Beyond Decommissioning: the Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities and Sites 9780081028759, 008102875X

Citation preview

BEYOND DECOMMISSIONING

This page intentionally left blank

Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy

BEYOND DECOMMISSIONING The reuse and redevelopment of nuclear installations

Michele Laraia

An imprint of Elsevier

Woodhead Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier The Officers’ Mess Business Centre, Royston Road, Duxford, CB22 4QH, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-08-102790-5 For information on all Woodhead publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Joseph P. Hayton Acquisition Editor: Maria Convey Editorial Project Manager: Ali Afzal-Khan Production Project Manager: Joy Christel Neumarin Honest Thangiah Cover Designer: Mark Rogers Typeset by SPi Global, India

Contents

Preface Disclaimer Dedication

ix xv xvii

1

Introduction

2

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

15

2.1 Adaptive reuse 2.2 Industrial heritage 2.3 The link and tension between preservation and adaptive reuse 2.4 The museums 2.5 Indicators of success 2.6 Knowledge management 2.7 Change management 2.8 The aesthetic factor References

17 20 33 39 41 43 49 51 55

Early planning, preparatory steps, crucial decisions, implementation, and beyond: the phases of redevelopment

59

3

1

3.1

4

Decommissioning to brownfield for repowering or sale/redevelopment 3.2 Decommissioning to greenfield for sale or redevelopment References

69 70 72

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

75

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Sustainability Typical reuse/redevelopment approaches Challenges to reusing nuclear sites Designing a nuclear facility to become part of the local community References

77 79 82 83 86

vi

5

6

Contents

Relevant factors for redevelopment

89

5.1 The economics 5.2 The public and other stakeholders 5.3 Staff and skills 5.4 Ownership, sponsors, and stewardship 5.5 Radiological and non-radiological criteria for the end state 5.6 Long-term site mission 5.7 Interim use 5.8 Age and conditions of facility 5.9 Key assets 5.10 Project risks References

91 96 101 103 105 114 117 120 123 127 130

Experience and lessons learned

135

6.1

7

Power plant sites and large industrial complexes, including land areas and infrastructure 6.2 Large buildings 6.3 Bunkers, tunnels, and other underground installations 6.4 Contaminated land areas 6.5 Research reactors and other small facilities 6.6 Tall structures 6.7 Others References

136 148 207 218 226 239 252 277

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment

295

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9

295 296 298 312 312 315 316 317

Rancho Seco NPP redevelopment SATSOP redevelopment The Superfund program Heritage Minerals Site, Manchester, NJ Yankee Rowe NPP, MA Nuclear Lake, NY, United States Chapelcross NPP, United Kingdom Calder Hall NPP, United Kingdom Winfrith, United Kingdom—From Nuclear R&D Site to Science and Technology Park 7.10 Harwell Southern Storage Area, United Kingdom 7.11 Dounreay Site Remediation, United Kingdom ´ JV, Czech Republic 7.12 Experience from decommissioning at U 7.13 Barseb€ack NPP, Sweden 7.14 Case histories and lessons learned References

317 320 323 326 327 329 339

Contents

8

Conclusions and recommendations

Glossary Acronyms Additional Bibliography Index

vii

343 345 355 359 365

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

We do not need magic to transform our world. We carry all the power we need inside ourselves already. We have the power to imagine better. J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement Address (2008)

Early attention to the redevelopment opportunities for decommissioned sites and facilities is a crucial aspect of nuclear decommissioning. Advance planning for post-decommissioning site redevelopment can ease the transition from operation to decommissioning, decrease the financial liabilities, ensure job continuity to operations staff and contractors, and mitigate the impact of decommissioning on the local stakeholders. Unfortunately, the lack of early planning for redevelopment is a reality in many nuclear decommissioning projects. In general, the prevailing attitude is that nuclear decommissioning is the (sad) ending of a successful story, and what follows to it is somebody else’s care: instead, the post-decommissioning phase should be viewed as a great opportunity for the beginning of another successful story. This inadequacy may be due to insufficient understanding of redevelopment experience resulting from nonnuclear decommissioning projects. This book provides an overview of nuclear and nonnuclear decommissioning projects successfully completed with the redevelopment of the decommissioned sites. Lessons learned (not all successful experiences) from these projects are given in detail. The book includes also guidance on factors fostering—or militating against—the redevelopment of facilities and sites. Nuclear operators including those responsible for decommissioning, decision makers at corporate and government level, regulatory bodies, local authorities, environmental planners, and the public at large are relevant stakeholders in site redevelopment and represent the main readership of this book. The book may be of special interest to owners and operators of nuclear facilities for which date and methods of final shutdown and dismantling have not yet been finalized. Especially when a facility does not have to permanently close down soon, there can be opportunities to ameliorate the closure strategy through an early appraisal of the potential redevelopment value of the facility and site assets. By illustrating the range of redevelopment options, and by highlighting the main factors promoting or hindering redevelopment, this book will hopefully spur those concerned with nuclear operation and decommissioning to evaluate reuse at an early stage. The book will also be relevant to nuclear regulators: it will prove to them that incorporation of post-decommissioning redevelopment will help complete the decommissioning of obsolete facilities safely and in the best interest of all those affected, especially local communities. In reading this book the decision makers— ranging from governmental and local authorities to funding bodies—will also be acquainted with the broad benefits to the general public and the local communities resulting from the redevelopment of nuclear facilities and sites: these benefits include

x

Preface

social, economic, environmental, and other forms of well-being. Finally, this book will provide information and guidance to a multitude of potential stakeholders whose interests center on decommissioned facilities and sites. The main objective of this book is to circulate information and lessons learned on new productive uses of nuclear facilities and sites at the completion of decommissioning and after partial or total release from regulatory control. This is also meant to leverage the value of assets (land, buildings, and infrastructure) that can alleviate the economic burden of decommissioning. On the international scale, this subject area has received limited attention. As an independent treatise, it has only been addressed in full by two IAEA reports: Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities after Decommissioning, Technical Reports Series No. 444, IAEA, Vienna, 2006, and Redevelopment and Reuse of Nuclear Facilities and Sites: Case Histories and Lessons Learned, Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-2.2, IAEA, Vienna, 2011.

Both edited by the author of this book, and needing updating in the light of considerable progress acquired over the last 10 years. The information provided for individual facilities in those two IAEA publications has not been repeated here unless updates on reuse strategies for those facilities had been disclosed more recently. Therefore, the book’s main focus is given to advances and achievements over the last 10 years (i.e., after all references for IAEA No. NW-T-2.2 had been assembled), and to the state of the art in the reuse and redevelopment of contaminated facilities and sites. This reflects in most references quoted, which have been published since 2009 or so. However, some fundamental references have been quoted to set the basis for further elaboration. Any good redevelopment project should involve a process of looking both nationwide and internationally at precedents, to learn from others’ experience and lessons learned. The lessons learned from similar projects, either by consultants or clients, are often available through publications or archived documentation. However, visits to ongoing projects of similar nature or direct feedback from those directly involved in those projects are indispensable to ensure success. This approach is the foundation of this book. The redevelopment of nonnuclear assets has been a common practice long before nuclear reuse was even envisioned as an independent discipline. In recognition of the predominant edge acquired by the nonnuclear sector, a large share of this book is devoted to the achievements of nonnuclear industrial sites; and an attempt has been made to compare those achievements with options available to nuclear sites (still mostly at the planning stage). Learning from the nonnuclear sector serves another objective this book is devoted to. In the author’s opinion, one of the plights affecting the nuclear sector comes from the inside, namely from the perfectionism the nuclear community inflicted upon themselves. The root cause of this perfectionism lies in the original sin of the nuclear energy, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. The horror raised by these events pressured the nuclear community toward creating a perfect control system—in an imperfect world. For the nuclear world, the refusal to accept any standard less than perfect resulted in over-conservatism, frustration, isolation, and an

Preface

xi

unfounded superiority complex: in turn this attitude made nuclear installations more and more complicated and costly, and on the other side, scared the general public. By recognizing that nuclear redevelopment has a lot to learn from the nonnuclear experience, this book aims to instill a sense of normality and humility into the nuclear industry. The author feels that to see a true “nuclear renaissance” the nuclear industry should be perceived by the public as little different from other forms of power generation, and basically just “business as usual.” Another objective of this book is to highlight that planned redevelopment of the nuclear facilities and sites may facilitate the decommissioning process. In particular, this report aims at refuting the common understanding of decommissioning (the burden of liabilities and the destruction of assets) by highlighting a constructive view (the keeping or regaining of assets, or the development of new assets). In this sense, the book is promotional. It does not address any radiological or chemical contamination issues per se, for example, it does not describe numerical criteria for the release of sites/facilities, while recognizing that such criteria deeply affect the redevelopment options. Structurally, this book first locates industrial reuse/redevelopment into the history of human activities, with a focus on industrial operations and transition to closures. Then the book establishes a baseline for industrial redevelopment, including the understanding of basic concepts and definitions. Third, the various phases of redevelopment are described in detail, beginning from conceptual planning through analysis of relevant factors, selection of alternatives, decision-making, detailed planning, execution of a project, and follow-on actions. The subsequent chapter is given to the application of redevelopment as an innovative approach. Then the book highlights numerous factors that affect the redevelopment of industrial buildings and sites. Factors of success or failure enable developers, planners, communities, and other stakeholders to anticipate the issues, benefits, and drawbacks attached to reuse projects, compare them and decide on a course of action. Based on experience, the book also tries to explore how any difficulties encountered may be mitigated. A number of individual projects are briefly discussed based on certain categories. Finally, detailed case studies from the nuclear sector are presented and discussed in depth. The ubiquitous, international character of post-decommissioning redevelopment has been recognized in this book by quoting initiatives, plans, and facts from a number of countries (see Table below). Countries and related redevelopment projects discussed in this book Albania Austria Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China

Bunkers, tobacco factory Research reactor, mills, silos, chimneys Power plant, bunker, railway structures, harbor Nuclear power plant, research reactor, water tower Factories Power plants, industrial plants, research reactors, mills Bunkers, silos Continued

xii

Preface

Countries and related redevelopment projects discussed in this book—Continued Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Hungary Iceland Israel Italy Japan Poland Portugal Russian Federation South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden The Netherlands Turkey United Kingdom

United States

Venezuela

Lighthouse Industrial plant Nuclear center, irradiator, bunkers, industrial plant Silo, dockyards Silo Nuclear centers, silo, harbor, military bases, uranium mine Nuclear power plant, research reactors, industrial plants, furnaces, railways Railway station Industrial plant Railway, landfill site Chimneys, railways and railway structures, roads, furnace, slaughterhouse, water tank, gas holder, mines Nuclear power plant, factories Mill, furnaces Power plant, factories, slaughterhouse Power plant Silo Bunker, research reactors Nuclear power plant, factory, brewery Nuclear power plant, harbor, research reactor, silos, bunker Craneway, railways, silos, water tower, research reactors, factories Power plant Nuclear and conventional power plants, nuclear research centers, contaminated land areas, mills, silos, bunkers, breweries, railways Nuclear and conventional power plants, nuclear research centers, research reactors, contaminated land areas, military bases, bunkers, mines, railways Irradiator

This is neither a textbook, nor is it academically oriented. Nor is the book intended as a prime aid to those beginning a scientific career oriented to decommissioning or environmental remediation (D&ER) technologies. Nor does the book intend to specifically address health and safety risks and precautions with respect to particular materials, conditions, or procedures. Consequently, the author recommends consulting applicable standards, laws, regulations, and experts for safety-related information. The scope of the book assumes that D&ER has been completed at least in preliminary planning, and reuse/remediation need consideration at this stage (the earlier, the better). In fact, early consideration of site redevelopment is a factor of decommissioning planning and may require its iteration. Therefore, the book is meant to draw attention of those (governmental and local authorities, operators, waste managers, regulatory authorities, legal experts, demolition contractors, etc.) engrossed in the planning and implementation of D&ER, who wish to look ahead and enlarge their professional

Preface

xiii

horizons to reuse/redevelopment (either per se as a post-decommissioning activity or preferably as a strategic element of D&ER). Further the book addresses those responsible for land planning including public authorities, architects, historians, environmentalists, real estate developers, and a wide range of other stakeholders (universities, researchers, industries at large). The book is not intended to provide optimal solutions to individual redevelopment problems: each concrete redevelopment option will depend on multiple country or site-specific factors, which are impossible to quantify in generic formulas. Rather, through the use of concrete examples, the book illustrates a wide range of factors and possible solutions for further investigation. The book uses narrative techniques to provide a more profound meaning and help the reader use imagination to visualize facts. (Actually it will be shown that the very subject of this book—redevelopment—has a lot to do with imagination.) Techniques applied in this book to enliven its style include backstory, flashback, imagery, celebrity quotes, a bit of humor, and others. For example, imagery creates visuals appealing to the reader’s senses and involves figurative language. Likewise, the book makes wide use of anecdotes, newspaper articles, and stories of minor events leading to more significant consequences or bearing universal meaning. The narrative style of this book (occasionally verging on colloquialism) can make it appealing to a more general class of readers, for example, the non-initiated, yet attracted by environmentalism, history, or social aspects. Finally I hope it will not be said of this book: “From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it.” Groucho Marx (1890–1977).

This page intentionally left blank

Disclaimer

Although the author has taken great care to review the reliability, completeness, and accuracy of the information contained in this book, neither he nor the publisher provides any warranties in this regard or assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from the use of this information. Neither the author nor the publisher shall be liable in the event of any conflict between this book and other sources of information. The technical implications of the information contained in this book may vary widely based on the specific facts involved and should not replace consultation with professional advisors. Although all facts the author believes to be relevant are addressed, the book is not meant to be an exhaustive coverage on the subject. The occasional mention of trade names or commercial products does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be viewed as an endorsement or recommendation. Statements that could appear as biased judgments are unintentional and are definitely not intended to be so, however, the author has taken full responsibility for them.

This page intentionally left blank

Dedication

To my wife Giovanna, who for 45 years has given me unconditional friendship, unwavering support, and love. I am convinced that the world is not a mere bog in which men and women trample themselves in the mire and die. Something magnificent is taking place here amid the cruelties and tragedies, and the supreme challenge to intelligence is that of making the noblest and best in our curious heritage prevail. Charles Austin Beard (1874–1948)

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

1

I am convinced that the world is not a mere bog in which men and women trample themselves in the mire and die. Something magnificent is taking place here amid the cruelties and tragedies, and the supreme challenge to intelligence is that of making the noblest and best in our curious heritage prevail. Charles Austin Beard (1874–1948)

Since the beginning of human history, when given a chance, mankind has chosen to reuse existing inhabited sites and their infrastructure (e.g., dwellings, harbors, and roads) for new purposes, as needed, rather than to abandon existing sites and establish settlements anew. The somehow obvious reason is that the original sites were established for such convenient factors as water availability, ease of access, natural defensive features, etc. and the uncertainties in identifying and redeveloping new sites were not considered worth the risk in most cases. Of course, this does not account for cases of forced relocation due to overwhelming circumstances, for example, natural disasters, invasion by enemies, or new trading opportunities. One should also note that reusing an existing site often implies adapting the site to new demands and priorities, which is not necessarily easy and inexpensive. In the end the decision between reuse and restart has always required a (conscious or unconscious) trade-off of multiple factors. There are thousands of sites worldwide that have been reused over centuries, while continual modifications were being undertaken to preserve the site usability for new functions. It will be enough to look at archeological sites. The following is a brief overview of ancient sites where new facilities were installed, taking advantage of site features inherited from former uses of the site. As well known, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” For almost 3000 years, different civilizations and institutions (Etruscans, ancient Romans, early Christianity, the Papal State, and the capital of the Italian State) have succeeded and transformed Rome sites while preserving a substantial unity. For example, the foundations of pagan temples were often reused to support Christian churches. The Theatre of Marcellus (in Italian: Teatro di Marcello) is an ancient open-air theater in Rome. The theater was officially inaugurated in 12 BC by Augustus, the first Roman emperor. The theatre, the largest of its time in Rome, remained in use for three centuries. Then its structural materials were partly dismantled and reemployed for civilian buildings in the area. However, the theater statues were restored by Petronius Maximus in 421 CE; by that time, the remaining structure housed small residential dwellings. Throughout the Middle Ages the theater was used as a fortress and residence by noble families. This shielded the complex from decay. Later, in the 16th century, the residence of the Orsini family, designed by the famous architect Baldassare Peruzzi, was built atop the ruins of the ancient theater. Now the Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00001-4 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 1.1 Theatre of Marcellus, Rome, Italy. Photo by M. Laraia (2007).

upper floors are divided into multiple apartments, and its surroundings are used for summer concerts (Fig. 1.1). Elsewhere in Italy there are many sites that have been continuously used for 2000 years. In Catania, Sicily, encompassed by the remains of the city walls from the time of Emperor Charles V, there stands the church of Saint Agatha in Prison; according to tradition, it was built over the prison where Saint Agatha was held during her trial and eventually passed away on 5th February 251 AD. It is possible that the prison was part of the administrative complex and residence of her prosecutor. The doorway to the Baroque Church is mediaeval (around 1241) and was originally part of the facade of the ancient Norman cathedral, rescued from the ruins of the earthquake of 1693. It was reinstalled by Gian Battista Vaccarini, who designed and constructed the new church in the 18th century. What remains of that edifice today is a rectangular opening (5.9 m
3.65 m) to the right of the nave of the church, whose thick walls (2 m) can be justified by their original defensive purpose. In the 1960s another space was discovered alongside the prison at a level lower than the current floor. This could be a lower prison reserved for those awaiting the death sentence, or a Christian or pagan basilica, but it also could be the gladiators’ baths (Fig. 1.2). Discovered only in 1943, the Naumachie is the remains of an old Roman wall, 130 m long, with 18 niches that surrounded the gymnasium (a building for indoor sports activities). Built in the 1st-century BC, it is the second oldest structure in Taormina, Sicily. The name Naumachie (in Greek “sea battle”) was wrongly given to the structure after the large water basin found here. However, the basin was not used to

Introduction

3

Fig. 1.2 The Church of Saint Agatha in Prison, Catania, Italy. Photo by M. Laraia (2018).

stage sea battles but was a reservoir used as a water supply for the gymnasium and the city. As shown in Fig. 1.3, part of the structure was later converted to private dwellings. Over the millennia, literally many thousands of structures have been reused for new purposes, as the few above-mentioned examples show. Reuse projects have addressed churches, theaters, hospitals, barns, just to name a few. This book, however, addresses only the reuse of industrial structures. The industrial revolution, and the mass production associated with it, helped support workers and their families for almost two centuries and contributed to shaping the world’s economy, social habits, and environment to this day. The industrial buildings and sites are a consequence of the industrial revolution: their sturdiness, large size, and appearance have transformed our landscapes and mindsets. The United Kingdom was the first industrial nation, followed by European nations, the United States, and eventually most nations of the world. However, all industries gradually became obsolete in technology or unproductive, and were replaced by more advanced industries or no industries at all. The developed countries’ society has changed from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one in the period from mid-1960s to mid-1980s. Following the industrial revolution, deindustrialization has generated thousands of deserted and unused industrial buildings worldwide. Complexes of these vacant buildings have created widespread phenomena, known to the specialists as industrial ruination. For many, industrial ruination has resulted in a kind of stigma. Deindustrialization is a process of social and economic change triggered by the removal or

4

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 1.3 Naumachie, Taormina, Italy. Photo by M. Laraia (2018).

reduction of industrial capacity or activity in a city, country, or region, of all types of industries but especially large industrial complexes (e.g., heavy industry or manufacturing industry). National policies and institutional changes have also contributed to deindustrialization such as economic restructuring and redistribution. Globalization is a popular term that encompasses these phenomena. With breakthroughs in transportation, communications, and information technology (IT), and a globalized economy that spurred foreign investment, capital mobility, and labor migration, industrial complexes moved to low-cost countries and were replaced by service companies (IT, real estate, etc.) and financial agencies typically concentrated in cities. Due to the urban growth, industrial complexes that used to be in the remote periphery of the city today are now inside the city. New business concepts, users’ and citizens’ environmental concerns have led to relocation of industrial functions to new areas, outside the city, leaving vacant sites behind.

Introduction

5

Today’s world coexists with a huge number of industrial ruins (sometimes called Contemporary Ruins, because they do not date back more than 100 years or so). These are public or private, designed for handicraft or mass production, residential, military, or commercial, and they may also be on vastly different scales, from small to large buildings, infrastructures, or entire ghost towns. These ruins include two categories: unfinished and abandoned buildings. The basic difference is that while the latter have had an operational lifespan ending with abandonment, the former have never been completed and used. These, one might say, were born as ruins, have no history, and have never known human attendance. Deindustrialization reflected in severe economic, social, and environmental impacts on abandoned areas. Disused industrial areas became economically downgraded, socially distressed, and environmentally deteriorated through industrial contamination. No longer useful for their original functions, industrial buildings have remained as concrete memories of a long gone era. The pressing question is now what to do with these old buildings: do we demolish them and build afresh or do we invest in their redevelopment? This is the challenge that faces public authorities, architects, land planners, sociologists, and the general public at large. Derelict land, according to the European Union, refers to “land so damaged by industrial or other developments that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment.” The European Union suggests Unused Area as one of the indicators of urban quality of life, the concept consisting in the combination of Derelict Land (as defined previously) and Contaminated Land (defined as “any land that appears to be in such a condition—because of the substances that it contains—that water pollution or significant harm is being, or is likely to be caused”). The notion of derelict land may be considered almost a synonym for brownfield (Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 2014). Perceiving beauty in industrial buildings has been instrumental to their redevelopment, although beauty is not the only factor in their conservation. Years—often decades—after these buildings became obsolete and abandoned, their simple, wideopen spaces, and the visibility of their construction materials have kindled the imagination of new generations. Although there are many reasons for the reuse of industrial buildings and sites, the charm of the industrial esthetic has been often vital to the success of their rescue and redevelopment. Regardless of their dilapidated conditions and ruined shapes, former industrial buildings also represent a form of heritage in which people may recognize valuable cultural assets—a form of community capital. Consequently, many of these sites have been awarded a heritage designation intended to protect by the force of law and conserve the buildings, the surrounding land, and associated cultural values. Due to their architecture and evocative meanings, many of these vacant sites have become important landmarks (Sugden, 2017). For mankind, the remains of old industries offer a link with our ancestors, which can be passed on to our children and grandchildren. It is interesting that some industrial buildings from the last century are still considered “ugly” by many. And when such buildings are listed or receive public money for conservation, there is always a wave of protest. In truth, the debate is not different

6

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 1.4 The “brutalist” National Theatre, Southbank, London. Photo by M. Laraia.

from the never-ending one about contemporary art. It must be recognized that “beauty” is a very subjective notion. Many contemporary buildings were designed in the “brutalist” style of art. In London Southbank, the National Theatre was designed by Sir Denys Lasdun as a brutalist piece of architecture (1.4); it was officially opened by the Queen in 1976. It is a publicly funded performing arts hub, comprising of three auditoriums—The Olivier, The Lyttelton, and the small Dorfman Theatre. There are also rehearsal spaces on site, and workshops for set construction and painting, costume construction, and making of objects used by the actors. At the time of its opening, the building was both applauded by some as an icon of postwar architecture and mocked by others (Prince Charles) for looking like a nuclear power plant. In opinion surveys, the theater appears simultaneously in the top 10 “most popular” and “most hated” London buildings. While the comparison with a nuclear power plant can be acceptable (Fig. 1.5), it should not necessarily imply contempt. The Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester, United Kingdom, highlights industrial applications and achievements in the Manchester region. The museum nucleus is the railway station—the oldest in the world—which started operation in 1830; the structures of the station are Grade I listed (see Glossary). Visitors can board the train on established days. In the past the museum railway was linked to the national railwork; unfortunately, the construction of a modern rail link in 2016 cut the link to the museum and reduced the museum line to the site boundaries. A legal case was raised to preserve the historic line, but eventually efficiency considerations prevailed; this denotes a typical debate when taking decisions about industrial heritage, namely

Introduction

7

Fig. 1.5 Magnox Trawsfynydd Site. Copyright Magnox Ltd.

Fig. 1.6 Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester, United Kingdom. Photo by M. Laraia.

efficiency vs preservation (Fig. 1.6). In the nuclear sector, the decommissioning strategy for the Garigliano NPP in Italy aims at unrestricted release of the site; but the reactor sphere designed by the famous architect Riccardo Morandi, which was declared part of Italy’s architectural heritage, will not be dismantled (Fig. 1.7) (Laraia, 2017). However, the Dounreay reactor sphere (nicknamed “Golf Ball”) will

8

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 1.7 Garigliano NPP, Italy stack and reactor sphere. Note: while the reactor sphere will be preserved, the stack in the middle of the picture was dismantled in November 2017. Photo by M. Laraia (2016).

be eventually demolished, regardless its landmark status: the cost of maintenance (e.g., periodically repainting the huge structure subject to heavy corrosion by the adjacent sea) was considered unacceptably high, and other preservation options (e.g., hotel, museum, and even nightclub) considered unrealistic (BBC, 2017). The fate of the Dounreay dome was eventually sealed following a comprehensive options study and the participation of many stakeholders. The esthetic, historic, and cultural values of old buildings, facilities, and sites are not the only arguments eventually imposing conservation (a form of “freezing” their conditions, which can be regarded by some as a burden, a nuisance, and a cost); in fact, redevelopment should be viewed as a broader opportunity than the mere conservation. Over the last few decades, redevelopment of obsolete industrial sites has gained extensive support due to factors as follows: l

l

l

l

l

Upgrading environmental and human health standards Removing the stigma associated with environmental contamination Reversing unemployment trends. Skills are typically available at existing industrial sites that can be reemployed for new uses Creating new environmental jobs Increasing property values and related tax revenues

Introduction l

l

l

l

l

l

l

9

Achieving significant savings in infrastructure investment, due to the use of underutilized existing infrastructure Stimulating economic growth Increasing land availability and reducing pressure to develop greenfield sites (this is associated with the current shortage of “virgin” industrial sites, and the desire of preserving them for recreational or other nonindustrial purposes) Giving preference to the development of new industry at sites that were previously used industrially. This includes economic advantages for redevelopment of “brownfield” sites over “greenfield” sites. And in general, less stringent environmental regulations apply to “brownfield” than to “greenfield” sites (see Chapter 5.5 for a comprehensive discussion on these points) Fulfilling requirements to reduce waste volumes for disposal. As the site is redeveloped there will be less pressure to demolish old buildings, which can instead be reused as such or with some adaptations Appreciating that old buildings have a superior status for new businesses and attract people. Certain types of businesses enjoy a unique prestige when situated in older buildings. In particular, businesses such as bookshops, ethnic restaurants, antique stores, and “niche” shops flourish in old buildings. The strange layouts, the vestiges of former uses, the unusual corners, all of these strike imagination. Similarly, banks prefer to have old facades, even when situated in modern buildings as this conveys a reassuring sense of stability Finally, being aware that the preservation of historic buildings is a one-way process. Once a piece of history is demolished, it is gone forever (Rocchi, 2015)

The impact that ruins have on cities, regions, and in general, environment is undeniable. While historical (classical) ruins are respected as valuable heritage, the contemporary ruins discussed in Camocini and Nosova (2017) cause a different reaction from the local communities and the general public. They are often felt as negative elements that disfigure the environment, which bring about a tendency toward avoidance and various problems, for example, security, ownership disregard, maintenance, and demolition costs, and the expanding depreciation of surrounding districts. The other important issue is the lack of a general legislative framework about the growing spreading of contemporary ruins on a local, regional, or nation-wide scale, and the need for updated regulations. However, the incompleteness of ruins triggers creativity induced by the dialog between an incomplete reality and the unlimited imagination of the viewer. “This is how a building survives in the limbo between two temporal requirements: not yet distant past, as in the case of a historical ruin, and no longer present, as a contemporary human habitat. Its future is unclear and mysterious. This appeal lies largely in the concept of gradual decadence, slow abandonment, the inexorable flow of time. The sight of ruins evokes different feelings; nostalgia for an impossible return to the past and the discovery of an inaccessible past tend to attract a perverse type of tourism. Intervention strategies include actions based on an approach which is similar to that of the restoration of historical buildings, resulting as a chance to complete, preserve, reconvert, or demolish. The decision may be to demolish the residual testimonies and recreate a new urban fabric without any restrictions, or choose to preserve the ruin, building a new relationship between past and future” (Camocini and Nosova, 2017).

10

Beyond Decommissioning

It may be worth stressing that the closure, decay, and the resulting need for redevelopment is not limited to large industrial buildings, viewed as the markers of a historic era: in fact, architecture changes as fast as today’s world, and entire types of buildings disappear almost before our eyes. See text box below. Arch Daily (2018) identifies six types of structures that came to light in modern times and are fast disappearing. Mostly inconspicuous and yet ubiquitous, the disappearance of these buildings raises a sense of nostalgia, rather than intellectual consideration. According to Arch Daily (2018), these six types are: l

l

l

l

l

l

Corner stores exist around the world, under many names: New York’s bodegas (in fact, a Spanish name), Australia’s milk bars, sari-sari stores in the Philippines. With the growth of large shopping malls, the family-owned corner store has been on a fast decline; Easily recognizable and barely large for a person and a phone, public phone booths have ubiquitously marked our society for decades. With the booming of the mobile phone, their fate was sealed. Many countries e.g. Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden have eliminated pay phones altogether, and their number continues to go down worldwide. Some cities have converted these booths into wi-fi hotspots. In the United Kingdom, many of the iconic red phone booths have been converted into tiny cafes, mobile phone repair shops, or defibrillators. Video rental stores appeared and disappeared within 20 years or so. Among the few remaining Blockbuster video stores in the United States are three stores in Alaska, where cold winters and slower internet connections still make video rental appealing; and it is reported that one in Oregon owes its survival to the local customers seeing it as more “personal” than Netflix or other streaming sites. Gas stations. As fuel consumption has become smaller, and the price of land has escalated, a lot of gas stations have been shut down. Their large areas and lack of contiguous structure are good assets for such redevelopment options as art galleries, offices, and restaurants. Newsstands have ubiquitously dotted cities for many decades. The headlines attracted the passers-by and so the stands became centers of social aggregation. Besides, newsstands provided prospective entrepreneurs with an objective of upward mobility. Digitalization is growingly but inevitably killing these structures. Since the 1960s, automated photo booths have allowed us to stay for a few minutes away from the inquisitive crowd. Although the structure was tiny and basic, photo booths in shopping malls or train stations allowed some intimacy. In principle the booths may have been intended to produce passport photos, but the photos actually captured and preserved memories …

The redevelopment of industrial sites is a consolidated industry, and a lot of experience/expertise is available to reuse buildings, components, and the land. Unfortunately, the prompt redevelopment of nuclear sites after decommissioning lags behind and is not entirely optimized. Lessons learned during the redevelopment of nonnuclear industrial sites should be communicated to the decision makers and stakeholders in a nuclear decommissioning project, as well as to those responsible for site planning, the very purpose of this book. A precautionary note: “The biggest difference between time and space is that you can’t reuse time (Merrick Furst, http://www.greatthoughtstreasury.com/author/ merrick-furst)”. Eventually former industrial sites will be redeveloped anyhow, but typically such sites are kept idle for many years, often decades of no action until a

Introduction

11

redevelopment strategy is chosen. This delay causes undue care and surveillance expenses, deterioration, growing loss of interest and of momentum, and the resulting loss of resources—which can be permanent. If site reuse is delayed, say, for 20 years, the land upon which the plant sits will likely have a lower value than it would have had if the reuse had occurred with no such delay. In other words, there is an opportunity cost reflected in the reduction in the present value of the land. The economic or market value of any land reflects the stream of future profits, income, or noneconomic asset leverage “income” that the land can generate. (Note: vacant land generates no such income during this 20-year delay.) Financial details in this regard are provided in Williams et al. (2005). In redevelopment terms, the nuclear industry is not different from other industries. As this book shows at length, the nuclear buildings and sites are not generally different in size, layout, and main constructional features from their nonnuclear equivalents. Actually many nuclear buildings are very similar to nonnuclear ones because their functions are the same (e.g., turbine buildings). Nuclear sites exist in both developed and developing countries, and house a wide range of nuclear and/or radiological facilities such as nuclear power reactors; research reactors; small medical, research and industrial facilities; isotope production facilities; nuclear fuel cycle facilities; and waste processing and storage installations. Multi-facility sites include nuclear power stations (with two, four, or more reactors), nuclear research centers (with research reactors, hot cells, laboratories, waste treatment and decontamination stations, etc.), medical centers, etc. Their size can span from a fraction of km2 to many km2. Nuclear buildings can be small (e.g., a radiobiology laboratory or a teletherapy department) or huge and massive (e.g., a power reactor building, a cooling tower). While a power reactor building has unique features, a lot of auxiliary buildings at nuclear sites are not very different from industrial warehouses, silos, bunkers, and the like (Figs. 1.8 and 1.9). Some nuclear buildings are uncontaminated, because they never handle radioactive substances; others have been contaminated by nuclear operations and must be decontaminated to make reuse possible. While some nuclear buildings look extraordinary and impressive to the non-initiated, others look simple and understandable to anybody. The readers could raise a basic objection regarding the application of nonnuclear redevelopment experience to nuclear sites: these are often marked and haunted by an “a priori” (somebody could say, irrational) stigma, the “gut feeling” being that radiation is still looming even after decommissioning has been completed and the site officially cleared for unrestricted use. Obviously nonnuclear sites do not have this specific stigma, but they could be associated with other, equally significant, stigmas: one of these is the perceived persistence of hazardous substances, but a subtler stigma is described in Stadler (undated) and while referring to Austria, it could well refer to other countries. “… The successful era of industrial monument preservation in the 1920s and 1930s was rudely interrupted by the events and effects of the war … The devastating effects of the Second World War led to a lasting and ultimately decade-long interruption to industrial monument preservation in Austria … the term ‘industry’ was tainted with the stigma of annihilation. Industry being associated with the war economy, the production of ‘important war materials’ using slave labor and

12

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 1.8 Salaspils reactor Latvia. Former Central Heating building reused as waste storage facility. Photo by M. Laraia (2008).

Fig. 1.9 Garigliano NPP, Italy; The ex-ECCS building redeveloped as radioactive waste store. Photo by M. Laraia.

Introduction

13

above all the production of military equipment and armaments, no-one had any desire to preserve the memory of the period in the form of industrial monuments.” However, the preservation of industrial monuments in Austria enjoyed a renewed interest in the 1970s. This was partly due to the international events of 1968, with an opening up of petrified university environments and more attention being given to hitherto disregarded fields of research; new disciplines such as industrial history, industrial sociology, social history, economic history, and environmental history emerged. The United Kingdom is another example of this shift of public sentiment. It should first be noted that United Kingdom was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, and as such, the country is dotted with literally many hundreds of industrial relics. After WWII UK had a profound disregard for its deserted industrial sites, with the dumping of garbage signifying a sentiment of disdain. Industrial monuments were considered symbols of a disturbing past, reminders of social and economic decline (e.g., the loss of the British Empire), and relics of hard labor and cruel working conditions. Abandoned sites were also associated with “danger, delinquency, ugliness, and disorder.” Similar to Austria, only in the last 30 years or so of the 1900s has the meaning of industrial heritage been fully recognized in the United Kingdom and its values of cultural resource popularized and priced (Orange, 2008). One of the first books in this field is by Buchanan (1972). To end this chapter on a lighter note, the growing awareness of industrial redevelopment among the general public is reflected in the large number of comics and cartoons on this subject (Fig. 1.10). To this end, the interested reader can consult https:// www.cartoonstock.com/, https://mchumor.com/, etc. and use search words.

Fig. 1.10 Self-explanatory cartoon, which symbolizes the logistic, financial, and cultural limitations to industrial redevelopment. Credit to Theresa McCracken https://mchumor.com/.

14

Beyond Decommissioning

A lot of factors enhancing or militating against preservation and reuse of industrial sites, either nuclear or nonnuclear, will be presented in this book, and it will be clear that there are common bases for dealing with any kind of industrial sites.

Disclaimer Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.

References Arch Daily, 2018. Modern Building Types That Will Soon Disappear Forever. 4 July 2018. https://www.archdaily.com/896553/6-modern-building-types-that-will-soon-disappearforever?utm_medium¼email&utm_source¼ArchDaily%20List&kth¼2,750,010 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). BBC News, 2017. Approval sought for Dounreay dome demolition. 14 November 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-41982131 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Buchanan, R.A., 1972. Industrial Archaeology in Britain. Pelican Books. Camocini, B., Nosova, O., 2017. A second life for Contemporary Ruins. Temporary Adaptive Reuse Strategies of Interior Design to reinterpret vacant spaces. Design J. 20 (Suppl. 1), 1558–1565. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352680? needAccess¼true (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 2014. Urban recycling of derelict industrial sites. Analysis of socio-economic redevelopment of post-industrial districts, Barcelona. 24 January 2014. https://upcommons.upc.edu/ bitstream/handle/2099.1/21140/IvanNikolic.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Laraia, M. (Ed.), 2017. Advances and Innovations in Nuclear Decommissioning. Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy. Hardcover ISBN. 9780081011225. Orange, H., 2008. Industrial archaeology: its place within the academic discipline, the public realm and the heritage industry. Indus. Archaeol. Rev. XXX (2), 84–89. Rocchi, J., 2015. Six practical reasons to save old buildings. https://savingplaces.org/stories/sixreasons-save-old-buildings#.W3Pu984zaM8 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Sugden, E., 2017. The Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage Buildings: A Multiple-Case Studies Approach. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/ bitstream/handle/10012/12823/Sugden_Evan.pdf?sequence¼3&isAllowed¼y (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Williams, D.G., Devgun, J.S., Demoss, D., 2005. Cost-based assessment of decommissioning alternatives and financial strategies. In: WM ’05 Conference, February 27–March 3, Tucson, AZ. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/pdfs/5120.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

2

Nowadays, there is a growing awareness that, instead of consuming virgin lands (greenfields), public institutions and private companies should strive to redevelop “brownfields,” instilling a new life in them, in order to achieve a sustainable setting. Reed (2005) states: “nearly every significant new landscape designed in recent years occupies a site that has been reinvented and reclaimed from obsolescence or degradation.” There are five basic concerns around this type of sites: their state of abandonment; their state or suspected state of contamination; their potential for reuse; their former use (limited to industrial use in this book); and their location. These concerns can reflect in questions such as: What should be done with these sites? What functions could the buildings take now and in the future? What makes these areas underutilized? What hinders conversion? Any lurking surprises or snares? Who are the responsible parties and their partners for the redevelopment? Who is going to pay for the conversion process and who will take the benefits from the new use? Who is best qualified for the redevelopment plan and execution? Does this process require single or multiple disciplines? All these questions and others need to be answered. To this end, new evaluation methodologies may be needed. It is crucial to establish new strategies and assessments in which the formerly industrial landscapes are redeveloped, taking into account environmental impacts, historic and cultural aspects, funding, and socioeconomic priorities (Fig. 2.1). This is the very scope of this book. Unfortunately, an in-depth analysis of redevelopment case studies to this day shows that there is a general lack of “strategic vision” in current planning activities concerning local communities, towns, and green areas. In addition, the redevelopment of industrial sites must take into consideration the prospective needs of future generations. The economic and social costs of unused properties are high. It is generally recognized that unused properties attract vandals, homeless, squatters, and drug dealers, and consequently drive down property values, taxes, and services, and discourage investments. Vacant properties impose financial and social burdens on the local municipalities. In addition to reducing property values and tax revenue and attracting criminal activities, they “strain the resources of local police, fire, building, and health departments” (Virginia Polytechnic, 2005). The drainage of municipality resources is especially detrimental since the vacant properties provide little return in taxes. Nuclear and radiological facilities, and other facilities handling toxic substances, are vulnerable to an even more serious risk, the theft or the loss of dangerous materials, which could endanger those inadvertently exposed to such materials. The Goi^ania case in Brazil is exemplary in this regard (IAEA, 1988). Highly radioactive teletherapy sources had been left unattended in the abandoned premises of a hospital; Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00002-6 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

16

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 2.1 EBR-1, allegedly the first nuclear power plant in the world, has been preserved as a national museum; open to free tours. Credit to the US Department of Energy.

in order to salvage supposedly valuable materials, two thieves subtracted the radioactive sources, fractured them, and spread the contamination on themselves, their families, and neighbors. Several fatalities resulted. The root cause of the accident can be attributed to the hospital having been deserted, indeed a case of lack of decommissioning planning (or missing reuse of a disused facility). By and large, when a property is used it will be well maintained in order to fulfill its intended use. Although it should be observed, some owners have little interest in the well-being of their properties. For example, industrial companies forced to close their plant or warehouse as the economy has changed will try to minimize maintenance and other expenses. The redevelopment projects should transform the postindustrial landscape through community and interdisciplinary efforts that integrate functionality, industrial heritage, and public participation into long-term solutions based on socioeconomic, cultural, environmental and aesthetic objectives, and the reconciliation of different interests. In this regard, land planning should strike the right balance and timing

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

17

between proactive strategies and reactive regeneration projects, and between legislative and educational policies, while fully engaging owners, communities, public institutions, and financial markets (Loures et al., 2011). The amalgamation of such diverse objectives and factors clearly highlights that solutions in concrete cases should be based on cost-benefit analysis or multi-attribute utility analysis.

2.1

Adaptive reuse

Until a few decades ago, industrial buildings and sites were generally ignored, unlike country homes, palaces, and castles which early preservationists valued for their associations with historic characters and events. The neglect of industrial buildings highlights that they have long been, and partly still are, considered by many as a burden and an eyesore. They are often overlooked due to their seedy environs, polluted soil, and “common” architecture. Such a perception disregards the rich architectural detail, identity features, and unique spaces available in industrial complexes for public fruition. One of the main challenges to productive reuse of the former industrial sites is environmental contamination. In some cases, owners have “mothballed” land and buildings, allowing them to sit idle rather than facing the challenges of reuse. In other cases, owners have simply abandoned their properties, allowing them to revert to the public domain. Consequently, local governments, often struggling with their own financial crises, are compelled to deal with the problems of contamination and deterioration if they want to return the facilities to productive and profitable use. Adaptive reuse is the process of finding a new use for a building or site. It can be described as a “process by which structurally sound older buildings are developed for economically viable new uses” (Virginia Polytechnic, 2005). The term “adaptive reuse” has been typically applied to circumstances where a facility is obsolete from the viewpoint of its original function but it can be modified for a new function. Industrial operations and processes are subject to continual change and improvements. Changes in products and production methods imply that, unlike offices or dwellings, it is generally impractical to carry on using industrial sites for their original objectives beyond a certain time (limited by the service life, market trends, or unplanned circumstances, e.g., fires). This implies that adaptive reuse is important in the preservation of industrial sites. Adaptive reuse is a means to give the sites further life while maintaining the historical knowledge and other cultural values for future generations. From another angle, adaptive reuse is “the option available to both reduce the number of abandoned/unused industrial buildings (i.e., modifying a place) and/or prevent demolition of these cultural heritage assets (retaining cultural heritage value): it is a way to reuse them for new programs and functions by recycling their usable components” (Sugden, 2017). Adaptive reuse has a richer meaning than change of use because it refers not only to the “change” in function but also to the concept of “restoring” to functionality following a previous decommissioning condition. The term “adaptive” introduces an even deeper meaning, relating to the field of biology, which indicates the ability of

18

Beyond Decommissioning

living beings to adapt themselves to changes in their habitat. Indeed, the term “adaptive” also introduces the variable of “time,” assigning to the spaces the ability to deal with subsequent requirements of upgrading, and generating a sequence of different functions of temporary duration. These functions may follow fragmentary sequences or small upgrades, with different gradients of change or with a renewed dynamism over time. Camocini and Nosova (2017)

Industrial buildings are well suited to adaptive reuse due to their typically large, open spaces, but of course there are opposite examples. Many industrial buildings are noteworthy for their architecture, as relics from the industrial age, and some of them may be also associated with celebrities and famous events. Some industrial buildings were designed by prominent architects. The decline of heavy industry beginning in the early 1900s and continuing thenceforth has left a legacy of unused and derelict sites in the most industrialized countries. Adaptive reuse should be the preferred strategy for an industrial facility/site when no other industrial option is available. And, it should always be given priority over demolition and new constructions. There are infinite reuse options available for the industrial buildings including museums, art studios, offices, residential units, schools, retail, and a combination of these and more, that is, multiple uses. This book will strive to present as many reuse options as possible based on the experience from both the nuclear and nonnuclear sector. If the site under redevelopment has historical value, the new use should take account of the original functions and of that heritage while also incorporating new functions. Adaptive reuse imbues a site with new life, rather than freezes it at a given time. As a method, it investigates the options ranging between total demolition and intact conservation (e.g., as a museum). Adaptive reuse adds a new segment of history to the site without abrading early segments. In a way, even a museum can be viewed as an adaptation of the site, in that it gives a chance to maintain materials, constructions, and spaces that could otherwise be lost and to render them available to new users as needed. Adaptive reuse typically focuses on certain components of the site while belittling others. Adaptive reuse is not necessarily limited to single buildings or small areas, but can be a part of the redevelopment of a greater area (see Section 3.2). The Ruhr region in Germany is an internationally recognized model of this form of redevelopment. The conception of the Emscher Park shows that a brownfield site can be even more and better than dilapidated ironworks. Originated by a group of citizens concerned about the demolition of the Duisburg Meiderich Ironworks, and fearful of rumored construction plans, the conception slowly became reality. Over 10 years, a technology, nature and leisure park, unique for its multiple uses, was established around the old ironworks. Strolling, cycling, playing, enjoying beautiful views from high positions (Fig. 2.2), and taking your time in a restaurant are some opportunities offered to the visitor by the redeveloped area. History, vision, cleanup criteria, and achievements are extensively described in US Environmental Protection Agency (2007).

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

19

Fig. 2.2 Emscher Park, Germany. Photo by Laraia (2014).

In adaptive reuse, the building or site in question needs to be appreciated in many ways, including spatial links and configurations, the relationship between the site and its geographical surroundings, and signs of past operations. “Adaptive reuse is the most radical approach to reuse: instead of keeping what still fits, you make it fit so that you can keep all” (GMF, 2016). However, adaptive reuse presents challenges that can make adaptation of industrial buildings problematic. An issue occasionally known as the “Frankenstein Syndrome” can be found in the specialist literature (Nosta, 2013); it means that adaptive reuse can fail because of the intrusion of a new, incompatible scheme into an existing one. By scheme it is meant to refer to the spirit, resilience and will of a space to remain unchanged. A simple way to understand this issue is to ask the question: Can all buildings be used for a totally new and different purpose than the original one? Could the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier be used as a residence? The awareness of this and other issue often makes owners decide for demolition rather than adaptive reuse. Frequently, the inherent risks and complications linked with adaptive reuse are perceived to outweigh the expected rewards (Sugden, 2017). Barriers to adaptive reuse include, but are not limited to: 1. a poor maintenance record leaving the site in a deteriorated condition beyond remedy (Fig. 2.3); 2. remaining contamination such as radiation, asbestos, and other hazardous substances; and 3. lack of consensus on reuse option among interested parties.

20

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 2.3 Cornwall mining site, United Kingdom. In such a case, the remains of the old, remote facility can only make a monument or an open-air museum, but no adaptive reuse seems realistically possible. Credit to Pixabay.

Needless to say, there are cases where the degree and extent of preventive maintenance are irrelevant to reuse. Chernobyl is possibly the most notorious example in this regard. In no way will that plant be reusable. But its site will be reusable as illustrated in Section 6.1, Chernobyl Site, Ukraine.

2.2

Industrial heritage Our duty is to preserve what the past has had to say for itself, and to say for ourselves what shall be true for the future. John Ruskin (1819–1900) When undertaken on former industrial buildings, adaptive reuse is a viable strategy for both neighborhood revitalization and heritage conservation. This strategy is optimized when the industrial buildings requiring reuse demonstrate heritage significance. This is because cultural heritage and archaeological resources conservation provide important environmental, economic and social benefits and because adaptation provides a link to past cultures through built form. Industrial heritage buildings present a built form that is unique both aesthetically and because their construction, during the industrial revolution, transformed familiar landscapes, disrupted habits and challenged established values of the times. Sugden (2017)

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

21

See a definition of “built form” in the Glossary. The heritage significance of an industrial place can be historic, aesthetic, social and/ or technical and both tangible and intangible. They may be listed on local, state or Commonwealth government heritage registers or be completely unprotected. The owner may see them as full of potential, or as a problem that would best be resolved through demolition. Industrial heritage sites are also often endangered. Research by English Heritage suggests that, in the UK, listed industrial buildings are more at risk than almost any other kind of heritage. Industrial heritage is sometimes not as widely appreciated as other kinds of heritage structures. Heritage Council of Victoria (2013)

Extensive reference is made in this chapter to The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH). This is the world organization representing industrial heritage. Its goals are to promote international cooperation in preserving, conserving, investigating, documenting, researching, interpreting, and advancing education in this field. Through a Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 2014, The TICClH is officially recognized by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) as a consultant in all matters related to the study and preservation of industrial heritage. The lCOMOS is the global nongovernmental organization dedicated to conservation of the world’s historic monuments and sites. In particular, ICOMOS’ network of experts (especially the TICCIH) counsels the UNESCO (the United Nations organization responsible for cooperative, coordinated action by member states in education, science, and the arts) on properties to be added to the World Heritage List. The TICCIH (2003) defines the key concepts and fundamental methods of industrial heritage and industrial archeology. The following is extracted from their charter of principles. “Industrial heritage consists of the remains of industrial culture which are of historical, technological, social, architectural or scientific value. These remains consist of buildings and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted and used, transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to industry such as housing, religious worship or education” (TICCIH, 2003). Although this definition was not specially written for nuclear sites and facilities, it can be generally applicable to them. Industrial sites may have been relinquished decades ago, they may have changed functions many times, or they may have shutdown in recent times. Even sites that have been in use for many decades may have been subject to significant technological changes. Industrial heritage sites may be cherished by the local communities or despised as eyesores or symbols of a dirty and messy past. The cultural meaning of an industrial site can be historic, aesthetic, social, technological or scientific, and either measurable or unmeasurable. They may be listed on official heritage registers and protected as such or be forgotten and prone to

22

Beyond Decommissioning

environmental agents or vandalism. The owner may recognize their potential for the redevelopment, or view them as a burden and a liability: in the latter case, demolition may appear the logical approach if other players take no action. In a number of longforgotten sites, no liable owner can possibly be identified and the risk of deterioration beyond remedy, uncontrolled demolition, or simply loss of information and knowledge is higher. When the owner (if one can be identified) fails to adequately maintain a heritage site, it is generally up to public institutions to take over: to this end, specific legislation is needed. The industrial heritage is the evidence of activities which had and continue to have profound historical consequences. The motives for protecting the industrial heritage are based on the universal value of this evidence, rather than on the singularity of unique sites. The industrial heritage is of social value as part of the record of the lives of ordinary men and women, and as such it provides an important sense of identity. It is of technological and scientific value in the history of manufacturing, engineering, construction, and it may have considerable aesthetic value for the quality of its architecture, design or planning. These values are intrinsic to the site itself, its fabric, components, machinery and setting, in the industrial landscape, in written documentation, and also in the intangible records of industry contained in human memories and customs. TICCIH (2003)

In all countries, criteria have been promulgated for a site to be designated of heritage interest. A slightly rephrased taxonomy of criteria from (Michigan State University, n.d.) follows: l

l

l

l

The building or site is associated with events that have marked history. The building or site is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. The building or site incorporates the distinctive features of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a whole meaningful and recognizable entity. The building or site has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history.

A brief digression is needed here to illustrate the evolution of industrial architecture in support of the third bullet above (Jevremovic et al., 2012). The embryo of industrial beauty goes back to the mill buildings of late 1700s, simple wooden or masonry buildings with repetitive forms and regular openings. These elongated buildings fitted nicely into the landscape. In pre-electricity days, flooding workspace with as much daylight as possible was key. Long and narrow, these buildings had open and unobstructed interiors to accommodate many machines and workers. Their narrowness not only allowed light into their central spaces, but also enabled machines on either side of the building to be powered from a central shaft down the floor. Early industrial buildings were simple because their utilitarian nature placed them low in the social and therefore, aesthetic ranking. Since the remotest antiquity, the buildings have reflected social importance. The risk of fire was so overwhelming that it shaped much of the industrial architecture of the 1800s. Fire concerns discouraged interior wall coverings as well as

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

23

ornament on building exteriors; prompted open internal spaces; promoted flat roofs and discouraged the attics; encouraged large windows; and recommended flat floor areas be detached from interior stairs. The stair towers that punctuated flat facades became typical. Any ornament was placed on the towers, which were often capped with roof tops or domes. In the early 1900s, the growth of both buildings and machinery required structures that could support more weight and spread over greater length. Moreover, new industrial processes demanded more flexible and adaptable layouts. The solution came from well-known materials that needed new applications: concrete and steel. Single-story buildings became of common use for their adaptability. Light entered through clerestories or monitors on the roofs which were supported by widespan structural grids. These buildings required larger land expanses and enhanced the use of steel. The mass-produced steel could span great distances compared with cast iron or concrete, so providing the flexibility needed for the continuous change of the industrial processes. Industrial shapes, materials, and aesthetics had a great influence on the orientation of modern architecture. Around the early 1900s, the factory was regarded as a building type deserving architectural attention in order to dignify the workplace and establish corporate identities. One example is emblematic of this period, Otto Wagner’s Hofpavillon (Court Pavilion), Hietzing, Vienna, Austria, completed in 1899 (Fig. 2.4). By using a small number of striking motifs—the broad, curved approach, the wrought-iron portico, and the central dome—the famous Austrian architect was able to distinguish the Court Pavilion from the other stations of the City Train network. But Wagner managed to give all the network of mass transport (stations, bridges, and railings) a unified character, the

Fig. 2.4 Otto Wagner’s Hofpavilion, Hietzing, Vienna. Photo by M. Laraia (May 2018).

24

Beyond Decommissioning

modern “Nutzstil” (functional style). He made clear that “modern life” required a fittingly “modern” design language, one free from the burden of historical models where function, need, and construction would be given strict consideration. “Necessity is the only mistress of art” was Wagner’s motto. The interiors were tailored to the needs of the emperor, which meant Wagner could justify the rich decor as functional—and therefore as modern. A painting on the rear wall shows “A View of Vienna from a Balloon at a Height of 3000 m,” so merging industrial progress, architectural beauty, and imperial prestige. From a loggia, two stairwells—now closed—for the exclusive use of the emperor led to the train platforms (Wien Museum, 2018). The post-World War II years saw a major change. The new materials (e.g., plastic) have shown poor resistance to deterioration. Although the 1950s and 1960s has produced some great works of industrial architecture, they have been poorly appreciated by the general public: this contemptuous attitude continues in some segments of the general public to this day. This is especially due to the dullness and poor quality of a large part of the production of those years. The awareness of the value of these structures is urgently needed to preserve the fragile balance on which their appeal, if any, rests. Besides, industrial heritage from this period is the greatest and commonest worldwide, although it is not yet perceived rightly. In the lack of internationally accepted evaluation criteria for the architecture of the 1950s and 1960s, there is a concrete risk that an entire generation of buildings may disappear forever. Compared with other forms of architectural heritage (e.g., Renaissance or GreekRoman buildings), considered to be of the greatest cultural impact, the industrial spaces are often considered mediocre and devoid of meaningful qualities. This attribute is associated with the society’s bias about the feeling of beauty. The unconventional aesthetics of the industrial buildings, often simple and straight, with no ornamentation, has been until recently crucial in determining the social attitude to these buildings. However, an aesthetic reinterpretation has taken place overtime. Currently, industrial structures are viewed by many as artistic units. In addition, regardless its cultural component, the built environment can be appreciated in terms of its reuse functions. The conversion of industrial buildings enhances their heritage values, contributing to social recognition and reinforcing the attached values, while in parallel opening the building to community’s development (Trifa, 2015). There is a concept often associated with the value of old industrial buildings: atmosphere (elsewhere in this book I have used synonyms: charm or fascination). Currently, most people seem to appreciate these buildings, and even call them “beautiful.” While atmosphere is impossible to define or quantify, it is, however, a tangible, concrete notion accessible to everyone. Besides the five traditional senses, factors like gravity, scale, illumination, and orientation contribute to the atmosphere. It is also possible to establish a link between atmosphere and history and historical buildings. It has been stated that although atmosphere is based on the subjective and emotional feelings, it is activated by such objective elements like materials, spatial proportions, degradation of materials, connection details, relations with other buildings, rhythm, light, etc.

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

25

More specifically, the old industrial buildings and sites have certain features that give them a peculiar atmosphere. The experience of such places goes from the whole atmosphere to the smaller details that shape it. Brownfields draw attention in the form of mixed feelings of fascination and rejection. A brownfield that has been abandoned “expresses the withdrawal of a social world” and unclear prospects. So, the emptiness that depicts former industrial sites and buildings can cause an atmosphere of abandonment. Of course, the individual reaction to this sense of abandonment varies widely. Architects, for example, have a working relationship to chaos. The same atmosphere of abandonment can then inspire and turn into a sense of resurgence (Van Gendthallen Amsterdam, 2015). It is interesting that the renovation of many industrial sites has been initially promoted by artists. Often encouraged by the cheap prices of these dilapidated areas, and motivated by their imaginative prospects, artists have transformed these areas into centers of artistic activities and interactions, for example, galleries, performance places, studios, cafes, etc. Through the visualization of the identity and culture of a place, stimulated by artistic initiative, industrial buildings and sites were made more attractive, enhancing larger investments (University of Texas, n.d.). What is the reason for the link between adaptive reuse and the cultural sector? One answer is pragmatic: the openness of industrial spaces best fits cultural uses; thus, such spaces can be readily used for exhibitions, workshops, and studios. But another answer has to do with the architectural style of adaptive reuse. Adaptive reuse projects are never repetitive or dull. In adaptive reuse, a dialog opens between the past and the present. Old and new things merge and contrast, which is attractive and imaginative. Old industrial features are stressed by adaptive reuse: brick walls are left raw, columns and beams are exposed, and concrete surfaces are left untouched. Traces of the past are not erased, but amalgamated in the new use. By contrast, modern materials, like glass and metal, are often chosen for new building elements, like stairways or floors. It is the clash of old and new that attracts people committed to culture (Hartmann et al., 2016). Over the last 30–40 years, new destinations appeared in tourism because of the ever growing competition and new economic priorities. In some cases, places that were considered unattractive earlier—like former or even operating factories and other industrial facilities—became touristic attractions. The cultural tourism, often associated with the revival of industrial heritage, has its origins in France, where, since 1960, it has taken the form of eco-museums for the knowledge of industrial practices and community life. This concept was later adopted by a number of Western countries, depending on the factors such as type and size of the industrial building, location, financial support, and logistic and commercial priorities. The increased number of industrial buildings turned into museums, together with the booming of themed itineraries for the study of industrial activities (like The European Route for Industrial Heritage (ERIH)) witness the cultural and social benefits stemming from the integration of industrial heritage in social life through tourism (Trifa, 2015). University of Texas (n.d.) reads: “Post-industrial remains were not created to possess the values of beauty but still seem inspiring to many of us.” This is a part of an ongoing cultural change.

26

Beyond Decommissioning

There is something amazing about how the degraded appearance of these buildings has turned into something attractive. It is the history of these structures that gives them a special character. The concurrent view of an initial history of achievements and successes, later abandonment and degradation, and final redevelopment into something striking and culturally rich, makes these sites meaningful. This history is a symbol of creation prevailing over greed and neglect. Through the redevelopment we make these symbols part of our own culture, which in return gives them new values. In a way, these buildings are not only reminders of a past world (which would rather be the task of a traditional museum), they do belong to us entirely (University of Texas, n.d.). On the other hand, the growing interest in our industrial past is a part of a more general trend (sometimes nicknamed “Industrial Chic”) toward the merging and the harmonization of industrial artifacts and exposed construction materials into everyday life: this concerns not only the use of household appliances but also the decoration of shops (Fig. 2.5). One example of tourism based on the industrial heritage is given here. In 1907, the Don Valley Brick Works, Toronto, Ontario, Canada employed 200 workers with an annual production of 25 million bricks. By the 1970s, the annual production had amounted to 60 million bricks. Then, the brick-making site was closed down. Evergreen, a Canadian nonprofit organization has managed the former brick-making site since 1991. They have converted the abandoned buildings into a cultural center. This included structural renovation and new constructions. The general objective of the project was adaptive reuse. In this way, the historical image of the Don Valley

Fig. 2.5 The inside of a clothes shop, Vienna, Austria. Photo by Laraia (2018).

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

27

Fig. 2.6 Brickworks site, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Credit to Dennis Jarvis.

Brickworks has been preserved. The center has become a successful touristic attraction (Canadian Encyclopedia, 2015) (Fig. 2.6). However, the relationship between heritage, redevelopment, and tourism has certain paradoxical elements. First, tourism makes use of resources and generates an environmental impact that can (further) deteriorate the heritage sites. Besides, touristic revenues do not necessarily offset redevelopment costs. When sharing culture is the objective, tourism and heritage support each other. However, when culture is artificially created by touristic policies, commercial values will prevail over conservation values: if so, tourism and heritage are decoupled and the heritage objectives will suffer. Industrial tourism can have various benefits, including a strengthened image of the region and a contribution to public relations. For example, tourism can make the residents feel safer about the industrial sites nearby (Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, 2014). This debate is about the broad sustainable tourism, as the requirement for the tourist to make a positive impact on the environment, society, and economy. There is now a consensus that the tourism development should be sustainable; however, the question of how to achieve remains debatable, especially in difficult case such as industrial tourism. A deep discussion on sustainable tourism is given in the UNESCO (2010). Second, certain forms of industrial tourism are difficult to understand or perhaps hard to justify. I am referring to the so-called “dark tourism.” By this phrase, one refers to travel to places historically associated with death and tragedy. However, while a morbid attraction or curiosity could be the reason for dark tourism in some cases, in other cases, the main attraction is the historical value of these sites rather

28

Beyond Decommissioning

than their associations with death and suffering. In the nuclear field, the flourishing tourism to Chernobyl, Ukraine and Fukushima sites, Japan can be quoted as relevant. For example, 7 years after the Fukushima combined earthquake, tsunami, and severe nuclear accident almost canceled the local tourism, the number of foreign travelers has recovered to pre-accident levels. In the first 10 months of 2017, a total of 78,680 visitors spent at least one night in the prefecture, exceeding the 77,890 visitors in the same period in 2010 (TTG Asia, 2018). In 2013, a proposal was launched for a new community—possibly named Fukushima Gate Village—on the border of Fukushima exclusion zone, some 40 km from the site of the nuclear accident. The objectives of the proponents are multiple. First, they hope the new village will serve as a living memorial of the disaster of March 2011. Second, it is hoped the new community will provide jobs for local inhabitants, many of whom cannot go back to their former homes yet. Tourists will be hosted into hotels that were built to receive the evacuees at the time of the disaster. The village is planned to have restaurants and souvenir shops, as well as a museum dedicated to the accident and its impacts on the people. It is also planned to install research facilities devoted to renewable energy sources. Tours to the damaged nuclear plant will be organized for visitors (a process already underway at the time of writing this book). The final objective of the proposed initiative is for Fukushima to become for the Japanese and foreigners alike a symbol similar to the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Telegraph, 2013). Although the conservation of the industrial buildings brought about by the cultural tourism supports the perpetuation of the industrial heritage, by securing its cultural values, adaptive reuse can be in the long run the only method able to sustain the economic survival of the industrial building. Therefore, heritage conservation and socialeconomic development should be integrated to inject a new life into the former industrial buildings (Trifa, 2015). The worldwide move toward adaptive reuse tends to address buildings and other structures that are not heritage listed, or facilities that are marginal in mere heritage value, or too young to be regarded as of heritage concern: many factories, industrial buildings, or large manufacturing plants are currently not assumed to have architectural distinction. However, in such buildings, adaptive reuse can be attached to memory and cultural values rather than built heritage. These buildings have historically shaped the identity of a site—for example, as landmarks or pointers to/descriptors for a place on a map or guidebook (ODASA, 2014). Industrial heritage is often associated with industrial archeology, although the latter has specific characters. Industrial archeology is the systematic investigation of written and material evidence resulting from past industries. This evidence includes buildings, equipment, end products, land, infrastructure, documents, and other items from the fabrication, storage, transport, and/or disposal of products. This technical field is supported by such disciplines as archeology, architecture, civil and mechanical engineering, historiography, museology, and geotechnics, with the aim at assembling pieces of industrial history into a coherent picture. The interpretation of fragmented evidence is often required, because the written documentation of many industrial

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

29

processes tends to be scarce or nil. Industrial archeology comprises both the examination of visible structures and excavations to retrieve buried items. The Chatterley Whitfield Project can be quoted here as one example of industrial archeology and site redevelopment among many in the United Kingdom. The grounds around the old Chatterley Whitfield Colliery, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom, have been transformed into a new heritage country park. The site was initially used as a coal merchant’s yard from 1750. It was active as a colliery around 1850 and was the first colliery in the United Kingdom to mine 1 million saleable tons of coal in 1 year. It closed down in 1976. Eventually, the site was recognized as an outstanding example of a coalmining industry and was given the status of Ancient Monument by English Heritage in 1993. In 2007, it was officially registered as one of the most significant at-risk industrial heritage sites in the country. For some years after closure, the site was managed as a heritage mining museum, but that management was later discontinued. It took 2 years and cost £8 m (€9 m) to convert the 20-ha site into a green open area for recreational purposes. The project was completed with the assistance of Stoke-onTrent City Council, English Heritage, and Friends of Chatterley Whitfield. The major change to the landscape was the restoration of Ford Green Brook into an ecologically friendly open stream. New footpaths, including some for the disabled, were established. Also, Cycle Route 55, which is a part of the national network of cycle paths, was preserved and improved. The pit’s spoil heap was retained in memory of generations of local workers. The history and current state of the site is described in BBC (2010). On a much smaller scale, but equally significant to the purposes of this book, Dale’s Brewery, Cambridge, United Kingdom can be quoted as a typical redevelopment project: from brewery to mixed use. Frederick Dale established the brewery in its current site in 1903. It stands as a fine example of a small brewery of the period. It had a threestory block fronting the street with offices, and an archway to the yard with other buildings behind it. The name appeared—and still does—in large wrought lettering around the roof and on a large clock over the street (Fig. 2.7). Currently, the Dales Brewery business center has six offices, three workshops, and four shops. The development has dedicated parking for each business and is within close distance of the city center and train station (Gwydir, n.d.). Most old industrial buildings and sites are protected by law and active conservation organizations on account of their artistic, historical, social, and scientific significance. In addition, such heritage structures have a record of longevity and resilience tested by centuries of natural and man-made hazards. Historic industrial buildings possess an inherent charm as sociocultural strongholds and invaluable repositories of technological advancements. Besides, many old industrial sites are “good” buildings from which we can learn important lessons about sustainability and building construction techniques. The cultural heritage of a nuclear plant is especially controversial. Storm (2011) raises many relevant issues, but offers no generic solution. Decisions in the field are clearly political and subject to democratic debate, which implies that different

30

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 2.7 The Dales Brewery, Cambridge, United Kingdom, now converted into shops and offices. Photo by Laraia (2012).

decisions are possible in different countries or at different sites within a country, or at different times. Is it possible to view a shutdown nuclear power plant (NPP) as a monument or memory site? Has our understanding of what is history and cultural heritage enlarged to the point that we can include a physical structure whose meaning is so controversial? One simple answer is: yes, it has already happened. Many examples are given in this book. Nuclear applications have been illustrated in museums all over the world; and NPPs have been documented and studied from a cultural history standpoint. However, there is more to say. For many people, nuclear energy conveys such repulsive associations that they find it impossible to view nuclear energy as cultural heritage. Nuclear power reminds them of accidents, perceived links to atomic bombs, and unmanageable radioactive waste. For them, nuclear memories should be erased. By contrast, cultural heritage is viewed as something nice and beautiful, economically attractive, and a touristic target. Other antinuclear groups maintain that shutdown nuclear plants should be conserved to remind mankind of past mistakes and tragedies. Others yet might think that nuclear plants are too modern for cultural heritage. How back in time should cultural heritage be meaningful? On the pronuclear side, some will claim that nuclear power is the future, not history, and does not belong to cultural heritage. So, conflicting opinions are heard. At nuclear power sites, the buildings are valued as workplaces. There, nuclear plants represent the hub of the community. This taken in isolation cannot make cultural heritage either.

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

31

The process involved in identifying and picturing memories, monuments, history, cultural heritage, and museums is very political. It is characterized by negotiations and fights for interpretation. Those involved may be curators and environmentalists, engineers and accountants, architects, and elected officials—all with different responsibilities, vested interests, and perhaps dual agendas. Cultural heritage can be double edged. Designating something as a cultural heritage is to elevate it to a higher status, but also to exclude from today’s reality something disturbing: this is only viable insofar as the cultural heritage is presented as a past event. But nuclear power is certainly not dead and buried. At the same time, an emerging interest in decommissioned nuclear plants can be seen, fully in line with the touristic trend of visiting disused industrial sites (e.g., chemical and metallurgical). Cultural heritage as a double-edged phenomenon leads to further considerations. The risk associated with nuclear and radiological sites and the need to secure and remediate the facilities cause negative feelings, but also prompt a sense of excitement and give the sites an atmosphere of adventure (see discussion on “atmosphere” earlier in this chapter), which along with the perception of patina and nostalgia sets the bases for so-called “rust tourism.” Can a conversion to tourism destination be an expression of reconciliation with the past? How do memories come to be considered cultural heritage? As said earlier, this is a critical political issue. Should the individual experience become a collective concern? The answer to this question is related to a society’s self-image and vision. Quite recently public opinion movements have emerged, aimed at involving the man-onthe-street in this evaluation and consequently creating a more democratic cultural heritage. Nonetheless, cultural heritage remains characterized by a more elitist perspective, typically restricted to professionals and enthusiasts. What are the implications of a democratic cultural heritage? Concerns have been raised that designated cultural heritage monuments are growing in numbers to such a point that their meaning can become diluted and irrelevant. And then what will be the role of the cultural heritage experts? Anyhow the crux for the individuals and society remains the management of changing conditions when past experiences, present situation, and future prospects collide and yet a reconciliation is needed. In sum, the contentious point is that “Industrial built forms, like other historical buildings, lose their function due to their obsolescence and thus, adaptive reuse can be a suitable conservation option. Yet, adaptive re-use for industrial heritage conservation has to be concerned with creating and establishing cultural values of obsolete spaces and their social recognition as heritage sites” (Sugden, 2017). And finally, a couple of points—based on actual events—advocating redevelopment of the old buildings, rather than demolition (Rocchi, 2015). First, when you destroy an old building, you never know what you are destroying. The Daylight Building in Knoxville, TN, was a dilapidated structure. A developer bought it with a view at demolishing and building new constructions in its place. However, following several failed deals to demolish the building, the Daylight went back on sale. When the new owners began renovations, they discovered the building’s treasuries: soffits made with heart-pine wood, a large clearstory, a front awning adorned with rare tinted

32

Beyond Decommissioning

“opalescent” glass, and a facade lined with shining copper. Second, regret goes only one way. There is no chance to save a historic building once it is gone. And, one can never be sure of what will be valued in future. This highlights the importance of identifying and saving historic buildings—once a piece of history is destroyed, it is lost forever. A point some may regard as provocative is illustrated in the following. a critical challenge in dealing with industrial heritage is to define what was significant long ago and what has changed and become significant today. Example: “Well, a lot of these places have great old bones. When you go back into the discussion on the layering of history, at the Brick Works for example, there was graffiti everywhere. After it was closed up, it became a great place for raves, for photographers, and also for graffiti artists. But who’s to say that’s not also a legitimate part of its history? […] It’s an editing process of removing some things and adding some things, and there’s a sense of respect that you have to have of what’s come before”—quoted by Sugden (2017). This point is stressed in Fig. 2.8, an abandoned factory in Rome. Maybe it is the graffiti that should be conserved as the first priority, and the ruins of the fabric are only the decorative background. The relationship between “local culture” and reconversion is discussed in Wei Zhang (2012) through a detailed analysis of three case studies. It has been noticed that the “local culture” has almost disappeared in some conversions. Some conversion projects show no difference, for example, between Europe and China. For example, some of these sites used parts of the industrial buildings as sculptures, and converted the buildings into art centers (quite a commonplace trend these days), but no consideration was given to local elements. What attracts people is the link between the culture of the

Fig. 2.8 Rome, abandoned factory, urbex, and graffiti-art. Art by BAR crew, Carlos Atoche and Ale Senso. Photo courtesy by Rita Restifo.

