Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Safety, Environmental and Security Rules

By Michele Laraia

Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Safety, Environmental and Security Rules, Volume Four in Michele Laraia’s series that presents a selection of global case studies on different aspects of Nuclear Decommissioning, focuses on the people side, including public perception, public relations and human factors. The book presents a selection of case studies on stakeholders, socioeconomics and more, providing readers with a guide on how to deal with common, often contentious, challenges. The events covered in this publication range from safety factors, stakeholder motivation and involvement and leadership adequacies.

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 which focus on the people side of nuclear decommissioning, specifically public perception, stakeholder management and human factors
• Highlights important sustainability and socioeconomic factors
• Assists the reader in developing robust, people-related plans and strategies based on experience and lessons learned

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Apr 16, 2022
• ISBN: 9780323915199

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

Safety, Environmental and Security Rules

Michele Laraia

Independent Consultant, Rome, Italy

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Dedication

Foreword

Disclaimer

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Standardization and sustainability as applicable to nuclear decommissioning

Chapter 3. The structure of this book: security, safety and environmental rules

Chapter 4. Categorization of rules, legislation, regulations, standards, procedures, guidelines and others

4.1. Appendix to Chapter 4. A concrete example of applications of different tiers of standards to decommissioning-related equipment (HSE, 2008)

Chapter 5. Higher-tier rules for decommissioning: concepts and supporting case studies

5.1. Impending regulatory issues with the decommissioning of US nuclear power plants (Lordan-Perret et al., 2021)

5.2. Communicating actions required by changes in law or regulation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2010)

5.3. Safety standard requirements may not fully address hazard controls (DOE-LATA, 2013)

5.4. Radiological assistance program implementation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2014)

5.5. Interpreting codes and standards (DOE-WTP, 2012)

5.6. Previously unknown requirements impact technical approach to removal actions at SLAC, Menlo Park, California, United States (DOE-PMLL, 2013)

5.7. Code of record documentation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-WRPS, 2013)

5.8. Very low level waste: the US experience (NRC, 2021)

5.9. Clarity in technical documents is essential, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2007)

5.10. Procedures must provide sufficient details to support implementation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2013)

5.11. When teaming across organizations obtain the correct understanding of words/phrases/acronyms (DOE- WTP, 2019)

5.12. Electrical code guidance for decontamination and decommissioning activities at DOE facilities (DOE-2012)

5.13. Ambiguity in emergency requirements causes over-conservative response, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-WRPS, 2014)

5.14. Impacts of policy changes, East Tennessee Technology Park, Tennessee, United States

5.15. Welding activities not covered by a code or a standard (DOE, 2017)

5.16. Authorized limits for release and clearance of personal property at DOE sites (DOE, 2021)

5.17. An unusual example of regulatory longevity (Phil Rutherford, 2021)

5.18. Proposed regulatory amendments to decommissioning-related financial requirements (DOT-IRS, 2020)

5.19. The demise of NRC's below-regulatory-concern policy (Jamerson et al., 2018)

5.20. The NRC is in the process of amending its regulations for decommissioning power reactors (Gregoire, 2017)

5.21. NRC may change reactor decommissioning financial security (Morgan Lewis, 2020)

5.22. Emergency planning for decommissioning nuclear power reactors (NRC, 2018)

5.23. Emergency planning exemptions

5.24. The contentious ‘rubblization’ approach, Maine Yankee NPP (EPRI, 2005)

5.25. The use of realistic dose scenarios in US regulations (IAEA, 2011)

5.26. The evolution of regulatory positions in regard to management of greater-than-class C and transuranic waste (NRC, 2020; Kirk, 2018)

5.27. Change of release limits during decommissioning implementation; two case studies from Niederaichbach NPP (KKN), Germany

5.28. Legislative and regulatory framework can be inadequate to the purposes of decommissioning (IAEA, 2005)

5.29. Adapting and applying the Swedish regulatory system for decommissioning to nuclear power reactors (Amft et al., 2019)

5.30. Environmental impact assessment – proposed changes to regulations for nuclear reactor decommissioning projects (UK Government, 2018a)

5.31. Nuclear decommissioning consultation on the regulation of nuclear sites in the final stages of decommissioning and clean-up (UK Government, 2018c)

5.32. Untimely release of decommissioned site

5.33. The fate of spent fuel and its influence on the decommissioning process: evolving regulations in the United States (WNN, 2011; NRC, 2014)

Chapter 6. Lower-tier rules for decommissioning: concepts and supporting case studies

6.1. Operational Safety Requirements misinterpretations, Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson County, Colorado, United States

6.2. Procedure compliance, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States

6.3. Requirements flow down in document date, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2002)

6.4. Control of externally prepared technical procedures, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2006a)

6.5. Procedure compliance is required as facility status changes (DOE-RL, 2006b)

6.6. Knowledgeable personnel is not tantamount to good procedures, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2006c)

6.7. Misinterpretation of authority causes rigging problem, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2007)

6.8. Two case studies at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky, United States

6.9. A procedure was issued without establishing all elements needed for implementation (DOE-WTP, 2012)

6.10. Verification of project scope regarding procedural coverage, Portsmouth Site, Ohio, United States (DOE-FBPORTS, 2013)

6.11. Understanding correct entry criteria is paramount to procedure compliance type of work Hanford Site, Tank Farms/C-112, Washington State, United States (DOE-WRPS, 2014)

6.12. Near miss electrical arc incident, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), Kentucky, United States (DOE-PRS, 2010)

6.13. Potential for asbestos exposure during cooling tower demolition, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2013)

6.14. Incorrect document revision discovered on the procedure Idaho treatment group, Idaho, United States (DOE-AMWTP, 2013)

6.15. Clearly define the use of ‘N/A’ relative to the need to follow the procedure, Oak Ridge Site, Tennessee, United States (DOE-UCORSM, 2013)

6.16. Work classification must be appropriate to mitigate hazards near overhead power date: Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2013)

6.17. Technical procedures process needs post evolution reviews, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-WRPS, 2012)

6.18. International standards for the development and diffusion of decommissioning technologies (Sinicrope et al., 2019)

6.19. Development of a Technical Standard for Radiological Characterization of DAW (Sydney Gordon and Dilday, 2019)

6.20. DOE inspection of the Hanford Site chronic beryllium disease prevention programme (DOE, 2010)

6.21. Fall injury accident, Savannah River Site, South Carolina, United States (Laraia, 2021 a, sec. 5.7)

6.22. Proper storage and maintenance of records, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (Laraia, 2021b, sec. 7.18)

6.23. Workers not associated with job planning, Former Uranium Enrichment Facilities (FUEF), Portsmouth Site, Ohio, United States (Laraia, 2021c)

6.24. Sellafield Ltd case studies

Chapter 7. Security rules during decommissioning: concepts and supporting case studies (WINS, 2020)

7.1. Security concerns and measures during different decommissioning stages

7.2. Engaging all nuclear security stakeholders in the decommissioning process

7.3. Integrating security during decommissioning

7.4. Truck Tarp Security Cable Incident, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. United States (DOE-Bechtel, 2010)

7.5. Unintentional firearm discharge during training – the investigation results, Hanford Site, Washington state, United States (DOE-OES, 2010)

7.6. Fort St. Vrain independent spent fuel storage installation-facility improvement project (DNDKM-IT, 2018)

7.7. Classified work communications, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2020)

7.8. Two case studies about management of classified information at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2021a)

7.9. Non-routine conditions can affect performance, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2020)

7.10. Access issues, Oak Ridge Site, Tennessee, United States: three case studies (DOE, 2019)

7.11. Security requirements versus traffic disruption (Press and Journal, 2017)

7.12. Audit of NRC's oversight of security at decommissioning reactors (Lexology, 2017; NRC, 2017)

7.13. Vermont Yankee outsources security services, Vermont, United States

7.14. Falsified Engineering Change Notice, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 1997)

7.15. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's experience with security challenges during decommissioning (NRC, 2015a)

