Decommissioning Aging Installations and Declining Technologies: Burden or Inspiration?
The issue
Dismantling, decommissioning, deconstruction, closing-down, phasing-out, discontinuation,
re-directing, are all operations that are key to numerous industry sectors and high-hazard
activities. These operations are rarely the most “glamorous” phase of a system’s lifecycle, and may
even constitute a form of taboo in some industry sectors. Depollution and waste management
are usually envisioned as a
Decommissioning and phasing-out aging installations do entail specific safety risks, first for the workers but also ultimately for the population around. There is also a transnational dimension to include, with the offshoring (in Bangladesh for instance) of dismantling (in the case of ships) associated with their pollution, health and safety problems (asbestos, gas explosion, water contamination). These outsourced industrial practices say something about the activities that we would rather try to hide in very poor countries. Some of these countries have made a specialty of these hazardous waste treatment operations.
Culturally, professional identities in the engineering world are geared toward innovation, breakthroughs and the creation of new installations and new sites. It has been often noted that maintenance activities, integral to numerous industrial processes, would greatly benefit from better consideration in the earlier phases of design and conception. It is often regretted that they lack the same amount of attention compared to the construction and operations phases. Aging installations, or legacy facilities in palliative care, are more often envisioned as a burden and not as a source of genuine learning. From aging to decommissioning across safety-critical systems, there is a lot to uncover.
Of course, this general argument needs to be refined. Some industries have developed dedicated supply chains and specific expertise on how to decommission nuclear power plants, treat radioactive waste and polluted soil, recycle construction materials, remove asbestos from general buildings, etc. Specific know-how has been forged through both the “normal” and the catastrophic life of industrial sites (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Deepwater Horizon spill are of course in every mind). Interestingly, these operations are either largely invisible and kept from the view of the general public or worshiped as heroic technical prowess. In and for themselves these activities are interesting to look at, despite their gloomy reputation. But they entail a much bigger interest in light of the current climate urgency.
Numerous industry sectors and their related infrastructures are already being (coal, oil and gas, certain nuclear facilities) or will soon need to be (internal combustion engines, kerosene-fueled aviation) dismantled, phased-out, closed down. It will take decades to be able to progressively detach ourselves from forms of industrial production that are integral to our subsistence, yet equally detrimental to further life on earth. There is indeed much more to learn from examples taken from these industrial phases.
The issue of phasing out carries a lot of complex problems, technical and safety wise of course, but also social, patrimonial, symbolic, psychological. Bringing an entire installation to an end is emotionally draining for employees who worked and devoted time, energy and skills to its operations and maintenance. This phase is also seen as less appealing, less attractive professionally. While there is some literature on the technical dimensions of aging facilities and equipment, there is far less work on the organizational and societal aspects.
In this workshop we hope to start a conversation on the conditions under which current examples of decommissioning and phasing-out across safety-critical systems could help establish a basis for envisioning future dismantling, in light of the sustainability transitions that many sectors have to engage with. Under what conditions can we make these operations more than a sad act of deconstruction, but a gesture to learn about technological rebound, renaissance and ecological redirection?
Several angles will be of interest to this workshop:
-
Are the lessons from existing decommissioning projects sufficiently fed into the design of new projects and the operation of existing ones? How to prepare for decommissioning during design and/or operation? Is this anticipation a regulatory requirement in different industry sectors? What are the tradeoffs to consider between designing for ease of dismantling and for safe operation?
-
Recently, for economic and/or energy supply related reasons, decisions have been made to grant life-time extensions instead of phasing-out aging installations: what are the consequences of such decisions both from a safety standpoint but also from the consideration given to this dismantling phase, endlessly postponed? What governance mechanisms for these tradeoffs? What does it entail from an engineering and organizational point of view?
-
How to manage competencies and careers related to technologies with a long service life (there are concerns here in satellites, aviation, railways, nuclear power, banking) or which may seem less inspiring and attractive professionally? Can the concept of restoration and renewal, which is implicit in decommissioning, appeal to younger generations of workers, whose environmental consciousness tends to be more developed?
-
While some countries with less developed regulatory frameworks have become convenient hosts for the disposal (and in principle, reuse) of dangerous materials, ships, oil platforms, what are the possibilities to advocate for safer practices?
-
How to capitalize upon and transfer the immense and varied know-how that decommissioning projects generate? How much is transferable from one project to another, from one sector to another?
-
Intergenerational issues have also to be considered among workforces, linked with the concept of “Never-ending Management and Stewardship” (La Porte).
