
- •Cost Benchmarking for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning
- •Foreword
- •Acknowledgements
- •Table of contents
- •List of appendices
- •List of figures
- •List of tables
- •List of abbreviations and acronyms
- •Chapter 1. Introduction
- •1.1. Objectives
- •1.2. Scope
- •1.3. Organisation of the report
- •Chapter 2. Added value
- •2.1. Stakeholder perspectives
- •Executive decision makers
- •Authorities and regulators
- •Programme and project teams
- •Supply chain
- •2.2. An example of the potential for added value
- •Chapter 3. Approaches
- •3.1. Approaches to benchmarking in other industries
- •The oil and gas industry
- •Commercial and defence ship building
- •Civil construction
- •3.2. Common features of other industry approaches
- •Chapter 4. Barriers and enablers
- •4.1. Cost benchmarking approaches – Barriers
- •Barrier: No incentive for industry engagement
- •Barrier: No investment in organisation or facilitation
- •Barrier: Absence of actual cost data
- •Barrier: Obstacles to normalisation
- •Barrier: Low maturity in cost benchmarking
- •Barrier: Competition law
- •4.2. Cost benchmarking approaches – Enablers for the removal of barriers
- •Drivers for the enablers – The likely demand for cost benchmarking
- •Enablers for barrier removal (a two-stage approach)
- •Enablers: Other industry experience
- •4.3. Collecting and sharing data – Barriers
- •What form of data is required?
- •The requirement for data collection and sharing
- •4.4. Collecting and sharing data – Enablers
- •Removing the barriers for data collection and sharing
- •Considerations for data collection and sharing to support value-adding benchmarking
- •Is a database required?
- •4.5. Enabling cost benchmarking data collection and sharing – Options
- •Summary options for cost benchmarking, including data collection and sharing
- •Chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations
- •5.1. Summary of findings
- •5.2. Options for benchmarking for NPP decommissioning
- •5.3. A possible roadmap for the implementation of benchmarking
- •Step 1 – Selection of an international organising entity
- •Step 2 – Mobilisation
- •Step 3 – Implementation
- •Step 4 – Steady state and evaluation
- •5.4. Moving forward
- •References
- •Appendix A. Sweden case study: Interface with project delivery tools
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •Governance model
- •Project delivery tools
- •Operation and maintenance of auxiliary systems, surveillance of plant and plant security
- •D&D work packages
- •Waste management
- •Ongoing work and other interdependencies
- •Appendix B.1. Details of barriers and enablers identified by industry
- •Appendix B.2. Barriers and enablers: Approach to ascertaining interest group perspectives
- •Interest groups – Definition and identification
- •Beneficiaries and consumers of benchmarking
- •Suppliers of data
- •Benchmarking service suppliers
- •Interest groups – Engaging these groups in a benchmarking approach
- •Engaging the audience for benchmarking
- •The critical mass for benchmarking
- •Appendix B.3. Enabling benchmarking option analysis

SWEDEN CASE STUDY: INTERFACE WITH PROJECT DELIVERY TOOLS
Waste management
The radioactive material has to be conditioned as radioactive waste or to be approved as not radioactive and released as not radioactive. Therefore the material has to be segmented, decontaminated, measured or packed as radioactive waste for interim and final storage.
Waste management requires control and performance principles of a production plant. The material from dismantling is comparable to “raw material” treated in different facilities and the qualified waste package and the material for free release are comparable to “products”.
Waste management is steered “reactive” on the needs of dismantling, comparable to a “Single item production” reacting on customer’s needs. Waste management is not “allowed” to become a “bottle neck” (adaption of capacity needed).
Main KPIs can be:
•inventory development, inventory control [number of boxes per storage; raw material inventory];
•facility specific performance and specific treatment cost;
•production performance [production input; production output; principle: all in= all out] and process failure indicator/error rate;
•risk;
•safety indicator.
Ongoing work and other interdependencies
Applying best practice for “major asset project” in nuclear decommissioning includes applying LEAN principles and implementing standardisation approaches. This includes adaptions of project delivery tools and forms an important task of the strategy development process. The strategy development process also includes risk management with direct interdependencies to both cost estimates and project delivery tools.
There are also more interdependencies than just between the cost estimates and the planning and execution of the project that needs to be addressed for the project delivery tools, for example in the context of financial reporting in relation to the Swedish Nuclear Waste Fund. Preliminary discussions have been held between the Swedish nuclear industry and the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority on how information developed in this context can be handled. However, no decisions have been made.
48 |
COST BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DECOMMISSIONING, NEA No. 7460, © OECD 2019 |