After delays, Finland's showcase nuclear reactor to face tests

(MENAFN- AFP) Repeated delays, cost overruns, lax controls: construction of the world's first European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) in Finland was meant to be a showcase of French-German know-how but has instead turned into a bitter debacle.

Areva, the French atomic energy giant together with German engineering group Siemens, is building the EPR, a third-generation reactor design considered the most advanced and safest in the world.

The Olkiluoto 3 reactor in western Finland was considered to be the first of its kind when construction began in 2005, with a start date initially planned in 2009.

But after a string of technical and safety setbacks that goal has now been delayed to 2018.

Meanwhile, another EPR that began construction in France after the Finnish one looks set to beat that target, starting production in 2017.

Areva and the Finnish electricity group TVO that commissioned the project disagree on who is responsible for the delays, and have taken the matter to the International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration. Areva is claiming damages of 3.4 billion euros ($3.8 billion), and TVO 2.6 billion euros.

Areva and TVO officials recently appeared to bury the hatchet, taking reporters on a tour of the Olkiluoto site and insisting their cooperation was now running smoothly.

And they announced that the long-awaited reactor would begin the testing phase in 2016.

But what was it that caused the project nine years of delays and led to finger-pointing

According to the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority STUK, Areva was in over its head from the get-go.

"Areva as an organisation had not managed a project like this before. There was a lack of know-how in the beginning," STUK deputy director Tapani Virolainen, in charge of inspecting the project from the start, told AFP.

The French group was specialised in nuclear engineering, but it was not as skilled at project management, Virolainen said.

Yet it had sold Olkiluoto 3 to TVO as a so-called "turnkey" construction, giving TVO an excuse to take a passive role.

- 'Risks in all projects' -

Virolainen stressed that TVO was also to blame: "In our eyes, TVO as the licensee is responsible for the plant, regardless of the contract type."

TVO lacked expertise too, with the most recent nuclear plant construction in Finland dating back to the 1970s.

Areva's project director Jean-Pierre Mouroux took the criticism with a grain of salt.

"The teams on both sides did their best," he told AFP. "Nothing is perfect and we can always do better, that's for sure ... This is a big project, there are risks in all projects and what we did everyday with our teams was to try to anticipate these risks in order to prevent them."

Yet the Finnish criticism has been harsh.

Both Virolainen and chief engineer Jorma Aurela, who is responsible for nuclear energy matters at the Finnish economy ministry, blame Areva's and Siemens' original planning for many of the woes.

According to Aurela, "the plans were not finished when construction had already begun," falling short of STUK's quality and safety requirements.

- Irresponsible subcontracting -

In addition to countless comments and continuous on-site surveillance, STUK conducted two major investigations, in 2006 and 2011.

The resulting reports obtained by AFP shed light on the severity of their security concerns.

STUK first intervened when the waterproofing of the concrete slab, which forms the base of the reactor, proved inadequate.

Aurela called the incident "the concrete fiasco", in which it soon emerged that not all builders were familiar with nuclear construction safety standards.

"There was quite a bit of monitoring there as Areva, TVO and the contractors each had their own inspectors at the site. So naturally we were worried when the anomalies weren't discovered until we discovered them," Virolainen said.

It also emerged that dozens of subcontractors of around 60 different nationalities did not share a common language with their superiors.

A second investigation was conducted when STUK discovered the poor quality of the design for the emergency diesel generators, which are supposed to kick in if the facility loses power.

Insufficient planning and irresponsible subcontracting were again blamed.

Aurela said long chains of subcontracting were at the heart of many of the problems, as standards and safety requirements did not get passed down the chain.

But now, both STUK and the ministry are convinced the unit will be completed satisfactorily.

"Around 2012 and 2013 I started to feel like our messages were sinking in. The planning material got better and right now everything appears to be going well for automation," the final construction phase before testing, Virolainen said.

And TVO project director Jouni Silvennoinen said relations with Areva have "evolved in a very good manner".