7.16. NRC's interim staff guidance review of security exemptions requests for decommissioning NPPs (NRC, 2015b)

7.17. Proposed changes to security regulations for decommissioning NPPs (NRC, 2018)

7.18. Decommissioning progresses fast at Oyster Creek NPP, New Jersey, United States (WNN, 2021; The Sandpaper, 2021)

7.19. Security issues at Pilgrim NPP, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States (WNN, 2021)

7.20. WVDP and Sheriff's office for security training, New York State, United States (DOE-EM, 2021b)

7.21. Security experience from decommissioning German NPPs (ICEM, 2013; NEI, 2014)

7.22. Sellafield security issues

7.23. Openness versus security in record keeping: the Nucleus case (NEI, 2021)

7.24. UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Information Security Manager (NDA, 2020)

7.25. Anti-nuclear activists as a security threat

7.26. Physical protection considerations for decommissioning a Korean NPP (Jounghoon Lee, 2018)

7.27. Physical protection of nuclear materials: early experience during Chernobyl NPP decommissioning (Pinchuk, 2001)

Chapter 8. Conclusions

8.1. Savannah River Site

8.2. Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project

8.3. Oak Ridge

Abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms

Glossary

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 © 2022 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.

ISBN: 978-0-323-91847-3

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

Publisher: Charlotte Cockle

Acquisitions Editor: Rachel Pomery

Editorial Project Manager: Chris Hockaday

Production Project Manager: Nirmala Arumugam

Cover Designer: Greg Harris

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Dedication

Thanks a million to my wife and children for their unending encouragement, attentiveness and support throughout the writing of this book. Your love, praise and faith in me helped me remain on track at all times.

Foreword

If you do not know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere.

Henry A. Kissinger (1923 --).

If you don't know where you are currently standing, you're dead.

Samuel Beckett (1906–1989).

The long-term considerations in the lifecycle of a nuclear facility (the very essence of decommissioning) overlap and interact with the principles of ‘sustainability’.

The issue of sustainability is being brought into prominence as the effects of large-scale human activities are recognized. Furthermore, the interdependency of sustainability-related issues has become increasingly apparent, witnessing the balance needed between land use for urban development, food production, bio-fuel production, ecology and biodiversity preservation. Nuclear facilities – including their decommissioning – are not immune to such issues, and governments have been and are likely to increasingly seek to understand and manage the sustainability of nuclear activities.

According to Brundtland (1987), ‘sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. It contains within it two key concepts:

• ‘The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

• The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs’.

The principle of sustainability is closely related to the polluter pays principle (PPP). One consequence of the PPP is the principle of inter-generational equity (Lindskog et al., 2013).

In other words, sustainability implies environmental protection, economic development and social progress. A key challenge for implementation of sustainability policies is to integrate these three requirements (sometimes called ‘sustainability pillars’) in a way that does not unduly privilege (or compromise) any of them. Fig. 0.1 shows the multilateral links between the three areas of sustainability and the resulting benefits: sustainability lies at the centre of these interactions and recaps the benefits.

Figure 0.1  Human sustainability confluence diagram. Credit to Nick Carson, Wiki Commons.

Energy plays a key role amongst sustainability issues. The generation and use of energy are vital and intrinsic to economic growth and social welfare. These inherent aspects of energy may leave out the environmental impact – and indeed this disregard has been commonplace for centuries. To some extent, all forms of energy generation and use cause environmental impact, often including waste production and resource depletion. Moreover energy forms often involve long-term dimensions (many decades or even much longer periods as in the case of nuclear decommissioning and in the management of resulting waste). But these inevitable consequences cannot be left uncontrolled; on the contrary, they require advance planning and mitigation. As far as possible, damages should be converted into opportunities.

A broad assessment of nuclear energy within a sustainability context shows that nuclear energy policies are consistent with the sustainability objective of transferring achievements and beneficial assets to future generations whilst maintaining environmental protection. This broad statement however, should be confirmed by a detailed investigation of all aspects of decommissioning: this investigation is the core of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Study series, of which this book is vol. 4. The benefits should be ensured for as many years ahead as realistically predictable (the PPP).

Worldwide, there are thousands of licensed nuclear and radiological facilities that will ultimately reach the end of their service life and require decommissioning. They range from large nuclear power plants (NPPs) and fuel processing facilities to smaller research laboratories, nuclear research establishments, waste storage facilities and manufacturing plants.

There is a wealth of experience worldwide in the removing from service, dismantling and demolishing of redundant installations. However, those responsible for nuclear and radiological facilities (including amongst others, policy-makers, operating organizations and waste managers) face the special challenges associated with managing their radioactive inventory over many decades of operation and well beyond it. In recognition of the risks associated with a permanently shut down facility, a safety-driven definition of decommissioning was developed by the IAEA, as follows: ‘Administrative and technical actions taken to allow the removal of some or all of the regulatory controls from a facility’ (IAEA, 2014). These actions include complying not only with traditional engineering, financial and industrial safety objectives but also with legislation/regulations/standards limiting the impact of decommissioning on the health, safety and radiation protection and socio-economic wellbeing of the workers, public and environment. It is notable that decommissioning of an NPP can normally take place from 40 years (immediate dismantling) to 100 years and more (deferred dismantling) after the beginning of nuclear operations: therefore, decommissioning-impacting decisions taken at the design and construction stage or during plant operation will show their impacts long after they have been taken and will be felt by an entire new range of stakeholders (again see PPP above).

Note to the reader: for sake of brevity, the phrase nuclear facilities (or installations) will be used throughout this book instead of the more precise sentence nuclear and radiological facilities (or installations).

To fulfil sustainable development objectives, nuclear energy must keep high standards of performance, responsiveness and safety throughout all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, including decommissioning. It is clear that the principle of sustainability of nuclear energy should be best applied to the entire nuclear fuel cycle and to the lifecycle of a nuclear installation (in all its phases, from siting, design and construction, operations, to decommissioning and site release): from this viewpoint, decommissioning should not be considered in isolation, as it is the inevitable by-product of having built, operated and contaminated a nuclear installation. However, it is also true that abnormal (either potential or actual) impacts of decommissioning could in principle affect and alter the broad assessment of all nuclear activities: therefore, decommissioning happenings deserve specific consideration per se. Accidental environmental impacts have been addressed in full in vol. 1 of this series. But other decommissioning aspects are mostly economic and social; therefore, they belong to the two pillars of sustainability: economic development and social progress. Specific consideration is given to these two aspects in other volumes of the series, including this book.

As for decommissioning, the Brundtland definition can be viewed in the context of the interdependent impacts in the social, economic and environmental areas (IAEA, 2008).

Nuclear decommissioning is multi-disciplinary, including subjects such as policies and strategies, planning (preliminary and detailed), management of radioactive and non-radioactive waste, decontamination and dismantling technologies, radiation protection, industrial safety, record-keeping, security, etc. Therefore, to address and confirm the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning, different viewpoints are needed as well as an entire series of books each covering specific, but complementary and often overlapping, subjects.

All the books of this series on Nuclear Decommissioning make predominant use of case studies (abnormal occurrences, errors, inadequacies, near-misses during the decommissioning process; or conversely, best practices). The reader will note that a single case study can be assessed from different viewpoints and be reported and discussed in different books of this series: for example, one and the same incident can be due to inadequate standards (the subject of this book) and poor planning, result in the generation of abnormal waste and raise public anger.

According to Press Academia (2018):

• ‘A case study is a research strategy and an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life context.

• Case studies are based on an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group or event to explore the causes of underlying principles.

• A case study is a descriptive and exploratory analysis of a person, group or event.

• A case study research can be single or multiple case studies, includes quantitative evidence, relies on multiple sources of evidence and benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions.

• Case studies are analysis of persons, groups, events, decisions, periods, policies, institutions or other systems that are studied holistically by one or more methods’.

In this series of books, events or situations are reviewed in detail within the context of a decommissioning project, cases are analysed and solutions or interpretations are presented. Generic lessons learned are extracted for the benefits of the international decommissioning community. In this way, case studies provide a deeper understanding of a complex subject and help acquire experience about a given situation.

The series addresses not only technical challenges, but also the organizational issues and human factors intertwined with nuclear decommissioning projects.

The case studies quoted in this series are connected with consolidated information and guidance presented in reference (e.g. academic) documents, such as regulatory, research, etc. In no way does the series diverge from the reference literature in the field, only the angle is different. To draw useful lessons, this series of books focusses on negative experiences, difficulties, forced changes and successful alternatives undertaken; best practices are extensively described to offer complementarity. In fact, there is great worth in reporting on (typically, momentary) failures. ‘The wisdom of learning from failure is incontrovertible. Yet organizations that do it well are extraordinarily rare’ (Edmondson, 2011).

The books are not intended to provide optimal solutions to all cases dealt with: each case will depend on country or site-specific factors for which a cure-all formula simply does not exist. Rather the use of concrete examples offers a wide range of approaches, solutions and mitigations to choose from and embark on country- or plant-specific analysis.

Understanding decommissioning in full and the difficulties involved; understanding multiple ways to solve these issues and highlighting the influence from boundary conditions, regulations, budgets, etc., are key facets of this series. As these aspects vary not only from country to country, but also from plant to plant, the series strives to showcase the range of solutions available and opportunities based on available facts, uncertainties and unknowns. Fig. 0.2 highlights that social, environmental and economic considerations underlie Supply Chain, User, Relations and Future (SURF) components for products, services, results, processes, organizations and the whole society. The case studies described in this book refer to one or more SURF components.

Under the umbrella of case studies, there are several subdivisions, each of which can be selected by the investigator depending on the objectives of the research. For the purposes of this series of books, Cumulative Case Studies have been selected. ‘These serve to aggregate information from several sites collected at different times. The idea behind these studies is the collection of past studies will allow for greater generalization without additional cost or time being expended on new, possibly repetitive studies’ (Colo, undated).

Through the use of case studies, this series of books adopts the inductive approach (as opposed to deductive, which is typical of academic books). ‘In an inductive approach to research, a researcher begins by collecting data that is relevant to his or her topic of interest. Once a substantial amount of data have been collected, the researcher will then take a breather from data collection, stepping back to get a bird's eye view of her data. At this stage, the researcher looks for patterns in the data, working to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus, when researchers take an inductive approach, they start with a set of observations and then they move from those particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences. In other words, they move from data to theory or from the specific to the general’ (https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-sociological-inquiry-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/s05-03-inductive-or-deductive-two-dif.html).

Figure 0.2  SURF frame for sustainability: social, environmental and economic considerations underlie SURF components. Credit Marylin Waite, Wiki Commons.

Primarily, the expected readership of these books includes those involved in and responsible for the overall assessment of nuclear applications for their nations (especially, the use of nuclear energy). Decommissioning is an essential, inevitable phase of the lifecycle of a nuclear installation and its sustainability should be ensured since the very beginning of a nuclear project. Therefore, this series of books is meant to provide informative guidance to the national decision-makers and their technical support organizations in selecting sustainable options.

In addition, the books target all decommissioning experts at different technical levels (including nuclear organizations, regulators, waste managers, contractors, university teachers and stakeholders at large) in providing information about what they can realistically (i.e. based on experience) expect to happen during the decommissioning of nuclear and radiological installations. To this end, the books are meant to provide supplementary, up-to-date information and orientation. Once typical events/situations are identified and described, the reader is addressed to specialist literature guidance in order to systematically check the likelihood of such cases and take preventive and mitigating measures, if any, against them.

The decommissioning experts will find in this series of books additional material supposed to build upon their background. Besides, the expert reader will recognize that sustainability – in its three main components or pillars – is the common thread linking all technical, organizational and human factors highlighted in the series. In fact, many nuclear decommissioning projects are representative of events/situations common to other industries as well. Therefore, these books could also be of interest to a broader range of professionals, especially industry decision-makers and managers at large. The series can assist in the monitoring, review and revision of safety work. The descriptive, narrative, occasionally colloquial style adopted (e.g. including literature quotations and interviews with involved parties) and the glossary clarification of technical terms (incl. jargon occasionally) should also make it attractive to the uninitiated or non-native English speakers.

References

1. Brundtland G. Chairman, Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report, World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1987. https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/UN%20WCED%201987%20Brundtland%20Report.pdf.

2. Colorado State University, Types of Case Studies. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1290&guideid=60.

7. Definition of Case Study . July 9, 2018. https://www.coursehero.com/file/45358505/case-studydessertationdocx/.

3. Edmondson A.C. Strategies for Learning from Failure, Harvard Business Review. April 2011. https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure.

