RK&M PRESERVATION: FUNDAMENTALS

Chapter 2. RK&M preservation: Fundamentals

The RK&M initiative addressed the “why”, “what”, “when”, “who” and “how” of RK&M preservation across generations. The first position of the “why” question in this list (“for which reasons and purposes do we need and want to preserve RK&M about radioactive waste across generations?”) is crucial. It proved to be one of the most difficult, but perhaps also the most crucial question, since all the other questions, at least partly, depend on it.

There are three fundamental rationales for the preservation of RK&M:

•its connection to safety;

•protecting humans and the environment;

•supporting informed decision making.

2.1.RK&M preservation and its connection to safety

The repository: From “seclusion and oblivion” to a societally embedded facility

As explained previously (see Section 1.2), a historical review of RK&M related literature suggests a change in the rationale for RK&M preservation across generations. In many countries, traditional approaches were notably based on the premise that safety was best assured by keeping disposal facilities apart and isolated from society. The underlying assumption was that safety is best provided by keeping disposal facilities “under the radar” and by welcoming oblivion to take hold after closure. Efforts would be dedicated to keep people away from the site (e.g. by means of land use restrictions enforced by fences and surveillance for the shorter term and warning markers for the longer term). RK&M preservation across generations was not a priority and conceived approaches were predominantly prescriptive with regard to their message (“stay away”) and static with regard to their implementation (archives and markers).

In recent years, more thought has also been dedicated to more dynamic mechanisms, such as continued monitoring, conditional reuse of sites and active participation by local communities in decision making. This trend for greater follow-up, flexibility and participation implies that disposal facilities would be part of the fabric of society, rather than operated in isolation from it (Pescatore and Mays in NEA, 2012: p. 98; NEA, 2015a). Moreover, waste management researchers are coming to terms with the fact that, independent of the technical durability, the societal durability of a once agreed disposal approach may not last forever (Schröder et al., 2016). More present-day thought is that rather than attempting to dictate or manipulate the emotions of future generations, RK&M structures and messages ought to try to inform those generations (A. Van Luik in NEA, 2012: pp. 88-89). Overall, there seems to be an evolution towards more openness regarding the future in long-term radioactive waste management (RWM) thinking and its accompanying RK&M strategies. Future generations are no longer solely conceived of as potential inadvertent intruders. There is openness towards the idea that accessing the repository may also be desirable for future generations, for whatever reason (see also Hotzel and Wisbey, 2016).20

20.As a participant to one of the RK&M initiative’s workshops put it: “The notion that we know best and can and should dictate what people in hundreds of years’ time should do, is ludicrous” (E. Van Hove in NEA, 2012, item 29, pp. 108-110).

RK&M PRESERVATION: FUNDAMENTALS

It has been generally agreed that RK&M preservation is a fundamental aspect in establishing and running any long-term project that involves risks. In the context of RWM, RK&M preservation aims at keeping track of disposal projects across time by supporting an informed and alert attitude towards the required levels of safety, security and societal accordance, not only by the implementing agency and the authorities, but also by society at large and local communities in particular. As such, RK&M preservation concurrently performs a communication and an evaluation function. These functions do not change over time and are valid for the present as well as the future for both the operational and the post-operational phases of disposal facilities.

Introducing the concept of oversight

The general reasoning towards more societally embedded repositories and RK&M preservation has recently also been confirmed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the most prominent international, non-governmental organisation with regard to recommendations and guidance on radiation protection. Together with the NEA, it introduced the notion of “oversight” as a new reference concept for reconciling geological disposal of radioactive waste with the fundamental principles of radiological protection (NEA/ICRP, 2013; ICRP, 2013; see also S. Hotzel in NEA, 2015b: pp. 65-70). It aims to elaborate the optimisation principle (“all exposures shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable” [ICRP, 1977]) over time (see also Section 3.4 on intraand intergenerational ethics).

“Oversight is a general term for ‘watchful care’ and refers to society ‘keeping an eye’ on the technical system and the actual implementation of plans and decisions” (ICRP, 2013: p. 20). This description remains rather minimalistic, but it is agreed that oversight is always by people, complements the intrinsic or built-in controls that are carried out by the technical system itself and that one might expect that society will maintain forms of oversight as long as possible (ICRP, 2013: p. 35; see also S. Hotzel in NEA, 2015b: pp. 65-70; and Section 4.2 on time frames, where the difference between “direct” and “indirect oversight” is explained).

The notion of “oversight” is not in contrast with one of the main rationales for final, “passive” disposal (as opposed to prolonged, “active” storage), namely to limit the burden on future generations. While the burden may indeed be considered limited due to the fact that final disposal facilities offer radiation protection without requiring active maintenance, it nevertheless is clear that future generations will live with the consequences of our present activities and the radioactive waste we produce. Moreover, “the ‘contain and concentrate’ strategy makes it possible, in principle, for the waste to be re-accessed either voluntarily or involuntarily at some time in the future” (ICRP, 2013: p. 31). In this sense, the concept of oversight – and the RK&M preservation it requires – is understood as aligned with and in support of passively safe, long-term radioactive waste disposal (NEA, 2014).

This also is the opinion of the ICRP: “The obligations of the present generation towards the future generation are complex, involving, for instance, not only issues of safety and protection, but also transfer of knowledge and resources. Due to the technical and scientific uncertainties, and the evolution of society in the long term, it is generally acknowledged that the present generation is not able to ensure that societal action will be taken in the future, but needs to provide the means for future generations to cope with these issues” (ICRP, 2013: p. 29). RK&M preservation is fundamental to oversight (see also Section 5.8 on oversight provisions). The ICRP elaborates two fundamental rationales in this regard (which are elaborated in the following sections): “Measures to preserve the memory of a facility might help to reduce the probability of inadvertent human intrusion, and may assist the justification and planning of any deliberate intrusion should this be required in the future” (ICRP, 2013: p. 35).