Isabel Braga · Ana Paula Tergilene · 29 August 2026 (updated 9 September 2026)
There are two waters at Angra, and the press office uses the same word for both. One dripped less than a liter a day into the collection tank on the Angra 2 reactor head — a condition Eletronuclear, in an official note dated 21 February 2025, described as provided for in the design, with no Limiting Condition for Operation open. The other left the slab of Angra 1 on 16 September 2022 through a corroded valve, picked up the rain, entered the storm-water system and ended in Itaorna Bay: an estimated volume of about 90 liters, notice that a federal court later measured as 21 days late, an Ibama fine of R$2.1 million. Anyone who reads only the 21 February 2025 note walks away convinced that “leak” is slander. Anyone who reads the Ibama citation walks away convinced the problem was never only the becquerel. It was the clock.
Brazil’s Federal Court of Accounts did not need to lift the reactor hood to find the pattern. In Ruling 671/2026-Plenary, case TC 008.118/2025-6, rapporteur Justice Walton Alencar Rodrigues, the Court found R$5.3 billion in contracts awarded for “impossibility of competition,” R$1.3 billion with a company whose capital was incompatible with the contract, and more than 70 percent of line items with no description in the system. That does not prove the Angra 2 seal was bought crooked. It proves the state company buys in the dark often enough that any contract — a nuclear part or a headquarters car — can slip past a public tender.
In that same org chart, Âmbar Energia, of the J&F group, paid R$535 million for the stake Eletrobras held in Eletronuclear and assumed R$2.4 billion in debentures. Months later, on 21 August 2026, the same group notified Cade of the purchase of Avibras, maker of the ASTROS system and the MTC-300 cruise missile. Beef, gas, civil uranium and a conventional missile under the same controller. This is not a private Chernobyl. It is a conglomerate that now needs a wall between its lines of business, and Brazil has not yet said who builds that wall.
Three waters that should not mix
Angra 1 and Angra 2 are pressurized-water reactors — PWRs. A lay reader needs three distinct circuits, not a slogan of “safe and clean.”
In the primary circuit, demineralized water at about 150 to 157 bar crosses the reactor core. Uranium-235 fissions, releases heat, and the water leaves at 320 to 328 °C without boiling, because the pressure prevents boiling. That water is radioactive and circulates in a closed loop inside the concrete containment.
In the steam generator, the primary circuit heats the secondary circuit through thousands of U-tubes, without the two liquids mixing. The secondary becomes steam, drives the turbine, which drives the electric generator. That spent steam then has to become water again.
That is the third circuit: seawater, drawn from the bay itself, passes through the condenser, carries the heat out and returns to the ocean three to five degrees warmer than it entered. That is the so-called Laboratory Beach. If the design works as intended, the sea never touches the uranium. The classic way for the primary to contaminate the secondary is a steam-generator tube failing — which already happened at Angra 1, from corrosion of Inconel 600, and led to a full replacement of the generators.
The reactor-vessel head has two concentric sealing rings. Eletronuclear says, in the same 21 February 2025 note, that they are redundant — that one alone would be enough. Between the two rings there is a chamber and a drain. If the first ring drips, the liquid is supposed to go to a collection tank in the original design, not into the storm system, still less into the sea. That is the safety drawing, according to Jornal Opção of 22 February 2025, which reproduces the company’s own technical text on the two seals. The drawing, however, is not the plant’s history.
Where each leak sits, and what the liter-count means
In September 2022, during a recirculation and purification operation at Angra 1, there was a failure in a resin isolation-and-admission valve on the demineralizer beds, plus corrosion in the containment casings. Radiologically contaminated liquid reached the slab, picked up the rain, entered the storm-water system, followed the discharge canal and reached Itaorna Bay. The volume estimated by CNEN and by the company itself was at most about 90 liters. Eletronuclear classed the episode as “small volume,” “low activity” and an “operational incident,” below the legal accident threshold. CNEN recalled that an unintentional event with relevant consequences for radiological protection is, on the regulator’s reading, an accident, not merely an incident.
The timeline of the omission is what Ibama and the courts ended up fixing in the record: the internal event on 16 September; arrival at the sea around 19 September; the anonymous complaint to INEA on 29 September; the Ibama team at the plant on 30 September; on 7 October 2022 Eletronuclear wrote that the anonymous accusation would not be true; only on 30 January 2023 did the company officially acknowledge the leak in writing; on 28 February 2023 Ibama issued the fines. Federal court, at the request of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and prosecutor Aldo de Campos Costa, ordered a damage assessment. Ibama accounts cited by CanalEnergia mentioned as much as four months before the formal admission of the discharge into the sea. In February 2023 two citations were issued: one of R$2,005,000 for releasing a radioactive substance in breach of a CNEN rule, another of R$101,000 for failing an environmental-license condition, totaling R$2.101 million. Federal Police executed a search-and-seizure warrant at the plant in May 2023.
Samples the company itself collected in the bay showed no detectable radionuclide, on Eletronuclear’s official version. CNEN recorded the presence of artificial radionuclides at levels it classed as posing no risk to the public or the environment. That figure describes radiation dose. It does not describe the duty to report the episode on the 16th.
