Page 84 - Beyond Decommissioning

The phases of redevelopment 65

A nonnuclear project (the Seaholm Power Plant, Austin, Texas) casts further light
on the need of early, orderly, and systematic planning for reuse. At Seaholm, a public
opinion movement prevailed in a campaign to get the City Council to direct the City-
owned Electric Utility to decommission the plant. The plan included dismantling the
power-generating equipment and support systems, while tackling environmental
worries. However, no reuse option had been selected in detail. Not knowing the future
of the facility introduced conflicts in the decommissioning process. For example, the
supporters of a Science and Technology Center wanted to keep large parts of the plant
equipment onsite on display. This included retaining items ranging from gauges and
chart recorders to a turbine generator set and the steam boilers. Other stakeholders
wanted the equipment totally dismantled and taken away with only the bare shell
of the building remaining. Likewise, there was a heated debate about whether to dis-
mantle the boilers or address the asbestos and metals-based paint while maintaining
the visual profile of the facility on esthetic grounds. All of these differing viewpoints
occurred in parallel with the Electric Utility committing to be responsible for plant
decommissioning and urging to get rid of any future liability at the facility, such as
asbestos remaining in situ. These conflicts increased uncertainty during implementa-
tion of decommissioning (Scadden, 2001). Eventually the redevelopment project was
completed and Austin’s former electrical power plant, now a multiuse complex,
houses residential spaces, offices, retail shops, restaurants, a library, and a hotel.
It is important to prepare facilities/sites for rehabilitation or redevelopment. It
is especially critical to stabilize buildings which might be rehabilitated, so that all
deterioration is halted. The overall consensus is that those responsible for obsolete
facilities should tackle ongoing and impending problems before these worsen. Con-
tamination from decades of industrial activity has left many industrial buildings with
hazardous materials in their soil or in the buildings. This contamination can pose
safety and health risks, if left in situ, and can leave a community endangered if the
industrial sites are deserted. Thus, contamination can present significant barriers
to the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings both in extra costs and time. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), brownfields sites are “abandoned,
idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or rede-
velopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination”
(Cantell, 2005).
The location of contaminants and hazardous materials in industrial buildings can be
predicted to some extent, although a characterization campaign will be required on a
case-by-case basis. In addition to radioactive or chemical contamination in certain
facilities, most older industrial buildings will contain asbestos, lead-based paint,
and other heavy metals. Asbestos typically can be found in piping insulation, ducts,
wires, floor tiles, plaster, etc., while lead is found in plumbing systems. New technol-
ogies can mitigate such problems, including methods that take account of historic
fabric. For example, contaminated architectural features and items can be encapsu-
lated so that they can be preserved in situ. Alternatively, contaminated items can
be removed or enclosed within new construction.
After stabilizing the site, property owners should estimate the (technical, financial,
human) resources to rehabilitate or redevelop their properties: although in principle