Page d'accueil

Claude Fischer, Manager of ASCPE, Secretary General of Confrontations Europe – I am delighted to welcome you to this hall in the agricultural high school in Bar-Le-Duc where Passe-Muraille has installed a delightful decor representing Earth, an Earth which we all want to see remaining green, with an ecological logo by Emilie Lombard, an artist from Bar-le-Duc. I am proud to welcome you all here, in a town where I spent 30 years of my life. In the hall, I recognise several people who were militants in the days of the PCF, the French Communist Party. I do not disown my allegiance in those days because I learnt a lot and met Philippe Herzog. Together, through Confrontations Europe, we now chair pluralistic debates on issues relating to social change, with players from right across the political spectrum and from every social milieu, which sometimes makes things difficult. They also come from various European countries, which makes things even more complicated. Eleven European countries are represented here today, eight of them in round tables, and we have been joined by Canada because we are all facing the same challenge – how to best manage the nuclear waste that we produce. The issues, too, are the same – security, safety and the environment.

Before a decision is taken in France in 2006 (perhaps), we want greater understanding of the issues and, because of this, we want discussion inside France and with neighbouring countries, discussion between researchers and scientists. However, we also want to involve economic and social stakeholders and the general public. The main aim is to provide information that is concise without being oversimplified.

There are too few discussions of this type. I should like to express my special thanks to Christian Namy for having joined us in the organisation of this conference because it is not easy to decentralise in Europe, breaking it down into the regions. I should also like to thank Bruno Sido, who was the founding father of Les Entretiens but who has been unable to attend the meeting this year because his “county” (or département), Haute-Marne, which has not seen a government minister in the past ten years, is receiving a visit today from the Prime Minister himself, Mr. Raffarin!

The debate will be difficult because the subject is taboo in France. It will arouse impassioned reactions – in fact it already has, as you saw in the reception area. It will remain pluralistic and open because this is our idea of democracy, even if not everybody here shares our view. Democracy, however, is not content with opposing a “Yes” and a “No”; it demands comparison and confrontation of arguments, presupposes that each side will listen to the other’s point of view so that, sometimes, one side may even influence the other and demands work from lobby groups to pave the way for decision-making.

Our first Entretiens in Nogent in 2003 attracted 180 delegates from seven European countries plus Japan. In Bar-le-Duc, we have 290 delegates from eleven countries, this time with Canada, and this year, we are highlighting economic issues. In Nogent, we considered national choices with regard to research into waste management and the extent to which these choices met the conditions laid down in the draft European directive. For the moment, the directive has been kicked into touch – the Member States want nothing to do with it. However, we believe that a common framework is necessary. The game has been delayed but the debate continues – a representative of the European Commission will tell us more about it at the end of the day. We want to ask Member States and stakeholders about the production of waste, about cost and funding, and about the application or not of the “Polluter Pays” principle. We shall also take a look at how, in France and other countries, States work with local authorities and find the appropriate partners for the development of the relevant areas.

I should like to hand over now to Christian Namy, before we listen to a message from Mr. Devedjian, French Minister for Industry, who is unable to be with us because he is attending a Competitiveness Council meeting in Brussels.

Inaugural Address by Christian Namy

Christian Namy, Chairman of Meuse “County Council” – I should like to thank you all for being present today, in particular the Prefect, M.P. Jean-Yves Le Déaut, Senior Vice-Chairman of the Regional Council representing Chairman Jean-Pierre Masseret, all the elected representatives and “county councillors” including Denis Cordonnier, Senior Vice-Chairman of the “County Council”, who will represent me at one of the round tables. I should also like to welcome the delegates from other European countries and Canada.

This meeting of high-level experts and political managers provides essential support and is of undoubted help in our search for greater understanding of the many issues linked to, or resulting from, the storage of end-waste from our production of nuclear energy.

Nobody here today will seek to avoid the issue. The problem exists. It is a complex one and we have a duty to give it our full consideration, for the present time and for future generations.

It was partly for this reason that the “départements”, or “counties”, of Meuse and Haute-Marne filed an application to become the site of an underground research facility to look into deep geological disposal of nuclear waste.

The decision, which showed a sense of responsibility and a desire for solidarity with the rest of the country, has of course been hotly debated through public and political discussion in our “county” and is now an inescapable part of our plans for, and consideration of, territorial development in Meuse.

In the light of this experience, I should like to submit a few points to ponder which will, I hope, illustrate the main topic of discussion for this conference – the governance of nuclear waste.

Firstly, the local level in the chain of decision-making and commitment should not be considered as secondary to any national or international decisions. Our decision-making power remains entire and independent at every stage of any project. This reminder, which may seem somewhat abrupt and provocative, will give me an opportunity to describe a few rules that are essential if the local dimension is to be fully taken on board.

Firstly, the need for transparency and total compliance with any commitments made. Although certain details in an application can change over a ten-year period, any change in the decisions made and any move to forego all or any of the commitments, even on a minor level, must be explained, discussed and vindicated. The sensitivity of the subject and the fears that it arouses continually produce reactions that sometimes go beyond what is rational. This means that there is a need for information and an approach based on absolute rigour, to exclude any ambiguity that might lead to rumour or unreasonable anxiety

This takes me naturally on to the need for public debate. It may be self-evident but it nevertheless deserves reaffirmation. There should be no confusion between the necessary national public debate on nuclear waste and local debate relating to the impact of a possible storage site.

In other words, the local debate is an integral part of the national debate but should not replace it.

In this respect, it seems to me that discussion-related resources should quite naturally be integrated into any methodological consideration of the governance of major national issues at an early stage in the process and that such resources should take on board the local dimension of any public debate.

Finally, there is a need to look at the so-called “accompanying measures” implemented in favour of the corresponding local and regional authorities.

Here again, there is a need to avoid ambiguity. In our opinion, these measures are not compensation awarded as reparation for some form of loss. They are development resources which provide dynamic back-up for any new infrastructure requiring heavy investment. Of course, financial resources are vital to achieve this objective but the involvement of all the stakeholders is equally important.

In our case, the economic aspects of power generation from nuclear fuel must accompany territorial development on the same level as the local issues arising from the management of radioactive waste. We are not expecting central government to provide everything. Indeed, in this case, we believe that central government should not be the only partner of the corresponding local or regional authorities.

We are ready, and this is a suggestion which I am making within the framework of today’s conference, to draw up objective agreements with the economic sector for the creation of business opportunities. That goes without saying. But we are also willing to draw up agreements on environmental matters and safety. We are convinced that such direct discussion would constitute a major advance for our notion of local development and also, no doubt, for the management of corporations that must take better account of the popular dimension of their business.

As you can see, our view of governance can be summed up as a real, sincere partnership, a partnership which would make it possible to look at the complexity of these topics from every point of view and to cope with the huge demand for information and acknowledgement that it quite legitimately arouses on the part of people closely or more remotely connected with the area that would be impacted by the new facilities or whose convictions are being put to the test.

The project for the research facility in Bure is, of course, the reference from which I have drawn the conclusions that I have described in a more general manner.

I can categorically state that the local dimension of this project has not been given adequate consideration by its managers. The situation in which we find ourselves, only two years before the end of the legal framework laid down by the Bataille Law, is arousing too many questions and doubts.

The law provided for the construction of a second research facility. Does the absence of this second facility not cast some doubt on the sincerity of the entire project?

What arrangements are there for assistance after 2006 and how can it be rescheduled in the light of current delays?

I could unfortunately go on and on raising questions like these, none of which have been answered at the present time and all of which are arousing fears and, in some cases, giving rise to false debates.

I very recently had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister of Industry, Mr. Devedjian, who has just reached a decision on the issue. I expressed my satisfaction at the way in which he formally expressed the need for national debate involving local players. My position was more qualified with regard to the possibility of the government choosing a second research site. In my opinion, there is no question of this being a “possibility”; it is a commitment which entered the statute books with the Bataille Law of which it is an integral part!

Mr. Devedjian wants to leave time for national consideration of the issue. I agree, if this delay means calmer discussion and a more in-depth look at the preliminary studies and experiments.

However, these delays should not become escape routes. Nor should they allow us to deviate from the main objective. We had the courage of our convictions and we have been living with them for ten years. We are ready to go on playing our part in the discussion process – we owe this to the country and to future generations.

The Minister confirmed to me that a new law will be discussed in 2006 to cover the “post-Bataille” period. This will give our Parliament an opportunity to confirm our position as full partners in a debate and will also, I am sure, confirm a chance for development in our département.

However, this conference is not the right time for the filing of pro domo pleas and this afternoon’s round table will give us an opportunity to take a closer look at our expectations and fears with regard to Bure. In my opinion, they are a perfect illustration of the problems involved in the governance of nuclear waste.

When we reach a coffee or lunch break, please take a look at our brochures and talk to the representatives of our Tourist Board. Meuse is a magnificent place, remember, and you will be given the warmest of welcomes here.

Message from Patrick Devedjian

Patrick Devedjian, Minister Delegate for Industry – Although I cannot be with you today, I should like to express my support for this second session of Les Entretiens européens and begin by paying homage to the organisers, the Chairmen of the “county councils”, Bruno Sido and Christian Namy.

This second conference is looking at topics with a European dimension, for many countries are faced with the same problem. It also has a national dimension since we are in a context created by the Bataille Law of 30th December 1991 and it has a local dimension since we are discussing the question of a new research facility.

The two topics selected for the conference, an examination of strategies for the management of radioactive waste in France and Europe and a look at the conditions for sustainable development in the corresponding geographical areas, are absolutely vital. The government is paying particular attention to this crucial issue i.e. waste management.

As you know, we are preparing for parliamentary debate in 2006. It is vital that everything should be done to ensure that it is undertaken in the best possible conditions. In the 1991 law, France laid down three areas of research for the management of long-lived high-level radioactive waste, namely separation-transmutation, deep geological disposal and long-term storage. With this in mind, an independent public body called Andra was set up in addition to the CEA and granted significant funding. Major work has been undertaken with the scientific community on a national and international level. The work has been analysed by the “national assessment committee”[1], independently and as an on-going process. The reports were forwarded to the authorities and to the “parliamentary offices for the assessment of scientific and technological choices”[2]. Given the quality of the work undertaken over the past 15 years, it is essential that the results be widely discussed and this will result in parliamentary debate in 2006. I intend to do my utmost to ensure that the debate is open, transparent and fruitful.

In the run-up to this debate, one of the priorities must be to provide our citizens with information that is factual, clear, easy to understand and of high quality. Andra has published a national inventory of radioactive waste and materials with possible added value. Its detailed presentation early in 2005 will bring it more widely to public attention and this will be an opportunity to collect suggestions for a second edition in 2006.

The debate in 2006 must take place free from any preconceived ideas and be accompanied by an effort to increase public knowledge of the issues. Sweeping national consultation should reveal the anxieties and proposals of the stakeholders in civil society. The contacts established during 2005 between researchers, the parliamentary assessment office and the national assessment committee will be essential in paving the way. Once the independent assessment has been completed, the government will publish a White Paper containing its proposals which will be submitted for wide-ranging consultation during the second half of 2005, in the run-up to the presentation, early in 2006, of a draft law that will have been given long, careful consideration.

As I have said, the topics for discussion at this conference are essential when choosing a solution to the problem of waste management.

