DECOMMISSIONING THE UK'S NUCLEAR LEGACY- MANAGING RISK IN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENTS

The questions were addressed by discussion groups who through rapporteurs’ summary presentations made the following points:

  

Discussion point 1:

 

How can engineers ethically manage short term risk for long term high hazard and risk reduction?

 

It was noted that projects such as Sellafield provide an exciting and rewarding challenge for engineers. Setting the ethical framework is the purview of the Board, taking account of stakeholders views. In Sellafield’s case the principle stakeholders are NDA and government but there are others particularly important being the local community.  Having established a framework it is for engineers and scientists deliver within that but must challenge if it results in unexpected or perverse outcomes.

​

The nature of risk was considered at all tables and acceptance that zero risk does not exist. A view expressed was that the essence of all engineering is to increase risk in order to generate benefits, The difference between relative and absolute risk or human and economic risk also discussed. Maintaining a clear distinction between commercial risks and those associated with unexpected hazards was considered important as was thinking to the future and having the right records for the future management of risk.  Gaining acceptance of the risk can be achieved by providing benefits for the local community.

​

A large amount of focus is upon the site and challenges in remediation, but it needs to be recognised that its not just the risk on site but also in movement of waste and of external factors such a rising sea levels. Learning from Fukushima on the need to plan ahead would be valuable. There are also much broader issues such as decommissioning of nuclear warheads which need to be brought into consideration.  

​

It was acknowledged that the nuclear industry adheres to very high standards which can result in cost and timescale overruns. Is the nuclear power industry pricing itself out of existence? Where there is no alternative, something must be done, and the chosen solution is ALARP, where the residual risk shall be reduced as far as possible. Leaving it as it might feel safer, but may not solve the problem and could therefore ultimately be a higher risk.

​

Discussion point 2:

 

What strategies can organisations utilise to build trust?

 

There is still a deep lack of understanding of nuclear and the difference between the old redundant nuclear facilities and new nuclear power plant. All stakeholders need to be communicated with in simple clear terms so they gain a good understanding of the challenges and the opportunities rather than holding a perception of risks. Engineers are generally trusted and are in a good position to articulate the issues and solutions to a wide range of stakeholders.

There is a clear need to educate politicians and others who may be in role for relatively short periods and yet will be making key long-term decisions relating to these facilities.

​

Cumbria already a nuclear community and therefore their perception of risk is different from the general public perception. None the less being able to compare radiation risks to other common risks including other common radiation risks is useful to enhance understanding.

​

Reminding people of the 20 years of planning as well as the successful track record to date will help build trust. The role of TV and media and using trusted voices to explain and advocate for the project were proposed.

  

Discussion point 3:

 

How can engineers determine whether innovation is worth the risk?

 

Noting innovation is not invention but it can still carry risk. However assessing it against a more established approach will help articulate the benefits of innovation. Many and varied approaches were considered from modelling, BIM, virtual reality or digital twins as they can enable understanding and effectiveness of innovation. Technical innovation needs strong peer and testing but avoid the pitfall of too much review which can get in the way of progress.

​

Generally innovative work tends to be less risky than standard day-to-day work, because we think about it and review it more carefully. By contrast complacency on ‘standard’ jobs can leads to mistakes or increased risk. Most construction problems relate to human factors whether they be errors or a failure to take responsibility.

​

Innovations may have already been used and proved in another environment. The incremental improvement approach used in the offshore industry might be a useful model to emulate. Decommissioning arises across all major infrastructure industries with examples of deferral leading to serious hazard and early decommissioning also doing similar. Eg. Aberfan in 1966 (144 dead); Didcot boiler house collapse 2016 :(4 dead).

 

Forms of contract will determine incentives and therefore behaviours. Ultimately we need the

skills  and capability to talk to clients about both risks and benefits and enable them to make

good decisions. The meeting was delighted to learn that a Standard for Innovation

management exists ( ISO 56000:2020).