In a public hearing the company cited a 1985 episode in which 1,700 liters were said to have been released to the sea, on the company’s own count. A Greenpeace report published in 2011 spoke of something between 20,000 and 25,000 liters, with tens of thousands of people potentially exposed — a figure mentioned in a Heinrich Böll Foundation survey of 26 June 2023. There is still no single public lab report confirming that second number. Citing both versions is journalistic honesty. Choosing only one is a campaign.
Then in December 2024, now at Angra 2, the leak was disclosed by columnist Natália Martins of R7, in a story published 21 February 2025, republished and expanded by ND Mais and O Primeiro Portal. According to those reports, the first seal on the reactor head began to leak, the event was noticed on 25 December 2024, and the repair would wait for the next outage, planned about 12 months later, in February 2026 — even though the plant’s own 2004 training manual recommends prompt repair in such cases. The reports also say the new Eletronuclear management, led by Raul Lycurgo Leite, cut operating expenses, including purchase of the spare seal — a part treated as a single point of vulnerability in nuclear-safety criteria — and that plant staff, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the unit had begun to run in “spare-tire” mode.
Eletronuclear’s official note, issued the same day, 21 February 2025, admits a “small passage of water through the first seal, less than 1 liter per day,” collected in the design tank. According to the note, the second seal was “100% intact,” the two are redundant, “there is no open LCO,” the plant was running at 100 percent power in “green condition,” CNEN inspectors were on site 24 hours and “were aware,” the manufacturer named is Framatome, and both the plant manager and the inspector have authority to request a shutdown at any time.
Curiously, the same note calls the episode an “alleged leak” two lines before describing it in detail. It does not give the exact discovery date, the planned replacement date, the activity of the water collected, or an INES classification. It criticizes the 2004 manual but does not quote the current technical specification that defines the identified-leakage limit. One liter a day is 365 liters a year, provided it stays in the tank. In PWRs worldwide, identified primary-circuit leakage has a ceiling in the technical specifications; above it, the plant must shut down. That the LCO was closed, on the company’s own version, means that in this specific cut CNEN’s paper did not require a trip. It is reasonable not to treat that daily liter as a general off-site emergency. It is not reasonable to treat it as if it did not exist. With the first seal already compromised, defense in depth has lost a layer. Residual risk becomes failure of the second seal plus failure of the drain. That is called a reduced barrier, not “zero risk.”
The municipal Civil Defense of Angra dos Reis, in a 2026 opinion, recorded the complaints received, referred the matter to the competent bodies and stated that, up to that point, no regulator had classed the episode as a radiological or nuclear emergency with imminent risk to the public. That opinion describes the External Emergency Plan, with its 3-, 5-, 10- and 15-kilometer zones, and the municipal protocol for distributing potassium iodide. It does not describe the integrity of the first seal’s elastomer. Anyone who turns that Civil Defense paragraph into a simple “everything is fine” is doing the press office’s work for free.
Angra 1 is not Angra 2. Neither is Angra 3
Angra 1 is a Westinghouse design, two loops, net power in the range of 609 to 657 megawatts, construction begun in 1971–72, commercial operation in 1985. The original promise of commercial operation already in 1977 was advertising. Synchronization with the grid came only in 1982, and true commercial operation only in late 1984 or 1985, according to a Furnas engineers’ report deposited in the IAEA INIS system under record 17023208. That report lists what went wrong on the construction schedule: initial over-optimism, continuous design revision, document delay from Westinghouse, and conflicts with Odebrecht on the civil works.
There were design failures, not only construction ones. The plant showed excessive vibration in the steam-generator tubes, the same Westinghouse error already seen at Ringhals in Sweden and Almaraz in Spain. Power was limited to 30 percent, then 50 percent, until mid-1983. Correcting the problem, plus removing thermal sleeves — another design error — required a 201-day outage, 16 April to 3 November 1983. Then on 7 August 2003, stress-corrosion cracking in Inconel 600 tubes produced a sudden rise in leakage between the primary and secondary circuits, which led to full replacement of the steam generators. In the fuel, grid-to-rod fretting appeared in operating cycles 4, 6 and 7, with one-sixth of the fuel assemblies failing already in cycle 4, forcing repurchase of an entire Westinghouse core for cycle 8. Between 2005 and 2006, fatigue cracks in the generator’s so-called lead box, caused by resonance at 30.3 hertz against the machine’s 1,800 rpm, produced a hydrogen leak and several trips.
Angra 2 is a Siemens/KWU design, pre-Konvoi generation, four steam generators, net power between 1,245 and 1,275 megawatts, commercial operation in 2001. Its capacity factor sat, in several years, around 90 percent. The most recent episode at this unit is the head seal, not the bay. Angra 3 is the sister plant, a little larger, paper rating around 1,405 megawatts — and to this day it has never generated a single watt.