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

33

buildings’ past and the local culture of today. The two questions are: how to merge local culture (intangible) into the old industrial buildings (tangible)? or conversely, how to upgrade local culture through the redevelopment of industrial buildings? “Culture symbolizes the sense of belonging in specific places as a source of images and memories. Culture plays a leading role in redevelopment projects based on the historical preservation or local heritage, or in other words, local culture …. Local culture mainly refers to the culture that is rooted in local place and is passed down from generation to generation together with the ethnic cultural characteristics. Local culture is a combination of historical tradition and modern life. The tradition is one part of the local culture, and the multidimensional modern life featured by the pop music, the graffiti and all those modern razzamatazz are also parts of the local culture. Local culture refers to the lifestyle of the locality, the geographical features, local natural resources, the art activities of the place (both modern and traditional) and of course, the local history.” According to Wei Zhang (2012) five aspects seem most relevant when integrating local culture into industrial redevelopment: (1) Use the original elements of the site. (2) Identify the characteristics of the buildings and use them to promote and expand local culture. (3) Integrate geography (e.g., mountain, rivers, and the climate) and vegetation (native plants). (4) Respect and promote the local art activities (e.g., the industrial buildings have generally large spaces, which are suitable for art activities). (5) Give new functions to old buildings. The functions should have both economic and cultural benefits in order to preserve the local culture.

In summary, “as a form of culture, industrial heritage and adaptive reuse seem to form a mutualistic relationship. Through adaptation, a community’s industrial heritage can be conserved, but without the transfer and/or maintenance of that industrial heritage’s essence into the new use, adaptation fails to capitalize on that transfer or regeneration of culture. This finding backs up the aforementioned definition of what constitutes successful adaptive reuse. The retention of cultural heritage value through adaptation, therefore, is an indicator of a successful adaptation” (Sugden, 2017). And finally, a statement that can reconcile conflicting views “Werte kann man nicht lehren, sondern nur vorleben (Values cannot be taught, they must be lived)” (Viktor Frankl, 1905–1997).

2.3

The link and tension between preservation and adaptive reuse In an industrial society which confuses work and productivity, the necessity of producing has always been an enemy of the desire to create. Raoul Vaneigem (1934– )

Different forms of redevelopment may be needed, but a common objective is to create an economic use that ideally provides all of these: enough value to cover

34

Beyond Decommissioning

refurbishment and conversion costs; a financial return to the owner or developer; and regular income to support care and maintenance costs. To break the downward spiral of obsolescence; decline; depreciation; further decline; and lack of interest, changes may be needed to occupation and functions. “Functional restructuring” or “functional diversification” may—and probably should in most cases—support the redevelopment of buildings and their sites. Public intervention and subsidies can be justified for several reasons. First, to support preparatory work of physical regeneration (e.g., removing accumulated garbage, scaffolding, hovels, etc.) before viable redevelopment work can be undertaken; second to compensate for legal restrictions (such as listing) that will impact costs by precluding certain cheaper options; and third in recognition of the community’s economic growth and the wider social and economic progress instigated by the redevelopment project. At first glance, it may appear that the principle of development is in opposition with the preservation of historic structures. The development requires buildings that are safe, resilient, efficient, and accessible. But what about old buildings that stand in the way of new developments? How do we fathom and balance the value of historic buildings against the value of modern, sustainable buildings, for example, founded on adequate steel reinforcement and airtight window frames? Some segments of the public may find it much easier, almost obvious, to opt for cheaper, faster, and larger buildings than to invest in an existing building. The following guidelines were promulgated by the TICCIH (2003). “Conservation of the industrial heritage depends on preserving functional integrity, and interventions to an industrial site should, therefore, aim to maintain this as far as possible. The value and authenticity of an industrial site may be greatly reduced if machinery or components are removed, or if subsidiary elements which form part of a whole site are destroyed. Preservation in situ should always be given priority consideration. Dismantling and relocating a building or structure are only acceptable when the destruction of the site is required by overwhelming economic or social needs. The adaptation of an industrial site to a new use to ensure its conservation is usually acceptable except in the case of sites of especial historical significance. New uses should respect the significant material and maintain original patterns of circulation and activity, and should be compatible as much as possible with the original or principal use. An area that interprets the former use is recommended. Therefore, adaptive reuse is not contradictory to preservation. Continuing to adapt and use industrial buildings avoids wasting energy and contributes to sustainable development. Industrial heritage can have an important role in the economic regeneration of decayed or declining areas. The continuity that reuse implies may provide psychological stability for communities facing the sudden end long-standing sources of employment” (TICCIH, 2003). It should be recognized that industrial monument preservation has typically to do with denuded factories and deteriorated industrial shells. A realistic preservation of such facilities can often by allowed only by an economically acceptable new use. Adaptive reuse has given enough evidence of being the most effective tool in industrial preservation, but the

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

35

risk of losing track of the former use—in this way losing the identity of the structures— should be given attention. The adaptive reuse of a historic building should have minimal impact on the heritage meaning of the building and its setting. First, developers should try to understand why the building has heritage status, and then pursue development that, while recognizing the building’s past, gives it new objectives. Adaptive reuse is an intrinsic failure if it does not protect the building’s heritage. The most successful adaptive reuse projects are those that best respect and preserve the building’s heritage, while concurrently adding a modern, state-of-the-art layer that provides value for the future. In this way, sustainability is added to preservation. Sometimes, adaptive reuse is the only way that the building’s fabric will be properly maintained, disclosed, or interpreted. Where a building can no longer function with its original purpose, a new use through adaptation may be the only way to preserve its heritage values (Australian Government, 2004). This reference suggests generic criteria to ensure that an adaptive reuse project has minimal impact on a building’s heritage values, including: l

l

l

discouraging “facadism” (humoristically defined in ArchDaily (2018) as “a practice vehemently hated by many architects, it mostly consists of badly hiding a glass box behind a skinned heritage building”), a superficial way of preserving heritage values; making new work recognizable and distinct from original elements, rather than a mimicry of the original style; and finding a new use for the building that is compatible with its original use.

Adaptive reuse of buildings has a major role in sustainable development. When adaptive reuse involves historic buildings, environmental benefits are greater, as these buildings have a lot to offer to the landscape, identity and amenity of the communities they are located in. One of the main environmental benefits of reusing buildings is the retention of the original building’s “embodied energy” (defined as “the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of a building, from the acquisition of natural resources to product delivery, including mining, manufacturing of materials and equipment, transport and admin functions” (CSIRO, 1997). By reusing buildings, their embodied energy is kept, making the project much more environmentally sustainable than an entirely new construction. New buildings have much higher embodied energy costs than buildings that are adaptively reused. Embodied energy is also an economic value. Australian Government (2004) stated for a specific project: “the combination of financial incentives and the commercially oriented nature of the adaptive reuse schemes outweighed any extra heritage related costs and project risks” and furthers that “these sympathetic adaptive reuse schemes have created commercially viable investment assets for the owners.” Reusing historic buildings has also social benefits for the surrounding communities. Adaptive reuse maintains the heritage meaning of a building and ensures its survival as a valued object, rather than falling into neglect and becoming unrecognizable and forgotten.

36

Beyond Decommissioning

BPF (2013) suggests various approaches that when taken individually or in sets, can be conducive to the success to a redevelopment project: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

shared spaces rather than roads; a sense of local identity and quality of life; a mix of uses and a variety of building styles; slow traffic, or no traffic at all; public spaces, animated by people, and a concrete possibility of social interactions; associations with the past; well maintained buildings and streetscapes; architectural beauty and local character, or other interesting design features or detailing; overall ambience of the area, rather than individual buildings; safety; and genuine, as opposed to deliberately created, activity.

It should be noted that the term “conservation” (in this book used interchangeably with “preservation”) is defined in Conservation Principles, English Heritage, 2008, p. 71 as “The process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognizing opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations.” Therefore, (controlled) change, that is, reuse is intrinsically a part and parcel of preservation. In most cases, to preserve something as untouchable makes little sense. The contentious case of Zollverein, Essen, Germany is discussed here; also highlighted are the compromises that were reached among differing views—on the basis of bridging (i.e., mutually acceptable) values—to balance heritage conservation and redevelopment interests (Oevermann, 2015). The Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex (in German: Zeche Zollverein) is a large former industrial site at Essen, Germany. Coal mining and processing on that site lasted from mid-1800s to late 1900s. The two installations, Zollverein Coal Mine and Zollverein Coking Plant, were huge. Early in the transformation process, discussions were held on whether any (and if so, which) parts of the large site might have heritage value. Since 2000, all four of the remaining shafts and the coking plant had been listed as monuments; and in 2001, some shafts and the coking plant were also appointed as the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Since the 1990s, Zollverein has been transformed by creative initiatives, and was an anchor project of the International Building Exhibition Emscher Park (see Section 2.1). The transformations of the site continue along with new uses of art, design, and culture. The chosen holistic planning strategy for the future of Zollverein focused on three basic values: the first was to understand historic shafts and plants as the basic design structure, while the others referred to the nature and the future uses of art and design. Zollverein’s master plans from 2001 and 2002 integrated these values in the new redevelopment project. The Ruhr Museum has over 6000 exhibits covering the geography and history of the region. The museum also runs special events and offers such programs as conferences, tours and family packages. A detail of the Museum is given in Fig. 2.9. The holistic design concept defines the historic complex as the core to be conserved, around which new uses and buildings are to be located. The master plans

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

37

Fig. 2.9 Ruhr Museum, Germany, conveyor belts. Credit to Pixabay.

define and respect the protection and conservation area—the core—and mobilize change and redevelopment through new buildings in the surroundings. At Zollverein, some bridging values could be identified, which reconciled the different concerns and interests of the diverse planning agents. One is accessibility, a value indicated out by various agents with almost the same emphasis. Accessibility means facilitating physical access to the formerly inaccessible production site and plants. Besides the common concern of conservation and development, further bridging values are reuse, and aesthetic values (spatial quality, design, and character). However, the value of authenticity—understood according to the rationale of heritage conservation—was given very differing levels of importance by the diverse agents, so indicating a potential source of conflict. Authenticity is assigned high importance among agents of conservation, but low importance among agents of urban development and architecture. Besides, subsequent to the agreement on the bridging values that eased general planning, conflicts arose when planning became more detailed. The transformation of the former coal-washing plant into the Ruhr Museum was a significant bone of contention. In this specific transformation, additional bridging values were needed to bridge the gap. Oevermann (2015) suggests various approaches for overcoming the differences. With a specific focus on the urban redevelopment (but easily extendable to off-city environments), Meng€ uşog˘lu and Esin Boyaciog˘lu (2013) describes a potential conflict between landscaping for social purposes and the role of place promoters to reimage the city. “The use of heritage in cultural led urban developments through city marketing campaigns and tourism industry gives way to the process of commodification of the past. This is because of the nature of heritage being both cultural and economic

38

Beyond Decommissioning

good and being commodified as such. This process can result in a loss of authenticity and historical significance of the cultural resource as well as trivializing the intangible aspects of a heritage property. Many industrial cities now experience the same kind of reuse schemes converting former industrial buildings into places of living, leisure and consumption. This usually results in changing the preexisting character of these cities and transforming these old urban landscapes of production into new landscapes of consumption” (see definition of “commodification” given in the Glossary). A comprehensive debate about the redevelopment challenges is reported in The Registry (2017). The main problem turns out to be the process that involves the local municipality and its various agencies, which can be a hurdle to the developers and their economic interests. One of the main obstacles is the actual physical challenges that the renovation of historic buildings presents, especially considering the city’s Landmark Preservation Board process. “The process is there for a very good reason … to preserve our history, which is key. But the way that the [process] is set up prohibits economic considerations and financial realities of buildings that need to be seismically upgraded.” A consideration of the economic context is needed in combination with the Preservation Board’s main goal of landmark preservation. If the redeveloped building is expected to last another 100 years, seismic re-qualifications are needed. Adaptive reuse can also be affected by greater market forces. In some cases, citywide and government regulations play a major role in how a project is received and what types of objections it may face. Political and legislative stability is another concern. “A disrupted administration is very difficult, especially in a business and building environment, with new directors, priorities and agendas ….” Adaptive reuse projects also call for creativity and imagination. “In our experience that it’s been good to come in without having a preconceived judgment; coming in with an idea and strategizing with the city … adaptive reuse doesn’t fit into very clear categories, and that’s what makes it so interesting and complicated.” The conclusion of the debate however was largely positive: “there’s a way to both preserve our history and to upgrade and modernize our buildings with enough creative thought.” In preservation and reuse of industrial heritage, another contentious issue is the potential gentrification. The historic and visual features of old industrial buildings and their proximity to the city attract people to live and/or work in these redeveloped buildings. These new residents (often well-off professionals and young, rampant entrepreneurs) pave the way for gentrification, because these luxury residences are not affordable for low-income segments of the population. This situation applies to residential reuse—a highly private use—rather than to public reuses such as museums, art galleries, restaurants, or shopping malls. Residential use of this type may cause unequal accessibility, spatial separation, and social exclusion: often these buildings become secluded properties with strictly controlled access. On the other hand, it should be recognized that often the redeveloped buildings are up market but their locations are not up market. Developers need to offer the buyers some security. Enabling gated redevelopment involves a loss of public amenity. It is often argued that the preservation of the heritage asset should be viewed by the community as enough return for this loss, because a restored historic building—whatever its reuse—is better for the community than an ill-maintained or derelict building. It can be counterargued, however,

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

39

that the public should have some access to the historic property as a compensation for their loss. A compromise could perhaps consist of reducing the amount of (restricted) residential development in return for greater public access to other historic houses or other parts of the site (Colliers, 2015). A comprehensive review of stakeholder positions (often conflicting) in regard to the preservation vs adaptation dilemma is given in Bullen and Love (2010). A conciliatory view is offered by this statement: “Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (Aldo Leopold 1887–1948). Finally, a caveat. The rehabilitation projects often require the conservation and/or selective conversion of single valuable buildings while the remaining edifices are demolished. In rare cases, the entire industrial complex is saved, so preserving its formal integrity. Some argue that “the selective conservation of ‘convenient’ fragments of history” can result in a permanent loss of realism and character, and an inconsistent representation of the past. By altering its compositional unity, the complex can become incomprehensible. On the other hand, maintaining unaltered the industrial complex reduces the reuse options and makes redevelopment costlier. Therefore, to fully preserve the industrial identity is as undesirable as to completely erase the history. In some cases, the redevelopment of the entire site can drastically change the cultural landscape, and affect the memory attached to individual buildings onsite. In fact, a building cannot be viewed in isolation and regardless its setting. Likewise, it is unreasonable to rework isolated elements and ignore the surrounding areas. The answer consists in an integrated approach, which takes into account both the buildings and its environs. At the same time, different scale of interventions can be selected on a case-by-case basis (Trifa, 2015). The architect should strive continually to simplify; the ensemble of the rooms should then be carefully considered that comfort and utility may go hand in hand with beauty. Frank Lloyd Wright (1869—1959), 1908

2.4

The museums What greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined … to strengthen each other … to be one with each other in silent unspeakable memories. George Eliot (1819–1880)

Museums and heritage places are key elements in our culture. They document in a tangible form who we were, who we are now, and tell us about our future. Museums show how we have changed overtime: the machinery, the clothing, and the artworks. Buildings and other structures identify the spaces of cultural change. They highlight technological, social, and intellectual change of the people who used them through

40

Beyond Decommissioning

construction models and layout arrangements. Museums and heritage places remind us that humans are part of a cultural continuum, which we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to preserve. Many museums have been located in heritage places. This approach has been generally successful in that it puts the building to good use and enhances the meaning of its contents. However, in other cases, the combination of museums and heritage places forms an uncomfortable partnership, which benefits neither. Just because a building is old, it should not necessarily become a museum. These public buildings provide an invaluable service to the communities in which they are situated; from the above-mentioned commemoration to education and even the provision of public space, museums are communal “beacons” of which architecture is an essential component. Buildings such as factories and workshops can be redeveloped as heritage sites. In this case, the building or the site becomes the artifact or collection on display and the museum’s goal is to tell the visitor the industrial story of the building and the people who lived or worked in it. The major challenge for this kind of museum centers on how to guide people around and provide the infrastructure to manage the museum without damaging its heritage integrity. Industrial heritage buildings are available in various forms and sizes and include interalia: lighthouses, power plants, train stations, railway sheds, and workshops (see Chapter 6 for case studies). Sometimes a building becomes an obvious choice for a museum because its contents on display refer directly to its original use. However, in many cases, the choice of building is based on other factors, usually availability and economics. Often the building is chosen because it has a recognized heritage value, which is considered compatible with the site. There are some advantages in using a heritage building to this end: l

l

l

l

An acknowledged heritage building has already a role in the community. This can be important for a building needing community support for its survival. Heritage buildings can enhance the interpretation of historic displays by providing a proper appropriate physical setting. Many heritage buildings are soundly constructed and provide a stable physical and climatic environment for their contents. The ambience and spaciousness of buildings, such as power plants and railway infrastructure, greatly encourage movements and participation of the visitors.

There are, however, disadvantages in converting heritage buildings to museums, including: l

l

l

The costs of adapting an existing building for this new use and the routine maintenance costs can be hardly offset by the financial returns offered by the museum. The risk of worsening the building’s integrity and heritage value in the conversion is not negligible. In some cases, the type of museum envisioned may not be suitable for the candidate building. A contemporary art space, for instance, could hardly be the right candidate for a oneroom hut.

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment l

l

l

41

A building that has an established role in the community may mean that people reject its new use. It may take years to change public perceptions and in the meantime the needed community support to the conversion may not materialize. Room size and layouts, access and movements through the building, and light and climate control, can all be conditions making plans for a museum difficult. In a ‘listed’ building (see Glossary), one cannot easily alter these conditions. The demands of occupational health and safety are a strong issue.

The building can be in poor structural condition and require much remedial work to make it weatherproof and able to manage a larger number of visitors. In these difficult cases, one should assess whether the remedial work will be cost effective or whether it would be more appropriate to demolish the old building and restart with a purposely designed one (MGF/NSW, 2004). A point of concern is about how things are going to be delivered into the building, especially if large crates of temporary exhibitions are going to come in and out. Moreover, it is not always practical to have general access to all areas. Some fragile structures are not constructed to withstand the heavy traffic of visitors. The Migration Museum of South Australia recognized that providing access to the first floor would seriously endanger the fabric of the museum and heavier traffic through this area of the fragile structure would create undue stress. Instead, the first floor has been utilized as offices, which has limited access to that area. The Inveresk Rail Workshop, NSW, Australia, provides a good example of how various areas of a site can be interpreted to different degrees. The blacksmiths’ workshop (1870–1940) remains largely intact including both its work spaces and the tools. This area was preserved in its current condition, allowing the visitors to walk through and experience an active industrial workshop. The main workshop, which did not contain much intact material, was adapted for use as a gallery space both for historical and artistic collections. A large gantry was left in position, as well as some workspaces, to get the visitor to understand what the space was used for. There are large open spaces that are available for exhibitions, which can be readily adapted (National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000).

2.5

Indicators of success Real success is finding your lifework in the work that you love. David McCullough (1933–)

What constitutes a successful adaptive reuse project cannot be determined through one simple definition, but rather through a review of a range of factors, some relevant, others irrelevant to a given project. For example, successful built heritage adaptive reuse projects are those that “modify a place for a compatible use while retaining its cultural heritage value.” Besides, “successful adaptive reuse projects require not only good design for the building, but also careful planning that considers its

42

Beyond Decommissioning

surrounding environment” (Sugden, 2017). Criteria that define a successful adaptive reuse project may include one (or ideally more) from the following list: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

contributing a positive aesthetics to the landscape; maintaining the appearance and identity of the former structure building; conserving meaningful artifacts with a focus on historical elements; representing a pleasant and recognizable environment; creating a living environment that is friendly to inhabitants (or depending on reuse mode, a friendly reception to visitors and tourists); carefully using scale and proportion, old and new materials, light and shades; being in an ideal location; contributing to sustainability of the structure itself and its environment; maintaining economic viability of the reused structure including: the capital costs of the adaptation works; the running costs of the reused structure (now and in the future); the potential market for the reused structure and expected revenues; and the financial sources required to undertake the redevelopment.

A number of indicators have been proposed and can be found in the literature. For example, Pinto et al. (2017) presents the results of a research on the impacts of the reuse of heritage building. The aim was to help to select the preferable design solution among several alternatives. The method uses multi-criteria approaches to assess design alternatives capable of maintaining and improving a building’s performance while preserving heritage identity. This requires defining the users’ needs to be met by the new functions of the building and identifying structural and cultural constraints to its transformation. In general, the application of a multi-criteria evaluation method is structured in phases. First, the planners determine the objectives pursued. Second, they determine alternative ways to pursue these objectives. These alternatives must be defined in detail, otherwise no comparison between alternative solutions is possible. Third, a set of evaluation criteria is drawn up and these criteria are used for a comparative assessment of the alternatives. These criteria must be such as to make the assessment possible, using quantitative or qualitative information related to suitable indicators. In different approaches, evaluation criteria have different relative importance and are hence weighted differently. Fourth, the criteria are applied and this yields a ranking of the alternatives. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed. Another case study making use of indicators is given in National Trust for Historic Preservation (2011). While redevelopment indicators are country and site specific, some guidelines can be provided. As a general example, indicators of the success of a redevelopment project (or program)—intended also to address contentious issues—are enumerated below, including offsite impacts of economic and social value (BPF, 2013) (note readily quantifiable indicators are identified by a star*): l

l

l

l

l

property value*; improvement to the physical fabric of areas; improvements in personal safety and reduction of crime*; community involvement and wide sense of ownership; employment (no. of direct and indirect jobs)* during and after reuse;

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment l

l

l

l

l

l

l

43

number of businesses created*; number of visitors*; reversing population decline (number of residents)*; no. of buildings or surface areas (m2) refurbished or removed from the Heritage at Risk list (this is the category name in the United Kingdom, other designations apply elsewhere)*; improvement of image and confidence; investment into the wider area*; and a sustainable use of resources (e.g., recycle of materials)*.

2.6

Knowledge management The past is a source of knowledge, and the future is a source of hope. Love of the past implies faith in the future. Stephen Ambrose (1936–2002), in Fast Company

Knowledge management (KM) is a reliable tool for generation, preservation, transfer, and sharing useful knowledge. Specifically, nuclear KM is defined as KM as applied to nuclear domain. In recent years, a drastic change in society’s paradigms has taken place: growing understanding of ecological long-term problems has been fostering a move away from treating environmental problems only after they have occurred. The generally endorsed goal is to plan from the beginning in the life cycle of a human activity (for our purposes, industrial activities) to avoid costlier and more complicated environmental impacts at a later stage. The life-cycle management aims to treat each stage in the life of a facility or site not in isolation, but as one phase in its overall life. Thus, the planning does not only address each stage per se, but also is a continuing activity, taking into account the current conditions and projected developments. As an application of this integrated approach, the “Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management” (IAEA, n.d.) requests the avoidance of “undue burdens on future generations.” The statement given by the OECD-NEA in OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2006) illustrates the same concept: “Safety of current and future generations is the paramount concern of decommissioning and decommissioning funding.” Based on this principle, a more prospective management of human activities has been incorporated in the legislation in many countries with a special focus on the preservation of knowledge. In many countries, there are also regulatory constraints, which require the organizations to keep records and be able to produce them upon request by regulators or designated stakeholders. However, the preservation of records is only the baseline for knowledge, which is a much broader concept. While the longevity of the physical records is essential, the ability to use them in future is also critical. The application of KM principles to nuclear decommissioning and environmental remediation (D&ER) is relatively recent. The life cycle of a nuclear facility including design, construction, operation, and back end (D&ER) can be even more than 100 years. When the disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) resulting from D&ER is included, a time period of 300–500 years up to release of the disposal site is quite normal. The management of high-level waste (HLW) can last for millennia.

44

Beyond Decommissioning

Given the timescales involved and the vast amounts of data required for D&ER, it is essential to structure KM in a very long time perspective. Not having complete and accurate information and knowledge at the moment of taking decisions and executing D&ER projects might dramatically increase related costs and risks. A crucial part of KM is a thorough and robust approach to planning. This requires the involvement and commitment of all parties, especially, but not limited to, the knowledge owners, operating organizations and users. It is particularly important to always consider the interdependencies of the three elements—people, processes, and tools—at work within an information-based environment. KM is not simply concerned with making information available, but it is about the skills, qualifications, and confidence to make information convertible into awareness—for example, about remaining hazardous materials onsite that could cause serious impacts on the general public and the environment. Knowing of hazardous materials cannot be decoupled from knowing how to keep them at bay. The Safety Glossary of the IAEA (2016) provides the following definition of KM: “Knowledge Management is an integrated, systematic approach to identifying, managing and sharing an organization’s knowledge and enabling groups of people to create new knowledge collectively to help in achieving the organization’s objectives. In the context of management systems, knowledge management helps an organization to gain insight and understanding from its own experience. Specific activities in knowledge management help the organization to better acquire, record, store and utilize knowledge.” The focus in this definition is the “organization,” which primarily refers to the “operating organization”(a.k.a. operator, licensee) responsible for the planning and implementation of plant operations and eventual D&ER activities. However, the acquisition and preservation of knowledge is a necessary and aimed-at component of other organizations, which are given in this book the generic name of “stakeholders.” These include the regulatory body, the government, international bodies, local communities, etc. The influence of the stakeholders on a D&ER project is large; therefore, KM fully applies to stakeholders, although their source of information is primarily the operating organization. Moreover, within the circular economy established by continuous redevelopment (Fig. 4.1), the site will be owned by a sequence of owners/operators, and these principles will apply to each of them. The long lasting nature of D&ER might cause the disappearance of existing knowledge. The kind of knowledge needed can be very different between countries and projects, leading to the question of what kind of knowledge must be preserved. Stakeholders may have different concerns, and their desire for knowledge may take different directions. The operators of nuclear facilities often possess limited expertise in decommissioning: this also includes KM policies and training programs for the plant staff and contractors involved in various phases of decommissioning and beyond. In case of old legacy sites, nuclear knowledge is simply nowhere to be found and should be reconstructed anew. As stated repeatedly in this book, reuse/redevelopment is a part and continuation of D&ER. Consideration of post-decommissioning redevelopment implies that KM should be maintained for the redeveloped site much longer than for the duration of

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

45

the D&ER project. Moreover, the redevelopment establishes a circular course for the site life cycle: more redevelopment projects may follow the one immediately following D&ER, and KM should remain until the site maintains its heritage values and useful functions. Periods of many decades and even centuries can be assumed in principle based on the experience from archeological sites. In nuclear and radiological terms, KM refers especially to the restricted release of the industrial site due to any remaining contamination, and to the institutional controls established to prevent unsafe use of the site. But KM in the industrial redevelopment has more components than safety: to preserve the industrial heritage of the site means to preserve for generations to come the architectural and broadly meaningful values that inspired the redevelopment. Of course, it may happen that these values will change overtime and the memory of new values should be retained jointly with new uses and added to old memories. Advances in the emerging field of KM, the systematic and structure processing of information, include the possibility of integrating industrial ecology into standard business practices. As internet now allows to routinely provide users with universal access to data and applications, the problem has moved to screening the huge volume of information. KM should be able to efficiently deliver the right information to the right person at the right time: this fully applies to the information relevant to the site redevelopment process, in other words applied knowledge. The integration of industrial ecology objectives with KM tools could produce systems and tools that use knowledge to improve corporate environmental performance by lowering the information barrier that prevents owners and others from realizing environmental opportunities (Wernick, 2001). Personnel and other stakeholders (each for own area of interest and responsibility) during any phase of a facility and/or site life cycle, including redevelopment, need to be aware of past experiences and changes in the facility and/or site, and their knowledge should be preserved and transferred to those taking over. Some of the key issues in this process are the transfer of knowledge from personnel involved in D&ER to those responsible for the reuse of the site, and the challenges posed by organizational changes (e.g., new owners), a very frequent case over the long timescales of D&ER and follow-on redevelopment. Fig. 2.10 highlights that personal expertise in making best use of the redeveloped site is critical to continuing success of the project. While KM is not limited to the preservation of data and records, it is recognized that these play an essential role. A crucial activity prior to turning over the site for reuse is the establishment of an information management system that will preserve the data on the inventory of remaining contamination and any associated institutional or physical controls. This is additional to the facility drawings and other relevant records. This material is a part of the site asset and should be safely transferred to subsequent owners: it is critical that the management of this information should be assigned to the responsible parties at any time during the redevelopment cycle (Table 2.1) (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006a). The successful maintenance of a redeveloped site can be greatly affected by the loss of knowledge. It may appear at first that a sudden loss of knowledge (e.g., due to a flood to the data storage system) will be more critical than a slow degradation

46

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 2.10 Illustrating Reactor B operations during public tour, Hanford site, WA, United States. Credit to the US Department of Energy.

Table 2.1 Information relevant to site turnover for reuse Regulatory documents

Site management

Land use controls

Siting permit

Remaining structures and hazards

Deeds, affidavits, etc.

Operating license

Infrastructure (unused and active)

Administrative records (payroll staff profile, layoff dates, etc.) Final decommissioning report (incl. abnormal occurrences, lessons learned, etc.)

Operating systems for contamination monitoring and control Environmental information (protected species onsite, demography, seismicity, floods, etc.) and monitoring data

Land use restrictions due to contamination (radioactive substances, asbestos, etc.) Maps of contamination

Operations records and personnel records (no. of staff and contractors, occupational exposures, etc.)

For the general public Public information (public hearings minutes, records of environmental expert opinions, etc.) Educational brochures, videos, etc.

Stakeholder involvement documents Information circulated

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

47

Fig. 2.11 Warning of residual contamination. Credit to the US Department of Energy.

(e.g., the gradual loss of resolution of electronic files). However, a slow deterioration of knowledge may go unnoticed and eventually be destructive. It should be noted that the institutional controls applied to a site use tends to deteriorate: for example, the warning given in Fig. 2.11 can hardly be expected to work for many decades, if not supported by other measures. Factors causing loss of knowledge can be categorized as in Table 2.2. The safe management of a redeveloped facility/site is an activity that has the potential to create significant amounts of information—much of which is likely to be relevant for a long period of time. The objectives of information transfer are many. The objectives may also change over the passage of time as a result of the need to meet different needs, but typically include: l

l

l

l

l

explaining the intent of redevelopment and the values to preserve; detailed description of facilities and sites; demonstrating safe and effective maintenance practices; providing evidence of regulatory compliance; and alerting successive generations of the hazards concerning contaminated sites.

The transfer of information should be viewed not so much as the physical transfer of information but the action of making information available in a form that can be successfully accessed and understood by future users. Transfer of information implies that the information package can be defined in advance to meet expected needs. However, the information necessary to perform a revised or retrospective review

48

Beyond Decommissioning

Table 2.2 Loss of knowledge factors 1. Technical/environmental factors 1.1 Site degradation and abandonment 1.2 No records/poor archives, lack of/insufficient characterization 1.3 No/insufficient update of records 1.4 Loss/destruction of physical archives (e.g., fire, flood, earthquake) 1.5 Loss/destruction of electronic archives (new incompatible software, electronic degradation) 2. Economic factors 2.1 No/insufficient budget to fulfill KM tasks (lack of auditing the state of records) 3. Human factors 3.1 Change of ownership/management 3.2 General negligence in the area of knowledge preservation 3.3 Ignorance and/or incompetence 3.4 Underestimation of risks 3.5 Illegal activities (e.g., falsification of documents, unauthorized disposal of files) 4. Structural factors 4.1 Discontinuities (e.g., war, social crisis, bankruptcy) 4.2 No/poor organizational continuity 5. Regulations/laws 5.1 New regulations not notified to responsible parties 5.2 Lack of enforcement

of redevelopment needs and values may be larger than expected and it could be necessary for a future generation to gain access to new or different data. Overtime, changes affecting the use of the facility/site are inevitable, not just within the organizations directly responsible but in principle in all stakeholders. Changes in the following parameters are likely to be relevant impacts: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

societal structures (e.g., new political priorities); scientific and technological advancement; evolution of the facility and site (e.g., new population centers); changes in land use; organizational structures; cultural changes; language and meaning; and climate change.

The next generation/owner should be able to recreate the context that influenced those who undertook the initial steps in the redevelopment program. Each new generation/ owner will need and take advantage of access to the information that documents historical, regulatory, and operational frameworks: this is the best way to make sensible changes to the facility/site use without losing values. The nuclear regulator (or following cessation of the nuclear use of the site, the designated responsible authority) is required to ensure that relevant documents and records are prepared by the operator, maintained to a specified standard, and transferred to the next site operator. In case the operator ceases its activities or ceases

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

49

to exist, the regulator or other legally defined parties should assume responsibility for the records. Record keeping is particularly important and subject to regulatory or institutional supervision where restrictions are placed on the future use of sites (IAEA, 2006b).

2.7

Change management What I’ve looked to do is try and become a change agent for good, to create the behavioral changes, the cultural changes to really embrace urgency, adopt a higher tolerance to risk, and just encourage people to make decisions. Steve Easterbrook (1967–)

Not everything in the redevelopment projects can be restricted to technical or organizational processes, although these remain of the greatest importance. There is a somehow “hidden” side, which has to do with motivation, behaviors, and mind-sets, in other words: people and “culture.” Progress is driven by people and framed by culture. The industrial redevelopment is particularly vulnerable to the impacts to a cultural “deficit.” In this regard, it is different from other well-codified and well-regulated stages of a nuclear or other industrial facility’s life cycle such as construction or operation. This difference is due to the long duration, intrinsic variability, and the needed flexibility of the redevelopment project, which inevitably leaves a lot of room for twists, unknowns, surprises, and impromptu decisions in circumstances, which cannot be predetermined accurately. The multidisciplinary nature of the redevelopment (merging: radiological and industrial protection, radioactive, and toxic waste management; civil, mechanical, chemical, and electronic engineering; funding resources and cost estimates; environmental management; stakeholder involvement; politics; etc.) prescribes that all these disciplines be managed in an integrated manner, another cultural point. Instilling a winning culture can be a tough challenge, as it requires changing how people think about themselves and the organization/community they are in, and modifying attitudes. Actual changes (e.g., from decommissioning of a nuclear facility to site redevelopment) can be potent catalysts for cultural change. But any kind of change—newcomers joining in project, new technologies, new regulations, and new neighbors—is double edged. On one side, there is an opportunity to get rid of old habits and embrace new, productive ones; but on the other hand, change can raise an instinctive repulsion. If the latter prevails, the redevelopment may not materialize for a long time. As a major change, redevelopment may be perceived as a threat by organizations well-settled onsite and the local communities and result in the following (Levin, 2000): l

l

l

l

l

confusion, misunderstanding, and emotional stress; mistrust and individual selfishness (“who cares?”; “leave me in peace”); fear of losing what was successful in the past; people stick to and value the past; uncertainties about proposed redevelopment;

50 l

l

l

Beyond Decommissioning

aggressivity—often undirected; control becomes a major issue; and conflict increases—especially between groups.

Culture is a social control system. We should consider here the role of culture in promoting and reinforcing “right” thinking and behaving (for our purposes, “adaptive” and constructive), and sanctioning “wrong” thinking and behaving (for our purposes, passive and destructive). Key in this definition of culture is the idea of behavioral norms that must be upheld. Implicit in these views is the idea that “frozen” cultures can become impediments to survival when substantial environmental changes are at the horizon. Actually, redevelopment is—by its own nature—dynamic, creative, surprising, and imaginative (by contrast, nuclear operation is static, routine, and repetitive). The cultures of organizations and communities are never monolithic. There are many factors that drive internal variations in the culture of business functions (e.g., generating energy vs demolishing buildings) and organizational teams (e.g., the former reactor operations staff vs contractors doing demolition of a reactor). Communities can be forced to react to a massive post-decommissioning loss of jobs, but they may be slow, loath, or incapable to look for solutions. Depending on how changes and integration are managed, the legacy culture (e.g., idleness) can persist and imperil cooperation—whereas cooperation is crucial to the success of a redevelopment project. On the other hand, opposition is a part of the change process, so the redevelopment agents should be aware and work with it. Cultures are dynamic. They shift, gradually and constantly, in response to external and internal changes. So, to assess organizational and communal culture is complicated by the fact that you are trying to hit a moving target. But it also highlights the possibility that cultural change can be managed as a continuous process rather than through sudden shifts (often in response to crises). Likewise, it highlights the idea that a final status is far ahead, remote in time. By contrast, organizational and communal cultures should always be learning and evolving. After decommissioning, drastic changes will inevitably occur in jobs and the use of individual expertise. With new job requirements emerging, a number of respected competences may turn out to be irrelevant: a former health physicist may find a job as an environmental specialist and be trained for the new profession, with little regard being given to his hard-gained prestige. Besides, some workers may have angrily viewed the plant shutdown and decommissioning as premature, politically driven, and a waste of money. This animosity can make them reluctant to look for new jobs and to cooperate in site redevelopment. Redevelopment is a change process and requires a range of attitudes and skills associated with managing complex, participative, and transformative changes. Human factors (both for workers and communities) such as motivation, aptitude to changes, a flexible mindset, and others, are vital to the success of a redevelopment project. The following recommendations—addressed to all parties and all levels of responsibility, and both of a personal and collective concern—are the most important in order to embed human factors in the project:

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

51

make people understand why change is needed and how it is of their concern; spread the vision of a new phase/new project as important and as much in need of qualified personnel as the previous one; create short-term wins by outlining early, handy objectives; highlight intended long-term outcomes; whenever the circumstances allow, offer professional opportunities; train and qualify personnel to new conditions; facilitate mobility between job positions, allowing people to find the best fit position; award new responsibilities such as supervisory responsibilities for former workers; promote employment or the performance of practical interventions among the direct family of the employees; facilitate integration into multidisciplinary teams (including contractors) where personal experience is appreciated; link the departure of personnel wishing to leave the organization to the achievement of specific project objectives; implement a policy of evaluation (remuneration, performance awards) based on meeting project objectives; provide good leadership with the commitment and skills to make change happen; communicate and engage simply, consistently and in a transparent way to peers, partners, local communities, and other stakeholders; never give up—all parties need, and should encourage, determination, and resilience; and make change stay—to this end, culture needs to nurture change (Laraia, 2015).

2.8

The aesthetic factor I get the feeling that people from outside the world of contemporary art see it as deserving of mockery, in an emperor’s-new-clothes sort of way. I think that’s not right and that it’s just because they don’t understand the discourse. Rachel Kushner (1968–)

For a very long time, the aesthetics of nuclear buildings has been of concern to the nuclear community. Needless to say, the concern was mainly placed on the siting and construction phase of a NPP: actually an old case in question shows that the aesthetic factor may even be decisive in the siting process. “In the aesthetic impact analysis of the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, vivid symbols of modern technology—a domed reactor containment structure and a monolithic natural-draft cooling tower— played the dominant roles in the conflict with a remnant landscape of America’s romantic past. The analysis revealed, and the NRC (the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) affirmed, that the proposed plant would entail an unacceptable aesthetic impact, beyond mitigation, on certain important local, regional, and national historic, scenic, and cultural resources” (Petrich, 1982). Nonnuclear power stations built in the first half of the 1900s were certainly worthy of architectural appreciation. Just look at Battersea and Bankside (today’s home of Tate Modern). Giles Gilbert Scott’s designs elevated those industrial facilities to the same architectural standing as cathedrals or town halls—and gave London celebrated landmarks. The tradition

52

Beyond Decommissioning

continued into the early nuclear age in the United Kingdom as Basil Spence, architect of Coventry cathedral, was appointed to design and construct Trawsfynydd NPP in Wales (1959). To reflect the new awesome technology, Spence took the course of undiminished monumentality. The visual impact of the two 20-story monoliths in the middle of the Snowdonia National Park was deemed irrelevant. At that time, this cultural approach was appropriate: actually, nuclear power was viewed as a symbol of British glory (The Guardian, 2008) and technological power (Fig. 1.5). Today, after decades of ecological sensitization, a visitor is more likely to see the huge plant as a heinous eyesore in an Arcadian scenery. But in the post-World War II years the general attitude was to see the plant as fitting well the natural landscape. The architectural vision is well described in Munce (1964). “With the advent of the nuclear power stations we see the domination of the landscape by new and exciting shapes, standing proud, yet embracing the countryside as the great Gothic Cathedrals embraced the towns. Here indeed is a challenge for the architect and planner. An enormous building of this type is a magnificent asset to a landscape which is itself of large scale either open or mountainous. Such a building or group of buildings is not meant to fit into the landscape but to dominate it.” The early context of Trawsfynydd spanned back for millennia: reportedly the design took inspiration from the stone monuments of prehistoric Britain (e.g., the world-famous Stonehenge) (NYTimes, 1995). NPPs, particularly those with natural draft cooling towers, stand out from their background. They are clearly visible and distinct from as far off as 15 km. Nuclear plants are usually situated in open areas near bodies of water, rendering cooling towers even more visible. There are few environments where such imposing buildings are well integrated with the landscapes. Transmission lines should also be included in the assessment of visual impacts. One could rightly assume that once the nuclear plant has been built and in operation for many years, there is little to do about its aesthetics and the aesthetic impact on the environment. However, one may also safely assume that a negative aesthetic appraisal could lead to a decision for prompt, total dismantling and site release (although aesthetics is not normally the main factor for pursuing this strategy). Still the aesthetic factor is considered when a long period of safe enclosure is planned for the nuclear plant. And, this book advocates structural reuse as the preferred strategy. When Trawsfynydd was permanently shutdown in 1991, the industry was open to ideas about the fate of the plant. In the 1990s, a BBC program invited architects and designers to submit proposals: these ranged from turning the plant into film studios, or burying it under a mound of rubble. The strategic debate on Trawsfynydd fate is given in detail in Laraia (2012). In the meantime, to mitigate aesthetic concerns, the 50-m-tall buildings were lowered by a third, and they were clad in local slate. The reactors will not be ready for dismantling until 2078. Until then, the buildings will sit there idle, with no site redevelopment possible. Now the issue is: should new NPPs look “beautiful” or at least visually acceptable? As the debate about the London National Theater shows (Chapter 1) opinions about the beauty of contemporary art differ widely. And, industrial buildings are

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

53

even more controversial. The traditional view is that these buildings should be appreciated for their utilitarian functions, but they are endowed per se with no artistic merits: this is epitomized by the quotation “Life without industry is guilt, and industry without art is brutality” (John Ruskin, 1819–1900, Lectures on Art (1870), Lecture 3, The relation of Art to Morals’ sect. 95). The reader should note, however, that “brutality” is different from “brutalism,” an artistic movement flourishing in post-World War II years and contributing to the architecture of most NPPs (Fig. 1.5). For decades, brutalist architecture was something underclass to escape from. Today, brutalism is back in fashion. As gentrification has become a bad word, these huge concrete masses represent an age of optimism and use architecture to transform society. Brutalist buildings are now viewed by many with care and respect. Nuclear buildings tend to be sited in remote coastal or fluvial areas—not just to ensure safety of the public in the event of an accident, but also because power stations need access to abundant water as the plant coolant. Therefore, most of existing and planned NPPs are located near nature reserves or national parks, a serious environmental and aesthetic impediment indeed. Would any other type of building be allowed to occupy such sites, let alone without strict aesthetic requirements? And what kind of post-decommissioning site redevelopment would be possible except the building of new industrial plants? In the context of industrial buildings, and especially nuclear buildings, one wonders about the role of architects. The range of views here varies from “no role at all” to “business as usual,” with the best approach possibly striking a happy medium. Architects deal with the assemblage of manned volumes (inside and outside a plant), forms and the relationships between these volumes and the landscape, meaning, and usefulness. NPPs make no exception of the architectural domain. In fact, they pose new challenges. While NPPs are not unique in size and general appearance among industrial buildings (think of steel factories, blast furnaces, or aircraft hangars), it is their geography that makes the difference. Unlike other industrial installations, NPPs are located in isolation in open, vast plains and can be seen from afar: “hiding” or integrating a nuclear plant in the natural environment is out of the question. Therefore, a basic contrast (but not necessarily an insurmountable conflict) between plant and landscape drives the architectural approach and creates a new landscape. In truth, a similar contrast came about when motorways started to be ubiquitously built: experience now tells that the new landscapes made up by motorways can be beautiful. One issue affecting the architecture of NPPs is the need to reconcile the plant standardization (dictated by economics, safety, and other engineering aspects) with site-specific features. It is noteworthy that the architectural approach to building NPPs was investigated in France well before the country massively embarked in the construction of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) fleet (Andreu, 1977). Research reactors are less constraint in shape than NPPs by their functional objectives. Therefore, it has been possible to their architects to create “beautiful” structures, more palatable to the man-on-the-street for being closer to classical standards.

54

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 2.12 The experimental boiling water reactor (EBWR) at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), IL, United States. Courtesy of NRC.

The egg-shaped building of the Garching reactor (Section 6.5.8) and the Philippine research reactor were certainly designed with a clear aesthetic vision. And, the spherical shape of many first-generation reactors (e.g., Garigliano, Fig. 1.7, Dounreay, Chapter 7.13, Dresden 1, EBWR, Fig. 2.12) has been certainly inspired by aesthetics, besides being a sphere the optimal geometry for withstanding accidental overpressure inside. However, an early authoritative voice (Munce, 1964) warned about the Yankee Rowe reactor, United States that “The exciting structure of the steel sphere … is impressive: it suffers a similar defect to Dounreay, however, in the massing conflict which arises with the turbine hall, and to a lesser extent with the other ancillary buildings which are grouped around it …. The uninspired treatment of the associated buildings detracts from the drama of the steel-clad sphere.” For sake of completeness, it is mentioned here the decommissioning of the beautifully shaped EBWR at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) was completed in February 1996. Then, the facility was converted into a waste storage facility. Packaged transuranic waste drums were stored on the four levels of the facility and in the former reactor cavity and spent fuel pool pending shipment for disposal at a DOE facility. This reuse was estimated to produce cost savings of $2 million US dollars (1996) (Boing, 1997).

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

55

Disclaimer Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.

References Andreu, P., 1977. Architecture and aesthetics of nuclear power plants. Revue Generale Nucleaire (3), 190–195. in French. Arch Daily, 2018. 50 Planning Terms & Concepts All Architects Should Know. 28 June 2018, https://www.archdaily.com/896664/50-planning-terms-and-concepts-all-architectsshould-know?utm_medium¼email&utm_source¼ArchDaily%20List&kth¼2750010 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Australian Government, 2004. Adaptive Reuse—Preserving Our Past, Building Our Future. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/3845f27a-ad2c-4d40-882718c643c7adcd/files/adaptive-reuse.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). BBC, 2010. Chatterley Whitfield Colliery Becomes New Country Park. http://news.bbc.co.uk/ local/stoke/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_9118000/9118946.stm (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Boing, L.A., 1997. Beneficial re-use of decommissioned former nuclear facilities. In: Presented at “Decommissioning, Decontamination and Reutilization of Government and Commercial Facilities” Meeting, Knoxville, TN, September 7–12, 1997. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collec tion/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/034/36034372.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). British Property Federation, 2013. Heritage Works—The Use of Historic Buildings in Regeneration. https://www.bpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Heritage-Works-2013.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Bullen, P.A., Love, P.E.D., The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: views from the field, Cities 27 (2010) 215–224. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 240428213_The_rhetoric_of_adaptive_reuse_or_reality_of_demolition_Views_from_ the_field (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Camocini, B., Nosova, O., 2017. A second life for contemporary ruins. Temporary adaptive reuse strategies of interior design to reinterpret vacant spaces. The Design Journal 20 (Suppl. 1), 1558–1565. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14606925.2017. 1352680?needAccess¼true (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Canadian Encyclopedia, 2015. Evergreen Brick Works. 4 March 2015 http://www. thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/evergreen-brick-works/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, 2014. Urban recycling of derelict industrial sites. In: Analysis of Socio-Economic Redevelopment of Post-Industrial Districts. Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona. 24 January 2014, https://upcommons.upc.edu/ bitstream/handle/2099.1/21140/IvanNikolic.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Colliers, 2015. Colliers international, use of historic buildings for residential purposes, Scoping Report—Draft 3, July 2015 https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/heritagecounts/pub/2015/use-of-historic-buildings-for-residential-purposes.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 1997. Embodied energy of dwellings. In: CSIRO ESD Successful Applications Conference, 2 September 1997. https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid¼procite:54757bf5-6619-4ba8-84154012ca2a477e&dsid¼DS1 (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

56

Beyond Decommissioning

GMF, 2016. The Adaptive Reuse Toolkit, Urban and Regional Policy Paper, No. 38, the German Marshall Fund. www.gmfus.org/file/9033/download (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Gwydir, n.d. History of Dale’s Brewery, Gwydir Street http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/gwydir/ dales.htm. Hartmann, P., Krueger, F., Yiping, C., Fang, W., 2016. Adaptive Reuse of Old Industrial Buildings as a Sustainable Practice in Urban Development. http://www.logon-architecture.com/ adaptive-reuse-of-old-industrial-buildings-as-a-sustainable-practice-in-urban-development (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013. Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage: Opportunities & Challenges. http://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/HV_ IPAWsinglepgs.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). International Atomic Energy Agency, 1988. The Radiological Accident in Goi^ania, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006a. Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities After Decommissioning Technical Reports Series No. 444, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006b. Release of Sites From Regulatory Control on Termination of Practices, Safety Guide, Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-5.1, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2016. Safety Glossary. https://www-ns.iaea.org/down loads/standards/glossary/iaea-safety-glossary-draft-2016.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, http://www-ns.iaea.org/con ventions/waste-jointconvention.asp (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Jevremovic, L., Vasic, M., Jordanovic, M., 2012. Aesthetics of industrial architecture in the context of industrial buildings conversion, PhIDAC 2012. In: IV International Symposium for Students of Doctoral Studies in the Fields of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environmental Protection. https://www.academia.edu/1977965/aesthetics_of_industrial_architec ture_in_the_context_of_industrial_ buildings_conversion (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Laraia, M., 2012. The beauty of decommissioning. In: Nuclear Decommissioning Report. http:// ndreport.com/the-beauty-of-decommissioning/. Laraia, M., 2015. Safety culture, the new frontier of decommissioning. In: International Conference ECED 2015 – Eastern and Central European Decommissioning June 23–25, 2015, Trnava, Slovakia. Levin, P., 2000. Managing Change. https://de.slideshare.net/farkhandamujib/change-presentation54084715 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Loures, L., Panagopoulos, T., Nunes, J., Viegas, A., Learning from practice: using case-study research towards post-industrial landscape redevelopment theory, WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ., Vol 167, 2011 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line) https:// www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis_Loures/publication/271451455_Learning_from_ practice_Using_case-study_research_towards_post-industrial_landscape_redevelopment_ theory/links/55e99e6108ae3e121843b5e4/Learning-from-practice-Using-case-studyresearch-towards-post-industrial-landscape-redevelopment-theory.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Meng€ uşog˘lu, N., Esin Boyaciog˘lu, E., 2013. Reuse of Industrial Built Heritage for Residential Purposes in Manchester. http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/0258-5316/2013/cilt30/ sayi_1/117-138.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Michigan State University, n.d. Extension Program Session 3 Adaptive Reuse. https://www.liv gov.com/plan/Documents/Session%203%20Presentation%20-%20Adaptive%20Reuse.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment

57

Munce, J.F., 1964. The Architect in the Nuclear Age—Design of Buildings to House Radioactivity. Iliffe Books Ltd., London. Museums and Galleries Foundation of NSW, 2004. Just Because It’s Old: Museums and Galleries in Heritage Buildings. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/ heritage/justbecause.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ The_Greenest_Building.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000. Clever Conversions: Historic Buildings and Museums. New York Times, 1995. Architecture view. In: Building on the Ruins of Temples to Nuclear Power. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/02/arts/architecture-view-building-on-theruins-of-temples-to-nuclear-power.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Nosta, J., 2013. Technology, Digital Health and the Frankenstein Syndrome. https://www.for bes.com/sites/johnnosta/2013/04/12/technology-digital-health-and-the-frankenstein-syn drome/#3f0b3aeb595e (Accessed on 29 December 2018). OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2006. Decommissioning Funding: Ethics, Implementation, Uncertainties. NEA, Paris. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2006/nea5996decommissioning.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Oevermann, H., 2015. Industrial Heritage Management in the Context of Urban Planning. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299751694_Industrial_heritage_management_ in_the_context_of_urban_planning (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Office for Design + Architecture South Australia, 2014. Adaptive Reuse, Design Guidance Note. Petrich, C.H., 1982. Assessing aesthetic impacts in siting a nuclear power plant: the case of Greene County, New York. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 3 (4), 311–332. ISSN 01959255. Pinto, M.R., De Medici, S., Senia, C., Fabbricatti, K., De Toro, P., 2017. Building reuse: multicriteria assessment for compatible design. Int. J. Des. Sci. Technol. 22(2). http://europia.org/ IJDST/Vol22/IJDST%20V22N2%20[2017]%20Paper%208%20[online%20version].pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Reed, P. (Ed.), 2005. Groundwell: Constructing the Contemporary Landscape. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Rocchi, J., 2015. Six Practical Reasons to Save Old Buildings. https://savingplaces.org/stories/ six-reasons-save-old-buildings#.WnDYWq7iaM8 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Storm, A., 2011. Nuclear Power Plants as Memory Sites. http://balticworlds.com/wp-content/ uploads/2011/01/sid-10-12.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Sugden, E., 2017. The Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage Buildings: A Multiple-Case Studies Approach. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/ bitstream/handle/10012/12823/Sugden_Evan.pdf?sequence¼3&isAllowed¼y (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Telegraph, 2013. Japan’s Tsunami-Hit Fukushima Nuclear Plant to Become Tourist Attraction, 19 August 2013 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10251717/ Japans-tsunami-hit-Fukushima-nuclear-plant-to-become-tourist-attraction.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). The Guardian, 2008. Sun, Sand – and a Nuclear Reactor. 14 Oct 2008, https://www.theguardian. com/artanddesign/2008/oct/14/architecture-nuclearpower (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

58

Beyond Decommissioning

The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage, 2003. The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage. https://www.icomos.org/18thapril/2006/nizhnytagil-charter-e.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). The Registry, 2017. Industry Professionals Take a Closer Look at Challenges Faced With Adaptive Reuse Projects in Seattle. October 19, 2017, https://news.theregistryps.com/industryprofessionals-take-closer-look-challenges-faced-adaptive-reuse-projects-seattle (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Trifa, R-M., Structure, de-structure, re-structure. The second life of industrial heritage, Civil Eng. Archit. Vol. 58, No. 4 (2015) Special Issue – International Workshop in Architecture and Urban Planning, pp. 48–55. https://constructii.utcluj.ro/ActaCivilEng/download/ special/4_TRIFA%20Raluca_Structure%20Destructure%20Restructure_The%20Second %20Life%20of%20Industrial%20Heritage%20EN.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). TTG Asia, 2018. Fukushima Tourism Finally Rebounds From 2010’s Triple Disasters. 5 March 2018, https://www.ttgasia.com/2018/03/05/fukushima-tourism-finallyrebounds-from-2010s-triple-disasters (Accessed on 29 December 2018). UNESCO, 2010. Sustainable Tourism. http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/ mod16.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). University of Texas, n.d. The Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Buildings, https://soa.utexas.edu/ sites/default/disk/munich_papers/munich_papers/10_02_su_smith_christopher.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. International Brownfields Case Study. Emscher Park, Germany. August 21st, 2007, http://archive.li/20ljb (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Van Gendthallen Amsterdam, 2015. Redevelopment of Large-Scale Industrial Heritage. 29 October 2015, Delft University of Technology. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/ object/uuid%3A908accad-460a-4128-8c7d-ce67e85ac448 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Virginia Polytechnic, Cantell, S.F., 2005. The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://historicbellingham.org/documents_reports_maps/adaptive_reuse. pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Wernick, 2001. Environmental knowledge management. J. Ind. Ecol. 6(2). https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1162/108819802763471735 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Wien Museum, 2018. Otto Wagner Hofpavillon Hietzing, 2018. (in German). https://www. wienmuseum.at/de/standorte/otto-wagner-hofpavillon-hietzing.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Zhang, W., 2012. Local Culture on the Reuse of Old Buildings in Industrial Area. M.Sc. Thesis, May 2012, Karlskrona, Sweden, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:829381/ FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

Early planning, preparatory steps, crucial decisions, implementation, and beyond: the phases of redevelopment

3

Long-range planning does not deal with future decisions, but with the future of present decisions. Peter Drucker (1909–2005)

For nuclear facilities, safety guidance on the decommissioning planning process is given in International Atomic Energy Agency (2014). Although safety driven, this guidance can also be viewed in terms of post-decommissioning redevelopment. As said elsewhere in this book, redevelopment should be viewed as an (ideally) seamless continuation and part of decommissioning. Especially, the concept of early planning fully applies to the redevelopment process. A few relevant statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (2014) are quoted here as follows. Just add “and redevelopment” to “decommissioning” to extend them to our subject. “Requirement 10: Planning for decommissioning. The licensee shall prepare a decommissioning plan and shall maintain it throughout the lifetime of the facility, in accordance with the requirements of the regulatory body, in order to show that decommissioning can be accomplished safely to meet the defined end state.” For our purposes, this statement might be completed by adding “and redevelopment” next to “decommissioning,” and “cost-effectively” next to “safely.” As explained at length in this book, cost-effectiveness and safety are the two driving factors towards redevelopment. “7.1. The regulatory body shall ensure that the licensee takes decommissioning into account in the siting, design, construction, commissioning and operation of the facility, by means which include features to facilitate decommissioning, the maintenance of records of the facility, and consideration of physical and procedural methods to limit contamination and/or activation.” This statement is fully applicable to redevelopment. Environmental contamination will be a serious hindrance to both decommissioning and site redevelopment. “7.2. At the siting stage, a background survey of the site, including the obtaining of information on radiological conditions, shall be performed prior to the construction of a new facility, and the baseline data shall be updated prior to its commissioning …”. This statement should be expanded with a view to redevelopment. The Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00003-8 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

60

Beyond Decommissioning

appreciation of pristine conditions is an important factor in deciding upon a redevelopment option (though not necessarily a redevelopment objective per se). “7.3. For a new facility, planning for decommissioning shall begin early in the design stage and shall continue through to termination of the authorization for decommissioning.” “7.5. The decommissioning plan shall be updated by the licensee and shall be reviewed by the regulatory body periodically (typically every five years or as prescribed by the regulatory body), or when specific circumstances warrant, such as if changes in an operational process necessitate significant changes to the plan ….” “7.6. For existing facilities where there is no decommissioning plan, a suitable plan for decommissioning shall be prepared by the licensee as soon as possible. The plan shall be periodically reviewed and updated by the licensee.” “7.7. Appropriate records and reports that are relevant to decommissioning (e.g., records and reports of events) shall be retained by the licensee throughout the lifetime of the facility. The design of the facility, modifications to the facility and the facility’s operating history shall be identified and shall be considered in preparing the decommissioning plans ….” “Requirement 11: Final decommissioning plan prior to the conduct of decommissioning actions, a final decommissioning plan shall be prepared and shall be submitted to the regulatory body for approval.” “7.14. Interested parties shall be provided with an opportunity to examine the final decommissioning plan and, as appropriate and subject to national regulations, supporting documents, and to provide comments prior to its approval.” This is about the role of the stakeholders, which is as important in redevelopment as is in decommissioning.

It should be considered that early planning for decommissioning should begin at the siting, design, and construction phase. Based on decommissioning experience, it has been proven that specific construction details and provisions incorporated at the early stages of the nuclear project will be conducive to smooth and cost-effective decommissioning 40 or 60 years later. A few examples include impermeable surfaces, ample maneuvering spaces around components, hoisting aids, minimization of congested environments, and no underground components. Regardless of being redevelopment intrinsically linked to decommissioning, at first sight it may appear difficult to design and construct a plant in view of its postdecommissioning redevelopment: there are simply too many uncertainties about the selected reuse option. In general, concrete planning for redevelopment can usefully start after several years of operation, certainly well in advance of final shutdown. However, the concept of design and construction for building adaptability is growingly being investigated (Bianchi and Turturiello, 2015). It has been posited that lack of consideration for future change leads to higher refurbishment costs, greater use

The phases of redevelopment

61

disruptions, lost opportunities, and premature obsolescence. Adaptability strives to prolong the longevity of a product by incorporating changing needs. Three approaches to developing an adaptable product are commonly cited: modular design, product platform, and mass customization. All three approaches include modularity as a design principle to drive the design of new products. According to Bianchi and Turturiello (2015) common features for building adaptability include: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

“The design needs to address the lifecycle and not just the first use The range of solutions offered by the adaptable building must been known and carefully studied from the start A grid suitable to the function if defined simplifies the work, enables the components and changes coordination, gives coherence to the process and allows the growth and changes in a planned way A high degree of repeatability and reusability of the components will contribute to make the building more adaptable The use of easily maintained and readily available materials with simple construction details can make an invaluable contribution to building adaptability Refurbishment of existing buildings adding flexibility can have substantial benefits in terms of time, cost and assist in extending its useful life A service strategy allowing access, replacement, maintenance and up-date of the different parts is basic for a successful adaptable building It must be able to be changed over its life cycle to adapt to the inevitable evolving needs of its end users. Buildings must remain efficient places to live and work to ensure real lifecycle value.”

Many flexibility/adaptability indicators are suggested in Bianchi and Turturiello (2015), with the total number being close to 100. Weights are assigned to each indicator. A simplified list of 17 indicators is given in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Indicators for building adaptability (Bianchi and Turturiello, 2015) Surplus of site space Surplus of building space/floor space Surplus free of floor height Access to building: location of stairs, elevators, core Surplus of load-bearing capacity of floors Extendible building/unit horizontal Extendible building/unit vertical Dismountable facade Customisability and controllability of facilities Surplus facilities shafts and ducts Surplus capacity of facilities Disconnection of facilities components Distinction between support—infill (fit-out) Access to building: horizontal routing, corridors, gallery Removable, relocatable units in building Removable, relocatable interior walls in building Disconnecting/detailed connection interior walls; hor./vert.

62

Beyond Decommissioning

Many case studies are assessed in this study: based on selected indicators and their relative impacts (weights), a scoring system is created to assess the adaptability to reuse of existing buildings. Cantell (2005) articulates a reuse/redevelopment project in planning, preparatory, execution, and longer-term phases. During these phases the project is gradually being detailed and led to implementation. This book has re-phrased the proposed phases of Cantell (2005) in: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

early planning stabilization identification and acquisition of resources property transfer (or demolition followed by land transfer) longer-term revitalization policies

These phases are the essential steps for creating an integrated approach to revitalizing unused properties and for structuring the process from deterioration to successful revitalization. Local authorities can use this scheme to review redevelopment programs. In order for site decommissioning and release to remain consistent with business objectives, site owners should evaluate in depth the transfer of site title and assets, and site reuse implications early in the decommissioning planning process. There are four main reasons for this strategic approach: –

–

– –

finding a release/reuse pathway consistent with business objectives implies the involvement of a good deal of regulatory, political, municipal, and community stakeholders with a diverse—often conflicting—range of interests: the harmonization of different interests and concerns takes time; major stakeholder issues are not always those that site owners expected at the onset of decommissioning planning and may vary in the course of decommissioning: therefore, to minimize unexpected issues an integrated review of all site release and reuse aspects and their mutual interactions is essential to determine the optimal course of action; at the end of D&ER, site acceptance will depend on site characterization and decommissioning/remediation activities well beyond the issues addressed by regulatory requirements; and, site reuse and end state configurations are fully related to site release criteria and the way these have been communicated and made understandable to the stakeholders.

First, the owner should characterize the facility both physically and in terms of its hazardous inventory (radiological, chemical, etc.). One significant issue is the contamination of the subsoil, which is generally attributable to previous operations, waste dumps, or wartime effects (e.g., unexploded aerial bombs or landmines). Chronic contamination is generally caused by subsoil-related factors. The other aspect is the use of hazardous and harmful materials in construction. An accurate survey will serve to define the decommissioning/remediation program and the estimated state of the facility/site for subsequent reuse. Particularly critical is the location of its hazardous contents and of structural weaknesses. Reference reports have been published for characterization of nuclear facilities (International Atomic Energy Agency, 1998a; OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2013) and nuclear sites (International Atomic Energy Agency, 1998b). For toxic contamination in both nuclear and nonnuclear

The phases of redevelopment

63

buildings there was a critical period from around 1955 to the 1980s. Most buildings from those years contain hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos or PCBs). Unfortunately, many companies still had these contamination materials in stock by the time they were legally prohibited—and these materials continued to find their way into new builds for quite some time. That is why even in more recent buildings one still find hazardous products that should have been discontinued long before (Santifaller et al., 2008). Especially important in structural characterization is the identification of structural weaknesses (unstable gangways, deteriorating and leaking roofs, damaged floor hatches, etc.). An environmental assessment should be conducted to estimate the environmental impacts from remaining hazardous facility/site materials. This process can be a costly and time-consuming effort. Decommissioning of a nuclear facility/site is a major enterprise. Stakeholder concerns keep nuclear facilities under close scrutiny and decommissioning represents a significant change of state that enhances stakeholder concerns. No other aspect of site decommissioning and release reverberates with the public sentiment more than the transfer of site assets and site reuse, and so, many of the legitimate but nontechnical concerns of stakeholders end up to become focused on final property disposition. For example, public concerns may center on “how clean will the property be after it has been decommissioned?” which could be translated into “How will the property be valued by potential investors if they fear that there is any remaining contamination?” Besides, for many nuclear facilities, the plant’s operations life has provided significant financial benefits to local communities in taxes that will generally decrease during decommissioning and dwindle to nought after site release. But such concerns are not restricted to the public. For facility and site owners, the key question will be, “At what price and when can we make profitable reuse of the released property?” which of course underlies a more profound fear that they will not be able to release and reuse the property at all. Until recently, legal and regulatory coverage of nuclear decommissioning extended only to the site release and termination of the nuclear license. Only in more recent years the implications of site reuse on the decommissioning process have become clear. The lifecycle of a nuclear facility now incorporates its post-decommissioning reuse (Fig. 3.1). The below-mentioned example of early planning for reuse in the United States was legally based on the early transfer authority (ETA) act. ETA allows the federal government to transfer property to non-federal entities before the completion of environmental cleanup as long as assurances are given to protect human health and the environment. Congress authorized ETA in 1997. In 2003, International Risk Group (IRG) was granted a contract by the City of Downey, CA, for the privatization and assumption of environmental responsibility for the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Industrial Plant at Downey, CA. Over 70 years NASA had used the site for aircraft manufacturing, research, production and the assembly of rockets and missiles. During this period hazardous substances were used and inadvertently discharged on the property. The contract stipulated that IRG will indemnify specified parties (including among others local and national institutions, and prospective purchasers) for claims and costs

64

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 3.1 The decommissioning timeline. Courtesy of NRC.

resulting from environmental circumstances, for example, past operations and remediation works at Downey. This indemnity included claims accruing both before and after the property transfer. In other words, the broad scope of cleanup and liability was transferred to the private sector. To the federal budget, cost savings included earlier elimination of expenses to maintain excess property and greater efficiency as remediation is beyond NASA’s core business. In addition, the privatization of the property cleanup obligations replaces actions by the Federal Government with local coordination and control of remediation works (International Risk Group, 2008). The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which enriched uranium for national defense purposes beginning in 1954 and later for fuel for commercial nuclear power generation, has been subject to environmental cleanup since 1989. Uranium enrichment ceased in 2001, and the ongoing decommissioning project started in 2011. In a recent development, DOE-EM transferred 32 ha of the site to Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI). SODI is the community reuse organization representing four counties around the former nuclear plant. EM provided the environmental clearance for the transfer in 2017 following a public review process and consultation with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). The public review identified community’s overwhelming request to see land turned over for reindustrialization (DOE, 2018).

