Page 82 - Beyond Decommissioning

The phases of redevelopment 63

buildings there was a critical period from around 1955 to the 1980s. Most buildings
from those years contain hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos or PCBs). Unfortunately,
many companies still had these contamination materials in stock by the time they were
legally prohibited—and these materials continued to find their way into new builds for
quite some time. That is why even in more recent buildings one still find hazardous
products that should have been discontinued long before (Santifaller et al., 2008).
Especially important in structural characterization is the identification of structural
weaknesses (unstable gangways, deteriorating and leaking roofs, damaged floor
hatches, etc.). An environmental assessment should be conducted to estimate the envi-
ronmental impacts from remaining hazardous facility/site materials. This process can
be a costly and time-consuming effort.
Decommissioning of a nuclear facility/site is a major enterprise. Stakeholder con-
cerns keep nuclear facilities under close scrutiny and decommissioning represents a
significant change of state that enhances stakeholder concerns. No other aspect of site
decommissioning and release reverberates with the public sentiment more than the
transfer of site assets and site reuse, and so, many of the legitimate but nontechnical
concerns of stakeholders end up to become focused on final property disposition. For
example, public concerns may center on “how clean will the property be after it has
been decommissioned?” which could be translated into “How will the property be val-
ued by potential investors if they fear that there is any remaining contamination?”
Besides, for many nuclear facilities, the plant’s operations life has provided significant
financial benefits to local communities in taxes that will generally decrease during
decommissioning and dwindle to nought after site release. But such concerns are
not restricted to the public. For facility and site owners, the key question will be,
“At what price and when can we make profitable reuse of the released property?”
which of course underlies a more profound fear that they will not be able to release
and reuse the property at all.
Until recently, legal and regulatory coverage of nuclear decommissioning extended
only to the site release and termination of the nuclear license. Only in more recent
years the implications of site reuse on the decommissioning process have become
clear. The lifecycle of a nuclear facility now incorporates its post-decommissioning
reuse (Fig. 3.1).
The below-mentioned example of early planning for reuse in the United States was
legally based on the early transfer authority (ETA) act. ETA allows the federal gov-
ernment to transfer property to non-federal entities before the completion of environ-
mental cleanup as long as assurances are given to protect human health and the
environment. Congress authorized ETA in 1997. In 2003, International Risk Group
(IRG) was granted a contract by the City of Downey, CA, for the privatization and
assumption of environmental responsibility for the former National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) Industrial Plant at Downey, CA. Over 70 years
NASA had used the site for aircraft manufacturing, research, production and the
assembly of rockets and missiles. During this period hazardous substances were used
and inadvertently discharged on the property.
The contract stipulated that IRG will indemnify specified parties (including among
others local and national institutions, and prospective purchasers) for claims and costs