ML20150C231

Draft Addendum to Part 2 of Fes

ML20150C231
Person / Time
Site:	Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant
Issue date:	03/31/1978
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0056, NUREG-0056-ADD, NUREG-0056-ADD-DRFT, NUREG-56, NUREG-56-ADD, NUREG-56-ADD-DRFT, NUDOCS 7811170341
Download: ML20150C231 (56)

Text

.

NUREG-0056 (Addendum)

DRAFT ADDENDUM TO PART II 0F THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT by the j

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REAR. TOR REGULATION f

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION related to the proposed MANUFACTURE OF FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS t

Docket No. STN 50-437 i

March 1978 1

4 7ff ///76SW

__ _ _ - _ < - ~ _

j

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This Addendum to Part II of the final Environmental Statenent related to manufacture of floating nuclear power plants by Offshore Power Systems (OPS), NUREG-0056, issued September 1976, was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The staff'; basic evaluation is presented in NUREG-0056. The current Addendum provides further consideration of a number of topics discussed in NUREG-0056, particularly additional considera-tion of shore zone siting at estuarine and ocean regior.s. This Sunmary and Conclusions recapitu-lates and is cumulative for Part II of the FES and the current Addendum. Augmentations to the Summary and Conclusions presented in Part II of the FES and arising from the evaluations con-i

{

tained in this Addendum are italicized.

I 1.

This action is administrative.

l 2.

As discussed in the Foreward to this Addendum to Part II of the Final Environmental State-ment, Part II is the second of three parts of the Environmental Statement relating to the proposed action described below. Part !! of the Statement. referred to as the generic statement, covers, on a general basis, the environmental considerations of siting and i

operating eight Floating nuclear power plants (FNP's) in the coastal waters (including i

estuarine waters) of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. For this purpose, the 8

floating nuclear-powered electrical generating station considered typical for offshore siting is a two-unit station involving two FNP's emplaced within a single protective break-Water, for shore zone sites, considered to be less than 1 mile from shore, the typical station considered is also a two-unit station with two FNP's emplaced within a single pro-tective breakwater.

The application to manufacture floating nuclear power plants includes the option to permit siting of units at shore 70ne as well as at offshore locations. With open ocean siting i

representing a new siting option for nuclear power generating facilities, Part II of this 4

Statement is directed principally to that option. The use of the FNP's as nuclear gener-l ating stations in lagoons or basins along the estuarine sections of the coastline, near or along the shore zone of sounds and bays as well as at the ocean coastline itself, presents many of the same environmental considerations also characteristic of offshore siting.

Further, in most cases the considerations are not markedly different from those encountered in land-oased siting of nuclear power plants at similar sites. Accordingly, in considera-4 tion of the expanded siting options available, this Addendum and Part II of the Final l

Environmental Statement discuss those environmental parameters that cre unique to the i

new siting modes and relate to the purpose of comparing the FNP with the land-based plant.

These factors center about the construction and operational aspects of shore zone siting at i

estuarine and ocean costs, especially dredging, and the matter of adapting an FNP with a standardized nnce-through cooling system to various constraints imposed by shoreline siting, j

Additinnally, the staff has completed a special study which compares the consequences of accidental releases through liquid pathways for a spectrum of releases at several types of land-based and water-based plant siting environments. This liquid pathway generic study (NUREG-0440, february 1978) is an integral part of the NRC licensing review for this appli-cation and provides the basis for f art III of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

I Because the Final Environmental Statement does not consider specific FNP sites, several of I

the eavironmental parameters that must be taken into account are treated in a general manner l

and witt n>t a high degree et quantification. In most cases, the identification and result-ing analysis of a particular environmental aspect is highly site-dependent and can be made I

only on the basis of a specifically selected site. Accordingly, this Statement serves the adJitional f unction of highlighting those environmental f actc,rs to which careful attention l

nust be directed in the site-specific cases.

The proposed action is the i m ance of a manufacturinry license to Offshore Power Systems l

for the startup and cgeration cf a propowd manuf5Ru'riMITaillity located at blour,t i

1 Island, Jacksonville, florida.Jocket No. SIN 50-437).

t iii

1 l

i No nuclear fuel will be handled or stored at the manufacturing site. The plants will be fueled after they have been towed to and moored within 9rotected basins at specific loca-

{

tions designated by the purchaser and af ter an operating license has been issued by the I

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Each nuclear generating plant, mounted on a floating platform, will have a net operating capacity of 1150 MWe, This energy is provided by a pressurized water reactor steam supply system consisting of a Westinghouse four-loop 3425-MWt unit with an ice-condenser contain-i ment system. When one or more of these units is located within a single breakwater, the installation is designated a floating nuclear power station.

4.

Generic considerations of environmental impacts and adverse effects of site preparation and operation of FNP's are sumarized below. The adverse impacts itemized in this section are those the staf f infers will occur unless measures are taken as a part of site selection processes and operating procedures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate otherwise unavoidable 1

impacts. For site-specific applications site selection and operational procedures that avoid, minimize, or otherwise successfully mitigate the effects summarized can be expected to achieve a favorable cost-benefit balance.

Construction of an of fshore floating nuclear power station (approximately three miles from shore) will result in two major activities, each having an associated set of envi-ronmental impacts:

(1) Construction of a protective breakwater for the placement of two FNP's will result in destruction of 100 acres of benthic infauna and establishment of a reef-type community.

The production of biomass by the reef community is expected to compensate for the infaunal biomass destroyed by dredging and will contribute mainly to the local sport fishery (FES, Part 11. Sects. 5.2.4 and 5.4.1).

(2) Dredging asociated with construction of the breakwater and jetting for emplacement of the transmission lines to supply power from offshore stations to shore facilities are expected to disturb approximately 550 acres of bottcm. The major potential for damage will result from the destruction of the benthos and from turbidity and siltation resulting fr a j

these operations. Ecologically sensitive areas such as the coral reef comunities in the subtropics and extensive seagrass beds should be avoided (FES, Part II, Sects. 5.2.4 and 2

5.4.1).

J e r-:

rat

'c at ur near tiw cetwine or w yn-ocem chcreliu m:a require orcation c-ft-vias a m es channel; cneiderini that.xncria ScaciMiity ma? lid t such a

1,,

.%.rw :

fea t riha 3: lenp h, ircah m:,'

irw :, affut =e >~uch ao ri mim%.

r a:rra.

=c m a? : ccynxe cr c the r bacfield veyrtati 'c e?ote"'s, ciitat on, 1P:

sl:

a a vc lc an: ' i m, me ta:a au pec t i. ro from the ce n nts *:W * ! a cf n. cr emen.

>a fo er n, t f FT 'a

'n eetuarine miina :dd reeG in the reic m u

'c n and hab ~ t ds from t he en:imerto, par *i d ari in w iu. -

ate

'n~

e tHaiice. an ::e.

!& txtaminant w w traticna, a:x viin k > e b :d !!ct et-c neicw >

' in J

mur einc in er uar natuaries n wicete tT he alffi' ult c n en. ' x aba r.

dn d in areac twi G &niwi b ecneitive va ima c

imeme w: peu m er, kat u rLe t ut are est :w:

wu r e aEenti. lieturk

?.. m iu cw.> > ' in iy m. suctain % erer ecolop eal fiana :rm FH eitiv than Trietiu

% er, t h refs, er p fc ere l

• lcce die turk ' cet ur ne are:c as retential m +

citee

'.C e

For offshore locations, the region to the seaward side of the breakwater is expected to be an area of active erosion due to increased turbulence from both incident and reflected wave energy. Evaluation of the effects of erosion on breakwater toe integrity will require periodic monitoring for local scouring and structure damage at the breakwater toe (FES, Part 11. Sects. 6.11.2 and 7.2.3).

There will be a zone of sediment accretion, several feet in thickness, extending less than 1 mile to the lee of the breakwater. If the structure is located more than 1 mile offshore, it is expected that these accretion zone dimensions will be approximately stable. Hence, no significant environmental impact is expected. Determi-3 nation of the actual extent of bathymetric changes leeward of the breakwater will require periodic high-resolution fathometer surveys (FES, Part II, Sects. 6.11.2 and 7.2.3).

For weanic etationo located clooe tc he chcrc ine, the treakwater le ex[teted to alter r.iJr.% circulation Bd hymc paticrne, whi?h cadd read t in interruption of the alen;fehort

.ttora: trzerurt naar the bruabater, %ee effecte, houerer, are eqected to be eirrilar to theni rceultin - from ot her large etructurce luilt ncar the ehcrcline. h effecte om iv

usually be rdtigated by cand bypaesing or dredging operatione einitar to those nou routinely conducted at many coaccal locatione. The effecte of the breakuater en tTw littoral trane-port sharacteristice of the nearehove cecan environmnt and possible mitigating actions trill have to be evaluated on a cite-epecific basie.

If the offshore station is located several breakwater widths (approximtely 1 mile, measured ncrmt to the primry uave direction) from the shoreline, there should be no detectable shoreline changes directly attributable to the breakwater. The potential for noticeable shoreline accretion due to interrupted longshore sediment transport will increase as the distance between the breakwater and shoreline decreases (FES, Part II, Sects. 6.11.2 and 7.2.3).

Tcr estuarine locatione, the breabater is eqected to alter the nearby erceicnal and depo-citional pattems, resulting in the alteration of the bathymetr, with come arcae choating e

and othere deepening. The effecte, havever, are cm ected to be similar to those rceulting from other large structures built in estuaries. Maintenance dredging will dq a d upon the deposition rate and the neccacity cf mintaining an accees channel to the breabater and/or ninim:m vater deptie. Thic dredging should be sinitar to dredging operatione routinely per-f:rmed in estuaries.

ne effects of t e breakuater en the croeional and dc;sceitional char-h aeteristice of the estuarine environnent and the neccesity of mintenance dredging vill have to be evaluated on a cite-c;,ecific basie.

