ML19207B581
| ML19207B581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0127, NUREG-127, NUDOCS 7909040124 | |
| Download: ML19207B581 (29) | |
Text
NUREG 0127 DR AF T ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT by the OFFICE OF NilCLE AR REACTOR REGULATION UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION relate <l to the proposed M ANUFACTURE OF FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS DOCKE T NO. STN G0437
}/ ( e'
'I f (f f Y ~'
.!' (/ f
- )
! (,1,
/
1
/
PART lli
_,.. - "'^
A Generic Environmental Statement Considering the Comparative Risks ard Consequences Between Floating Nuclear Plants and Land-Based Nuclear Plants Associated with the Accidental Release of Radioactive Material to the Aquecas Environment GQ D
D OCTOBER 1976 oo 0)~M~T A
.o JL
_ JU _1 a
..~n g ',, C C L
NUREG - 0127 Getober 1976 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT by the CFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION related to the proposed MANUFACTURE OF FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS Docket No.
STN 50-437 PART III A Generic Environrental Statenent Considering the Carparative Risks and Consequences Between Floating Nuclear Plants and Land-Based Nuclear Plants Assorieted with the Accidental Release of Padioactive Material to the Aqueous Environment i
- 3 5, 6
'l g
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This Draft Environnental Statenent was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, l.
This action is a_dministrative.
2.
As discussed in the Foreword to this Statement, this is the third of three separately prepared environmental statements relating
- .o the proposed action described below. This draf t statenent is being issued as c supplement to Final Environnental Statement (Part II),
NUREG-0056, September 1976, and covers on a generic and comparative basis, the consequences of a variety of postulated accidental releases of rad'oactivity at both land and of fshore sites. Consequences to ran arc calculated in terns of radiation cose fron each pathway, includinq drinking water, fish consumption, swinning, and beach use. The environnental assessment also cor iders the very large accident (core-melt), one which involves releases of substantial q_.atities of the core inventory. In this case, the principal assessments were directed to radiation dose to man and fish, and long-tern effects, such as genetic effects and undesirable nudifications of ecosystens.
3.
The proposed action is the is uance of a ranufacturing license to Offshore Power Systens for the startup and operation of a propnsed manufacturing facility located at Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida (Docket No. STN bc -417)
No nuclear fuel will be handled or stored at the ranufacturing site. The plants will 5e fueled af ter they havt been towed to and nocred within hreadwaters at specific of fshore locations designated b) the purchaser and after an cperating license has been issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Conni;sion.
Each nuclear generating plait, rounted on a floatir.] platforn, has a net capacity of 1150 MWe.
This energy is provideu by a pressurized water reactor stean supply systen consisting of a V :tinghouse four-loop 3425 MWt unit with an ice-condenser containment systen.
t.'h en one or nore of these units is located within a single breakwater, the installaticn is desig-nated an offshore power station.
4 Cu: a ul a tive sa na ry o f environ:sental 1:npac ts (i niS i, I' ar; III):
Part I - Operation of the Proposed Manufacturing Facility in Jacksonville, Florida Thernal and chemical discharges r?sulting fron manufacturing operations and hot (non-nuclear) functional tests of conpleted floating nuclear plants. The effects of these discharges are expected to have little cr no impact on biota, or on the water quality of the St. Johns River.
t _'lf'*5 111 4 t> u 6
Entrairment of aquatic orcanisms through the floating nuclear plant while it is under-going preoperational testing. Their loss is not expected to significantly diminish productivity in the St. Johns River or its regional tributaries.
Impingement of small fish and other organisms is not expected to significantly diminish productivity in the St. Johns River.
Generation of noise from operation of the shipyard-like manufacturing facility.
Aesthetic impacts on the inrediate environs from the large-scale equipment used in the manufacturing facility.
A major increase in economic productivity in the Jacksonville connunity, resulting from the training and erplofne-t of a labor force of about 13,800 i the manufacturing plant and about 20,000 additional workers in the allied industry and corr:erce that support the manufacturinq operation and the labor force. In 1934, when the FNP manufacturing f acility achieves f ull production rate of four units per year, the manufacturing oper-ations will generate a substantial cash flow from annual payrolls and the taxes gen-erated by the employees and the industry.
Ar, expendi ture 01 public funds to provide training facilities and vocational instruc-tion to local citizens who, by such training, may qualify for employment in the ranu-facturing facility.
Sore increased traffic burders en the streets and connunity facilities u:ed by the connuting work force.
Increased costs of government services resulting f rom a potentially large in-nigration to Jacksonville.
Part II - Siting and Operating Floating Nuclear Power Plants: Generic Considerations Creakwater construction will result in two major effects: (1) destruction by dredging of 100 acres per station of benthic infauna and establishnent of a reef-type conrunity.
(2) The production of biomass by the reef connunity is eepected to compensate for the infaunal bionass destroyed by dredging and will contribute rainly to the local sport fisFery.
Dredging associatcd with construction of the breakwater and jetting for employ ent ef The the transmission lines is expected to disturb approximately 550 acres of botton.
rajor potential for damage will result fron the destruction of the centhos and from tur bidity and siltation resulting f rom these opera tions. Ecologically sensitive areas such as the coral reef corrur,ities in the subtropics and seagrass beds found predoni-nantly south of the Gulf of Maine should be identified and avoided.
9 Y
Establishr.ent of offshore floating nuclear power stations will require penetration of the littoral zone at as many as four locations alnng the coastal zone. On shore, new transmission lines to a switchyard will be installed for each new offshore power sta-tion. This will require acquisition of additional rights-of-way, most of which will traverse several r;iles of wetlands and uplands. Construction of transmission facilities may cause recognizable adverse alterations of the ecological balance in these areas.
Careful planning will be required if adverse inoacts to the marshlands and wetlands by construction of of fshore power staticns are to be averted.
Placenent c' underground transmission systens through barrier islands and beaches would provide proba3.e points for breaching islands during ensuing storns. Placement through natural breaks in barrier islands is reconnended by the staff as a means of circu"-
venting potential prcblens.
The region to the seaward side of the breakwater is expected to be an area of active erosion due to increased turbulence fron both incident and reflected wave energy.
Evaluation of the effects of erosion on breakwater toe integrity will require periodic nonitoring for local scouring and structure danage at the breakwater toe.
There will be a zone of sediment accretion, several feet in thickness, extending less than 1 nile to the lee of the breakwater. If the structure is located nore than l le offshore, it is expected that these accretion zone dimensions will be approx 1nately stable. Hence, no significent environmental impact is expected. Determination of the actual extent of bathymetric changes leew3rd of the breakwater will require periodic high-resolution fathometer surveys.
