Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle, Author’s Statement on the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning, Volume Six presents a selection of global case studies that focus on a range of technologies for the decontamination, dismantling, spent fuel treatment and recycling of nuclear decommissioning. The book presents best practices by analyzing errors and inadequacies, leading the reader to sound decision-making. The events covered in this publication range from national and local legislation, to regulatory positions, statements or recommendations, licensing steps and transition phases.Decommissioning experts, including regulators, operators, waste managers, researchers and academics will find this book to be suitable supplementary material to Michele Laraia’s reference works on the theory and applications of nuclear decommissioning. Alongside the other case studies books in this series, readers will obtain an understanding of various key case studies-what happened and what we can learn from them, to help supplement, solidify and strengthen their understanding of the topic.Presents a selection of global case studies which focus on the characterization, waste management, and reuse/recycling options in nuclear decommissioningHighlights important sustainability and socioeconomic factors associated with the abovementioned decommissioning aspectsBased on experience and lessons learned, guides the reader to ensure the most appropriate and efficient technologies and strategies are utilized in order to pursue adequate sustainabilityAddresses all aspects of decommissioning with a bottom-up, inductive approach, aimed to elicit general conclusions about sustainability from individual case studies
1. Chapter 1 Introduction - p. 2 2. Chapter 2 Environmental sustainability and waste management - p. 6 3. Chapter 3 Sustainability in industrial waste management and its applications to nuclear decommissioning and related waste management - p. 14 4. Chapter 4 The structure of this book - p. 26 5. Chapter 5 Radiological and physical characterization - p. 32 6. 5.1: Exhaustive characterization essential for D&D project development, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2013) - p. 33 7. 5.2: Application of bulk characterization to individual containers: the effect of demolition sequence, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York, United States (DOE-BNL, 2011) - p. 34 8. 5.3: Equipment inventory listings, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Facility, Piketon, Ohio, United States (DOE-LPP, 2009) - p. 36 9. 5.4: Highly radioactive material identified in soil, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCPP, 2010) - p. 38 10. 5.5: Historical hazard identification process for D&D, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2011) - p. 41 11. 5.6: A few case studies about determination of background (elaboration from (IEM, 2001; NRC, 1994) and other sources) - p. 44 12. 5.7: Importance of identification, quantification, and inclusion of residual contamination during downgrade activities in nuclear facilities, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2014) - p. 45 13. 5.8: Inadequate waste characterization data leads to unplanned project effort, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE-PMLL, 2014) - p. 48 14. 5.9: New radiological survey technology saves time and money, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), United States (DOE-INEEL, 1998) - p. 49 15. 5.10: The importance of radiological characterization at depth, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (DOE-WVDP, 2011) - p. 51 16. 5.11: Characterization issues when organizational/proximity interference - p. 54 17. 5.12: New spray detects radioactive hot spots, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (NDR, 2013) - p. 62 18. 5.13: Novel strategies in clean-up of high-risk structure, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-EM, 2022) - p. 63 19. 5.14: Case studies about asbestos characterization - p. 65 20. 5.15: Americium intake, experimental boiling water reactor decommissioning, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (Fellhauer, 1998) - p. 75 21. 5.16: Incomplete characterization led to unexpected tritium release, Pluto Reactor, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1994) - p. 77 22. 5.17: Disposal of operational waste, Paldiski Center, Estonia (IAEA, 2016) - p. 78 23. 5.18: Unexpected occurrences during the decommissioning of small facilities (IAEA, 2011) - p. 80 24. 5.19: Characterization issues from the deferred dismantling of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2018) - p. 84 25. 5.20: Characterization issues in decommissioning of underground facilities (IAEA, 2006) - p. 91 26. 5.21: Unexpected occurrences during decommissioning caused by inaccurate/incomplete characterization (IAEA, 2016) - p. 96 27. 5.22: Structural issues arising from lack of relevant documents (IAEA, 2002) - p. 102 28. 5.23: A few case studies about inadequate record keeping for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2002) - p. 105 29. 5.24: A more precise method to measure radioactivity in nuclear waste (JRC, 2022) - p. 113 30. 5.25: Characterization issues in managing low radioactivity material from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2008) - p. 116 31. 5.26: Technical procedures for the characterization of VLLW, LLW, and ILW, Ispra JRC site, Italy (JRC, 2021) - p. 119 32. 