A new report from the environmental group Greenpeace shows how the UK construction industry can have a positive influence on the management practices in forests around the world. The report, entitled "Setting a new standard: alternatives to unsustainable plywood in the UK construction industry" is a practical guide for companies wanting to avoiding the use of illegal plywood on construction sites. It not only provides a step-by-step guide to ensure companies get it right on timber (1) but also promotes the use of environmentally and socially responsible material such as that certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). (2)

Greenpeace has released the report because despite the best efforts of some UK construction companies, the vast majority of the sector continues to use illegal and unsustainable timber. In recent years, Greenpeace investigations have in the uncovered the use of plywood, often manufactured in China, illegally logged in the rainforests of Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Brazil on sites across the UK. These include at two refurbishments at the government's Cabinet Offices in Whitehall, at the construction site of the Home Office and at the British Museum.

Reacting to the report, Greenpeace Forest Campaigner Mariana Paoli said: "Tropical  forests  are being destroyed to make way for  throw-away products like plywood. It's time for architects, specifiers and construction companies to clean up their act and we hope this report will provide the motivation for them to take action on this issue."

The UK is Europe's largest user of plywood, and is the third largest importer of illegal timber in the world (3). Despite this, the report shows that there is no technical reason why unsustainable tropical hardwood plywood cannot be replaced with alternatives such as FSC Oriented Strand Board (OSB), which is  locally sourced, competitively priced, and are already readily available on the UK market.

Endorsing the report, Peter Ainsworth, Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment said, "No organisation has done more than Greenpeace to draw attention to the perilous state of the world's ancient forests. There is now a need for urgent action to save what remains, for the sake of the forests themselves and their unique wildlife, and for the benefits they bring to our climate. While governments dither and bicker, this excellent report shows in a clear and compelling way, that there is action that responsible businesses and all of us can take to help."

Greenpeace is pushing the UK government and the European Union to adopt legislation which would make it illegal for companies to buy timber products not coming from legal and well managed forests.

Endorsing the report, Paul Toyne, Head of Sustainability at industry leaders Bovis Lend Lease UK said, "This report promotes FSC which is a great tool for the construction industry   to remove illegal plywood from the supply chain and replace it with sustainable plywood.  As a company actually doing this we endorse Greenpeace's recommendations and would encourage all construction companies to follow suit."

Notes to Editors:

(1) The report can be viewed online. It contains a simple checklist for sourcing environmentally and socially responsible timber:

• Specify environmentally and socially responsible materials. Write a tight specification making it clear to your contractors and sub-contractors that you want FSC certified OSB and plywood.
• Explain the requirements of the specification to your contractor. Do this early enough to allow the contractor enough time to research, source and buy FSC certified materials.
• Make sure contractor understands what paper work they need to provide at the end of the project. Ask for delivery notes and invoices stating that material are FSC certified and carry the supplier's chain of custody number.
• Monitor compliance with the specification. This means checking all delivery notes and invoices of materials arriving on site.
• Keep the paper work. This allows you to prove that specifications were met.
• Consider getting your own FSC certification allowing you to advertise your use of FSC materials.

(2) The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme is the most credible forest certification system available to ensure that timber products come from environmental and social responsibly managed forests. It is also the only system supported by major environmental groups including Greenpeace and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as well as progressive timber companies and many indigenous people's organisations.

(3) In 2007, the Would Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) estimated that the UK was the third largest importer of illegal timber in the world, spending around £712 million a year on illegal wood.

If the government is serious about renewables and energy efficiency, Britain doesn’t need to build major new power stations to keep the lights on, according to a new report released today by independent energy experts Pöyry.

The report finds that, if the UK government is able to achieve its commitments to meet EU renewable energy targets and its own ambitious action plan to reduce demand through energy efficiency, then major new power stations (burning either coal or gas) would not be needed to ensure that Britain can meet its electricity requirements up to at least 2020. The report also concludes that a strong drive for energy efficiency and renewable energy can reduce emissions and assist energy security.

