Page 121 - Beyond Decommissioning

102 Beyond Decommissioning

planning should begin in parallel with and as part and parcel of decommissioning
planning. This attitude will make the workers aware that they are and will be working
for the benefits of their families, the neighborhood community and with their support.
Uncertain redevelopment prospects, especially when the management lacks transpar-
ency or commitment to successful redevelopment, can lead to insecurity and low
morale of the workers. This can be critical for remote sites where alternative employ-
ment is hard to find locally and the site management is (legally or at least perceived so
in public image) responsible for the entire economics of the area through providing sal-
aries and wages, taxes, and contracts. There are several examples of decommissioning
projects where reemployment issues were the driving force toward prompt—though
long-lasting—decommissioning coupled with site redevelopment (ETTP, United States;
Greifswald NPP, Germany; Dounreay, United Kingdom).
A common problem faced in site closure is the loss of the best and most experi-
enced operations staff to other employers with more secure job prospects. Loss of
these key staff can greatly damage the effectiveness of the decommissioning and rede-
velopment program, leading to higher costs, delays, the need to hire and train new staff
and/or contractors, and occasionally, managerial, and safety inadequacies. At many
decommissioning projects incentives (bonuses) were used to retain key staff through
completion of decommissioning work. This is not always the optimal approach.
Instead, reemployment opportunities pledged by the site redevelopment will mitigate
the tendency for good staff to desert the decommissioning project before its
completion.
The transition from a larger decommissioning/remediation project organization to
a smaller institutional control group may produce unplanned consequences. Staffing
levels may have to remain higher than those associated with the project closure itself
due to the post-closure works (removing debris, landscaping, securing restricted
access areas). During the institution control phase, not only is the staffing level
smaller, but also the type of staff may be quite different. The few people remaining
on site to deal with any (though unlikely) problems that may occur must have a general
understanding of all legacy issues and foreseen solutions.
For most D&ER projects, a monitoring phase may be required after project closure.
This phase will be relatively short for sites that are released unconditionally. However,
the sites released for restricted use will require long-term monitoring to ensure that
quality parameters (radiological, chemical, biological) for soil, surface water, and
ground water remain acceptable and stable.
Funding and responsibility for these surveys and measurements should be defined.
In many countries an independent party is required to take confirmatory samples. As
post remediation monitoring can be very long (e.g., for uranium mining and milling
sites), it is important to anticipate and minimize the costs and other resources (e.g., the
need to retain dedicated staff onsite). Use of remote sensing and satellite technologies
to monitor, record, and transmit environmental monitoring data can be helpful to this
end (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2014).
Ideally, any small party involved in site decommissioning could make the embryo
of future redevelopers or at least be associated with redevelopment planning.