Page 111 - Beyond Decommissioning

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 cur-
rent 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 assess-
ment may be biased, for example, because little or no consideration is given to exter-
nalities 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 build-
ing 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 dis-
mantling 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 finan-
cial 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 radio-
active. 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, air-
borne and waterborne emissions and environmental impacts associated with demoli-
tion 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 pref-
erence given to reusing existing buildings. Some researchers suggest that rising energy