The first round table will provide an opportunity for an analytical comparison between France and leading nuclear countries whose experience can be a precious source of scientific and organisational information. We have a great deal to learn from Sweden and Finland, where there was effective dialogue, when the time comes for us to reach a decision in accordance with a transparent democratic procedure implemented under the watchful eye of Parliament. Effective dialogue is essential in areas such as this where we are making commitments that will be binding upon future generations, because it is a guarantee of democratic legitimacy.

The second round table concerns partnership with local authorities with a view to sustainable development, an issue of obvious relevance. As soon as the 1991 law entered the statute books, measures were taken to pave the way for the opening of a research facility in the local environment, in particular through the setting up of public interest groups. Of course, whatever the final decision proposed, the draft law will have to deal with these questions on the economic environment. It would be a great pity to continue as we have done before, without questioning the appropriateness of the existing system in the light of the actual economic context, and without reviewing its effectiveness and the possibilities for improvement. Based on the feedback I have received, I should like us to take effective measures for the post-2006 period. To this end, the public authorities must work with local authorities and pay more attention to their real areas of concern. It goes without saying that any underground research facility will be set up in a zone with little industry and little urban development. This makes it difficult to then develop economic projects that will bring a structure to the area. The government is considering the matter and, in the case of Meuse and Haute-Marne, it has asked for assistance from the French agency for international investments[3].

When nuclear power and waste management are discussed, the issues are so emotive that they immediately arouse fear, as a number of dramatic events have recently reminded us. It is therefore necessary to ensure that we work faultlessly to implement extensive, democratic debate. We have to learn from this work which I would encourage you to set in motion and for which I wish you every success.

First Round Table

Chairman: Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca, Vice-President of the European Parliament, Spain

Panellists: Gabor Buday, Science and Technology Director with PURAM, Hungary; Bruno Lescoeur, Director of Energy, EDF; Irena Mele, Strategic Adviser, ARAO, Slovenia; Serge Perez, member of the National Bureau of FNME CGT; Etienne Pochon, Director of Assets and Rehabilitation, CEA; Philippe Pradel, Director of Processing-Recycling-Logistics, COGEMA; Olof Söderberg, Chairman of the Fund for the management of nuclear waste, Adviser to KASAM, Sweden.

Claude Fischer – I should like to thank Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca, Vice-President of the European Parliament, for having done us the honour of chairing this round table. He was a rapporteur to the Parliament for the directive on nuclear waste. Les Entretiens also enjoy partnership with Community institutions and, as I should like to emphasise, with Areva, CEA and EDF, all of whom I should like to thank. At least they are taking part in discussions, which is not always the case for companies.

Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca, Vice-President of the European Parliament – The title of this round table reflects the discussions that have been taking place recently in European institutions. Early in 2003, the Commission prepared what is known as the “nuclear package” which, in particular, included a draft directive from the Council on the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and another draft directive laying down the obligations and general principles regarding the safety of nuclear facilities. In its December 2003 report, the European Parliament gave its opinion and proposed a number of amendments to these texts. However, because of a blocking minority within the Council, the directives were rejected. Only the conclusions in support of the Commission’s proposals were passed, which means that they can be complied with on a voluntary basis but are not legally enforceable. Since then, the Commission has tabled a revised proposal, which has been forwarded to the Parliament for further discussion. Before commenting on this proposal, it is important to remind ourselves of some of the details.

The annual production of waste within Wider Europe is of the order of 45,000 m³ and producers of nuclear waste are under an obligation to provide management of this waste and bear related costs, in line with the “Polluter Pays” principle. These costs are partly covered by the price of electricity paid by the consumer, based on the same principle i.e. he who benefits from the production of electricity also contributes to the creation of waste. This being so, some of the profits obtained from the sale of electricity are used for the management of radioactive waste.

The way in which these funds are collected varies. In Belgium, costs linked to the management of radioactive waste are paid by electricity consumers and the users of radioactive materials in the medical sector and industry and are managed by Ondraf. In France, Andra, an independent public industrial and commercial body of waste producers placed under the control of the Ministries of Industry, Research and the Environment, is financed by the producers of waste in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” principle. The level of contribution varies depending on the quantity of waste produced. In Finland, power companies contribute to the fund for the management of nuclear waste and, every year, the authorities check that the payments made correspond to actual requirements. In Germany, each producer pays into its own contingency fund and makes payments in advance to cover the cost of waste storage facilities.

In certain Member States, the management of waste is closely linked to the funding set aside for the future decommissioning of nuclear facilities. This is the case in Sweden where a common national fund for the management of waste and the funding of decommissioning costs is subscribed to by each producer in proportion to production. Italy is a fairly significant case. Since taking a decision in 1986 to shut down nuclear power plants, the funds set aside for decommissioning by the national company Enel[4] have proved inadequate to cover the costs and new financial resources have had to be sought.

The initial version of the draft directive on the safety of nuclear facilities contained a section on funding for decommissioning but this section was deleted. At the end of October, the Commission indicated that the chapter would be the subject of a recommendation in the very near future.

The new Member States have also drawn up funding policies for the management of waste. Slovenia did so in 1994 when it set up a fund for the management of waste storage and possible decommissioning operations. The fund is managed by an independent institution and paid into by companies on a monthly basis in accordance with the amount of electricity produced. In the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Finance has been managing a “nuclear fund” since 1997. The fund receives payments from the producers of waste. In Hungary, a public agency for the management of radioactive waste was set up in 1998, with funds to finance waste-processing activities.

I should like to come back to the subject of the Commission’s proposal and emphasise that, although the European Parliament supports the approach aimed at giving the European Union legislation to cover the management of radioactive waste, it refused to consider any form of Community timetable for the issuing of authorisations for the development and operation of final waste disposal facilities. It expressed a wish to give Member States a free hand, to leave them to schedule their own dates for compliance with the demand for disposal site safety. The European Parliament prefers to let each Member State publish an individual national programme that integrates its own technical, geological, political and economic aspects. Account was also taken of the amendments on information for the general public, aimed at providing a greater degree of transparency on the management of radioactive waste and progress in the decision-making process, especially as regards the criteria for the selection of final waste disposal sites. Moreover, the new texts place particular emphasis on research and development in waste management.

The aim of standardising radioactive waste management at a European level to enable better cooperation between States does not prevent each Member State from choosing whichever technical variation seems more appropriate to its own particular situation. The final aim is safe management of waste in accordance with viable environmental principles and the safety of all.

Yves Le Bars, Chairman of the Board of Management of Andra – I will introduce the discussion by relating Andra’s experience and comparing the situation of other players in Europe and worldwide. In France, the 1991 law gave Andra responsibility, outside any industrial framework, for the long-term management of all radioactive waste which, if not biodegradable, is degradable over time. This is an advantage compared to chemical waste but it presupposes very long-term management.

Waste is produced throughout the process used to produce electricity using nuclear fuel and the decommissioning of facilities will generate more. For very low-level waste, there is a storage facility in Morvilliers. There is another, in Soulaines, for low and intermediate-level waste. Facilities at La Hague and Marcoule cater for high-level waste and unprocessed spent fuels, but this is a temporary solution. The 1991 Law instigated a procedure for the definition of long-term management solutions for the stored waste and this work should reach a decisive stage in 2006. A similar situation exists in Sweden and Finland.

Andra operates as no more than a technical and research operator required to implement a public policy defined by Parliament and funded on the “Polluter Pays” principle. A four-yearly public contract details the work required of the Agency and it, in turn, is careful to comply with the limits of the contract.

Its primary purpose is the management of storage facilities for very low, low and intermediate-level waste, the collection of waste from small producers and the cleaning up of sites. The Agency is not involved in the industrial management of high-level waste. Indeed, it is prohibited by law from taking radioactive waste into its laboratory, even for research purposes.

The Agency’s information and inventory mission consists of supplying clear, verifiable information on radioactive waste. One example of this work is the recent publication of the new inventory. Numerous documents and a CD are also available and can be ordered from the Andra website where this is a large quantity of data.

The third area of the Agency’s work is research and this is the area of concern to Meuse and Haute-Marne, with the underground facility at Bure. In 2005, this work will lead to the publication of a document containing almost 8,000 pages on the feasibility of reversible deep geological storage. The conclusions will be independently published and will not seek to please any particular group. They will be based solely on the data and scientific and technical experiments carried out jointly with more than 80 laboratories in France and worldwide. Andra’s work is assessed by the “national assessment committee” (CNE, Commission nationale d’évaluation) set up by the 1991 law, by an international scientific peer group and by international panels in particular at the OECD and the Nuclear Energy Agency.

In drafting its conclusions, Andra draws on scientific expertise and on experiments carried out on and below the surface in the facility in Bure (e.g. microseismic experiments) as well as in underground facilities at Mont Terri in Switzerland, Mol in Belgium and in Sweden. The Agency also bases its conclusions on the work carried out by numerous public and private research facilities and on the expertise (in the architecture and design of mining and storage facilities) of design offices and companies in France, Belgium and South Africa.

This is Andra’s contribution to the decision that is to be made. The Agency merely submits its results and analyses to provide baseline information for decisions taken by other people. I should like to insist on this point because many people think, or pretend to think, that it is the experts who take the decision. This is not the case.

On another point, what is the situation in the various countries as regards the organisation and ownership of waste and the relevant funding mechanisms? What solutions have leading nuclear countries found to manage high-level long-lived waste? To date, neither France, the UK nor Canada have reached a decision on long-term storage, geological disposal or other solutions. They are working on it and have given themselves more or less the same date for decision-making i.e. 2005 or 2006. Other countries have decided on geological disposal as the solution to the problem of very long-term management. This is particularly so in Germany. Sweden is looking into possible sites but has not yet reached a final decision. Finland and the USA have each selected one site on which they are currently studying projects. France, through the 1991 law, has set up an unusual programme of work that involves studying a storage feasibility sector before reaching any decision for the long term.

In every country, the approach to the problem involves a number of stages, and a number of decisions taken over a period of decades. In other words, no country will have a “grand gala evening” for the management of radioactive waste i.e. a final date on which everything will stop, set in stone for evermore.

How are the various stakeholders organising themselves in the various countries? At the end of 2003, Edram, the club for the directors of agencies similar to Andra, looked at the question of ownership of radioactive waste and the cost of its long-term management. From the comparisons made, it became obvious firstly that, wherever progress was being sought, there was an independent agency but not always with the same responsibilities. Some are responsible solely for the management of high-level waste and spent fuel; others have responsibility for all waste.

The agencies all have a different status but they fall into two groups – public agencies and nationalised companies on the one hand, and subsidiaries of waste producers on the other (although in this case there is special control by the government and the subsidiaries are often mandatory and defined by law, as is the case in Canada, for example). In the USA, the agency is a ministerial department within the Department of Energy. In Spain, the agency is also responsible for decommissioning facilities. In Belgium, Ondraf is required to draw up an inventory of liabilities i.e. assess whether or not the companies producing the radioactive waste are making adequate provisional payments.

Who is responsible for waste and how does ownership change over time? On this point, the situation again varies from one country to another. Responsibility is transferred to the operator or to central government when the waste is removed from a storage facility in the USA, Belgium and Spain. The transfer occurs on arrival at the disposal site in Japan, the UK and Germany and upon closure of the disposal facility in Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. In France and Canada, the producers have full responsibility and, in theory at least, it remains theirs for all time.