The sum already invested in Angra 3 is on the order of R$12 billion. To finish the job, a joint BNDES–Eletronuclear study estimates about R$23.9 billion more, with commercial operation pushed to 2033 and a break-even tariff between R$778.86 and R$817.27 per megawatt-hour. For comparison, that same tariff was R$480 in 2018 and R$653 in the previous version of the study. Abandoning the works would cost between R$21.9 and R$25.97 billion. Inertia at the National Energy Policy Council has already burned about R$2 billion in two years of an idle site. Fiscobras 2025 flagged a reference budget with an unexplained linear 5 percent add-on, a high BDI and 2008 and 2013 reference prices; R$411 million already adjusted in the audit, with potential up to R$1.35 billion. On 11 February 2026 the TCU Plenary judged the accounts of the civil-works restart irregular, pointing to a loss of R$341,379,941.81 on a July 2008 base, involving contractor Andrade Gutierrez and company managers; among those who did not cooperate with the audit, Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva and Luiz Antônio de Amorim Soares were barred for five years. CGU, also in 2026, found that the company has no contingency plan if the restart stops again, plus schedule risk on equipment and a cash position classed as severe. Eletronuclear had already pulled R$900 million from Angra 1 and 2 revenue to sustain Angra 3 through October 2025, and the project’s open-endedness now costs about R$1 billion a year.
Engine and risk: why Angra is neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima — and what still is risk
Comparing an operating plant with a historical accident, without saying what actually distinguishes the two, is the classic trick of anyone who wants panic. The comparison a lay reader needs is technical, not rhetorical.
Chernobyl, 26 April 1986, was an RBMK reactor, boiling-water cooled and graphite moderated, with a positive void coefficient in certain operating ranges — meaning loss of water could, paradoxically, raise reactor power instead of lowering it. The plant had no Western-style containment building. A poorly run turbine test, plus control rods with graphite tips that in the first second of insertion increased reactivity rather than reduced it, opened the core directly to the atmosphere. The event was INES level 7, the highest. There were immediate deaths among staff and firefighters, a radioactive cloud, an exclusion zone, and a rise in thyroid cancer among children exposed to the iodine plume. There is no “head seal” that describes an accident of that kind. There, the reactor roof literally left its place.
Fukushima Daiichi, 11 March 2011, involved BWR reactors, in which water boils inside the vessel itself. An earthquake followed by a tsunami higher than the design elevation flooded the diesel generators in the basement. Without power to run the cooling pumps, the cores of three units melted. Hydrogen explosions wrecked the reactor buildings. Emergency cooling water, already contaminated, reached the sea on the scale of thousands of cubic meters, not tens of liters. That event was also INES 7. Deaths there came mainly from the tsunami itself, not from acute radiation dose in the city; tens of thousands of people were displaced, and the later debate over releasing treated water into the Pacific is still open.
Angra 1 and Angra 2 are PWRs. Primary water does not boil. Moderator and coolant are the same light water. The void coefficient, in the Western design of this type, is negative: when the plant loses water it also loses moderation, and the chain reaction falls, not rises. There is concrete containment. There are two seals on the reactor head. There is a CNEN — now ANSN — inspector permanently at the plant. There is a state External Emergency Plan. None of that makes the plant immune to a loss of coolant, a ruptured steam-generator tube, a loss of off-site power, human error, corrosion, or purchases made without due transparency. But it makes the cascade that defined Chernobyl — power that rises precisely when water disappears — a physically different phenomenon from what exists at Angra.
The risk the Brazilian public record actually documents is not a roof flying off. It is, first, a sealing barrier that already runs with only one layer of protection at Angra 2; second, the history of a Westinghouse design that needed successive patches at Angra 1; third, institutional communication that tends to grade events downward and delay notice to the authorities; fourth, the absence of a final repository for radioactive waste — ANSN itself has said that without the so-called Centena or an equivalent, units 1 and 2 may have to stop around 2030; fifth, a company cash position already committed to Angra 3 costs and the life extension of Angra 1; and sixth, billions in purchases made by waiver of bidding.
Springfield recognizes the language, not the core
The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, from The Simpsons, is a satire of a captured regulator and a boss who measures success by the press’s silence. Homer Simpson is not the Angra 2 operator. The three-eyed fish in the cartoon is not the sample taken at Itaorna. Anyone who uses that cartoon to suggest Brazil is about to blow up is lying twice at once.
What the cartoon gets right is the institutional vocabulary. “Operational incident.” “Green condition.” “Small volume.” “Disinformation that creates insecurity among neighbors.” That is exactly Mr. Burns’s tone when the comms leaflet has already gone out but the fish is still in the river. That vocabulary fits an explanatory note. It should not fit a newspaper headline.
Who was supposed to see, and what each can do
ANSN, the safety arm spun out of CNEN, licenses plant operation, keeps a resident inspector 24 hours a day, reads the daily RASO report, decides whether to open a Limiting Condition for Operation, and classifies events on the INES scale. Ibama holds the environmental license and its conditions, and issues fines. INEA, at state level, takes complaints and monitors the bay. The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Federal Court in Angra prosecute omissions and harm; on 13 October 2025 that same court found the licensing of the UAS — the dry used-fuel pad — regular, contrary to the prosecutors’ own view.
Federal Police opened an inquiry into the 2022 case. TCU and CGU watch the money. ONS dispatches megawatts on the national grid; it does not tend the reactor seal. The IAEA runs assessment missions such as OSART and then leaves. Civil Defense triggers the External Emergency Plan only if the regulator declares an emergency. On 2 August 2026 the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office was still investigating what coverage called a blackout in Environmental Radiological Monitoring Reports since 2018, with a rebuttal note from Eletronuclear in the same news cycle. Eletronuclear says it forwards those data to ANSN and Ibama regularly. Publishing them directly for the resident of Itaorna is, however, a completely different sentence.