The phases of redevelopment

65

A nonnuclear project (the Seaholm Power Plant, Austin, Texas) casts further light on the need of early, orderly, and systematic planning for reuse. At Seaholm, a public opinion movement prevailed in a campaign to get the City Council to direct the Cityowned Electric Utility to decommission the plant. The plan included dismantling the power-generating equipment and support systems, while tackling environmental worries. However, no reuse option had been selected in detail. Not knowing the future of the facility introduced conflicts in the decommissioning process. For example, the supporters of a Science and Technology Center wanted to keep large parts of the plant equipment onsite on display. This included retaining items ranging from gauges and chart recorders to a turbine generator set and the steam boilers. Other stakeholders wanted the equipment totally dismantled and taken away with only the bare shell of the building remaining. Likewise, there was a heated debate about whether to dismantle the boilers or address the asbestos and metals-based paint while maintaining the visual profile of the facility on esthetic grounds. All of these differing viewpoints occurred in parallel with the Electric Utility committing to be responsible for plant decommissioning and urging to get rid of any future liability at the facility, such as asbestos remaining in situ. These conflicts increased uncertainty during implementation of decommissioning (Scadden, 2001). Eventually the redevelopment project was completed and Austin’s former electrical power plant, now a multiuse complex, houses residential spaces, offices, retail shops, restaurants, a library, and a hotel. It is important to prepare facilities/sites for rehabilitation or redevelopment. It is especially critical to stabilize buildings which might be rehabilitated, so that all deterioration is halted. The overall consensus is that those responsible for obsolete facilities should tackle ongoing and impending problems before these worsen. Contamination from decades of industrial activity has left many industrial buildings with hazardous materials in their soil or in the buildings. This contamination can pose safety and health risks, if left in situ, and can leave a community endangered if the industrial sites are deserted. Thus, contamination can present significant barriers to the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings both in extra costs and time. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), brownfields sites are “abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination” (Cantell, 2005). The location of contaminants and hazardous materials in industrial buildings can be predicted to some extent, although a characterization campaign will be required on a case-by-case basis. In addition to radioactive or chemical contamination in certain facilities, most older industrial buildings will contain asbestos, lead-based paint, and other heavy metals. Asbestos typically can be found in piping insulation, ducts, wires, floor tiles, plaster, etc., while lead is found in plumbing systems. New technologies can mitigate such problems, including methods that take account of historic fabric. For example, contaminated architectural features and items can be encapsulated so that they can be preserved in situ. Alternatively, contaminated items can be removed or enclosed within new construction. After stabilizing the site, property owners should estimate the (technical, financial, human) resources to rehabilitate or redevelop their properties: although in principle

66

Beyond Decommissioning

owners could be interested in investing their own resources for a profit, this is not always realistic and supplementary resources should be provided by the authorities in the light of broader interests (e.g., environmental, regional development, etc.). Financial resources can include rehabilitation loans, tax credits or abatements, etc. Technical assistance can also be provided including permit streamlining, flexible rehabilitation codes, referrals to private consultants and contractors, coordination with nonprofits, and other local agencies. In the United States, the EPA-managed Superfund program (see Glossary) has increased the amount of federal funds for brownfield cleanup. The Federal EPA Brownfields Office and regional offices are sources of funding, such as grants and loans to assist in the cleanup process. Most federal and state brownfields programs offer market-based incentives and limitations on liability to foster brownfields redevelopment. In certain cases, local assistance can help with cleanup costs. Redeveloping a brownfield site is often urged by the owners whose properties have been contaminated. The small size of some brownfields can make them hard to market to investors. Often the people with the strongest motivation to redevelop these sites are neighbors, who seldom have the specialist knowledge, the understanding of complex regulations, or the financial resources to manage a complicated remediation/ redevelopment case. Normally a completed site characterization and the identification of resources mark a decision point. In general, when plants are situated near population centers or near amenities raising strong demand for land, owners can feel financially prompted to either sell the site as-is or fully decommission and remediate it for redevelopment. For remotely located plants or other areas with weak demand for land, owners have less financial interest to fully decommission and remediate a site, which may result in prolonged inactivity. In other locations, available access to natural gas pipelines, electricity grid, or other infrastructure may encourage power plant owners to repower (i.e., build new generating units) at the site. Regardless of location, the power plant owner will assess the value of their existing assets together with the costs incurred under each of the four below-mentioned options. 1. Keep the plant ready for restart. If not restarted, the owner will ultimately embark on one of the remaining options below (Fig. 3.2). Well-maintained plants can be kept in this standby condition for a long time. 2. Take the plant to a mothballed condition. The owner performs limited D&ER and partial demolition, then secures the site. The facility is left as-is, and its future remains undefined. The owner is still subject to environmental liabilities and financial obligations. 3. Decommission and/or reuse the site (repower being a subordinate option). The planned end use of the facility will determine the extent of demolition and remediation works, if any. 4. Sell the plant as-is. Depending on the physical condition and contamination of the units and the site, the owner may find a buyer who will take responsibility for the redeveloping of the site. The new owner takes over the site’s environmental liabilities and financial obligations. However, should the new owner go insolvent, environmental liabilities may or may not go back to the former owner (see Box: A difficult case of redevelopment) (Raimi, 2017).

The phases of redevelopment

67

Owner options for a retired plant

1. Keep standby

2. Mothball

Partial decommissioning and remediation

3. Decommission

Repower

?

4. Sell as—is

Redevelop for industrial use

Redevelop for residential or mixed use

Remediate to brownfield

Remediate to greenfield

Sale or redevelop

Sale or redevelop

Fig. 3.2 The four options for a retired power plant.

Since this book is about redevelopment (with or without demolition) only option 3 will be reviewed in the remaining chapters. The four options are graphically illustrated in Fig. 3.2. A difficult case of redevelopment Local governments may feel interested in purchasing an industrial site. Because local governments are normally well capitalized, there is little risk that they would be unable to support environmental remediation costs. Additionally, they may often purchase the site at a low price and redevelop it as green space or for other community-oriented projects. However, the extent of the environmental liabilities may remain undisclosed to the local governments or they may be unaware of the need for characterization surveys. If large-scale environmental remediation is required, local taxpayers may end up paying for the cleanup. In 1990, the city of Allentown, PA, was donated a 2.6-ha riverfront industrial facility: the donor had purchased the property years earlier for $250,000. The city accepted the donation with the objective of converting the site into a mixed-use development. However, environmental liabilities delayed the project for more than 10 years, with the remediation and redevelopment escalating at some $17 million. Ultimately, the site was remediated and a museum built with $12.4 million contributed by the State of PA and the federal budget (Raimi, 2017).

68

Beyond Decommissioning

With certain properties, reuse can be problematic. Where the property is structurally unsound or the local/regional authorities cannot find a competent property owner or manager, demolition may become the only viable option to stop further deterioration and accommodate safety concerns. Generally, full demolition (without reuse in sight) should be viewed as the last resort; most stakeholders would prefer to work with the existing owner to perform the necessary repairs and rehabilitation, and launch a redevelopment project. However, demolition is still compatible with the later transfer and reuse of the facility’s land. Should demolition be inevitable, at least the most significant parts of the facility should be documented for later consultation by researchers, students, or other concerned parties. A recent example is given in Bentley (2017). The Energy Factory Knappenrode in Saxony, Germany was a former coal-processing facility, now a museum. Some superfluous or visually unattractive equipment will be dismantled, given that the plant’s large footprint and its many components make it difficult and costly to maintain them all in original sizes and forms. However, to preserve the cultural heritage of the plant, environmental authorities required that comprehensive documentation is compiled before any refurbishment occurred. To fulfill these requirements a 3D laser scanning was carried out. A practical method to quickly and accurately reproduce the layout of the plant had to be designed. The team used the data set from the scans to create architectural drawings of floor plans and cross sections as point clouds, importing them into the software Pointools for visualization and integration into the digital historical building stock. The software allowed to quickly remove spurious elements to focus instead on the essential components. Team members could develop visual documentation with complex image retouching much faster than in ordinary photo documentation, as well as navigate the point clouds in real time for review. A uniform set of architectural plans is now available for different purposes. Beyond the rehabilitation of individual obsolete properties, authorities should integrate these initiatives with larger-scale, community-wide revitalization efforts (e.g., affordable housing at the local and regional levels, jobs and economic development, safe and healthy environments), and long-term land use and growth management planning. Following plant characterization and identification of back-end resources, the plant owner develops and implements a plan for decommissioning. Preferably this planning should take account of the selected end use. For many newer plants, decommissioning plans are drafted and approved by local or national authorities, even before design and construction of the plant. But for older plants, decommissioning plans must in many cases be developed and implemented after decades of operations. In addition, many older plants were constructed using asbestos, lead paint, or other regulated materials, whose management has become more stringent over time. The planning for decommissioning of nuclear facilities is covered by several IAEA documents, for example, International Atomic Energy Agency (2004, 2011). Procurement methods for adaptive reuse projects face the same challenges as other projects. The process of procurement of a well-redeveloped building begins with the

The phases of redevelopment

69

selection and appointment of a quality design team. From there, procurement includes aspects such as detailed planning, construction works, partial demolition, cleanup, and final tests. While in principle all procurement methods can lead to the desired outcome, some make it harder if the challenges are not understood or well managed by the contractor. The traditional lump sum contract is often seen as the best way of maintaining quality throughout the project until its successful completion. However, while protecting the interests of the client, lump sum arrangements require large contingencies to accommodate unknowns or unexpected discoveries (e.g., hidden contamination); otherwise increases to the contract price will be requested by the contractor as the project is in progress (Office for Design + Architecture South Australia, 2014). A project design team needs to be assembled at an early stage of a redevelopment project, and not after key decisions have already been taken, such as locations of project supporting infrastructure, budget limitations and spatial planning. A design team should include many categories of experts such as architects, heritage consultants, land and building surveyors, civil and mechanical engineers, environmental scientists, economists, planning consultants, artists, etc. (Office for Design + Architecture South Australia, 2014). Basically, implementation of decommissioning includes the following activities: l

l

l

l

l

l

removal of radioactive substances, asbestos and other above-ground remediation equipment removal and salvage demolition and salvage below-ground remediation waste removal and disposal site grading and restoration: brownfield or greenfield

For nuclear facilities, a number of publications have been issued by the IAEA including International Atomic Energy Agency (1999, 2008, 2009).

3.1

Decommissioning to brownfield for repowering or sale/redevelopment (Raimi, 2017)

Because power plants have access to existing electricity grid and other features such as water bodies for cooling or natural gas pipelines, plant owners have opted to repower in many cases, decommissioning older generating units, then constructing new units at the same site. After decommissioning, repowering typically requires that a site is remediated to brownfield status. After decommissioning, major issues of concern for power plant brownfields include soil and subsoil contamination from leaks of radioactive substances, petroleum or other liquids, groundwater contamination, and the presence of asbestos, PCBs, lead, or other regulated materials. If a brownfield property is sold, liability is transferred to the new owner, providing prospective investors with a strong incentive to perform a detailed site assessment before the purchase.

70

Beyond Decommissioning

3.2

Decommissioning to greenfield for sale or redevelopment (Raimi, 2017)

In some cases, plant owners may wish to remediate a plant site to greenfield status. Although in principle owners could advance redevelopment up to a greenfield site, most owners are not interested in moving away from their core business, for example, producing electricity and toward commercial or residential development. As a result, greenfield sites typically are sold to developers with knowledge of decommissioning and local real estate markets or donated to local communities for use as parkland or other recreational activities. World Nuclear News (2010) describes how the Zion NPP license was transferred from the owner Exelon to decommissioning specialists Energy Solutions; however, following completion of decommissioning, the site will be returned to Exelon for redevelopment. After decommissioning, plant sites may require decades of monitoring and mitigation of any negative impacts to groundwater sources as needed. For example, owners may have to install a groundwater monitoring system. Typically, this program requires owners to establish baseline groundwater quality levels (based on sampling from wells up-gradient of the site), then monitor for statistically significant changes to water quality at down-gradient locations over a defined time. If changes are detected above groundwater quality criteria, owners are required to take corrective action. The property transfer is the next phase of redevelopment. A large-scale scheme is discussed in the following document (US Department of Energy, 2015). Following Congress authorization, DOE established in 2013 the Asset Revitalization Initiative (ARI) to address the Department’s portfolio of assets and opportunities. ARI is a DOE-wide effort to further the beneficial reuse of its diverse mix of assets; to stimulate a more efficient business management within DOE; and encourage collaboration between public and private investors/developers and DOE sites. One objective of ARI is to support the transfer of redundant DOE property. Over 57 years DOE has effected 209 transfers of land and real property assets tantamount to 100,000 ha. These transfers include sales, grants, and donations to other federal, state, regional, local, and tribal governments or nonprofit redevelopment organizations for beneficial reuse. The redevelopment histories of DOE sites or details of some projects thereof are described in this book or are readily available in the technical literature, including: l

l

90 nuclear sites originally developed in the cold war have been closed and decontaminated, and many of these either have been transferred to economic development organizations or are eligible for beneficial reuse. To name a few, some of these sites are: Grand Junction, CO; Oak Ridge, TN; Los Alamos, NM; Mound, OH; Monticello, UT; Hanford, WA. Several DOE defense nuclear sites have been redirected toward environmental and wildlife reuses through access to natural habitats such as at SRS, SC; Hanford, WA; Rocky Flats, CO; Oak Ridge, TN; and Grand Junction, CO.

Land and asset transfer for beneficial reuse is economically significant. Extending the useful life of many DOE redundant facilities over long periods increases the return on investment. The sunk costs in the design and construction benefit local communities and businesses that can take advantage of reused facilities at lower costs than by

The phases of redevelopment

71

building new facilities. DOE can rule out the running costs for its unneeded facilities including for long-term storage, maintenance, and security. Finally, cost savings are obtained by eliminating the need for costly demolition and site remediation following cleanup for reuse. For example, at the Oak Ridge East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), the transfer of various buildings to the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET, a nonprofit association) for beneficial reuse has produced $12.6 million in averted demolition costs to DOE because the buildings no longer needed to be demolished. Transfers of ETTP land, facilities, and infrastructure have resulted in approximately $110 million in cumulative cost savings, including recurring savings (e.g., those associated with utilities, fire protection and emergency response services, and surveillance and maintenance). Ongoing/recurring savings amount to some $6 million per year (US Department of Energy, 2015). A short story of the ETTP redevelopment project follows. K-25 was the codename given by the Manhattan Project to the program to produce enriched uranium for atomic bombs using the gaseous diffusion method. At the time of its construction in 1944 at Oak Ridge, TN, K-25 was the largest building in the world. The enriched uranium produced at K-25 was used at Hiroshima. Three more gaseous diffusion plants (code-named K-29, K-31, and K-33) were later built on the Oak Ridge site. Gaseous diffusion ended in 1985. The K-25 site was renamed several times, and was finally named East Tennessee Technology Park. All gas diffusion facilities had been dismantled by early 2017. Currently, ETTP is home to two business centers: Heritage Center and Horizon Center. The Heritage Center encompasses 125 of the main buildings of the former gaseous diffusion facility, which are currently leased to more than 40 companies (Fig. 3.3). CROET is now established as ETTP manager. Details on decommissioning and end state of the three process buildings (K-29, K-31, and K-33) are given in Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (2008). Beyond the redevelopment of individual obsolete properties, local authorities should integrate these initiatives with larger-scale, community-wide revitalization efforts (e.g., affordable housing at the local and regional levels, jobs and economic development, safe and healthy environments), and longer-term land use and growth management planning. Adaptive reuse cases should not be viewed or accepted by proponents, regulators, or stakeholders as individual projects. Their impacts on the environment and the near territories and communities are also critical. Redevelopment of one building can be a catalyst to redevelopment of others, in fact of the whole region. There are multiple links (in economics, environment, jobs, traffic, etc.) between single conversion projects and the greater area they are located in. Therefore, in redevelopment projects the new uses of a building should take account of the needs of the region (G€unc¸e and Misirlisoy, 2015). Good asset management starts at the initial planning for construction and does not end when the asset is retired, decommissioned, and eventually redeveloped. Adaptive reuse should be planned and implemented hand in hand with a good follow-on maintenance program. Maintenance defines how long the facility will remain in a safe and profitable state. Recreational uses, civic centers, shopping malls, etc. are all dependent on income.

72

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 3.3 ETTP Heritage Center, Oak Ridge. Credit to DOE.

When income declines, many owners tend to cut running budgets. Under these circumstances, poor management cuts inspections and preventive maintenance. This decreases the chance of locating and fixing small problems before they become larger and costlier to remedy. Ultimately, the cascading impacts can build up to the point where only a major capital inflow can keep the facility in operation.

Disclaimer Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.

References Bentley, 2017. 3D ScanWorld-Energy Factory Knappenrode. https://www.bentley.com/en/pro ject-profiles/2017/3d-scanworld_energy-factory-knappenrode (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Bianchi, A., Turturiello, F., 2015. Adaptive Reuse of the Industrial Heritage, A Thesis. https:// www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/134123/3/TESI%20ADAPTIVE%20REUSE% 20%281%29.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Cantell, S.F., 2005. The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http:// historicbellingham.org/documents_reports_maps/adaptive_reuse.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). DOE, 2018. Assistant Secretary White Attends Portsmouth Site Land Transfer Event, Visits EMCBC. July 24, 2018. https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/assistant-secretarywhite-attends-portsmouth-site-land-transfer-event-visits-emcbc (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

The phases of redevelopment

73

G€ unc¸e, K., Misirlisoy, D., 2015. Questioning the adaptive reuse of industrial heritage and its interventions in the context of sustainability. Sociology Study 5 (9), 718–727. http:// www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/56974dbdbf975.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). International Atomic Energy Agency, 1998a. Radiological characterization of shut down nuclear reactors for decommissioning purposes. Technical Reports Series No. 389, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 1998b. Characterization of radioactively contaminated sites for remediation purposes. IAEA-TECDOC-1017, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 1999. State of the art technology for decontamination and dismantling of nuclear facilities. Technical Reports Series No. 395, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004. Planning, managing and organizing the decommissioning of nuclear facilities: lessons learned. IAEA-TECDOC-1394, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008. Innovative and adaptive technologies in decommissioning of nuclear facilities. IAEA-TECDOC-1602, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009. Integrated Approach to Planning the Remediation of Sites Undergoing Decommissioning. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-3.3, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011. IAEA Recommendations on a Decommissioning Plan, Research Reactor Decommissioning Demonstration Project (R2D2P) Review of a Decommissioning Plan. IFIN-HH, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania. 4–8 July 2011. https://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/r2d2/workshop10/presentations/iaearecommendations-on-decommissioning-plan.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014. Decommissioning of Facilities, General Safety Requirements. Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 6, Vienna. International Risk Group, 2008. International Risk Group Announces a National First—The Privatization of the Environmental Liability at the Former National Aeronautics and Space Administration Industrial Plant in Downey, CA. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2008. Decontamination and Decommissioning of Radiologically Contaminated Facilities. https://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/ RAD5.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2013. Radiological characterization for decommissioning of nuclear installations. Paris 2013. Office for Design + Architecture South Australia, 2014. Adaptive Reuse, Design Guidance Note. Raimi, D., Decommissioning US power plants—decisions, costs, and key issues, RFF Report, 2017 http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF%20Rpt%20Decommissioning% 20Power%20Pl ants.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).. Santifaller, E., Engel, J., Zimmermann, M., 2008. Transform. Zur Revitalisierung von Immobilien. The Revitalization of Buildings (Text in German and English). PRESTEL Publ. ISBN: 978-3-7913-4032-6. Scadden, R.A., 2001. Adaptive reuse of obsolete power plants. In: Presented at A&WMA 94th Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida. US Department of Energy, 2015. Land and asset transfer for beneficial reuse. DOE/LM-1475. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/DOE_LM-1475.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). World Nuclear News, 2010. License transfer for Zion decommissioning. 24 August 2010. http:// www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Zion_decommissioning_to_start_following_licence_ transfer-2408107.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

This page intentionally left blank

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

4

The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. Dee Hock (1929-)

Until recently, it was generally assumed that the final objective for nuclear decommissioning was the unrestricted release of the site and demolition of all structures (a state often named “greenfield” state). However, the safety driven definition of decommissioning given in the Glossary does not include non-safety-related activities, such as the demolition of clean structures (e.g., offices, cooling towers) or postdismantling landscaping. Besides, this definition does not exclude the option of reusing the site for restricted release (an option often named “brownfield”). Over time experience has shown that going “greenfield” can be an extremely ambitious option as well as prohibitively expensive in some cases. As a consequence, a better result might be obtained by redeveloping the site (or some of its facilities and buildings) for new uses. It can be observed that in the longer term any decommissioned site will be reused for some purpose, but experience shows that a long delay, even several decades, may occur between the end of decommissioning and the initiation of a new project onsite. This is due to the lack of a timely redevelopment plan and may incur—in addition to unnecessary expenses and the lack of profits resulting from an idle asset—the loss of historical memory and cultural values associated with the site. The three decommissioning strategies defined by the IAEA include (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014a): immediate dismantling; deferred dismantling; and entombment (this one is strongly discouraged by the IAEA and is confined to exceptional cases). The main limitation of these approaches is that they do not value the structures per se (regardless of their activity inventory) and do not consider them as necessary or convenient to be preserved/reused. The entombment strategy (a.k.a. in situ disposal) encases structures in concrete, impeding future use of the site and modifying the landscape beyond recovery. Entombment as a decommissioning strategy is still being pursued by the US DOE, Russian Federation, or occasionally by a handful of countries. Beyond having mentioned entombment here, this book will not deal with this strategy. As described elsewhere for the Hanford B Reactor (Section 6.2.1), it took years and public protests to revert a previous decision and achieve a better use for the site. Instead, there should be options that make site reuse viable, rather than having to fight against a traditional approach (be it demolition, or sometimes, entombment). Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00004-X Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

76

Beyond Decommissioning

New thinking needs to be applied to decommissioning strategies to allow for preservation opportunities where possible. Decommissioning and preservation or reuse should be combined to allow more flexibility at decommissioning sites. The traditional approach to decommissioning delineates a linear process in the lifecycle of a nuclear facility, namely from siting and construction, through operation and eventually decommissioning and site release. Within this vision, decommissioning is the end of the industrial project. Instead, redevelopment delineates a circular lifecycle process, whereby redevelopment marks the beginning of a new industrial project (Fig. 4.1). Actually the debate between linear and circular economy is nothing new. The linear economy of “take, make, and dispose” implies that resources are getting extracted, and products are manufactured and then discarded after use. Therefore, the resource depletion is not the only problem, but the disposed products also need to be accommodated, which can cause negative effects. By moving from a linear economy to a circular economy many problems are mitigated or they even disappear. Within circular economy no waste is ideally sent for disposal, but the waste becomes a new resource ˚ kerman, 2016). The equivalence with building/site redevelopment instead of aban(A donment and disposal is too obvious to require elaboration. It would be noteworthy to have a look at the earliest US classification of decommissioning strategies (US AEC, 1974). Together with mothballing (later called SAFSTOR), entombment (which kept the name, ENTOMB, even in later classifications) and removal of radioactive components and dismantling (later named DECON), the old Regulatory Guide had a fourth category: conversion to a new nuclear system or a fossil fuel system. The reference reads: “This alternative, which applies only to nuclear power plants, utilizes the existing turbine system with a new steam supply system. The original nuclear steam supply system should be separated from the electric generating system and disposed of in accordance with one of the previous three retirement alternatives.” Incidentally, this was the strategy pursued for Fort St Vrain NPP, sec. 6.2.1.2. In a broad sense, this definition anticipated that the conversion of a

Siting

Construction

Operation

Shut down

Redevelopment

Decommissioning, remediation

Site decline, loss of interest

Fig. 4.1 The circular lifecycle process.

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

77

nuclear facility could be viewed as part of its decommissioning project, a concept that came out of use for decades and only recently has reacquired vigor (Fig. 3.1). In general, most unused industrial buildings can be adapted for other uses; but others are more problematic due to such factors as: conversion costs; constraints of their physical structure; their location in a conservation area; problems of access; or whether they have been “listed” as having special architectural or historic features. The heritage of the first generation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) is significant. These plants, designed in the 1960s and 1970s, incorporate a specific type and architecture of construction. These power plants, already shutdown or approaching the end of their service lives, are impressive features on the landscape. Newer plants are different in design and appearance. They tend to be standardized and modular, so creating a less imaginative appearance. The generation of plants being shut down and decommissioned should be valued and their heritage preserved to some extent (in fact some have been fully dismantled already). Total dismantling could effectively erase all traces of this generation of plants, severing the ties to history (Farrow, 2008). As indicated in the Preface, the post-decommissioning redevelopment of nuclear sites has been addressed sporadically by the players. On the international scale, only the IAEA has addressed the subject systematically. The recent (Gillin, 2018) may mark a new attitude.

4.1

Sustainability

The definition for sustainable development established by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 stresses the need of meeting human needs in a manner that respects intergenerational equity and responsibility (United Nations, 1987). Likewise, the definition from the World Conservation Union stresses the need of improving the quality of human life while protecting the Earth’s capacity for regeneration (The World Conservation Union, 2006). The combination of these two definitions provides an understanding of sustainable development as benefiting both people and ecosystems in the short and long term. Adaptive reuse enables a building or facility to suit new conditions. It is a process that recovers the benefits of energy and quality of the original structures in a sustainable manner. So far, initiatives to improve sustainability have tended to focus on new construction projects rather than existing ones. One reason is the tendency to regard old structures as having a limited remaining life and to be closed down and demolished in the not-too-far future. However, many existing industrial buildings will still be in use for at least another 100 years: in fact, introducing the concept of circular economy and redevelopment “cycles” may extend their lifetimes much longer. Therefore, there is a need to develop policy and strategies that foster both adaptive reuse and the sustainability of existing buildings. The shift to reuse and adaptation has become an increasing trend within the built environment. In many cases, increasing the life of a building through reuse can lower material, transport, and energy consumption and pollution, and thus make a significant contribution to sustainability. Today researchers generally agree that adaptation can

78

Beyond Decommissioning

make a significant contribution to the sustainability of existing buildings. There is also a growing perception that it is cheaper to convert old buildings to new, more sustainable uses than to demolish and rebuild (Bullen and Love, 2011). Redeveloping nuclear and radiological sites incorporates the principle of sustainability and must be an essential industrial policy. The key objectives of successful decommissioning are: (1) safety and health protection of the workers, the public, and the environment during and after decommissioning; and (2) restoring the site to new functions. A series of lifecycle phases beginning with safe and productive operations, continuing through safe and cost-effective decommissioning, and ending with well-considered site reuse complies with the principle of sustainability at its best. The fundamental environmental principles—reduce, recycle, and reuse (the 3 R’s rule) (United Nations Centre for Regional Development, 2011)—are conducive to smooth, timely, and cost-effective decommissioning. Applying these principles means minimizing generation and spread of contamination during plant operation and decommissioning, minimizing waste, and recovering, recycling and reusing materials, components, and structures. Demolition and disposal should be viewed only as the last resort. As important as the reuse of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) is the post-decommissioning reuse of land, surface- and ground-water, and buildings. Often nuclear facilities occupy only a fraction of the overall site; this eases site reuse and redevelopment. Site redevelopment often has high score among local stakeholders. SSCs that are highly contaminated generally need to be decontaminated and dismantled, and often disposed of after treatment, conditioning, and packaging. But land, water bodies, and several buildings remaining after decommissioning are available for prompt reuse. Besides, a vast majority of the waste arising from decommissioning are clean and eligible for recycling. The 3 R’s imply not only good safety and environmental practices but also generate possibilities for workers’ reemployment and community redevelopment. In many cases, the ideal reuse of a nuclear site may be the construction of a new nuclear facility onsite. This option may be the best in the whole socioeconomic scenario—since it reemploys readily available, experienced skills and the continuing nuclear use is typically well accepted by the local communities. The 3’s formula is specified by the top-level IAEA document on nuclear energy (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008) under Principle 7-Resource Efficiency. This reference goes on stating “Many components used throughout the nuclear energy chain can be reused and recycled, ranging from site locations and plant equipment to fuel … and construction materials.” The nuclear industry and the (nuclear, environmental, labor) regulators share a responsibility to launch and perform strategies for safe and cost-effective reuse of the resources associated with a nuclear site. International harmonization of regulatory standards eases sound projections, early planning, and efficiency in nuclear decommissioning process. For decades there have been international efforts to reach agreed standards (clearance criteria) on the removal from regulatory control of materials and land containing minor amounts of radioactivity; these standards were especially addressed to the use or disposal of massive

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

79

quantities of materials, for example, those occurring during decommissioning. These efforts culminated in the publishing of IAEA standards (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006, 2012a,b, 2014b), which opened the way to unrestricted or restricted reuse/redevelopment of decommissioned facilities and sites. But the concept of redevelopment goes beyond the decommissioning/remediation of obsolete facilities and idle sites. It is important to be able to appreciate the historic and cultural meaning of the landscape (including industrial buildings) and to understand how “landscape ecology and design can invent alternative forms of relationships between people, place, and cosmos so that landscape architectural projects become more about invention and programs rather merely corrective measures of restoration” (Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 2014). A word of caution is necessary: While the redevelopment of nuclear facilities/sites is in line with the principle of sustainability, this very principle can be invoked, for example, to justify the installation of new energy-savings measures in heritage buildings being redeveloped, which seems to contradict the principle of conservation. Needless to say, a trade-off can be needed in concrete cases.

4.2

Typical reuse/redevelopment approaches

Typical approaches follow consolidated practices and generally focus on the future of historic structures. The US Department of the Interior/National Park Service (NPS) defines four practices for historic buildings (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Technical Preservation Services, 2017). They are preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. Each practice focuses on different plans for a given site. Preservation retains the most historical character of the site and rehabilitation adds new designs and uses. It is important to review each option when considering applicability to the post-decommissioning phase (for the sake of simplicity, we will refer here to NPPs). “Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. However, new exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form.”

This approach freezes the building/facility in time, although limited upgrades to its systems are possible. Historic house museums often follow this approach because it allows us to accurately depict a given period in history and preserve fabric that is significant to the history of the structure. In other cases, this approach is selected if there are significant historic materials onsite and the site is relatively easy to maintain or stabilize.

80

Beyond Decommissioning

In an NPP, preservation could be a useful approach, but difficult to achieve on a large scale. It would require the retention of SSCs that are normally removed during decommissioning. The materials, often radiologically contaminated, would be hard and costly to safely maintain, stabilize, or replace with similar materials. However, preserving an isolated part of a large facility (e.g., a cooling tower) or a small facility is possible and should be evaluated for reuse. By saving this link to the past history, the knowledge of the site is consolidated and remains available to the public. “Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.”

In this option historical features and fabric are retained, but new construction and new uses are allowed. The new construction must harmonize with the existing structures and keep existing spatial relationships. For example, erecting a massive building next to a small, historic farmhouse would not be admissible. The new construction could be removed at a later stage but should not impact the historic structures. Rehabilitation allows for more freedom than the other three approaches. Rehabilitation and preservation are those ones most applicable to a NPP. The keeping of an historic feature or structure is possible, and the construction, for example, of a visitor center or museum could be added. The new construction should blend in materials and size, and allow for continued use of a site that would otherwise remain idle. “Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. The Restoration Standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods.”

In this approach, a period of restoration is selected, and the structure and site is restored to its appearance during this period. Before any work is carried out, the site is documented for its pre-restoration appearance, and any historical fabric is identified and preserved. Features that are not part of the restoration period are removed to provide a coherent appearance and understanding. As in reconstruction, documentary evidence is used to support decisions. Restoration is useful when there is evidence for what existed during a selected period of significance. A site where change has altered the appearance of a site significantly from this period of significance could select restoration, but have to be willing to remove features that may later prove to be of interest. NPPs are changing all time as technology and requirements change. Upgrades to SSC are made, and it would be difficult to determine what a period of significance would be. A plant’s purpose is to generate energy and this will remain throughout

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

81

its entire operational life. It would be hard to decide a time during operation that was more significant than another. For example, at Three Mile Island, PA, United States there could be different periods of significance. One could be when the plant was constructed originally. Another could be the day of the accident, and a third one the stabilization period following the accident. Using restoration at a NPP would require picking a specific period of interpretation. This method could be used at a NPP if an event or period can be identified that is of significance to the country’s industrial heritage. Otherwise, the preservation of key features at the site as they are at the final shutdown would be a suitable approach. “Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or nonsurviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.”

Reconstruction uses documentary evidence to closely restore a site to its original, significant time period. This approach requires substantial research and reports before any work can be carried out. While a reconstruction closely replicates the original structures, it is important that the reconstructed structures be visually distinct from the original ones. This approach can be preferable when there is clear evidence for what was there originally, and the evidence can be used to reestablish the missing parts. Reconstruction is used at a site where change has substantially altered the structures and site and impedes the historical understanding. The features reconstructed should be significant to the historic appearance and reading. At an NPP, this approach may be selected if a significant plant feature has been removed during decommissioning, and later regarded as important. A study was conducted at Trojan NPP, where cooling towers were demolished despite public opposition. While it would be costly, the cooling towers could be reconstructed if this were considered important. Proactive planning would prevent the later need for reconstruction. Rather than reconstruction, retention of important features would be preferable. The above-mentioned four redevelopment methods provide a conceptual framework to take account of preservation principles at nuclear facilities and sites approaching decommissioning, while new uses would still be possible. Applying the concepts of site preservation and reuse requires significant changes to decommissioning regulations. It would require the regulatory bodies to look at each site in a specific way, networking with the public and owners. Using preservation and redevelopment should be considered viable alternatives to unrestricted release of the site with no consideration given to its future use. The US Standards on Treatment of Historic Properties are a series of principles about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic structures, as well as installing additions or making modifications. Guidelines (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Technical Preservation Services, 2017) attached to the Standards offer design and execution recommendations to apply the Standards to a

82

Beyond Decommissioning

given case. The Standards and Guidelines are applicable to properties of all types, materials, construction, sizes, and use. They cover the facade, the interior, and the entire property’s site. The Guidelines address separately the four redevelopment strategies discussed earlier in this chapter—preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. In the United States, the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are regulatory for all projects funded by the national Historic Preservation Fund, whereas they are advisory in other cases. Historic preservation identifies facilities and sites for their significance in history. National designations are often symbolic, rather than protective. For example, designation as a National Historic Park Service can suggest treatments, but cannot enforce them. Local by-laws may complement a national designation for additional protection or detail. There may be also professional agencies that provide site designations. The American Nuclear Society grants “The Nuclear Historic Landmark Award” which recognizes facilities and sites for their outstanding achievements in nuclear technology. And finally something about semantics. Adaptive reuse differs from renovation in one important way: not only are buildings transformed, but their second life is drastically different in purpose from the first. More terms are in common use in this field: reclamation, revitalization, rejuvenation, etc. To prevent confusion, this book will try to recourse more frequently to the terms defined earlier in this chapter and in the Glossary.

4.3

Challenges to reusing nuclear sites

Despite the wide range of possible planning approaches, there are a number of challenges that may hinder the reuse/redevelopment of a nuclear site, including: regulations, costs, public opposition, waste storage, and poor planning. Public concerns can be significant. Opinion groups and environmentalists may object to the reuse of a perceived “hazardous” site, while other stakeholders may view it as an opportunity for their communities. In this field public education and planning are key. If redevelopment planning is introduced gradually with the contribution of the stakeholders, it will allow for the plan to be ready prior to the plant shutdown in time for decommissioning activities to be determined. Experience has proven that the cost of remediating contaminated land is not equated by an increase in the value of the cleaned up property. Firstly, a component of stigma resides whereby formerly contaminated properties tend to be valued less than the cleanup costs. Secondly, uncertainties complicate the site redevelopment. The NDA Annual Report & Accounts 2017/18 shows the total land assets of the NDA’s 20 nuclear sites were a minor fraction of its decommissioning liabilities (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2018). As the result, the reduced market value of cleaned up sites has made banks reluctant to lend money in redevelopment projects, especially to smaller companies, which can be exposed to significant risks of failure, leaving banks liable for still contaminated properties (or properties whose clean status

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

83

is still to be demonstrated). There is a perception that contamination is an unknown, especially before cleanup, and this reflects in higher risks to the banks. Unfortunately, it is the smaller companies that are most likely to want to settle at nuclear science parks under redevelopment such as the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus in the United Kingdom. These small high-tech businesses find financing difficult: banks prefer to lend money to big companies, which actually do not need it (Nuclear Engineering International, 2008). Additionally, many energy companies are hesitant to invest more money into a site where there is no viable commercial plant in operation. While they are the site operators, they have already paid or are still paying for decommissioning. They may not be willing to support new investments at a site as their core business is on the generation and distribution of energy. This leaves public institutions and local companies to fund new investments. Regulations may be an obstacle to site redevelopment. Locally, zoning restrictions might prevent a site from being used for purposes other than a power plant or heavy industry. However, the UK government has recognized that there might be more uses for decommissioned nuclear sites than were previously assumed, and that site restoration to unrestricted use might not always be the “best practicable environmental option” (BPEO). The UK government stated that BPEO sometimes had insufficient flexibility, for example where it may be more environmentally damaging to dispatch radioactive contamination from one place to another—referred to in the United Kingdom as the “Dig and Drigg” approach, named after the national radioactive waste LLW disposal facility at Drigg near Sellafield. Instead the government’s nuclear decommissioning policy now encompasses a range of different end uses for nuclear sites—from industrial and commercial use (in IAEA terminology, restricted release) to unrestricted use, for example, for housing, schools, and farming (Nuclear Engineering International, 2008). Waste stored onsite can be another hindrance. For example, in the US NRC regulations will remain in force at sites with independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). These waste installations have to be maintained and surveilled and remain inaccessible to unauthorized persons. While ISFSIs are small in size, they may impede several reuse options for the whole site. Many of these challenges to reuse could be addressed through proactive planning and assessment. Through careful planning and the involvement of the public, sites can make an easier transition to a new use than they would if a plan were not in place (Farrow, 2008).

4.4

Designing a nuclear facility to become part of the local community

It is a generally accepted position that to form a sustainable relationship between an industrial facility (in our case a nuclear facility) and the surrounding community, the design should make the facility and its site to accord with the community’s needs and expectations not only today, but in the future. In other words, a nuclear facility should

84

Beyond Decommissioning

be projected toward future generations: what is this if not the very meaning of redevelopment? To be so, specific criteria seem relevant (OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2008). It is noteworthy that similar concepts were given in an early architectural review of nuclear facilities (Munce, 1964). l

l

l

l

Flexibility in use. Not all parts of a facility may maintain their original functions. It will be therefore good policy to design and build some parts of the facility in view of new functions. In this regard, future expansion should be afforded great thought at the initial planning stage. Neglect of this basic necessity can lead to unnecessary and radical alteration or even rebuilding on a new site. Cultural assets. These features are intended to pass on a respected heritage, to forward symbols, or to prospect ideals. This implies a possibility for the local communities to visit, learn, discuss, and enjoy the facility. Spin-offs include improvements in education, image, and social links. The facility should be viewed as unique and deserving respect. Physical features. Building features should harmonize with the local geography and topography. In addition to its esthetic function landscaping has a definite practical use. The placing of buildings in relation to existing trees and bushes, and the planting of additional trees, can facilitate the building’s protection from prevailing winds. The skillful disposition of trees and vegetation can do much also toward obtaining pleasing architectural lines, especially valuable since in nuclear projects much heavy material such as mass concrete is in common use. These features are going to outlive the original functions of a nuclear site. Accessibility. An attractive and readily accessible site is going to last and survive its original functions. Understandably a facility that is open to and strolled about by visitors will induce a sense of safety. Fences should be kept to a minimum. However, easy access may conflict with safety and security arguments.

One interesting development in this regard can be found in Canadian Standards Association (2006). This Guideline provides a framework for reducing building construction waste through the Design for Decommissioning and Adaptability (DfD/A) principle. It is the adaptability principle that is of special interest to this book. Although some readers can regard these principles as far-fetched, they certainly show that building adaptability is mature for regulation. The following are relevant quotations from this Guideline: 0.4 The adaptability component of DfD/A is intended to reduce the footprint of the building industry, allowing the building to continue to be used beyond its original intent by accommodating substantial change (e.g., social, economic, and technological conditions and physical surroundings and needs) within an existing physical asset. With thoughtful planning and design, a complex building can become highly versatile and responsive to the needs of most tenants. Design for adaptability means designing for present and future uses. 1.2 … The adaptability principles can be used to make buildings able to accommodate a larger variety of uses and experience a longer life cycle, reducing the need for additional buildings. … . 6.1 Versatility … In designing for versatility, it is important to consider the different spacing needs of the targeted building users. Having one space that accommodates many uses can reduce the overall building footprint, saving cost, and resources. It is

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

85

also possible to look beyond the boundaries of the organization immediately occupying the building to seek potential partnerships with outside organizations that could use building space at times it would otherwise go unused. Creating partnerships can cut costs and reduce the need to construct more single-use structures … . 6.2 Convertibility. … Office buildings, for example, are now being constructed with higher floor heights to make them convertible to housing. Major conversions can be made … in the longer term, converting a school to a community center or senior’s residence as the demographics of the locality the building serves evolves. 6.3 Expandability involves designing to allow for either vertical or horizontal additions in floor space.

A comprehensive discussion on design to remodel or reuse (DRR) as part of design for decommissioning (DfD) is given in Collum (2016). This reference uses the concept of “future-proof,” that is, a product, service or technology that will not need to be significantly updated as technology advances: in other words, a nuclear plant should be ideally designed to readily accommodate new functions when its primary operations have come to an end, that is, at the decommissioning stage. The broader concept is called life cycle management; two approaches to it are described in International Atomic Energy Agency (2002) and Makansi (2012). Ultimately the underlying concept is sustainability. Collum (2016) postulates that DfD processes largely coincide with DRR. The context of Collum (2016) makes it clear that the main objective is nuclear reuse, which has certain advantages over nonnuclear reuse; if nonnuclear reuse is considered, most DfD provisions would be hard to apply and reuse will require more substantial adaptations to the buildings and site to make them suitable for new functions. As DfD is now a well-accepted and regulated concept in the nuclear industry (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011, 2014a; OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2010), there is an opportunity to harmonize it with DRR and insert a new objective between nuclear operations and decommissioning. This harmonization should be pursued regardless if a specific reuse is considered (a pretty remote chance since a time span of many decades will incur between initial design and post-decommissioning reuse) or a generic reuse. Certain assets are anyhow likely to be profitable for reuse and should be considered as such since the onset of a nuclear project: these include spaces, key equipment (e.g., cranes), and the site infrastructure (sewage, roads, etc.). But consideration of future reuse may suggest some design changes. For example, where industrial buildings are designed with a single purpose, their external envelope tends to wrap around whatever is going on inside. As a result, the profile of many buildings becomes somehow irregular; this of course is also a way of minimizing volumes, but will add complexity, and will reduce the reuse options. Another example, if it is assumed that a future use will introduce significantly higher loadings onto a concrete slab, then an appropriately strengthened slab is required during the original build. A conciliation of objectives is needed here. A similar issue is funding, a thorny issue both for DfD and DRR. How much money is the plant’s owner willing to spend now for a benefit to be gained in 60 years or more? Once again, this is a point for a cost-benefit analysis.

86

Beyond Decommissioning

Disclaimer Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.

References ˚ kerman, E., 2016. Development of Circular Economy Core Indicators for Natural Resources. A Master of Science Thesis, Stockholm, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2: 897309/FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Bullen, P., Love, P., 2011. Factors influencing the adaptive re-use of buildings. J. Eng. Des. Technol. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235307181_Factors_influencing_the_ adaptive_re-use_of_buildings (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Canadian Standards Association, 2006. Guideline for Design for Disassembly and Adaptability in Buildings. Z782-06, Mississauga. Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 2014. Urban recycling of derelict industrial sites. Analysis of socio-economic redevelopment of post-industrial districts, Barcelona. 24 January 2014, https://upcommons.upc.edu/ bitstream/handle/2099.1/21140/IvanNikolic.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Collum, B., 2016. Chapter 16: “Future-proofing”. In: Nuclear Facilities—A Designer’s Guide. Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No. 112, ISBN 978-0-08-101938-2. Farrow, E.C., 2008. A New Life: Adaptive Reuse and Redevelopment of Decommissioned Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. A Thesis, University of Florida, http://etd.fcla.edu/ UF/UFE0023705/farrow_e.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Gillin, K., 2018. Rethinking decommissioning through a sustainability lens. Nucl. Eng. Int. https://secure.viewer.zmags.com/publication/ed63ea7c#/ed63ea7c/1 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002. Safe and Effective Nuclear Power Plant Life Cycle Management Towards Decommissioning. IAEA-TECDOC-1305, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006. Release of Sites From Regulatory Control on Termination of Practices. Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-5.1, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008. Nuclear Energy Basic Principles. NE-BP, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011. Design Lessons Drawn From the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. IAEA-TECDOC-1657, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2012a. Monitoring for Compliance With Exemption and Clearance Levels. Safety Reports Series No. 67, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2012b. Monitoring for Compliance With Remediation Criteria for Sites. Safety Reports Series No. 72, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014a. Decommissioning of Facilities, General Safety Requirements. Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 6, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014b. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards, General Safety Requirements. Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3, IAEA, Vienna. Makansi, 2012. Comprehensive Asset Management for Nuclear Plants, 02/01/2012, https://www. powermag.com/comprehensive-asset-management-for-nuclear-plant/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Munce, J.F., 1964. The Architect in the Nuclear Age. The Design of Buildings to House Radioactivity. Iliffe Books Ltd, London.

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning

87

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2018. Annual Report and Accounts 2017/18. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/724011/NDA_annual_report_and_accounts_2017_to_18.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Nuclear Engineering International, 2008. Location, Location, Contamination. http://www. neimagazine.com/features/featurelocation-location-contamination (Accessed on 27 March 2008). OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2008. Towards Waste Management Facilities That Become a Durable and Attractive Part of the Fabric of Local Community – Relevant Design Features. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/fsc/docs/Towards-waste_management_EN_A4.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2010. Decommissioning Considerations for New Nuclear Power Plants. OECD/NEA, Paris. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2010/nea6833decommissioning-considerations.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). The World Conservation Union, 2006. The future of sustainability-re-thinking environment and development in the twenty-first century. In: Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, pp. 29–31. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). United Nations, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (a.k.a. The Brundtland Report), http://www.un-documents.net/ourcommon-future.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). United Nations Centre for Regional Development, 2011. CSD-19 Learning Centre “Synergizing Resource Efficiency With Informal Sector Towards Sustainable Waste Management”, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (the 3Rs) and Resource Efficiency as the Basis for Sustainable Waste Management. 9 May 2011, New York, http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/csd/csd_pdfs/ csd-19/learningcentre/presentations/May%209%20am/1%20-%20Learning_Centre_ 9May_ppt_Mohanty.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Atomic Energy Commission, U.S., 1974. Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.86 (now superseded), https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ ML003740243.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Department of the Interior, National Park Service & Technical Preservation Services, 2017. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, DC, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

This page intentionally left blank

Relevant factors for redevelopment

5

Various objectives for decommissioning can be taken onboard in both the planning and execution of activities and the perception aspects as they affect the smooth and cost-effective progress of the work. The “total demolition” approach, while useful in planning the decommissioning work, tends to foster decommissioning strategies that go much further (e.g., unrestricted release) than some segments of society would choose. It may not appreciate the important role that reuse of the facility, the site, or parts thereof might play in contributing to a fully successful outcome of the decommissioning project (having included all its stakeholders in this evaluation). It is perhaps obvious, as a result of the value of the land released after decommissioning, that cessation of one nuclear activity will lead into the site reuse in a new activity. Experience from early nuclear redevelopment projects has identified many issues which can have an important bearing on the redevelopment potential of sites and the work that lies ahead. Most nuclear installations benefit from a good topography, well-consolidated access to utilities, transport and communication routes, and skilled labor, all of which should be factors conducive to fast and effective redevelopment. At some sites nonnuclear activities are already established before the closing of nuclear operations and normally set the basis for site redevelopment. Given that this is the case and that decommissioning of nuclear installations will usually be followed by site redevelopment it is reasonable to consider the implications of deliberately planning for decommissioning taking account of subsequent redevelopment. It should be clearly stated that reuse of a site after its release is due to happen anyway, but delays (and unnecessary expenses) will heavily weigh on the outcome. On many occasions, a reuse design reflects the community’s goals or civic pride. In some cases, only the outer structure of the plant has been conserved. In other cases, the industrial equipment has either been reutilized for new manufacturing purposes or has been restored as a showcase piece or a memorial to building’s history. Regardless of the specific reuse selected, repurposing industrial plants provides a unique opportunity to preserve a building’s distinctive architecture and identity. The case studies highlighted here offer diverse facility and site options. Once redeveloped beyond a possibly dilapidated state, these industrial relics serve as an impressive and educational tool on the history of industry. Although the total costs for an adaptive reuse project varies case to case, recycling projects can become more expensive due to environmental cleanup efforts or the selected reuse. A few projects were primarily funded by private investors. However, most adaptive reuse examples utilized a variety of financial tools from both public and private sources to minimize the total costs. In some examples, historic preservation has been effected concurrently with sustainable design. These projects highlight the ability to successfully restore a facility’s Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00005-1 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

90

Beyond Decommissioning

original features, while also refitting features to increase energy efficiency and reduce the facility’s environmental impacts. Some power plants, which once polluted the surrounding neighborhood, are now LEED-certified structures (see Glossary). The following subchapters describe important factors playing a decisive role in selecting redevelopment options. Given that selecting a specific redevelopment option will have to consider a number of factors, the organization in charge of this evaluation will have to run a costbenefit analysis or a broader multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUA). As this book shows, the decision whether to demolish or redevelop a facility (and related variants, such as partial demolition or deferred redevelopment) depends on a number of factors of diverse character. Some are monetary, others are not. In cost-benefit analysis, nonmonetary factors will be assigned a monetary value to allow for a comparison of alternatives. Factors include cost, health, safety issues and environmental impact, availability of resources, stakeholder involvement, socioeconomic impacts, etc. In some situations, the lack of a single critical resource (e.g., funding or waste management infrastructure) could result in the ruling out of some strategies. Vice versa, certain constraints or overruling factors may impose one strategy. An application of cost-benefit analysis to industrial redevelopment is given in Wilson (2000). MAUA is an effective mathematical technique for showing the impact of each strategy and reaching conclusions that address all influencing factors. MAUA consists of assigning numerical ratings and weightings to the factors, followed by comparison of the total scores for every option. If necessary (i.e., when two options have very close scores), a sensitivity analysis can be conducted to check whether or not the preferred option is a robust choice. It should be noted that strategy selection studies (even when using formal methods such as MAUA) involve aspects that are judgmental and subjective, potentially leaving the conclusions vulnerable. Increasingly this problem is being addressed with public involvement (for a stakeholder dialogue) in the strategy selection process. Workshop sessions can provide a practical and mutually agreed way forward. In such sessions a panel of experts (including professionals but also qualified members of the public) agrees on the list of influencing factors and then assesses the impact of these factors for each option, assisted by MAUA or other decision aiding techniques. As a support to the strategy selected, a report of the workshop sessions should be produced, which describes the analysis, the factors addressed, and the results obtained (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005). Application to reuse projects of MAUA-like techniques is given in Centre of Land Policy and Valuations (2014) and Ferretti et al. (2014) (see also Section 2.5). A study drafted for the City of Chicago presents screening tools to evaluate brownfield sites that can be profitably cleaned up and redeveloped as mixed-income residential and/or mixed-use communities using smart growth principles (EPA, 2014a). The brownfield screening tools utilize steps in assessing during early stages of the screening process and excluding sites with the potential of high remediation cost. This is intended for the City of Chicago to channel resources toward the most promising sites. The study authors also provided two categories of smart growth principles (see Glossary) for brownfield redevelopment projects. The first is site-specific and includes existing infrastructure; access to public transportation; and access to major social,

Relevant factors for redevelopment

91

retail, commercial, and other centers. The second category is linked with site design elements and includes creating walkable areas; providing a wide range of housing options; and providing open and green spaces. The methodology adopted by this study makes use of points for each relevant parameter, which are then combined to provide scores. From the facility owner’s standpoint, the analysis may demonstrate that site redevelopment will not provide adequate remuneration over the investment necessary to make the site palatable to a new owner or tenants. From a broader standpoint, the benefits of reuse may be very large but mostly accrue to the community, which would take advantage from retention of jobs and constant or even higher tax revenues. If so, the facility owner may have to negotiate grants, payments or “in kind” assistance from the local or national government in return for a commitment to get the decommissioned site ready for redevelopment.

5.1

The economics In the modern world of business, it is useless to be a creative original thinker unless you can also sell what you create. Management cannot be expected to recognize a good idea unless it is presented to them by a good salesman. David M. Ogilvy (1911–1999)

In general, the decisive factor in the decision to adapt an industrial building is the cost, regardless the owner, whether private or public. Unless the goal is historic restoration of a priceless landmark (when restoration will inevitably cost more than a new building but public institutions are likely to pay the bill), then adaptive reuse must be the more cost-effective option, or demolition and rebuilding will prevail. The business case for adaptive reuse over a demolition and new build process can be in favor of adaptive reuse. However, initial design and consultant costs may be higher for adaptive reuse projects to account for higher complexity and research often required in innovative solutions to de facto constraints and regulatory requirements (Office for Design + Architecture South Australia, 2014). On the other hand, there can be many cost advantages to reusing an older structure, such as lower establishment costs. Further, little or no demolition is required, land acquisition is often less expensive, and most of the needed utilities and services are already there and may only need upgrading. Also, there are additional savings resulting from the building being already in place (i.e., materials and related construction costs have already been accounted for). In some countries another financial benefit of adaptive reuse projects is tax credits (if the project is recognized as historic in nature) (Buildings, 2008). Moreover, interior conversions are generally shielded from bad weather by the existing building structure; by contrast, bad weather may delay the construction of new buildings, which will cause extra costs. The relative costs, related benefits, and drawbacks of reuse versus demolition and new build have been widely debated for decades. Some researchers have stated that the costs of reusing buildings are lower than the equivalent costs of demolition:

92

Beyond Decommissioning

according to this school of thought, it is potentially less expensive to adapt than to demolish and rebuild in that the structural components already exist, and the cost of borrowing is reduced, as contract periods are typically shorter. Refurbishing to current standards can, however, increase costs of 3%–12% over the cost of a standard reuse project. Buildings are generally demolished because they no longer have a significant value. In most cases it is the market that sets this value, even though such an assessment may be biased, for example, because little or no consideration is given to externalities and nonmonetary values. It should be noted that there can be considerable value attached to preserving style and character and the so-called “solid build qualities of buildings.” According to one researcher, it is generally preferable to repair a building than replace it because the value of the location and quality of a new building is not necessarily better than the old one. In contrast, another researcher suggests that an adapted building will not completely equate the performance of a new building, but the difference should be balanced against social benefits. Demolition is often selected when the life expectancy of an existing building is estimated to be less than a new alternative despite any improvements that adaptive reuse may add to the old building. This would only justify limited investment on a short-term basis prior to disposal and redevelopment. The age of materials will also directly affect the maintenance costs of an adapted building, which may well be higher than those for a new building (Bullen and Love, 2011). When considering the real or perceived risks and costs of redevelopment, a greenfield development (i.e., full dismantling and rebuilding) may appear more attractive and economically sensible as the immediate costs are typically less than redeveloping an old vacant site. However, this book claims that this is a short-sighted consideration. It is important to consider the long-term economic benefits and the added social and environmental rewards of redevelopment. Many operators are required by regulations, have a corporate strategy, or a financial incentive to minimize the amounts of decommissioning waste. By leaving untouched and handing over to the next user site SSCs that will serve future objectives the demolition work and the categorization/management of the resulting waste are dodged. This may avoid inter alia the cost and technical challenges of proving that the material complies with the clearance criteria (see Glossary). However, the transfer of the SSC to the next user would be complicated by the lack of assurance about remaining contamination: in nuclear decommissioning any material that cannot be demonstrated to be below clearance criteria will be by default assumed to be radioactive. The net result under the circumstances could be that nonnuclear reuse of the site will be precluded and only nuclear reuse will remain possible. In some circumstances, reuse would make it possible to benefit from an additional radioactive decay of structures that present little radiological hazard. Likewise, airborne and waterborne emissions and environmental impacts associated with demolition and waste treatment are reduced in the redevelopment scenario. A critical driver for reuse has been the rising energy costs, which has increased the cost of new construction (e.g., materials, transport, infrastructure) and resulted in preference given to reusing existing buildings. Some researchers suggest that rising energy

Relevant factors for redevelopment

93

prices will drive property investors to improve the energy efficiency of buildings so that they can maintain market demand and rental growth. Over the last 50 years, the significant growth in the construction of new buildings has produced a large stock of buildings eligible for refurbishment and reuse. However, many of these buildings were constructed without complying with environmental performance codes and thus are not as “environmentally” efficient as new buildings. Adaptive reuse is seen as an alternative way to address this “environmental gap” by functionally improving a building’s performance while simultaneously reducing its environmental loading (Bullen and Love, 2011). Rents tend to be higher in adapted buildings. Whether occupiers are prepared to offset higher rentals would be dependent on a cost-benefit analysis of rents and reduced energy bills over the rent period. However, the cost of upgrades needs to be balanced against current rent levels because tenants would be hesitant to pay above market rates just because a building is more energy efficient (Bullen and Love, 2011). But, as discussed elsewhere, other factors (e.g., prestige, historical value, location, etc.) will enter the equation. The use of older properties can enable companies with limited financial resources to rent offices or apartments whereas normally they would only have the choice of newer buildings at much higher rents. Older buildings may offer reduced amenities and services, but they are an affordable resource that can be exploited by new businesses or less profitable organizations. Commercial success by these organizations may in the longer term generate opportunities for them to either upgrade their buildings through adaptive reuse or relocate to costlier areas (Bullen and Love, 2011). See postindustrial living in Milan in Section 6.2.2.1. In general, governmental institutions should strive to set in motion an adaptive reuse strategy because of their large property stocks. With a large housing portfolio public institutions can and should develop nation-wide plans and adopt strategies to identify the buildings that are more suitable for adaptive reuse. Governmental institutions can also sponsor redevelopment, especially of heritage buildings, through financial incentives. The lack of incentives can result in investors’ loss of interest in adaptive reuse. This plight is often exacerbated by the inconsistent application of local requirements. Governments need to launch policy initiatives that encourage hesitant developers to invest in adaptive reuse (Bullen and Love, 2011). There is a school of thought, however, that maintains that adaptive reuse can be profitable per se and appealing to private investors, even without the need for public incentives (Economist, 2005). The commercial risk inherent to adaptive reuse is another critical point. Many contractors are reluctant to renovate old buildings because of the (perceived or real) risk that lengthy or difficult renovation works may decrease or zero the profits. Often raising finance for adaptive reuse projects is difficult for private investors due to (often undefinable) risks including unusual work, scope changes, incompatibility of materials, incomplete or inadequate information resulting in unknowns, health and safety, design constraints, and interference by occupants. Furthermore, the discovery of latent problems, defects, or dimensional and material discrepancies during reuse work may compromise the adaptive reuse.

94

Beyond Decommissioning

The complexity associated with converting an old building into new uses is a major factor potentially hindering adaptive reuse. This is because older buildings typically do not provide voids or access ways and sufficient room to retrofit modern services such as air conditioning. This issue may add to the design and reconstruction time (Bullen and Love, 2011). As a rule of thumb, adaptive reuse is not necessarily less expensive than new construction, but its costs typically lie within the same order of magnitude making it a viable and sustainable option. If the building is located in an undeveloped area then the building and land might be really inexpensive, but it may be difficult to secure lending and there might be little demand for the completed project. A common exception is when a reuse project costs far more than new construction, such as when unexpected costs arise. In fact, many developers recommend budgeting a large contingency expense for both architectural and construction costs in case any unexpected structural or contamination problems are considered possible. Many lenders require at least 10%–15% of the total construction costs as a contingency fund for unexpected expenses. However, even when an adaptive reuse project costs more than new construction, there is an intrinsic added value since the building could serve as a catalyst for revitalization efforts and the creation of new jobs, preserves a historic resource, and fosters sustainable practices. This is the field where new helpers (e.g., public bodies) can come into play. In the past, many developers eschewed historic preservation and adaptive reuse projects lest cost overruns, lack of qualified labor, and unexpected problems should make the project unprofitable. Currently, the increasing number of examples and higher concern for sustainability have made adaptive reuse widely acceptable—financially, environmentally, and socially (Cantell, 2005). Economic constraints to reuse can also lead to creative solutions that are in line with the heritage goals of the project. For example, the budget for the conversion of the Kingston Power House into the Canberra Glassworks did not allow for the building fabric to be renovated. It was left “as found,” including existing cracks, holes, and mismatched glazing; but the resulting contrast between the new use and the patina of time had a special charm (Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013). As said elsewhere, redevelopment costs can be high and beyond the reach of the owner or developer. Therefore, the use of alternative or additional funds is common in redevelopment projects. These sources—often but not always granted by law— include (British Property Federation, 2013): l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

low-interest loans; repair or restoration grants; application of revolving funds; lottery funding; local authority funding; national budget funding; European funding (for EC countries); grants from independent trusts; and corporate or individual donations.

Relevant factors for redevelopment

95

It has been noted that to receive bank loans for adaptive reuse projects appears often difficult. Banks tend to regard these projects as having a higher risk. To offset the higher risk, developers are often required by the banks to budget for potential remediation costs (environmental claims, unexpected contamination, etc.) before a loan is granted. Sources of funding change over time—eligibility rules, financial conditions (e.g., interest rates and reimbursement dates), output requirements, cash flows, etc. Therefore, it is vital for the developer to stay in touch with the funding bodies and get timely, up-to-date information about any forthcoming changes. Where a mix of funding is needed to get a project started and seamlessly managed it will be vital to prepare a fund raising strategy including a realistic schedule of funding availability. Sometimes, one funding source will be contingent upon another to make sure that the project works. Securing at least one reliable lead funder at an early stage of the planning is critical. Cash flow management will be also important as funds are normally drawn down in arrears and in some cases funds can only be drawn down up to specified proportions on particular dates of the year. A related aspect is the need to provide information about the project progress to the funding bodies: reporting requirements can be significantly different for single bodies. Many funders impose formal monitoring arrangements on the recipient, which will require extra work to plan for, gather, summarize, and report information according to predetermined formats and at stipulated hold points. According to Sugden (2017) there is no algorithm to determine if the adaptive reuse of a given structure is more profitable than to demolish it and construct a new one. Three major factors are identified in this study that affects the economic outcome of adaptive reuse: 1. construction costs; 2. the total area of the building which determines the leaseable or sellable space of the structure; and, 3. the estimated value of the property.

A new trend came to light recently in London, but it may precede broader impacts. Given the extremely high housing prices and the profitable returns on housing investments, and the nation-wide and municipality’s policy discouraging the use of greenfield lands for new builds, a number of industrial establishments have been expelled from London over the last 10 years and high-rise buildings have taken their place. This environmental change, although consistent with the general replacement of industries by services in developed countries, has resulted in a significant social impact. An economy that provides a good share of London’s jobs is being chocked. The rate at which London loses its industrial land is supposed to be a carefully managed process, with strategic assets abandoned only after due consideration of projected supply and demand. It has been estimated that over the last 7 years, London has lost industrial space at almost three times the planned rate, with more than 600 ha turned into other uses. The conversion process has been much facilitated by the extension of “permitted development” rights, allowing the change of use without planning

96

Beyond Decommissioning

permission. This opens the doors to speculative developers looking to maximize the land value. In addition to jobs being lost, it is feared that deindustrialization may lead London toward a densely inhabited, expensive residential dormitory, instead of a lively international city (The Guardian, 2017). Finally, a caveat. Not all redevelopment projects within a region or program are equally vital to be implemented at once. Money is a finite element: project goals should be realistic and prioritization may be needed. To this end, the following hints should be considered (EPA, 2014b): l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

be realistic by keeping to a reasonable project size and number of brownfields; use existing site conditions and market prospects to select brownfield cleanup and redevelopment objectives; check cleanup and reuse compatibility with other sites, community plans, and zoning; involve potential end users to get their input on viable site reuse options; consider how site control and accessibility may affect the project (this component per se may establish priorities); determine what properties are eligible for financial resources; develop transparent site selection criteria together with property owners and other stakeholders; look for opportunities to improve efficiency, for example, through economies of scale; identify sites that can catalyze other redevelopment projects in the region; consider implementing discrete parts of the project rather than whole project.

5.2

The public and other stakeholders Never forget that you are a member of your own community. Don’t do something that you wouldn’t like to see done. Keith Richman, Building Buzz for Your Web Project, SXSW 2006

Nuclear operations normally involve several agencies and organizations, including suppliers, customers, regulators, and local officials. At the time of decommissioning, site remediation and redevelopment new parties will express a concern in the events and the range of external stakeholders will increase. New stakeholders will include site/regional planners, potential new owners or tenants of the site, and the media, but experience proves that involvement of a wider range of stakeholders from the local and regional community (environmentalists, public opinion groups, historians, etc.) or the bearers of far-fetched interests (international partners, shareholders, etc.) is to be expected and can be beneficial or obstructive. A list of expected stakeholders in a historic regeneration project in the United Kingdom might include all or some of the following (British Property Federation, 2013). l

l

local planning authority and English Heritage; local enterprise partnerships (these are bodies that bring together the private sector and local authorities across functional economic areas. They can generally assist in facilitating a large area-based project);

Relevant factors for redevelopment l

l

97

amenity societies (e.g., Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, Georgian Group Victorian Society and the Twentieth Century Society); and local residents or community groups.

It should be noted that different stakeholders may have different objectives. To succeed, these objectives must be reconciled and the stakeholders must have realistic expectations, otherwise long delays or bottlenecks in negotiating redevelopment agreements and moving the scheme forward are quite likely. It is usually advantageous for all partners to include public institutions even where these do not have a landownership role: public entities may act as dialogue facilitators and help reconcile different interests.

An attractive vision of the future use of the site that is effectively communicated to the stakeholders can be very useful in receiving community and political support for the redevelopment project. Early community interactions, with a particular focus on the community’s desired future, can elicit key components of the project vision and of the project goals. Concrete activities to develop a vision for future site use include: l

l

Discussions with local planning authorities, officials, and the public. These discussions will help stakeholders gain input on realistic anticipated future uses of the land. Involvement of the entire community is critical. Significant efforts may be required to reach out to and consult with segments of the community that may happen to remain isolated from the main stream of information.

In developing the vision, project goals will be realized that are essential in planning for redevelopment. This process can be iterative in that goals may be temporarily unattainable due to financial or legal constraints, access, and limited reuse options. Knowing the site history coupled with a realistic vision is crucial. Project vision is more than a final plan and should be flexible. The goals of the project answer the question: “Why is this project important?” and can assist the developer in addressing concerns and obtaining support for the project from political, financial, regulatory, and social stakeholders. The goals of the project should address the site-specific issues of concern. Motivators or drivers for the redevelopment of a site can determine the course of the process. Such drivers include those issues associated with ecological, human health, social conditions, economic status, and political climate. Ecological and human health drivers include consideration of hazardous substance, and their actual or potential (or just perceived in some cases) threat to human health and the environment. After cleanup, the levels of harmful substances in the air, soil, and groundwater are decreased, improving the quality of the environment and public health in nearby communities. It is essential that a thorough site assessment and risk assessment of the site be performed to identify the cause, nature, and extent of any remaining contamination and related threats to humans or the environment. The results can be used in determining goals for cleanup, quantifying risks, determining acceptable risk, and drafting cleanup plans that do not cause unnecessary delays or costs in the redevelopment of the property. These goals specify: contaminant(s)

98

Beyond Decommissioning

and media of concern, exposure route(s) and receptor(s), and the remediation goal(s) for each exposure route. Local authorities can implement land-use controls such as: restrictions on groundwater use, changing mixed-use zoning laws, and assisting national and regional agencies in monitoring compliance during the decommissioning and remediation of industrial complexes and beyond. A variety of socioeconomic factors can be of concern to the local communities during and after site decommissioning and remediation. Examples of social factors include: public appetite for space/real estate, employment issues, the elimination of blight and poverty, open space, wetlands reserves, sustainable communities (just to give a specific example, a social priority can be to provide additional low-income housing). Economic drivers in the cleanup of contaminated sites are factors that benefit the investor or the economy of the community. Property value is an example of such factors. Investors can purchase potentially contaminated sites at a lower price when the present owner cannot pay for the required cleanup. In some cases, property owners can feel forced to sell and become an obstacle to redevelopment: this issue can be addressed through economic incentives. After the investor has completed the cleanup, the property is often sold or redeveloped for a profit. To determine whether an economic driver exists, the investor should analyze the current market value of similar real estate and estimate the value of the site once redevelopment is complete. Political drivers are determined by the role national, regional, and local governments, agencies, and nongovernmental entities play in promoting the identification, cleanup, and redevelopment of potentially contaminated sites. With increasing understanding of environmental issues, national and regional politicians have added environmental topics to their agendas and promote legislation that improves the environmental and public health of their constituencies. On the other hand, demolition and rebuilding, or significant remodeling, often involve discretionary permits from the local government, and changing the use of a property always does. A local government also can assist in identifying high priority areas and focus redevelopment efforts in those areas. There is a point of environmental justice here: land use planning striving to achieve social justice should avoid redevelopment that de facto promotes housing segregation, unequal property-tax funding of public schools, jobs-housing imbalance, the spatial imbalance of economic opportunity, and unequal availability of recreational spaces. The term “gentrification” (see Glossary) summarizes many of these issues. Local officials should encourage local citizens’ participation in the decisionmaking process, provide them with accurate and timely information, and have mechanisms to consider their views. Also local governments can signal properties with important local historical or architectural value to prospective developers. Additional functions of local governments in redevelopment projects encompass the following: coordinating community relations (including the reconciliation of different interests), brokering reuse, providing and coordinating public funding, acting as liaison with site owners and environmental regulators, assuming liability for environmental conditions as needed, and impeding the redevelopment of a site for a potentially (re-)contaminating reuse. Some advanced schemes establish public information and coordination centers to assist throughout the redevelopment. However, the facilitating role of local officials is often constrained. For example, the regulations

Relevant factors for redevelopment

99

determining the outcome of many redevelopment projects may fall under national or regional jurisdiction. Most of the capital needed to finance redevelopment may be controlled by private financial institutions, and many decisions about reuse of property stay with the property owner. Because sustainability of natural systems is not confined to single sites, sustainable site redevelopment must be considered within local, regional, and often global contexts. Such sustainability factors include: ecosystem productivity and biodiversity; soil quality; hydrology of the watershed including surface streams and groundwater recharge; air quality; impact on necessary natural disturbances; and cascading effects from redevelopment to downstream users. Where decisions affecting site redevelopment do affect broader contexts, negotiations with the bearers of broader interests (e.g., in the US national and regional parks, Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Transportation) should be incepted at an early planning stage. Behaving as “forbidden zones,” brownfields interfere with broader networks, reducing mobility of people and goods, and integration of activities. By improving the viability of these networks, the redevelopment of brownfields increases social integration and accessibility to social services, such as open spaces and amenities. Economically, it enhances the integration of new businesses with those nearby, increasing accessibility of customers, consumers, or workers. Environmentally, it reduces distances between workplaces, so reducing fuel consumption and airborne pollution (Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, 2014). A redevelopment project should consider the site’s existing infrastructure as the baseline. This includes aspects such as accessibility, power, sewer capacity, emergency response, and water. A community’s future needs can be compared with the present infrastructure to determine modifications or upgrading that can be brought about by redevelopment projects. Redevelopment projects can be sites for historical and architectural preservation, or cultural and educational opportunities. Existing historic buildings and areas mark a sense of permanence within the community and provide generational continuity. In the United States, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires developers to consider the impact of their interventions on historic properties. Documented archeological finds or sites of historical significance should be identified before acquiring or leasing (or a fortiori, redeveloping) a site. Redevelopment projects that include the renovation of old buildings as museums and cultural and educational community centers not only bestow economic benefits, but also reinforce community pride. By contrast, redevelopment can be limited by historic designations that are regulated in many communities. For example, if a redevelopment project requires infrastructure enhancements (e.g., air conditioning, parking areas, or even “greening” efforts), there will be a need to evaluate if this negatively impacts a historic property. A number of stakeholder aspects, related case studies, and reference literature are illustrated in SMARTe.org (2010). The specific role and influence of architects in a heritage redevelopment project is discussed in Campagnol (2017). Stakeholder interactions can help or hinder the redevelopment process and all parties should ideally adhere to mutual understanding and trust rules. By enhancing

100

Beyond Decommissioning

the productive reuse of the site the former operator or the investor contributes to the socioeconomic prosperity of the neighboring communities. Support of local stakeholders can ease the granting of planning consents and assist in the modifications to the local infrastructure necessary to enhancing the value of the site under a new use. Conversely the lack of such support can produce delays to decommissioning and site redevelopment, and even lead to the cancellation of such projects—a measure that would be damaging to local interests. Finally, a successful redevelopment project requires multidisciplinary teams to be involved, including architects, IT specialists, site planners, people familiar with the state and history of the site, etc.; the input of the end users should not be disregarded. These teams may be assembled within one organization or between business partners. Two factors may hinder success of multidisciplinary teams active in redevelopment projects: l

l

if the interactions and responsiveness among the team members are not ideal, the project will suffer regardless its separately taken, technical resources (see the Zollverein case in Section 2.3). This may be due to different professional, cultural, and job backgrounds of newly assembled teams and the resulting lack of familiarity; the team is often of temporary character (e.g., limited to the duration of the project or to specific phases of it) and assembled based on the previous relationships. This may impair a timely feedback and knowledge transfer from project to project.