The round table will also look at funding mechanisms and this will lead to a comparison of the financial systems and the mechanism by which funds are topped up. There will also be a comparison of the definition of necessary funding, control of the definition of funding and, finally, control of the use of the funds.

It is worth noting that, to date, funding has been set up in every country studied except the UK where the role of the various players is currently being redefined, Germany where the government provides preliminary finance and is then reimbursed by producers and France where provision is made through the accounts of EDF and Areva, with a specific fund currently being set up at the CEA.

Where such funds exist, they are topped up by a tax on electricity produced from nuclear fuel. Often, a payment is requested when the fund is first set up, to take account of existing waste. The definition of the amount required for these funds is a major issue. Depending on the country, it may be defined by law, by the independent public agency, by the mandatory subsidiary of waste producers or by the producers themselves. It is often the government which controls the use of the funds although in some cases it is a high-level authority. The methods used to re-assess the resources required deserve particular attention because, depending on the method used, a financial burden may or may not be placed on taxpayers or future consumers.

In conclusion, France has adopted a high-quality working method, with responsible players and, in particular, an independent agency. Based on the 1991 law, it will be up to the government and Parliament to decide on the best long-term management of high-level nuclear waste, and this decision must be reached freely, based on the conclusions provided by the research sector, conclusions which are scientific and technical in nature but neither social nor political.

For its part, Andra is awaiting decisions in several areas. Firstly, what will the management strategy be for high-level long-lived waste in France? What consideration will be given to storage (and for how long) and what will the place of deep geological disposal be in the scheme of things? How quickly will the process be undertaken? Will provision be made for reversibility and the possibility of transmutation? These questions are applicable to every category of waste, whether the so-called “B-grade” or technological waste, the so-called “C-grade” waste from vitrified fissile materials or the spent fuels, UOX and MOX.

Moreover, what will the future timetable be for Andra if storage is still envisaged? How much time will it be given in which to draft a project? Even if the research were to be stopped, it will be necessary to use what has already been done and capitalise on knowledge so that we can be sure of having maximised past investment.

How will research be financed after 2006, the year that marks the end of the four-year agreement? And in the longer term, what ongoing funding mechanism will there be to ensure that the current generation really does take responsibility for the long-term management of its own waste rather than bringing the cost to bear on future generations?

Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca – Mr. Le Bars’ paper has shown that the diversity of situations requires a consistent, if flexible, framework and standardisation across Europe so that there can be an exchange of good practices and a feeling of confidence among our citizens.

Gabor Buday, Science and Technology Director, PURAM, Hungary – I am delighted to be given an opportunity to describe the situation in one of the “newcomers” to the European Union. Hungary has a nuclear waste management and processing authority which, as in other countries, is a public body. Ours is a small country but our nuclear programme is far from negligible. Radioactive waste comes from two sources – firstly, our power plant i.e. a pressurised water reactor in the centre of the country near the Danube, which produces 1,700 megawatts or 40% of the country’s needs, and secondly, like everywhere else, from industrial and farming sectors although this second category is much smaller. In all, we produce approximately 30 to 40 tonnes of nuclear waste every year, mainly of the intermediate-level type although we produce a small amount of high-level long-lived waste.

To store intermediate and high-level long-lived waste, we have one ad hoc site opened in 1996. Our agency, PURAM, has been asked to find a solution to the problem of the disposal of other radioactive waste. As far as funding is concerned, we set up the Hungarian nuclear fund in 1998. It receives money from the power plant, and will continue to do so throughout its life. It also receives funding from polluting industries. The fund holds 200 million euros at the present time and we are crruently revising the level of taxation, having learnt our lesson in previous years and drawn on the experiences of other countries.

We have four waste management projects in hand. At present, we already have one temporary storage site for dry modular storage and it has been operating for the past seven years without any problem. We also have a storage facility for low and intermediate-level waste in the north of the country, used solely for waste from small-scale users. We are currently upgrading this site to bring it into line with European regulations. Thirdly, we are investing in a facility for low and intermediate-level waste from the nuclear power plant. This project is underway at the present time. The local people are well aware of what we are doing and they are supportive of the project. Finally, we want to set up a dedicated site for high-level long-lived waste but as it does not have to be operational until 2047 we still have time to study it. In Hungary, we have subsoil that is very suitable for deep geological disposal and we are currently selecting geological disposal sites.

Bruno Lescœur, Director of Energy, EDF – Last year in Nogent, I described the importance placed by EDF on the management of waste not only in the Europe of the Fifteen but also in new Member States. I also indicated our interest in the proposals tabled by the European Commission which, in its Green Paper, emphasised the problems of supply and safety in the fields of energy and the environment, within the framework of the Kyoto Agreement and the fight against the greenhouse effect.

The questions of safety and the environment are more than ever front page news, proving just how important it is to keep nuclear power as one of our sources of supply.

However, having said this, what are we to do with the waste? The European Union drew up two draft directives but neither was adopted. EDF has joined the other electricity suppliers in Europe in the debate raised by this initiative and we shall continue to do so. As an electricity producer, we intend to act responsibly and this is particularly true as regards operating safety in nuclear power plants and the processing of final waste.

At the Entretiens in Nogent, I described EDF’s policy on waste management. We are trying to reduce the volume of operating and maintenance waste from our power plants to a minimum and we carry out selective sorting of waste based on possible use, the possibility of recycling, and the level of radioactivity since this determines conditioning. Finally, we are trying to define safe disposal for each category of final waste.

At present, we have a solution for 98% of waste. All that remains is the 2% of high-level long-lived waste produced by the processing of spent fuel. This is currently vitrified and stored on a temporary basis in La Hague. We have a responsibility not to leave future generations to take the decision and bear its financial consequences. Solutions do exist. It will be up to Parliament to make a choice and define a timetable for implementation.

Michel Marie, representative of the Collectif meusien contre l’enfouissement des déchets radioactifs and member of the CLIS[5] – Well, why are you building the EPR if no decision has yet been taken?

Bruno Lescoeur – How is waste management funded in the long term? We contribute 0.14 centimes per kWh for the 40-year lifespan of a power plant to pay for the cost of decommissioning. To offset the cost of processing spent fuel and waste, we make a provision of 0.15 centimes per kWh, as do others elsewhere. When I say “provision”, I mean that I intend to make clients cover all the costs that they incur. In accordance with current law, these provisions are entered in EDF’s balance sheet but there are other systems such as dedicated funds for some of these provisions. In the USA, for example, central government takes responsibility for ensuring that the future costs of waste processing are covered but the decommissioning of power plants is paid for from external funds, with the safety authority monitoring the balance between resources and costs. We will be playing our part in drafting the best possible definition within the framework of the European electricity industry, an entity which is still in its infancy.

Finally, we fully understand the expectations of local and regional authorities in Meuse and Haute-Marne. I can assure them that EDF is determined to make its contribution in accordance with its responsibility as a producer.

Irena Mele, ARAO strategy adviser, Slovenia – Slovenia has one of the world’s smallest waste management programmes. It is true that the country has only one power plant, which it shares with Croatia, one reactor and one uranium mine which is currently being closed down. In small countries, management of this type has a number of specific aspects. For example, having only small quantities of waste to process means that management costs are higher while human and financial resources are more limited. Joint ownership of a power plant is a source of additional difficulties, as is its gradual shutdown. Finally, there is the very low level of acceptance by the general public.

Despite this, we have implemented a waste management strategy which, as in other larger or smaller countries, is aimed at ensuring that safety meets international standards. Our laws on the nuclear industry were passed several years ago and were updated in 2002 in line with new international recommendations on the apportionment of responsibilities between regulatory authorities and producers. We have a regulatory authority, a management agency responsible for the storage of all types of waste, and separate management of waste on the power plant site for which the operator is responsible. Waste from small producers, on the other hand, is centrally managed.

In the long term, our management strategy takes account of all the stages in the life of the sites, including the decommissioning phase. A different form of storage is planned for low-level waste from the dismantling of sites and for spent fuel and high-level waste or waste produced by the decommissioning of the power plant. Of course, all decisions on management must be taken jointly with Croatia and funding is provided by both countries. Our power plant is expected to last for another twenty years or, to be more precise, until 2023 but we have already taken the necessary steps to prepare for the future. Ten years ago a special decommissioning fund was set up as a legal entity with financial resources. These resources were designed to cover the cost of storage of power plant waste, in accordance with the 1996 decommissioning plan. Funding is provided by a contribution from the power plant (two eurocentimes per kWh). By the end of 2003, the fund had accumulated more than 10 million euros. In March 2004, the management and decommissioning plan was reviewed with Croatia. The revised programme aims to provide a closer estimate of the needs that will have to be covered by the two national funds already in place.

All in all, we are trying to face up to our responsibilities, to the best of our abilities given our lack of size, the specifics of our situation and the possibilities of our programme. We are doing so safely and funding has been planned to finance any adaptations required, even in the long term.

Serge Perez, member of the National Bureau of the FNME, CGT – Does nuclear waste management create any value in the capitalist sense of the term? No, because if it did, there would be a market and operators trying to profit from it. This means that companies are not motivated to deal with the problem, in a purely commercial sense. Yet they do deal with it because it is a sensitive area in which the operators, i.e. the electricity producers, are well advised to show that they are concerned about the end product. The nuclear power industry is well aware of this. In fact, in a non-commercial sense, the management of nuclear waste creates value. There are a number of aspects that could be considered. For example, reprocessing creates value in as much as it produces stocks of plutonium and uranium that can be used in the longer term. Investment in the search for a second laboratory site can create value in the relevant geographical area, just as investment in advanced reprocessing creates scientific, technological and industrial value such as possible investment in incineration. France’s involvement in the existing European programme and in the Generation IV programme will also create non-merchantable value in the longer term.

There is another vital question – who defines the strategy for the management of nuclear waste? In my opinion, it should be the State. Let us imagine a hypothetical situation in which EDF and Enel join forces to build a nuclear power plant in Southern Italy. If such were to be the case, who would be the owner of the waste? The European Union under the terms of the Euratom Treaty? Under what conditions? Only the States can deal with such issues. With regard to France in particular, it is responsible for “historic” waste and it must therefore use adequate legislation (which could usefully be part of a European framework) to oblige companies working in this sector to deal with the matter correctly. This is one of the reasons why the relevant companies have to earn money. It’s good for the workers and for employment but it also ensures that the waste will be managed properly.

Funding this activity involves considerable sums of money for which companies such as EDF or Areva have made provision in their accounts, while the CEA has set up a dedicated fund. In all cases, specific budgets must be clearly identified and, more importantly, rigorously upheld and guaranteed by the corresponding collateral. They must be as large as possible and this leads to the involvement of other parties in their establishment e.g. central government, local and regional authorities, operators and even citizens.

