Cover Image

Nuclear decommissioning case studies. Volume 5, Organization and management, economics, and staying in business /

"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 man...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Laraia, M. (Author)
Corporate Author: ScienceDirect (Online service)
Format: eBook
Language:English
Published: London, England ; San Diego, CA : Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, [2023]
Series:Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies ; Volume 5
Subjects:
Nuclear power plants > Decommissioning > Case studies.
Centrales nucléaires > Déclassement > Études de cas.
Nuclear power plants > Decommissioning
Electronic books.
Case studies
Case studies.
Études de cas.
Online Access:Connect to the full text of this electronic book
Table of Contents:
  • Front Cover
  • Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies
  • Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business
  • Copyright
  • Contents
  • Foreword
  • References
  • Disclaimer
  • 1
  • Introduction
  • References
  • 2
  • The concept of environmental sustainability as applicable to this book
  • References
  • 3
  • The structure of this book: project management, costs and funding, assessing, and upgrading human resources
  • 4
  • Errors, mishaps, inadequacies in regard to organizational aspects (conversely, best practices)
  • References
  • 5
  • Project management case studies (IAEA, 2000a)
  • 5.1 Argonne's deactivation and decommissioning program, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois United States (DOE-ANL, 2013)
  • 5.1.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.1.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.1.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.2 Four Savannah River Site (SRS) contractors earn at least 95% of contract award fee (DOE Newswire, 2022)
  • 5.2.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.2.1.1 Savannah river nuclear solutions
  • 5.2.1.2 Centerra-SRS
  • 5.2.1.3 Savannah River Remediation
  • 5.2.1.4 Battelle Savannah River alliance
  • 5.2.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.3 Contract transition-Project Hanford management contract to mission support contract (DOE-RL, 2010)
  • 5.3.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.3.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.3.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.4 ORNL organizations partner in decommissioning of buildings, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, ...
  • 5.4.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.4.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.4.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.5 Subcontractor falls from ladder, suffering multiple fractures, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-AN.
  • 5.5.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.5.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.5.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.6 Audit report on quality assurance for river corridor closure contract procurements, Hanford Site, Washington State, United ...
  • 5.6.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.6.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.6.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.7 Critical spare parts deficiencies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2017)
  • 5.7.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.7.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.7.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.8 Work force restructuring, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 1996)
  • 5.8.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.8.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.8.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.9 Human and organizational risks: a historical review of the involved issues (Pelleterat de Borde et al., 2013)
  • 5.9.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.9.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.10 Examples from a decommissioning project in French nuclear center (Devaux, 2011)
  • 5.10.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.10.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.10.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.11 Organizational and human factors in dismantling of nuclear facilities: the experience of France's IRSN (IRSN, 2008)
  • 5.11.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.11.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.12 The impacts of human factors on organizational transitions, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2013)
  • 5.12.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.12.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.12.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.13 Subcontractor requirements flow-down process, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States(ORNL, 2019)
  • 5.13.1 Decommissioning process.
  • Problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.13.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.13.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.14 Procurement of container liners by subcontractors, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2008)
  • 5.14.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.14.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.14.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.15 Transferring areas between contractors, Idaho Operations Office (ID)/Idaho National Lab (INL) (DOE-Wikispaces, 2012)
  • 5.15.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.15.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.15.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.16 Use of contractor with limited resources leads to project delay, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (D ...
  • 5.16.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.16.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.17 Control of subcontractor operating heavy equipment on-site, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio, United States (DOE-Po ...
  • 5.17.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.17.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.17.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.18 Innovative acquisition strategy leads to significant efficiencies and savings (DOE-LANL, 2011a)
  • 5.18.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.18.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.19 Need for effective management oversight, separations process research unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), New York ...
  • 5.19.1 Decommissioning project
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.19.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.19.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.20 Coordinate with multiple entities performing various work activities, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), United States ...
  • 5.20.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.20.2 Analysis, solutions
  • 5.20.3 Lessons learned.
  • 5.21 EFCOG (Energy Facility Contractors Group) best practice: contractor assurance system effectiveness validation, 2017 (DOE-EF ...
  • 5.21.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.21.1.1 Why the best practice was developed
  • 5.21.1.2 Background
  • 5.21.1.3 CAS effectiveness attributes
  • 5.21.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.22 Coordination with Environmental Programs group leads to building TA-1-209 D&amp
  • D cost savings and less dangerous work, Los Ala ...
  • 5.22.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.22.2 Analysis, solutions
  • 5.22.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.23 The transition in terms of organizational change (NEA, 2018)
  • 5.23.1 Nuclear merger could see end of Dounreay site restoration Ltd. Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts (John ...
  • 5.23.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.24 Changes in staffing can weaken the ability to maintain a high level of rigor in operations, Hanford Site, Washington State, ...
  • 5.24.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.24.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.24.3 Lessons learned
  • 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)
  • 5.26.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.26.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.27 Approach to define and document completion of performance-based incentive, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2015)
  • 5.27.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.27.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.27.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.28 Performance indicators at Vandellos I NPP, Spain (IAEA, 2011)
  • 5.28.1 Case study 1: productivity of the box counter-decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.28.2 Analysis
  • solutions.
  • 5.28.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.28.4 Case study 2: high rejection rate in the declassification of materials- decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.28.5 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.28.6 Lessons learned
  • 5.29 Use of performance indicators in nuclear facility decommissioning in the UK (IAEA, 2011)
  • 5.29.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.29.1.1 Licensees experience
  • 5.29.1.2 NDA experience
  • 5.29.1.3 Environment Agency's experience
  • 5.29.2 Lessons learned
  • 5.30 Sweden case study: interface with project delivery tools (NEA, 2019)
  • 5.30.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.30.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.30.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.31 Nuclear decommissioning assistance program in Lithuania (EC, 2021)
  • 5.31.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.31.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.31.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.32 Graded approach (IAEA, 2008)
  • 5.33 A graded approach to safety analysis for rover processing facility deactivation, Idaho chemical processing plant, Idaho Nat ...
  • 5.33.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.33.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.33.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.34 The graded management approach to Battelle's nuclear project, Columbus, Ohio, United States (Voth, 1996)
  • 5.34.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.34.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.34.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.35 Using a risk-informed, graded approach for decommissioning small facilities: the position of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co ...
  • 5.35.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.35.2 Analysis
  • solutions
  • 5.35.3 Lessons learned
  • 5.36 Applications of the graded approach in Belgium (EAN, 2018)
  • 5.36.1 Decommissioning process
  • problem encountered
  • impacts
  • 5.36.2 Analysis.