The NDA Prioritisation Process – Practitioners’ Workshop, August 2007

1. The NDA Prioritisation Process – Practitioners’ Workshop, August 2007 Mark Wareing, Decommissioning Strategy Manager

2. Requirement of Energy Act Vehicle for stakeholder engagement Provides a framework and common language to underpin decisions The Prioritisation Process is about communication Why NDA Prioritisation Process

3. Developed over past three years Wide range of stakeholders involved Tested as part of LTP 06 Used in full for first time for draft LTP 08 submission Still some wrinkles to be sorted out How Was It Developed

4. £ Safety and Security Management Safety and Security Management Hazard Potential Reduction Hazard Potential Reduction Environmental Factors Management Environmental Factors Management Value for Money Value for Money £ Advancing the Programme Advancing the Programme Socio- economic Issues Socio- economic Issues Success Or Not

5. Commercial operations – Covered by energy Act Remove requirement to think Provide SLCs with a reason for not discharging their statutory duties. Replace regulatory due process. Focuses on Why not How What Doesn’t it do

6. The process is made up of the following steps: Assess facilities using Safety And Environmental Detriment (SED) Measure Assess SED Reduction Projects using project benefit measure Schedule to meet funding constraints based on legal requirements (safe and secure), existing commercial commitments and project benefit, taking account of: Facility SED Score v Project Benefit Score Appropriate regulator and stakeholder modifiers Produce SED Reduction measure Process

7. SED Score =Potential detriment + Ongoing detriment = (RHP+ CHP) x (FD x WU)4 + 108 *(OED) The power 4 comes from consideration of the relationship between safety and hazard Multiplier 108 comes from consideration of the relationship between potential and ongoing detriment SED Score

8. Plant Ranking Based On SED Example Results

9. An SED Reduction project includes all the work necessary to take an inventory, or group of inventories, from their current state to an improved state. The SLCs are responsible for defining the SED Reduction Projects SED Reduction Project

10. SED Reduction Project Magnox Storage Pond Sludge Buffer/ Packaging Plant Sludge Transfer Operations Processed Sludge Fuel ILW Processed Fuel and ILW Waste Encap Plant Product Store

11. Benefit = (∆HP vs t) + [(FD + Wud + (∆LD vs t)]/3 + [(∆HP vs £) + (∆OFC vs t)]/2 + (OED vs t) ∆ = Change in attribute Looks at change against project cost and time Scored using look up tables based on what is considered to be good Attributes not weighted scored from 100 Note, ∆HP = (RHP1+ CHP1) - (RHP2 + CHP2) Project Benefit

12. Project Benefit Scoring Table ∆HP

13. Projects for high SED facilities may have low benefit score for following reasons: SED Reduction Project not defined correctly Poor project strategy Very complex problem which takes long time and costs a lot to resolve Low Project Benefit Score

14. NDA define Site funding Limit SLC define and schedule activities required to keep site Safe and Secure SLC define and schedule existing commercial commitments Remaining funds to be spend on discretionaryactivities – i.e. remediation work Scheduling Process Site Funding Limit (SFL) Funding available for remediation cost Commercial Commitments Safe Secure Site time

15. If only one project could be done at a time – based on adjusted ranking list Rank 1 Rank 2 Intelligent Scheduling Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 time Site Funding Limit (SFL) cost Rank 2 Rank 4 Rank 3 Rank 1 Rank 5 time Scheduling

16. Scheduling Address Regulator Drivers Rank 3 Rank 6 cost Rank 5 Rank 4 NII Spec. Rank 1 Rank 2 time NII Specification Date Rank 3 NII Spec. cost Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 6 time

17. Scheduling Address Socio - Economic Modifiers Rank 3 NII Spec. Rank 2 Rank 4 Rank 5 cost Rank 6 Political driver Rank 1 time Rank 3. NII Spec. Rank 2 Rank 4 Rank 5 cost Rank 1 Political Driver Rank 6 time

18. Key thing is audit trail Scheduling

19. Calculated by recalculating SED scores at future points in time, based on Project Delivery Strategy Can be used to assess value for money Can be used to assess innovation SED Reduction Measure

20. Current Site or UK LCBL Current Planned Spend Improved Site or UK LCBL Improved Planned Spend SED Reduction Curve And Judging Innovation – Ideal Situation Cumulative – spend (£M, £B) SED Measure Time

21. Site SED Reduction

22. Project Example – Facility, SED Reduction

23. Process applied by all SLCs Revised process for scoring contaminated land has provided more realistic scores Chemical hazard raised some issues OED score needs revision to deminimus score Some inconsistency in results particularly from Magnox stations Draft LTP Submission