5.27: Case studies on physical, radiological, and hazards characterization at damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 122 33. Chapter 6 Generation, transfer, and management of radioactive waste - p. 134 34. 6.1: The management of DIDO waste, (former) Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1994) - p. 136 35. 6.2: UK repatriates Australian nuclear waste (WNN, 2022a) - p. 137 36. 6.3: First waste removed from old nuclear Sellafield store (Sellafield Ltd, 2022) - p. 138 37. 6.4: Disposal issues for Aqueous Homogeneous Critical Facility (AHCF) waste, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (IAEA, 1994) - p. 139 38. 6.5: Case studies about the efficacy of simple decontamination and waste management technologies - p. 140 39. 6.6: Research at Dounreay could result in savings in decommissioning costs (John O'Groat Journal, 2021) - p. 144 40. 6.7: Contaminated waste container inadvertently released, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2009) - p. 145 41. 6.8: Ensure materials used for conveying and storing water do not contaminate the site: Separations Process Research Unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), Niskayuna, New York State, United States (DOE-SPRU, 2014) - p. 147 42. 6.9: Hanford workers complete stabilization of waste storage tunnel, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2019) - p. 149 43. 6.10: Inadequate containment for long-term storage of contaminated waste items, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OR, 2017) - p. 152 44. 6.11: Lessons learned from the deactivation and demolition of the 209E Critical Mass Laboratory, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2012) - p. 154 45. 6.12: Waste management issues resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear pools (IAEA, 2015) - p. 157 46. 6.13: Recommended approaches to waste packing, EBWR decommissioning Project, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (Fellhauer, 1998) - p. 162 47. 6.14: Close coordination allows shipping success and accelerated schedule, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Las Vegas, United States (DOE-NTS, 2011) - p. 163 48. 6.15: Lessons learned on on-site waste disposal facilities, US sites (DOE, 2015) - p. 166 49. 6.16: Unanticipated chemical reaction during waste load-out, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2016) - p. 168 50. 6.17: Nuclear safety issue identified in 54-year-old radioactive waste storage facility, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2011) - p. 170 51. 6.18: Radioactive waste storage facility floor loading/lifting capacity inaccurately designated, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2012) - p. 172 52. 6.19: Wax as a residual waste fixative in buried lines, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (DOE-ID, 2010) - p. 173 53. 6.20: Waste storage in railcars pending shipment, Paducah Site, Kentucky, United States (DOE-LL, 2013) - p. 176 54. 6.21: International collaboration enhances wastewater treatment at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OR, 2021) - p. 178 55. 6.22: Waste removal planning inadequate, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2011) - p. 179 56. 6.23: Waste management aspects of glovebox D&D activities, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, United States (DOE-LA, 2017) - p. 180 57. 6.24: NRC Liquid radioactive release lessons learned (NRC, 2006) - p. 181 58. 6.25: Environmental Remediation at Savannah River Site (SRS) - p. 187 59. 6.26: Pilgrim NPP may release thousands of cubic meters of radioactive water into bay. What we know (Cape Cod Times, 2021) - p. 190 60. 6.27: West Valley improves rail line supporting safe, efficient waste disposal (DOE News, 2022) - p. 194 61. 6.28: Assessment identifies vulnerabilities in the management of radioactive waste, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2021) - p. 196 62. 6.29: Off-normal process results compounded into radiation protection labeling error, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2022) - p. 198 63. 6.30: Deep borehole disposal as a promising strategy for small amounts of HLW (NEI, 2022) - p. 201 64. 6.31: Releasing low radioactivity material and areas from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2008) - p. 203 65. 6.32: Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU), tank waste sludge, Niskayuna, New York State, United States (NAP, 2017) - p. 208 66. 6.33: Decontamination for damaged or legacy facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 212 67. 6.34: Waste management infrastructure for damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 218 68. 6.35: Waste management technologies at damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 224 69. Chapter 7 Reuse and recycle technologies - p. 236 70. 7.1: Is “rip and ship” a sustainable decommissioning strategy? Zion NPP, Illinois, United States - p. 237 71. 7.2: Experience in recycling materials arising from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (NEA, 2017) - p. 239 72. 7.3: UK's program for dealing with decommissioning rubble (NDA, 2020) - p. 250 73. 7.4: Entire nuclear vessel recycled (NDA, 2021) - p. 252 74. 7.5: Status and plans for recycling of cables harvested from Crystal River Unit 3 NPP, Florida, United States (USDOE-PNNL, 2016) - p. 253 75. 