KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

also internationally, that are likely to survive beyond the closure of the repository (which is unlikely for the repository operator). Actors involved in mechanisms outside RWM can also foster disposal related RK&M preservation. Radioactive waste disposal RK&M preservation programmes need not be developed in isolation from other programmes such as, for example, information preservation, environmental monitoring and heritage conservation. Having both actors that have a personal interest (or passion) in preserving RK&M as well as actors, such as formal institutions or organisations, that are either paid or required by law to preserve RK&M are considered to add to the strength of an RK&M preservation strategy.

In conclusion, it is recommended to take a participatory approach in designing, developing and implementing a systemic RK&M preservation strategy, both with regard to its content and its approaches. A participatory approach is believed to support diversity and redundancy by eliciting various perspectives on how the fundamental objectives of protecting humans and the environment and supporting informed decision making can best be translated, and by enabling RK&M to be carried by as many and various actors as possible (see also Section 6.5).

4.7. Multiple locations

This chapter has so far explained and promoted diversity and redundancy in RK&M preservation mechanisms in terms of timescales, media, contents, transmission modes and actors. This last section explains why involving multiple locations (the local, regional, national and international level) is also a key characteristic of a systemic RK&M preservation strategy. It relates to where to preserve RK&M (e.g. where to build a marker, where to build an archive, where to keep a key information file (KIF), where to monitor, etc.), but it also relates to the scope of RK&M preservation mechanisms, which should incorporate the benefits of both local specificity and international standardisation.

Radioactive waste-related information, in all its forms, is often scattered among a large variety of places, such as with waste producers, in off-site commercial storage facilities, in research institutes, with implementing agencies, nuclear regulators, local and national authorities, and online. On the one hand, this forms a threat for RK&M preservation over time because such a spread may induce loss, forgetfulness and inaccessibility, and stand in the way of “getting the full story”. Moreover, while some locations may have some sort of RK&M preservation policy in place, others may only have short-term interests, unrelated to RK&M preservation across generations. On the other hand, preserving RK&M in multiple locations is also a recommendation of the RK&M initiative. It aids location-sensitive diversity in the sense of having “the right mechanism in the right place” (e.g. a marker at the disposal site, a KIF [see Section 5.2] in the city hall and local library, detailed location information in the regional cadastre, a set of essential records [idem] at the national archives, the uptake of repository information in international inventories and catalogues, and online maps). A high frequency of RK&M locations also promotes redundancy, permitting some sources to be lost without losing the overall functioning of the system.

It is thus a matter of both duplicating the same RK&M at different places and of having multiple RK&M mechanisms with different key characteristics tailored to different stakeholders in different places in society. As such, all the various mechanisms in the various locations form a RK&M preservation system that is more than the sum of its parts. Varied mechanisms at varied locations can be designed to be integrated (e.g. international guidelines and national regulation) or complementary (e.g. markers and alternative land use) and act as indexes to each other (the KIF can, for instance, refer to the location of the SER), thus strengthening the overall RK&M preservation system and the quality of information.

Two spatial levels received particular attention throughout the RK&M initiative, the local level (see also previous section on actors) and the international level. The initiative was established at the NEA based on the idea that a concerted approach at the international level would contribute to the further development of national RK&M preservation strategies. More generally, the relevance of the international level for RK&M preservation across generations relates also to the volatility of national boundaries over time. Involving international mechanisms in addition to national mechanisms constitutes an element of redundancy in this regard.

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

Awareness of the value and vulnerability of RK&M preservation is already reflected by a number of international mechanisms outside RWM, notably related to the fields of geology and geography (e.g. the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community [INSPIRE]), environmental protection (e.g. the Aarhus Convention mentioned earlier [see Footnote 35 on page 43]), and cultural heritage preservation (e.g. the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and Memory of the World programme – specifically for documentary heritage, see also J. Springer in NEA, 2013a: pp. 87-88). These international mechanisms can constitute a potential resource, both theoretically (by means of insights into their functioning and the standards they deploy) as well as practically (by means of real collaboration) for RK&M preservation in the field of RWM (see also Section 5.9 on international mechanisms).

