Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle
A Summary of the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning
- 1st Edition, Volume 6 - July 20, 2023
- Imprint: Academic Press
- Editor: Michele Laraia
- Language: English
- Paperback ISBN:9 7 8 - 0 - 3 2 3 - 9 1 8 4 9 - 7
- eBook ISBN:9 7 8 - 0 - 3 2 3 - 9 1 9 4 7 - 0
Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle, Author’s Statement on the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning, Volume Six p… Read more
Purchase options
Institutional subscription on ScienceDirect
Request a sales quoteNuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle, Author’s Statement on the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning, Volume Six presents a selection of global case studies that focus on a range of technologies for the decontamination, dismantling, spent fuel treatment and recycling of nuclear decommissioning. The book presents best practices by analyzing errors and inadequacies, leading the reader to sound decision-making. The events covered in this publication range from national and local legislation, to regulatory positions, statements or recommendations, licensing steps and transition phases.
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 other case studies books in this series, readers will obtain an understanding of various key case studies-what happened and what we can learn from them, to help supplement, solidify and strengthen their understanding of the topic.
- Presents a selection of global case studies which focus on the characterization, waste management, and reuse/recycling options in nuclear decommissioning
- Highlights important sustainability and socioeconomic factors associated with the abovementioned decommissioning aspects
- Based on experience and lessons learned, guides the reader to ensure the most appropriate and efficient technologies and strategies are utilized in order to pursue adequate sustainability
- Addresses all aspects of decommissioning with a bottom-up, inductive approach, aimed to elicit general conclusions about sustainability from individual case studies
Nuclear engineers; nuclear researchers; nuclear students; decommissioning specialists; governments and decision makers; nuclear operators and waste managers
- Cover image
- Title page
- Table of Contents
- 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
- Edition: 1
- Volume: 6
- Published: July 20, 2023
- Imprint: Academic Press
- No. of pages: 474
- Language: English
- Paperback ISBN: 9780323918497
- eBook ISBN: 9780323919470
ML
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, ItalyRead Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle on ScienceDirect