Nuclear Regulatory Task Force: CoRWM response
Published 22 January 2026
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-regulatory-review-2025-corwm-response-to-the-taskforce/nuclear-regulatory-task-force-corwm-response
CoRWM welcomes the Nuclear Regulatory Task Force report, Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025. It provides a very helpful and comprehensive account of the current state of regulation of nuclear and radioactive materials and highlights some important obstacles to new nuclear projects and the decommissioning of existing installations. We particularly welcome its recommendations in the areas in respect of which CoRWM advises and, as a result, feel no need to make any extensive comments.
However, there are some issues that we want to briefly note to avoid any possible misunderstandings.
General issues
To begin with, the following:
Paragraph 157 et seq. The Committee would advise caution concerning the use of international comparisons of Commission-based models. There are undoubtedly lessons to be learnt but some of these are negative. The UK needs to be particularly careful that a revised regulatory approach does not starve operations of resources, leaving them as a poor relation to design and construction.
Recommendation 4. The Committee would also counsel a degree of caution in the matter of a single regulatory authority, for waste disposal specifically. Both ONR and the Environment Agency have complementary expertise and from CoRWM’s experience are working closely and effectively together on Geological Disposal Facility proposals and other radioactive waste matters.
Generally, the Committee’s perception is that the Report could have emphasised the importance of addressing back-end issues in new build, to avoid creating huge financial and technical challenges for future generations. In particular, the Committee would stress the need for extensive research to address the risks and disposability of waste streams from novel reactor types.
Issues specifically pertaining to the role of CoRWM
The Committee noted the presence of some inconsistencies in the discussions of CoRWM’s work and most notably:
Paragraph 448. ‘CoRWM is currently undertaking further work in the consideration of alternatives to a geological disposal facility’ might seem to imply that there is an option for meaningful disposal which does not require a Geological Disposal Facility. Rather the committee is considering options that will minimise the amount and type of waste that might have to go into such a facility. There is always going to be an inventory for which deep geological disposal in stable formations is the only option.
Paragraph 451. ‘CoRWM told the Taskforce that they strongly consider the need for a DCO for the boreholes to be disproportionate’. We would want to avoid possible confusion here. In respect of access to land and shallow boreholes for preliminary investigations we would agree that a case can be made that planning permission may not be necessary. However, for deep investigative boreholes, (which could be either onshore or offshore) a DCO or planning permission will, in CoRWM’s view, be necessary, as these are substantial and probably controversial engineering works. The DCO route is likely to be preferable to the delays inherent in the normal planning system, which may be highly politically contentious. It can also retain the benefits of the extensive public engagement and participation requirements that characterise the DCO system.