If the offshore station is located several breakwater widths from the shoreline, there thould be no detectable shoreline chang.s directly attributable to the breakwater. The potential for noticeable shoreline accretion due to interrupted lcogshore sedinent tran: port will increase as the distance between the breakwater and shoreline decraases.
Little sadir:ent will nornally enter the breakwater basin if there is a nid-depth entrance sill. The largest sediment influx will occur during storms when waves, water particle (parcel) velocities, and water levels are high and there is more sediment in suspension.
Construction of each offshore FNP station will produce some connunity impacts. Traffic will iacrease on local roads and hiqhways because of construction activities and enolcyees concuting to and from work; there will be ccnconitant increases of traffic in regicnal wate rways. This traffic will be reduced af ter operations begin, but will cause an increment of tr affic over that which occurred during the preconstructicn period. No large influx of construction workers and their families moving into the area is anticipated because most of the wcrk force is expected to connute from sur-rounding cities and towns. A minor increase in the econonic productivity of those conrunities in the proximity of sites used for construction and operation of floating nuclear power plants is expected.
y La %*
No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials. The calculated radiation dose comitment to the U.S. popu-lation from each FNP ur.!t will be on the order of 33 man-rem /yr or less from all gaseous and liquid effluents. The dose comitments to populations within the 50-mile radius of Each site are expected to be on the order of 1 man-rem /yr. These population dose com-mitments, as well as the 500 man-rem /yr and the 3 man-rem /yr per unit estimated for occupational and public transportation exposure, respectively, are small in comparison to annual doses from natural background, which will be on the order of 26,000,000 man-rems /yr in the year 2000 regardless of where the FNPs are sited.
The risk associated with radiation exposure from accidental gaseous releases is very low.
The condenser cooling water will be taken from and returned to the surrounding ocean.
Each plant will be designed for a cooling water flow of about 2300 cfs, which will be discharged at about 16 F above the intake temperature. The configuration of the thermal discharge will w at the option of the purchaser. The thermal impact on near-shore areas from a two-unit station located about 3 miles offshore will be small.
Most organisms entrained into the condenser cooling water are expected to be killed.
The Entrainment will be confined to micro-and small macroscopic planktonic organisms.
meroplankton populations (predominantly larval invertebrates and fish) will probably sustain the greater impact. Potential for significant impact on fish appears to be confined to local reef and local estuarine-dependent populations.
For mari..e biota, impingement is expected to be confined predominantly to small fish and pelagic invertebrates. In all of the geographical areas, small schooling " bait" fish (anchovies, menhaden, etc.), jellyfish (scypho-and hydromedusae), and pelagic crustaceans are likely to be impinged ir, the greatest numbers. The potential for ecologically or comercially significant losses is small.
The entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms within the floating nuclear power
~
plant during operation will not significantly diminish productivity of coastal zonc waters but may deplete the populations of various marine biota in the proximity of the offshore station, depending on the extent to which a particular station site is uti-The level of adverse lized as a spawning and/or nursery ground for marine organisms.
effects of both entraintent and impingenent has been evaluated as acceptable.
Potential thermal stress on marire biota, other than passage through the cooling system, will be confined primarily to the egion within the themal plume that is ha ted more than 2 F' This stress will result in two effects: thermal death (direct Thernal death is effects) and physiological and behavioral changes (indirect effects).
not expected to occur to a major extent since the areas of high temperatures (tercera-ture rise greater than 6 F') are small and most crganisms either will not be able to stay in ther-al areas because of high water velocities or will avoid these areas
- - 4 g ei'OL Vi
Behavioral or pnysiological changes will occur but are not expected to adversely affect conr: unity structure or dynamics except possibly in the subtropical areas, where ambient water temperatu; es may be high, especially during the summer.
Chemical discharges into the marine environment will be limited primarily to chlorine and corrosion products such as copper and nickel. As designed, FNP's are operable with continuous or intermittent chlorination. Their design allows for operation under regimes that conform with EPA guidelines and standards for control of chemical dis-charges. Because of the identified potential for ecological damage that may result fron discharge of chlorinated corpounds in the condenser cooling water as well as from f ree available chlorine, the staff concludes that the mortality of marine biota in the inmediate vicinity of floating nuclear powc-31 ants will be confined to acceptable rates if their exposure to total residual Chlorine in the cooling water discharge is limited to seawater in which th2 concentration does not exceed 0.1 ng/ liter.
In the case of riverine and estuarine siting of FNP's, 'he necessary dredging opera-tions and disposal of dredged matcrials present the potential for adverse environmental impacts unless siting is given very careful attention and the related nanner of con-struction operations is properly develooed. This will be particularly true in the case of disposing of large quantities of polluted dredged materials from river bottoms where long-term discharge of industrial wastes has occurred.
Part III - Accidental Release of Radioactivity Into Liquid Pathways From Floating Nuclear Plants Any accident event considered within the design basis envelope is not likely to lead to a significant release of radioactivity to the envire...ent through the lic.'d pathway.
Should such a release uccur, thc ensequences are expected to be small - for either a land-based plant or a floating nuclear plant.
A core-melt accident and ultimate containment penetration in both the land-based and floating nuclear plant lead to consequences that are generally comparable.
The overall risks associated with a floating nuclear plant are C09 parable to the risks associated with land-based plants.
5.
No alternatives were considered in this draft statement, since it is a supplement to the Final Environmental Statement, Part II, and in essence, expands Section 8 of that Part Il statement to include consequences of releases of radioactivity to the liquid pathways result-ing from a variety of postulateo accidents.
6.
The following Federal, St?te, anu local agencies are being asked to cannent on this Draf t Environnental Statement:
e.,r
=
s
( Is 4, vii
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Departmcnt of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Dei elopment Department of the Interior Department of the Navy, Oceanographer of the Navy Department of Transportation Departnent of the Treasury Energy Research and Development Administration Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Conmission Office of Equal Opportunity State of Florida City cf Jacksonville, Florida States of Alabaru, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisana, Maine, Maryland, Massa-chusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jers:y, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
7.
This Draf t Environmental Statement was rade available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other specified agencies in October 1976.
8.
On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement concerning the comparative risks and consequences re:ulting from accidental releases of radioactivity to the environment through the liquid pathways; the analys;s and evaluations set forth in Final Environmental Statements (Parts I and II), NUREG-75/091 and NUREG-0056 respectively, con-cerning the proposed operation of the manufacturing facility in Jacksonville, Florida, and concerning the construction and operation of nuclear generating stations using floating nuclear oower plants in several biogeographical provinces in the U.S. coastal zones of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico; af ter weigning the environmental, economic, tech-nical, and other benefits of employing the floating nuclear plants against environmental and other costs, and considering certain other alternatives; it is concluded that the manufac-ture cf eight floating nuclear power plants at the applicant's t hipyard-like facility in Jacksonville can be carried out without unacceptable environmental impact on the City of Jacksonville and its environs, the floating nuclear power plants proposed for manufacture can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be sited and operated as electric generating stations, and finally, the overall risks resulting from postulated accidents associated with floating nuclear power plants are comparable to the risks associated with land-based plants.
Therefore, on the basis of the considerations set forth in this Draf t Staterent and the Final Environmental Statements, Parts I and II, previously issued, the action called for under the National Environmental Palicy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Appendix M to 10 CFR Part 50, dnd 10 CFR Part 51 (formerly Appendix D to 10 rJR Part 50) is the issuance of a manufac-turing license for the manufacture of eight floating nuclear plants subject to the conditions viii e
L 4
t,
set forth in the Summary and Conclusions of the Connission's Final Ensironmental Statement issued in Octoter 1975 concerning the proposed operation of the manufacturing f acility in Jacksonville, Florida. For convenience of refer nce, the conclusion drawn la that Statement is restated below.
"On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statenent con-cerning the proposed operation of the nanufac,tu,rina facilit.y,only, af ter weigh-ing the environmental, technical, and other benefits of the operation of the manufacturing facility against envircrmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, it.
included that there is nothing innerent in the operation of the manufacturing facility that would warrant denial of the nanu-facturing license. A final conclusion regarding issuance or denial of the license to manufacture, under NEPA, will be based upon both the conside ations set forth in this statement and those set forth in the generic statemont. It is also concluded that in consideration of the analysis and evaluatians given in this statement, the license should be subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:
A comprehensive environmental nonitoring program, which a.
is acceptable to the staf f, for determining the environ-mental affer' resulting from ine manufacturing and preoperational t esting acti"ities will be onducted.
In particular, the applicant will include in his man-itoring prugram thoi specifically reca1 rended itens indicated in Section S of this statenent. The details of this program will Le developed and described in ;h u final environmental impact statement, and will be included as license conditions.
b.
Before engaging in any manufacturing activity which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is sign 1ficar.cly greater than that evaluated in this Environnental Statenent, the applic3nt shall provide written notification to the Director of Licensing.
c.
If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected during the manufacture or preoperational testing of the floating nuclear plants, the applicant shall provide an acceptable analysis of the problem and clan of action to eliminate or significantly reduca shese harmful effects or this damage."
e :, ':
e 4%'e L-s IX
CONTENTS P_31e SU"KARY AND CONCLUSIO!b iii LIST OF FIGUPES AND TABLES xi FOREWORD xiii 1
INTR" DUCTION l-1 2.
RESUME OF THE LIQUID PATHN'AY STUDY 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2-1 2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 2-2 2.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSES 2-4 2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSEQUENCES AND CONCLUSIONS 2-7 KEFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 2-8 3.
COST - BENEFIT BALANCE 3-1 3.1 GPERATION OF THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY 3-1 3.2 SITI!'G AND OoEPATING FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 3-1 3.3 LIQUID PATHWAY ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 3-3 3.4 OVERALL STAFF CONCLUSIGNS 3-3 4
DISCUSSION JF CG!-fiENTS RECEIVED ON THE 07 AFT ENVIRON" ENTAL STATEMENT 4-1 AFFENDIX A.
PESERVED FOR COMMEY, ON THE DRAFT ENVIPON" ENTAL STATEMENT BY FEDEPAL, STATE, /ND LOCAL AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES A-1 LIST OF FIGURES
[i gu re m
2.2.1 Classes of sites evaluated 2-3 2.2.2 Typical land-based and floating nuclear po.ser plant sites and para eters 2-3 2.2.3 Liquid pathway r;eneric study 2-4 LIST OF TABLES Table E3 2_"_
2.3 1 Ssrary cf liquid pathway res11ts 2-6 r
v'tr.'s. da e t r (3 LO ' A ( 3 el
FOREWORD This draf t statement - the third of three statements setting forth environmental considerations associated with the proposed issuance of a manufacturing license to Offshore Power Systems (applicant) for the manufacture, assembly, and nonnuclear testing of eight floating nuclear power plints of a standardized design - was prepared sy the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (staff), in accordance with the Conmission's regulations,10 CFR Part 50, Appendix M, and 10 CFR Part 51 (formerly 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D), implemer ing the requirements of the National Environrental Policy Act of 1969
('. EPA).
The NEPA states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility nf the Federal Governnent to use all practicable means, consister.t with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may:
Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.
Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productiva, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesi able and unintended consequences.
Preserve important historir., cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
Achieve a balance between population a-d resour e use whicn wi'l permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.
Enhance the quality of renew
,e resources and approach the maxirun attainable recy-cling of depletable resources.
Further, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the hurin environment, Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA calls for preparation of a detailed statenent on:
(i) The environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be irclemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationships between local short-tem uses of man's environment and the rain-ter,ance and enhanterent cf long-tem productivity, and
, p oq O,
edv u,+
xiii
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implenented.
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 and Appendix M of 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepares a detailed statement on the foregoing considere 'ns with respect to each application for a construction permit, manufacturing license, or
-power operating license for a nuclear power reactor.
When anplication is naca for a manufacturing license, the applicant, pursuant to Appendix M, submits an environmental report to the NRC as required of applicants for construction permits in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51. The environnental report is directed at the environmental con-sideraticas of manufacturing the floating nuclear power plants at the manufacturing facility and, on a qeneral basis, at the construction of an electric generating station and its operation using the floating n. clear power plant at several hypothetical sites in the coastal waters of the The United States having characteristics that fall within certain specified site parameters.
staf f e,aluates this report and may seet further information f ron the applicant, as well as other sources, in naking an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51. This evaluation leads to the publication of three draf t environ-rental state ents prepared by the Of fice of Nuclear Re< ctor Regulation, one directed at the ranufacture of eignt floating nuclear power plants at the manufacturing site (Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida), one directed, in general terms, at the construction and operation of the nuclear power plants at several hypothetical regional ZCres, and tne third considering, on a comparative basis, the consequences resulting fron the accidental release of radioactivity to the land. Each liquid pathways f ron ficating nuclear plants ano f rom nuclear power plants sited on of these draft statenents, as completed, is circulated to Federal, State, and local agencies for connent. A surnary notice is published in the Federal Peqister of the availability of the Interested r embers of appliCdnt's Environmental Report and tre Draf t Environmental Statemente Eonnents should te addressed to tFe public are also invited to connent on the draft statererts tFe Director, Divisicn Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, at the address shown below, of ter receipt and consideration of connents cn each of the three draf t statements related to this i cviev, the staf f has prepared or will prepare a final environmental state-ent for each, which i icludes a discussicn of questiens and objections raiseJ b/ tr e ccnrents and the disposition
'. hereof; a cost-uenefit analysis wnich (1) considers and balances the environnental ef fects resuit-inq from the ranufacture of eight floating nuclear plants at the ranuf acturing f acility and viable
.:i t h the ensiron-alternati,es available for reducinq or a,oiding adverse envircn-ental effec'
- rental,
<mic, technical, anJ other benefits of the manufacturing activity, (2) consivers and bal-environrental ef fects resulting from the ccnstructicn and operation of floatirq nuclear antes th power pl)nts in several biogeographical provinces in the U.S. coastal w3ters of the Atlantic Ccean and the Gulf o' Mexico, as well as in typical estuarine lccations, and alterratives a sail-able for mdacing or avoiding adverse environ"ent ef fects wi th tre environrental, economic, tecP-nical, 3nd oth_r ber.efits of such construction and operation and (3) considers and balances the overall nsircn" ental impacts rasu' ting fron postulated nuclear accidents which ray relene into the liquid DatFways; and a final staf f conclusicn as to whetter, af ter weigr-radioactivitj ing the environment, economic, technical and other benefits against environvntal costs and con-siderinq available alternatives, the action called for is tre issuance or denial of the Frc;osed ironrental values rarafacturirq license or its appropriate ccnditionin) to protect ens xiv c;,.
e t <, t.., '.
Single copies of this draf t staterent ray be obtained by writing the Director, Divisior of Site Safety and Environmental Analfsis, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Mr. Fred J. Clark, Jr., is the '.kC Environmental Project Manaqer for this statement. Should there be questions regarding the contents of this statement, Mr. Clark can be contacted at the a'
.a address or by telephone (301-443-6950).
,s,,,
&\\ > s, & % >
- v. V
1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT Offshore Powc-Systems (OPS) was formed on July 6, 1972, as an unincorporated joint vent.ce between Tenneco Power Sy*tems, Inc. (Tenneco Power) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (West-inghouse), each having 50% ownership. On March 6,1975, Westinghouse International Power Systems Comnany, Inc. (WIPSCO' purchased, as of Januar,y 1, 1975, 1% of the 50% irterest of Westinghouse in OPS. Thereaf ter, also effective as of January 1,1975, Tenneco 'ower's interest in the Off-shore Power Systems joint venture was liquidated and Tenneco Power retired. On January 1, 1975, Of fshore Power Systems bccame an unincorporated joint venture of Westiaghouse Electric Corpora-tion and Westinghouse International Power Systems Company. Inc., Westinghouse have 991 interest and WIPSCO having li interest.
The applicant proposes to design, manufacture, and market complete nuclear power plants of a standardized design and integrated with specially designed floating platforms. The nanufacture and assenbly of the floating nuclear plants would be done on a production line basis at a nanu-hturing facility cor.structed on Blount Island in Jacksonville, Florida.
Pursuant to the Atonic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Connission's regulations in Title 10,. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, an applicant for a License to Manufacture eight floating nuclear plants (FNP) was tendered by CPS on January 22, 1973. The application was docketed on July 5, 1973, with Docket No. STN 50-437. Submitted with the application were the olant Design Report (PDR) and the Environmental Report (ER).
The applicant's Environmental Report is organized to reflect the two major aspects of the National Environnental Policy Act (NEPA) licensing review discussed in the Foreword: it comprises ;l) a single volume to discuss the NEPA considerations associated with the manufacture of cight FNP's at the proposed Jacksonville facility, and (2) a two-volume report to identify and discu"s the
~
NEPA aspects of offshore siting. For +he latter purpose, four representative siting zones along the coastlinas of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico were selected by the applicant for evaluation of effects on the environment. Subsequently, thc applicant amended the application to provida fcr siting options other than the offshore coastal waters of the Atlantic and the Gulf.
The expanded siting includes riverine and estuarine locations wherever th te interface require-rents can be met. These site interface requirenents are described ia det.dll in the staff's Safety Evoivation Report, Supplement No.1, NWEG-0054, dated fiarch 16, 1976, and are highlighted in Section 3.12 of the staff's Final Environmental Staten'ent, Part II, NUREG-0056, Volume I, da ted Septeder 1976. The environmntal considarations of "instore" siting have been given by the applicant in a supplement to the Envirennental Report. Finally, the applicant submitted a supplement tu the Environnental Peport and a Topical Report, TR Ol A89, each providing infornation concerning the consequences of accidental releases of radioactivity to the various liquid pathways.
gs w o@,
f OR '-
i
1-2 10 CFR Part 51 ( f ormerly Appendi x D of 10 CFR Part 50) requires that the Director of Nuclear Peactor Regulation or his designee analyze the applicant's reports and prepare a detailed state-rient of environnental considerations. It is within this context that the Of fite of Nuclear Reactor Pequlation (the staf f) prepared the Final Environmental Statement related to the nanu-f acture of FNP's on Blount Islaad in Jacksonville (Part 1 nUREG-75/091; October 1975); the Final Environmental Statement relateJ to the generic considerations of siting and operating floating nuclear plaats (PART II, NUREG-0056, September 1976); and has prepared this draf t statement concerning, on a comparative basis, the accidental releases of radf; activity into liquid pathways f rom floating nuclear plants ana the land-based nuclear counterpart. This draf t statement i; a supplerent to the Part II Statement described above.
This statement, in addition to cr.e substantive issue of the accidental radiological releases to the liquid pathway, contains a sunnary and conclusions and a cost-tenefit section which reflects the overall environmental review conducted by the stat f and docunented by t - three Environnental Statements, Parts I, Il and III A fir,al conclusion in the oserall environmental review will be included in the final issuance of this supplement which will also contain the concents received on this draft issuance and the staff's response thereto.
