Advances and innovations in nuclear decommissioning6 new and unexpected stakeholders in decommissioning projects

Advances and innovations in nuclear decommissioning6 new and unexpected stakeholders in decommissioning projects Advances and innovations in nuclear decommissioning6 new and unexpected stakeholders in decommissioning projects Advances and innovations in nuclear decommissioning6 new and unexpected stakeholders in decommissioning projects Advances and innovations in nuclear decommissioning6 new and unexpected stakeholders in decommissioning projects Advances and innovations in nuclear decommissioning6 new and unexpected stakeholders in decommissioning projects

Advances and Innovations in Nuclear Decommissioning http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101122-5.00006-5

Historically the notion of stakeholders has changed, reflecting the growing portance of populations that were previously excluded from the decision-making in industrial projects Initially, interactions within a nuclear activity (for our purposes, decommissioning) were essentially limited to “statutory” stakeholders, typically the responsible organization (also interchangeably called the decommissioning organi-zation, the operating organization, or the licensee in this chapter), the nuclear regula-tor, and the government as the entity ultimately responsible for whatever happens in

im-a given country (im-and more often thim-an not, the provider of decommissioning funds) The public was typically ignored in the decision-making This approach reflected a mentality whereby responsibilities were legally codified and happily left to legally responsible parties Interference from the world outside the responsible parties was unacceptable

Time has shown that the picture of statutory parties evolved in line with the complications of modern technologies For example, regulatory bodies other than the nuclear regulators became involved (e.g., labor or industrial regulators) and different governmental bodies were involved (all departments caring for the inte-rior, industry, labor, finances, environment, agriculture, welfare, tourism, foreign affairs, etc.)

Over time, a number of nonstatutory stakeholders emerged, beginning with the local communities who felt directly impacted by the industrial project taking place

in their neighborhood These categories did not feel fully protected by national ies (which inevitably care for general, rather than local, interests and worries) and became increasingly vocal in asserting their rights In response to local claims, the operating organizations, the regulators, and the government in all their articulations opened communication channels with the local communities: initially communica-tions tended to be one-way (basically, just a transfer of minimum information from the organization in charge), but it was soon realized that feedback from the locals was desirable for the success of the project Conversely, and soon enough it was learned

bod-that the lack of the operating organization’s interest in public involvement could ily impact the project negatively It was also realized that public communities are not monolithic, but different, often conflicting, views between individuals and subcate-gories of the public come to light This makes harmonization of different goals more difficult Information on the concerns of local stakeholders in nuclear decommis-sioning projects and guidance on their best involvement is given in Ref [2] A recent development in this area is a trend toward establishing associations of communities active in national and international fora including, among others, the Nuclear Legacy

read-Advisory Forum (NuLeAF, UK), Associación de Municipios en Áreas con Centrales

Nucleares (AMAC, Spain), Energy Communities Alliance (ECA, United States), and Group of European Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities (GMF, Europe) These communities are willing to share experiences with communities newly impacted by facility shutdowns and decommissioning However, local communities are not only those in the vicinity of the nuclear facility under decommissioning, but also those near the waste disposal site where decommissioning wastes are shipped The former see radioactive contamination leave, while the latter see it arrive See Ref [3] for a conflictual case

More recently, it has come to the attention of the decommissioning community that a range of new, at times unexpected, stakeholders show up in the course of decommissioning projects and exert pressure on statutory members of the proj-ects The purpose of this chapter is not to assign priorities or define whether and when these not-so-obvious stakeholders are or are not expected to appear; rather the chapter has the less ambitious objective of identifying them in an arbitrary or-

der By and large, it is felt that disregarding the concerns of any stakeholder (i.e.,

anyone who claims to be a stakeholder) can be worrisome regarding a sioning project

decommis-It should also be noted that some stakeholders may outlive the decommissioning project because the impacts of the project are felt longer than expected Concerns can

be raised after the completion of the project (e.g., residual radioactive contamination, occupational diseases, or undue, unaccounted expenses): in some circumstances the decommissioning organization may have disappeared and any remaining issues will then reverberate on the regulators or the government It has been mentioned for a developing country [4] that after demobilization some contractors tend to remain and not return to their homes because they either cannot afford it or they do not expect to find work in their hometowns Increasing crime rates have been reported, consequently

