Cigéo

[9] One of the options currently retained consists of storing the waste at a depth of 300–500 metres in vaults dug out in a geological layer that is stable, dense and as impervious as possible (e.g. granite, volcanic tuff, or clay, as is envisaged in France).

[10] The dangers of irradiation are poorly quantified for low doses, but according to the international authorities on radioprotection (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)), the effect is negligible for doses at similar levels to natural background radiation (on the order of a micro-Sievert per hour, or 5mSv/year).

[9] Underground storage allows the containment of radioactivity over the very long term: groundwater flow being very weak in the impermeable region, only certain mobile radionuclides are able to migrate over a period of tens of millennia, potentially reaching the surface only in extremely small quantities.

[10] Two doctoral theses in 2008 and 2011 on archeological glasses and obsidians estimate that the vitrification process used to immobilise HLW should by itself be capable of assuring containment of radioactive materials for 10000 years.

[13][8] Nevertheless, for the evaluation of performance of geological disposal, migration models do not take credit for artificial confinement (the containers); only the natural rock is considered.

[17] The argilites (a mix of clay and quartz from the Callovo-Oxfordian stages of the Jurassic) possess physico-chemical characteristics which tend to limit the migration of radionuclides.

[18] The goal of the Meuse/Haute Marne Underground Research Laboratory was the study of the clay layer,[17] with a view to determining if its characteristics are consistent with the safety objectives of a disposal facility located in the transposition zone.

[21][22] Andra's work has permitted to show evidence that the properties of the Callovo-Oxfordian argilites will strongly reduce the mobility of actinides and thus the activity flux out of the host rock formation, by confining them in the near field.

[25] It is envisaged that the wastes will be placed in underground stores situated at a depth of around 500 m, in a layer of clay rock which should be impermeable and have properties which support confinement over the very long term.

[28] in order to allow future generations the possibility of modifying or adjusting to disposal process, for example by removal of the stored packages if another "mode of management" is planned or if the safety of the site is called into question.

[29] If it were ultimately decided to dispose of untreated spent fuel in Cigéo, the design would have to be adapted accordingly and the footprint would be expected to increase to around 25 km2 (9.7 sq mi) (from around 15).

[30] The disposal of wastes from future nuclear installations at Cigéo would be possible, provided they are compatible with the site authorisation (in terms of volume, nature and level of activity.

Containers which have been placed hundreds of metres below ground and left there for decades or even centuries could perhaps remain technically recoverable, but the cost of doing so under acceptable safety conditions might be prohibitive.

And the storage of the first vitrified packages of HA waste will not take place before 2075.Some commentators, such as Jean-Marc Jancovici, believe that reversibility leads to undue complexity.

Part of these costs/investments will be the salaries of the workforce employed in the digging, construction and storage work, who, according to Andra, will number 1500 to 2000 persons for at least a hundred years.

[50] This file will include "documents relating to technical recoverability options, draft preliminary package acceptance specifications and a master plan for operations".

[51] ASN's opinion on the safety options case, published on 15 January 2018, confirms the analysis of its technical expert, judging that the project has reached "satisfactory technological maturity".

However, it takes up the concerns expressed in the summer of 2017 by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) on bituminous waste, which represent 16% of the volumes and 18% by number of the packages that Andra plans to store, which would present fire risks.

Two solutions are therefore available to Andra with respect to bituminous wastes: treat them to make them inert, for example by a pyrolysis process, or modify the design of Cigéo to avoid a chain reaction in the event of a fire in a package.

However, the discount rate used by waste producers is not in fact fixed, but is itself constrained: "it cannot exceed the rate of return, as expected with a high degree of confidence, of the hedging assets, managed with a degree of security and liquidity sufficient to meet their purpose"[55] and must be assessed annually: if the financial return on provisions is lower than expected, producers must reassess their charges (upwards), which unbalances their expense balance.

In this case, "the administrative authority notes an insufficiency or inadequacy in the assessment of the charges, the calculation of the provisions or the amount, [and may] prescribe the measures necessary to regularize its situation by setting the deadlines within which it must implement them".

The State has decided not to cover the CEA's expenses from its own assets, but will ensure its financing through the budget; For operators whose costs are mainly long-term, the deadline for complying with this coverage rule has been extended from 2011 to 2014.

In particular, the CNE recommends "reversible disposal in deep geological situations" which represents the "reference route" for the definitive management of final waste.

"[3] On 15 May 2013, around 40 organisations called for a boycott of the debate, in particular many local groups including Bure Zone Libre, the national federation of Friends of the Earth and the Sortir du nucléaire Network.

On 12 February 2014, the President of the CNDP, Christian Leyrit, proposed to mark out the creation of the industrial centre for the geological disposal of nuclear waste (Cigéo) by starting with a "significant stage" of "pilot storage".

[76] On 8 November 2017, at the request of Andra, the CNDP announced the appointment of two guarantors who would support it in the process of informing and involving civil society in the project (Pierre Guinot-Delery and Jean-Michel Stievenard).

[83] The protests, moreover, sometimes took a violent turn (attempt to set fire to the hotel-restaurant located near the Laboratory,[84] damage to the Court of Bar-le-Duc,[85] threats against parliamentarians and journalists[86]), which led the judiciary to open an investigation into several anti-nuclear activists who had come to settle in Bure and neighbouring villages for criminal association.

Telephone tapping carried out in this context[87] is presented by Reporterre and Mediapart as part of an "inordinate intelligence machine on the anti-nuclear movement",[88] the cost of which is estimated to be around one million euros.

On 13 January 2021, the Environmental Authority issued its opinion, in which it recommended the presentation of a detailed programme of additional risk management and monitoring studies,[90] while the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP) stressed the importance of in-depth consultation on the rehabilitation of the Nançois-Tronville-Gondrecourt railway line.

This DUP will allow the urban planning documents to be brought into compliance and the acquisition by the National Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste (Andra) of the necessary land by expropriation.