Copies of the two Final Enviror.aental Statenents (Part. I and II) and the Draf t Environnental Statement (Part III) are available for public inspection at the Comnission's Public Document Poon, 1717 H Street, N.W., W3shington, D.C., the Jacksonville Public Litrary,122 North Ocean Street, Jacksonville, Florida; the f.ew Orleans Public Library, 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana; and the b: 7ckton State College Library, Pomona, New Jersey.
e, q q :., - ~
.t
<,(,<-
2.
RESUME OF THE LIQUID PATH'a'AY STUDY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In the Final Enviror nental Statement
'ated to the proposed manufacture of Floa tinq Nuclear Power Plants, Part II, " A Generic Envirtnmental Statement Considerinq tne Sitin<j and Operation of Floating Nuclear Power Plants" (PJREG-0056), the risks associa ted with radiation exposure f rom accidental releases were discussed. That discussion dealt prinarily with accidental releases into gaseous pathways.
Historically, the radiological consegances resulting from an accidental release of activity to the liquid pathway have not been examined as closely as the consequences from airborne releases.
In terr; of overall risk, the airborne pathway has been considered to be the dominant contributor.
It is for this reason that risk 9ssessments for nuclear plants have concentrated on the airborne pathway.
The airborre patNay car-ies a higher degcee of risk for a number of reasons. The majority of the accidents that are postulated involve the rel'ase of Contaminated water within the plant either at roon terperature or at high temperatures. The released activity will be partitioned between the airborne vapor and the liquid lef t behind. The airborne activity can be held-up and filtered to a considerele extent, but ultimately it is assured that some portioc of this activity escapes into the environment. On the other hand, the liquid that remains behind is contained within a controlled area. The plants are designed to reclain the contaminated liquid and p.rocess it to remove and capture the activity. To hypothesize that the liquid is released causing con-tamination of surface water or groundwater requires the inadvertent discharge of tre contaminated liovid (e.g., from a waste monitor tank). This postulate requires operator errors and/or equip-rent failures in addition to the original accident. Therefore, assuning that a given accident occurs, it is unlikely that thera will be any release via the liquid pathway route.
Another cor. sideration related to liquid pathway accident risks is the likelihood that effective counterreasures can be taken to avoid direct exposure to or intake of contaminated liquids or foodstuffs. A liquid release of fers a number o' ssibilities for interdiction or protective The two basic exposure routes are ingestion of drinking water and fish. These routes neasures can be so well controlled that the cocplete elinination of public exposure is distinctly poisible.
It is the considerable time delay between tre accident and the potential ingestion of contaninated water or food (varies from days to years) that makes highly effective interdiction feasible.
Thus, the likelihood that a release via the liquid pathway will have significant consequences is rot great when interdiction is considered.
It is the combination of the low likelihood of a significant radioactivity release and the low potential consequences that has rade the liquid pathway a miror factor in accident risk assess-This fact is reflected in the accident analyses condacted by the NRC in reviewing nuclear relt.
plant safety and in the realistic assessrent of accidents provided in the envi ror enta l s ta te'"en t s.
- t LC r
'n s
2-1 e%>utJ~
2-2 The independent Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, supports the conclusion that the airborne path-Way doninates overall risk.
During the course of the overall tecanical review of the application for a nanufacturing licensinq submitted by Of fshore Power Systems (both the environmental and reactor safety reviews), an issue concerning the potential risks associated with accidental releases of radioactivity through the various liquid pathways has been identified; namely, that these risks may be dif ferent and siq-ificantly larger in the case of a floating nuclear power plant than in the case of its landbased sounterpart. As noted in Part II of the Environmental Statement, the staf f undertook a study *o evaluate this issue in some detail. The objective of the study was to determine whether such risks are or can be made low, and if such risks are comparable to land-based plants.
The prediction of the course of such accidents is a difficult and complex task because of the many and varied physical processes that could becone involved. As with all complex accidents there is a spectrum of possible outcomes with results ranginq from minor to severe.
Releases associated with accidents involving core melt may be represented by a long-term source due to leaching of radioactivity from core debris into water. Differences in the events leading to containment penetration and differences in the effect of debris contact with soil (or water) af fect the estimated consequences as well as the ef fects of pathway dif ferences.
The study has been completr.
A report on this effort has been published as NUREG-0140, dated Septer ter 1976. While the results of the study are suurarized below, a copy of the report accon-panies this supplement and should be referred to fCr further review and conment.
2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY The objective of the liquid pathway study was to determine whether the risks associated with accidental releasts through the liquid pathway for waterbased plants are or can be nade very lov, and are conparable to those for land-based plants. Accidents ranging fran those that may rea~
ably be expected to very improbable events have been considered. The principal differences between tte consequences of a release at a spectrum of landbased sites versus a spectrum of floating plant sites were determined and compared. Figure 2.2.1 illustrates the classes of sites evaluated and Figure 2.2.2 shows schematically typical land-based and floating nuclear power plant sites with some of the more important siting paraneters. To this end, consequences to mar. were estimated in terms of radiation doses from drinking water, fish consumption, and direct expo ure (swinning, beach). Also considered in this evaluation was a very large accident (core-melt), one involving releases of substantial quantities of the core inventory. For this event, the principal assessments were directed to radiation dose to man and fish, and long-tern effects, such as genetic effects or complete species degradation.
The organization of the study was such that both the applicant and the staff participated in developing material included in this report. The applicant provided estimates of the conse-quences of accidental releases from the Floating fiuclear Plant (OPS 1976 a, b, c), while land-based plant cases were evaluated by the staff. The applicant's analyses were reviewed in detail by the staff and, as applicable, considered in the overall comparison of land-based and water-bdsed plants, e. t lif "?
4 Les, L s a
2-3
<..~..~,..,.Ii,'
+
r bh
- h..
I 4
l 4
1 l **~>
t w=,,
f
)
~.
,"'w *)
ji
..,.w.
l yl=.,,
j;...;= 9*;p
~
- 1 y
- g.,
r
,,aa
=
"** e g /.
I.. %.
- %.~
a t
'l I
e_.
e
)- n r.,.,
n..
s s
a.
+
_"... * ~ _ *,
..w r
s '.f. t,' g,,.
.3 n_
)
I'.*'r
+-
v
= " ' :p,\\,
c
.s.
~
l-(
2
,7-
~2[ ' ~ '_,s- '5...
M-
. =--,,..,,.i1,g%
['
~ ~.,
,. e..
e e.
8
= *.
l,..<-==,.**.*
i T !
