What
would Voltaire say about CIGEO?
 |
| Chateau de Cirey, Haute-Marne |
In
the 18th century, the great French author and activist Voltaire (they called them philosophes in those days) spent several
years living with his lover, the mathematician and physicist Émilie du Châtelet, at Château de Cirey. The place belonged to the Marquis du Châtelet, but he was hardly ever at home and was cool with his wife's choice of roommate.
Voltaire was one of the wealthy one-percenters back in his day, but he was also one of the key Englightenment figures who helped bring an end to European dynasties and the hereditary privilege of the nobility. He spent some time in the Bastille as a political prisoner, went into exile numerous times, and never chickened out when he saw an injustice to lend his famous voice to.
The Château de Cirey is in the Haute-Marne region, which is also the place where the French nuclear establishment hopes to bury the nation’s high level nuclear waste near the town of Bure. The historical coincidence makes me wonder what Voltaire would say today if he could witness the modern outrage of the French nuclear legacy.
Voltaire was one of the wealthy one-percenters back in his day, but he was also one of the key Englightenment figures who helped bring an end to European dynasties and the hereditary privilege of the nobility. He spent some time in the Bastille as a political prisoner, went into exile numerous times, and never chickened out when he saw an injustice to lend his famous voice to.
The Château de Cirey is in the Haute-Marne region, which is also the place where the French nuclear establishment hopes to bury the nation’s high level nuclear waste near the town of Bure. The historical coincidence makes me wonder what Voltaire would say today if he could witness the modern outrage of the French nuclear legacy.
The
French agency ANDRA (Agence National Pour la Gestion des Déchets Radioactifs)
has a plan to create CIGEO (Centre Industrial de Stockage Géologique), the
nuclear waste disposal/storage site that may be approved for the Haute-Marne
region that is, for the time being, famous more for its champagne. ANDRA and
CIGEO have vast resources at their disposal, so they have been able to publish
a great deal of information in English and German, in addition to French, in
order to give to the international community their view of the proposal, and of
the long road over public debate and steps of government approval that they
hope will lead to a green light in the year 2019. Readers can peruse their documents
and make up their own minds as to whether they make a convincing case that the
project will indeed be reversible and safe for an adequate length of time.
The
CIGEO
website presently declares:
The
public debate and exchange phase concerning the CIGEO project, which began last
May, has drawn to a close. Even if the public meetings that had initially been
planned could not take place due to opponents of the project preventing anybody
from speaking, the debate was still able to move forward, particularly on the
Internet.
The ANDRA website describes the conclusion of the public
debate period this way:
“Christian
Leyrit and Claude Bernet emphasised that the debate had been rich, while
expressing regret that public meetings had been prevented from taking place.
More than 76,000 visits were registered on the public debate website, 1,500
questions asked, 500 opinions given and 154 stakeholder reports submitted. The
departments of Meuse and Haute-Marne account for almost half of the stakeholder
reports, 25% of the statements made and 18.5% of the questions asked… ANDRA
will examine the proposal for a new project scope, integrating a
"pilot" storage stage. This proposal is in keeping with that [sic]
from the citizen's conference for a trial phase under real conditions.”
It
seems like those pesky anti-nuclear activists spoiled the fun for everyone, but
the debates went ahead as best as they could regardless. One may be tempted to
say that these opponents lost their legitimacy by disrupting the process and
withdrawing from it, but it could be the case that the very idea of debating
CIGEO would be dignifying it in a way it doesn’t deserve. There are many
once-common but now-repugnant cultural practices that we no longer debate.
Society may be reaching a point at which nuclear waste management and the continued
production of nuclear waste are coming to be regarded as slavery was in 1860s
America. No self-respecting moral person could bring himself to even discuss
the question of whether one group of people had the right to enslave another in
chains.
The
French anti-nuclear group Sortir du Nucléaire
doesn’t have the same resources as ANDRA and CIGEO that would allow them to
publish all of their messages in foreign languages, so I’m helping them out
again with a volunteer translation of one of their press releases regarding the
proposed pilot project at Bure. It is followed by another translation--an essay
by a French nuclear industry insider who wrote recently, under a pseudonym,
about the flawed assumptions behind the CIGEO project.
__________
Translation 1
A “pilot project” for the burial of
radioactive wastes: a plan to impose CIGEO (Centre Industrial de Stockage
Géologique)* by incremental steps
ANDRA
(Agence National Pour la Gestion des Déchets Radioactifs) has just released its
conclusions regarding the public debate on CIGEO. In spite of strong
objections, the deep geological disposal project is being maintained under the
cover of a “pilot project.” This stratagem for getting a foot in the door for
the project is unacceptable. It won’t make the problems disappear.
