Nuclear waste : how are sites monitored ? 

For any type of ins­pec­tion of radio­ac­tive waste treat­ment centres, there are a num­ber of points to check – for example, how the expo­sure of staff and third par­ties pas­sing through the site is mana­ged. Also, ins­pec­tors look at how radio­lo­gi­cal zoning is car­ried out and how com­pliance with safe­ty ele­ments is ensured. 

In the past, large ins­tal­la­tions of this type requi­red what are known as com­petent radia­tion pro­tec­tion depart­ments. Today, with new regu­la­tions, the term has chan­ged slight­ly but the phi­lo­so­phy remains the same : all ins­tal­la­tions in which you have nuclear waste (known as basic nuclear ins­tal­la­tions), must have a com­pe­tence centre with qua­li­fied and trai­ned personnel.

Nuclear ins­pec­tors look at how these centres are orga­ni­sed, that is, their mis­sion and what aspects might be impro­ved. An ins­pec­tor must remain fac­tual when revie­wing a site : if we notice some­thing wrong in the way waste is being mana­ged on a site, we must say so. Simi­lar­ly, if we observe good prac­tices, it is wor­thw­hile com­mu­ni­ca­ting on these so that other sites can learn from them.

There are three levels of action we can take fol­lo­wing a visit. The first is cor­rec­tive action, which is what we request of the site in the case of non-com­pliance with regu­la­tions – in the form a decree. If a decree is not pre­cise enough, we bring in an addi­tio­nal text, often an order or a deci­sion taken by the Nuclear Safe­ty Autho­ri­ty (ASN). If there is ever a devia­tion from these texts, we then ask for cor­rec­tive action.

The second is a request for addi­tio­nal infor­ma­tion when we find that the site is not adhe­ring to good prac­tices being car­ried out elsew­here, by ope­ra­tors of other sites. In this case, we ask them to change their way of wor­king. The last level is where we make sug­ges­tions for minor impro­ve­ments, obser­va­tions, rela­ted to slight devia­tions from regu­la­tions or good practice.

After a visit, there is a debrie­fing, which ins­pec­tors should always car­ry out. This is the time to put our cards on the table, as it were, and to announce what will be in the fol­low-up let­ter. If an ins­pec­tion did not go very well and we obser­ved devia­tions, we must say so. We should not say that eve­ry­thing is fine in the oral feed­back and then send a 10-page report with actions to be taken. The fol­low-up report should be in line with the oral debriefing.

France hap­pens to be one of the stric­test EU Mem­ber States for when it comes to radio­ac­tive waste management. 

France hap­pens to be one of the stric­test EU Mem­ber States for when it comes to radio­ac­tive waste mana­ge­ment. To give you an idea of the phi­lo­so­phy we have adop­ted, an object that has been in a nuclear ins­tal­la­tion in which there is a risk of dis­per­sion or conta­mi­na­tion can­not be dis­po­sed of in conven­tio­nal waste channels.

In contrast to other EU Mem­ber States, there are no “release thre­sholds”. Ger­ma­ny, Bel­gium, and Spain, for example, apply the EU Direc­tive – values in total bec­que­rels, or bec­que­rels per gram (mass acti­vi­ty), below which waste can be relea­sed into the nor­mal cycle. This is because the acti­vi­ty of the radio­nu­clides in the waste is consi­de­red to be so low that it has no impact on human health or the envi­ron­ment. That said, this chan­ged on 14^th Februa­ry 2022 with the publi­ca­tion of two decrees concer­ning reco­ve­rable, but slight­ly conta­mi­na­ted, metal­lic materials.

Fol­lo­wing a writ­ten report, we issue a fol­low-up let­ter (that is made public and publi­shed on the ASN web­site) and the reci­pient nor­mal­ly has two months to respond and imple­ment our requests. If they choose not to do so, we then send a for­mal notice. If this is igno­red, we can sus­pend acti­vi­ty on the site (some­thing that does not hap­pen very often, for­tu­na­te­ly). The last major event in France of this kind was at the Épi­nal hos­pi­tal in 2005–2006, where seve­ral cohorts of patients were ove­rex­po­sed to radio­ac­ti­vi­ty. Some of these patients died. This situa­tion did indeed merit an ins­pec­tion, com­plaint, legal action, trial, and conviction.

In this article, we have main­ly tal­ked about waste rela­ted to nuclear ope­ra­tors, because today this cate­go­ry repre­sents 95% of the waste in France. But we also have 5% of waste from small pro­du­cers, which comes from elsew­here. In par­ti­cu­lar, there are all the research ins­ti­tutes that use unsea­led sources and liquid sources in gene­ral. These orga­ni­sa­tions are obli­ged to return any tri­tium and car­bon-14 waste which has under­gone per­iods of radio­ac­ti­vi­ty of more than 100 days to Andra. While this cate­go­ry of waste repre­sents a small volume, it does exist.

It should also be noted that a cer­tain num­ber of enti­ties in France are autho­ri­sed to use this type of radio­ac­tive source. This is the case, for example, at Sano­fi Pas­teur, INRA, INSERM and foren­sic science labo­ra­to­ries. In some cases, Andra must recu­pe­rate the waste pro­du­ced by these orga­ni­sa­tions, even if it is a small volume that is not very radioactive.

Final­ly, there is a more gene­ral public cate­go­ry : all objects that contain radium must be reco­ve­red. Here, we can cite wrist­watches and clocks and other small objects that contain radio­ac­ti­vi­ty, either arti­fi­cial or natu­ral. We’ve all seen these kinds of objects in flea mar­kets, and we may even have some in our own homes.

Interview by Isabelle Dumé