The following description of stakeholders has not been written in a specific quence because it reflects neither priority nor number of associated events National nuclear agencies, operating organizations, regulators, and waste owners are encour-aged to maintain good relations with all external stakeholders in order to prove their societal responsibilities and to prevent significant hindrances to the smooth proceed-ings of the decommissioning project The information below is an update of Refs [5] and [6] A general overview of stakeholder involvement in nuclear decommissioning

se-is given by Ref [7] A review mostly focused on local communities has been lished by the OECD/NEA [8]

pub-For the practical purposes of this chapter, the stakeholders have been separated

in two categories: Section 6.2 of this chapter deals with particular segments of the statutory regime and specific interests within the local communities, and Section 6.3

addresses more distant interests The reader should note that a sharp distinction tween these two broad categories is impossible: for example, the media (Section 6.2.1) have been included in Section 6.2 as bearers of local interests, but newspapers and TV channels of national circulation incorporate and report diverse interests of the kind given in Section 6.3

be-6.2 Visible (statutory and local) interests

Fig. 6.1 Vandellos NPP decommissioning project: journalists looking at waste containers.

Courtesy of IAEA, Planning, Managing and Organizing the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Lessons Learned, IAEA TECDOC No 1394.

is occurring at the site.

The Hanford decommissioning/environmental remediation project can be ered a typical project that has raised considerable interest among the general public The public-local, regional, and national—has also influenced Hanford’s environmen-tal remediation They are not only curious about the formerly secret site, but also anxious to understand the cleanup process, its priorities, its pace and sequence, the risk profile of various actions, the type of technologies being applied, and the funding Those living in communities around the site and the two million people downriver want credible assurance that the Columbia River, regional drinking water, and other resources are safe They have also a vested interest in ensuring their tax money is being spent wisely

consid-Today Hanford offers one of the most vigorous and extensive public tours and itor programs in the DOE complex By overwhelming popular demand, the tours also take the visitors to the nation’s national historic landmark, Hanford’s B reactor [9]

vis-It may sound weird, but tours of the accident-hit Fukushima site by visitors are becoming popular By September 2015, that is, four-and-a-half years after the nuclear accident, some 16,000 visitors had toured the site Soon after the accident visitors were mostly politicians and technical experts But later ordinary citizens became frequent visitors, partly because of the significant decrease of radiation levels at the site [10].The current trend toward stakeholder involvement in decommissioning projects seems

to be multimedia centers displaying equipment, photos, films, and increasingly, tive sessions (for the purposes of the latter, virtual reality has possibly the greatest poten-tial) The knowledge appealing to, and transferred to, the general public can often take the form of exhibits removed from decommissioned/remediated sites rather than paper

interac-or electronic archives A recent example of the visitinterac-or infinterac-ormation program is given by Dounreay, the site of the second largest decommissioning and remediation project in the United Kingdom This includes, among others, the display of equipment removed from Dounreay facilities The control room of the decommissioned Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) was donated to National Museums Scotland and the Science Museum in London for display in early 2014 The control room of the Dounreay Materials Testing Reactor, meanwhile, has been donated to a local museum in Caithness [11]

6.2.3 Miscellaneous pressure groups

One should note that there are groups interested in a number of seemingly unusual issues Based on statements from one group, the Berkeley NPP (a Magnox reactor in

the United Kingdom) decommissioning strategy was heavily affected by stakeholders’ desire that the residual buildings minimize the visual impact over the long period of care and maintenance To this end, the building height was lowered [12].

The following paragraph is extracted from Ref [13] and refers to Bradwell NPP, UK: “Site photographs taken before the start of the project provide a good visual in-dication of surrounding area and help to identify potential environmental receptors in the vicinity (e.g., surface drains) and hence highlight mitigation measures that need

to be implemented Visual inspections and photographs can also provide an indication

on effectiveness of mitigation measures For example, presence of mud on roads can

be an indication on insufficient wheel washing of heavy goods vehicles.” Similarly, new claddings were installed outside Magnox reactor buildings to protect them from environmental agents during the long periods of safe enclosure Design and choice

of the color of cladding materials have been developed with the aim of reducing the visual impact

6.2.4 Site planners and developers

In the near future a growing number of nuclear facilities will reach the end of their service lives and will be ready for decommissioning Many of these will be decom-missioned with the aim of either replacing them with new nuclear facilities that serve the same goal or the site may be reused for other goals (nuclear or nonnuclear) By taking account of and promoting the redevelopment scenarios of nuclear sites at an early stage in their life-cycle it is possible to include actions aimed at redevelopment

as early as before or during the decommissioning project (partly), offsetting the costs

of decommissioning and ensuring best use for the material, land, and scientific and technical resources available at each site A range of involved parties will typically include the following:

l Top managers: those responsible for the definition of policy and the approval of projects.

l Property managers: many organizations have a manager in charge of “real estate.” His or her duties include actions aimed at increasing the postdecommissioning value of the site.

l Technical staff: decisions by the operating organization often affect how assets (e.g., land) are redeveloped and/or converted to new uses It is beneficial to the organization that technical staff be aware of long-range implications of policy decisions and be consulted accordingly.

l Local stakeholders: elected officials, environmentalists, and other concerned parties should

be consulted at an early stage in the decommissioning process and their input requested about the postdecommissioning fate of the site and preferable options for reuse Reuse op- tions include a careful assessment of financial and legal issues, which in turn demand the participation of economists, lawyers, and other experts.

Interest groups in redevelopment decisions include business and trading interests, environmental and conservation organizations, adjacent properties, the unions, and others Engaging these groups and ensuring active participation are important compo-nents of maintaining good relations

The benefits of redevelopment to the community include such aspects as ination of derelict areas; rejuvenation of aging industry; support to the tax base;

elim-reduction of job losses; reuse of buildings, roads, and bridges; and preservation of unbuilt spaces for agricultural or recreational purposes The anticipated benefits should be communicated to the stakeholders at an early stage of decommission-ing It is inevitable that some stakeholder groups will have conflicting agendas However, having all the interest groups together, listening to all concerns, and ne-gotiating compromises in land and facility reuse are all essential steps to ensure success of the decommissioning project.

Overall, concrete prospects of site redevelopment are expected to build trust in the decommissioning process (as well as in the operating organization and in national in-stitution) among the local communities Additional stakeholders that should be invited

to join the meeting include the potential buyers, tenants, and any companies ing in adaptive reuse in view of later sale The IAEA has published two reports in the field of site redevelopment [14,15]

specializ-6.2.5 Ecologists and animalists

Nuclear power plants are favorable habitats to a range of wildlife Buildings and nearby areas on decommissioning sites (even brownfields) offer suitable conditions to protected species including bats, birds, snakes, rodents, and amphibians Regardless of the industrial characters of these plants, they are typically surrounded by large tracts

of open land, often totaling 10–20 km2 NPPs are also close to water courses in order

to use water for cooling purposes

The dismantling of buildings (including nuclear ones) in many countries is subject

to review and consent by the land planning authorities The licensing process will generally require an ecological evaluation Surveys of protected species are often re-quired in support of this evaluation: these surveys can often result in significant delays

to the dismantling project If protected species are spotted onsite, working approaches may need certain modifications including, for example, avoiding scheduling the work during the breeding season, employing less noisy dismantling methods, or by having the works monitored by a professional ecologist [16]

One case in question was reported at the Bradwell NPP decommissioning project

in 2013 Peregrine falcon nestlings hatched on the roof of reactor 2 after a pair of the birds chose to make Bradwell their home The fine gravel on the top of the reactor building provided an ideal location Because peregrine falcons are a protected species, the plant owner, Magnox, took special care not to disturb them and Bradwell was then regularly inspected by environmental specialists At the time the event was reported the nestlings were requiring parental care for food and warmth because they only have down feathers, which are not waterproof and are vulnerable to rainy conditions The Magnox management had to readdress work from reactor 2 to reactor 1 to minimize delays [17]