4. International Atomic Energy Agency.  Managing the Socioeconomic Impact of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Technical Reports Series No 464 . Vienna: IAEA; 2008.

5. International Atomic Energy Agency.  Decommissioning of Facilities, General Safety Requirements, Safety Standards Series No GSR Part 6 . Vienna: IAEA; 2014.

6. Lindskog S, Sjöblom R, Labor B. Sustainability of nuclear energy with regard to decommissioning and waste management.  Int. J. Sustain. Develop. & Plann.  2013;8(No 2):246–264. www.witpress.com/elibrary/sdp-volumes/8/2/689.

Disclaimer

Although the author has taken great care to review the reliability, completeness and accuracy of the information contained in this book, he and the Publisher neither provides any warranties in this regard nor assumes any responsibility for consequences which may arise from the use of this information. Neither the author nor the Publisher shall be liable in the event of any conflict between this book and other sources of information.

The technical implications of the information contained in this book may vary widely based on the specific facts involved and should not replace consultation with professional advisors. Although all facts the author believes to be relevant are addressed, the book is not meant to be an exhaustive coverage on the subject.

The mention of trade names, companies or institutions does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be viewed as an endorsement or recommendation. Statements that could appear as biased judgements are unintentional and are definitely not intended to be so; however, the author has full responsibility for them.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Abstract

The fourth volume of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series focusses on an important aspect of the decommissioning process, namely, the rules, regulations and standards on which the decommissioning planning and implementation is based. The book clarifies the meanings and applications of different types of such rules and highlights the relations between these different categories. The link with other aspects of decommissioning is also highlighted.

Keywords

Best pratices; Decommissioning; Legislation; Procedures; Regulations; Rules; Standards; Sustainability

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

Albert Einstein (1879–1955).

Sustainability is the main thread running through this book (the fourth volume of the series presented in the Foreword). Actual or potential errors, corrections or inadequacies occurring during the establishment of national rules, regulations and standards for decommissioning, or 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 catalogue of events/situations (an almost impossible undertaking), nor is it aimed at conducting the a priori assessment of what can go wrong during decommissioning planning/implementation or imparting related guidance. Nonetheless, a number of best practices are identified in the description of many events/situations reported in this book.

This book is based on experience and feedback. It identifies a significant number of typical events/situations and ultimately reaches a qualitative judgement on the overall sustainability of nuclear decommissioning (note this book is limited to the rulemaking and impacts of regulations and standards on the whole safety, environmental protection and security of the decommissioning 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 such technologies 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 decommissioning projects. Factors such as the outcome of regulatory constraints, standardization and other related dependencies may affect the decommissioning project, as this book tries to explain. Published information and guidance on the impacts of management and organizational aspects on decommissioning (including the legislative and regulatory framework) is 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 socio-economic 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 this 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 (rules and their different categories) directly impacting the smooth and successful conduct of decommissioning at different types of nuclear installations;

• Actual or potential impacts from inadequate or wrong rules/standards and the need for corrections/updates;

• 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 Canada; France; Germany; Italy; Japan; Republic of Korea; Sweden; Ukraine; the United Kingdom; and the United States.

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

• Identifying and understanding the typical practices (development and enforcement of safety and security rules: legislation; regulations, industry standards; guidelines; procedures; etc.) directly impacting the smooth and successful conduct of decommissioning, and emphasizing the most successful ones;

• Generically evaluating the overall impact of wrong or inadequate practices throughout the period preparatory to, and continuing well into, decommissioning; and

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

Reference

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

Chapter 2: Standardization and sustainability as applicable to nuclear decommissioning

Abstract

The entire Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series of books has sustainability as its reference and target. In particular, this vol. 4 reviews sustainability and standardization in their mutual relations and through the use of case studies it proves that decommissioning standards /rules are compliant with the principles of sustainability, in fact they are necessary to ensure such a compliance.

Keywords

2030 Agenda; DOE-EM; Life cycle management; Organization; Rules; Standardization; Sustainability

What is missing across the sustainability standards arena is greater clarity & more co-ordination.

From Wayne Visser, Sustainable Frontiers: Unlocking Change Through Business, Leadership and Innovation, Greenleaf Publishing, 2015.

In the following of this book, the term ‘rules’ will be used to cover all statements giving a specified, prescribed, unified order to industry activities – in our case, nuclear decommissioning. Chapters 3 and 4 will give details on different categories. However, a common terminology expressing this unification concept is ‘standards’ (which is in this book identified per se as only one category of ‘rules’) and ‘standardization’. This chapter will expand on the links between sustainability and the broader range of rules and standards.

Using unified standards can help save energy, save money and save the environment.

Sustainability has never been more important. But at the same time, people want to see evidence of the industry's commitment to tackling environmental and social challenges.

Implementing sustainability-driven standards can help demonstrate credentials to customers, employees and stakeholders, and highlight commitment to sustainable development.

To do so, any implementer should first identify and manage the impact of their business on the environment and community, and then understand and use relevant legislation/standards (BSI, 2021).

In this book, we would like to advocate the case for enhancing the use of standards – including but not limited to sustainability-driven standards – in support of the overall sustainable development. Standards do matter for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, Fig. 2.1). National and international standards support the achievement of the 2030 Agenda (UN, 2015) in different ways. Some standards – like ISO 26000 – are cross cutting and ‘provide guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or location, on (…) integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence’. A number of standards have – instead – target-specific and goal-specific relevance. For example, standards developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) ensure the safety and dependability of core infrastructure projects such as wind farms and smart grids and promote energy efficiency and the transition to modern energy services. Standards support all three pillars of sustainability. Standards support companies and communities in conceiving and bringing to the market cleaner and more energy-efficient products, helping protect and conserve environmental resources. Additionally, standards play a key role in supporting a distributed governance model that empowers all collectives and communities in taking action in their respective fields of influence and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of everybody. Relying on standards developed in consultation with the industry affords policy-makers (e.g. the Government), confronted with shrinking public budgets, the possibility of lowering the costs of developing and enforcing regulations, without compromising on the safe management of their country's resources and the well-being of their populations. This helps the social dimension of 2030 Agenda. International standards help reduce technical and procedural barriers to trade and minimizing transaction costs by helping the transition from country-specific specifications to globally applicable ones. Standards also contribute to the transfer of technology (UNECE, 2017).

Figure 2.1  Sustainable development goals adopted on 25 September 2015 as a part of the 2030 agenda. Credit to un.org, Wiki Commons.

As an example in the United States, Department of Energy/Environmental Management (DOE-EM) is an organization heavily involved in decommissioning/environmental remediation (D&ER) projects. Sustainability at DOE-EM means making improvements in the areas of environmental, energy, water, waste management and economic performance, which is expected to bring positive impacts to the field sites and their local communities. EM promotes sustainability, natural/cultural resource preservation and the integration of sustainable practices within its management functions and mission activities. Infrastructure resilience at EM implies focussing on standards and procedures that identify and respond to events/situations that can to disrupt, strain or compromise activities and infrastructure.

This book considers ‘sustainability’ mainly from the standpoint of sustainable development, as represented by the smooth and effective progress of decommissioning projects and based on effective/efficient support of rules.

Anti-nuclear positions often stress that inadequate decommissioning rules (from legislation to industry standards) downgrade the role of nuclear energy in regard to sustainable development. However, experience shows that nuclear activities managed within a sound legislative/regulatory/industrial reference framework convey a small industrial risk and modest impacts on the stakeholders (the interests of the general public, the use of the environment, socio-economic progress etc.).

In regard to sustainability, inadequate standards that could be identified in the course of decommissioning should be corrected as soon as possible after their occurrence to prevent recurrence. In other terms, the effectiveness and efficiency in standards occurring in planning for or during decommissioning are viewed as indicators of sustainability. This is the very focus of this book.

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 summarized in WEF, 2014, and the proper approach to 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 (SSC) of a facility. Additionally, the site (land areas) around a nuclear facility is often contaminated as the result of facility's operation: soil clean-up generally goes under the name of environmental remediation (ER). Work carried out under D&ER programmes 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 programmes 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 focusses on the former as a source of relevant cases: 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 said before, the representative indicator of sustainability as adopted by this book is the reference standards used and any incurred 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