Page 103 - Beyond Decommissioning

84 Beyond Decommissioning

be projected toward future generations: what is this if not the very meaning of rede-
velopment? 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 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 rebuild-
ing on a new site.
l Cultural assets. These features are intended to pass on a respected heritage, to forward sym-
bols, 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.
l Physical features. Building features should harmonize with the local geography and topog-
raphy. 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
l
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 con-
struction 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 quota-
tions 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 technolog-
ical 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 addi-
tional 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