-
What are the key issues from the angle of workers’ occupational health and safety?
-
How should society manage the burden of legacy technologies and industries and brownfield sites (e.g. mandatory environmental liability insurance, legal obligations concerning decommissioning and restoration funds, mandatory disclosure in firms’ extra-financial reporting, targeted actions by safety authorities)? Are the lessons from past failures (coal and steel industry), applied to new industries, such as offshore wind power?
-
These projects could be a source of inspiration. Yet, often, their stories are untold because aging facilities, aging and declining technologies, zombie technologies, are the hidden face of a techno-sphere that everyone would prefer to ignore and know less about than more. This workshop is a unique opportunity to confront inconvenient facts, unsettling aspects, uncomfortable knowledge. And the hope is to bring to the forefront case studies, empirical evidence, conceptual frameworks, and new directions on possible ways forward.
References
Ashforth, B. E., and G. E. Kreiner. “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review 24, 1999, 413–34.
Bergé, Christine, Slow death of the Superphoenix, Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2011.
Bergé, Christine, Superphénix, déconstruction d’un mythe, La Découverte, Paris, 2010.
Bonnet, Emmanuel, Diego Landivar and Alexandre Monnin. Héritage et fermeture: une écologie du démantèlement. Éditions divergences, 2021.
Cotton, Matthew. Deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste: trust, cost and social acceptability. Journal of risk research 25.5, 2022, 632-647.
D’agata, John. About a mountain. WW Norton & Company, 2011. de Wildt, Kim. Ritual Void or Ritual Muddle? Deconsecration Rites of Roman Catholic Church Buildings. Religions 11.10, 2020, 517.
Denis, Jérôme, and David Pontille. Before Breakdown, after Repair. Routledge International Handbook of Failure, 2023.
Denis, Jérôme, and David Pontille. Cultivating Attention to Fragility: The Sensible Encounters of Maintenance. Ecological Reparation. Bristol University Press, 2023, 344-361.
Ialenti, Vincent. Deep time reckoning: How future thinking can help Earth now. MIT Press, 2020.
Joyce, Rosemary. The Future of Nuclear Waste: What art and archaeology can tell us about securing the world’s most hazardous material. Oxford University Press, 2020.
Koretsky, Zahar, et al., eds. Technologies in Decline: Socio-technical approaches to discontinuation and destabilisation. Taylor & Francis, 2022.
La Porte, Todd R., and Daniel S. Metlay. Hazards and institutional trustworthiness: Facing a deficit of trust. Public administration review: 1996, 341-347.
Laraia, Michele. Beyond Decommissioning: The reuse and redevelopment of nuclear installations. Woodhead Publishing, 2019.
Leboutte, René. A space of European de-industrialisation in the late twentieth century: Nord/Pas-de-Calais, Wallonia and the Ruhrgebiet. European Review of History—Revue européenne d’histoire 16.5, 2009, 755-770.
Macfarlane, A. & Ewing, R. C.(dir.). Uncertainty underground: Yucca Mountain and the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
Macfarlane, A. Underlying Yucca Mountain: The interplay of geology and policy in nuclear waste disposal. Social Studies of Science, 33(5), 2003, 783–807.
Martin, Christophe, Franck Guarnieri. Nuclear Decommissioning and Organizational Reliability: Involving Subcontractors in Collective Action. Decommissioning Challenges: An Industrial Reality and Prospects, 5th International Conference, Apr 2013, Avignon, France. 9 p. hal-00815982.
O’Leary, Dennis W. Why Aren’t We Talking About Nuclear Waste? The New Atlantis 67, 2022, 40- 43.
Portelli, Aurélien. Images et temporalités de l’effondrement. Revue (In)Disciplines, 2022, 4. hal- 03871173
Schläppy, Marie-Lise, et al. Trash or treasure? Considerations for future ecological research to inform oil and gas decommissioning. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 2021, 642539.
Schöbel, M., Hertwig, R., & Rieskamp, J. Phasing out a risky technology: An endgame problem in German nuclear power plants? Behavioral Science & Policy, 3(2), 2017, 41–54.
Shih, Willy. The real lessons from Kodak’s decline. MIT Sloan Management Review 57.4, 2016, 11.
White Wall, Finnish-Swedish television drama, by Aleksi Salmenperä, Anna Zackrisson, Mikko Pöllä and Roope Lehtinen, 2020.
Workshop organizers
- Mathilde Bourrier (University of Geneva, Switzerland)
- Eric Marsden (FonCSI, France)