Evaluating sites

The location of a site and the quality of its communication links have an important bearing on its redevelopment potential and resale value. Many

nuclear sites benefit from the good communication links needed for their construction and their day to day operation. Some sites (e.g. the Hanford site and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in the USA) are also located far from centres of population in remote areas, which may or may not be a disad-vantage. Some nuclear sites already have visitors’ centres (e.g. British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) at Sellafield in the United Kingdom). Others have historical museums and science museums for visitors (e.g. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the Hanford site and LANL in the USA; see also Section 5.1.4). Figure 3 shows visitors watching decommissioning activities at Vandellós nuclear power plant in Spain.

Sites which have poor communication links and are not close to other economic activity are disadvantaged with respect to exploiting such aspects as a redevelopment asset. This can be overcome by attracting the establishment of other industrial or commercial activities close to the site, for example by making unused land available at low rent and by lobbying regional

FIG. 3. Vandellós reactor building visiting point.

development agencies to consider improving communication links to the site or region. Such initiatives may take considerable time to be realized, so the appropriate parties must normally be engaged well before the site closure process is begun in order for the initiative to be effective.

A significant number of nuclear facilities (e.g. research reactors) were initially built on the outskirts of large cities. With the population growth in these areas, these facilities have now been fully encompassed within the city borders, where the property values have often escalated dramatically. In these cases the sale of property can definitely be a major asset for offsetting some of the decommissioning costs and facilitating the redevelopment of the site. One such case was the Risley reactor (see Table 2). In the course of decommis-sioning, the site was marketed and eventually sold in 1996. The proceeds from the sale reduced the overall cost of decommissioning by about 60% [31].

In cases where the site is to be redeveloped in a phased fashion, developers may be attracted by there being independent access to the site via separate routes. Multiple routes can also be helpful in facilitating decommis-sioning and demolition work by allowing for the timely flow and control of materials entering and leaving the site and by allowing for the segregation of personnel and motor vehicles. Opportunities during the life of the site to secure multiple accesses should be considered in terms of both the benefits at the time and their potential future usefulness in site closure and redevelopment.

Decommissioned facilities that are in close proximity to the site boundary may be a special problem for reuse if surrounding areas have become more populated during the construction and early operation stages. On the one hand, difficulty may arise with respect to such a location as a result of more conserv-ative land use and real estate management policies having to be incorporated into the decision making process than may have been the case during the facility’s construction and operational stages. The idea of the facility or site being in close proximity to homes and to the general public may cause greater concern than in the past. On the other hand, stakeholders may support the use of some of these facilities to the greatest extent possible, in order to minimize construction of ‘very short term use’ new facilities to support the cleanup of an area or site [32]. In general, such a location may lead to shorter times for dismantling of facilities and site redevelopment.

Developers generally have a preference for level sites of simple shapes when viewed in plan (generally circular or rectangular overall shapes).

Operators with sites of an awkward shape, or sites that are made up of distributed land areas or are separated from main routes of communication, might consider taking opportunities to purchase additional land where this would make the overall site more valuable for redevelopment.

When considering the potential redevelopment value of assets on the site, it is important to distinguish between the different valuations that may have been placed on assets. The accounting or ‘book’ value of the assets is often determined from an initial purchase price and an allowed annual depreciation sometimes determined by tax laws. This accounting depreciation does not take into consideration factors which affect the market value of assets, such as physical degradation or wear, the availability of spare parts and the availability of alternative assets with lower operating costs. Often a group of assets with low individual values can be configured into a system with a much higher value.

For example, a turbine and generator set with only scrap value might provide the basis for local power generation if configured with an appropriate boiler.

Potential assets should therefore be viewed in terms of their potential to contribute to a particular redevelopment plan rather than in terms of their intrinsic or individual values.

Companies or organizations evaluating the feasibility of reusing a decom-missioned nuclear site usually will perform a cost–benefit analysis. From a strictly internal perspective, this may prove that sale or redevelopment of the site will not provide sufficient return on the investment necessary to make it attractive to a new owner or tenants. From a broader perspective, the benefits of reuse may be very large but accrue instead to the community, which would profit from the retention of jobs and stable or increased tax revenues. In these circumstances, facility owners may be able to negotiate grants or payments in kind from local governments in exchange for a commitment to prepare a decommissioned site for reuse.