The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

07 November 2007
Location: Online

On 7 November 2007 we issued for public consultation our

 Draft Business Plan 2008-11 (3Mb)

During the consultation, which ran until 31 January 2008, we received responses both online and by direct correspondence from 127 organisations and individuals covering a broad range of our stakeholders. Unless expressly requested otherwise, all comments on the draft Business Plan are available via www.ndabusiness.dialoguebydesign.net together with a summary report of the submissions received.

Following consultation,  in the light of stakeholder comments, we revised the draft Plan substantially and submitted to Ministers for approval, which was received at the end of March 2008.

Below we highlight the main issues that attracted stakeholder comment and explain how they were addressed in the final version of the Business Plan.

Stakeholder Key Concerns

Amongst all responses received, the most frequent comments related to the following aspects of the draft Plan.

• application of our prioritisation process and its potential impact on previous decommissioning timescales
• consequences of reduced funding at a number of sites
• availability of skills for decommissioning (and the nuclear industry generally)
• effect of the Plan on local economies and socio-economic factors

In all the above cases we recognised that our draft plan had failed to provide sufficient background information or to explain why certain decisions had been made. As a result of this feedback we substantially rewrote the plan to communicate more clearly why these decisions were made.

Application of NDA Prioritisation Process

Our current funding model provides a level of funding to support a diverse programme covering a range of activities across all sites. As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), we submit a bid to the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) for funds to support proposed work programmes on sites. Once set by Treasury the funding allocation is effectively fixed, although if income from commercial activities fails to meet expectations there is a mechanism for addressing serious shortfalls.

We made initial site funding allocations in the draft Business Plan on the basis of hazard and risk reduction, but the process was distorted by additional high priority hazards being identified at Sellafield and Dounreay. This immediately meant we had some difficult decisions to make which affected our ability to fund some activities at lower risk sites such as Winfrith, Harwell and the Magnox reactor sites.

In revising the draft Plan for publication, we acknowledged that a process driven solely by hazard and risk reduction was not sufficiently sophisticated for funding decisions. With this in mind, we have continued to develop a ‘value framework’ in conjunction with stakeholders to bring greater sophistication to decision making. The value framework weighs our priority of hazard and risk reduction against other impacts including safety and environmental performance, socio-economic effects and value for money. This revised approach will begin to inform our deliberations for the 2009/10 Business Plan and will be sufficiently mature to form the basis of our submission to the Government’s SR’09 spending review.

Consequences of Reduced Site Funding

The impact of funding restrictions was most significantly felt at Winfrith, Harwell and the Magnox reactor sites. Stakeholders at these sites expressed serious concerns about the delays to decommissioning programmes at Harwell and Winfrith and that a business case for the accelerated clean up of Magnox sites could not be made.

In the latter case, our ability to accelerate decommissioning of the Magnox reactors is dependent on the availability of additional funding and a final disposal route for the graphite cores and Intermediate Level Waste. Without the capability to dispose of graphite, early site clearance would require the construction of additional interim stores at significant cost. Given our current decommissioning priority of dealing with high hazard and risk the adoption of shorter timescales for site clearance is currently unaffordable. Nevertheless we remain committed to searching for alternative disposition routes in order to achieve earlier decommissioning of the Magnox sites or a lead site to demonstrate this possibility.

In support of this, the contingency work commissioned to identify the minimum level of funding required to maintain safe and secure Magnox site operations will inform the future strategy for decommissioning the Magnox reactors and influence decisions about future levels of funding across our estate.

Availability of Skills for Decommissioning (and the nuclear industry generally)

Despite strong support for our initiatives such as the National Skills Academy for Nuclear and the Dalton Institute, some respondents expressed the view that reduced funding at some sites would result in the early loss of nuclear skills in local communities. We acknowledge that this may turn out to be the case but we expect our contractors to match skill availability with requirements as part of their contract.

Effect on Local Economies and Socio-economic Factors

Some respondents were concerned that sites where funding had been reduced were apparently being ignored in terms of socio-economic support, compared to the NDA’s priority areas. The public consultation on the NDA draft Business Plan took place before publication of our socio-economic policy. In the policy we state that:

“We intend to focus support where we believe it is most needed. Owing to the dominance of the nuclear sector and the lack of alternative, high-value employment opportunities, we have identified four priority geographic areas where we believe the impact of decommissioning and clean-up on local communities will be greatest. This does not mean, however, that we will not support other communities living near our sites if there is sufficient merit in the proposals that we receive.”

Accordingly the revised Plan emphasises our commitment to work with relevant agencies to create sustainable futures for communities “affected by decommissioning”. Even though the focus will continue to be on those four areas where the impact of decommissioning will be greatest, the revision acknowledges that a broader perspective may be necessary on this issue.