Etienne Pochon, Director of Assets and Rehabilitation, CEA – The Commissariat à l’énergie atomique, a public research authority set up more than fifty years ago, has been involved in the nuclear industry from the outset. The Commissariat had to store nuclear waste at a time when there were no regulations on the matter and it has had to draw up a rehabilitation plan in order to be able to continue with its research and development work while ensuring the credibility of the nuclear industry. The plan is subdivided into various chapters – the rehabilitation of research centres i.e. the management of waste before 1992, the management of spent fuel by recycling if possible and by the conditioning of final waste; the management of radioactive sources; the rehabilitation of decommissioned sites; the rehabilitation of the environment around decommissioned sites; the development of processes allowing for the transformation of waste with a view to disposal; and, finally, the renewal of end-of-life sites. All these activities were defined in 1991 but they remained to be funded. An agreement was signed for this purpose by the CEA, EDF and Cogema for the period from 1993 to 1999. After 1999, and for three years, funding was obtained through grants, an uncomfortable system given that the finance was subject to annual arbitration by Parliament. This is why, in 2001, it was decided to set up a dedicated fund. The system works well, allowing for efficient, perfectly transparent management of each project. However, there is a need to preserve the absolute “watertightness” of such funding, which is totally different to the grant system.

Philippe Pradel, Director of the Processing-Recycling-Logistics Division at Cogema – Cogema sorts recyclable materials and conditions final waste to the best of its abilities. An international classification is used to list the various categories of waste processed. The prospective inventory shows that, in 2004, we are producing ten times less high-level long-lived waste in terms of volume than was planned in 1991. This is the result of fifteen years of research and industrialisation. As far as the inalterability of such waste is concerned, i.e. its resistance to water or other means of corrosion, the advantage of biodegradability can be found in inalterable packaging.

Philippe Pradel – Conditioning waste in inalterable packaging lets us take our time in choosing long-term solutions. However, I am well aware that the collective consciousness sometimes creates unreasonable fears. I would therefore invite anybody interested to come and see the Cogema Centre in La Hague, to see for themselves what the waste actually looks like.

François Godinot, Managing Director of Meuse Chamber of Commerce and Industry – Where will the German and Japanese “B-grade” waste be stored?

Olof Söderberg, President of the dedicated fund for the management of nuclear waste, and adviser to Kasam (Sweden) – During the life cycle of a power plant, we have to make provision for the cost of managing future waste. The setting up of a reliable, equitable fund enables governments and operators to plan this activity. Yves Le Bars has indicated that there are various funding mechanisms, some of them internal to operators, others external. Each country has to define its own most appropriate system but the main aim is to remove all uncertainty. To this end, we have to check on the accuracy of the financial calculations and the type of resources that will be made available for these funds, or even the correct management of these resources. We also have to decide when the fund will be used. In Sweden, a very good system has been implemented but uncertainties remain. We therefore have to draw up a strict framework for the funding system and trust the population to manage it correctly. However, much will depend on the future capacity for funding.

DISCUSSION

Michel Marie – I should like to dispute the statements that have been made today. It is obvious that, “the bigger the lie, the louder it has to be said!” Rather than talking about the management of nuclear waste, it would be more appropriate to talk about its ingestion or the indigestion it causes! Over the years, it has been claimed that the nuclear industry is a “clean” industry. Yet it cannot be all that clean since it produces waste! Moreover, we have heard about the disposal of A-grade waste in Soulaines, but now we are being told that there is also B-grade and C-grade waste there. And what about all the other waste mentioned in the Andra inventory? How can anybody claim that the nuclear industry is “clean”? Moreover, how exactly is this waste managed? In Soulaines, on-ground storage will have to last for at least three centuries! The man in the street may not be an expert but he is well aware of the fact that all this is totally lacking in common sense, and people are not interested in the so-called “solutions” currently in the preparation stage.

André Ferron Engineer, Confrontations Europe – I should like to come back to the regional solutions as regards disposal and storage. In Slovenia, the cost of waste management is huge. This is why the country has decided to join forces with Croatia. And although I have doubts about the relevance of the regional sites, I am convinced of the need for financial solidarity. On another point, the CEA now has a dedicated fund but this is not the case for EDF or Areva. Would it not be possible to envisage a fund that would be common to all three businesses, with a part of the finance also being managed by central government and the “counties” of Haute-Marne and Meuse?

Danielle Charlemagne, citizen from Haute-Marne – It is impossible to prove that confinement will remain effective until the waste has lost all radioactivity. Yet we continue to push on with it and in doing so we are condemning future generations to death.

Pierre Audigier, Emeritus Engineer – In addition to the problem of the application of the “Polluter Pays” principle, there is the problem of cost management, both during the pre-feasibility study phase and during the construction of the disposal site. Who is responsible for this management?

Philippe Leclercq, “County Councillor” of Lorraine, responsible for the development of participatory democracy in the Lorraine Region – I am representing Mr. Masseret, Chairman of the Regional Council. Since everybody is in favour of in-depth discussions, all that remains is to organise a referendum and I am ready to do just that. What will happen in Hungary in this respect? Will the population be asked for its opinion?

Yves Le Bars – The inventory of nuclear waste sites has been constantly improved. As to the above-ground storage facilities, they are a possibility although there must be a guarantee of sustainability for three centuries since this is the period required for the almost total disappearance of radioactivity, calculated on the based of radioactivity in caesium. Given that one drop of water takes 100,000 years to move one kilometre through clay, Andra wants to use this confinement capacity to look into the feasibility of underground disposal.

Michel Marie – Neither cyanide, lead, cadmium nor selenium degrade over time!

Yves le Bars – I would remind you that the debate on long-term management solutions is still on-going within the CLIS.

Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca – We have mentioned the possibility of co-managing a fund on a European level. This would undoubtedly be of interest to a country such as Slovenia?

Irena Mele – Since Slovenia only has one power plant (and even that one is jointly owned), it is difficult for our country to bear all the costs and this is a burden which weighs heavily on the operation of the plant. A European fund would therefore be very useful for “small” nuclear countries.

Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca – I believe that Yves Le Bars has answered the question of disposal. The question was also raised of controlling the costs of decommissioning.

Olof Söderberg – There is no simple answer to this question. Costs can only be limited by reviewing the calculations, if not every year, at least regularly. We also have to learn from our experience of decommissioning other power plants. We now have not inconsiderable experience in this and we should be able to see how the costs were covered so that we can prepare for the future.

Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca – One last question referred to participative democracy.

Serge Perez – This is a sensitive and emotionally-charged issue and my response is therefore only my own opinion. In some areas, we cannot place our trust blindly in the scientists. This means that it is up to politicians to shoulder the responsibilities. In my opinion, if we elect a Parliament, we should then leave it to do its work fully, calling on the necessary external expertise such as the CEA or an independent agency such as Andra or even qualified consultants. I elect somebody to represent me. If I am not satisfied with his or her work, I elect somebody else. That’s democracy.

Alejo Vidal Quadras Roca – Finland, where there was public debate, used a referendum.

Olof Söderberg – We have had a similar experience in Sweden, although with some differences. In both countries, we have tried to involve the local people in the decision-making process in various ways, for example by making it easier for town councils to gain full understanding of the problem through the allocation of special grants to compensate their members for time lost in going to information meetings and through funding work to provide the general public with information. The popular vote was used in Sweden at the beginning of the process. In Finland, which is less used to such practices, the vote was cast at municipal level and there was a clear majority of councillors in favour of the proposed process. If this had not been the case, the process would not have continued.

Solange Ducamin – As one of Lorraine’s regional councillors, I am particularly interested in this information, especially as, in France, we are far from having achieved citizen-based democracy. I have particularly noted that, in Scandinavian countries, elected representatives were helped to obtain information and I should like to second the proposals put forward by Philippe Leclercq. However, even with our limited means, we have made progress. However, in as much as Andra has not finished its research and the research into transmutation is not finished either, I wonder if it is not too early to be thinking of organising a parliamentary debate in 2005 and 2006? We should perhaps continue to obtain information as we have begun to do, for example thanks to the Andra inventory. At present, many of my colleagues in Lorraine and Champagne-Ardennes do not really know what is in the pipeline and I propose that we discuss the issue with them.

Given this context, is it not premature to launch an EPR project which is costly and which also produces waste, albeit waste that is less difficult to process?

Jean-Louis Bouzon – I am a “county councillor”, a Communist, and I was elected in the first round of voting, which is an important point. To the many experts here today, I would say this – it is not you who will decide on the future of Haute-Marne and Meuse because we who live there on a daily basis and who love this area and its population, do not want what you are proposing. You talk to us about tourism. What will the future be for tourism once we become a nuclear waste dump? My comrade from the CGT said that we should let democracy do its work, right to the end. All right. But today, local M.P.’s can be seen beside Mr. Raffarin who is visiting Haute-Marne. Their strategy is a case of “Be brave – Run for it!” Neither these parliamentarians nor I have received a mandate to take a decision in place of 400,000 local people. A trial of strength is underway. On 11th December, we are launching a huge petition with the aim of collecting 30,000 signatures in Haute-Marne and Meuse to ask for a referendum. This is quite legal and Messrs. Sido and Namy cannot oppose it. What do you think? Will you support our demand for a referendum?

Paul Rigny – Mine is a more technical question. Mr. Pochon said that solutions were available for nuclear waste. This is true for low-level waste but the decommissioning of power plants will produce a considerable volume of waste, much of it almost totally devoid of radioactivity. There is simply too much waste to be stored or disposed of in the selected sites. What arrangements have been made for this waste?

Bruno Lescœur – Four weeks ago, EDF contacted the national committee for public debate (commission nationale du débat public) about the construction of the EPR in Flamanville. The government has organised a debate leading up to the framework law on energy. For the moment, EDF has been mandated to build a a first EPR in Flamanville. After the public debate, we will draw our conclusions.

Yves le Bars – I should like to respond to rumours on Andra’s independence. Rather than using this term, I prefer to say that Andra is autonomous and totally clear as regards its dependency, which is linked to its funding on the “Polluter Pays” principle and to decisions taken by Parliament. Within this framework, we are free to carry out our research work and we do not aim, in our conclusions, to please any given party. In fact, our conclusions are assessed by several different panels.

It has also been said that Andra has not yet completed its research. As you know, the result of any research project is that “more research is needed”! It goes without saying that we have to continue and research is necessary at each stage in the definition of public policy. We will nevertheless table conclusions in 2005. Our information is available to all elected representatives. However, we work within the limits set for our role and that does not include the organisation of public debates.

As far as tourism is concerned, we have built up amenities around Soulaines in Aube and visitor numbers are on the rise.

Mr. Rigny, the information on the outcome of decommissioning waste is indicated on page 105 of our inventory. Low-level waste from plant operation and maintenance is taken to Soulaines, rubbish and scrap from demolition is taken to Morvilliers and high-level waste is stored in La Hague until such time as a final solution is found – this is the solution that we are discussing today.

Claude Fischer – We have a few parliamentarians with us today and I should like to welcome them, starting with those who are chairing our two sessions, former Members of the European Parliament Philippe Herzog and Rolf Linkohr, and Jean-Yves Le Déaut whom I would ask to take the floor.

Jean-Yves Le Déaut, M.P. for Meurthe-et-Moselle and Vice-Chairman of OPECST[6] – I have chosen to attend these discussions despite the fact that the National Assembly is engaged in studying draft legislation on the right to die with dignity, a subject of no less importance.

