Page 102 - Beyond Decommissioning

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 Innova-
tion 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 oper-
ators, 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 restora-
tion 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 con-
taminationfromoneplacetoanother—referred tointheUnitedKingdom asthe“Digand
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 com-
mercial 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 reg-
ulations 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