NRI Annual Review 2026 - Flipbook - Page 8
internationally as one of its strengths.
Unlike other, more prescriptive systems,
it places responsibility on operators to
demonstrate that they understand and can
manage risk. That principle remains sounds
and should continue to underpin the
UK’s approach.
What the Review recognises is that
proportionality must become a more
consistent feature of decision making.
Operators should continue to demonstrate
that risks are as low as reasonably
practicable (ALARP), but regulations
should also recognise where additional
requirements deliver diminishing safety
benefits while adding cost or causing
delays and uncertainty. The objective of the
Review, and what we should be striving for,
is a regulatory system that supports good
decision making rather than simply adding
more process for the sake of it.
For developers, investors and the insurance
sector, greater certainty is as valuable as
greater speed.
The sector has already demonstrated
that safety and efficient can coexist. The
NRI’s international experience increasingly
shows that better collaboration between
regulators can reduce unnecessary
processes without weakening oversight.
The NRI sees this trend as being particularly
valuable for new SMR/AMR technologies,
where developers are often deploying
similar designs across several jurisdictions.
The Review’s emphasis on recognising
appropriate work undertaken by trusted
international regulators is significant and
welcome. Where regulators can share
technical assessments and build on
existing evidence, projects should be able
to move through licensing more efficiently
while maintaining UK standards.
8
The smaller scale of SMRs
opens nuclear power to
places where conventional
reactors may not be practical
— from smaller electricity
grids and industrial centres
to remote regions with
limited grid infrastructure.
Turning recommendations
into delivery
The sector broadly supports the direction
of travel signalled by the Review, but
there is an understandable concern
about how quickly recommendations can
move into practice. Legislative/regulatory
changes take time, and projects already in
development need the confidence that the
regulatory environment will remain stable
throughout their lifecycle.
“Building Our Nuclear Nation” – the title of
the government’s response to the Review –
provides an important statement of intent,
but industry will now be looking for greater
clarity around delivery, implementation and
timescales. Clear guidance, transparent
decision making and sustained cross-party
support will all be important if confidence
is to be maintained in the future.
Skills also remain a constraint. Regulatory
reform alone cannot accelerate
deployment if the sector lacks the
engineers, technical specialists and
project professionals needed to deliver it.
Expanding regulatory capacity alongside
industry capabilities will be essential if the
UK’s ambitions are to be realised. This is
as important for regulators as it is for the
wider supply chain.