The payroll, the strike, and the hand that changes the seal
The company announced an austerity plan that may reach R$500 million by the end of 2026, with a voluntary redundancy scheme, cuts in administrative spending, transfers of staff from Rio to Angra, and fewer management posts. According to the same reporting, about 150 salaries inside the company exceed that of a Supreme Court justice. The original 2024 VRS target was 485 people; take-up was between 133 and 138, with an expected payout of about R$56 million spread through 2025. Missing the target, the company tried a compulsory plan for 90 retirees. On 8 April 2025 Judge Valeska Facure Pereira, 8th Labor Court of Rio de Janeiro, case 0100384-21.2025.5.01.0008, ordered those workers reinstated, suspended the plan and set a fine of R$500 per day per person for non-compliance. The union’s request for a plant-safety contingency plan in the face of staff shortages was denied: there was no technical document proving operational risk, only an oral claim.
The strike that followed ended on 29 April: the compulsory plan became voluntary, and the pay rise was 3.69 percent, matching IPCA for the period. Then in March 2026 about 800 workers at contractor APPA Serviços, which handles outage maintenance at Angra 1 and 2, had gone five years without a raise and without pay, and shut the Itaorna gate for three hours in protest. Pay in that category ranges from R$2,450 to R$14,600. The payroll only becomes real news when the hand that maintains the plant stops being paid. Until then it is just a collective agreement under negotiation.
What management already was, and what the fleet still is not
Operation Radioactivity, the Rio offshoot of Lava Jato, sentenced Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva to 43 years at first instance, in Judge Marcelo Bretas’s 2016 ruling. The Regional Federal Court of the 2nd Region cut that sentence, on 31 March 2022, to 4 years and 10 months, already converted to restriction-of-rights penalties; passive corruption and money-laundering stood, but charges of criminal organization, obstruction of justice and foreign-exchange evasion fell. His daughter, Ana Cristina, was acquitted by the court. The improbity suit involving AF Consult, Engevix and names such as Michel Temer, Moreira Franco and Admiral Othon himself was dismissed on 26–27 November 2025 by the 11th Federal Court of Rio, the judge saying she found no evidence beyond a plea bargain already rejected in the criminal case.
The real flow of the kickbacks, according to CGU reports — specifically PAR 00190.111835/2022-18, on the Monteiro e Cavalcanti law firm, which the agency recommended declaring unfit, and Technical Note 1990/2022, on Aratec, ACECO and Dema — did not run through the directors’ car rentals. It also ran through VW Refrigeração, in a R$2.3 million laundering scheme nicknamed Pripyat, and through SNC-Lavalin in partnership with Marte Engenharia, on a 2011 contract worth about R$16.75 million.
Eletronuclear’s own 2013 Management Report already justified keeping an owned fleet so the Local Emergency Plan would work even in a drivers’ strike, and also keeping a rented fleet. The contract with Sibelly Transportes, GCC.A/CT-507/2008, provided for 2009–2014 a value of R$12,548,939.11, of which R$2.68 million in 2013 alone. TRANSVEPAR served the Rio headquarters plus Brasília and Recife. On any personal use of vehicles by management there is, so far, no public ruling on the subject. Without an identified plate, a recorded commitment and telemetry data, any claim in that direction would be speculation.
Procurement: the rule that became the exception
TCU Ruling 671/2026 found that Eletronuclear’s no-bid awards totaled, in the period reviewed, R$5.3 billion. In 2024 alone there were 106 such acts, totaling R$700,897,797. In 2025, in the available cut, 47 acts totaling R$51.8 million. Small-value waivers numbered 1,348 acts in 2024 (R$28.2 million) and 448 in 2025 (R$10.7 million). Emergency awards: four acts in 2025, R$7.2 million. Electronic auctions: 215 processes in 2024, R$297.6 million, while only a single tender under Law 13.303 was held that year, worth R$1.22 billion. An internal audit in May 2024 already flagged serious flaws in the no-bid processes. The LabContas system identified 573 alerts, 406 of them suppliers whose share capital was out of proportion to the contract value, totaling R$1.3 billion at Eletronuclear alone; more than 70 percent of purchase items lacked an adequate description, and R$604.9 million could not even be properly classified by the Court itself.
TCU had earlier issued precautionary measures or notices of knowledge on other episodes, in cases TC 004.103/2025-4 (Angra 1 life extension) and TC 005.124/2017-4 (advances to Westinghouse and ABB of 55 to 80 percent of contract value, with the equipment still at the factory and without the guarantee required by Decree 93.872). On 20 August 2025 the international tender DAB.A/LI-001/2025, for four gearbox housings on Angra 2 isolation valves, was declared failed. A failed tender followed by a no-bid award usually opens the path to the argument that “only one supplier can deliver.” The buyer-unit code on ComprasNet is 910847. The portal shows the auction’s progress. The more sensitive contract details remain inside the company’s SAP system.
The country’s light: surplus by day, squeeze at dusk
Angra 1 and Angra 2 together account for about 2 percent of all electricity generated in Brazil. The National Energy Balance, 2026 summary by the Energy Research Office, records 15,834 gigawatt-hours of nuclear origin in 2025, against 15,767 in 2024. The Brazilian grid is therefore not in the dark. The problem ONS actually describes is another: surplus power by day, when solar fills the network. In 2025 it was necessary to curtail about 20 percent of all centralized wind and solar generation in the country; a consultancy cited in the coverage put that cut at 4.02 average gigawatts, with a loss of about R$6.5 billion for the generators themselves. ONS planning director Alexandre Zucarato summed it up: it no longer makes sense to inject a new megawatt in daylight hours, because that only displaces a megawatt already on the grid.
