Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Policies, Strategies, Planning and Knowledge Management

By Michele Laraia

Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Policies, Strategies, Planning and Knowledge Management focuses on policy, strategy, planning and knowledge management in nuclear decommissioning, offering readers guidance on events that occur in early stages of the lifecycle. The book helps readers plan in advance to avoid and reduce schedule delays and cost overruns to ensure a smooth, safe and successful decommissioning. Events covered in this book range from top-level conception, to strategy selection, the drafting of procedures, and the sharing of best practices. Alongside the other case study books in this series, readers will obtain an understanding of various key points and lessons learned.

Decommissioning experts, including regulators, operators, waste managers, researchers and academics will find this book to be suitable supplementary material to Michele Laraia’s reference works on the theory and applications of nuclear decommissioning.

• Presents a selection of global case studies that focus on the early stages of nuclear decommissioning
• Highlights the need to ensure sustainability plans are in place at the beginning of a nuclear project
• Informs decision-makers on selecting the best options
• Assists the reader in setting clear plans and strategies to avoid schedule delays and cost overruns

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Jun 24, 2021
• ISBN: 9780323914895

Michele Laraia

Michele Laraia, a chemical engineer by background, gained his first degree at the University of Rome. In 1975 he began to work at Italy's Regulatory Body, since 1982 as licensing manager of decommissioning projects. From July 1991, Michele worked at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Waste Technology Section, as Unit Leader responsible for decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear installations and environmental remediation. The objectives of the work were to provide guidance to Member States on the planning and implementation of nuclear decommissioning and site remediation, to disseminate information on good practices, and to provide direct assistance to Member States in the implementation of their programmes. Following his retirement in November 2011 Michele offers consultant services in the above-mentioned areas.

Book preview

Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies

Policies, Strategies, Planning and Knowledge Management

Michele Laraia

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. The concept of sustainability as applicable to nuclear decommissioning

Chapter 3. The structure of this book: policies, strategies, early planning, and related documents and information

Chapter 4. Errors, mishaps, and inadequacies during the whole process of planning (conversely, best practices)

4.1. Strategy

4.2. The decommissioning plan

4.3. Information, record-keeping, knowledge

4.4. Overlapping with other aspects of decommissioning

Chapter 5. Policies and strategies case studies

5.1. Case studies at Dodewaard NPP, the Netherlands (IAEA, 2018)

5.2. Italy’s decommissioning strategy from safe enclosure to immediate dismantling

5.3. The beginning of the decommissioning era in Italy: the dismantling of research reactors

5.4. The decommissioning strategies in Spain: from Vandellós 1 to José Cabrera

5.5. The Fermi NPP site, Michigan, United States

5.6. The Dresden 1 loss of water accident (Lochbaum, 2013)

5.7. Incremental decommissioning

5.8. Management of decommissioning on a multifacility site

5.9. Step change in licensing regulation, Belgium (IAEA, 2004)

5.10. Failure to effectively announce decommissioning work, Belgium (IAEA, 2004)

5.11. The Canadian debate about decommissioning strategies

5.12. Environmental assessment impacts on the licensing strategy, Whiteshell site, Canada (IAEA, 2004)

5.13. Strategic decision-making for the decommissioning of the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Laboratory, Canada (IAEA, 2004)

5.14. Decommissioning policy and strategy for French NPPs (Wealer et al., 2019)

5.15. Step change in regulation, France/COGEMA (IAEA, 2004)

5.16. Early dialogue and coordination with regulatory agencies, United States (NRC, 2006)

5.17. A special licensing approach, Georgia Tech Reactor, Georgia, United States (Marske et al., 2001)

5.18. Impacts of changes in national policies or regulations on East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) decommissioning program, Tennessee, United States (IAEA, 2008)

5.19. A new trend: transferring the licenses to organizations experienced in decommissioning

5.20. The entombment strategy

5.21. Problems during extended entombment phases

5.22. A unique conversion strategy, Fort St Vrain NPP, Colorado, United States (Laraia, 2019)

5.23. Selection of the decommissioning strategy at Yankee Rowe, Massachusetts, United States (EPRI, 1998)

5.24. Different decommissioning strategies for similar reactors, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany (Kaulard and Jünger-Gräf, 2008)

5.25. Demolition waste differ considerably by facility type and structure, C-340 metals reduction plant complex, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky, United States (LATA, 2013)

5.26. Do not overrely on estimated building inventories, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York, United States (DOE, 2013)

5.27. The San Onofre decommissioning project, California, United States (Quiros, 2019)

5.28. Miscellaneous uncertainties on a decommissioning strategy

5.29. Storage versus dismantling of large components (NEA, 2012)

5.30. Restricted release, US experience (Greeves and Liebermann, 2007)

5.31. Connecticut Yankee decommissioning experience (EPRI, 2006)

5.32. Issues in decommissioning strategy and plans, Salaspils research reactor, Latvia and other IRT reactors

5.33. Policy and strategy for the decommissioning of Estonia’s nuclear facilities at Paldiski

5.34. The decommissioning strategy of the research reactor IRT-M and other installations at the Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Tbilisi, Georgia (Laraia, 2014; IAEA, 1999)

5.35. Strategic aspects of Greifswald WWER decommissioning project, Germany

5.36. The development of a decommissioning policy and strategy in Iraq

5.37. The decommissioning strategy for EWA research reactor, Poland

5.38. Evolution of the decommissioning strategy for LVR-15 reactor, Czech Republic (IAEA, 2013b)

5.39. The selection of a decommissioning strategy for MR research reactor, Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation

5.40. Accelerating the decommissioning of Magnox NPPs, UK (Ward, 2018)

5.41. The influence of fuel disposition options on NPP decommissioning strategies: the US case study (Reuters, 2020)

5.42. Strategic decision-making for the decommissioning of 221-U facility, Hanford site, Washington, United States (EPA, 2005)

5.43. Remediation strategies for the Hanford PUREX Tunnel 2, Washington, United States (DOE, 2017)

5.44. Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) preparing experimental cold war reactor for deactivation (DOE, 2020b)

5.45. Chernobyl NPP site decommissioning strategy

Chapter 6. Planning case studies

6.1. Preliminary decommissioning plan

6.2. Ongoing decommissioning plan

6.3. Final decommissioning plan

6.4. Roles and responsibilities in the planning process, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE, 2012a)

6.5. Integrating manufacturer in design process, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2018)

6.6. Changes to the plan require extra attention (DOE, 2011)

6.7. Pumps not evaluated in safety analyses, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2005)

6.8. Explosion accidents inadequately addressed in safety basis documentation, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2009)

6.9. Dismantling of the Karlsruhe Reprocessing Plant (WAK), Germany (DOE, 2015)

6.10. Failure to peer check calculations, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2007)

6.11. Decommissioning nuclear ponds in the United Kingdom (IAEA, 2015)

6.12. Inadequate foreign material exclusion controls, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (IAEA, 2015)

6.13. Documented safety analysis did not analyze variations on accident scenarios, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (IAEA, 2015)

6.14. Nuclear decommissioning at Oldbury NPP, United Kingdom (Veolia, undated)

6.15. Unsolved problems in the management of spent fuel and an impact on costs, Belgium (IAEA, 2004a)

6.16. Radiological characterization of inactive installations, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, United States (IAEA, 2018)

6.17. Reactivation of redundant systems, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (IAEA, 2018)

6.18. Removal of steam generators, Latina Magnox Reactor Site, Italy (IAEA, 2018)

6.19. Basement found flooded, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho, United States (IAEA, 2018)

6.20. Baseline inventory practices for shutdown installations, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (IAEA, 2018)

6.21. New route for waste during decommissioning (IAEA, 2006)

6.22. Activation inventory

6.23. Waste characterization at Windscale AGR (WAGR), Sellafield Site, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1998)

6.24. Characterization of activated materials at other reactors (IAEA, 1998)

6.25. Issues about radiological background (IAEA, 1998)

6.26. Inadequate planning for characterization, UHTREX reactor, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, United States (IAEA, 1998)