Establishment of floating nuclear power stations at either shore zone or offshore locations will require penetration of the littoral zone along the coastal zone. On shore, new trans-mission lines to a switchyard will be installed for each new offshore power station. This will require acquisition of additional rights-of-way, most of which will traverse several I

miles of wetlands and uplands (FES, Part II Section 5.2.4).

Construction of transmission facilities may cause recognizable adverse alterations of the ecological balance in these areas. Careful planning will be required if adverse impacts to the marshlands and wetlands by construction of floating nuclear power stations are to be averted (FES, Part II, Sect.

S.4.2).

constructicn of a paarage for cmplacement of FNT's, or the passage of transmission lines, intake and discharge pipes, or FNP's through barrier islands could result in serious damage to ecosystems on the islands and in the estuaries behind them. This practice should be avoided unless island restoration can be assured (FES, Part II, Sect. 5.4.2.3; this Addendum, Sect. 2.4.1.2),

keherc FNP em; 2axment would recult in destruction of DC-100 acree cf vegetation at the eite plus ang veytatien dettrtyed during inedging to reach the cite. Largc-coale destruv tien of highly graductive and censitive eyetems euch as calt mrehee and mangrove omr;~e chould be avoidal l Scot. 2.t.2).

In the case of estuarine siting of FNP's, the necessary dredging operations and disposal of dredged materials present the potential for adverse environmental impacts unless siting is given very careful attention and the related manner of construction operations is properly developed. 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 (FES, Part II, Sect 5.4).

For the of fshore FNP, little sediment will normally enter the breakwater basin if there is a mid-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 (FES, Part 11, Sect. 6.11.2).

%ere are several meane for prwenting er minimin-ing oclimnt axumulation within the brea> vater lagoon fer an er uariu, nearehore, or charcline oceanic site. The breakwater can be closed, er if there is an 0;ening (for boat accere), a cand trap can be dredged. Sedimnt deposited in the breakvater lagoon can be remet ed ueing one of ecveral poreible techniques (Sect. 2.E.1).

I

• h uniquc feature cf inahorc citing of FNP'e in bar-built cetuariev is the potential l

c.ciatence cf a ecmipermanent anese channel that eculd connect an retuara to oceanic oatc re.

I Such a channct xuld increaea uuter exchange and calinity, and in generdi could prsatly alter the akuuctsr of the cotuary At eitee uhere these effecte could be detrimental, axces channel filling to previous contoure may be neccec m! [cr ~inimination of effceto on the regicnal ecovyetem (Scet. 2.E).

v I

Construction of each ihP station will produce some comunity impacts. Traffic will increase on local roads and highways because of construction activities and employees cornuting to and from work; there will be concomitant increases of traffic in regional waterways. This traffic will be reduced after operations begin, but will cause an increment of traffic over that which occurred during the preconstruction period. No large influx of construction workers and their families moving into the area is anticipated because most of the work force is expected to commute from surrounding cities and towns. A minor increase in the economic productivity of those conynunities in the proximity of sites used for construction and operation of floating nuclear power plants is expected (FES, Part II, Sects. 5.2.5 and 6.l2).

The heat dissipation s/ stem options for FNP's at shore Zone sites are basically the same as for other coastal power plants. While the selection of the type of heat dissipation system is a utility option and site dependent, an examination of the options inditates that an environmentally acceptable heat dissipation system would be available for essentially any site which meets the criteria of the site envelope. Once-through systems appear to be suit-able for use at offshore and shoreline ocean sites on the larger and deeper sounds, bays, and estuaries. The impacts of once-through heat dissipation systems employing offshore submerged intake and discharge structures are expected to be similar to the impacts pre-dicted for o"fshore sites (FES, Part II, Sect. 6.2.2).

For FNP's utilizing once-through cooling, the condenser cooling water will be taken from and returned to the surrounding water body. 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 tempera-ture. The configuration of the thermal discharge will be at the option of the purchaser.

The thermal impact on nearshore areas from a two-unit station located about 3 miles off shore will be small (FES, Part II, Sect. 6.2).

With open-cycle heat dissipation systems, most organisms entrained into the condenser cooling water will be killed. Entrainment will be confined to micro-and small macroscopic plank-tonic organisms. The meroplankton populations (predominantly larval invertebrates and fish) will probably sustain the greater impact. The potential for significant impact on fish appears to be confined to local reef and local estuarine-dependent populations (FES, Part 11.

Sects. 6.3 and 6.4).

For marine 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 in the greatest numbers. The potential for ecologically or com-mercially significant losses can be minimized by locating the intake away from sensitive areas (FES, Part II, Sect. 6.4).

The entrainment and impingement of iguatic organisms within the floating nuclear powcr plant during operation will not significantly diminish productivity of coastal zone waters but M y 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 utilized as a spawning and/or nursery ground for marine organisms. The level of adverse effects of both entrainment and impingement has been evaluated as acceptable (FES, Part II, Sects 6.3 and 6.4).

Potential thermal stress on marine biota, other than passage through open-cycle cooling systems, will be confined primarily to the region within thermal plumes that are heated more than 2 F'.

This ttress will result in two ef fects: thermal death (direct effects) and physiological and behavioral changes (indirect effects). Thermal death is not expected to occur to a major extent because the areas of high temperatures (temperature rise greater than 6 F") are small and most organisms either will not be able to stay in thermal areas because of high water velocities or will avoid these areas. Behavioral or physiological changes will occur but are not expected to adversely affect community structure or dynamics except possibly in the subtropical areas, where ambient water temperatures may be high, especially during the summer (FES, Part II, Sects. 6.2 and 6.3).

• Fin t un 2"ulier and v%2ia:er emw, bec, and eetuaries wuld iraaN?re% reched-i J J$C O d i?Q Q Ciu"W, a5thh h 2n OffD Y rC int $C hti?iniW W ?C-t Y u ? K'C55n] M?

ObO-O[ t.C O$CCid-? > '!C Q B t2;B uBed [:r !a" -b2BCd [?W2tB a[ Tsar TO b2

!f GJ?Cf tal (G.

Ang l

ar m talit (cr ab rcline riter.

Ciccei-s de c ntc":o f:r !".T 'r m: ' !v uvi. ' d 2r a e

m.r% w t cr t em;1 ra tuw of M "? to moe t the rite cwelore; therc! crc, an ! H e:o u d-v lc c; eta cil h about M laryr than f;r a typical land-laced f ant dacigncd (Cr a e P & ut l

hikr ex:in; Mer te7crzture (Cre t. T. ?. O. Of the varicae rmential iTacta of checi-ey:e wiin) egetems, calt drift and acethetie 52"pa3te are cuneidcrN to le ce;V 'ially vi

l iqcriant far maatal siten. Ade pate centro; of salt de:ft is within tL etzte c r the art fcr modcen ecliny t u r eyotems (Sest, i. ?. C. Saline drift from ecolim twen l

culd da"uya cro;c Eut natural "uritima ve3ctation ehould rat bc affwt.ed (Se:t. S e,1).

Gince th a :ete + ucua:iy primry rcercational arcae, the acatheten of the varicue Ac ud-ep rjetemo uvu'd have io be carefu t h ec.nciderei on a eite-e ecift,1 :ein, j

i Wcration o. ' UiP's citCd rwarchcre er it. shore could hxw a vile ran; of impa:ta to a:patia e

ticta wren ir:; cm cooliny e;.ste dceip:.

D.e rul crit af pct.cntial im;, auto iden tifiei 19 i.:wir.atic~. of cristin, coaatal plante v eaalt frm cr trainment of pla.kts (ineldin;: fleh c;;a and *.ar.ue) arui imin.;cmer t cf wang-cf-w..+ ar cv ema ? ! caia lin;. f ch.

yerationa:

bqacte cu: !s red icma cf cc:!c;z.n:,, x cmi c, cr e:

co, v:.

&craticr :fme, COaa ta ? [ tantr, h3UGWr, rCUh t b; ':Yr. tab [C

!?"*^ : a *.C. Tb cr n i bacic int,5C b ei;!nB for irwiw rc ~eited FF 'e v crkr of darca in;: p;tst*,.ai far c a ir.

iqa 't are nearshorc

.c >*:

m.,

2 n &C, anx, - t nroy,. n e m :ny, c e w r,e.u ta a,sai set. as ta vrau.-i.n.

m 1 9; ana near.

e,

, onec rce:

com g er e wn m, c:-:.anc.re in tan.

u e

s,cacl-3 sc coc w u ane ec nca

. t 2 ru. e*.

.c t s n :: coartal s

v

ante ran.sc frm thaac of miv imen to r2ctant ia: canam:, de:r air..: un the c:te-epceifie e

a w

sh. ara?te r ie t ice.

L.i kwice,

iripa.

s

., 21 thin ths. egaloylaa;e raye am, n.,st fvr.te arrn c

Nr c; crati:. > in m incherc nantal zeu 21 u,,. tuu

.r te es

, in u ture la-st.

.t).

au i

Chemical discharges into the marine environment will, for open-cycle cooling operation, be e

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 LPA guidelines and standards for control of chem-ical discharges. Because of the identified potential for ecological damage that may result from discharge of halocenated compounds in the condenser cooling water as well as from free available chlorine, the staff concludes that the mortality of marine biota in the immediate vicinity of floating nuclear power plants will be confined to acceptable rates if tneir exposure to total residual halogen in the cooling water discharge is limited to seawater in which the concentration does not exceed 0.1 mg/ liter (FES, Part II, Sect. 6.5).

., ei;mifinnt cairmw:tal imacte arc ant sipatsi fr? nc:*u:

mit :au: ec:u r, -f ravioactin 'nteria:e for '.Mc in exan er eetuarir.c miere at :'fah:re,

'rc k r.', au!

in$. Crc C1% a0 The Oh,?,s tt,'b radiQ t$Cn ClJCe2n ini CrA, r C, 'h, "k.:n

• re":D p.p ? a t : On fro",s-cO""$tment tG the s?.. t w

• a $ c k, u j9,..E ! C "e ai s. s cE O r' (00 fr av l.,;r aLL n

4 Ii;hij CfflhCnt8, in.? ?ls$$%1 that frC"; t ra' ;'r. ' * ' t ;

ik OMC 2[ n:ClC: r fhi s Dii

ve er:mitmente to porulath ne within t he.5Mi:c Judiu of e nh cf t hcc+ eitre are c:; ec ts.

to ic in the crder cf.' man-rs:~t rcr yar.

The p Tuh ti:n kee calculated fir n

INE lDJated n an C2tharbh' C Y JirOn.*%'" t 50 02"*parab ir $2 that itC?"'ind$ fo r la' ib ' n plant 2 c[ Pi"'il1

' Ulin NCated ns.r C2tha.riW ana 2CM. ?e i

t hrt l :? tG :)

• ~ '

z s

+

YVr

• kr: Cla:t C ?

• b cfff h:ri FNP.

Thccc J.c;4 la t to*1 doar ac."*?it:~,-> L 2, eli a,

• • < !?

":2n -

s

r. ' ;% r prar M ' t hi 3 "1.m-reme [CP jCar jcr un'* Citi!M!C~l [C n. hpa t in '

'r

' sE ? ?

ir 'U!; **

• M: c K Chri, "rC[ Cati;'C?;, arL C*';a t : b; 33"*% 5D ' n t: annMal xC4 0 [rum n i t 'sr.il

'* f rM.]

Rr c a, Ch!E d'

?t' Cn thC v

s" C[ L Est :,l ? T M rcti e r

,n ths ? Car

. El e :^s)h i k

~

.ns!

• s S if to PL;;i"ia ? & ei.",: gps ' in:ii J !Ma?e f:P ind h rV-C ! tf..s C

a h*2 anj and-I 2:'Ca IWl:

i % tu.:h'

• Cr ik:n th':t [Gr t hC Cl'fa hCrl ?NE, eh. *!

5C iC Ch i % e ;m:e ew. ni the 2 eiecion (A; rendi: : u ces tan u, m.

n '

'* '. )

> (k E!/ bl Q

• ,irt W ) ((U, l' art

], OC ? t '

nd A l$%)h."',

~C O *.

.O.

D.

a irwe>

• i rie:w

• ,actulate: r lca.va 'f ra.! %

• s to the ' ?? c rn. r :ti a

i

'n "

!! Ir ::3' m tC are C.rN Cding' B"'

[Cr i:th C #fc h N.Ni Di r# l

• e i ! t r' r (IE,

1 s

- y+

.ra,,

6 ],

,c ix nd.e, m.

i. e t.

y e,v2 :e rido %r w w'*:! ra :-

n n

3" w ic :cce ihe % irar *cre f:r U t1

erd ic.l an land-!.a nu,lc ur r x. n : ante h;U Wyl, CDa!M tC ! in !he rt2f? '!ah - ' t *:U D ?CNeir J E't%5i (NWI % 5$2, ?+] rha '

^ fI and Vi~~ ! t' iC3%?ne $n L "*

Is. s

'? t I'r

??

r c.ffp;,re F3p c

ig r,

- ap cara tiaat un que FNr ?hara 4 riet!?n c v at N ":

e e

r er: cf

'a t h'n an$ PCla t !UC 5 U t i. ?C CnVirA v'nt, PC E t.r!? t " transpCe. tat!On mO.

Ce ~ "$ $ t T* *C CC

. r ta ? i',

.s*' l. C:"q'ar t"Wn t a l l.3 i t L0n.: *. 'i. ! a :. CQ i f'!M M &G l4 N Gi!...:2 :: $ L^

t hi

^

• **?}, Cp i

a x,:twe n?* availa] l2 'It a h nd-? sCe l I.an t Mi. 'u:

• C k'$ L G re.l.<

thi c

1

,e vp y r '

• s p *Cnti f21' DaIC t ( t With rC?ard to B W rt l;CV O!*!n] 'f !ND'r, UC C1?!? CGer25I e

E elieva t 1.a t s, a ;, nente of a ;%aisal emrit, r,es:ra"' at a.ncreare in en et t i n

> i-!.ac.

,, M.e : wre,,, a ' u..

. ;Lant and a.

an FNP, re;r n..y u

t hac : ha t i rc t w:i a;, zi> v t c

re;crt ia in ne

rvec af th.: m i te i m!.

'* is v; cats i

• ha t.

?.i ',t, -

r;lrliO une > ei.1 a' C

ugh k, C a t i r;,

• a,l. Cal.t?MP2 2r. C Cr: a a%1 U^42 f % rt" w. ns: Cr ( fl. h h lCC Af ?sa' m a ? '. *a? lc l'c x : 0; [ rcts** ~~n a p in; t r e W<r

• 2 C.

vii

5.

Principal alternatives considered:

a.

Alternative land-based plants b.

Alternative energy source considerations c.

Alternatives to station design d.

Alternatives to normal transportation procedures.

6.

The followino Federal, State, and local agencies have been asked to torrtent on this Draf t Addendam to the FES, Part II.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Aariculture Department of the Army, Corps of Encineers Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Departmer.t of the Navy, Oceanographer of the Navy Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Aaency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Equal Opportunity

• State of Florida City of Jacksonville, Florida States of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi. New Hampshire New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina Texas, and Virginia.

7 The Final Environmental Statement, Part II, was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other specified agencies in September 1976. This Addendum to Part II was made available to the Environmental Protection Agency, and to other speci-fied agencies, in March 1978.

8.

On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this generic statement concerning the construction and operation of nuclear generating stations using floating nuclear power plants in several biogeogr0phical provinces in the U.S. coastal zones of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico; after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of employlr.g the floating nuclear plants against environmental and other costs and after considering certair. Other alternatives, it is concluded that the eight floating nuclear power plants proposed for manufacture can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be sited and operated as electric generating stations either at offshore or shoreline sites.

Therefore, on the basis of the considerations set forth in this Statement, the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Appendix M to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 51 (formerly Appendix D to 10 CFR Part SD) is the issuance of a manufacturing license for the manufacture of eight floating nuclear plants subject to the conditions set forth in the Sumary and Conclusions of the Commission's Final viii

I I

Environmental Statene it, Part 1, issued in October 1975 concerning the proposed operation of the manufacturing 'acility ir. Jacksonville, Florida, for convenience of reference, the l

conclusion drawn in taat Statement is restated below.

On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement concerning the proposed operation of the manufacturing facility only, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits a the operation of the manufacturing facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that there is nothing inherent in the operation of the manufacturing (Scility that would warrant denial of the manufacturing license. A final conclusion regarding issuance or denial of the license to manufacture, under NEPA. will be based upon both the considerations set forth in this statement and those set forth in the generic statement. It is also concluded that in consideration of the analysis and evaluations given in this statement, the license should be subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:

a.

A comprehensive environmental monitoring program, which is acceptable to the i

staff will be conducted to determine the environmental effects resulting from the i

manufacturing and preoperational testing activities. In particular, the applicant will include in his monitoring program those specifically recommended items indi-cated in Section 5 of this statement. The details of this program will be developed and described in the final environmental impact statement, and will be i

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 significantly greater than that evaluated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant 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, L'e applicant shall provide an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of act;on to eliminate or significantly reduce these hannful effects or this damage.

4 i

l ll l

i l

l l

l l

l IX

~.

- ~.- -_ - - - - -..-

l l

1 l

l CONTENTS Pace l

iii

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION 5 l

FCREWORD xv 1.

INTRODUCTION 1-1 t

2.

SHORE ZONE S! TING OF FLCATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 2-1 2.1 SHORE ZONE SITING OPTIONS..........

2-1 2.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SHORE ZONE ENVIRONMENT 2-1 2.2.1 Shore zone ocean siting 2-1 2.2.2 Environmental descriptions.

2-2 2.2.2.1 Terrestrial ecology 2-2 2.2.2.2 Aquatic ecology 2-2 2.2.2.3 Biophysical characteristics of es'uaries 2-3 2.2.2.4 Threatened and endangered species 2-7 2.3 STATION CONFIGURATIDN OPTIONS FOR SHORE ZONE SITING 2-7 2.3.1 Nearshore siting.

2-7 2.3.2 Inshore site, once-through cooling

. 2-11 2-12 2.3.3 Alongshore site, once-through cooling 2.3.4 Inshore site, closed-cycle cooling.

2-12 2.3.5 Alongshore site, closed-cycle cooling...

2-14

'.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FNP STATIONS AT ESTUARINE SITES 2-15 2.4.1 Hydrolooical effects 2-15 2.4.2 T,rrestrial ecology 2-15 2.4.2.1 Dredging.

2-15 l

2.4.2.2 Barrier islands..

2-16 2.4.2.3 Vegetated tidelands 2-16 2.4.2.4 Other environments 2-17 2-17 2.4.2.5 Sunrary 2-18 2.4.3 Aquatic ecology 2.4.3.1 Short-term ef fects of dredging 2-18 2.4.3.2 Heavy metal contamination 2-19 2.4.3.3 Pesticides 2-20 2.4.3.4 Substrate removal 2-20 2.4 3.5 Summary...............

2-21 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE OPERATION OF FNP STATIONS AT SHORELINE SITES 2-21 2.5.1 Physical effects of the breakwater 2-22 2.5.1.1 Breakwater characteristics 2-22 2.5.1.2 Effects on circulation and wave energy 2-23 2.5.1.3 Effects on erosion and deposition patterns 2-23 2.5.1.4 Effect of shoreline recession or accretion on a i

2-24 shoreline FNP.

2.5.1.5 Maintenance dredging and sand bypassing 2-25 2.5.2 Terrestrial 2-25 I

2.5.3 Aquatic..

2-26 2.5.3.1 Glaciated coasts 2-26 2.5.3.2 Ear-built and coastal plain estuaries 2-26 2.5.3.3 Mangrove systems 2-27 2.5.3.4 Summary 2-27

{

i.5.4 Heat dissipation at shoreline sites 2-23 l

2.5.4.1 Heat dissipation systems for coastal power plants 2 2S 2.5.4.2 Influence of shoreline site characteristics on the selection of FNP heat dissipation systems 2-29 2.5.4.3 Once-through systems 2-30 4

2,;.4.4 Closed-cycle systems 2 31 2.5.4.5 Summa ry 2-32 l

2.5.5 Radiological 2-32 2.5.5.1 Dose estimates 2-32 2-33 1

2,5.5.2 Direct radiation.....