Ministers at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have claimed that new power stations (such as the unabated coal station proposed by power company E.ON at Kingsnorth in Kent) would be needed to plug a claimed "energy gap". E.ON is also engaged in a high profile campaign to assert that new coal plant is needed to keep the lights on.

But this analysis finds that if Britain delivers on its renewable energy promises, and acts successfully to improve energy efficiency in line with its National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, there would be no gap to plug. Moreover, the report finds that this strategy would reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions by up to 37 per cent by 2020.

The report considered six scenarios for meeting Britain’s commitments to deliver on the binding EU renewable energy commitments for 2020, and for future electricity demand (drawing on both EU and UK targets for energy efficiency), and assessed whether any additional capacity from conventional sources such as coal and gas would be needed to secure the UK’s electricity needs. It concluded that there would be no role for such plants, even taking into account the very few days when there is little or no wind. These scenarios represent a radical shift away from the “business as usual” pathway (under which new power stations may indeed be needed). But such a radical shift is precisely what is required by the government’s stated ambitions on renewables and energy efficiency.

The report is released as campaigners from across the UK and Europe prepare to gather at this year's Climate Camp on the Hoo Peninsula near the Kingsnorth site. Already E.ON has sought to counter the Camp by claiming new coal plants are vital to keep the lights on. Now the most respected analysts in the field have shown that this need not be the case.

Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change at WWF-UK, which commissioned the report, added:

"This report should be good news for the Government. If it gets real on its targets on renewables and energy efficiency then we can keep the lights on, reduce our reliance on expensive fossil fuel imports and dramatically cut our carbon emissions. But a green light to Kingsnorth would at a stroke undermine the Government’s other policies on climate change and Gordon Brown’s promise of a clean energy revolution."

Robin Oakley, head of the climate and energy team at Greenpeace, which also commissioned Pöyry, said:

"Coal is the single most climate-wrecking form of electricity generation. The only reason anyone is even considering building Britain’s first coal fired power station in decades is the claim that we need it to keep the lights on. E.ON’s spin machine and the Labour government have teamed up to hoodwink the public into believing it, but this report busts their argument wide open."

Last year both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made high-level commitments which led to a proposed target for the UK to generate about 15 per cent of our total energy (heat, transport and electricity) from renewable sources by 2020. To meet the target it is widely accepted that at least 35% of Britain’s electricity will need to come from renewables by 2020. The six scenarios considered in the report reflect several credible ways of meeting that target under different levels of electricity demand and differing contributions from onshore and offshore wind, biomass, and marine and solar power.

In all six of the scenarios considered, there was no need to build any major new fossil-fired capacity – either coal or gas – to ensure that the UK could meet its electricity needs to 2020. In just one scenario was there a slight dip below the 20% margin of spare power capacity, and this was only short-lived. The experts state that this could best be dealt with using 'demand side management' - a technique for reducing demand at key times, or by installing small 'top-up' peaking plant.

In the period after 2020 when more of the UK’s existing coal and nuclear plants are due to close, the report observes that a number of further options could be deployed including highly efficient industrial combined heat and power plants, further roll-out of renewables and, potentially, carbon capture and storage – provided this technology has been shown to be technically and economically viable.

Alison Sutton, WWF press office, 01483 412388
Greenpeace press office – 0207 865 8255

Notes:
Pöyry is Europe’s leading energy consultancy, with 250 specialists across 15 European offices. Read Poyry’s report.

Coal is the most carbon-intensive form of electricity generation. Last year Dr James Hansen of NASA – perhaps the world's leading climate scientist – wrote to Gordon Brown asking that the Kingsnorth plans be blocked unless E.ON can safely capture and bury all the CO2 produced by the new plant. The company has said it might try to sequester a small proportion of the greenhouse gases from a new Kingsnorth, but the plant would still emit 6-8 million tonnes of CO2 every year, the same as the 20 least polluting countries in the world combined.