6.27. Putting forward decommissioning planning steps

6.28. Removal of operational waste in view of forthcoming decommissioning (IAEA, 1997)

6.29. Change of decommissioning plan at Caorso NPP, Italy (IAEA, 2004b)

6.30. Managing UK’s decommissioning waste (Augean, undated)

6.31. Observations during planning for decommissioning, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2012b)

6.32. Forgotten nuclear safety issues impacting decommissioning plan, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE, 2011)

6.33. Detection of buried utilities for predecommissioning site characterization, Savannah River Site, South Carolina, United States (DOE, 2006)

6.34. Inadequate planning, West Valley Demonstration Project, New York, United States (DOE, 2014a)

6.35. Planning for decommissioning before final shutdown, Oyster Creek NPP, New Jersey, United States (EPRI, 2000)

6.36. Explosive demolition of nuclear buildings versus conventional demolition (DOE, 2010)

6.37. Workers perfect planning for use of new equipment and process prior to field implementation (DOE, 2014b)

6.38. D&D of the 209E Critical Mass Laboratory, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2012c)

Chapter 7. Knowledge management case studies

7.1. Documenting management decisions about remediation projects, Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU), Niskayuna, New York, United States (DOE, 2013a)

7.2. Civil engineering knowledge, Sellafield site, United Kingdom (IAEA, 2015)

7.3. Sludge properties, Sellafield site, United Kingdom (IAEA, 2015)

7.4. Solid waste inventorization, Sellafield site, United Kingdom (IAEA, 2015)

7.5. Case studies from Magnox reactors, United Kingdom

7.6. Communication about new equipment prior to predecommissioning activities, Savannah River Site, South Carolina, United States (IAEA, 2015)

7.7. Missing exchange of information, Hanford site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2010a)

7.8. Impacts of records and documentation on planning process (NRC, 2006)

7.9. Inadequate knowledge management, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States

7.10. Communication of changes in regulatory requirements (DOE, 2019). Decommissioning process; problem encountered; impacts

7.11. Use of drawings during decontamination and decommissioning, Decontamination and Uranium Recovery Facility (K-1420), ORNL, Tennessee, United States (IAEA, 2008). Decommissioning process; problem encountered; impacts

7.12. Insufficient characterization causes incident (IAEA, 2006a). Decommissioning process; problem encountered; impacts

7.13. Two knowledge management case studies at Paducah, Kentucky, United States

7.14. Inadequate document management; two case studies from Hanford Site, Washington, United States

7.15. Unexpected contamination found, Oak Ridge site, Tennessee, United States (DOE, 2004, 2019)

7.16. Uncurbed flexibility in work planning documents can be harmful, Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU), Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), Niskayuna, New York, United States (DOE, 2011)

7.17. Record-keeping issues, Portsmouth Site, Ohio, United States

7.18. Proper storage and maintenance of records, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, United States (DOE, 2014)

7.19. AM-1 reactor, Russian Federation (IAEA, 2002)

7.20. Activation of aluminum in core components of the RANA reactor, Italy (IAEA, 2002)

7.21. Documentation issues in decommissioning at Harwell Research Complex, United Kingdom

7.22. JASON reactor, Greenwich, London, United Kingdom, tritium found unexpectedly (IAEA, 2002)

7.23. Asbestos found, Vandellos 1 D&D project, Spain (IAEA, 2002)

7.24. Computer issues during decommissioning/environmental remediation activities, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (IAEA, 2008)

7.25. Missing or wrong information during D&D work, Hanford Site, Washington, United States

7.26. Documentation issues at Saxton plant, Pennsylvania, United States

7.27. Dodewaard NPP archives, The Netherlands (IAEA, 2008)

7.28. Knowledge management issues in decommissioning Canada’s nuclear facilities

7.29. Preservation planning to prevent digital obsolescence, United Kingdom (IAEA, 2008)

7.30. Design details unidentified in the drawings; Ames Laboratory Research Reactor (ALRR), Iowa, United States (IAEA, 2002)

7.31. Incorrect characterization at Auxiliary Reactor Area II Facility, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, United States (IAEA, 2002)