2.5.5.3 Evaluation of radiological impact 2-33 i

xi s

e, s-

-n

Page 6

2.6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROG?AMS..

2-33 0.7 EFFECTS OF POSTULATED ACCl3ENTS 2-33 2.8 BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON...

2-34 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2..

2-35 3.

PROTECTION AGAINST SABOTAGE 3-1 3.1 PHYSICAL BARRIERS 3-1 3.1.1 Protected area..

3-1 3.1.2 Vital area.....

3-2 3.2 ACCESS CONTROL 3-2 3.2.1 Protected area..

3-2 3.2.2 Vital area.

3-3 3.3 DETECTION AIDS 3-3 3.4 COMMUNICATIONS 3-3 3.5 RESPONSE FORCE 3-3 3.6 EVALUATION OF SABOTAGE POTENTIAL 3-3 4-1 4.

ALTERNATIVES.

4.1 Alternatives requiring new generating capacity 4-2 4.1.1 Increased coal utilization.........

4-2 4.1.2 Solar thermal conversion..

4-4 4.1.3 Biomass conversion.

4-5 4.1.4 Wind energy 4-5 4.2 ALTERNATIVES FOR REDUCTION OF ENERGY DEMAND 4-6 4.2.1 Current status of energy demand 4-6 4.2.2 Conservation as a national policy 4-7 4.2.3 Substitution of fuels 4-8 4.2.4 Load management 4-8 4.2.5 Cogeneration..

4-9 4.2.5.1 The technical basis for cogeneration........

4-9 4.2.5.2 The potential for cogeneration in nuclear power plants 4-11 4.2.5.3 The potential for cogeneration in floating nuclear plants 4-11 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 4-13 5.

FEDERAL LAWS FOR PROTECTION OF THE C0ASTAL ENVIRONMENT 5-1 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5...

5-4 APPENDIX A.

CEQ LETTER TO NRC, NOVEMBER 23, 1976.

A-1 APPENDIX B.

NRC LETTER TO CEO, FEBRUARY 17. 1977 G-1 APPENDIX C.

SUMMARY

OF NRC-CEO MEETING ON APRIL 15, 1977 C-1 APPENDIX D.

EPA LETTER TO NRC COM"ENTING ON THE ADDENDUM FEBRUARY 8, 1978 D-1 APPENDIX E.

NRC LETTER TO EPA, March 6,1978....

E-1 i

a i

xii

-_-_.m I

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 (a) Diagrammatic transect of the mangrove connunities from the pioneer Rhizophora family to the tropical hammock forest, showing approxiniate tide levels and soil conditions usually found in a marl soil region. (L) Dia-grannatic vertical distribution of fauna in a red mangrove forest 2-8 2.2 Diagram of the detritus-based food web...

-9 2.3 A conceptual model of a mangrove food web showing the most important flow of energy as a broad arrow, less important food chains as narrow arrows, and the pathway of dissolved leaf material as a dotted line 2-9 2.4 Nearshore site 2-11 2.5 Excavated inshore site utilizing once-through cooling 2-12 j

2.6 Backfilled alongshore site utilizing once-through cooling 2-13 2.7 Excavated insho're site utilizing mechanical-draf t cooling towers 2-13

)

2.8 Excavated inshore site..

2-14 2.9 Backfilled alongshore site utilizing natural-draft cooling towers 2-14 xiii

e p-r

-i m

.m, c.

~ _ _.

LIST OF TABLES Table Pace 2.1 Site-plant combinations for floating nuclear power plants at ocean or l

estuarine locations 2-1 l

2.2 Basic comunity types in bar-built and coastal plain estuaries 2-6 2.3 Threatened and endangered species of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts 2-10 2.4 Species and subspecies of mamals from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts whose distribution is aither entirely or in large measure restricted to Islands

'>-!7 2.5 Decreases in selected variables due to simulated dredging effect 2-19 2.6 Present waste loading of mid-Atlantic estuaries 2-21 2.7 Sumary of potential ecological irrpacts due to station operation, given three intake designs and three esfuerine systens.

2-28 T

i 2.8 Atlantic and Gulf Coast themal power plants using saltwater coolirg, operational in 1976 2-29 2.9 Atlantic and Gulf Coast nuclear power plants seneduled to 1937 2-30 2.10 Land-based PWRs (in Estuarine environments) 2-32 4.1 Projected demand (millions of barrels of oil eouivalent per day) 4-2 4.2 Surrary of current energy source excess morbidity and injury per 0.8 Gwy(e) power plant 4-3 i

i 4.3 Sunrary of current energy source exces mortality per year per 0.8 GWy(e) 4-4 I

4

?

l 4

P i

i b

i liv y

~m.-

FOREWORD This Addendum to the Environmental Statement, NUREG-0056, was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff) in accordance with the Commission's regulations, set forth in 10 CFR Part $1, which implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Appendix M to 10 CFR Part 50.

The NEPA states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means. consistent 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 ceneration as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.

Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

Preserve important historic, 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 and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Further, with respect to major Federal actions sianificantly affecting the quality of the human environment Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA calls for preparation of a detailed statement on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (ii) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii) alternatives to tne proposed action; (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancer 9nt of long-term productivity; and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

In the case of the present application, that to manufacture eight floating nuclear power plants under the provisions of Appendix M to 10 CFR Part 50, the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a three-part Draf t Environmental Statement - Part I directed at the manufacture of the floatinc nuclear power plants at the manufacturing site (Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida);

Part 11 directed, in general terms, at the construction and operation of the nuclear power plants at several hypothetical regional zones; and Part III directed at considering, on a comparative basis, the consequences resulting from the accidental release of radioactivity to the liquid pathways from floating nuclear plants and from nuclear power plants sited on land; brt 111 also presented an overall cost-benefit analysis for all elements of the Environmental 5tatenent. Each of these Draf t Statements, as completed, was circulated to Federal, State, and local agencies for comment.

Af ter receipt and consideration of the coments on each of the three parts of the Draf t Environ-mental Statement related to this review, the staf f ;;repared or, in the case of Part 111, will prepare a Final Environmental Statement which includes a discussion of :;uestions and o';jections xv

t d

il raised by the conrients and the disposition thereof and a cost-benefit analysis, which (1) considers and balances the environmental effects resulting from the manufacture of eight floating nuclear plants at the manufacturing facility and viable alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects with the environmental, economic. technical, and other benefits of the manufacturing activity. (2) considers and balances the environmental effects resulting from the construction and operation of floating nuclear power plants in several biogeographical provinces in the U.S. coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as in typical estuarine locations, and alternatives available for reducing or j

avoiding adverse environment effects with the environmental, economic, technical, and other j

benefits of such construction and operation, and (3) considers and balances the overall environ-mental impacts resulting from postulated nucitar accidents which may release radioactivity into the liquid pathways. The staff will also prepare a final staff conclusion as to whether., af ter weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs and after considering available alternatives, the action called for is the issuance or denial of the proposed manufacturing license or its appropriate cteditioning to protect envircnmental values.

The purpose of this Addendum to Part II of the Environmental Impact Statement is twofold. First it responds to recommendations of the Council on Environmental Quality that further consideration be given to several topics discussed in the FES. Part II, particularly the environmental parameters peculiar to riverine and estuarine siting of FNP's, beycnd that contained in the FES. Second it provides additional infomation regarding the potential for siting FNP's at or near ocean shore-lines, that is, less than 1 mile from shore. Copies of the Addendum are being sent to Federal.

state, and lei.al agencies for comment.

I Mr. Clif ford A. Haupt is the NRC Environmental Project Manager fo* this Statement. Questions regarding the contents of this Statement may be directed to Mr. Haupt at the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Offi;e of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C 20555 or by telephone (301-492-8434).

Copies of Parts 1 and II of the Final Environmental Statement related to the manufacture of floatina nuclear power plants, issued in September 1976. NUREG-0056, can be ordered from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 221Fl.

i i

l I

i i

I i

i f

xvi

-~.- -- - - - - - --

.-.- ~_

1.

INTRODUCTION This Addendum to Part 11 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to manufacture of Floatino Nuclear Power Plants by Offshore Power Systems (NUREG-0056; issued in September 1976) has been prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission. Some of the backoround for this appli-cation which bears on the issuance of this Addendum is given in the following paragraphs.

The applicant, Offshore Power Systems (OPS), proposes to design, manufacture, and market complete nuclear power plants of a standardized design and integrated with specially designed floating platforms. The manufacture and assembly of the floating nuclear plants would be done on a pro-duction line basis at a manufacturing facility constructed on Blount Island in Jacksonville, Florida (see FES, Part 1 NUREG-75/091).

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in Title

10) Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix M, an application for a license to manufacture eight floating nuclear plants (FNP) was tendered by OPS on January 22, 1C73. The application was docketed on July 5, 1973, with Docket No STN 50-437. Submitted with the application were the Plant Design Report (PDR) and the Environmental Report (ER).

The applicant's Environmental Report is organized to reflect the two major aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) licensing review discussed in the Foreword: it comprises (1) a i

single volume to discuss NEPA considerations associated with the manufacture of eight FNP's at the proposed Jacksonville facility and (2) a two-volume report to identify and discuss the NEPA aspects of offshore and shore zone siting. For the latter purpose, four representative sitino zones along the coastlines of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico were selected by the applicant for evaluation of effects or, the environment. The applicant designated sites (Amendment No. 4 to the ER, February 15, 1974, Sect. 2.1.2) for FNP's as those that "

. range from that of the open ocean to those protected behind islands, or situated in the shelter of bays and sounds, or located in rivers where sufficient water depths permit delivery. In all potential locations, the plant remains floatino, is protected by some form or structure (either by a man-made structure or natural land formations), and is moored to restrict plant motion." To provide for sitino options other than the offshore coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, on March 27, 1975, the application was amended (Amendment No.15) to specifically allow siting of the FNP's in " riverine or estuarine 1ccations of suitable characteristics." The expanded siting includes riverine and estuarine locations wherever the site interface requirements can be met (FES, Part II, Sect. 3.12).

Respondino to the staff's request for further details concernino station characteristics at shore zone locations, the applicant indicated (Supplement No. 6, June 1977), that "Most riv 6

• Atirntic and Gulf coasts do not have adequate channel dimensions.

e The few rivers tha t do l'.g., Hudsch, Delaware, James, and Mississippi) have bridaes associated with population center that do not provide adequate overhead clearances for an FNP."

This Addendum, therefore, does not discuss riverine siting beyond that which is presented in the FES, Part II, but centers about shore zone siting in ocean and estuarine areas. It should be noted that the staff's evaluations of ecolooical effects of estuarine siting apply generally to offshore coastline areas as well as to shoreline locations, because *he estuarine characteristics that treate the unique ecosystems found in these water bodies become gradually less pronounced at increasing distances from an estuary.

According to 10 CFR Part 51 (formerly Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50), the Director of Nuclear Peactor Regulation or his designee must analyze the applicant's reports and prepare a detailed statement of environmental considerations. It is within this context that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff) prepared a Final Environmental Statement, related to the manu-facture of FNP's (Part I, October 1975) and related to the environmental aspects of sitinn floatino nuclear power plants (Part !!, September 1976). Part III of the Environmental Statement was issued as a draft. It presents a generic treatment of the comparative risks and consequences between floating nuclear plants and lant.-based nuclear plants associated with the accidental release of radioactive mater'al to the aqueous environment, and it provides an overall cost-benefit balance for all com ments of the FES.

Part II of this Final Envir:N ntal Statement was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on September 30, 1976. Af ter its review of the Statement the Council expressed the view (Appendix A) that the "

. firal environmental impact statement is not adequate to meet the requirements of the National Eny konmental Policy Act. [and that] Our primary criticism is that the statement inadequately analyzes the environmental impacts of riverine and estuarine siting of 1-1

_ - - - - - - - -.. - ~. - -. -. - - -..

~._ - -

1-2

)

Fir s.'

The Council also requested that the staf f's consideration of alternative energy sources and p1>it security measures should be described more extensively.

The Comission's response to the views expressed by the Council (Appendix E) corritted the staf f to the preparation of an expansion of the Final Environmental Statement to consider further the environnental aspects of riverine and estuarine siting, to discuss those alternatives indicated by the Council as not having been treated adequately previously, and to recognize the difference in potential for sabotage in the case of the open-ocean-sited FNP relative to its land-based counter-part. As a result of subsequent discussions with the CEQ (see Appendix C), the Commission agreed to ext.and its previous discussions of several additional topics.

Followinq this comitment, the staf f requested the applit. ant to suorrit an amendment to its Envi-l ronmental hport covering these topics in detail. From information provided in the applicant's Supplement No. 6 to the ER (June 1977) and from information obtained from other sources, the staff has developed this Addendum to Part II of the Final Environmental Statement.

The staff's earlier review (Part II) stressed that from an environmental point of view siting of FNP s in riverine, estu rine, and other lagoon-type locations presents few unique environmental considerations not al eady covered in the of fshore case of siting. The primary dif ferente centers about construction (dredoing) aspects of estuarine sitinq, the major difference being the inno-vative use of the floating platform and a body of water as the plant's foundation rather than earth and concrete.

This Addendan continues that viewpoint by consideration of some of the types of siting options for both shore zone and of fshore estuarine locations as well as coastline ocean siting which r:ight be employed by a potential owner-operatcr of an FNP. By examination of several of such site uses, environnerital parameters that warrent special attention can be highlighted.

Section 12.1.3 (Part II, Vol. 2) noted that a number of nuclear power plants have treen situated at shore zone sites in riverine and estuarine locations. Complete environmental reviews have been rade, the resulting environmental impact statements have been published, public hearings (in most cases) have been held, 6nd operating 11 censes have been granted. Anonq these are the followinc nuclear pnwer plants Calvert Cliffs, Pilgri; Crunswick, St. Lucie, Turkey Point, Oyster Creek, Millstone, San Onofre, and Surry. Section 2.4.3.1 of tris Addendum reviews heat dissipation from this group of coastal-zone stations.

f4jor documents und in the preparation of the Environmental Statement were the a;mlicant's Plant i

Desian Feport; Emironmental Report, Part II, Supplement to Manufacturing License Application, and supplemnts thereto; and the staf f's Environmental Statement, Parts I and II. Throuqnout this A 6 rdan, referen;es to these documents will be given in the body of the text in an abbreviated f crr inderendent calculations and sources of information were also used ty the staf f in addition to the inforraticn provided by tne applicant. Specifically, it shculd be noted that remt+rs of the Coastal (naineerinq Pesearch Center (CEPC) of the U.S. Arry Corps of Engineers were utilized j

a-tecnnical cnnsultants ry %e N?C staff in the preparation of raterial in this Addendum related to hydroloaical effects of F V operation (Sect. 2 3.1.1).

Furt M rmore, in accordante with the

$mond Demorandum of Understanding between the NPC and the EPA, the hPC staff requested the ETA to revtew and c omen t en tris Mdendum prior to its issuance. A copy of the [FA comments and the anociated reply by th (onrission are provided in this Addendum in Appendices D and E respectively.

6 covietion of tr e environmental review, which includes the considerations in tMs [ddenh, the Cr einion will iswe Part III cf the F ES, dich will prevnt an overall cost-t.enefit analytis unider W F art s I, II, and lil of tne FES and the Liwid Fathway Generit Study (NUREG h4 N.

Cn;iet or all !.vaft Ervironmotal Statements, the Final Enviroreental Statements (Fa t l, fart !!,

and f art III), ttis Addendum, an:1 the applicant's Environmental Reports are available for public im pectinn 6t the f amission's Nblic Docrent Pcom, 1717 H Street. + 1, Washington, D.C.,

ne M k sem ille Putlic Lit rary, 122 %rth Dcean Mreet, d senville, Florida; the hew Orleans M!!c bitrar,, 219 Lojola Avenue, New Orleans, louisiara; W tne Ctnciton State College Library, r o wna, b & rsw.

I t

I

, - -, -,. - -..,. - ~= - -. ~ - -.. - - - -, _..

2.

SHORE ZONE SITING OF FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 2.1 SHORE ZONE SITING OPTIONS Various siting optMns are available for the construction of floating nuclear power stations in ocean waters, estuaries, and rivers. These include (a) offshore - at sites several miles from the shoreline, (b) nearshore - at sites within possibly 1 mile or less of the shoreline, (c) alongshore - at sites adjacent to the shoreline, and (d) inshore - at sites which are excavated in the shoreline. Because riverine siting on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts has been virtually excluded by the applicant, this Addendum focuses upon siting modes that are available in the open ocean and estuarine shore zone, as well as in offshore estuarine areas. Table 2.1 presents the various FNP site-plant combinations that are considered in this Statement.

I 1

Table 21. Sito-plant combmations for floatmg nuclear power plants at ocean or estuarine lucations Type of coobog system location system connection 4

i Once through, breaknater intake and d*scharge Underground None Of f shored Near shore Once through. breakwater intake and d+scharge Underground Causeway i

Once through, offsite intake and ov d.scharge Above water None or offsite d scharge and or mtake Shorehne Var urble inshore Once through, breakwater int Ae and drscharge Underground Once through, of fsite mtake and dachavge Abovege ound or off ute dischange and'or intake Closed cycle cochng mechanical-draf t towers Undergr oured or natural draft towers and atevegrounri Alongshore Once through, breakwater entake and d scharge Unrierground Once through. of fsite intake and disc.has ge Aboveground or offs te discharge and/or intake Closed cycw coohng mechanicald af t towers Underground or natura! dratt towers and aboveground d About 3 maes from the sharehne b About 1 maa trom the sharehne 2.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SHORE ZONE ENVIRONMENT l

2.2.1 Shore zone ocean sit-inn Physical and ecological characterization of the five principal biogeographic bights of the eastern U.S. Coastline and the Gulf of Mexico may be found in the FES, Part II, Sect. 4.

This chdracterization addresses aspects of the inland ocean shore zone as well as of the offshore continental shelf which might be affected by siting and operating FNP's in the coastal zone.

At the shoreline, demarcation of most environmental properties that af fect siting of FNP's is, in general, quite abrupt. At this sharp transition zone, the range of human activities, physical characteristics, and ecological balances may vary so widely as to obviate all but a few general-izations regarding the relation of shore zone characteristics and environmental criteria for shoreline siting, i

The principal characteristics include (a) demography, land, and water use; (b) bathymetry, sediment types, and sediment transport; (c) climate and meteorology; (d) hydrology; (e) marine and estuarine ecology; and (f) ter restrial and wetland ecology. Each of these may impose a constraint individually that could be critical to site acceptability. However, as noted in Part II, Sect.12.1.3, "If a particular environmental factor or parameter has been evaluated and does not place a constraint on the overall siting of a land-based plant on shorelines of the coast, on the shore or a bay, inlet, or other estuarine body, or on the bark of a river, then, under similar conditions, an Fl4P proposed to be sited in the same general location would not be cen-strained because of that particular environmental parameter." Supplement No. 6 of the applicant's 2-1

2-2 l

ER (p. 20) points out that conformance with the site envelope described in Pact II, Sect. 3.12, of the FES limits shoreline siting of FNP's to nearshore, open coastl.N.

and 1stuarine locations.

The extensive characterization-of the coastal zone provided in the FES, Rrt II, Sect. 4, thus depicts comprehensively, insofar as it relates to the present action, the types of environmental conditions associated with the shore zone.

