Page 90 - Beyond Decommissioning

The phases of redevelopment 71

building new facilities. DOE can rule out the running costs for its unneeded facilities
including for long-term storage, maintenance, and security. Finally, cost savings are
obtained by eliminating the need for costly demolition and site remediation following
cleanup for reuse. For example, at the Oak Ridge East Tennessee Technology Park
(ETTP), the transfer of various buildings to the Community Reuse Organization of
East Tennessee (CROET, a nonprofit association) for beneficial reuse
has produced $12.6 million in averted demolition costs to DOE because the buildings
no longer needed to be demolished. Transfers of ETTP land, facilities, and infrastruc-
ture have resulted in approximately $110 million in cumulative cost savings, includ-
ing recurring savings (e.g., those associated with utilities, fire protection and
emergency response services, and surveillance and maintenance). Ongoing/recurring
savings amount to some $6 million per year (US Department of Energy, 2015).
A short story of the ETTP redevelopment project follows. K-25 was the
codename given by the Manhattan Project to the program to produce enriched
uranium for atomic bombs using the gaseous diffusion method. At the time of its
construction in 1944 at Oak Ridge, TN, K-25 was the largest building in the world.
The enriched uranium produced at K-25 was used at Hiroshima. Three more gaseous
diffusion plants (code-named K-29, K-31, and K-33) were later built on the Oak
Ridge site. Gaseous diffusion ended in 1985. The K-25 site was renamed several
times, and was finally named East Tennessee Technology Park. All gas diffusion
facilities had been dismantled by early 2017. Currently, ETTP is home to two busi-
ness centers: Heritage Center and Horizon Center. The Heritage Center encom-
passes 125 of the main buildings of the former gaseous diffusion facility, which
are currently leased to more than 40 companies (Fig. 3.3). CROET is now
established as ETTP manager.
Details on decommissioning and end state of the three process buildings (K-29,
K-31, and K-33) are given in Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (2008).
Beyond the redevelopment of individual obsolete properties, local authorities
should integrate these initiatives with larger-scale, community-wide revitalization
efforts (e.g., affordable housing at the local and regional levels, jobs and economic
development, safe and healthy environments), and longer-term land use and growth
management planning.
Adaptive reuse cases should not be viewed or accepted by proponents, regulators, or
stakeholders as individual projects. Their impacts on the environment and the near ter-
ritories and communities are also critical. Redevelopment of one building can be a cat-
alystto redevelopment of others, in fact of the whole region.There are multiple links (in
economics, environment, jobs, traffic, etc.) between single conversion projects and the
greater area they are located in. Therefore, in redevelopment projects the new uses of a
building should take account of the needs of the region (G€ unc¸e and Misirlisoy, 2015).
Good asset management starts at the initial planning for construction and does not
end when the asset is retired, decommissioned, and eventually redeveloped. Adaptive
reuse should be planned and implemented hand in hand with a good follow-on main-
tenance program.
Maintenance defines how long the facility will remain in a safe and profitable state.
Recreational uses, civic centers, shopping malls, etc. are all dependent on income.