DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT D: BUDGETARY AFFAIRS NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING: MANAGEMENT OF COSTS AND RISKS STUDY Abstract The decommissioning of the shutdown reactors in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia is financially supported by the European Commission. The Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament has commissioned Öko-Institute with a study that analyses the best practice of selected decommissioning projects and contrasts those with the management in the three eastern European cases. The study identified best practices in the organization of the decommissioning projects in Germany and France. The comparison with the three eastern European countries identified several areas where the process organisation should be urgently improved and a clearer attribution of responsibilities is required. IP/D/CONT/IC/2013_054 25/11/2013 PE 490.680 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control. It designated Mr Jens Geier to follow the research study. AUTHOR(S) Mr Gerhard Schmidt Ms Veronika Ustohalova Ms Anne Minhans Öko-Institute e.V., Rheinestrasse 95 D-64293 DARMSTADT http://www.oeko.de RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Mr Alexandre MATHIS Policy Department on Budgetary Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Editorial support: Ms Catarina DUARTE GOMES LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation of the executive summary: FR and DE ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in November 2013. Brussels, © European Union, 2013. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS CONTENTS 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 7 LIST OF TABLES 11 LIST OF FIGURES 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 20 SYNTHÈSE 25 1. INTRODUCTION AND TASKS 30 2. DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS 32 2.1. The framework of decommissioning projects in Europe 32 2.2. Technical basis of decommissioning 37 2.2.1. Activation and contamination of the nuclear reactor during operation 37 2.2.2. The need for decommissioning of nuclear reactors 39 2.2.3. Basic strategic decision on decommissioning waste 40 2.2.4. Advanced decontamination 41 2.2.5. Strategic decisions on performing decommissioning in stages 41 2.2.6. Conclusions 43 2.3. Economic basis of decommissioning projects 44 2.3.1. Reliability of decommissioning cost estimates 44 2.3.2. Relevant decommissioning cost factors 44 2.3.3. Rough estimate of decommissioning costs for lightwater reactors 45 2.4. The organisation of decommissioning projects 45 2.4.1. Organisational aspects 46 2.4.2. Transitional issues 48 2.4.3. Strategic and operational decisions 49 2.4.4. Conclusions 51 3. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF BEST PRACTICES IN DECOMMISSIONING 52 3.1. Selection criteria for comparison 52 3 Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.2. Selected example from France: EDF 54 3.2.1. Overall framework of the decommissioning project 54 3.2.2. Organisation structure for the decommissioning 56 3.2.3. Project management 58 3.2.4. Risk management 59 3.2.5. Regulatory approach 59 3.2.6. Cost estimates 61 3.2.7. Workforce 66 3.2.8. Financial control 66 3.2.9. Overall characteristics of the example 69 3.3. Selected example from UK: NDA-Sellafield 71 3.3.1. Overall framework of the decommissioning project 71 3.3.2. Organisation structure of the decommissioning 72 3.3.3. Project management 73 3.3.4. Risk management 75 3.3.5. Regulatory approach 75 3.3.6. Cost estimates 75 3.3.7. Workforce 75 3.3.8. Financial control 77 3.3.9. Overall characteristics of the example 79 3.4. Selected example from Germany: EWN Greifswald 80 3.4.1. Overall framework of the decommissioning project of EWN 80 3.4.2. Responsibilities, decision making and control structures 81 3.4.3. Organisation structure of decommissioning and project management organisation 82 3.4.4. Risk management 86 3.4.5. Regulatory approach 88 3.4.6. Cost estimates 89 3.4.7. Workforce needs and qualifications 90 3.4.8. Overall characteristics of the example 91 4 Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.5. Best practices derived from the examples examined 92 3.5.1. Best practices identified 92 3.5.2. Basic decisions to be taken 93 4. DECOMMISSIONING IN BULGARIA, LITHUANIA AND SLOVAKIA 95 4.1. Reactor shutdown and general preparedness for the decommissioning phase 95 4.2. Fund establishment and control 97 