MAIN PRINCIPLES FOR THE BACK END OF THE FUEL CYCLE Given the depletion of fossil fuel resources and the pressing need to

combat the greenhouse effect, all against a backdrop of growing demand for energy, there is a resurgence of interest in nuclear power in the world. Against this background, France supports the various international initiatives which facilitate the easy access to nuclear power by interested countries. Moreover, on the basis of its experience in the different aspects of nuclear power (reactor construction, front and back ends of the fuel cycle) and in the necessary regulatory framework to ensure that this energy source develops in a safe and controlled manner, France hopes to provide concrete proposals in this field.

4.1. A major objective: Nuclear safety

The various international initiatives currently under discussion address particular attention, quite legitimately, to the question of non-proliferation.

However, the absolute first priority should not be forgotten: nuclear safety.

This is why many bilateral agreements have been concluded between France or its agencies and their foreign counterparts. Amongst other things, these agreements aim to allow States developing a nuclear programme or setting up projects along these lines to take advantage of French experience with regard to governance in this sector. The French government, public research organiza-tions (and particularly the CEA, the Nuclear Safety Authority and its technical support agency the Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety) and the industrial operators (AREVA, EDF) have established many contacts and collaborate with many different countries. This collaboration represents a

BACK END OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE: FRENCH CHOICES

major contribution to developing a nuclear energy system that complies with the necessary safety and security conditions.

4.2. A responsible policy for the back end of the fuel cycle

Public opinion is extremely sensitive to the question of radioactive waste.

Like France, the majority of nuclear States have adopted laws prohibiting the disposal of foreign radioactive waste on their territories. This principle has just been reaffirmed and reinforced in France as part of the Act on sustainable management of radioactive materials and waste, which was adopted by the French Parliament on 15 June 2006; this is fundamental to the acceptance by the French public of the use of sustainable management solutions for radioactive waste, including deep geological disposal, and eventually of the use of nuclear energy.

4.3. Regional disposal sites

Not all countries will have access to disposal sites, either due to the geological characteristics of their territories or due to the scale of their nuclear programmes. The creation of regional disposal sites restricted to certain countries wishing to pool their resources may represent one solution which complies with optimum safety and security conditions and avoids passing on the responsibility of inadequate waste management to future generations. Civil society is unable to accept the fact that certain States may discharge this responsibility by managing or entrusting responsibility for managing this waste under conditions that do not guarantee protection of the environment. It is essential that the ‘polluter pays’ principle be applied religiously in this particular field. In addition, restricting such waste repositories to a regional scale would make it possible to restrict the transport of nuclear materials and waste, which are sensitive operations, not only from the point of view of safety, but also of security and non-proliferation.

This leads to the following:

(a) There is a need to link the use of these regional waste repositories to the development of shared safety and security standards. To achieve this, the standards drawn up by the IAEA could form a foundation for a harmoni-zation and ongoing development exercise, if necessary, in line with the best existing practices, based on the model for possible developments on a European scale, as demonstrated by the WENRA regulators’ initiative.

A research programme could thus be launched along these lines.

(b) There is a need for States using these international waste repositories to behave responsibly in accepting all consequences arising from their use of nuclear power. This should take the form of a mandatory contribution on the part of these States to the necessary research and development costs, along with construction and operating costs. Industrial partnerships between the various countries involved in a regional disposal scheme would thus be formed and these might possibly take the form of industrial and financial participation schemes linking the countries in question to the company operating the repository.

(c) There is a need to consider the appropriate regional scales with a view to minimizing necessary transport operations.

4.4. Partnerships in the back end of the fuel cycle

France is equipped with a mature and efficient industrial tool that covers the whole fuel cycle. Regarding the back end of the fuel cycle, industrial partnerships were implemented in the past with European countries, as well as with Japan. The currently available reprocessing capacities at La Hague allow us to re-conduct such partnerships.

4.5. New technologies

The schemes described above may evolve either in the medium term as a result of possible adaptations of the current reprocessing processes or in the longer term with the use of advanced separation/transmutation processes.