The setting of multidisciplinary interactions, initial education, and previous experience, and how willing are team members to share knowledge are all factors impacting on project outcome. However, managerial direction and leadership are crucial (Thomsen, 2010). Organizational aspects expected to make a redevelopment project successful include among others (EPA, 2014b): l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

assemble a balanced, competent, multidisciplinary planning/implementation team; harmonize different “cultures” among members of the team (including such aspects as safety, productivity, hierarchy, reporting requirements, etc.); be aware that moving from planning to implementation may require iterations and programmatic changes; keep the project on track; start sooner rather than later; identify resources beforehand and check the resource status constantly; establish milestones and hold points; identify issues that are critical to progress; introduce new businesses into the area in parallel with redevelopment advances; connect to job training opportunities; celebrate achievements; advertise job positions and preferentially hire local people; when hiring external contractors, consider how to link the local community to that process; consolidate, manage, and comply with expectations; document project implementation: use templates for recurrent activities (e.g., meeting minutes, attendance sheets, volunteer forms).

Relevant factors for redevelopment

101

A point that goes beyond the participation of stakeholders in a given brownfield redevelopment debate is that this participation promotes and consolidates community’s involvement in the decision-making process for all decisions of common interest. In other words, it creates a precedent and a basis for communal solidarity. As a general issue regarding the future of nuclear growth in a given country, the successful reuse of a decommissioned nuclear site, especially the preservation of its economic value, will demonstrate to the public that the nuclear industry is reliable and sensitive to social concerns. This in turn may improve the operator’s chances for being allowed to undertake further nuclear developments and reduce regulatory pressure. The following are key hints to include, and maintain a strong involvement of, stakeholders in redevelopment projects/programs (EPA, 2014b): l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Allocate budget for the community involvement. Have community leaders and other representatives designated for key phases of the project and to maintain momentum. “The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community. William James (1842–1910).” Launch and maintain a sense of “belonging” throughout the region. Select a participation strategy that is tailored to the local community. Establish desired and expected project objectives and outcomes that are shared by the community (possibly after reconciliation of differences). Ensure that all discussion points and decisions are circulated in a timely and transparent manner. Think about long-term sustainability of the project (to this end, engage youth). Be lenient to conflicting positions and even opposition to the project.

5.3

Staff and skills Let each man pass his days in that wherein his skill is greatest. Sextus Propertius (? – 15 BC), Elegies

It is commonplace that decommissioning projects end up with a loss of jobs. In decommissioning the selection and retention of qualified staff and the maintenance of good levels of motivation and cooperation are essential managerial challenges. If limited to corporate management and to the scope of a facility’s decommissioning, this issue can be mitigated, but not fully solved, through job reallocation and/or retraining programs. The positive sentiment encouraged by a timely decision to redevelop rather than abandon a decommissioned site will generally be conducive to maintaining the morale and commitment of the decommissioning crew. Needless to say, timing is key here: to maintain staff motivation and dodge the “working-yourself-out-of-a-job” syndrome, redevelopment should immediately follow decommissioning; in fact redevelopment

102

Beyond Decommissioning

planning should begin in parallel with and as part and parcel of decommissioning planning. This attitude will make the workers aware that they are and will be working for the benefits of their families, the neighborhood community and with their support. Uncertain redevelopment prospects, especially when the management lacks transparency or commitment to successful redevelopment, can lead to insecurity and low morale of the workers. This can be critical for remote sites where alternative employment is hard to find locally and the site management is (legally or at least perceived so in public image) responsible for the entire economics of the area through providing salaries and wages, taxes, and contracts. There are several examples of decommissioning projects where reemployment issues were the driving force toward prompt—though long-lasting—decommissioning coupled with site redevelopment (ETTP, United States; Greifswald NPP, Germany; Dounreay, United Kingdom). A common problem faced in site closure is the loss of the best and most experienced operations staff to other employers with more secure job prospects. Loss of these key staff can greatly damage the effectiveness of the decommissioning and redevelopment program, leading to higher costs, delays, the need to hire and train new staff and/or contractors, and occasionally, managerial, and safety inadequacies. At many decommissioning projects incentives (bonuses) were used to retain key staff through completion of decommissioning work. This is not always the optimal approach. Instead, reemployment opportunities pledged by the site redevelopment will mitigate the tendency for good staff to desert the decommissioning project before its completion. The transition from a larger decommissioning/remediation project organization to a smaller institutional control group may produce unplanned consequences. Staffing levels may have to remain higher than those associated with the project closure itself due to the post-closure works (removing debris, landscaping, securing restricted access areas). During the institution control phase, not only is the staffing level smaller, but also the type of staff may be quite different. The few people remaining on site to deal with any (though unlikely) problems that may occur must have a general understanding of all legacy issues and foreseen solutions. For most D&ER projects, a monitoring phase may be required after project closure. This phase will be relatively short for sites that are released unconditionally. However, the sites released for restricted use will require long-term monitoring to ensure that quality parameters (radiological, chemical, biological) for soil, surface water, and ground water remain acceptable and stable. Funding and responsibility for these surveys and measurements should be defined. In many countries an independent party is required to take confirmatory samples. As post remediation monitoring can be very long (e.g., for uranium mining and milling sites), it is important to anticipate and minimize the costs and other resources (e.g., the need to retain dedicated staff onsite). Use of remote sensing and satellite technologies to monitor, record, and transmit environmental monitoring data can be helpful to this end (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2014). Ideally, any small party involved in site decommissioning could make the embryo of future redevelopers or at least be associated with redevelopment planning.

Relevant factors for redevelopment

5.4

103

Ownership, sponsors, and stewardship A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner, so if one’s life is cold and bare he can blame none but himself. Louis L’Amour (1908–1988), Bendigo Shafter

Two essential factors in evaluating the adaptive reuse potential of an obsolete facility are the current ownership and the driving forces supporting reuse. In many cases a power plant is owned by an electric utility even during the decommissioning phase. The owner may want to convert a facility into an internal use such as corporate offices or warehouses. Or else, the owner may be interested in selling the redundant property (at a price which is typically less than the cost they paid for the initial investment and sometimes less than the market value of a similar, but virgin, site). A more difficult case is multiple ownership. Where a site is not in single ownership, site assembly may be required. Where site assembly cannot be negotiated by agreement, voluntary or compulsory purchase may need to be considered. Local authorities can unlock the development potential by using mandatory purchase powers (British Property Federation, 2013). A due diligence process should be adopted to ensure that there are no title clauses or covenants restricting the ability to use the site in the manner proposed. External forces (stakeholders) that could be interested in an obsolete facility include economic development parties, museum committees, businesses, municipalities, and other external officials. A detail description of decommissioning and reuse stakeholders is given in International Atomic Energy Agency (2009a). In fact, multistakeholder involvement is key to successful reuse regardless of who is directing or funding the project. The city, private developers, neighborhood organizations, and residents should all be involved in the planning process. These partnerships are necessary to gain social, political, or financial support (or more often than not, all these three forms of support may be needed for success). In this regard, the role of local administration should not be belittled. Bureaucracy tends to be a burden to all redevelopment projects. Planning for an extension of Manchester’s tram system to Central Park, a 160-ha scheme viewed as UK’s first large-scale urban business park, was surely complex. But more critical was the lack of funding (to be provided by the local administration) which impeded the tram extension concurrently with construction work at the site. Commitment by local politicians to regeneration may be insufficient in lack of cooperation by other stakeholders. The experience of Turin’s Lingotto underlines how local planning rules can be another barrier to success in regeneration schemes. Lingotto, once a factory producing Fiat cars, now houses a concert hall, conference center, shopping mall, hotel, university, and an art gallery. The city authorities and two public banks were shareholders in the company responsible for Lingotto’s transformation. Still the project was held back by the city authorities’ reluctance to allow residential accommodation and by the strict limits placed on commercial space (Economist, 2005).

104

Beyond Decommissioning

Long-term stewardship (LTS) includes all mechanisms planned and implemented to protect the public and the environment from legacy waste regarded as impractical, unsafe, or too costly to remediate to unrestricted release. LTS reflects the reality that the cleanup of contaminated sites cannot in many cases achieve unrestricted use conditions and the sites would therefore require the long-term regulated management. Commonly used synonyms for LTS include “long-term surveillance and maintenance,” “legacy management,” and “long-term monitoring and surveillance.” The main reasons for establishing LTS for a site are one or more of the following: l

l

l

l

priorities—there is not enough funding for cleanup to unrestricted release; long-lived contaminants—many radionuclides, chemicals, and metals cannot easily or rapidly be converted to safe compounds; technology—no further environmental benefit is achievable with current remediation technology or plateau levels have been hit (e.g., in groundwater); risk—short-term intervention risks in performing remediation exceed the benefits of remediation.

In detail, LTS includes l

l

l

l

Physical/engineered controls (e.g., fencing, walls, trenches; locks on wellheads, gates, fences; guards and security patrols; and signs, markers (Fig. 2.11), or monuments). Institutional/administrative controls (e.g., zoning, permits, restrictions on land and water use, and excavation permit requirements; deed notifications and restrictions and title transfers; and administrative orders). Monitoring (for surface water: dam integrity and operations, inflows to ponds, stream flows, water quality onsite and offsite, etc.; for groundwater: contaminant concentrations, groundwater flow data for use in water balance and groundwater modeling; drainage wells, water level monitoring points, etc.; for air: environmental air quality, effluent concentrations, meteorological data; for ecology: the location and abundance of flora and fauna; noxious weeds, endangered species; migratory birds, etc.). Monitoring also includes any corrections of deviations. Information management: for example, about the location and nature of residual hazards, the originating processes, and the controls. Information aspects include collection, storage, circulation to involved parties, and retrieval; relevant factors included data reliability, public trust in the information, and the ability of future generations to access, understand, and use the information (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2004).

Planning for stewardship should be critical to the decommissioning/remediation process, as the costs and liability-related stewardship may impact the decommissioning strategy, extent of remediation, and the future reuse option, if any is possible. If reuse is envisaged, the level of residual contamination must be compatible with the followon use, and the new user may be assigned responsibility for the stewardship activities and costs (this will depend on who will be the new owner/licensee, on national legislation, and on contractual agreements inherent to the property transfer). Prior to transferring the site to a new user, a database should be established, which will store and maintain the data on location of remaining contamination and details on any related monitoring and institutional controls: types and detail of information relevant to DOE property transfer are contained in US Department of Energy (2001).

Relevant factors for redevelopment

105

International guidance on the long-term preservation of decommissioning-related information (of which reuse is a major component) is given in International Atomic Energy Agency (2008).

5.5

Radiological and non-radiological criteria for the end state

Recent decommissioning projects have drawn attention to site end states (SESs), clearance levels, and related definitions. Quite often erratic use of the terms describing the post-decommissioning state of a facility/site has led to confusion and misunderstandings (including litigation between parties). It is only recently that the international community (with the IAEA having the leading role) has specifically addressed this issue for general harmonization. Decommissioning companies and regulators have loosely used the terms of “Greenfield” and “Brownfield” for the planned end state of a decommissioned site, without evaluating or specifying in detail the physical conditions targeted. The term greenfield was coined when environmental considerations for decommissioning were prevalent, and the aim was to restore a site into its pristine, undisturbed condition. It was felt at the time that this was the only environmentally acceptable end state of decommissioning. In actual facts, defining a “pristine” condition is uncertain and ambiguous. Moreover, the construction of the nuclear facility had often improved the original site conditions, for example, by maintaining healthy waterways and riparian land, improving the state of roads, and revegetating the site. Furthermore, returning a site to its preconstruction state would not take account of the socioeconomic factors of the local communities as these had changed during nuclear operation. Finally, the financial and social costs of achieving greenfield conditions can be extremely expensive. The IAEA term for greenfield is “unrestricted (or unconditional) release” (see Glossary). However, the definition refers only to the radiological characterization of a site after decommissioning. Two main subcategories can be identified: unrestricted release with or without structures remaining. In case of full demolition, the extent of demolition may be nominally to 1 m below grade if all structures are bound to meet unrestricted release criteria, or to complete removal of all subgrade structures of radioactive contamination extended to foundations. In United States, examples of this strategy include NPPs at Big Rock Point (Fig. 5.1), Maine Yankee, and Shippingport. Unrestricted release with structures remaining involves the removal of radioactive substances to clearance criteria without the demolition of facilities and structures. Generally, the site environs are not restored, for example, restoring vegetation, etc. In the United States, examples of this strategy include NPPs at Trojan (reactor building and auxiliary structures maintained intact), Elk River (the uncontaminated power plant is reused as part of the existing fossil-fired power plant onsite), and San Onofre Unit 1 reactor building and auxiliary structures maintained basically intact except as needed to remove large equipment.

106

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 5.1 NRC and ORISE contractors perform confirmatory surveys at Big Rock Point, NY at former reactor locations (courtesy of NRC). These surveys are meant to verify compliance with site release criteria as the last step before termination of the nuclear license and site unrestricted release.

It should be noted that some national legislations specify radiological end state criteria, typically unrestricted clearance levels. In this case, redevelopment options are not constrained by remaining contamination: any option would be radiologically acceptable (e.g., residential, schools, etc.). However, non-radiological considerations (e.g., socioeconomic, infrastructure) may favor one or another option. Experience with decommissioning projects showed that unrestricted use might be inappropriate for such reasons as: (1) there may be public or environmental damage in reaching unrestricted release, (2) expected reuse of the site would make unrestricted release unnecessary, (3) the cost of remediation and waste disposal to reach unrestricted release could be excessive if compared with achieving the same dose criteria by restricting the site use and eliminating exposure pathways. To accommodate these concerns the term brownfield was invented to mean the conversion of a site to an industrial state (possibly different from a nuclear one) that would profit from site improvements, labor pool, and infrastructure available for future development. The lower financial and social costs of a brownfield site as compared with a greenfield site was an incentive to considering brownfields. Some facilities may be unable to decommission to unrestricted release levels because of the lack of cost-effective disposal modes: in this regard, the French approach to very-lowlevel-waste disposal (later followed by other countries and recognized by the IAEA) can be instrumental to dispose of high-volume low-activity waste and so reach unrestricted release conditions. Administrative constraints (a.k.a. institutional controls) should be in place to assure the facility and site would not be used for schools,

Relevant factors for redevelopment

107

farming, residences, etc. The IAEA term for brownfield is “restricted (or conditional) release” (see Glossary). However, the definition refers only to the radiological characterization of a site after decommissioning. In United States, example of this strategy is the Pathfinder NPP: the reactor facility is removed and disposed of by licensed burial, but the slightly contaminated power plant is retained for peaking power as part of the existing power plant facility onsite. Another example is Fort St. Vrain NPP, discussed in Section 6.2.1.2. In NRC guidance “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance” (NUREG 1757, September 2006) the NRC set a system of controls designed to maintain protection at restricted use conditions, including (1) legally enforceable institutional controls that would limit doses to the critical group to less 0.25 mSv/year, (2) engineered barriers as needed, (3) surveillance and maintenance, (4) independent supervision, (5) adequate funding, and (6) dose limits to the critical group not greater than 1.0 mSv/year in case institutional controls fail. Regardless of the legal coverage, experience has shown that restricted release has been difficult to implement for various reasons. For example, experience has shown that institutional controls can fail. The infamous Love Canal case is exemplary in this regard (English and Inerfeld, 1999). Same case histories are described in Greeves and Liebermann (2007). Molycorp Inc. considered initially a restricted release strategy for their site, which produced an alloy from thorium ore. Molycorp planned to establish a private corporation to serve as an independent party for institutional controls lasting for 1000 years: however, the NRC had substantial reservations about that long a durability of a private organization. Eventually Molycorp gave up the request for restricted release and pursued instead unrestricted release. In other cases, difficulties were linked to complex dose modeling or public opposition. A special case is described in Roos and Kollar (2008). The challenge described was to communicate the exposure risk of radiologically unregulated site development to landowners, tenants, private contractors, and public works institutions that might engage in construction activities at or near to the site. It is noteworthy that some legislations or governmental directives have recognized restricted release as a preferential option. This is the case of New Hampshire State in the United States, which passed a Nuclear Decommissioning Law replacing the former greenfield cleanup requirement with a commercial/industrial site redevelopment standard. Also included is a clear mandate to provide the local community at Seabrook NPP with a voice in the post-decommissioning site use (Radwaste Solutions, 2001). In some decommissioning projects, nuclear facilities may have radiologically contaminated/activated areas which are inaccessible to some extent. Or else, the decommissioning work itself may have made these areas inaccessible as part of the selected end state. These areas may or may not pose a risk to the next user, depending on the final planned use of the facility, exposure scenarios, likelihood of access, and activation or contamination levels. Consequently, restrictions may be placed on the reuse options for the decommissioned facility. Accessibility to the remaining radioactivity is only one consideration. The other issue is whether or not any potential for radiation exposure to the next users is acceptable. If it is deemed acceptable, it should be justifiable through a formal assessment. Note that this challenge may extend to subsequent site uses.

108

Beyond Decommissioning

In either greenfield or brownfield definitions, the physical conditions of the end state remain often unspecified. This has resulted in expensive litigation cases and court rulings to decide on the proper interpretation of contractual clauses. In the United States and in other countries the site reuse options were rarely identified in planning for decommissioning of older plants. Most NPPs were finally shutdown before the expiration of their operating license. Consideration of the reuse of their sites had not been addressed at the beginning of decommissioning, and any reuse planning came up only in the course of decommissioning. Also as decommissioning pre-funding was still under development for older NPPs, final end states could not be clearly identified. In some decommissioning projects the funding was only enough to achieve license termination, with no plans for site remediation and redevelopment. In other projects the value of the site property proved to be an unrealized asset and the scope of the remediation effort changed in the course of decommissioning (LaGuardia, 2012). Table 5.1 compares advantages and drawbacks for the three strategies introduced earlier. Table 5.1 Factors for consideration of three alternative decommissioning strategies

Relevant factors Safety

Unrestricted release with full demolition of structures

Unrestricted release without full demolition of structures

Restricted release

With the full removal of facility structures, the safety concerns of potential radiological exposure are eliminated. There are no physical structures that could collapse and injure anybody

With the full removal of radioactivity to clearance criteria the safety concerns of potential radiological exposure are eliminated. The owner must prove that remaining structures could not collapse and injure anybody. Onsite structures must be open to ingress and egress, and be free of fire or other physical hazards. Hazardous or toxic materials must be taken away or remediated to a safe state

In this option there is concern for potential exposure to the public. The owner/operator must demonstrate the public is protected from radioactivity from all reasonable pathways as part of the new or modified license. If there are physical structures remaining, it should be proven that there is no risk of structural collapse or of radioactive release. Onsite structures must be open to ingress and egress, and be free of fire or other physical hazards. Hazardous or toxic materials must be taken away or remediated to a safe state

Relevant factors for redevelopment

109

Table 5.1 Continued Security

Similar to safety factors, there are no structures to guard and nothing that could cause a threat to the public

Environmental

No environmental concerns remaining onsite

Economic

The major economic factor is the avoided cost of ongoing surveillance and maintenance. While for NPPs there are additional considerations regarding the onsite storage of spent fuel (generally under separate license) the overall benefit is achieved through waste disposal to an offsite repository

Means must be provided to prevent the inadvertent or malicious intruder from entry and potential injury. Such means may include a permanent security squad or intrusion detectors remotely linked to the local police or security agency No radiological environmental concerns remaining. Hazardous or toxic materials must be taken away or remediated to a safe state The major economic factor is the avoided cost of ongoing surveillance and maintenance. While for NPPs there are additional considerations regarding the onsite storage of spent fuel (generally under separate license) the overall benefit is achieved through consolidation of spent fuel into a single area. Regarding remaining

Means must be provided to prevent the inadvertent or malicious intruder from entry and potential injury. Such means may include a permanent security squad or intrusion detectors remotely linked to the local police or security agency

There can be some environmental concerns in case institutional controls fail, but these scenarios should have been considered in the safety assessment

The largest economic factor is the avoided cost of removal or remediation of radioactive substances. There will be a need for radiological surveillance and maintenance. There will be also a need for remediation of hazardous and toxic materials and proper monitoring and surveillance. While for NPPs there are additional considerations regarding the onsite storage of spent fuel (generally under separate license) the overall benefit is Continued

110

Beyond Decommissioning

Table 5.1 Continued buildings, there is further economic benefit of reduced cost of demolition, but the additional cost to maintain these buildings safe should be considered. The major incentive to pursuing this option is to reuse the buildings for nonnuclear purposes.

achieved through consolidation of spent fuel into a single area. Regarding remaining buildings, there is further economic benefit of reduced cost of demolition, but the additional cost to maintain these buildings safe should be considered. The major incentive to pursuing this option is to convert facilities and buildings for new nuclear applications or nonnuclear applications compatible with residual radioactive levels

More recently, NRC stated that licensees at decommissioning NRC-licensed facilities could use “more realistic scenarios” for calculating doses for site release. Such scenarios must be based on the “reasonably foreseeable land use” (RFLU) for the facility, once decommissioned. NRC suggested that “reasonable foreseeable” means reasonable use up to 100 years after site release. In one case, the Kiski Valley Pollution Control Authority site in Vandergrift, PA., NRC approved that no further decommissioning action should be taken, based on a dose assessment including a range of RFLU scenarios. Two intermediate cases somewhere between restricted and unrestricted release are presented in US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006). In fact, the NRC report highlights the benefits of using realistic scenarios to demonstrate compliance with unrestricted release requirements. Two good examples of the use of realistic scenarios are the Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) site in Erwin, TN and the FMRI, Inc (Fansteel) site in Muskogee, OK. The NFS staff combined two realistic scenarios to determine radionuclide-specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs, in IAEA terminology: clearance levels or criteria). The licensee demonstrated that the shallow, contaminated groundwater would not be used as a drinking water source in any case. The licensee then demonstrated that the most likely use of the site at license termination was as industrial site. It also acknowledged that there was considerable suburban development in the area. The licensee performed dose calculations for the facility using an industrial scenario, as well as a suburban resident scenario. The licensee then chose the lower

Relevant factors for redevelopment

111

(more conservative) DCGL value of the two scenarios for each radionuclide identified at NFS site. These values are less restrictive than the calculated DCGLs for the default residential farmer scenario. At the Fansteel site, the licensee proposed an industrial land-use scenario for dose estimation purposes. The site is bounded on the north by the Port of Muskogee and industrial operations on the east by the Arkansas River, on the south by US Highway 62, and on the west by the Muskogee Turnpike. In addition, there is a coal-fired power plant across the Arkansas River. The NRC staff confirmed future development plans in the areas surrounding the site, including planned expansion of the Port of Muskogee onto the land currently owned by FMRI, and reviewed the proposed scenario and dose analysis. The NRC concluded that the industrial land-use scenario was appropriate for dose calculations. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2006) and MONDAQ (2006)

In the nonnuclear domain, one legislative approach to restricted release was promulgated in the State of Connecticut (CT), United States. An environmental land use restriction (ELUR) is an easement granted to CT’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection by the property owner. The objective of an ELUR is to minimize the risk of human exposure to contaminants and environmental hazards by prohibiting specific uses or activities at a property. An ELUR is a tool that allows the remedial for a property to be dependent on the exposure risk associated with its use and does not require full removal of contaminants. Generally, when an ELUR is used, the amount of active remediation (e.g., excavation) is limited, and the residual contamination is managed through control of activities on or uses of the site. Therefore, using an ELUR may save money and time spent actively remediating the site. An ELUR is recorded on the land records. Therefore, ELUR “runs with the land,” meaning all present and future owners must comply with its terms, including any operation and maintenance requirements (CT, 2017). The evolution of UK Government’s decommissioning policy (through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, NDA, see further) exemplifies the ongoing shift from greenfield to brownfield as the decommissioning objective. At the core of the current policy is the government’s view that there could, in the future, be more users of decommissioned than previously assumed, and that restoration to unrestricted release will not always be the best practicable environmental option (BPEO, see Glossary). This could be the case for high land value sites located within commuting distance from London, such as Harwell or Winfrith, where paradoxically there is a strong economic case for full cleanup anyway. But land-use arguments are less significant for other nuclear sites in the United Kingdom: it is hard to see remote sites such as Sellafield or Dounreay becoming (nonnuclear) economic centers of regional or nationwide interest. On the other hand, experience has already shown a strong interest by major NPP organizations to redevelop existing NPP sites under decommissioning for new NPP builds: this assumes that old sites will remain brownfields for a long time before possibly moving to a greenfield status in the long run. It is also clear by now that heavily contaminated sites like Sellafield are unlikely to be ever released for unrestricted use (at least, not at a reasonable cost): their fate as brownfields could eventually be consolidated by new nuclear builds (Nuclear Engineering International, 2004).

112

Beyond Decommissioning

In 2006/2007 NDA started a process to define the SES for each of its sites. Although there was some high-level guidance (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2006) the process was formerly handed over to the sites and the local communities. The result was several different approaches, inconsistent outputs, and outputs focused on use rather than state. NDA took the outputs and produced a high-level summary for each site (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2009a,b). It also used this information where it could within the high-level SES definitions given in the back of the NDA Strategy. The process did not appreciate that defining the SES was not a one-off process; how could they know at that point everything about the site or social context in the future to foresee in detail what the SES needed to be? Besides, NDA has made it clear that they are not responsible for defining the next use of the site, that is, the responsibly of the local planning authority and/or investors. It is difficult to state with certainty that this strategy was entirely sensible, especially given the location of these sites and the link between use and SES. As a result, subsequent discussions with stakeholders were difficult as they felt that the SES had already been decided and their focus was rather on site use. NDA has recently been developing a new approach to defining the SES (see further). NDA recognized that a constraint to developing optimized SES was the requirement to revoke the nuclear site license (delicensing). To achieve the termination of the nuclear license the licensee had to prove they had met the “no danger” criteria: the regulator had stated that “an additional risk of death to an individual of one in a million (10
6) per year, was ‘broadly acceptable’ to society” (Health and Safety Executive, 2008). In practice, this meant remove everything radioactive, even though it were fully negligible; the question is whether this (over) conservative approach could be sustainable. NDA formed a group working with the nuclear safety regulator (ONR), environment agencies and government to look into regulations of nuclear sites toward the end of decommissioning. A discussion paper was produced (GOV.UK, 2016). The basic concept is that a site can be released of ONR earlier when the risks are similar to those on a contaminated land site or disposal site; at this point the environmental regulators (Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Natural Resources Wales) take over the responsibility for regulating the site. This will require some changes to law (primary legislation, dated 1965, by-laws, and additional regulatory guidance). NDA has redefined its definition of the SES recognizing it is a balance between the three parameters: physical state (including radioactive inventory), controls, and use. The balance will depend on the technical aspects and social context of the site in question. This approach provides the flexibility to define a SES based on the “cost” of removing the inventory and using controls noting their impacts on the use, rather than the use being the deciding factor. The exact mechanism for this approach has taken a while to develop and is not fully clear as of May 2018; however, part of the mechanism is the proposed (GOV.UK, 2018), which has been circulated for consultation. Among other things, it enables the regulation of radioactive subsurface structures and waste used to backfill voids

Relevant factors for redevelopment

113

on a decommissioned site. It should be also noticed that the regulator’s “delicensing” guidance has been updated (Office of Nuclear Regulation, 2016) and the “10
6” value removed. In summary, the site redevelopment depends on the restrictions to its use due to any residual contamination. Restricted use (typically, industrial or commercial) or unrestricted use (typically, residential or agricultural) affect the selection of remediation technology and extent of such measures. The selected SES can impose restrictions on the form of reuse. For example, the remaining contamination may be stable in the soil; irrigation, however, may increase the mobility of contaminants. The restrictions enforced may also vary between different areas of a larger site. Certain areas of a site may not have received any contamination during a plant’s operations, and therefore could be redeveloped with no restriction. This point is related to the strategy of gradual delicensing. Delicensing of a nuclear site may apply to different parts of the site. At many nuclear sites there are spaces, typically external to the operations area and uncontaminated, but owned by the licensee and covered by the nuclear license, which provide a “buffer” area separating the operations area from publicly accessible area. At large nuclear sites, the distinction between operations area, controlled area, supervised area (see Glossary under area), and uncategorized area (moving from the site center outwards) is useful to this end. For example, the supervised area can be another name for buffer area. The waste zoning concept applied by French authorities to nuclear decommissioning may also cast light on the progressive delicensing approach (ANDRA, 2013; Borrmann, 2010): the a priori defined nonnuclear zones can be redeveloped first. It can be useful to redevelop buffer areas soon after the nuclear facility has ceased operation or after most of the radioactive inventory (typically, the spent fuel) has been removed. Timely redevelopment of buffer areas can set the whole site redevelopment in motion and help fund the decommissioning of the nuclear (i.e., contaminated) part of the site. Another benefit from the progressive delicensing and redevelopment of parts of the site is financial. The costs of many decommissioning activities and the associated maintenance and surveillance are related to the licensed part of the site. By gradually delicensing parts of the site, the size of the remaining site is decreased and the running costs are also decreased. Moreover, by enclosing decommissioning activities within a smaller boundary, the risk of recontaminating clean areas is also reduced. However, owing to limited human activities, robust flora and fauna habitats may have developed within buffer areas. This condition may impose reuse restrictions, which are based on non-radiological (e.g., ecological) factors. The notion of delicensing parts of a nuclear site can also usefully apply to buildings and areas (administration buildings, visitors’ centers, cafeteria, stores of spare parts, parking lots, etc.) that are less relevant to the core business of the site. These facilities tend to be located in peripheral parts of the site and usually have never been contaminated during plant operation. If kept in good structural condition, these facilities are fit for reuse; in fact, they can be the starting point for site decommissioning, delicensing, and redevelopment without interfering with the central structure.

114

Beyond Decommissioning

The case is different though at chemical sites, which are closely integrated and where decommissioning of a part of the site interferes with operation of the rest of the site (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006). Restricted use entails reliance upon institutional control. Such control can consist of warnings against trespassing and/or fencing (Fig. 2.11). Administrative measures can impose planning restrictions at local or national level. The applicability and efficiency of controls vary from country to country, depending on traditions, to what extent competent authorities enforce rules, and the economic conditions of the country. In several cases scarcity of land, political turmoil, or broken communications have caused reoccupation of contaminated land. Redevelopment alternatives counting on institutional control need to be assessed pragmatically (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002). A related environmental point is the environmental impact from the demolition of old buildings and facilities; this includes airborne particulates (e.g., contaminated dust) and noxious gases, noise, and occupational and public risk (e.g., falling loads, unexpected structural collapse). Several cases of botched explosions have been reported where a building did not collapse as planned: to complete demolition, workers had to reenter the partly damaged building—a dangerous activity indeed—and, recover unexploded charges, place more explosives. By contrast, environmental contamination and public inconvenience caused by demolition will be prevented by adaptive reuse. Finally, a note about greyfield, a term coined in the early 2000s. Greyfield land (or just greyfield) is economically obsolescent, outdated, moribund, or underused land. “Greyfield” is a relative new term as compared to brownfield or greenfield. The term has been typically used for formerly viable commercial sites (such as regional malls and outlets) that have been little upgraded and have been surpassed by larger, better designed, or more conveniently located sites of a similar nature. Typically shopping malls have been replaced by lifestyle centers, which combine the traditional retail functions with leisure amenities oriented toward upscale consumers. In many cases, buildings left at greyfields are just empty shells. Unlike brownfields, which include real or suspected levels of environmental contamination, greyfields do not require remediation to attract an investor. Their value often resides in underlying infrastructure (such as plumbing and sewerage, electrical systems, foundations, parking, etc.), or a central location, which allows the investor to better the site and makes it more profitable. For the purposes of this book greyfields offer little new to discuss compared to either greenfields or brownfields, therefore no further mention will be made of this category.

5.6

Long-term site mission

The site being redeveloped may have been associated for decades to a specified industrial mission, for example, R&D or electricity generation. This has involved the establishment of a dedicated infrastructure (be it public or privately owned), which can justify the continued use of the site for similar activities, perhaps with adaptations to changed circumstances. However, recognition that the long-term mission of a site

Relevant factors for redevelopment

115

has been completed or has been modified by political input may come at any time and entail a decision to close a major facility; the awareness of change may also come gradually and painfully after years of declining demands for the site’s services. The future for such sites can take different forms. Some sites can be cleared for unrestricted use and somebody else’s care. By contrast, a specific reuse option may be planned for the long term or perhaps only temporarily, for example, for equipment storage, trailer offices, waste storage, etc. Some sites have adopted beneficial reuses for delicensed parts, while other parts continue their original missions. Certain commercial NPP operators have elected to substitute a conventional fossil-fueled heat source for a decommissioned nuclear heat source and reuse the site for continued electrical generation. Two such cases were Pathfinder and Fort St Vrain (FSV) in the United States (see section on FSV in Section 6.2.1.2). Moving on from the FSV case, a study was specifically given to the repowering of decommissioned NPPs as an alternative to decommissioning (Hylko, 2000). An old study (US General Accounting Office, 1980) still to be usefully consulted provides the rationale for reusing nuclear power sites as locations for new power plants, or to dispose of operational waste. Most of the US NPP sites under decommissioning can support one or more additional power plants. General benefits include (1) limiting the number of sites committed to long-term restricted use and periodic care and surveillance; (2) facilitating final dismantlement of retired NPPs; (3) decreasing the overall environmental impacts from the construction and maintenance of these plants; (4) saving time and money in completing licensing processes; (5) in a restricted reuse (brownfield) scenario, lower doses to the staff in charge of the new power plant as compared to residential doses and reusing existing infrastructure for new purposes. Economic benefits include electricity cost savings, additional land lease revenue to the town or city site owner, and increased tax payments for the land and/or energy systems to the local municipality and/or state. Similar considerations apply to nuclear disposal sites. Currently the search for disposal sites tends to focus on remote locations. But there are good arguments for turning a repository site into a nuclear “hub.” Some experts state that a disposal facility should be colocated with other nuclear facilities. The Finnish planning for Olkiluoto and Loviisa NPP sites—bound to become disposal sites for spent fuel as well as operational waste—is enlightening in this regard (Posiva, 2012). Until now the search of such a multi-facility has been inhibited by the fact that all other nuclear fuel cycle facilities were sited first, and the disposal facilities came later. This has led, in the United States and elsewhere, to a policy to look for repository sites that are remote, and especially far from other nuclear facilities. Some experts believe that to bury nuclear waste in remote locations such as the doomed Yucca Mountain site does not make much sense. The crucial reason is that having different segments of the nuclear fuel cycle scattered across the country leads to serious inefficiencies. In contrast, having a repository and an NPP sitting on the same site can provide many benefits advantages, regardless of whether an open or a closed fuel cycle is adopted. And the more facilities are colocated, the better (provided mutual interference is paid due attention).

116

Beyond Decommissioning

In an open fuel cycle, colocation allows the NPP operator ready access to the spent fuel inventory, as well as a packaging facility and a repository. The site could also be used for spent fuel training, R&D, and other functions, concentrating a large number of qualified staff in one purpose-built location. In a closed fuel cycle environment, there is the option that disposed-of spent fuel be recovered later. In addition, having a reprocessing plant next to a repository saves a lot of resources, which otherwise would go into treatment and packaging the waste for shipment to another site on public roads. Locating a repository next to an existing nuclear facility is likely to make public acceptance easier than building one on a greenfield site. Experience generally proves that communities close to nuclear facilities may feel readier to accept new facilities than nonnuclear communities. Brownfields are always given priority for new facilities. Moreover, choosing a disposal site near an NPP and other facilities provides already-done environmental impact statements and other investigations that are common to all site structures. But of course there are safety concerns. The main issue is the geology. A deep geological repository is required for HLW. Once the safe geological media is chosen then the actual site can be finalized based on many factors, like social acceptance, economics, access to transportation ways, and vicinity to other nuclear facilities (Nuclear Energy Insider, 2012). In Canada, the Elliot Lake mines were proposed for conversion into a waste disposal facility (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009b, Section 3.4). Similarly, in Romania, the former uranium mine at Baita-Bihor is reused as a disposal site for institutional (nonfuel cycle) LLW and ILW. The Bratrstvi site (near Jachimov, Czech Republic), a former uranium mine, serves for the disposal of waste containing only naturally-occurring radionuclides. The Dukovany site, Czech Republic hosts both a NPP and a waste disposal facility for LLW and ILW from Dukovany and Temelin NPPs. The same colocation applies to Loviisa site, Finland. The reuse of renewable energy plants in brownfields is in line with the considerations above. To this end, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are looking at 12 suitable sites in California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. An EPA-sponsored presentation of the advantages gained in reusing Contaminated Land for Renewable Energy is given in US Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Specific benefits to develop renewable energy on contaminated land include: l

l

l

l

l

many EPA tracked sites, for example, superfund sites (see Glossary and sec. 7.3), offer thousands hectares of land, and may be situated in areas where the presence of wind and solar structures are less likely to be aesthetically disturbing; such EPA sites have electric transmission lines and other essential infrastructure, such as roads. The saved new infrastructure capital costs can be considerable; reducing project cycle times through streamlined permitting and zoning; protecting open space; many EPA sites are situated in areas where traditional redevelopment may not be possible because of site remoteness, or because environmental conditions impede residential or commercial redevelopment; and

Relevant factors for redevelopment l

117

developing renewables can provide an economically viable reuse option for sites with significant cleanup costs.

A few renewable energy developments on contaminated land are listed in the following: l

l

l

l

Steel Winds Wind Farm, Lackawanna, NY: 14 wind turbines installed on an old slag pile generate 35 MW. Fort Carson Landfill Solar Development, CO: 4.7 MW solar photovoltaic (PV) array built on 5 ha of a former landfill. New Rifle Mill Site, CO: 2.3 MW PV solar system powers reclamation of contaminated wastewater. Pemaco Superfund Site, Maywood, CA, rooftop solar PV panels offset power costs of water pumping and treatment: an investment of US$ 21,000 in solar energy saves US$ 3000 a year (Renewables, 2010 and updates).

Storage of spent fuel onsite at ISFSIs can be a good interim measure, but eventually the spent fuel must be removed offsite to centralized long-term storage or disposal. Likewise, there is a potential use for storage of LLW at NPP sites, but onsite storage only defers the final disposition of these wastes. Permanent waste disposal at NPP sites should only be allowable if the sites are capable of meeting the requirements of waste disposal facilities (incidentally, the potential proliferation of waste disposal sites is the main reason for the almost universal disapproval of entombment as a decommissioning strategy). Where the reuse is to be managed by a new owner the original owner may transfer the responsibility for any remaining parts of the site and residual risks stemming from past activities to the new owner. In some regulatory regimes this is the only way of ridding the owner from a potentially indefinite liability or at least providing coverage against those risks.

5.7

Interim use Nature does require her times of preservation. William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Henry VIII, Act III, sc. 2

Almost by definition, interim reuse offers opportunities for flexibility and innovation and prospects success in follow-on phases. The raison d’^ etre of interim use is that vacant space is wrong at any time and should be used as soon as possible to create opportunities for a number of stakeholders. Besides, smart use of unproductive buildings and vacant land not only benefits communities, but also developers. In some cases, mothballing of an industrial facility may be appropriate until a suitable new use is identified for the facility or its site. Derelict buildings are vulnerable to deterioration and eventually they become candidates for demolition. Interim use can be a way to keep a site in use, and to prevent demolition by neglect. Another important reason for interim reuse is avoiding waste storage costs if a disposal route is not readily available.

118

Beyond Decommissioning

While many owners wrongly believe that leaving a site empty and unattended is the most economical means of management prior to redevelopment, demonstrating the potential of a site helps to build confidence in both owners and stakeholders. Phased construction working in parallel with interim use helps to prove the value of the site, thus reducing risk associated with future phases. There are long-term benefits in applying temporary use strategies to development projects. They can not only deliver a rapidly deployable stopgap for longer-term regeneration, but they also become a model of the character and potential of the new use. There are good opportunities by developing temporary income streams and enhancing desirability for future tenants. Furthermore, businesses may also flourish in the interim and provide readymade tenants that can migrate into permanent space over time—a form of soft marketing for subsequent redevelopment. The temporary use of vacant buildings or land until they can be brought into permanent commercial use is a practical way to use the inevitable pauses in property transfers. These pauses typically stem from the traditional sequence of design, authorizations, build, market, tenant, remarket that every development undergoes. Interim use not only ensures early benefits to communities while encouraging commercial, retail, and leisure activities during redevelopment, but it also helps investors secure “proof of concept” in terms of future phases. A few schemes follow to prove the point. (1) A fully moveable redevelopment providing easy-to-let temporary accommodation (say, for up to 5 years) generating business, training, and employment chances, while other parts of the project are being built. (2) A redevelopment where future phases gain momentum from the success of earlier phases. (3) A redevelopment which is eminently flexible throughout each phase, responding to a community’s needs, changing markets, trends, and financial influences, while still providing reusable spaces that can be moved as the project phases go ahead.

Pockets of land that are either difficult to develop, in public sector ownership, awaiting agreement on long-term regeneration plans, represent one of the best affordable and viable options on which to deliver temporary housing (QED, 2017). The redevelopment team may choose to develop sites incrementally or in phases. By doing so, a project can proceed, which otherwise would not have been economically viable; sometimes income generated from initial stages (e.g., cleaning up a portion of the sites where minimal contamination is present) can be profitably used to finance subsequent phases of site cleanup and redevelopment. This is the very concept of partial de-licensing described in Section 5.5. Regulatory acceptance is generally required to allow for incremental redevelopment of the site as less contaminated portions are released from regulatory control and redeveloped. In some legislation, regulators may see the entire site as one entity, which cannot be subdivided. If the principle of incremental redevelopment is endorsed by the regulators, the completion of phases of the redevelopment should be coordinated with the regulators and the contractors to ensure it does not interfere with the cleanup of the remaining areas on site.

Relevant factors for redevelopment

119

In many cases, interim use is helpful to demonstrate the viability of the reuse vision, generate income to support further redevelopment of the site, and avoid sites sitting idle during delays. Temporary uses may include any of the following: craft markets and workshops, festival space, retail, charity and “pop-up” shops, exhibition spaces, information stalls, art studios, exhibitions, performances, storage and filming, trailer offices, or short-term housing. However, risk issues apply to interim use as well as end use (though for shorter periods) and risk assessments are required in either approach. Problems have occurred where temporary renting (before final remediation) did not allow for adequate access for remediation and/or characterization activities. Interim land-use controls (land-use restrictions prohibiting sensitive uses such as residential, day care, or schools) may have to be adjusted to allow portions of the site to be developed. Conditions and limitations for temporary use need to be clearly established at the onset and rights and responsibilities specified and understood by all parties. For example, the duration of a short-term residential contract should be fixed and enforced; and safety and environmental requirements should be established to ensure that short-term uses will not compromise long-term options. In Melbourne, Australia, the River Studios project offers provides affordable studio spaces for artists and craftspeople through a low-impact, fixed-term adaptation of an empty warehouse. Reuses can also have a built-in “sunset” clause, enabling the building to be returned to an earlier state or its use reconsidered as circumstances change. For example, Melbourne’s Goods Shed North is currently being reused as office premises. This involved dividing the very long shed in two parts, which was not ideal, but a contractual clause stated that the dividing wall might be removed should a suitable use for the whole site be identified (Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013). Stakeholders may consider it more practical to allow for the least intrusive development (industrial/commercial) to take place first since immediate residential reuse brings about the potential for exposure to contaminants during cleanup activities from other parts of the site (SMARTe.org, 2010). For nuclear facilities, a specific advantage is that a delay between interim and final end state can enable less stringent cleanup criteria due to radioactive decay of shortlived radionuclides. If the interim cleanup, followed by radioactive decay, is not enough, then a later cleanup may be required. A case in question is the recently dismantled Thetis research reactor, Ghent, Belgium. Following dismantling, the final radiological survey in order to free release the reactor building (except the reactor pool) was performed in 2015. One contaminated area had been detected in a former building laboratory. After removal of this contamination the reactor building was free released. The declassification from Class I to Class II installation was granted by the end of 2015. The bottom plate of the reactor pool will remain under regulatory control until the concrete activation levels are lower than the limits for free release (Cortenbosch et al., 2016). In any case it is important to emphasize that any interim cleanup activities or interim phases should not abdicate any future end state/redevelopment options or result in the de facto end state by inertia (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2014).

120

5.8

Beyond Decommissioning

Age and conditions of facility Old age is not so bad when you consider the alternatives. Maurice Chevalier (1888–1972)

It has been noted that the long age of buildings can be detrimental because any related negative environmental impact will be spread over long periods. Such longevity also raises technical issues, especially in regard to the usability of external fabric and finishes (e.g., liners, coatings). When the outer fabric of a building begins to deteriorate, this can raise considerable issues to the building’s reuse. Such technical challenges require a wide range of renovation techniques. In many cases this means the planning and implementation of innovative solutions (including related R&D) that are applied within the constraints imposed upon the designers and contractors (Bullen and Love, 2011). As a rule, a newer structure is easier to be associated with a cost-effective reuse than an older one. Although short-term reuse is sometimes possible, longer-term use of such a structure may be risky due to degradation or looming collapse. By contrast, a relatively new structure which has been used (then, monitored) often up to its shut down and has not been left vacant for a long time is more likely to be considered for post-decommissioning reuse. While the age at which a plant is closed will vary, the issue of vacancy can be addressed through planning. A plant that has a post-decommissioning plan in place will transition easier and more quickly into a reuse project. This transition may allow for the reuse of an existing structure, or its preservation as a monument. Either way, reuse is possible and should be considered. Regardless of the need for structural upgrades to modern standards, old buildings often offer some interesting features. On account of the lack of climate control technology (e.g., air conditioning) at the time of their construction, the shape, and materials of many old buildings were inherently energy efficient. This includes thick walls, shutters, overhangs, awnings, and high ceilings for natural ventilation and lighting. These sustainable features will be retained when redeveloping these buildings (formfindinglab, 2016). To determine how structural elements should be adapted, an industrial structure should be subjected to a thorough condition review by a design professional. Key factors in this review include the useable life and foreseen replacement value of each component, maintenance history, previous major capital projects, visual requirements, and the impact on the existing structure, as well as how long the owner intends to keep the property (Buildings, 2008). The structural integrity of the building is one of the most important factors for successful reuse. The adaptive reuse of a building requires a proactive look at the structure. Will the structure experience new loads? Are structural modifications necessary? Will there be new openings and penetrations? A related critical factor is compliance with applicable structural codes. Older facilities may have to be assessed if they can realistically and inexpensively be modified to comply with “beneficial occupancy”

Relevant factors for redevelopment

121

codes in force. Lack of compliance, for example, with life safety code requirements (see Glossary) would exclude some reuse options. Structural codes have been written for new constructions and leave little tolerance for existing features like open stairwells and steeper stairs. Meant to provide safe egress in case of fire or panic, they usually require more space than what normally exists in old constructions. Special problems can occur when trying to comply with such standards as Americans with Disabilities Act (US Department of Justice, 2010). Not only do these standards require an additional area (leaving less for the main use of the building), but also there is a higher cost for remediation. The rigidity of building codes in their requirements for reusing buildings is a sore point. Any regulatory relaxations for adaptive reuse should, however, be weighed against extra risks to the health and safety of those living or working in the reused building. Moreover, failing to upgrade existing buildings to modern standards limits the market performance of a building. Basically, sustainable buildings perform better economically, socially, and environmentally. The challenges of code compliance, if anticipated at an early stage, can be successfully dealt with through careful planning and imagination (the latter is an essential ingredient in almost all reuse projects). It is important to understand that there is often more than one way of achieving a desired outcome—consultants such as building surveyors, decontamination experts, architects, and engineers need to be creative. At Carriageworks, Sydney, a sprinkler system was developed to skip the requirement to fire-rate the steel structure (Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013). It is very hard to guess beyond what you can see without some ad hoc investigations. An old boiler system and its piping will quite certainly contain asbestos. This of course must be removed and will represent an additional conversion expense. Old wiring and plumbing are likely to be removed in any case. Another component in likely need of replacement is the roof. Often the minimum buildings standards are restrictive to adaptive reuse, while at times a structural code can de facto block redevelopment. In practice such strict codes can force a developer to demolish an existing building, so that a building can be constructed from scratch. Variances or waivers are legal means to get out of certain building code requirements. A significant reform in the regulation of work in existing buildings was launched in 1998 in New Jersey with the adoption of the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code—Rehabilitation Sub-code. New Jersey became the first US State with a comprehensive code specifically aimed to assist the redevelopment of existing buildings into housing. A chapter dedicated to historic buildings outlines greater flexibility for historic structures. The subcode is based on the principle that historic buildings do not have to mimic new constructions in detail in order to be safe and accessible (Cantell, 2005). Flexibility in Reuse: Regulations Can Change (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2003) Adaptive reuse has been hard to implement for Californian schools. California’s seismic requirements for public schools required a special review of design documents followed by compliance

122

Beyond Decommissioning

monitoring throughout the construction process. As a matter of fact, safety requirements impeded adaptive reuse by canceling state school construction funds for noncompliant properties and made school districts vulnerable to seismic liability. Additionally, California’s area requirements for schools, as well as its funding mechanisms, favored new constructions in outlying areas against reuse on small urban sites. However, following several requests for adaptive reuse, California passed an interim measure allowing structural engineers to review and certify seismic adequacy in adaptive reuse projects. California has recently revised its regulations concerning land areas, school size, and joint-use facilities. “The law that will work is merely the summing up in legislative form of the moral judgement that the community has already reached” Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924). “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark, 2, 27).

The higher costs and longer lead times for compatible materials must be considered and assessed during the initial planning. Variances may be necessary, requiring extra planning. An early dialogue with local authorities is a must (not only on code compliance matters). Governmental support can be invaluable when applying for financial assistance. The investigation regarding the historic meaning of a building may allow certain features to stay as long as alternatives are found for accessibility and emergency situations (Design Cost Data, 2003). There are many strengthening techniques that can fit the esthetic, logistic, and economic constraints of a given reuse project. Fiber reinforced polymers can increase the capacity of a concrete member by up to 60%. It is also possible to imbed the fiber reinforcement into the existing structure so that there is no noticeable change to the structural sizes. Section enlargement and external posttensioning are also effective strengthening techniques when space limitations are not as tight and the additional capacity requirements are high (Buildings, 2008). An energy review of the existing building will determine strategies for energy use and indoor air quality. The insertion of insulation may necessitate new venting for humidity control, and new mechanical systems may require additional area on the roof or adjacent to the building (if they are compatible with the required visual appearance). The floor-to-floor distances will limit the choices for new vertical and horizontal ducts. The site might not have enough space for new mechanical systems such as groundwater heat pumps. The roof might need additional support to withstand new mechanical systems (Buildings, 2008). Another point needs attention. Decommissioning (especially its dismantling component) can be a very destructive and messy activity. When removing portions of permanent structural concrete on account of their high contamination or when chasing seeps of radioactive liquids into underlying foundations the risk of jeopardizing the structural stability of the building is concrete. An assessment should be made of the costs to restore for beneficial occupancy the areas that have been structurally affected by the decommissioning. Structural damage done in the course of decommissioning may render parts of the structure (or even the structure altogether) unsuitable for reuse. See the reuse of the RB-2 reactor described in Section 7.3.4 of International Atomic Energy Agency (2006).

Relevant factors for redevelopment

123

A noteworthy factor came to public attention recently. Inadequacies introduced during renovation works at Grenfell Tower, London may have contributed to the 71 fire deaths during the accident of June 14, 2017. According to a report issued by fire safety experts, poorly installed fire barriers, gaps around window frames, and flammable cladding and insulation were introduced to the London 24-story residential tower in renovation works before the fire. The report does not say whether fault stays with the design or the installation of the features introduced during the renovation works. But it states that had the building remained unaltered the fire would have been unlikely to spread. “Grenfell Tower, as originally built, appears to have been designed on the premise of providing very high levels of passive fire protection,” states the report. Apparently, five key breaches of fire safety regulations could have contributed to the tragedy (Dezeen, 2018). These considerations may have an impact on the opportunity of, and requirements for, reuse. Zoning codes are often regulatory barriers to the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings. Zoning achieves health, safety, morals, or the general welfare objectives by separating uses into districts on a zoning map. Complementary details include minimum standards for each district, such as use, height, setbacks, parking requirements, bulk, lot sizes, density, etc. Most zoning codes prohibit mixed uses. In fact, to determine if a new use is compatible with existing zoning is not obvious. Many zoning codes have been amended numerous times and are difficult to interpret. A variance is thus often required in order to change the use of an industrial building. There can be costs and lengthy delays associated with this administrative process. Besides, public review is typically prompted by an application for a variance, which could induce significant delays. Particular challenges are to be encountered if the industrial area under redevelopment has not normally been used for housing, is located in a commercial district, or is on a congested site. Parking for housing projects can be very contentious. Siting parking underneath an adaptive reuse project can be costly, so creative strategies to locate parking facilities may be essential. Zoning is a typical issue where agreements or ideally partnerships with local or regional authorities can be key to the success of a reuse project. One example of local zoning codes easing the adaptive reuse of old buildings is given in Housing Toolbox (2018).

5.9

Key assets

Experience proves that the development appeal of a decommissioned site critically depends on one or more key assets remaining from the site’s operations. These assets provide important factors influencing a specific redevelopment option or generically improve the attractiveness of the site by offering a range of redevelopment options. An important task in assessing the redevelopment chances of a site is to identify these key assets. Once identified these assets should be protected from degradation until the site is proposed to developers. Most important, successful adaptive reuse should account for the location of the property. Location can heavily impact various components of the property, especially (Sugden, 2017):

124 l

l

l

l

l

l

Beyond Decommissioning

desirability/esthetics; high standard of living; accessibility (e.g., airstrips, roads, rail, river or sea access with offloading facilities, harbor with piers/docks accessible to large barges); parking lots; emergency and buffer areas (these can provide spaces for future expansion); and safety (e.g., flat vs steep, rugged surfaces).

Available resources and infrastructure include among others: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

offices; running services (e.g., catering, public transport, schools, recreational areas); a local skilled workforce; prestigious old/historic buildings (Sections 2.2 and 2.3) or large, massive structures; non-contaminated (or successfully decontaminated with no functional damage) buildings: machine shops, warehouses, workshops, and general production facilities, especially with large machinery, consumables stocks; good electricity grid supply, potable and service water, gas lines, sewerage; large areas suitable for a large investment or for a smaller investment while retaining the potential for enlargement; property (e.g., land) value; and function of the property (both for the current and/or future use).

Reusing a nuclear site is often a convenient means to profit from the information and legal permits or licenses already available from past operations. Typically, data on demography, geology, surface- and ground-water, seismic and flood events, traffic routes, etc. is usually available as part of the nuclear licensing. This information does not have to be produced from scratch as for a new industrial site. Likewise, site permits (e.g., electrical lines, non-radioactive and radioactive effluent limits, etc.) that are based on the nuclear site characteristics would be already in place and should not be applied for anew from the beginning for a new plant. This is especially beneficial where new nuclear uses are being considered and licenses for nuclear operations are already available. It should be noted however that some site parameters (e.g., demography, climate) may have changed since the initial license was granted and require a new assessment; likewise, new data and assessment methods (e.g., on seismicity) may have become handy over the years and should be used to consider the site viability for new uses. The extent of physical characterization data at nuclear sites (usually, comprehensive and reliable) is of great importance to new developers. The preceding work done to characterize a nuclear site can be attractive in reducing the investment of a developer while evaluating the risk associated with new industrial uses. To this end, details of site surveys, and any related analyses and assessments should be kept. However, uncertainties about residual contamination levels would be a major deterrent for investment; therefore, documented evidence supporting statements that site contamination is negligible, identified, and compatible with proposed reuse should also be kept. The transition between those responsible for decommissioning/remediation and those responsible for redevelopment is important in terms of knowledge. It is very

Relevant factors for redevelopment

125

important for redevelopers and other stakeholders to be apprised and achieve a good knowledge of the facility/site characterization; moreover, to understand all the main issues that occurred during the remediation phase (e.g., small releases of contaminants, areas that were left behind unexplored) may help to prevent undesired discoveries during redevelopment. The responsibility for handing over this information rests with the site incumbent owner/licensee, but regulators (old and new) have a central role in this transition. The location is not only a determining factor in the feasibility of adaptive reuse, but also contributes to a project’s outcome. In many cases, the adaptive reuse creates a new use which in due time creates new opportunities for the surrounding communities. A facility located in the vicinity to a community with a comfortable standard of living will be more desirable for redevelopment. To this end, desirable assets would include: quality schools, a good tax base, a low crime rate, and a user friendly environment. It was found that the location of a building in regard to points of interest contributed to the success of adaptive reuse projects. For example, the vicinity of some obsolete facilities to population centers can make them good candidates for adaptive reuse. Actually, “vicinity” is a relative concept in today’s world. Experience shows that certain shopping malls, though located say 20 or more kilometers from the nearest city, can still be profitable: likewise, people will be willing to travel many kilometers to reach a formerly industrial plant converted into a shopping mall if they find it cost effective. In some cases, adaptive reuse of old industrial installations is incorporated into urban redevelopment plans, for example, as endeavors to decrease urban sprawl. See the Bicocca case mentioned in Section 6.2.2.14. Many older facilities offer a good adaptive reuse potential because of their close links to any recreational areas that have been developed around water bodies (formerly used by industrial facilities for cooling purposes or as emergency water reservoirs), parks, natural reserves, wildlife habitats, mountain or sea resorts, other touristic centers, etc. A high-capacity connection to an electricity distribution grid is available at most NPP sites. This asset makes them fit for redevelopment as an alternative electricity generation plant (see the Fort St Vrain case in Section 6.2.1.2), or for an energyabsorbing industrial redevelopment. Additionally, most nuclear sites are equipped with backup electricity systems, typically diesel generators, which can be readily converted to nonnuclear applications. It is also vital to maintain other infrastructure facilities resulting from nuclear operations, such as sewerage and an industrial and drinking water network. However, some refurbishment activities may be required to adapt these services to the redevelopment needs. Site accessibility is a key asset either for industrial applications, for recreational activities, or for a range of mixed uses. The operation of a nuclear facility requires frequent access for contractors and equipment (tools, spare parts) for facility maintenance and repair, as well as visitors. In contrast, some nuclear facilities are situated in remote, almost inaccessible places on security and/or radiological grounds.

126

Beyond Decommissioning

This situation could pose a problem for industrial redevelopment, but in fact isolation could be an advantage, for example for the siting of hazardous industries. The local workforce employed at the site is an important issue at the time of decommissioning and subsequent site redevelopment. In fact, it is a fact that some skilled staffs leave the site on job security grounds before decommissioning is completed. In addition to their technical skills, these people are those most familiar with the plant, not only in its original shape, but also in its redeveloped functions. Early planning and decisions for redevelopment may persuade some employees to remain and—depending on their skills—be involved in redevelopment activities. The availability of skilled staff onsite is an advantage as site redevelopers will preferably recruit local labor. Office space is an asset of general worth, as almost any redevelopment will require such spaces for administration, visitor reception and information, etc. Depending on building size, reuses such as theaters and conference halls are pretty common. Besides, most nuclear facilities offer laboratories, warehouses, etc., that can easily be turned into administrative or cultural functions. The challenge here is to optimally match the supply with the demand. Heritage buildings offer prestige and a well-recognizable fascination, and may host museums and exhibition centers. Support services, such as kindergartens, catering, motor pools, and public transport (for students, commuters, etc.), may have supported the staff and contractors during operation and decommissioning phases. The continuing availability of such services should be of great advantage for businesses and industries planning to settle at the redeveloped site. It would be crucial for the site planners to prevent the site from remaining unused for long periods, as this condition will probably lead to the permanent cessation of these services. Nuclear workshops could be converted to nonnuclear activities, also by making use of skilled staff (as long as they are still onsite). The decontamination of nuclear workshops can usually be carried out without much difficulty. Spare parts (engines, pumps, etc.) or consumables (lubricants, heating fuel, liquid nitrogen, etc.) may be reused for machine shops or other new installations. Some nuclear sites include sports facilities and social clubs, originally installed for the employees and their families. These may serve the redevelopment project by providing amenities. Where land is to be redeveloped for nonindustrial (residential or leisure) purposes, a significant asset is the presence of mature trees. They can also offer other environmental benefits including: – – – –

to to to to

improve security by blocking unwanted vehicle access; assist with the conservation of local flora and fauna; facilitate drainage; or reduce the visual impact.

In this regard, it is worth noting that many research and multiuse centers are located in natural parks and forested areas. This immediately suggests that a preferred postD&ER site use could include a natural reserve, bird sanctuary, or environmental research center. Fernald (Section 7.3.8) is a typical case in question. Another example is given in Fig. 5.2.

Relevant factors for redevelopment

127

Fig. 5.2 Old RADON waste disposal facility, Chisinau, Moldova (to be decommissioned). Photo by M. Laraia (September 2018).

Lakes and ponds may assist with the restoration of natural habitats or may allow the establishment of marinas and yacht clubs. In turn, the return of wildlife to the site may encourage ecological and biological studies: to this end, the availability of biologists and other environmental specialists who had worked at the former nuclear site may be a great asset. Large areas of meadows or flat lands may allow the establishment of golf courses (see Section 7.3.5).

5.10

Project risks

For the purposes of this book we refer here to the risk that a given cleanup project (including its redevelopment component) may not meet its stipulated targets, for example, schedule and budget. Identifying and minimizing risks ensure efficiency (i.e., best use of resources). This is especially significant (as in most cleanup and redevelopment projects), when critical achievements depend on external financing, including predetermined performance-based incentives and contractual requirements. The assessment of project risks is a key component of the decision-making: too high a risk may impose a different cleanup or redevelopment alternative. Experience gained in such projects shows that a range of diverse risks are involved, namely technical, operational, commercial, and the people side. Risk should therefore be evaluated holistically. Operational and commercial aspects relate to site conditions, construction issues, project management, and financial issues. By people side we mean legal and procurement issues (e.g., liability and indemnification), stakeholder feelings, and political connections.

128

Beyond Decommissioning

Technology-related risks are multiple. For example, there are risks associated with the use of innovative, untested techniques, or the unexpected/underestimated impacts on a natural habitat by the introduction of new site uses. Technology acceptance is linked to stakeholder involvement. Transportation risk is linked to the shipment of cleanup wastes or the import of construction material to the site being cleaned and redeveloped. Industrial and traffic accidents could undermine the credibility acceptance of the project by stakeholders. Programmatic risks are due to uncertainties that depend on schedule constraints, technology readiness, logistics (e.g., the availability of tools, workers, licenses), and funding assurance (this may be subject to changes, often beyond control by project managers). Environmental risks attached to remediation and redevelopment address ecological systems onsite or offsite. For example, landscaping consisting of removal of topsoil, while removing surface contamination, may damage the soil ecosystem. In some projects an area wider than the actual contamination may be needed for interim or permanent installations, for example, waste stores; handling of contaminated materials may transfer contamination to farther places. It can make little sense in removing a well fixed, dormant soil contaminant when this results in a higher volume of mobile waste forms (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002). By summarizing issues dealt with in the previous chapters and sections, a devil’s advocate presentation is given here of the main factors militating against reuse of contaminated sites (Collaton and Bartsch, n.d.). For decades, processing plants, steel mills, and other industrial facilities have contaminated land, water, and air. Public awareness of the problem has grown recently, as have knowledge of the human health and environmental risks and recognition that contaminants must be minimized or fully eliminated. But despite the obvious benefits of site reuse, critical barriers also have grown.

5.10.1 Cost of environmental cleanup Cleanup adds to the cost of any redevelopment project, and often significantly. In most areas adequate financing to perform cleanup and redevelopment operations is rarely available in manageable terms. The mere suspicion of contamination has significantly increased lending costs. Much time and efforts are required to set up financial packages, and prospective borrowers must pay for environmental assessments. Because these costs are not readily recovered in this business, brownfield sites are dramatically disadvantaged compared with greenfield sites. Cleanup also takes considerable time, delaying project completion by months or even years. Delays are costly for developers and may undermine the profitability of a redevelopment project.

5.10.2 Uncertain liabilities Regardless legislative definition of responsible parties, legal uncertainty often envelops many individual projects and discourages reuse. Uncertainty about environmental liabilities restrains planners and communities from obtaining the financing

Relevant factors for redevelopment

129

needed for cleanup and redevelopment work. Private developers determined to acquire an old property often are turned down by lenders concerned about potential liability in the case of foreclosure, loss of collateral value, and the effect of cleanup costs on the project’s sustainability. The possibility of hidden or unexplored contamination has frequently deprived developers of traditional credit means. Quite recently, commercial opportunities have appeared whereby a redeveloping company has bought a property while contractually relieving the former owner from their liabilities. One such example is the redevelopment project at Lumberton, NC, United States. North Carolina Renewable Power (NCRP) converted an unused 35-MW coal-fired power plant into a 25-MW renewable energy (biomass) power plant utilizing poultry litter (a mixture of manure and bedding) and wood waste. This conversion reduces harmful emissions, namely sulfur dioxide by 78% and nitrogen by 33%. The plant is situated in a rural area with the highest poverty rate in NC. The area lies in the “American Broiler Belt,” a region with prevalent large-scale poultry production. The poultry litter is hazardous waste, and water runoff from it contaminated local waterways and damaged the ecosystems. Until the new power plant was installed, the burden of waste disposal fell on the farmers. But the use of poultry litter as fuel will help local farmers remove a significant pollution source from the community. Additional benefits included new jobs, including 28 to operate the power plant and 105 for wood waste and poultry feedstock. The project also created some 300 direct construction jobs (AMCREF, 2015).

5.10.3 Unclear procedures Much confusion concerns the identification of toxic substances at older sites, instrumental detection limits, the best treatment options, the level of cleanup required, and the involvement of regulatory reviews and approvals. It is often difficult to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of elected officials, developers, investors, environmentalists, and concerned neighbors of contaminated sites: “How clean is clean enough?” While some of their concerns stem from a lack of understanding of technical and scientific topics, others stem from the vagueness of this arena. Other stakeholders raise legitimate questions about the wisdom of enacting variable cleanup standards that depend on the way the site will be used in the future (e.g., based on doses to the critical group of users) rather on firmly established parameters (e.g., concentrations of contaminants). This uncertainty often paralyzes developers or creates a confrontation (often ending in a legal case) between environmentalists and promoters of redevelopment. Developers are also concerned that even if they clean a property to today’s standards, there is no assurance that today’s “clean” will be considered clean enough in the future (see the Nuclear Lake case in Section 7.8). They also fear that changes in environmental standards and improvements in technology (e.g., more sensitive instruments) may force them to revise their cleanup plans halfway through a project, adding more costs and delays. Unfortunately, environmental laws have shown for years to be moving targets.

130

Beyond Decommissioning

5.10.4 Public attitudes Negative public attitudes toward older facilities may also hinder redevelopment. To many people, large, long-unused structures symbolize economic distress and community decline associated with unemployment. Where industrial archeologists may see beauty, developers see costly renovations, and lack of profitability, for example, due to the need to comply with modern building code requirements. Besides, few communities endeavor to identify valuable buildings for reuse, and those few cases of successful reuse are not enough renowned to convince developers to embark in new enterprises. These negative feelings may last even after redevelopment has been completed, especially in case of highly polluted sites, because the public can be skeptical about the competence/willingness of public institutions or private businesses to fully decontaminate the sites.

Disclaimer Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.

References AMCREF, 2015. North Carolina Renewable Power – Lumberton, LLC. http://www.amcref. com/project/north-carolina-renewable-power-lumberton-llc/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). ANDRA, 2013. ANDRA – ASN – CEA – IRSN, Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning in France. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/profiles/france_report.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Borrmann, F., 2010. Management of very low level radioactive waste in Europe – application of clearance (and the alternatives). In: IAEA Regional Workshop on the Release of Sites and Building Structures, https://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/r2d2/workshop9/pre sentations/management-of-very-low-level-waste.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). British Property Federation, 2013. Heritage Works—The Use of Historic Buildings in Regeneration. https://www.bpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Heritage-Works-2013.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Buildings, 2008. Adapting an Older Building for a New Use. 4 January 2008, https://www.build ings.com/article-details/articleid/5837/title/adapting-an-older-building-for-a-new-use (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Bullen, P., Love, P., 2011. Factors influencing the adaptive re-use of buildings. J. Eng. Design Technol. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235307181_Factors_influencing_the_ adaptive_re-use_of_buildings (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Campagnol, G., 2017. The place of the industrial past: the adaptive reuse of the industrial heritage in the Engenho Central de Piracicaba, Brazil. Built Environ. 43(01). https://www.res earchgate.net/publication/314208879_The_Place_of_the_Industrial_Past_The_Adap tive_Reuse_of_the_Industrial_Heritage_in_the_Engenho_Central_de_Piracicaba_Brazil (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Cantell, S.F., 2005. The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.http:// historicbellingham.org/documents_reports_maps/adaptive_reuse.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

Relevant factors for redevelopment

131

Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, 2014. Urban Recycling of Derelict Industrial Sites. Analysis of Socio-Economic Redevelopment of Post-Industrial Districts, Barcelona. Polytechnic University of Catalonia. 24 January 2014, https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/ handle/2099.1/21140/IvanNikolic.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Collaton, E., Bartsch, C., Industrial Site Reuse and Urban Redevelopment—An Overview. https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol2num3/collaton.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Cortenbosch, G., et al., 2016. Decommissioning of the pool reactor Thetis in Ghent, Belgium. Kerntechnik 81 (5), 586–587. https://www.hanserelibrary.com/doi/pdf/10. 3139/124.110731 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). CT, 2017. State of Connecticut, Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, Environmental Land Use Restrictions. http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a¼2715&q¼438254& deepNav_GID¼1626 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Design Cost Data, 2003. Renovation and Adaptive Reuse … a Smart Alternative. January 1, 2003, https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-290805631.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018) (available upon subscription). Dezeen, 2018. Renovation works at Grenfell Tower added “fuel” to fire, reveals leaked report, 17 April 2018. https://www.dezeen.com/2018/04/17/grenfell-tower-fire-report-london-uknews/?utm_medium¼email&utm_campaign¼Daily%20Dezeen%20Digest&utm_content¼ Daily%20Dezeen%20Digest + CID_527de5e8c1e58c8f84d8fe27cabff81c&utm_source¼D ezeen%20Mail&utm_term ¼ More (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Economist, 2005. Blooms on Brownfields. April 2, 2005, https://www.economist.com/node/ 3809717 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). English, M.R., Inerfeld, R.B., 1999. Institutional controls for contaminated sites: help or hazard. Risk: Health, Safety Environ. (1990–2002) 10 (2). Article 6, https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article¼1394&context¼risk (Accessed on 29 December 2018). EPA, 2014a. Smart growth for brownfields redevelopment. May 2, 2005, GSG Project No. E0324.06, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/chicago_sg_brown fields_project_final.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). EPA, 2014b. Brownfields area-wide planning pilots. EPA-560-S-14-001, https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/epa_oblr_awp_summary_v4_508.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Ferretti, V., Bottero, M., Mondini, G., Decision making and cultural heritage: an application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the reuse of historical buildings, J. Cult. Herit. 15(6) 2014, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260042391_Decision_making_and_cul tural_heritage_An_application_of_the_Multi-attribute_Value_Theory_for_the_reuse_of_ historical_buildings (Accessed on 29 December 2018). formfindinglab, 2016. Adaptive Reuse: How Can We Make Old Buildings More Sustainable? 2016-10-06, https://formfindinglab.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/adaptive-reuse-how-canwe-make-old-buildings-more-sustainable/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). GOV.UK, 2016. Discussion paper on the Regulation of nuclear sites in the final stages of decommissioning and clean-up. 3 November 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publi cations/discussion-paper-on-the-regulation-of-nuclear-sites-in-the-final-stages-ofdecommissioning-and-clean-up (Accessed on 29 December 2018). GOV.UK, 2018. The regulation of nuclear sites in the final stages of decommissioning and clean-up. 8 May 2018, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/sys tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/705217/Regulation-of-nuclear-sites-in_the_finalstages-of-decommissioning-and-cleanup-consultation.pdf (updated 22 October 2018) (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

132

Beyond Decommissioning

Greeves, J.T., Liebermann, J., 2007. How difficult is it to obtain restricted release authorization. In: WM’07 Conference, February 25–March 1, 2007, Waste Management Symposia, Tucson, AZ. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2007/pdfs/7115.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Health and Safety Executive, 2008. Delicensing Guidance. http://www.onr.org.uk/ delicenceguide.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013. Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage: Opportunities & Challenges. http://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/HV_IPAWsinglepgs. pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Housing Toolbox, 2018. Zoning Tools for Affordable Housing. https://www.housingtoolbox. org/zoning-and-land-use/adaptive-reuse (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Hylko, J.M., 2000. Repower instead of retire—a fourth alternative for decommissioning commercial nuclear power stations in the United States. IRPA 9, Vienna, April 1996, http:// www.irpa.net/irpa9/cdrom/VOL.3/V3_127.PDF (Accessed on 29 December 2018). International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002. Non-technical factors impacting on the decision making processes in environmental remediation. IAEA-TECDOC-1279, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005. Selection of decommissioning strategies: issues and factors. IAEA-TECDOC-1478, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006. Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities After Decommissioning. Technical Reports Series No. 444, IAEA, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008. Long Term Preservation of Information for Decommissioning Projects. Technical Reports Series No. 467, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009a. An Overview of Stakeholder Involvement in Decommissioning. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-2.5, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009b. Integrated Approach to Planning the Remediation of Sites Undergoing Decommissioning. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-3.3, Vienna. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2004. Issues of Long-Term Stewardship: State Regulators’ Perspectives. https://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/RAD-3.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). LaGuardia, T., 2012. Decommissioning of western-type light-water nuclear reactors. Chapter 19, In: Laraia, M. (Ed.), Nuclear Decommissioning—Planning, Execution and International Experience. Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No. 36. MONDAQ, 2006. NRC Introduces Options for New Flexibility in Nuclear Facility Decommissioning, 21 March 2006. http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/38536/Utilities/ NRC+Introduces+Options+for+New+Flexibility+in+Nuclear+Facility+Decommissioning. (Accessed on 29 December 2018). National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2003. Creating Schools and Strengthening Communities Through Adaptive Reuse. http://www.ncef.org/pubs/adaptiveuse.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2006. Site end state definition process. EGR015, 5 July 2006. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2009a. Output from stakeholder consultation for the site end state Dounreay. SMS/TS/A2/1/1/R005. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2009b. Output from stakeholder consultation for the site end state Winfrith. SMS/TS/A2/1/1/R017. Nuclear Energy Insider, 2012. Decommissioning—Turning Waste Repositories Into Nuclear Energy Hubs, July 17, 2012. http://talknuclear.ca/2012/07/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Nuclear Engineering International, 2004. Decommission Improbable. pp. 47–48. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2014. Nuclear Site Remediation and Restoration During Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations. Paris, https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/ 2014/7192-cpd-report.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

Relevant factors for redevelopment

133

Office for Design + Architecture South Australia, 2014. Adaptive Reuse, Design Guidance Note. Office of Nuclear Regulation, 2016. The Delicensing Process for Existing Licensed Nuclear Sites. NS-PER-IN-005 Revision 2, http://www.onr.org.uk/operational/assessment/nsper-in-005.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Posiva, 2012. Nuclear Waste Management of the Olkiluoto and Loviisa Nuclear Power Plants— Summary of Operations in 2012. http://www.posiva.fi/files/3197/YJH_2012_Engl_LOW. pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). QED, 2017. https://www.qedproperty.com/interim-strategies (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Radwaste Solutions, 2001. Getting It Right—New Hampshire’s State-of-the-Art Nuclear Decommissioning Law, pp. 21–23. www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/a_149 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Roos, A.D., Kollar, W., 2008. Communicating potential risks of uncontrolled site development at a FUSRAP site. In: WM’08 Conference, February 24–28, 2008, Phoenix, AZ. http:// www.wmsym.org/archives/2008/pdfs/8224.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). SMARTe.org, 2010. Future Land Use. http://www.smarte.org/smarte/dynamic/resource/snfuture-land-use.xml.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Sugden, E., The Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage Buildings: A Multiple-Case Studies Approach, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2017 https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/ bitstream/handle/10012/12823/Sugden_Evan.pdf?sequen%20ce%20¼%203&isAllowed %20¼%20y (Accessed on 29 December 2018). The Guardian, 2017. Made in London No More: Will Property Speculation Kill Industry in the Capital?. 6 February 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/feb/06/madelondon-property-speculation-industry-capital (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Thomsen, A., 2010. The Role and Influence of the Architect in Industrialized Building. The Swedish University of Agriculture Life and Sciences.https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/1482/1/tho msen_a_100628.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Department of Energy, Long-Term Stewardship Study, 2001 https://www.energy.gov/sites/ prod/files/em/DOELongTermStewardshipStudy-VolumeI-FinalOctober2001.pdf. (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Department of Justice, 2010. ADA Standards for Accessible Design. September 15, 2010, https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards_prt.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, RE-Powering America’s Land—Potential Advantages of Reusing Potentially Contaminated Land for Renewable Energy, 2012. http://my.sol arroadmap.com/userfiles/Source_Advantage-of-Reusing-Contaminated-Lands-for-RE. pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US General Accounting Office, 1980. Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the United States—Existing nuclear sites can be used for new power plants and nuclear waste storage. EMD-80-67, April 1, 1980, https://www.gao.gov/assets/130/129217.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2006. Decommissioning lessons learned. Lesson ID: 2006-15, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0734/ML073460307.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Wilson, L.J., 2000. Waterfront Redevelopment: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Knoxville’s Waterfront. http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1443&context¼utk_ chanhonoproj (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

This page intentionally left blank

Experience and lessons learned

6

The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them. Sir William Bragg (1862–1942)

Some common reuses for industrial sites are outlined below and case histories described. However, the number of implemented redevelopments is much higher: for example, Waymarking (n.d.) presents 186 cases (including some highlighted in this book) with summaries of site histories, redevelopment processes, and achieved reuses. Several dozens of other cases are discussed in IAEA (2011). Many industrial heritage sites are reused for museums and creative industries (e.g., artist studios). The esthetics of industrial places is often compatible with arts and the building fabric is often preserved with the patina accumulated by time. Multi-residential reuse of industrial sites can cause more radical impacts than other uses. For example, large spaces are carved up into smaller units and new services, such as plumbing or air conditioning, can be installed. Heritage buildings are often adapted as high-end residential developments, which may result in building fabric being painted over, or hidden behind new walls (note these interventions could be regarded as inimical to historic preservation). However, a changing sentiment means that the industrial esthetics and patina of building fabric are now growingly recognized. Heritage qualities tend currently to be appreciated as desirable components and are successfully marketed. Residential reuse can also generate good financial returns. In some cases, residential reuse of industrial buildings has resulted in the regeneration of those areas, and has significantly increased property prices. Recreation can offer options for the reuse of sites in a manner accessible to broad segments of the community. Recreational uses may also be the solution for heritage sites that are hard to reuse otherwise. For example, many decommissioned railways are being reused as trails for cycling, walking, and other recreational activities (Section 6.7.5). Recreational reuses can also allow to maintain sites in the state of “ruins,” that is, some recreational reuses do not require fully operational buildings;

Fig. 6.1 Claude Lorrain—The Painter as Draftsman, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00006-3 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

136

Beyond Decommissioning

besides a landscape marked by ruins can have a special fascination to some people (Fig. 6.1).

6.1

Power plant sites and large industrial complexes, including land areas and infrastructure

Many power plants have been left unused for years or decades after they have been decommissioned, which can contribute to the deterioration of a neighborhood’s character and harm the local economy. Instead, other sites have become attractive, integral parts of the surrounding neighborhood by generating new jobs, tax revenues, and business opportunities. Success stories are typically associated with properties that have an underlying value. This may be due to the existing infrastructure, transportation access, or other handy services. The success of a project is not necessarily based on a specific building or land use, as power plants have been adapted for a range of new public or private uses. However, the power plant territory should be assessed to decide on the best fit for reuse. In some cases, the adaptive reuse of a given plant has cascaded into further economic development to the surrounding areas or has been implemented within broader redevelopment plans (e.g., for a whole city or a region). For obsolete power plants, adaptive reuse typically implies the removal of powergenerating components and systems, taking care of any existing contamination; and leaving some structures or buildings for a new function that may or may not be related to power generation. Environmental considerations typically include asbestos, metalbased paints and coatings, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): nuclear power plants have the additional complication of radioactivity. There can be many advantages from reusing a decommissioned commercial NPP, including cost savings, tourism or revenue sources, better public awareness and the preservation of history. The cost of decommissioning a modern NPP is huge. Structures that were designed as lasting, sturdy barriers against high pressures and temperatures, and fluid contaminants are difficult to dismantle. The reuse of some of these structures offsets part— hardly all—of the dismantling cost. In turn these savings would allow the operating organizations to commit funds for a number of uses or to save consumers’ money during plant’s service life. Reusing decommissioned sites can establish new jobs for industrial and residential purposes, and provide the local community with financial support (otherwise lost after plant’s final shutdown). Providing employment possibilities can allow previous plant workers to remain in the community they had chosen when taking a job at an operating plant. Amenities, such as tours at cooling towers or control rooms, can attract visitors and sustain local businesses. Industrial heritage tourism is a growing area nuclear sites could join in. The redevelopment and preservation of nuclear sites help to provide useful information to the public. Actually it is the lack of knowledge and transparency that causes nervousness about nuclear energy. The opening of a site for public access can rid it of irrational fear and unmotivated stigma, and enhance a sense of involvement and

Experience and lessons learned

137

belonging in the industrial heritage. Besides, the preservation and reuse of former NPPs will benefit young generations as they see and touch the emblems of contemporary NPPs. Power plants offer a variety of special industrial and architectural features that deserve to be preserved in the plant reuse. Industrial equipment formerly used for generating electricity, such as the turbines, smokestacks, steam pipes, or coal hoppers, may seem problematic for redevelopment. However, the original features have been preserved in reuse to maintain the plant’s identity and have even been used as a unique marketing tools (e.g., a landmark). The presence of these structures and their histories will enrich the culture of the local communities and the tourists. Redundant power plants have been adapted to a range of new uses, for example: l

l

l

Museums (e.g., the Tate Modern, London, UK; the Power Plant Contemporary Art Gallery, Toronto, Canada; Sydney Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia). These cases are described in more detail in IAEA (2011). Restaurants Hotels

In practice, most power plants have been converted into multiple uses. Besides many examples given in the following sections, one case is given here as typical. In New Braunfels, Texas, the Comal power plant was constructed in 1925 and operated until 1973. The facility is adjacent to the Comal River and to the Landa Park, both of which are popular public recreational areas. The plant equipment was dismantled first. Environmental issues included mainly asbestos and metals-based paints. The reuse of the facility was determined by a request for proposal process in which any interested party was allowed to submit a reuse proposal. The selected reuse was a commercial complex with loft apartments, a hotel and restaurant open to the public. The adapted reuse of the building shell was expected to work well with the public recreational activities nearby (Scadden, 2001).

6.1.1 Savannah River Site, SC, USA The Savannah River Site (SRS) has a number of decommissioning projects underway. For example, the partial dismantling and entombment of P and R reactors was completed a few years ago (Fig. 6.2). Spent fuel from US and foreign research reactors is received and stored at the SRS L Area Material Storage (L Basin) (WM, 2013). The L Area Material Storage Facility is a former nuclear reactor built in the 1950s to produce materials for national defense and scientific research. The facility contains a large water-filled basin that was used for disassembly and interim cooling of targets prior to shipment to separation installations onsite. With the shutdown of the reactor and the completion of its production program, the disassembly basin was converted to a storage facility for the onsite inventory of DOE fuels formerly stored at the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel, and also for receipt and storage of DOE fuels to be returned from the Domestic Research Reactor and Foreign Research Reactor. In addition, the facility has the possibility to provide inter-area shipment of spent fuel to H-Area for processing. The SRS K-reactor has been turned into a plutonium storage facility.

138

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.2 The P Reactor at SRS, SC (later entombed). Credit to US DOE.

SRS has still a good deal of operational facilities and can be considered an active site. However, SRS can offer large land for projects that can help ensure the continuing socioeconomic performance of the site. A list of SRS excess facilities eligible for reuse is given in SRS (1995), including a Facility Reuse Inquiry form for prospective developers. The following project is described in SRS (2017). The US military are faced with a shortage of large land for tactical maneuver training. Challenges stem from base closures, constant technological changes, and environmental restrictions: all of these that can hinder training sessions. One possible strategy to overcome these difficulties is to use federal sites. The SRS and the US DOE have a vested interest in national security, and a partnership between the military and the DOE offers reciprocal advantages. The attractions SRS can offer to military training include its isolation, the fact that only 10% of its 800 km2 is in use, its terrain (swamps, timberland, roadways), and its darkness (there are no major cities nearby). On the other hand, military’s work can help SRS missions and goals. In an agreement stipulated in June 2007, it was stated that the military shall have no interactions with SRS operations, no additional cost shall incur to SRS, no live fire training shall be performed, and that the military shall be responsible for operational safety. Training activities must protect the site’s environmental and cultural assets. All military training is planned in advance, and a series of coordination meetings are held before a training event. Under the umbrella of this agreement, the South Carolina National Guard (SCNG) has carried out several projects that have benefited the site, among others, installing a new fire pond dam, replacing the B-area storm water basin and clearing 20 sludge lanes damaged by the ice storm.

Experience and lessons learned

139

During their July 8–25, 2015 training at SRS soldiers of the 122nd Engineer Battalion worked on converting a sediment/detention pond to a wet detention pond (Fig. 6.3). The project was a collaboration between the SCNG and SRS, which offered civil works training for the soldiers and infrastructure upgrading for the site. A recent training exercise is described in Military.com (2016). In one specific training event, “dirty bomb” scenarios were made up with the use of very short-lived radioisotopes: it is apparent that the assistance of SRS radiation protection specialists was instrumental to facilitate the exercise and ensure that residual radiation levels would quickly go back to background.

6.1.2 Connecticut Yankee NPP, CT, USA (Cooper, 2015) Unlike Rancho Seco NPP (see Section 7.1) the redevelopment of Connecticut Yankee (CY) NPP can hardly define a success story. The plant commenced commercial operations on January 1, 1968. It operated for 29 years, eventually shutting down on December 4, 1996. With a staff of 550, CY had for many years been the largest employer in a small town (Haddam) with limited commercial/industrial activity. The closure of the plant considerably impacted Haddam’s employment levels. Haddam’s nonagricultural employment decreased from 1710 in 1996 to 1320 in 1997. No industry was taking over to replace CY: four years later the employment base was 1400. In late 1999, Bechtel Power Corporation took charge of plant building dismantlement. Bechtel’s 465 contractors far exceeded the 150 CY staff still onsite. The plant decommissioning was completed in 2007. Similar to many decommissioned NPP sites in the USA, a small portion of the land is used for storage of spent fuel and cannot be released until

Fig. 6.3 Civil works on SRS dam. Credit to US DOE.

140

Beyond Decommissioning

the Federal Government develops a national spent fuel disposal site or a centralized store (Fig. 6.4). A small number of CY staff remain to ensure safety of the CY spent fuel store. For Haddam town, the heaviest impact of CY’s closure was the decrease in the tax revenues stemming from the plant value, which would cover the costs of road and bridge maintenance, and the town’s portion of the regional school district budget. Eventually, due to this factor and others, Haddam had to manage a major economic change with scarce financial assets, significant debts, and reduced revenue. Unfortunately, during the years of CY operation, Haddam had chosen not to invest the profits in developing new assets, but only to preserve existing conditions. An Economic Development Plan was made available by consultants in 1997. The plan included a number of new activities: tourism, retail, lodging, incubator space, home business, industrial parks, and offices. The plan also included provisions for public water service to two villages. The plan also suggested that the town be proactive for the construction of a 750-MW gas-fired power plant on an existing parking lot at the CY site, taking advantage of its proximity to water and electricity lines. Shortly before the Economic Development Plan was released, AES Corporation, a Virginia-based energy company expressed interest in purchasing 81,000 m2 of CY land to construct the 750-MW gas-fired plant. The AES proposal was a $310 million project that would contribute up to $200 million to Haddam’s tax base. In early 2001, the project went further ahead as AES and CY signed a draft agreement for a land purchase. In early 2002, however, the proposal was dropped, with AES mentioning security, economic, and supply issues for the cancellation. Since then, the only change

Fig. 6.4 Spent fuel casks stored at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Courtesy of Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Experience and lessons learned

141

has been the 2013 sale of 0.15 km2 along the Salmon River to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The land has become part of the Salmon River Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. With the acquisition of a tract of the CY property, the Salmon River Division included 1.68 km2 of land by 2013. “The Salmon River Division of the Conte refuge includes extensive beds of submerged aquatic vegetation, which provides a multipurpose habitat for a large number of fish species, including commercial finfish and shellfish. The cove where the Salmon River meets the Connecticut includes freshwater tidal wetlands, flats that provide migratory birds and shorebirds with sources of food, water, and shelter and serve as bald eagle winter roost and perch sites” (WNN, 2013).

6.1.3 Big Rock Point NPP, MI, USA (LaGuardia, 2012) The site of Big Rock Point NPP proved to be more valuable for its real estate than initially assumed. The site is situated adjacent to Lake Michigan. The local community was a major attraction to recreational users, and the land was soon recognized as a profitable investment for developers. Therefore, in the course of decommissioning, the owner modified the planned end state from brownfield to greenfield, which facilitated the sale of the land for real estate investment. This entailed all subgrade structures to be fully removed and the site restored to pristine conditions. The additional costs to change the site target were apparently worth.

6.1.4 Indian Point NPP, NY, USA (Lohud, 2018) Two reactors at this site are still in operation, while Unit 1 was shutdown long ago. It is interesting to note that a debate is already open on the reuse of the site: learning of the social and economic impacts of final shutdown at other nuclear sites has prompted the local stakeholders to seek solutions in good time. A consultant has identified three plots of land (two of about 20 ha each and third of 7 ha) on the 100-ha property that could be used to compensate for the tax revenues that the local communities will lose after Indian Point shuts down in 2021. This approach would require that the three parcels be delicensed, a decision to be approved by the NRC: the potential safety-related interactions between the redeveloped sites and adjacent decommissioning activities will have to be evaluated. One parcel includes 20 wooded ha that would likely have to be environmentally reviewed for the impact redevelopment would have on wildlife. The second 20-ha parcel includes the nuclear operator’s training building as well as rights of way for electrical and gas transmission lines. One of the proposed parcels is situated beside the ISFSI. The three parcels could be redeveloped for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The consultant suggested possible uses could include power generation plants for natural gas or renewable sources like solar and wind as well as facilities to store energy. Commercial uses could include offices or a marina (the site is located along the Hudson River). No decision has been taken yet on the extent of redevelopment that would be allowed while the plant is being decommissioned.

142

Beyond Decommissioning

6.1.5 Tihange NPP, Belgium Tihange NPP has been already in operation for many years and the date of its final shutdown is uncertain. A study was made a few years ago to redevelop Tihange and territories nearby as an industrial strip. Details are given in Apperlo (2011).

6.1.6 Windsor Site, CT, USA Nuclear use of the 250-ha Windsor site started in 1955 when Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE) was tasked by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to manufacture nuclear fuel for the US Navy including R&D. From the mid-1950s to 2000, the site was involved in a range of activities related to nuclear fuel systems, as well as large-scale fossil fuel boiler testing, and coal gasification. Activities produced both low-level radioactive waste and chemical wastes. By 2001, radiological operations came to an end, and decommissioning of the installations commenced. Nuclear decommissioning ended in 2006 when the NRC approved the Final Status Survey. In 2007, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NRC allowed the property owner (Asea Brown Boveri, ABB, which acquired CE in 1990) to remediate the site areas included in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) under NRC oversight. Remediation of these areas started in 2009 and ended in 2013 when USACE and NRC approved the related Final Status Survey; then, the NRC license was cancelled. Early in the planning of site remediation, ABB selected the objective of unrestricted use, as they estimated there was little difference in remedial costs between an unrestricted residential and a restricted industrial/commercial use scenario. Besides, ABB wanted to dodge the long-term maintenance and liabilities that would remain under restricted use. This early decision determined the remedial objectives for each of the remediation programs, and oriented the overall remediation strategy. In 2010, as the major remediation activities were coming to an end, ABB established a joint venture with Winstanley Enterprises, LLC to redevelop the site. Early establishment of this alliance allowed the redevelopment plans to be coordinated with the remaining remediation activities. Since 2010, redevelopment scenarios have included light industrial, commercial, and residential reuse. To make the property available for redevelopment opportunities, the redevelopment planners had a policy to release as much of the site as possible, as soon as possible, from all regulatory requirements. Therefore, steps were taken to release portions of the site once they met the applicable release criteria. In September 2013, as the first phase of the redevelopment, the first portion of the site was transferred to Great Pond Village, LLC. The future vision for the site is a phased development including residential and retail space. Detail about the D&ER process and the redevelopment underway are given in Shephard et al. (2014).

Experience and lessons learned

143

6.1.7 Austin Base, TX, USA Penn Field, Austin, TX, was originally a military air base. During WWI it was used by the US air force for radio training. After the war ended in 1918 the site was auctioned off. In 1922, the plant was destroyed by a tornado. The buildings were reconstructed, and the base became an industrial site occupied by a wood-truck-body-building company, furniture manufacturer, and air-conditioning and fireplace manufacturer. Over the years the state of the buildings began to deteriorate. By 2000, when the site was redeveloped into office space, the mix of brick and timber structures and metal warehouses had been unoccupied for nearly a decade. The site developers decided not to demolish the old brick structures, rather they built new elements inside. Therefore, the building interiors are new, but the outer patina reflects memories of the building history. The architects responsible for the 7-ha redevelopment project stated: “The site had a substantial and beautiful palette of materials, architectural shapes, and forms. We believed we would not have to add much in materials, but would simply reconfigure and reorganize what was there. Then the result was direct recycling of materials and buildings keeping them onsite and out of a landfill” (O’Connor, 2000). As one example, the 29-m wide wood trusses that graced the original brick armory building were saved. It was realized it would be nearly impossible to esthetically or financially re-make the 100-year-old trusses so they were kept in place. It was estimated that the redevelopment costs were nearly half conventional new construction. The space was rented to local and national groups, such as the National Academy of Recording Artists Grammy Awards and Clear Channel Radio.

6.1.8 Gas Works, Toronto, Canada The Consumers Gas Company purchased a significant portion of Toronto land in 1885 and developed it for the production of gas to light the houses and streets of the city. A block housed production facilities. The building that now houses the Imperial Oil Opera Theatre was the Gas Purifying House No. 2 constructed in 1887–88. It has been designated as a historic building under the Ontario Heritage Act. Standard Woolen Mills constructed the building to the west (also a designated historic building) in 1882. In 1893, an extension was joined to the woolen mill, and in 1897 a fourth floor was added. As electricity became a more common source of lighting the city, the demand for gas dropped, but gas production continued at this site until 1954, when natural gas was brought to Toronto. Consumers Gas Company then closed operation and sold its lands. The building at the south-west corner of Front and Berkeley streets passed through several owners until Dalton’s, a manufacturer of foods and household goods, bought it in 1967. In 1985, the Canadian Opera Company purchased the buildings north and initiated a comprehensive $10 million remediation project. Both federal and provincial government contributed major funding and a private fund-raising campaign raised the balance.

144

Beyond Decommissioning

Phase I of the Opera Center in the old gas-purifying house was completed in November 1985, and houses the 450-seat Imperial Oil Opera Theatre and facilities for rehearsal, coaching, workshops, and receptions. Phase II, the old woolen mill, was renovated as the administrative offices, box office, wig and make-up department, music library, archives, props workshop and costume workshop and opened in December 1987. The building south of the lane that now houses CanStage’s Berkeley Street Theatre Complex was a gas-pumping station. This heritage building was converted into a center for contemporary theatre in 1971 (Lost Rivers, n.d.).

6.1.9 Sesto San Giovanni, Italy Sesto San Giovanni is part of Greater Milan Area, Italy. Since the 1950s, this territory had been characterized by major steel mills and chemical plants. The availability of raw materials, land and road and rail communications favored its industrialization. Located in Sesto was the steel plant of Falck, one of Italy’s leading industrial companies, with a peak 1.25 million t of steel a year. Also located in Sesto were the plants of Breda, dealing in engine manufacturing, the Marelli Group which made magnetos and electronic equipment for the automotive industry and Ercole Marelli, a manufacturer of large power-generating motors. During the 1970s, these areas had record employment levels. Later on, due to a shrinking world market and harsh competition, Europe’s steelmaking industry including Sesto San Giovanni sank into a lasting crisis reaching a peak in the early 1990s. In January 1996, Falck closed the last steel factory in the area, making 1700 workers redundant. The city suffered problems associated with abandoned land areas and obsolescence of its buildings. There was a general lack of amenities and modern services. And on top of all that, Sesto San Giovanni had to deal with the industrial, disused and polluted land lying in its middle. The Falck Company, in cooperation with the Municipality of Sesto San Giovanni and the Province of Milan, saw to converting the crisis into an opportunity. Within the frame of a strategic land management plan, a joint action was launched, centered on a major project for sustainable development. An agency was established—the Agency for the Promotion and Sustainable Development of the North Milan Metropolitan Area or ASNM to take action on the challenges posed by industrial crisis. ASNM had a proactive approach, turning a defensive climate in the face of crisis into one of opportunity for the regeneration of the local economy. Actually, the Sesto San Giovanni brownfield site had great potential for renewed community life. The redevelopment project has a clear layout predominantly based on green areas, together with the existing industrial buildings bound for reuse. Milanosesto is the largest redevelopment project in Italy. Situated in Sesto San Giovanni in the ex-Falck industrial area, just a few km from Milan’s downtown, the scope of this project has over 1 million m2 of new and renovated spaces, and 700,000 m2 of green spaces. Architect Renzo Piano’s design has two types of residential buildings— skyscrapers with up to 30 floors, and low-rises up to 11 floors—that will provide

Experience and lessons learned

145

around 8000 apartments. It will also house a multifunctional shopping center and almost 100,000 m2 of retail, hotel, and industrial spaces. The area includes schools and a new hospital and medical research center. Milanosesto is also home to a sports stadium, to be used both recreationally by members of the community and for professional sporting events. The area is largely green, with 10,000 trees and 20 km reserved to pedestrians. Main hindrances to the redevelopment were found in the poor efficiency of the local administration and scarce political support. Initially during the social turmoil caused by the Falck steel plant closure, attention and response by the public authorities were promptly available. Following the fading of the emergency, collaboration between different bodies became more difficult, especially between local development agencies and local administrators. Details of Sesto San Giovanni city and the redevelopment project are given in Sesto San Giovanni (2011)

6.1.10 Release of UK’s nuclear sites (WNN, 2012a,b) The following illustrates a few examples of portions of UK’s nuclear sites de-licensed and released to new owners and for new purposes. In general, the decommissioning program in the UK foresees long periods of safe enclosure; and care and maintenance of remaining structures and systems. However, the strategy of the body in charge of the overall strategy (the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, NDA) is to sell or lease portions of nuclear sites that have remained unaffected by previous nuclear operations. This is an effective way of partly offsetting the large expenses incurred by the national decommissioning program. In June 2011, following detailed ground surveys and building testing, 35 ha (half of the original Oldbury NPP site) had been delicensed by the UK Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR): it was then officially stated that the land, having no radiological hazard, was suitable for any form of reuse. This land includes a nature trail and a longstanding visitor center. Part of the delicensed land was to be used by Horizon Nuclear Power which planned to construct a new NPP onsite. The 36 ha left under nuclear license contain the two 217-MW Magnox reactors and plant infrastructure. At Berkeley 11 ha—out of a total 38 ha—were being marketed for use as a business park after the nuclear use was revoked. The delicensed area comprises offices, warehouses, laboratories, engineering workshops, a coffee bar, a lecture hall, and meeting rooms. Many of the site buildings had had no radiological use, while others—e.g., radiochemistry labs and waste management installations—were decontaminated and dismantled (NDR, 2012). Research reactors and other research facilities at Harwell were constructed 1946–60. Nuclear activities continued until the early 1990s, when it was decided there was no further need for research work at Harwell. The ’de-designation’ of the land follows on its delicensing by the ONR. In 2012, 6 ha of land at the Harwell nuclear research site were delicensed. This land could then be aggregated to the broader Harwell Oxford campus, which includes a

146

Beyond Decommissioning

number of high-tech companies and research organizations. Following the delicensing of 7 ha in 2010 and 11 ha in 2011, 20% of the original Harwell site had been decontaminated and delicensed by February 2012. Fig. 6.5 shows two remaining reactors (Dido and Pluto), which have been kept under safe enclosure for many years. It should be noted that, unlike land, the redevelopment (adaptive reuse) of individual buildings is often impractical. At Harwell 70% of prenuclear buildings could be reused for nuclear activities, but only 5% are expected to be reusable through/after the delicensing process. This typically happens because of deterioration or damage incurred during decontamination, difficult-to-remove residual contamination or the difficulty of proving the lack of contamination in drains or underlying soil. One relevant example from Harwell is Building 146. The following quotation from Atyeo (2010) lists various phases in the lifecycle of this building. l

l

l

l

l

l

“RAF Sergeants Mess 1930s. Modified 1946 to be radiochemical labs, vent system, glove boxes, early shielded facilities, alpha handling Refurbished in 1980s—equipment removed, vent system sealed in position, fixed contamination sealed in position and placed under management control Reused as offices occupied by a tenant on the licensed site until 2006. Also part used as a nonnuclear laboratory Final decommissioning in 2008 included removal of vent system and fixed contamination, sealed contaminated drains, asbestos Removal of these systems rendered the building clean but unusable and it was demolished.”

The 60-year-old Capenhurst site in the UK consisted previously of two segments. One part—a former diffusion uranium enrichment plant that shut down in 1982—was

Fig. 6.5 Dido and Pluto reactors at Harwell. Photo by M. Laraia.

Experience and lessons learned

147

owned by the NDA and operated by contractor Sellafield Ltd. As most of the plant has now been decommissioned, uranium-based materials are foreseen to be stored onsite until 2120. The other part of the Capenhurst site includes Urenco’s operating centrifuge uranium enrichment plant. Urenco subsidiary Capenhurst Nuclear Services (CNS) has now taken ownership of the NDA segment of the site, merging it with the adjacent Urenco-owned site to create one nuclear licensed site. The transfer of 7 ha of land started in December 2011, when the NDA signed agreements with Urenco. Transferring ownership of land on the site required removal of Energy Act designations. Operations formerly carried out by Sellafield Ltd. at Capenhurst were transferred to CNS, including decommissioning and waste storage, and the processing of by-product/legacy material from uranium enrichment. The transfer is a component of the NDA’s asset use program which has transferred to the private sector land from, for example, Wylfa, Oldbury, and Springfields sites (WNN, 2012b).

6.1.11 Chernobyl Site, Ukraine (Leister et al., 2005) The Chernobyl site comprises Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (the one damaged by the 1986 accident), the uncompleted units 5 and 6, stores for radioactive solid and liquid waste, a spent fuel storage facility and other infrastructure. The entire of Chernobyl site is under decommissioning since final shutdown of the last operating unit in 2000. The managing organization is also responsible for the shelter building being upgraded to safe containment rendering ecologically safe the damaged Unit 4. In consideration of the significant contamination remaining in and around the Chernobyl site, unrestricted release is out of the question. Instead the area will be gradually converted to a brownfield site including the following facilities bound to remain in operation for the following 100 years: – – –

An interim storage facility for radioactive waste (solid and liquid waste stores; interim store for long-lived low and intermediate level waste and for high-level waste; interim store of radiologically contaminated metals; cooling ponds; and store for high-level waste); A facility for radioactive waste management (liquid radioactive waste treatment plant; industrial complex for solid radioactive waste management; and areas for cutting and decontamination of dismantled components); and A facility for the treatment of fuel-containing-materials inside the Unit 4 shelter building.

Already in operation are: – –

A centralized storage facility for treatment and long-term storage of disused spent radioactive sources; and Some near-surface disposal facilities.

In a few more years, the ongoing decommissioning project and the conversion of the shelter building into ecologically safe systems inside the safe containment will make some more activities possible, including: –

Ukraine’s National Center for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities;

148

–

Beyond Decommissioning

A centralized national enterprise for LLW management and disposal; and Centralized enterprises for spent fuel storage from Ukrainian NPPs.

The suitability of Chernobyl’s exclusion zone as a geological disposal site for Ukrainian HLW is currently being investigated.

6.1.12 Veurey and Annecy sites, France (AREVA, 2013) The Industrial Company for Nuclear Fuel (in French, SICN) is a French entreprise, part of the Areva group, initially dealing in the fabrication of nuclear fuel and later converted into metallic uranium pieces and ammunition. In 1955, a workshop for the fabrication of uranium rods commenced production at Annecy. The rods were aimed at G1 reactor, Marcoule, and later at G2 and G3. A fuel pellet workshop was installed in 1957 at Veurey-Voroize. The Annecy SICN factory has produced nuclear fuel until the closure of the last gas-graphite reactor in France. The Veurey-Voroize factory specialized in the fabrication of oxide fuel for fast reactors (e.g., Superph
enix). Later on SICN focused on depleted uranium applications. Nuclear fuel fabrication operations came to an end in the early 2000s. SICN used the following technologies for the shaping of metallic uranium products: rolling, spinning, stamping, machining. The Annecy factory had also a foundry. These technologies allowed SICN to produce uranium pieces (natural or depleted) for the French civilian or defense industry, or for the aviation industry. Over the last few years, AREVA carried out value development operations at Annecy and Veurey. The challenge with this project resided in the conversion of a site that no longer has a nuclear purpose. A partnership with local stakeholders and public institutions has been conducive to industrial redevelopment and preservation of jobs. At Veurey-Voroize, Areva carried out the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear equipment between 2006 and 2011. In 2002, the SICN Annecy factory of metallic uranium fabrication was finally shut down. The dismantling of the factory began in 2008. As an example of the site conversion, the Annecy municipality mandated in 2011 the company IDEX for the construction of a biomass boiled facility capable of providing inexpensive and low carbon heating. This urban heating installation, inaugurated in 2015, uses 85% wood fuel.

6.2

Large buildings

Industrial buildings are highly adaptable. Because they were constructed to house large-scale processing systems and machinery, they are endowed with vast internal spaces to be adapted for various new uses, such as cultural events, permanent museums and showrooms, libraries, theaters, etc. These vast interior spaces should be seen and valued as major assets (University of Texas, n.d.). During the 1980s and 1990s many old industrial buildings were converted into individual dwellings. There have been, however, many adaptive reuse projects in more

Experience and lessons learned

149

recent years that have turned older, sometimes heritage protected buildings into public buildings and spaces. For example, railroad workshops have become performance facilities. In this way, adaptive reuse projects represent a major cultural shift from an industrial and manufacturing economy to one centered on services, education, and cultural expressions at large. The large size of the industrial complexes makes it almost impossible to find a single new function for them. There are many definitions referring to different types of multiuse buildings. By and large they are “centers that accommodate more than one of the three main functions of human life: work, recreation and inhabitation.” Recreation may consist of shopping, theater, education, culture, health, and entertainment. In a well-planned multiuse buildings, the different functions do not only have a good internal integration, but they also harmonize with the context surrounding the building. This integration is “just as important, as multiuse buildings must draw on a vital context for their existence.” They “bring people together at different times,” resulting in efficient use of the space, which makes multiuse buildings cheaper to manage in the long run (Van Gendthallen Amsterdam, 2015). Several redevelopment projects (a few are described in more detail in this book) are collected and briefly summarized in Curbed (2017a,b). And yet, perhaps it is high time we should look at the large, empty spaces of industrial spaces per se, not just with a view at filling them in. A somehow provocative approach on this point is given in Arch Daily (2018a,b).

6.2.1 Power plants As one typical feature that favors reuse, older power plants’ large turbine-generator halls provide vast open spaces to house new building uses. These turbine-generator halls are an appealing building feature due to their versatility in new functions. Preservation and adaptive reuse are still innovative for NPPs, but there are many examples that show opportunities and advantages. The following are both nuclear and nonnuclear examples and highlight that flexibility and imagination are required in this field. In general, adaptive reuse for buildings is more appreciated by new users when they require room to expand within an existing building. The reconfiguration of space is often a more effective solution than relocation, especially because reuse is less disruptive. Success, however, depends to a large extent on the adaptability of the building spaces. Buildings with low versatility are of less value than a more adaptable alternative because they require technically difficult and costly refits to incorporate spatial changes. Conversely, buildings that are more adaptable to space changes require less frequent and less costly refits and remain sustainable over longer periods (Bullen and Love, 2011). The Hanford B Reactor site may be viewed as a preservation model (Fig. 6.6). The reactor was built to produce plutonium for the US Defense Program. It operated for over 25 years. The site is owned and maintained by the DOE, and since 2002 has allowed limited site tours. Later on, the B Reactor was planned for entombment, but many supporters of the site insisted on maintaining public access, including

150

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.6 The inside of B reactor, Hanford site, WA, USA, now open to visitors. Credit to US DOE.

historical guidance. A public opinion movement, led by the B Reactor Museum Association, called for the preservation of this cultural site. This movement managed to prevent the removal of the reactor. The Hanford B Reactor was proclaimed a National Historic Landmark in 2008. This designation does not guarantee the reactor will never be dismantled, but it opens the gate for continuing public tours and for becoming closer to a museum status. B Reactor is included in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, consisting of historic facilities at Hanford, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, which was approved by the US Congress in December 2014. A memorandum of agreement between the National Park Service and the DOE has been drafted to define their respective roles in managing the park. BRMA (2016) tells you the story of the National Park Service, status of B Reactor, schedule of public tours, etc. The B Reactor case suggests that this approach can be applied at commercial NPPs. Nonnuclear sites provide a different model. Gasworks Park at Seattle, Washington is an 8-ha site, which has incorporated both preservation and adaptive reuse, while providing access and entertainment to the public. The Gas Plant produced gas from coal and was later modified to process crude oil. The plant closed down in 1956. The city acquired the site in 1962 and opened it to the public in 1975. The redevelopment concept incorporates pieces of the industrial plant as relics, and the reuse of portions of the structures. For example, the former boiler house was reused as a picnic shelter and the former exhauster-compressor building was adapted as a children’s play barn. The transition from industrial to new uses was not a trivial task and the public debate was heated. Gas Works Park remains a rare and intelligent case of adaptive reuse, a

Experience and lessons learned

151

remarkable landscape design, and certainly one of Seattle’s most loved places. It encompasses careful consideration of industrial structures and heritage of the site, while inventing new uses and experiences. This approach could be applicable to NPPs as well. A small case is described below (Fig. 6.7). This gasworks was used for supplying the near Lighthouse (invisible in the photo) and Keepers houses. The Sambro Island Lighthouse guided Halifax Harbour’s marine traffic for well over 200 years. The Gas House, which provided refined petroleum to the light, marked a switch from the practice of using oil for lighthouses. The shingled building of simple design sits on a prominent platform of large granite blocks near the water’s edge. Its simple, rectangular massing is of interest, with a gable roof and small gable porches. The utilitarian placement of windows and doors is in line with the functional character of the site and should not be modified in reuse. The wood-shingled roof is aligned with the materials of the site. The sidewall shingles are much weathered and will require replacement. Careful attention should be paid to ensuring that the openings are weatherproof and that roof intersections are properly flashed to keep water out of the structure. The brick chimney with simple corbelling at the upper courses merits masonry conservation expertise (Canada’s Historic places, n.d.).

6.2.1.1 BONUS NPP, Puerto Rico The Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) reactor was developed as a prototype NPP to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of the integral boilingsuperheating concept. The reactor first achieved criticality in 1964. It was tested at various power levels, first as a boiler and later as an integral boiler-superheater.

Fig. 6.7 Gas House detail, Sambro Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Credit to Dennis Jarvis.

152

Beyond Decommissioning

Operation at full power (50 thermal MW) and full temperature was achieved in 1965. BONUS was permanently shut down in 1968 because of technical difficulties and the high cost of the needed refurbishment. The operator decommissioned the reactor between 1969 and 1970. All nuclear fuel and some highly activated components were removed, the piping was flushed, the reactor vessel and all components inside the biological shield were entombed in concrete and grout, and the systems external to the entombment were decontaminated. Many other contaminated and activated materials were placed within the entombment structure. General decontamination to unrestricted use was carried out in all accessible areas. The BONUS reactor dome was repainted in 2014. Beginning in 2019, DOE Legacy Management (LM) will perform inspections of the site every other year. Visual inspections are performed to evaluate the structural functions of the buildings and entombment structure and the conditions of the areas open to the public. Moreover, LM will maintain site records regarding the design, construction, operation, decommissioning, and postdecommissioning monitoring of the BONUS structures. A museum on the main floor of the BONUS building is open to the public, including displays about the site history and the development of nuclear energy. Everything inside the reactor building has been remodeled to give the impression of an operating reactor. A computer learning room with 12 computers stations has been installed in the former Health Physics Office. DOE produced an environmental assessment in 2003, which indicated that no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment was induced by the use of the main floor as a museum (DOE, 2018).

6.2.1.2 Fort St Vrain and SM-1A NPPs, USA Construction of Fort St. Vrain (FSV) NPP commenced in 1968. It was the first gascooled reactor in the USA, a model that was later abandoned. The first commercial power was distributed to the electric grid in July 1979. The plant had a generation capacity of 330 MWe. Commercially, the plant was a failure. Being a prototype, it was subject to a number of technical issues that took time and money to fix. Eventually, after a last incident, the plant was prematurely shutdown in August 1989. The operator’s initial task was to find a storage location for the spent fuel. The operator had a contract with the USDOE to ship FSV spent fuel to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), and all previously removed spent fuel had been shipped there. However, Idaho legally blocked further spent fuel shipments to INEL, and the operator built an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). By June 1992, all reactor spent fuel had been transferred to the ISFSI. Later on the DOE accepted to take title to the spent fuel, including reimbursement of ISFSI construction and maintenance expenses to the operator. The ISFSI license was transferred to DOE in June 1999. The decommissioning strategy involved flooding the Prestressed Concrete Reactor Vessel to provide shielding and contamination control: divers were extensively

Experience and lessons learned

153

employed in the dismantling (Fig. 6.8). Physical decommissioning was completed in March 1996, and the final radiation survey was completed in October 1996.The duration of physical decommissioning work was 43 months, which in comparison with subsequent NPP decommissioning projects lasting 10 years or more can be considered a major achievement. FSV was the first commercial US NPP to be decommissioned. The nuclear reactor and associated systems were demolished and turbine, condensate systems and associated buildings were reused as part of a gas-fired power plant with the addition of a “topping turbine” (a separately fossil-fired boiler system to generate high-temperature steam and turbine). The first gas combustion turbine was installed in April 1996, just 1 month following the completion of physical decommissioning; the final radiation survey was still underway at the time. Incidentally, this is a good example of planning and implementing conversion in parallel to decommissioning. In 2001, two more turbines were added to the plant. The current combined-cycle operation is based on the following principle: the waste heat from the gas turbine is utilized to produce secondary steam, which runs the original plant’s steam turbine to produce extra power. As quoted by (HPS, 2003) the electric capacity of FSV increased to 710 MW (HPS, 2003). The Army Corp of Engineers is planning the dismantling of Fort Greely’s SM-1A, the only NPP ever installed in Alaska. The SM-1A plant provided steam and electricity to the Army base between 1962 and 1972. It was one of eight projects to test the use of small NPPs at remote locations. SM-1A was eventually shut down because it was costlier to operate than a conventional diesel power plant. After shut down in 1972, the Army placed it into safe enclosure. The spent fuel and waste were shipped away and the radioactive components of the reactor were encased in cement.

Fig. 6.8 Decommissioning job at Fort St. Vrain NPP. Courtesy of NRC.

154

Beyond Decommissioning

The Fort Greely base was closed down in 1995 as part of a US-wide base closure and realignment program. It came back to life several years later, however, and since 2003, the site has hosted a number of US Ground-Based Midcourse missile interceptors. One special challenge of decommissioning SM-1A is that the steam plant formerly powered by the nuclear reactor is still in use, although powered by a diesel-fired power plant. This condition is similar to Fort St Vrain’s (USNEWS, 2018).

6.2.1.3 Shoreham NPP, NY, USA Shoreham was a BWR located at Long Island, NY. The plant was built in 1973–84 and soon faced considerable public opposition, especially after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. There were large protests and local antinuclear groups fiercely opposed the plant. Indeed, the plant was born under an evil star, as its entire history shows. In 1983, it was stated by many parties that the island could not be safely evacuated following a severe accident. The NY Governor ordered not to approve any emergency plan—so eliminating any chances for the plant to operate at full power. Construction was completed in 1984 and the licensee received federal permission for low-power tests. Following continuing protests, the licensee agreed with the NY state in 1989 not to operate the plant; in return, the local residents were charged with the plant’s installation cost. In 1992, the plant ownership was ceded to a new licensee (established for the only goal of closing and decommissioning the plant). The nuclear part of the plant was dismantled in 1994 but most structures remain. There were some attempts to reuse the remaining structures and the site. A gas turbine plant (100 MW) was installed in 2002 onsite utilizing the existing switchgear. In 2004, the Long Island Power Authority installed two 50-kW wind turbines. Regardless these achievements, the Shoreham redevelopment remains incomplete. Over the past 24 years since Shoreham was closed, ideas for its reuse have been flocking by the dozen. Some suggested a ferry terminal. Others felt that a nonnuclear power plant would be more suitable to the site. Other ideas included a marina with restaurants, a boatbuilding factory, a museum, or an educational facility. Others yet proposed to demolish the buildings and set up a 24-ha waterfront park. Because of reciprocal vetos or simple inertia, no decisions were taken. The property is zoned light industrial, so it ought to be re-zoned for housing. The only use that is out of the question is another nuclear plant because this is legally forbidden. To this day, the buildings are idle and vacant. Local residents still pay off the debts incurred in constructing and shutting down the nuclear plant. One of the latest proposals for redevelopment is mentioned here as one example. Actually this is not a new idea as it has been proposed from time to time. The site’s straight shoreline and underused waterfront would be fit for a multi-faceted port. This concept will also offer the opportunity to link Long Island to New Haven via ferry service in under an hour. To use this opportunity, the new structures should not only serve a cargo port, but a multi-faceted port that includes passenger ferries: this

Experience and lessons learned

155

according to the proponents would ensure that the site will be financially viable. A more detailed analysis of this proposal is given in Long Island Press (2015).

6.2.1.4 Never operated NPPS Zwentendorf was the first and only commercial NPP built in Austria. Although its construction had been completed, the reactor never started operation due to a general referendum. The licenses for the plant site, some infrastructure, and other main grid installations were reused for two newly erected blocks of coal-fired power plants nearby at Durnrohr. For many years, the unused plant served as a stock of spare components for three German NPPs of the same model. In 2005, Zwentendorf was purchased by Austria’s Energieversorgung Nieder€ osterreich (EVN), who installed a training center onsite: nuclear operators from Germany could be trained to operate a reactor in a realistic environment and in areas that are normally inaccessible in an operating reactor. In 2009 a Solar Power Plant was commissioned at Zwentendorf: since then, 1000 panels have contributed some 180 MWh per year to the electric grid. In association with the Vienna Technical University a photo-voltaic (PV) research center was installed at Zwentendorf. This center includes 190 KW PV equipment in two modules and solar trackers. EVN allows visits to the complex, for example, for filming, photography, and other events (EVN, 2010). The Vienna-based company RIENTEC, in cooperation with EVN, has established this plant as a training center that offers unrestricted and radiation free accessibility (including the reactor itself ), which is not available in an operating NPP. Zwentendorf provides training in the areas of management, operation, maintenance and technical support of a NPP to the international nuclear community including classrooms and hands-on activities (RIENTEC, 2018). The Philippines had completed the Bataan NPP in 1984, at which point testing of systems began. In 1986, the government supporting the project was overthrown and, as a reaction to the Chernobyl accident that year, the new government had the plant mothballed. The Bataan NPP has been maintained since then, but was never fueled for operation. The uranium was removed by 1997. Due to the high cost of maintaining the plant, the government announced in 2011 that the plant would be converted into a tourist attraction. The tour includes the use of an adjacent private beach, which has some accommodation and recreation facilities (BBC, 2011).

6.2.1.5 Berkeley NPP, UK to host a college South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS) has secured funding for a new college campus at the decommissioning NPP at Berkeley, UK. The Gloucestershire Renewable Energy, Engineering, and Nuclear (GREEN) project has been awarded £5m from the UK government as the first phase of an anticipated £40m investment. Additional to a £5m investment from the college, these monies will be spent to develop 6 ha of the delicensed part of Berkeley site and turn it into a state-of-the-art campus.

156

Beyond Decommissioning

The buildings were part of what was once known as Berkeley Labs, a testing and engineering center used in the 1960s–80s mainly in support of the commercialization of nuclear power. SGS Berkeley GREEN opened in September 2017 after the conversion of existing buildings into a purpose-built training center. The center is to provide specialist high-quality vocational and academic education for learners with a strong interest in Advanced Manufacturing and Digital Technologies including Cyber Security. The redevelopment also brings about new business opportunities, offering 28,000 m2 of commercial floor space including offices, workshops, laboratories, and conference halls (NEI, 2014).

6.2.1.6 Chester Power Plant, PA, USA In 1916, the WWI need for electricity resulted in a large power station at Chester, Pennsylvania. The 3.7-ha building exhibited imposing Doric columns and a 35-m high vaulted ceiling. A former brownfield deserted since the 1980s, the plant was later redeveloped by adaptive reuse. In 2000, the Pennsylvania Electric Company sold the abandoned plant for a nominal fee to Preferred Real Estate Investment, which took care of removing asbestos, lead and other hazardous waste. The cleanup work resulted in 10,000 t of scrap metal; 20,000 t of concrete and brick were recycled as fill. At that point in time, the new owner hired a specialist contractor to convert the space into a corporate headquarters. The existing industrial features were kept as intact as possible and gaps were left between old and new elements. The contractor did not modify the ceiling, columns, or bronze sconces in the turbine hall. The architects also kept a 60-t crane that serviced the turbines during power operation and had proved of great help during the giant rehabilitation. In the middle of the hall stands a glowing glass box containing a staff caf
e, training rooms, and a data center. On top of the box, a carpeted deck, a mezzanine accommodates up to 800 people attending conferences. Moving adaptive reuse further, the company even formed an event-planning offshoot to rent out the venue. This is the reason why there is not only a row of four large projection screens but also a stage, dance floor, lounge, and a bar. Every workstation in the office area, once the boiler house, is open to daylight and offers panoramic views. The project, which has produced hundreds of jobs in the former shipbuilding town, won the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia’s Grand Jury Award (Electrical Contractor, 2007).

6.2.1.7 Liverpool Power Station, NSW, Australia A former heritage-listed power plant—Tonkin (2000)—may have interesting similarities with the world-famous Tate Modern, London. The plant had become too small to be economic and was shut down. The City Council held a referendum about what to do

Experience and lessons learned

157

with it. Their goal was to convert it into a depot and they thought the local community would want it to be a sports hall, quite easy to fit into a power station. Surprisingly people voted for a cultural center. The budget was minimal, the uses were quite community-based, and the architects worked on a kind of loose-fit, low-tech, maximum flexibility, retrofit of this plant, preserving its patina which they thought was essential to the structural charm. The renovation grant included the conservation of the stack, which had no real use even in a cultural center, but everyone thought it was vital as an advertisement for an industrial relic. The architects preserved the major interior volumes, cleaned up the outside, and did beautiful artwork on the windows facing the railway line. To make it with the tight budget, they cheapened building finishes so as they could pay for some artworks. Some 5% of the budget went into establishing trunk services to the building because it had no electricity and all the sewerage used to go into the George’s River. The major turbine hall became a flexible party venue, theater, exhibition space, corporate function room, and wedding space for the local community. In conclusion, one could not build a new structure with the limited budget available, and certainly not gain in a new building the same atmosphere the old building possessed.

6.2.1.8 Santralistanbul, Turkey The Silahtarag˘a Power Plant was the Ottoman Empire’s first urban-scale electrical power plant. It was Istanbul’s sole electricity provider from 1914 to 1952. The plant was decommissioned in 1983. The 11.8-ha plant site comprised engine rooms with turbine generators, boiler rooms, administrative buildings, workers’ quarters, and large coal yards. It is today one of Turkey’s industrial heritage sites. Converting the Silahtarag˘a Power Plant into Santralistanbul was carried out with most of the original elements being retained. Work began in May 2004 and was completed in September 2007. Currently Santralistanbul serves as a center for education, culture, and arts (Santralistabul, n.d.).

6.2.1.9 The Trojhalı´ site, Czech Republic The former industrial area Trojhalı´ is situated near the center of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Trojhalı´ has two indoor-type objects, the former electric switchboard and the power plant Karolina. The set of buildings is a unique industrial monument, pointing out at the glory of a past industry. The complex covers around 60 ha. The power plant Karolina was built in 1905. It is a single-nave rectangular hall with a gable roof with a central projection and a steel support frame. The building is an architectural composition with the axial articulation of facades, plaster surfaces, and decorative colored glass blocks. The power plant was shut down in the 1980s. The energy exchange no. III is situated behind the hall of the power plant. The large two-nave hall was constructed in the late 1920s. It served as a blower into the furnaces of a smelter, where gas as a by-product of metallurgical production

158

Beyond Decommissioning

was used. The subtle steel riveted construction lined with bricks is supported on a reinforced concrete retaining wall. On the front facades there are symmetrical windows. The space between the naves contains pillars and there are skylights across the mansard roof. Many decades of heavy industry operation caused large-scale contamination of the buildings. The situation improved in 1997 when the Government provided funds for the decontamination of the Karolina site. Decontamination ran until 2005. Afterwards the area was monitored for three more years until the success of the process was definitively announced. The volume of removed soil totaled 794,000 m3. A good deal of modern rehabilitation technology was employed, with the surrounding population density being a complicating factor. The redevelopment of Trojhalı´ began in August 2012. Both buildings were redeveloped in parallel. The architect conceived the whole area as an axis between the historical center of Ostrava and the lower Vı´tkovice areas. The entrance corridors of the objects follow this axis and allow visitors to go through. The building of the former energy exchange no. III serves as a covered square, and the hall of the power plant Karolina was converted into a multipurpose sport center with a bar. By removing some construction details, the buildings were brought back to the original state. The usable area amounts to 10,500 m2. The soil around the power plant building was removed up to the original level of the surface, with the aim to expose the ornate bases. Public space consisting of residential stairways and gallery was installed around. The bricks were chemically cleaned and impregnated with a hydrophobic substance. Damaged pieces were replaced. The sport center required a new roof with thermal insulation. The existing windows were replaced with aluminum ones. Instead, the walls required no heat insulation due to their 90-cm thickness. A connection was installed between the two objects. To this end, a new basement area was installed, which is now used as a communication junction with a reception and sanitary facilities. Both objects are barrier free. From the basement a large ramp gets to the cathedral-like naves. According to the notion of a roofed square the inner space was restored to a simple construction with no specified use. The supporting structure of the building consists of steel riveted framework, which is kept in good condition. During the reconstruction the corroded surface was sandblasted. Before project implementation, the redevelopment of the entire site of Karolina was envisaged, but it was found out that the soil in the area was highly contaminated. It was then necessary to excavate the contaminated soil, which escalated costs considerably. The project had also to consider the tilt of the buildings due to mining subsidence. More details of the building redevelopment project are given in Perinkova´ et al. (2014). The conversion of Trojhalı´ into public spaces and sport facility will enable continuing use of the objects for a long time. The conversion can be regarded as a prime example of redeveloping industrial hall buildings in the Czech Republic. Besides, it highlights the conservation of a historic monument dating back from the industrial era in the Ostrava region.

Experience and lessons learned

159

6.2.1.10 Electricity Museum and other redevelopments at Lisbon, Portugal A building classified as a Public Interest Project, the Electricity Museum lies along the perimeter of the old thermoelectric plant—the Tagus Power Station, which provided electricity to Lisbon for most of the 20th century. The station was constructed in different phases and styles ranging from art nouveau (low pressure section) to classicism (high pressure section). Over time, adjacent lands and buildings became part of the great industrial complex. The station generated energy until 1975 when it was decommissioned. Its opening as a Museum took place in 1990. Due to its state of conservation, the Museum underwent renovation work between 2001 and 2005 to consolidate its structure, renew its facades and interior machinery and, with a new museum project, transform it into what it is today. The museum reopened in 2006 fully renovated and with new objectives. Today, thanks to its multicultural objectives, visitors can enjoy either the Museum’s permanent collection, where the operations of the old power station are shown in their original environment, or temporary programs, or educational and entertaining activities (e.g., solar power demonstrations, concerts, conferences). Details of the conversion process and the current room-by-room state of the plant are given in Electricity Museum (2019). It should be noted that due to the location and cultural meaning of the plant, several bodies cooperated with the owner (Energias de Portugal) in the conversion process, including the Municipality of Lisbon, the Administration of Lisbon Port and the Portuguese Institute for Archaeological patrimony. An Art Space next to the existing museum was opened in 2016 to host a wide range of exhibitions. It is called MAAT—Museum of Art, Architecture, and Technology. The former electrical equipment factory of the Standard El
ectrica Company was built 1945–48. At present, it belongs to the municipality of Lisbon, and is listed as a public interest building; it hosts the music school and headquarters of Metropolitana (the subway company), the Luiz Villas-Boas Jazz School and a restaurant. The building initially had a reinforced concrete structure and scarce compartmentalization, which was the main challenge to create new uses. Actually, the major works focused on compartmentalization through lightweight partitions. Two auditoriums, rooms, and offices were established. Special care was given to the coverings of floors, walls, and ceilings to ensure good acoustics. Former Companhia de Fiac¸a˜o e Tecidos Lisbonense (Lisbon Company of Wirings and Fabrics) Factory was built in 1846–1849. In 2007, when the industrial use of the building was abandoned, the owners rented it to LX Factory—Property and Real Estate Administration and Development, which was intended to get a profit from the site. Currently, the facilities are used as a multipurpose rental space for various temporary activities. The central construction consisted of a five-story volume and a single-story one. Both had wide spaces before the conversion. Their structure is

160

Beyond Decommissioning

metallic, with circular columns. The initial conversion did not include structural works: it consisted mainly in the creation of compartments by using lightweight partitions. In accordance with a heritage prospect, the existing manufacturing machinery was kept and exhibited in the corridors. The initial conversion was followed by partial renovation projects, focused on the activities of resident companies. Napolitana Factory was constructed in 1909. It remained in operation until 1970, when its buildings were converted into offices. Today the facilities host the Auchan headquarters in Portugal. Facilities include several buildings arranged around a courtyard, each one originally aimed at a specific use: grain grinding, silo, pasta production and machinery house. The building conversion did not require structural rehabilitation. Waterproofing works were effected on the roofs and the interiors were compartmentalized by lightweight partitions. The silo was the building that suffered the biggest changes in its adaptation to office use. Old silo’s outlets were coated, thus concealing these key elements of heritage. No machinery was retained. However, the door decorations with geometric motifs were conserved. The Pedro Alvares Cabral Building was a former cold store, built in 1939 and abandoned in 1992. It was later converted to the Museu do Oriente (Museum of the East), opened in 2008. The building was listed as public interest monument in 2010. The original building consisted of three volumes with independent structures and vertical accesses: the eastern volume was used for codfish storage and the west volume for fruit and vegetables. There were some challenges to the conversion, for example, the small number of windows and the high density of columns. The structural works fitting the museum’s functions consisted of the redefinition of vertical accesses and movements (people and services) and on distribution of functions in different floors. The need for natural light prompted the insertion of a glass lift in an old light-shaft and of a skylight at the auditorium’s and grand hall’s atrium: new glass surfaces were installed on the facades. The demolition of a column by a previous architectural project had necessitated structural reinforcement with a horizontal tie-rod system. Structural works included also column strapping and jacketing with metal sheets and the building of new concrete slabs. In regard to ventilation, the constraint imposed by the low ceilings was obviated by the installation of a peripheral gallery, circulating air to exhibition areas. The air-cooling equipment of the cold store was removed, thus leaving no industrial machinery for heritage purposes. The former Lumiar (Lamp) Factory was built during the 1930s. The abandoned building was rehabilitated in 2001–04, with the goal of converting it into housings. The main challenge to conversion was due to ceilings being higher than 5 m. The solution found benefitted from the building features, and 77 lofts were installed, with minimum compartmentalization and insertion of mezzanines. The history and a critical analysis of these projects are given by Dabraio da Silva (2013).

Experience and lessons learned

161

6.2.1.11 GES2 Power Plant, Moscow, Russian Federation Italian architect Renzo Piano was contracted in 2015 by Russian arts group V-A-C Foundation to turn the 2-ha Moscow’s power stations into a center for contemporary arts and culture. GES2 Power Plant was built between 1904 and 1908. Mr. Piano is renowned for his work on several famous art museums. Like Piano’s previous works, the redeveloped GES2 power station will be using sustainable technologies, for example, solar and geothermal energy sources. Mr. Piano will restructure the site into a 150 m x 150 m square and retain the industrial identity of the original building. By using the power station’s tall ceilings and large size, the contemporary art center will be lit by natural light. A series of exhibition galleries are set around a 100-m-long and 23-m high Central Nave. The site will be split into three main sections: a visitor orientation area, exhibition spaces, and education facilities. Visitors access the site through an entrance plaza with a sculpture garden; for temporary art exhibitions indoors there are a library, lecture halls, cafe, auditorium, and additional space. GES2 will retain its metal framework and chimneys for natural ventilation. The educational facilities include an artist residency block, classrooms, and outdoor amphitheater, and will also permanently host Moscow Curatorial Summer School. Birch groves will be planted around the building creating a green, calm and sustainable space. In short, the venue will be an artistic hub that will cultivate Russian art and provide a bridge between artwork and the public. Construction is expected to be complete by 2019 (Inhabitat, 2015)

6.2.1.12 Battersea Power Station, London, United Kingdom Battersea was once a fossil-fired power station, situated on the River Thames, London (Fig. 6.9). It includes two power units in one building. Unit A was built in the 1930s, Unit B in the 1950s, with an almost identical design. The station was shut down in 1983, but over time Battersea four-chimney layout became a London icon and is Grade II* listed (see Glossary, Listed Building). The station’s fame is much due to a number of popular culture events, e.g., the album art of Pink Floyd’s Animals and of Beatles’ movie Help! Battersea is a huge brick building renowned for its rich internal Art Deco. Following shutdown, the structure remained a long time abandoned and its conditions deteriorated to such extent that English Heritage listed it in the Heritage at Risk Register. Since Battersea’s closure, a number of redevelopment concepts were proposed by consecutive owners with poor outcomes. For example, one buyer had to withdraw due to its financial status being found unsustainable for the renovation works. The combination of existing debts, the need to make a substantial participation in the planned expansion of the London Subway, requirements to preserve the structural shell, and the interference of a waste transfer plant and a cement plant rendered redevelopment a real challenge. In 2012, the plant administrators stipulated an exclusive agreement with a Malaysian company to redevelop the site. The sale was completed in September 2012. In January 2013, the first group of apartments were available for people to buy.

162

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.9 Battersea Power Station. Photo by M. Laraia

Apple will locate its London headquarters at Battersea Power Station, becoming the largest office tenant with 1400 staff across six floors in the former central boiler house. The overall project site covers an area of 17 ha of which 7.3 ha will be public space and 2.4 ha will establish a riverside park. In addition to the construction of over 4000 homes, the redevelopment also includes the rehabilitation of the power station itself, which will generate clean energy by using renewables. As the project’s chimneys are now complete, phase II is expected to be finished by 2018 or so. Phase III is deemed to be the most difficult with more complex architectural designs, for instance, many new apartments are being constructed above the Northern Line underground station. Phase III includes the construction of 1300 apartments and 3.25 ha of retail and leisure space. The entire site is planned to be fully redeveloped in 2025. The project is expected to create more than 20,000 jobs from its onset in 2013 (Open House London, 2018).

6.2.1.13 Reuse of buildings within decommissioning projects During implementation of decommissioning activities, installation of new buildings is expensive and it can be complicated to obtain construction licenses within the frame of a decommissioning license. Therefore, during the planning phase, when strategical decisions are taken, the reuse of existing operational or auxiliary buildings should be considered to save time and money. Regardless of postdecommissioning uses, a number of buildings have been reused during nuclear decommissioning for purposes inherent to, and instrumental in, the decommissioning process itself. Typically,

Experience and lessons learned

163

following de-planting, the large spaces of the turbine building are often used as interim radioactive waste stores during decommissioning (Fig. 6.10). One such case is the adaptation of Turbine Building for the decommissioning of Jose Cabrera NPP, Spain. Firstly, the turbine and its auxiliary systems were dismantled, and the building was reused as a Decommissioning Auxiliary Building (DAB). The purpose of the DAB was to treat and condition the radioactive waste coming from dismantling activities inside the containment building: to this end the waste was transferred through a tunnel linking the two enclosures. The turbine building is equipped with a decontamination workshop, radioactive waste conditioning facilities, and areas for interim storage of waste containers, before they are shipped to the low- and medium- level waste disposal center at El Cabril (NEI, 2013). Details of the building conversion are given in Nieves and Ondaro (2013). At Greifswald NPP site, waste and materials handling is an essential component of decommissioning. Various waste and materials management (i.e., storage, conditioning, and packaging) stations are required. To this end, former auxiliary buildings were converted: for example, the former spare parts store was reutilized as a free release center and the former warm workshop was turned into a new treatment and decontamination center (IAEA, 2011). Fig. 6.11 shows the equipment used for measuring waste drum inventories: it is located within the material release building, formerly a mechanical workshop. A huge space, covering 35 m2 in Hinkley Point NPP’s de-planted Turbine Hall, was reused for the De-planting Mock-up Simulator (DMS) from November 2007 on.

Fig. 6.10 NRC Chairman Stephen Burns (right) examines the turbine building of Darlington NPP, ON, Canada. Courtesy of NRC.

164

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.11 Greifswald NPP Material Release Building, formerly a mechanical workshop. Photo by M. Laraia.

The model was brought about by a similar scenario-based simulator built at US Rocky Flats Environment Technology Site. The simulator allows managers and workers to acquire knowledge of the environments they will encounter during various decommissioning operations. It creates conditions that include noise, heat, and working with live tools. Simulations can involve working at heights, in trenches and within soft-sided spaces (Magnox, 2008). Likewise, the new Hinkley Point Water Treatment Plant, which was procured during the plant decommissioning period, fitted well into a previously redundant building and was installed there (Water Technology, n.d.).

6.2.1.14 Reuse of nuclear canyons Although not part of nuclear power plants, nuclear canyons—such as those used at fuel reprocessing plants—have certain features that make them suitable for reuse after decommissioning of their original plants. One remarkable example is provided by Wills et al. (1993). The T Plant Complex was built in 1944, and was the first chemical processing plant at the Hanford Site. Initially, T Plant was used to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel. T Plant processed the first fuel from the Hanford B Reactor, producing material that was used to fuel the Trinity device—the first nuclear weapon in history—and the bomb known as “Little Boy.” Improvements in fuel extraction made T Plant redundant after a decade, and it was decommissioned in 1956. In 1957, T Plant restarted operation as a decontamination and repair workshop for Hanford site components. The equipment would be shipped by rail to T Plant, where it was disassembled, decontaminated, and repaired. This new use continued for a period of some 35 years,

Experience and lessons learned

165

during which parts of T Plant also served as a sodium research laboratory and a spent fuel store. In 1992, the T Plant was selected over other Hanford facilities as the centralized decontamination facility for the Hanford Site. A canyon facility like T Plant is particularly fit for solid waste treatment for the following reasons: heavy shielding (concrete walls from 1 to 1.5 m thick), a large open work bay (250 m
12 m), a 75-t overhead crane with a shielded craneway, and rail access. In addition, the T Plant canyon had been decontaminated in 1956 and had low levels of residual contamination.