-.- e
.. j,
{ -,.. - -
\\
CL ASSE S OF Si T E S
\\
OO9 Land Dawd D
A DJ t
w 19 t or, l
D Great Lak es River Qg 0 E stuary COV VE HCI AL NUCLE AR POWE R R E ACTO AS O
~
Wa'e r Bose.1 e L a ensed to Opre h
g t E sto.,< v G
- f. Arian0c Oreon a Under Co st e. tion n
v A
cuif et veuo A tlant( Coast
- Anchutton Under Ame*
Figure 2.2.1 Classes of Ste: Evaluated.
o.,_..,
-,-,A--,,.
~
f
~ ' ' ' ' '
rCp'3 We.t o-s
/
v N
w.
.. Q,
<s-w j
vv
..=..=,"=,n, L163 -
/
m@
a y/
% 'NU N 'e
. s /
c.g
,_ i,-
._/ paam
~~
o
--e.-
g,
, -. =
>. c g
rt--tuu-e+ g 4-a- +
+ - + -.
na-m 5
-f <
i, i
)
.u e
s
.--,=
v
-,x y,
Q-~~c 14 rg; g
r 1,
= = = L== = 3 _
l
%j
- 4 __:- ~ ~
}s G y y
3",f/g-t Z-Q 3 ~>~
J
-- es
. n_
A9 y,,
e.w.
y N
r gn M.w.g
. ' S7,.-,
v..
4#
, %e 01 4
=
n..
4 c.,
s
...i.
s Q.
- - n..
'l i
i 1
1 i
i 1
1 1
i 1
y
.,y i,-
i A
Figure 2.2.2 Typical Land-Baas 4 and Floating Nuclear Pver Plant Stes and Parameters.
The report un t he: liquid path'.vay stuJj sets fertn tFe aa id." t scenaries 3'lec!cJ n,
s tive tiy the s taf f, the relati;d scarce terns, the hy droicgic dis;'en ien ( t rar s s 'c'<
"a a c. C 1 m car Irpid pat hay dosa<;e r edels and calculations, envircn ent al cense.;aerces, s
of land-t'ased plants (L BP) and floatin j ruclear lants (F'.?), and all erlyiv a 3 3..
'd s
six arge" dice > art i 's '.* * 'n
&c,.' *
- The tudy is graphically descriteJ in Figure s
the so, docij ' e'n t in.h> t li l t t:e t ts t"l i c a l nCI k I'e f f. ' t :t '.i in t un +ttic wi
- AtT ili! . T : a'l N A H i d:'.
I \\ f ". I :' ', l 1 t i1 N
( (;!
'.'r : 1 L's l il :-l t i 4 {( A' t\\l \\1:
41i iti s 'l 11 i '
i 11)(lll) I H A ', L h 1 f i i W'I'( l :
(iii()I f'd tn \\ il li lil( [ li l.W [
i t,lii \\ tis
(%'t \\N r
9P
_t
_- 1 s'i l )lil N L I T n's I I:.li O All fi l'i l', '.I t \\'i' l li1%
i \\ l's b +
l' A I t h'.' M l' A 16 h\\ A N P\\r'
's5 s
1 4
lit P:l S.'( ll i t 1 :
- 1AA f X l's ).I l) et Wilt A f t()%
IN!)l\\ Ilit t Al m m,,c A. a -, <,.m m F uf tre 22.3 Ln;und Pathw.iy Gerwrn: Study.
?.3 P;5Utl', Of Ild MP L S L S Sir even t s wer e elected tio As part of the study a spet trw r of ac c idents wn consid rmt.
detailed analysis They are:
.,,sa.v h
'ame
2-5 Accident Event A - Radioactive Waste Systen Failures Accident Event B - Releases As a Result of Steam Generator Leakage Accident Event C - Loss-of-Coolant Accidents Accident Event D - Rod Ejection Accident Accident Event E - Accidents Invciving Materials in Transit Accidents Involving Core Melt The estinated consequer.ces of each event were calculated for each of the land-ba:*d and floating nuclear power plant sites. The estimated individual and population doses (assuming no steps are taken to nitigate the ccnsequences) for the accident events A through E are tabulated in Tables F-1 througn F-25 of Appendix F of the study report. Table 2.3.1 summarizes the results of these analyses. Evaluation of the data in Ap;endix F supports the following generalizations:
1 for a given initiating evcat, the likelihood of a release to the liquid pathway is sic,nifi-cantly less than a release to the gaseous pathway.
2 The oajor exposure pathn;ys are irgestion of drinking water and fish flesh for land-based plants and ingestion of fish flesh for ocean-tased floating plants; 3.
The doses ' total tcd/ and crgans) to 3ximum individJals for these events range f rom less than 10' ren (about the dose received in ore hour from the n3tural background radiation dose rate of 0.1 re-per year) to one rer, which is abnut taice tne average annual radiation protection guideline values of C.5 ren total body (or 1.5 ren thyroid) for neople in unre-stricted areas for nornal operational releases (10 CFR Part 20);
4 For the source terr s given in Section 3.4 cf tre study repart (NUREG-0140), radiciodine and radiocesiu, are the r ajor contributors to the estimated exposures; 5.
Accident events A and 3 produc expcsui es co carable to those associated wi th normal oper-
_a aticr31 ef fluent releases, i.e., doses to an individual of 10 ' rem- (l rren) and pcpulation roses correspcoding to alcut 1 man-ren, and 6
The radioicdine released as a result of accident events C and D produce the highcst doses to irdividual (tbyroid) ard pcpulation dose (thyroid man-rer).
an The FNP sites evaluated were lccated in a typical estuary and at trree typical ocean sites As discussed ia tte study rep;rt, accidents at the varicus ocean sites are not anticipated to cause significantly different i pacts. Tnere is no significant difference in the pr^dicted efferts of credible 11~;uid P3thaay accidents at floating or land-b3scd plants in or adjaccnt to an estuiry.
For land-bastd f acilities, the core-melt accident is postulated to result in releases which (nter the gecondn 3ter systen ard are transported downe,radient to a sur f ace water body enrcute to nater su; ply intakes er directly to private and ;;blic nells.