7.32. Stack characterization planning, Mound Laboratories, Miamisburg, Ohio, United States (IAEA, 2005)

7.33. Record keeping: DR-2 reactor, Denmark (IAEA, 2006b). Decommissioning process

7.34. Comparing two case studies about documentation for decommissioning projects (DOE, 2015)

7.35. Worker exposed to acidic particles, TA59 building 0001, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, United States (DOE, 2012b)

7.36. Assistance with virtual reality provided to Chernobyl NPP by Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), Norway (IFE, undated)

Chapter 8. Conclusions

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-323-85734-5

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisitions Editor: Maria Convey

Editorial Project Manager: Alice Grant

Production Project Manager: Debasish Ghosh

Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Chapter 1: Introduction

Abstract

Chapter 1 is a cursory review of the main themes and objectives of the book. It illustrates the meaning of planning in the overall context of decommissioning and clarifies the case study methodology.

Keywords

Nuclear decommissioning; Planning; Practices: Record management; Sustainability

There is no such thing as away. When we throw anything away it must go somewhere.

Annie Leonard (1964–).

Sustainability is the main thread running through this book (the second volume of the series presented in the Foreword). Actual or potential errors, mishaps or inadequacies occurring during the establishment of national policies and strategies, and early planning for nuclear decommissioning or—conversely—successful approaches to these aspects are highlighted with their impacts as qualitative indicators of the sustainability of the decommissioning process. However, this book is not a comprehensive catalog of events (an almost impossible undertaking), nor is it aimed at conducting the a priori assessment of what can go awry during the early phases of decommissioning planning or imparting related guidance. Nonetheless, a number of best planning practices are identified in the description of many events or activities reported in this book.

This book is based on experience and feedback. It identifies a significant number of typical events/activities and arrives at a qualitative judgment on the overall sustainability of nuclear decommissioning (note this book is limited to the planning process: other volumes of the series Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies assess the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning from different viewpoints).

Decommissioning of nuclear facilities is a complex process involving technologies such as radiological characterization, decontamination, dismantling of plant, equipment and facilities, and the handling of radioactive and other hazardous waste. However, many management and organizational needs arise during the planning of decommissioning projects. Factors such as schedules, work progress, and the outcome of regulatory and other interdependencies may affect the decommissioning project. Published information and guidance on planning, management and organizational aspects of decommissioning is relatively scarce in comparison with that on technical subjects. Reasons for this discrepancy may be due to overemphasizing the decommissioning technologies or to national, political, or socioeconomic situations. Guidance on organizational aspects may lead to better decision-making, reductions in time and resources, and lower occupational doses (IAEA, 2013).

The scope of the book is not primarily aimed at decommissioning following severe nuclear accidents (e.g., at Chernobyl and Fukushima), although a few examples from those projects are used in support of statements applicable also to planned, routine decommissioning projects. It is the author’s view that severe nuclear accidents could be legitimately used to challenge the overall sustainability of the whole nuclear fuel cycle, but only to a minor extent the decommissioning subset of activities.

The bulk of this book consists of case studies. Each case study provides information on

• Origin, evolution, and conclusion of actual practices (policies, strategies, and early plans) directly impacting the smooth and successful conduct of decommissioning at different types of nuclear installations;

• Actual or potential impacts from inadequate or wrong practices, or benefits gained from good pratices;

• Analyses and applied solutions, improvements, and changes made in the short and long term; and

• An assessment of the technical meaning of the case study in terms of general applicability (lessons learned).

This information has never yet been collected and evaluated in one publication: in particular, the reader should note that the decommissioning case studies reviewed in this book are internationally based in that they have been drawn from a number of countries including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The main characteristics of the book that should be most valuable to the reader are listed below in a logical sequence as follows:

• Identifying and understanding the typical practices (policies, strategies and early plans, and related record management) directly impacting the smooth and successful conduct of decommissioning and emphasizing the most successful ones;

• Generically evaluating the overall impact of such typical practices throughout the period preparatory to, and continuing well into, decommissioning; and

• Confirming the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning in relation to typical planning practices.

Reference

1. IAEA, .  Planning, Management and Organizational Aspects of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities  IAEA-TECDOC No 1702. Vienna: IAEA; 2013.

