Sustainable Decommissioning Strategies for Nuclear Power Plants: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper represents comprehensive review of publications regarding an operation and, especially, decommissioning of nuclear power plants (NPPs). The number of such publications rapidly increases recently. The paper contains various information important for start-up and sustainable decommissioning of NPPs with Supplementary Materials and warrant to express publication in Sustainability.
I only suggest some points to improve the presentation.
It is worthy to add the discussion of probability for seven levels of ‘incidents’ and ‘accidents’ in radiological event scale (INES), and respective expected periods.
Nuclear fuel processing can also lead to major nuclear accidents (Tokai-mura in Japan). This point should, at least, be mentioned.
There are many typos
‘decommissioning strategy of NPPs and and researchers',
‘ repectively ‘ -> respectively
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript reviews literature relevant to decommissioning strategy of nuclear power plants (NPPs). It firstly defines the sustainable decommissioning strategy of NPPs followed by details of review approach. The review and analysis approach is well explained. The details of related journals, number of related studies in different countries, existing publication types, details of publications in different years are provided. Subsequently, the review results are summarized. This review is important and well conducted. However, the reviewer has following suggestions:
- The details about decommissioning costs can also be included.
- The details about decommissioning process can be added.
- This sentence is not clear: “That is, it is defined as being maintained at a level of harmful substances that harm human health and nature in sites and nearby environments below the level before the NPP construction after NPP decommissioning”. Check it.
- Few sentences in the manuscript are long and missing connections. Make corrections where required.
- Provide a list of acronyms and abbreviations.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I read the review report with great interest. The authors focused on strategies and progress on sustainable decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants. The topic is worthy for reading but the main manuscript is almost a mess. Very difficult to point out the main points. Considering the essentiality of the topic, I consider for serious revision and publication if the author can address the following concerns.
1) The Abstract is totally unacceptable in the current form. Surprisingly, almost all the statements are directly copied from the introduction. Need to be revised with main review findings and advancements.
2) The introduction is too short. I suggest to consider additional information with description.
3) Considering all the efforts made, I think the method is a mess. Very unexpected points in all this section. The authors took lots of time and energy on how the review papers are found. Meanwhile, I think, Table 1, Figure 1, Table 2, and Table 3 are not necessary for publication. All such lengthy and unnecessary statement, Tables and Figures can be highlighted by one Figure/chart, one Table and less than half page statement. I strongly suggest the authors to highlight the reported literature in a single chart or Figure. Please refer other review paper.
4) In result section, almost number of descriptions are repeated. Very difficult to clearly articulate the main points. Please provide the main points.
5) The conclusion part is just like the aforementioned discussion part. I once again suggest the author to look over similar review papers.
6) What is your suggestions and future work recommendation on NPPs?
Author Response
The authors would like to sincerely appreciate the anonymous reviewer who provided thorough reviews and valuable comments to help us improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that in the revision we have fully addressed the reviewer’s comments and concerns and carefully revised the manuscript based on the feedback we have received. Please see the followings below responding to the reviewer’s comments.
Reviewer’s comments
I read the review report with great interest. The authors focused on strategies and progress on sustainable decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants. The topic is worthy for reading but the main manuscript is almost a mess. Very difficult to point out the main points. Considering the essentiality of the topic, I consider for serious revision and publication if the author can address the following concerns.
Comment 1. The Abstract is totally unacceptable in the current form. Surprisingly, almost all the statements are directly copied from the introduction. Need to be revised with main review findings and advancements.
Response. According to the reviewer's comment, the authors revised the Abstract, as shown below:
The decommissioning of nuclear power plants (NPPs) is rapidly increasing because NPPs are not only no longer profitable in many cases but also face decommissioning due to public acceptance or political reasons in many countries, particularly in Europe since the explosion of Fukushima Daiichi NPP. Accordingly, much interest and research have focused on safe, environmentally sound and sustainable decommissioning in many countries where the demand for NPP decommissioning occurs. In order to achieve sustainable decommissioning that restores the NPP site to the environmental state before NPP construction, it is necessary to understand not only safety, technology, and cost, but also the process and strategy to systematically promote it. Unlike a limited number of countries that have experience and knowledge management in decommissioning multiple NPPs, researchers in countries just starting NPP decommissioning need diverse research information on the determination of a sustainable decommissioning strategy and related factors. In particular, a systematic review of decommissioning strategies such as DD, ID, and ET and the influencing factors associated with each strategy is needed from the researcher's point of view. In this regard, this study reviews the research literature conducted from a sustainable perspective on the decommissioning strategy of nuclear power plants in a systematic method with meta-analysis. The results of this study confirmed that many researchers are most interested in DD and are dealing with ID and ET at the same level, but in reality, DD and ID are being adopted at a similar rate. So far, only three ETs have been adopted in the United States. And most countries that have adopted ID have been influenced by political decisions.