7.6: Dismantling Paducah switchyards supports local recycling, EM clean-up, Kentucky, United States (USDOE-EM, 2022a) - p. 256 76. 7.7: Idaho site hot cells once again prove value for DOE-EM waste treatment mission, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (USDOE-EM, 2021b) - p. 258 77. 7.8: Contaminated lead bricks shipped off-site, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (USDOE-RL, 1999) - p. 262 78. 7.9: Proper labeling and management required for reused containers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2015) - p. 263 79. 7.10: Readily found opportunities for waste minimization and pollution prevention, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2009) - p. 264 80. 7.11: Verify that all items are removed before reusing, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2013) - p. 266 81. 7.12: Proper characterization of items prior to dispositioning is essential to safe handling, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2014) - p. 267 82. 7.13: Reuse of decommissioned areas at Oak Ridge Sites, Tennessee, United States - p. 269 83. 7.14: Rocky Flats closure legacy, Colorado, United States (USDOE-RFETS, 2011) - p. 276 84. 7.15: Recycling of material and reuse of areas within and around UK nuclear sites - p. 282 85. 7.16: The brownfields solution—what happens to formerly contaminated industrial and DOE sites (USDOE-EHSS, 2009)? - p. 289 86. 7.17: West Valley transforms storage facility for clean-up operations, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (USDOE-WVDP, 2022) - p. 293 87. 7.18: How to recycle a nuclear power plant in Italy (Marino, 2021) - p. 295 88. 7.19: Dismantling of Italian nuclear fuel plant completed (WNN, 2022 a) - p. 298 89. 7.20: Reconstruction of the former turbine hall into a manufacturing site for large ship components, Greifswald NPP (KGR), Germany (IAEA, 2011) - p. 300 90. 7.21: Innovative projects on RW recycling from the French “investments for the future” program (Mandoki et al., 2020) - p. 303 91. 7.22: Enhanced sustainability in treatment of contaminated metals for clearance and recycling (Larsson et al., 2020) - p. 316 92. 7.23: The decommissioning and conversion of a nuclear research center in Grenoble, France (RGN, 2013) - p. 322 93. 7.24: Auctions helping to recycle old nuclear power plants (WNN, 2022b) - p. 326 94. Chapter 8 Is the management of decommissioning waste a sustainable industry? - p. 332 95. Chapter 9 Expert views and author's assessment on the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning - p. 358 96. Abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms - p. 403 97. Glossary - p. 405 98. Index - p. 433
Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Characterization, Waste Management, Reuse and Recycle, Author’s Statement on the Sustainability of Nuclear Decommissioning, Volume Six presents a selection of global case studies that focus on a range of technologies for the decontamination, dismantling, spent fuel treatment and recycling of nuclear decommissioning. The book presents best practices by analyzing errors and inadequacies, leading the reader to sound decision-making. The events covered in this publication range from national and local legislation, to regulatory positions, statements or recommendations, licensing steps and transition phases.Decommissioning experts, including regulators, operators, waste managers, researchers and academics will find this book to be suitable supplementary material to Michele Laraia’s reference works on the theory and applications of nuclear decommissioning. Alongside the other case studies books in this series, readers will obtain an understanding of various key case studies-what happened and what we can learn from them, to help supplement, solidify and strengthen their understanding of the topic.Presents a selection of global case studies which focus on the characterization, waste management, and reuse/recycling options in nuclear decommissioningHighlights important sustainability and socioeconomic factors associated with the abovementioned decommissioning aspectsBased on experience and lessons learned, guides the reader to ensure the most appropriate and efficient technologies and strategies are utilized in order to pursue adequate sustainabilityAddresses all aspects of decommissioning with a bottom-up, inductive approach, aimed to elicit general conclusions about sustainability from individual case studies
1. Chapter 1 Introduction - p. 2 2. Chapter 2 Environmental sustainability and waste management - p. 6 3. Chapter 3 Sustainability in industrial waste management and its applications to nuclear decommissioning and related waste management - p. 14 4. Chapter 4 The structure of this book - p. 26 5. Chapter 5 Radiological and physical characterization - p. 32 6. 5.1: Exhaustive characterization essential for D&D project development, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2013) - p. 33 7. 5.2: Application of bulk characterization to individual containers: the effect of demolition sequence, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York, United States (DOE-BNL, 2011) - p. 34 8. 5.3: Equipment inventory listings, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Facility, Piketon, Ohio, United States (DOE-LPP, 2009) - p. 36 9. 5.4: Highly radioactive material identified in soil, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCPP, 2010) - p. 38 10. 