Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce publishes Interim Report on UK nuclear regulatory system

On 11 August 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce (Taskforce) published its Interim Report (the Report), proposing a “radical reset” and “once-in-a-generation changes” to the UK's nuclear regulation system, which the Report states is perceived to be unnecessarily slow, inefficient and costly. The Taskforce’s primary objective is to identify and facilitate changes which will enable the UK to fully capitalise on the global resurgence of nuclear energy, by ensuring faster and more cost-effective delivery in both civil and defence sectors, without compromising nuclear safety standards. The Taskforce is seeking feedback on their assessment of the issues and proposed solutions before publishing actionable recommendations in Autumn 2025.

The Interim Report

The Report primarily addresses nuclear safety, environmental, and planning regulations in England, excluding nuclear security, safeguards and nuclear fusion. Key nuclear projects, such as Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and planned small modular reactors (SMR) and advanced modular reactors (AMR) are crucial for enhancing energy security and achieving net zero targets. However, the Report notes that some countries manage to deliver nuclear projects at roughly half the cost of those in the UK, mainly attributing this to more effective regulatory frameworks.

The Taskforce acknowledges the UK's strong safety record and the international credibility of its regulatory system, which is predicated on a ‘goal-setting’ approach and a robust legal framework. The current system involves multiple regulators with distinct but often overlapping responsibilities. While this framework has fostered innovation and adaptability, it has also become increasingly complex and bureaucratic. The system is seen as slow and duplicative, with overlapping regulatory processes and inconsistent application of standards both within and between regulatory bodies. Additionally, the planning and environmental regimes are considered poorly equipped to support new technologies, with limited recognition of international regulatory approvals.

Areas for Reform

The Taskforce identifies six principal areas for reform:

Risk Management and Proportionality: The application of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle in health and safety assessments is seen as overly conservative, fostering risk aversion and driving up costs without commensurate safety benefits. The Report suggests a re-evaluation of ALARP and related regulatory guidance to ensure a more proportionate approach, with clearer consideration of cost, programme delays and national strategic imperatives. There is also a systemic reluctance to challenge the regulators, which results in higher-than-proportionate risk mitigation.

Regulatory and Planning Complexity: The proliferation of regulatory requirements and duplication between regulators has created a burdensome landscape, particularly for new market entrants. The Taskforce proposes streamlining consents and consolidating processes where possible, including potential reform of the Justification process and greater alignment between regulatory bodies.

Planning Regime Reform: The current planning framework, including the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project regime, is criticised for causing delays and lacking flexibility for innovative technologies. Proposals include adapting the National Policy Statement (EN-7) to enable a fleet approach for similar designs and updating population density criteria to reflect modern reactor types.

Capacity, Capability, and Culture: There is a recognised shortage of Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP), compounded by an ageing workforce and reliance on consultants. The Report calls for urgent action to boost regulatory capacity, address salary competitiveness and drive cultural change towards greater efficiency and outcome-focused delivery.

International Harmonisation: The lack of mutual recognition of international regulatory approvals is identified as a barrier to efficient project delivery. The Taskforce advocates for increased harmonisation and the acceptance of trusted foreign regulatory decisions to reduce duplication and facilitate technology transfer.

Understanding the Cost of Delays: The Report notes that indirect costs of regulatory delays are not adequately considered in current decision-making. It recommends that cost-benefit analysis and the assessment of proportionality be strengthened to ensure that regulatory interventions are justified in light of their broader economic and societal impacts.

Analysis & Further Consideration

The focus areas for the Taskforce centre upon nuclear safety, environmental and planning regulation which are collectively aimed at streamlining the implementation of new nuclear projects in the UK, the scope of which is broadening. In addition to traditional GW-scale power generation, the introduction and potentially more diverse application of SMRs with co-location projects (powering digital infrastructure, pink hydrogen production and industrial / district heating) necessarily requires changes to the legal and regulatory framework to expedite project delivery.

While regulatory reform will be welcomed by many in addressing the issues identified above, it is important to recognise that regulatory reform alone will not, as of itself, serve as a silver bullet for accelerating nuclear deployment in the UK. The nuclear sector is inherently complex given the scale of capital expenditure involved, limitations in depth of both supply chain and SQEPs and relative inexperience in project management and delivery capabilities across the sector.

Conclusion

The Taskforce intends to retain and build on the many positive features of the UK regulatory system and to ensure that high safety and standards remain of paramount importance. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the Interim Report and provide feedback to help shape the future of the UK's nuclear regulatory system. For further information or assistance, please contact the CMS team.

Article co-authored by Anna Andrasko, Trainee Solicitor at CMS.