Comment 2. The introduction is too short. I suggest to consider additional information with description.
Response. The authors provided additional information to Introduction according to reviewers' comments. Please refer to the revised Introduction.
Comment 3. Considering all the efforts made, I think the method is a mess. Very unexpected points in all this section. The authors took lots of time and energy on how the review papers are found. Meanwhile, I think, Table 1, Figure 1, Table 2, and Table 3 are not necessary for publication. All such lengthy and unnecessary statement, Tables and Figures can be highlighted by one Figure/chart, one Table and less than half page statement. I strongly suggest the authors to highlight the reported literature in a single chart or Figure. Please refer other review paper.
Response. The authors revised the manuscript by reflecting the reviewer’s comment as shown in the lines 166 - 189 of the revised manuscript. Tables 1-3 have been deleted and related contents have been more concise. However, Figure 1 is considered to be very important because it shows that the literature search according to the subject of this paper was procedurally conducted by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Therefore, Figure 1 was not deleted. This SLR (Systematic Literature Review) research is a type of comprehensive evidence review method that formulates broad or narrow research questions and identifies and synthesizes data directly related to systematic review questions. In this regard, Figure 1, which directly shows the process of systematic literature search, is essential for the flow of this paper.
Comment 4. In result section, almost number of descriptions are repeated. Very difficult to clearly articulate the main points. Please provide the main points.
Response. The authors supplemented the manuscript by reflecting the reviewer's comments, as shown in the lines 413 - 444 of the revised manuscript.
[Added] Lines 413 ~ 421
These results imply that the most important factor to consider when adopting a deferred dismantling strategy is to minimize the impact on the health and safety of workers and the environment. Sub-factors related to these general factors show that reactor and NPP site characteristics should be well reflected, and advanced reactor dismantling technology should be secured. In particular, when establishing a decommissioning strategy, the potential accidents of workers should be reviewed, and the exposure dose of workers and residents should be managed to minimize. In addition, in order to prevent radiation exposure accidents, management procedures for workers should be prepared for each stage of dismantling.
[Added] Line 435 ~ 444
These results confirm that, in the case of immediate dismantling and entombment strategies, the financial resources for implementing the strategy are prioritized because the radioactive material-contaminated structures, operating systems and devices, and sites must be demolished or removed as soon as possible after the permanent shut-down of the NPP. By analyzing the sub-factors linked to these factors in the co-occurrence network, it is confirmed that systematic decommissioning project management technology including cost, schedule, and contaminated waste management must be secured in order to secure economic feasibility. Therefore, when adopting the immediate dismantling and entombment strategy, more attention should be paid to not only the safety of workers but also the evaluation of dismantling costs and the establishment of schedules.
Comment 5. The conclusion part is just like the aforementioned discussion part. I once again suggest the author to look over similar review papers. What is your suggestions and future work recommendation on NPPs?
Response. The conclusion section has been supplemented by reflecting the reviewer’s comment. Please refer to the sentence written in red at the conclusion part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors considered most of my concerns raised on the previous version of the manuscript. Good job. However, I am looking the manuscript very carefully to make sure that the review work is well-organized. In this regard, I have still some concern on the methodology part.
--> The authors accessed and searched for articles on NPP sustainable decommissioning strategies in Science Direct, the Web of Sciences (WoS), etc (using the keywords: nuclear, nuclear decommissioning, and nuclear-decommissioning strategy). However, this is not clear. For instance, WoS platform includes: WoS Core Collection, Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, MEDLINE, Chinese Science Citation Index, KCI–Korean Journal Database, SciELO Citation Index, Arabic Citation Index, etc.
- Moreover, WoS Core Collection includes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index--Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index--Social Sciences & Humanities, Book Citation Index–Science, Book Citation Index–Social Sciences & Humanities, Emerging Sources Citation Index.
--> In general, there are various databases in WoS, thereby it is inapt to vaguely indicate WoS and use all databases for review. This may transfer wrong information for readers of the paper. I even checked the old version of the manuscript, in case I incorrectly gave a comment and the authors might delete it, but the methodology couldn't mentioned any insight regarding such methodological assessment. The same is true for other types of platforms. The authors might find some how different results if they follow such systematic review strategy.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for 'Author's notes to Reviewer'
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors considered all my comments in the revised manuscript. It can be accepted for publication in the current form. Congratulations!
