Nuclear Decommissioning Report NDR April 2012 : Page 3

FROM NDR PREVENTION OVER CURE An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. These words are as true today as when they were first penned by Benjamin Franklin, and have a particular resonance in our industry, where the risks are many and the consequences of unconsidered risks severe. However, even an “ounce” of prevention can get heavy as you add on preventative measure after preventative measure to take into account all manner of foreseeable risks. It does not take an engineer or an MBA to see that the weight and encumbrance of all these preventative efforts can threaten to weigh down and col-lapse an operation under the bulk of its own risk aversion. Plans are laid down before any decom-missioning or remediation project begins that take into account which risks can reasonably be expected and dealt with, based on historical data and the experience of the personnel putting the plan into action. However, we have seen even in the last few years how such factors as unexpected volatility in world markets, or the perplexing habit of the natural world to behave in ways that defy our models, can put our operations in jeopardy in ways that are inherently unpredictable. So how does this industry try to prevent the next such occurrence? It is done by giving competent personnel the tools and information they need to determine, through a process not unlike battle-field triage, what the risks are, how they can be prevented, and how much it will cost to ensure rea-sonable protection. This issue of NDR takes a look at risk management in a variety of renditions. John McEnery takes an interesting and multi-leveled look at the unique challenges posed in fire prevention when working on a site undergoing D&D. If you have ever wondered why an effec-tive fire prevention program is an important aspect of planning when the plan calls for the total destruction of the very structures that are being protected, then you will enjoy the reasoned argu-ments that lay out the potential costs, both in terms of real capital and public perception, that a fire on a contaminated site can cause. Aside from the obvious concern that those on site remain safe from the threat of fire, there are additional reasons, such as contamination, loss of use of fa-cilities before scheduled demolition, insurance rates, and safety record impact. When you weigh up the potential cost of a fire, it becomes quickly evident that prevention is the best medicine. Instigating a comprehensive fire protection program after a fire has occurred is obviously a flawed strategy, and it is equally flawed to wait until an injury has occurred to consider re-vamping your PPE program. This month NDR takes a look at both eye and hand protection. First up, in a Product Focus that reminds us that the key to preventing eye injuries is mak-ing sure eye protection is worn consistently, Phil Johnson maintains that it entails more than signage…it means developing a safety culture. Then take a look at this month’s glove round up, where NDR has compiled a spectrum of available hand protection for a variety of dangers found on industry sites, to assist you in limiting your organization’s exposure to needless risk. Preventing needless risk is one of a multitude of concerns under consideration as the Zion proj-ect moves forward, and Steve Larson’s cover story examines the tools and techniques employed at Zion in RV and RVI segmentation at the site. The process of reducing reactor vessels and internals is demanding, and is further complicated in this instance by tight confines, demand-ing a high level of planning and precision. This article is part of NDR’ s ongoing series following important milestones at high profile projects around the world. Log on to www.ndreport.com to watch a video of this project and other sites in our ongoing series, and be sure to re-subscribe to ensure that you continue to receive the latest look inside the wire at facilities around the world. Surely, Mr. Franklin would applaud your preference for prevention over cure. Editor Kellie Sandrik • kellie@ndreport.com Assistant Editor Julie Moon • julie@ndreport.com Copy Editor Carol Schmidt ____________________________ Editorial Advisory Board Tim Barker Demolition Manager, ANCDF Global Security Group URS Patrick J. Burke VP of Projects S.A. Technology Inc. Lawrence E. (Larry) Boing Manager of Special Projects / Decommissioning SME NE Division Argonne National Laboratory Bob Kury Executive Director of Decommissioning Support Magnox Sites Eric Laning Senior Project Manager, Professional Services Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. Mark Lesinski Executive Director, Delivery Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (UK) Stephanie Long Neu Business Development Specialist EnergX LLC ETEBA TN Chapter Vice President Steve McNitt Radiation Protection Manager Magnox Ltd.-Bradwell Site Jean-Guy Nokhamzon Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives Director Assistant Art Porter Nuclear Market Manager Barnhart Crane & Rigging Sarah Roberts, CHP Vice President and Director Independent Environmental Assessment and Verification (IEAV) Program Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Andrew Szilagyi Director, Office of Deactivation and Decommissioning and Facility Engineering Office of Environmental Management U.S. Department of Energy ____________________________ Creative Director Bryan Wade • bryan@ndreport.com ____________________________ To subscribe/unsubscribe circulation@ndreport.com NDR Buyers Guide www.buyersguide.ndreport.com -buyersguide@ndreport.com _____________________________ Published by Sandrik & Wade Publishing Stephen Sandrik publisher stephen@ndreport.com Robert L. Wade publisher robert@ndreport.com Kellie S. Sandrik editor kellie@ndreport.com Director of Sales & Marketing Stephen Sandrik • stephen@ndreport.com Director of Business Development Robert Wade • robert@ndreport.com _____________________________ Executive and Advertising Offices PO Box 7354, Broomfield, CO 80021, USA www.ndreport.com www.nucleardecommissioningreport.com info@ndreport.com

From NDR

Prevention Over Cure An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. These words are as true today as when they were first penned by Benjamin Franklin, and have a particular resonance in our industry, where the risks are many and the consequences of unconsidered risks severe. However, even an "ounce" of prevention can get heavy as you add on preventative measure after preventative measure to take into account all manner of foreseeable risks. It does not take an engineer or an MBA to see that the weight and encumbrance of all these preventative efforts can threaten to weigh down and collapse an operation under the bulk of its own risk aversion. Plans are laid down before any decommissioning or remediation project begins that take into account which risks can reasonably be expected and dealt with, based on historical data and the experience of the personnel putting the plan into action. However, we have seen even in the last few years how such factors as unexpected volatility in world markets, or the perplexing habit of the natural world to behave in ways that defy our models, can put our operations in jeopardy in ways that are inherently unpredictable. So how does this industry try to prevent the next such occurrence? It is done by giving competent personnel the tools and information they need to determine, through a process not unlike battlefield triage, what the risks are, how they can be prevented, and how much it will cost to ensure reasonable protection. This issue of NDR takes a look at risk management in a variety of renditions. John McEnery takes an interesting and multi-leveled look at the unique challenges posed in fire prevention when working on a site undergoing D&D. If you have ever wondered why an effective fire prevention program is an important aspect of planning when the plan calls for the total destruction of the very structures that are being protected, then you will enjoy the reasoned arguments that lay out the potential costs, both in terms of real capital and public perception, that a fire on a contaminated site can cause. Aside from the obvious concern that those on site remain safe from the threat of fire, there are additional reasons, such as contamination, loss of use of facilities before scheduled demolition, insurance rates, and safety record impact. When you weigh up the potential cost of a fire, it becomes quickly evident that prevention is the best medicine. Instigating a comprehensive fire protection program after a fire has occurred is obviously a flawed strategy, and it is equally flawed to wait until an injury has occurred to consider revamping your PPE program. This month NDR takes a look at both eye and hand protection. First up, in a Product Focus that reminds us that the key to preventing eye injuries is making sure eye protection is worn consistently, Phil Johnson maintains that it entails more than signage…it means developing a safety culture. Then take a look at this month's glove round up, where NDR has compiled a spectrum of available hand protection for a variety of dangers found on industry sites, to assist you in limiting your organization's exposure to needless risk. Preventing needless risk is one of a multitude of concerns under consideration as the Zion project moves forward, and Steve Larson's cover story examines the tools and techniques employed at Zion in RV and RVI segmentation at the site. The process of reducing reactor vessels and internals is demanding, and is further complicated in this instance by tight confines, demanding a high level of planning and precision. This article is part of NDR's ongoing series following important milestones at high profile projects around the world. Log on to www.ndreport.com to watch a video of this project and other sites in our ongoing series, and be sure to re-subscribe to ensure that you continue to receive the latest look inside the wire at facilities around the world. Surely, Mr. Franklin would applaud your preference for prevention over cure.

Previous Page Next Page

Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here