FIT FOR PURPOSE? | POLICY & REGULATION


Above: Sizewell C is one of a number of new nuclear initiatives prompting a look at the UK’s regulatory regime


and the regulators in the other. If both are incentivised to prioritise continual risk reduction, then risk may reduce far lower than is proportionate. If these higher standards then become guidance in the future, there is a ratchet effect. Nobody is actively making these decisions and accountability for the rising standards is unclear. This is a serious systemic problem.” Discussing environmental assessments, the Task Force


also looked for proportionality, fearing that more and more requirements could be imposed, without improving overall environmental outcomes. One specific issue was “an inability or aversion to net off


environmental losses in one area with environmental gains in another”. At remote locations, nuclear sites may cause damage to habitats during construction but may enhance local habitats over the decades of operation, as well as having zero emissions. Regulators “take a prescriptive approach to protecting what we have now rather than focusing on nature recovery”. The Taskforce is considering amendments to an


Infrastructure Planning Bill that is now being considered by Parliament, but said “more fundamental and meaningful changes may be required to habitat regulations in order to reduce risk aversion which arises from an excessively precautionary approach to identifying adverse impacts and not defining key terms (such as ‘alternative solutions’) in line with national policy”. The Task Force also discussed the problem of inflexible permitting, noting that new environmental protection measures could potentially trigger a reassessment of a nuclear safety issue, which would clearly be a disincentive to making the improvement.


Reducing complexity With different civil and defence regulatory frameworks the sector has grown more complex, with overlapping regulatory requirements and consultations. This leads to an inconsistent understanding of applicable standards. The Taskforce believes that the current system is difficult


to navigate and duplicative, particularly for new entrants. Excessive complexity or contradictory directives can create challenges for established and new participants. This makes it harder to deliver projects on time and within budget.


It says early approvals needed to establish a nuclear


project “are susceptible to overlapping requirements and scope creep”. An example is Regulatory Justification, which requires significant design information. This forces developers to demonstrate safety and environmental benefits at a very early stage, but the Justification does not smooth approvals in later processes. The Task Force complained of a lack of coherence: “Not


only is there inconsistency between different regulators, there appear to be examples of inconsistency between different personnel within the same regulatory body. This differs horizontally, by differing expertise, and vertically, where more senior regulators may take a broader view. This results in poor decisions, or rework, delays, duplication of effort and strategic misalignment, undermining confidence in the regulatory process.” The Task Force does praise groups that bring together


senior representatives from key stakeholders to address complex regulatory challenges and identify solutions, which they say have improved coherence and coordination with regard to regulating site activities. They say: “The rationalisation of requirements and approaches achieved by these groups is needed across the regulatory landscape at a foundational level”.


Planning regime A general problem for the UK planning system is that it is slow and cumbersome and the ‘major projects’ regime designed to speed approvals has meant long engagement periods before projects enter the consenting process. It is also not conducive to new nuclear approaches. It is designed for large traditional reactors and may not recognise innovation that improves safety, and it treats each project as a standalone effort, requiring separate regulatory approvals, design documentation, procurement processes and workforce planning. The group says an opportunity was missed in a recent review of nuclear planning guidance. For example, population density criteria prevent suitable sites from coming forward. It produces identical results for all reactor types if local demographics are the same and does not consider differences between different types of reactors or local conditions.


www.neimagazine.com | October 2025 | 43


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