Page 220 - Beyond Decommissioning

Experience and lessons learned 201

Initially, the University planned to build a new research tower next to the main Uni-
versity of Connecticut’s Health Center (UCHC), but logistics, funds, and a lack of
space at the proposed site forced planners to consider an existing vacant building. This
was basically a suburban archetype: a big-box, one-story, and windowless building. It
had been constructed “with a ‘bunker’ mentality. They really didn’t want anybody to
know what was inside”.
In addition to cost savings, the redevelopment of an old building presented some
other advantages. The isolation from other research facilities at UCHC was at first
considered a disadvantage, but the proposed role of the new research facility compen-
sated for this potential problem: actually the building was transformed into a self-
contained, full- service laboratory.
In addition, the project would cause no disruption to ongoing activities elsewhere
on campus. These conditions allowed a significant freedom to the conversion design.
“The goal was not merely to create an annex, but also to create a center of excel-
lence, an attractor. The idea that this lab needed to be a magnet, tailored to magnet
users, meant that the entire facility had to be self-sufficient.”
One significant problem was that some drawings were incomplete. Besides, the iso-
lation of the building meant that the project had to include a dining facility. In addi-
tion, the absence of any windows meant that designers would have to carefully use the
budget for bringing light into the building. Daylighting is essential in research work. In
these venues, researchers work long hours and need now and then to get a glimpse of
the world outside. Letting daylight into the old building was not easy. Many interior
locations, for example, were more than 15 m from a perimeter wall. This issue was
first addressed by putting 140 m of skylights all up and down the corridors, but this
was not enough. The project required to cut out the roof, lift it up, and build a cen-
tralized atrium area that would become the focus of the laboratory activity. Blank
exterior walls were opened with windows.
The basic steel structure could accommodate a multitude of changes. External con-
sultants were hired to adapt the structure to seismic code with additional diagonal
bracing, but the underlying structure was preserved. An unexpected challenge was
the discovery of oil in the site soil, which was neutralized in situ and the presence
of asbestos, which was removed.
“Another major change was the replacement of a constant-volume, low-pressure
mechanical system with a modern variable air volume system that reduced the energy
load on the building while still supplying the necessary ventilation. The elimination of
large areas of ductwork allowed designers to eschew ceilings in corridors and perim-
eters. Another creative use of space was the addition of “cloud” ceilings to certain dry
labs and conference rooms to maintain a sense of space while also managing acoustics.
Energy use was also trimmed with the addition of new boilers, chillers, cooling
towers, air handlers, and lab water and gas systems” (Livingstone, 2011).

6.2.3 Railway stations and ancillary installations

This type of facilities exemplifies a range of buildings and accessory structures not
unlike some that can be found at nuclear sites.