Advertisement

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and Stakeholder Concerns

  • James H. ClarkeEmail author
  • Joanna Burger
  • Charles W. Powers
  • David S. Kosson
Chapter

Abstract

The decommissioning of nuclear facilities provides good examples of stakeholder issues and concerns and approaches to resolution. Nuclear power stations, licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), typically strive for license termination conditions that would permit unrestricted use of the site so that, in some cases, reutilization of the site would be possible for a specific use. Former nuclear weapons production facilities are decommissioned to a variety of end states, consistent with the ongoing mission of the site. In all cases, stakeholder concerns must be factored into the decision and the overseeing agencies, the NRC, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and State oversight agencies must be sensitive to their concerns.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of decommissioning activities, the types of facilities undergoing decommissioning and the different regulatory frameworks. Desired end states are discussed along with stakeholder concerns and issues. Examples of drivers and constraints for major decommissioning decision factors are examined. We end with a selected case study – the decommissioning of the Big Rock Point nuclear power station and lessons learned from this and other decommissioning activities.

Keywords

Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Power Station Nuclear Facility Fiscal Year Savannah River Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support from the Department of Energy through Grant Number DE-FRC01-06EW07053 to the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation

We acknowledge helpful discussions with James Shepherd and Robert Johnson from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Wade Whitaker and Ray Hannah (DOE Savannah River Site); Matt McCormick (DOE Hanford Site); Moses Jaraysi and Kurt Kehler (CH2M CPR Group at Hanford); and Paula Kirk and Andy Szilagyi (DOE EM Headquarters).

References

  1. Clarke JH, Powers CW, and Kosson DS (2010) Development of a Risk-Informed Approach to Setting D&D Priorities. American Nuclear Society Topical Meeting and Technology Expo on Decommissioning, Decontamination & Reutilization, Idaho Falls, ID August 2010Google Scholar
  2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 20 SubpartE Radiological Criteria for License Termination.Google Scholar
  3. Collazo YT, Szilagyi AP, Frush SA et al (2010) Office of Deactivation and Decommissioning and Facility Engineering 2010 Prioritized Technology Initiatives to Improve D&D Operations., Waste Management 2010Google Scholar
  4. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Congressional Budget Request for FY 2011. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/FY2011%20Highlights.%20pdf Accessed 24 August 2010
  5. DOE (2009) Facility Deactivation & Decommissioning Appendix B-D&D Project Basics, (http://www.em.doe.gov/EM20Pages/Presentations.aspx) Accessed 24 August 2010
  6. Hannah R (2010) P Area Operable Unit (PAOU) and R Area Operable Unit (RAOU) Update, presented by Ray Hannah to the Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board, October 5, 2010Google Scholar
  7. NRC (2009) Status of the Decommissioning Program, Annual Report, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2009/secy2009-0167/2009-0167scy.pdf Accessed 24 August 2010
  8. NRC (2006a) NUREG 1757, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance v1 rev.2 Decommi­ssioning Process for Materials Licensees, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001Google Scholar
  9. NRC (2006b) NUREG 1757, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance v2 rev. 1 Chara­cterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001Google Scholar
  10. NRC (2003a) NUREG 1757, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance v3 Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001Google Scholar
  11. NRC (2003b) NUREG 1700, rev. 1 Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License Termination Plans, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001Google Scholar
  12. NRC Fact Sheet on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, (2010) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html Accessed 1 September 2010
  13. Watson B et al (2010) Power Reactor Decommissioning – Regulatory Experience From Trojan to Rancho Seco and Plants In-Between. American Nuclear Society Topical Meeting and Technology Expo on Decommissioning, Decontamination & Reutilization, Idaho Falls, ID August 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Clarke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joanna Burger
    • 2
  • Charles W. Powers
    • 1
  • David S. Kosson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Life SciencesEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), and Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations