Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business is the fifth volume in Michele Laraia’s series, which presents a selection of global case studies on different aspects of nuclear decommissioning. This volume focuses on organization, economics and performance experience, offering the reader guidance on project management, staffing, costs and funding, and training. It guides those responsible for the planning and implementation of nuclear decommissioning to ensure thorough and reliable applications.
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 many key case studies, including what happened and what they can learn from the events quoted, to help supplement, solidify, and strengthen their understanding of the topic.
1. Chapter 1 Introduction - p. 1 2. Chapter 2 The concept of environmental sustainability as applicable to this book - p. 5 3. Chapter 3 The structure of this book - p. 11 4. Chapter 4 Errors, mishaps, inadequacies in regard to organizational aspects (conversely, best practices) - p. 13 5. Chapter 5 Project management case studies (IAEA, 2000a) - p. 19 6. 5.1: Argonne's deactivation and decommissioning program, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois United States (DOE-ANL, 2013) - p. 23 7. 5.2: Four Savannah River Site (SRS) contractors earn at least 95% of contract award fee (DOE Newswire, 2022) - p. 26 8. 5.3: Contract transition—Project Hanford management contract to mission support contract (DOE-RL, 2010) - p. 29 9. 5.4: ORNL organizations partner in decommissioning of buildings, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2006) - p. 38 10. 5.5: Subcontractor falls from ladder, suffering multiple fractures, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2010) - p. 40 11. 5.6: Audit report on quality assurance for river corridor closure contract procurements, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE, 2017) - p. 42 12. 5.7: Critical spare parts deficiencies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2017) - p. 47 13. 5.8: Work force restructuring, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 1996) - p. 49 14. 5.9: Human and organizational risks: a historical review of the involved issues (Pelleterat de Borde et al., 2013) - p. 50 15. 5.10: Examples from a decommissioning project in French nuclear center (Devaux, 2011) - p. 53 16. 5.11: Organizational and human factors in dismantling of nuclear facilities: the experience of France's IRSN (IRSN, 2008) - p. 55 17. 5.12: The impacts of human factors on organizational transitions, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2013) - p. 59 18. 5.13: Subcontractor requirements flow-down process, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States(ORNL, 2019) - p. 61 19. 5.14: Procurement of container liners by subcontractors, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2008) - p. 63 20. 5.15: Transferring areas between contractors, Idaho Operations Office (ID)/Idaho National Lab (INL) (DOE-Wikispaces, 2012) - p. 67 21. 5.16: Use of contractor with limited resources leads to project delay, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2014) - p. 68 22. 5.17: Control of subcontractor operating heavy equipment on-site, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio, United States (DOE-Portsmouth, 2005) - p. 70 23. 5.18: Innovative acquisition strategy leads to significant efficiencies and savings (DOE-LANL, 2011a) - p. 71 24. 5.19: Need for effective management oversight, separations process research unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), New York, United States (DOE-SPRU, 2011) - p. 73 25. 5.20: Coordinate with multiple entities performing various work activities, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), United States (DOE-Paducah, 2008) - p. 75 26. 5.21: EFCOG (Energy Facility Contractors Group) best practice: contractor assurance system effectiveness validation, 2017 (DOE-EFCOG, 2017) - p. 77 27. 5.22: Coordination with Environmental Programs group leads to building TA-1-209 D&D cost savings and less dangerous work, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, United States (DOE-LANL, 2011b) - p. 79 28. 5.23: The transition in terms of organizational change (NEA, 2018) - p. 81 29. 5.24: Changes in staffing can weaken the ability to maintain a high level of rigor in operations, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2011) - p. 83 30. 5.25: Performance indicators in decommissioning (IAEA, 2011) - p. 86 31. 5.26: ORPS data indicates work process deficiencies at active deactivation and decommissioning projects (DOE-ORPS, 2020) - p. 88 32. 5.27: Approach to define and document completion of performance-based incentive, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2015) - p. 90 33. 5.28: Performance indicators at Vandellos I NPP, Spain (IAEA, 2011) - p. 92 34. 5.29: Use of performance indicators in nuclear facility decommissioning in the UK (IAEA, 2011) - p. 94 35. 5.30: Sweden case study: interface with project delivery tools (NEA, 2019) - p. 100 36. 5.31: Nuclear decommissioning assistance program in Lithuania (EC, 2021) - p. 104 37. 5.32: Graded approach (IAEA, 2008) - p. 107 38. 5.33: A graded approach to safety analysis for rover processing facility deactivation, Idaho chemical processing plant, Idaho National Laboratory, United States (Henrikson, 1997) - p. 110 39. 5.34: The graded management approach to Battelle's nuclear project, Columbus, Ohio, United States (Voth, 1996) - p. 113 40. 5.35: Using a risk-informed, graded approach for decommissioning small facilities: the position of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Persinko, undated) - p. 115 41. 5.36: Applications of the graded approach in Belgium (EAN, 2018) - p. 121 42. 5.37: The classification of radioactive waste: the IAEA position (IAEA, 2014a) - p. 123 43. 5.38: Graded approach in the clearance of slightly-contaminated materials: the position of the IAEA (IAEA, 2021a) - p. 129 44. 5.39: Decommissioning quality management manual: two examples of typical contents (De, 1999) - p. 132 45. 5.40: Software quality assurance problems, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2004) - p. 134 46. 5.41: Documented and defensible: the extraordinary value of quality in high-consequence projects, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2018) - p. 137 47. 5.42: Project team fails to adjust QA rigor to evolving project needs, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2011) - p. 139 48. 5.43: Manufacturer's inaccurate certification may lead to use of DOT 7A/Type A drums with noncompliant documentation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2021) - p. 142 49. 5.44: Scope management system for decommissioning project in Korea (Kook-Nam Park et al., 2017) - p. 144 50. 5.45: Safety culture and organizational resilience in the nuclear industry throughout the different lifecycle phase: a Finnish study (VTT, 2015) - p. 146 51. 5.46: Practical aspects of safety culture: the position of SOGIN, Italy (Tripputi, 2014) - p. 148 52. 5.47: Operational pause at Savannah River Site benefits safety culture, operations (DOE, 2016) - p. 151 53. 5.48: Safety culture and employee concerns program in a decommissioned environment: regulator's perspective (Sieracki and Burnside, 2017) - p. 154 54. 5.49: Assessment of safety culture at Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP): early planning for decommissioning (Lesin, 2003) - p. 160 55. 5.50: Organizational and institutional structures and responsibilities in a post-accident situation (IAEA, 2021b) - p. 168 56. Chapter 6 Costs and funding case studies - p. 183 57. 6.1: Decommissioning nuclear power plants: cost estimation challenges (NEI, 2017) - p. 185 58. 6.2: Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP (ENRESA, 2016) - p. 190 59. 6.3: Calculating and estimating decommissioning costs in the US (Hylko, 2017) - p. 193 60. 6.4: Factors impacting decommissioning costs for US NPPs: the EPRI study (Kim and McGrath, 2013) - p. 196 61. 6.5: Walkdowns and preparation of cost estimates for decommissioning of redundant facilities, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (Costella et al., 2020) - p. 201 62. 6.6: Lessons learned on cost estimating reviews (DOE, 2016) - p. 205 63. 6.7: Challenges in cost estimation under uncertainty—A case study of the decommissioning of Barsebäck nuclear power plant (Torp and Klakegg, 2016) - p. 209 64. 6.8: To get better control over decommissioning costs (NEI, 2013) - p. 220 65. 6.9: Earned value management system (DOE, 2018) - p. 224 66. 6.10: Missed medical exams result in unnecessary costs, Hanford site, Washington State, United States (DOE, 2010) - p. 229 67. 6.11: Open air demolition of radiologically contaminated Building O1-14 at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (D&D KM-IT, 2014) - p. 232 68. 6.12: Two case studies regarding reduction or stabilization of decommissioning costs, United Kingdom -decommissioning process; problem encountered; impacts - p. 239 69. 6.13: Data could point out to nuclear plant decommissioning costs falling (POWER, 2018) - p. 247 70. 6.14: European parliament, nuclear decommissioning: management of costs and risks in the European Union (EP, 2013) - p. 249 71. 6.15: An overview of decommissioning risks common to different power plants (nuclear, coal-fired etc.) (Riggins, 2019) - p. 254 72. 6.16: Exploring four financial shortfall scenarios (Lordan-Perret et al., 2021) - p. 258 73. 6.17: Decommissioning trust funds: enlarging the fixed income opportunities (Mittal, 2021) - p. 268 74. 6.18: Financing future liabilities (NEI, 2010) - p. 271 75. 6.19: Two case studies about Vermont Yankee's DTF - p. 277 76. 6.20: NRC's oversight of nuclear power reactors' decommissioning funds could be further strengthened (GAO, 2012) - p. 282 77. 6.21: NRC findings on the minimum amounts required demonstrate decommissioning funding assurance (NRC, 2013) - p. 284 78. 6.22: Exemption allows Humboldt Bay-3 licensee to reduce the minimum coverage limit for on-site property damage insurance (NRC, 2020) - p. 287 79. 6.23: Impact of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on DOE-EM's D&D program (DOE, 2013) - p. 292 80. 6.24: Financial issues in a postaccident situation (IAEA-2021) - p. 294 81. Chapter 7 Assessing and upgrading human resources - p. 305 82. 7.1: Performance improvement and human resources transition management in D&D projects, AREVA, La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing plant , France (Clement et al., 2015) - p. 308 83. 7.2: Workforce reductions, outsourcing, and loss of organizational prestige can cause an erosion of technical capability (DOE-NNSA, 2004) - p. 313 84. 7.3: Training for decommissioning and waste management in Germany (Kettler and Havenith, 2020) - p. 318 85. 7.4: Nuclear decommissioning technicians, contract, AWE Aldermaston, Berkshire, United Kingdom (oilvoice, 2019) - p. 323 86. 7.5: Details of standard- occupation: nuclear operative (Institute for Apprenticeships, 2018) - p. 325 87. 7.6: Nuclear decommissioning: attracting and retaining skills (NDA, 2016) - p. 330 88. 7.7: Education and training in nuclear decommissioning—needs, opportunities, and challenges for Europe (EC and University of Birmingham, 2015) - p. 336 89. 7.8: Development of a decommissioning certificate program, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (Hoover and Morton, 1999) - p. 346 90. 7.9: Training implications associated with organizational structure and changes, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2013) - p. 352 91. 7.10: Use of mock-ups in decommissioning training: two case studies - p. 354 92. 7.11: UK decom sector must change plant staff mind-set to avoid labor shortage (Reuters Events, 2016) - p. 355 93. 7.12: Route to success, Dounreay Establishment, Caithness, Scotland, United Kingdom (NEI, 2017) - p. 360 94. 7.13: From operation to decommissioning, a training challenge at Jose Cabrera NPP, Spain (Martin et al., 2013) - p. 366 95. 7.14: Rocky Flats closure legacy, Jefferson county, Colorado, United States (DOE, 2011) - p. 369 96. 7.15: How to become a Decontamination Technician in the United States (Environmental Science, 2022) - p. 373 97. 7.16: International training to promote successful environmental remediation projects (Smith et al., 2018) - p. 376 98. Chapter 8 Conclusions - p. 385 99. Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations - p. 389 100. Glossary - p. 393 101. Index - p. 419
Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies: Organization and Management, Economics, and Staying in Business is the fifth volume in Michele Laraia’s series, which presents a selection of global case studies on different aspects of nuclear decommissioning. This volume focuses on organization, economics and performance experience, offering the reader guidance on project management, staffing, costs and funding, and training. It guides those responsible for the planning and implementation of nuclear decommissioning to ensure thorough and reliable applications.
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 many key case studies, including what happened and what they can learn from the events quoted, to help supplement, solidify, and strengthen their understanding of the topic.
1. Chapter 1 Introduction - p. 1 2. Chapter 2 The concept of environmental sustainability as applicable to this book - p. 5 3. Chapter 3 The structure of this book - p. 11 4. Chapter 4 Errors, mishaps, inadequacies in regard to organizational aspects (conversely, best practices) - p. 13 5. Chapter 5 Project management case studies (IAEA, 2000a) - p. 19 6. 5.1: Argonne's deactivation and decommissioning program, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois United States (DOE-ANL, 2013) - p. 23 7. 5.2: Four Savannah River Site (SRS) contractors earn at least 95% of contract award fee (DOE Newswire, 2022) - p. 26 8. 5.3: Contract transition—Project Hanford management contract to mission support contract (DOE-RL, 2010) - p. 29 9. 5.4: ORNL organizations partner in decommissioning of buildings, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2006) - p. 38 10. 5.5: Subcontractor falls from ladder, suffering multiple fractures, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2010) - p. 40 11. 5.6: Audit report on quality assurance for river corridor closure contract procurements, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE, 2017) - p. 42 12. 5.7: Critical spare parts deficiencies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2017) - p. 47 13. 5.8: Work force restructuring, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 1996) - p. 49 14. 5.9: Human and organizational risks: a historical review of the involved issues (Pelleterat de Borde et al., 2013) - p. 50 15. 5.10: Examples from a decommissioning project in French nuclear center (Devaux, 2011) - p. 53 16. 5.11: Organizational and human factors in dismantling of nuclear facilities: the experience of France's IRSN (IRSN, 2008) - p. 55 17. 5.12: The impacts of human factors on organizational transitions, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2013) - p. 59 18. 5.13: Subcontractor requirements flow-down process, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States(ORNL, 2019) - p. 61 19. 5.14: Procurement of container liners by subcontractors, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RCCC, 2008) - p. 63 20. 5.15: Transferring areas between contractors, Idaho Operations Office (ID)/Idaho National Lab (INL) (DOE-Wikispaces, 2012) - p. 67 21. 5.16: Use of contractor with limited resources leads to project delay, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States (DOE-ORNL, 2014) - p. 68 22. 5.17: Control of subcontractor operating heavy equipment on-site, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio, United States (DOE-Portsmouth, 2005) - p. 70 23. 5.18: Innovative acquisition strategy leads to significant efficiencies and savings (DOE-LANL, 2011a) - p. 71 24. 5.19: Need for effective management oversight, separations process research unit, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), New York, United States (DOE-SPRU, 2011) - p. 73 25. 5.20: Coordinate with multiple entities performing various work activities, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), United States (DOE-Paducah, 2008) - p. 75 26. 5.21: EFCOG (Energy Facility Contractors Group) best practice: contractor assurance system effectiveness validation, 2017 (DOE-EFCOG, 2017) - p. 77 27. 5.22: Coordination with Environmental Programs group leads to building TA-1-209 D&D cost savings and less dangerous work, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, United States (DOE-LANL, 2011b) - p. 79 28. 5.23: The transition in terms of organizational change (NEA, 2018) - p. 81 29. 5.24: Changes in staffing can weaken the ability to maintain a high level of rigor in operations, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2011) - p. 83 30. 5.25: Performance indicators in decommissioning (IAEA, 2011) - p. 86 31. 5.26: ORPS data indicates work process deficiencies at active deactivation and decommissioning projects (DOE-ORPS, 2020) - p. 88 32. 5.27: Approach to define and document completion of performance-based incentive, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States (ORNL, 2015) - p. 90 33. 5.28: Performance indicators at Vandellos I NPP, Spain (IAEA, 2011) - p. 92 34. 5.29: Use of performance indicators in nuclear facility decommissioning in the UK (IAEA, 2011) - p. 94 35. 5.30: Sweden case study: interface with project delivery tools (NEA, 2019) - p. 100 36. 5.31: Nuclear decommissioning assistance program in Lithuania (EC, 2021) - p. 104 37. 5.32: Graded approach (IAEA, 2008) - p. 107 38. 5.33: A graded approach to safety analysis for rover processing facility deactivation, Idaho chemical processing plant, Idaho National Laboratory, United States (Henrikson, 1997) - p. 110 39. 5.34: The graded management approach to Battelle's nuclear project, Columbus, Ohio, United States (Voth, 1996) - p. 113 40. 5.35: Using a risk-informed, graded approach for decommissioning small facilities: the position of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Persinko, undated) - p. 115 41. 5.36: Applications of the graded approach in Belgium (EAN, 2018) - p. 121 42. 5.37: The classification of radioactive waste: the IAEA position (IAEA, 2014a) - p. 123 43. 5.38: Graded approach in the clearance of slightly-contaminated materials: the position of the IAEA (IAEA, 2021a) - p. 129 44. 5.39: Decommissioning quality management manual: two examples of typical contents (De, 1999) - p. 132 45. 5.40: Software quality assurance problems, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2004) - p. 134 46. 5.41: Documented and defensible: the extraordinary value of quality in high-consequence projects, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2018) - p. 137 47. 5.42: Project team fails to adjust QA rigor to evolving project needs, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-PNNL, 2011) - p. 139 48. 5.43: Manufacturer's inaccurate certification may lead to use of DOT 7A/Type A drums with noncompliant documentation, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (DOE-RL, 2021) - p. 142 49. 5.44: Scope management system for decommissioning project in Korea (Kook-Nam Park et al., 2017) - p. 144 50. 5.45: Safety culture and organizational resilience in the nuclear industry throughout the different lifecycle phase: a Finnish study (VTT, 2015) - p. 146 51. 5.46: Practical aspects of safety culture: the position of SOGIN, Italy (Tripputi, 2014) - p. 148 52. 5.47: Operational pause at Savannah River Site benefits safety culture, operations (DOE, 2016) - p. 151 53. 5.48: Safety culture and employee concerns program in a decommissioned environment: regulator's perspective (Sieracki and Burnside, 2017) - p. 154 54. 5.49: Assessment of safety culture at Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP): early planning for decommissioning (Lesin, 2003) - p. 160 55. 5.50: Organizational and institutional structures and responsibilities in a post-accident situation (IAEA, 2021b) - p. 168 56. Chapter 6 Costs and funding case studies - p. 183 57. 6.1: Decommissioning nuclear power plants: cost estimation challenges (NEI, 2017) - p. 185 58. 6.2: Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP (ENRESA, 2016) - p. 190 59. 6.3: Calculating and estimating decommissioning costs in the US (Hylko, 2017) - p. 193 60. 6.4: Factors impacting decommissioning costs for US NPPs: the EPRI study (Kim and McGrath, 2013) - p. 196 61. 6.5: Walkdowns and preparation of cost estimates for decommissioning of redundant facilities, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California, United States (Costella et al., 2020) - p. 201 62. 6.6: Lessons learned on cost estimating reviews (DOE, 2016) - p. 205 63. 6.7: Challenges in cost estimation under uncertainty—A case study of the decommissioning of Barsebäck nuclear power plant (Torp and Klakegg, 2016) - p. 209 64. 6.8: To get better control over decommissioning costs (NEI, 2013) - p. 220 65. 6.9: Earned value management system (DOE, 2018) - p. 224 66. 6.10: Missed medical exams result in unnecessary costs, Hanford site, Washington State, United States (DOE, 2010) - p. 229 67. 6.11: Open air demolition of radiologically contaminated Building O1-14 at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), New York State, United States (D&D KM-IT, 2014) - p. 232 68. 6.12: Two case studies regarding reduction or stabilization of decommissioning costs, United Kingdom -decommissioning process; problem encountered; impacts - p. 239 69. 6.13: Data could point out to nuclear plant decommissioning costs falling (POWER, 2018) - p. 247 70. 6.14: European parliament, nuclear decommissioning: management of costs and risks in the European Union (EP, 2013) - p. 249 71. 6.15: An overview of decommissioning risks common to different power plants (nuclear, coal-fired etc.) (Riggins, 2019) - p. 254 72. 6.16: Exploring four financial shortfall scenarios (Lordan-Perret et al., 2021) - p. 258 73. 6.17: Decommissioning trust funds: enlarging the fixed income opportunities (Mittal, 2021) - p. 268 74. 6.18: Financing future liabilities (NEI, 2010) - p. 271 75. 6.19: Two case studies about Vermont Yankee's DTF - p. 277 76. 6.20: NRC's oversight of nuclear power reactors' decommissioning funds could be further strengthened (GAO, 2012) - p. 282 77. 6.21: NRC findings on the minimum amounts required demonstrate decommissioning funding assurance (NRC, 2013) - p. 284 78. 6.22: Exemption allows Humboldt Bay-3 licensee to reduce the minimum coverage limit for on-site property damage insurance (NRC, 2020) - p. 287 79. 6.23: Impact of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on DOE-EM's D&D program (DOE, 2013) - p. 292 80. 6.24: Financial issues in a postaccident situation (IAEA-2021) - p. 294 81. Chapter 7 Assessing and upgrading human resources - p. 305 82. 7.1: Performance improvement and human resources transition management in D&D projects, AREVA, La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing plant , France (Clement et al., 2015) - p. 308 83. 7.2: Workforce reductions, outsourcing, and loss of organizational prestige can cause an erosion of technical capability (DOE-NNSA, 2004) - p. 313 84. 7.3: Training for decommissioning and waste management in Germany (Kettler and Havenith, 2020) - p. 318 85. 7.4: Nuclear decommissioning technicians, contract, AWE Aldermaston, Berkshire, United Kingdom (oilvoice, 2019) - p. 323 86. 7.5: Details of standard- occupation: nuclear operative (Institute for Apprenticeships, 2018) - p. 325 87. 7.6: Nuclear decommissioning: attracting and retaining skills (NDA, 2016) - p. 330 88. 7.7: Education and training in nuclear decommissioning—needs, opportunities, and challenges for Europe (EC and University of Birmingham, 2015) - p. 336 89. 7.8: Development of a decommissioning certificate program, Hanford Site, Washington State, United States (Hoover and Morton, 1999) - p. 346 90. 7.9: Training implications associated with organizational structure and changes, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States (DOE-ANL, 2013) - p. 352 91. 7.10: Use of mock-ups in decommissioning training: two case studies - p. 354 92. 7.11: UK decom sector must change plant staff mind-set to avoid labor shortage (Reuters Events, 2016) - p. 355 93. 7.12: Route to success, Dounreay Establishment, Caithness, Scotland, United Kingdom (NEI, 2017) - p. 360 94. 7.13: From operation to decommissioning, a training challenge at Jose Cabrera NPP, Spain (Martin et al., 2013) - p. 366 95. 7.14: Rocky Flats closure legacy, Jefferson county, Colorado, United States (DOE, 2011) - p. 369 96. 7.15: How to become a Decontamination Technician in the United States (Environmental Science, 2022) - p. 373 97. 7.16: International training to promote successful environmental remediation projects (Smith et al., 2018) - p. 376 98. Chapter 8 Conclusions - p. 385 99. Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations - p. 389 100. Glossary - p. 393 101. Index - p. 419
