The World Bank. The World Bank is the largest international bank of all. Its basic purpose is to provide loans, primarily to developing countries, to build their economic infrastructures. The World Bank, in theory, does not make loans for nuclear power projects. These are deemed too capital-intensive and not especially appropriate for developing nations. But that hasn’t stopped the Bank from making loans that have the effect of supporting nuclear reactor construction and operation, especially in Eastern Europe.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The EBRD was formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union to provide western financial assistance to Russia and Eastern European countries. Each country supporting the EBRD has a vote on the Board, although the Bank is primarily operated by the G-7 countries. For energy projects, its mandate is clear: it may provide funds only for least-cost energy projects. However, in Ukraine, the EBRD currently is considering a $190 million loan to complete construction of two Soviet-designed reactors, Rivne-4 and Khelmintsky-2. The Bank’s rationale (and the U.S. State Department’s rationale) is that construction of these reactors will lead to the permanent shutdown of all Chernobyl reactors. Never mind that a panel formed by the EBRD, and led by U.S. energy experts Peter Bradford (a former NRC Chairman) and David Freeman (former CEO of the New York Power Authority) concluded that the R4/K2 project would be the most-cost energy solution for Ukraine. Confronted with that panel’s conclusion, the EBRD simply hired nuclear contractor Stone and Webster to provide a different opinion. And never mind that Ukraine collects only about 2% of its electric bills (electricity was simply not paid for under the Soviet regime, and old habits die hard…), that nuclear plant workers are often paid in vodka, that the initial $190 million loan would just be the tip of the iceberg, and that Ukraine can’t possibly repay the loan and can’t possibly run two new reactors safely.

U.S. Export-Import Bank. This bank, funded entirely by U.S. taxpayers, is the motherlode for the world’s nuclear power industry. ExIm has funded nuclear projects in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and across the globe. And ExIm isn’t particularly picky about what it funds. New reactors, sure! Upgrades of existing reactors, now matter how dangerous or feeble, sure! ExIm claims to engage in rigorous evaluations of the projects it funds, and claims to be helping move nations toward American-style Environmental Impact Statements, safety reports and so on. In fact, ExIm gives its money when asked by the nuclear industry, and it produces few reports nor does much analysis on its own—it simply accepts whatever the utilities want to provide it. Stopping the ExIm Bank from supporting nuclear projects would go a long ways toward stopping atomic power expansion and continued operation of unsafe reactors.

The World Trade Organization (WTO). The very controversial WTO has not yet had to rule on a dispute involving radioactive waste or nuclear power. Don’t count on its nuclear isolation remaining very long. Some countries—especially Russia and China, but others potentially—see a goldmine in radioactive waste disposal. And there is little doubt that if one or two nations want to take responsibility for all of the world’s atomic waste, that country could reap billions of dollars—at the multi-billion dollar expense, of course, of the health and safety of its own residents. But if one country decides to aggressively pursue global radioactive waste disposal (as has been proposed in Russia and Australia, at least), what is to stop the WTO from promulgating rules about waste disposal that may conflict with national rules? What is to stop WTO, if it receives a complaint from another country, from further reducing radiation protection standards to allow the import of atomic waste everywhere? At this point, nothing exists to stop them except public opinion and involvement.