Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Through the illustrative case of the Belgian Reactor 3, this contribution examines the interwoven and conflicting temporal logics that govern nuclear decommissioning processes and practices, and highlights lessons and challenges for the BR3 and future decommissioning operations.

Long abstract:

Decommissioning will play an increasingly important role in nuclear governance (WNI, 2022). Understood as “the rationalized process of deconstructing an organized whole” (Blanck, 2021, p.3), it encompasses all tasks required after the closure of a nuclear facility, including waste and spent fuel management activities. Such complex processes entail many sociotechnical uncertainties and engage our societies in the long term.

I examine the interwoven and conflicting temporal logics that govern nuclear decommissioning processes and practices. Through the illustrative case of the Belgian Reactor 3 (BR3) – first pressurized water reactor built in Europe and pioneer for decommissioning activities –, I reveal that multiple ‘temporal inconsistencies’ (Felt, 2016) challenge or hinder the implementation of decommissioning practices. Despite being shut down in 1987, operations at the BR3 are not expected to be completed before 2027. Moreover, the materialization of past (in)actions highlights that the BR3 project is also shaped by its - sometimes burdensome – heritage, and calls to consider what traces current operations and decisions will leave.

Faced with networked challenges, both policymakers and nuclear operators are tempted to (try to) suspend time to avoid them. Taking advantage of an ambiguous nuclear policy in Belgium, standby allows them both to soothe temporal inconsistencies and retain freedom of action. However, as decay is an inevitable process (Velho & Ureta, 2019), it in turn leads to the need for maintenance into closure. This contribution will look at the lessons (not yet) learned from the BR3, and what this can teach us about future projects.