In summary, approaching RK&M preservation across generations from an international angle is advisable in light of the long time frames and an internationally shared concern for protecting humans and the environment and informing future generations. Some specific ideas have already been proposed (e.g. to collaborate with the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme), to develop some type of international markers or to indicate disposal sites on international maps with a common symbol (see also Section 5.9 on international mechanisms and the accompanying mechanisms in Annex 2.2; see also the dedicated field (“International Dimension”) for all mechanisms in Annex 2.2). Such ideas can be seen as a means to create a link between disposal sites across the world (e.g. NEA, 2015: p. 26). However, national and local contexts cannot and should not be disregarded. The RK&M initiative promotes international collaboration and a level of procedural standardisation (e.g. to provide a regulatory framework, to produce a KIF and the minimum content it should have, to appoint responsibilities in terms of land use controls, etc.), but this does not have to entail a standardisation of practices. RK&M preservation approaches and mechanisms cannot simply be copied from one location to another. Moreover, from a regulatory point of view, it is likely to be the state that has ultimate responsibility for radioactive waste repositories and it is likely the local and regional levels, being directly affected, that have the keenest interest in the preservation of RK&M preservation over time. Standardisation offers opportunities (such as international recognisability and collaboration), but attention is needed for potential pitfalls too (e.g. the pitfall of a bad standard). This again highlights the value of a systemic RK&M strategy with diverse and redundant approaches and mechanisms that also combine the benefits of both local specificity and international standardisation.

4.8. References

Hora, S.C., D. von Winterfeldt and K.M. Trauth (1991), Expert Judgement on Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, SAND90-3063 UC-721, prepared by Sandia National Laboratories for the US Department of Energy, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Livermore, California.

ICRP (2013), Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-Lived Solid Radioactive Waste, ICRP Publication 122, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 42/3, pp. 1-57.

Kazutoshi, S. et al. (2003), “Record Preservation Study on Geological Disposal: Significance and Technical Feasibility”, RWMC Technical Report RWMC-TRE-03001, Radioactive Waste Management Funding and Research Center, Tokyo.

NEA (forthcoming-a), Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) Across Generations: Catalogue of Legislation, Regulation and Guidance Governing the Preservation of RK&M for Radioactive Waste Repositories, OECD, Paris.

NEA (forthcoming-b), Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) Across Generations: Compiling a Set of Essential Records for a Radioactive Waste Repository, OECD, Paris.

NEA (2015), Radioactive Waste Management and Constructing Memory for Future Generations: Proceedings of the International Conference and Debate, OECD, Paris, www.oecd- nea.org/rwm/pubs/2015/7259-constructing-memory-2015.pdf.

NEA (2014a), “Markers – Reflections on Intergenerational Warnings in the Form of Japanese Tsunami Stones”, NEA/RWM/R(2014)4, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2014/rwm-r2014-4.pdf.

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

NEA (2014b), “Foundations and guiding principles for the preservation of records, knowledge and memory across generations: A focus on the post-closure phase of geological repositories”, A Collective Statement of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC), www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/rkm/documents/flyer-A4-rkm-collective-statement-en-2014.pdf.

NEA (2013a), “The Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) Across Generations: Improving Our Understanding”, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2013/rwm-r2013-3.pdf.

NEA (2013b), “An Annotated Glossary of Key Terms”, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2013/6988- fsc-glossary.pdf.

NEA (2012), “The Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) across Generations: Scoping the Issue: Workshop proceedings”, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2012/rwm_r_ 2012_6.pdf.

NEA (2011a), “Reversibility and Retrievability (R&R) for the Deep Disposal of High-level Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel: Final Report of the NEA R&R Project (2007-11)”, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/rr.

NEA (2011b), “Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory across generations. A Collective Statement of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC)”, www.oecd- nea.org/rwm/rkm/documents/rkm-collective-statement-2011-en.pdf.

Pescatore, C. et al. (2013), “Oversight of a deep geological repository and the role of monitoring

– Some preliminary findings within the RK&M project of the NEA”, paper presented at the MoDeRn International Conference, 19-21 March 2013, Luxembourg.

Schröder, J. (2015), “Geological disposal of radioactive waste: A long-term socio-technical experiment”, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 1–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015- 9650-4.

Trauth, K.M., S.C. Hora and R.V. Guzowski (1993), Expert Judgement on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, SAND92-1382 l UC-721, prepared by Sandia National Laboratories for the US Department of Energy, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Livermore.

Turcanu, T. et al. (2016), “Like a bridge over troubled water – Opening pathways for integrating social sciences and humanities into nuclear research”, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol. 153: pp. 88-96.