[ad_1]
The Committee on Sustainable Development of the National Assembly presented this Thursday, July 5, its report on "the safety and security of nuclear facilities." Paraphrasing Boileau about Malherbe, one would be tempted to say "finally this report came". This question, however serious, and which is not without deserve to be put back on the job in the face of the evolution of threats, does not end indeed to be mediatized in the most caricatural way. The best example was the action of Greenpeace last Tuesday, aiming to project a light drone, disguised as Superman, against the reinforced concrete of the Bugey power station (Ain), action, it should be said, without any impact on said Central. But which again shows the irresponsibility of some on a subject of primary importance
Let's say it all: the publication of this report is not likely to dispel a certain feeling of unease. From the very beginning, carried by Mrs. Pompili whose beliefs in this matter lean towards politics that is to say ideology, this report was sent in response to several incidents deliberately caused by activists (in Cattenom in October 2017 and Cruas in November 2017). Secondly, given EDF's central role in this area, the result of our history, any reaction to this report would, if it were negative, be immediately accused of a "defense and illustration" of the leading European energy company. . In such a context, in the first badysis, however, it is permissible to venture to formulate some remarks, both formally and substantively.
If one observes the composition of the hearings, one goes account of a manifest disproportion in favor of actors / badociations / journalists clearly hostile to the very principle of nuclear electricity
Disproportion. The form, composition, hearings and conditions of implementation of this commission of inquiry were, as always, a clear indication of the message one wished to deliver. In this case, it was limpid, that is to say, against the French system of nuclear safety and security. First, if we observe the composition of the hearings, we realize a manifest disproportion in favor of actors / badociations / journalists clearly hostile to the very principle of nuclear electricity. Then, to paraphrase the word of Frédéric Bastiat on what is seen and not seen in economics, the meaning of the report can also be read in the absence of hearing energy specialists known to be favorable to nuclear electricity. Finally, the perpetual criticism of the lack of transparency of the operator, and without quibbling about the efforts made by EDF to collaborate with the investigators (hearings, site visits, written answers etc.), that it is recognized that this is the only sector the transparency of which is imposed by law
On the merits, the report raises several questions. That it is permissible to give here some elements of answer on three elements.
First, on the question of the working conditions of the subcontractors, one understands that the risk exists of a less saying in the matter. This risk must however be ruled out for one simple reason: it is not EDF at all but a decree of 28 June 2016, ie the public authority, which guarantees working conditions (risks, medical follow-up, etc.).
Next, the question of dismantling, a sea serpent and the object of so much exaggeration, even if it is an important issue that should not be underestimated or treated lightly. Here again, public authorities intervened, since the law of 28 June 2006 on the sustainable management of radioactive materials and waste and its implementing regulations) created a binding mechanism for nuclear operators. They are required to provision the badets needed to finance decommissioning and waste management costs (more than 25 billion in EDF's 2017 accounts, regularly audited by the Court of Auditors). Many of the technological advances made by today's power stations – a significant part of the research and development financed by EDF and the CEA – concern the post-life of nuclear power plants.
Finally, as far as Storage of radioactive materials, storage in the pool has been preferred to dry storage, in conjunction with the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), in total consistency with the most demanding regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Bruno Alomar, economist, former member of the cabinet of the European Commissioner for Energy
<! – [19659011] ->
[ad_2]
Source link
