The French nuclear safety agency, ASN, has ordered construction to be suspended on the new nuclear reactor being built in France - the same model that would most likely be built in the UK. (1)

Flamanville's construction in northern France has run into the same kinds of problems plaguing the ongoing construction of the only other European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), Olkiluoto 3, in Finland.

The move by ASN follows the agency's discovery of chronic problems affecting the quality of construction work since building work commenced on Flamanville 3 in December 2007.

ASN's call to halt construction follows a series of letters from the agency to Flamanville's construction manager. In the letters, ASN inspectors highlighted a range of problems including non-conformities in the pinning of the steel framework of the concrete base slab, incorrectly positioned reinforcements, and inadequacy of technical inspections by both the construction companies and Electricité de France (EDF).

Inspectors also uncovered inconsistencies between the blueprint for reinforcement work and the plan for its practical implementation. (2) The incorrect composition of concrete had been used, that may lead to cracks and rapid deterioration. Samples of concrete were also not collected properly, according to ASN. (3)

Cracks have already been observed at part of the base slab beneath the reactor building. The supplier of the steel containment liner reportedly lacks the necessary qualifications. Fabrication of the liner was continuing despite quality failures demonstrating the lack of competence of the supplier. As a result, one-quarter of the welds of the steel liner of the reactor containment building were deficient. (4)

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The only two EPRs being built today are construction fiascos. The one in Finland is years behind schedule and billions over budget and only six months into the project in France building work has come screeching to a halt.

"This reactor design is fast becoming a by-word for incompetence, massive delays, spiralling costs and dodgy engineering. We only have a limited time and budget to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change and we should stop pouring money down the nuclear black hole."

Olkiluoto has been under construction for three years but has been blighted ever since the concrete was poured. Poor quality concrete, bad welds on the containment liner and low-quality reactor components are among its problems. The schedule for completion has been put back by more than two years and costs have nearly doubled to over 5 billion euros.

ENDS

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255

Notes:

(1) Mr Smith from the local division of ASN interviewed by French channel 3 this lunchtime, also quoted in the French local paper Ouest-France: "Le coulage du béton de l'EPR suspendu - Suite à une injonction de l'ASN (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire) qui a constaté une nouvelle anomalie dans le ferraillage de l'îlot qui supportera le future réacteur nucléaire, EDF vient de suspendre le coulage du béton. Le chantier est donc interrompu pour correction et vérification."

(2) ASN letter, 12 March 2008.

(3) ASN letter, 25 January 2008.

(4) ASN letter, 19 February 2008.

Nuclear companies across Europe warned to expect similar disruption

Thirty anti-nuclear campaigners, including five from the UK, have halted the building of a new nuclear reactor in France – and warned that any new nuclear reactors built in the UK can expect similar treatment.

On the twenty-first anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the activists from Greenpeace used trucks to block the entrance to the construction site at Flamanville in northern France and occupied cranes and other building equipment.

In the UK, existing nuclear sites are considered the most likely to be earmarked as locations for new nuclear reactors. These include:

• Dungeness in Kent;
• Hinkley Point in Somerset;
• Bradwell in Essex;
• Sizewell in Suffolk;
• Heysham in Lancashire;
• Oldbury in Gloucestershire;
• Sellafield in Cumbria.
  

The reactor under construction, known as a European Pressurized Water Reactor, is the most likely type to be proposed for the UK. There are grave concerns over the safety of these untried and untested new reactors.

The French energy company Electricité de France – known in the UK as EDF – is behind the new reactor construction and are known to favour building similar reactors in the UK.

Nathan Argent, Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, said: “No-one should expect that the action taken today to halt construction of this completely unnecessary nuclear reactor will be a one-off.

“If new nuclear power stations are given the go-ahead in the UK then their construction will be disrupted.

“Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from implementing real solutions to climate change. There are much safer, more reliable and significantly cheaper approaches such as increased energy efficiency, renewable power technologies and the decentralising of our electricity and energy systems.”

A recent report by the Flood Hazard Research Centre showed that many nuclear sites are at risk from significant sea level rises and storm surges in the future and are not suitable locations for new nuclear reactors.

ENDS

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255

Greenpeace campaigners breached security at the construction site of a nuclear reactor in Finland this morning.

The 10 activists entered the site at Olkiluoto at 8.30am and are demanding that the Finnish nuclear safety inspectorate release details of the 700 safety violations that have been identified during construction.

These violations include faults with the steel liner, which is meant to prevent the release of radioactive contamination, where 49 large holes were cut in the wrong places, as well as using illegal welding methods[i].

The nuclear reactor type, known in the industry as a European pressurised water reactor (EPR), is the first of its kind to be built in Europe, and is the design most likely to be built in the UK if the Government gives the go-ahead to a new wave of nuclear power stations.

However, in December 2006, after 16 months of construction, the French company Areva, who are building the reactor, announced that it was already 18 months behind schedule and £700 million (€473 million) over budget.

Nathan Argent, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, said: "As the only construction of its kind in Europe, this reactor site at Olkiluoto is the nuclear industry's equivalent of their show home. But it's somehow indicative of this dangerous industry that their show home is ridiculously over budget and plagued with hundreds of safety violations.

"This new reactor is a perfect example of how nuclear power is nothing more than a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real solutions to climate change. There are much cheaper, safer and secure solutions to tackling climate change, such as renewable technologies and increased energy efficiency."

In February, after Greenpeace took them to the High Court, the UK Government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was declared to be unlawful.

ENDS

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

Why nuclear power isn't the answer to climate change:

• 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut the UK's CO2 emissions by 4%. This would be wiped out by the predicted rise in aircraft emissions alone.
• New nuclear power is not a relevant or timely response to the immediate need to reduce C02 emissions. Any nuclear new build programme would not see the first reactor come online until around 2018 at the earliest, with the main delivery of the programme not arriving until around 2025-2030. C02 emissions need to be cut years before.
• Nuclear power's effect on C02 emissions is very small. Although nuclear power currently provides about 20% of our electricity (reactor problems regularly reduce this), it only provides 3.6% of the UK's total energy.
• Nuclear power stations only marginally address hot water and central heating needs, and don't meet needs for transport at all.
• There is no safe solution to nuclear waste.
• There is a much cheaper, better way to meet our energy needs and cut C02 emissions. A decentralised energy system will slash C02 and cost far less than a new generation of nuclear power stations, making maximum use of combined heat and power and renewable energy.

[i] STUK Investigation Report 1/06, July 10 2006