The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has now released its long-awaited report. While it presents itself as a roadmap to streamlining the UK’s nuclear regulatory landscape, its conclusions raise important questions about what has, and hasn’t, been addressed. Senior Consultant John Ireland shares his reflections on where the report delivers, where it does not, and the deeper structural issues that continue to hold the sector back.
The anticipated report from the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has been published. Whilst the original objective to create a “one-stop shop” for nuclear decisions, when the review commissioned by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was initiated, may have been well-intentioned, the report fails spectacularly.
According to a government review, the UK has become the “most expensive place in the world” to build a nuclear power plant. An “overly complex” sector bureaucracy is partly blamed; however, no account is taken of financial decision-making processes nor the restrictions imposed by the current licensing life-time.
Without any reasoned or justified clarification, the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce suggests that a radical reset of the rules could save Britain “tens of billions” in costs and reverse the industry’s decline in recent years. The historic political decisions to cancel investment in a forward-thinking nuclear industry appear to be forgotten. This includes the cancellation of the suite of Westinghouse reactors by the Thatcher Government, the cessation of reprocessing at THORP in Cumbria, the mothballing of MOX production, the cancellation of the fast-breeder programme, and the continued prevarication over a UK deep geological disposal facility. The latter, driven by political reluctance to make decisions and a habit of pushing responsibility beyond the next election, is symptomatic of the wider issues besetting the nuclear sector.
Like many countries, the UK is now considering small modular reactors (SMRs) in the hope that they will be faster to build than conventional full-size reactors. This is a pious dream given that planning and approval processes are, rightly, politically motivated rather than industry-driven. The UK is a compact nation with competing planning objectives that constantly clash. Although the taskforce suggests the planning system should be streamlined, it naively implies that nuclear-related risks should be brought into line with the rest of the world.
The report also suggests the UK has excessively risk-averse policies in place, including “overly conservative” rules on radiation exposure levels for workers. Such statements will tie the industry in a myriad of political and legal issues for years – NIMBY will reign supreme.
Whilst the current “fragmented” regulatory system has resulted in conservative and costly decisions not proportionate to the risks being managed, this should be accepted as a fait accompli.
Taskforce chair John Fingleton commented: “Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”
The personal ramblings and observations of John Ireland, Senior Consultant
About the Author
John Ireland is an internationally experienced energy specialist and senior business executive skilled in the development, negotiation, and management of businesses and technically complex contracts within both the Government and private sectors. John has grown complex businesses in Asia and the Middle East, and assisted international organisations to develop business in and from the UK through joint ventures and partnerships.