Abstracts ASN Report 2019

T he PNGMDR is prepared by the General Directorate for Energy and Climate (DGEC) at the Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity-based Transition and by ASN, on the basis of the work done by a pluralistic working group in particular comprising radioactive waste producers, licensees of management facilities for these wastes, evaluation and control authorities and environmental protection associations. In concrete terms, the PNGMDR gives a detailed inventory of radioactive materials and waste management methods, whether operational or to be deployed, and then makes recommendations or sets targets. ASN contributed to this through seven opinions issued in 2016, the main guidelines of which were incorporated into the 2016-2018 version of the PNGMDR. The Decree and Order of 23 February 2017 set out the requirements and the studies to be conducted in the coming years. There are 83 such studies, each with one or more coordinators and a completion deadline. A similar pluralistic drafting approach will be applied for the 5th edition of the PNGMDR which was preceded, for the first time, by a public debate. Indeed, in accordance with the Ordinance of 3 August 2016, the DGEC and ASN referred to the National Public Debates Commission (CNDP) regarding the procedures to be followed for organising public participation in the drafting of this next plan. The CNDP decided to organise a public debate on the plan. Together with the Special Public Debates Commission (CPDP), ASN and the DGEC draw up a “Programme manager file”, which presented the main aspects of the PNGMDR and identified the main challenges as related to the drafting of the next plan: Ҋ the challenges of reusing stored radioactive materials; Ҋ spent fuel storage capacity; Ҋ the scale of the volumes of very low level (VLL) waste expected from decommissioning; Ҋ management of the diversity of low level, long-lived waste (LLW-LL); Ҋ the creation and operation of a deep geological disposal facility. Furthermore, ahead of the debate, the CPDP produced a “clarifying the controversies” dossier, which aims to provide the non-specialist public with the various arguments put forward by the experts and institutional organisations concerning questions arising from the plan. ASN and the DGEC took part in the debate in order to present the issues and answer questions f rom the public. The institutional representatives (nuclear licensees, associations, Local Information Committees, experts) were often present in large numbers. ASN, as did the CPDP, observed that participation by the general public was low. The participative platform received 86 questions, 442 opinions, 62 individual stakeholder presentations and 22 contributions. Of the ژהז ȷɖƺɀɎǣȒȇɀ ȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƳً חה ɯƺȸƺ ɀƺȇɎ ɎȒ ³z ƏȇƳ Ɏǝƺ (J0!ً ɯǝȒ provided answers. ASN notes the diversity of the subjects of concern for the debate’s participants. More particularly, a large number of questions concerned the Cigéo project, the effective reuse of radioactive substances qualified as materials or the coverage of the costs if these materials were finally to be considered as waste, along with the management of VLL waste. These topics were already identified as being among the five issues of the debate in the Programme Manager File. Other subjects were raised by the public, such as the reprocessing of spent fuels, the separation-transmutation of radionuclides, the governance of radioactive materials and waste management, the environ- mental and health impacts of waste management, transports, or resorting to the use of nuclear energy. The CNDP and the CPDP presented their conclusions following this debate in a report and a summary transmitted on ژדא zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸ א ׎׏ ח ِ IȒȸ ƺƏƬǝ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ɎȒȵǣƬɀ ǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƺƳ ƫɵ ³z ƏȇƳ the DGEC, the CPDP concludes that the debate was able to clarify the various options and their implications. Other subjects were also raised during the public debate. For instance, the management of particular waste categories, such as those resulting from the conversion of uranium, legacy waste and mining waste, transportation, health, the economy and regional impacts, were subjects which received particular attention from the public. Elsewhere, the duration of the plan, set by law at three years, was felt to be too short and inconsistent with the nature of the issues and with the durations of the other plans related to it. ¨È nX! (0 Á0 ڙ zƏɎǣȒȇƏǼ «ƏƳǣȒƏƬɎǣɮƺ xƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀ ƏȇƳ áƏɀɎƺ xƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ¨ǼƏȇ Planning Act 2006-739 of 28 June 2006 on the sustainable management of radioactive materials and waste stipulated the drafting of a National Radioactive Materials and Waste Management Plan (PNGMDR) every 3 years. 24 ASN Report on the state of nuclear safety and radiation protection in France in 2019