Chapter 2: The concept of sustainability as applicable to nuclear decommissioning

Abstract

Chapter 2 briefly deals with sustainable development as the main focus of the book. It highlights the concepts of policy, strategy, early and detailed planning, Life Cycle Management, and poor or good practices associated to all these aspects.

Keywords

Decommissioning; Environmental remediation; Life cycle management; Practices; Sutainability

You have to hold yourself accountable for your actions, and that’s how we’re going to protect the Earth.

Julia Butterfly Hill (1974–).

This book considers sustainability mainly from the standpoint of sustainable development, as represented by the smooth and effective progress of decommissioning projects.

Antinuclear positions often stress that delays, cost overruns, and planning inadequacies in decommissioning downgrade the role of nuclear energy with regard to sustainable development. However, experience shows that properly managed nuclear activities convey a small industrial risk and modest impacts on the stakeholders (the interests of the general public, the use of the environment, socioeconomic progress, etc.).

Strategic and planning errors and underestimates in the nuclear fuel cycle (which do happen in the best of organizations) should not give rise to industrial impacts that could compromise sustainability. Such events may happen during decommissioning as well, although normally entailing a much lower impact than during construction and operations. In regard to sustainability, planning errors that could or actually do happen in the course of decommissioning should be identified a priori as far as possible or reviewed after their occurrence to prevent recurrence. In other terms, planning deficiencies occurring in preparation to or during decommissioning are viewed as indicators of sustainability (conversely, so are best practices). This is the very focus of the book.

As a prerequisite to considering and reviewing decommissioning planning inadequacies, it should first and foremost be recognized that these situations necessarily reflect poor practices by a range of different parties involved, though their identification can be elusive and hard to single out. To resort to national traditions, bad luck, lack of resources, or inevitable event as a justification is in general unacceptable, although these factors do play a role in the happenings. Similarly, human error, a term often used as the main cause of an event, tends to evade responsibilities from an organization’s top managerial level. However, responsibility—a different concept from cause—can be harder to identify or it can be diluted over such a number of individuals or organizations that the blame can hardly be attributed to a single party with any certainty.

The confirmation of accomplished sustainability is not easy. While there is general agreement on the concept of sustainability, its actual meaning and the principles needed to achieve it in practice are much fuzzier and less well defined. There are many levels at which sustainability principles are currently being set, international organizations, national and local governments, industry sectors and individual businesses. The potential for contradictions and inconsistencies is significant and uncertainty is inevitable given the scale of sustainability. This is particularly relevant for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities where we are dealing with a wide range of issues from the impact of removing jobs from local communities to the trans-generational impacts of managing and storing radioactive waste (Bonser, 2006).

The following highlights the links between the general concept of sustainability, e.g., as recently summarized in WEF (2014), and the proper approach to decommissioning and environmental remediation (D&ER). The reader should especially note the links to the three pillars of sustainability: economic development, social development, and environmental protection.

The activities associated with decommissioning a nuclear facility can vary widely. They may include large-scale decontamination works, demolition of massive concrete structures, or enclosing the facility in a safe configuration so as to allow the radioactivity to decay naturally to acceptable levels. On the other end, laboratories in which radionuclides have been used may be fully decommissioned after some modest cleanout activities. In all cases, the decommissioning process addresses the structures, systems, and components of a facility. Additionally, the site (land areas) around a nuclear facility is often contaminated as the result of facility’s operation: soil cleanup generally goes under the name of environmental remediation. Work carried out under D&ER programs is accordingly aimed at achieving end states that set the basis for planned or anticipated (future) end uses (i.e., facility and/or site redevelopment). Decommissioning and site remediation programs share resources and several activities.

The concept of Life Cycle Management (LCM) can be described as the process of managing the entire life cycle of a product from its conception, through design and manufacture to service and eventual disposal. In this book, the product is the operating lifetime of plants and facilities, which includes the potential to eventually impact the decommissioning process (IAEA, 2002).

LCM is a methodology used successfully in various industries to reduce the waste generated from a stream or process in order to lower costs, optimize production, and increase the value of the business. In addition, LCM can provide an additional benefit for ongoing or planned projects in reducing the extent of end-of-life D&ER. LCM is one typical way of including sustainability in a nuclear project.

