Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle: A Summary of the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning

By Michele Laraia

Approx.458 pages

Approx.458 pages

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Jul 20, 2023
• ISBN: 9780323919470

Book preview

Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies

Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle–A Summary of the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning

Volume 6

Michele Laraia

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Dedication

Foreword

Disclaimer

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Environmental sustainability and waste management

Chapter 3. Sustainability in industrial waste management and its applications to nuclear decommissioning and related waste management

3.1. The waste management plan

3.2. Why sustainable waste management is important?

3.3. Circular economy for nuclear decommissioning (NEI, 2021)

3.4. Decommissioning waste and sustainability as incorporated in the UK's government policy and UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority strategy, Annual report and Accounts 2021/22 (NDA, 2022)

3.5. UK strategy for the management of solid low level waste (LLW) from the nuclear industry (DECC, 2016)

Chapter 4. The structure of this book: characterization, waste management, reuse, and recycle

Chapter 5. Radiological and physical characterization: case studies (IAEA, 2007)

5.1. Exhaustive characterization essential for D&D project development, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2013)

5.2. Application of bulk characterization to individual containers: the effect of demolition sequence, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York, United States (DOE-BNL, 2011)

5.3. Equipment inventory listings, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Facility, Piketon, Ohio, United States (DOE-LPP, 2009)

5.4. Highly radioactive material identified in soil, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCPP, 2010)

5.5. Historical hazard identification process for D&D, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2011)

5.6. A few case studies about determination of background (elaboration from (IEM, 2001; NRC, 1994) and other sources)

5.7. Importance of identification, quantification, and inclusion of residual contamination during downgrade activities in nuclear facilities, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2014)

5.8. Inadequate waste characterization data leads to unplanned project effort, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE-PMLL, 2014)

5.9. New radiological survey technology saves time and money, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), United States (DOE-INEEL, 1998)

5.10. The importance of radiological characterization at depth, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (DOE-WVDP, 2011)

5.11. Characterization issues when organizational/proximity interference

5.12. New spray detects radioactive hot spots, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (NDR, 2013)

5.13. Novel strategies in clean-up of high-risk structure, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-EM, 2022)

5.14. Case studies about asbestos characterization

5.15. Americium intake, experimental boiling water reactor decommissioning, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (Fellhauer, 1998)

5.16. Incomplete characterization led to unexpected tritium release, Pluto Reactor, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1994)

5.17. Disposal of operational waste, Paldiski Center, Estonia (IAEA, 2016)

5.18. Unexpected occurrences during the decommissioning of small facilities (IAEA, 2011)

5.19. Characterization issues from the deferred dismantling of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2018)

5.20. Characterization issues in decommissioning of underground facilities (IAEA, 2006)

5.21. Unexpected occurrences during decommissioning caused by inaccurate/incomplete characterization (IAEA, 2016)

5.22. Structural issues arising from lack of relevant documents (IAEA, 2002)

5.23. A few case studies about inadequate record keeping for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2002)

5.24. A more precise method to measure radioactivity in nuclear waste (JRC, 2022)

5.25. Characterization issues in managing low radioactivity material from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2008)

5.26. Technical procedures for the characterization of VLLW, LLW, and ILW, Ispra JRC site, Italy (JRC, 2021)

5.27. Case studies on physical, radiological, and hazards characterization at damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021)

Chapter 6. Generation, transfer, and management of radioactive waste: case studies

6.1. The management of DIDO waste, (former) Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1994)

6.2. UK repatriates Australian nuclear waste (WNN, 2022a)

6.3. First waste removed from old nuclear Sellafield store (Sellafield Ltd, 2022)

6.4. Disposal issues for Aqueous Homogeneous Critical Facility (AHCF) waste, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (IAEA, 1994)

6.5. Case studies about the efficacy of simple decontamination and waste management technologies

6.6. Research at Dounreay could result in savings in decommissioning costs (John O'Groat Journal, 2021)

6.7. Contaminated waste container inadvertently released, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2009)

6.8. Ensure materials used for conveying and storing water do not contaminate the site: Separations Process Research Unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), Niskayuna, New York State, United States (DOE-SPRU, 2014)

6.9. Hanford workers complete stabilization of waste storage tunnel, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2019)

6.10. Inadequate containment for long-term storage of contaminated waste items, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OR, 2017)

6.11. Lessons learned from the deactivation and demolition of the 209E Critical Mass Laboratory, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2012)

6.12. Waste management issues resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear pools (IAEA, 2015)

6.13. Recommended approaches to waste packing, EBWR decommissioning Project, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (Fellhauer, 1998)

6.14. Close coordination allows shipping success and accelerated schedule, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Las Vegas, United States (DOE-NTS, 2011)

6.15. Lessons learned on on-site waste disposal facilities, US sites (DOE, 2015)

6.16. Unanticipated chemical reaction during waste load-out, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2016)

6.17. Nuclear safety issue identified in 54-year-old radioactive waste storage facility, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2011)

6.18. Radioactive waste storage facility floor loading/lifting capacity inaccurately designated, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2012)

6.19. Wax as a residual waste fixative in buried lines, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (DOE-ID, 2010)

6.20. Waste storage in railcars pending shipment, Paducah Site, Kentucky, United States (DOE-LL, 2013)

6.21. International collaboration enhances wastewater treatment at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OR, 2021)

6.22. Waste removal planning inadequate, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2011)

6.23. Waste management aspects of glovebox D&D activities, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, United States (DOE-LA, 2017)

6.24. NRC Liquid radioactive release lessons learned (NRC, 2006)

6.25. Environmental Remediation at Savannah River Site (SRS)

6.26. Pilgrim NPP may release thousands of cubic meters of radioactive water into bay. What we know (Cape Cod Times, 2021)

6.27. West Valley improves rail line supporting safe, efficient waste disposal (DOE News, 2022)

6.28. Assessment identifies vulnerabilities in the management of radioactive waste, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2021)

6.29. Off-normal process results compounded into radiation protection labeling error, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2022)

6.30. Deep borehole disposal as a promising strategy for small amounts of HLW (NEI, 2022)

6.31. Releasing low radioactivity material and areas from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2008)

6.32. Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU), tank waste sludge, Niskayuna, New York State, United States (NAP, 2017)

6.33. Decontamination for damaged or legacy facilities (IAEA, 2021)

6.34. Waste management infrastructure for damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021)

6.35. Waste management technologies at damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021)

Chapter 7. Reuse and recycle technologies: case studies

7.1. Is rip and ship a sustainable decommissioning strategy? Zion NPP, Illinois, United States

7.2. Experience in recycling materials arising from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (NEA, 2017)

7.3. UK's program for dealing with decommissioning rubble (NDA, 2020)

7.4. Entire nuclear vessel recycled (NDA, 2021)

7.5. Status and plans for recycling of cables harvested from Crystal River Unit 3 NPP, Florida, United States (USDOE-PNNL, 2016)

7.6. Dismantling Paducah switchyards supports local recycling, EM clean-up, Kentucky, United States (USDOE-EM, 2022a)

7.7. Idaho site hot cells once again prove value for DOE-EM waste treatment mission, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (USDOE-EM, 2021b)

7.8. Contaminated lead bricks shipped off-site, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (USDOE-RL, 1999)

7.9. Proper labeling and management required for reused containers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2015)

7.10. Readily found opportunities for waste minimization and pollution prevention, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2009)

7.11. Verify that all items are removed before reusing, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2013)

7.12. Proper characterization of items prior to dispositioning is essential to safe handling, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2014)

7.13. Reuse of decommissioned areas at Oak Ridge Sites, Tennessee, United States

7.14. Rocky Flats closure legacy, Colorado, United States (USDOE-RFETS, 2011)

7.15. Recycling of material and reuse of areas within and around UK nuclear sites

7.16. The brownfields solution—what happens to formerly contaminated industrial and DOE sites (USDOE-EHSS, 2009)?

7.17. West Valley transforms storage facility for clean-up operations, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (USDOE-WVDP, 2022)

7.18. How to recycle a nuclear power plant in Italy (Marino, 2021)

7.19. Dismantling of Italian nuclear fuel plant completed (WNN, 2022 a)

7.20. Reconstruction of the former turbine hall into a manufacturing site for large ship components, Greifswald NPP (KGR), Germany (IAEA, 2011)

7.21. Innovative projects on RW recycling from the French investments for the future program (Mandoki et al., 2020)

7.22. Enhanced sustainability in treatment of contaminated metals for clearance and recycling (Larsson et al., 2020)

7.23. The decommissioning and conversion of a nuclear research center in Grenoble, France (RGN, 2013)

7.24. Auctions helping to recycle old nuclear power plants (WNN, 2022b)

Chapter 8. Is the management of decommissioning waste a sustainable industry?

8.1. Radioactive effluents: a comparison between plant operations and decommissioning

8.2. Occupational exposure during decommissioning

Chapter 9. Expert views and author's assessment on the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning

9.1. Expert opinion: Vladimir Michal, IAEA, decommissioning unit leader (Michal, 2022)

9.2. Expert opinion: Jean-Jacques Grenouillet, French expert (Grenouillet, 2022)

9.3. Expert opinion: Jean-Guy Nokhamzon, French expert, key actions to take for successful decommissioning, D&ER's 10 commandments

9.4. Expert opinion: decommissioning project characteristics that affect the project performance (Invernizzi et al., 2020)

9.5. Sustainable decommissioning strategies for nuclear power plants: a systematic literature review (Park et al., 2022)

9.6. Top 10 facility decommissioning risks (Nelson et al., 2016)

9.7. Costs and funding uncertainties in the UK

9.8. Decommissioning waste management

9.9. A fuzzy TOPSIS-based risk ranking model (Awodi et al, 2023)

9.10. Author's conclusive statement on the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning

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 © 2023 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: 978-0-323-91849-7

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

Publisher: Megan Ball

Editorial Project Manager: Rupinder K. Heron

Production Project Manager: Kumar Anbazhagan

Cover Designer: Miles Hitchen

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Dedication

With a million thanks to Giovanna, who has always been the dearest presence throughout the bad times and has made the good times an exchange of the most desired gifts.

Foreword

None of us is as smart as all of us.

Ken Blanchard, author, business consultant, and motivational speaker (1939–).

All men should strive to learn before they die what they are running from, and to, and why.

James Thurber, writer and cartoonist (1894–1961).

Sustainability is a societal objective of growing concern, which has three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic, and social dimensions. This notion can be used to orient political, technical, administrative, and other decisions at the global, national, corporate, and individual levels. A related concept is a sustainable development, which is often used in place of sustainability. UNESCO suggested the following distinction: "Sustainability is often thought of as a long-term goal (i.e. a more sustainable world), while sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways to achieve it." An extensive discussion on this point is given in (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sustainability_and_Sustainable_development_are_diferent_concepts_or_the_same_thing). The two terms are used interchangeably in this book.

For many people, especially environmentalists, sustainability is closely associated with environmental issues. This is also called environmental sustainability and is related to the public concern about human impacts on the environment. The predominant environmental issues debated over the last few decades have included: climate change, environmental pollution, threatened species, and land degradation (such as overbuilding, deforestation, and disruption of ecosystems).

The economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the general notion of sustainability itself. This is partly due to the inevitable conflict between welfare for all and environmental preservation. To resolve this dilemma, the mutual effects of economic growth and environmental deterioration need to be evaluated first. A satisfactory balance is hard to achieve because environmental and social costs are not generally paid by those who cause them, and are not estimated in market price. Usually, these costs (often called externalities, Glossary) are either not considered at all or are addressed by government policy, local governance, or another third party unrelated to the polluter. Some solutions to this issue include taxing the activity; subsidizing activities that have a positive environmental or social effect (rewarding stewardship); or forbidding a polluting practice (legal limits on pollution). The principle of sustainability is closely related to the polluter pays principle (PPP, Glossary). One consequence of the PPP is the principle of inter-generational equity (Lindskog, 2013).

The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability. Whitton et al. (2015) tries to clarify the link between sustainability and its social aspects within the broad energy infrastructure field. Trying to clarify this and other aspects of sustainability, other experts have suggested adding more dimensions of sustainability such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions.

The concept of sustainability has been criticized from different angles. One angle is that sustainability as a goal might be unachievable due to far-reaching detriments of human activities on the environment. The other angle is that the concept is vague and ill-defined. Actually, despite some attempts to quantify sustainability in specific areas (Murphy, 2012; Moldan et al, 2011), it is much more common to refer to sustainability as an orientation or a guiding principle, or in comparison to analogous practices. Vol. 1 of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series tries to confirm the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning by numerically evaluating the impacts of incidents that have occurred or are postulated to occur in the course of decommissioning projects (Laraia, 2021a). Subsequent volumes of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series have used qualitative judgment to confirm the sustainability of specific aspects of decommissioning.

The issue of sustainability is being brought into prominence as the multiple 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 are likely to increasingly seek to understand and manage the sustainability of nuclear activities.

The life cycle of a nuclear facility (whose ending phase is decommissioning) overlaps and interacts with the principles of sustainability (see Glossary, Life Cycle).

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 embodies 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."

In other words, sustainability implies short and long-term environmental protection, economic development, and social progress. A key challenge for the implementation of sustainability policies is to integrate these three requirements (a.k.a. sustainability pillars) in a way that does not unduly privilege (or compromise) any of them. The reader should note that the three sustainability pillars have expanded over time to include subsidiary pillars and other related aspects, subcategories, and interpretations, resulting in such diagrams as the one given in Fig. 1.

Energy plays a key role in 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 impacts (many decades or even much longer periods as is the case of nuclear decommissioning and management of resulting waste). But these inevitable consequences cannot be left uncontrolled; on the contrary, they require advance planning, control, and mitigation. As far as possible, potential damages should be converted into opportunities. One example of opportunities relevant to this book (vol. 6 of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series) is the recycle or reuse of materials resulting from nuclear decommissioning and the reuse of decommissioned sites.

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 current and future generations while maintaining environmental protection. The benefits should be ensured for as many years ahead as realistically predictable while negative impacts should be averted. This statement should be proven true for decommissioning as a whole and for each aspect and impact of it, and this is the ultimate objective of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series of books. As a warning, the reader should consider that decommissioning (D&D) of a nuclear facility and the environmental remediation of its nuclear site (ultimately forming one and the same process, decommissioning, and environmental remediation, D&ER) are intrinsic and inevitable by-products of a nuclear plant's life cycle: sustainability should ideally be assessed for the whole life cycle as an integrated process from plant siting through decommissioning and site release. Therefore, in principle, one should look at the entire nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) or nuclear plant lifetime to assess the sustainability of the nuclear industry: however, if one part—in our case, decommissioning—of the NFC or lifecycle created new sustainability issues (e.g. by being unbearably costly), it would reverberate on and impair the whole NFC or plant sustainability. If so, the sustainability of the whole nuclear industry would be in doubt. It is these issues the above-mentioned series of books addresses.

Figure 1  Effects of investment in education sustainability. Credit to Elias G. Carayannis, Wiki Commons.

Worldwide, there are thousands of licensed nuclear facilities that will ultimately reach the end of their service life and require decommissioning. They range from large nuclear power plants (NPP) 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. Those responsible for nuclear facilities (including policy-makers, operating organizations, waste managers, and other parties) face the special challenges associated with managing their radioactive inventory over many decades of operation and well beyond it. In recognition of the remaining 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 and industrial safety objectives but also with organizational, financial, human, and scientific resources and constraints determining the impact of decommissioning on the health, safety, and radiation protection, and socio-economic well-being of the workers, public, and environment. It is notable that decommissioning of an NPP can normally begin from 40 years (immediate dismantling) to 100 years and more (deferred dismantling) after the beginning of nuclear operations, and can span several decades: 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 affect an entirely new range of stakeholders (see the PPP concept above).

To fulfill sustainable development objectives, nuclear energy must keep high standards of performance, responsiveness, and safety throughout all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, including plant decommissioning. It is clear that the principle of sustainability should be best applied to the entire NFC and to the life cycle of a nuclear facility (in all its phases, from siting, design and construction, and 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 facility and its site. 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 require a dedicated sustainability assessment per se.

In regard to decommissioning, the Brundtland definition can be viewed in the context of the interdependent impacts in the social, economic, and environmental areas (IAEA, 2008). In passing, the reader should note that this book (and others of this series of books) makes frequent reference to IAEA publications, which as prescribed by the IAEA Statute are limited to the radiological impacts: by contrast, the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series includes all forms of impacts, being radiological impacts only a part of the total.

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, costs, and funding, etc. Therefore, to address and confirm the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning different viewpoints are needed—and an entire series of books (Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series) each covering specific, but complementary and often overlapping, subjects.

While all sectors of decommissioning include a range of inextricably intertwined technical, administrative, organizational, and financial facets, the author has found it convenient to split the entire content into six books, namely:

vol. 1. Accidental Impacts on Workers; the Environment; and the Public (Laraia, 2021a)

vol. 2. Policies, Strategies, Planning and Knowledge Management (Laraia, 2021b)

vol. 3 The People Side (Laraia, 2022a)

vol. 4 Safety, Environmental and Security Rules (Laraia, 2022b)

vol. 5 Organization and Management, Economics, Staying in Business (Laraia, 2023)

vol. 6 Characterization; Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle (this book).

Vol. 6 includes also the author's conclusive judgment on the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning where all components and issues of decommissioning are recapped and reviewed taking account of the holistic approach to decommissioning sustainability.

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 and successes). 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 accident during decommissioning can be due to inadequate financial and human resources (two prominent topics of vol. 5) or poor planning (vol. 2), result in the generation of abnormal waste (vol. 6), and raise public anger (vol. 3).

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted exploration of complex issues in real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognized in the fields of business, law, and policy (for example, case studies in business might cover a particular company's strategy or a broader market), but is less recognized in nuclear decommissioning literature. Generally, a case study can pinpoint any individual, group, organization, event, belief system, or action. A case study does not necessarily have to be one observation but may include many observations (one or multiple individuals and entities across multiple time periods, within a single case, or across numerous cases).

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."

Gerring (2007) defines the case study approach as an "intensive study of a single unit or a small number of units (the cases), for the purpose of understanding a larger class of similar units (a population of cases). Gerring also states: the defining feature of qualitative work is its use of non-comparable observations—observations that pertain to different aspects of a causal or descriptive question," whereas quantitative observations are comparable (Gerring, 2017). According to Gerring, the key characteristic that distinguishes case studies from all other methods is the "reliance on evidence drawn from a single case and its attempts, at the same time, to illuminate features of a broader set of cases. (Gerring, 2007). Researchers use case studies to shed light on a class" of phenomena.

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, Fig. 2). "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 (Blackstone, 2012). On the funny side, the following quote can (try to) justify the confusion perceived by many in applying the induction method as based on case studies One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries (Alan Alexander Milne, author, 1882–1956)."

Figure 2  Induction versus deduction. Credit to wikibooks en User Maltewoest, Wiki Commons.

In this series of books events or situations are reviewed in detail within the context of a decommissioning project, cases are analyzed and solutions or interpretations are presented. Generic lessons learned are extracted for the benefit 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 issue.

This 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 contradicts the reference literature in the field, only the orientation (bottom-up) is different from the publications intended for direct guidance (top-down). To draw useful lessons, this series of books focuses on negative experiences, difficulties, forced changes, and alternatives investigated; best practices corroborated by success are extensively described to offer complementarity. In fact, there is perhaps greater worth in reporting on (hopefully, temporary) 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 addressed: 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 the country- or plant-specific analysis.

Understanding decommissioning in full and the difficulties involved; understanding multiple ways to solve these issues; and highlighting the influence of 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. However, it would be pretentious to expect that the books of this series fully complete the path from event identification, lessons learned, solutions, and recommendations, to generalization: the reader should fulfill this objective by reviewing and comparing the case studies and making use of the suggestions offered by these books and other guidance.

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 life cycle of a nuclear installation and its sustainability should be ensured from the very beginning of a nuclear project, the plant conception. 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) by providing information about what they can realistically (i.e. based on experience) expect to happen during the decommissioning of nuclear 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, and lessons are drawn, the reader should consult specialist guidance and move from a bottom-up, case-by-case approach to a top-down, systematic approach.

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 a great deal of quotations and interviews with involved parties) and the extensive Glossary providing clarification of a number of technical/jargon terms should also make these books more palatable to the uninitiated or non-native English speakers.

References

1. Blackstone A. Inductive or Deductive? Two Different Approaches, Chapter 2.3 in Principles of Sociological Inquiry—Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Publisher: Saylor Foundation; 2012 ISBN 13: 9781453328897. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-sociological-inquiry-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/s05-03-inductive-or-deductive-two-dif.html.

2. 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.

3. Colorado State University, Types of Case Studies. Available from: https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=60.

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

5. Gerring J. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press; 2007 ISBN 978-0-521-85928-8.

6. Gerring J. Qualitative methods. Ann. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2017;20(1):15–36 ISSN: 1094-2939. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158.

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

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

9. Laraia M. Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies, Volume One—Accidental Impacts on Workers, the Environment and Society. Elsevier; February, 2021 ISBN: 9780128237007.

10. Laraia M. Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Policies, Strategies, Planning and Knowledge Management. Elsevier; June, 2021 ISBN: 9780323914895.

11. Laraia M. Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: The People Side. Elsevier; January, 2022 ISBN: 9780323857369.

12. Laraia M. Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Safety, Environmental and Security Rules. Elsevier; April 2022 ISBN: 9780323918473.

13. Laraia M. Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business. Elsevier; January 2023 ISBN 978-0-323-91848-0.

14. Lindskog S, Sjöblom R, Labor B. Sustainability of nuclear energy with regard to decommissioning and waste management. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2013;8(2):246–264. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/sdp-volumes/8/2/689.

15. Moldan B, Janoušková S, Hak T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Indicat. January 2011;17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251678880_How_to_Understand_and_Measure_Environmental_Sustainability_Indicators_and_Targets.

16. Murphy K. The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustain.: Sci. Pract. Policy. 2012;8(1):15–29. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081?needAccess=true. .

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

18. Whitton J, Parry J.M, Akiyoshi M, Lawless W. Conceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. July 2015;8:127–138. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42137201.pdf.

Further reading

Circular economy and sustainability. In: Stefanakis A, Nikolaou I, eds. Management and Policy. vol. 1. September, 2021 ISBN: 9780128198179.

Tyagi R.D, Surampalli R.Y, Selvam A, Wong J.W.C, eds. Sustainable Solid Waste Management. ASCE; 2016 ISBN: 9780784414101.

Disclaimer

Although the author has taken great care to review the reliability, completeness, and accuracy of the information contained in this book, neither he nor the Publisher provides any warranties in this regard nor assume 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 major aspects 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 (or criticism). Statements that could appear as biased judgments are unintentional.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Abstract

This chapter is a brief overview of the topics addressed by the book. It highlights the role of sustainability in the context of waste management, including the quoting of some numerical indicators. Furthermore, it refers to case studies in terms of origin, mishaps, corrections, and guidance resulting from waste management practices.

Keywords

Case studies; Critical practices; Objectives; Waste management

Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance.

Ban Ki-moon, South Korean politician and diplomat who served as the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations between 2007 and 2016 (1944—)

Sustainability is the main thread running through this book (the sixth and last volume of the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series presented in the Foreword). Actual or potential errors, corrections, or inadequacies occurring during the generation and management of radioactive and hazardous waste or successful approaches to these aspects are highlighted with their impacts being qualitative indicators of the sustainability of the decommissioning process. Some numerical evaluations of parameters (radioactive releases and occupational exposures) are given in Chapter 8 to quantitatively confirm the sustainability of the nuclear decommissioning industry. However, this book is not a comprehensive catalog 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 good and bad practices are identified in the description of the events/situations reported in this book.

This book is based on experience and feedback. It identifies a significant number of typical events/situations and indirectly allows the reader to arrive at a qualitative or semi-quantitative judgment on the overall sustainability of nuclear decommissioning (note this book is limited to the impacts of waste management on the safety, environmental protection, and productivity of the decommissioning process: other volumes of the series Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies assess the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning from different viewpoints).

Finally, this book reviews several aspects critical to decommissioning sustainability as highlighted in all volumes of the series or suggested by international experts: a screening is then performed and a small list of aspects are selected as the most critical ones.

The objective of most reference books (e.g., the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series or IAEA Safety Standards) is to provide guidance on the organization and management aspects for the decommissioning of (generally, large) nuclear installations which will be useful for licensees responsible for discharging these responsibilities. Reference books identify the general issues to be addressed and provide an overview of organizational activities crucial to managing decommissioning activities in a safe, timely, and cost-effective manner. Information about actual cases is proved in support of that general guidance. By contrast, as noted elsewhere, the Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies series—of which this book is vol. 6—takes a different path: it draws the reader's attention to well over 150 individual case studies (supported by text boxes, interviews, and references), which can be used in a sort of bottom-up mode to derive overarching guidance. Through the use of many case studies, this book strives to draw the reader's attention to aspects that may go largely ignored.

Decommissioning of nuclear facilities is a complex process involving such technologies as radiological characterization, decontamination, dismantling of structures, systems, and components (SSC), and the handling of radioactive and other hazardous waste. However, many management and organizational needs arise during decommissioning projects. Factors such as change management during the operations-to-decommissioning transition, costs and funding of decommissioning, the need of dedicated competence and training may affect decommissioning waste management, as this book tries to explain through case studies.

The scope of this book is not primarily aimed at decommissioning following severe nuclear accidents (e.g., at Fukushima or Chornobyl) although some sections are devoted to accidents to highlight differences from planned, routine decommissioning projects. It is the author's view that severe nuclear accidents could be legitimately used to dispute the overall sustainability of the whole nuclear fuel cycle, but only to a minor extent the eventual decommissioning per se (a de facto situation).

Each case study described in this book provides information on:

• Origin, evolution, and conclusion of actual waste generation and management practices and aspects thereof impacting—positively or negatively—the conduct of decommissioning at different types of nuclear installations;

• Actual or potential impacts from inadequate or wrong waste management approaches and the need for corrections/updates; conversely, good practices are also addressed;

• Analyses and applied solutions, proposals, innovations, 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 (recommendations, 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 Australia; Belgium; Canada; Czech Republic; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Iraq; Italy; Japan; Lithuania; Norway; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; 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 decommissioning waste management practices directly impacting the smooth and successful conduct of decommissioning, and emphasizing the most successful ones;

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

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

Chapter 2: Environmental sustainability and waste management

Abstract

This chapter underlines the links between waste management and sustainability; in particular, it expands on the role played by the International Atomic Energy Agency in sponsoring forms of radioactive waste management (incl. disposal) that are conducive to sustainability.

Keywords

Decommissioning waste; Disposal; IAEA; Sustainability; Waste management

I don't want to be an apologist for poverty, but I can't stand waste, useless spending, wasted energy and having to live squandering stuff.

Jose Mujica (1935–). As the president of Uruguay, he lived on his wife's ramshackle farm and gave away most of his income. In many of his speeches, Mujica has spoken on the importance of being happy with less.

Sustainable waste management is a key concept of the circular economy (Glossary) and offers many opportunities and benefits to the economy, the society, and the environment. Sustainable waste management involves collecting, sorting, treating, recycling, and when properly facilitated providing a source of energy and resources.

The following highlights the links between the general concept of sustainability, e.g., as summarized in World Energy Foundation (2015), and the proper approach to D&ER as delineated in this book. Throughout this book the reader will note the underlying links to the three pillars of sustainability: economic development, social progress, and environmental protection.

The book strives to prove a relationship between sustainability and the sub-sets of decommissioning waste management (characterization, generation, and handling, treatment etc. of waste, recycle, and reuse).