In his letter to Brown Hansen wrote:

'You have the potential to influence the future of the planet…There are plans for construction of new coal-fired power plants in Great Britain, plants that would have a lifetime of half a century or more. Your leadership in halting these plans could seed a transition that is needed to solve the global warming problem... If Great Britain and Germany halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely.'

Full copy of letter.

Greenpeace and WWF are members of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, the largest group of people dedicated to action on climate change and limiting its impact upon the world's poorest communities.

Today, the leaders of the UK's largest coalition dedicated to stopping climate change warned Gordon Brown that a green light for a new unabated coal plant at Kingsnorth will lock Britain into decades of spiralling emissions and severely undermine the government's ability to meet its climate targets.

At the invitation of the local community, leaders from a diverse range of organisations including the Women's Institute, RSPB, Oxfam and Greenpeace who make up the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition planted flags in the ground at Kingsnorth to show Mr Brown the breadth of opposition he faces if he gives the go ahead to a fleet of new unabated coal plants. Instead, the coalition demands that he invests in renewables and makes massive improvements to energy efficiency. 

The move comes on the same day as the publication of a new report from an influential parliamentary committee which warns that Government plans to develop new coal-fired power plants are "failing to take adequate account of the environmental impact of coal". (1) The report states that "replacing old coal-fired power stations with new ones, rather than using alternative energy sources, locks Britain into a high level of emissions for many years to come".(2)

In a letter to Mr Brown the coalition tells the PM that Kingsnorth is one of the most important climate change decisions of his premiership. It goes on to explain how building new coal plants in the UK would send the wrong signal to countries like China and India, and could thwart a new global deal on climate change. The organisations argue that by transforming Britain into a low-carbon economy, the Prime Minister would prove the case internationally that renewables and energy efficiency can protect the climate and keep the lights on. 

Fay Mansell, Chair of the National Federation of Women's Institutes said:

"The WI is here today to call for green energy decisions to be made now to protect our future. Women across the world are being hit hardest by climate change and have a key role to play in helping their families and communities adapt. We want a commitment to renewable energy in the UK which will lead the way for the rest of the world to follow, providing cleaner and safer options for households in poor countries."

Ashok Sinha, Director of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition said:

"Gordon Brown's decision on new coal-fired power plants could be a defining moment in the fight against climate change. If he jumps the right way and unlocks Britain's renewable potential, we could show the rest of the world that low carbon technologies are the answer to the inseparable challenges of climate change, poverty and energy security. The reality is that a thriving renewables industry would help us avoid disastrous climate change, create thousands of jobs and keep the lights on."

Paul Brannen, Christian Aid's Head of Campaigns, said:

"Christian Aid works with vulnerable communities in poor countries who are already bearing the brunt of the impact of climate change. Global cuts in carbon emissions are urgently needed to prevent the situation worsening. Building a new generation of high-emitting coal-fired power plants without the technology to capture and store CO2 from the outset will take us further down the path to climate catastrophe." 

Footnotes:
(1) Press release Environment Audit Committee, 22nd July 2008
(2) Carbon, Capture and Storage, House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee, 9th Report of 2007-08 P8

Notes to Editors:

1) A copy of the letter to Gordon Brown from the coalition can be downloaded here.

2) Today's Select Committee Announcement:

Environmental Audit Committee's report out today ‘Carbon Capture and Storage' states "Replacing old coal-fired power stations with new ones, rather than using alternative energy sources, locks Britain into a high level of emissions for many years to come."

The report states that "it is not clear when CCS will be available, or whether it will ever be available at all," and that the "possibility of CCS [technology] should not be used as a fig leave to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability".

The Committee concluded that there was no guarantee that a plant approved on this basis would actually be willing or able to retrofit CCS once the technology had been demonstrated on a commercial scale. Without a deadline for the retrofitting of CCS, the Committee believes that planning permission granted on the condition of CCS readiness is meaningless. www.parliament.uk/eacom

3) Other quotes from Stop Climate Chaos' board members:

RSPB
Ruth Davis, Head of Climate Change Policy: 'Climate change is a potential disaster for birds and other wildlife, as well as for people. To avoid irreversible damage to precious ecosystems, we must make deep cuts in emissions over the next decade - and that means switching to clean forms of energy. There is no place in a modern, low-carbon economy for new coal fired power stations which don't capture and store their CO2.'

