The French experience for the long term surveillance and French communities expectations Work programme proposal Caroline Schieber, Thierry Schneider, Gilles Hériard Dubreuil, CIP Slovenia - 9th January 2008

Preliminary content of the two (complementary) case studies

3 Case Study 1- The French experience for the long term surveillance This study will describe in a first step the current surveillance system set up for two disposal site: The Centre Manche: Closed disposal of low and medium level radioactive waste The Centre de l'Aube: Two operating disposals : one for very low level radioactive waste and one for low and intermediate level radioactive waste It will thus address: the post closure surveillance system (Centre Manche) the operating phase surveillance system (Centre de l'Aube) The output of this study will take the form in a first step of a bulleted summary. Which might be completed by a more in-depth study if relevant.

4 Case Study 1 - The French experience for the long term surveillance The description of existing surveillance systems will be made according to the following investigation topics: Regulatory aspects Who is involved in the surveillance (operator, external control, local community,...) What are the governance processes (information, evaluation processes, role/involvement of local commissions, role and place of expertise, training for the communities,...) What are the indicators used (environment, safety, health,..) Who is paying (existence of a fund,...) Distinction between operating period and post-closure phase What is planned in terms of evolution of the surveillance with time (which indicators, responsibilities, monetary aspects,...)

5 Case Study 2- French communities' expectations on long term surveillance (1) This in-depth study will be based on interviews of various stakeholders The two local commission of information from Centre Manche and Centre de l'Aube, Local Community of Bure - Laboratory for geological disposal, ANCLI - National association of local commission of information, …

6 Case Study - French communities' expectations on long term surveillance (2) Identify their expectations on the following topics: Analysis of the surveillance systems: what is evaluated? which type of decision are opened for discussion according to the results of the surveillance? Identification of communities' expectations regarding indicators to be followed-up, involvement of local actors, distribution of responsibilities, financial aspects,... Question of the quality of the environment: how to define it, which criteria, what about ethical aspects regarding the legacy to future generations.

First elements on the Centre Manche Closed disposal for short live, low and intermediate level radioactive waste

8 Location of "Centre Manche"

9 History of the "Centre Manche" (1) 1969: creation of a disposal for short live, low and intermediate level radioactive waste on the CEA site of La Hague At this period, complete delegation of responsibility to the CEA which defines it-self the conditions of acceptability of waste 1979: creation of ANDRA (within the CEA until 1991) Elaboration of new industrial techniques for the storage, retrieval of "old" waste for a new conditioning, computerised management and monitoring of waste : Beginning of construction of the final cover

10 History of the "Centre Manche" (2) 1994: Deposit of final waste package. Total amount of waste: m : Public enquiry for the closure of the site. Local oppositions 1996: The Ministry of Industry mandates a specific Commission of experts (Commission Turpin) to analyse the content of the site and propose advice for the surveillance of the site 1997: The installation of the cover is completed 2000: New public enquiry for entering into the monitoring phase and for authorisation of discharges January 2003: Decree for entering into monitoring phase

11 First disposal trenches, abandoned in 1970 Tumulus-shaped disposal concept (70's) Disposal on a platform (80's)

12 Installation of the bitumen membrane Aerial view of the facility in 1997

13 The proposals of the "Commission Turpin" for long term management (1) First period of 5 years: very active monitoring of the site to confirm the expected results of the cover and precise the impact on the environment Estimated cost: progressive decrease from 5 to 2 M/year Financing taken from the budget of ANDRA, resources coming directly from the producers of the waste disposed on the site

14 The proposals of the "Commission Turpin" for long term management (2) Second period: active monitoring and preparation of the final cover. Estimated duration: from 5 to 50 years. Decision to enter into the next phase to be taken by the Authorities Estimated monitoring cost: 1.8 M/year Estimated cost of purchase of new land: 36 to 43 M Financing: During the first 5 years, budget of ANDRA After, necessity to create a fund in order that the site becomes autonomous from ANDRA and from the evolution of nuclear industry

15 The proposals of the "Commission Turpin" for long term management (3) Third period: passive monitoring Estimated cost of monitoring: 1 M/year Financed from the dedicated fund Recommendations for the fund: Application of polluter-payer principle: the institutions and operators having sent waste to this Centre must all contribute Due to the presence of long lasting pollution (long live emitters, Lead), three parts envisaged: One half financed par the operators, proportionate to the volume of disposed waste One quarter financed by the same operators, proportionate to their participation to the stock of emitters in 300 years One third proportionate to the contribution to the Lead stock

16 The proposals of the "Commission Turpin" for long term management (4) Remarks made by the Commission on the fund: The operators must start the provisions as soon as the decision for the creation of the fund will be taken The Commission does not envisage that the transformation and monitoring cost be put under the State budget However, some producers may have difficulties to find resources, some producers may have disappeared or the State could envisage to exempt some producers (ex: hospitals, university laboratories) Then the question will be to decide whether the other producers can pay, or if the State will pay It would be useful to create a specific Commission of financial surveillance (with representatives from finance specialists, State, producers and at least one local personality

17 Current situation for the Centre Manche 2003: beginning of the very active monitoring phase The site should enter into the "active surveillance" phase and ANDRA should make proposals for the relevance of a final cover in 8 years Current operating cost: around 5 M/year Financing: waste producers who pay each year for the current monitoring. Their annual cost does not integrate a provision for long term monitoring The creation of a fund is still under study. Proposals to be made by Andra in 2008

18 Future investigations for the Centre Manche Detailed analysis of the current surveillance programme and the planned evolution with time Based on the regulatory framework Discussion with ANDRA Role and expectations of the Local Commission of Information for the current surveillance programme, and the definition of the future one

A few elements on the Centre de L'Aube Two Operating Disposal facilities : -> CSTFA: Very-low Level Radioactive Waste -> CSFMA: Low-Level and Intermediate- Level Short Lived Radioactive Waste

20 Some Figures (1) CSTFA (Very low level): Created in 2003 for a planned operating period of 30 years (2033) The post-closure surveillance should last "several decades" Storage capacity: 650,000 m 3 (c. 750,000 tonnes) Annual volume stored: roughly 20,000 m 3 /yr. Initial investment: about 40 million Operating costs: about 7 million per year Staff during operating period: about 20 people.

21 Some Figures (2) CSFMA (low and medium level) Created in 1992 for a planned operating period of 50 to 60 years (2050) The post-closure surveillance should last around 300 years Storage capacity: 1 million m 3 Annual volume stored: roughly m 3 /yr. Initial investment: about 221 million Operating costs (estimation): around 30 million per year Staff during operating period: about 170 people.

22 Other elements CSFMA: At the creation, no radioactive release authorization 2002 : due to changes in the reguloratory framework and to the presence of Tritium, need to ask for a specific authorization (for liquid and gaseous radioactive releases as well as water sampling) Published the 21 th of August 2006 The local commission of information has paid for an independent study for the evaluation of the environmental impact of the disposals (measurement of radioelements in the surrounding of the site and on the site). This study will be available in 2008.

23 Future investigations for the Centre de l'Aube Detailed analysis of the current surveillance programme (operating period) and the planned evolution with time (what is envisaged for the post-closure period) Based on the regulatory framework Discussion with ANDRA Is there any link between the current surveillance system and what is planned for the post-closure phase? Role and expectations of the Local Commission of Information for the current surveillance programme, and the definition of the future one