As I listen to you, my first impression is that there is a deep divide between the discussion at national level and the perception of this debate at grass roots’ level. Yes, Philippe Leclercq and Solange Ducamin are right. We need participative democracy. But it has to be organised and that is no simple matter. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the situation with GM crops. In conferences open to the general public, I have the feeling that we are in contact with only a small part of the population. Yet a referendum would not be a solution unless there had been real debate beforehand. Without it, the vote will reflect mainly the manner in which television has influenced public opinion; the man in the street will not really have understood the full implications and aspects of the subject.

Moreover, having been born and bred in Lorraine, I am concerned by the opening of the research facility but wonder about the most appropriate level for discussions? The region? If I am told that the two “counties” (départements) provide an adequate framework, my answer would be that we could equally well limit discussions to two towns. I believe that it is Parliament’s job to lay down general guidelines for the country. This does not mean that M.P.’s can ignore the opinion of the general public, believing that parliamentarians alone are mandated to deal with all social matters. On questions such as these, they have to turn to society. The energy debate is a major issue and we have to be convinced that what we are doing is right. This is much more difficult, in the final analysis, than expressing certainties like some of the speakers here this morning.

The global context is a complex one. We are spending increasing amounts of money on energy and in the very near future China and India will be demanding their share of the global energy supply. As long as we have not made any significant efforts at saving energy in the housing and transport sectors, our consumption will increase, so those who claim that we can set aside any one form of energy production immediately are wrong. However, having said this, it is perfectly legitimate to debate the use of nuclear energy. Discussions have taken place in Germany and Sweden. We have to continue the debate, bearing in mind that we cannot go on sending 19 billion tonnes of CO₂ up into the atmosphere. We will have a responsibility to shoulder once we reach our decision.

Jean-Yves Le Déaut – There is grave danger when the facilities are unsafe but safety is better controlled now. At the request of Lionel Jospin, I tabled a number of proposals on this issue in France.

In any case, even if we decide to abandon nuclear energy in the future, the waste is already there and we have to know what we are going to do with it.

Michel Marie – But it would be more honest not to produce any more before finding a solution to the waste processing problem we already have!

Jean-Yves Le Déaut – The Parliament has looked at the problem of waste management through the Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques and the Bataille Law. This does not mean that a single solution has been adopted; a number of possibilities are open to us. We have to take time to consider compliance with commitments on a national level, transparently and through public consultation. This debate is necessary. We cannot claim that it should not take place and, at the same time, state that there is a problem requiring an immediate solution at local level. The debate scheduled for 2006 must take place, based on the guidelines set in the 1991 law. If we consider, for example, that the law mentioned several research facilities and that we have only one project, in Bure, we are entitled to ask for more and the Parliament can claim that this is not yet the right time to take any final decision. Whatever happens, there will be one facility, in Bure or elsewhere. I, with other M.P.’s, have fought for a guarantee of reversibility and it is thanks to the research facility that we will be able to find out whether it is possible instead of upholding a few general claims. We cannot merely state that a given solution would be technically impossible. It is research and testing which will determine the outcome. The problem is the absence of dialogue.

Danielle Charlemagne – But the people of this country are not given a chance to express their opinions!

Jean-Yves Le Déaut – There will be three days of full discussion, open to the media and presenting all points of view, in Parliament on 20th January, 27th January and 3rd February 2005. After all, the French Parliament, like its counterparts elsewhere, has a major role to play in this respect. In Finland, for example, the Parliament voted unanimously (minus the votes of three Greens) to build a research facility close to a nuclear power station, a solution which has also been chosen by the USA. But whatever the solution, we shall still have to process the waste and research is therefore vital. Given the principle of subsidiarity, it is difficult to achieve a common position applicable to the whole of Europe but we know that reprocessing has advantages compared to the absence of reprocessing. It avoids the need for long-term disposal which requires permanent surveillance and a careful review of the site every 100 or 150 years. It also reduces the volume of waste. Mr. Robert Dautray has explained, in a paper presented to the French Academy of Sciences, that there is an urgent need to bury B-grade waste because, in his opinion, it constitutes an immediate danger for the general public. If this is so, what will happen to the German and Japanese waste?

I am not convinced that underground disposal is an absolute emergency but I would remind you that Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power and, at the same time, to proceed with definitive deep geological disposal of waste.

Jean-Yves Le Déaut – I dislike the term “population”. It is rather vague. Some problems have to be dealt with on a national level but, since Science cannot provide answers to all the outstanding problems, legitimate questions remain to be asked. It is true that the generations which have benefited from nuclear energy were not the generations that chose it but the waste now exists and the question of processing cannot be avoided. Should we leave future generations to bear the costs? A solution must be found before it is time to renew the power plants that are operational today. Failure to do so would be irresponsible.

Finland has decided on deep geological disposal but other countries have preferred other options. Moreover, if the question of reversibility is now being asked, which was not the case in 1991, it is thanks to the determination of certain members of parliament, including M.P.’s from Meuse who, it has to be said, have been working amid a certain level of general indifference.

Michel Marie – It remains to be seen whether reversibility is possible, which I strongly doubt.

Jean-Yves Le Déaut – We cannot take a strategic and industrial decision of this type without reliable scientific and technical information. Citizens are right to ask for greater transparency and more democracy when dealing with these questions and I shall do my best to ensure that this is achieved (Loud applause)

Claude Fischer – I should like to thank all of you for the quality of the discussion but I cannot resist quoting poet Charles Péguy, “I cannot bear those who ask for everything without having done anything to obtain it; I find them impolite”. And I would invite all our friends who “take advantage” of Les Entretiens to broadcast their messages to organise their own public debates.

A member of the audience – But as far as nuclear waste is concerned, citizens would have to have the necessary resources to do it!

Claude Fischer – You have to go out and look for resources because there is no doubt that democracy comes at a price!

Paper from David McCauley

David McCauley, Chief Policy Adviser to the Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division at the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada – I should like to describe the successful changes that have taken place over the past decade in legislative and regulatory policy on the management of nuclear waste in Canada, a country which is implementing a major programme for the production of nuclear energy, with the entire production cycle occurring in the country itself. Nuclear energy is the responsibility of the federal government and is produced within a legislative framework defined in four laws – the law on safety and regulations relating to the nuclear industry, the law on nuclear energy, the law on waste from nuclear fuel and the law on nuclear responsibility. The Parliament and government have three agencies working for them: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Waste is stored in various sites across the country (including open-cast mines), either immersed or in dry storage. Canada does not reprocess its nuclear waste because it considers that the process is not economically viable. We had 2 million cubic metres of low-level waste (mainly waste from past years) in 2003.

Under the terms of the 1996 law on the management of radioactive waste, the producers and owners of waste were already responsible for the management of final waste and the funding and organisation of this management, under the control of the federal government which monitors compliance with legal requirements. However, by clarifying these responsibilities, the introduction of a new legal framework advanced the long-term management of nuclear waste. After an extensive programme of research into geological disposal launched twenty years ago, the Seaborne Panel concluded that, although the idea was technically acceptable, socially it was not. Following this conclusion, the Canadian government drafted the law on spent nuclear fuel which entered the statute books on 15th November 2002 and defined a decision-making framework designed to build up public confidence. The law required nuclear operators to set up the Nuclear Waste Management Organization which would consult with public opinion, in particular the American Indian population, then propose various approaches to the government, before 15th November 2005, with a view to a long-term solution to the problem of managing spent fuel. The law also required waste producers and owners to build up special funding to finance the long-term management of nuclear waste. In other words, the policy for the management of nuclear waste was refocussed on social acceptability.

As far as the low-level “historic” waste is concerned, most of it was disposed of near Port Hope in Ontario in the 1930’s in conditions that would no longer be acceptable today and contamination was detected during the 1990’s. When requests were made for the decommissioning of these disposal sites, the companies that managed the stocks at the time looked for a new site and tried to convince the local people of the justification for the facility. Major controversy arose and the government was unsuccessful in its attempts at calming the situation. It therefore set up an independent working party which contacted towns in Ontario and tried to convince them to volunteer as a disposal site. One of them did so. An agreement was drafted and a referendum held. In the end, however, the government could not agree to the terms and the proposal never got off the ground.

The government then contacted the “sources” and, with experts, looked at ways of disposing of the waste in situ using a process initiated from the bottom up. Town Councils passed a certain number of resolutions which were forwarded to the government and it, in turn, accepted them as the basis for a legal agreement for the long term. This agreement was accompanied by funding to finance technical assessments and measure the long-term consequences on property values. The towns were also granted a right of veto. If, as a result of the assessments, they wished to abandon their project, they would be entitled to do so. The final decision will be taken in 2007.

For its part, the electricity generator Ontario power generation also signed an agreement with a local town called Kincardine for low and intermediate-level waste. A study has been scheduled for 2004 covering technical possibilities, safety, environmental protection and the socio-economic consequences of such management in the long term. Things are apparently looking good.

To sum up, the success of this type of policy depends on public confidence. Once the responsibilities were identified, we introduced an approach that focussed on the local community and although the process has not yet been completed, it is well on its way.

Claude Fischer – This is an example that will arouse a great deal of envy.

Pierre Audigier – What policy will the federal government adopt if none of the basic communities agrees to a waste disposal site?

Jean-Charles Bellot – I am speaking on behalf of the Union fédérale des syndicats du nucléaire within the CFDT trade union. What we have just heard is interesting because we have to find a way of making a solution to the problem of waste acceptable. Without it, there can be no solution for the industry itself. Those in charge of the nuclear industry have to realise that the public wishes to express its opinion. This takes time and money but it is a requirement in a democracy. If we make the necessary effort, we will find a site. Personally, I work in La Hague. I know the risks but I also know the solutions. We can provide information honestly by recognising the difficulties, explaining the possibilities and, if they are insufficient, in going further. If we have to use transmutation to eliminate nuclear waste in the future, then we have to make the necessary resources available and use an approach that is not only economic but also democratic. We have to leave central government to answer questions of general interest but we cannot say that Areva is not providing a public service. The way in which waste is processed and conditioned at the present time and the way in which we envisage transmutation will avoid placing the burden of cost on future generations.

David McCauley – If, in the end, no town agrees to go down this path, we have no other solution at the present time. One of the possibilities is the disposal of waste on the reactor site itself.

Second Round Table

Chairman: Giles Chichester, Member of the European Parliament, President of the European Parliament’s Industry, Technology, Research & Energy Commission (United Kingdom) and President of the European Energy Foundation;

Panellists: Dominique Bourg, Professor of Philosophy and Industrial Ecology, University of Troyes; Eric Delhaye, Spokesperson for Cap 21; Robert Fernbach, Mayor of Houdelaincourt, Member of the Bureau of CLIS; Markus Fritschi, Director of the Disposal Projects Division, NAGRA, Switzerland; Patrick Juillard, Director of the Science & Technology Park, Cherbourg; Jean-Marc Lambinon, Chairman of Haute-Marne Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Jorge Lang-Lenton, Director of Communications, ENRESA, Spain; Rolf Linkohr, Nuclear Physicist, Honorary President of the European Energy Foundation, former M.E.P, Germany; Denis Cordonnier, Vice-Chairman of Meuse “County Council”.

Giles Chichester, Member of the European Parliament – I should like to thank Claude Fischer for the invitation to chair this round table. It is quite a challenge. To begin with, I should like to say that, for anybody interested, my father, Francis Chichester, one of the great men of the sea, is the man who, with Tabarly, made sailing so popular in France. I come from a medium-sized publishing house specialising in power generation and a close journalist friend with whom I shared a passionate love of rowing also passed on to me his enthusiasm for nuclear power.

