Page 101 - Beyond Decommissioning

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 ear-
lier in this chapter—preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.
In the United States, the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are reg-
ulatory 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, desig-
nation 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 rec-
ognizes 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 dras-
tically 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 chal-
lenges that may hinder the reuse/redevelopment of a nuclear site, including: regula-
tions, 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