6.2.1.15 Electrical substations Substations are places where electrical lines are linked and switched and where the voltage is changed from high to low, or vice versa. Outdoor structures consist of wooden poles, truss towers, tubular frameworks etc. If there is plenty of space and visual appearance is not an issue, truss towers are normally installed to support electrical lines. Instead. low-profile substations may be required where appearance is more critical. For example, the surfaces of urban substations can be polished to give an attractive appearance and better fit with city buildings nearby. A few redevelopment cases follow. Built in 1924, Electricity Substation No. 109 is an example of the original network of over 360 substations built by Sydney Municipal Council from 1904 to 1936, which first supplied electricity to Sydney. The period and location of the substation reflect the growth of Sydney’s electricity network. Visually, the building exhibits the characteristic modest form, quality of design, and construction for Sydney’s substations, which were designed to a higher standard than strictly required for their functions in order to alleviate community resistance to the intrusion of new technologies and harmonize with urban streetscapes. Electricity Substation No. 109 is a specimen of typical architecture of the 1920s applied to a utilitarian building including the heavy masonry construction, vertical emphasis, asymmetry, roof form concealed by parapet wall, contrasting face brickwork and render, piers dividing the fac¸ade into bays, stepped skyline, piers projecting above the parapet, multipaned timber windows, original signage, and elegant curved architrave over the entrance. The dual street frontage is uncommon for substations in the local area, which typically have an open transmission yard to the side. The substation remained in service for almost 70 years. The property was eventually sold in December 1994. The building was briefly used as a timber store and carpentry workshop before 2012. The adaptive reuse of this building for commercial uses has conserved its architectural integrity as a recognizable former substation (City of Sydney, 2015). An outdoor project is described in Architecture and Design (2017). The project transformed the main campus of a Californian utility company, Burbank Water and Power, from an industrial legacy into a sustainable use. The masterplan key feature was a regenerative green space, including a number of sustainable landscape technologies.

166

Beyond Decommissioning

The company had served Burbank for over 100 years, but with age came high operating costs and a lack of communal green spaces. The landscape architecture studio AHBE created one of the longest green streets in Southern California. Using five different types of sustainable water management technologies—infiltration, flowthrough, detention, tree root cells, and rainwater capture—the green street works basically as a filter before runoff enters the storm-water system. While local laws prescribe that projects must mitigate runoff, in fact this project is a zero-runoff site. A staggering feature of the new campus is the Centennial Courtyard, a green space located within the footprint of a decommissioned electrical substation. A portion of the industrial structure still stands, a large latticework that merges industry with nature. In the early 1900s a number of electrical substation buildings were built across Chicago, IL, USA. These purpose-built structures were designed to be assets to the communities nearby and to present the utility (Commonwealth Edison) in a favorable light: therefore, they were constructed to be beautiful, and adhered to various architectural styles, including Prairie School, Art Deco, and Classical Revival. These substations were designed to house heavy electrical equipment and were constructed of durable materials. They represent now a unique heritage. However, while many Chicago electrical substations operate in conditions ranging from good to poor, others are vacant and in disrepair. One substation, in particular, faces a threat of demolition by neglect. The Washington Park Substation at 6141 S. Prairie Avenue is an outstanding example of the many substations constructed across Chicago. This substation is larger than most as it was meant to distribute higher voltages to other substations. Constructed between 1928 and 1939, it features unique power-related ornament, including carved limestone light bulbs on its facade. Preservation Chicago recommends that the City of Chicago seek a Landmark Designation for significant substations. The best examples of different periods and styles should be identified and protected. Also, the city and utility company should strive to find adaptive reuses for substation buildings that are obsolete or unused. As one reuse example, the von Holst substation located at 924 N. Clark Street in Gold Coast was beautifully renovated and converted into a single family home and was on sale for $13.9 million in 2014 (Preservation Chicago, n.d.). However, this project can be controversial. This 1400 m2 luxury home was constructed utilizing the facade of the old electrical substation, but all the rest is new. Inside, the finishes are clearly top-notch, and the home features a fitness space, huge wine storage room, a four car garage and a rooftop greenhouse. There is also an outdoor space that features a slim grassy lawn and a pool. One wonders whether this is a case of “facadism” rebutted in Section 2.3 (Curbed, 2014)

6.2.2 Nonpower plants This section deals with buildings that did not originally belong to power plants (although some of their features can be found in a number of power plants). Many industrial buildings of this type are eligible for conversion to residential units. The conversion of abandoned industrial buildings into dwellings is only effective when the outcome meets the needs of potential users. To evaluate the suitability of the

Experience and lessons learned

167

industrial buildings to dwelling requirements one should first define the architectural criteria affecting the quality of housing spaces. Type of dwelling, size, and spatial and functional arrangement are key criteria for each target group. Petkovi
c-Grozdanovi
ca et al. (2016) highlights numerous factors that affect this option. A tentative list of typical reuse options—other than residential units—for existing industrial properties is given in Currituck (n.d.): l

l

l

l

Garages can be converted into music halls, bars, or retail space Warehouses can house commercial kitchens to support local food trucks, segmented artist studios, or start-up office space for entrepreneurs Industrial properties with high ceilings and abundant natural light can be converted into attractive office space Factories can be converted into production or testing facilities for a range of technology or biotech industries.

Building spatial capacity

In regard of the dimensions and layout of the existing industrial buildings, the most favorable for conversion to housings are those where the ratio between the built and the unbuilt parts is not too big. A lower percentage of the built area allows better daylight use and natural ventilation. To reduce this proportion, it is possible to remove secondary building if any. However, it is critical to preserve the industrial landmarks, such as chimneys, old equipment or access gates. The low occupancy level is also favorable in terms of parking spaces for residential purposes. A lower occupancy level offers also a chance of increasing the building footprint and in this way meeting the housing needs of more and different users. However, upgrading the spatial capacity of a building should take account of new esthetics of the redeveloped construction, which should not deny its historical value. Natural lighting and ventilation

To allow the conversion of a building which was not originally designed for residential use, adequate natural lighting of the interiors should be available. The large dimensions of industrial facilities tend to favor conversion into residential buildings, but this can become a drawback for the daylight needed for such new uses. When the dimensions of the building are too large, one solution is to position all the technical and secondary facilities in the unlit central part of the building, arranging the sunlit parts as living spaces. For very large buildings it can be necessary to insert atriums into the central part of the structure. The atriums provide additional natural light for the whole building and improve natural ventilation of the interiors. Smaller buildings however, having been designed to maximize the efficiency of the workplace, provide much natural daylight. In converting these structures, the natural daylight can be re-adjusted to the new uses. Abundance of daylighting provides pleasant working or social environments.

168

Beyond Decommissioning

As old industrial buildings were designed prior to air conditioning, natural properties of ventilation and shading were maximized to create as comfortable indoor environments. This opportunity should not go wasted in reuse. Addition of open spaces

To achieve adequate living standards in old buildings originally not intended for housing it is necessary to install all the amenities that one expects of new buildings. Open areas in the form of a loggia, terrace, or balcony, will greatly improve the living standards of converted facilities. The best solution is to attach light, individual elements to the existing structure along living spaces. Another possibility to provide more open spaces is the installation of a roof terrace: this approach can be readily taken in buildings that already have a flat roof. While upgrading the housing value, these strategies must not spoil the historic identity of the building. Functional quality of the newly planned housing spaces

Contemporary and dynamic lifestyle imposes several requirements on the organization of the housing spaces. Flexible living spaces that can be customized to different users increase the value of the property. Thanks to the intrinsic favorable structure of industrial buildings, it is generally possible to achieve a high spatial flexibility of housing spaces by using the “open plan” approach. The design of undefined, multiuse housing spaces avoids too stringent a differentiation of functions, for example, a division based on day and night zones. The apartment would then have a fixed and a variable part. The fixed part includes traditional assets, such as kitchen and toilet, while other parts of the apartment are adaptable to unpredictable changes in use. New vertical and horizontal communications

One problem with the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings derives from the required vertical and horizontal communication spaces. In large buildings, it can be necessary to provide more elevators and stair shafts additional to those existing, for example, due to fire safety requirements. The need to introduce more communication spaces reduces the inner housing spaces. This problem can be solved by the installation of communication spaces attached to the original structure. In general, windmills are rarely capable of conversion, although this might not be true of their annexes. Watermills, warehouses, factories, and workhouses tend to have numerous existing openings and can accommodate a wide range of alternative uses. The following points require consideration (East Staffordshire, 2010): l

l

Unfortunately, not all building types can readily be converted to alternative uses without major changes to their existing structure and plan form which often would completely alter their character and that of their setting. The provision of an appropriate level of private amenity space (e.g., off-road parking and onsite sewage disposal) could be a significant requirement for any proposal to convert a building to independent residential use. However, the extent of any domestic yard should be carefully controlled to limit the potential for inappropriate alteration of the building setting.

Experience and lessons learned l

l

l

l

l

l

169

Care should be taken in the design to ensure that adequate provision is made to meet present and future needs for storage, garaging, and the like within existing building as far as practicable. The erection of new outbuildings where the intention is to demolish sound existing structures that could serve the same goal is unlikely to receive support. Critical additions unlikely to receive support or at least needing specific negotiations include: unsuitable new openings, roof-lights, chimneys, or pipework; the erection of additional buildings (garages, sheds, etc.); the over-prominent siting of alarm boxes and satellite dishes, etc. Care should be taken to ensure that historic materials and detailing are not damaged or lost during reuse works. A methodology demonstrating that the works will be carried out properly may be required. Large, multi-storied industrial buildings dating from mid-18th century onwards tend to be of “fireproof” construction. This can mean that headroom to each floor is limited and any internal alterations, including the routing of services, become major structural engineering problems. Where existing windows would rise through proposed inserted floor levels the floor at these points should be set back and a light-well formed. Details relating to internal lighting arrangements and colors to trimmers, etc. should be so designed as to have the minimum visual impact on the exterior. Where existing windows have a defined horizontal division (traverse) the inserted floor should be ideally aligned with this. Any new floors or partitions should be kept to a minimum. They should also be located so as to retain a substantial part of the original arrangements. The building’s original purpose, form, and development should not be hidden by new work.

A study conducted in Lithuania reviews typical options for disused industrial buildings: preservation of industry; establishment of industrial and technical museums; or conversion of industrial buildings into residential buildings. Based on a questionnaire, private citizens expressed their views about factors they felt important to buy industrial properties converted to homes (Dauksˇys et al., 2012). As shown by numerous examples given in this book, the trend toward reusing industrial buildings for private housing is global: after Lithuania, one could quote New Zealand here. The new Botanica Heritage building is a 14-apartment development from a 1900s-industrial building in Mt Eden. A prominent Auckland building conversion is the former Baycorp building, which was redeveloped into apartments in 2013. Factors cited for this trend in New Zealand include the lower costs of converted buildings in comparison to new construction and the “character” (i.e. charm) of ex-industrial structures (Stuff, 2016).

6.2.2.1 Mills, sheds, other factories Injecting new uses into a historic context can be hard. The low ceilings of many mills and factories, built in the late 1800s, render them unsuitable for industrial and other current uses. Moreover, the placement of pillars every 2 to 3 m is a design challenge. Concrete slab floors can be difficult to adapt. Old wiring and plumbing will normally have to be removed. The roof and windows can often by repaired rather than replaced. The addition of extra stories to the external side can be problematic if the project is subject to design review. Solutions include building an addition that

170

Beyond Decommissioning

is not visible from the ground (depending on the building’s roof type). Some large complexes can be difficult to adapt since they might have serious structural problems. However, mills built in more recent times may have high ceilings and large open spaces, which favor redevelopment. In fact, there are not many cases where the adaptive reuse of an industrial building is discarded; on the contrary there are many design opportunities associated with such projects. Factories, and especially mill buildings, are highly adaptable. Their short spans, masonry construction, ornate detailing, and large windows results in naturally lit interiors with unique characteristics. The craftsmanship of historic industrial buildings can even be better than modern construction. Due to the large machinery in old buildings, the floors were designed to withhold heavy loads. As of late there has been a shift toward lofts or condominium apartments with high ceilings, tall windows, and visible structural elements such as original wall and floor surfaces, exposed bricks, beams, etc. which can save costs if these elements are part of the project esthetics. Mills converted to museums

Not all historic mills can be readily transformed into museums: this conversion has been viable only with the most significantly historic structures. One example is given below. The Massachuseets Museum of Contemporary Art (MASS MoCA) is located in a former factory. It is a large center for contemporary visual art and performing disciplines. The buildings were initially constructed in the late 19th century and used for printing cloth. The owners operated the site until 1942, when closure became inevitable due to competition and the economic impacts of the Great Depression. Another company then purchased the complex to produce electrical items. The company managed also a major R&D program, which was engaged in work for the atomic bomb and space flights. Eventually the production of cheaper electronic components in Asia and technological evolution led to the shutdown of the factory in 1985, and to its listing as a Superfund (NPL) site. The development of MASS MoCA began soon. In 1986 a Museum of Art near MASS MoCA was attempting to find spaces suitable for large works of contemporary art that would not fit in traditional museums. The museum eventually opened in 1999 with 19 galleries and 9300 m2 of exhibition space. It has expanded since, including Building 7 in 2008 and Building 6 in 2017. Besides managing art spaces the museum makes commercial spaces available for rent. It hosts the Bang on a Can Music Festival where international musicians create new music and deliver concerts in summer. Details on the redevelopment project are given in Dezeen (2017c). The Wile Carding Mill was established in 1860 and remained in use until 1968. Reportedly, it carded a week’s worth of wool in one hour! The mill is one of few remaining carding mills in Nova Scotia, Canada and the only remnant of Bridgewater’s 19th century industrial area that included seven water-powered industries. The Des Brisay Museum, owned by the Town of Bridgewater, is set in the Woodlands Park. The Heritage Gallery and Exhibit Area cover natural history,

Experience and lessons learned

171

Fig. 6.12 The Wile Carding Museum, Nova Scotia, Canada. Credit to Dennis Jarvis.

early settlement, and the local cultural and industrial growth. The Museum also operates the Wile Carding Mill. The Wile Carding Mill was officially designed by a municipal heritage property by the Town of Bridgewater in 2013: in this way its integrity and historic character are protected under the Heritage Property Act of Nova Scotia (Wile Carding Museum, 2017) (Fig. 6.12). Mills converted to residential uses (apartments, hotels, etc.)

The transformation of the Granary on Vienna Handeskai, Austria, into a luxury hotel can be partly viewed as a failure. The colossal Granary was constructed in 1912–13. It was shaped as a reinforced concrete framed building, a design reflected in the facade with its grid of vertical supports and horizontal beams. The Granary remained operating until 1982. It was only the high cost of demolition that saved the building and led to its reuse. On one side, the conversion to a luxury hotel did mean the survival of the giant structure that dominates on the Danube, but the new buildings added to the original construction, the selection of materials, surface finishing, and execution details created a substantially new appearance. The preservation of the building as an industrial monument was lost to the constraints of new use (Stadler, n.d.). Nadler Hotel is situated in a former engineering works in Liverpool, UK (Historic England, 2019a). The reuse was selected because of its location, in the middle of an area designated for regeneration. It opened in June 2010. Nadler Hotel was in 2015 the number two rated hotel on Trip Advisor in Liverpool (October 16, 2015).

172

Beyond Decommissioning

The architect Ricardo Bofill picked up the dilapidated site of Spain’s largest cement factory, at Sant Just Desvern, near Barcelona, in 1973. The factory consisted of a series of stone silos and contained chimneys, wide underground tunnels and a furnace from the early 1900s: it was indeed a cold and unattractive building. And yet Bofill viewed the plant ideal to transform “the ugliest thing” into something beautiful. The result, a striking renovation resembling a castle or cathedral for its mix of monumentality and comfort, serves as a model in reinventing a space and an example of adaptive reuse. The transformation process began with the demolition of 70% of the 5000-m2 facility to leave hitherto concealed forms visible, as if the concrete had been sculpted. Once the spaces had been defined, cleaned of cement and embellished by new greenery, the adaptation process began. Eight silos remained, which were converted into offices, a models laboratory, archives, a library, a projection room, and a huge space nicknamed “The Cathedral,” used for exhibitions, concerts, and a whole range of architectural functions. The landscape was enriched with olive trees, cypress, and other plants. The reshaped interiors include experimental and surrealist designs. Bofill calls La Fabrica a “ruin that has been remade and restructured,” ready for almost any reuse. Much of the living space suggests the building’s industrial past. This project proves that imagination can adapt any space to a new function, no matter how different it may appear from the original one (Curbed, 2015). Mills converted to mixed use (retail shops, offices, restaurants, theaters, museums, apartments)

There are numerous advantages in converting a site to mixed uses. Having mixed land uses for commercial, housing, recreational, and educational purposes allows residents to meet and interact with one another. This will create active and diverse communities. Besides, a mix of uses increasing the number of people on the street and a wider commercial base will increase the vitality and security of an area, and will convey substantial fiscal and economic returns to the community. Commercial uses in the vicinity of residential areas often raise local tax revenues, and increase the property values (EPA, 2014). The comprehensive redevelopment of Lister Mills is considered to be one of the key projects for the Bradford District, UK. This iconic building, once a symbol of Bradford’s industrial past, had become a symbol of its industrial decline, until the Council partnered with the developers of the Mill, Urban Splash (Yorkshire) Ltd., to deliver a phased redevelopment of the site. The original Mill built by Samuel Cunliffe Lister in 1838 was destroyed by fire in 1871, but had been reconstructed by 1873: this is the current Grade II* listed building. Once the world largest manufacturer of silk and velvet textiles, with a peak staff of over 11,000 people, the Mill closed in 1992 due to the general decline of the textile industry in the UK. The buildings gradually deteriorated. Finally acquired by development specialists Urban Splash in 2000, plans were prepared first to revitalize the 4.45 ha South Mill Site through a mixed residential and commercial scheme. Initially the large size of the site, its ruined condition, stringent

Experience and lessons learned

173

Listed Building status and depressed state of the local property market impaired the financial viability of redevelopment plans. Subsequently a Joint Venture was established between Urban Splash, Bradford Council and Yorkshire Forward, which involved private investments and public subsidy: in this way, redevelopment works began in 2004. The first phase of the redevelopment, the Silk Mill, was completed in September 2006 with the delivery of 131 apartments and 1500 m2 of community and business spaces. The entire investment was some £14.5m ($19m) including £6.3m ($8.3) contributed by the public sector funding. The second phase, the Velvet Mill, has provided a further 190 apartments, including a new two-story roof top extension, community and commercial space on the ground floor. The beautiful stonework was cleaned up and repaired. The window openings were retained but with new windows that respected the original design by minimizing metal frames and maximizing the penetration of daylight (Sheeran, 2017). Trencherfield Mill was a textile factory near Manchester, United Kingdom. Constructed in the early 1900s, the Mill changed hands a few times. It operated a giant 1.86 MW triple-expansion four-cylinder engine, which was shut down in 1968. As part of the Wigan Pier redevelopment program, Trencherfield Mill was redeveloped into commercial, retail, leisure and residential spaces. The local administration eventually declined to house an art center within the Mill premises. The machinery has been conserved and refitted. The operating mill engine can be visited as a touristic attraction on scheduled dates (Industrial Archaelogy News, 2007). Ditherington Mill spun flax to make linen cloth. It was the world’s first multi-story building to have an iron frame—and its nonflammable structure gave it a major advantage over earlier textile mills with wooden floors. The building still retains its original structure. The building is 53-m long and 11-m wide inside. The construction dates from 1797. The Mill closed in 1886. Around 1897, it was converted into a malt house. Since then, the building was used for malting until final closure in 1987. It has been Grade I listed since January 1953. Disused after its closure, the mill deteriorated and was placed on the Heritage at Risk list. English Heritage bought the building in March 2005. In November 2010, planning approval was granted for the mixed-use (public access, residential, and commercial) redevelopment of the Ditherington complex (Timelines, 2017). The 19th-century grade II listed Little Downham’s Tower Mill, UK, was in ruin with no sails, windows, or cap, but has now been incorporated into a modern ecologically friendly home. The new house is situated at a small distance from the mill and joined by a simple glazed structure which allows the mill to retain its visual dominance. The main building features details such as a glazed viewing area and mezzanine which provide unrestricted views over the surrounding landscape. The building has been designed with a principle of energy efficiency: related details include a biomass boiler, rainwater-collecting system, and a mechanical ventilation system, which keeps

174

Beyond Decommissioning

the house warm in the winter and cool in the summer and reuses most of the heat. To improve the mill’s energy budget, there are also 10-kW PV roof panels, triple-glazed windows, and well-insulated walls (Wisbech Standard, 2017). The Himmelreich & Zwicker Cloth factory was built at Linz, Austria, in 1908 as a cotton spinning mill. After it was closed down, some entrepreneurs purchased the site and turned it into a cloth factory in the late 1930s. The Linz Himmelreich & Zwicker factory was profitable for several decades, but eventually closed in 1980. For a few years thereafter, the ownership changed hands repeatedly with no success. In 1986, a public opinion party managed to rescue the factory from dismantlement. Lengthy negotiations finally obtained that a revitalization project was selected in 1991. The integration of a church in the former factory is a persuasive and remarkable new approach to reuse. The main entrance to the church is rightly situated in the main facade flanked by two towers, with the trade name “Himmelreich & Zwicker” well visible in the tympanum (Stadler, n.d.). In 2002, the Lanitis carob mill factory, Limassol, Cyprus was transformed in 2002 into an exhibition space and a venue for different social events. The Carob Mill Museum displays the technology and equipment used to process carob beans. The lower and upper floors of the former factory still retain old British equipment, such as conveyor belts used to clean and process the fruits, weight scales and others. Original drawings and descriptions tell the story of the industry before mechanization. The site hosts many restaurants (Fig. 6.13) (Cyprus for Travelers, n.d.).

Fig. 6.13 Former carob mill, Limassol, Cyprus. Photo by M. Laraia, 2012.

Experience and lessons learned

175

The Manufaktura complex at Ło´dz´, Poland was once a five-story spinning mill and ancillary plant, completed in 1878. The former industrial site was used as the film set of Wladislaw Reymont’s book, The Promised Land. Next to the textile industry, several industries and services expanded, for example, machine repair and construction, ironworks, a foundry, a locomotive shed, gas-works, a fire department, warehouses, railroad track sections, worker houses, and the mill proprietor’s residence. Currently an art institute, shopping center and entertainment complex, Manufakture opened in May 2006, after 5 years of planning and four more years of construction. The total site area is 27 hectares. The redevelopment was intended to preserve the historical atmosphere of all buildings, consisting of the original industrial architecture with exposed red brickwork. The Manufaktura can be entered through the monumental archway of the former spinning factory. A top-class hotel was inaugurated in 2009. One exception to the site’s preservationist approach is the new glass-and-steel shopping hall. However it was designed to be lower than the adjacent old buildings in brickwork, and is invisible from the outside. The wide square inside Manufaktura exhibits the longest fountain in Europe (300 m). In addition to stores, restaurants, cafes, pubs etc. Manufaktura hosts -among others- car parks, two museums, and a leisure center (including a multiplex theater, bowling lanes, a gym center, etc.) (Manufaktura, n.d.). Pending projects (at the time of writing)

The Brunel Goods Shed, Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK was built in 1845 as part of the Stroud Railway Station infrastructure. It is a specific example of industrial architecture in Tudor Gothic revival style with fine buttresses, stonework and arches. Until 1966, the Goods Shed was a busy interchange for transferring goods to road vehicles. When it fell out of use, the building was open to vandalism and deteriorating. In 1984, British Rail removed the slate roof which had become dangerous to the public. The building was listed Grade II in 1985 on request of Stroud Preservation Trust. This elegant, industrial building had been considered a good preservation project soon after Stroud Preservation Trust was founded. In 1986, after 2 years of complex negotiations, the Trust agreed a 40-year lease with British Rail. Major repairs and improvements, including a new slate roof, stonework repairs, and installation of some services, were carried out in 1988. By that time Goods Shed had been rescued from abandonment but needed a user to secure its future. It has taken years to find a promising future for the building. Numerous proposals were assessed but they all proved either expensive, impractical, or unacceptable to English Heritage (this is a registered charity that manages the National Heritage Collection, over 400 of England’s historic buildings, monuments, and sites). Proposals included, among others, a theatre, a restaurant, a Music Resource Center, a museum and a Real Tennis court. By 2000, all proposals were hindered by a new transport interchange planned in the station area which would have entailed major redevelopment. Throughout this time the building, which was on English Heritage’s Buildings at Risk list for many years, had been vandalized by graffiti, fires, and stone quarrying. In 2010, Stroud Preservation Trust decided to secure the building with roller shutters to

176

Beyond Decommissioning

both protect it and make it more appealing to prospective users. A raised floor was created over the platform and track and an external platform removed and replaced with a smaller balcony. In 2011–12 further improvements were performed including the installation of internal electricity circuits, toilets and drainage, and improvements to the offices, and car park. Now a secure building with light, water, and drainage, the Goods Shed could be removed from English Heritage’s Buildings at Risk list. On November 18, 2014 the Network Rail lease for the Brunel Goods Shed was officially assigned to Stroud Valleys Artspace. SVA is, a registered charity with a good record of achievements in Stroud including the restoring of their own warehouse as artists’ studios, developing the Open Studio trail since 1998 and running innovative exhibitions and events (Stroud Preservation, 2014). Temple Works (or Temple Mill or Marshall’s Mill) in Holbeck, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK, is a former flax spinning mill: it was built in 1836–40 by the architect Ignatius Bonomi for John Marshall. The design of the building had a distinctly Egyptian style and even the original chimney was an Egyptian obelisk. Unfortunately, this cracked and had to be replaced by a more conventional Victorian stack. During the first half of the 19th century there was a craze for all things Egyptian, so Marshall and Bonomi wanted Leeds to join in Templeworks (n.d.). The roof was covered in soil to insulate the building against extreme temperatures and grass was grown on the roof to control the humidity and prevent the linen thread from becoming dry and hard to work. A flock of sheep maintained the grass by grazing it. Inside, the main flax mill was based in a very large room yet it is very light. That light floods in from numerous huge glass skylights in the large roof. The room contains many pillars but their main function is not load bearing but to conceal the drainage system. When John Marshall died, his flax business went into decline and ceased trading altogether in 1886. Within the building is a series of offices, a canteen, and kitchen. From 1953 until 1981 it was the northern headquarters of the mail-order catalogue company Kay’s. In late 2008 a column of the facade fell down. A large slice of gritrock fell on the sidewalk and the roof balustrade above the column gave up. These events highlight the risk to successful redevelopment posed by the structural weakness of old structures, However, from 2009 Temple Works Leeds has been a thriving cultural hub that is given over to 20% heritage and education, 40% location shoots and in-house studio events, and 40% public events. In 2015 plans were disclosed whereby the building would be reused for manufacturing purposes. But the Brexit events suspended, and eventually cancelled the initiative in 2017. The building was sold to developer CEG a day before it was due to go up for auction (BBC, 2017). The Volponi’s kiln is an historic brick factory situated at the Urbino city gates, Italy. The first factory in the area dates the second half of 1800, but only in 1908 there is news of the acquisition by the Volponi family of a “kiln with a square in order to

Experience and lessons learned

177

make bricks and accessories.” The production of the Volponi’s kiln lasted until 1971. After 30 years of being in disrepair, the 1400-m2 large building appeared in serious deterioration, with some collapses of the structures and cave-ins of lofts. The kiln is key to the understanding of the landscape that extends from the city, a birthplace of Renaissance, to rural areas nearby. The sight of Urbino is remarkably marked by the kiln, which points its chimney toward the ancient city walls. The eye-catching chimney and the sloping walls of the gallery that one can see from the outside through a double grid of pillars, make this building both beautiful and highly visible. The survey and characterization work described in Agostinelli et al. (2007) highlights the possible recovery of history events that are well entrusted to the memory of the local community. The fate of the decaying building has been debated for many years. The International Lab of Architecture and City Planning (ILAUD) committee of 1977 suggested that the reuse of the kiln site should be founded on the understanding that the city of Urbino was mostly based on the University and tourism, and that its territory was mainly agricultural. Hence they proposed a cooperative for advanced agricultural research and environmental education. From a technical standpoint, the structure of the building was complex, especially regarding the joint of spaces and the lack of outer walls. A later (1993) ILAUD study, however, considered the site as part of a big hollow, an amphitheater where the imposing chimney of the kiln visually linked the observer with both the city and the St. Bernardino church. The place was viewed as a theatrical scene. In this approach, the kiln was not identified as an object per se but as an element of the landscape, and part of a background larger than its borders. The latest news available to the writer is that the abandoned Volponi kiln collapsed under the weight of snow in 2012. The Central Mill of Piracicaba, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil, was one of the first modernized sugar production facilities in Brazil; today, it provides an interesting case of a former industrial site under redevelopment. The sugar factory and refinery were active between 1882 and 1974. The main reasons for the termination of sugar processing at Piracicaba were the increasing urbanization and real estate development near the plant, which created difficulties to the industrial activities. By the end of the sugar production, the owners had sold its agricultural properties and almost all of the nearby land was redeveloped through a project called Mill Lands. This undertaking resulted in the formation of a city district known as New Piracicaba. The workers’ dwellings, which had already been incorporated in the city of Piracicaba, were also sold. The industrial site, which includes the factory buildings, warehouses, offices, a house for the general director and a guesthouse, had been maintained through an agreement with the city. The remaining assets were restricted to a group of brick-masonry buildings spanning over 1.78 ha arranged in an area of some 7.6 ha. In 1985, the first master plan for Piracicaba was approved by municipal authorities. The whole area was defined as institutional zone, which allowed only activities of public interest. In August 1989, the former industrial complex (the factory buildings, warehouses, offices, the general director’s house, and the guesthouse) received a municipal heritage designation and statutory protection from the Board of Protection of Piracicaba Cultural Heritage. A month later, the area was declared of public interest, and the long

178

Beyond Decommissioning

process of expropriation (compulsory purchase) began, together with several rehabilitation projects. In February 2012, more than 22 years after the expropriation process began, the city of Piracicaba announced payment of the final instalment. This ensured the municipality’s full ownership of the former industrial site. In 2014, the site was designated by the State of Sa˜o Paulo as a site of historical, architectural, artistic, touristic, and environmental heritage. It was stated in the designation that the factory was
an ‘icon of the so-called Belle Epoque and its history is directly linked to the abolitionist, immigration, and Republican movements in Sa˜o Paulo.’ Among the most recent developments are a theatre that opened in 2012 and a project for the Museum of Sugar, which is still in progress. Several redevelopment plans have been proposed for the adaptive reuse of the site and buildings by the most famous architects in Brazil and are discussed in detail in Campagnol (2017).

6.2.2.2 Water pumping houses A disused water-pumping house was situated in a green suburb of Berlin, Germany. The building had been unused since the early 1990s because its location failed to attract businesses and developers. The structure was legally protected but nobody knew what to do with its lofty main room—built for the giant machinery that had pumped water since the 1920s—and the four stories at the back without a secondary exit. Eventually the preservation concept was relaxed a bit and more staircases and rooftop windows were allowed to be installed. Two artists, who had been looking for a convenient live/work space for some time, eventually came across this building and purchased it at a cheap price. Then architects were tasked to convert the pump house into a home. The outcome includes two distinct living areas, a large kitchen, and attic living room, along with wide areas that can accommodate a range of workspaces. This case highlights clearly that absolute integrity (preservation) can be impractical for a realistic redevelopment project (Arch Daily, 2009). Unlike the above-mentioned Berlin case, Papplewick Pumping Station, UK, represent a preservationist approach. This beautiful place was designed in the early 1880s to pump fresh water to the fast growing population of Industrial Nottingham. The style of the buildings was Gothic Revival. Two early models of steam engine were located inside. Except for minor modifications, the machinery remained as installed until the plant was shut down in 1969. A Trust was formed in 1974 to conserve the site as a static museum, but the plans soon developed to include the refurbishment and regular steaming of the engines. A major renovation was completed in 2005. Now protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, the highest preservation order that can be given to a site in England, the Pumping Station holds regular steaming events, wedding ceremonies and educational visits (University of Nottingham, n.d.). A former machine factory in Hengelo, The Netherlands, originally constructed in 1902 and enlarged in 1928, was redeveloped under the name of ROC van Twente, a regional educational institution, in 2008. The reuse project shows a relationship to the existing structure that is very different from Halle Pajol (Section 6.7.5.1). Although some parts of the complex have been demolished, the atmosphere of the past has been preserved in the remaining hall, regarded as the most valuable part of the complex.

Experience and lessons learned

179

For example, corroding parts of the construction have not been renovated. To preserve the past atmosphere of the place, peeling layers of paint and even old cables have not been removed or repainted. Where an improvement was really needed, only new elements have been added to the construction, and nothing has been replaced (Van Gendthallen Amsterdam, 2015).

6.2.2.3 Industrial silos RE-MUSE is an adaptive reuse project situated on the former Imperial Sugar Refinery in Sugar Land, TX. The reuse is meant not only to minimize the impacts on virgin land, but also to prolong the duration of the existing structures. The museum re-purposes the iconic silo and a contiguous warehouse. The silo houses the heritage museum, and the warehouse houses the Fort Bend Children’s Discovery Center. These two buildings are joined by a common lobby. To preserve the aesthetics from the site’s industrial past, the lobby and the other elements of the project site use recycled steel and aluminum. A large canopy covers the lobby between the two buildings and create an open air passageway. The canopy is designed to offset any addition of impervious surfaces by harvesting rainwater. To lower energy consumption major paths of circulation are placed north of the building to allow for day lighting and to minimize heat gain (RE-MUSE, n.d.). Gemini Residence is a residential building on the Islands Brygge waterfront in Copenhagen, Denmark. With a reference to the twin silos that have given the building its shape, Gemini Residence takes its name from the astrological sign Gemini (The Twins, in Latin). Danish Soybean Cake Factory was a soybean processing plant established in 1909. It produced oil and animal feed and was eventually the largest employer in the area. The two seed silos were built in 1963. After the plant closed in the 1990s, the area was redeveloped to a new district with both residential and office buildings. The conversion of the two seed silos into Gemini Residence was carried out from 2002 to 2005. The silos were raw concrete cylinders, 42 m in height and 25 m in width. The hollow insides of the silos are used for stairs, elevators, and hallways. The two silos are connected on each floor, giving the building a basic layout looking like the infinity symbol (∞). The circular spaces are capped with a Texlon roof for natural light, creating a lobby area as tall as the building itself, within which people can move up and down. This project initially intended to install apartments inside the structure. But it was later determined that the structures were not strong enough to support all of the holes that would be needed, so instead the apartments were clipped to the outside. The apartments have full-height windows and balconies along their whole length. At the bottom the raw concrete has been left uncoated to highlight the industrial origin of the structure (Gemini Residence, n.d.) (Fig. 6.14). The conversion of “Silo d’Arenc” (now simply called “Le Silo”) has been a significant part of the large-scale redevelopment of the Marseille port, France. The redevelopment program was necessitated by the decline of port activities and the general desire of maintaining and redefining the historical links between the city and its port.

180

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.14 Gemini Residences, Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo by M. Laraia.

Built in 1927 to operate as a corn silo and closed down in 1984, this industrial building situated on the waterfront was not far from demolition. Public protests made reconversion possible: the silo has now two functions, a concert hall with 2000 places and an office area (4000 m2). In the ground floor the port activities continue to work, mainly allowing the cross traffic in the area. The inside of the Silo has been rented to a partner for 50 years and since its opening in 2011 it has become one of the main concert venues in the city (La Croix, 2014). Another noteworthy project concerned the former sanitary station (used for processing and disinfecting immigrants). The 1948 building had long been derelict and—despite being listed as an historically significant structure—was in use as a squat. Museum Regards de Provence, a private collection of Provencal artworks from the 19th and 20th century, is now on display in the old sanitary station (Metropolis, 2013). A surprising, almost shocking proposal for conversion of two disused grain silos is described by Dezeen (2016b). In this proposal by architecture students at the University of Lund, Sweden, one silo would be converted into a crematorium and a columbarium (a structure of vaults lined with recesses for cinerary urns): it will be called House for the Dead. The second silo would be a housing development—called House for the Living. The two areas of the scheme are differentiated by a change in materials. For the crematorium, the industrial concrete is conserved and the machine towers are reused for the cremation. The housing silo instead is equipped with insulation and cladding. A park designed to look like a forest would link the two ex-silos. Indeed, the students’ statement “We hope that through our project we can prove that what is unthinkable today can become the reality of tomorrow” sounds true (though a bit provocative…).

Experience and lessons learned

181

Several more conversions of industrial silos are illustrated in Inhabitat (2014). I have arbitrarily selected two quite innovative examples. The two dilapidating silos of the former Guangdong Float Glass Factory in Shenzhen, China were converted into a venue for the Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism and Architecture in 2013. The 27-m-high complex was transformed into an exhibition space with spiraling ramps and glass floors, and was used as a venue for the event. Interestingly the company in charge of the renovation project has its own studio an old beer factory in Guangzhou built in the 1960s. Silo 468 at Helsinki, Finland was originally built in the 1960s to store 16,000 m3 of oil. The company responsible for the redevelopment of Silo 468 had hundreds of holes punctured into the steel facade and then filled them with LED lights. So by night the building looks like a modern lighthouse. In honor of the city’s selection as the 2012 World Design Capital, the project is a permanent wind-controlled light art installation that creates a new public space on the water. The building is open to the public right before nightfall and shortly afterwards. Its lights remain on until 2:05 in the morning, creating an enthralling effect as the winds display ever-changing light patterns. More silo redevelopment projects are quoted by Momtastic (2011). Silo Restaurant in Lewiston, NY is a converted coal silo on the edge of the Niagara River. The massive concrete structure was located there—with a beautiful view, which was once ignored—because the coal stored was to power the Great Gorge Railway. The silo was rescued in 1997 and transformed into a restaurant where guests can sit on the round deck and contemplate the water. Two sewage treatment silos in the Zeeburg district of Amsterdam, the Netherlands were subjected to a contest in 2009 to give the structures a new, more positive identity. The architects turned the silos into a recreational complex for sports and culture. The huge Grain Silo Complex, situated at Cape Town’s Victoria & Alfred (V&A) Waterfront, was once the tallest building in South Africa; it had been disused since 1990. It has now been converted into the Zeitz Museum of Contemporary Art Africa. The museum was officially opened on 22 September 2017. The nine-story structure is housed in 9500 m2 of customized space. The galleries and the atrium at the center of the museum have been shaped out of the silo’s dense cellular structure of 42 tubes that fill the building. The redevelopment has 6000 m2 of exhibition space in 80 galleries, a rooftop sculpture garden, storage and conservation areas, a bookshop, a restaurant, and reading rooms. The museum ambience could hardly be more spectacular: placed on the rim of a natural, historic harbor, with the Table Mountain as background, and panoramic vistas of the ocean, V&A Waterfront entices up to 100,000 people a day (Arch Daily, 2017). The countryside architecture, as it can be widely seen in central Italy, generally includes vertical annexes such as dovecotes silos (i), grain stores (ii), or tobacco drying kilns (iii). Nowadays, those towers appear in neglect due to agricultural decline: however, many of these are designated as Environmental and Historical Heritage sites. A form of adaptive reuse was applied to a decaying silo at Sant’Apollinare (Marsciano, Perugia) by turning it into a mini-biogas plant. The selected structure changed from agricultural use to energy production: it can generate renewable electric energy from agricultural and forestry residues. The project proved

182

Beyond Decommissioning

to be sustainable not only in terms of energy and the environment, but also from an economic standpoint as it profited from recent legislation and incentives for renewable energy generation (Manni et al., 2017).

6.2.2.4 Blast furnaces “A blast furnace is a large structure in which iron ore is heated under pressure so that it melts and pure iron metal separates out and can be collected “(Collins Dictionary). The heritage value of blast furnaces built before 1900 has been recognized already for a long time, and most preserved installations from the 19th century are now museums or are anyhow open to visitors. However, the recognition of more recent mass production blast furnaces as industrial heritage is relatively recent. Until recently it has been pretty normal to demolish blast furnaces after their deactivation and either replace them with newer models, or to clear the entire site for redevelopment. The first modern blast furnace not to be dismantled is situated at Starachowice, Poland (shut down in 1968), followed by the last blast furnace of Yahata Steel Works at Yahatahigashi-ku, Kitaky ush u, Japan (shut down in 1972) and the “Carrie Furnaces” at Homestead, PA, USA [shut down in 1978 (Abandoned America, 2018)]. One of the two blast furnaces at Neunkirchen, Germany (shut down in 1982) was the first blast furnace to be not only preserved as-is, but refurbished for the purposes of preservation. The installations built in the last century were normally part of large industrial compounds where multiple blast furnaces were in operation side by side to improve efficiency. Raw materials were delivered to the site by freight trains and loaded into the furnaces by external elevating mechanisms; the trains carried off the smelted pig iron in ladles. In many cases, the preserved sites have been despoiled to minimize maintenance costs; besides, many blast furnaces have been dismantled. The policy was to keep only one or two furnaces and related installations at each site: this was deemed enough to explain the mechanical and chemical processes to visitors. Currently, most preserved furnaces are used as museums. Typically, colorful light installations brighten these furnaces at night. A comprehensive description of the redevelopment of a blast furnace site is given in ICOMOS (2007).

6.2.2.5 Postindustrial living in Milan, Italy Long ago there were actual factories inside Milan. Alfa Romeo’s manufacturing plant “Portello” was well within the city borders until the 1970s. There were factories producing everything saleable: car parts, air conditioners, electronics, pharmaceuticals, household appliances, furniture, etc. They were encircled by a vast network of stores and workshops, and a population of workers and their families who lived close to their businesses. As of today, the factories have shut down or relocated far outside Milan. Some of the old industrial districts have been demolished and replaced by tall residential or office buildings. But some factories—or their remains—survive, and attract real estate developers, both professionals and amateurs.

Experience and lessons learned

183

A typical example is the Navigli, a former industrial and working-class district, visually impressive with its canals, bridges, and barges. Students and artists started moving to Navigli in the 1960s because it was cheap and “rough.” But as of late it became the heart of fashion businesses and is now as expensive as the classy districts of central Milan. During the postwar, difficult years Milan authorities promoted the establishment of factories and workshops in Via Varesina area. Today, some of these properties have already been converted into loft apartments and studios, and more are awaiting their turn. One example in this area is the Pagani factory: until 2003, it was still producing headlights and other items for scooters. It includes a dozen interlinked buildings— mostly long, low workshops and warehouses—served by private roads and a couple of wide squares. In 2003, a group of investors bought the whole factory. Part of the land was used for The Chedi, a hotel of the Singapore-based GHM chain, together with a block of short-term service apartments. The rest of the old buildings were split into lofts of various forms and sizes and sold individually. Most of the Pagani residents bought an empty, unfinished space, which they completed on their own. In addition to some 100 residential lofts, the complex houses a theatre workshop, a small television studio, a fashion exhibition hall and the studios of a painter and a photographer. More details on these redevelopments are given in FT (2007).

6.2.2.6 Rome industrial buildings The heart of the Rome industrial district was the Magazzini Generali (general warehouses), built in 1915: a couple of enormous warehouses from which several metal structures sprout imposingly and extend to the Tiber. Abandoned in 1945, the site now hosts the Fire Brigade Training Center, with classrooms, training spaces, caf
es, a conference room and company lodgings. Private entrepreneurs built their factories here. To name a few: Mira (first producing chemicals and fertilizers, then candles and glycerin, later soaps, and detergents) whose buildings now host the Teatro India (a theatre offering experimental events); Molini e Panifici Biondi (grain grinding and floor refining), which now has been reconverted into stylish lofts, the Societa’ Anonima Lavanderia (Laundry) Roma, whose building now hosts the Literature Faculty of Roma Tre University and the Vetrerie Riunite Bordoni (glass-making), now hosting the office of Roma Tre University’s Chancellor. Some mention should be given also to Ex-Mattatoio (former slaughterhouse): this vast complex of wings and pavilions covers an area of 2.5 ha. Designed in 1888 it distributed meat until 1975 when it was abandoned. Now it hosts a police office, the Architecture Faculty of Roma Tre University, the contemporary art museum Macro Testaccio, La Pelanda, another important contemporary art venue of the capital and a squat place called Villaggio Globale (Global Village). From 2007 in this space there is also the Citta` dell’Altra Economia (town of a different economy), a project devoted to themes such as fair trade, organic food, recycling, renewables, etc. The Rome Gas Holder mentioned in Section 6.2.4 is also situated in this area (Romeing, 2014). This “Gasometer” is quite popular in the city: Fig. 6.15 shows a bracelet inspired by this landmark.

184

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.15 Gasometer cuff, gold-plated bronze, Rome. Photo by M. Laraia, 2018.

Museums are usually crowded places that fall silent when the doors close at night. But one museum in Rome’s eastern suburbs has no working hours: it is home to 200 squatters, including many children, who live among and protect the artworks. In March 2009, the former building of the salami factory Fiorucci, located in Rome’s eastern suburbs, was occupied by homeless migrants with a dual purpose: solving housing problems for many people on one side and as a demonstrative act against a giant construction company, on the other side. In 2011, curator Giorgio de Finis began to organize art events and performances there. These, in collaboration with the inhabitants and artists, grew spontaneously into the Museum of the Other and the Elsewhere(Museo dell’Altro e dell’Altrove di Metropoliz, or MAAM, in Italian). It fast became one of Rome’s most important contemporary art spaces, with murals, paintings, and installations by more than 300 artists from all over the world. Many of them embed relics of the site’s former use as a slaughterhouse or, seeking inspiration from its residents, address themes of discrimination, xenophobia, and nationalism. A room once used for stripping carcasses displays a huge mural of hung-up pigs. Livestock cages serve as representations of the lives of prisoners and migrants. All artwork is donated in support for the illegal museum that works cost-free. But visitors often express more interest in MAAM’s residents than in its art. Since occupying the abandoned factory in 2009, the migrants (from such countries as Morocco, Peru, Sudan, Eritrea, and Ukraine as well as several Roma families) have converted factory buildings into homes, painted with murals.

Experience and lessons learned

185

The MAAM residents, most of whom are poor and unemployed, maintain the museum together with curator de Finis. To protect their privacy and lest the police displace them, they open the museum only on Saturdays and for special events. Entry is free, though a donation is welcome. Rome had already experienced the insertion of art in a place of death with the Macro of the former Testaccio slaughterhouse (see above), which for decades had fed meat to the people. But inputting” life” inside a museum and the other way round, as MAAM does, is something unique (MAAM, 2017). The case described below is similar to the Testaccio slaughterhouse. The Matadouro slaughterhouse at Porto, Portugal was once a major economic contributor to the city. But since its closure in 1990, several developments—including the football stadium and a busy highway—have been constructed around the building, isolating it from the rest of the city. The disused slaughterhouse will now be converted into a cultural center, including art galleries and a library among other amenities (Dezeen, 2018c). Adaptive Reuse: Brief Stories of Success An earlier tramshed in Glasgow, UK was converted into a contemporary art venue: it opened as Tramway during Glasgow’s Year of Culture in 1990 (Arnesen, 2006) The Fakenham Museum of Gas and Local History, Norfolk, United Kingdom is the last complete non-operational gasworks left in England. Established in 1846 to provide gas lighting for the town, Fakenham Gas Works ceased production of gas in 1965 after the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea. The museum is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, providing an insight into cultural, social, and industrial heritage. The museum is run entirely by volunteers and members of “The Friends of the Museum.” (http://fakenhamgasmuseum.com/) Old Cheddar’s Lane pumping station, Cambridge, UK, was built in 1894 to house two steam engines and pumps to pump the town’s sewage to the treatment works 3 km away. Household rubbish was burned as boiler fuel to raise the steam to drive the engines. The site closed in 1968. It is now the Cambridge Museum of Technology (Historic England, 2019b). The Berengo Center for contemporary art and glass is located in Murano (Venice, Italy) inside the rehabilitated complex of former Domus Vetri d’Arte (House of art-glasses). Murano is the ancient Italian center of art glass-making (Berengo Studio, 2015). The Molino Stucky is a Neo-Gothic building in Venice, built from 1884 to 1895. It was first built as a flour mill supplied by boats across the lagoon and also operated as a pasta factory. It began to decline in the 1910s before being permanently closed in 1955. A rehabilitation project began in 1998. The owners went into partnership with the Hilton Hotels chain in the mid-2000s, with a plan to convert the building into a hotel and conference center, a rooftop swimming pool and a conference hall for 2000 attendees. Rehabilitation work was in progress when a major fire hit on 15 April 2003, causing extensive damage. The complex eventually opened in June 2007 (Daily Mail, 2017) The Cantoni Cotton Mill, Venice was inaugurated in 1883. Partially destroyed by fire in 1916, the cotton mill was rebuilt. It remained in operation until 1960, and then was abandoned for 30 years before rehabilitation in the 1990s. The main building now houses an important part of the university: classrooms, the “Archivio Progetti” (including a data bank for architecture and industrial design techniques, and a study room with nine consultation seats), the exhibition hall, a main office, and a deposit (IUAV, n.d.).

186

Beyond Decommissioning

The Cassino Museum of Contemporary Art (CAMUSAC), Italy is a structure for contemporary art, created in 2013 with the rehabilitation of the Longo industrial buildings, near the ancient Abbey of Montecassino. The aim of the Museum—which holds a private permanent collection—is to contribute to the cultural growth and development of southern Lazio, which already has many sites of archeological, historic, and religious interest. CAMUSAC is another cultural instrument alongside the University, the State Art School, the Fine Arts Academy of Frosinone and other institutions nearby. Besides the Permanent Collection, CAMUSAC organizes exhibitions of works by important contemporary artists. Along with the exhibitions, it offers conferences, research seminars, conventions, workshops, and guided tours (CAMUSAC, n.d.). A cylindrical silo in Quebec, Canada which is 20 m high and 11 m wide with 70-cm thick concrete walls, formerly housed a Van der Graaff particle accelerator. When the accelerator was decommissioned, the facility was converted into a high-performance computing cluster known as Colossus (Data Center, 2009). In 1987, the Reykjavik National Gallery of Iceland (Listasafn Islands in Icelandic) moved to its current venue. The main building had been built in 1916 as an icehouse and redeveloped (Listasafn, n.d.) (Fig. 6.16).

6.2.2.7 Tobacco factories The Tobacco Factory at Bristol, UK, was built between 1898 and 1901. The building was used to process tobacco until 1985–86 when the owners relocated production. The building fell into disrepair until September 10, 1993, when George Ferguson, architect

Fig. 6.16 Reykjavik National Gallery of Iceland formerly icehouse. Photo by M. Laraia, 2015.

Experience and lessons learned

187

Fig. 6.17 Yenidze Factory, Dresden, Germany. Photo by M. Laraia.

and former mayor of the city, bought the building with the plan to regenerate it as a creative, mixed-use community building. It is now houses Thali Cafe, animation and performing arts school, lofts, a caf
e bar, offices and a theatre (Tobacco Factory, 2018). The Yenidze Tobacco and Cigarette Factory, Dresden, Germany, was a tobacco company, which imported tobacco from Ottoman Yenidze town (now Genisea, Greece). This Dresden factory was built between 1907 and 1909. The “Oriental” style of architecture, which borrows design elements from mosques, recalled the exotic origins of the Oriental tobaccos and functioned as advertising for the firm (Fig. 6.17). Today Yenidze is used as an office building. It has 600 windows of various styles; the dome is 20 m high. The history of the factory can be found in Yenidze (n.d.). Although not a tobacco factory, the Vienna Zacherlfabrik should be quoted here because, like Yenidze, it was built in the style of an Arabic mosque (Fig. 6.18). Zacherlfabrik is a former factory for insecticides. The Oriental-style factory was built between 1888 and 1892. Business started to decline after WWI and, despite endeavors to diversify production, eventually in 1958 the company was cancelled from the registry of active enterprises. The pseudo-mosque of the Zacherlfabrik remained mostly unused; parts of it fell into disrepair, others were let to companies, others yet served as storage space. A new beginning for the Zacherlfabrik came to light only a few years ago.

188

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.18 Zacherlfabrik, Vienna, Austria. Photo by M. Laraia.

In 2006, the last heirs of the Zacherl dynasty started a collaboration with the Art Grant of the Jesuite monastery in Vienna. They refurbished the Zacherlfabrik, removed floors, and merged them into a hall that was used for art exhibitions and in summer for music performances (Zacherlfabrik, n.d.). Unfortunately, due to financial reasons, this support came to an end in 2013 and the fate of Zacherlfabrik is currently uncertain. A not-so-successful redevelopment case is described by Vrusho (2015). Unlike most other cases discussed in this book, this redevelopment project at Durres, Albania was carried out cheaply due to the economically disadvantaged conditions of the country at the time. A three-story industrial building had been built in 1950 and served for 45 years as tobacco warehouse. The adaptive redevelopment of the building for housing requirements was carried out in 1995. The new tenants were former tobacco workers. The structure remained unchanged. Interventions primarily consisted of floor reinforcements, installation of dividing walls, reconstruction, and repairing of the ceilings. Floor reinforcements were made by adding 6 cm of reinforced concrete. The internal apartment walls were made using 10-cm hollow bricks, whereas the dividing apartment walls were 20 cm thick. All wall plastering, internal and external, was remade using standard plaster and lime. The building was not plastered from the outside. The building is 15.3 m
66.4 m and covers an area of 1000 m2. The reconstruction was based on small 1 + 1 apartments (one bedroom and one living room, around 60 m2 each). To exploit the available area to the max the apartments were placed along both sides of a long corridor. The common areas were left with only 6% of the construction. The building contains now 12 apartments and some 95 inhabitants.

Experience and lessons learned

189

The environmental quality of the building is poor. The apartments have high ceilings (3.75 m) with large light openings due to the existing building structure. The height of the apartments makes it difficult to heat them in winter. The windows used for reconstruction were single glass aluminum framed and not of a good quality, Energy conservation is very poor because of the low insulation of the materials used. The inhabitants made a lot of spatial changes to their apartments: they closed loggias to use them as bedrooms, and altered interior walls to connect dining with living rooms (these changes were due to being the existing interiors insufficient for large families); they added tents at the facade to shield direct sunshine; and they installed air conditioning or wood stoves for heating purposes. Many families had their apartments oriented to north and complained for the high humidity: they also complained for insufficient lighting. Due to the wide use of hollow bricks many complained about noise. This case study highlights that adaptive reuse of industrial buildings for residential purposes should be done with proper materials and allocating sufficient living spaces. The artist Alberto Burri founded the Fondazione Palazzo Albizzini “Collezione Burri” in 1978 in Citta’ di Castello, Italy, as a tribute to his birthplace. Since 1990, part of his collection has been exhibited in what were the drying sheds of the tobacco factory. Alberto Burri used these sheds as a laboratory for the production of large works from 1978 (Umbria Tourism, n.d.). A tobacco factory was built at Krems, Austria in 1922. The reinforced concrete framed build is noteworthy for its “third baroque” style, and its enormous size makes it a Krems landmark. When the production ceased in the late 1980s, the local council utilized the empty spaces for the Provincial Scientific Academy. The grid-like ground plan facilitated the conversion. The project was finished in 1995 and the 15,000-m2 floor space began to host a number of Departments of today’s Danube University (Stadler, n.d.). The following story has a bit of irony in it. At Winston-Salem, NC, a factory that once produced almost half of the cigarettes in the USA has been converted into Wake Forest Biotech Place, whose mission is to cure diseases. The 2.25-ha Biotech Place had been two tobacco facilities once owned by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which donated the dilapidated and unused properties to Piedmont Triad Research Park, who later sold them to Wexford Science & Technology, LLC. (The building is leased back to Wake Forest.) Redevelopment of the buildings was done in 18 months and was financed through the North Carolina Mill Rehabilitation Tax Credits program and the federal New Markets and Historic Tax Credits. The buildings were gutted and stripped to the core on the interior (one wonders whether the principle of preservation was really complied with…) and then refurbished with new mechanical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical systems, fire protection, and goods-lift systems to upgrade them to current standards. Biotech Place comprises 80% labs and 20 and office space. It has a 700-m2 glass atrium that illuminates the building’s center, is five-story high on the south side and three-story high on the north side. The south end of the building was built in 1937 with a distinctive glass block exterior, which had to be retained as historic heritage. Each glass block was individually surveyed to decide which to retain,

190

Beyond Decommissioning

repair, or remove. Luckily, there were onsite several pallets of the original blocks that could be used as replacements. The northern side has a brick facade and was completed in 1962. The building also offers conference halls, an auditorium, and a cafe. The area in front of Biotech Place was planned to become a public park offering concerts and night movies. An old rail line behind the facility will be converted into a trail that will connect with existing trails totaling some 50 km of walking or biking pathways (Politico Magazine, 2016).

6.2.2.8 OPEC 1 and 2, Casaccia Research Center, Rome, Italy Since 2003, at the Enea Casaccia Research Center, SOGIN has been managing the nuclear decommissioning of OPEC plant (an acronym for Operazioni Calde—Hot Operations), including the management of both operational and decommissioning waste. OPEC consists of two units, OPEC 1 and 2. OPEC 1 started operation in 1962: it was the first plant in Italy to conduct research and postirradiation investigations on UO2 fuel elements. The operations consisted of surveys and destructive analyses of fuel elements inside three in-line screening cells. Since 1990, the OPEC 1 deactivation process have involved encapsulation of the spent fuel, dismantling of the equipment and decontamination of the hot cells. In 2008, the structure was given to storage and management of radioactive materials. OPEC 2 was constructed in the 1970s: it aimed at furthering research, controls and analyses being performed at OPEC 1, especially for “alpha seal” management of highly irradiated fuel. The plant, including two high-activity and five medium activity cells, never went operational. Today, the plant is being restructured to turn it into an interim store for the radioactive waste generated at the Casaccia Plutonium Plant. Between 2012 and 2014, at the OPEC plants, a number of safety-driven activities were carried out addressing: the control of the ventilation systems, transformers, electrical substations, emergency compressed air systems, intercom, liquid tank workshops and monitoring system. At OPEC 1 the underground tanks (Waste A and B), formerly used for collection of radioactive liquids, were taken offsite for processing. The next phase involves reclamation of the structures housing the tanks. In 2014, removal of nuclear materials from the plant within the scope of the GTRI (Global Threat Reduction Initiative) agreement stipulated between Italy and the USA was completed. The removal of nuclear materials and spent fuel under the GTRI has been conducive to the safe and cost-effective decommissioning and release of Italian nuclear plants. The OPEC decommissioning activities will end between 2023 and 2027 (a range including the uncertainties due to the prototypical character of the works). At this stage, the radioactive waste, already conditioned and stored in the interim stores onsite, will be ready for shipment to the future National Repository (SOGIN, 2017).

Experience and lessons learned

191

6.2.2.9 Automobile plants The Ford Assembly Plant, in Richmond, California, was the largest assembly plant to be built on the US West Coast. The plant is part of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Built in 1930 during the Great Depression, the plant spans over almost 4.65 ha. The factory was a major stimulant to the local and regional economy and was an important development in Richmond’s inner harbor and port plan. It is an excellent example of industrial architecture designed by architect Albert Kahn, known for his "daylight factory" design, which utilized large extensive window openings. The main building is composed of a two-story section, a single-story section, a crane-way, a boiler house and a shed canopy structure over the railroad track. During WWII the Richmond Ford Assembly Plant switched to assembling military vehicles. The last Ford was assembled in February 1953, with the plant being closed in 1956. In 1989, an earthquake severely damaged the plant. After the earthquake, the City of Richmond repaired and prepared the Ford Assembly building for rehabilitation: Orton Development was selected as the developer of the rehabilitation project. Currently the historic plant, a mixed-use property called Ford Point, houses businesses, a restaurant, light industrial, and entertainment spaces. Inside the imposing building, SunPower assembles rooftop solar racks. Down the hall, Mountain Hardwear designs and sells outdoor gear. The Craneway Pavilion—a giant, glass-enclosed space where cranes once hoisted completed vehicles onto train cars—now hosts a range of cultural and entertainment events (SFGATE, 2010). In Allen Park, MI, Ford developed Fairlane Green, a retail and recreational center on a site formerly used as Ford industrial waste landfill. The development includes retail stores and restaurants, a park and some 5 km of trails. Fairlane Green was built as a green (i.e., sustainable) property. Energy-efficient heating and cooling equipment and roofing was installed on site buildings. The former Ford Tractor Division R&D operation in Troy, MI, was redeveloped into Midtown Square (condominiums and shopping center). Former operations at the 30-ha facility included performance, emissions, calibration, and durability testing on diesel engines and tractors, as well as solvent degreasing, machining, painting, sandblasting, and welding (Michigan DEQ, 2007). General Motors (GM) cooperated with the US Postal Service (USPS) to redevelop a 30-ha GM facility in Pontiac, MI. The former facility, dating back to the early 1900s, consisted of a foundry, engine plant, and assembly plant. In 2005, construction began on a 7-ha USPS distribution center. The distribution center regrouped six area postal facilities, allowing USPS to move mail more efficiently. In Pontiac, MI, GM redeveloped its obsolete Central Manufacturing and Assembly Facility. The property was converted into an engineering center for the GM truck Group, including offices, laboratories, GM supplier facilities, three hotels, restaurants, and a daycare facility (Keppler et al., 2008).

192

Beyond Decommissioning

6.2.2.10 Custard Factory, Birmingham, UK The Custard Factory (CF) complex, built in the early 1900s, covers a vast area in the heart of Birmingham, United Kingdom. At its peak, some 1000 people worked there. In 1964, the production relocated and the factory fell derelict. The redevelopment of the CF could commence when a significant grant was assigned to the initiative by the city of Birmingham (1992). A larger financial support was provided by private investors and allowed the refurbishment of a number of buildings. In this way well over 100 spaces were assigned to creative businesses. The project was run in two phases. Phase one created an arts and media quarter. The former loading dock was converted into a pond surrounded by a dance studio, shops, art galleries, a cafe´ and bar, sculptures and fountains. A 220-seat theatre was also installed. In 2002 the second phase, which created a hundred studio/offices, lake side stores, art galleries and restaurants was completed. In March 2007, the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, announced new funding for the Custard Factory of £9.6 m ($12.3 m), to open 100 new office and workspace units. The result was a restored grade II listed building, which opened in May 2010. CF now provides workspaces to about 1000 people. Five factors are quoted by Arnesen (2006) to justify the success of this regeneration project: l

l

l

l

l

CF is a place to work. There are studio spaces which are flexible and suited to small creative businesses; CF is a place to live. Student flats are established (cheap rents was a prerequisite of the redevelopment project); CF is a place of commerce. There is a variety of shops, caf
es, and consumption-led creative industries; CF is a place to learn. There is a MA course in Fine Arts; dance, crafts, and theater classes are well established; CF is a place of physical regeneration. New life has been injected into a dilapidated, derelict area.

6.2.2.11 Clementhorpe Maltings, York, UK The Clementhorpe Maltings was a 19th-century malthouse used until the late 1950s. It had been unused since deactivation; in fact, the site had been doomed to demolition. It was listed grade II, which implied that reuse was the preferred option. The maltings has been converted into six houses, which is a rare conversion case, since most malting installations are converted into apartments. The selected approach, however, allowed the party walls of the houses to work as structural members to stiffen the timber and cast iron framework. This meant a cost saving in that otherwise the maltings would have had to be stabilized prior to being converted. Moreover, the conversion to houses made the building harmonize with the contiguous houses of that district of York. There are several malting features which are hard to conserve, for example, the soaking cistern, the grain dressing machinery, and the bucket elevators. Kiln furnaces can also be a problem but they are normally kept as a room feature. At Clementhorpe

Experience and lessons learned

193

all these features were conserved, some in situ like the dressing machine and the kiln furnace while the bucket elevators have been moved to the main entrance hall. The doors to the grain containers were also kept but moved elsewhere. In general, the conversion project retained as many of the original features as possible. Most floors were arranged in section to account for the available ceiling height, with bedrooms, bathrooms, and utilities in the lowest areas, and living rooms in the higher ones. Little use was made of new materials, and new windows, while intentionally noticeable, are not invasive (Industrial Archaeology, 2017).

6.2.2.12 Dairy and Ice Factory, Berlin, Germany The founder of the dairy factory, Carl Bolle, paved the way for Berlin’s economic boom in late 1800s. In contemporary Spree-Bogen area, Bolle installed production areas and workshops, accommodation for thousands of his workers, coachmen and milkmaids, social facilities, stables, and carts. Today’s event spaces originally served as a ballroom and factory chapel and later became a margarine production area. Then the building became one of Berlin’s first cinemas. Later on, it became a theatre. Between 1913 and 1924, the factory was enlarged to include three cooling houses and a boiler house with an engine room close to the river. In 1914, enormous ice generators and cooling machines were installed. At the end of the 1920s, the factory’s entrance gate was enlarged to allow the transport of ice on railways. The ice blocks were loaded onto wagons from the cooling house ramps and transported to the freight terminal of the railway station. The production of ice blocks declined after WWII and completely ceased in 1991. Over the next 20 years the former ice factory buildings deteriorated and some of the cooling houses were demolished in 2010. Today, the existing buildings are protected by the Berlin conservation authorities. The building underwent extensive renovation in 2013–2014 in line with strict conservation requirements. During these renovation works, the special flavor of the industrial architecture was emphasized and modernized. Ceilings up to 8 m high, bare brick walls, tall steel-framed windows, cast-iron pillars of this listed building make it typical of Berlin’s industrial architecture. The newly extended roof terrace and the former cinema projection room converted into Bolle’s Bar are two new highlights. The building now houses several event halls, a bar/ restaurant, a four-star hotel and shops. The enlargement toward the Spree is characterized by a series of brickwork and steel-and-glass structures. Other parts of the site are planned for redevelopment at the time of writing (May 2018) (Berliner Zeitung, 2015).

6.2.2.13 Kurashiki Factory, Okayama Prefecture, Japan A former masking tape factory in Kurashiki City, Japan was recently converted into new uses. For 90 years the building was used for mixing the paste used in the manufacturing of the masking tape. To be converted, the building was stripped back to its concrete frame and a new roof added, supported by slim steel columns running

194

Beyond Decommissioning

through existing floor voids. The architecture is purposely simple, with crisp new cladding and minimally detailed display cases playing off the grungy concrete frame. The converted building is now used as a museum documenting the history of the company, a dining room and conference space (Architectural Review, 2012).

6.2.2.14 Hangar Bicocca, Milan, Italy The history of Hangar Bicocca is closely linked to that of Breda, the company that moved it to the Bicocca district of Milan, Italy in 1903. Such renowned companies as Pirelli, Falck, and Marelli followed Breda, so turning the area into an important industrial center. In the new 20 ha factory, Breda manufactured railway wagons, electric, and steam locomotives, boilers, agricultural machinery and, during WWI, military equipment. One of the factory buildings was Pirelli Hangar Bicocca, which at the time was divided into blocks of different types and size. The huge building called today “Le Navate” in Italian (“The Aisles”) was constructed in the early 1960s for the assembling and testing of transformers. The building, which has retained its original dimensions to this day—9500 m2 with a height of about 30 m—has a “nave” and two aisles. In the early 1980s, the historic industrial areas began to be decommissioned. The Bicocca district was subject to a full urban redevelopment (Fig. 6.19). The 1986 Bicocca Project led to the establishment of university buildings, administration centers, and private houses, as well as to the redevelopment of the old Pirelli factory buildings. After many years of neglect, it was decided in 2004 that Pirelli Hangar Bicocca was to be converted into an exhibition space for contemporary art (Hangar Bicocca, n.d.). Since 2004, one of the building aisles has housed The Seven Heavenly Palaces, a piece of contemporary art by the German artist Anselm Kiefer.

6.2.2.15 Officine Grandi Riparazioni, Turin, Italy The 20,000-m2 redeveloped Officine Grandi Riparazioni (OGR, “Large Repairs Workshop) opened up to the general public in September 2017. The OGRs located in the heart of Turin, Italy, were founded in late 19th century and later nicknamed the “cathedral” of Turin’s industrial history. The initial assumption of the redevelopment, which only considered “rendering the structure secure”, evolved into a broader and more ambitious project encompassing the multiple use of the new OGRs (2018). The redevelopment project has been a major step from former workshops for the repair of trains to new laboratories of contemporary culture, innovation, and business. Over three years of work and €100 million investment were needed to establish this center of creativity, culture, and performance for public use: High-tech solutions, environmental sustainability, preservation of historical values, flexibility and modularity of spaces, maximum usability, and accessibility to all have been the factors inspiring the full-scale redevelopment of the OGRs.

Experience and lessons learned

195

Fig. 6.19 .Hangar Bicocca, Milan, Italy. Photo by M. Laraia.

Within walking distance from the Porta Susa High-Speed Train station, the Politecnico (the Turin University), the Energy Center, several private research areas, excellence institutions and the future congress center are now the nucleus of the new OGRs. The urban restructuring of this part of the city includes also the creation of two public squares, functionally connected to the OGRs but accessible to the public for relax, meeting people and socialization (Fig. 6.20). The Corte Est square has openair artwork while the Corte Ovest square has a garden displaying the old water tower and a stage conceived for open-air events, shows, dining, etc. From the architectural and construction standpoint the project secures the perception of large-scale volumes and significant heights. The works also have had minimal impact on the original structure, they are reversible and recognizable through the use of new materials, colors and detail. Another detail of the OGRs (Fig. 6.21) introduces the concept of railway conversion, which is discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.3.

6.2.2.16 Manufacturing buildings reused for biotech, medical and chemistry facilities, and supportive uses Redundant facilities of this kind have begun to attract buyers that can profit from existing infrastructure (e.g., cleanrooms and power). Besides, advanced technology manufacturing facilities can be bought at a fraction of their initial cost, and biotech

196

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.20 Inner spaces within the OGRs. Photo by M. Laraia.

Fig. 6.21 OGRs former nave for movement of locomotives and the like. Photo by M. Laraiaon the occasion of the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Unification of Italy, 2012.

facilities are much less expensive when they reuse existing spaces than when they are installed into new builds. Thirdly, reusing existing facilities means that the biotech facilities can save several months in startup time.

