

Three other communities have
previously been involved in the process but are no longer,” the ONR said
in a statement to Energy Voice. “Allerdale in Cumbria was withdrawn due
to insufficient suitable geology. Theddlethorpe (Lincolnshire) and South
Holderness (Yorkshire) voluntarily withdrew from the process.” Blowers
said,

“At present a GDF is uncertain, its location unclear and its
timescale already far into the later part of this century. It is
irresponsible and immoral to create yet more wastes arising in the next
century for which no management provision can conceivably be made.”
“The mad rush to building yet more dangerous nuclear power stations with
their eternal dangerous radioactive debris should be stopped dead in its
tracks now,” Blowers said.

Energy Voice 17th Aug 2026,
https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/602330/uk-nuclear-waste-management-problem/

August 21, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C subsidiary must comply with environmental information rules, UTT rules

“Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”

17.Aug.2026, Adam Carey, https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/information-law/398-information-law-news/101448-hinkley-point-c-subsidiary-must-comply-with-environmental-information-rules-utt-rules

The subsidiary responsible for a new nuclear power station currently under construction is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the Upper Tribunal (UTT) has ruled.

In NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKUT 241 (AAC), Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs dismissed an appeal by NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

The case arose after NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for the power station known as ‘Hinkley Point C’, refused an information request from Fish Legal in March 2024. It refused to process the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) because it did not consider itself a public authority.

Fish Legal appealed the refusal to the Information Commissioner, which found that NNB was a public authority under regulation 2(2)(c) of the Regulations.

The FTT later confirmed that decision, leading NNB to appeal to the UTT on three grounds.

Following a hearing in April 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error on a point of law.

One of the main thrusts of the appeal centred on the FTT’s decision that NNB was vested with special powers.

NNB has a range of powers under its Development Consent Order and electricity licence, including powers of compulsory acquisition, entry, street works and works affecting watercourses, as well as harbour authority powers.

Jacobs J said the question was whether HPC had powers which were “not powers available to HPC as a matter of general private law”. Having those powers conferred “a practical advantage” on the company should it wish to use them, making them special powers.

This aspect of the judgment relied on the test for special powers set out by the Upper Tribunal in Fish Legal in 2015. That case concerned the application of the Environmental Information Regulations to bodies carrying out public administrative functions, including the question of whether they were vested with special powers.

Zoe Wedderburn-Day, Head of Policy and Strategy at Fish Legal, said: “The new government wants essential infrastructure built more quickly. Much of that programme will depend on private companies using powers granted to them by the state.

“Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”

“Fish Legal established that basic legal principle for privatised water companies more than 10 years ago. The Upper Tribunal has now confirmed its relevance to the private company building Hinkley Point C.”

HPC must now respond to Fish Legal’s EIR or rely on specific EIR exemptions. The deadline to response is 20 August, with any application for permission to appeal due by 16 August.

August 21, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

WhatDoTheyKnow provides proof it sent Freedom Of Information request to AWE, (the Atomic Weapons Establishment)

Tom Pashby, Aug 21, 2026

Digital proof has been shared with 20 Working Days that a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request was sent to AWE (the Atomic Weapons Establishment) – which AWE claimed it didn’t receive.

The FOI request is now the subject of an Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decision notice – a type of enforcement action – over its failure to respond to a FOI request sent by 20 Working Days on 6 May, via WhatDoTheyKnow.

WhatDoTheyKnow describes itself as “a site to help anyone submit a Freedom of Information request. WhatDoTheyKnow also publishes and archives requests and responses, building a massive archive of information.” It is built by a pro-democracy and transparency non-governmental organisation called MySociety.

The decision notice has since been published on the ICO’s website. The ICO explains what decision notices are. It says: “When we do take formal enforcement action, this will likely be in the form of a decision notice.

“A decision notice is a formal document that explains whether the Information Commissioner thinks a public authority has complied with the law when dealing with a specific request.”

The decision notice it issued to AWE about the 6 May FOI request said: “A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days.

“Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.”

Setting out the next steps required by the ICO, it said: “The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.

“The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

20 Working Days offered AWE the opportunity to comment on the decision notice ahead of publication of its 12 August article covering the enforcement action.

The day after the article was published, on 13 August, an AWE spokesperson said: “AWE has received, and processed, previous requests from the requestor (FOI2026-020, FOI2026-042 and FOI2026-044) and has also received and acknowledged FOI2026-047) via the WhatDoTheyKnow platform. A response to that request is currently being considered.

“However a further request, understood to have been submitted on 6th May, was not received by AWE. AWE was therefore unaware of its existence until contacted by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in July.

“Following correspondence with the ICO, the ICO issued a Decision Notice on 10 August 2026, requiring AWE to provide a substantive response within 20 working days.

“AWE is processing this and has formally acknowledged this (reference FOI2026-049). A response will be provided within the applicable time limit.”

The spokesperson added: “This is equivalent to a signed-for physical letter delivery where the receptionist signs for the letter. Whether that letter got routed to the desk of the responsible person is the authority’s responsibility and out of our control.”

WhatDoTheyKnow later provided additional technical information to show it had evidence that the message was sent properly and received by AWE’s systems.

All the evidence shared by WhatDoTheyKnow was forwarded by 20 Working Days to AWE.

In response to the digital evidence, an AWE spokesperson said: “We have carried out enquiries using the additional log information supplied by [20 Working Days], but have not been able to locate any reference to the message that you are referring to.

“Our position therefore remains that the message in question was not responded to because it was not received by the team dealing with such requests. As stated previously, the team now has the request and will respond within the relevant timescales.”

August 21, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »