Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies

Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies

The People Side

1st Edition - January 28, 2022

Write a review

  • Author: Michele Laraia
  • Paperback ISBN: 9780323857369
  • eBook ISBN: 9780323984645

Purchase options

Purchase options
Available
DRM-free (EPub, PDF)
Sales tax will be calculated at check-out

Institutional Subscription

Free Global Shipping
No minimum order

Description

Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies, Volume Three: The People Side presents a selection of global case studies on different aspects of Nuclear Decommissioning. This volume focuses on the people side of nuclear decommissioning, including stakeholder impacts, public relations and workforce factors. It presents a selection of case studies on stakeholders, socioeconomics and human factors, providing readers with a guide and information to deal with common, often contentious challenges. The events covered in this publication range from change management, stakeholder motivation, 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. Alongside the case studies books in this series, readers will obtain an understanding of stakeholder, socioeconomic and people-related case studies, what happened, and what we can learn from them.

Key Features

  • Presents a selection of global case studies that focus on the people side of nuclear decommissioning, specifically workforce and public impacts, 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

Readership

Nuclear engineers; nuclear researchers; nuclear students; decommissioning specialists; governments and decision makers; nuclear operators and waste managers

Table of Contents

  • Cover image
  • Title page
  • Table of Contents
  • Copyright
  • Dedication
  • Foreword
  • Disclaimer
  • Chapter 1. Introduction
  • Chapter 2. The concept of sustainability as applicable to nuclear decommissioning
  • Chapter 3. Societal and stakeholder concerns
  • Chapter 4. The structure of this book: stakeholder involvement; socioeconomic impacts; human factors
  • 4.1. Stakeholder involvement
  • 4.2. Socioeconomic impacts
  • 4.3. Human factors
  • Chapter 5. Stakeholder case studies
  • 5.1. Public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment of two decommissioning projects (Bond et al., 2004)
  • 5.2. Tribal nations as decommissioning stakeholders
  • 5.3. Workers not associated with job planning, Former Uranium Enrichment Facilities, Portsmouth Site, Ohio, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2011a)
  • 5.4. A bumpy transition, Washington Closure Hanford, Washington, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2011b)
  • 5.5. Worker feedback: multiparty discussions of expectations and objectives, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, United States (OPEXSHARE, 2017)
  • 5.6. Decommissioning planning should not overlook personnel in partially occupied buildings Savannah River Site, South Carolina, United States (OPEXSHARE, 2009)
  • 5.7. Evacuate workers from facilities slated for demolition, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (OPEXSHARE, 2010)
  • 5.8. Teamwork as a success factor in the clean out project of a legacy accelerator facility, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2020)
  • 5.9. Workforce transitioning to a decommissioning mindset, Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant, Washington, United States (Johnson, 2014)
  • 5.10. The role of labor unions in the decommissioning of US nuclear power plants (UWUA, 2018)
  • 5.11. Three case studies illustrating the role of the unions in the framework of UK's decommissioning projects
  • 5.12. The risk of hiring cheap labor (APP, 2019)
  • 5.13. Workforce restructuring, Oak Ridge Site, Tennessee, United States (DOE-LLDB, 1996)
  • 5.14. Control of asbestos hazards, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2012a)
  • 5.15. Open air demolition at the West Valley Demonstration Project (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2014)
  • 5.16. Nuclear footprint reduction and deactivation project, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE-2013a)
  • 5.17. Organization and staffing requirements in the decommissioning of the BR3 reactor, Belgium (Massaut, 2000)
  • 5.18. Transportable Vitrification System, community reactions, United States (DOE, 1998)
  • 5.19. Universities and researchers join in nuclear decommissioning developments (Farmer, 2021)
  • 5.20. Involvement of younger generations in nuclear decommissioning (SSM, 2009)
  • 5.21. Technology development, Sellafield Site, United Kingdom (Sellafield, 2018)
  • 5.22. Research, development, and innovation at UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA, 2020)
  • 5.23. Communicating with future SRS stakeholders (Antonucci, 2009)
  • 5.24. US regulators and stakeholders: the NRC position (WNN, 2017)