A way for CIGEO to get its foot in
the door
In
order to not lose face after facing numerous criticisms expressed during the
public debate period, ANDRA proposes now to carry out the CIGEO project in
small steps. The timetable has been extended, the application for authorization
will now be done in two stages, and, above all, there will be an “industrial
phase pilot project.”
While being labelled as “reversible,” this way of proceeding is no more than a way of slowly establishing the project while the construction of infrastructure continues apace. There is no guarantee that the wastes disposed of “experimentally” could ever be brought back to the surface. The residents near the site in Bure have already seen the “laboratory” transformed into an industrial center for geologic disposal. Now they will face another rude shock when they realize that the pilot project has turned CIGEO into a fait accompli.
While being labelled as “reversible,” this way of proceeding is no more than a way of slowly establishing the project while the construction of infrastructure continues apace. There is no guarantee that the wastes disposed of “experimentally” could ever be brought back to the surface. The residents near the site in Bure have already seen the “laboratory” transformed into an industrial center for geologic disposal. Now they will face another rude shock when they realize that the pilot project has turned CIGEO into a fait accompli.
It is certain that ANDRA is hoping to divert attention from the serious criticisms that were raised during the period of public debate. The problems extend over every aspect of CIGEO: the costs, the exact nature of the inventory of wastes, concerns of neighboring countries (Luxembourg and Germany), risks of fires and hydrogen explosions, ethical issues. No pilot project can make these issues disappear. In fact, recent problems at a similar site in New Mexico have confirmed that burial is an option that should be abandoned.
The
pilot project will also not make ANDRA’s lies fade away. The geothermic
potential of the Bure site is another factor that cannot be ignored. This risk
in itself is enough reason to cancel the project.
The
conclusions that should have been made after the debates are the following:
1.
We
must definitively abandon the CIGEO project by first withdrawing it from the
law on energy transition.
2.
We
must break the impasse over the issue of radioactive waste burial.
3.
We
must cease the transformation of the area into a monoculture of the nuclear
industry.
4.
We
must stop the production of nuclear waste.
It
is not the nuclear wastes that should be buried but rather the CIGEO project
itself.
__________
*translator’s
note: The public debates have made ANDRA realize that public acceptance hinges
on convincing the public that this is a reversible
storage project and not a permanent disposal project. The terms
are as charged with significance as the terms pro-life and pro-choice
in the debate over abortion. ANDRA would like to convince the public that if
there is trouble down in the hole, people of the future will be able to safely retrieve
the wastes and figure out another way to deal with them—as if bringing them
back up and guarding them above ground for 100,000 years would be a “solution”
that we could feel good about. CIGEO now has a new definition: centre
industriel de stockage réversible profond de déchets radioactifs en Meuse/Haute-Marne.
A document which goes well with the
press release above is an essay published by a Swiss group called Appel de Genève II. The document is
significant because it is written under a pseudonym by a whistleblower from
inside the French nucleocracy. I have translated the first three paragraphs
that explain his professional qualifications and his reasons for speaking out. I
haven’t translated the rest of the essay because it supports many of the
same points in the
argument made by Jean-Pierre Petit which I translated previously. In
particular, the main concern is that the waste will continue to generate heat,
which will denature the containers in unpredictable ways and turn the tunnels
into ovens. Furthermore, no one can guarantee that underground water flow,
humidity and the geological state of the site will remain unchanged over
100,000 years.
__________
Translation 2
Appel de Genève II
February 12,
2014
The CIGEO deep geological disposal
site for radioactive waste in Bure : How the adventurism of the
nucleocrats risks an unprecedented disaster that could one day be called a
crime against the biosphere.
by Hans
Zumkeller
Let
me introduce myself. I have worked for a long time for the CEA (Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives) in the thermal section.
This involves working with everything related to the production of steam,
turbines, and their connections to alternators. My responsibilities also
included securing heat removal of reactor cores in case of an emergency shutdown.
I also participated in studies concerning the circulation of sodium coolant in
fast neutron reactors. My title is chef
de service, but I don’t have responsibilities in the neutronic field, the
nature of irradiated materials, their embrittlement, reprocessing, the behavior
of new fuel types, etc. My knowledge as a graduate of one of the prestigious
French Grandes Ecoles gives me an
ability to manage problems which is above that of a simple technician.
What makes me different from some of my
colleagues is that I have a natural curiosity which led me to acquire a breadth
of knowledge beyond my official duties that covers several, but not all,
domains.
Everyone will immediately understand that I
could write this only under a pseudonym. Several colleagues have views
identical to mine or close to them, but they stay silent. It is rare that we
speak directly about these things among ourselves. At our level, as important
and responsible specialists in the industry, problems are evoked in veiled
terms and jokes. Prudence is essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment