Consultation outcome

Summary of responses on the consultation on the draft Merchant Shipping (nuclear ships) Regulations

Updated 17 March 2022

Introduction

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) published a consultation document on 9th August 2021 seeking views on the proposed Merchant Shipping (Nuclear Ships) Regulations. These Regulations would transpose Chapter VIII in the Annex to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (‘SOLAS’ or ‘the Convention’) into UK law. Views were also sought on the accompanying draft Marine Guidance Notice.

The consultation ran for eight weeks until 5th October 2021. The consultation can be found here: Consultation on the draft merchant shipping (nuclear ships) regulations 2021.

Not all questions posed were answered. The answers given have been fully and carefully considered. MCA is grateful for the feedback received in response to the consultation, which has helped to inform the policy and next steps.

Summary of Responses

A total of 14 consultation responses were received. The list below shows who responded:

• Law Society of Scotland
• Seaborg Technologies
• Jacobs UK ltd
• Core Power
• World Nuclear Transport Institute
• Babcock International Group/Cavendish Nuclear
• The Nuclear Institute (NI)
• Bermuda Shipping and Maritime Authority
• Rolls Royce Submarines ltd
• The Maritime Working Group (consisting of member organisations).
• National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL)
• American Bureau of Shipping
• The UK Chamber of Shipping
• Bureau Veritas SA

A summary of the responses under each question contained in the public consultation document is set out below with our response:

1) Do you think that there exists industry appetite for the new nuclear ships within the appraisal period? [The standard 10-year appraisal period has been used for the purposes of this consultation, in line with HMT’s Green Book].

Summary and Government response

11 out of the 14 responses provided comment to the first question and agreed there is an appetite for nuclear ships over the next 10 years with growing interest for nuclear propulsion for large ocean-going vessels.

One additional comment was that it is vital for new technologies to be fit for purpose to ensure ships are safe. There is also a need to ensure rules and regulations are kept up to date. The Government will continue to maintain safety standards and influence growth by engaging with industry and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

2) Is the assumption that no new or existing nuclear ships will be flagged in the UK within the period of 10 years (2021-2030) accurate or inaccurate? If inaccurate, please detail why.

Summary and Government response

10 out of the 14 responses provided comments to this question.

The majority of responses indicated that the assumption was accurate. The point was made that, whilst an active UK flagged nuclear ship is not in service, there may well be ships under construction within this appraisal period.

It is noted that there is a focus on decarbonization within the marine industry which focuses on exploring alternative fuels and power sources. Within the next decade there could be a significant number of ships using alternative fuels and power sources, and it is possible that within the next decade the UK will also be requested to do so. In addition, it is likely that nuclear powered ships will be seeking to trade in UK waters. Implementing the SOLAS Chapter VIII requirements and building strong ties with others, including the US, will increase the likelihood of UK flagged nuclear powered ships and reinforce the broader maritime safety regime.

The Government intends to progress making the Regulations as planned.

3) Is it accurate or inaccurate to assume operators/owners of nuclear ships would already follow the building and operating standards of the Nuclear Code in line with the international requirements by way of best practice, incurring no additional costs as a result of this legislation, apart from survey and certification? If inaccurate, what costs would be incurred? Please provide evidence where possible.

Summary and Government response

12 out of the 14 responses received provided comments to this question.

Three specifically stated that they believe this statement is accurate, two stated they believe the statement to be inaccurate and one said that they thought the statement was largely redundant. The remaining responses did not specifically express a view of accurate or inaccurate.

One respondent, relying on experience within the sector, indicated that an operator/owner of a nuclear ship would indeed follow the Nuclear Code and by introducing the proposed UK legislation they would not expect to generate any significant extra costs over and above the cost of demonstrating compliance with that legislation.

One response provided possible additional costs relating to:

• training and qualification of crew and its maintenance;
• no authorisation to enter some territorial waters/ports/harbours;
• build of specific port infrastructures (for safety and security aspects);
• insurance costs, owing to specific nuclear liability aspects, and
• reputation of the company operating nuclear ships potentially jeopardised.

General costs were flagged but were not quantified or monetised. However, it may be reasonable to predict an increased cost, although this should be not seen to be as a result of the proposed regulations or the new guidance, but rather by the inherent risk of the technology used. Therefore, these are noted and the Government does not propose to amend the de minimis assessment that has been prepared for this measure and intends to proceed to make the Regulations.

4) Do you think that best practice in the construction and safety standards could potentially be higher than that contained within the Nuclear Code, taking into account its age (40 years old). Please detail the reasons for your answer.

Summary and Government response

11 out of 14 responses provided comment in response to this question.

In summary, one respondent stated best practice and accepted standards are informed, in part, by lessons learned and operational experience. As the Nuclear Code is 40 years old, a possibility is that lessons learned after 40 years of marine and nuclear deployment are not included.

One respondent suggested that standards in safety and security for nuclear reactors have advanced since SOLAS Ch VIII was passed in the early 1980s. With climate change now at the top of the agenda across the world and the shipping industry, now is an opportune time to incorporate these advancements into existing rules for nuclear ships.

The Government will continue to engage with stakeholders and the IMO with respect to any future developments of the Nuclear Code. The Government intends to make the Regulations as planned.

5) Do you foresee any unintended consequences of the proposed Regulations? If so, please provide any relevant evidence.

Summary and Government response

9 out of 14 respondents provided comment in response to this question.

An unintended consequence was identified regarding the international Nuclear Code and its age. Views were expressed that a failure to take forward action to update, revise and modernise the international regulatory framework could lead to a direct regulatory barrier being put in place to adopt new and advanced nuclear technologies.

The Government will continue to engage with the IMO and represent the UK’s interests in safety.

One response identified the requirement for the safety assessment to be provided to the Secretary of State 12 months prior to arrival of a nuclear ship in the UK to constrain commercial viability.

The Government has considered this point and the possible constraint is noted. However, at this stage, we consider the amount of notice to be adequate and addresses the lack of experience of commercial nuclear vessels. This also provides UK Ports with a reasonable amount of time for familiarization and preparation.

The concern on constraints to the commercial operation with regard to the information needed for the voyage plan is noted, but the additional information is considered necessary at this time to address the level of risk of current nuclear technologies.

The Government will review these requirements as part of the statutory post-implementation review.

With regard to the competent authority providing the Secretary of State with expert advice, clarification of roles and processes will be addressed separately in future discussions with those concerned through a memorandum of understanding or an agreement.

One response shared their view that the use of nuclear-fueled ships offers the potential to bring about significant change to the marine industry. The proposed introduction of regulations by the UK will support this development.

The Regulations contain requirements to keep records on board covering the main aspects affecting the safety of a nuclear ship. We believe the details of the scope and method of survey, audits and inspection can be addressed as part of the future work.

The Government intends to progress to make the regulations as planned. In addition, the Government will continue to engage with stakeholders.

6) Do you think the proposed Regulations will impact on your business – if so, please summarise and provide evidence where possible?

Summary and Government response

12 out of 14 responses provided comment in response to this question.

None of the respondents indicated a negative impact on their business. They confirmed that they welcomed the proposed Regulations as part of UK law as they provide focus for further development and signal a need for alternative energy sources. Potential business opportunities for growth into new business areas creating UK jobs are foreseen, while enhancing the UK’s reputation in terms of regulation and safety and providing clarity needed within the maritime industry.

The Government intends to progress to make the Regulations as planned.

7) Do you anticipate any practical difficulties in meeting the survey and inspection regime contained in the proposed Regulations? Please provide any evidence to support the answer.

Summary and Government response

4 responses provided with no comment and 10 responses providing comment to this question.

A question was raised around surveys and who would be best placed to carry those out. As nuclear ships evolve, the MCA will continue to work with bodies such as Lloyds Register and others, including experts from across Government to undertake statutory surveys and inspections.

The Government notes the views expressed that survey and inspection personnel will require training and familiarization in relation to any new approaches and there may be insufficient resource in the way of qualified personnel to support nuclear ship survey and inspection.

However, any resourcing implications will be formally assessed and addressed according to need.

Views expressed indicate there to be few if any practical difficulties in meeting the survey and inspection regime contained in the proposed Regulations. As such the Government intends to make the Regulations as planned.

8) Are there any costs or benefits which need to be considered?

Summary and Government response

4 out of the 14 respondents did not provide any response to this question.

Potential capital costs are likely to be higher for a new nuclear ship versus a traditional fossil fueled vessel as a result of the expenses involved in installing building and infrastructure with more stringent safety and design standards.

Views expressed on potential economic benefits to UK ports, the maritime industry and ultimately health benefits, were related to nuclear propulsion which produces no greenhouse or acidifying pollutant gases.

Other benefits of nuclear-powered ships include not needing fuel tanks, large engine rooms or funnels, and increased cargo capacity. This would also lead to increased speed helping to improve supply chains for commodities, industrial components, and consumer goods.

Any cost implications for a business investing in nuclear ships is one for the business itself to assess and offset against any potential commercial business benefits.

None of the responses provided figures to support the potential costs or benefits. However, the Government notes the potential benefits and costs and welcomes additional information through the post implementation review process of the Regulations.

The Government intends to progress to make the regulations as planned.

9) Any other views and evidence on costs or benefits and any other aspects of this consultation.

Summary and Government response

8 out of 14 respondents provided comment on this question.

We note the references made to ambulatory referencing and the point about being part of the negotiation and consultation process in any future changes to SOLAS Chapter VIII and the Code of Safety for Nuclear Ships.

The Government will continue to represent the UK’s interests at the IMO and any provision that is liable to be automatically incorporated into UK law will be publicised in advance by way of a statement to both Houses of Parliament and a Marine Guidance Note. The Regulations are subject to a statutory post-implementation review, ensuring they remain fit for purpose.

Next Steps

In light of the responses received, and after careful consideration, the Government does not intend to significantly amend the prepared draft legislation which has been drafted to transpose SOLAS Chapter VIII into UK law. It is intended to make the Regulations and bring them into force by the autumn of this year. The Marine Guidance Note will be finalised and published at that time.

The Government will continue to engage with stakeholders and the International Maritime Organization with regard to the Nuclear Code and any future amendments to it.

The Regulations provide an element of future proofing should there be a UK flagged nuclear ship in the next few years, or a non-UK flagged ship visiting the UK.