4.3. The organisational framework of decommissioning in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia 99 4.3.1. Establishment of national organisational structures 100 4.3.2. Comparison and evaluation of the national organisational structures with best practice 102 4.3.3. Development of a proposal to strengthen the national framework 104 4.3.4. Recommendations 106 4.4. The management organisations for decommissioning in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia 107 4.4.1. Establishment of national organisations 107 4.4.2. Comparison and evaluation of the national organisations with best practice 109 4.4.3. Recommendations 111 4.5. Project and risk management 112 4.5.1. Project and risk management approach in the decommissioning projects 112 4.5.2. Comparison and evaluation of the project and risk management with best practice114 4.5.3. Recommendations for project and risk management 114 4.6. Regulatory approach 115 4.6.1. Regulatory approach in the decommissioning projects 115 4.6.2. Comparison and evaluation of the regulatory approach 118 4.6.3. Recommendations for the regulatory approach 118 4.7. Cost estimates 119 4.7.1. Cost estimates of the decommissioning projects 119 4.7.2. Comparison and evaluation of cost estimates 122 4.7.3. Recommendations on cost estimates 122 4.8. Workforce 122 4.8.1. Workforce aspects in the decommissioning projects 123 5 Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.8.2. Comparison and evaluation of workforce aspects 124 4.8.3. Recommendations 124 4.9. Example of distributed responsibility: the plasma oven at Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant124 4.9.1. First failure to identify responsible decision makers 124 4.9.2. The basics: project rationale 125 4.9.3. Second failure to identify decision makers 127 4.9.4. Conclusions 128 4.9.5. Recommendations 128 5. COUNTRY PROFILES, RISKS AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 130 5.1. Bulgaria 130 5.2. Lithuania 131 5.3. Slovakia 132 5.4. Overall evaluation 133 REFERENCES 136 ANNEX 1 - REACTORS IN THE SHUTDOWN STAGE IN THE EU 142 ANNEX 2 - MEETING AGENDA FOR BULGARIA, LITHUANIA AND SLOVAKIA 144 ANNEX 3 - WRITTEN ANSWERS FROM BULGARIA 147 ANNEX 4 - MINUTES OF THE MEETING AT IGNALINA NPP, LITHUANIA 158 ANNEX 5 - WRITTEN ANSWERS FROM JAVYS, SLOVAKIA 165 ANNEX 6 - ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO JAVYS, SLOVAKIA, AND ANSWERS 179 ANNEX 7 - QUESTIONS ASKED TO EBRD 189 ANNEX 8 - ANSWERS PROVIDED BY EBRD 192 6 Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS APEC Atelier pour l'entreposage du combustible (Fuel handling and treatment facility of the reactor at Creys-Malville, France) AREVA French company selling nuclear reactors and providing nuclear services ASN Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (French nuclear regulating authority) BIDSF Bohunice/Slovakia International Decommissioning Support Fund BMF Federal Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Germany) BWR Boiling water reactor (reactor type with steam generation within the reactor vessel and direct use of the generated steam in the turbines) CEA Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (French R&D organization operating research reactors) CIDEN Centre d'ingénierie de la déconstruction et de l'environnement (French decommissioning engineering center, subdivision of EDF) CO2 Carbon dioxide, gas, used as coolant in some gas cooled reactor types D2O Heavy water, used as moderator/coolant in some reactor types DM Deutsche Mark (former German currency, roughly 0.5 €/DM) DP RAO Радиоактивни отпадъци (state-owned Bulgarian Nuclear Waste Management organization in charge of decommissioning, english synonym: SE RAW) DRC Direction des déchets, des installations de recherche et du cycle (Waste Research and Fuel Cycle Facilities Department, subdivision of ASN) DGSNR Direction Générale de la Sûreté Nucléaire et de la Radioprotection (former French safety authority) DSR Direction de la Sûreté des Reacteur (French regulator, subdivision of IRSN) EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EDF Electricité de France (majorly state-owned operator of nuclear reactors in France) E.ON German electricity producer and operator of several nuclear power plants EC European Commission EU European Union EWN Energiewerke Nord GmbH (Federally owned organization for the decommissioning
Recommended publications
  • Part II BUYERS GUIDE Products, Research and Services INDEX Countries