Greenpeace
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:"Coal burning is the single biggest threat to our climate. If Brown gives the go ahead to a new fleet of coal plants he will signal his surrender on meeting his own climate change targets."

"The technologies exist to generate huge amounts of energy without accelerating climate change. Just last month the government set out plans to generate 40% of Britain's electricity from renewables. With energy efficiency, renewable energy and using fossil fuels more efficiently in combined heat and power plants we can fight climate change and keep the lights on without destroying the climate".

Tearfund
"A new coal-plant completely flies in the face of the Government's commitment to tackle carbon emissions. People in the poorest countries are already being affected by a changing climate. An 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 is vital in keeping global temperature rise below two degrees. New power stations would make this almost impossible," said Tearfund's Advocacy Director Paul Cook. 

WWF-UK
Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change at WWF-UK, said: "Gordon Brown says he wants to show world leadership on climate change, to move Britain to a low-carbon economy and to drive forward a renewable energy revolution. All of these goals will be jeopardised if his Government gives consent to the coal power station at Kingsnorth without insisting on full-scale carbon capture and storage from day one."

Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth Director Andy Atkins said:

"The Government must urgently wean itself off of its addiction to fossil fuels in order to tackle climate change and lead Britain to a greener future.

"This means investing in a huge energy efficiency programme and safe, clean renewable energy - not a new generation of carbon-belching coal-fired power stations. Gordon Brown must pull the plug on this climate-wrecking power plant."

Oxfam
Martin Kirk, Head of UK Campaigns, Oxfam GB said:

"By making the right choices for UK energy policy, Mr Brown has a huge opportunity to cut domestic emissions drastically and lead by example in the global response to climate change. By resorting to coal to fuel Britain he will signal "business as usual" to China and the rest of the world, risking catastrophic climate change that is already impacting on the world's poorest people first and worst".

4) Background:

• E.ON estimates that the new plant at Kingsnorth will emit 8.4 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
• If we have an 80% CO2 reduction target that will mean a 2050 emissions quota of 117.8mt/ CO2 per yr. The new generation of coal-fired stations would emit 56.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year, representing 48% of the new 2050 target.
• As we close coal-fired and nuclear power stations in the next decade we will lose capacity currently providing around 35% of our electricity output. But Gordon Brown recently committed to targets which will require us to generate about 40% of our electricity from renewables alone by 2020.

David Cameron today dropped the strongest hint yet that a future Conservative government would not lend its support to a third runway at Heathrow airport. Addressing a "Cameron Direct" town hall meeting in Brentford, Cameron remarked "I haven't heard any persuasive arguments for Heathrow expansion". The statement is the strongest indication yet that the Tory leader is unconvinced by the economic and environmental justifications used by the aviation industry and the Labour government.

On Thursday the transport secretary Ruth Kelly announced that an imminent decision on the expansion of the third runway was to be postponed until the end of the year, despite repeated government assurances that the announcement would be made this month. The area's MP, Ann Keen (a parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Health) recently broke ranks with the government and announced her opposition to further expansion at Heathrow. Ann Keen's Commons majority is just over 4,000 votes. Cameron's move highlights the threat of a 'Heathrow swing' in a number of marginal West London constituencies. 

Commenting on the news, Robin Oakley, the head of the climate change campaign at Greenpeace UK said:

"David Cameron's words are a body blow to the government's case for a third runway at Heathrow. The fact that the Conservatives are not convinced by the economic and environmental arguments being put forward completely undermines the aviation industry's position and casts serious doubt on the future of this project. Just this week Ruth Kelly announced that her decision on Heathrow has been put back until the end of the year, and as each day goes past this proposal looks increasingly shaky." 

View Cameron's speech. 

For more information call the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255.

Responding to the White Paper on nuclear waste, Nathan Argent, Greenpeace's nuclear campaigner, said: "No company would invest in nuclear if they were left to pay the full costs of nuclear waste. That's why the Government is fixing it so the financial risks fall on the taxpayer. The costs will massively over-run, as they have consistently done so far.

"No-one knows how much the Government's shoddy plans would cost. Even Hilary Benn, the minister responsible, admitted as much in Parliament this afternoon.

"Nuclear waste is a financial and geological nightmare. There is no plausible solution for our existing legacy waste, let alone the waste from new reactors, which will be at least three times more radioactive.

"This White Paper is not about finding a solution for nuclear waste. It's about bribing a community with £1bn of taxpayers' money to bury waste in their back garden. But there's no guarantee a willing community will come forward or that they'll be able to find a geologically suitable site anywhere in this country.

"The Government cannot press on with its plans for new nuclear power when its strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is shambolic."

• The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body in charge of dealing with the UK's radioactive waste, admitted recently that the costs of cleaning up existing nuclear waste, estimated to already be £73bn, were likely to spiral by billions. When pressed on how much it might increase an NDA spokesman claimed "I'm sure it'll be some billions, I really don't know." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7421879.stm

• Yesterday, the government's former advisor on nuclear waste disposal, said that energy companies are being a hidden subsidy to build new nuclear power stations through the proposed funding of waste disposal. (‘Subsidy' for nuclear power attacked, Financial Times, 11 June) 

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255.

The government's strategy for dealing with nuclear waste was labeled a "shambles" today, ahead of an expected White Paper tomorrow.

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said:

"Nuclear waste is a financial and geological nightmare. These proposals do not provide a plausible solution for our existing legacy waste, let alone the waste from new reactors, which will be at least three times more radioactive.

"This White Paper is not about finding a solution for nuclear waste. It's about bribing a community with £1bn of taxpayers' money to bury waste in their back garden. But there's no guarantee a willing community will come forward or that they'll be able to find a geologically suitable site anywhere in this country.

"The government cannot press on with its plans for new nuclear power when its strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is such a shambles."

• The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body in charge of dealing with the UK's radioactive waste, admitted recently that the costs of cleaning up existing nuclear waste, estimated to already be £73bn, were likely to spiral by billions. When pressed on how much it might increase an NDA spokesman claimed "I'm sure it'll be some billions, I really don't know." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7421879.stm

• In May, the UK's "world class" reactor at Sizewell B shut down unexpectedly, causing massive black outs across the UK. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/...)

• At the same time, British Energy, the UK's biggest nuclear operator, announced that its annual profits had slumped by a third. BE blamed falling electricity prices and unplanned reactor shutdowns. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?...)

• This week British Energy turned down a £10bn takeover bid from EdF, saying that its bid "does not represent value for shareholders." BE added that talks were ongoing, but that "there can be no certainty that any of the discussions will lead to an offer being made for the company". (http://www.british-energy.com/article.php?article=243)

• The French Nuclear Safety Authority has now ordered all construction work to stop on the site of the supposedly state-of-the-art European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) in Flamanville, Normandy, because of on-going safety problems. The EPR is the reactor design that the Government is keen to see built here in the UK. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2873968-2c4f-11dd-9861...l)

• A new report in the USA suggests that construction costs for new nuclear reactors have more than doubled since 2000, meaning that nuclear is becoming more expensive more quickly than any other form of energy (http://online.wsj.com/article/...). Elsewhere, Florida Light and Power have estimated the cost of building 1 new reactor would be a staggering $12bn. (http://a4nr.org/library/economics/may.june-energybiz)

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255.

A call by David Cameron's favourite think tank for a radical new approach to UK energy policy was today echoed by the UK's biggest green groups. Policy Exchange is calling for the kind of greenhouse gas efficiency standard that is applied to cars to now be applied to power stations. The call comes on the same day that Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB released a joint recommendation for the introduction of a tough new performance standard of 350g of CO2 per kilowatt hour for power plants.

If adopted, the standard would make it very difficult for a government to allow the building of a series of new coal-fired power stations, which are backed by Labour.

The debate around new coal is at a key juncture as John Hutton considers proposals from German energy giant E.ON to build the first new unabated coal-fired power station in Britain for three decades at Kingsnorth in Kent. A standard like the one proposed today would deter decisions that ‘lock in' high carbon projects like new coal plants such as Kingsnorth, which if approved could pollute at high levels for up to fifty years, and undermine Britain's international credibility on climate change.

Robin Oakley, head of the climate campaign for Greenpeace UK, said: "John Hutton could send a signal that the UK is committed to tackling climate change by adopting this idea of a greenhouse gas standard that rules out the most climate wrecking power plants. Standards like this already exist in California ensuring that coal plants like Kingsnorth cannot be built. This standard would focus investment on implementing the real solutions to climate change and energy security - energy efficiency and renewable energy. Britain should follow California's lead."

He added: "A consensus is emerging that the emissions trading scheme alone will not bring about the transition to a low-carbon energy system that is needed. Additional measures like setting a greenhouse gas standard should help put Britain on the right path."

Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change at WWF-UK said: "Carbon capture and storage might well have some role in meeting deep emission reduction targets. But building new coal stations now without even the flimsiest of guarantees that full-scale CCS would ever be fitted is a reckless gamble that neither the climate nor the taxpayer can afford. An emissions performance standard would head off this risk, reinforce the EU emissions trading scheme and help put the UK on the path to a truly sustainable energy system."

Ruth Davis, Head of the climate campaign for the RSPB, said: "Dangerous climate change spells disaster for the world's ecosystems and the millions of people who depend upon them. To play out part in tackling the problem will require a revolution in our energy system. Setting a greenhouse gas standard that rules out the dirtiest forms of power generation is the first step towards that revolution -and an essential one if the UK wishes to safeguard its wildlife, and build a strong, green economy for the future."

Robin Webster, head of the climate campaign for FoE, said: "It's vital that the industrialised world takes the lead in making radical cuts in climate changing emissions. Now is the time to make it happen - through energy efficiency, greener transport and a massive expansion of renewable power. Building coal plants without a greenhouse gas standard would lock us into our addiction to fossil fuels and the environmental devastation it would cause."

ENDS

Greenpeace press office - 07801 212967

Reacting to Gordon Brown's comments that the UK needs to increase its nuclear power capacity, Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said:

"This looks like nothing more than a clumsy attempt by Brown to talk up British Energy's share price. The nuclear industry has had a woeful 24 hours that must be shaking confidence in this outdated technology.

"Sizewell B shut down unexpectedly, clean-up costs are soaring and the reactor that France want to sell us has had construction halted for safety reasons.

"And, unless Brown is about to appoint an alchemist to the cabinet, nuclear power will do nothing to address any concerns over oil."

ENDS

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255

Tuesday's power cuts were due to an "antiquated energy system", according to environmentalists.

Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said: "Britain's antiquated centralised energy system relies on a few large power stations, such as our aging and increasingly unreliable nuclear power plants. When they fail the impact can be enormous. Sizewell B for example, the plant that failed on Tuesday, has the single greatest need for back-up on the national grid.

"Creaking, outdated nuclear plants, such as Sizewell, cannot deliver energy efficiently, reliably or cheaply.

"But there's a very simple answer. Using a decentralised energy system, and producing power closer to where it is needed, would meet our energy needs, tackle energy security and slash carbon emissions. More local power stations means that the system overall is much more robust if problems arise."

The huge loss of energy associated with the UK's centralised system occurs because large power stations discard heat, while more power is lost transporting the energy long distances through power lines. Decentralised power plants - also known as Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants - supply heat to homes and businesses as well as electricity thereby doubling the efficiency with which they burn fuel.

ENDS

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255

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.