Dissuading sanctions.

T. Fronte - march 2004

CONTENT

1)Sanctions against the transparency

2)Inflicting sanctions instead of enforcing nuclear safety rules

3)Compelling pressures

APPENDIX 1: the point of view of the sociologist F. CHATEAURAYNAUD (EHESS de Paris)

APPENDIX 2: the point of view of the science editor C. VANLERBERGHE (Le Figaro)

1) Sanctions against the transparency.

After I reported irregularities in nuclear safety and public money, I was dismissed immediately, allegedly for "poor professional skills"; yet, I had been a design engineer for 14 years with a leading nuclear manufacturer and I was in charge of tasks funded by the European Commission (EC). As I insisted in denouncing the irregularities, I was vilified. In the attempt to defend myself I went to the Court of Nanterre (France); judges fined me, declaring that my law action revealed "patent insincerity" and was abusive. People staging false statements against me operated inside State organisations ( IRSN/J-F.Lacronique). The inquiry was dropped by the EC (OLAF/F.-H.Brüner; DGET/C. Waeterloos)

"Unemployed since 1997, Tommaso Fronte endures a lonely fight to prove that he was illegally dismissed and safety rules were violated."... (see APPENDIX 1, the point of view of the sociologist)

2) Inflicting sanctions instead of enforcing safety rules.

At every level, the sanctions inflicted to me were accepted as a way of settling safety issues, regardless of professional requirements as per nuclear rules. I have been out of job for six years and I have to fight nuclear operators (AREVA/ A.Lauvergeon) and ruthless executives; the minister of Ecology, R. Bachelot, met with silence my alert; as a matter of fact, the minister in charge of nuclear safety, F. Mer, was in the Board of Administration of the group involved in the safety gaps which I denounced: supply of nuclear equipment without conforming safety files; supply of cheap devices rated QNC (quality not certified) instead of nuclear grade equipment...

the opposite picture displays an instrumerntation and control cabinet in Saint Laurent 2 (FRANCE) power plant, dedicated to the protection of the nuclear reactor; the equipment is falling apart although it is designed to strigent seismic standards .
more

3) Compelling pressures.

Those who are responsible escape sanctions. So, the system is preserved and the irregularities proliferate, defying the accident .

T. Fronte - Paris, march 2004

APPENDIX 1

The point of view of the sociologist.

Paris, march 2003.

Alerting is now frequent enough and so many people are involved that a right of the whistle-blower should be envisaged in France. In fact, protecting the whistle-blower would require three joint steps :

- procedures like in US or UK often quoted in example, with a public institution supporting those who raise the alert if the public interest is at stake ; - assessment procedures to prevent from creating a paranoiac vision of the reality; -finally, separation of the individual case from the general public problem. No detailed examples will be presented in this short contribution. I just will mention the case of Tommaso Fronte, an engineer dismissed by a subsidiary of Framatome [now AREVA] and the safety gaps about the sealing parts of the nuclear reactors in Tihange (Belgium) as well as in South Africa. Unemployed since 1997, Tommaso Fronte endures a lonely fight to prove that he was illegally dismissed and safety rules were violated.
Francis Chateauraynaud. EHESS.

ANNEXE 2

The point of view of the science editor.

Paris, december 2002

No protection for whistle-blowers.

Usually in the movies there is a happy end for individuals who raise the alert against large institutions or corporations . But in the real life the end is often quite different for those who challenge their superiors to alert the public about illegal or dangerous practices. In the US they are nicknamed whistleblowers . According Fred Alford , who has devoted a book, near half of them are dismissed and the others become isolated . On the other hand, if they alert their superiors rather than the public they risk to be dismissed as well. According to Alford , the whistleblowers are feared by their superiors because they are perceived as a potential threat to the supreme interest of the company. Before being fired in 1997, Tommaso Fronte alerted his superiors about missing safety files for equipment supplied to the nuclear power station of Koeberg (Republic of South Africa).
Cyrille Vanlerberghe (Le Figaro)