Yesterday, by sheer chance in the timetable, I met representatives of European towns and cities that host nuclear facilities. They were seeking allies in the European Parliament. For them, the nuclear industry is very important because it provides jobs and often those who work and live near the nuclear facilities state their support for nuclear power despite the fact that it is not as popular in other regions of Europe as it could be. In the same way, although I am a Conservative, I get on well with trade unions and recently I led a delegation of trade unionists from Sellafield at a meeting with Commissioner Loyola de Pallacio, since it is in our common interest to defend nuclear energy. Sellafield manages waste and has, in fact, become a tourist attraction. This has a knock-on effect on employment.

Personally, I often visit power plants and I enjoy these visits. In the general public’s eyes, this is the world of the unknown and it is this lack of knowledge that engenders fear. However, the more they know about the nuclear industry and the better they understand the technology behind it, the better the situation will be. In Sweden, for example, a number of towns were in competition, each of them wishing to be chosen as a site for the long-term disposal of waste. The residents are fully informed of the risks and advantages of a disposal facility so that they are in full possession of the facts before reaching a decision on its installation. When the general public feels that it really holds the keys to the decision, it will accept the outcome more easily, whatever it may be. Transparency and communication are vital if public opinion is to accept nuclear energy in particular. Personally, each time I attend a “nuclear event”, if I can call it that, I have the impression that I am learning something new. Recently, in Marcoule, I learnt about the French approach to transmutation, which is quite different to current opinion in the United Kingdom.

I suggest that we might begin our discussion with questions from the floor, which our guests on the platform will be able to answer in accordance with their specific expertise.

Bruno Comby – I am President of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy which has 6,000 members in 15 countries. Our ethical duty is to deal with problems without leaving them for future generations. One such problem is waste. The quantities are not huge but the waste has to be processed. It has been said that, thanks to new solutions, it has already been possible to decrease the quantity and toxicity of waste tenfold. Will this trend continue and how will we be able to continue along these lines with the reactors of the future?

Antoine Allemeersch – As Mayor of Cirfontaines and Vice-Chairman of Haute-Marne “County Council”, I should like to temper the disagreement between local councillors who agreed to the installation of the research facility and those who opposed it, whose position I fully understand. Today, I am disappointed to see that some parliamentarians have preferred to accompany the Prime Minister on his visit to an area only a few miles from the research facility site. In my opinion, they should have been with us here because this is where the future lies. And, talking of the future, my village (with its population of 83) recently had the pleasure of a visit from some twenty engineers from the Institut Français du Pétrole and the Ecole des Mines in Saint-Etienne who came to Bure and Saudron on a placement. Engineers from all over the world provide a shop window of knowledge and science, of the Europe of tomorrow, and we were able to discuss an important topic – their future. The discussions were a fine example of democracy and I should like all of us, councillors in favour of the research facility, opponents and scientists to show our ability to consider the future in an open-minded, tolerant manner.

The important thing for today’s generations is safety – safety at work, safety in energy supplies and safety in their environment. Today’s young people want a family, a job and pleasant surroundings in which to live. For them, and for the generations of the future, science and knowledge, which belong to no one person, must provide long-term solutions. And yes, it is the scientists who should be asked to find these solutions, not the pseudo “experts”. I should therefore like to thank the organisers of Entretiens européens for their action.

Patrick Fauchon, Mayor of Flamanville – It goes without saying that each town and village hs the right to reach its own conclusions. However, since the round table concerns local development I should like to emphasise that, in my part of Lower Normandy, the population has increased from 7,300 to 12,000 since 1975 when the decision was taken to set up a nuclear power plant there. Some seven hundred people work for EDF, and 98% of them live within a radius of 25 kilometres. One-third of them were born in our département. All the information on demographic changes and local finance can be found in a brochure which I would be only too delighted to give you. I should also like to say that, in 1975, the town’s mayor consulted the entire population, in particular because the building of the power plant would cut into a superb granite cliff of which the locals were very fond. The consultation resulted in a 64% vote in favour of the project and this wide-ranging acceptance explains how agreement is now reached on industrial projects that follow on from the policy implemented until the present time. I would therefore insist on the need for truly democratic consultation, excluding nobody.

Gérard Hérisson, Association de Défense de l’Environnement du Centre Ornain, Member of CLIS – I totally disagree with the Director of the Energy Division of EDF when he states that, in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” policy, electricity users are responsible for nuclear waste. How can anybody say such a thing when the citizens have never been asked for their opinion on the production of nuclear power? Moreover, claims are constantly being made that France is independent as regards power but this independence does not exist – France depends on Canada and African countries for its supplies of uranium! And I would invite those whose opinions are so strongly held to come and talk to the people who live around the Uranium mine in Bessines where Cogema let the site in conditions that pose a serious threat to the population and environment. They might then have a much less idyllic vision of nuclear energy !

François Rollinger, CFDT – I note that questions have long been asked about the exact meaning of “democratic practices” when it comes to making such crucial choices and about the way in which participative democracy can be implemented. On subjects such as these, providing information and being convincing is not sufficient; there is also a need to acquire expertise and this presupposes large financial resources. When distributing money, is the aim to buy votes or to enable associations to form an enlightened opinion? How can funds be mobilised to give everybody the means to obtain expert advice?

Claude Fischer – Next year, our discussion will focus on the environment and local democracy. Today, we have to see how the research facility in Bure can be an advantage for local and regional authorities. Will the authorities restrict their action to traditional territorial development or, on the contrary, will they maximise the benefits of the laboratory? The debate follows on from the perspective set in the Lisbon Strategy where the European Union stated that its aim was to achieve a competitive social Europe, which presupposes that men and women will be correctly trained. Can the research facility in Bure form the basis of a science & technology park, thereby contributing in a dynamic positive way to a new type of regional development?

Jorge Lang-Lenton – I should like to come back to the first question asked, that of waste management. For years, Enresa has worked on decreasing the volume of high- and intermediate-level nuclear waste – and it has been successful since the volume has decreased by two-thirds in fifteen years in Spain. Efforts are continuing to reduce it still further by using the plasma torch technology on which progress has already been made in Switzerland. When this technology is finally developed, the volume of waste generated by the industry will decrease fifty or sixtyfold, which will simplify the problem and provide a means of improving the control of final waste, especially as new-generation reactors will produce less spent fuel.

Rolf Linkohr – In a democracy, every individual has to bow to the opinion of the majority – this is true for me. I am in the minority within my own party since I am in favour of nuclear energy whereas many of my political friends are strongly opposed to it. However, we have to live together and show mutual respect! Does this mean that the majority is always right? I’m not so sure. If a referendum had been held in Germany in 1938, Hitler would have won 80% of the votes after the annexation of Austria. And, on a different topic, Switzerland did not give women the right to vote until 1971! This would make any democrat sceptical. Information on any subject has to be circulated but it also has to be accepted and that is what makes this debate rather complicated. As far as local development is concerned, there is no easy solution. It is true that nuclear energy produces radioactive isotopes but fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases. As to renewable sources of energy, they have their own disadvantages (what use are windmills if there is no wind?) and they also have a cost. A great deal of investment is going into this sector but, at the same time, the budgets for pensions are being cut – this is another example of choice. The problem, seen in its entirety, is anything but simple. Of course, the people of Meuse and Haute-Marne love their region and they would take it as an insult if the region was seen as nothing more than a “nuclear dump”. If, on the other hand, it becomes a centre of excellence for the management of radioactive waste and for other matters relating to sustainable development and if it has the whole of France behind it, the change will be an advantage for these two “counties” and for the region as a whole. We have to think about possible future areas of business and link waste management to sustainable development. Moreover, today’s waste may become tomorrow’s raw materials – it will all depend on scientific progress.

Jean-Marcel Lambinon, Chairman of Haute-Marne Chamber of Commerce and Industry – I manage a company and live a few miles from the research facility. Firstly, I should like to say that the document being distributed by certain participants entitled “The Main Economic Issues of the Proposed Deep Geological Storage in Bure” wrongly claims to be based on statistics from our three Chambers of Commerce. This is a question of ethics and I am particularly sensitive to it – unfounded claims are just not acceptable.

I should first like to look at the question of development. Haute-Marne and Meuse each have populations of under 200,000 and this is more or less the number of people living in the area more directly concerned by the Bure facility, on the borders of three “départements” and in two regions. The most successful industry of days gone by, iron smelting, has died out. Around Bure, there is a population density of 5 inhabitants per km². It’s like Mali without the drought! In future discussions, I do not want people to ask me questions about whether or not to choose nuclear power. Unless we have some other source of power to suggest, and this is not the case, there is no choice in the matter. As to waste, we have to deal with the issue and, although I have no scientific or technical expertise in this area, even if I am an engineer, I understand that we need a research facility, in Bure or elsewhere. Of course, a research facility elsewhere means even fewer jobs for Haute-Marne. In fact, the public is not all that worried about the research facility. If we want popular support, we have to lay projects before them i.e. give some impetus to the issue. When a nuclear power plant is built, there is economic fallout; we are in the same situation. It may be up to central government to provide the impetus but it may not – I am a liberal and the initiative could come from a large company, starting with EDF. That would suit me. The research facility could be set up in various places (Saint-Dizier or Bar-le-Duc); it really does not matter. But the local people require training. At the very least, if we do not have economic fallout to tempt the people with, they may easily become frightened.

Dominique Bourg, Professor of Philosophy and Industrial Ecology, University of Troyes – Firstly, it seems difficult to me to apply the “Polluter Pays” principle here with any fairness. 30% of greenhouse gas emissions are linked to the production of electricity. If we could decide to purchase the product of sustainable energy sources, it would reduce the damage. However, we are in a situation that is well-known in the agri-food industry, for example. 90% of people would prefer not to use pesticides but only 2% buy organic products.

I should like to limit my remarks to a fairly wide-ranging notion of democracy i.e. the institutionalised possibility of influencing public decision-making. This may be within the framework of elective democracy or participative democracy. In this case, the decision is influenced upstream and I find this particularly important. It is, however, wrong to think that it involves a larger number of citizens. There are inevitably fewer circles of citizens than voters. The difference comes from the fact that, in an elective democracy, somebody is elected on the basis of a general programme and not on his or her position with regard to a specific issue. It is when a decision has to be taken on this particular point that participative democracy becomes essential. There is another possibility, based on direct democracy. For us that corresponds to the use of the referendum. When people have an intuitive understanding of the question being asked, this is a feasible choice but in an area in which Parliament itself requires 15 years of research and, even if it does legislate, will not necessarily produce definitive legislation, the use of the referendum system would not be appropriate.

As far as local development is concerned, the subject of this afternoon’s discussions, I believe that we could take advantage of programmes such as the ones implemented in the United Kingdom, for example.

Markus Fritschi, Director of the Disposal Projects Division, NAGRA, Switzerland – I have been aware of the strong feelings aroused by the comments from Antoine Allemersch and I really believe that the company is doing its utmost to become increasingly transparent.