  • 5.25. NRC's enhancing public awareness for decommissioning NPPs (NRC, 2015)
  • 5.26. Recognizing changing conditions, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2011)
  • 5.27. Reporting of abnormal events, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2007)
  • 5.28. The municipality as a Stakeholder, Barsebäck NPP, Sweden (PALMQVIST, 2005)
  • 5.29. Nonnuclear industries as nuclear decommissioning stakeholders (NEI, 2020; WNN, 2020)
  • 5.30. State authorities intervene to influence NPP decommissioning strategy (MLive, 2021)
  • 5.31. Waste management organizations as key decommissioning stakeholders
  • 5.32. The role of the IAEA as international stakeholder
  • 5.33. Removal of research reactor fuel from Norway to other countries
  • 5.34. Fact-finding visit to Sellafield (RPII, 2005)
  • 5.35. International information exchange about decommissioning activities (Seed et al., 2013)
  • 5.36. Ecological concerns and ecologists in nuclear decommissioning (WNN, 2013)
  • 5.37. Adjacent areas and contractors (DOE-WIKISPACES, 2012)
  • 5.38. Savings and other benefits from proper coordination (DOE-LLDB, 2010)
  • 5.39. Contract transition, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2010)
  • 5.40. ORNL organizations form partnerships for cleanout projects (DOE-LLDB, 2006)
  • 5.41. Trainees and training institutions as stakeholders in Ukraine's decommissioning programs
  • 5.42. Teaching decommissioning to students (Catlow, 2009)
  • 5.43. Local services
  • 5.44. Tourists and visitors as stakeholders
  • 5.45. The cultural values of decommissioning sites and the related stakeholder involvement (DSRL, 2010)
  • 5.46. Nucleus, the nuclear, and Caithness archives (NDA, 2018)
  • 5.47. Antinuclear groups
  • 5.48. The release of decommissioning waste to the environment as a public concern
  • 5.49. Funding entities
  • 5.50. Fitch downgrades Engie S.A. (Fitch Ratings, 2021)
  • 5.51. The Epidemiology Governance Group of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Public Health England (NDA-PHE, 2021)
  • Chapter 6. Socioeconomic case studies (IAEA, 2008)
  • 6.1. Socioeconomic effects resulting from final shutdown
  • 6.2. Impacts on the workforce
  • 6.3. Socioeconomic impact on the local community
  • 6.4. Socioeconomic effects on the wider community
  • 6.5. Facilitating and mitigating factors
  • 6.6. Influence of decommissioning strategy
  • 6.7. Site reuse
  • 6.8. Socioeconomic impact of the decommissioning of Vandellòs I Nuclear Power Plant, Spain
  • 6.9. The strategy to mitigate the negative socioeconomic impacts of Greifswald NPP shutdown and dismantling (IAEA, 2008)
  • 6.10. The socioeconomic impacts of nuclear closures at Sellafield site, West Cumbria, United Kingdom
  • 6.11. Anglesey Aluminum, Wales, United Kingdom (North Wales News, 2019)
  • 6.12. Trawsfynydd NPP socioeconomics upon closure and decommissioning: history of assessments and mitigation measures
  • 6.13. Superphenix NPP, Creys-Malville, France (IAEA, 2008)
  • 6.14. Fessenheim NPP, France (Brender, 2021)
  • 6.15. North Scotland learns to rely less on Dounreay for employment opportunities (Grangeston, 2012)
  • 6.16. Prioritization of socioeconomic funding within the Magnox NPP fleet (Magnox and NDA, 2020)
  • 6.17. Prioritization of socioeconomic funding within NDA's range of decommissioning installations (NDA, 2020a)
  • 6.18. The early days of the closing and decommissioning process at Yankee Rowe NPP, Massachusetts, United States (Kotval and Mullin, 1997)
  • 6.19. Pre- and post-closure socioeconomic status of Pilgrim NPP, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States (Cooper, 2016) (NDC, 2020)
  • 6.20. The early impacts of closure and decommissioning of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant (CR-3), Crystal River, Citrus County, Florida
  • 6.21. Small town resilience: the Maine Yankee history (Phillips, 2014)
  • 6.22. Socioeconomic impacts of Vermont Yankee closure, Vernon, Vermont, United States (UMass Donahue Institute, 2014; BDCC, 2016)
  • 6.23. A new model: transferring the plant license to the decommissioning operator, Zion NPP, Illinois, United States
  • 6.24. The Indian Point NPP, Buchanan, New York (NDC, 2020)
  • 6.25. Post-remediation workforce restructuring, Rocky Flats Plant, Denver, Colorado, United States (Corsi, 2005)
  • 6.26. Oak Ridge clean-up advances site regeneration opportunities (DOE, 2021a)
  • 6.27. Paducah's recycling of decommissioning materials assists regional development (DOE, 2021b)
  • 6.28. Barsebäck NPP in Sweden – early transition to decommissioning (IAEA, 2008)
  • Chapter 7. Human factors case studies (Laraia, 2017)
  • 7.1. Teamwork
  • 7.2. Change management
  • 7.3. The cultural changes between operations and decommissioning
  • 7.4. The motivational aspects of decommissioning
  • 7.5. Implicit versus explicit coordination
  • 7.6. Building trust
  • 7.7. Conflicting goals
  • 7.8. Safety culture
  • 7.9. The cultural “heritage”: traditions, customs, mentalities
  • 7.10. The language barrier
  • 7.11. Personal issues cause lack of attention and procedural deviations, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (DOE-ID, 2009)
  • 7.12. Habit patterns can decrease the questioning attitude, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2010)
  • 7.13. Learn by watching good people doing good work, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-WRPS, 2012)
  • 7.14. Failure to accept mistakes hinders the learning and improvement process, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, United States (DOE-INL, 2011)
  • 7.15. The impacts of human factors on organizational transitions, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2013)
  • 7.16. Staffing changes can undermine rigor in operations, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2011)
  • 7.17. Area restrictions not followed, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2003)
  • 7.18. Control rods inadvertently pulled from 105KE reactor during demolition, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-CH2MHILL, 2011)
  • 7.19. Calculation errors associated with new work assignments, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-Bechtel, 2012)
  • 7.20. Under time pressure employees can lose focus on quality, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-Bechtel, 2013)
  • 7.21. Achievement of “EM completion” versus “DOE Site Closure,” Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States (DOE-ITL, 2011; DOE-LM, n.d.)
  • 7.22. Questioning attitude improves decommissioning, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2007)
  • 7.23. Questioning attitude leads to identify contamination on legacy item, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho, United States (DOE-INL, 2017)
  • 7.24. Simplifying assumptions can reduce successful outcomes, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-ISO, 2010)
  • 7.25. Maintaining technical inquisitiveness and a questioning attitude, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, South Carolina, United States (DOE-SRNS, 2011)
  • 7.26. Inadvertent contact with asbestos-containing material stresses the need for hazard identification and questioning attitude, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, South Carolina, United States (DOE-SRNS, 2012)
  • 7.27. Excessive workload or urgent deadlines can instill harmful work habits, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California, United States (DOE-LBNL, 2013)
  • 7.28. Poor communications between staff members cause improper transport of items, Pacific Northwest national Laboratory, Richland, Washington, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2016)
  • 7.29. Personnel contamination at an offsite work location stemming from communication issues, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 2018)
  • 7.30. Focus can decrease risk and injuries (DOE, 2016)
  • 7.31. Disposition concerns quickly, Nevada Field Office, United States (DOE-NNSA, 2013)
  • 7.32. The “What Else” process, Idaho Clean-Up Project, Idaho, United States (DOE-ICP, 2014)
  • 7.33. Collaboration saves time and money, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho, United States (INEEL, 1998)
  • 7.34. Unrecognized change of conditions (DOE-ISO, 2008)
  • 7.35. Unfamiliarity and uncommon language causes incorrect investigative survey, Hanford Tank Farms, Hanford, Washington, United States (DOE-WRPS, 2011)
  • 7.36. Keep your biases under control (DOE-INL, 2019)
  • 7.37. Sellafield depicted as a nasty mix of bullying and harassment (BBC, 2021a)
  • 7.38. Fitness for duty
  • 7.39. Motivating workers at UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (BCS, 2021)
  • 7.40. NDA's executive leadership (NDA, n.d.)
  • 7.41. Safety culture for hoisting and rigging, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RL, 1997)
  • 7.42. Trust but verify for effective safety culture, Paducah, Kentucky, United States (Swift and Staley, 2017)
  • 7.43. The regulatory approach to safety culture during decommissioning: a Swedish case study (Svensson and Lekberg, 2002)
  • Chapter 8. Conclusions
  • Annex. Communication and engagement of local stakeholders in decommissioning of nuclear facilities: the experience of GMF
  • Abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms
  • Glossary
  • Index

Product details

  • No. of pages: 464
  • Language: English
  • Copyright: © Academic Press 2022
  • Published: January 28, 2022
  • Imprint: Academic Press
  • Paperback ISBN: 9780323857369
  • eBook ISBN: 9780323984645

About the Author

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.

Affiliations and Expertise

Independent Consultant, Rome, Italy

Ratings and Reviews

Write a review

There are currently no reviews for "Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies"