"
The consideration of environmental issues does not always appear sufficient,
" noted Monday the Environmental Authority (Ae) which gave its recommendations and revived the controversy over the controversial issue of underground burial of nuclear waste in Bure (Meuse ).
The Ae issued a detailed opinion which is part of the Public Utility Request (DUP) file that the National Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste (Andra) published.
This DUP should be examined during the first semester.
Read also: Nuclear waste in Bure: the public utility application file posted online
In the summary of its opinion, the Environmental Authority, which is not responsible for deciding in favor or not of the project, considered that "
the analysis of risks and impacts, in the long and very long terms, is intended to be completed and refined on the occasion of successive updates to the impact study, and particularly for the authorization request to create the storage facility
”.
It is therefore recommended that Andra better demonstrate the seismic nature of the subsoil to justify the location of the site, and also resume studies of the geothermal potential of the Bure subsoil by independent geologists.
Regarding alternatives to landfill in Bure, Ae noted that "
the examination of the alternatives was based on a still imperfect knowledge of the initial state, which suggests that the consideration of environmental issues could be better
”.
“
In general, both with regard to waste treatment, the type of disposal, the choice of the argillite layer, the exact location of the project facilities and for the future of the territory that carries it, the taking into account environmental issues does not always appear sufficient,
”Ae insisted.
"
Other uncertainties regarding the impact on Natura 2000 sites and the impacts on aquatic environments must also be resolved
", she added.
Read also: Switzerland plans to bury its nuclear waste
Finally, Ae criticized Andra for not submitting a “
site safety report
” itself as part of its DUP request.
"
It is necessary to refer to other studies and files to have a vision of risk management on the site
", she regretted, noting that "
the impact study does not address the situations accidental or only occasionally with regard to water
”.
/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/ILLMSM3CL5EZTGR5TPAFNGGS6Y.jpg)