Nuclear power, unlike solar, is firm and available 24 hours a day, and sits near the large load centers of the Southeast. It does not compete with the midday solar peak. The case for Angra 3, in that sense, sits at dusk and through the night, when solar generation disappears. The problem is that the estimated price, R$780 to R$817 per megawatt-hour, competes poorly with already amortized hydro plants, even if it must also be compared with the cost of having no baseload when the sun goes down. And without construction of the Nuclear and Environmental Technology Center — Centena — or an equivalent, ANSN has already pointed to strong signs that a final waste repository by 2030 is unviable, with a real risk of interrupting Angra 1 and 2.
J&F at the uranium table: the deal, the discount, and control
On 15 October 2025 Eletrobras, now restyled Axia, announced the sale of its entire Eletronuclear holding to Âmbar Energia, a unit of J&F Investimentos, controlled by brothers Joesley and Wesley Batista. The price for the stake was R$535 million. The buyer also assumed the guarantees Eletrobras had given for Eletronuclear, and the obligation to pay in the debentures under Settlement 7/2025 among CCAF, CGU, AGU and the Union, worth R$2.4 billion, money conceived above all to fund the life extension of Angra 1.
The arithmetic behind the discount is something Eletrobras did not highlight in the sale announcement. The stake was carried on the associate’s books at about R$7.8 billion in the second quarter of 2025. The sale produced an accounting provision on the order of R$7 billion already in the third quarter, which also cites an Itaú BBA analysis of the deal’s effects. In practice the buyer paid R$535 million cash and inherited R$2.4 billion in paper to pay in later. The seller, on the other hand, shed a nuclear asset that the STF-homologated agreement and the Eletrobras privatization itself had made awkward: the Union wanted the electric utility kept away from the Angra 3 site, and the term homologated by the Supreme Court in December 2025 releases Axia from further financial contributions to the project.
After the deal, the shareholding will be: Âmbar with 68 percent of total capital and 35.3 percent of voting capital, and the Union, through ENBPar, with 64.7 percent of voting capital and about 32 percent of total capital. Cade cleared the deal with no restrictions on 1 December 2025, concluding that it would not harm competition, that J&F would not take control of the company, and that the government would remain the controlling shareholder. In Brazilian company law as applied to a nuclear firm, control is not simply who holds more ordinary shares in the material-fact notice. It is who appoints the majority of what the bylaws call the company’s command, and the Brazilian Constitution reserves nuclear activity exclusively to the Union. Âmbar thus becomes the only private company at that table. That does not make it owner of the reactor key.
Âmbar was born in 2015 from a thermal plant in Cuiabá. Over the years it bought thermal assets from Eletrobras itself, in a R$4.7 billion package closed in 2024, plus the Araucária plant and assets in Amazonas and Roraima, and began trading Bolivian gas. After entering Eletronuclear the group began speaking publicly of about 50 plants and 6.5 gigawatts of installed capacity, sixth among the country’s largest generators. Âmbar president Marcelo Zanatta said “nuclear energy combines stability, predictability and low emissions,” defending the deal as a source of stable revenue and describing the company as the only private player with a position in Brazil’s nuclear sector. That speech is an investor presentation. The plant itself remains an ANSN licensing object, not a slide in investor relations.
What the purchase does not solve: it does not, by itself, pay the R$24 billion needed to finish Angra 3. It does not create Centena. It does not fix the reactor-head seal. It does not publish the RASO report for the public. What it does do is put a private cashbox — the same group that controls the world’s largest meatpacker — in as a direct partner in the revenue of Angra 1 and 2, the same revenue the state company has already been using to fund Angra 3. That is a rather classic internal conflict of interest: the private voting minority wants dividends from the running plant; the state controller wants, above all, to see Angra 3 finished; and Angra 1’s life extension is competing for the same R$2.4 billion in debentures. Three needs, one plate.
There is also a regulatory gap Cade simply does not cover. The antitrust body asks whether the power market becomes less competitive. It does not ask whether the private partner in a nuclear plant has, in another CNPJ of the same controlling group, a cruise-missile factory. It does not ask whether an engineer on Angra 1’s life extension could be rehired by Avibras. It does not ask whether a guarantee on nuclear revenue could in some way back defense-related debt. ANSN licenses only the nuclear installation itself. In the public record available so far there is no shareholder veto on national-security grounds, nothing equivalent to what CFIUS does in the United States. Request for Information 6,617/2025 in the Chamber of Deputies asked the Ministry of Mines and Energy what technical safety criteria were required of J&F as Eletronuclear’s partner. The institutional reply spoke only of ENBPar and ANEEL governance, with no mention of a change in corporate control. On specific non-proliferation criteria applied to the new partner, there was simply no answer.
