OFFICIAL

A risk-informed approach todecommissioning andremediation
International Forum on Decommissioning ofFukushima Dai-ichi NPS, 10-11 April 2016

OFFICIALOFFICIAL

UK civil nuclear legacy
Dounreay

Sellafield

Magnox power reactors

Research reactors

OFFICIALPrioritisation and the Value Framework

OFFICIAL• Priority of a decommissioning and remediation project depends
on the risk it is addressing and the value it delivers• Value Framework allows us to compare value of different options
Health and Safety

Risk to human health during decommissioning

Risk / hazard reduction

Risk to human health once decommissioning is complete

Security

Impact on security of materials and associated records

Environment

Impact of discharges and activities on environment
Use of raw materials including water and energy

Socioeconomic impact

Impact on employment, infrastructure and wellbeing ofcommunity

Finance

Lifecycle cost (capital cost, maintenance cost) and returnon spend

Enabling the mission

Impact on delivery of wider mission, e.g. setting
precedents, building capability, testing technologies

www.gov.uk/government/publications/nda-value-framework-how-we-make-decisions
OFFICIALRisk to people and environment

OFFICIAL• Prioritisation influenced strongly by levelof risk to people and environment:– “Where risks are intolerable we willtake urgent action to reduce them”– “We will act proportionately toensure that the net level of risk does
not increase in the long term”– “Where the risk is less significant,prioritisation takes greater account ofother factors in our ValueFramework”

OFFICIAL

Safety and Environmental Detriment

OFFICIAL• Safety and Environmental Detriment (SED) measure wasdeveloped to allow comparison of hazard posed by facilitiesacross entire NDA estate• The NDA is delighted to be working with the NDF and TEPCO
to modify the SED measure to suit Fukushima Dai-ichi
OFFICIALRisk profiles and informing prioritisation

OFFICIAL• Prioritisation is informed by:– Level of risk at a point in time
– Profile of risk versus time

Level of risk

Priority 1?

Intolerable

Tolerable

Priority 2?

Broadly
acceptable

TimeOFFICIAL

Demonstrating the ‘value’ of action

OFFICIAL• Understanding the ‘value’ of different actions informs decision-making

Level of risk

Action 1Action 2

Intolerable‘Value’ of Action 1Tolerable‘Value’ of Action 2
Broadly
acceptable

TimeOFFICIAL

Demonstrating ‘value’ of interim solutions

OFFICIAL• May choose to deliver a project that offers less risk reduction because it
reduces the time at risk
– “Where risks are intolerable we will take urgent action to reduce them”

Action 1
Level of risk

Action 2

Intolerable

Tolerable

Reducing time at risk
Broadly
acceptable

TimeOFFICIAL

Demonstrating Value for Money

OFFICIAL• Does the ‘value’ of an action justify the impact on other elements of the Value
Framework (impact on environment, finance, etc.)?

IntolerableLevel of riskAction‘Value’ of Action

Tolerable

Broadlyacceptable

TimeOFFICIAL

Value takes many forms

OFFICIAL• When risks are tolerable or broadly acceptable, there are otherreasons for progressing with decommissioning

OFFICIAL

How to find out more

OFFICIAL

Our website: www.gov.uk/nda
Subscribe to receive:• E-bulletin• Blog post notifications: nda.blog.gov.uk
Follow us on:• Twitter @NDAgovuk• LinkedIn

Join 700+ members in:
NDA Estate Supply Chain LinkedIn GroupOFFICIAL