24. Results from Audit 07 Will Pearson, REACT

25. Yearly process of audit to be carried out. 5 audits carried out this year to ‘review’ output and identify good practice. Technical Queries’ (TQ’s) raised to enable verification of submitted data and further capture of good practice. Output from audit process

26. Data sets are largely complete – the sites have complied some very valuable archives of information. Sites must start to consider what the data means – not necessarily to be undertaken by the practitioners themselves Level of understanding is improving however there are some significant issues with consistency between similar sites. Key Messages

27. Significant amount of guidance and background information of the NDA website which is not being utilised by practitioners Practitioners need to improve understanding of RHP and CHP to help improve consistency in SED scores Need to continue to detach SED Reduction Projects from LTP DVs Key Messages

28. Revision 3 of EGPR02 issued on 31st July along with EGPR02 WI1 and WI2 Principle changes made Wording changes to improve clarity Mods to address technical issues with ∆HP Additional guidance as appropriate No changes to scoring processes, data requirements or equations Deliverables guidance provided in EGG06 – Hazard Baseline Specification Revision 3 of the Procedure

29. Radiological Hazard Potential Background and Calculation

30. A measure of hazard potential Factors in the RHP How to calculate the RHP Background

31. Hazard Potential the chance that someone or something will be adversely affected by the hazard the potential for harm arising from an intrinsic property Hazard Potential Hazard Risk a measure of the harm that could be caused by the material in the form it is in.

32. RHP is a measure of the hazard potential due to the radioactivity of materials RHP measures hazard potential to both man and the environment RHP may be used to track the progress of hazard potential reduction within individual storage facilities, sites and across the UK compare scenarios on the basis of their effectiveness in reducing hazard potential, as one criterion in the wider planning process. Definition and use

33. RHP - Calculation

34. A measure of the potential harm (“hazard”) from a set of radioisotopes The amount of water required to dilute the radioisotopes to below annual limits on intake Big numbers more harmful Small numbers less harmful Inventory - background

35. Calculation Get inventory of material in TBq Multiply by SITP (m3 water / TBq) from table Add results for all radioisotopes If material could be inhaled (gases, powders) apply correction A MS Access based calculator is available for this purpose Inventory - calculation

36. Form Factor • A measure of the mobility of the material

37. A measure of physical and chemical stability of the material “What monitoring period would a design engineer propose at the design stage as being necessary to ensure containment, based on the intrinsic hazard of the material, the mode of storage, and how these might evolve?” NOT “How often do we monitor it?” EGR009 gives full details Control Factor

38. Control Factor

39. Example • ITP = 1.7e8 • Form = Sludge (0.1) – no inhalation correction • Control = Years (10,000) • RHP = 1.7e8 * 0.1 / 10,000 = 1.7e3

40. Key issue Uncertainty in quantity and/or fingerprint Especially with VLLW Inventory issues should be dealt with pragmatically and assumptions recorded Aim for reasonable pessimism in inventory assessment Calculator “Other alpha” and “Other beta” species are worst case; it may be distorting to use these Inventory – FAQ

41. Key issues Potentially respirable forms Gases and powders attract an additional penalty due to potential for inhalation – reflected as revised SITP Contaminated solids Probably part powder, part solid – score both A small amount of powder may dominate Size Powders should be respirable Discrete solids can be lifted by one person Form Factor - FAQ

42. This is the hardest factor to understand Key issue What is maximum intervention interval to retain control NOT what interval is actually used Issues Current plant condition is irrelevant; scored pristine Maintaining control avoids bulk release (say, 1%); diffusion of species is not a loss of control Ignore externally induced catastrophic events Control Factor - FAQ

43. There is a form to assist in assigning control factors Define storage mode Define material properties Define storage features required to control material properties Determine time to loss of control for each storage feature Select minimum time to get control factor; but consider collocated materials Control Factor - Process

44. Control Factor Record Form

45. Example – fuel in pond

46. Chemical Hazard Potential Background and Calculation

47. A measure of hazard potential Situations where CHP is required Factors in the CHP How to calculate the CHP Background

48. CHP is a measure of the hazard potential due to the chemical properties of materials CHP measures hazard potential to both man and the environment CHP may be used to track the progress of hazard potential reduction within individual storage facilities, sites and across the UK compare scenarios on the basis of their effectiveness in reducing hazard potential, as one criterion in the wider planning process. Definition and use

49. Rarely required Required for Legacy inventory Not required for Commercial stock Stock supporting operations or decommissioning In tests only a few significant items found Asbestos Chemically contaminated land Sodium and NaK Hex Uranium (added to RHP) Situations where CHP is required

50. CHP - Calculation