Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business
- 1st Edition, Volume 5 - January 11, 2023
- Imprint: Academic Press
- Editor: Michele Laraia
- Language: English
- Paperback ISBN:9 7 8 - 0 - 3 2 3 - 9 1 8 4 8 - 0
- eBook ISBN:9 7 8 - 0 - 3 2 3 - 9 1 9 4 9 - 4
Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business is the fifth volume in Michele Laraia’s series, which presents a selection… Read more
Purchase options
Institutional subscription on ScienceDirect
Request a sales quoteNuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business is the fifth volume in Michele Laraia’s series, which presents a selection of global case studies on different aspects of nuclear decommissioning. This volume focuses on organization, economics and performance experience, offering the reader guidance on project management, staffing, costs and funding, and training. It guides those responsible for the planning and implementation of nuclear decommissioning to ensure thorough and reliable applications.
Decommissioning experts, including regulators, operating organizations, waste managers, researchers, and academics will find this book to be suitable supplementary material to reference works on the theory and applications of nuclear decommissioning. Readers will obtain an understanding of many key case studies, including what happened and what they can learn from the events quoted, to help supplement, solidify, and strengthen their understanding of the topic.
- Presents a selection of global case studies which focus on organization, economics and performance of nuclear decommissioning in relation to project and industry sustainability, with a focus on management, funding, and training aspects
- Includes 100+ case studies on project management, costs and funding, and teaching and learning
- Based on experience and lessons learned, assists the reader in developing and implementing decommissioning plans while ensuring the availability of technical, financial, and human resources at all times
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. The concept of environmental sustainability as applicable to this book
- Chapter 3. The structure of this book: project management, costs and funding, assessing, and upgrading human resources
- Chapter 4. Errors, mishaps, inadequacies in regard to organizational aspects (conversely, best practices)
- Chapter 5. Project management case studies (IAEA, 2000a)
- 5.1. Argonne's deactivation and decommissioning program, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois United States (DOE-ANL, 2013)
- 5.2. Four Savannah River Site (SRS) contractors earn at least 95% of contract award fee (DOE Newswire, 2022)
- 5.3. Contract transition—Project Hanford management contract to mission support contract (DOE-RL, 2010)
- 5.4. ORNL organizations partner in decommissioning of buildings, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2006)
- 5.5. Subcontractor falls from ladder, suffering multiple fractures, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2010)
- 5.6. Audit report on quality assurance for river corridor closure contract procurements, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE, 2017)
- 5.7. Critical spare parts deficiencies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2017)
- 5.8. Work force restructuring, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 1996)
- 5.9. Human and organizational risks: a historical review of the involved issues (Pelleterat de Borde et al., 2013)
- 5.10. Examples from a decommissioning project in French nuclear center (Devaux, 2011)
- 5.11. Organizational and human factors in dismantling of nuclear facilities: the experience of France's IRSN (IRSN, 2008)
- 5.12. The impacts of human factors on organizational transitions, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2013)
- 5.13. Subcontractor requirements flow-down process, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States(ORNL, 2019)
- 5.14. Procurement of container liners by subcontractors, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2008)
- 5.15. Transferring areas between contractors, Idaho Operations Office (ID)/Idaho National Lab (INL) (DOE-Wikispaces, 2012)
- 5.16. Use of contractor with limited resources leads to project delay, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2014)
- 5.17. Control of subcontractor operating heavy equipment on-site, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio, United States (DOE-Portsmouth, 2005)
- 5.18. Innovative acquisition strategy leads to significant efficiencies and savings (DOE-LANL, 2011a)
- 5.19. Need for effective management oversight, separations process research unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), New York, United States (DOE-SPRU, 2011)
- 5.20. Coordinate with multiple entities performing various work activities, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), United States (DOE-Paducah, 2008)
- 5.21. EFCOG (Energy Facility Contractors Group) best practice: contractor assurance system effectiveness validation, 2017 (DOE-EFCOG, 2017)
- 5.22. Coordination with Environmental Programs group leads to building TA-1-209 D&D cost savings and less dangerous work, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, United States (DOE-LANL, 2011b)
- 5.23. The transition in terms of organizational change (NEA, 2018)
- 5.24. Changes in staffing can weaken the ability to maintain a high level of rigor in operations, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2011)
- 5.25. Performance indicators in decommissioning (IAEA, 2011)
- 5.26. ORPS data indicates work process deficiencies at active deactivation and decommissioning projects (DOE-ORPS, 2020)
- 5.27. Approach to define and document completion of performance-based incentive, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2015)
- 5.28. Performance indicators at Vandellos I NPP, Spain (IAEA, 2011)
- 5.29. Use of performance indicators in nuclear facility decommissioning in the UK (IAEA, 2011)
- 5.30. Sweden case study: interface with project delivery tools (NEA, 2019)
- 5.31. Nuclear decommissioning assistance program in Lithuania (EC, 2021)
- 5.32. Graded approach (IAEA, 2008)
- 5.33. A graded approach to safety analysis for rover processing facility deactivation, Idaho chemical processing plant, Idaho National Laboratory, United States (Henrikson, 1997)
- 5.34. The graded management approach to Battelle's nuclear project, Columbus, Ohio, United States (Voth, 1996)
- 5.35. Using a risk-informed, graded approach for decommissioning small facilities: the position of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Persinko, undated)
