Response to Call for Evidence Description (May 2025)
Response to Call for Evidence Description
Questions
1. What are the key challenges of the current regulatory system (including nuclear site licensing, regulatory justification, environment and planning to the extent relevant to nuclear development) across the nuclear plant lifecycle (for example design, build,operation, maintenance, decommissioning/disposal, waste management)?
Response: The principal challenges relate to the sequential nature of the regulatory approach which has an impact on schedule and cost. Whilst the parameters of Nuclear Site Licensing and the DCO process are well understood, there is a history of large nuclear power projects coming unstuck with Environmental challenges (i.e. Horizon Nuclear Power and the terns at Wylfa Newydd on Anglesey). An overriding reflection and obligation on Regulators to consider the wider benefits of nuclear (net zero, energy security, affordability and wider community and societal benefits etc) of such projects would assist in this respect.
For Advanced Nuclear Technology developers (including both SMRs and AMRs) there ought to be scope to reduce the obligation of the Regulatory Justification process as well as allowing a more streamlined approach to nuclear site licensing (for example taking on board where appropriate the safety approach already provided for in the GDA process). The current costs of these regulatory process have to be reduced to enable ANT developers to choose to deploy in the UK.
2. What are the key benefits of the current regulatory system?
Response: It is by and large well-settled and understood and therefore Developers know what they are facing in advance.
3. How proportionate is the current regulatory burden to the risks involved in nuclear activities across all hazard/ risk areas (for example, conventional safety, radiation safety, nuclear safety, environment, planning)?
Response: We would suggest that the current regulatory burden at least for ANT developers is not proportionate. An opportunity was missed in the current review and drafting of National Policy Statement EN-7 to review and revise the existing “Population density” criteria (otherwise known as the “semi-urban” criteria). This criteria goes back to the 1960's and an assessment of the Magnox AGRs and has not been modernised or updated to reflect the new characteristics of ANT technologies. These technologies are designed to be located close to industrial clusters. Nuclear technologies in comparison for example to other high hazardous substance activities appear to be unduly penalised. We would argue for a risk-based approach to the calculation of Emergency Planning Zones.
4. How well adapted is regulation to support the deployment of advanced and innovative nuclear technologies (such as SMRs and AMRs) and what needs to change?
Response: It is not well adapted and needs a fundamental change as outlined above.
There are a number of areas where improvements could be made. For example, the UK Regulator should be able to rely on decisions made by trusted foreign regulators on proven designs and the burden of proof should be shifted to the Regulator to justify any changes required.
It is worth noting that a perceived absence of appropriate regulation may be a ground for challenge by industrials and local authorities that want to develop nuclear energy. This has been seen recently in the US where several states and nuclear energy developers have filed lawsuits against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding its licensing requirements for certain advanced nuclear reactor technologies, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors. The argument presented have been that the NRC's proposed licensing requirements exceed its statutory authority and hinder the development of these technologies in the US.
5. Do you have evidence of where duty holders’ and regulatory organisations approaches to regulatory obligations, processes and good practice, including safety culture, caused undue delays or barriers to project delivery?
6. Do you have evidence of where current regulatory processes enable innovation?
7. Do you have evidence of whether the current interaction between industry and regulators at different working levels helps or hinders achieving clear, timely, and effective outcomes?
8. Are there best practices from other sectors / nations that are relevant?
Response: The US Advance Act is a good example where advanced nuclear technologies are being supported favourably, both with financial incentives and supportive regulatory approaches.
