JET STREAMS | COVER STORY


Table 1: Key policy recommendations from JDR case Recommendation


Establish long-term funding commitments for fusion decommissioning.


Policy Rationale and Insight from JDR


Rationale: To avoid potential disruptions from tranche-based funding mechanisms, future fusion decommissioning programmes should be backed by more stable funding mechanisms (e.g. a ring-fenced fund or a multi-review budget agreement).


This ensures critical path activities such as tokamak dismantling or waste processing facility construction proceed on schedule, preventing the accumulation of “technical debt” and cost inflation from deferrals.


Integrate decommissioning into national fusion strategy from the outset.


Rationale: JDR’s initial deprioritisation in favour of new projects such as STEP Fusion highlighted the risk of treating decommissioning as separate from “core” fusion policy. Instead, decommissioning should be framed as an essential phase of the fusion energy roadmap. National strategies and communications (e.g. white papers, R&D missions) need to explicitly include the safe decommissioning of fusion facilities as a deliverable.


This integration will help secure political and public support, as it positions decommissioning as part of achieving fusion’s promise of clean energy (for example, by demonstrating how fusion plants can be decommissioned with minimal environmental impact and how sites can be recycled for new uses).


Develop a proportionate regulatory framework with pilot projects.


Rationale: JDR shows that fusion’s unique attributes warrant tailored regulations. Policymakers should continue on the path set by BEIS’s 2022 consultation i.e. creating specific rules for areas such as radioactive waste handling, safety classification, and site release criteria. Additionally, using projects like JDR as testbeds in partnership with regulators can refine these rules.


This “learn by doing” approach will result in pragmatic regulations that protect people and the environment without imposing unnecessary burdens, which, in turn, can reduce costs and uncertainties for future projects.


Mandate robust project governance and encourage flexible delivery models.


Rationale: The complexity of fusion decommissioning demands strong project management. JDR benefited from establishing clear governance (with defined leadership roles and an empowered project delivery team) and deploying comprehensive project controls (integrated scheduling, cost control, risk management). Future policy should require similar governance arrangements, perhaps verified through independent reviews at key milestones. Innovation in delivery models should also be encouraged: JDR’s exploration of novel contracting and partnering models (like outcome-based contracts for facility removal) could yield efficiencies.


Policymakers might support pilot schemes or remove barriers to such approaches in public procurement rules, allowing decommissioning projects to adopt more agile and cost-effective delivery methods while maintaining accountability.


Prioritise skills retention and knowledge transfer across the sector.


Rationale: One of the gravest risks in nuclear decommissioning is the loss of specialised expertise. JDR’s experience (initial staff losses, then a stabilisation through internal reorganisation and NDA support) underlines the need for proactive workforce planning. Policies could establish decommissioning workforce initiatives – for example, funds for training in decommissioning science and engineering, exchange initiatives between operational and decommissioning projects, and incentives for contractors to invest in staff development. Moreover, national bodies (like the NDA or a future Fusion Authority) should capture and disseminate lessons learned from JDR to other projects.


This might involve creating knowledge repositories or communities of practice focused on fusion decommissioning, ensuring that each subsequent project (be it STEP’s eventual decommissioning or smaller fusion devices) benefits from JDR’s experience.


Embrace transparency and stakeholder engagement as a policy requirement.


Rationale: Public trust in fusion as a clean energy solution will partially rely on how well decommissioning is handled and communicated. JDR taught the value of early and frequent stakeholder engagement – from local community consultations to regular reporting to government sponsors and international partners (EUROfusion). Future fusion decommissioning policies should incorporate formal stakeholder engagement plans. For example, requiring periodic publication of decommissioning progress reports, environmental monitoring results, and independent oversight committee findings can demonstrate accountability. In addition, including local economic development goals (such as skill retention in the community) in the project’s mandate can turn decommissioning into an opportunity, not just a liability.


This approach aligns the project with broader societal goals and helps maintain support from both the public and political leaders.


economic opportunity. JDR’s application of the Mitchell et al. (1997) stakeholder salience model showed that high power stakeholders also have legitimate and urgent claims, emphasising the need for sustained engagement. Future policy should formalise more expansive governance and engagement mechanisms, such as oversight boards or regular public reporting.


The policy implications of the JDR experience span across


several themes: tranche based funding, political dynamics, regulatory development, stakeholder engagement, knowledge retention, and technological innovation.


JDR analysis and lessons for policy JDR’s environment is strongly shaped by political priorities. Government focus on STEP Fusion and global fusion leadership has, at times, diminished the visibility of JET’s decommissioning. Policy statements and R&D investments underscore fusion’s importance to the UK’s long-term clean energy ambitions. JDR’s Political, Economic,


Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental (PESTLE) assessment identified shifting government priorities and spending constraints as high impact uncertainties requiring contingency planning. Economically, JDR faces challenges typical of nuclear projects: inflation, supply chain volatility, and the historical trend of nuclear clean-up projects exceeding initial budgets. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that short-term political concerns influenced by the electoral cycle will take precedence over the longer-term planning and delivery cycles associated with decommissioning. These factors reinforce that funding mechanisms must avoid short-termism. Deferring activities such as waste processing or delaying contractor mobilisation can lead to higher overall costs. A dedicated decommissioning fund — similar to arrangements used by the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority — would help prevent disruptive re-scoping and maintain stable progress. Technological pressures include the national focus on STEP Fusion, which redirected some innovation resources away from


www.neimagazine.com | July 2026 | 21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45