Failure to implement EPR in France and Finland:

The Jaitapur Nuclear Plant will use European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) supplied by the French company, AREVA. EPR, which has yet to meet all of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) requirements,(1) has not been widely implemented, and the few sites that have tried to incorporate these reactors are experiencing delays and technological setbacks.

The first plant -- Olkilutoto-3 in Finland -- has been delayed three and a half years by numerous safety, design and construction problems. Furthermore, although Finland was promised that EPR would be cost effective, costs have risen by about 90% above the initial projected costs. Different nuclear safety agencies from Finland, the UK, and France (STUK, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and Autorite de Surete Nucleaire), cited over 3,000 safety and quality problems in the construction of Olkilutoto-3.(7) In France, EPR construction of the Flamanville-3 plant has faced similar problems and delays. Containment reinforcement was found inadequate, and much like the Finnish plant, final costs were significantly higher than expected and the time frame much longer.(6)

"The chronic delays and setbacks at the Olkiluoto plant shows that this new design carries all of the same old problems: complications, escalating costs, chronic safety issues, delays and a lack of transparency...The warnings from the Olkilouto nuclear fiasco must be heeded by other governments." -- Jan Beránek(3)

The issues that were so clearly illustrated in the attempts to construct EPRs in Finland and in France are evidence of inherent design flaws. The large size of the reactor and its corresponding fuel intake and fuel burn-up, places high demands on the construction of the plant in order to ensure that it is safe. EPRs fail to meet safety standards. “Reality has revealed the incompetence of the nuclear industry as illustrated by weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs,” Greenpeace claims.(6) Through individual assessments, groups from the UK (HSE), Finland (STUK), and France (ASN) have each found problems regarding the EPR Control and Instrumentation (C&IU) systems.(2) Poor quality control and construction have surrounded EPRs. For example, the concrete base of the plants is porous, which makes it weak and vulnerable to chemically reactive substances. Also, the high water content of concrete makes it prone to cracks.(6)

One of the major concerns with this brand-new technology is that AREVA's original EPR design, “doesn't comply with the independence principle, as there is a high degree of complex interconnectivity between the control and safety systems.” Independence within a nuclear power plant is of the utmost importance because the safety system provides protection in case the control system experiences problems. If the control and safety systems are not independent, then the systems would fail together and the safety controls would be worthless.(2)

"The French nuclear companies Areva and EDF, which aggressively market the EPR as safe and cheap, have completely ignored the implications of the increased hazards." -- John Large (independent nuclear consultant).(8)

Articles published in “Nucleonics Week” describe AREVA's attempts to reduce costs by selecting cheap, incompetent subcontractors and by overlooking safety-related problems. And, shockingly, nuclear safety training was not provided to workers.(6)

WASTE

The waste that the plant will produce is advertised as being 15% less than that of a normal reactor. However, this number does not take into account the fact that the waste EPRs do produce contain significantly greater amounts of radiation. The EPR is the largest reactor ever built with a core that contains the largest quantity of radioactive elements of any reactor. It has a much higher density of fission-causing neutrons and fuel burn-up than do normal reactor (of 500-1000 MW capacity). The large amount of fuel used has dangerous implications for radioactivity releases, damage to the fuel cladding, and waste generation.(7)  Furthermore, the fuel itself (which is a mixed-oxide, or MOX) is designed to burn fuel longer and therefore generate large amounts of radioactivity and dangerous nuclear isotopes. The fuel is comprised of a mix of uranium and plutonium and it yields a significantly higher quantity of hazardous materials, including radioactive Bromine, Caesium, and seven times the amount of Iodine-129(7), than is produced in ordinary pressurized water reactor (PWR).(6)

When the former Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Anil Kakodkar,  insists that the nuclear fuel will "be recycled" and that only five percent of the fuel would go into long term storage,"* he does not address the fact that the waste itself contains a far greater amount of hazards as compared to (ordinary) PWRs and furthermore ignores the fact that the fuel recycling process is environmentally dangerous.(6)  He, and other Proponants of EPR technology, have argued that the fuel used by the reactors will be able to be reprocessed and therefore the systems will produce less waste than other types of reactors. What they don't advertise (in addition to the higher density of radioactive elements in the waste as compared to other reactors) is that the nuclear reprocessing system itself is highly contaminating.(6)

To date, no technology has been discovered to treat nuclear waste and make it safe.

Sources
1: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  "PR Reactor Design's Computer Systems." NRC News, No. 10-130.  23 July 2010.
2: Joint Regulatory Position Statement on the EPR Pressurized Water Reactor (Joint statement of HSE / UK, STUK / Finland, ASN / France).  2009.
[Source]
3: "Nuclear Industry's Flagship Plant Delayed Again."  Huliq: First in Current News.  8 November 2007.
[Source]
4: Tara Patel.  "French Nuclear Watchdog says EDF has Welding Problems at Flamanville EPR Liner."  Bloomberg: Top U.S. and International News Headlines.  30 August 2010.
[Source]
5: "Greenpeace Assault on EPR."  Nuclear Engineering International.  1 May 2007.
[Source]
6: Jan Beránek.  "EPR -- European Pressurized Reactors."  Greenpoeace International.  May 2008.
[Source]
7: "Courting Nuclear Disaster in Maharashtra: Why the Jaitapur Project Must be Scrapped."  Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP).  January 2011. p15-16.
8: "New Nuclear Reactor's Waste is Seven Times More Hazardous, Greenpeace Exposes."  Press Release.  Greenpeace International.  31 January 2009.
[Source]