A comparative analysis of nuclear plant regulation in the US and UK

Regulatory reform should be a priority issue in both the US and UK. A two-tier system of review in this paper seems to be sensible. The generic issues of national importance should be the subject of specific national and state policy objectives and cannot really be left to utilities to sort out. In the UK this would imply that central government would take on the responsibility for safety review and designate sites from which the utilities could then choose. The local inquiry would deal with matters of local relevancy including emergency preparedness. The authors advocate that the UK safety authorities should adhere more closely to the revised licensing system that the NRC has recommended to Congress. This would encourage far greater public participation at a much earlier stage than at present. Indeed if PWR approval is given at Sizewell, then the UK safety authorities should review their siting and safety philosophy, which is now more than 16 years old and more relevant to gas-cooled reactors with their greater levels of intrinsic safety. The longevity and the irreversibility of many of the nuclear decisions makes the switch to a more publicly defensible licensing system absolutely essential, if nuclear power is to have a future in a democracy