POLICY & REGULATION | FIT FOR PURPOSE?
Nuclear Regulatory Task Force 2025 members John Fingleton (Lead): economist and former CEO of the Office of Fair Trading; Senior Independent Member of the Council of Innovate UK until 2024; expert in business, government and regulation, with a reputation for innovative thinking. Professor Andrew Sherry: Andrew is Professor of Materials and Structures at the Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials at the University of Manchester. Previously Chief Scientist and Special Advisor at the National Nuclear Laboratory and Chair of the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee. Mark Bassett: member of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group; previously Director and the Special Assistant to the Director General (DG) for Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards at IAEA. Dame Sue Ion: expert advisor on the nuclear power industry; member of the US National Academy of Engineering in 2012 for contributions to nuclear fuel development and Fellow of the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society. Previously represented the UK at the IAEA as a member of the Standing Advisory Group on Nuclear Energy and Chaired the EU Euratom Science and Technology Committee. Mustafa Latif-Aramesh: infrastructure planning lawyer at TLT LLP; advised on small modular and advanced nuclear developments in the UK and 25 nationally significant infrastructure projects. ■
Standardisation is not sufficiently recognised
and, the Task Force says, “this constant re-invention of something replicable is inefficient and costly”. Similarly, UK regulators have limited mechanisms by which other countries’ regulatory decisions can be taken into account, and it appears longstanding practices in other countries are rarely considered as ‘relevant good practice’. The Task Force says that there is little international standardisation. It admits that each national regulator has its own approach, interpretation of international standards and legal framework. Nevertheless it believes there are areas where regulatory approaches are similar that could be used to reduce duplication. In an overarching issue, the Task Force is concerned about the number of expert staff available, especially with the range and depth of experience and expertise that allows for a more proportionate approach. It warns this lack “can lead to overly cautious thinking and unnecessarily conservative decision-making on safety issues”. The industry is also heavily reliant on a small number of highly specialised contracted entities. The Taskforce highlighted cultural attributes that hamper the smooth delivery of nuclear programmes. These include “a culture of risk aversion,” with little incentive to
transform the culture or the leadership and levers to do so. In addition, the indirect costs of delays to nuclear projects, (financial, labour, material costs or non-monetary factors, such as environmental or social impacts) are often not taken into account by regulators in their analysis of what measures are proportionate. Instead, “the responsibility falls on duty holders to demonstrate their value. There is no guarantee that regulators will agree with their assessment, adding uncertainty to the process”.
The next phase In its next phase the Task Force is seeking feedback on its interim report. It wants to develop a series of recommendations, but in the near term it hopes to develop a “strategic steer” from government to duty holders and regulators “to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of safe nuclear programmes so that the societal, environmental, and defence benefits of nuclear technology are realised at a measured pace, while maintaining independent regulatory decision-making”. The group says, “We need to shift the workforce away
from nugatory bureaucracy, protracted decision-making, and overly complex safety cases, to focus the existing skills on the safe delivery of programme outcomes”. ■
Above: Holtec is looking to build SMRs in the UK, but regulatory reforms are needed to lower barriers to nuclear expansion
44 | 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
