Nuclear decommissioning case studies : the people side /

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. I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Clasificación:Libro Electrónico
Autor principal: Laraia, M. (Autor)
Formato: Electrónico eBook
Idioma:Inglés
Publicado: Amsterdam : Academic Press, 2022.
Colección:Nuclear decommissioning case studies ; 3
Temas:
Nuclear facilities > Decommissioning > Case studies.
Installations nucl�eaires > D�eclassement > �Etudes de cas.
Nuclear facilities > Decommissioning
Case studies
Acceso en línea:Texto completo
Tabla de Contenidos:
  • Front Cover
  • Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies
  • Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: The People Side
  • Copyright
  • Dedication
  • Contents
  • Foreword
  • REFERENCES TO FOREWORD
  • Disclaimer
  • 1
  • Introduction
  • Reference
  • 2
  • The concept of sustainability as applicable to nuclear decommissioning
  • References
  • 3
  • Societal and stakeholder concerns
  • Reference
  • 4
  • The structure of this book: stakeholder involvement
  • socioeconomic impacts
  • human factors
  • 4.1 Stakeholder involvement
  • 4.2 Socioeconomic impacts
  • 4.3 Human factors
  • References
  • 5
  • Stakeholder case studies
  • 5.1 Public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment of two decommissioning projects (Bond et al., 2004)
  • 5.1.1 Case study 1: Trawsfynydd NPP, United Kingdom-decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.1.2 Lessons learned from the Trawsfynydd case study
  • 5.1.3 Case study 2: Vandel�ls 1 NPP (Spain)-decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.1.4 Lessons learned from the Vandel�ls case study
  • 5.1.5 Lessons learned for both case studies given in Section 5.1
  • 5.2 Tribal nations as decommissioning stakeholders
  • 5.2.1 Case study 1: decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts (USA Today, 2017)
  • 5.2.2 Case study 2: decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts (DOE, 2014)
  • 5.2.3 Case study 3: decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts (DOE-NNSS, 2020)
  • 5.2.4 Case study 4: decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts (The Brattleboro Reformer, 2017)
  • 5.2.5 Lessons learned
  • 5.3 Workers not associated with job planning, Former Uranium Enrichment Facilities, Portsmouth Site, Ohio, United States (DOE-O ...
  • 5.3.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.3.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.3.3 Lessons learned.
  • 5.4 A bumpy transition, Washington Closure Hanford, Washington, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2011b)
  • 5.4.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.4.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.4.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.5 Worker feedback: multiparty discussions of expectations and objectives, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, United State ...
  • 5.5.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.5.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.5.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.6 Decommissioning planning should not overlook personnel in partially occupied buildings Savannah River Site, South Carolina, ...
  • 5.6.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.6.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.6.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.7 Evacuate workers from facilities slated for demolition, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States ...
  • 5.7.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.7.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.7.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.8 Teamwork as a success factor in the clean out project of a legacy accelerator facility, Argonne National Laboratory, Illino ...
  • 5.8.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.8.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.8.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.9 Workforce transitioning to a decommissioning mindset, Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant, Washington, United States (Johns ...
  • 5.9.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.9.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.9.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.10 The role of labor unions in the decommissioning of US nuclear power plants (UWUA, 2018)
  • 5.10.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.10.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.10.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.11 Three case studies illustrating the role of the unions in the framework of UK's decommissioning projects
  • 5.11.1 Decommissioning process.
  • Problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.11.2 Case study 1: strikes (Reuters, 2017)
  • 5.11.3 Case study 2: unions criticize NDA's management of contracts (City A. M., 2017)
  • 5.11.4 Case study 3: workers' concerns about Dounreay safety conditions (Herald Scotland, 2015)
  • 5.11.5 Lessons learned
  • 5.12 The risk of hiring cheap labor (APP, 2019)
  • 5.12.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.12.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.13 Workforce restructuring, Oak Ridge Site, Tennessee, United States (DOE-LLDB, 1996)
  • 5.13.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.13.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.14 Control of asbestos hazards, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2012a)
  • 5.14.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.14.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.14.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.15 Open air demolition at the West Valley Demonstration Project (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2014)
  • 5.15.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.15.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.16 Nuclear footprint reduction and deactivation project, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE-2 ...
  • 5.16.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.16.1.1 Clearly define the scope and prioritize the work to ensure effective fund utilization
  • 5.16.1.2 Incorporate safety and supervision resources into the project plan
  • 5.16.1.3 Fully define roles and responsibilities
  • 5.16.1.4 Utilize personnel with special skills and expertise to tackle technical and operational barriers
  • 5.16.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.17 Organization and staffing requirements in the decommissioning of the BR3 reactor, Belgium (Massaut, 2000)
  • 5.17.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.17.1.1 Organization at national level
  • 5.17.1.2 Organization on the reactor D&amp.
  • D team level
  • 5.17.1.3 Material flow management
  • 5.17.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.18 Transportable Vitrification System, community reactions, United States (DOE, 1998)
  • 5.18.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.18.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.19 Universities and researchers join in nuclear decommissioning developments (Farmer, 2021)
  • 5.19.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.19.1.1 MAUD project: imaging heavy radiation particles in real time
  • 5.19.1.2 Cleaning up Fukushima with analysis systems and robotic mapping
  • 5.19.1.3 Robotic radiation mapping developed by UK students
  • 5.19.1.4 Remote controlled cars and worms probe radioactive sites
  • 5.19.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.20 Involvement of younger generations in nuclear decommissioning (SSM, 2009)
  • 5.20.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.20.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.21 Technology development, Sellafield Site, United Kingdom (Sellafield, 2018)
  • 5.21.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.21.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.22 Research, development, and innovation at UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA, 2020)
  • 5.22.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.22.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.23 Communicating with future SRS stakeholders (Antonucci, 2009)
  • 5.23.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.23.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.23.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.24 US regulators and stakeholders: the NRC position (WNN, 2017)
  • 5.24.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.24.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.25 NRC's enhancing public awareness for decommissioning NPPs (NRC, 2015)
  • 5.25.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.25.2 Lessons learned.
  • 5.26 Recognizing changing conditions, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2011)
  • 5.26.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.26.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.26.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.27 Reporting of abnormal events, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2007)
  • 5.27.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.27.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.28 The municipality as a Stakeholder, Barse�bck NPP, Sweden (PALMQVIST, 2005)
  • 5.28.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.28.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.29 Nonnuclear industries as nuclear decommissioning stakeholders (NEI, 2020
  • WNN, 2020)
  • 5.29.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.29.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.30 State authorities intervene to influence NPP decommissioning strategy (MLive, 2021)
  • 5.30.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.30.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.31 Waste management organizations as key decommissioning stakeholders
  • 5.31.1 Case study 1: waste characterization, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OPEXSHARE, 2013b)-decomm ...
  • 5.31.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.31.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.31.4 Case study 2: inaccuracy of structural properties of radioactive waste store, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United ...
  • 5.31.5 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.31.6 Lessons learned
  • 5.31.7 Case study 3: application of bulk characterization to individual containers: the demolition effect, Brookhaven National Lab ...
  • 5.31.8 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.31.9 Lessons learned
  • 5.32 The role of the IAEA as international stakeholder
  • 5.32.1 Decommissioning project
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.32.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.33 Removal of research reactor fuel from Norway to other countries.

Ejemplares similares