I should like to describe the Swiss experience. Our organisation, Nagra, was founded in 1972 and is responsible for research and preliminary work with a view to the deep geological disposal of all types of radioactive waste. Switzerland has two underground research facilities, in Grimsel and Mont Terri, which are also available to our partners such as Andra. These two laboratories are working on the management of radioactive waste with their colleagues worldwide and a number of experiments have been set up as part of the European Union’s research programme. Both facilities also belong to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s network of centres of excellence designed to train the future generation of waste management experts. Eighteen organisations in ten countries are involved in projects at the research facility in Grimsel and twelve partners from six countries are involved in projects at Mont Terri.

It is the international reputation of the work undertaken in Grimsel which led to the setting up of the ITC, the waste management and underground disposal college in Innertkirchen, not far from the research laboratory. This is an independent not-for-profit association which trains experts in this field. At present, it has 48 trainees from twelve countries. The initial course currently covers the management of radioactive waste but will also cover all dangerous waste destined for deep geological disposal. The presence of the college near the test site, and the existence of other infrastructures, has encouraged other projects in the area. For example, discussions are currently underway for the setting up of a glaciar research institute.

The work is supported by the European Union and a number of international organisations. The Swiss experience shows the worthwhile nature of long-term regional development thanks to such facilities, if there is cooperation between all those involved.

Patrick Juillard, Director of Cherbourg’s Science & Technology Park – The science & technology park in Cherbourg, which was set up in 2000, has been a member of the France Technopôles Entreprises Innovation network since December 2003. One of its advantages is training, not vocational training, but acquisition of the know-how that has grown out of the demands of work in a controlled environment, such as the nuclear industry. This know-how is passed on through its “controlled atmosphere” centre, thanks to a registered quality label, and the vocational high school in Cherbourg is also involved. The quality label is applicable at all levels, from apprenticeship to engineering diploma, whatever the special area of expertise. It means that people work in a clean atmosphere.

As part of continuing education, the know-how of sub-contractors has also been optimised. In fact, industrialists are working to obtain the “Controlled Atmosphere” quality label, especially in the agri-food industry and for technical personnel in the hospital sector who may, for example, be faced with nosocomial diseases.

As far as R&D is concerned, the Cherbourg science & technology park has implemented a system with brings industrialists into contact with local, regional and national laboratories since the “Controlled Atmosphere” concept has dimensions that cross disciplines and sectors. I have also been invited to London, Brussels and Amsterdam where I have been in contact with training centres.

Denis Cordonnier, Senior Vice-Chairman of Meuse “County Council” – Before talking about local development, as I was asked to do by Christian Namy, I should like to remind you that doubt is a necessary prerequisite to certainty. Gradually, as doubts fade, we can move on towards the decision-taking stage.

As far as local development is concerned, we have a basis on which to build. Since the decision was taken on Bure, credits were made available through Public Interest Groups (PIGs), “counties” and the regional and local authorities directly concerned. Haute-Marne and Meuse have already looked at ways of preparing an area. In local terms, decisions on the use of funding are taken by individuals working to a set of guidelines.

In his message, the Minister indicated that this type of research facility tended to be established in an area of low population density but that, because of this, it will be difficult to attract companies to the area. This is indeed a challenge if we want to envisage development based on such massive investment. However, centres of competition have been discussed in France and methods such as free trade areas have been applied. As a liberal businessman, I do not expect the State to supply everything; I expect other partners to help. What we are asking for is territorial development based on support or, at the very least, development that is fairly treated. There is no question of providing a few subsidies in return for peace. The fallout must be the equivalent of the fallout for a site chosen for a new power plant, given the impetus that will be required for an area with the characteristics that make it suitable as a site for this type of research facility. Finally, there is a need to integrate the European dimension.

Robert Fernbach, Mayor of Houdelaincourt, member of the Bureau of CLIS – The siting of the research facility in Bure has led to the setting up, in Meuse and Haute-Marne, of public interest groups responsible for managing the back-up funding. These funds have enabled both “départements” and the local authorities to become more closely involved in the funding of local development. In Meuse, 20% of funds are set aside for the area around the research facility with a view to optimising the necessary infrastructure. The back-up funding, which, for eligible operations, can be obtained in addition to grants from government, the regional council and the “county council”, has offset delays as regards housing, public buildings, a road network, the enhancement of local heritage and the promotion of tourism. However, the problem is the level of administrative control. It is so pernickety that it sometimes produces highly damaging, perverse effects. For example, some towns have occasionally found themselves in ridiculous situations that have required them to take out loans to pay for work already completed because the grants promised to them have not been paid in time.

The idea of a technological centre was also mooted – but it has remained a dead letter. You have to face the facts – rural areas are not ready for the emergence of wide-scale scientific and technical projects.

Grants, however considerable, must not be allowed to hide the reality which is that the facility in Bure is carrying out research with a view to validating the possible deep geological disposal of high-level long-lived waste. This being so, before talking about financial assistance and local development, we have to improve information and discussions. It is inconceivable that the Parliament might reach a decision before the population concerned has given its consent. And public opinion can only be expressed if all the issues have been fully understood and if information and training become priorities.

The members of CLIS have completed a course to enable them to gain greater understanding of the questions relating to nuclear energy. Doubts and uncertainties remain to be overcome and CLIS may have a real role to play in encouraging dialogue – on condition that additional efforts at communication are made to avoid, once and for all, any confusion between CLIS and Andra!

All the stakeholders in the nuclear sector have partial responses to the questions raised by the general public. This is why meetings such as this one do so much to advance discussion. However the people of Meuse and Haute-Marne know nothing about the nuclear industry and this does not make discussion very easy. The mysteries surrounding the nuclear industry must be cleared. People must understand that it is possible to work in this sector without suffering from leukaemia by the time you retire. Yet good questions are given inadequate answers, whether on the possibilities of reversibility or on the choice between deep geological disposal and shallow below-ground storage.

All this deserves public debate and a decision that is so important for the future of the region and the country cannot be conditioned by the 2006 timeline laid down in the Bataille Law, while the building work on the Bure laboratory has not yet been completed and, according to Andra, another three years of experimentation and testing are required. In the nuclear field more than elsewhere, safety and care must be absolute rules. In fact, disposal only becomes acceptable if it has been clearly shown to be safe.

This is the message from a councillor in Meuse who lives just a few miles from the research facility in Bure and who intends to stay there. The decision taken in 2006 must take account of the opinion of the general public for, without general consent, nothing will be possible. And the decision must enable people to continue to live, work and prosper in the area they call “home”.

Eric Delhaye, Spokesperson for Cap 21 – Cap 21, an ecologist movement set up by former government minister, Corinne Lepage, considers that there is a need to reduce the percentage of nuclear energy in the overall production of power and increase the percentage of power obtained from alternative sources. In this respect, France lags far behind other countries, in particular Germany. Cap 21 is not opposed to the development of nuclear research but it does oppose the construction of the EPR. We believe that it would be preferable to invest massively in fourth-generation power plants and in the ITER project.

As to the development of the Bure area, this presupposes that elected representatives and the general public have total control over the choices made. Yet much remains to be done to improve the comprehensive, transparent nature of the information provided to them. As far as this is concerned, the organisation of the Entretiens européens is a very good thing. Nevertheless any decision taken in 2006 would be premature and contrary to the spirit of the 1991 law. Not only is it impossible to make any technical choice because the research is not yet complete but, as things stand, Parliament would have no geographical choice other than Bure or…. Bure! An extensive programme of research, coordinated at European level, is required before we start along a path in which it will be difficult to effect any U-turns, even though the path we are following may not be the best possible solution. As the President of Andra so rightly said, there is no question of a “gala evening” and we still have time to explore all possibilities for another few decades, although this would not prevent the building of a science & technology park in Bure even if the town was not finally chosen as the site for the disposal facility.

Moreover, we have to give locally elected representatives a chance! The idea of a research facility similar to the one in Bure was mooted in the past for Aisne but was massively rejected by the population, as was the construction of an international airport in Picardy several years later. Aisne is undergoing an economic crisis that is forcing many young people to leave and there were many who therefore supported the airport scheme but the majority of “county councillors” gave preference to the local quality of life fearing that the future airport might bring in its wake a huge urban sprawl which the rural population did not want. This was a good move because, since then the Central Park company has chosen Aisne and its well-preserved natural environment as the site for its third leisure park in France. In other words, we can give Bure a chance to develop through the research sector but, at the same time, we should not lose its quality of life.

In 2006, we shall also have to decide who will be responsible for the nuclear waste management funds. We at Cap 21 believe that this should be a dedicated fund controlled by central government.

There is also a need for extensive public debate, something that has been missing over the past fifteen years. Coming together once a year for the Entretiens européens is not sufficient. There should be a national conference on the nuclear cycle and the management of waste; there should be local referenda. It would also be appropriate to encourage discussion of all points of view, something unusual in France, and to enable associations to take part in these debates by covering their representatives’ travelling expenses and giving them the means to improve their expertise. This is much more than a mere technical question; it is a social issue. Yet, as the nuclear energy management at CEA so rightly said, “Choosing too early may be a serious error because it may be impossible to take the technically optimum decision if it is far from being socially optimum.” In other words, we should take our time before reaching a decision.

Bruno Lescoeur, Director of EDF’s Energy Division – I should like to come back to the “Polluter Pays” principle. Since the company sets aside 0.14 Euros for every kilowatt produced, consumers have already paid. Moreover, the European Commission is working on a directive which will enable consumers to know the origin of the electricity being supplied to them.

André Mourot, Retired Geophysicist and Engineer, Member of the Collectif meusien contre l’enfouissement des déchets radioactifs – I am a geologist and I can see that everything is not just a question of money. The main question should be the clay’s ability to retain the waste stored deep underground. I feel I must insist on the concerns of my artisan and corporate manager friends who fear that there will be an image loss for regional products, including the most prestigious products, if it is decided to dispose of nuclear waste in Bure. What will happen to the tourist sector and the food products, including dairy production and Contrexéville mineral water? Even Mr. Poncelet, President of the Senate, has expressed concerns in private. And what about the wine industry, including champagne of course? Has anybody realised what a sumptuous gift this would be for our competitors in California, South Africa, Spain and Australia? This is not only a regional problem; it is national, one might almost say global. (The discussion was interrupted by people distributing pamphlets and champagne in the hall while virulently manifesting their opposition to deep geological disposal of nuclear waste. They then left the hall.)

Philippe Herzog, former Member of the European Parliament, President of Confrontations Europe – It was very risky to couple the question of waste processing (a topic of general interest which deserves discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect) with the question of local development. As Rolf Linkohr so rightly said, the cultural issue is huge. Claiming that the only outcome would be to turn the “counties” concerned into “rubbish tips” is totally wrong. It ignores the fact that, in the general interest, we have to deal with the problem of nuclear waste and that, by doing so, we can actually accelerate sustainable development. It would be regrettable if we were unable to continue our discussions. Social acceptance goes hand-in-hand with a development perspective but the demonstrators do not appear to know very much about the developmental opportunities that the research facility in Bure would bring in its wake. It would be a pity not to take this chance.

Moreover, it is possible that we will be unable to reach a conclusion in 2006 but we may make things much worse by a “wait and see” attitude. When would we solve the problem? We have to work faster together and we will not make any progress if we continue to kick the ball into touch.