    Part II BUYERS GUIDE Products, Research and Services INDEX Countries

    Part II BUYERS GUIDE Products, Research and Services INDEX Countries Note: The abbreviations listed against each country in this index are those used elsewhere in the directory (eg in the BUYERS GUIDE section and in the ORGANIZATION index) to indicate the national location of organizations. ARGENTINA AR ITALY I AUSTRALIA AU JAPAN J AUSTRIA A KENYA KE BANGLADESH BA KOREA KO BELGIUM B MALAWI MW BRAZIL BR MALAYSIA MA CANADA CAN MAURITIUS MT CHILE CL NETHERLANDS NL CHINA CA NEW ZEALAND NZ COSTA RICA CR NORWAY N CUBA cu PAKISTAN PA CYPRUS CY PHILIPPINES PH DENMARK DK POLAND PO EGYPT EG PORTUGAL p FINLAND SF SPAIN E FRANCE F SWEDEN s GERMANY D SWITZERLAND H GREECE GR UNITED KINGDOM UK GUATEMALA GU UNITED STATES us HUNGARY HU WEST INDIES WI INDIA IN YUGOSLAVIA YU IRELAND IRL ZIMBABWE ZI ISRAEL IS 165 INDEX Companies & Organizations 3T Engineering US ASTRA IN A & C Kosik GmbH D AVG Technical Services GmbH D A Ahlstrom Oy SF AZF groupe CDF Chimie F A Biotec I Aachen Technical University D A C Bamlett Ltd UK Aalborg University Centre DK A C Foreman Ltd UK Abay SA B A E Higginson MBE UK Abbott Laboratories US A E Staley Manufacturing Co US Abbott Trower & Co Ltd UK A 0 Smith Harvestore Productions Ltd UK Abcor Environmental Systems Ltd UK A 0 Smith Harvestore Products Inc us Abcor Inc US A-trans S Aberystwyth University College of Wales UK AB Generator (UK) Ltd UK Abetong Sabema B ABC Holdings Ltd UK Abetong Sabema DK ABC Waste Handling Systems UK Abetong Sabema S AC Biotechnics AB S Abitibi-Price Inc CAN AC Invest Produkt AB S Acadian Distillers
  • Nuclear Decommissioning (LT) Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programme of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plan in Lithuania

    Nuclear Decommissioning (LT) Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programme of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plan in Lithuania

    Security and Defence Nuclear Decommissioning (LT) Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programme of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plan in Lithuania Challenge (depending on the waste category), including the completion of the waste management COUNCIL REGULATION The decommissioning of a nuclear installation such as infrastructure where necessary; establishing the nuclear a power plant or research reactor is the final step in 4. implementation of the building demolition decommissioning assistance its lifecycle. It involves activities from shutdown and programme; programme of the Ignalina removal of nuclear material to the environmental nuclear power plant in Lithuania 5. obtaining the decommissioning licence once Unit 1 restoration of the site. The whole process is long and and Unit 2 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant are and repealing Regulation (EU) No complex: it typically takes 20 to 30 years. It is also 1369/2013 defueled; fraught with technical, technological and financiall 6. downgrading of radiological hazards. Council Regulation (EU) 2021/101 challenges. The EU legal framework sets the highest safety standards for all activities regarding nuclear Furthermore, knowledge and experience gained and Period of Application installations, including their decommissioning. lessons learnt under the programme with regard to 2021–2027 the decommissioning process shall be disseminated In application of its Act of Accession to the Union, among Union stakeholders, thus enhancing the EU Lithuania anticipated the shutdown of the two nuclear added value of the programme. reactors in Ignalina within the agreed deadlines (2004 and 2009). RELEVANT WEBSITE FOR MORE Actions INFORMATION The Union committed to provide financial support for The actions to be funded by the Ignalina programme https://europa.eu/!bC66CU the decommissioning, in accordance with approved plans, while keeping the highest level of safety.
  • The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)

    The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)

    The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) August 5, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46476 SUMMARY R46476 The Energy Employees Occupational Illness August 5, 2020 Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Scott D. Szymendera During the Cold War, thousands of Americans worked in the development and testing of the Analyst in Disability Policy nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Some of these workers were exposed to radiation, beryllium, silica, and other toxic substances that may have contributed to various medical conditions, including different types of cancer. Enacted in 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA, Title XXXVI of P.L. 106-398) provides cash and medical benefits to former nuclear weapons arsenal workers with covered medical conditions and to their survivors. Part B of EEOICPA provides a fixed amount of compensation and medical coverage to Department of Energy (DOE) employees and contractors, atomic weapons employees, and uranium workers with specified medical conditions, including cancer. Workers with certain radiogenic cancers can access EEOICPA Part B through one of two pathways: dose reconstruction and the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). Under dose reconstruction, the worker’s individual work history and radiation exposure is evaluated to determine the probability that the worker’s cancer was caused by his or her exposure to ionizing radiation. Under the SEC, workers from the same worksite can petition to be included in the SEC based on the site’s work and exposure history. All members of the SEC with covered cancers are eligible for Part B benefits. Approximately 70% of EEOICPA Part B cancer cases are awarded benefits via the SEC rather than dose reconstruction.
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category

    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category

    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
  • The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Progress with Reducing Risk at Sellafield

    The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Progress with Reducing Risk at Sellafield

    A picture of the National Audit Office logo Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: progress with reducing risk at Sellafield HC 1126 SESSION 2017–2019 20 JUNE 2018 Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. Our public audit perspective helps Parliament hold government to account and improve public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Sir Amyas Morse KCB, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund, nationally and locally, have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. The C&AG does this through a range of outputs including value-for-money reports on matters of public interest; investigations to establish the underlying facts in circumstances where concerns have been raised by others or observed through our wider work; landscape reviews to aid transparency; and good-practice guides. Our work ensures that those responsible for the use of public money are held to account and helps government to improve public services, leading to audited savings of £734 million in 2016. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: progress with reducing risk at Sellafield Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 18 June 2018 This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act Sir Amyas Morse KCB Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 15 June 2018 HC 1126 | £10.00 This report examines the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s progress with reducing risk and hazard at its largest and most hazardous site, Sellafield.
  • Media Kit 2021 INTRODUCTION

    Media Kit 2021 INTRODUCTION

    www.nsenergybusiness.com www.windpower-international.com media kit 2021 INTRODUCTION www.windpower-international.com Who are we, what we do.. Wind is one of the fastest-growing power sources in the world, as energy systems shift towards clean, renewable forms of generation. More than 60 GW of new capacity was installed globally in 2019 – a 20% POWERED BY 170 YEARS OF ENERGY INDUSTRY EXPERTISE annual increase – and although the pandemic has slowed the pace of this trajectory, wind has remained resilient during the crisis and record growth is Progressive Media International presents to you World Wind Technology as part expected over the next five years. of a larger portfolio including Nuclear Engineering International, Modern Power Systems, International Water Power & Dam Construction, World Expro and World As more and more countries around the world target emissions reduction Mining Frontiers. – including key growth markets of China, Europe and the US under a new administration – the sector is poised for a bright future. Now is the time for suppliers establish themselves in this dynamic market as a wave of new projects and upgrades is announced and governments accelerate their clean-energy ambitions over the coming decade. World Wind Technology will provide key executives, who have the power to make purchasing decisions, with unique analysis and data combined with contributions from leading industry analysts, practitioners and thought leaders. Our unique and powerful database of readers includes qualified senior management and executive decision makers, who have the authority to buy the products and services they need in order to capitalise on the opportunities in the market.
  • A Vision for Scotland's Electricity and Gas Networks

    A Vision for Scotland's Electricity and Gas Networks

    A vision for Scotland’s electricity and gas networks DETAIL 2019 - 2030 A vision for scotland’s electricity and gas networks 2 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: SUPPORTING OUR ENERGY SYSTEM 03 The policy context 04 Supporting wider Scottish Government policies 07 The gas and electricity networks today 09 CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPING THE NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE 13 Electricity 17 Gas 24 CHAPTER 3: COORDINATING THE TRANSITION 32 Regulation and governance 34 Whole system planning 36 Network funding 38 CHAPTER 4: SCOTLAND LEADING THE WAY – INNOVATION AND SKILLS 39 A vision for scotland’s electricity and gas networks 3 CHAPTER 1: SUPPORTING OUR ENERGY SYSTEM A vision for scotland’s electricity and gas networks 4 SUPPORTING OUR ENERGY SYSTEM Our Vision: By 2030… Scotland’s energy system will have changed dramatically in order to deliver Scotland’s Energy Strategy targets for renewable energy and energy productivity. We will be close to delivering the targets we have set for 2032 for energy efficiency, low carbon heat and transport. Our electricity and gas networks will be fundamental to this progress across Scotland and there will be new ways of designing, operating and regulating them to ensure that they are used efficiently. The policy context The energy transition must also be inclusive – all parts of society should be able to benefit. The Scotland’s Energy Strategy sets out a vision options we identify must make sense no matter for the energy system in Scotland until 2050 – what pathways to decarbonisation might targeting a sustainable and low carbon energy emerge as the best. Improving the efficiency of system that works for all consumers.
  • Annex C Preliminary Uxo Threat Assessment

    Annex C Preliminary Uxo Threat Assessment

    Keadby 3 Low Carbon Gas Power Station Preliminary Environmental Information Report, Volume II - Appendix 13A: Phase 1 Desk Based Assessment Application Reference EN010114 ANNEX C PRELIMINARY UXO THREAT ASSESSMENT October 2020 Page 67 P RELIMINARY UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE (UXO) THREAT ASSESSMENT Meeting the requirements of CIRIA C681 ‘Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) – A guide for the Construction Industry’ Risk Management Framework PROJECT NUMBER 8472 ORIGINATOR D. Barrett VERSION NUMBER 1.0 REVIEWED BY L. Gregory (15th October 2020) CLIENT AECOM RELEASED BY R. Griffiths (15th October 2020) STUDY SITE Keadby 3 Low-Carbon Gas Power Station Project RECOMMENDATION No further action is required to address the UXO risk at this Study Site 6 Alpha Associates Limited, Unit 2A Woolpit Business Park, Bury St Edmunds, IP30 9UP, United Kingdom T: +44 (0)2033 713 900 | W: www.6alpha.com UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE THREAT ASSESSMENT STUDY SITE The Study Site is described as “Keadby 3 Low-Carbon Gas Power Station Project”, and it is centred on National Grid Reference 481834, 411442. THREAT POTENTIAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS The potential for a UXO hazard to occur, and more specifically, the potential for unexploded WWI and WWII ordnance to exist at this site is assessed as being UNLIKELY (Figure 2). In accordance with CIRIA C681 Chapter 5 on managing UXO risks, 6 Alpha concludes that NO FURTHER ACTION is required to address the UXO risk at this Study Site. Should you have any queries, please contact 6 Alpha. REPORT SUMMARY During WWII, the Study Site was situated within Isle of Axholme Rural District and Glanford Brigg Rural District, which recorded less than one and one High Explosive (HE) bomb strikes per 100 hectares respectively; both very low levels of bombing.
  • Morrison Utility Services

    Morrison Utility Services

    Our Capabilities Our Business Our Group 175967 M Group Services Brochure .indd 1 03/11/2017 12:37 Our Business Delivering services to a broad range of clients across regulated markets and essential infrastructure. We are proud of what we do, how we operate and what we deliver to support our client’s customers. We help our clients deliver their business plans each and every day of the year. Delivering for our clients The challenges our clients face can be from the development of collaborative complex, ever challenging budgets and working through, improvements in customer increasing customer demands mean they service, sharing of innovation and best need a service provider who can be practice, development and training, trusted to deliver quality work, consistently stakeholder management, value engineering, and safety. resource planning, business process We have developed our group capability to improvement, design and build services, align to our client’s needs and the outputs cost control & stock management, they require for their customers. Our data management to plant & fleet service operational delivery includes everything solutions. What we do We provide a broad range of essential Working in collaboration with our clients to infrastructure services within regulated deliver for their customers sectors across the UK and Ireland Proven track record and excellent client Four core regulated sectors; relationships - Utilities Nationwide coverage with over 8,000 - Transport direct staff and growing - Data - Telecommunications Service ethos
  • CD5.62 Utilities Report

    CD5.62 Utilities Report

    Sandown Park Redevelopment Utilities Assessment 22 January 2019 Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited Merchants House, Wapping Road, Bristol, BS1 4RW www.watermangroup.com Client Name: The Jockey Club Document Reference: WIE15367-100-R-1-2-2-Utilities Project Number: WIE15367 Quality Assurance – Approval Status This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with Waterman Group’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001: 2015, BS EN ISO 14001: 2015 and BS OHSAS 18001:2007) Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by 01 10/01/2019 A Godfrey J Burdon J Burdon 02 22/01/2019 A Godfrey J Burdon J Burdon Comments 01 First Draft 02 Final issue. Updated following further utility provider responses Comments Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporation of our General Terms and Condition of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to us by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at its own risk. Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to Project .....................................................................................................
  • Managing Low Radioactivity Material from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities

    Managing Low Radioactivity Material from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities

    216 pages 12,88 mm technical reportS series no. This report presents options for the management of decommissioning materials to inform the production of a materials disposition strategy consistent with current IAEA guidance on clearance. It includes a review of the relevant safety, regulatory, technological, economic, social and administrative factors influencing 462 these options. The subject is examined in the context of the value, practicality and viability Technical Reports SeriEs No. 462 of the various disposition options, and the availability of suitable tools, techniques and Managing Low Radioactivity Material from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities instrumentation to monitor compliance with release criteria. Each of the range of disposition options discussed is feasible in principle, and successful applications in Member States are described. Managing Low Radioactivity Material from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–109907–5 ISSN 0074–1914 D462_covI-IV.indd 1 2008-03-19 09:28:52 MANAGING LOW RADIOACTIVITY MATERIAL FROM THE DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GREECE NORWAY ALBANIA GUATEMALA PAKISTAN ALGERIA HAITI PALAU ANGOLA HOLY SEE PANAMA ARGENTINA HONDURAS PARAGUAY ARMENIA HUNGARY PERU AUSTRALIA ICELAND PHILIPPINES AUSTRIA INDIA POLAND AZERBAIJAN INDONESIA PORTUGAL BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR BELARUS IRAQ REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BELGIUM IRELAND ROMANIA BELIZE
  • The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations

    The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations

    Acknowledgement The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) wishes to acknowledge the advice and assistance received in the preparation of this document from: Dr Geoff Ballard Chief Executive, Safety and Reliability Directorate Dr Donald Broadbent Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford Dr Roger Clarke Director of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) Mr H J Dunster CB Former Deputy Director General of HSE and former Director of NRPB Professor Bev Littlewood Director of the Centre for Software Reliability, City University, London Dr David Slater Chief Inspector, HM lnspectorate of Pollution and Mr Brian Street Non executive Chairman of Air Products plc. The document was produced by a working group under the chairmanship of Mr J D Rimington CB, Director General of HSE and including, besides the above, Dr S A Harbison, Head of Nuclear Safety Division and Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, HSE, and other HSE officials. The tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations Contents Introduction 7 Risk and the tolerability of risk 2 The regulation of industrial risk 4 Broad principles of risk assessment 12 The harm from radiation 15 The risks in the normal operation of nuclear installations 20 The risk of nuclear accidents 21 Discussion of tolerable risk 29 Conclusion 33 Appendices 1 The specification of risk 35 2 Comparisons of risk 37 3 The application of cost benefit analysis to nuclear safety assessment 48 4 Consideration of societal risk for certain non-nuclear hazards 54 References 59 Further reading 60 London: HMSO O Crown copyright I988 Revised 1992 Applications for reproduction should be made to OPSI (formerly HMSO) (ii) INTRODUCTION received in November 1988, stating their intention to review the document and possibly to republish it in some updated form, taking account of comment.