're analyses were based r,n a one jear delay tine tefore le,ching could begin. Ihe core debris at tha floating nuclear poner pl3nt was consid? red to enter t te surface water Lady (ccean or estuary) directly - witra t delay - e d to
', c\\ f; ';
4 V L,. t, Lj:
T ABLE 2.3.1
SUMMARY
OF LidUID PATHWAY RESULTS (TOTAL BODY DOSES)
DOSE TO MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL (rem)
POPULATION DOSE (man rem)
ACCIDE NT EVENT
- A B
C D
E CORE-MELT SITE I
- d" '"" I
< 105 8.6x 10 5 3.4 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-3 2.2x 102 RIV E R 9.2x 104 LAND (1
1.5 66 5r.:,
230 BASED 2.8 x 10-3 2.E x 10-3 1,9x10-2 PLANTS
< 10 5 7.2x 10 5 LAKE 2.8 x 104
<1
<1 40 33 97 5
8.6x 10 5 3.4 x 10-3 2.9x10 3 2.2 x 10-2 l < 10 DRY..
9.8x 105
<1 1.5 66 SS 230 N,
! < 10 5 (10 5 1.3 x 10-4 1.2x104 1.3 x 10-3 ESTUARY l
(j
<1 Il 11 210 4.9 x 103 l < 10-5 e 10 5 1.3 x 10-4[
1.2 x 1 1.3 x 10-3 N ARY (1
<1 11 5 x104 OATING j
/
11 210 PLANTS
{ < 10 5 6.9x10 [
2.6 x 10 3 1.9 x 10'3 5.5 x 10-3 5
OCEAN
.3
')
- I I
120 A dry site is characterized by the lack of rearby surf ace water. The rac 3 activity resultmg from accident events A through E would be
- Accident Event A - Radioactive Waste System Fadures discharged to a hquid pathway en the same raanner as routine discharges Accident Event B - Releases as a Result of Steam Generator leakage of hquid wastes Therefore. the hquid pathway consequences for the dry Accident Event C - Lonof Coolant Accidents site are determmed bv the character of the receiving water body In Accident Event D - Rod Election Accident the table for the dry site, the dose values fe-the rever site are reprated.
Accident Event E - Accidents involving Materials in Tranut thus reflectmq a maximum value of doses.
m,
- ~
e j
(D t)
C
.J
2-7 have nuch more surface area available for leaching than in a land-based plant.
'he results are aho presented in Table 2.3.1.
The analyses indicated that the consequences associated with the core-melt accident events at floating nuclear power rea tors are generally comparable to the estinat'd consequences for the corresponding accidents ct land-based plants.
2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSEQUENCES AND CONCLUSIONS The long-tem environmental consequences of accidental releases to the liquid environment, ranging frou releases comparable to normal operational releases to those of a core-melt accident (in excess of design basis), have been evaluated for various typical land-and water-based sites.
In general, it appears that any event considered within the design basis envelone is not likely to lead to a signific t radioactivity release to the environment via the liquid pathway. Should such a release occur, its consequences are expected to be small - for either a land-based or a floating nuclear power plant. The floating nuclear plant, by virtue of close proximity to water, appeared to have the potential for significa,tly different consequences than land-based plants in the event o' very severe accidcnts involving core-melt. However, review of thJ events leading to core-melt and ultimate containment penetration indicate that the expected consequences are gen-erally comparable. Even so, since a number of factors irpacting cn this conCulsion are not well defined, variations in then can canse changes in the numerical estinates of core-nelt ccnse-quences such that the FNP consequences may be greater or lesser than those for comparable land-based plants.
Mcre in-depth assessments would be required to further refine the results of this study. In any event, it does appear that consequences of accidental releases in FNP can be made low, comparable to land-tased plants.
- W7 -
6 U u G ). O, r-s
2-8 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1.
Offshore Power Sjstems, 1376a. Envircnrental Repc_rt, Part II Supplement to Manuf acturing L icense Applicaticr., Supple,ent No. 5, May 7,10'6.
2.
Offshore Pcwer Systems, 1376b. Letter to G. L. Knighton, NRC, fron A. R. Collier, OPS, Fe';arding Doses Pesulting from a Fuel Cask Drop Accidental Release to the Liquid Pathway.
OPS Application for License to Manuf acture Floating ',uclear Plants, June 2, 1976, 10 p.
3.
Offshore Power Systems, 1376c. " Consequences of Peleases to Liquid Pathways, Report No. TR 01 A;3, OPS Application f or Literse to Manufacture Floating Nuclear Plants, June 24, 1976.
4. t',,<, e eiae]G ij
3.
COST-BENE'IT BALANCE 3.1 OPERATION OF THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY The first element of the environmental review related to the proposed manufacture of eight floating nuclear power plants was directed to the operation of the manufacturing facility in Jacksonville, Florida. The comparison of environmental costs and benefits resulting from the proposed activity is given in Final Environmental Statement - PART I, NUREG-75/091, October 1975 (Section 9).
In sumary, the direct benefit resulting from operation of the manufacturing plant is the production of the FNP's, each neith the potential for producing 1000 'Se, Indirect benefits resulting from operation of the manufacturing plant are the inc eased job openings and financial input to the Jacksonville retropolitan area and the development of an additional, and unique, power station siting option fcr the electric power supply industry. The principal environmental costs incurred by the operation of the proposed facility arise from the potential damage inflicted on the aquatic o';anisms of the St. Johns River in the vicinity of Blount Island and from the potential for soc;oeconomic changes to be excerienced by the populace of Jacksonville.
The ecological damage is expected to be minimal and almost wholly attributable to losses in the lagocn area of Back River. On a relative basis, the losses due to the plant are insignificant co pared to the level of losses from existing pollution. Also, these losses in Back River will probably eventually be incurred with or without the proposed plant, since Blount Island is already connitted to industrialization.
The greater cost ray arise out of the problems associated with the possible large in-nigration to fill the job openings at the applicant's facility or in supporting correrce and connunity ser-vices. Some of the problems rray include inadequacies in water supply, sewage and 30 lid waste handling facilities, transportaticn networh, and schools. However, the indirect costs due to social burdens on the citizens cannot be quantified, but will be nininized through cocrunity awareness and action.
Af ter weighing the environnental, economic, technical, and other benefits of tne operation of the ranufacturing facility against environmental and other costs and ccnsidering available alterna-tives, the staf f concluded that there is nothing inherent in the operation of the ranuf acturing f scility that would warrant denial of the nanufacturing license and, on balance, the potential benefits that may result from the operation vf the facility outweigh the risks of adverse impact to the e nvironment.
3.2 SITING R.D OPERATING FLCATIZ NUCLEAR POWER FLA'.TS Section 11 of the staf f's Final Environrental Statement - PART II, hyEr,-00%, Septerter 1976 prov m i a detailed description of the expected Lenefits and costs resulting from the siting and 3-1
[
D
- - {;
. '
- s '
.' Q..
