The recently published interim report by the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce “Taskforce to tackle regulatory barriers holding back nuclear” provides an analysis of the current nuclear regulatory system in the UK. It is calling for radical reform of the system “to enable speedy and cost-effective delivery of new civil and defence investment and existing operations.”

The report covers many aspects of implementing new nuclear projects and identifies a number of areas for improvement in order to speed up the regulatory process and deliver a “radical reset” to unlock investment, innovation and timely delivery.

The Government’s agenda is clearly set out in the press release which states:

• “Independent expert taskforce finds British nuclear projects are being held back by costly and complex regulation barriers
• Radical “once-in-a-generation” reform is needed to tear down barriers to faster, cheaper nuclear development, while maintaining the highest safety standards
• The government is delivering a golden age of new nuclear to create thousands of good jobs and unlock investment as part of the Plan for Change”.

The report itself is more measured, and well-written. However, there appears to us to be a significant omission relating to the disposition of the resulting nuclear waste, in particular the spent fuel arisings from AMRs and SMRs.

The Task Force now seeks cooperation from interested parties “such that we may progress, in cohesion, with resolving the challenges of the day and unlocking the UK’s nuclear potential.”

The Task Force has asked the following questions:

1. What changes to regulatory guidance or processes would encourage regulators or duty holders to take a more proportionate approach?
2. How can we create an appropriate level of tension and debate between regulators and duty holders? How could constructive challenge be incentivised without increasing delay?
3. Are there examples where ‘offsetting’ harm can deliver more comprehensive and long-term benefits? For instance, in environmental regulation, what would be the impact of allowing organisations to pay for environmental conservation and enhancement efforts off-site?
4. Are there specific consents or regulations that could be consolidated into a single process to avoid duplication while ensuring clarity around procedural requirements?
5. Are there compelling benefits to changing regulatory boundaries that would outweigh the disruption? If so, please provide evidence to support that.
6. What changes to NSIP guidance are needed to ensure that the regulatory process fully captures all relevant costs and benefits and balances them appropriately?
7. Could the National Policy Statement be adapted to enable a fleet approach of approvals for identical or largely similar design scheme?
8. Does the current semi-urban population density criteria prevent otherwise suitable sites coming forward, and if so how should they be changed
9. What measures would create more effective collaboration and common resourcing between regulators?
10. Are Strategic Workforce Plans sufficiently mature across all organisations to ensure that SQEP skills can be delivered in sufficient numbers and within the correct timescales?
11. What incentives and approaches might address the cultural issues identified to drive a reduction in complexity and bureaucracy?
12. Where is there sufficient international agreement to enable mutual recognition?
13. Should duty holders have mechanisms to challenge regulators when they require significant new evidence of compliance, beyond what has been sufficient for international regulators?
14. What could we put in place to enable regulators to give faster approval, where such approval has already been granted in another country with similar regulatory standards?
15. How could the application of ALARP and cost benefit analysis be adapted to ensure that the cost of proposed safety measures is proportionate, avoiding undue delays for measures that do not significantly reduce risks?
16. Would more clearly defining tolerability be sufficient to achieve an appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of regulatory intervention, or would additional measures be required? If so, what measures would you suggest?
17. What specific content do you believe should be included in a strategic steer to drive immediate positive change?
18. Do you agree with the need for modifications to the environmental planning and permitting regimes, and if so, what specifically should change?

Please engage with the Task Force directly at the earliest opportunity if you wish to contribute your views in response to any of these questions or indeed to raise any issues that are not covered in the Interim Report.

Nuclear regulation: input to the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce review – GOV.UK

The pursuit of a site for a Geological Disposal Facility in the UK has had many false starts and has taken over four decades to get to where it is now under the stewardship of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s subsidiary, Nuclear Waste Services. This is not the fault of the regulators, of course, but we believe that there is now an opportunity for a rethink of the process.

We believe the Taskforce should take a look at a number of options related to spent fuel management in addition to and alongside the GDF:

• the borehole disposal option which is being considered in several countries*, particularly when considering the deployment of AMRs and SMRs,
• The co-location of a borehole disposal system with the reactor is one aspect which is the subject of current studies,
• Fuel leasing by the vendor,
• Spent fuel management
• Fuel return (as with research reactor fuel), and
• Multinational repositories.   

*Recent studies focused on implementation of this option have been undertaken for Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, ERDO, Estonia, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, the UK and the US.

About the Authors

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.

John Mathieson has some 47 years’ experience in the nuclear industry, primarily involving the areas of radioactive waste management and decommissioning. John worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Commission, participating in expert missions, technical meetings and working groups. He has worked on projects assisting many overseas governments to develop financing, decommissioning and radioactive waste management strategies and infrastructures, including help establish a number of Waste Management Organisations.

David McIntosh was admitted as a Solicitor in 1988 and is a highly experienced commercial projects lawyer who has advised clients in a number of different fields across the nuclear and pharmaceutical sectors.  He has a thorough understanding of the nuclear regulatory framework and the international conventions which govern nuclear third party liability.  He worked for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for 15 years from 2005 to 2020 and during that time advised on decommissioning arrangements,  procurement, regulatory, security and nuclear transport matters affecting the  NDA and its SLCs and subsidiaries. Since joining Prospect Law in 2021 he has continued to advise on nuclear matters including acting for three trade associations with members across the nuclear supply chain and has for several years provided quarterly nuclear regulatory  updates to a nuclear client. He continues to advise clients on regulatory matters in this sector.

John Warden brings 35 years of experience in the nuclear and defence sectors to Prospect. He specialises in nuclear reactor project structure and financing, implementation of nuclear technologies, and strategies to meet climate goals using nuclear power. He is increasingly active in the field of advanced nuclear technology, where he advises on the economics and feasibility of deploying small modular reactors and advanced nuclear technology. 

If you would like advice on nuclear regulatory processes, waste management strategies, or the legal frameworks shaping new nuclear development, please get in touch consult the Nuclear Regulatory team at Prospect Law.

Prospect is a multi-disciplinary practice with specialist expertise in the energy and environmental sectors with particular experience in the low carbon energy sector. The firm is made up of lawyers, engineers, insurance and risk management specialists, and finance experts.

This article remains the copyright property of Prospect Law Ltd and neither the article nor any part of it may be published or copied without the prior written permission of the directors of Prospect Law.

This article is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice and it should not be relied on in any way.