In the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report for the Vermont Yankee NPP, which was submitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December

2014, it was mentioned that the main stack has an appended nesting box for peregrine falcons The box had been placed many years before upon request of an environmental organization

Current decommissioning plans call for the plant to lie in safe enclosure for most 60 years prior to large-scale dismantling At the time of dismantling the stack, the Vermont Yankee licensee will have to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to removing the nesting box since this bird species is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [18].

al-6.2.6 Conflicts between regulators

Each country has a different regulatory regime In most countries the nuclear lator has the regulatory responsibility for verifying that the license requirements in-corporated in the nuclear license (for our purposes, the decommissioning license) are fulfilled In parallel, however, the environment agency (or a similar name) can be re-sponsible for regulating radioactive and nonradioactive (e.g., chemical) releases from the site to the environment In principle, these two stakeholders can at times have conflicting requirements: for example the nuclear regulator may wish to accelerate decommissioning that could momentarily heighten site releases Another interface could be observed between the nuclear regulator and the regulator responsible for industrial work (e.g., the labor office or the like) For example, the latter can be re-luctant to allow a team of mountaineers take radiological samples from the ceiling of

regu-a 20-m tregu-all building: insteregu-ad the lregu-abor inspectors mregu-ay request sregu-afer sregu-ampling modes

or a statistical approach minimizing the number of samples Section 6.2.5 mentions the role of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (another statutory stakeholder) in a de-commissioning project Occasionally police/security (in many countries, a statutory entity) has statutory responsibility in decommissioning projects (e.g., to keep dem-onstrators at bay and prevent intrusion, thefts, and vandalism): it is not unthinkable that their role could interfere with the timing and resources of the decommissioning organization

On a much wider sense, those responsible for security of information (groups within or without the decommissioning organization, but mostly having distinct re-porting lines) are given a responsibility possibly conflicting with the concept of trans-parency, a desirable objective in stakeholder involvement Former military institutions (e.g., Hanford in the United States) that have been transferred to the civilian regime for the purposes of decommissioning may more acutely experience this dilemma

A French case study is discussed in Ref [19]

Keeping all regulators informed and each complying with their own ties can be difficult with limited resources Usually different regulators have bilateral

responsibili-or multilateral agreements to reconcile joint responsibilities

6.2.7 Stakeholders within a research center

Decommissioning of a research reactor or another small facility within a research center is generally not going to attract the attention of the local communities off-site They are used to vaguely learning about things happening “there,” and the job losses associated with the decommissioning of a small facility are not of any significance (and usually can be readily absorbed within the center itself)

However, the scientists and other staff working at nearby facilities—while mally unafraid of radiological hazards—may feel in other ways the burden of a decommissioning project situated within the same site Increased vehicle traffic, in-stalled barriers, congested parking lots, demolition vibration, dust emissions possibly inconveniencing their experiments, noise, and time uncertainties are all factors that can make onsite neighbors active stakeholders indeed.

nor-6.3 Distant interests

6.3.1 The nuclear industry at large: Designers, vendors,

manufacturers using materials/components removed from decommissioning sites

An often neglected opportunity from the dismantling of nuclear reactors is linked to the prompt availability of materials and components for follow up investigation This

is a twofold opportunity: one opportunity is to estimate future performance during later phases of decommissioning, for example, after a long period of safe enclosure; the other opportunity is to learn more about the behavior of such materials in new builds or in still operating reactors The fallout of investigations are expected to in-crease radiological and industrial safety; to enhance the outcomes of scientific, techni-cal, and financial efforts for the preservation and final dismantling of shutdown plants;

or to improve the knowledge needed for design, construction, and operation of new plants The stakeholders here are the designers, vendors, and manufacturers, a broad category quite distant from those closely associated with a decommissioning project Researchers (dealt with independently in Sections 6.2.7 and 6.3.4) represent a cate-gory partly overlapping with the designers

One area of special interest is the neutron studies of materials and components of decommissioned reactors Success in diagnostics of neutron-irradiated constructional materials directly depends on early and accurate evaluation of radiation damage in order to establish the relationship between defect features and macroscopic functional properties of materials (tenacity, compressive strength, toughness, deformability, and other mechanical properties)

Neutron techniques allow neutron-based investigation of metallic materials (e.g., steels) and parts (e.g., welds, plates, and supports) by providing important information complementary to that obtained by such traditional methods as optical and electron microscopy or destructive methods In detail, neutron techniques disclose information

on the position and interpretation of internal stresses several mm below surface and the meaning of micro- and nano-phase parameters such as carbide size, diffusion, and volume percentage The assessment of this data helps estimate the residual life of the component or part being investigated

Recent projects at Jose Cabrera reactor, Spain, enlighten these developments [20] Research directed by EPRI consisted of 70 kg of highly irradiated metals removed during the reactor decommissioning These metal samples incorporated information from almost 40 years of neutron and gamma irradiation A container with the samples

was shipped by sea to the Studsvik laboratories in Sweden, where metallurgists are at work to deepen the mechanisms of metal irradiation damage.

Another research project at Jose Cabrera addressed concrete aging under actual scale irradiation (former studies used laboratory experiments to this end) With plant aging, information is needed to monitor deterioration of mechanical properties and estimate the residual life of irradiated materials The Cabrera project (directed by EPRI) aims to provide more knowledge about the impacts of long-term irradiation Accurately defining material properties and their time evolution will enable nuclear manufacturers and builders to make decisions about reactor life extension, mainte-nance, or the need for repair

6.3.2 Historians and archeologists

In recent years, awareness has grown of the need to preserve industrial sites as cultural heritage Because of this development, opinion groups might exert pressure on the extent of a decommissioning project and the end state These interests may conflict with other stakeholders interested in planning for profitable redevelopment of the site.There are a number of examples of nuclear museums planned or already estab-lished on decommissioned sites:

l Zoe, the first French research reactor

l ORNL Graphite reactor, United States ( Fig. 6.2 )

l B reactor at Hanford, United States ( Section 6.2.2 )

l EBR-1 reactor, INEEL, United States ( Fig. 6.3 )

Fig. 6.2 Sign at the ORNL Graphite museum.

Courtesy of IAEA, Redevelopment and Reuse of Nuclear Facilities and Sites: Case Histories and Lessons Learned, Nuclear Energy Series No NW-T-2.2, Fig. 29.

Some nuclear facilities are more suitable than others to be adapted to nuclear museums or nuclear exhibitions This may depend on factors such as interest ex-pected of local communities and tourists Location and access are important fac-tors Conversion to a nuclear museum can also be a convenient way to release part of the site for unrestricted access while allowing radioactive decay of remain-ing structures This is the case for the FR-2 research reactor, Karlsruhe Research Center, Germany.

However, environmental cleanup and historic preservation might be two ible objectives and trigger conflicting positions among stakeholders

incompat-The following case exemplifies the historic and archeological interest that can be generated by an ongoing decommissioning project Dounreay Castle is situated adja-cent to the Dounreay nuclear site (under decommissioning for many years) It dates back to the 16th century and is one of the few remaining examples of a Scottish castle from that period The castle was still inhabited in 1863, but it had become roofless and derelict by 1889, and it is now in ruins Due to its historic importance, it has been designated by Historic Scotland as a scheduled monument

In an early phase of Dounreay’s nuclear operations, experiments with radioactive liquids were carried out from the castle courtyard In consequence of piping leaks and spills, the courtyard became radioactively contaminated The piping was removed, but decontamination of the area turned out to be impossible, given its archeological

Fig. 6.3 Plaque at the EBR-1 museum, United States (Ref [1 ], Fig. 18.3).