- 5.36. Applications of the graded approach in Belgium (EAN, 2018)
- 5.37. The classification of radioactive waste: the IAEA position (IAEA, 2014a)
- 5.38. Graded approach in the clearance of slightly-contaminated materials: the position of the IAEA (IAEA, 2021a)
- 5.39. Decommissioning quality management manual: two examples of typical contents (De, 1999)
- 5.40. Software quality assurance problems, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2004)
- 5.41. Documented and defensible: the extraordinary value of quality in high-consequence projects, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2018)
- 5.42. Project team fails to adjust QA rigor to evolving project needs, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2011)
- 5.43. Manufacturer's inaccurate certification may lead to use of DOT 7A/Type A drums with noncompliant documentation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2021)
- 5.44. Scope management system for decommissioning project in Korea (Kook-Nam Park et al., 2017)
- 5.45. Safety culture and organizational resilience in the nuclear industry throughout the different lifecycle phase: a Finnish study (VTT, 2015)
- 5.46. Practical aspects of safety culture: the position of SOGIN, Italy (Tripputi, 2014)
- 5.47. Operational pause at Savannah River Site benefits safety culture, operations (DOE, 2016)
- 5.48. Safety culture and employee concerns program in a decommissioned environment: regulator's perspective (Sieracki and Burnside, 2017)
- 5.49. Assessment of safety culture at Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP): early planning for decommissioning (Lesin, 2003)
- 5.50. Organizational and institutional structures and responsibilities in a post-accident situation (IAEA, 2021b)
- Chapter 6. Costs and funding case studies
- 6.1. Decommissioning nuclear power plants: cost estimation challenges (NEI, 2017)
- 6.2. Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP (ENRESA, 2016)
- 6.3. Calculating and estimating decommissioning costs in the US (Hylko, 2017)
- 6.4. Factors impacting decommissioning costs for US NPPs: the EPRI study (Kim and McGrath, 2013)
- 6.5. Walkdowns and preparation of cost estimates for decommissioning of redundant facilities, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (Costella et al., 2020)
- 6.6. Lessons learned on cost estimating reviews (DOE, 2016)
- 6.7. Challenges in cost estimation under uncertainty—A case study of the decommissioning of Barsebäck nuclear power plant (Torp and Klakegg, 2016)
- 6.8. To get better control over decommissioning costs (NEI, 2013)
- 6.9. Earned value management system (DOE, 2018)
- 6.10. Missed medical exams result in unnecessary costs, Hanford site, Washington State, United States (DOE, 2010)
- 6.11. Open air demolition of radiologically contaminated Building O1-14at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (D&D KM-IT, 2014)
- 6.12. Two case studies regarding reduction or stabilization of decommissioning costs, United Kingdom -decommissioning process; problem encountered; impacts
- 6.13. Data could point out to nuclear plant decommissioning costs falling (POWER, 2018)
- 6.14. European parliament, nuclear decommissioning: management of costs and risks in the European Union (EP, 2013)
- 6.15. An overview of decommissioning risks common to different power plants (nuclear, coal-fired etc.) (Riggins, 2019)
- 6.16. Exploring four financial shortfall scenarios (Lordan-Perret et al., 2021)
- 6.17. Decommissioning trust funds: enlarging the fixed income opportunities (Mittal, 2021)
- 6.18. Financing future liabilities (NEI, 2010)
- 6.19. Two case studies about Vermont Yankee's DTF
- 6.20. NRC's oversight of nuclear power reactors' decommissioning funds could be further strengthened (GAO, 2012)
- 6.21. NRC findings on the minimum amounts required demonstrate decommissioning funding assurance (NRC, 2013)
- 6.22. Exemption allows Humboldt Bay-3 licensee to reduce the minimum coverage limit for on-site property damage insurance (NRC, 2020)
- 6.23. Impact of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on DOE-EM's D&D program (DOE, 2013)
- 6.24. Financial issues in a postaccident situation (IAEA-2021)
- Chapter 7. Assessing and upgrading human resources: case studies
- 7.1. Performance improvement and human resources transition management in D&D projects, AREVA, La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing plant , France (Clement et al., 2015)
- 7.2. Workforce reductions, outsourcing, and loss of organizational prestige can cause an erosion of technical capability (DOE-NNSA, 2004)
- 7.3. Training for decommissioning and waste management in Germany (Kettler and Havenith, 2020)
- 7.4. Nuclear decommissioning technicians, contract, AWE Aldermaston, Berkshire, United Kingdom (oilvoice, 2019)
- 7.5. Details of standard- occupation: nuclear operative (Institute for Apprenticeships, 2018)
- 7.6. Nuclear decommissioning: attracting and retaining skills (NDA, 2016)
- 7.7. Education and training in nuclear decommissioning—needs, opportunities, and challenges for Europe (EC and University of Birmingham, 2015)
- 7.8. Development of a decommissioning certificate program, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (Hoover and Morton, 1999)
- 7.9. Training implications associated with organizational structure and changes, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2013)
- 7.10. Use of mock-ups in decommissioning training: two case studies
- 7.11. UK decom sector must change plant staff mind-set to avoid labor shortage (Reuters Events, 2016)
- 7.12. Route to success, Dounreay Establishment, Caithness, Scotland, United Kingdom (NEI, 2017)
- 7.13. From operation to decommissioning, a training challenge at Jose Cabrera NPP, Spain (Martin et al., 2013)
- 7.14. Rocky Flats closure legacy, Jefferson county, Colorado, United States (DOE, 2011)
- 7.15. How to become a Decontamination Technician in the United States (Environmental Science, 2022)
- 7.16. International training to promote successful environmental remediation projects (Smith et al., 2018)
- Chapter 8. Conclusions
- Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations
- Glossary
- Index
- Edition: 1
- Volume: 5
- Published: January 11, 2023
- No. of pages (Paperback): 462
- No. of pages (eBook): 462
- Imprint: Academic Press
- Language: English
- Paperback ISBN: 9780323918480
- eBook ISBN: 9780323919494
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: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business on ScienceDirect