Technical Note s1

DRAFT

TECHNICAL NOTE

MANAGEMENT

Prepared by:

Sebastian Roberts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been developed to assess the management requirements for the concepts proposed by the Warwick team. An analysis conducted to ascertain estimated cost increases indicates a rise of approximately £44.3m over the course of the repositories 100 year PGRC phase with an additional £10m of wages for personnel.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 PEOPLE 1

2.1 Number of Workers 1

3 COSTING 1

3.1 Overall 1

3.2 Inspection and Repackaging Cell 2

3.2.1 Cost Comparisons 2

3.2.2 Inlet Cell Comparison 3

3.2.3 Individual Components 3

3.2.4 Operating Costs 3

3.3 Transfer Tunnel 4

3.3.1 Construction Cost 4

4 SAFETY 4

4.1 Requirements 4

5 CONCLUSIONS 4

6 EVALUATIONS 4

7 REFERENCES 5

DRAFT

TECHNICAL NOTE

MANAGEMENT OF CELLS

1  INTRODUCTION

The concepts proposed for introduction by the study will require a degree of management. The extent of this management may not vary significantly from that already in place for the existing PGRC design but must be accounted for.

Three major management factors to consider for the design developments intended for the PGRC are people required, costs involved and safety requirements.

A major consideration for the development of designs, even to a concept level, involves cost analysis. Projected estimates for the additional costs through development, manufacture and operation are necessary to control project costs.

2  PEOPLE

2.1  Number of Workers

The number of workers required will vary dependant upon throughput required. The increase in personnel detailed in section 3.2.4 of this document is based on a high throughput requiring 2 operators for each inspection cell. If throughput is lower they may be able to move from vault to vault according to demand to lower costs and minimise idle time spent waiting for packages.

There are two phases to be considered at this stage – filling the repository (operational phase) and maintaining the repository (care and maintenance phase). The first stage is estimated to last for approximately 30 years for costing purposes while existing plans for phase two extend for 100 years from the start of filling.

In the existing PGRC concept developed by Nirex there are expected to be 270 workers required to operate the repository at any time while it is being filled (the ‘operation’ phase), and 73 during the ‘care and maintenance’ phase [1].

During both stages it will be assumed that 2 workers are required for each inspection cell. This gives company and safety for the workers, and enables them to work together to fully inspect the incoming package. If throughput is lower 2 workers may not be required, and may be an unnecessary source of cost. The benefit of more than one worker present for inspection is enhanced by multiple master-slave manipulators being available. This allows greater flexibility for manoeuvring and holding parts and also concurs with current policies of having more than one worker present for each task.

With 11 vaults this indicates an addition of 22 workers for the inspection cells, plus 4 to operate the overpacking cells and 6 managers, giving a total per shift of 32 additional workers. With the 3-shift system in place this means a total of 96 additional workers. While there will be an associated increase in consumables costs there should not be additional measures required for the overall PGRC in terms of access or safety beyond extending existing parameters.

3  COSTING

3.1  Existing Cost Estimates

The repository is designed to operate in a safe yet cost-effective manner. Cost is not the most important factor when considering design options yet it must be considered. Adding the suggested facilities will increase running costs for the repository as a whole.

There are two separate costs to consider for the additional facilities. These are set up costs and operating costs. Operating costs are particularly difficult to calculate as the designs are only in a concept phase. Adding the new costs to the overall design will not cause a great increase.

The table below shows the cost values Nirex have assumed for the 100 year PGRC period. These cost estimates have been stated with a confidence level of 60%. [2]

Taken from Nirex report N/067: page vii [3]

3.2  Cost Estimation Methods

There are various methods with which a cost analysis can extend to provide a realistic estimation of projected costs for a project.

·  Extrapolation for the PGRC

·  Cost comparisons

·  Individual components estimates

3.3  Extrapolation for the PGRC

To increase the PGRC design by the amount proposed the overall cost can be scaled and adjusted according to estimates. This estimation will give a figure that should confirm the cost given by analysis of individual components. The additional designs to incorporate inspection facilities comprise approximately 1% of the overall design.

This is based on size, complexity and man-power. Using this 1% valuation gives a cost increase of approximately £34m.

Clearly this is a very inaccurate estimate useful only for initial guesses for viability as the main variable is determined by a subjective manner – deciding the valuation proportion. For example, if the developments are valued at 0.1% of the total cost the estimate decreases by a factor of 10 to just £3.4m.

Also, this analysis takes into account all aspects of the PGRC design, even those that will be unaffected by adding the facilities proposed. Focussing more specifically on the cost aspects that will affect this design development will create a cost estimate with a greater confidence level.

3.4  Cost Comparisons

Cost comparisons can be carried out for individual parts of the repository as required by the developments. The main factors here are the inspection cells, overpacking cells, additional workers and the transfer tunnel.

The rest of section 3.4 outlines these comparisons in more detail.

3.4.1  Inspection Cells Comparison

Underground facilities as designed by Nirex are expected to come to an estimated £274m. This relates to £32.8m for each UILW vault, of which £19m is associated with overhead costs unrelated to the size of the vault. These come in the form of shield doors, cranes and maintenance areas [4].

The main costs the developments will add to the ‘overhead’ are the monitoring systems. The remaining £13.8m is mostly comprised of excavation and running costs. This £13.8m can be adjusted to account for the additional vault size and complexity. An adjustment factor of 5% is a reasonable assumption for this. With this adjustment factor the cost becomes £14.49m per vault, or £159.4m overall compared to 151.8m.

An adjustment of 1% for overhead costs gives a total of £211.1m as opposed to £209m. Summing the overhead and the remaining costs increases gives a total cost increase estimate of £9.7m for the inspection cells.

3.4.2  Inlet Cell Comparison

The costing for the Overpacking Cells could be likened to that of the Inlet Cell for the existing PGRC design. They will be of similar sizes, with a similar amount of transport mechanisms in them. For a rough approximation the cost estimate for the Inlet Cell will provide a good basis.

The 2 Inlet Cells proposed by Nirex are estimated at a cost of £65m between them. Using the above comparison this equates to roughly £32.5m for the Overpacking Cell.

This value seems very high in comparison to the inspection cells. It is possible the cost of these cells is higher because they are located individually, increasing overhead costs. The overpacking cell must have its own ventilation system, access paths and power supplies in addition to increased excavation and setup costs.

3.4.3  Operating Costs Comparison

The existing PGRC design assumes an average cost of £57,500 per person employed, working on a 3-shift basis. A value of 80 - 85% is added for the additional costs associated with operation such as consumables.

The Inspection cells will operate on a basis consistent with existing PGRC designs. This means all maintenance protocols, 3-shift working and safety margins will be replicated. In general this will increase costs of the overall design by a small percentage.

With a total of 96 additional workers as previously discussed there is an associated worker cost increase of just over £5.5m for additional workers and £4.5m for consumables, giving a total additional cost of £10m.

3.4.4  Transfer Tunnel Comparison

The existing design for the transfer system requires only one track, but this design effectively doubles it. Not only is an additional track put in to accommodate 2-way traffic, but a shield wall is erected to allow maintenance of one while the other is still in use.

Nirex assume a cost of £21m is put on the total movement of packages, including marshalling, receipt and transfer. [5] This development can be assumed to account for an additional 10% of the costs in this area as a large degree of the movement is unaffected. This creates an increase of £2.1m, giving a total Transfer Cost of £23.1m.

3.5  Cost Comparison Conclusions

Using the cost comparisons outlines above give increases of £9.7m for the inspection cells, £32.5m for the overpacking cells, £10m for operational costs and £2.1m for transfer costs. This gives a total cost increase of £54.3m for the developments proposed. Comparing this to the estimate of £34m from extrapolating existing data shows the flaws apparent in extrapolating predictions based on a subjective valuation. Whilst the estimates are ‘in the same ballpark’, a difference of £20m is apparent.

3.6  Individual Components

A third cost analysis possible involves costing all known components intended for the concept. Many values can be adjusted from those used by Nirex, but this may not be possible at this stage of the concept planning. Even with estimated values input, it is easy to miss a factor, which may cause unseen and possible large errors. Figures such as additional excavation volumes and machine costs can be difficult to determine with any degree of confidence.

Further analysis is required to determine an estimate in this manner.

3.7  Cost Estimation Conclusion

The study undertaken above indicates a cost increase of approximately £54.3m for the developments proposed. This is an acceptable figure, increasing the estimate of £3388m for the appropriate phases of the 100-year plan to £3442m. This takes into account start-up and operation costs.

4  EVALUATIONS

4.1  Methodology

As discussed previously, there are different methods to establish cost estimates. It is believed the one used here to reach these conclusions is accurate and reliable using the data available. An alternative method was appraised and dismissed as unreliable, and another was deemed too detailed for a concept design study of this nature.

4.2  Reliability

The assumptions made in this report are believed to be accurate based on the knowledge gathered from Nirex. Whilst this is the case, many assumptions are based on little more than an ‘educated guess’, and can therefore only be stated with a low confidence level. Nirex state their assumptions and cost estimates with a 60% confidence level, and basing further estimates on these figures clearly decreases the accuracy.

The estimates derived in this report are assumed to have an 80% confidence level on the original Nirex figures and approximations. This gives a confidence of 48% (0.8*60) for the overall confidence of the values stated in this report. To increase this confidence the analysis must be carried out with individual costings of components involved in the design.

4.3  Safety Requirements

The additional concepts proposed in this report will conform to requirements upheld by Nirex, detailed in their Operational Safety Assessment. These requirements are included in the original data and their effect is carried through in these calculations. It is not believed any additional safety checking is necessary to validate these results.

5  SAFETY

5.1  Safety Management

The repository is designed to conform to stringent safety specifications outlined by Nirex and the governing bodies. As such the developments proposed must conform to these requirements in all manners.

6  OTHER MANAGEMENT ISSUES

All management issues for the repository design developments not addressed previously are included in existing Nirex policy and as such will be unaffected by the developments.

7  GROUP PROJECT MANAGEMENT

7.1  Project Management Objectives

·  Provide sufficient planning and control to ensure the project is successful

·  Select an appropriate leader

·  Budget Management

·  Resource Management

·  Group Time Management

·  Control meetings to ensure efficient progress

8  GROUP DYNAMICS

8.1  Personnel

The group are drawn together with no choice of members. This puts pressure on the group to find a leader quickly who can provide a contact point for both the group Supervisor and the contact at Nirex. The first group meeting is used for introductions and a brief description of the project. It is highlighted that establishing a leader is paramount.

The group consists of 8 student members: Seb Roberts, Iain Hughes, Sam Billing, Tim Pegg, Carl Young, Danny Thomas, Nick Petousis and Kevin Yong. The teams supervisor is Dr Phil Purnell, and a contact at Nirex is established as Mark Johnson.

8.2  Leader Selection

Upon initial discussions it is clear none of the group are keen to lead but it is felt having one leader throughout is beneficial in comparison to rotating leadership. After a brief discussion Seb Roberts is selected as group leader. As the sole Manufacturing and Management student he has experience in project management and it is felt this is a useful quality for the leader.

8.3  Belbin Role Assesments

Belbin tests were developed 20 years ago to enable easy classification of people’s strengths, weaknesses and capabilities in relation to teamwork 9 categories of personality, or attitude, are established, comprising of Chairman (CO); Resource Investigator (RI); Completer-finisher (CF); Team-worker (TW); Monitor-evaluator (ME); Plant (PL), Implementer (IM), Company worker (CW) and Specialist (SP).

The table below lists the various Belbin roles, along with keywords often used to describe them.

Dr Meredith Belbin realised that current trends of selecting teams based on overall skill, expertise and intelligence creates an unbalanced group with inherent instability. She derived a system to select the most efficient team from available personnel. This involves each available person filling out a carefully designed questionnaire concerning their personal traits, and tallying scores in such a way as to point at the role they are most suited to. The team is then selected so that a balance of personalities is represented.