Last month's King's Speech included the announcement of the introduction of a Nuclear Regulation Bill in the next parliamentary session.
This is a significant development for the UK civil nuclear energy industry and an opportunity to provide a reset for the regulatory processes that play a significant role in the delivery of nuclear projects.
Regulatory risk is frequently cited by investors as a barrier to committing capital to both large GW power stations and advanced nuclear technologies.
The King's Speech 2026 confirmed that the Bill will implement recommendations from the findings in the report published in November 2025 by John Fingleton's Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.
That report identified three fundamental regulatory drivers leading to high costs and delays in the nuclear sector, they are:
- Risk aversion
- Priority for process over outcome
- A lack of incentives for regulators and operators
Altogether 47 Recommendations were put forward, and the UK Government accepted all of them, and committed to implementation by the end of 2027, subject to legislative timelines.
The proposed Bill will include measures "to support more efficient, proportionate and coordinated regulation across major infrastructure projects."
If the Bill achieves improvements in those areas, it could lower the risk profile associated with the regulatory process of nuclear projects, which should allow more competitive financing, as well as stronger and more reliable project pipelines giving the supply chain greater visibility on a sustained volume of work over time, which should allow them to proceed with the relevant investments to increase their capacity adequately.
We will review some of those key Recommendations that underscore the Bill to explore how the proposed reforms could help unlock investment and financing into new nuclear projects by reducing regulatory delays and complexity.
A number of these concepts might also be considered by other nuclear jurisdictions.
This is about providing a more streamlined and coordinated regulatory structure.
At present developers need to interact with a number of different decision bodies. For example the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the Environment Agency, planning authorities, government departments and the National Infrastructure planning process that supervises large infrastructure projects.
Even though the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce report makes direct parallels with both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States and the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire et de radioprotection (ASNR) in France, the Commission is not meant to be a new regulator but rather to provide a single strategic view of nuclear regulation and act as a single, unified decision making body where the different regulators (including ONR) will be represented.
It is specifically stated that: "Day-to-day regulatory decisions, including enforcement, concerning the operation of existing nuclear installations shall remain the responsibility of the ONR."
It is therefore expected that ONR will continue being responsible for reviewing and making decisions regarding licensing applications.
Major reforms to the current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce quoted numerous examples from projects where overemphasis on environmental considerations may have caused delays in projects.
Some of the new elements introduced (for example, the option for developers to make a financial contribution, by way of an upfront payment to a fund, to mitigate for environmental damage) will undoubtedly face scrutiny.
The UK does not want to lose its preeminent reputation as embodying a strong nuclear safety culture (nor for that matter abandoning a protector of the environment role), which is heavily linked to the maintenance of public acceptance and confidence.
A redefinition of the tolerability of risk concept for nuclear
The Tolerability of Risk concept is based on outdated information (the concept was developed following a 1987 Inquiry into Sizewell B (main image above), which led to a Tolerability of Risk framework, which was later formalised into a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) document titled the Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations.
This risk management framework is based on data from large nuclear power plants and does not reflect the modern state of the nuclear sector, in particular recent developments in nuclear technology with special characteristics (such as the Security-by-Design and Passive Safety concepts developed by advanced nuclear technology developers), which changes the overall risk profiles.
An exercise to bring the Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations up to date is long overdue and is essential if the UK is to reassess the application of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle for use by regulators in a more balanced way.
It is interesting to note that in the United States, the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, a similar radiation safety principle designed to minimize exposure to ionizing radiation, is currently being reviewed by the NRC.
Joint government and regulator international strategy and action plan
For nuclear resurgence to really take off, it needs to reflect global aspirations and ambitions.
For most developers that means a route to a national and international market. That in turn means the ability to recognise designs from different jurisdictions without having to go through a repeat design approval process each time, but rather to focus reviews on targeted issues that require a deep dive.
In practice this is already happening to a large extent.
A good example of this is the Regulator-led project to review EDF's NUWARD small modular reactor where 6 European Regulators (the French ASNR, the Finnish STUK, the Czech SUJB, the Polish PAA, the Swedish SSM and the Dutch ANVS) have jointly conducted from December 2023 to March 2025 the second phase of a Joint Early Review (JER) of the design.
At a more strategic level we have seen the introduction of the IAEA's Nuclear Harmonization and Standardisation Initiative (NHSI) with its mission to smooth the path for the global deployment of reactor designs.
The proposal for a joint Government and Regulator International Strategy and Action Plan is to be welcomed and should hopefully translate into acceleration for assessments of new reactor designs.
Is legislation enough by itself?
Whilst the Bill can help set the parameters for both the ONR and the EA to adopt a more proportionate and outcomes-focused approach, that will only work if individual teams within these regulators engage with the nuclear energy industry and move away from an overly cautious approach, whilst at the same time adhering to nuclear safety principles.
In addition, unless these regulators are properly resourced and possess the right specialist skills – for example in areas such as advanced digital design, modular construction, and systems engineering – the new legislation by itself will not provide the results that are anticipated.
The article was first published on New Civil Engineer on June 25, 2026. For further information please visit https://www.newcivilengineer.com/.
This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