Experience and lessons learned

197

The experience quoted below arises from the nonnuclear sector, but it can be readily exported to large radiological laboratories and radiation research facilities. In 2004, Peace Health bought Sony’s former CD and DVD manufacturing facilities in Sprongfield, OR, converting the 3-ha facility into laboratory and support area for hospitals and clinics in the region. Peace Health would have paid about three times more if they had built similar space. In August 2003 KBI Bio Pharma, Inc., acquired Mitsubishi’s 3.16-ha former semiconductor building in Durham, NC, for $15.5 million. The site ceased wafer fabrication operations in 1998 due to company’s restructuring and has stood empty ever since. Mitsubishi originally spent $270 million building and equipping the campus in the early 1990s. The former semiconductor plant contains 4700 m2 of cleanrooms and 450 m2 of laboratories. The complex also includes 12,500 m2 of office space, as well as a cafeteria and stores. The buildings came equipped with complementary infrastructure used both in biopharmaceutical and semiconductor manufacturing, including systems for producing highly filtered water and air. The Mitsubishi plant had also 0.5 ha of cleanrooms (these are controlled environments that have a low level of pollutants such as dust, airborne microbes, etc. Cleanrooms vary in size and complexity, and are used extensively in either semiconductor manufacturing or pharmaceuticals and biotech). It was estimated that in reusing existing facilities rather than building new spaces, KBI spent half of the money needed. An additional benefit to KBI was an available workforce that included hundreds of former Mitsubishi staff already trained to work in a cleanroom environment: as noted elsewhere in this book the availability of skilled labor is a bonus common to many cases of nuclear redevelopment (Biopharm, 2005). A table given in Alchemy (2005) compares typical features of biotechnology vs semiconductor facilities: this could serve to illustrate the potential for adaptive conversion of one category of facilities into the other. A different reuse is given in the following. In Wake County, NC, USA, the conversion of an office and scientific research facility into a school is a story with four exemplary ingredients: good timing, smooth teamwork, one prime contractor, and cooperation among parties. In 1998, the Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) embarked on the adaptive reuse of the unused American Sterilizer Company facility. The 1.4-ha complex included an architecturally impressive glass and granite office building and an adjacent scientific R&D building within a broader 9-ha site. Initially the complex did not look like a school, but the conversion did work. In 1997, Apex High School was going to be renovated the following year, displacing 800 pupils. Transferring them to other crowded schools was not possible, nor was using trailers. The American Sterilizer complex fulfilled preliminary criteria for adaptive reuse, namely: a new school building was needed promptly; the proposed facility was well built and well located; and it was available and affordable. Once a feasibility study confirmed the building’s suitability, the project was put on a fast track. In Wake County, a typical school construction project takes about two and one-half years—a year for design, school district approval, and the selection of multiple contractors; and 1.5 years for execution. Instead, this project had to be finished in 9 months.

198

Beyond Decommissioning

Selecting and coordinating multiple contractors would take a long time, and local contractors were already overextended. Therefore, the project acquired one prime contractor who could be focused on the project and select subcontractors. WCPSS began at once a comprehensive assessment of the American Sterilizer complex, which included a structural and architectural analysis as well as roof surveys and inspections of the mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. WCPSS collaborated with state and local government agencies supervising funding, zoning, authorizations, and safety. Public meetings were held to gather suggestions from pupils, teachers, and community members on the design of classrooms, laboratories, and common areas. While the architect completed renovation plans and specifications, demolition contractors removed asbestos and gutted interiors. In parallel, the school team hired a construction contractor committed to high standards of quality and to the fast-track schedule. The land and buildings cost $7.5 million; design, demolition, and construction added about $13 million. Although the project’s final cost was similar to a new construction, its faster completion (9 months vs 2.5 years) provided facilities in time for the new school year (NCEF, 2003). Similar to other US cities in the so-called Rust Belt, Toledo, OH was severely hit when manufacturing plants and businesses relocated away from downtown. A project of our concern involved the adaptive reuse and expansion of a landmarked steam plant built in 1896, and designed by famed architect Daniel Burnham. The project also included the conversion of a 1981 brutalist concrete building into of a new parking garage. ProMedica formerly had offices scattered around the city and managed to unite its staff in one building. The new downtown campus is meant to increase ProMedica visibility while aiming to revitalize an ageing downtown neighborhood. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the steam plant sat idle for 30 years before it was purchased by ProMedica. The 7300-m2 building has red brick walls and two tall steam stacks, which were preserved. The interior was converted into a four-story office building with ample communal areas and a sunlit atrium. On the side of the building facing the river, the architects added a three-story structure of some 4200 m2. Its facades consist of glass and terracotta. Original elements in the steam plant were preserved as much as possible, including steel roof supports and a 13-t bridge crane, which now hangs in the atrium. Inside the addition, the team used a minimal palette of materials in order to keep the focus on views and to respect Burnham’s vision. The brutalist structure, called the Junction Building, originally served as headquarters for the Toledo Trust Company. It was later occupied by KeyBank, which relocated in 2015. The 9500 m2 triangular building was fully renovated inside. Office space takes the uppermost three floors, while the ground floor hosts two restaurants. A gym is situated in the basement (Dezeen, 2018e). Unlike the other projects described in this book, there are examples of conversions from a nonindustrial to industrial use. The former Balmoral Curling Club, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada was originally built in 1957 and remained vacant since 2007. The new use of the structure is a research and academic facility that hosts

Experience and lessons learned

199

University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services teams working on medical isotope research, and the production of isotopes used to diagnose and treat patients with cancer, heart, neurological and other diseases. The structure includes a cyclotron, laboratories (clean rooms, radioisotope, chemistry, R&D, instrumentation), materials handling and administrative offices (HFKS, 2017). A nice example of adaptive reuse can be seen in the renovation of 20 Washington Street, Princeton University, NJ. The building, built in 1929 with several subsequent additions, contained large laboratory classrooms, offices, and mechanical spaces. It housed the Department of Chemistry until the new Frick Chemistry Laboratory nearby opened in 2010.Then the former chemistry building became obsolete. However, its central location and “iconic collegiate gothic structure” 20 Washington Street was too significant to demolish. Thus, the university decided to convert the building into the new venue of the Department of Economics and other university’s international programs and services. The renovation focused on “[striking] a delicate balance between preserving the most appealing features of this building—its stone walls, wood-beamed lobby, leaded windows, and collegiate-gothic flourishes—and transcending its limitations—a gloomy interior, mazelike corridors, and a woefully inefficient mechanical system.” Basically, the project involves maintenance of the gothic exterior, with a remodeled interior, which is light, airy, and fulfills today’s needs. Primary interior spaces were also preserved. The project meets state-of-theart standards for the reuse of a historic structure, including reuse of materials such as the stone exterior and interior woodwork, use of sustainable materials in finishes, storm-water management, and energy efficient temperature, lighting, and plumbing systems. The project is noteworthy as a great combination of sustainability and preservation (Campus Plan, 2016). Another project involving a university building can be quoted here. Situated in the old north campus of NC State, University, Raleigh, the Park Shops building is a historic, three-story masonry structure built in 1914 to house the Mechanical Engineering department. NC State joined with architectural consultants to preserve this historic building while creating an industrial design esthetics that merges old and new. The adaptive reuse of the Park Shops building has resulted in a contemporary, multiuse building housing anthropology and archaeology laboratories, classrooms and video-conferencing facilities, a caf
e, and office spaces. The project included a full renovation of 4450 m2 of existing space and an addition of 80 m2 for a new glass-enclosed entrance canopy. To accommodate the new videoconference facilities, an area of existing wood floor had to be removed and replaced with a new steel and composite concrete structure to create an unobstructed space and for better acoustics. Classrooms are located under existing clerestory windows to maximize the exposure natural daylight, and laboratories are situated under existing roof trusses and are supported by the new floor structure. The masonry shell of the building remains a central motif for the design (Clark Nexen, 2013). The redevelopment of the Integrative Biosciences Center (IBio) at Wayne State University (WSU), Detroit, MI, was faced with an enormous task—transform a 1920s auto dealership into a state-of-the-art biomedical research facility.

200

Beyond Decommissioning

The redevelopment team was also time-pressured: they had only 5 weeks to do it, rather than a more typical 5 months, due to administrative deadlines. In addition to its main task, the project also had to accommodate the historical building’s physical disconnection from WSU’s main campus and potential partner facilities, catalyze the redevelopment of the area, and coordinate with adjacent development efforts such as a new light rail line. Now IBio offers 19,000 m2 to support research themes, including biomedical engineering, cardiovascular, diabetes, and metabolism, behavioral science and computational biology. “Two-thirds of the final building is restoration of a derelict 1927 Albert-Kahndesigned auto dealership, 75% of which remains. The building was structurally unsuited to lab planning, with a host of existing conditions in desperate need of correction or repair. Portions of the original building were not constructed properly in the first place, requiring remediation of unreinforced concrete and inadequately supported columns…By renovating a 90-year-old abandoned structure, IBio represents a second century of usable life for the building. The new layout is designed to be as adaptable as possible, featuring open space, movable casework, Quick-Connect fixtures, and perimeter-run lab systems (water/air/vacuum) to facilitate access as needs change. This approach primarily is intended to facilitate continually evolving habits among multidisciplinary researchers, but it also should extend the building’s life even further by accommodating future, unanticipated needs.” It is interesting to note that this project envisages future redevelopments, which is fully consistent with the circular economy sketched in Fig. 4.1. The design includes flexible office and wet/dry lab space to permit multiple themes to collaborate on similar projects, while allowing single groups to shrink or enlarge as needed. All of the wet lab casework is moveable to allow for prompt reconfiguration without reconstruction. Placing the wet labs in the existing building meant that ceiling space was quite valuable—an assortment of terminal heating and cooling equipment was used for space conditioning, such as chilled beams in the dry lab and administrative areas. The dry labs are an open work environment in a new addition to the building and around the wet lab core on the north side of the building—this preserves daylight and views for the researchers, and none of them occupies an outside wall (Lab Design News, 2017). Experience at the University of Connecticut’s Cell and Genome Sciences Building proves that it is possible to completely repurpose an old laboratory building from the 1970s to a state-of-the-art biological research facility. The project was challenging. What was formerly a privately owned toxicology-focused laboratory with largeanimal holding spaces would have to be converted into a core research facility for quantitative cell biology, genomics, and human stem cell biology. In other words, the project had to convert a building that was once 50% vivarium to a facility incorporating both bench and computational science. Budget, however, was the most serious challenge. The price for the project was around $2000/m2, which is half an average budget for new construction. Incidentally, as stated many times in this book, success of this project proves the inherent economic advantages of conversion over a new build.

Experience and lessons learned

201

Initially, the University planned to build a new research tower next to the main University of Connecticut’s Health Center (UCHC), but logistics, funds, and a lack of space at the proposed site forced planners to consider an existing vacant building. This was basically a suburban archetype: a big-box, one-story, and windowless building. It had been constructed “with a ‘bunker’ mentality. They really didn’t want anybody to know what was inside”. In addition to cost savings, the redevelopment of an old building presented some other advantages. The isolation from other research facilities at UCHC was at first considered a disadvantage, but the proposed role of the new research facility compensated for this potential problem: actually the building was transformed into a selfcontained, full- service laboratory. In addition, the project would cause no disruption to ongoing activities elsewhere on campus. These conditions allowed a significant freedom to the conversion design. “The goal was not merely to create an annex, but also to create a center of excellence, an attractor. The idea that this lab needed to be a magnet, tailored to magnet users, meant that the entire facility had to be self-sufficient.” One significant problem was that some drawings were incomplete. Besides, the isolation of the building meant that the project had to include a dining facility. In addition, the absence of any windows meant that designers would have to carefully use the budget for bringing light into the building. Daylighting is essential in research work. In these venues, researchers work long hours and need now and then to get a glimpse of the world outside. Letting daylight into the old building was not easy. Many interior locations, for example, were more than 15 m from a perimeter wall. This issue was first addressed by putting 140 m of skylights all up and down the corridors, but this was not enough. The project required to cut out the roof, lift it up, and build a centralized atrium area that would become the focus of the laboratory activity. Blank exterior walls were opened with windows. The basic steel structure could accommodate a multitude of changes. External consultants were hired to adapt the structure to seismic code with additional diagonal bracing, but the underlying structure was preserved. An unexpected challenge was the discovery of oil in the site soil, which was neutralized in situ and the presence of asbestos, which was removed. “Another major change was the replacement of a constant-volume, low-pressure mechanical system with a modern variable air volume system that reduced the energy load on the building while still supplying the necessary ventilation. The elimination of large areas of ductwork allowed designers to eschew ceilings in corridors and perimeters. Another creative use of space was the addition of “cloud” ceilings to certain dry labs and conference rooms to maintain a sense of space while also managing acoustics. Energy use was also trimmed with the addition of new boilers, chillers, cooling towers, air handlers, and lab water and gas systems” (Livingstone, 2011).

6.2.3 Railway stations and ancillary installations This type of facilities exemplifies a range of buildings and accessory structures not unlike some that can be found at nuclear sites.

202

Beyond Decommissioning

6.2.3.1 Stazione Leopolda, Florence, Italy Historically, Stazione (Station) Leopolda was the first train station in Florence, Italy. Completed in 1848 and named “Leopolda” in honor of the reigning Grand Duke, the station was the last stop of the first public railroad in Tuscany, which linked Leghorn to Florence. Shortly after the proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861, all rail traffic was routed to the other terminal named “Santa Maria Novella” and the Leopolda station gradually declined, never again to regain its initial scope. Eventually, after WWII the main remaining feature of Leopolda had a central hall used as a store of railway materials. A few steps away from the very center of Florence, the 6000 m2 Stazione Leopolda is now a place where ancient and modern beauty merge. Over the last few years, it has evolved from the ancient train station into a creativity center including, among others, international conferences and fashion events (The Florentine, 2017).

6.2.3.2 Stazione Ostiense, Rome, Italy The redevelopment of Stazione Ostiense, Rome, tells an entirely different story. For more than 20 years, the glass-domed Air Terminal next to the rail lines of Stazione Ostiense lay semi-abandoned. Squatters occupied most of its spaces, and the surroundings were quite squalid. Then, in 2010, the supermarket chain Eataly began converting the structure into its largest branch. The complex opened in June 2012, exhibiting a wealth of traditional and upper-class Italian food. Within a four-story building. Eataly includes large retail space, restaurants and cafes, a coffee roaster, a brewery, a cooking school, and even a travel agency (NYT, 2012) (Fig. 6.22).

6.2.3.3 Michigan Central Station, Detroit, MI, USA As part of the overall Corktown Campus project, plans are well underway to transform Michigan Central Station into a 46,000 m2 research hub for car company Ford including among others the design of self-driving vehicles. These plans involve the overhaul of the historic building, which has been in neglect for 30 years since the train station was used last (1988), as well as nearby facilities to form a mixed-use redevelopment in central Detroit. The Corktown Campus project is expected to be completed by 2022. Inside the former railway station are marble walls and vaulted ceilings, looking like a Roman bathhouse. A large hall with Doric columns originally housed a ticket office and shops, while central train concourse had brick walls and a large copper skylight. Plans also include restaurant and retail spaces on the ground floor, with residential uses planned across the upper floors (Dezeen, 2018d).

Experience and lessons learned

203

Fig. 6.22 Outside Eataly, Ostiense Station, Rome. Photo by M. Laraia, 2015.

Adaptive Reuse: Brief Stories of Success (2) Heritage-listed warehouse dating from the 1870s converted to adjacent spaces: a bar and private dining space, and main restaurant (Dwell, 2017a) Former warehouse and auto repair shop in Portland was turned into a venue for live music performances (Dwell, 2017b). Old warehouse converted to artist’s studio (Repubblica, 2014). Mechanical workshop converted to energy-efficient loft (Repubblica, 2015) Madrid 930-m2 brewery building transformed into Museo ABC, Spain’s oldest newspaper still in print, whose foundation is funding the operation, and the drawing and illustration art it houses. Multiple exhibition rooms, family workshops, a restoration lab, and a “floating” cafeteria can be found among the building’s expansive six floors (Buildipedia, 2011). Former Coalport Chinaworks, now a Listed Building and a Museum (Shropshire Council, 2017). Drink Factory converted to supermarket (Repubblica, 2011) A match factory, an armory, and a metal refinery converted to flats (London Lite, 2007) “In Pittsburgh, PA, a city rich in brownfields redevelopment and adaptive reuse examples, a site formerly occupied by Carnegie Steel was cleaned and converted to a successful commercial center, and a former slag dump was converted into a residential development. Another former steel mill was converted into a mixed-used development with retail, entertainment, and housing; and 17-ha Herr’s Island that once held a meat packing and rendering plant and rail yards is now hazard-free and supports recreation, manufacturing, commerce, and upscale housing” (DOE, 2009). “In Atlanta, GA, the 56-ha Atlantic Station Project is a national model for smart growth and sustainable development. For nearly 100 years, this brownfield was the home of Atlantic Steel, which was founded in 1901 as Atlanta Hoop Company to make cotton bale ties and barrel hoops.

204

Beyond Decommissioning

In 1998, the site was sold, remediated, and redeveloped as mixed-use Atlantic Station. The Atlantic Station plan includes homes for 10,000 people, retail and hotel employment opportunities for 30,000 more, and shopping and entertainment. Instead of a dark and abandoned factory, there will be a sustainable community” (DOE, 2009). “In Seattle, WA, the Seattle Gas Works Park is a phoenix rising from the rusted remains of a gas factory. The 8-ha point on Lake Union was cleared in 1906 to construct a coal-to-gas manufacturing plant that later handled crude oil. Production stopped in the 1950s, and the city acquired the site for a park, which opened in 1975. The boiler house was converted to a picnic shelter with tables, fire grills, and an open area. The former exhauster-compressor building, now a children’s play barn, features a maze of brightly painted machinery” (DOE, 2009).

6.2.3.4 Oakland’s Ninth Avenue Terminal, CA, USA Not unlike the Ostiense terminal (Section 6.2.3.2), Oakland’s historic Ninth Avenue Terminal was a point of controversy for some 10 years. Efforts to save this building from demolition have now succeeded in the preservation of the historically significant portion of the building to showcase a maritime museum. The 1.67-ha warehouse was opened in 1930 at the west end of Brooklyn Basin, Oakland’s Port. The main purpose of the building was to handle lumber, steel, and large amounts of other commodities. The building had been in use 1930–2015, ultimately as a cotton storage facility. “It is a rare example of a particular architectural typology; a prewar municipal port building utilized for break-bulk cargo in Oakland with railroad spur tracks on either side, and extensive open platform space along the west side (3DVDT, 2016).”

6.2.3.5 Fulham Broadway, London, UK Fulham Broadway is a London Underground station. It was opened as Walham Green in 1880. In 2003, the street-level station building was closed and a new entrance was opened within the adjacent Fulham Broadway shopping center, which was partly installed above the formerly open-air sections of the platforms. The old station building was redeveloped and occupied between 2005 and 2010 by a restaurant. In the period 2010–2012 the building was occupied by an attractive food market. Currently it has a host of little restaurants with communal tables in the middle of the hall. Most of the initial features and architecture have been preserved, among which the facade in terracotta panels is notable (Fig. 6.23). The pedestrian bridge has also been preserved. The building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for its architectural and historic interest. In 1998 Fulham Broadway provided the set for the movie “Sliding Doors”. When leaving the train, the two main characters, Helen and James, are seen going up the old steps towards the exit. These steps no longer lead to that exit, having been made redundant by the new above-mentioned ticket hall; however, they remain as a bridge between the platforms (Historic England, 2018).

Experience and lessons learned

205

Fig. 6.23 Fulham Broadway Underground Station. Photo by M. Laraia, 2018.

6.2.4 Gasholders Already for several decades, gasholders have been gradually made redundant and demolished. This is due to technological progress: gas is now stored in the underground mains network, rather than in huge above ground tanks (see also Glossary). Unfortunately, the demolition program underway in many countries will leave the urban landscape deprived of what, since Victorian times, has been one of its essential features. For example, the London landscape is already altered by the removal of the solid-type Battersea gas holder near the iconic power station described in Section 6.2.1.12 Over the last few years, however, the awareness of the cultural meaning of gas holders has alerted many opinion leaders and environmentalists, and reconversion projects are coming up. “A contest was organized by RIBA Competitions for British gas and electricity network National Grid. It asked architects to develop proposals that could regenerate over 100 of the former industrial sites, dotted across the UK (Dezeen, 2017a). Verhagen and Rodriguez’s proposal sees the wells left behind after the gasholders’ dismantling infilled with telescopic cylindrical blocks, while Max Architects has pitched a housing development surrounding a circular boating pond. Plans by 318 Studio would convert several of the pits to create a semi-subterranean crematorium, and Outpost would encircle a circular patch of landscaping with a mixed-use development housed in individual gabled blocks. Wilson Owens Owens Architects pitched to convert a pair of the wells into an indoor and outdoor sports center, with the latter enclosed by tall fencing, echoing the distinctive steel framework of the demolished gasholders.

206

Beyond Decommissioning

CF architects looked to the future needs of autonomous electric vehicles for its concept two spiraling car parks with charging points and drop-off spots for both terrestrial and flying Old gasholder sites have also prompted a number of other interesting proposals in recent years. Swiss firm Herzog & de Meuron recently unveiled plans to convert Stockholm’s former gasworks into a residential neighborhood”). Among recently completed projects, one should mention the three interlocking gasholders, a distinct section of London King’s Cross industrial heritage. The gasholders have now been cleaned up and incorporated into a modern design, which converts them into a residential complex. The gasholders redevelopment offers a range of open spaces for the residents, as well as such amenities as a gym, spa, rentable work space, and meeting room. The outdoor areas include a spacious terrace with gardens. The project, consisting of concrete cylinders of eight, nine, and 12 stories, originates 145 units including studios, three bedroom apartments, duplexes and penthouses. Although the construction is full adherent to modern standards, it respects the historic features and lies enclosed within the Grade II-listed Victorian iron columns and struts. The interior architecture merges industrial, craft and luxury components. Natural materials such as lye-treated oak, and special details, such as the bathrooms’ cast concrete basins add a measure of refinement. A selection of retail shops will be housed on the gasholders ground level, incentivizing public access to the buildings (Wallpaper, 2018). Construction of the Oberhausen Gasometer (Gasholder), Germany started in 1927: the plant started operation in 1929. During WWII the plant was repeatedly bombed, but managed to continue operation. In fact, when directly hit, it did not shattered, but the gas caught fire and pressure was being slowly lost. The Gasometer was finally shut down by the end of 1944. After being destroyed by fire in 1946 during repairs it was entirely demolished. However, the rupture disc used in operation and the roof were reinstalled during the reconstruction. In the 1980s the use for the Gasometer declined, as natural gas was more economical. Eventually the plant was considered redundant and taken out of service in 1988. A hot debate focused on the fate of the plant. In 1992 the city council voted to take control of the Gasometer and turn it into a cultural space. Conversion and redevelopment were completed in following years. The original rupture disc was blocked a few meters high, while exhibition space was installed underneath. However, the main exhibition area is located above the rupture disc and has a stage and 500 seats. Visitors can reach the roof via stairs or elevators (NRW, 2018). An old idea came up new for gasholder redevelopment. The art of panorama was a popular concept in the late 18th and early 19th centuries: viewers stood in the center of a huge circular painting depicting a panoramic view. A gasholder is an excellent place for a panorama of this kind. Two “panometers” were installed in Leipzig and Dresden, Germany (Panometer, n.d.). Fig. 6.24 shows the idle Rome gasholder, still to be redeveloped (or demolished).

Experience and lessons learned

207

Fig. 6.24 The Rome gasholder. Credit to Rita Restifo.

6.3

Bunkers, tunnels, and other underground installations

There are varied underground structures at nuclear sites. Underground features considered here might include bunkers, tanks, water supply conducts, fire protection, sewerage, mine tunnels and vaults, etc. Some of these SSCs may require dismantling or remediation. However, depending on the redevelopment plans for the site some of the underground SSCs may even be useful and are left in situ. In general, underground structures may reduce the redevelopment potential of a site for two main reasons: (1) real or suspected contamination, which is often difficult to locate, identify, and remove; and (2) the physical obstacles that existing underground structures may pose to the installation of new structures. Some nuclear sites (e.g., waste repositories or uranium mines) are intrinsically based on underground structures (Fig. 6.25). Economics and politics are behind many of the world’s more extensive excavation projects, from resource mines to missile silos. When mines run dry and silos are abandoned, many of the resulting voids represent significant sunk costs but correspondingly stable frameworks. Therefore, underground redevelopments are normally the products of adaptive reuse, converting existing voids into new functions. Industrial facilities and sites may have bunkers for a variety of purposes. At the time the entire facility or site is decommissioned, bunkers cease their functions as well. In practice, redevelopment experience with bunkers refers mostly to military installations or fallout shelters. Homes in silos are not for everyone, but have drawn the attention of some since the beginning of the Cold War. Their relatively small size, lack of natural light, and vertical orientation makes them unattractive to the general public but their reinforced shells and remote locations can be appealing to survivalist-minded people.

208

Beyond Decommissioning

Fig. 6.25 WIPP underground tunnels. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a DOE facility for the safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste. Credit to DOE.

While built to last, abandoned silos can pose several problems including mold and a lack of prompt access to active gas, power, water, and sewer services. So while buying a silo and associated spaces can be relatively inexpensive, residential restructuring can be technically difficult and expensive. Many buyers occupy only the auxiliary spaces of the silo and leave the main silo untouched. Some redevelopers, however, have converted vertical silo spaces into multiunit dwellings. These are marketed as shelters in case of catastrophes. For example, Lux ury Survival Condo, near Concordia, KS, USA, contains basic infrastructure for power, water, air, and food. It also offers top-budget amenities, including fitness areas, climbing walls, dog parks, and theaters. The locations of emergency silos are generally secret to avoid people rushing to them during an emergency (99% Invisible, 2016). In general, redevelopment of former military bunkers and silos can be hindered by their typically remote location. However, the numerous examples given in this book prove that the reuse of these facilities is indeed possible and desirable. Since the first cars ventured to explore the world the gas stations have taken multiple functions, for example, as retail shops, refuges for emergency, and petty talk, and symbols of profitable business. More than anything else, the ubiquitous gas station was the emblem of the automobile revolution. Their wide canopies acted as signboards and often included nicely sweeping lines and weightless supports. The pumps and service bays left a strong imprint on the built environment, and

Experience and lessons learned

209

retailers often adapted their shops to the layout of the station and the needs of the local community around them. However, as gas consumption has decreased, and the cost of land has skyrocketed, many stations are closing. With their large footprint and lack of adjacent infrastructure, gas stations offer now attractive prospects for redevelopment, including art galleries, office spaces, and restaurants (Arch Daily, 2018b). More than half a million underground storage tanks (USTs) in the USA alone store petroleum or hazardous substances. The greatest threat from a leaking UST is contamination of groundwater, the main source of drinking water in the country. In 2015, the EPA issued revised UST regulations (GPO, 2015). Locations of USTs should be carefully researched in preparation to the redevelopment. It was common to have natural gas and fuel oil tanks for powering the boilers in large schools or nursing homes. Fuel oil did not commonly leak, but preparations for site redevelopment in the vicinity should include the removal of such tanks and verification that the site (soil, groundwater) is clean. Developers should also be aware that gasoline tanks, even if they are not onsite, may be somewhere nearby. Gasoline leaks move easily and sideways, meaning that a gas station or paint store may have leaked gasoline onto a redevelopment site nearby. There is abundant literature about environmental risks posed by gas stations and rehabilitation options (Cramer, 2005). The following is a brief description of challenges posed by nuclear underground structures and successful reuse options. The Technical (T) Building at Mound Site, Ohio, is an underground, bomb shelter-type reinforced concrete construction, with a 5-m thick roof, 5-m thick walls, and is supported by a 2.5-m thick slab. It is especially significant for its role in the purification of Po210 for use in nuclear weapons. Polonium was important for its role as initiator (neutron generator) of the chain reaction. The building was constructed in 1947–48 at almost half the cost of all other 16 buildings of the entire Mound Site. The T Building is a five-story building sunk into a hillside, mostly underground, with aboveground towers and an outsideaccessible service tunnel. In 1954, Mound began a program using Po210 to convert nuclear energy to stable electric energy. In 1958, the first polonium-powered thermoelectric generator (RTG) was built. The RTG provided power to a satellite radio transmitter. Plutonium was eventually used as a substitute beginning in the early 1970s. The T Building was also active in tritium applications and is therefore contaminated by tritium (and other radioisotopes). It also housed neutron and alpha source programs. It served as storage for the Mound’s transuranic waste that had no specified destination. After removal of this waste, Mound plans called for the T building to be closed and the tritium contamination to decay in situ for around 100 years (Environmental Law Institute, 1998). However as of 2004 the T Building participated in a USDOE Large-Scale Demonstration Project for Tritium Facilities to identify, demonstrate and evaluate improved technologies applicable to the decommissioning of excess tritium facilities. Due to tritium relatively long half-life (12.3 years) institutional controls would be needed to deal with any tritium contaminated buildings that are left in place; besides, some controls may be needed to deal with the related contaminated seeps until the contamination is eliminated or reduced.

210

Beyond Decommissioning

There is (DOE, 2015) a prohibition against the removal of concrete floor material or the penetration of concrete floors in specified rooms of T Building without prior written approval from EPA, Ohio EPA, and Ohio Department of Health. These activities could result in unacceptable exposures. The basis for this prohibition can be described as follows. During the remediation of the T Building, the contractor encountered bulk contamination of the floor and footings in certain areas. Efforts to remediate the contaminated floor and footer in certain rooms were technically and economically difficult to justify. Following an assessment of the risks involved to the building’s structural integrity if removal of contaminated concrete continued, a decision was made to leave the contaminated concrete subfloor and footer in place, and to add a cap of color coded (red) concrete to provide a margin of safety from the residual contamination. The T Building remains a case of difficult reuse. An example of a large underground military base converted into tourist attraction is given by Worldcrunch (2018). A nuclear base, codenamed “816 Nuclear Military Plant,” had been installed under the mountain in Fuling, southwest China. The size of this installation, which was intended to produce Pu239 for atomic weapons, is enormous. With over 20 km of tunnels and 18 huge caves excavated for the reactor and its systems, the site is regarded as the largest network of underground tunnels in the world. In fact, the site was never used as a military installation. The Chinese government abandoned in 1984 the project, which was 85% complete. Much of the military facilities was converted into factories. In 2010, the government decided to turn the base into a tourist attraction. The base remained closed since while it was being restructured until it reopened for public access in 2017. The City of St Paul, MN, USA requested consultants to study the feasibility of an integrated, district energy system for the 55-ha Ford site redevelopment. The consultants were requested to assess the potential reuse of the former steam plant and steam tunnels. The reuse of industrial buildings has been covered in other sections of this book, so the following applies to the reuse of the steam tunnels. The project was expected to establish a heat distribution system (a.k.a. district heating) through a piping network to a number of buildings. The site has an old steam pipe that runs through a bridge structure from the steam plant to the steep face and from there through a tunnel about 5 m underground to the center of the ex-assembly area. Some 24 m further down there are old vehicle tunnels used until 1959 for hauling cars from the assembly plant to the river (230 m each). There is also an extensive network of sand mining tunnels (some 3800 m total length), excavated between 1926 and 1959, when the plant manufactured glass for vehicle windows with silica mined from underground sandstone onsite. When the glass manufacture was discontinued, the mining tunnels were shut down and the entries closed, but the tunnels were still there. The total length of utility tunnels (for steam, drains, and electric cables) is around 1200 m. A structural analysis will be needed if any of the tunnels are envisaged for reuse. Moreover, as a totally new infrastructure is planned for the site, including ad hoc hot water district heating, the consultants find it difficult to justify the reuse of the sand tunnels for district heating. This reuse option would pose unneeded and expensive

Experience and lessons learned

211

restrictions on the pipe routing for the district heating. Further on, to fit those tunnels for preinsulated pipes would pose serious design and installation challenges, and the total cost of the network would be considerably higher than in other reuse options. However, if the steam plant is repurposed for new district heating, then the old steam pipe bridge and tunnel would be useful in directing the new pipes from the plant to the site boundary (following a careful structural analysis). In summary, the project consultants highlighted the following conclusions for their clients’ consideration: l

l

Depending on its soundness, it can be an advantage to the future district heating infrastructure to reuse the section of the steam tunnel linking the steam plant building to the borders of the Ford site. The sand tunnels do not provide an adequate network for new energy infrastructure to and on the main redevelopment site. They might be envisaged for other forms of reuse (St. Paul, 2014).

Another relevant case is the Battery Street Tunnel in downtown Seattle, WA, USA. Local authorities wanted to use it as a disposal site for the rubble of a demolished viaduct; however, local residents loved the old structure, and wanted it converted into a mushroom farm, recycling center or wastewater store. It was also proposed that the site could become a park, an exciting ride (e.g., a roller coaster) at an amusement park or a mix of several uses. For example, the tunnel could hold almost 50,000 m3 of water. Some sewer pipes pass right above the tunnel, and some below. The vision was to create a key piece of ecological infrastructure, and not just a container. A plant for capturing and filtering sewage could be installed in the tunnel. Or better, the water filtration could be combined with industrial uses of the filtered water. The promoters of the tunnel reuse launched a campaign to freeze any project for the tunnel until a productive use can be found. The debate was still open in November 2017 when the article quoted by Crosscut (2017) was written. Unfortunately, a few months later, as reported by Seattle (2018) the City Council voted that the tunnel will be filled with viaduct demolition debris and sealed off. It was reported that the main driver for this outcome was the cost of doing seismic upgrades and other rehabilitation work on the tunnel, which could cost from $75 to $100 million, depending on the adaptive reuse selected. Apparently, the use of the tunnel as a waste dump does not require these expenses. The site described in Zillow (2013) and converted into a home is designed to withstand explosions, earthquakes, and nearly all natural disasters thanks to its thick concrete walls. The site in question is a relic from the Cold War, when the US were developing the Atlas missile system and installed the missiles in bases throughout the country. In the late 1960s, these sites were decommissioned and sold to be private dwellings or for other uses. In this home, the missile was placed in an underground silo linked to the missile launch control center. The silo is 55 m deep
15 m in diameter and could be adapted to the buyer’s desires. For example, it could be converted into an organic vegetable farm, hydroponics, precious metal vault, scuba diving school, or a test facility. Wichita Eagle (2006) reports a number of different reuses for underground facilities of this type. It also indicates a potential redevelopment issue, that

212

Beyond Decommissioning

is, the contamination from substances like trichloroethylene, a clear liquid used to clean the metal parts of rockets engines. A range of bunker reuses, including schools, museums, etc. are also described by Recycle Nation (2010a,b). In the UK, a bunker outside Twyford, near Winchester, was created out of an old water reservoir, and was designed as a communications base for Southern Water staff to restore a safe water supply after a nuclear attack. In the 1980s, water was considered essential to maintain, especially the deep underground wells which would have remained uncontaminated by fallout. The building has 2.5-m thick concrete walls and a 15-cm thick steel door. The Twyford bunker was completed in 1990 when the Cold War had already started to fade away. As the engineering contract had already been committed to the bunker remained operational until 1997 when it was decommissioned. Since then, it had been used by computer companies for data storage. Expected problems for the sale as a home included environmental permits and the need for extensive re-flooring, rewiring, etc. However, advantages included uniqueness and the prestige image; besides, the bunker had good ceiling height. Anyhow, the redevelopment needed a lot of imagination. The bunker was eventually sold in late 2008 for £240,000 (BBC, 2009). Once a dark and secretly used structure, the Commonwealth’s Communications Center (nicknamed “the bunker”) is now a naturally lit open space for the staff of the Australian Greenhouse Office. The bunker’s refit was based on an environmentally sustainable design. The underground location of the Communication Center had provided already a naturally insulated, energy-saving environment. Originally steel-lined to provide electronic security, the ceiling was drilled to make courtyards, skylights, and reflective light shelves. New water efficient systems were designed and installed to keep the building self-sufficient in an average rainfall year, with gray and black water from showers, basins, and pans reused in toilets and for irrigation. Other measures include an energy efficient lighting control system, recycling stations to decrease waste production, and environmentally friendly materials. However, the building’s heritage was conserved during the refurbishment, including a 1970s foyer, a graffiti wall, a light wall, and a mural painted by a native Australian artist (Australian Government, 2004). Architects have recently converted a former military bunker in Seoul, South Korea into the Peace and the Culture Bunker, a cultural center for the local community. Situated on the route from North Korea to Seoul, the bunker was built in 1970 as a shelter for tanks. Its main defense installations were located on the ground floor, with accommodation for soldiers constructed above to appear as an ordinary residential block. The 250-m bunker included a row of five C-shaped units; tanks would be placed in these units and would fire through openings in a thick shielding wall. The three stories of apartments deteriorated and were eventually demolished in 2004, but the tank units were kept. The structure was used as a warehouse before a decision was taken to turn it into a public amenity; the decision was prompted by the structure’s contiguity to a park. During renovation, some old parts were removed except for the C-shaped spaces, and spaces with steel structures were added for the purposes of the new cultural center.

Experience and lessons learned

213

The redeveloped bunker now has exhibition spaces and lecture halls intermixed with open-air courtyards. New units added to one side of the structure host offices, artist studios and a restaurant. There is also a rooftop garden. A 20-m-tall observation tower was constructed in front of the building to provide visitors with a vista of the adjacent park (Dezeen, 2018b). During the 40 +-year communist rule Albania, over 700,000 bunkers were built in the country—an average of 24 bunkers per km2. The bunkers were abandoned following the collapse of the regime in 1990, but they are still seen everywhere in Albania. Most are still abandoned, but some have been reused for a range of functions such as residential dwellings, caf
es, storehouses, and shelters for animals or the homeless (Atlas Obscura, 2013). The "Diefenbunker" structure in Canada (Fig. 6.26) was designed and built during the Cold War to shelter key political and military personnel. The bunker was used as the hub of a communications network and civil defence system until its closure in 1994. It is now Canada’s Cold War Museum. The bunker appears in one scene in the 2002 film Sum of all Fears. A number of former military bunkers are used as museums. A selection of sites includes: l

l

Dienststelle Marienthal (Government bunker), Ahrweiler near Bonn, Germany, was constructed in the 1960s to house the West German federal government in case of nuclear war. It was installed inside two railway tunnels beneath 110 m of slate rock. When the Cold War ended, the bunker was dismantled: today only 203 m of the original bunker remain, which were converted into the Government Bunker Documentation Site Museum. Atombunker Harnekop (Nuclear governmental shelter), 65 km from Berlin, is one of the East German relics of the Cold War. The bunker was ready for a war as the underground

Fig. 6.26 The "Diefenbunker" structure, Canada. Credit to Dennis Jarvis.

214

l

l

l

Beyond Decommissioning

command of East Germany’s Ministry of National Defense. It can be visited upon tour registration. Object 825 GTS (Balaklava submarine base), Crimea. Top-secret military constructed during the Cold War inside a mountain, today naval museum complex. F4 Object (Ra´kosi bunker), Budapest, Hungary. Several km long, formerly a secret nuclear shelter, 45–50 m below central Budapest. Exact number of entrances is unknown. It is stateowned and managed by the Budapest Transport Company. D-0 ARK, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Konjic. A 61 m2 bunker secretly constructed 1953–1979 at Konjic, 50 km from Sarajevo, to shelter Marshal Tito, members of the Yugoslav government, etc. Excavated 300 m into a mountain, since 2011 it houses the D-0 ARK Underground Biennial of Contemporary Art.

The cobalt irradiator “PANOZA” was designed and built by the Czech Nuclear ˇ ezˇ. It is located underground in a massive rock of a former civil Research Institute R defense shelter. The irradiator floor is about 3
3 m. From three sides it is shielded by rock, its front wall is made of lead wedge bricks fixed in a metallic frame embedded in the rock tunnel and welded to the steel plate that forms the horizontal floor. A rod-like cobalt source of about 50 TBq is the basic component of the irradiator (Podlaha, 2011). The Czechoslovak government installed in 1935–38 a system of border fortifications as a protection against anticipated attacks from Germany. Construction was fast and by September1938 (the Munich Pact), 264 “heavy objects” (blockhouses, casemates or artillery forts) and over 10,000 “light objects” (pillboxes) had been installed. However, this barrier did not stop the Nazis. During WWII the Germans took away much of the armor e.g. domes and crenels. A few fortifications were hit by German shells or subjected to explosive testing and consequently were much damaged. Soon after WWII most of the armor left was removed due to loss of its military worth and the growing steel market. In the early Cold War, a new defense system was based on the reuse of the prewar permanent fortifications, repaired and provided with new weapons. After 1950, due to the increased tension between the Eastern and Western Blocs, a more advanced system of fortifications was built. While the prewar heavy and light objects were designed as monoliths of reinforced concrete, the new Soviet-type bunkers were more like reinforced field fortifications, built from stone and prefabricated concrete elements. Today a few “heavy objects” can be visited, others are leased or on sale. A few more were converted into museums, others became storehouses. The “Hanicˇka” fort was refurbished in 1979–1993 for protection of the Ministry of Interior staff, but soon after was made redundant. A museum was established here (Ricky, 2013). In 2016, the New York’s City Hall gave approval to the Lowline underground park. The Lowline was conceived of as a complement to the Highline (Section 6.7.5). Either project reuses old railways; while the Highline runs along elevated rail tracks, the Lowline occupies an old underground trolley terminal. While the conception of Lowline may look dreary, solar arrays will channel natural light down from the surface. And in New York, where real estate is exceedingly expensive and new public space hard to get, all sorts of exotic opportunities are explored. Just like old buildings, underground spaces have both drawbacks and advantages. On the negative side one could

Experience and lessons learned

215

quote HVAC challenges, accessibility, and emergency egress issues, but on the positive side there are natural weather-proofing, thermal mass, stability, and security (Dezeen, 2016a). As well known, Tate Modern is a modern and contemporary art gallery located in London on the River Thames. The building is an adaptive reuse of the former Bank side Power Station. More detail is given in IAEA (2011). For the purposes of this section, some more information is given on the Tanks at Tate Modern. The Tanks were previously used to store oil when the gallery was a power station. These giant circular spaces in the foundations of the Building have kept their rough, industrial feel. The Tanks produce new possibilities for artists and audiences. These three raw, industrial, subterranean spaces, each measuring over 30 m across and 7 m high are the world’s first museum galleries permanently dedicated to exhibiting live art, performance, installation, and film (Tate, n.d.). Not every mine is readily repurposed. Many are polluted with toxic tailings and/or acid mine drainage. They also can present a risk of explosion—for example, from remaining methane pockets—or structural collapse. The 2015 spill of toxic sludge from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, CO, exemplifies these challenges. In that case, a contractor working for the EPA inadvertently discharged during cleanup operations some 12,000 m3 of polluting sludge from the old mine, which had ceased operations in 1922. The spill polluted rivers in three US States (NBC News, 2015a). Although abandoned mines can notoriously be identified with their environmental problems, innovative businesses are creating ways to inject new life into old excavations. Innovative uses include electronic data storage, green energy, tourist, or recreational attractions. A number of cases are given below; more detail can be found in NBC News (2015b). A biotechnology company that produces engineered plants for medical purpose needed a nursery where the environment could be closely checked and sealed off from predation or contamination by other plants, fungus, or bugs. He found all these conditions that in an abandoned copper mine in White Pine, MI. The company occupies a “decline mine,” meaning that the entryway is a sloped ramp rather than a vertical shaft to the nursery area over a 100 m underground. The underground beds offer many benefits. The plants thrive in a controlled environment—with a year-round ambient temperature of 11°C, which reportedly allows to save about 10% in electrical costs over above-ground facilities. The network of underground tunnels and rooms also has much more space than the company could ever need. A former gold mine in Lead, SD, houses the Sanford Underground Research Facil ity, a vast underground physics lab where scientists study among others dark matter and subatomic particles. To convert the mine into laboratory space, water was drained before lining the mine tunnels with concrete walls and epoxy floors. The 1460-m-deep mine is at a constant temperature of about 24°C. US DOE covers the roughly $15 million a year to run the facility, which includes operational costs as well as the expenses of pumping out the accumulated water. Building the laboratory that deep underground is the only way to shield experiments from the interference of the sun’s cosmic rays (99% Invisible, 2016).

216

Beyond Decommissioning

A network operations center for Banhof (one of Sweden’s largest Internet Service Providers) is housed in a former nuclear bunker and shelter originally originally built in the 1940s to secure vital governmental offices. The place is in central Stockolm. Spread over 1000 m2, the center is equipped with engines originally designed for submarines that produce backup power for the facility. The premises were converted into the “Pionen” data center and opened in 2008; Bahnhof has used the facility since. Some portion of Wikileaks’ servers have been moved to “Pionen” (Search Data Center, n.d.). The same reference highlights data storage facilities located in mines (cool temperatures meaning no need for air conditioning), in a Van De Graff silo and at Germany’s Hanau nuclear fuel fabrication facility, which never went into operation. Funny enough, a data center is planned in the Rio Maggiore mine, Trento Region, Italy, next to an apple storage cells: both for apples and electronic equipment the cool temperature is ideal (Corriere, 2015). Digital data are stored in an old limestone mine installation at Boyers, PA (nicknamed Room 48). Digital storage is a challenge because the machines generate much heat. Having to continually run high-powered heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems can be expensive when the data are stored above ground. Room 48 uses about 60% of the power a traditional data center would require, thanks to the large, natural lake at the mine’s bottom. After being pumped through the system, the water is discharged back into the lake to cool off and be reused later. Situated in a large mine 30 m underground in Louisville, KY, the Mega Under ground Bike Park makes good use of its unusual location. The park naturally protects riders from wind, rain, and temperature variations. The park’s designers also profited of the tons of soil excavated by the original limestone miners, reshaping it into biking trails, ramps, and jumps. This 3-ha site is the largest indoor bike park in the world. To appreciate this architecture one should consider that a comparable space above ground for the same use would require a huge big-box building shell. In Romania, a mine has been converted into an amusement park. In Ukraine, patients benefit from the air’s salinity in an old salt mine, using its tunnels as a well ness retreat. A limestone mine in Kansas houses a naturally secure and temperaturestable data center. Deep under the surface of South London, UK, a series of abandoned tunnels could lead the way in revolutionizing food production. Here, herbs grow without the need for soil or natural light. If you get off the tube at Clapham Common and then step into a cage-like lift that takes you about 30 m below surface, you will discover growing underground, an urban farm, housed in a network of dark tunnels originally constructed as air-raid shelters during WW II. About 20 different types of herb are cultivated in the former bomb shelters, including pea shoots, rocket, red mustard, pink stem radish, garlic chives, fennel, and coriander. The plants are supplied to markets and wholesalers right across London. This development comes in response to climate changes and ecological objections to transporting food from afar.

Experience and lessons learned

217

Growing Underground uses hydroponics, a system whereby plants are grown without soil but with the help of low-energy LED lights. This allows each crop to grow in a carefully controlled, pest-free environment, and to produce plants of consistent quality, regardless of the weather aboveground. A high-tech irrigation system allows the water that grows the plants to be treated on-site and recycled (Independent, 2017b). Aldwych Tube Station was inaugurated in 1907 (originally named Strand). Used by thousands of Londoners as an underground shelter during WWII, the station was permanently shut down in the mid 1990s, when the replacement of the elevators was regarded as too expensive for the expected revenues. In recognition of its historical significance, the station is a Grade II listed building. The station, which looks the same as it did when it was closed down, has been used for filming in Atonement, V for Vendetta, Superman 4, 28 Weeks Later and many others. It was also used in a security drill for the London 2012 Olympics. The station is now occasionally open for public viewing. The original lifts are still there, though deactivated. There is also a platform that shows the tracks laid before the introduction of suicide pits common on underground lines today. Part of the tour includes a climb down an old spiral emergency stairs and there is an original underground train still sitting at one of the platforms. The tour includes a platform closed in 1914, which was used as a store for the National Gallery artworks during WW II (Daily Mail, 2012). Adaptive Reuse: Brief Stories of Success (3) Dewar’s Lane Granary was an abandoned industrial building at Berwick upon Tweed, UK. The Grade II listed building had overcome several proposals for its demolition before funding was procured from a combination of public sector, commercial and charitable sources. The refurbishment project was managed by the Berwick Preservation Trust, and the redeveloped building now hosts a Youth Hostel, caf
e and community facilities together with exhibition space. The project has also made a significant contribution to the quality of local living, and has catalyzed further improvements and investment in the town (BPF, 2013). The redevelopment of the former railway area at King’s Cross, London is one of the most important regeneration projects in the UK. The 21-ha brownfield site is partly a conservation area and includes some 20 historic buildings and structures. It is also the setting for two of the greatest monuments to the Victorian age of railway building: St Pancras and King’s Cross Stations. Ten buildings were brought into use. In combination, the transformation of both stations and the redevelopment of the environs has produced an entirely new and modern district in the middle of historic London. The redevelopment has created 26,000 jobs. More details include the granary building converted into new home for University of the Arts and the 8000-m2 new public square (BPF, 2013). In 2018, a British designer opened a new flagship store, showroom, and offices inside a Victorian coal yard in London’s King’s Cross. The transformation of the 1625 m2 building forms part of the redevelopment of the area around the major transport hub in the north of London. The Victorian buildings contain offices for the staff and a gallery, while the flagship store and showroom is located in seven railway arches beneath them (Dezeen, 2018a). See also the reuse of King’s Cross Gasholders in Section 6.2.4. € € Northern Riverside) is an area of approximately 290 ha along the north Norra Alvstranden (NA, € river, opposite Gothenburg’s city center, Sweden. Up until the 1970s NA € was bank of the G€ota Alv

218

Beyond Decommissioning

the site of three shipyards, and it also had cargo handling and port facilities. About 15,000 worked in the yards, and there were some 30,000 who worked for the shipyards as their main customers. However foreign competition was growing, and the oil crisis of 1973 hit hard Gothenburg’s yards. € The area became derelict, and many of the Within 300 cuft (8.5 m3) of records could have created an unsafe work environment if proper preplanning had not been done. The move entailed cooperation between the Security, Safety, Radiation Protection, Industrial Hygiene, and RMDC organizations. Planning sessions occurred weekly. As a part of the planning stages, RMDC personnel conducted a review of record locations and created a description of volume and contents in each row to be used to create a records inventory. Continual communications between all groups in order to coordinate activities associated with the records move were performed and executed according to the plan and schedule. Proper training (e.g., RadWorker II) was conducted, air samples were completed, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) determined, inventory lists established to track contaminated and uncontaminated records, and areas were walked down to prepare the records and areas for transition. Analysis: Safety is the first concern when completing any task. Safe work practices ensured that the RMDC records move was executed properly, procedures were followed, and no safety concerns were noted. If working in older buildings, RadWorker II training should be required, and record surveys must be made to determine if contamination or allergens related to dust, mold, and mildew are in existence. Proper PPE should be worn (includes coveralls, respirators, gloves, and safety glasses) by all who work with legacy records. Lessons learned: There are many aspects to consider when moving company records from one location to another. Teamwork and awareness of surroundings are imperative in order to accomplish a smooth transition of files. Communication between RMDC staff, the building custodian, and management is vital. Periodic meetings should be conducted to inform the staff of changes and progress, and feedback should be solicited to ensure all personnel are kept updated on the status of the move.

7.14.6 Proper storage and maintenance of records, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States [US Department of Energy, lessons learned data base #: LL-2014-LLNL-17 (available upon DOE authorization)] Problem encountered: A building at LLNL’s main site underwent clean-up operations to prepare for a building repurposing project. In the process, multiple regulatoryrequired logbooks associated with underground storage tanks were mistakenly removed and thrown in the building’s dumpster. These logbooks contain multiple years of monitoring data and meet the criteria for being a record. A facility employee discovered that these records were missing during a daily inspection. The employee and other facility personnel responded quickly, and all records were retrieved before the end of the day. Analysis: The underground storage tanks and their alarm panels were still in service, so these logbooks needed to remain in use and be available during the repurposing project. The logbooks were stored above the underground storage tank

334

Beyond Decommissioning

alarm panels so they could be accessed and filled in by any trained facility person responding to a tank alarm. They were not maintained in a locked area to ensure availability to a variety of personnel at all times. The logbooks also are inspected by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department inspectors and must be onsite and complete when requested. Otherwise, this could result in a violation of 22 CCR 66265.195 and 23 CCR Div. 3 Chapter 16 (Underground Storage Tank Regulations). Personnel performing the clean-up operations were not informed that these logbooks were in use and needed to remain in place. Facility personnel responsible for the logbooks were not available to provide oversight during that day’s clean-up operations. The logbooks also had no labels or markings indicating that they were records or providing a point of contact for disposition. Because these logs are environmental records, their retention is reflected in LLNL Records Retention Schedule 10, Item 10-00-033 (LLNL is to retain them for 75 years). Accidental or intentional disposal of these records before the end of the retention period could result in a violation of 22 CCR 66265.195 and 23 CCR Div. 3 Chapter 16 (Underground Storage Tank Regulations). Lessons learned: Personnel who create records, as defined by federal, state, or local regulations or contract requirements, must ensure that they are managed and appropriately protected as long as required for use and retention. 1. Consider labeling records in a manner that allows all personnel to – easily identify them as records and – find the custodian (e.g., identify by function or position instead of a named individual). 2. Place records in a safe designated area relevant to the work and equipment documented in the records.

7.14.7 Communication of changes in regulatory requirements, Oak Ridge Site, United States [US Department of Energy, lessons learned data base #: Y-2002-OR-BJCPAD-0501 (available upon DOE authorization)] Problem encountered: Prior to initiation of environmental sampling in support of a CERCLA remedial action, a readiness assessment was conducted. During the assessment, it was determined materials and samples generated by the activity would not be managed as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste since existing data indicated RCRA constituent(s) were not present above RCRA characteristic (i.e., hazardous) levels. While the environmental sampling field activities were ongoing, a detailed process knowledge review on historic waste discharges at the site was conducted to support the development of the decision documents for the CERCLA remediation process. A white paper document was issued to the DOE and regulatory agencies which concluded that RCRA listed wastes have, more likely than not, been discharged to the site during past operations. This conclusion changed the status of waste generated at the site to RCRA hazardous (U- and F-listed), which meant that all waste generated must be managed as a RCRA hazardous waste. The Sample Management Organization and

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment

335

sampling and laboratory support personnel were not immediately advised of this change in RCRA status for waste generated at the site. Failure to communicate the change in RCRA status in a timely manner resulted in the improper handling of potential U- and F-listed waste. Analysis: A management failure to communicate, in a timely manner, a substantial change in regulatory status to all impacted personnel has been identified as the primary cause of this event. Lessons learned: Changes in the regulatory status of environmentally regulated areas (RCRA, CERCLA, etc.) in and around US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities should be communicated to all personnel who direct or perform work in the subject areas. Failure to keep personnel updated on current regulatory status could result in violations of procedural and/or regulatory requirements.

7.14.8 Redevelopment and reuse complicated by drains legacy, United Kingdom (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011) Problem encountered: A large nuclear research site with hundreds of buildings used a network of drains, developed over decades, to link the buildings to a central liquid effluent treatment plant. The drains included: – – – – –

pipes dissipating wastewater into the soil (soakaways); industrial effluent systems, which were designated as radiologically inactive; old active drains with no secondary barriers; modern active drains with secondary barriers; and rainwater drains.

Problems included: – – – – – – –

overlapping of different types of drains and delay tanks, which had been installed with no decommissioning of old systems; drains collapsed or leaking; inactive drains inadvertently used for active effluents; drains that were not recorded on site drawings; some drains had been decommissioned but no records were made of their location, contamination found, etc.; some drains had been grouted in situ with insufficient records; and rainwater was penetrating into drains creating unneeded effluent.

Solution found: A program of drains decommissioning was established to allow site redevelopment. The remaining buildings requiring drainage were segregated and had dedicated systems. The remaining network of drains was decommissioned, which included the following activities: – – – –

identification and mapping; use of a geographical information system to record and map progress; flushing of drains; contamination monitoring using a pipe crawling robot;

336

– –

Beyond Decommissioning

removal of damaged sections of piping; and grouting in situ of all cleaned drains to avoid unnecessary excavations.

Lessons learned: To maintain control of configuration and to decommission unused piping during operations is beneficial to the redevelopment of the site. Record keeping is essential to support the end state definition. Drains may be fit for reuse (on this site the rainwater drainage) or will have to be decommissioned. If grouting in situ is justified, no excavation and removal of piping will be required.

7.14.9 Information needed for property transfer, Hanford Site, United States (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011) Problem encountered: During the turnover of property in the 3000 Area of the US DOE Hanford Site, some problems were encountered during the transfer/redevelopment activities. Reportedly more complete and clearer information intended to facilitate the property transfer and redevelopment plans had to be provided. Analysis: The 290,000 m2 area with about 15 buildings was transferred to the local property authority for redevelopment. Then, the redeveloper became responsible for site redevelopment. A more efficient turnover should have been implemented. Lessons learned: The following critical actions should be taken in planning for property transfer to the developer: – –

– –

A transition period should be granted to the new owners when the current ones are still available to be consulted on how to resolve any misunderstanding over actual conditions onsite. A dedicated effort should be given to transferring detailed records on utility locations, especially those underground. If these issues are not solved beforehand, it will be more expensive to locate and fix those utilities that, due to poor recordkeeping, are damaged in subsequent site redevelopment operations. Any environmental issues remaining at the site before turnover should be specified in a detailed site assessment. To ease the redevelopment, the turnover should also include transfer of information on the site telecommunication system and on utilities billing costs.

7.14.10 Abandoned energized 120-V electrical line found during backfill operations, Los Alamos National Laboratory (U.S. Department of Energy, 2017) Problem encountered: On October 23, 2017, at Technical Area 53, across from Building 1145, a worker, who was spotting backhoe excavation work, noticed a cut nonmetallic cable in the excavated trench. The worker alerted the supervisor at once. The supervisor called a halt to the works and the area was fenced off. As per work permit, electricians found out 120-V alternating current on the line side of the cut cable. A review of the distribution panel feeding the circuit did not find a tripped breaker. The operations maintenance coordinator then had the electricians identify the tripped

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment

337

breaker for the circuit. The electricians isolated and applied a red lock and tag to the breaker. The electricians then did a zero-voltage check, sealed the ends of the cable, and attached a junction box. Investigations of the event found that the electrical line led to a warning sign with a flashing yellow light that had not been active for over 15 years. The cable location was incorrectly hand written on the utility locate drawings that were reviewed during the work planning. The cable was cut prior to the current project due to evidence of corrosion on the exposed copper conductors. Digging near the perimeter light and utility locates identified the approximate location of the cable run. Lessons learned: The technical literature includes a number of incidents of this kind during decommissioning work, due to missing or inadequate records, but these incidents may happen also during subsequent redevelopment phases. Especially as-built drawings can be found to be inadequate. Contingency is needed in all operations potentially vulnerable to electrical hazards. The case could be well applicable to redevelopment projects.

7.14.11 Demolition of historic and yet-to-be-determined radar towers at TTR without completing required NEPA process (U.S. Department of Energy, 2018a) Problem Encountered: Two radar towers at Tonopah Test Range (TTR) site, Contraves Towers (Buildings 22-00 and 12-00), were demolished prior to completion of the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. In the United States, the NEPA process would be applicable to any anticipated damage to: (a) (b) (c) (d)

ecologically preserved areas, or pristine or protected wetlands; threatened or protected flora or fauna or critical habitats; potable drinking water intake or well usage; or historical/archeological sites.

The National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS) submission of the NEPA checklist prompts the Sandia Field Office (SFO) review of the proposed work scope and as required includes a consultation between the SFO and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to assess any adverse impacts on historic properties and determine a resolution. Following the consultation, the SFO provides approval/rejection of the proposed work detailed on the submitted NEPA checklist. Contraves Tower 22-00 is a historic structure, as officially determined by the SFO in consultation with the SHPO. The historical eligibility of Contraves Tower 12-00 is not defined yet. The NTESS submitted two NEPA checklists to the SFO in 2016 for the removal of several redundant structures. The first NEPA checklist listed three historic structures (one of which was Tower 22-00). The second NEPA checklist listed five nonhistoric structures (one of which was Tower 12-00). The SFO approved the NEPA checklist covering nonhistoric structures except for the Tower 12-00, which requires further consultation between the SFO and SHPO. In late January 2018, the NTESS discovered that Tower 22-00 was no longer listed in the Facility Information Management System

338

Beyond Decommissioning

(FIMS). Upon investigation, the NTESS verified that the Tower 22-00 had been removed in May 2017. On February 13, 2018, the NTESS notified the SFO that Tower 22-00 had been demolished prior to completion of the required NEPA process, including consultation with the SHPO. It was further found out that Tower 12-00 had also been demolished in May 2017. Tower 12-00 was confirmed to also meet management reporting criterion. In summary, both Contraves Towers (Buildings 22-00 and 12-00) had been demolished prior to completion of the NEPA process, including consultation with the SHPO. Lessons learned: This event highlights several administrative mishaps, which can be somehow understood in the light of the following. Segregation of “historical” vs “nonhistorical” structures in view of potential redevelopment is not normal practice at industrial decommissioning projects as there are few projects for which this segregation would be applicable. Should a historically eligible structure be identified at any point during such a project at least as a potential issue, the point should be reported to management before the project moves into procurement.

7.14.12 Collapse of portion of awning at entrance to 773-A, Savannah River National Laboratory, United States (U.S. Department of Energy, 2018b) Problem encountered: A near miss occurred in SRNL building, 773-A on February 21, 2018 when the front part of the awning above the main entrance to the building fell to the ground. No employees were in the immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. The management was notified and barricades were erected at once. The structural integrity of the remaining portion of the awning will be assessed and follow-up actions defined. The awning was determined to be non-asbestos material. Lessons learned: This case may apply to most old buildings eligible for redevelopment and strengthens the need for complete structural assessment.

7.14.13 Cut buried conduit/cable, Y12 National Security Complex, United States (U.S. Department of Energy, 2018c) Problem encountered: On March 15, 2018, a subcontractor working under an approved excavation permit cuts an energized conduit/cable while trenching, which resulted in a circuit breaker tripping. This event caused no injuries. During the initial subsurface investigation prior to excavating, the surveyors detected a 60-Hz signal in an area with a known underground electrical service. The ground was marked with paint to identify the location. In compliance with the excavation permit, the subcontractor hand dug the trench in the marked zone 60 cm on each side of the marked line to the 50 cm depth of their trench. Not having located the underground conduit the subcontractor concluded the energized service was deeper than their trench. The subcontractor, contrary to the excavation permit and procedure, backfilled the hand excavation trench, ran the mechanical excavator through the previously hand dug spot,

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment

339

and cut the energized electrical service. Later, it was discovered the conduit was at a depth of 60 cm while the subcontractor was attempting to excavate a depth of 50 cm. Work was stopped, the area was secured and flagged off. Lessons learned: The inadequate conduct of operations is mainly attributable to ambiguous instructions/requirements. This case could be a common occurrence at redevelopment sites.

Disclaimer Websites accessed on 29 December 2018.

References Asbury Park Press, 2015. Radioactive past no barrier to Manchester development. April 8, 2015, http://www.app.com/story/news/local/jackson-lakewood/manchester/2015/04/08/radioac tive-manchester-development/25468421/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Boyd, M.A., 2016. Contaminated sites from the past: experience of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann. ICRP 45 (1 Suppl), 84–90. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. 1177/0146645316633937 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). City and County of Denver, 2014. Denver Radium Superfund Site Comprehensive Report. https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/EQ/ CompleteRadiumReport2014.pdf. (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Clark, W., 2012. Economy proves there is life after Dounreay. John O’Groat Journal and Caithness Courier, News. 29 June 2012. Dounreay, 2017a. Dounreay phase 3 planning. 12 June 2017, https://dounreay.com/2017/06/ dounreay-phase-3-planning/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Dounreay, 2017b. Dounreay report. (Up to 7th November 2017), DSG(2017)P022. http://www. dounreaystakeholdergroup.org/files/downloads/download2919.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Dumfries & Galloway, 2017. Dumfries & Galloway News, Future Opportunities for Chapelcross Site – CX Project, Mar 1, 2017. https://www.dgwgo.com/dumfries-gallowaynews/chapelcross-site-cx-project/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Gunn, J.B., 2012. A unique journey in preserving nuclear industrial heritage. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 123, 175–186. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-the-builtenvironment/123/23384 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Hamilton, J.A., Lynch, J.R., Weisbord, D.J., 2005. Property Disposition in Support of Plant Decommissioning and Site Closure: the Yankee Nuclear Power Station Experience, DD&R 2005, Denver, Colorado. American Nuclear Society. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006. Redevelopment of nuclear facilities after decommissioning. Technical Reports Series No. 444, Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011. Redevelopment and reuse of nuclear facilities and sites: case histories and lessons learned. Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-2.2, Vienna. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2002. Determining cleanup goals at radioactively contaminated sites: case studies. https://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/ RAD-2.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Los Angeles Times, 1986. New York Trail Includes Site of Plutonium Spill: Controversial Hiking Route May Pose Radiation Threat, Citizens’ Group Says, July 20.

340

Beyond Decommissioning

Magnox, 2016. Optimizing site end states. December 2016, http://www.nuleaf.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NuLeAF-engagement-presentationIW_December-16_v3without-photos.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Magnoxsites, 2015. Winfrith timeline from the early years to the present day. https://magnoxsites. com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/J5965-Magnox-Winfrith-Timeline-Brochure-DigitalV4-120315LR.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Mermel, Z., 2011. Yankee Rowe revisited. https://issuu.com/zach.mermel/docs/yankeerowe revisited (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Neal, A., 2003. In: Winfrith: Life After Decommissioning—Nuclear Site to Science and Technology Park. ASME 2003 9th International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remediation, 9th ASME International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remediation, Oxford, England, September 21–25, 2003. ASME. Paper No. ICEM2003-4639, 725–730. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2007. Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station Feasibility Study. Nuclear Engineering International, 2011. Maintenance Training at Barseb€ack. pp. 40–41. Office for Nuclear Regulation, 2015. Licensing Nuclear Installations, fourth ed. http://www. onr.org.uk/licensing-nuclear-installations.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Podlaha, J., Tous, M., 2017. Experience From Decommissioning of Obsolete Nuclear Facilities ´ JV Rˇezˇ, a. s., EUROSAFE 2017, 6–7 November 2017, Paris, France. in the U Safegrounds, (n.d.) Remediation of a radioactively and chemically contaminated site at Harwell http://www.safegrounds.com/pdfs/remediation_at_harwell_ciria.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018) San Francisco Chronicle, 2015. Housing blooms at last at once-toxic Hunters Point Shipyard site, June 8, 2015. https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Housing-blooms-at-lastat-once-toxic-Hunters-6314858.php (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Satsop, 2014. Encyclopedia of Forlorn Places, Satsop Nuclear Power Plant, Washington, 30/8/ 2014. http://eofp.net/satsop.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Scottish Construction Now, 2015. ‘Green’ energy park planned for former nuclear plant site, Oct 23, 2015. http://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/8933/green-energy-park-plannedfor-former-nuclear-plant-site/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018). SFGate, 2017. SF housing development planned on former nuclear test site, January 12, 2017. https://www.sfgate.com/aboutsfgate/article/Former-nuclear-test-site-planned-for-housing10854245.php (Accessed on 29 December 2018). SMUD, 2017. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Rancho Seco Report on Decommissioning Funding Status, March 22, 2017. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1709/ ML17094A733.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). SSG, 2017. Winfrith Site Stakeholder Group (SSG) Meeting – 2 November 2017. https:// magnoxsites.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Winfrith-Stakeholder-Minutes-2-Nov-2017. pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). The Conversation, 2017. Cleaning up toxic sites shouldn’t clear out the neighbors, July 11, 2017. https://theconversation.com/cleaning-up-toxic-sites-shouldnt-clear-out-the-neighbors-74741. The New York Times, 2017. It’s a Superfund Site, But It’s Also Their Livelihood. https:// www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/nyregion/queens-epa-superfund-radiation-businesses. html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). U.S. Department of Energy, 2017. Occurrence reporting and processing system. NA-LASOLANL-ACCCOMPLEX-2017-0008, https://data.doe.gov/asp/Main.aspx (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

Case studies of nuclear redevelopment

341

U.S. Department of Energy, 2018a. Occurrence reporting and processing system. NA-SS-SNL4000-2018-0002, https://data.doe.gov/asp/Main.aspx (Accessed on 29 December 2018). U.S. Department of Energy, 2018b. Occurrence reporting and processing system. EM-SRSRNS-SRNL-2018-0003, https://data.doe.gov/asp/Main.aspx (Accessed on 29 December 2018). U.S. Department of Energy, 2018c. Occurrence reporting and processing system. NA-NPOCNS-Y12NSC-2018-0010, https://data.doe.gov/asp/Main.aspx (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Reusing cleaned up Superfund sites: golf facilities where waste is left on site. EPA-540-R-03-003, October, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ ZyPDF.cgi/P100AITF.PDF?Dockey¼P100AITF.PDF (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Lansdowne radiation site redevelopment. https:// cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction¼second.redevelop& id¼0301596 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017a. Ottawa Radiation Areas, Redevelopment. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction¼second.rede velop&id¼0500634 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017b. Welsbach & General Gas Mantle (Camden Radiation), Camden and Gloucester City, Redevelopment. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/ SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction¼second.redevelop&id¼0203580 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017c. Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, Community Essential to Successful Reuse at Former Nuclear Plant, Former Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald Plant. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/ success_story_fernald_0.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017d. Denver Radium Site Denver, CO, Redevelopment. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction¼second.rede velop&id¼0800247 (Accessed on 29 December 2018). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL). https:// www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Walker, S., 2015. U.S. EPA Superfund Remedial Program’s Approach for Risk Harmonization when addressing Chemical and Radioactive Contamination, Presented to the Performance & Risk Assessment Community of Practice Steering Committee, Webinar, October 13. https:// www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/CERCLA%20Radiation_Chemical_Risk% 20Assessment_P%20and%20RA%20webinar%20October%202015.pdf (Accessed on 29 December 2018). World Nuclear News, 2012. UK site celebrates delicensing, 20 September 2012. http://www. world-nuclear-news.org/WR-UK_site_celebrates_delicensing-2009127.html (Accessed on 29 December 2018). World Resources Forum, 2013. Former Nuclear Power Plant Turned Into Museum – Remembering Dystopia or Utopia? October 3, 2013. http://projourno.org/2013/10/former-nuclearpower-plant-turned-into-museum-remembering-dystopia-or-utopia/ (Accessed on 29 December 2018).

This page intentionally left blank

Conclusions and recommendations

8

In summary, experience proves that early plans and decisions to establish new productive uses for decommissioned nuclear sites are both cost effective and agreeable to a wide range of stakeholders. Such strategies are alternative to release of the site with no post-decommissioning plans defined. However, in case of very high local land values, the additional costs of total dismantling, site clearance, and unrestricted release of the site may be acceptable and the land sold profitably even some time after the completion of decommissioning. For historic buildings, a pragmatic approach to the reuse should be taken, whilst conserving the heritage value of the building. The inclusion of heritage assets in the redevelopment projects provides a focus for sustainable change. The impact of successful schemes is felt beyond the boundaries of the project and can boost the economy of the whole community and beyond. Hierarchically, the following expresses the redevelopment schemes in a decreasing order of suitability: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

The redeveloped site should ideally support a workforce of similar skills to those existing during past operations, or at least a similar number of jobs. In many cases, the value of used structures, systems, and components is optimized if they can be locally adapted to alternative functions. Alternative uses with the highest ranking are usually those nearest to the original objective of the plant; for example, it would be appropriate to first assess the feasibility of reusing the existing NPP site, facilities, infrastructure, and electrical transmission lines for a new power plant (e.g., the use of uncontaminated parts such as turbines for the construction of a new fossil-fired plant onsite). Continuing nuclear operations of various types may be a logical follow-on reuse of a site after decommissioning (nuclear R&D centers, spent fuel, and radioactive waste stores). This strategy has several advantages, for example, prompt availability of qualified staff onsite, existing public acceptance, and availability of nuclear and conventional services. If this is not appropriate for local and regional circumstances, then utilization of the site and facilities for nonnuclear heavy or light industrial purposes may be the next most effective strategy (e.g., warehouses, production industry, mechanical workshops, recycling centers, and production of chemicals). The next-in-ranking alternative could be the adaptive reuse of buildings and sites for housing or recreational purposes (e.g., climbing walls, bungee jumping, observation towers, sport fields, restaurants, and casinos) or a variety of other uses (R&D facilities, municipal waste treatment, biological and medical installations, university buildings, high technology parks, and diverse businesses). Establishment of nuclear museums or exhibition centers remains the default option should the above-mentioned alternatives fail: this option has the great merit of highlighting the historic and cultural heritage of the site, a school of thought that is becoming of growing appeal to the general public in many countries. Besides, many contemporary artworks require large bare undecorated spaces, which can be offered by many industrial buildings.

