Nuclear Energy

Generation-II PWRs, with other reports putting these figures much higher. ccclix Furthermore, the
EPR is potentially more dangerous in case of an accident as compared to almost any operating
nuclear reactor. In the event of a serious accident, the impact would be cataclysmic, many times
more devastating than Chernobyl! As a result, more stringent construction and quality control is
needed for the EPR to be able even to match the risk levels of operating reactors. However, the
quality control problems at the Olkiluoto-3 site indicate that it is highly questionable whether even
present-day safety standards will be kept at this plant.
That is one part of the Olkiluoto-3 fiasco. The other part is that the project has turned into a
financial disaster: by mid-2010, quality control problems and design defects have led to
construction running four years behind schedule, resulting in estimated costs escalating to double
the contract price...! ccclx
Flamanville-3
The second order for an EPR, Flamanville in France, is doing no better, despite the fact that
construction here started two and a half years after Olkiluoto-3. It is being built by EDF, a utility
with far more nuclear construction experience than any other in the world. Work on this plant
started in December 2007. Two and a half years later, in June 2010, EDF admitted that the project
was running two years late and the cost overrun was more than 50 per cent. ccclxi
The reason for the delay and cost overruns is the same as that for Olkiluoto 3: quality
control problems. The initial blasting to prepare the site had problems. The reinforcing of concrete
was not done properly. Cracks were found in the reactor’s foundations. In April 2008, the French
nuclear watchdog ASN announced that a quarter of the welding they had inspected in the reactor’s
steel liner was defective. ccclxii A year later, it asked for two out of three pressuriser forgings to be
remanufactured. ccclxiii
Because of the inherently dangerous nature of the EPR reactor, France has witnessed fierce
protests against it, with tens of thousands coming out on the streets in the cities of Rennes, Lyon,
Toulouse, Lille and Strasbourg, as well as in Flamanville. ccclxiv
What is going wrong?
What are the reasons for the quality control problems encountered in construction of both
Olkiluoto-3 and Flamanville-3 reactors?
One reason is that both Areva and EDF have tried to cut corners in safety and quality
standards in order to reduce costs. ccclxv The Finnish Safety Authority (STUK) in a report on the
reasons for the delay in construction schedule of the OL-3 reactor stated: “The major problems
involve project management ... The power plant vendor has selected subcontractors with no prior
experience in nuclear power plant construction to implement the project. These subcontractors have
not received sufficient guidance and supervision to ensure smooth progress of their work …” ccclxvi
For instance, Areva got the Containment Steel Liner manufactured in a Polish machine yard which
had no earlier experience of nuclear construction! ccclxvii
90