Page 104 - Beyond Decommissioning

Redevelopment as an innovative approach to nuclear decommissioning 85

also possible to look beyond the boundaries of the organization immediately occupy-
ing 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 addi-
tions 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 sig-
nificantly 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 con-
cept is sustainability.
Collum (2016) postulates that DfD processes largely coincide with DRR. The con-
text 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 pur-
sued 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 equip-
ment (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 what-
ever 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.