THE INTERVIEW | THE VAN NOORDENNENS
Above: The Fort St. Vrain independent spent fuel storage facility (ISFSI). Spent fuel often remains on site at decommissioned nuclear plants. Source: US DOE
Financial considerations also play a major role. Some entities may choose a gradual approach to manage costs over time, while others may prioritise speed and accept higher upfront expenditures. There’s no universal blueprint, and choices often reflect internal budget strategies and long-term planning. For example, at the La Crosse site, decommissioning began decades ago and was initially conducted at a slow pace with a small team and limited annual funding. After nearly 20 years of incremental work, the utility concluded that the process was taking too long and transferred the project to EnergySolutions to expedite it.
NEi: What is the most challenging decommissioning project you’ve worked on? Miles Van Noordennen: I’d say Connecticut Yankee was the most challenging. It took around 10 years from shutdown to greenfield so, on paper, it seems relatively successful, but it presented a lot of issues. From the environmental standpoint, there were significant
challenges with contaminated groundwater and a host of associated complications. Meeting state closure criteria for chemical contamination can be difficult – not because the standards aren’t clear, but because regulators sometimes have their own interpretation of how those standards should be applied. We faced ongoing debate and negotiation around proving the site was clean. Radiologically, there were also unexpected challenges. They had some damaged fuel, which led to alpha contamination, and the cleanup ended up being more extensive than initially planned. It turned out to be one of my favorite projects, actually, because of how much we had to dig into, quite literally. One key lesson for the whole industry was the importance
of controlling the release of discrete radioactive particles during decommissioning. There’s a lot of sawing, cutting, and torching involved, which can generate radioactive dust or particles. If you’re not careful, those particles can go airborne or stick to surfaces and later fall off, say, during transport, potentially contaminating soil along the way. Now it’s standard practice to carry out all dismantling activities in enclosed environments. That experience at Connecticut Yankee really shaped how the industry approaches things. Gerry Van Noordennen: Some of the early nuclear plant designs didn’t adequately address the integrity of underground piping. Ideally, you’d want double-walled piping, especially if it’s not stainless steel, or at least to have it installed within a protective conduit. But at several older sites, that wasn’t the case. Over time, the underground
26 | February 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
piping corroded and developed leaks, leading to the release of radioactive water into the soil. This caused significant contamination of both soil and groundwater, creating a major cleanup challenge during decommissioning.
NEi: Is it feasible to preserve some structures safely by decontaminating them radiologically and repurposing them? Gerry Van Noordennen: In most cases, buildings are demolished. The only example I’m aware of is the Fort St. Vrain plant in Colorado, where the turbine building was preserved and the turbine generators were reused for a natural gas plant. Apart from that, demolition is the norm. Miles Van Noordennen: I believe much of it relates to meeting the 25 millirem per year limit and the significant time and effort required to fully decontaminate a building to stay below that threshold. My impression is that while meeting the limit might be feasible, proving compliance to the NRC is very difficult.
NEi: Is there any chance those regulations could be changed to make things more feasible? Miles Van Noordennen: No, if anything, the limits tend to get stricter. Some states have the authority to set lower limits. For example, Connecticut has 19 millirem, Massachusetts 10. Once you go below 10, it becomes nearly impossible to meet, as that’s essentially background radiation. So, each state can impose stricter regulations if they choose. Miles Van Noordennen: Unfortunately, preserving buildings
isn’t the norm. Take Three Mile Island Unit 2, for example. During decommissioning, some historians wanted to preserve the buildings, but since they were radioactive, that wasn’t feasible. Instead, they saved non-radioactive items like parts of the control room, artifacts, and documents for museum displays to preserve history. Typically, buildings that are radioactive are demolished.
Occasionally, non-radioactive administrative or visitor buildings on the site’s perimeter are kept, but generally, it’s easier to build new facilities rather than repurpose existing ones. ■
This interview was inititally conducted at CNRS / Université de Strasbourg within the framework of the CO₂ Inno programme. This Franco-German academic research programme explored best practices to make the energy transition of the Upper Rhine more feasible..
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