While recognizing the link between decommissioning and environmental remediation, this book focuses on the former as a source of relevant events: however, a few circumstances originating from contaminated land around nuclear installations and impacting the decommissioning process at large have been quoted to confirm the link.

The interactions between sustainability and decommissioning can be represented in Table 2.1. As aforementioned, the representative indicator of sustainability as adopted by this book is the strategic and planning issues/solutions insofar as they impact a decommissioning process (boxed entry in Table 2.1).

Principles to guide the decommissioning process need to be defined beforehand. They may reflect the goals of a country that are expected to be applied across all activities—nuclear or nonnuclear—e.g., sustainability. They may also reflect international agreements and practices. Policies can then be formulated that turn these principles and other high-level commitments into a form that defines constraints within which specific facility decommissioning strategies can be developed for implementation.

Based on established policies and strategies, decision-makers of nuclear facilities are required to consider decommissioning at the earliest possible stage. Indeed, operating organizations are required to prepare and maintain a decommissioning plan throughout the service life of the facility. This form of preliminary planning is sometimes called preplanning (EPRI, 2001) to make a distinction with the detailed planning which is prepared shortly before, and in view of, the active implementation of decommissioning.

Table 2.1

Elaboration from Bonser, D., November 20–22, 2006. Sustainability principles: a practical move towards tomorrow? IBC’s 10th Global Conference & Exhibition, Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, London.

With many nuclear installations approaching the end of operating life or already shutdown, many countries are faced with finalizing strategies and drafting decommissioning plans necessary to conduct decommissioning in a safe, timely, and economic manner. However, the approach to decommissioning varies from country to country. This is due to the range of expertise available and the differing political and economic factors. In general, it can be stated that technology exists to ensure that decommissioning projects can be effectively and efficiently completed within a regulatory framework. However, timeliness and cost-effectiveness are not always optimal. It has been noted on several occasions that the major weakness in decommissioning projects is poor or inadequate planning, including unclear identification of roles and responsibilities, lack of clarity on end states, inadequate participation of stakeholders, or poor timing. This is unfortunately true in both developing and industrialized countries.

Fig. 2.1 graphically depicts the scope of planning as embracing the early, preparatory, and active phases of decommissioning. Fig. 2.2 focuses on inputs and responsibilities affecting and forming decommissioning strategies and plans. It should be observed that the determination of a strategy and plan is not an once-and-for-all process; evolving circumstances, both within and outside the control of the responsible organizations, may dictate changes and iterations. Numerous examples of these are given in this book.

Figure 2.1 Process for the definition and implementation of decommissioning strategy.

Figure 2.2 Structure of inputs to decommissioning policy and strategy.

References

1. Bonser D. Sustainability principles: a practical move towards tomorrow? In:  IBC’s 10th Global Conference & Exhibition . London: Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities; November 20–22, 2006.

2. EPRI, . Decommissioning Pre-Planning Manual. November 05, 2001. https://www.epri.com/research/products/1003025.

3. IAEA, .  Safe and Effective Nuclear Power Plant Life Cycle Management towards Decommissioning  IAEA-TECDOC-1305. Vienna: IAEA; 2002.

4. WEF, . A Brief History of Sustainability. August 20, 2014. https://theworldenergyfoundation.org/a-brief-history-of-sustainability/.

Chapter 3: The structure of this book

policies, strategies, early planning, and related documents and information

Abstract

Chapter 3 logically -and chronologically, follows the evolution of decommissioning planning from the early definition of a policy and strategy, through early planning across the siting, construction and operations phases of a nuclear plant, to detailed planning for decommissioning implementation. Documentation and knowledge management is an essential component of planning and is given separate coverage in this book.

Keywords

Decommissioning plan; Early planning; Knowledge management; Policy; Strategy; Strategic planning

Strategic planning is worthless - unless there is first a strategic vision.

John Naisbitt (1929–).

The terms policy and strategy as used in this book are consistent with the equivalent definitions in the closely related area of radioactive waste management. Indeed, (IAEA, 2009) and (IAEA, 2011) describe the close links between nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management.

Specifically, a decommissioning policy is a set of goals and requirements established to control the safe, effective, and efficient decommissioning of nuclear facilities. It normally defines national roles and responsibilities and as such, the policy is usually established by the national government, although there may be situations where this is delegated to regional governments or corporate bodies. A decommissioning strategy is a means for achieving the requirements set out in the national policy together with the facility owner’s goals. It is normally established by the incumbent facility owner or operator, whether a public body or a private entity. Decommissioning plans—first preliminary and then more and more detailed as final shutdown/closure of a facility approaches—will be drawn up based on the chosen strategy and implemented by the operator or their contractors.

A decommissioning policy may be formulated to require that decommissioning is undertaken as soon as practicable after productive operations cease, taking into account the impact of a range of relevant factors (such as safety, cost, etc.). An appropriate strategy response may be to concentrate funds and other resources on areas of work that will yield the greatest reduction of hazard on a short timescale, leaving other expensive but lower hazard areas until later. In another country or situation, different strategies—or policies—may justifiably apply.

As decommissioning of a nuclear facility can be a complex activity, its implementation often takes place in a series of stages. A range of technical approaches may be applied depending on constraints such as the chosen strategy option. Formulating strategic options and then choosing the optimum strategy must be done in accordance with national policies and regulations, as well as reflecting the other technical and nontechnical needs, priorities, constraints, and infrastructure specific to the facility, owner, or country.

This book deals specifically with the determination of policy and strategy for the decommissioning of nuclear and related facilities—with a focus on strategy challenges, changes, and traps. While the choice of a particular strategy may be country-, site-, or facility-specific, there are also some matters that are generic. Both generic and specific matters are featured throughout this book.

This book is intended to be applicable to the wide variety of national situations. Countries to which the document is addressed range from those with extensive, long-standing nuclear programs—where all phases of the operating life of varied nuclear facilities have been experienced—to those with a single small facility that is still operating. This also includes countries planning the introduction of a new nuclear facility. Therefore, the information provided herein should meet the needs of a wide range of potential users. There is also a significant international variation in the presentation and content of decommissioning strategy and in the constraints it may be subjected to, which are imposed on operating organizations. Furthermore, decommissioning policy or strategy may have been determined from the very beginning of a facility’s lifetime to optimize ongoing operations or in response to the need to plan for and implement decommissioning after an unexpected/untimely permanent shutdown. Decommissioning policy and strategies may be tightly defined at a national level, or, in contrast, much or all may be delegated to the operating organization.

While decommissioning policy is by its nature likely to be defined at a high political or organizational level, the implementing strategy options will be dependent on both technical and nontechnical issues, and the choice between them is likely to require a balancing of technical, cost, and stakeholder factors, all in the context of ensuring worker, public, and environmental health and safety (the reader will see here a link to the general principles of sustainability). Various factors potentially influence strategy, and this book discusses how factors have been analyzed in the case studies presented in pursuit of an optimum strategy that will provide the best balance for that facility, at that time, and in that country. Given the range of facilities and national situations, this book cannot be prescriptive but rather aims to aid the user to identify and address the issues of strategy development in their local context. Strategic problems in decommissioning programs or projects are described in Chapter 5.

The next level of planning is the definition, drafting, and execution of a decommissioning plan. It is customary now to distinguish three phases of planning, namely, preliminary (or initial) planning; ongoing planning (during plant operations); and, lastly, detailed planning just before the active implementation of the decommissioning strategy. It is readily seen that preliminary and following plans tend to incorporate elements of the decommissioning policy and strategy. Chapter 6 expands on difficult situations or problems in decommissioning planning.

The three aspects of planning (policy and strategy; plan; and knowledge management) have been separately dealt with in this book for sake of convenience; in fact, they partly—but significantly—overlap in time and activities. The early planning stage incorporates direction and objectives, which are typical elements of the strategy. One example of this overlapping (and the potential confusion associated with it) is the use of the term strategic planning, which is widely found in the technical literature and merges strategy and planning in one concept.

Strategic planning can be defined as an organizational process of identifying and determining strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating resources to accomplish the strategy. It is at this stage that priorities are set. It may also include control mechanisms for driving the implementation of the strategy. In other words, strategic planning tells you where you are and where you are going.

