Page 134 - Beyond Decommissioning

Relevant factors for redevelopment 115

has been completed or has been modified by political input may come at any time and
entail a decision to close a major facility; the awareness of change may also come
gradually and painfully after years of declining demands for the site’s services.
The future for such sites can take different forms. Some sites can be cleared for
unrestricted use and somebody else’s care. By contrast, a specific reuse option may
be planned for the long term or perhaps only temporarily, for example, for equipment
storage, trailer offices, waste storage, etc. Some sites have adopted beneficial reuses
for delicensed parts, while other parts continue their original missions. Certain com-
mercial NPP operators have elected to substitute a conventional fossil-fueled heat
source for a decommissioned nuclear heat source and reuse the site for continued elec-
trical generation. Two such cases were Pathfinder and Fort St Vrain (FSV) in the
United States (see section on FSV in Section 6.2.1.2). Moving on from the FSV case,
a study was specifically given to the repowering of decommissioned NPPs as an
alternative to decommissioning (Hylko, 2000).
An old study (US General Accounting Office, 1980) still to be usefully consulted
provides the rationale for reusing nuclear power sites as locations for new power
plants, or to dispose of operational waste. Most of the US NPP sites under
decommissioning can support one or more additional power plants. General benefits
include (1) limiting the number of sites committed to long-term restricted use and
periodic care and surveillance; (2) facilitating final dismantlement of retired NPPs;
(3) decreasing the overall environmental impacts from the construction and mainte-
nance of these plants; (4) saving time and money in completing licensing processes;
(5) in a restricted reuse (brownfield) scenario, lower doses to the staff in charge of the
new power plant as compared to residential doses and reusing existing infrastructure
for new purposes. Economic benefits include electricity cost savings, additional land
lease revenue to the town or city site owner, and increased tax payments for the land
and/or energy systems to the local municipality and/or state.
Similar considerations apply to nuclear disposal sites. Currently the search for dis-
posal sites tends to focus on remote locations. But there are good arguments for turn-
ing a repository site into a nuclear “hub.” Some experts state that a disposal facility
should be colocated with other nuclear facilities. The Finnish planning for Olkiluoto
and Loviisa NPP sites—bound to become disposal sites for spent fuel as well as oper-
ational waste—is enlightening in this regard (Posiva, 2012). Until now the search of
such a multi-facility has been inhibited by the fact that all other nuclear fuel cycle
facilities were sited first, and the disposal facilities came later. This has led, in the
United States and elsewhere, to a policy to look for repository sites that are remote,
and especially far from other nuclear facilities.
Some experts believe that to bury nuclear waste in remote locations such as the
doomed Yucca Mountain site does not make much sense. The crucial reason is that
having different segments of the nuclear fuel cycle scattered across the country leads
to serious inefficiencies. In contrast, having a repository and an NPP sitting on the
same site can provide many benefits advantages, regardless of whether an open or
a closed fuel cycle is adopted. And the more facilities are colocated, the better
(provided mutual interference is paid due attention).