Interested in hosting STEP in your community?

Any person or entity can nominate a site. We simply ask that:  

• The entity is capable (in personnel and funding) to work with UKAEA through the assessment process.  
• The entity has some form of jurisdiction (council, LEP, business group, devolved Government) for the land included in the nomination.  
• That not more than one entity proposes the same site.  
• Consent of the landowner is secure

The landowner need not propose the site (where they may not have the capability or resources to do so). However, the landowner: 

• Should have agreed to the site being proposed 
• Should understand that STEP is a resource-limited programme, and that the land value cannot be driven upward (see commercial criteria for detail).  
• Should be willing to enter into commercial discussion with UKAEA parallel to the assessment process, to enable swift progression of the programme at the chosen site.  

STEP is keen to see the broadest possible level of input and nomination, and as such the application process is as simple and affordable as possible.

At this stage there is no requirement for significant site assessments, rather to provide best-available-information responses. UKAEA will then validate these at our expense through the process.  

The government has confirmed a prospective site does not need to be covered by – or have been covered by – a nuclear site licence, nor be adjacent to a nuclear licensed site, in order to be proposed. However, proposals of such sites to host STEP are also welcome.

The existing regulatory framework for fusion in the UK has no mandate about nuclear licensed sites. The UKAEA’s Culham Campus, which hosts JET (currently the world’s most powerful fusion facility), is not a nuclear licensed site, and is regulated by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.

The government is considering whether any changes need to be made to the existing fusion regulatory framework to support the future commercialisation of fusion energy. This includes a decision on how a relevant licensing regime would apply to the STEP site. 

We have now been asked many times whether the 100-hectare minimum footprint could be spread across more than one site. 

Our answer is this: the 100-hectare minimum should apply to an area that could be practically operated as a single site. This is in practical terms with no intended implication of any licence criteria.  

For example: Where a 100 hectare+ package of land is divided by transcendable features – railways, roads, small physical barriers, etc – we are keen to accept these into the process. They can then be assessed against the criteria on their individual merit. 

Naturally, an operational site has many component features, some of which do not need to be directly adjacent. Our priority would be to assess whether these barriers could be overcome with feasible operational mitigations.  

If in doubt, we urge that a nomination is made.  

No, we are happy to receive more than one site for nomination from the same area if appropriate to do so. However, each site must only be nominated once.

There will be engagement and involvement with the community from the point the siting decision is made.  

We haven’t yet established our schedule for site development so we’re unable to provide these timelines at present, but naturally plant of this size entails a construction programme of many years. We will publish this detail as soon as it’s available.  

We have some of the same requirements as a fission site, based largely on similar infrastructure, cooling, and grid requirements. Likewise, we have similarities to large infrastructure of many types, with regard our need for access and local capabilities.  

There are communities across the UK that will meet our requirements, some of which may host existing fission plant and many of which will not.  We would welcome any or all sites that meet our requirements to express their interest.  

At this point, the areas we want to be most clear on is the size of the site (at least 100 hectares) and access to water, although this could be a major river or estuary so the site does not, necessarily, need to be coastal. 

It’s likely that we will put forward more than one site to the Secretary of State. However, at this point, before we have received nominations or assessed the sites, it’s difficult to give a more definitive answer. 

Potentially, yes. If the landowner is open to alternative uses for the land then we would be happy to receive a nomination for consideration. Of course, it’s most beneficial if the local community and its representatives are also supportive of this potential alternative use. 

It is clear that, as with all major industries in this country, fusion will be appropriately regulated. The UKAEA’s Culham Campus, which hosts JET (currently the world’s most powerful fusion facility), is regulated by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Details of the enduring regulatory regime are still to be developed by Government.  

The government has confirmed a prospective site does not need to be covered by – or have been covered by – a nuclear site licence, nor be adjacent to a nuclear licensed site, in order to be proposed. However, proposals of such sites to host STEP are also welcome.  

The government is considering whether any changes need to be made to the existing fusion regulatory framework to support the future commercialisation of fusion energy. This includes a decision on how a relevant licensing regime would apply to the STEP technology and site. 

It is clear that, as with all major industries in this country, fusion will be appropriately regulated. The UKAEA’s Culham Campus, which hosts JET (currently the world’s most powerful fusion facility), is regulated by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Details of the enduring regulatory regime are still to be developed by Government.  

The government has confirmed a prospective site does not need to be covered by – or have been covered by – a nuclear site licence, nor be adjacent to a nuclear licensed site, in order to be proposed. However, proposals of such sites to host STEP are also welcome.  

The government is considering whether any changes need to be made to the existing fusion regulatory framework to support the future commercialisation of fusion energy. This includes a decision on how a relevant licensing regime would apply to the STEP technology and site. 

We have not yet outlined our timeline for land transfer so would look to work together with the landowner and other appropriate authorities to decide and agree on a way forward. We welcome nominations from any community or region where there is a suitable site to address these questions at an early stage.

The short answer to this question is, it depends.  

