Page 94 - Beyond Decommissioning

Redevelopment as an innovative 4

approach to nuclear
decommissioning

The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to
get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a
corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it.
Dee Hock (1929-)

Until recently, it was generally assumed that the final objective for nuclear
decommissioning was the unrestricted release of the site and demolition of all struc-
tures (a state often named “greenfield” state). However, the safety driven definition of
decommissioning given in the Glossary does not include non-safety-related activities,
such as the demolition of clean structures (e.g., offices, cooling towers) or post-
dismantling landscaping. Besides, this definition does not exclude the option of
reusing the site for restricted release (an option often named “brownfield”). Over time
experience has shown that going “greenfield” can be an extremely ambitious option as
well as prohibitively expensive in some cases. As a consequence, a better result might
be obtained by redeveloping the site (or some of its facilities and buildings) for new
uses. It can be observed that in the longer term any decommissioned site will be reused
for some purpose, but experience shows that a long delay, even several decades, may
occur between the end of decommissioning and the initiation of a new project onsite.
This is due to the lack of a timely redevelopment plan and may incur—in addition to
unnecessary expenses and the lack of profits resulting from an idle asset—the loss of
historical memory and cultural values associated with the site.
The three decommissioning strategies defined by the IAEA include (International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2014a): immediate dismantling; deferred dismantling; and
entombment (this one is strongly discouraged by the IAEA and is confined to excep-
tional cases). The main limitation of these approaches is that they do not value the
structures per se (regardless of their activity inventory) and do not consider them
as necessary or convenient to be preserved/reused. The entombment strategy (a.k.a.
in situ disposal) encases structures in concrete, impeding future use of the site and
modifying the landscape beyond recovery. Entombment as a decommissioning strat-
egy is still being pursued by the US DOE, Russian Federation, or occasionally by a
handful of countries. Beyond having mentioned entombment here, this book will
not deal with this strategy.
As described elsewhere for the Hanford B Reactor (Section 6.2.1), it took years and
public protests to revert a previous decision and achieve a better use for the
site. Instead, there should be options that make site reuse viable, rather than having
to fight against a traditional approach (be it demolition, or sometimes, entombment).
Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00004-X
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.