Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
The new nuclear NPS must be more flexible to accommodate and deliver a wider range of nuclear technologies and different siting options.
The current EN-6 only applies to nuclear power plants with a generation capacity of over 50 megawatts at the eight sites listed in the NPS (being Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Oldbury, Moorside, Sizewell and Wylfa). The government proposes to remove this threshold requirement and extend the scope of the new NPS to cover all planning applications for nuclear generating projects in England regardless of the technology or capacity. This would require legislative amendments to the Planning Act 2008.
In a departure from the government’s selection of sites in EN-6, a market-led developer approach to site selection is proposed to take advantage of a developer’s knowledge and bring forward more development sites. The same criteria used for site selection in EN-6 which considers safety, security, environmental impacts and operational requirements, will continue to be applied to sites selected under EN-7 and there is no proposal to change it. However, developers will have to robustly justify their chosen sites against these criteria. The role of regulators and planning authorities will remain the same. They will continue to provide advice on site suitability, the role of community and stakeholder engagement, and the standards of safety, security and environmental protection, which will continue to apply.
DCO applications can be made at any time to PINS under the new proposals, rather than within a specific nomination window as required in EN-6. It is hoped that this will open up more siting opportunities and facilitate longer term market driven development.
A more flexible and market driven approach to the selection of nuclear sites will be welcomed by nuclear developers and seen by some as an important step on the path to Net-Zero and achieving energy security. Site selection, including methodologies and appraisals, will inevitably be hotly contested at the public DCO ‘examination’ and in legal challenges in the courts.
However, broadening the scope of the DCO regime to include smaller nuclear reactor technology is likely to attract scrutiny and raise questions as to whether the DCO planning regime is the most appropriate regime to deliver these types of new technologies, given their smaller footprint and lower energy outputs. In the long term, advanced nuclear technologies are expected to be more economical than large scale power plants (such as Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C), given their smaller and modular design and ability for incremental deployment. However, as with most new technologies initial costs may be prohibitively high and commercial viability a major question. If small reactor projects are viable, then in our experience, such new technologies create both risks and opportunities through the planning regime including the opportunity for greater program certainty. The cost of promoting planning applications through the DCO regime may be significantly higher than the conventional planning regime. Therefore, more consideration must be given as to whether broadening its scope will optimize the role of AMRs and SMRs in the UK’s nuclear energy strategy.