Page 363 - Beyond Decommissioning
P. 363

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment                             339

           and cut the energized electrical service. Later, it was discovered the conduit was at a
           depth of 60cm while the subcontractor was attempting to excavate a depth of 50cm.
           Work was stopped, the area was secured and flagged off.
              Lessons learned: The inadequate conduct of operations is mainly attributable to
           ambiguous instructions/requirements. This case could be a common occurrence at
           redevelopment sites.

           Disclaimer

           Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.


           References

           Asbury Park Press, 2015. Radioactive past no barrier to Manchester development. April 8, 2015,
               http://www.app.com/story/news/local/jackson-lakewood/manchester/2015/04/08/radioac
               tive-manchester-development/25468421/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018).
           Boyd, M.A., 2016. Contaminated sites from the past: experience of the US Environmental Pro-
               tection Agency. Ann. ICRP 45 (1 Suppl), 84–90. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.
               1177/0146645316633937 (Accessed on 29 December 2018).
           City and County of Denver, 2014. Denver Radium Superfund Site Comprehensive Report.
               https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/EQ/
               CompleteRadiumReport2014.pdf. (Accessed on 29 December 2018).
           Clark, W., 2012. Economy proves there is life after Dounreay. John O’Groat Journal and Caith-
               ness Courier, News. 29 June 2012.
           Dounreay, 2017a. Dounreay phase 3 planning. 12 June 2017, https://dounreay.com/2017/06/
               dounreay-phase-3-planning/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018).
           Dounreay, 2017b. Dounreay report. (Up to 7th November 2017), DSG(2017)P022. http://www.
               dounreaystakeholdergroup.org/files/downloads/download2919.pdf  (Accessed  on  29
               December 2018).
           Dumfries & Galloway, 2017. Dumfries & Galloway News, Future Opportunities for
               Chapelcross Site – CX Project, Mar 1, 2017. https://www.dgwgo.com/dumfries-galloway-
               news/chapelcross-site-cx-project/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018).
           Gunn, J.B., 2012. A unique journey in preserving nuclear industrial heritage. WIT Trans. Built
               Environ. 123, 175–186. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-the-built-
               environment/123/23384 (Accessed on 29 December 2018).
           Hamilton, J.A., Lynch, J.R., Weisbord, D.J., 2005. Property Disposition in Support of Plant
               Decommissioning and Site Closure: the Yankee Nuclear Power Station Experience,
               DD&R 2005, Denver, Colorado. American Nuclear Society.
           International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006. Redevelopment of nuclear facilities after
               decommissioning. Technical Reports Series No. 444, Vienna.
           International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011. Redevelopment and reuse of nuclear facilities and
               sites: case histories and lessons learned. Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-2.2, Vienna.
           Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2002. Determining cleanup goals at radioac-
               tively contaminated sites: case studies. https://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/
               RAD-2.pdf (Accessedon29December2018).
           Los Angeles Times, 1986. New York Trail Includes Site of Plutonium Spill: Controversial
               Hiking Route May Pose Radiation Threat, Citizens’ Group Says, July 20.
   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368