Public Inquiries at La Hague — License Guaranteed
The public inquiries opened at La Hague on 2 February
and closed on 17 May 2000, dealt with five separate
requests, three of which were from COGEMA and two from ANDRA.
For COGEMA (according to the
terms of the request for modification of its authorizing decrees) requested:
-"increase of annual reprocessing capacity for each of the
UP3-A and UP2-800 plants to 1,000 tonnes. The industrial optimization
of the installations will lead to a distribution of annual production
of a maximum of 1,700 tonnes to one or other of the installations
while respecting the maximum capacity of 1,000 tonnes per installation";
-increase the storage capacity of pools C, D and E by around 30%
(3,590 tonnes to 4,800 tonnes for C, 3,490 tonnes to 4,600 tonnes
for D, and 4,910 tonnes to 6,200 tonnes for E), increasing the total
storage capacity from 13,990 tonnes to 17,600 tonnes;
-"increase in burnup rate and initial enrichment of spent
fuels authorized at present".
Furthermore, the request stipulates that, regarding
the adaptation of the types of fuels and material to be reprocessed
in UP3-A and UP2-800, "each significantly different type will,
at the appropriate moment, be the subject of a special safety file and
of a request for authorization to be submitted to the relevant authorities
and ministries, especially the ministers responsible for environment
and for industry". This wording is aimed specifically at contracts
for reprocessing of fuel from research reactors as of the Australian
type.
For ANDRA:
-To go to an active phase of monitoring of the Centre de Stockage
de la Manche (CSM — final surface repository for short lived
radioactive waste in northern France), planned for 50 to 100 years.
This means setting up surveillance of packages and making regular
measurements (even if only every 5 or 10 years) of releases of radionuclides
(in other words leaks) and the condition of the covering structure
(already showing signs of early fatigue).
-Renewal of authorization for emissions from the CSM, benefiting,
in particular, from the opportunity to make official the practice
of discharge of rain water (assumed not to have been in contact with
the packages) into the Sainte Hélène river which receives
the run-off water from La Hague. Infiltrating
water is already drained to the COGEMA effluent treatment station
before being discharged to the
sea via the COGEMA-La Hague facility's sea discharge pipe.
After these public inquiries, the Inquiry Commission
submitted the report containing its conclusions to the Prefect of
the La Manche region, on 26 June 2000. The Prefect then communicated
the report to the nuclear safety authority. Findings were favorable
to all of the requests, sometimes accompanied by reservations and recommendations.
For ANDRA, moving to the monitoring phase requires
that, "the very active monitoring phase be extended to 10 years"
and, "study of the possibility of carrying out spot checks
under the structures carried out by the operator in order to make measurements
of radioactivity as close as possible to structures that could be cause
for concern" and that, "means for inspection, cleaning
and repair of drains be examined by the operator". The Commission
also recommended that authorizations be limited to 10 years, that they
should then be the subject of study and public inquiry, and that they
be accompanied by a certain number of safety studies (discharges, seismic
conditions, etc),
and surveys.
For COGEMA, the modifications of the La Hague facilities
are authorized under the condition that they do not cause "notable
or long-term increase in actual impacts and emissions (radioactive and
chemical) to
the environment" and that reprocessing of new types of fuels
and materials be limited "to elements that do not lead to exceeding
of a "technological threshold" likely to affect either the safety of
the installation or increase impact on the environment and health".
It is also recommended that authorizations on emissions be revised
downwards periodically on the basis of actual emissions, that the major
radionuclides be subject to individual limits and that the inventory
of chemicals stored and used at the establishment be updated with regard
to their toxicity and prevention of chemical risk.
The public inquiries at La Hague were neither very
democratic and nor very public. Obtaining the public inquiry dossiers
was subject to draconian conditions:
-a charge of 5,370 Francs (about $US 750) in two checks, one made
out to COGEMA for 3,222 Francs, the other to ANDRA for 2,148 Francs;
-a copy of the Official Journal indicating that the requesting party
is an association registered with the Ministry of the Environment;
-and finally, a wait of two to three weeks which became more than
a month even for the associations represented on the La Hague Commission
spéciale et permanente d’information (CSPI - special permanent
information commission) which had refused to pay.
No debate took place on three studies made for Greenpeace
on this subject — the only technical elements added to the file
by experts independent of industry or of the State, and handed to the
French government and to the OSPAR Commission — did not, apparently,
provoke any debate among the inquiry commissioners. Yet these studies
address the question of the impacts of radioactive releases on health
and on the environment, the risks of serious accident
and alternatives to reprocessing in management of spent fuels. They
concluded, in turn:
-"that each of the changes [requested by COGEMA] could significantly
increase La Hague's hazard potential" whereas to date, "COGEMA
has not presented any analysis of the hazard implications of the proposed
changes";(1)
-that the "US system for dry storag systems for PWR fuel
is estimated to be 8 to 20 times less expensive per tonne that reprocessing",
i.e.; US$35,000 to US$68,000 per ton for dry storage against
US$540,000 to US$720,000 per ton for reprocessed fuel;(2)
-and finally, that "estimates of collective doses show that
there have been significant increases throughout the 1990s",
e.g. for 14C going from 868 man sieverts (man Sv) in 1991
(for total emissions of 6.2 TBq) to 4,108 man Sv (for 28.93 TBq) in
1999. Emission authorizations for Sellafield (UK) correspond to 4,100
man Sv.(3)
(1) Gordon Thompson, " Hazard potential of the La
Hague site : an initial review ", IRSS, May 2000
(2) Dr. Ian Fairlie, " Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel : the safer
alternative to reprocessing ", May 2000
(3) D. J. Summer, " Radioactive discharges from La Hague ", 23 May 2000
Previous
page 
To
be continued (The "reprocessing-recycling"
option is a clearly uneconomic choice)
Back
to contents
