CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

opportunities for developing RK&M preservation mechanisms in a multidisciplinary and participatory manner have been indicated throughout this report, including:

•proactive and systematic record management for the development of a SER;

•compiling a preliminary KIF working with, among others, communication specialists and local community representatives;

•reviewing the national regulatory framework with a view to closing gaps, in particular with respect to clear and planned responsibilities;

•pilot design of markers as a collaborative RD&D activity;

•preparatory discussions related to alternative land use with local and regional actors;

•exploring collaborations with the national archive;

•preparation of information packages and interactions with schools;

•interactions with universities.

Together with the main chapters in this report the tools in Annex 2 (the mechanism description sheets and overview table), are designed to provide hands-on guidance for the development and implementation of real, practical systemic RK&M preservation strategies. First and foremost, as a result of the RK&M initiative it is hoped that various actors will actually start working with these insights and tools and will find them helpful. It should be noted that various mechanisms may already exist today, albeit not as dedicated radioactive waste disposal-related RK&M preservation mechanisms. Tracking such initiatives and, where possible and useful, liaising with those belonging to approaches that are not primarily developed by the implementer (e.g. higher education or heritage inventories) is also a specific action item.

Developing international collaboration

The national level, in collaboration with the local and regional levels, will play a prominent role in developing and carrying out RK&M preservation activities. This is where the cornerstones of a systemic strategy should be discussed and defined, taking account of the national and local context and national and international agreements. However, activities can also be addressed internationally, for example via the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC), which constitutes the core of such expertise at the NEA. Overall, the fact that the initiative took place under the aegis of an international agency, such as the NEA, has already yielded benefits for sharing issues, learning together and harmonising approaches between national programmes.

The continuation of an “international RK&M preservation network” is thus recommended, as an interactive platform to continue to develop ideas, establish collaborations, and share findings related to putting lessons learnt into practice (e.g. exchanging experiences with visitor centres, participatory monitoring initiatives, partnerships with archives). In line with the growing attention for human aspects of nuclear safety, 80 issues such as the role of RK&M preservation within the safety case may also be discussed internationally, for instance within the framework of the NEA Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC) and the Regulators’ Forum (RWMC RF). Through the RK&M initiative the NEA has already established connections with UNESCO to jointly discuss potential collaborations in the field of RK&M preservation (e.g. related to nominating NEA reports for the Memory of the World programme). These and other international collaborations, both inside and outside the nuclear domain, are expected to have the potential to substantially contribute to RK&M preservation. This would be particularly relevant when designed to support cross-fertilisation between different administrative and geographic levels, different disciplines and domains and different stakeholders.

7.3. Reference

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.

80. See also www.oecd-nea.org/hans.