5.5: Historical hazard identification process for D&D, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2011) - p. 41 11. 5.6: A few case studies about determination of background (elaboration from (IEM, 2001; NRC, 1994) and other sources) - p. 44 12. 5.7: Importance of identification, quantification, and inclusion of residual contamination during downgrade activities in nuclear facilities, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2014) - p. 45 13. 5.8: Inadequate waste characterization data leads to unplanned project effort, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE-PMLL, 2014) - p. 48 14. 5.9: New radiological survey technology saves time and money, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), United States (DOE-INEEL, 1998) - p. 49 15. 5.10: The importance of radiological characterization at depth, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (DOE-WVDP, 2011) - p. 51 16. 5.11: Characterization issues when organizational/proximity interference - p. 54 17. 5.12: New spray detects radioactive hot spots, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (NDR, 2013) - p. 62 18. 5.13: Novel strategies in clean-up of high-risk structure, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-EM, 2022) - p. 63 19. 5.14: Case studies about asbestos characterization - p. 65 20. 5.15: Americium intake, experimental boiling water reactor decommissioning, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (Fellhauer, 1998) - p. 75 21. 5.16: Incomplete characterization led to unexpected tritium release, Pluto Reactor, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1994) - p. 77 22. 5.17: Disposal of operational waste, Paldiski Center, Estonia (IAEA, 2016) - p. 78 23. 5.18: Unexpected occurrences during the decommissioning of small facilities (IAEA, 2011) - p. 80 24. 5.19: Characterization issues from the deferred dismantling of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2018) - p. 84 25. 5.20: Characterization issues in decommissioning of underground facilities (IAEA, 2006) - p. 91 26. 5.21: Unexpected occurrences during decommissioning caused by inaccurate/incomplete characterization (IAEA, 2016) - p. 96 27. 5.22: Structural issues arising from lack of relevant documents (IAEA, 2002) - p. 102 28. 5.23: A few case studies about inadequate record keeping for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2002) - p. 105 29. 5.24: A more precise method to measure radioactivity in nuclear waste (JRC, 2022) - p. 113 30. 5.25: Characterization issues in managing low radioactivity material from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2008) - p. 116 31. 5.26: Technical procedures for the characterization of VLLW, LLW, and ILW, Ispra JRC site, Italy (JRC, 2021) - p. 119 32. 5.27: Case studies on physical, radiological, and hazards characterization at damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 122 33. Chapter 6 Generation, transfer, and management of radioactive waste - p. 134 34. 6.1: The management of DIDO waste, (former) Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (IAEA, 1994) - p. 136 35. 6.2: UK repatriates Australian nuclear waste (WNN, 2022a) - p. 137 36. 6.3: First waste removed from old nuclear Sellafield store (Sellafield Ltd, 2022) - p. 138 37. 6.4: Disposal issues for Aqueous Homogeneous Critical Facility (AHCF) waste, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (IAEA, 1994) - p. 139 38. 6.5: Case studies about the efficacy of simple decontamination and waste management technologies - p. 140 39. 6.6: Research at Dounreay could result in savings in decommissioning costs (John O'Groat Journal, 2021) - p. 144 40. 6.7: Contaminated waste container inadvertently released, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2009) - p. 145 41. 6.8: Ensure materials used for conveying and storing water do not contaminate the site: Separations Process Research Unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), Niskayuna, New York State, United States (DOE-SPRU, 2014) - p. 147 42. 6.9: Hanford workers complete stabilization of waste storage tunnel, Hanford Site, Washington, United States (DOE, 2019) - p. 149 43. 6.10: Inadequate containment for long-term storage of contaminated waste items, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OR, 2017) - p. 152 44. 6.11: Lessons learned from the deactivation and demolition of the 209E Critical Mass Laboratory, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2012) - p. 154 45. 6.12: Waste management issues resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear pools (IAEA, 2015) - p. 157 46. 6.13: Recommended approaches to waste packing, EBWR decommissioning Project, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (Fellhauer, 1998) - p. 162 47. 6.14: Close coordination allows shipping success and accelerated schedule, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Las Vegas, United States (DOE-NTS, 2011) - p. 163 48. 6.15: Lessons learned on on-site waste disposal facilities, US sites (DOE, 2015) - p. 166 49. 6.16: Unanticipated chemical reaction during waste load-out, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2016) - p. 168 50. 6.17: Nuclear safety issue identified in 54-year-old radioactive waste storage facility, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2011) - p. 170 51. 6.18: Radioactive waste storage facility floor loading/lifting capacity inaccurately designated, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2012) - p. 172 52. 6.19: Wax as a residual waste fixative in buried lines, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (DOE-ID, 2010) - p. 173 53. 6.20: Waste storage in railcars pending shipment, Paducah Site, Kentucky, United States (DOE-LL, 2013) - p. 176 54. 6.21: International collaboration enhances wastewater treatment at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (DOE-OR, 2021) - p. 178 55. 6.22: Waste removal planning inadequate, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2011) - p. 179 56. 6.23: Waste management aspects of glovebox D&D activities, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, United States (DOE-LA, 2017) - p. 180 57. 6.24: NRC Liquid radioactive release lessons learned (NRC, 2006) - p. 181 58. 6.25: Environmental Remediation at Savannah River Site (SRS) - p. 187 59. 6.26: Pilgrim NPP may release thousands of cubic meters of radioactive water into bay. What we know (Cape Cod Times, 2021) - p. 190 60. 6.27: West Valley improves rail line supporting safe, efficient waste disposal (DOE News, 2022) - p. 194 61. 6.28: Assessment identifies vulnerabilities in the management of radioactive waste, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2021) - p. 196 62. 6.29: Off-normal process results compounded into radiation protection labeling error, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), California, United States (DOE-LLNL, 2022) - p. 198 63. 6.30: Deep borehole disposal as a promising strategy for small amounts of HLW (NEI, 2022) - p. 201 64. 6.31: Releasing low radioactivity material and areas from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2008) - p. 203 65. 6.32: Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU), tank waste sludge, Niskayuna, New York State, United States (NAP, 2017) - p. 208 66. 6.33: Decontamination for damaged or legacy facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 212 67. 6.34: Waste management infrastructure for damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 218 68. 6.35: Waste management technologies at damaged or legacy nuclear facilities (IAEA, 2021) - p. 224 69. Chapter 7 Reuse and recycle technologies - p. 236 70. 7.1: Is “rip and ship” a sustainable decommissioning strategy? Zion NPP, Illinois, United States - p. 237 71. 7.2: Experience in recycling materials arising from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (NEA, 2017) - p. 239 72. 7.3: UK's program for dealing with decommissioning rubble (NDA, 2020) - p. 250 73. 7.4: Entire nuclear vessel recycled (NDA, 2021) - p. 252 74. 7.5: Status and plans for recycling of cables harvested from Crystal River Unit 3 NPP, Florida, United States (USDOE-PNNL, 2016) - p. 253 75. 7.6: Dismantling Paducah switchyards supports local recycling, EM clean-up, Kentucky, United States (USDOE-EM, 2022a) - p. 256 76. 7.7: Idaho site hot cells once again prove value for DOE-EM waste treatment mission, Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (USDOE-EM, 2021b) - p. 258 77. 7.8: Contaminated lead bricks shipped off-site, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (USDOE-RL, 1999) - p. 262 78. 7.9: Proper labeling and management required for reused containers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2015) - p. 263 79. 7.10: Readily found opportunities for waste minimization and pollution prevention, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2009) - p. 264 80. 7.11: Verify that all items are removed before reusing, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2013) - p. 266 81. 7.12: Proper characterization of items prior to dispositioning is essential to safe handling, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United States (USDOE-LLNL, 2014) - p. 267 82. 7.13: Reuse of decommissioned areas at Oak Ridge Sites, Tennessee, United States - p. 269 83. 7.14: Rocky Flats closure legacy, Colorado, United States (USDOE-RFETS, 2011) - p. 276 84. 7.15: Recycling of material and reuse of areas within and around UK nuclear sites - p. 282 85. 7.16: The brownfields solution—what happens to formerly contaminated industrial and DOE sites (USDOE-EHSS, 2009)? - p. 289 86. 7.17: West Valley transforms storage facility for clean-up operations, West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (USDOE-WVDP, 2022) - p. 293 87. 7.18: How to recycle a nuclear power plant in Italy (Marino, 2021) - p. 295 88. 7.19: Dismantling of Italian nuclear fuel plant completed (WNN, 2022 a) - p. 298 89. 7.20: Reconstruction of the former turbine hall into a manufacturing site for large ship components, Greifswald NPP (KGR), Germany (IAEA, 2011) - p. 300 90. 7.21: Innovative projects on RW recycling from the French “investments for the future” program (Mandoki et al., 2020) - p. 303 91. 7.22: Enhanced sustainability in treatment of contaminated metals for clearance and recycling (Larsson et al., 2020) - p. 316 92. 7.23: The decommissioning and conversion of a nuclear research center in Grenoble, France (RGN, 2013) - p. 322 93. 7.24: Auctions helping to recycle old nuclear power plants (WNN, 2022b) - p. 326 94. Chapter 8 Is the management of decommissioning waste a sustainable industry? - p. 332 95. Chapter 9 Expert views and author's assessment on the sustainability of nuclear decommissioning - p. 358 96. Abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms - p. 403 97. Glossary - p. 405 98. Index - p. 433
