Page 361 - Beyond Decommissioning

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment 337

breaker for the circuit. The electricians isolated and applied a red lock and tag to the
breaker. The electricians then did a zero-voltage check, sealed the ends of the cable,
and attached a junction box. Investigations of the event found that the electrical line
led to a warning sign with a flashing yellow light that had not been active for over
15 years. The cable location was incorrectly hand written on the utility locate draw-
ings that were reviewed during the work planning. The cable was cut prior to the cur-
rent project due to evidence of corrosion on the exposed copper conductors. Digging
near the perimeter light and utility locates identified the approximate location of the
cable run.
Lessons learned: The technical literature includes a number of incidents of this
kind during decommissioning work, due to missing or inadequate records, but these
incidents may happen also during subsequent redevelopment phases. Especially
as-built drawings can be found to be inadequate. Contingency is needed in all oper-
ations potentially vulnerable to electrical hazards. The case could be well applicable to
redevelopment projects.

7.14.11 Demolition of historic and yet-to-be-determined radar
towers at TTR without completing required NEPA process
(U.S. Department of Energy, 2018a)

Problem Encountered: Two radar towers at Tonopah Test Range (TTR) site, Con-
traves Towers (Buildings 22-00 and 12-00), were demolished prior to completion
of the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. In the United
States, the NEPA process would be applicable to any anticipated damage to:

(a) ecologically preserved areas, or pristine or protected wetlands;
(b) threatened or protected flora or fauna or critical habitats;
(c) potable drinking water intake or well usage; or
(d) historical/archeological sites.
The National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS) sub-
mission of the NEPA checklist prompts the Sandia Field Office (SFO) review of the
proposed work scope and as required includes a consultation between the SFO and the
Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to assess any adverse impacts on
historic properties and determine a resolution. Following the consultation, the SFO
provides approval/rejection of the proposed work detailed on the submitted NEPA
checklist. Contraves Tower 22-00 is a historic structure, as officially determined
by the SFO in consultation with the SHPO. The historical eligibility of Contraves
Tower 12-00 is not defined yet.
The NTESS submitted two NEPA checklists to the SFO in 2016 for the removal of
several redundant structures. The first NEPA checklist listed three historic structures
(one of which was Tower 22-00). The second NEPA checklist listed five nonhistoric
structures (one of which was Tower 12-00). The SFO approved the NEPA checklist
covering nonhistoric structures except for the Tower 12-00, which requires further
consultation between the SFO and SHPO. In late January 2018, the NTESS discovered
that Tower 22-00 was no longer listed in the Facility Information Management System