André Mourot – That doesn’t change the fact that the scientific problems have still not been solved.

Philippe Herzog – We are faced with two risks – firstly, a lack of progress on the question of local development and secondly a lack of progress in the processing of final waste, which is a matter in the general interest. We should be careful not to ignore this question for reasons of provocation or opposition or because we believe that we can deal with it later, that we have plenty of time.

Patrick Fauchon – I should like to emphasise that, quite apart from nuclear waste, we have a general problem of domestic refuse which is transported over hundreds of miles. I should like to know whether other countries are considering a solution other than through business tax, a solution which is inappropriate in the long term. There is a need for some creative thinking in this respect.

Daniel (???) – I am a company director in Haute-Marne working with research centres in the agri-food industry in France and other countries and I am totally in favour of a more open-minded approach. However, I came here solely as an observer and I have realised that there are still a great many unanswered questions. I have also noted a certain confusion. I visit a large number of research centres and I have never seen any waste there! If we are discussing the installation of a research facility, I am totally in favour. If we are discussing deep geological disposal and the accumulation of waste, it is a matter of concern. There are already websites describing champagne that glistens rather than sparkles, and the atom that pops the corks. What funding is available to counter this adverse publicity which is so damaging to the public image of Champagne’s vineyards and to the region’s economic and tourist assets as a whole?

Giles Chichester – We can share the conclusion that there are more questions than answers and we should also share it with the demonstrators, who deserve some credit for their unusual methods. They did, after all, provide us with champagne.

Claude Fischer – To sum up our discussions, and in the absence of François Lamoureux whom I should like to thank for his support and excuse because he had to replace Commissioner Jacques Barrot at the European Council, we are delighted to welcome Christian Waeterloos, Director of Safety and Nuclear Security at the European Commission’s Direction General, Transport and Energy (DG TREN).

Christian Waeterloos, Director of Safety and Nuclear Security at the European Commission’s Directorate-General, Energy & Transport – Perhaps I should begin by saying who I am and who I am not. I am not a European UFO; this is not the first time that I’ve been in Bar-le-Duc. I was invited here by the Prefect a year ago and I met members of the CLIS. I can assure you that I know this subject inside out. However, I am also a wine producer in the Chinon area where the Chairman of the wine brotherhood, the Confrérie des Entonneurs rabelaisiens, has no hesitation in saying that we have two sources of wealth – wine and the nuclear industry. Why should that not also be true for you?

I should like to thank the organisers of this conference, especially Claude Fischer, for the relevance of the topics which have produced top-quality papers. The new oil crisis confirms even more strongly the usefulness of choosing nuclear fuel as a source of energy production, on condition that we pay particular attention to plant safety and waste management. Nuclear energy is therefore an essential element of the power supply issue currently being debated all over Europe. The Commission’s Green Paper on the safety of supply has given rise to wide-ranging discussions on this option and a review of all sides of the debate. Some States may perhaps contest nuclear power in principle but, in private, they actually agree to it. The major argument is the need for a clear, credible response to the problem of very long-term processing of waste and its transport if the industry is to have a future.

The European Union’s production of nuclear energy covers 32% of its total electricity consumption. Replacing this form of power in the short or even the medium term is just not a viable propostion. It is therefore essential to ensure sustainability for nuclear energy since almost all Member States depend on it for their electricity supply. The aim is not to achieve independence in the supply of power; for Europe, this is a little short of an illusion. However, we must have adequate control of our dependence and nuclear energy plays a vital role in helping to to achieve this.

In any case, an initiative on plant safety and waste management is required at EU level, whatever the Union’s choice as regards power supplies. This is why, in January 2003, the Commission passed two laws which were updated early in 2004 in line with recommendations from the European Parliament and progress in discussions between the ministries of energy and foreign affairs.

The first directive covered plant safety. It allows for the implementation of a common framework, applicable to the Wider Europe, applying the rules and principles that are already included in international agreements and bringing them into EU law through restrictive legislation. In 1986, everybody became aware that a major incident in a single country could have a knock-on effect across the entire continent. An inspection process should therefore be entrusted to national safety authorities working in a collegial manner to assess the level of safety in each Member State.

The second directive covered the management of nuclear waste and spent fuel. It should provide a clear, credible response to processing. The aim is to allow all Member States to implement a targeted policy and implement national programmes for the management of final waste, with a timetable for such implementation. This proposal to the States is also backed up by major efforts in research and development.

The implementation of such policies requires the role of each player to be clearly defined.

As far as the industry is concerned, we saw this morning that operators and producers are trying to decrease the volume of waste. In 2000, the Europe of the Fifteen produced 37,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste but, back in 1990, it was thought that they would be producing three times as much by the year 2000. Given that the nuclear production of electricity has progressed over the past few years, we have to conclude that the optimisation of the industrial processing of waste has been a success. It is true that the decommissioning of nuclear power stations which have reached the end of their lives might reverse this trend require even greater efforts in this respect and those who took part in the round table were fairly reassuring on this point. Transmutation and division are often mentioned as long-term means of reducing high-level long-lived waste but it has to be emphasised that they are only solutions if we decide to reprocess waste.

Various operators claim that there will not be any coherent waste management unless there is a decrease not only in volume but also in toxicity and lifespan. In this respect, a number of countries including France have a clear strategy but, in others, it is still vague. The EPRs scheduled for two European countries and raised in several questions will certainly provide positive elements of response as regards economic efficiency, social acceptance and the maximisation of waste management. Thereafter, fourth-generation reactors will limit the production of high-level waste still further or may even allow for its enhancement, to overcome the problem of a falling uranium supply. Much later, fusion will meet more global requirements for environmental compatibility.

However, there will always be waste to manage and there will always be the challenge posed by the need to decrease its environmental impact. It is therefore vital to support research and development into the validation of the solutions discussed. Such work must include an assessment of the safety and long-term efficiency of the elements stored, and the maintenance of their external integrity. It should stimulate analyses of disposal and contribute to its long-term management. It should make it easier to manage the uncertainties resulting from a lack of knowledge. The European Union devotes 90 million Euros to research in this field, as part of Euratom’s sixth programme of research & development. This is the second largest financial contribution after the funding of research into fusion. There is no doubt that the EU fully recognises the importance of this problem.

Having said that, additional efforts are required and we have to concentrate resources in order to meet this challenge. The points raised here have shown that strategy considerations and technology programmes can help to create a climate of confidence and trust in the justification for a waste management strategy. Yet are the choices technically viable? Despite all that has been done at EU, national or local level, additional efforts are required in the field of R&D and now, as negotiations begin for the seventh Framework Research & Development Programme, we have to ensure that the Community instrument really does support and coordinate efforts in this respect. The Commission is in favour of collective funding for research into waste management, an area of research that is currently scattered. The Euratom Treaty provides for this possibility and a joint enterprise would be more efficient in concentrating resources. A project of this type could be tabled by one or two Member States and, if it met with success, the formal proposal would be tabled in 2005.

This will not solve all the problems, however. There will still be a need to involve all the players in the chosen strategy. How can we instigate real dialogue (which means a willingness to listen) and avoid a mere juxtaposition of monologues? I am concerned about the communication strategy of companies in the nuclear industry. Their aim seems to be to regroup, to concentrate their efforts on those who remain undecided and to avoid wasting time trying to convince dogmatic theorists who will not change their opinion whatever is said. This is a pity because even when people resolutely oppose a project, we can still learn from them. This is why the Entretiens conference held today plays such a key role in establishing the conditions for good dialogue, by highlighting the fact that a scrambled message will, of necessity, make it more difficult to understand an issue. This is evident in Sweden. Although most of the population are in favour of nuclear energy, they find it difficult to understand why the government has decided to close down a power plant and they are beginning to wonder whether or not this is a safe source of power.

We also have to involve all the players in sustainable partnerships for the purposes of immediate projects, by making it easier to access funding.

The other challenge is waste management in new Member States who were used to the USSR taking away their spent fuel. Should we allow this to continue, knowing that the safety conditions for reprocessing and disposal are inadequate? We also know that the relatively unsafe reactors in some of these States must be closed before they reach the normal end of their lives but the States do not have the necessary financial resources to do this and the funding scheduled by the EU for such work is inadequate. It is because we cannot accept the prospect of anarchical transport to States in which nuclear safety is insufficient that the Commission has begun a review of the directive on minimum safety requirements for the transport of nuclear materials. As part of this work, a list will be drawn up of countries to which exports of waste will not be authorised under current conditions.

In conclusion, the consensus on future decisions presupposes new decision-making structures. A global strategy on the management of radioactive waste is a long process which advances in stages. Today’s discussions will have helped to facilitate discussion by laying down the conditions for more in-depth consideration. The Commission will take part in this as far as its weak resources allow, with the support of the European Parliament.

Claude Fischer – I should like to thank Christian and the Commission which sponsors the Entretiens and express my gratitude to the young staff from DG TREN who have manned a stand providing information on the European Union’s work in the field of nuclear safety. I should also like there to be many more organisers of debates such as this one, to widen the scope of participative democracy. It will only be viable with considerable involvement on the part of the stakeholders and in-depth knowledge of the issues. Elected representatives must establish much closer contacts with society at large and the general public must make much more sustained efforts to obtain information and learn. To achieve this, though, requires centres and premises and there are very few of them. It is very difficult to obtain information. This is why I would call on people to join forces. There is money available – we have seen that in the case of Flamanville. What should it be used for? Do we want to attract men and women back into Meuse and Haute-Marne, “counties” that are currently suffering a demographic exodus?

The discussions are far from over and we are therefore proposing that the next Entretiens should take an in-depth look at the difficult issue of sustainable development and its links with the management of nuclear waste. This will require a great deal of preparation. The research group set up by Confrontations Europe to obtain extensive knowledge of the topic and play a valid part in the public debate and, therefore, in decision-making, took a full year to organise today’s conference. As has been the case since the outset, we will extend a hand to opponents. I am delighted that they have taken part in the discussions even though they refused the offer to join the working party and, last year, to take part in the Entretiens in Nogent. I hope that they feel they would like to work with us and, together, prepare the topics for discussion.

The next meeting is scheduled to take place in Nogent in 2005. Until then, why not turn the Entretiens into a local debate, in your own towns? This would be much more useful than a referendum.

Finally, I should like to thank Marguerite-Marie Poirier who has lent us her high school and allowed her pupils to follow our work. I very much hope that we will have given them a desire to go on monitoring the topic and that we will see them again at the next meeting.

[1] Commission nationale d’évaluation

[2] Offices parlementaires d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques

[3] Agence française pour les investissements internationaux

[4] Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica: Italian electricity board

[5] Comité Local d’Information et de Suivi = Local information and monitoring committee

[6] Office Parlementaire d’Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques = parliamentary office for the assessment of scientific and technological choices

[7] The conference papers were prepared by analysts Joël Michel and Catherine Schwartz in accordance with the papers and the translations provided by Stéphanie Leroux and Tiphaine Montoux. They will be used as the basic material for the fourth issue of the Entretiens européens newsletter due to be published in March/April 2005.

LES ENTRETIENS EUROPEENS

Governance of Nuclear Waste

Inaugural Address by Christian Namy

Message from Patrick Devedjian

First Round Table

DISCUSSION

Paper from David McCauley

Second Round Table