We would prefer to take ownership of land without significant legacy however, if the commercial terms were appropriate and detailed plans for remediation were made available, this could be a tolerable option. Our assessment will be based on the understanding and nature of the site, including any necessary legacy management, so the most important thing is a clear understanding of the potential remediation

We’re very aware that there are also siting processes ongoing for both the Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and have been working with colleagues to make sure that we understand each other’s plans. 

Ultimately, the site for STEP will be determined by the Secretary of State and we’ll continue to work towards the deadlines in our plans to complete our assessment and recommendations by autumn 2022.

No, STEP will be developed by a delivery body formed for this purpose as we proceed. It is likely that this will operate in a similar way to joint ventures and other bodies that are common in large scale infrastructure. 

The local authority will be the ‘host’ of the site and we look forward to working in partnership with local and regional organisations as the programme develops.

There is no reason for STEP to be located on or next to a nuclear licensed site however nominations are welcome from these sites. 

There are suitable sites of all kinds across the country that have already expressed an interest in hosting STEP and we encourage any community or site to put themselves forward for nomination, as long as they meet our ‘showstopper’ criteria, which can be found on the nomination form, downloadable from the web portal.

As it stands, we will not be extending the deadline for nominations. We have already received a good level of interest in hosting STEP and are keen to stick to our already tight timeline.

STEP is a national programme. It will be developed by the UKAEA and industrial delivery capability we are forming for this purpose, working in partnership with organisations and businesses that have the talent and skills we need to deliver this significant infrastructure programme.

As a prototype plant, it’s likely that the main function of STEP will be to carry out tests and trials as we demonstrate that the commercialisation of fusion is possible. We will look to generate some electricity as part of this demonstration and may look at other ways in which we can use the energy generated by the machine.

It’s fine to produce a separate report to enable you to bundle all the information relevant to each question together. Obviously, we need this information presented in the same order as the questions on the form, using the broad headings, so it can be easily read and understood.

As with any industrial facility, we will assess any potential hazards and take a proportionate view to ensure we can demonstrate risks are as low as reasonably practicable.   
 

Aircraft movements, and the proximity of flightpaths and airports, would form part of our consideration but there is no simple measure that can be applied at this early stage with respect to those issues. 

As it stands, it is likely that SEA will be undertaken once a site is selected by the Secretary of State, if it becomes clear that consent will be sought for STEP as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Programme (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008.  

It’s also possible that, as fusion policy emerges a Sustainability Appraisal will be undertaken, providing a similar high-level assessment, before a project-specific Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is undertaken at a later stage, in line with whichever consenting route is being pursued. 

We are keen to see nominations wherever the showstopper criteria can be met, even if full information cannot be provided against every question. Please provide whatever information is readily available – gaps can be reviewed as we move into the assessment period.  

Where the site has already been through a permissioning process for a different development, please note this in your nomination form. At this stage there is no need to submit this information.  

Finally, please remember that nominations will not be accepted once the deadline has passed.

We do not expect nominees to share any commercially sensitive information at this point in the process. The initial nomination process is, primarily, an opportunity to express an interest and to ensure a shared understanding of the site. 

It is the beginning of a more detailed conversation, beginning with a desktop assessment at an early stage, through which we’ll understand the parameters of the development, as well as any barriers. 

With any nomination to the STEP siting process, we would hope to see a range of supportive local stakeholders. If any of the nominating entities ceased to exist, for whatever reason, we would anticipate and expect that there would be other parties with whom we could continue to work.

We envisage that we will move forward with one site with the Secretary of State’s decision around the end of 2022.  

This is how the process has been designed, with a site selected at an early enough stage to inform our design criteria and, ultimately, accelerate the programme.  

We’ve received several enquiries about the possibility of siting STEP across different locations or parcels of land. We hope that this information will help provide additional context.  

100 hectares is the benchmark size of a site we believe could feasibly accommodate the full site infrastructure of STEP, including the space we’ll need for construction. We also anticipate that workshops and important maintenance facilities will be located within the 100-hectare site, however other buildings such as offices and training facilities could potentially be located separately, if there is good transport infrastructure in place.   

At this point in our development, we can’t give a building by building breakdown, the design is not yet mature enough to know the exact detail of buildings we’ll construct on site.  

Where a site already has significant, usable core plant infrastructure, such as turbine buildings or grid plant outside the core package of nominated land, and we have confidence it will be available to fulfil the requirements of STEP, we will accept a site nomination reduced by a comparable footprint to those facilities. 

We’re looking for nominations that have a good level of local and regional support as it’s important we’re able to work effectively in partnership with the community as soon as the successful site is announced. The broader the support in the local area, the better – this is reflected in our assessment criteria.  

Please include any information you have readily available regarding existing grid connections. More detail is naturally helpful where it exists, but at this point we simply need an indication of the nature of any connection that is already in place.   

We are asking for nominations of exact parcels of land in this process, the nomination form asks for a map with a red line boundary. 

However, if there is an area of land including more than one potential development area of 100 hectares, we would accept the nomination on the basis that we would quickly need to define the exact parcel of land, in order that the assessment process can begin without delay.