For ecologists, the European parliament has further illustrated its unrivalled complacency towards the nuclear industry, even though it had the opportunity to send a strong signal to the commission and the member states via the Romana Jordan report which revises the EU directive on nuclear safety.
Representatives of parliament have not fulfilled their oversight role. Faced with the potential danger posed by the nuclear industry, parliamentarians must demand the maximum safeguard in order to prevent the worst from happening.
Unfortunately, complacency was evident once again and the nuclear safety authorities (NSAs) will not have the necessary skills to prevent operators from taking foolish risks.
In this text, as in all of the texts focusing on the nuclear industry, parliament does not have the benefit of co-decision, it is merely consulted.
"Faced with the potential danger posed by the nuclear industry, parliamentarians must demand the maximum safeguard in order to prevent the worst from happening"
We asked for a change in the legal basis calling into question the Euratom treaty, but it was rejected. And while the commission offered us a somewhat unbinding text, the rapporteur has still managed to weaken it.
The commission proposed that the NSAs be clearly separated from any entity responsible for promoting or using nuclear energy or for electricity production; ultimately this separation will only be in the legal sense.
The report disregards the parliament resolution of March 2013 on stress tests. Parliament recognised the need for safety improvements in the light of the stress tests conducted. However, they will not necessarily be acted upon as we now need proof that the investments made have a measurable impact on safety in relation to the amounts invested.
Also, if the peer review observes failures, the safety measures will not be implemented immediately. And since the report has refused the NSAs the possibility of receiving any real power of sanction, they will not be able to compel the operators to work safely.
We could celebrate the inclusion of a reference to the Aarhus convention on public participation in decision making, but the amendments we tabled to promote public participation were rejected.
This is more than adversarial. Worse still, the proposal to include independent experts from civil society in the peer reviews was rejected. This vote ultimately represents the very image that everyone has of the nuclear sector: a closed environment, sealed to outside scrutiny and right of inspection by citizens.