Title: Post-Deactivation Surveillance
and Maintenance of Excess Facilities
Facility: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Point of Contact: Rick Forbes, Excess
Facilities Manager, 865-574-0404, forbesrj@ornl.gov, or
Lance Mezga, Excess Facilities Disposition Program Manager,
865-574-7258, mezgalj@ornl.gov.
Brief Description of Best Practice:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has
implemented a surveillance and maintenance program for
unoccupied excess facilities. The program monitors the
facilities during the transition and disposition period to
provide hazard mitigation and risk reduction. A flow chart
of the ORNL process is included as Attachment 1.
The Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M)
Program assures that facilities are assessed to determine
condition and known hazards and to perform periodic
surveillance for facility maintenance and stabilization. The
ORNL S&M Program has been in place in various degrees for
several years; however, the current S&M Program reflects the
recommendations and requirements from an assessment of the
structural conditions of excess facilities at ORNL; that was
prompted by a worker accident at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site
(Lessons Learned R-2006-OR-BJCPQA-0101). The structural
assessment was completed by building Facility Engineer and a
support team. In addition to evaluating the structural
integrity of ORNL’s excess facilities, it was recommended
that ORNL assure that excess facilities are routinely and
periodically reviewed, that potential environmental and
safety issues associated with the facilities are identified,
and that appropriate maintenance and mitigating actions are
performed. Furthermore, the S&M Program was re-established
at ORNL and the Excess Facilities Manager was established as
the focal point for these issues.
A tailored approach was used to determine which elements
of the various Department of Energy (DOE) orders apply
during the S&M period. To date, all facilities currently in
the ORNL Excess Facility program are classified as
industrial facilities and, therefore, many of the elements
associated with nuclear facilities do not apply. Under the
current management structure, nuclear facilities determined
to be excess are planned for transfer to DOE’s Office of
Environmental Management (EM) for disposition within the
Integrated Facilities Disposition Program (IFDP). If it
becomes apparent that DOE-EM will not accept a facility into
the IFDP for disposition, then ORNL will where possible
deactivate the facility to the point that it can be
reclassified as an industrial facility by removing nuclear
material and equipment, and decontaminating prior to placing
it into a state requiring S&M. In the event they cannot be
reclassified, they will be managed in accordance with DOE
Order 433.1, "Maintenance Management Program for DOE Nuclear
Facilities." Facilities with no intended future use that are
to remain within ORNL’s Excess Facilities Disposition
Program (EFDP) must meet ORNL’s Space Return Criteria before
being turned over to the Excess Facility Manager.
An ORNL Excess Facility Assessment Checklist
was developed to aid in the facility walk downs; a copy of
the checklist is provided in Attachment 2. All applicable
ESH&Q , ISM, and 10 CFR 851, "Worker Safety and Health
Program requirements that pertain to closure facilities are
embedded within this checklist. Protecting the public, ORNL
employees, its sub-contractors, and the environment is a
primary goal of this plan.
Why the Best Practice was used:
The largest problem is estimating and securing adequate
funding for the maintenance of abandoned, inactive
facilities. This problem is two fold; first the problem of
identifying and estimating the costs of the minimum
maintenance required to keep the facility in stable
condition. This is compounded by the uncertainty of how long
the building must be maintained prior to demolition. For
example, repair of a small roof leak could be deferred if
the facility is to be demolished the next year. However, if
the demolition date is unknown, it may be prudent to spend
the capital to repair the roof and stop further
deterioration. The second problem arises when competing
activities vie for the same resources. At ORNL, the Complex
Facility Manager controls all ORNL facility maintenance
funding and is responsible for maintaining Active occupied
facilities as well as Excess Facilities. Prioritization of
maintenance activities and allocation of resources is
difficult when comparing the needs of active versus excess
facilities.
Attachment 3 shows the results of the
failure to perform necessary roof maintenance over an
extended period of time prior to demolition at ORNL.
How the success of the Best Practice was
measured:
Condition of the facilities will be monitored by
subjectively comparing the results of the periodic facility
assessments to identify deterioration of facilities up to
the time of demolition.
Description of process experience using the
Best Practice:
The program has been in effect and evolving for close to
a year. It began initially with 85 facilities that are
either currently unoccupied or occupied and scheduled for
deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) before 2009. The
process has identified several facilities in poor condition
requiring postings to keep out unauthorized personnel and
has documented the hazards for personnel required to enter
the facility. It has also identified several facilities that
required minor maintenance such as door or window repair to
keep rain out and prevent mold issue or to prevent wildlife
intrusion into the facility.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
