An effective regulatory system will need to be able to coordinate the activi­ties of the different authorities. It will be important to clearly demarcate their competences in order to reduce areas of overlap, and to design systems which encourage cooperation between regulators when necessary. In the UK, there is a split between health and safety controls, which are adminis­tered through site licences regulated by the HSE (ND) under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, and environmental controls, which are predominantly overseen by the EA. In order to ‘avoid duplication of effort and potentially conflicting demands as between radioactive substances regulations and those matters for which HSE is responsible’ (Tromans, 2010, p. 295), the EA and the HSE entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in 2002 with the objectives (para­graph 6) of facilitating effective and consistent regulation by ensuring that:

(i) activities of EA and HSE in relation to nuclear licensed sites are consistent, coordinated and comprehensive;

(ii) the possibility of conflicting requirements being placed on licensees, or others operating on nuclear sites. . . is avoided;

(iii) synergies are exploited and the appropriate balance of precautions is attained;

(iv) duplication of activity is minimised; and

(v) public confidence in the regulatory system is maintained.

The Schedule to the Memorandum sets out the joint working arrangements between the EA and the HSE, in an effort to provide clarity to both the regulators and the regulated. There are various other interfaces of regula­tory control (e. g. safety and security, transport) which will need to be care­fully considered in the context of nuclear plant, and a similar level of coordination will be required.

17.2 Conclusions

As the European Commission has recently identified, one of the objections to SEA and EIA is that their benefits cannot be easily measured in financial or monetary terms. Nonetheless, there are a great number of benefits that arise from the SEA and EIA, and the benefits of carrying out the processes should be seen to outweigh the financial implications of preparing the assessment documentation. EIA and SEA bring benefits to any regulatory system which aims to establish harmonisation between the planning process and environmental integrity. This is fundamental in the context of nuclear energy as these considerations will be crucial in ensuring that energy policy is met with a degree of public approval. Not only do SEA and EIA ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account as early as pos­sible in the decision-making process, they are ensure ‘more transparency in environmental decision-making and, consequently, social acceptance’ (European Commission, 2009, paragraph 2.4).

It will be equally important to consider how the planning and regulatory processes can be used to assess and control environmental impacts. Environmental considerations play a pervasive role in both processes, and will need to be carefully controlled. Planning systems should be designed so that the environmental risks can be sufficiently scrutinised. States will need to develop legal systems which adequately reflect the intended balance of powers, and which provide the government with residual influence and control over certain key decisions. The regulatory system will need to be reinforced by a sanctioning regime which is stringent enough to compel compliance. Although the UK approach is instructive, other jurisdictions will ultimately need to determine for themselves what role the environment will play in shaping the future of nuclear power generation. The various examples of other established civil nuclear states, multinational regulations

and practices, international conventions and IAEA standards are also valu­able sources for emerging civil nuclear states.

17.3 Future trends

In April 2010, the European Union Committee of the Regions published an Opinion entitled ‘Improving the EIA and SEA Directives’ (European Union Committee of the Regions, 2010). Besides affirming the importance of the SEA Directive and EIA Directive as tools in environmental protec­tion, the Committee recognised that certain gaps remain in ensuring that the processes realise their objectives. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the main proposals of the Committee is that the EIA Directive should be amended so as to incorporate thresholds, criteria or triggers for the pur­poses of determining the significance of environmental impacts caused by Annex II activities. The Committee highlights the fact that certain Member States, when implementing the EIA Directive, have been shown to exceed their powers of discretion by only taking account of certain Annex III selec­tion criteria or by completely exempting certain types of project in advance. The Committee also makes recommendations that the assessment of alter­native solutions should be made obligatory, and that gaps in public partici­pation procedures should be addressed by giving the public early and effective opportunities to participate from the earliest possible point. The Committee makes few concrete recommendations in relation to the SEA Directive, principally by virtue of the fact that further experience in apply­ing the SEA Directive is required. However, certain issues are identified, notably that a specific definition of reasonable alternatives on a mandatory basis should be developed, that it should be made obligatory to establish methods and indicators of monitoring environmental impacts, and that the SEA Directive should better identify what information the Environmental Report should contain.

The coalition government in the UK has decided to abolish the IPC and replace it with the MPIU, but decisions will still be taken in accordance with NPSs. The UK remains committed to new nuclear power despite the serious events which occurred at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. With a number of major new build planning applications in the pipeline, it will be interesting to assess how the UK balances environmental impacts with other factors such as energy security and climate change. There will no doubt be considerable environmental opposition, and any favourable deci­sions will be potentially subject to legal challenge.