These permit the separation of minor actinides and their transmutation in fast neutron reactors. France has set itself ambitious targets in this respect, leading to technological decisions by 2012 (reactor types and separation processes), demonstration stages from 2020 and the prospect of industrialization by 2040.

Finally, France is an active participant in international discussion groups on this subject.

DISCUSSION

J. BOUCHARD (France — Chairperson): You mentioned the fact that in the new French law there is a clear statement about the impossibility of France managing or disposing of foreign waste. What was the reason for this provision? It is not new — it was already in the previous law.

F. FOUQUET (France): I think that in France, and maybe in other countries, public opinion is very sensitive to the question of radioactive waste.

When we organized the national public debate in the last quarter of 2005 there

BACK END OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE: FRENCH CHOICES

was a clear conclusion; people said “We are able to accept the construction of a deep geological disposal facility in the eastern part of France, but the condition is only to have in our facility French radioactive waste — we do not want to have other waste — each country has to responsible for its own radioactive waste.” We understood that to be a clear condition for French citizens, especially those living near the possible location of an underground disposal facility. That is why we decided to reinforce the provisions in the 1991 Waste Act, which were not clear enough and gave rise to a lot of disagreement.

J. BOUCHARD (France — Chairperson): Is the final disposal of radioactive waste the only point on which France is forbidding foreign contracts? For instance, we have had contracts with other countries in the past for reprocessing in France. Are some contracts still being fulfilled?

F. FOUQUET (France): The only issue is about the final disposal of waste. For spent fuel, reprocessing contracts with foreign customers are still possible.

H.G. FORSSTRÖM (IAEA): I am rather confused. I was about to ask whether France was going to participate in regional repositories, and then when I heard your answer to that question, I realized that it is not. But you made a number of conditions for the acceptance by France of regional repositories.

What would be the role of France in such regional cooperation, or is it merely a sort of theoretical discussion about these conditions?

F. FOUQUET (France): I think it may be too early to speak about the role of France. I said that France had been involved in very important safety related bilateral cooperation and we are ready to strengthen our involvement through, for example, the provision of training. We are also ready to participate in safety studies relating to the safety of regional disposal facilities, and our industry could participate in the construction of such facilities. But France would not host a regional disposal facility.

A. GONZÁLEZ (Argentina): I am not as confused as Mr. Forsström — your presentation was the only one to clearly underline the importance of an international safety regime. I hope that the French law approved two days ago includes a provision relating to such a regime; the draft did not provide for it.

When you talked about the environmental benefits of reprocessing and recycling, you did not mention one of the main ones — much less uranium is needed for a given amount of energy produced, and the big environmental impact is from the mining and milling of uranium because of the public exposure to the tailings and because of the occupational exposure which occurs in uranium mining. That was recognized during INFCE about 20 years ago, but people have since tended to forget it.

S. SAEGUSA (Japan): Your national management plan defined three main principles — first, reducing waste quantity and toxicity, second, interim

storage and third, disposal. When you say ‘interim storage’ do you mean the interim storage of spent fuel or of high level waste?

F. FOUQUET (France): We envisage interim storage both for spent fuel before reprocessing (so it is quite a short interim storage period) and for MOX fuel, which is not currently being reprocessed because we favour saving it for use in fast reactors. There is also a role for interim storage of high level waste because it will be necessary to wait 60 years to allow cooling before such waste is put it into a geological disposal facility.

That is why the second principle of the plan is safe interim storage both for spent fuel and for high level waste. But interim storage is only a temporary solution before geological disposal, which is the safe long term management solution, and that point was not clear in the past because the 1991 Waste Act put interim storage and deep geological disposal on the same level. What is new now is the decision that the safe long term solution is reversible deep geological disposal and before that interim storage for maybe 60 years.

J. BOUCHARD (France — Chairperson): This is a very important point.

This morning we had a discussion about the ‘wait and see’ approach, but this is not a ‘wait and see’ approach. In France, interim storage is no longer considered to be a long term management option. It is only a form of flexibility for helping to cope with the real options, which are reprocessing with recycling and deep geological disposal.