The same surname in the ASTROS yard
On 21 August 2026 the press reported the agreement by Globe Investimentos — a vehicle the Batista brothers had already used to buy a 4.99 percent stake in steelmaker Usiminas in 2025 — to acquire 100 percent of Nova AVB, controlling company of Avibras Aeroco, based in Jacareí. The price was not disclosed; the deal has been notified to Cade. The shares had been held by Brasil Crédito Gestão Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia. Globe’s lawyers told Cade the company belongs to the J&F group but argued it was a personal investment by the businessmen, with no direct relation to the holding, and that no member of J&F’s management bodies sits at the same time on management bodies of other firms in the same relevant market.
Avibras makes the ASTROS system used by the Brazilian Army, the MTC-300 tactical cruise missile, air-defense systems, the Skyfire program and boosters for space use. It is officially classed as a Strategic Defense Company. It has been in judicial reorganization since 2022 and through a strike that lasted more than three years, reopening in May 2026. Joesley Batista had already taken part in a R$300 million injection for the company’s restart. The Chamber of Deputies asked the Defense Ministry for information on the acquisition.
This deal has no relation to CBC or Taurus, ammunition and pistol makers tied to another business group, nor to IMBEL, which is a state company. Avibras works with rocket artillery and conventional-technology missiles, not a nuclear warhead, which is not in its portfolio. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Treaty of Tlatelolco and the Brazilian Constitution itself bind the Angra program to exclusively peaceful ends. IAEA safeguards count nuclear fuel paste, not the ASTROS system. Anyone who claims the Angra head seal somehow feeds the MTC-300 is wrong about both the physics and the job of the agency in Vienna.
What does stand out, and is rare at this degree in Brazilian capitalism, is the proximity of the two deals. The same controlling group now holds, at the same time, a stake in a nuclear plant and a cruise-missile factory. In the jargon of international export control this is called dual-use adjacency. Not because a PWR can become a bomb in the Jacareí yard, but because people, data, suppliers and financial guarantees can, in principle, cross the corridor of the same corporate chart. The kind of wall a more rigorous state usually builds in such cases includes boards with no overlapping members, clauses against cross-hiring of engineers tied to the nuclear plant, a ban on cross-guarantees involving Angra revenue, and separate reports to ANSN and the Defense Ministry. Through August 2026, in the public record available, none of those measures had been announced.
The question that remains is therefore not whether the Batista brothers intend to build a nuclear bomb. The relevant question is another: who, in Brazil, has legal authority to say no to a private partner in a nuclear company that, the following month, buys an ASTROS production line? While the institutional answer remains that Cade looked at the power sector and will look at the defense sector in separate files, that protective wall exists only as a figure of speech.
What the record authorizes — and what it does not
The public documents reviewed authorize the statement that in 2022 there was a discharge into the sea and a communication failure, with a confirmed fine and search-and-seizure. They authorize saying that the 2024–2025 episode is a drip at a seal, contained inside the plant boundary, with the second seal intact on paper, a repair already scheduled in the outage calendar, but with the exact becquerel figure still unpublished. They authorize saying that Angra 1 carries a documented history of successive patches on an originally Westinghouse design. They authorize saying that Angra 3 is a budget blowout, with a kickback conviction only partly adjudicated and a worksite that, idle, costs more than many people are willing to admit. They authorize saying that the state company makes insufficiently transparent purchases in the billions of reais. And they authorize saying that J&F bought its seat at the table at a steep discount and, in the next window, also bought the missile factory.
What those same documents do not authorize is the claim that Brazil has an RBMK reactor on the Rio de Janeiro coast. They do not authorize translating a liter of water dripping into a tank into a need to evacuate Paraty. They do not authorize turning a Civil Defense opinion into a technical report on the reactor vessel. And they do not authorize, in any form, the phrase “J&F’s bomb factory.”
The sentence that should have been in the bulletin of 16 September 2022, and was not, would have been something like: there was an unplanned release, about 90 liters, the material went into the storm system and then to the sea, CNEN and Ibama will be notified today, sampling goes out this week, INES classification is under review.
The sentence that actually belongs in the Angra 2 RASO report would be: the first seal shows passage of less than one liter per day, collected regularly in the design tank; the second seal remains intact; there is no open Limiting Condition for Operation; replacement is planned for the next maintenance outage; if leakage rises to a given limit, the plant will be shut down.
They are, in the end, two relatively simple sentences that would easily fit in a single paragraph. The communications campaign, however, needed a single word — “safe” — precisely where the technical record demanded a detailed method of verification. Springfield’s cartoon recognizes that communications trick. Itaorna needs the exact number.
By Isabel Braga and Ana Paula Tergilene
Note: This article interprets public documents. It is not a radiological report or an evacuation order.
English translation prepared from the Portuguese original published at Revista Pàhnorama, 29 August 2026. Figure labels translated into English; source numbering 1–53 remains that of the original page.
REFERENCES:
· ELETRONUCLEAR. Nota de esclarecimento à matéria publicada pelo R7. 21 fev. 2025. https://www.eletronuclear.gov.br/Imprensa-e-Midias/Paginas/Nota-de-esclarecimento-%C3%A0-mat%C3%A9ria-publicada-pelo-R7.aspx
· TECMUNDO. Usina Angra 1 multada por omitir vazamento de água contaminada. 24 mar. 2023. https://www.tecmundo.com.br/ciencia/262141-usina-angra-1-multada-omitir-vazamento-agua-contaminada.htm
· TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO. Auditoria avalia riscos nas contratações das estatais nucleares. Acórdão 671/2026-Plenário, processo TC 008.118/2025-6, relator ministro Walton Alencar Rodrigues. Portal do TCU.
