Initial opposition to, and ultimately failure of, various technocratically governed radioactive waste management (RWM) projects have led to a participatory turn in the discourses and activities surrounding long-term management of radioactive waste. Current projects involve citizens -and particularly ‘local communities’- in decision-making on disposal projects, through various communication and participation initiatives, ranging from one-way information provision to extensive exchanges and partnerships. In practice, these initiatives have been mostly directed at the siting of disposal facilities, motivated by the idea that finding a suitable site can only happen if local communities agree to host a repository. However, the timescales involved in long-term RWM extend well beyond the initial siting phase. Licensing, construction and operation of a repository can span decades or even centuries, and the post-closure phase of a disposal project for high-level waste is supposed to continue into eternity. This brings about a range of practical and conceptual challenges, as participation will span various generations, and the structures and needs for involvement will likely (need to) change over time.

In this contribution, particular attention is directed to the potential engagement of younger generations in RWM. Various national experiences have demonstrated how young people are potentially underrepresented in ongoing participatory initiatives on RWM, hence jeopardizing the durability and inclusivity of these initiatives. Focusing on Belgium as a case study, we present mixed-method research that explores the perceptions, expectations and intentions of young adults (age 16-25) regarding radioactive waste and its long-term management. Drawing on focus group data and a national representative survey (n=1200), this contribution shows how risk perceptions and knowledge about radioactive waste are largely similar across age groups, but differences do exist regarding preferences on RWM modalities. Differences in participation intention as compared to earlier studies seem less outspoken. By discussing potential barriers and facilitators towards youth involvement, insight is gained in how participation structures and initiatives can be potentially adapted to attract also younger age groups, hence increasing the likelihood that citizen involvement will persist over time. Attention is specifically directed at the alignment of participation structures to the lifeworlds of youngsters, confirming  broader trends in civic participation across generations. Finally, the findings serve a further reflection on the potential added value of citizen participation in radioactive waste management project stages beyond initial siting.

How to cite: Geysmans, R., Turcanu, C., and Eeckhout, S.: Getting future generations involved: the inter-generational challenges of long-term citizen participation in radioactive waste management, Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-16, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-16, 2025.

The region plays a key role in the site selection process for a geological repository (Sperfeld et al. 2023; Drögemüller, 2018). This importance is recognised in the siting procedure through the tasks of the regional conferences in supporting the socio-economic potential analyses (SÖPA), the preparation of regional development concepts and participation in a siting agreement (Kelly et al. 2024; Smeddinck et al., 2025). The design of these processes presumably has a major influence on whether the process and the results are assessed as appropriate and fair in the region and whether positive development opportunities can be realised in the siting region with the siting of a repository (Kommission Lagerung hochradioaktiver Abfallstoffe, 2016). 

This contribution focuses on conceptual considerations regarding the delineation of a region, the identification of its endogenous potentials and possible methods and institutions for regional development. Regions are ‘historically evolved units, culturally and economically intertwined geographical areas that develop and endure independently of state, district and city boundaries’ (Tretter, 2017: 23). Functional regions resulting from economic or social interdependencies often do not correspond to the administrative boundaries of political units (UVEK & BFE, 2022).
In the literature on regional development, a paradigm shift can be seen from a strongly economy-centred approach to a holistic view of regions, which also includes regionally existing talents and characteristics as well as approaches to sustainable development (Chilla et al, 2015). This is based on a broader understanding of the attractiveness of a region and the attachment of people to it (OECD, 2022, Mbah & Kuppler 2024). There is no clear evidence of a standardised methodological approach to analysing development potential and creating regional development concepts, either in the literature or in practice. Rather, development processes are primarily controlled via regionally specific institutional arrangements for the initiation of pilot projects. This results in a range of possible development instruments that can only be presented schematically.

The selected case studies will be used to illustrate different methods and instruments of regional development. The first example is the Asse salt mine, which was used as a repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste before it was decided to close it down and retrieve the waste (Hocke et al. 2016). A future fund was set up for regional development projects. The second example relates to the sectoral plan procedure for a deep geological repository (SGT) in Switzerland, in which socio-economic-ecological impact studies were used as the basis for the current regional development process. The presentation concludes with preliminary findings on conditions for successful regional development. 

The presentation is based on a systematic literature review and a case study analysis as part of the KoRegio research project (FKZ 4724F10002) (Sperfeld et al., 2025), which is being conducted on behalf of the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE). The project analyses regional development practices for large infrastructure projects with the aim of developing a solid basis for the corresponding work steps of the regional conferences as part of the site selection process.

How to cite: Sperfeld, F. and Kelly, R.: Regional development in the context of major infrastructure projects: implementation, regional application and conditions for success , Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-71, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-71, 2025.

Most nuclear power plants were not built with decommissioning in mind. For several decades Swedish nuclear has been in decline and the industry has focused their decommissioning efforts simply on aftercare. The long decline have led to a lack of knowledge and practical competence in both the nuclear industry and the government sector responsible for the area (Statskontoret, 2025). Geels and Locatelli (2024) found that transition literature overall has paid little attention to decommissioning projects. Similarly, Sardo and Pfotenhauer (2025) notes that transition studies tend to focus on the innovation side, rather than the discontinuation, missing the destruction part of creative destruction. Studies of decline and discontinuation have, however, received growing interest in both the transition and STS fields over the last couple of years (Koretsky et al., 2023).

Nuclear decommissioning projects are large endeavours. Geels and Locatelli (2024) note that they require dedicated expertise due to the care that needs to be taken with the material (see also Hirose and McCauley, 2022) but also leads to job loss and local economic damage. They are typically long-lasting, with work remaining decades after the disconnection of the reactors. Decommissioning projects, therefore, serve as potential arenas for learning. By stripping away the outer layers and revealing the inner workings of the reactor the participants in the projects are able to gain competence in nuclear construction. At the same time the organisations overseeing the dismantling are beginning to see the projects as providing an opportunity for future newbuilds. By detailing what worked well and what did not during decommissioning, lessons can be learned in order to build with decommissioning in mind, lowering the complexity of future dismantling and waste handling. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine opened a window of opportunity (Sardo and Pfotenhauer, 2025), a flurry of activity began in the Swedish nuclear industry and a reinterpretation of what decommissioning is for.

This study will, through interviews and on-site observations, study the ongoing decommissioning of two Swedish nuclear reactors. Through this I aim to provide rich empirical descriptions of the dismantling process itself as well as an analysis of how learning is done within decommissioning projects.

References

Geels, F. W., Locatelli, G. 2024. Broadening project studies to address sustainability transitions: Conceptual suggestions and crossovers with socio-technical transition research. International Journal of project management (42).

Hirose, R., McCauley, D. 2022. The risks and impacts of nuclear decommissioning: Stakeholder reflections on the UK nuclear industry. Energy Policy (164).

Koretsky, Z., Stegmaier, P., Turnheim, B., van Lente, H. 2023. Technologies in Decline: Socio-Technical Approaches to Discontinuation and Destabilisation. Routledge, Oxon.  

Sardo, S., Pfotenhauer, S. M. 2025. Techology discontinuation as a continuous process: diesel, sustainability and the politics of the day. Research Policy (54).

Statskontoret 2025:1, Utvecklat stöd för kärnsäkerhet och strålskydd: En ny teknisk stödorganisation på Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten. https://www.statskontoret.se/siteassets/rapporter-pdf/2025/2025_1---utskriftsversion.pdf

How to cite: Ahlström, E.: Creative destruction? Learning from decommissioning to build for the end, Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-66, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-66, 2025.

Legislation establishes the regulatory framework for decision making in support of licensing, including the role of the stakeholder involvement in the licensing process. In the Swedish context, through both the Environmental Code and the Act on Nuclear Activities, this has enabled municipalities and environmental organisations to contribute to evaluations undertaken by regulatory authorities, defining questions to be discussed and requesting additional investigations and information. Importantly, as part of pre-licensing decision making, it has also enabled public consultation on the research, development and demonstration (RD&D) program for the safe management and disposal of nuclear waste in Sweden. Such consultation has resulted in a transparent and open process, enabling stakeholders not only to receive information but also to have an impact on the content of the RD&D program as well as on the siting process. Equally important is financing legislation enabling to non-profit organizations and concerned municipalities to be an active part of the process.  

Other important pillar in a long-term stakeholder engagement governance strategy is to clarify roles and responsibilities, not the least regarding who will be responsible for the closed repository. The municipality of Östhammar, the planned host community for the spent nuclear fuel repository in Forsmark, emphasized during the national consultations a need for the post-closure responsibility to be clarified and specified. It must be clear at all times who is responsible for the final repository in the event that something happens after closure that requires action to be taken . The 2020 amendment to the Nuclear act clarified the state responsibility for a permanently sealed geological repository.

The Environmental Code also give a potential hosting municipality veto right to the establishment of a repository for spent nuclear fuel. This veto right is a strong incentive for the implementer to invest time and resources in the engagement with the local community in order to build and develop relationships and achieve a high level of trust. There is a formal possibility for the government to allow location despite a municipal veto, but not if there is a suitable location in a voluntary municipality. However, the government has stated that for a spent fuel repository, voluntariness is a prerequisite for the site selection process .

It is also worth mentioning the subtle but important change in the legislations when the Nuclear Power Stipulation Act (1977), requiring an absolute safe disposal of nuclear waste before new reactors are fueled, was replace by the Act on Nuclear Activities (1984), requiring safely handle and finally dispose of the radioactive waste from the nuclear power plants. The expression “absolute safe” forced the siting process towards a technocratic path where the goal was to find the best site Sweden could offer. Changing to “safely handle” opened up the siting process to other factors than the suitability of the site from a geological perspective, factors that also include the social dimension.

How to cite: Pettersson, C.-H.: Development and implementation of stakeholder engagement strategies from a governance perspective, Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-170, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-170, 2025.

The revival of nuclear power is fundamentally entangled with matters of waste management. As the nuclear renaissance emphasizes the sustainable nature of nuclear power as a “fossil-free” investment, it simultaneously must show how the question of nuclear waste is being actively solved, constructing nuclear waste management as a clean technology (Anshelm, 2006). This process requires the embeddedness of nuclear waste management into a local territory, making this an inherently geographical question.

While the siting of the final repository was a crucial moment in the legitimization of continued nuclear power production in Finland (Kojo, 2006; Kojo et al., 2010), the process of embedding the final repository into the municipality goes beyond the immediate siting process. To garner a strong political support, and to depoliticize the deposition method (Anshelm, 2006), the continued support of the local community is integral. Thus, as a continuation of the initial process of negotiating approval from the municipality of Eurajoki, operations, as conceptualized by Mezzadra and Nielsen (2019), between the municipality and the nuclear operators are examined as an ongoing process wherein both actors negotiate the value of the repository.

Three operations are identified. Firstly, the continued struggle over real estate tax that circulates from the repository into the municipality. Secondly, the partnership between the operators and the municipality, where the technical expertise of the nuclear operators is emphasized and highlighted by the municipality in a move towards branding the municipality as specialized in energy production. Lastly, the nuclear operators and the municipality negotiate the order of the waste management landscape into an above and a below. In turn, this order is crucial in reproducing the conditions for a ‘valuable’ repository by positing the underground as a discrete and limited territory far away from the lively above. The distance and homogeneity of the bedrock removes the repository from the natural (romantic) landscape of the municipality, while simultaneously embedding the facility as an item containing high-technological infrastructure and expertise within the cultural landscape of the municipality.

How to cite: Sievers, A.: Making the Bedrock Valuable: (Re)Producing Conditions for Taxation and Branding within the Final repository Landscape in Finland, Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-44, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-44, 2025.

The question of nuclear heritage—a notion that carries both technical and cultural significance pointing to historical and scientific achievements in nuclear energy – is inseparable from the challenge of what some nuclear safety experts label nuclear “inherited situations”, where present-day actors must manage residues and infrastructures they did not create, often under conditions of significant uncertainty. Unlike heritage, which implies an active process of selection, preservation, and sometimes celebration, inherited situations are often unwanted legacies—burdens passed down through time, shaped by past decisions, technological limitations, and shifting regulatory landscapes. These situations demand not just technical solutions but also a moral reckoning with responsibility, accountability, and long-term care.

This tension is clearly visible in the case of irradiated graphite in France. Once a crucial component of the country’s first-generation nuclear reactors – birthed by a “pioneering era” of post WWII modernization and renewed national pride –, this same graphite has become low-level and friable nuclear residue containing long-lived elements and awaiting a disposal strategy that remains uncertain. Irradiated graphite is not simply a relic of the past—it is an unstable and evolving material, shaped by both its own radioactive decay and the changing standards of nuclear waste management.

Irradiated graphite is a residue that was never fully anticipated. In the early years of nuclear power, waste was often managed through ad-hoc, short-term solutions that did not account for the long temporalities of radioactive decay and related complexities. As a result, the problem of irradiated graphite is not just about its future final disposal—it is also about knowledge production. Some of the reactors containing graphite have been shut down for decades, and records of their exact conditions have been lost or degraded over time.

Our research, based on 17 interviews, archival work, and document analysis, seeks to unpack these questions by examining the perspectives of diverse actors involved in nuclear decommissioning in France. We have spoken with experts in nuclear safety, waste management, and robotics, as well as critical observers and citizen organizations. Through these conversations, a complex picture emerges: one in which nuclear waste is not merely a technical issue but a political and moral challenge.

This ethical dimension becomes even more pressing when we consider that irradiated graphite is only a small part of a much larger issue. Eventually, the entire nuclear infrastructure—reactors, fuel rods, cooling systems, and countless other components—will have to be transformed into waste. The problem of inherited nuclear situations is therefore not just about cleaning up the past; it is about shaping the future of the industry itself. How does the nuclear sector plan for a future in which its own material legacies must be carefully managed for centuries to come?

This research is conducted with Ulrike Felt as part of her ERC Advanced Grant Innovation Residues – Modes and infrastructures of caring for our longue-durée futures (GA 10105480) at the University of Vienna.

How to cite: Pottin, A. and Felt, U.: Between pride and burden: The dissonance between nuclear heritage and nuclear inherited situations in French nuclear culture, Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-133, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-133, 2025.

Italy represents a unique case of a country that invested heavily in the development of nuclear power before abandoning outright this energy source in 1987. Drawing on uncatalogued original documents of the nuclear authority of the time, this contribution aims at exploring from a historical-archivistic perspective how Italy failed in dealing with its nuclear heritage, turning it in a hybrid element of its own environment. The focus is on fuel cycle facilities: they were self-contained, small plants whose decommissioning was deemed as less troublesome compared to the one of the larger power stations.

A first phase, from 1987 to 1995, was characterised by deferred decommissioning (rather, ‘mothballing’) in the context of the striking absence of any comprehensive strategy. Thus, a sector that was cash-starved and hit by a massive brain-drain was barely able to provide for radiological safety and to conduct episodic interventions. In March 1995 a new law on ionising radiations implemented in the national legislation a 15-year backlog of Euratom regulations. The law defined decommissioning as a string of actions eventually leading nuclear sites to greenfield status. This implied a fundamental strategic choice. By 1999 the government had elaborated a white paper that – drawing on NEA cooperation and notably Greifswald decommissioning programme – advocated the adoption of early decommissioning. Mixing ethical principles with reasons of expediency, the white paper set a 20-year target to attain the greenfield status.

The strategy assumed the early availability of a national waste repository – an issue repeatedly dubbed as ‘undelayable’ since mid-1970s. The failure in siting the national repository, till now, represented a major setback. Moreover, documents further reveal a very complex situation at the sites, with an awkward catalogue of wastes largely unconditioned and in a variety of physical forms and radiological activity, though individually in relatively small quantity. This was the outcome of false starts, technical repentance and domestic infighting over the past nuclear programme. While dealing with the fuel fabrication plant in Bosco Marengo might be comparably easier, the two pilot reprocessing lines in Saluggia and Trisaia turned out an insurmountable obstacle, with a jumble of technical, legal and public consent troubles which the documents help to sort out.

How to cite: Elli, M.: Italy’s Experience in the Decommissioning of Fuel Cycle Plants: The historian's Perspective, Third interdisciplinary research symposium on the safety of nuclear disposal practices, Berlin, Germany, 17–19 Sep 2025, safeND2025-14, https://doi.org/10.5194/safend2025-14, 2025.