Page 141 - Beyond Decommissioning

122 Beyond Decommissioning

monitoring throughout the construction process. As a matter of fact, safety requirements impeded
adaptive reuse by canceling state school construction funds for noncompliant properties and made
school districts vulnerable to seismic liability. Additionally, California’s area requirements for
schools, as well as its funding mechanisms, favored new constructions in outlying areas against
reuse on small urban sites. However, following several requests for adaptive reuse, California pas-
sed an interim measure allowing structural engineers to review and certify seismic adequacy in
adaptive reuse projects. California has recently revised its regulations concerning land areas,
school size, and joint-use facilities.
“The law that will work is merely the summing up in legislative form of the moral judgement
that the community has already reached” Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924).
“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark, 2, 27).

The higher costs and longer lead times for compatible materials must be considered
and assessed during the initial planning. Variances may be necessary, requiring extra
planning. An early dialogue with local authorities is a must (not only on code com-
pliance matters). Governmental support can be invaluable when applying for financial
assistance. The investigation regarding the historic meaning of a building may allow
certain features to stay as long as alternatives are found for accessibility and emer-
gency situations (Design Cost Data, 2003).
There are many strengthening techniques that can fit the esthetic, logistic, and eco-
nomic constraints of a given reuse project. Fiber reinforced polymers can increase the
capacity of a concrete member by up to 60%. It is also possible to imbed the fiber
reinforcement into the existing structure so that there is no noticeable change to
the structural sizes. Section enlargement and external posttensioning are also effective
strengthening techniques when space limitations are not as tight and the additional
capacity requirements are high (Buildings, 2008).
An energy review of the existing building will determine strategies for energy use
and indoor air quality. The insertion of insulation may necessitate new venting for
humidity control, and new mechanical systems may require additional area on the roof
or adjacent to the building (if they are compatible with the required visual appear-
ance). The floor-to-floor distances will limit the choices for new vertical and horizon-
tal ducts. The site might not have enough space for new mechanical systems such as
groundwater heat pumps. The roof might need additional support to withstand new
mechanical systems (Buildings, 2008).
Another point needs attention. Decommissioning (especially its dismantling com-
ponent) can be a very destructive and messy activity. When removing portions of per-
manent structural concrete on account of their high contamination or when chasing
seeps of radioactive liquids into underlying foundations the risk of jeopardizing the
structural stability of the building is concrete. An assessment should be made of
the costs to restore for beneficial occupancy the areas that have been structurally
affected by the decommissioning. Structural damage done in the course of
decommissioning may render parts of the structure (or even the structure altogether)
unsuitable for reuse. See the reuse of the RB-2 reactor described in Section 7.3.4 of
International Atomic Energy Agency (2006).