· AGÊNCIA BRASIL. Eletrobras vende participação na Eletronuclear para o grupo J&F. 15 out. 2025. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2025-10/eletrobras-vende-participacao-na-eletronuclear-para-o-grupo-jf
· BRASIL 247. Aquisição da Avibras pela Globe Investimentos, dos irmãos Batista, é notificada ao Cade. 24 ago. 2026. https://www.brasil247.com/negocios/aquisicao-da-avibras-pela-globe-investimentos-dos-irmaos-batista-e-notificada-ao-cade/
· ELETRONUCLEAR. Relato técnico sobre corrosão em tubos de Inconel 600 e substituição dos geradores de vapor de Angra 1. Sistema INIS da Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica.
· JORNAL OPÇÃO. Usina nuclear Angra 2 apresenta vazamento; entenda. 22 fev. 2025. https://www.jornalopcao.com.br/ultimas-noticias/usina-nuclear-angra-2-apresenta-vazamento-entenda-682700/
· RADIOAGÊNCIA NACIONAL / AGÊNCIA BRASIL. Usina de Angra 1 é multada por liberar material radioativo no mar. 24 mar. 2023. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/radioagencia-nacional/geral/audio/2023-03/usina-de-angra-1-e-multada-por-liberar-material-radioativo-no-mar
· CANALENERGIA. Eletronuclear demorou 4 meses para admitir vazamento de Angra 1, diz Ibama. 24 mar. 2023. https://www.canalenergia.com.br/noticias/53241649/eletronuclear-demorou-4-meses-para-admitir-vazamento-de-angra-1-diz-ibama
· PODER360. Eletronuclear é multada por não informar vazamento radioativo. 23 mar. 2023. https://www.poder360.com.br/meio-ambiente/eletronuclear-e-multada-por-nao-informar-vazamento-radioativo/
· REVISTA OESTE. Ibama multa Eletronuclear depois de vazamento de água radioativa. 24 mar. 2023. https://revistaoeste.com/brasil/ibama-multa-eletronuclear-depois-de-vazamento-de-agua-radioativa/
· GREENPEACE. Reportagem sobre o episódio de 1985 em Angra. 2011; FUNDAÇÃO HEINRICH BÖLL. Levantamento citado em 26 jun. 2023.
· MARTINS, Natália. Reportagem no portal R7, 21 fev. 2025; republicada e detalhada por ND Mais. https://ndmais.com.br/seguranca/vazamento-usina-nuclear-angra-2-preocupa/
· O PRIMEIRO PORTAL. Usina nuclear Angra 2 tem vazamento no núcleo do reator e nova gestão adia reparo. https://oprimeiroportal.com/usina-nuclear-angra-2-tem-vazamento-no-nucleo-do-reator-e-nova-gestao-adia-reparo/
· DEFESA CIVIL MUNICIPAL DE ANGRA DOS REIS. Parecer sobre denúncias e classificação do episódio. 2026.
· FURNAS CENTRAIS ELÉTRICAS. Relatório de engenheiros sobre o cronograma e as falhas de projeto de Angra 1. Sistema INIS da AIEA, registro 17023208.
· AGÊNCIA INTERNACIONAL DE ENERGIA ATÔMICA. TECDOC-1345; PERROTTA, J. A. et al. Artigos técnicos sobre grid-to-rod fretting nos ciclos 4, 6 e 7 de Angra 1.
· SILVA, O. L. P. et al. Artigo técnico sobre trincas por fadiga na lead box do gerador elétrico de Angra 1. Eletronuclear, 2005-2006.
· WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION; WIKIPEDIA. Angra Nuclear Power Plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_Nuclear_Power_Plant
· VALOR ECONÔMICO. Estudo conjunto BNDES/Eletronuclear sobre o custo de conclusão de Angra 3. 5 nov. 2025; NUCLEAR ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL. 11 nov. 2025.
· MEGAWHAT. Apuração com dados do TCU sobre a inércia do Conselho Nacional de Política Energética. 6 fev. 2026.
· TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO; PODER360. Fiscobras 2025: orçamento de referência, BDI e preços de 2008 e 2013 na retomada de Angra 3.
· PODER360. Plenário do TCU julga irregulares as contas da retomada da obra civil de Angra 3. 11 fev. 2026.
· O ESTADO DE S. PAULO. CGU aponta ausência de plano de contingência, risco de cronograma e caixa grave na Eletronuclear. 1º abr. 2026.
· VALOR ECONÔMICO. ANSN alerta para risco de parada de Angra 1 e 2 sem o Centena ou equivalente. 17 nov. 2025. Com base nos Acórdãos 898/2024 e 1.782/2025 do TCU.
· ADVOCACIA-GERAL DA UNIÃO. Nota sobre decisão da Justiça Federal que considerou regular o licenciamento da UAS. 13 out. 2025.
· VEJA. Ministério Público Federal investiga apagão nos Relatórios de Monitoramento Radiológico Ambiental desde 2018. 2 ago. 2026.
· VALOR ECONÔMICO. Eletronuclear anuncia plano de austeridade de até R$ 500 milhões. 7 fev. 2025.