Beyond Decommissioning. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102790-5.00008-7 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

344

Beyond Decommissioning

The keys to success for a redevelopment project include such aspects as stakeholder involvement, early appraisal of potential hindrances, funding, schedule, and timing. Recommendations to those responsible (at various levels) for the redevelopment projects include: l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Define who the property owners are and will be. Ensure timeliness of decisions and providing assurance of cleanup costs. Work with the local governmental offices to fit the project into local political priorities and regional development plans, as well as land use laws. A clustering of activities as opposed to a single-building project can start a large scale, successful redevelopment program. A change in the greater area may be necessary to make a site commercially profitable. Many successful schemes were led by the individuals with vision: do not “wait for deus ex machina.” Mixed use redevelopments are generally successful. Maintain records relevant to a redevelopment project: they might turn out to be useful for the next redevelopment. Protect human health and the environment before, during, and after the redevelopment project. Inform the regulators and community of the political importance and other benefits (environmental, social, and economic) of the project to garner their support and help to overcome any hindrances to redevelopment; pay due attention to objections and reservations. Eliminate environmental contamination and its remaining (although unfounded) stigma. Plan for the project to conserve natural resources and maintain essential components of natural systems. Secure the economy or other benefits of the project. For private developers, this requires that the selected reuse support initial refurbishment, provide the developers with a reasonable return on their investment, and generate a regular income to ensure the long-term maintenance of the building and any associated open spaces. The financial return should also take account of the additional risk associated with onsite contaminants. Ultimately, the economic feasibility of most projects will depend upon the ability of the private developer to predict the market and meet market demand. In that sense, the redevelopment of actually or potentially contaminated sites is no different from any other development project. Instead, the public redevelopment projects are typically designed to improve the quality of the local environment for the community directly or to make the community more attractive for further development. In general, public sector funding can help to launch a solution.

Not two cases of industrial reuse are identical, due to multiple internal and external factors: it is up to the owners, planners, and stakeholders to use available experience (mostly from the nonnuclear sector) to identify and agree to a strategy acceptable to all parties. As industrial reuse is inherently case specific, a lot of focused expertise, on one side, and imagination, on the other side, are required in concrete applications. And expertise and imagination should go hand in hand. “Imagination is more important than knowledge … Albert Einstein (1879–1955).”

Glossary

When the source is not specified, definitions are taken from IAEA, Safety Glossary Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection, Revision 2016. Exceptions include the following notations: (*) IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 444; (**) IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No NW-T-2.2.; (***) English Heritage, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, 2008; other glossaries as annotated. Accident Any unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures, and other mishaps, the consequences or potential consequences of which are not negligible from the point of view of protection and safety. Adaptive reuse** The act of finding a new use for a building (or area). It is often described as a process by which structurally sound older buildings are developed for economically viable new uses. Aesthetic value*** Value deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. Alteration*** Work intended to change the function or appearance of a place. Analysis Often used interchangeably with assessment, especially in more specific terms such as “safety analysis.” In general, however, analysis suggests the process and result of a study aimed at understanding the subject of the analysis, while assessment may also include determinations or judgments of acceptability. Analysis is also often associated with the use of a specific technique. Hence, one or more forms of analysis may be used in assessment. Approval The granting of consent by a regulatory body. Archive(s) Permanent records; records maintained for continuing use [International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Information and Documentation—Management Systems for Records—Fundamentals and Vocabulary, ISO-30300 (2011)]. Archives can be a place where archival materials are preserved and made available for consultation. Archives can be an organization, agency, or program responsible for selecting, acquiring, preserving, and making available archives. Area Controlled area: A defined area in which specific protection measures and safety provisions are or could be required for controlling exposures or preventing the spread of contamination in normal working conditions, and preventing or limiting the extent of potential exposures. A controlled area is often within a supervised area, but need not be. Operations area: A geographical area that contains an authorized facility. It is enclosed by a physical barrier (the operations boundary) to prevent unauthorized access, by means of which the management of the authorized facility can exercise direct authority. Supervised area: A defined area not designated as a controlled area but for which occupational exposure conditions are kept under review, even though specific protection measures or safety provisions are not normally needed. Assessment See Analysis. Asset Anything that has value to the organization [International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Information and Documentation—Management Systems for

346

Glossary

Records—Fundamentals and Vocabulary, ISO-30300 (2011)]. There are many types of assets, including the following: (a) information; (b) software, such as a computer program; (c) physical, such as a computer; (d) services; (e) people, and their qualifications, skills, and experience; and (f ) intangibles, such as reputation and image. Authenticity*** Those characteristics that most truthfully reflect and embody the cultural heritage values of a place. Barrier A physical obstruction that prevents or inhibits the movement of people, radionuclides or some other phenomenon (e.g., fire), or provides shielding against radiation. Beneficial occupancy (or occupation) A term used to describe a building that is capable of being used for its intended purpose, even though it may have some minor defects https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Beneficial_occupation, July 21, 2014. Best practicable environmental option The outcome of a systematic consultative and decision-making procedure which emphasizes the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air, and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment, as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term. It is further specified that BPEO involves a balancing of criteria, including technology, financial costs, and pollution impacts; BPEO is now at the heart of waste management decision-making in the UK (UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Twelfth Report, 1988). Brownfield* Real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Brutalism An architectural style featuring bold, structurally innovative forms that use raw concrete as their primary material. Readily recognizable for their massing and materiality, brutalist buildings often reveal the means of their construction through unfinished surfaces that bear the imprints of the molds that shaped them. The name for the style is commonly attributed to Le Corbusier, who specified b eton brut (concrete that is raw or unfinished) in his Unite d’Habitation apartment buildings, the first of which was completed in Marseille in 1952. The anglicization of the term brut into Brutalism as a name for the style has led to a misassociation with the adjective “brutal” (defined as cruel, unpleasant, or even savage, barbaric), which may have reinforced the aesthetic dislike of the style. Built form The physical layout and design of a community. It is the arrangement, appearance, and functions of communities and includes, infrastructure designed to support human activity, such as buildings, roads, parks, and other amenities. It addresses the natural and built environments and influences the processes that lead to successful communities. Simply, it is how compilations of buildings fit together in a space and is a demonstration of the balancing of height, breadth, setbacks, vistas, building materials, ratio of open space to structure per lot, etc. The point of referencing built form is to focus on the total effect that a collection of buildings has had on an area (Sugden, 2017). Change management The process, tools, and techniques to manage the people side of change to achieve the required business results (https://www.prosci.com/change-management/ thought-leadership-library/the-what-why-and-how-of-change-management).

Glossary

347

Characterization Determination of the nature and activity of radionuclides and other contaminants present in a specified place. For example, characterization is the determination of the radionuclides present … in an area contaminated with radioactive material (e.g., as a first step in planning remediation). Clearance Removal of regulatory control by the regulatory body from radioactive material or radioactive objects within notified or authorized facilities and activities. Clearance level (or clearance criteria) A value established by a regulatory body and expressed in terms of activity concentration and/or total activity, at or below which regulatory control may be removed from a source of radiation. Commodification The transformation of goods, services, ideas, and people into commodities (i.e., products that can be bought and sold) (definition by this book). Contamination Radioactive and other hazardous substances on surfaces or within solids, liquids, or gases (including the human body), where their presence is unintended or undesirable, or the process giving rise to their presence in such places. Context*** Any relationship between a place and other places, relevant to the values of that place. Cost-benefit analysis A systematic technical and economic evaluation of the positive effects (benefits) and negative effects (dis-benefits, including monetary costs) of undertaking an action. Cultural heritage*** Inherited assets which people identify and value as a reflection and expression of their evolving knowledge, beliefs, and traditions, and of their understanding of the beliefs and traditions of others. Decommissioning Administrative and technical actions taken to allow the removal of some or all of the regulatory controls from a facility. Decommissioning typically includes dismantling of the facility (or part thereof ) to reduce the associated radiation risks, but in the IAEA’s usage this needs not be the case. A facility could, for example, be decommissioned without dismantling and the existing structures subsequently put to another use (after decontamination). Deindustrialization The process by which a country or area depends less and less on industry to provide most of its work or income (Cambridge Dictionary). Demolition* Clearance and removal of a structure in order to achieve greenfield or carry out the redevelopment plan. Decontamination The complete or partial removal of contamination by a deliberate physical, chemical, or biological process. This definition is intended to include a wide range of processes for removing contamination from people, equipment, and buildings, but to exclude the removal of radionuclides from within the human body or the removal of radionuclides by natural weathering or migration processes, which are not considered to be decontamination. See Remediation. Dismantling The taking apart, disassembling, and tearing down of the structures, systems and components of a facility for the purposes of decommissioning. Disposal Emplacement of waste in an appropriate facility without the intention of retrieval. Disposition Transfer to the care or possession of another (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). End state A predetermined criterion defining the point at which a specific task or process is to be considered completed. Used in relation to decommissioning activities such as the final state of decommissioning of a facility; and used in relation to remediation such as the final status of a site at the end of activities for decommissioning and/or remediation, including approval of the radiological and physical conditions of the site and remaining structures.

348

Glossary

Entombment The encasing of part or all of a facility in a structure of long-lived material for the purposes of decommissioning. Entombment is not considered an acceptable strategy for decommissioning a facility following planned permanent shutdown. Entombment may be considered acceptable only under exceptional circumstances (e.g., following a severe accident). In this case, the entombment structure is maintained and surveillance is continued until the radioactive inventory decays to a level permitting termination of the license and unrestricted release of the structure. Environment The conditions under which people, animals, and plants live or develop and which sustain all life and development; especially such conditions as affected by human activities. Externality Consequence of an industrial or commercial activity which affects other parties without this being reflected in market prices (Oxford Dictionary). For example, the emission of greenhouse gases is a negative externality: everybody is affected, but the polluter does not pay (note by the author). Fabric*** The material substance of which places are formed, including geology, archaeological deposits, structures and buildings, and flora. Gasholder A huge cylindrical tank for storing fuel gas under pressure (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Also known as (a.k.a.)—improperly—gasometer. The gas holders continued to be built through the 19th century and the early 20th century when gas was produced at local gas works. Due to developments in gas pipe technology and transport of gas from remote gas fields over long distances, most gas holders became obsolete in the second half of the 20th century: they are currently being dismantled or converted to new uses. Gentrification The buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses (Dictionary.com). Globalization The process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale (Oxford Dictionary). Greenfield* A condition when the nuclear site has been granted unrestricted release from regulatory control, buildings have been demolished, and no further redevelopment is planned. Grayfield Properties that have been developed, and have infrastructure in place, but whose use is outdated or blocks access to the best continued use or redevelopment of the real estate (Michigan State University Extension Program Session 3 Adaptive Reuse https://www. livgov.com/plan/Documents/Session%203%20Presentation%20-%20Adaptive% 20Reuse.pdf). Heritage*** All inherited resources which people value for reasons beyond mere utility. Historical value*** Value deriving from the ways in which past people, events, and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. Historic environment*** All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible or buried, and deliberately planted or managed flora. Incident Any unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures, initiating events, accident precursors, near misses or other mishaps, or unauthorized act, malicious or non-malicious, the consequences or potential consequences of which are not negligible from the point of view of protection and safety. The word incident is used to describe events that are, in effect, minor accidents, that is, that are distinguished from accidents only in terms of being less severe. Infrastructure* Public improvements that support development, including street lighting, sewers, flood control facilities, water lines, gas lines, telephone lines, etc.

Glossary

349

Institutional control Control of a radioactive waste site by an authority or institution designated under the laws of a State. This control may be active (monitoring, surveillance, remedial work) or passive (land use control) and may be a factor in the design of a facility (e.g., a near surface disposal facility). l

l

l

l

Most commonly used to describe controls over a disposal facility after closure or a facility undergoing decommissioning. Also refers to the controls placed on a site that has been released from regulatory control under the condition of observing specified restrictions on its future use to ensure that these restrictions are complied with. The term institutional control is more general than regulatory control (i.e., regulatory control may be thought of as a special form of institutional control). Institutional control … may apply in situations which do not fall within the scope of facilities and activities. As a result, some form of institutional control may be considered more likely to endure further into the future than regulatory control.

Integrity*** Wholeness. Intervention*** Any action which has a physical effect on the fabric of a place. Knowledge management An integrated, systematic approach for identifying, managing, and sharing an organization’s knowledge and enabling groups of people to create new knowledge collectively to help in achieving the organization’s objectives. LEED certification LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is the most widely used green building rating system in the world. Available for virtually all building, community, and home project types. LEED provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. LEED certification is a globally recognized symbol of sustainability achievement (https://new.usgbc.org/leed). Life cycle management Life management (or lifetime management) in which due recognition is given to the fact that at all stages in the lifetime there may be effects that need to be taken into consideration. Life Safety Code® The most widely used source (in the United States) for strategies to protect people based on building construction, protection, and occupancy features that minimize the effects of fire and related hazards. Unique in the field, it is the only document that covers life safety in both new and existing structures (National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 101, 2018 https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/listof-codes-and-standards/detail?code¼101). Listed building A building officially recognized as having special historical or architectural interest and therefore protected from demolition or alteration. There are three types of listed status for buildings in England and Wales: Grade I: buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II*: particularly important buildings of more than special interest. Grade II: buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. (UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings, March 2010 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121204124728/http:// www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Principles_Selection_Listing.pdf). Often interchangeable, the following synonyms are used in the UK: buildings are “listed”; ancient monuments are “scheduled,” wrecks are “protected,” and battlefields, gardens, and parks are “registered.” Listing In this book, designating properties for heritage protection. l

l

l

350

Glossary

Maintenance The organized activity, both administrative and technical, of keeping structures, systems, and components in good operating condition, including both preventive and corrective (or repair) aspects. Market value The amount at which the seller would be willing to sell and a buyer would be willing to buy, with both being interested but not forced to sell or buy (IAEA-TECDOC1279, Non-Technical Factors Impacting on the Decision Making Processes in Environmental Remediation, Vienna 2002). Master plan A plan giving overall guidance (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Minimization (of waste) The process of reducing the amount and activity of radioactive waste to a level as low as reasonably achievable, at all stages from the design of a facility or activity to decommissioning, by reducing the amount of waste generated and by means such as recycling and reuse, and treatment to reduce its activity, with due consideration for secondary waste as well as primary waste. Mixed waste Radioactive waste that also contains nonradioactive toxic or hazardous substances. Multi-attribute utility analysis A decision analysis technique that provides rigorous, sound, and demonstrated ways to combine dissimilar measures of costs, risks, and benefits, along with individual preferences, into high-level, aggregated measures that can be used to evaluate alternatives (IAEA-TECDOC-1279 Non-Technical Factors Impacting on the Decision Making Processes in Environmental Remediation, Vienna 2002). Natural heritage*** Inherited habitats, species, ecosystems, geology, and landforms, including those in and under water, to which people attach value. Near miss A potential significant event that could have occurred as a consequence of a sequence of actual occurrences but did not occur owing to the conditions prevailing at the time. Nuclear facility A facility (including associated buildings and equipment) in which nuclear material is produced, processed, used, handled, stored, or disposed of. Offsite Outside the site area. Onsite Within the site area. Operator (operating organization) Any person or organization applying for authorization or authorized to operate an authorized facility and responsible for its safety. Place*** Any part of the historic environment, of any scale, that has a distinctive identity perceived by people. Plant In this book, a plant is a complex of facilities where individual units are located, for example, multiple generating units, power transmission equipment, fuel processing facilities, auxiliary and service buildings, and other infrastructure. Units refer to individual facilities such as natural gas combustion turbines, coal-fired boilers, or nuclear reactors. Preservation The act of keeping something the same (Cambridge Dictionary). Process A course of action or proceeding, especially a series of progressive stages in the manufacture of a product or some other operation. Program, project These two terms are often used interchangeably in the technical literature. However, for the purposes of this book, a project is a temporary undertaking to create a unique product or service. A project has a defined start and end point and specific objectives that, when attained, signify completion. A program, on the other hand, is defined as a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing the projects individually. A program may also include elements of ongoing, operational work. So, a program comprises multiple projects and is created to obtain broad organizational or technical objectives. There are many differences between a project and a program including scope, benefits realization, time, and other variables. One

Glossary

351

notable difference is time; for example, a project by definition has a beginning and an end (or at least one hopes so!); certain programs, while having a beginning may not have an end (Dictionary of Project Management Terms). Property Component parts of the cultural and/or natural heritage (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris 1972 https://whc.unesco.org/archive/con vention-en.pdf). Public*** Of, concerning, done, acting, etc. for people as a whole. Record(s) Information created, received, and maintained as evidence and as an asset by an organization or person, in pursuit of legal obligations or in the transaction of business [International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Information and Documentation—Management Systems for Records—Fundamentals and Vocabulary, ISO-30300 (2011)]. Redevelopment* Planning, development, replanning, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of all or part of a project area. Redevelopment plan** Any new construction on a site that has preexisting uses on the site, such as the redevelopment of an industrial site into a mixed use development, or the redevelopment of a block of townhouses into a large apartment building. Regeneration A synonym of revitalization. Regulatory body An authority or a system of authorities designated by the government of a State as having legal authority for conducting the regulatory process, including issuing authorizations, thereby regulating the safety of nuclear installations, radiation safety, the safety of radioactive waste management, and safety in the transport of radioactive material. Note: The above definition refers only to nuclear safety and radiation protection. This book recognizes that other regulatory bodies can be involved in a decommissioning or redevelopment project. Rehabilitation The process of returning something to a good condition (Cambridge Dictionary). Release The action or process of setting free or being set free, or of allowing or being allowed to move or flow freely. Release is used in both a physical “scientific” sense (discharge) and a “regulatory” sense (clearance). Remediation Any measures that may be carried out to reduce the exposure due to existing contamination of land areas through actions applied to the contamination itself (the source) or to the exposure pathways to people (note by the author: this book extends the scope of radiation exposure to exposure from toxic or chemical contamination). Complete removal of the contamination is not implied. The use of the term restoration is discouraged. Such terms may be taken to imply that the conditions that prevailed before the contamination can be achieved again and unconditional use of the land areas can be restored, which is not usually the case (e.g., owing to the effects of the remedial action itself). Often remediation is used to restore land areas to conditions suitable for limited use under institutional control. Repair*** Work beyond the scope of maintenance, to remedy defects caused by decay, damage, or use, including minor adaptation to achieve a sustainable outcome, but not involving restoration or alteration. Restoration A restoration is when you bring something back to what it was (vocabulary.com). See comment under Remediation. Revitalization The process of making something grow, develop, or become successful again (Cambridge Dictionary).

352

Glossary

Restricted use (or release) The use of an area or of materials subject to restrictions imposed for reasons of radiation protection and safety. Restrictions would typically be expressed in the form of prohibition of particular activities (e.g., house building, growing, or harvesting particular foods) or prescription of particular procedures (e.g., materials may only be recycled or reused within a facility). Reuse** The use of a facility or building for a purpose other than that for which it was originally intended and/or used, following the termination/cessation of its original use. Ruination (industrial) A concept emerging in recent discussions of postindustrial decline. Ruins refer to the actual material remains of a past era, whereas ruination incorporates such traces with processes, experiences, and perceptions that continue into the present. Ruination tends to focus on modern ruins, that is, those resulting from the processes of deindustrialization (Granzow, M., Review Essay: Industrial Ruins and Ruination, December 2, 2014 https://www.spaceandculture.com/2014/12/02/michael-granzowreview-essay-industrial-ruins-and-ruination/). Safe enclosure (during decommissioning) A condition of a nuclear facility during the decommissioning process in which only surveillance and maintenance of the facility take place (IAEA, Radioactive Waste Management Glossary, Vienna 2003). Service life The period from initial operation to final withdrawal from service of a structure, system, or component. Setback (land use) The minimum distance to which a building must be set back from a street, road, or natural feature (Arch Daily, 2018). Setting*** The surroundings in which a place is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent landscape. Significance (of a place)*** The sum of the cultural and natural heritage values of a place, often set out in a statement of significance. Site** The area containing, or under investigation for its suitability for, a facility (e.g., a repository). It is defined by a boundary and is under effective control of the operating organization. Smart growth Development that supports economic growth, strong communities, and environmental health. “Smart growth” covers a range of development and conservation strategies that help protect our health and natural environment and make our communities more attractive, economically stronger, and more socially diverse (https://smartgrowth. org/what-is-smart-growth/ March 16, 2015). Spent fuel Nuclear fuel removed from a reactor following irradiation that is no longer usable in its present form because of depletion of fissile material, poison buildup, or radiation damage. Stakeholder (interested party) A person, company, etc., with a concern or interest in the activities and performance of an organization, business, system, etc. Stewardship The physical controls, institutions, information, and other mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and the environment at sites where the responsible party has completed or plans to complete “cleanup” (e.g., landfill closures, remedial actions, removal actions, and facility stabilization). Long-term stewardship includes, inter alia, land-use controls, monitoring, maintenance, and information management (adapted from DOE, Long Term Stewardship Study, October 2001 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ files/em/DOELongTermStewardshipStudy-VolumeI-FinalOctober2001.pdf). Storage The holding of radioactive sources, radioactive material, spent fuel, or radioactive waste in a facility that provides for their/its containment, with the intention of retrieval.

Glossary

353

In many cases, the only element of this definition that is important is the distinction between disposal (with no intent to retrieve) and storage (with intent to retrieve). Structures, systems, and components (SSCs) A general term encompassing all elements (items) of a facility or activity, except human factors. Components: Discrete elements of a system. Examples of components are wires, transistors, integrated circuits, motors, relays, solenoids, pipes, fittings, pumps, tanks, and valves. Structures: Passive elements (e.g., buildings, vessels, and shielding). Systems: Several components assembled in such a way as to perform a specific (active) function. Superfund The US federal government’s program to locate and investigate and cleanup the worst uncontrolled and abandoned toxic waste sites nationwide; administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Surveillance A type of inspection to verify the integrity of a facility or structure. Sustain*** Maintain, nurture, and affirm validity. Sustainable*** Capable of meeting present needs without compromising ability to meet future needs. Transparent*** Open to public scrutiny. Unrestricted use (or release) The use of an area or material without any radiologically based restrictions. There may be other restrictions on the use of the area or material, such as planning restrictions on the use of an area of land or restrictions related to the chemical properties of a material. Value*** An aspect of worth or importance, here attached by people to qualities of places. Waste Material for which no further use is foreseen. Waste zoning “French regulations have not adopted the notion of “clearance threshold,” that is, the generic levels of radioactivity below which the effluents and waste from nuclear activity can be disposed of as current waste without specific radioactive supervision. This policy is based on a “waste zoning” that divides facilities into zones generating nuclear waste and zones generating conventional waste. In other words, there is no release from regulatory controls of materials from zones generating nuclear waste. Moreover, there is also no release criteria for buildings and site after decommissioning, the release of a site is stated on a case by case study contemplating scenarios and future land use” (ANDRA, 2013, see Chapter 5). l

l

l

This page intentionally left blank

Acronyms

AEC a.k.a. AMD ANL ANS ARGONAUT ASME AZ BRAC BWR CA CO CSA CX CY D&ER DfD DFR DOE DRR EC ECCS EPA ER ETTP FL FRM GA Ha HLW HVAC HWR ICOMOS ICRP IES

Atomic Energy Commission, USA (the predecessor of NRC) also known as acid mine drainage Argonne National Laboratory American Nuclear Society ARGOnne Nuclear Assembly for University Training, a model of research reactor American Society of Mechanical Engineers Arizona, USA Base Realignment and Closure Commission boiling water reactor California, USA Colorado, USA Canadian Standards Association Chapelcross NPP, UK Connecticut Yankee NPP, USA decommissioning & environmental remediation design for decommissioning Dounreay Fast Reactor US Department of Energy design to remodel or reuse European Commission emergency core cooling system US Environmental Protection Agency environmental remediation East Tennessee Technology Park Florida, USA Research Reactor Munich (in German) Georgia, USA hectare (104 m2, 0.01 km2) high-level (radioactive) waste heating, ventilation, and air conditioning heavy water reactor International Council on Monuments and Sites International Commission on Radiological Protection Interim End State (a UK phrase)

356

IL ILW ISFSI IT ITEP KM KSU KY LED LEED LLW LTS MA MARAD MAUA MI MN MO MT MTR MW NC NDA

NJ NM No. NPL NPP NRC NSW NYC OH ON ONR OR

Acronyms

Illinois, USA intermediate-level (radioactive) waste independent spent fuel storage installation information technology Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow knowledge management K€arnkrafts€akerhet och Utbildning AB (the Swedish Nuclear Training and Safety Center) Kentucky, USA light-emitting diode Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design low-level (radioactive) waste long-term stewardship Massachusetts, USA US Maritime Administration multi-attribute utility analysis Michigan, USA Minnesota, USA Missouri, USA Montana, USA materials test reactor Megawatt North Carolina, USA Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, UK. NDA is a nondepartmental public body established under the Energy Act 2004. Its purpose is to ensure that nuclear sites designated to it by the Secretary of State are decommissioned and cleaned up safely, securely, cost effectively, in ways that protect the environment and are made ready for their next planned use. The NDA is responsible for 18 designated civil public sector sites. Legally the NDA can hold nuclear site licenses. However, it has opted to fulfil its duties by contracting out the operation of the sites to site license companies (see SLC), which hold the nuclear site licenses, and appointing parent body organizations (PBO) to provide management and direction to each SLC New Jersey, USA New Mexico, USA number EPA National Priorities List nuclear power plant US Nuclear Regulatory Commission New South Wales, Australia New York City, USA Ohio, USA Ontario, Canada UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation Oregon, USA

Acronyms

ORISE PA PBO

357

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, USA Pennsylvania, USA Parent Body Organization, UK. A PBO, selected through a competitive process bringing in private sector expertise, owns the SLC for the duration of their contract with the NDA, earning fees based on performance and efficiencies gained PCB poly-chlorinated biphenyl PFR prototype fast reactor (at Dounreay, UK) PV photovoltaic PWR pressurized water reactor QA quality assurance RAF UK Royal Air Force R&D research and development RB-3 Reactor Bologna No. 3, Italy RTG radioisotopic thermoelectric generator SD South Dakota, USA SICN Industrial Company for Nuclear Fuel (a French acronym) SLC Site License Company. Each of the 18 nuclear sites in the UK is operated by an SLC under contract to the NDA. The SLC is responsible for day-to-day operations and the delivery of the site program SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District, USA SRS Savannah River Site, USA SSA Southern Storage Area, Harwell, UK SSC structures, systems and components TBD to be defined TICCIH The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage TN Tennessee, USA TRIGA Training, Research, Isotope, General Atomic. A model of research reactor ´ JV R ˇ ezˇ ´ JV is the Czech acronym) based at R ˇ ezˇ, Czech U Nuclear Research Institute (U Republic UK United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) UKAEA United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USA United States of America UT Utah, USA VLLW very low-level (radioactive) waste WA Washington, USA WNP Washington Nuclear Project WPPSS Washington Public Power Supply System WW (I or II) World War YNPS Yankee (Rowe) Nuclear Power Station

This page intentionally left blank

Additional Bibliography (websites accessed on 29 December 2018)

Adaptive Reuse and Historic Preservation of Fisk Generating Station, Chicago, 2012. https://de. scribd.com/document/94833401/The-Adaptive-Reuse-and-Historic-Preservation-of-FiskGenerating-Station-Chicago. Adaptive Reuse of Ancient Buildings in Rome, 2017. November 27, 2017, http://brewminate. com/adaptive-reuse-of-ancient-buildings-in-rome/. Alliance for Community Trees News, 2017. Cities Turn Parking Lots Into Greenspaces. May 8, 2017, https://actreesnews.org/alliance-for-community-trees-news/cities-turnparking-lots-greenspaces/. Arch Daily, 2018a. Berlin’s Tempelhof Airport: Achieving Redemption Through Adaptive Reuse. May 29, 2018, https://www.archdaily.com/895204/berlins-tempelhof-airportachieving-redemption-through-adaptive-reuse?utm_medium¼email&utm_source¼Arch Daily%20List&kth¼2,750,010. Arch Daily, 2018b. Transforming the Parking Garages of Today Into the Housing of Tomorrow. August 5, 2018, https://www.archdaily.com/899598/transforming-the-parking-garagesof-today-into-the-housing-of-tomorrow?utm_medium¼email&utm_source¼ArchDaily %20List&kth¼2,750,010. archdaily.com Use the search option with phrases as “adaptive reuse”, “industrial heritage” etc. to identify case studies. ASTM E1984-03, Standard Guide for Process of Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment (Withdrawn 2012 in accordance with section 10.5.3.1 of the Regulations Governing ASTM Technical Committees, which requires that standards shall be updated by the end of the eighth year since the last approval date). Balaisis, N., 2014. Factory Nostalgia: Industrial Aesthetics in the Digital City, The Mediated City Conference Architecture_MPS; Ravensbourne; Woodbury University Los Angeles. October 01–04, 2014, http://architecturemps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ BALAISIS-NICHOLAS_FACTORY-NOSTALGIA_INDUSTRIAL-AESTHETICS-INTHE-DIGITAL-CITY.pdf. Beard, C., 2013. Transformation Beyond Preservation. A Master Thesis, September 23, 2013, https://issuu.com/c.d.beard/docs/beardc_final_thesis_booklet. Berens, C., 2010. Redeveloping Industrial Sites: A Guide for Architects, Planners, and Developers. Wiley Publ. Building Design + Construction, 2013. October 30, 2013, https://www.bdcnetwork.com/15stellar-historic-preservation-adaptive-reuse-and-renovation-projects. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Proposed Comprehensive Study Report for Cameco Corporation’s Proposed Redevelopment of the Port Hope Conversion Facility (Vision 2010), CEAR 06-03-22672, 2012. https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/52196/ 52196E.pdf.

360

Additional Bibliography (websites accessed on 29 December 2018)

Casella, E.C., Symonds, J. (Eds.), 2005. Industrial Archaeology—Future Dimensions. Springer. ISBN 0-387-22808-X. City of Stillwater, Oklahoma, Revitalization & Adaptive Reuse Opportunity Decommissioned Electric Generation Facility. http://econdev.stillwater.org/files/bls-project/BLS-GeneralInfo-Expectations.pdf. CL:AIRE, 32 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3QJ https://www.claire.co.uk/. Comp, T.A., Hill, I.T., 1977. Reuse of Industrial Buildings. 2(5). http://npshistory.com/publica tions/11593/Vol2-No5-Supplement-B.pdf. CURBED, 2017. 9 Projects that reimagine old buildings, from factories to firehouses. Nov. 2, 2017, https://www.curbed.com/2017/11/2/16598172/adaptive-reuse-architecture-unitedstates. Dezeen, 2018. Ares Partners converts former granary into hotel in rural China. 2018/07/17, https://www.dezeen.com/2018/07/17/ares-partners-granary-hotel-huchen-barn-resortchina-architecture/?utm_medium¼email&utm_campaign¼Daily%20Dezeen% 20Digest&utm_content¼Daily%20Dezeen%20Digest+CID_87d11a1d1fc0bec33e31fb 771254afcb&utm_source¼Dezeen%20Mail&utm_term¼Ares%20Partners%20converts %20former%20granary%20into%20hotel%20in%20rural%20China. Dezeen, Adaptive reuse https://www.dezeen.com/tag/adaptive-reuse/. Doyle, K., Stubbs, T., 1999. The Complete Guide to Environmental Careers in the 21st Century. Island Press. English Heritage, 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. Everett-Green, R., 2017. Harvesting the Potential of Montreal’s Silo No. 5, Globeandmail.com, March 25, 2017. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/harvesting-the-potential-ofmontreals-silo-no-5/article28605518/. FAKRO, Reviving Places by Reusing Industrial Heritage. https://www.fakro.com/att/COM MON/prof/architect/IDC_2016_1_prize.pdf. Financial Times, 2015. Atomic architecture’s mission invisible. April 10, 2015, https://www.ft. com/content/f72f7132-d867-11e4-ba53-00144feab7de. FINDINGS, 1997. The Redevelopment of Contaminated Land for Housing Use, Housing Research 225. Published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead, 40 Water End, York YO3 6LP, UK, ISSN 0958-3084. Fort Tilden Local Redevelopment Authority, Fort Tilden Redevelopment Plan. http://www. queensbp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Fort-Tilden-Application-DRAFT.pdf. German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS), 2016a. The Adaptive Reuse Toolkit— How Cities Can Turn Their Industrial Legacy Into Infrastructure for Innovation and Growth. September 28, 2016, http://www.gmfus.org/publications/adaptive-reuse-toolkithow-cities-can-turn-their-industrial-legacy-%E2%80%A8into-infrastructure. German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS), 2016b. Detroit Opportunity Sites—Final Report: The Opportunities of Redeveloping Large-Scale Industrial Vacant Sites & Properties in Detroit. http://www.gmfus.org/file/8885/download. Gigler, U., T€otzer, T., Knoflacher, M., 2004. Examples of revitalized urban industrial sites across Europe. Final Report of the MASURIN Sourcebook, Contract number: EVK 4-CT-2001-00054 Project number: 7.64.00103 ARC–sys-0022, https://docslide.net/docu ments/arcsys-masurin-sourcebook-finalreport.html. Guide to Redevelopment Ready Sites, https://www.miplace.org/globalassets/mediadocuments/rrc/rrc-guide—rrsites.pdf. Heritage Council of Victoria, Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse Case Studies. https:// heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/research-projects/industrial-heritage-case-studies/. Heritage Counts, 2017. Heritage and the Economy. https://content.historicengland.org.uk/con tent/heritage-counts/pub/2017/heritage-and-the-economy-2017.pdf.

Additional Bibliography (websites accessed on 29 December 2018)

361

Highwire Earth, 2017. The case for historic buildings: lessons on balancing human development and sustainability. February 22, 2017, https://highwire.princeton.edu/2017/02/22/thecase-for-historic-buildings-lessons-on-balancing-human-development-and-sustainability. Holland, K., et al., 2013. Integrating remediation and reuse to achieve whole-system sustainability benefits. Remed. J. 23 (2), 5–17. Spring. Wiley Onsite Library (available to subscribers). Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Hellings, J., 2015. Sustainable site clean-up from megaprojects: lessons from London 2012. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Eng. Sustain. 168 (ES2), 61–70. https://www. repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/246514/Hou_et_al-2015-Proceedings_of_ the_Institution_of_Civil_Engineers-Engineering_Sustainability-VoR.pdf;sequence¼7. Inhabitat, 2012. https://inhabitat.com/6-amazing-green-renovations-that-turn-industrialbuildings-into-architectural-gems/. Institut f€ur Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ILS), 1984. Umnutzung von Fabriken (In German) (Institute for Land and Urban Development Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Reuse of Factories), ILS Dortmund. International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 2010. Putting Smart Growth to Work in Rural Communities. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/301483_10-180% 20Smart%20Growth%20Rural%20Com.pdf. ISSUU Inc., 20 American Stories of Adaptive Reuse. https://issuu.com/detail-magazine/docs/ re_usa. Jiang, C., Hua, Z., Min, J., Xiao-Lu, C., 2009. Case study on the redevelopment of industrial wasteland in resource-exhausted mining area, The 6th International Conference on Mining Science & Technology. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 1, 1140–1146. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878522009001763. Jin, S.I., 2017. Green retrofit of existing non-domestic buildings as a multi criteria decision making process. PhD Thesis, University College London. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/ 1546221/7/Final%20copy%2020170328.pdf.%20REDACTED.pdf. Kee, T., 2014. Adaptive reuse of industrial buildings for affordable housing in Hong Kong. J. Des. Built Environ. 14(1). Keiichi Shimizu, 2010. Conservation and Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage in Japan. In: International Symposium on “Sesto San Giovanni - A History and a Future Industrial Heritage for the Whole World” 24–25 September 2010. http://www.sestosg.net/ CmsReply/ImageServlet/shimizu3.pdf. Kirovova´, K., Sigmundova´, A., Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to the Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Sites https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/ARC14/ARC14037 FU1.pdf. Kis, K., 1993. Industrielle Baudenkm€aler, Unser Budapest. IBSN 963 8376 18 X (In German, Industrial Monuments) Laraia, M. (Ed.), 2012. Nuclear Decommissioning, Planning, Execution and International Experience.In: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, Hardcover ISBN: 9780857091154. (see in particular, M. Laraia, Chapter 18, Reuse and Redevelopment of Decommissioned Nuclear Sites: Strategies and Lessons Learned) Laraia, M. (Ed.), 2017. Advances and Innovations in Nuclear Decommissioning. In: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, Hardcover ISBN: 9780081011225 Legner, M., 2007. Redevelopment Through Rehabilitation—The Role of Historic Preservation in Revitalizing Deindustrialized Cities: Lessons from the United States and Sweden. Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University. April 30, 2007, http://www.diva-portal. org/smash/get/diva2:399611/FULLTEXT02. Lepel, A., 2009. The Second Life of Industrial Buildings and the Process of Their Reuse. PhD Thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics. http://www.ekt.bme.hu/ Szemallo/LA-PhD-teziseng.pdf.

362

Additional Bibliography (websites accessed on 29 December 2018)

Mack, J., Brownfield Success Stories Case Histories and Lessons Learned. https://www.njit. edu/tab/sites/tab/files/lcms/downloads/removing-barriers/Brownfield_Success_Stories. pdf. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 As Amended Through, 2000. https://www.fema. gov/media-library-data/20130726-1623-20490-5704/nhpa.pdf. National Park Service & Historic Preservation, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historic preservation/index.htm. National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2015. Six Practical Reasons to Save Old Buildings. November 10, 2015, https://savingplaces.org/stories/six-reasons-save-old-buildings#. Wqk9SnwrGM9. National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2017. Fertile Ground for Adaptive Reuse in Philadelphia’s Former Industrial Buildings. July 19, 2017, https://savingplaces.org/stories/fer tile-ground-for-adaptive-reuse-in-philadelphias-former-industrial-buildings#.WyPNUVU zaM8. New Jersey Planning, Redevelopment Planning Defined. http://njplanning.org/wp-content/ uploads/RED-Policy-Guide2.2.12.pdf. Nordic Innovation, 2014. Sustainable refurbishment – Decision Support Tool and Indicator Requirements. 2014-08-04, http://www.nordicinnovation.org/Documents/Public%20con sultation/N%20029%20Draft%20no%205_4%20140804.pdf. Northcountry Cooperative Foundation, Too Good to Throw Away: The Adaptive Reuse of Underused Buildings (undated). http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/files/AdaptiveReuse FINAL_1_.pdf. Papathanasiou, M., 2010. Industries of Culture: Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Sites With the Implementation of Cultural Activities in the Port Area of Thessaloniki. Diploma Research Thesis, University of Thessaloniki. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267763446_ Industries_of_Culture_Adaptive_reuse_of_industrial_sites_with_the_implementation_ of_cultural_activities. Porter, N., 2016. Power plants needn’t be ugly – let’s make them green and beautiful. The Conversation. March 2, 2016, http://theconversation.com/power-plants-neednt-be-ugly-letsmake-them-green-and-beautiful-55415. Power, 2016. Coal Power Plant Post-Retirement Options. September 1, 2016, www.powermag. com/coal-power-plant-post-retirement-options. Reutilization of Abandoned Industrial Buildings, 2016. 7.4.2016, http://www.indeplatforma. org/category/clanki-en/index.html. Rogers, W., 1997. The Professional Practice of Landscape Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-28680-X RSK, https://www.rsk.co.uk/item/261-grassmoor-lagoons-remediation-scheme.html. Setti, G., 2013. New ways of reusing abandoned industrial architectures, living landscapes— landscapes for living, conference proceedings, Florence, February–June 2012, Planum. J. Urban. 2 (27) Proceedings published in October 2013 Sigman, H., 2009. Environmental Liability and Redevelopment of Old Industrial Land. www. nber.org/papers/w15017.pdf. Theobald, D.M., Hobbs, N.T., 2002. A Framework for Evaluating Land Use Planning Alternatives: Protecting Biodiversity on Private Land. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/ iss1/art5/main.html. University of Delaware, Adaptive Reuse of Underutilized Buildings and Sites. http://www. completecommunitiesde.org/planning/landuse/adaptive-reuse/. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Characteristics of sustainable brownfield projects. EPA500-R-98-001, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100CVRG.PDF? Dockey¼P100CVRG.PDF.

Additional Bibliography (websites accessed on 29 December 2018)

363

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Cleanup and Industrial Revitalization in the Tri-State Region—The South Point Plant Superfund Site and Lawrence County, Ohio. http://villageofsouthpoint.com/SPtPlantEPA_Study.pdf. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Pilots, Ideas and Lessons Learned for Communities. EPA 560-R-13-002, https://www.epa.gov/sites/produc tion/files/2015-09/documents/epa_oblr_awp_report_v4_508.pdf. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Carlisle brownfields area-wide plan—site reuse planning. http://www.carlislepa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CARL_AWP-FinalReport_00_Cover_TOC_Ack_ES.pdf. US Environmental Protection Agency, Coal Plant Decommissioning Remediation and Redevelopment. EPA Publication #560-F-16-003, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ P100OWFC.PDF?Dockey¼P100OWFC.PDF. US Environmental Protection Agency websites, https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ brownfields-technical-assistance-and-research. https://www.epa.gov/sustainability. https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaltopics/water-topics. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justiceyour-community. https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tablesnovember-2017. https://www.epa.gov/iris. V€ah€aaho, I., 2014. Underground space planning in Helsinki. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 6, 387–398. https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1674775514000699/1-s2.0-S1674775514000699main.pdf?_tid¼5e174b65-9269-48d2-863c-08a53fe0354d&acdnat¼1530429960_1ad 972054ce08f7c60fc5064cb4b8c0a. Wedding, G.C., Crawford-Brown, D., 2007. Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments: a focus on sustainability and green building. J. Environ. Manage. 85 (2), 483–495. Wiener, A., 2013. Adaptive Reuse for Power Plants by Studio Gang and Adjaye Associates. December 11, 2013, http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/adaptive-reuse-forpower-plants-by-studio-gang-and-adjaye-associates_o. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_reuse. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, 2013. Following Function—Creative Reuse of Industrial Sites. https://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/1211_1.pdf. World Nuclear Agency, 2006. Safe Decommissioning of Civil Nuclear Industry Sites. London, UK, http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/position-statements/safedecommissioning-of-civil-nuclear-industry-sit.aspx. Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., 2004. Evaluation of buildings’ redevelopment alternatives with an emphasis on the multipartite sustainability. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manage. 8, 121–128.

This page intentionally left blank

Index Note: Page numbers followed by f indicate figures, t indicate tables, and b indicate boxes. A Abandoned buildings, 5, 13 Accessibility, 37, 84 Acid mine drainage (AMD), 223–224 Adaptability, 84–85. See also Building adaptability Adaptive reuse, 185–186b, 203–204b, 217–218b business case, 91 challenges, 19–20 Cornwall mining site, UK, 19, 20f definition, 17 economic outcome, 95 Emscher Park, 18, 19f governmental institutions, 93 of historic building, 35 industrial buildings, 18 and preservation, 33–39 procurement methods, 68–69 success, 41–43 Aesthetics, 51–54 Age, of buildings, 120–123 Albert Dock, 261–262 Alpha Materials Laboratory (AML), 318 Amenity societies, 97 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), 230 Americans with Disabilities Act, 120–121 Annecy SICN factory, 148 AREVA, 148 Asbestos, 65, 69 Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), 142 As low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) plan, 329–330 Asset Revitalization Initiative (ARI), 70 Athens reactor, 229 Atkins Heritage, 325 Atlas missile system, 211–212 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 142, 253

Austin Base, TX, USA, 143 Authenticity, 34, 37 B Balmoral Curling Club, 198–199 Baroque Church, 2 Barseb€ack NPP, Sweden, 327–329 Battersea Power Station, 161–162 Bechtel Power Corporation, 139–140  Belle Epoque, 177–178 Berengo Center for contemporary art and glass, 185 Best practicable environmental option (BPEO), 83, 111, 321 Big Rock Point, USA, 105, 141 Biological Agriculture Reactor of the Netherlands (BARN), 229 Blackwater Heritage State Trail, 267 Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) reactor, 151–152 Bomb Dump. See Harwell Southern Storage Area, UK Botanica Heritage building, 169 Brauhaus, Wuppertal, Germany, 258, 260f B Reactor Museum Association, 149–150 Brownfield, 69, 106–107 Brunel Goods Shed, 175–176 Brutalism, 52–53, 237–238 Brutalist style of art, 6 Budapest Nyugati (West) train station, 269 Building adaptability features, 60–61 indicators, 61, 61t Built form, 21, 31 Bureaucracy, 103 C Calder Hall NPP, UK, 317 CanStage’s Berkeley Street Theatre Complex, 144

366

Cantell phases, 62 Cantoni Cotton Mill, 185 Capenhurst Nuclear Services (CNS), 147 Capenhurst site, 146–147 Carob Mill Museum, 174 Carrie Furnaces, 182 Casaccia Plutonium Plant, 190 Cash flow management, 95 Cassino Museum of Contemporary Art (CAMUSAC), 186 Central Mill of Piracicaba, 177 Change management, 49–51 Chapelcross NPP, UK, 316 Chatterley Whitfield Project, 29 Cheonggyecheon elevated highway, 271 Chernobyl site, Ukraine, 20, 147–148 Chester Power Plant, PA, USA, 156 Church of Saint Agatha in Prison, 2, 3f Clifton Observatory, 241–242 Closed fuel cycle, 116 Coal-fired power station, 161 Colossal Granary, 171 Comal power plant, 137 Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE), 142 Commodification, 37–38 Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET), 71 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 298, 334–335 Connecticut Yankee (CY), USA, 139–141 Conservation, 36–37 Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, 107 Construction Manager (CM) Health Physics (HP) technicians, 329–330 Contaminated lands, 5 Crawick Multiverse, UK, 221–222 from dumps to parks, 220–221 former Eternit factory, Casale Monferrato, Italy, 220 mining lands, 223–226 Tempelhof airport, Berlin, Germany, 222–223 Contemporary ruins, 5, 9 Convertibility, 84–85 Cornwall mining site, UK, 19, 20f Cost-benefit analysis, 90, 93

Index

Cultural heritage, 29–31. See also Industrial heritage Cultural tourism, 25, 28 Culture, 50 Custard Factory (CF), 192 Custard Factory, Birmingham, 192 Cut buried conduit/cable, 338–339 Cycle Route 55, 29 Cylindrical silo, 186 D Dale’s Brewery, UK, 29, 30f Dark tourism, 27–28 Daylight Building in Knoxville, 31–32 Decommissioned nuclear sites, 343 Decommissioned research reactors, in Netherlands, 229b Decommissioning advantages and drawbacks, 108, 108–110t to brownfield, 69 to greenfield, 70–72 implementation of, 69 lifecycle, 76, 76f nuclear buildings, 63, 64f structural damage, 122 Decommissioning and environmental remediation (D&ER), 43–44, 142 Decommissioning Auxiliary Building (DAB), 163 Decontamination, 43, 126 Deferred dismantling, 75 Deindustrialization, 3–5 Delicensing, 112–113 Democratic cultural heritage, 31 Demolition, 68, 92 Denver Radium Superfund Site, 307–308 Denver Stapleton airport, 248–249 De-planting Mock-up Simulator (DMS), 163–164 Derelict land, 5 Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs), 110–111 Design for Decommissioning and Adaptability (DfD/A), 84–85 Design to remodel or reuse (DRR), 85 Didcot Towers Leisure Park, 248 Dido reactor, 145–146, 146f Dig and Drigg approach, 83

Index

“Dirty bomb” scenarios, 139 Disposition, 313, 313t Ditherington Mill, 173 Domestic Research Reactor, 137 Don Valley Brickworks, 26–27, 27f Dorset Green Technology Park, 319 Dounreay Site Restoration Limited (DSRL), 323–326 Dounreay site, UK decommissioning and remediation, 324 hazard reduction, 323–324 heritage strategy, 325 pilot project, 326 Dovecotes silos, 181–182 Drains decommissioning, 335–336 E Early transfer authority (ETA) act, 63 EBR-1, nuclear power plant, 16f Economic Development Plan, 140–141 Economic drivers, 98 Economics, 91–96 Eiffel, Gustave, 269 Electricity Museum, Lisbon, Portugal, 159–160 Electricity Substation No. 109, 165 Embodied energy, 35 Emscher Park, Germany, 18, 19f, 36 End state criteria. See Site end states (SESs) Energy Act designations, 147 Entombment, 75–77 Environmental land use restriction (ELUR), 111 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 65–66, 298–299, 305 Environmental risks, 128 Ermita Virgen del Puerto, 271 ETTP Heritage Center, 71, 72f European Route for Industrial Heritage (ERIH), 25 Expandability, 84–85 Experimental boiling water reactor (EBWR), 53–54, 54f F Facadism, 166 Facility Information Management System (FIMS), 337–338

367

Facility Reuse Inquiry, 138 Fakenham Museum of Gas and Local History, 185 Falck Company, 144 Falck steel plant closure, 145 Farmers Assisting Returning Military (F.A.R.M.), 277 Fernald Closure Project, 308 Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health, 308 Fernald Superfund site, 308 after cleanup, 310–311, 311f before cleanup, 310–311, 311f disposal cell, 308, 309f environmental management project, 308, 309f redevelopment plan, 310, 310f Fiber reinforced polymers, 122 Fireproof construction, 169 Flakt€urme, 156–157 Forbidden zones, 99 Ford Assembly Plant, 191 Foreign Research Reactor, 137 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), 142 Fort St. Vrain (FSV) NPP, US, 106–107, 114–115, 125, 152–154 Frankenstein Syndrome, 19–20 Fukushima Gate Village, 27–28 Fungo water tower, 240, 240f

G Garigliano NPP, Italy, 6–8, 8f, 12f Gas holders, 205–206 Gas House, 151, 151f Gasometer, 183, 184f Gas Plant, 150–151 Gas stations, 10 Gas Works Park, 150–151 General Motors (GM), 191 Gentrification, 38–39, 98 Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory (GNAL), 228–229 Georgia Tech Research Reactor (GTRR), 227–228 German power plants, 155 Giles Gilbert Scott’s designs, 51–52 Glass apron, 243

368

Globalization, 3–4 Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), 190 Gloucestershire Renewable Energy, Engineering, and Nuclear (GREEN) project, 155 Golf courses, Superfund, 305–306 Grain Silo Complex, 181 Grays Harbor Public Development Authority (GHPDA), 297 Great Pond Village, LLC, 142 “Grebeni” lighthouse, 241, 242f Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, 51–52 Greenfield, 105 Greifswald NPP site, 163, 164f Grenfell Tower, 123 Greyfield, 114 Gurtel urban design, 274–275

H Haddam’s nonagricultural employment, 139–140 Hanford B Reactor, 149–151, 164–165 Hanford Site electrical system, 332 property transfer, 336 Superfund, 300–304t Hangar Bicocca, 194 Harwell nuclear research site, 145–146 Harwell Southern Storage Area, UK best practicable environmental option, 321 characterization, 321 hazards, 320 impact indicators, 321–322 phases of remediation project, 322 post-remediation report, 320–321 waste management, 321–322 Hazard Ranking System, 298 Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), 189–190 Heavy water (HW) moderator, 236 Heritage, 5. See also Industrial heritage Heritage Minerals Site, Manchester, 312 Heritage Property Act of Nova Scotia, 170–171 High-level waste (HLW), 43–44, 116 Himmelreich & Zwicker Cloth factory, 174

Index

Hinkley Point Water Treatment Plant, 163–164 Historical (classical) ruins, 9 Historical value, 18, 27–28 Historic buildings, 343 adaptive reuse, 35 practices for, 79 value of, 34 Historic Scotland, 325 Horizon Nuclear Power, 145 Human health drivers, 97–98 Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 306–307 I Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), 236 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), 152 Immediate dismantling, 75 Imperial Oil Opera Theatre, 144 Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), 83, 139–141, 140f, 152, 313 Indian Point, NY, USA, 141 Industrial architecture, evolution of, 22 Industrial buildings, 3, 5 adaptive reuse, 18 adaptive reuse projects, 148–149 bunkers, tunnels and underground installations, 207–218 contaminated land areas Crawick Multiverse, UK, 221–222 from dumps to parks, 220–221 former Eternit factory, Casale Monferrato, Italy, 220 mining lands, 223–226 Tempelhof airport, Berlin, Germany, 222–223 cranes and crane ways, 263 docks, piers, wharves, 260–263 gas holders, 205–206 heritage sites, 135 land areas and infrastructure Austin Base, TX, USA, 143 Big Rock Point, MI, USA, 141 Chernobyl site, Ukraine, 147–148 Connecticut Yankee (CY), USA, 139–141

Index

electricity generation, equipment used for, 137 Indian Point, NY, USA, 141 obsolete power plants, adaptive reuse, 136 redevelopments and preservation, 136–137 redundant power plants, 137 reuse proposal, 137 reusing decommissioned sites, 136 Sesto San Giovanni, Italy, 144–145 SRS, USA, 137–139 Tihange, Belgium, 142 Toronto, Canada, 143–144 UK’s nuclear sites, release of, 145–147 Veurey and Annecy sites, France, 148 Windsor site, CT, USA, 142 naval installations Mutsu nuclear ship, Japan, 252 nuclear ship Savannah, US, 253–254 Otto Hahn nuclear ship, Germany, 254 submarine bases, 255–256 on-power plants automobile plants, 191 biotech, medical and chemistry facilities and supportive uses, manufacturing buildings reused, 195–201 blast furnaces, 182 Brunel Goods Shed, 175–176 building spatial capacity, 167 Clementhorpe maltings, 192–193 Custard Factory, Birmingham, 192 dairy and ice factory, Berlin, 193 Hangar Bicocca, 194 industrial silos, 179–182 Kurashiki factory, Japan, 193–194 mills converted to mixed use (retail shops, offices, restaurants, theaters, museums, apartments), 172 mills converted to museums, 170 mills converted to residential uses (apartments, hotels, etc.), 171 natural lighting and ventilation, 167 newly planned housing spaces, functional quality of, 168 new vertical and horizontal communications, 168 OGR, 194–195

369

OPEC 1 and 2, Casaccia Research Center, Rome, 190 open spaces, addition of, 168 postindustrial living, Milan, Italy, 182–183 reuse options, 166–167 Rome industrial buildings, 183–186 Stroud Preservation Trust, 175–176 Temple Mill or Marshall’s Mill, 176 tobacco factories, 186–190 water pumping houses, 178–179 parking lots and garages, 276–277 pools and tanks, 256–260 power plants Battersea Power Station, 161–162 Berkeley, UK, 155–156 BONUS NPP, Puerto Rico, 151–152 Chester Power Plant, PA, USA, 156 decommissioning projects, reuse of buildings within, 162–164 electrical substations, 165–166 Electricity Museum and redevelopments, Lisbon, Portugal, 159–160 ever operated NPPS, 155 FSV, USA, 152–154 gasworks, 151 GES2 Power Plant, Moscow, Russian Federation, 161 Hanford B Reactor site, 149–151 Liverpool Power Station, NSW, Australia, 156–157 nuclear canyons, reuse of, 164–165 Santralistanbul, Turkey, 157 Shoreham, NY, USA, 154–155 Trojhalı´ site, Czech Republic, 157–158 turbine-generator halls, 149 railroads, 264–270 railway stations and ancillary installations Fulham Broadway, London, UK, 204 Michigan Central Station, Detroit, MI, USA, 202–204 Oakland’s Ninth Avenue Terminal, CA, USA, 204 Stazione Leopolda, Florence, Italy, 202 Stazione Ostiense, Rome, Italy, 202 recreational uses, 135–136 redevelopment projects, 149 redevelopments, 135

370

Industrial buildings (Continued) research reactors and small facilities building 413 Active Laundry, Harwell, UK, 238–239 building 305, Hanford, USA, 230–231 ford reactor and building, 227 Garching Munich, 232 Georgia Tech Reactor and building, 227–228 GNAL, 228–229 Graz Reactor, Austria, 237 Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, 232–233 KRR-1, 235–236 Musashi Reactor, Japan, 233–234 Nuclear Reactor, Sweden, 234–235 in operation, 238 RB-3 reactor, Montecuccolino (Bologna) Italy, 231 R-MAD Facility, NNSS, USA, 229–230 R3 Reactor, Mol, Belgium, 236–237 University of California reactor, 229 University of Washington Reactor, 237–238 residential reuse of, 135 roads, 270–273 tall structures air traffic control towers, 248–249 climbing walls, 251 cooling towers, 247–248 Flak towers, 251–252 industrial chimneys, 242–246 lighthouses, 241 observatories, 241–242 roofs, 249–250 water towers, 239–241 turbine-generator halls, 149 viaduct arches, 273–276 Industrial heritage, 21 adaptive reuse, 35 and archeology, 28–29 architecture, evolution of, 22 atmosphere, 24 Chatterley Whitfield Project, 29 conservation, 34 and cultural tourism, 25 Dale’s Brewery, UK, 29, 30f dark tourism, 27–28 Daylight Building in Knoxville, 31–32 decoration of shops, 26, 26f

Index

Don Valley Brick Works, 26–27, 27f local culture vs. reconversion, 32–33 nuclear power plant, 30 Otto Wagner’s Hofpavillon, 23–24, 23f preservation, 38–39 taxonomy of criteria, 22 urbex, and graffiti-art, 32, 32f Industrial redevelopment, 13 Industrial reuse, 344 Industrial revolution, 3, 13 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), 236 Institutional control, 299, 307 Integral boiler-superheater, 151–152 Integrative Biosciences Center (IBio), 199–200 Interim Onsite Storage Building (IOSB), 295 Interim use, 117–119 Intermediate-level waste (ILW), 323–324 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 68, 75, 238 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 21 International Lab of Architecture and City Planning (ILAUD), 177 International Risk Group (IRG), 63 Inveresk Rail Workshop, NSW, Australia, 41

K K East Reactor, Hanford, 256 Kema Suspension Test Reactor (KSTR), 229 Knappenrode Energy Factory, Saxony, 68 Knowledge management (KM) advances, 45 application, 43–44 data and records, 45, 46t definition, 43 information transfer, 47–48 loss of knowledge factors, 45–47, 48t record keeping, 48–49 redeveloped site, 45, 46f warning of residual contamination, 45–47, 47f Korea Research Reactor-1 (KRR-1), 235–236 Kurashiki factory, Japan, 193–194 K West Reactor, 256–257

Index

L La Halle Pajol, 269 Landmark Preservation Board process, 38 Landmark Preservation Ordinance (LPO), 237–238 Land-use controls, 97–98 Lanitis carob mill factory, 174 Lansdowne Radiation site, 299 L Area Material Storage (L Basin), 137 Large buildings. See Industrial buildings Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), US, 333–334 LEED certification, 89–90 Legacy Management (LM), 152 “Le Navate” (“The Aisles”), 194, 195f Life cycle management, 85 Life safety code, 120–121 Liquid Effluent Treatment Plant, 259 Listed building, 41 Lister Mills, 172 Liverpool Power Station, NSW, Australia, 156–157 Local culture, 32–33 Local enterprise partnerships, 96 Long-term site mission, 114–117 Long-term stewardship (LTS), 104 Los Alamos National Laboratory, 336–337 Love Canal, 107 Low Flux Reactor, 229 Low-level radioactive waste (LLW), 43–44 Low-rise building, 144–145 M Magnox Trawsfynydd Site, 6, 7f MARAD. See US Maritime Administration (MARAD) Marelli Group, 144 Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (MASS MoCA), 170 Matadouro slaughterhouse, 185–186 Melbourne’s Goods Shed North, 119 Migration Museum of South Australia, 41 Milanosesto, 144–145 Molino Stucky, 185 Monte Carlo codes, 233–234 Motivators/drivers, 97 Multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUA), 90 Multidisciplinary teams, 100

371

Multi-stakeholder involvement, 103 Museo dell’Altro e dell’Altrove di Metropoliz (MAAM), 184–185 Museu do Oriente (Museum of the East), 160 Museum of Art, Architecture, and Technology (MAAT), 159 Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester, 6–8, 7f Museums, 39–41 Carob Mill Museum, 174 in heritage places, 40 Inveresk Rail Workshop, NSW, Australia, 41 Ruhr Museum, 36, 37f Mutsu nuclear ship, Japan, 252

N Nadler Hotel, 171 Napolitana Factory, 160 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, 337–338 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 99 National Park Service (NPS), 79, 149–150, 315 National Priorities List (NPL), 298–299, 307 National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (0), 337–338 Natural ventilation, 161 Naumachie, 2–3, 4f Nautilus Submarine, 255 Netherlands, reuse of decommissioned research reactors, 229b Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), 229–230 New Jersey Uniform Construction Code— Rehabilitation Sub-code, 121 Newsstands, 10 New York City’s (NYC) High Line, 267, 268f Nonnuclear sites, 150–151 North Carolina Renewable Power (NCRP), 129 NPPs. See Nuclear power plants (NPPs) Nuclear buildings, 11 decommissioning, 63, 64f delicensing, 113

372

Nuclear buildings (Continued) design for decommissioning and adaptability (DfD/A) principle, 84–85 designing, 83–84 accessibility, 84 cultural assets, 84 flexibility in use, 84 physical features, 84 retired power plant, 66, 67f Nuclear Criticality Safety Determination (NCSD), 331 Nuclear decommissioning challenges, 82–83 radioactive, 92 sustainability, 77–79 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), 111, 145, 316, 319, 324 Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) site, 110–111 Nuclear Historic Landmark Award, 82 Nuclear Lake, NY, 315–316 Nuclear power plants (NPPs). See also Industrial buildings aesthetics, 51–52 architectural approach, 53 cultural heritage, 30 experimental boiling water reactor (EBWR), 53–54, 54f heritage of, 77 industrial buildings heritage sites, 135 land areas and infrastructure, 136–148 recreational uses, 135–136 redevelopments, 135 residential reuse of, 135 post-decommissioning phase, 79 preservation, 80 reconstruction, 81 redevelopment Calder Hall, UK, 317 Chapelcross (CX), UK, 316 Rancho Seco, 295–296, 296f SATSOP, 296–298 Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station (YNPS), US, 312–315 rehabilitation, 80 restoration, 80–81 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 51–52, 142, 254, 295 Nuclear ship Savannah, US, 253–254

Index

O Oak Ridge site, US construction work control processes, 329–330 historical data, 331–332 regulatory requirements, 334–335 unanticipated materials and hazards, 330–331 Officine Grandi Riparazioni (OGR), 194–195 Oldbury site, 147 Old Cheddar’s Lane pumping station, 185 Ontario Heritage Act, 143 Open fuel cycle, 116 “Open plan” approach, 168 Operazioni Calde–Hot Operations (OPEC), 190 Ottawa Radiation Area, 299 Otto Hahn nuclear ship, Germany, 254 Otto Wagner’s Hofpavillon, 23–24, 23f Ownership, 103–105 P Papplewick Pumping Station, 178 Parkland Walk, 268 Partial de-licensing, 118–119 The Pedro Alvares Cabral Building, 160 Penn Field, 143 Piano, Renzo, 144–145 Pier 70, 262–263 Planning process, 62 Plutonium storage facility, 137 Plutonium/Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Process Facility Modifications Program, 231 Pluto reactor, 145–146, 146f Political drivers, 98 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 136 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 64 Portsmouth site, US, 332–333 Post-decommissioning redevelopment, 77, 79 Nuclear Lake, NY, 315 Winfrith, UK, 317–318 Power Burst Facility (PBF), 236 Power plant Karolina, 157 Power reactor building, 11 Preservation and adaptive reuse, 33–39 definition, 79

Index

Pressurized water reactor (PWR), 53 Prestressed Concrete Reactor Vessel, 152–153 Procurement methods, 68–69 Programmatic risks, 128 Project risks cost, 128 environmental risks, 128 programmatic risks, 128 public attitudes, 130 technology-related, 128 transportation, 128 uncertain liabilities, 128–129 unclear procedures, 129 Project vision, 97 ProMedica, 198 Property transfer, 62, 70 Hanford Site, 336 legal and financial aspects, 313 Property value, 98 Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA), 308 Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), 323–324 Puente de Segovia, 271 Puerta del Rey, 271 R Radioactive, 92 Radioactive Superfund sites, 299, 300–304t Radioactive waste (RAW), 163, 295, 299, 307, 315, 320, 323–324 Rail-banking mechanism, 266 Railway stations Fulham Broadway, London, UK, 204 Michigan Central Station, Detroit, MI, USA, 202–204 Oakland’s Ninth Avenue Terminal, CA, USA, 204 Stazione Leopolda, Florence, Italy, 202 Stazione Ostiense, Rome, Italy, 202 Rancho Seco NPP redevelopment, 295–296, 296f Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (R-MAD) facility, 229–230 Reasonably foreseeable land use (RFLU), 110 Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel, 137 Reconstruction, 81

373

Records Management Document Control (RMDC), 332–333 Redevelopment, 11, 13f aesthetic factor, 51–54 change management, 49–51 circular lifecycle, 76, 76f early planning, 59–60 indicators of success, 41–43 knowledge management (KM), 43–49 motivators/drivers, 97 project risks cost, 128 public attitudes, 130 technology-related, 128 transportation, 128 uncertain liabilities, 128–129 unclear procedures, 129 projects, 344 property transfer, 70 schemes, 343–344 staff and skills, 101–102 sustainability factors, 99 Reduce, recycle, and reuse (3 R’s rule), 78 Regulatory body, 44, 81 Rehabilitation, 80 Renewable energy developments, 117 Research reactors, reuse of, 236b Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 334–335 Restoration, 80–81 Retired power plant, 66, 67f Revitalization, 62–63, 71 Reykjavik National Gallery of Iceland, 186, 186f Ridgewood, Queens, NY, 305 Ruhr Museum, 36, 37f Ruination, 3–4 Rust Belt, 198 Rust tourism, 31

S Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), 295–296 SAFSTOR, 76–77 Salaspils reactor Latvia, 12f Salmon River Division of the Conte refuge, 140–141 Sambro Island Lighthouse, 151

374

Satsop Business Park, 297 SATSOP redevelopment, 296–298 Savannah River National Laboratory, US, 338 Savannah River Site (SRS), USA, 137–139 Scotia Global Energy, 316 Sellafield Ltd., 146–147 Sesto San Giovanni, Italy, 144–145 Seven Heavenly Palaces, 194, 195f Silahtarag˘a Power Plant, 157 Silk Mill, 173 Sint Jansklooster Watertower, 241 Site Closure Project Plan (SCPP), 312 Site end states (SESs), 105 nonradiological criteria, 111–114 radiological criteria, 106–107 Skyscrapers, 144–145 SM-1A plant, 153–154 Smart growth, 90–91 Solar Power Plant, 155 Solar updraft power plant, 246 Solid build qualities of buildings, 92 South Carolina National Guard (SCNG), 138–139 Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI), 64 South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS), 155 Special Power Excursion Reactor Tests (SPERT), 236 Spent fuel storage facility, 147 Sponsors, 103–105 Springfields site, 147 SSA. See Harwell Southern Storage Area, UK Stakeholders, 96–97, 103 community interactions, 97 involvement, 101 multidisciplinary teams, 100 organizational aspects, 100–101 participation, 101 political drivers, 98 project vision, 97 socioeconomic factors, 98 Stewardship, 103–105 Structural codes, 120–121 Structural integrity, of building, 120–121 Structures, systems, and components (SSCs), 78 Superfund program

Index

Denver Radium Site, 307–308 Fernald project, 308–311, 311f golf courses, 305–306 Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 306–307 Lansdowne Radiation site, 299 origination, 298 Ottawa Radiation Area, 299 radioactive Superfund sites, 299, 300–304t Ridgewood, Queens, NY, 305 Welsbach and General Gas Mantle site, 305 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI), 298–299 Supervised area, 113 Sustainability, 77–79 Sustainability factors, 99 T Tagus Power Station, 159 Technology-related risks, 128 Tel Aviv railway station, 269 Tempelhof airport, Berlin, Germany, 222–223 Testaccio slaughterhouse, 185–186 Theatre of Marcellus, 1–2, 2f The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), 21 Thermoelectric plant, 159 TICCIH. See The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH) Tillner, Silja, 274–275 Tobacco drying kilns, 181–182 Tonopah Test Range (TTR) site, 337–338 Topping turbine, 153 Total demolition approach, 89 T Plant Complex, 164–165 Trawsfynydd NPP, 51–52 Trencherfield Mill, 173 Trojhalı´ site, Czech Republic, 157–158 Trombe wall, 243 Trust for Public Land (TPL), 220 U ´ JV decommissioning, Czech Republic, U 326–327, 328f UK Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR), 145

Index

Uncategorized area, 113 Underground storage tanks (USTs), 206, 209 United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’s (UKAEA’s), 318–320 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 142 University of Connecticut’s Health Center (UCHC), 201 US Maritime Administration (MARAD), 254 US Postal Service (USPS), 191 US Rocky Flats Environment Technology Site, 163–164 US Standards on Treatment of Historic Properties, 81–82 V Velvet Mill, 173 Veurey-Voroize factory, 148 Victoria & Alfred (V&A) Waterfront, 181 Vienna Gurtel (Beltway) highway, 272–275 Vienna incinerator chimney, 246, 247f Volponi’s kiln, 176–177

375

Waste Reduction Operations Complex (WROC), 236 Waste zoning, 113 Waterfront Land Use Plan, 262–263 Wile Carding Mill, 170–171 Windsor site, CT, USA, 142 Wind turbine, 243 Winfrith decommissioning program, 317–320 Winstanley Enterprises, LLC, 142 Working-yourself-out-of-a-job syndrome, 101–102 Wylfa site, 147 Y Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station (YNPS), US after decommissioning, 313, 314f evaluation factors, 313, 313t during operation, 313, 314f planning issues, 312–313 Site Closure Project Plan, 312 Yenidze Tobacco and Cigarette Factory, 187 Z

W Wake County Public School System (WCPSS), 197–198 Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), 296–297 Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF), 236

Zacherlfabrik, 187–188, 188f Zero Energy Breeder Reactor Assembly (ZEBRA), 318 Zero Energy Experiment Pile (ZEEP), 236 Zion NPP, 70 Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex, 36 Zoning codes, 123

This page intentionally left blank