In addition, strategic planning is about documenting the direction of the decommissioning process, a place to record mission, vision, and values, as well as long-term objectives and the means (the action plans) to reach them.

This point introduces us into the third component described in the book: knowledge management. No plans or actions can be decided upon or implemented without being accurately documented, circulated among parties at various times, understood, and digested. While there are elements here typical of knowledge management per se as an independent discipline (e.g., the record-keeping media, quality assurance, continuity of knowledge, availability across generations, etc.), other elements are related to and overlap with nuclear decommissioning planning (e.g., physical and radiological characterization as a way of generating, acquiring, and processing technical information and establishing it as the basis for planning). Numerous examples of all the knowledge management aspects are given in Chapter 7.

References

2. IAEA, .  Policies and Strategies for Radioactive Waste Management .  IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G.1.1 . Vienna; 2009.

1. IAEA, .  Policies and Strategies for the Decommissioning of Nuclear and Radiological Facilities .  IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-G.2.1 . 2011 Vienna.

Chapter 4: Errors, mishaps, and inadequacies during the whole process of planning (conversely, best practices)

Abstract

Chapter 4 elaborates on the three chapters containing case studies in the book: strategy; the decommissioning plan; and Information, record-keeping, knowledge. It clarifies that, being decommissioning a multi-disciplinary subject, certain case studies pertain to different books of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series. As examples, a few case studies are extracted from vol. 1 and elaborated following the new perspective given in vol. 2.

Keywords

Information; Knowledge; Project management; Record-keeping; Root causes; Strategy; The decommissioning plan

If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail.

(Benjamin Franklin 1705–90).

There is a pressing need in the industry to identify, avoid, and mitigate errors and inadequacies. Issues and noxious events may have multiple causes and include different levels within an organization, ranging from individual analysts to top management. Often problems are caused by a combination of aspects such as poor corporate guidance, overlapping of responsibilities, and organizational/managerial failures: each of these in turn may have more distant causes. Deeply rooted issues, or root causes, can be hard to identify and eliminate. Root causes in a given organization could be, for example, poor design, missing supervision, and fluctuating objectives.

Errors and inadequacies can result in serious economic effects including (Nevhage and Lindahl, 2008)

• Compensation, care, and rehabilitation of injured workers (or remediation of contaminated environment)

• Increased production cost (e.g., damaged property, work delays, recruiting new staff, investigation, etc.)

• Devalued assets

• Downgraded image of the operating organization and the nuclear energy at large

• Stakeholder opposition

• Higher insurance premiums

• Litigation

• Pressures for additional safety provisions.

This book does not try to determine occurrence rates (or percentage ranges thereof) for specified erroneous approaches, events, or categories: the specialist literature shows that these numbers are highly variable, nation- and site-specific, depending on decommissioning planning stages, organizations’ reporting requirements, and/or focus.

4.1. Strategy

Future shock … the shattering stress and disorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time.

Alvin Toffler (1928–2016).

A first class of problems stays with people stuck in the strategic planning process. When strategies change, the management system is put to the test. This difficult situation may result in inconsistent efforts, lack of concrete action, and ultimately delays in the implementation of the new strategy.

A typical situation follows. If a strategy is broken or uncertain, nobody produces to their best. It is therefore a key part of the management system to communicate priorities in having a new strategic plan that works. An effective strategy is to identify the weaknesses, whether they are inefficiencies, poor organization, or communication gaps. A commitment to incorporate these weaknesses in the strategy should be made and communicated to all parties involved. Here are the most common root causes of these problems.

• Alignment is required between people, strategy, and objective. It is often hard for parties to understand in the strategy document what role they play. The clauses in the strategic plan should be clearly viable, with the roles of each organization/individual readily understood.

• Parties need to fully realize the impacts of executing a strategy. Communication channels that best help get the point across should be established at an early planning stage.

• Failure to incorporate the interests of all parties into the strategy and their boundaries and limitations can be a real challenge. If a strategic plan does not serve all parties, those who will feel excluded from the main objectives will neglect the work changes needed to execute the plan. Taking time to understand parties’ needs will pay off to get their acceptance and contribution.

• If the management system does