POLICY & REGULATION | FIT FOR PURPOSE?
Fit for a new industry?
A UK government Taskforce has concluded that systemic problems, often rooted in history, mean the regulatory burden on nuclear is a barrier to expansion and innovation. They advise urgent action to ensure it is proportionate to the risk.
THE UK IS PLANNING A new generation of nuclear power plants, both traditional, large designs (such as Sizewell C) and new innovative designs (such as small modular reactors or SMRs). It has also decided to take the opportunity to examine whether the country’s regulatory regime remains fit for purpose. The current regime is seen as increasingly complex and bureaucratic, as it has been evolving since the 1950s, and complexity arises from changes that arise sometimes separately in defence and civilian industries, in dialogue with other national and international regimes, and to meet evolving environmental needs alongside radiological requirements. The Task Force recently published an interim report setting out ‘interrelated and systemic’ problems with proportionate decision-making, where costly and time consuming standards may have no substantive safety or environmental benefits. The Task Force says that these issues are not unique. But in the nuclear sector the effects are exacerbated by the perception that nuclear technologies present uniquely high risks to the public and the environment.
Managing risk The report says “effective and proportional management of risk is vital” but in order that it is both proportionate and effective, behaviours and incentives have to change. The report notes that this applies both to regulators and to so- called ‘duty holders’ (ie, organisations in the industry that are subject to regulation).
Drawing on more than 100 meetings and other inputs, the
Task Force discussed a wide variety of issues. There is a lack of strategic consideration around risk
reduction, the report finds. Duty-holders and individual nuclear inspectors sometimes take a local view without considering broader strategic considerations, such as cost, programme delays or national imperatives. In the event issues are escalated, they may be modified but without achieving the best outcome. This fosters very conservative outcomes. The Task Force said it saw “numerous examples” of
costly, conservative and risk-averse measures. It said this may stem from a desire to achieve ‘right first time’ success with Safety Cases or other approvals (rather than incur the costs of reapplying). It said this may be exacerbated if duty holders have weak incentives to control costs. Regulatory guidance is intended to enable a
proportionate approach to risk management, but in practice much of it may act prescriptively – driving risks to levels far lower than those associated with everyday risks. Similarly, concepts such as ‘Relevant Good Practice’ can encourage changes that are not essential for risk management but are deemed desirable because they align with a recent practice. Duty-holders rarely challenge the regulator or its
frameworks. The Task Force was told that duty holders fear that a challenge might damage their reputation for safety. Challenge also causes costly delay. The Task Force said, “The system in practice lacks the necessary tension, where duty-holders pull in one direction
Above: Rolls Royce SMR won the competition to develop the UK’s first SMR project but regulatory barriers may impede a wider roll out
42 | October 2025 |
www.neimagazine.com
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 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