2 a
s1.
j '
.h,3 1
e :.
4
/
i -
3-2 3
operation of nuclear generating stations using FNP's in several biogeographical regions of the s
U. S. cuastal zone of the Atlant:c Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
t The direct benefit iron an offshore nuclear poner station is the electricity generated. The addition of new base-load power fron FNP's can be expected to significantly upgrade the gen-eratirg system of an operating utility by erabling retirement of its oldest and least ef ficient generating facilities and by shifting of more costly fossil-fueled stations to interrediate and/or peak-load service. Further, the use of nuclcar Tuel over the 30-year life of the plant sho;1d censerve hugh quantities of fossil-fuel natural resources.
The tax receipts for floating nuclear plants will te..d to be more geographically dif fLie than for land-based plants both during cor.struction and during operation. Floating nuclear plants, sited off shore, will generate less local tax revenue than inshore cr land-based plants, but staic governments will likely collect nore. The amount of taxes will be dependent upon the particular site location.
f Employment during construction will occur in several areas including the nanufccturing facility at Jacksonville, Florida, quarrying and casting yard operations, the transportation of materials
?..
and employees, the shore base construction support facilities, and the FNP site itself.
Econonic impetus, brought about through corporate and worker expenditures plus tax revenues, can e
be expected to c:use new developments in the irreal.ite environs of a floating :uclear power station, particularly when the site is remote from the influence of netropolitan areas. Con-rerical interests will expand to serve the needs of the new private and corporate market.
Increased tax revenues will be used for the developrent end enhancerent of public facilities, particuarly schcois, recreation, and runiciLal services. The public and private sec tors ray i.
combine to encourage additional indastrial, connei:ial, and residential migration to the local corruni ty.
n Over a broader geographical range, the floatig nuclear power station will have little effect on 4*>
development, since it supplies a product that the expr'. ding population needs and will probably J'
obtain by other means at other locations, if necessary.
O The principal environmental costs of the construction and operation of electric generating stations using eight FNP units are those associated with the prevention or anelioration of damage to local ecological conrunities in the impacted areas. Of soecial concern are (1) the ecological losses arising from the disturbances of the benthic conrunities occupied by the break-waters er other protective structures, (2) the destructive effects of burying transnission cables on the sea botton and in salt marsh or estuarine areas, (3) the permanent loss of habitat in the
'l transmission rights-of-way and at the location of the switchyard ind other shore support facili-ties, (4) the loss of large quantities of aquatic organisms in the once-through cooling systen,
~
]
with (5) the potential for darage to incone-prodacing and hunan-life-support fisheries, and (6) g c
the effect of waste and radioactive and nonradioactive chemical discharges on the narine life.
ra h*
4*
S' b'
=
.k 1
.,[
.b p.
~
- ' ~
4 e;&
0 f////
~ f
%,[3\\%
9 i,j g////g IMAGE EVALUATION
\\\\
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 5:23 EM
,l ((f kB l
l.l p m ph==3 2
=
l1.25 IA 1.6 ays, Ae~i, 4$ 4%
44 x
4,.4 m
&a,w,e.;..a mp s
s i
O
<W F '
4;p
3-3 There are also environmental effects related to man's enjoyment of life. These relate to (1) the economies and standard of living in the communities that may be affected by the construction and operation of floating nuclear power stations and (2) the aesthetic impacts perceived by each Mdividual and by the collective community.
Because of the relatively mild impacts identified by the generic environmental review and the relatively small affected area compared to the large area available f.or siting, the staff is confident that acceptable s.tes will be available for the proposed eight FNP units in two-unit installations in offshore locaticns as well as in carefully selected riverine and estuarine locations.
Thus, after investigating the need for these units, analyzing the investment costs, and weighing the potential impacts and corresponding economic losses, the ciaff concludes that the proposed action is acceptable and recomends that a manufacturing license be issued to the applicant for production of eight floating nuclear power plants as concluded in the Final Environmental State-ment for the manufacturing activity - PART I.
3.3 LIQUID PATHWAY ACCIDENT ANALYSIS This environmental statement and its accompanying technical reference (NUREG-0140) compares the relative dose comitment from a spectrum of accidental releases of radioactive material to tha liquid pathways from several typical land-based and water-based site environments. The accidents considered range from very ninor operational. ccidents all the way to a core melt accident. Most of these accidents require an assumption or multiple failure of equiprent or successive oper' tor errors in order to actually cause release of radioactivity to the environment. The c'.re meltdown accident is of the type analyzed in the Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, in which the engineered safety features fail, and the core is assumed to melt through the botton of the containment structure.
The evaluation concludes that any initiating event considered within the design basis envelope is not likely to lead to a significant release of radioactivty to the environment tnrough the liquid pathway. Should such a release occur, the consequences are expected to be small - for either a land-based plant or a floating nuclear plant. Total body doses to t:.e maximum exposed individual are sumarized in Table 2.3.1.
A core melt accident 'nd ultimate containment penetration in both tne land-based and floating nuclear plants are very improbable events and lead to conseq;ences that are generally comparable.
The staff concludes that the overall risks associatd with a fi m ng..uclear plant are low, and comparable to the risks associated with land-based planu 3.4 OVERALL STAFF CONCLUSIONS The conclusionary results sumarized above relative to radiological accidents and the conse-quences through the liquid pathway do not affect the cost-benefit balances previously stated in
(. p. 2 g, t?
r ~.
3-4 Final Environmental Statenent - PART: I and II.
The added parameter of radiological inpact due to FNP liquid pathway accidents, both within design basis and the large core melt event, to the cost-benefit equation continues to raflect a favorable ba.ance.
The staff concludes that, on balance, all cumulative potential benefits that nay accrue from manufacturing FNP's at the centralized facility in Jacksonville, Florida, and < :th the reasonable assurance that the eight FNP's can, fron an environmental point of view, be sited in offshore locations of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico as well as in very carefully selected riverine and estuarine locations, outweigh the risks of adverse irpact to the environment includ-ing the risks fron a wide spectrum of accidents involving the release of radioactivity through both gasecas and liquid pathaays.
e
..
o
4 DISCUSSION OF CCf41ENTS RECEIVED ON THE DUFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (Reserved for staff responses to co rents) s..
- ! Q.-
. p.. s q ts 41
APPENDIX A RESERVED FOR CC'PENTS ON THE CRAFT ENVIRCN'1 ENTAL STATEMENT BY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AGENCIES, AND INTERESTED PARTIES c, n,,,
6.a w.
A-1