Radioactive waste is an unavoidable by-product of the application of ionizing radiation in diverse areas, such as nuclear medicine, industrial applications, and the conservation of foodstuffs, but is especially important in nuclear electricity production due to its intrinsic high level of energy. However, the radioactive waste produced by the use of nuclear energy represents a very small volume—less than 1%—of the total toxic wastes generated in those countries that use nuclear energy to generate electricity. In most industrialized countries, short-lived, low-level waste (LLW, including the waste resulting from decommissioning) is routinely disposed of using systems that guarantee the safety of people and the environment during the time that this waste maintains their radioactivity (Fig. 2.1). This waste is duly conditioned and stored in facilities secluded from the environment by engineered barriers. High-level waste (HLW) is first deposited in temporary storage facilities, under strict safety conditions, for several decades. These installations may be of the wet or dry storage type, and may be for a single nuclear power plant (NPP) or for all those in a given region or country. In Fig. 2.2, Nevada and California Highway Patrol Officers conduct radiological surveys and mechanical inspections on the first Nevada Test Site transuranic waste shipment at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex located on the Nevada Test Site (January 7, 2004). The shipment is being sent to the HLW Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located near Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Figure 2.1  Class A radioactive waste disposal at Clive, Utah. Credit to U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Wiki Commons.

Figure 2.2  Transuranic waste casks. Credit to Federal Government of the United States, Wiki Commons.

Although there are no economic, technical, or environmental incentives to speed up the construction of final disposal facilities for radioactive waste, storage remains a temporary solution. In the interests of consistency with the principles of sustainable development—i.e., the principle of not passing burdens on to future generations—it is essential that the development of final disposal facilities be considered a priority. The technology known as deep geologic disposal is now available for the final disposal of HLW and close to commercial operation in such countries as Finland and Sweden. It is based on the stability and impermeability of certain geological formations, in which the conditioned waste is positioned and remains isolated from the biosphere by a set of barriers, among them the geological barrier, for a sufficient period of time for its radiological activity to decay to harmless levels. The waste can still be recovered, at least during the initial phase of the repository, and also during subsequent phases, albeit at increased cost. The first man-made geologic disposal facility for long-lived waste started operation in the United States in March 1999 (the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP) and provides industrial experience. Furthermore, both the activity of long-lived radioactive waste and the time that it remains active might be considerably reduced by using partitioning and transmutation (P&T), a technique still under early development.

As pointed out above, one of the main objectives of sustainable development is to prevent the transfer of undesirable burdens to future generations. If the nuclear industry does not set aside adequate funds, the financial burdens associated with plant dismantling and radioactive waste disposal would be passed on. In industrialized countries, the costs of dismantling NPPs and of managing long-lived waste are included in the electricity generating costs and applied to the end consumers; in other words, they are internalized. Although the cost of radioactive waste management is quite high in absolute terms, it does not represent a significant component in the cost of nuclear power generation. The suitable management of radioactive waste implies the application of advanced technologies, the development of which requires qualified training and R&D programs. This generates employment and provides a transfer of knowledge to future generations. Scientific and industrial development takes place under strict control, as a result of which in practically all countries in which activities relating to nuclear energy are carried out, regulations and industrial standards have been issued to guarantee the health of the general public and the workers involved and the protection of the environment. Likewise, institutions specifically responsible for nuclear and radioactive issues have been set up, and have been bestowed human and financial resources as well as empowered with the necessary legal authority to ensure control (Lang-Lenton León, 2001).

The interactions between sustainability and decommissioning can be represented in Table 2.1. In the table, the representative indicator of sustainability is the technological and organizational response to managing waste arising in a D&ER project/program and any related issues/solutions (entry in bold letters in Table 2.1).

Table 2.1

Author's elaboration from Bonser, D., Sustainability Principles: A Practical Move toward Tomorrow? IBC's 10th Global Conference and Exhibition, Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, London 20–22 November, 2006.

Principles to guide the decommissioning process need to be defined beforehand. They may reflect the objectives that are expected to be applied across all activities in a country—nuclear or non-nuclear; sustainability is deemed currently as one of these important objectives. Organizational structures and practices can then be established that turn these objectives and other high-level commitments into a frame within which decommissioning strategies can be planned and implemented.

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. With many nuclear installations approaching the end of operating life or already shutdown, many countries are faced with finalizing strategies and drafting decommissioning plans. 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. However, timeliness and cost-effectiveness are not always optimal due to organizational or economic factors. It has been noted on several occasions that the major weakness in decommissioning projects is poor or inadequate management, including factors such as unclear identification of roles and responsibilities, lack of