· ELETRONUCLEAR. Notas explicativas referentes ao exercício de 2025 (Plano de Demissão Voluntária).
· PODER360. Juíza da 8ª Vara do Trabalho do Rio determina reintegração de aposentados e suspende plano compulsório. 9 abr. 2025. Processo 0100384-21.2025.5.01.0008.
· PETRONOTÍCIAS. Encerramento da greve na Eletronuclear: plano compulsório vira voluntário e reajuste fica em 3,69%. 29 abr. 2025.
· O DIA. Cerca de 800 trabalhadores da APPA Serviços ficam sem salário e fecham o portão de Itaorna. 10 mar. 2026.
· O ESTADO DE S. PAULO. Condenação de Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva na Operação Radioatividade, sentença do juiz Marcelo Bretas. 2016.
· AGÊNCIA BRASIL. TRF da 2ª Região reduz pena de Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva para 4 anos e 10 meses. 31 mar. 2022.
· CONSULTOR JURÍDICO; MIGALHAS. 11ª Vara Federal do Rio julga improcedente ação de improbidade envolvendo AF Consult, Engevix e outros. 26-27 nov. 2025.
· CONTROLADORIA-GERAL DA UNIÃO. PAR 00190.111835/2022-18 (Monteiro e Cavalcanti Advogados) e Nota Técnica 1990/2022 (Aratec, ACECO e Dema).
· G1. Esquema de lavagem batizado de Pripyat, envolvendo a VW Refrigeração, no valor de R$ 2,3 milhões. 23 mar. 2017.
· ELETRONUCLEAR. Relatório de Gestão 2013; contrato GCC.A/CT-507/2008 com a Sibelly Transportes (2009-2014).
· TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO. Processos TC 004.103/2025-4 (extensão de vida de Angra 1) e TC 005.124/2017-4 (adiantamentos a Westinghouse e ABB).
· ELETRONUCLEAR. Aviso de licitação internacional DAB.A/LI-001/2025 declarada fracassada (caixas redutoras das válvulas de bloqueio de Angra 2). 20 ago. 2025. Unidade compradora ComprasNet 910847.
· EMPRESA DE PESQUISA ENERGÉTICA. Balanço Energético Nacional, síntese 2026. Geração nuclear: 15.834 GWh em 2025 e 15.767 GWh em 2024.
· VALOR ECONÔMICO. Corte de cerca de 20% da geração eólica e solar centralizada em 2025. 27 ago. 2026.
· CNN BRASIL. Entrevista com Alexandre Zucarato, diretor de planejamento do ONS. 25-26 ago. 2026.
· O GLOBO. Debêntures de R$ 2,4 bilhões previstas no Termo de Conciliação 7/2025 (CCAF, CGU, AGU e União). dez. 2025.
· LEXLEGAL. Eletrobras vende participação na Eletronuclear à Âmbar Energia por R$ 535 milhões. https://lexlegal.com.br/eletrobras-vende-participacao-na-eletronuclear-a-ambar-energia-por-r-535-milhoes/
· ADVFN NEWS. Eletrobras vende participação na Eletronuclear à J&F por R$ 535 milhões e marca saída definitiva do setor nuclear. Análise do Itaú BBA. https://br.advfn.com/jornal/2025/10/eletrobras-vende-participacao-na-eletronuclear-a-j-amp-f-por-r-535-milhoes-e-marca-saida-definitiva-do-setor-nuclear
· AGÊNCIA BRASIL; TRANSMISSÃO POLÍTICA. Composição acionária após a venda: Âmbar e ENBPar. https://transmissaopolitica.com.br/politica-nacional/2025/10/15/eletrobras-vende-participacao-eletronuclear-grupo-jf/
· VALOR ECONÔMICO. Cade aprova sem restrições a compra da fatia da Eletrobras na Eletronuclear pela Âmbar. 1º dez. 2025.
· O ESTADO DE S. PAULO. Âmbar Energia: cerca de 50 usinas e 6,5 GW de capacidade instalada, sexta maior geradora do país.
· REPORTER MACEIÓ. Declaração de Marcelo Zanatta, presidente da Âmbar Energia, sobre a operação nuclear. https://reportermaceio.com.br/economia-eletrobras-vende-participacao-na-eletronuclear-por-r-535-milhoes-e-reforca-estrategia-de-otimizacao-de-portfolio-sob-novo-controle-da-ambar-energia/
· CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS. Requerimento de Informação 6.617/2025, dirigido ao Ministério de Minas e Energia, sobre critérios técnicos de segurança exigidos da J&F como sócia da Eletronuclear.
· TRIBUNA DO SERTÃO. Globe Investimentos notifica ao Cade aquisição da indústria bélica Avibras. 24 ago. 2026. https://www.tribunadosertao.com.br/geral/2026/08/24/966071-globe-investimentos-notifica-ao-cade-aquisicao-da-industria-belica-avibras ·
· JORNAL GGN. J&F compra Avibras e amplia presença na indústria de defesa brasileira. https://jornalggn.com.br/economia/jf-compra-avibras-e-amplia-presenca-na-industria-de-defesa-brasileira/
Português do Brasil
1 comentário
Pingback: The current runs south. The melanin is already on the wall. – Revista Pàhnorama