RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

Chapter 5. RK&M preservation approaches and mechanisms

5.1. Introduction to the RK&M preservation “toolbox”

The RK&M initiative elaborated 35 mechanisms grouped into 9 broad approaches to RK&M preservation. The approaches and the individual mechanisms are in themselves, with a few exceptions, not new. What is original is how to use and apply them within an RK&M preservation strategy. They were especially selected and elaborated in light of offering various building blocks for a systemic RK&M preservation strategy. The common denominator of all these approaches to RK&M preservation is their aim to avoid inadvertent intrusion into a repository and to support informed decision making for as long as possible. However, they provide diversity with regard to the ways that they address these aims. In other words, they vary with regard to their key characteristics, as discussed in the previous chapter.

While some overlap is inevitable and also desirable from a systemic point of view, this variety is meant to support the overall strength of the RK&M preservation system. The RK&M initiative emphasises that even if it is advertised in the individual mechanism descriptions, a single mechanism will not achieve much in terms of RK&M preservation across generations. A systemic strategy is to be understood as a network of various mechanisms that are interconnected and work together (see Chapter 6). The combination of approaches and mechanisms should aim to keep the story of the repository alive to allow people, today and in the future, to know and to understand the where, what, how and why of the repository and its content on a generic level, as well as to point to where more specialised and detailed information can be found.

The remainder of this chapter gives a description of the nine approaches in a nonhierarchical order. Some descriptions are longer than others, which also does not correspond to their importance, but to the number of examples encountered and the studies conducted throughout the RK&M initiative. The respective mechanisms that belong to each approach and some of their key characteristics are displayed in small tables at the end of each section (Tables 5.1-5.9). Their full descriptions can be found in Annex 2.2. A full overview table that encompasses all key characteristics of the different mechanisms grouped into approaches can be found in Annex 2.3, also available on line at www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/rkm.

Figure 5.1. KIF and SER in the overall scheme of repository records

RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

5.2. Dedicated record sets and summary files

Over the lifetime of a repository, starting with its planning, enormous amounts of information and data will be produced. Implementing agencies in most countries are legally required to generate and retain large amounts of records about the radioactive waste disposal projects they are involved in. In line with the goals of protecting and informing future generations, this information needs to be transferrable, accessible and digestible for and by a variety of actors over time. Unstructured, scattered or tacit records will not support this need, nor will archives filled with overwhelming amounts of technical data, implementer decision-reports and regulatory decisions which are hardly accessed or even known.56

Besides reducing the risk of a “keep everything, find nothing” situation (see Section 3.2), the reduction in scale of the records has the advantages of opening the potential for the production of more copies and the use of more durable materials (both aimed at enhancing spread, accessibility and longevity), but it also carries a threat of information loss or bias. Information selection and structuring therefore requires a dedicated and deliberative approach. It should not be delayed and the processes and products should be reviewed and tested by various actors, both on the side of the producers and the (proxy) receivers (e.g. engineers, local community representatives, teachers and mining companies) (see also the role of the “curator” in Section 3.1). The RK&M initiative aimed to open the way by means of outlining two mechanisms dedicated to scale reduction, workability and accessibility, namely the creation of a KIF and the compilation of a SER. Both concepts are the subject of dedicated, separate reports (NEA, 2019 and NEA, forthcoming-b) and have been developed as mechanism sheets too (Annex 2.2). Figure 5.1 offers a visual representation of both concepts in the overall scheme of repository records.

A Key Information File (KIF) (see NEA, 2019) would be a single document, produced in a multidisciplinary and participatory manner, meant to inform present and future people without specialised knowledge. Such a file would be widely distributed in many copies (e.g. town hall, libraries and websites of international agencies). It is meant to provide an overview of the disposal project in a concise form, containing basic information on the repository and the waste it contains, as well as a summarised history of decision making. This information is intended to be sufficient to allow society to understand the intent of the repository and to reduce the likelihood of uninformed human intrusion. The KIF is a summary document. It should also point to mechanisms that preserve more detailed information (among others the Set of Essential Records [SER], NEA, forthcoming-b) about the disposal facility, its content and associated safety cases.57

An SER (see NEA, forthcoming-b) is designed to be a unique set of actual records, selected during the repository lifetime, aimed at providing sufficient information for current and future generations to ensure an adequate understanding of the repository system and its performance, and thus to allow informed decisions to be taken with proper assessment of the consequences.

56.The challenge of how to reduce the very large amounts of information produced throughout the planning, development and implementation phases of disposal projects to the required level without being overwhelming was already identified during the preparation of the establishment of the RK&M Initiative (see Section 1.1). A questionnaire was prepared to gauge RWMC member’s interests, existing activities and national frameworks related to the field. Responses (provided by implementers and regulators from 12 countries) related to which information and memory should be preserved including the nature of the hazard, detailed records of site construction and waste emplaced, and “metainformation” understood as non-technical information about the basis for past decisions. Most respondents thought that both summary and detailed information should be preserved (see NEA, 2010). These preliminary indicators formed the very early basis of the KIF and SER ideas explained further in this section.

57.The KIF concept is being trialled through the preparation of draft documents for the WIPP in the United States (deep geological disposal), the planned final repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark in Sweden (deep geological disposal) and the closed Centre de la Manche facility in France (surface disposal) (see annexes to NEA, 2019). These summaries are currently under development by the respective implementing agencies and are to be finalised in a multi-disciplinary, participatory manner in the future.

RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

The size of the SER for any disposal facility will likely be determined by local regulations and requirements, with the goal of containing the records generated during the repository’s lifetime that are essential to fulfil those purposes.58

While the KIF as well as the SER are both designed to provide essential information about the repository to future generations, they are autonomous tools that should be developed, managed and maintained independently. They have different focal points and target audiences (see above), are faced with different opportunities and challenges, may be managed and preserved under different responsibilities, are likely to be used differently and stored in different environments. These two mechanisms are considered prime examples of RK&M tools that complement each other, provide for diversity and act as indexes towards each other (see also Chapter 6).

Table 5.1. Dedicated record sets and summary files: Mechanisms overview table

Note: This table shows the mechanisms – with a profile of their key characteristics – that belong to the RK&M preservation approach presented in this section. The full descriptions of the individual mechanisms follow, in a comprehensive, structured and standardised format, in Annex 2.2. The rows in this table are derived from those description sheets. For a full explanation of the descriptors, please see Annex 2.1.

58.The SER concept report includes a study of the Spanish El Cabril disposal facility aimed at informing future SER development processes (see annex to NEA, forthcoming-b).

RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

5.3. Memory institutions

Memory institutions such as archives, museums and libraries share the common goal of acquiring, preserving and making information accessible (in the form of records, publications or artefacts) and thus reflect the world’s cultural, historic and scientific achievements. They also play an important role in shaping RK&M preservation insights and practices. Therefore, memory institution mechanisms are indispensable components in a systemic RK&M strategy. In some cases, collaboration with a memory institution, such as the national archives, will also be a regulatory requirement for the RWM implementing agency (see below). In general, however, the collaboration and transfer of information material will need to be established as part of an RK&M preservation strategy. The most appropriate institutions for this purpose will need to be selected based on their respective missions and ability to preserve and disseminate information over the considered timescales.

Despite having common goals, archives, museums and libraries differ with regard to their collections as well as to their specific missions, functions, organisation and professional practices. Archives focus on preserving collections of original records that have been selected for permanent or long-term preservation on the grounds of their enduring administrative, informational, cultural, historical or legal value. Archival records are mostly unpublished and almost always unique. A library’s main mission is to disseminate various information material to a wide audience. Museums collect and preserve specific artefacts that may or may not be unique or original and present them to the public while providing curatorial context.

Due to technological changes, the formerly sharp distinctions between memory institutions now tend to blur. In a digital environment, the methods of access and presentation allow for linking resources between the different types of collections, which may in turn prove useful in the context of RK&M preservation. Digitisation has the potential to contribute to the decentralisation and democratisation of memory institutions. International archiving initiatives have arisen from this development too and are likely to continue to do so. It must be pointed out, however, that digital information is extremely vulnerable to evolving technology and corresponding preservation strategies must be developed and implemented (see also Section 4.3 on multiple media).

Memory institutions with a different geographical scope of influence (local, regional, national and international) may contribute to RK&M preservation in different ways. National archives, museums and libraries are usually established institutions, responsible for collecting and preserving materials that are relevant and important from a national point of view, which is the case for records and publications related to radioactive waste repositories. Local institutions, on the other hand, are connected to the communities involved in the activities for which RK&M should be preserved. International information resources may also be set up and run by international agencies, on a private or commercial basis, aiming at the permanent preservation of selected record collections of universal value or international scope. At all levels and for all types of memory institutions, international networks are well established today and foster a wide dissemination of information and the use of common standards which, in turn, is beneficial for the accessibility and survivability of the relevant material.

The RK&M initiative dedicated particular attention to national archives (among others by means of a survey of the relationship between RWM organisations and their national archives). Generally, national archives are long-standing institutions that have the institutional responsibility for the “permanent” (i.e. with no time limit) preservation of government or central institutions’ records and for providing public access to these records. Since preservation issues are a formalised, key competence of national archives, interaction in the framework of developing an RK&M strategy is thus highly recommendable (and often required by law). In particular, they can be seen as a resource regarding know-how on the proper archiving of records. However, in many countries, national archives are not engaged with national repository projects in a way that is related to the specific needs of RK&M preservation. Two issues in particular came to the fore. The first is whether RK&M preservation needs regarding access can be fulfilled. People not involved in archives may not be aware of their existence, and may find it rather difficult to make sense of the masses of records and the way they are coded and structured. The second is whether the generic selection and preservation standards of national archives are compatible with the RK&M preservation goals of avoiding inadvertent intrusion

RK&M PRESERVATION APPROACHES AND MECHANISMS

and enabling informed decisions. Standard generic archival notions such as “completed process” or “loss of administrative relevance” (both being criteria for the appraisal of archival material prior to its transfer to the archive) should be scrutinised, as they are likely to have a particular meaning for the case of radioactive waste disposal. Moreover, national archives cannot be expected to adapt their (internationally agreed) standards to fulfil RK&M specific needs.

Table 5.2. Memory institutions: Mechanisms overview table

Note: This table shows the mechanisms – with a profile of their key characteristics – that belong to the RK&M preservation approach presented in this section. The full descriptions of the individual mechanisms follow, in a comprehensive, structured and standardised format, in Annex 2.2. The rows in this table are derived from those description sheets. For a full explanation of the descriptors, please see Annex 2.1.

Notwithstanding these challenges, the expertise and capacity of national archives with regard to records selection, archival media and accessibility are undoubtedly helpful when developing an RK&M preservation strategy. The establishment of smaller, dedicated archives can also be investigated, such as Nucleus, the Nuclear and Caithness Archives in Wick in the