Roland Desbordes: "The nuclear lobby is at the heart of institutions"
Roland Desbordes, physicist by training and president of Criirad. The Independent Radioactivity Research and Information Commission is an independent laboratory for radioactivity analyzes, radioecological assessments, and impact studies.
Can you enlighten us on this pollution of the water table around Tricastin?
We have long suspected pollution around Tricastin. It has been more than 10 years since local elected officials were asked to take an interest in this water table, especially because it is used for watering but also for human consumption. There are indeed people who pump directly into this aquifer.
As early as 1997/1998, local elected officials were asked to carry out a study on this aquifer, apart from the measures taken by the operators, who seemed to see nothing. And, it will be seen later, that in reality, the operators had seen things but that they had not communicated the results to the Local Information Commission. It took a request from ASN (Nuclear Safety Authority), DDASS of Vaucluse and Drôme for a study to be carried out from 2007 and entrusted to IRSN (Institute for nuclear radiation protection) which is the expert of the State and the operators, and in Areva, the main operator of the site.
What did the IRSN study published on July 4 reveal?
This study was presented on July 4 to the Local Information Commission in Valence. There was fairly quickly an excess of uranium south of the site, compared to the north. Areva first tried to explain that we were in the presence of usual variations present in nature. As soon as we could read the full report, we realized that this aquifer was well polluted by uranium from the site insofar as another radio-element, itself completely natural, polonium 210, was also present in this aquifer but it in the same proportion in the north as in the south.
You also point to an old storage of uranium waste left practically in the open air on the site…
It is indeed necessary to raise the question of the storage of radioactive waste on the site of Tricastin. In this case, it is uranium waste. The operator, Cogema in this case, was questioned about this storage of waste. They considered that it posed no problem, and that it had never polluted the aquifer.
In fact, in a report published in 1998, two pages indicated that this storage had already polluted the water table in 1979. The pollution was so great that they had set up a fixing pump to prevent this pollution from dispersing too much. It was recognized in 1998, 20 years later, that a third of the radioactive waste has already disappeared. They were stored on the ground, and simply covered with earth. Basically, they left in the tablecloth. One part directly polluted the aquifer, and the other part was discharged with pumping into the Gaffière, the surface stream.
Why did this affair make so little noise?
We were alerted a few months ago by workers at the nuclear site who told us that the earth cover of this mound of waste had disintegrated and that the waste reappeared in the open air. We had informed the media and France 2 and France 3 had also made a report but the management of France 2 has apparently refused to broadcast it, without explanation. It is quite common. Recently, with M6, for the program "66 minutes," about 3 weeks ago, part of the report on Tricastin was censored, by the management of the channel and not the journalist.
And how did the authorities react after the discovery of this polluting waste storage?
ASN asked the army, which is responsible for this military waste, to come to a local information commission at the end of July. The army official reaffirmed that this storage was not a problem and that they would not remove it. At the end of the meeting, he recognized, however, that this waste was not intended to remain there. However, it has now been more than 30 years, since the 1970s, that they have been stored on this hill. In reality, it was storage. But since 2001, for Andra, this mound of waste appears as final disposal and therefore would be doomed to stay in the same place.
Is this type of storage of radioactive waste in the open air common?
There are others, notably on the Tricastin site, on the principle of storage-storage. There is a certain type of nuclear waste produced without destination. The producers produced this waste without asking the question of their final destination. However, there are very few places to store these radioactive products. Basically, there are Soulaines and Morvilliers. We are currently looking for a storage site for FAVL waste (low long-life activity). There are more than 3.000 municipalities which have been identified as potential reception sites for this waste.
How do you explain the repeated incidents on the Tricastin site?
There have been incidents like there are regularly. We are not faced with a number of higher incidents at the moment, but on the average. Due in particular to maintenance on the reactors, summer is more particularly sensitive on nuclear sites. However, there were 3 more significant incidents.
It was first of all on July 7, Socatri which releases 75 kg of uranium into surface water, it is not every day that it happens with consumption restrictions, it is rather a novelty. This is what led the media to take an interest in it. There was also the EDF incident on July 23, I believe, where more than a hundred workers were contaminated in the reactor, and it is an exceptional incident due to the size of the people affected.
Finally, the last notable incident is that of September 8, which is still not resolved today, and which concerns an unloading operation where bunches remained stuck to the cover when workers opened the reactor vessel. This is an extremely rare incident, which happened once in Nogent 10 years ago. Noises even circulated that it was planned to evacuate the population preventively around the site.
Have you questioned the operators to find out more about these incidents?
We asked Socatri a series of questions in early August. The operator informed us a month later, on September 15, that he would not answer our questions because there was legal action underway. It's strange for a company that communicates with the press. We have to believe that our questions bother them.
Precisely, what are your relationships with operators like Areva?
We have no real relationship with the operators. We have no specific mission to carry out research or analyzes inside nuclear sites.
Do you consider that authorities such as ASN or IRSN play their role fully independently?
There is a problem of collusion in France in the nuclear sector. Thus the State is at the same time the shareholder of nuclear power, but also the one which issues the rules, the regulations, the decrees. It therefore tends to favor regulations that encourage exploitation. There really is a conflict of interest. The presence of the nuclear lobby is at the heart of the institutions. The position of the deputies in relation to nuclear matters.
Do you have doubts about the neutrality of the elected representatives regarding the nuclear issue?
We are entitled to ask the question, for whom are these people driving? That the local elected officials defend “their” nuclear power, that can be understood because of the economic returns that nuclear generates. Thanks to the nuclear powerhouse, municipalities like Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux do not know what to do with their money. But this summer, some elected officials had a painful awakening because they realized that nuclear power could represent inconvenience for tourism, for the image, for agriculture, the vineyard in particular. The Grenelle de l'Environnement is a good example. We talked about almost everything except nuclear.
What do you think of the French nuclear debate?
We are not taking a position "for" or "against" nuclear power. What seems more important to us is rather to know whether nuclear power is an industry like any other. We are in a state of law and questions must be asked and answers provided. When we step up to the plate, it's because we see a situation that is not regulatory. And violations are a dime a dozen but without penalties.
How are Areva reacting when you question them?
We have been around for 22 years now without ever making mistakes or we would no longer exist. Recently Anne Lauvergeon accused us of being wrong on a file which is completely false. The objective is certainly to discredit us. It shocked us a lot. That she doesn't love us is her right but that she questions our scientific credibility, it's serious. Since this summer, we have felt Areva annoyed.
What is the Criirad really for?
I think we are getting things done. The Criirad helps to give an image of nuclear power which, in my opinion, is beneficial because it is more in line with reality. Many people felt that nuclear was a well-managed, well-monitored, well-controlled industry. However, we realize that nuclear power is an industry that presents management, control and monitoring problems like other industries. The Socatri incident is overflowing tanks, Comurhex is pierced pipes, this is not very serious for a leading industry. We must therefore be vigilant.
for those looking for the info (the others already know everything about everything go your way):
over there if I'm there:
http://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/em/labassijysuis/