Controversial nuclear safety reform closes to final passage in parliament

Now the ball is in the Senate’s court. The executive’s controversial nuclear safety reform on Tuesday cleared the main hurdle that still stood in its way to parliament with a favorable vote in the National Assembly. The merger of the nuclear police ASN with the technical expert of the IRSN sector was approved by 340 votes to 173, with the support of the presidential camp, the right and, this time, the National Rally, which opposed it last month at the first reading.

Deputies voted for a compromise text agreed between representatives of the Assembly and Senate on this reform, which, according to its detractors, risks causing “disorganization” of the system and calling into question the independence of decisions of the future unified education.

While the Senate’s final green light, expected this evening, was not in much doubt, the Assembly vote seemed more uncertain as lawmakers passed the bill by only 260 votes to 259 last month. But tensions dropped a notch on Tuesday, even before the session began, as the National Rally announced its intention to provide support this time around. “Even if the text remains imperfect,” the reform “will speed up the construction of new reactors,” said RN MP Nicolas Dragon.

“Weathervanes”

This change of position in any case weakened the opposition camp, consisting of left-wing groups, both pro- and anti-nuclear weapons, and Lyot’s independent groups. “Your incompetence is catastrophic or very revealing,” Lyot MP Benjamin Saint-Huile told RN, calling his members “weather vanes.” On the contrary, the reform was largely supported by the presidential majority – despite dissenting voices – with the support, in addition to the RN, of the majority of Republican deputies.

This text calls for the creation of the Office of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ASNR) in 2025 through the merger of the Office of Nuclear Safety and Security (ASN) and the Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), employing approximately 530 and 1,740 agents, respectively. The government believes that the abolition of the dual system will “liquefy” the sector by reducing the time required for examination and obtaining permission for installation.

It is about “responding in the best possible conditions to the challenges of restarting the nuclear industry and providing the means to solve the unprecedented industrial and energy challenges that we face,” said Industry Minister Roland Lescure.

Opponents, however, warn of a possible loss of expert independence and transparency. The project, which is opposed by a number of elected officials, engineers and associations, has also drawn the ire of unions in the two entities. On Tuesday, IRSN staff took to the streets for the eighth time and called on MPs to oppose it. “Vote no!” “- chanted several hundred demonstrators near the Assembly. “IRSN dismantled, safety at risk,” “forced marriage, accident guaranteed,” we read on the signs in the procession.

Compromise in the joint committee

A key reform article that had given unions hope was rejected by an Assembly committee in early March and then reinstated in session. A year earlier, it was in this half-year that the opposition coalition blocked the merger by rejecting an executive amendment to a previous bill dedicated to restarting nuclear power.

The parliamentary debate “proved to us once again that this project does not meet any technical or scientific justification,” said MP Jumel. The text put to a vote on Tuesday is the result of a compromise in a joint committee (JC) between senators and deputies. Assembly Rapporteur Jean-Luc Fugit (Renaissance) praised the new guarantees provided in the CMP. The single authority “will be watched like milk watches fire,” he asserts, emphasizing that it must present a draft of its internal regulations to parliamentarians.

The amendment adopted in the CMP also provides for a “case by case” distinction between reviewing officers and decision makers. However, as socialist MP Anna Peak laments, “the same agent can act as an expert on a case one week and take on the role of decision-maker the next week,” “we will confuse decision and expertise.”