2.2.2 Environmental descriptions Responding to connents by the Council on Environmental Quality (see Sect.1), Sects. 2.3 and 2.4 of this Addendum augment the staff's previous evaluation of the potential effects of siting FNP's in shore zone locations, particularly in estuaries. Further augmentation of the description of the ecological characteristics of eastern U.S. estuaries is therefore provided here as back-ground for that evaluation.

2.2.2.1 Terrestrial ecology Terrestrial ecosystems of the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico shcrelines were considered in detail in the FES, Part II, Sect. 4.6.

The potential consequences of penetrating estuarine marshlands was recognized to have environmental significance unless careful selection of desig-nated areas and procedures is followed. The staff believes that no further description of these ecosystems is warranted in this Addendum.

i 2.2.2.2 Aquatic ecology, An estuary, defined as a "semienclosed body of water which has a free connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water from land drainage,"1 includes several types of water bodies along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Geomorpho-logical processes have shaped three basic estuarine types within the five biogeographical zones (FES, Part II). A fourth type, generally designated as mangroves, exists primarily because of a biologically altered environment. Glaciated coastal estuaries were formed by glacial movement, typified by the fiords of Canada and Alaska, but are present in relatively open-water form on the Maine coast. Exposed-rock bottoms, oceanic water, and nearshore islands sheltering the backwaters are characteristic of the Maine estuaries. Bar-built estuaries are formed back of barrier islands that may run parallel to the coast for long distances and are occasionally cut by sea channels. The water body between the islands and shore is usually diluted with fresh water from one or more rivers. These estuarine types are connon in the mid-Atlantic and South-eastern Atlantic bights as well as the Gulf Coast and include Chincoteague Bay, Maryland, and Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Coastal plain estuaries, which are composed of drowned river mouths with a two-layered circulation system, are characterized by wide, shallow shelves. The numerous bays along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, including the Chesapeake Bay, are examples of this type of system. The mangrove-bordered estuaries are found in the South Florida area. This system is cnaracterized by irregular coastlines and coral and oolite limestone formations, with backwater areas protected from the open ocean by mangrove roots. Dilution of the backwater i

areas results from both pernanent and ephemeral land drainage.

This wide range of estuarine systems encompasses many types of biological communities. The ecological character of these connunities is strongly dependent upon the physical attributes of the system. Carriker2 characterizes estuaries as having (1) well-aerated, constantly moving, relatively shallow water, free from extremes of wave action or rapid currents; (2) salinity gradients from near zero to 32 ppt; (3) a wide range of sediment particle sizes from colloids to sand; and (4) complex molecular interaction between water, sediments, dissolved and particulate organics, and microorganisms. Although not all estuaries have all of these features, most of these physical characteristics play a major role in shaping estuaries into unique protective systems. Because each of these characteristics can be affected by siting of a floating nuclear power plant, the importance of each in estuarine systems is discussed here.

Sug ension feeders Many organisms in the estuary are suspension feeders (species that filter the water for food);

thus, they depend on a food supply delivered by water currents. 1he current velocities are important for proper growth of these organisms as was shown in the Oosterschelde of the 2

Netherlands.' Oysters are grown there on hanging racks and rely on abundant food suspended in the water. Efforts to fatten the oysters in the western end of the Oosterschelde were unsuccess-ful, despite abundant food, because tidal currents were too strong.

_ _ ~ - _ _

__m._

m d

2-3 s

t Tidal currents also provide a rajor source of oxygen to estuarine waters. In the Hermanus Estuary un the South African Coast, shore fauna were reduced to a narrow air-water band, and almost all burrowing forms disappeared af ter a sandbar closed the estuary routh." The " backwater" characteristics of many estuaries are also important. Day,5 for example, found that many estuarine species assemblages were calm-water species that needed sneltered waters to exist. It is believed that such assemblages are pr evalent along the U.S. coast as well as where backwaters support deposit feeders (species that ingest the substrate).

4 Circulation patterns are extremely important in estuaries in carrying food and oxygen and in transporting eggs and larvae into and out of nursery grounds. This circulation is of ten driven by salinity gradients that are a result of surface fresh water and bottom-flowing high-salinity water. Tne transport mecnanism ane salinity dirrerence are essential to the life cycle of suen animals as the blue crab (Omhew), menhaden (&n -W), and the sea trout (Q.r.::cAcr.)..

which spawn offshore and use the landward flow of saline water to enter the estuary. Anadronous species represented by herrings, striped bass, salmon, and shad spawn in fresh water, and the reproductive products are carried down to the estuary before they disperse in the nursery area, perhaps the most important characteristic of an estuary is the presence of particles that range in size from very small (clay) to large (organic 6etritus). Clays are extremely adsorptive and trap chemicals, whereas organic detritus (particles of biological origin) is the resultant product of energy transfer in estuarine food webs and forms the basis for most of these webs.

Detritus is generally abundant and is produced in situ by phytoplankton, shoreline vascular plants, and algae, and by excgenous sources such as river-borne pnytoplankton, swamp vegetation, and windolown organic material.6 This detritus serves as a food source and transporter of minerals to the estuarine-dependent organisms,7'" wnicn represent a significant part of the toastal fauna. For example, McHugh9 estimates that two-tnf rds of the species harvested comer-cially on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts are estuarine-dependent. Comercially important species that directly utilize detritus include shrimp, scallops, oysters, and clams, and such fish as nullet. Barnacles, small bivalves, zooplankton, and sabelled worms are examples of organises that feed on detritus and in turn are fed upon by fishes and larger invertetrates, such as the American and spiny lobster.

The residence time of detritus in the estuary is important for its maximum biological utili-zation. One of the main functions of detritus is that it acts as a substrate for bacterial growth. Organisms ingest the detrital particle, digest the bacterial coat, and expil the particle wnich again becomes available as substrate. Detritus that is quickly flushed out of the estuary cannot be fully and efficiently utilized as a food source.

Biotic, water, and sediment interaction Estuarine sediments have high sorptive capacity because of the presence of fine clays. Elements and compoands vital for plant growth, such as pnosphorus, nitrate, and zinc, as well as toxic substances, sucn as heavy netals and pesticides, are adsorbed as well as periodically released thrcugh mechanical or biological activity. During one year in the Pamlico River Estuary, over 60i of the total phosphorus and 50t of the nitrate carried by the food chain renained in the estuary.

In a Georgia tidal stream, radioactive phosphorus ( MP) placed in the stream was removed ty tne sediments within a few hours.it Bacterial oxidation in deep sediments reduces sulfate to sulfide, resultin in the release of phosphate.d which is then pumped to the surface 1

by eelgrass ( vtcm.wia)g3 and by corigrass (?p.m s.: aM maf;cm).h 2.2.2.3 Biophysical characteristics of estuaries Several basic physical and chemical characteristics of estuaries are important in controlling I

biological production. The functions of each of these characteristics are susceptible to alteration by siting and operating floating nuclear power plants in estuaries. These potential effects are evaluated with respect to their biological ramifications in Sects. 2.3 and 2.4.

j Four main estuarine systerns that are found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts include the glaciated coasts, bar-built, coastal plains, and mangrove-line:1 estuaries. The main comunity types, key organisms in these comunities (i.e., those organisms that make up a large proportion of the structure and facilitate energy flow), and the particular adaptation that these organisms have for estuarine existence are discussed in the following sections.

l

.=

______m i

l l

2-4 f

i 1

l

2. 2. 2. 3.1 Glaciated coastal estuaries Physical characteristics l

These North Atlantic estuaries are characterized by deep basins close to shore that are connected i

l to oceanic waters by narrow troughs. The combination of large tidal ranges, strong currents, and glacially scoured rock reduce deposition of sediments close to shore. Backwater areas of I

mild currents and shallow water with occasional freshwater input from land drainage are found

)

behind rocky islands and within coastal indentations. River runoff originates, on an average,

)

i just 48 km (30 miles) inland compared to 293 km (182 miles) in the South Atlantic area. This i

results in less sediment and exogenous detrital input as well as a limited amount of freshwater i

to support a strong salinity gradient. The estuaries in Maine and New Hampshire are good examples l

of glaciated coastal estuaries and, o ceneral, are clear, cold-water estuaries that are oceanic in character.

l Bioloqical characteristics I

l

_ Rocky intertidal zone. Rocky intertidal connunities in glaciated estuaries consist of dense i

beds of brown algae, suspension feeders such as blue mussels, and various carnivorous starfish, l

i green crabs, and lobsters. Because of the tidal amplitude, many marine grazers and carnivores are not able to fully exploit the mussels and algae as a food supply, insuring the proliferation of these attached organisms. Filter feeders remove plankton and deposit nutrients, which in turn are utilized by the algae. The algae release soluble organic compounds that support the plankton conr1 unity; these algae are dependent on clear water to utilize available sunlight for photosynthesis, 7

l penthos. Temperature extremes and winter ice impose large stresses on the mud flat ecosystems.

i i

These stresses result in low diversity with the dominant organisms being nerlid worms and deep l

burrowing bivalves, such as the soft shell clam @ acrarim which are adapted to avoid stress.lb i

Sediments in the northern estuaries are dominated by glacial debris with clay-silt in the deep areas and sand and gravel more common in shallower areas. Because deposit feeders are more j

common in clay-silt dominated sediments and suspension feeders in well-sorted sands,M the j

dominant benthic feeding types in the nearshore system are suspension feeders. These are sus-l

]

ceptible to changes in current velocities and, in clear water estuaries, to suspended sediments.

i l

Pglasic zone. The temporal productivity cycle in glaciated estuaries is characterized by sharp seasonaT pulses of primary production and influx of migratory organisms that are seasonally l

keyed to these pulses. Arrival of herring larvae LlN i.vcyas, a zooplanktivore, for eiample, t

is timed with the seasonal peaks of phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance.

l An important physical parameter that affects estuarine conriunity systems is the turnover time of the water in the estuary (tidal exchange and flushing rate). Rapid turnover times reduce the j

resident time of larvae and detrital material in the system. Both large amounts of freshwater i

input and increased tidal exchange, which results in oceanic-type estuaries (high salinity; i

plankton dominated), limit the time in which benthic larvae can settle out. AyersU calculated j

flushing rates necessary for the maintenance of a stable sof t-shelled clam (N) population in i

Carnstable Harbor, Massachussetts, and found that slight changes in the flushiig rate,could i

j resuit in an increasing or decreasing population. During a set time period of planktonic l

larval development, the larvae are at the mercy of the currents. If the larvae are swept out of an estuary, they may not find suitable habitat at the time of settling-out, Which could result

)

in death.

Z. 2. 2. 3.. Car-built and coastal ylain estuaries These two estuarine types are discussed together becLJse of their presence in the same biogeo-graphical zones along both the East and Gulf coasts. Biota in each can be similar in a given region, although different salinity regimes fix the community types present. Salinities regimes are usually dif ferent in the two types of estuaries due to their geomorpholo!;y.

3 t

Physical characteristics l

Bar-built estuaries are those found behind barrier islands and are characterized by an inside expanse of intertidal zone end shallow water with a gently sloping bottom. There are usually no j

major river inputs (clear exceptions exist such as Appalachicola Bay, Florida) and connections e

to the ocean by breaks in the barrier islands improve oceanic exchange.

i s

-,------------___.a, n

e-r-

-. - - - -.. - - - - - -.. ~. - - -

- ~. -

2-5 i.

r Examples of bar-built estuaries include Pamlico Sound, North Carolina; Great South Bay, New i

Yoru and Laguna Madre, Texas. Coastal plain estuaries are generally drowned river valleys and I

thus are often associated with major rivers. Examples are the Deleware and Chesapeake bays.

Large froshwater input from these rivers results in a gradient of salinity from the head to the i

mouth and rapid flushing rate % Heavy rains can rapidly lower the salinity through increased runoff while bar-built estuaries are not as susceptible to these fluctuations, tecause of l

limited river input.

l Biolojical characteristics f

In addition to salinity effects, the flushing rates and tidal exchange also affect the type and amount of material transported and cycled by an estuary, which in turr affects the ecological character of the system. As was discussed in Sect. 2.1.2.1, trere is an optimal or critical 1

exchange rate which permits (1) sufficient dilution favorable to the spawning and occurrence of organisms, (2) retention of larval stages which can metamorphose thus determining stability of

+

I a population based on self propagation, (3) a balanced phytoplankton and spermatophyte (sea-f grasses) comunity to utilize nJtrients ef ficiently and support both filter feeders and i

detritovers.l*

primary _ production. Estuaries, in general, have a more diverse group of primary producers than otner aquatic systems. This diversity results in a more complex structure, hightr production, 4

l and greater average standing crops at all trophic levels. Primary production in these systems j

is by phytoplankton, benthic microflora (benthic diatoms), nonflowering emergent grasses, and i

flowering scagrasses. The relative contribution of each of these primary producers to the i

l oroduction in the two main types of estuarine systems is dependent on physical and chemical characteristics. For example, seagrasses (2nm and Ewh) are favored by ecderate i

currents, low turbidity, shallow water, absence of very low salinities, and abundance of nutri-ents. Thus they dominate in bar-built estuaries. Benthic blue-green algae are more tolerant of I

high turbidity and currents and thus may dominate under those conditions. IP river-dominated i

estuaries, primary productivity is generally dominated by the emergent macrophyte W Au

, : c < m.

Production by benthic microflora is also very important, being greater on a per-I unit basis than phytoplankton.

The relative importance of phytoplankton production depends to a large extent on the flushing character of the system. In those embayment systems where the freshwater and oceanic water exchange rate is rapid, phytoplankton are more important than in systems with limited exchange cr in a river-dominated system. For example, phytoplanirton production is relatively more i

impcrtant in Long Island Sound than in Chesapeake Bay, Similarly, in systems where vascular l

plant prodsction is large, dependence on detritus overrides the dependence on phytoplankton, 4

Benthic communities. Benthic community structure in estuaries is determined mainly by sediment E fes, currents, and wave energy. The largest sediment particles occur in tidal channels, i

stream mouths, and inlets where scouring is present. As wave turbulence and current velocities are reduced, successively finer particles precipitate forming areas of mud and/cr sand flats or marshes. As the fraction of clay p3rticles increases in the sediments, the tapacity for the sediments to retain organic matter increases. Decompositior, of the organics results in low l

oxygen and increased hydrogen sulfide. These estuarine characteristics control the type of organisms that may exist in sediments although food availability is probably the key deterrrining a

factor. Areas containing high concentrations of organic matter are dominated by deposit feeders j

which escape physical stress by burrowing and tube building. Suspension feeders are found in areas where little organic matter exists but where sandy sediments and moderate currents are i

prevalent.U.I'~22 Types of benthic cornunities in estuarine systems are important in determining potential impact due to the construction and operation of FNP's.

In Table 2.2, six comunity types and their associated physical habitat found in both bar-built and coastal plain estuaries are described, hek ton tormunities. Cronin and Mansueti23 have characterized four major groups of estuarine organisms, incTEHng fish, that have adapted to the estuarine environment in varying ways.

l These groups are resident organisms, anadromous fish, nursery / estuarine-dependent organisms, and offshore predators. The relathe proportions of these four major groups bary according to the J

(

type of estuarine system in which they reside. Generalized patterns of estuarine utilization by I

these organisms are shown in the TES, Part II, Fig. 6.3.2.

Resident organisms spend their entire lives in the estuary and have adapted to fluctuating temperature, salinity, and food regimes. The fish are usually lower-order trophic feeders and are adapted to a shallow water or benthic existence. Examples of this group include some of the killifishes, herrings, anchovies, mullet, and white perch.

)

l l

_.m

_m

_ _. _... _ = _..

_m i

j 2-6 Table 2.2. Bassc commumty types m bar-budt and coastal plam estuarses Char arts"ist ses PhWral Biukwittal Type i Low sahmtv, L,10%) high turtxdity, Low diversity, ohgohahne Italerant of wed or s41t inttom, common m sahmty changesi species le g, blue f orer dummated sistuaries crabs and the common rangia clami J

Type 11 Loc to moderata sabruty llo-2N, High diverssty, high biornast species l

good water circulation, atmndant wnsitive to settateon 1e g, oyster sospendni food reef d Typeill Normal to high sehrrity 178 -30%).

Low d veruty,iow biornass, burrow-deepest areas m estuar y, fine clay mg iorms le g, polvtbactes) sed <ments Type 4V Normal to high sahmtv, deep ascas, High diversity, high biomass, susnea l

strong Cunents, sheli sand bottom sion feeders and predatorn (e g,

coelenterates, bivalves, gastropods,

,i and crustaceans)

Tysm V Fluctuating Sahmtes, estuary penpbery, Rgh diversrty, high biomass, sugwn sand flats, high current energy, and sion feeders, seagrasses le.g., preda-good hght perwtration tors, scallo;n, clams, Thalass;a, l

pastr opods!

Type VI Fluctuatmo sahmties, micettdal areas, H,gh rovers,ty, high biomass, large mod flats (clay or0dnic sed' ment 0 proportion of buerowmg sugiension low kmetic energV feeders le g, polychaetet clams, sea cucumbers, and mud shrimp) i Anadromous or semi-anadromous fish spawn in freshwater in the upper reaches of the estuary. The young feed in the estuary and migrate to more saline waters as adults. Clupeids such as shads and herrings make up a large part of this group with striped bass being important in the mid-Atlantic estuaries. Feeding habits of these fish range from filter feeding in clupeids to carnivorous habits of the striped bass.

[

The largest and most comercially important group of organisms that are estuarine-dependent spawns offshore but moves in to use the estuary as a nursery ground. The shallow sheltereri backwater and cover provided by the seagrasses, for example, offer protection from predators as well as supply nutrients needed by young fish and invertebrates. Many of these animals are total detritus feeders or include detritus in their diets.

The remaining group of organisms include the pelagic fish and invertebrates such as jacis, mackerel, bluefish, and squid. These carnivores occasionally move into the estuary to feed.

Physical characteristics of an estuarys to a large extent, determine the proportion of each of i

the above groups of animals present. In estuaries with restricted exchange with the sea, such as shallow embayments behind barrier -islands, resident populations usually predominate. In open i

systems such as Long Island Sound, there are a variety of feeding types representative of several trophic levels. pelagic predators such as mackerel and bluefish are seasonally abundant in these open systems, keying their seasonal arrival with abundance of forage organisms such as i

the clupeids. In the drowned-r* ?r-valley estuary a variety of feeding types dnminate, from filter feeding anadromous spec, in the upper parts to the oceanic carnivores in the lower end.

l In general, deep-water, river-Gjnated systems support a greater proportion of migratory and l

predatory fishes.

1 I

j 2.2.2.3,3 Mangrove systems Physical characteristics r

The only mangrove estuaries in the United States exist in Texas and Florida and consist of a belt of seasonally flooded mangrove forests in which the surface freshwater flow mixes with the Gulf of Mexico in a system of tidal rivers, small streams, ponds, and coastal embayments.

Mangroves are typically adapted to saline habitats periodically submerged by tides. As with salt marshes, mangroves serve as a transitional buffer tone between stretches of low-energy coastal waters and higher ground.

i em,v,--.

,nm,

- _ ~. _ _ _ -

2-7 Biological characteristics i

Growth and distribution of mangroves are influenced by tides. Tidal action is important in bringing salt water up the estuary and in eliminating competition from freshwater plants and 4,

animals. Currents circulate particulate matter for filter feeding organisms such as oysters, barnacles, and sponges, and receding water provides detrital food for deposit feeders such as fiddler crabs, snails, and polychaetes.

The stems and prop roots of mangroves form a dense tangle and serve as a substrate for numerous encrusting epiphytic and attached forms of organisms (Fig. 2.1).

The dense tan'le of roots and stems also trap debris and accumulate sediments.

1 There are but a few species in the mangrove-dominated estuary that are able to adapt to the annual salinity range of from near zero to 30 ppt; this wide range results f rom the seasonal rainfall pattern. Food webs in this type of system are therefore relatively simple. This system is also characterized by high levels of vascular plant production and low rates of algae production. Algae production is low because of the high tannin content of the water, shading from mangroves, and the low nutrient content of water draining the everglades.M The food web of this system, therefore, is supported by vascular plant detritus (Fig. 2.2).

The main organisms in the detritus food web are herbivorous and omnivctous crustaceans, mollusks, insect larvae, nematodes, polychaetes, and a few fishes. Figure 2.3 is a conceptual model of a mangrove-estuarine food web showing the flows of energy between major functional groups.

This type of generalized detritus-based food web (Fig. 2.3) is also Characteristic of other detritus-based estuarine systems where other vegetational types such as marsh grass and seagrass are important.

2.2.2.4 Threatened and endangered species Since Part II of the FES was published, the Department of the Interior's official list of threatened and endangered species has undergone considerable modification. Table 2.3 reflects the most recent publication of the list, in addition, a list of over 1700 proposed endan ered plants has been published which may lead to the protection of many coastal plant species.g" 4

Many individual states have published lists of rare or endangered wildlife. Selection of sites for establishment of shoreline floating nuclear power stations will necessarily entail evaluations of the probability that critical habitats (as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973) for threatened and endangered species, as well as other species, would be degraded by construction and operation of these stations.

2.3 STATION CONFIGURATION OPTIONS FOR SHORE ZONE SITING J

j Supplement No. 6 to the applicant's Environmental Report and the applicant's Floating Nuclear Phnt Siting Manual, Rev.1, November,1976, provided descriptions of a variety of configuration options that might be employed for shore zone siting of floating nuclear power plants. This group, described in the following sections, comprises a fandamental collection of conceptual configuration models, for which numerous variants to satisfy site-specific requirements might be anticipated.

Site-plant combinations are summarized in Table 2.1.

The nearshore alternative is differentiated l

from offshore siting by its emplacement in ocean or estuarine locations that would allow economic construction of a bridge or causeway between the site and land. The inshore alternative would entail emplacement of FNP's behind or within the natural shoreline of oceans, bays, sounds, or estuaries. Riverine siting offers little or no possibility for application to offshore or shore-line siting because of the prevalence of physical constraints in the major rivers draining from the Atlantic and Gulf coastal states (ER, Supplement 6. Sect. 4.1, June 1977).

1 In the following subsections each of the shore zone configurations proposed is described. (The descriptions follow those given by the applicant in the ER, Supplement 6. June 1977, and the applicants' FNP Siting Manual, Rev.1. November 1976.)

1 2.3.1 Nearshore siting Nearshore siting is similar to off thore siting with the exception that it is near enough to shore to allow economic construction of a bridge or causeway between the site and 16nd. The causeway would allow the use of land transportation to the site and could alsc be used as a transmission corridor. The distance from shore will be dependent upon the economics of causeway construction and the magnitude of the predicted effects on the local coastal processes.

~.

_ = _ -

2-8 ES 43??

TROPICAL C ONOC AR PU S Ma2CPHOPA TORE 57 TRAN5 MON A SSOC1C S AVIC E NN1A CONSOCIES S ALT - man SH A SSOC!CS i

,5

'lN > n ?

f,f -

y assu.y s i; 1 ri - ---

&/

?\\ '.<uno> t s b

,arron. coos i

T 4 f((

r a

\\ -#i.

f$7th gr

\\

(

lbV %

• %l a:o~rco

_;\\

'y

. s

\\

)

,l aye' l

.a ? nro ww oove s

.y Tng::d

--! L

{

jp 3;y 7 ge,q '.7gb lfli 7 /--

7 r.

r d..,

2r wd,pLQT..%g-bj.

o l

n i9 r

n x,'N

,v a_-

N

4

• 'n4

/

PEAT g

f;l:i MARL tga g.

x

\\~.._

x _._

MARL g,3 umen.;.~ r ~ --

y l

~_ - -

~

--. v -

a+

1

_ \\

T 3

Il L%

% a m+ v, %%

[ Bartholomea annulata M Aratus piaon11 Q Sabellastarte ma6nifica g Stenopus hiepidus

{

Crassostrea rhizophorae m Stichopus badionotus g

Littorina angulifera d

Ascidia nigra m

Fig. 2.1.

(a) Diagransnatic transect of the mangrove consnunities from th*J pioneer Rhizophora family to the tropical hammock forest, showing approximate tide levels and soil conditions usually found in a marl soil region. (b) Diagranwnatic vertical distribution of fauna in a red mangrove forest. Source:

H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahan, Eds., co mtaZ fool yieal Cyve.~e of the'uniud !!tates, The Conservation foundation, Washington, D.C.,1974, p. 349.

l

2-9 L s w23

/

[4 %

f "d?Is"

1. be. E -

i i

n

,, i.

. * ~

s E*

f.l }

bNGl l/

h+ PROTOZO A BACTERIA

.c g

me = a.

g

.S' c A sa..

h,,,,.

(kn-

.. w.c

~:-

hkh'll A.,.

t, 0?1

! *.[. - f,

.'*~~r 7l,;}

<'p Q'

1 r*gR.

m i"W%

4 7

,,.z Cf 2I

~

s..,u..

DETRITUS CONSUMERS

, o,M ALL C.AR N.us,<s E 5,c S

IVOR

-s so ao e i T

,,s e.N,,.IVO. R E S L A R,GE. (,T.OP )CAR

.o

.c s,

c.

.s.

Fig. 2.2.

Diagram of the detritus-based food web. The omnivorous detritus consumers ingest sr!all amounts of living algae along with laroe quantities of vascular plant, largely detritus, fluch detrital material recirculates in the form of fecal matter.

M L. Eugene Cronin, Ed.,..

<a.-

ecca, vo?

1, Academic Press, Inc., New York, iource:

1975, p. 200.

(Reprinted by permission) t s 40:4 lite t titial i n n ( t il

(

.ni ieso y

u n ine n

...nm

\\

t ilIt I 1

T, c

.,,.,,e...,

,,o~'

fl"j 'l'.

~~

~

,_y jt_

.-__v ni,.nn

]

sei...n

. nn n =.

n

.n i

P. f ',Cill Ftent t

Wills (

GilllR

,e

_\\___

, n...un

. n.,,,,, n

-~

', l I

rn,:n k

sei v

y

.l " ">'""

u v

,,nJ,,r 3 t

i i

T s

J n oi wn, 6 fig. 2.3.

A conceptual novel of a mangrove food web showing the most important flow of energy as a broad arrow, less important food chains as narrow arrows, and the pathway of dissolved leaf material as a dotted line. Source:

L. Eugene Cronin, Ed..,Fetxu irm Fascarch, vol. 1, Academic Press, Inc., New Yorr, T975, p. 201. (Reprinted by permission)

.... _ ~.... -. - -

~

l i

I 2-10 t

i t

Table 2.3. Threatened and endangered species of the Atlante and Gulf coasts Southern M rddte Southeastern Gulf of F tor.da Golt of Scu.es Attant rc AOantic M + ne coastai Meoen region insects BaNma sweliowtail butterfly T*

(Panoloo ondesemon bonhorei) l Schaus swallo.vtasi butterfly T

(Papotro aristodemus porweanus)

Fish Shortnosed Sturgeon E

(Acipenser brevirostrum)

R ept des Amerecan crocodde E

(Crocodylus acutus1 Arnet can albgator b

T b

( Alligsfor miss ssipptwsrs) l B< r ds M,ssess,pp, sandn;0 crane E

(Grus Canaderists pullal Whooping cc ane E

(Grus amerocans)

Eskimo cwiew E

E E

E E

r l

(Namemus boreatrs) i S3uthern bald eagle E

E E

E

\\

(Hitooeer s leucocephalus leucocephalus\\

u Art c peregone f alcon E

E E

E E

l l

tFalco peregemus tanderus)

Florida evergtade kite E

I (Rostrhamus sacuabuhs plumbeus)

I Attwater's g# cater pra,rie chicken E

( Tympanuchus cupacto attwirtert)

Cape Sable sparrow E

l (Ammospita mantma mirabihs)

I Duskv seaside sparrow E

l t Ammospire nurtroma noprescens) i Bachman's wartiler E

E

( Vermovara tuchirunh >

Red cockaded wuodtwrk e.

F E

(Den &acows boreatrsk Ivory billed woodtwcker E

E (Campephrlas pnncopahs >

Mamrnais Eastern cotsgar (f ehs c?oncolor cougar)

Key deer E

(Octocoileus virgomanus clavrum)

West ind an manatee E

t Trr<;hachus manatust Florida panther E

(Felis concolar coryi)

Delmarva Penmsula fox squn rei E

l LScourus myer conerevst i

Red wolf E

(Canis rufuss

• T

• threatened species. E endangered species.

• Status varies locally Source U S Department of the Interior. " Endangered and Threatened Wildhfe arid Plantt" red Regist 43135 (19NI

2-11 According to the applicant (ER, Supplent 6, June 1977, p. 6), the nearshore alternative, in most cases, requires somewhat smaller protective structures beccuse of the shallower water in the zone. In these locations, storm wave heights are typically lower than at sea; also, the shallower wat(>r precludes the presence of large deep draf t vessels. The staf f believes, however, that the size of a nearshore protective struc ture is site dependent and may or may not be as large as that required for an of fshore floating nuclear power station (Sect. 2.5.1.1).

It should be noted that if sta tion-to-shore transportation is by causeway, submarine cable may not be needed, and accord-ingly, less dredging would be required. Figure 2.4 illustrates a typical nearshore installation.

E S inl6

_: - y ~~;. x; ~ - -

.- - - =p s

?---.

. 'N

~

- me...-

/

./

q 41 _ _ _

. -Q )_

....e k^

r'

- ~~

g?Y r~

N.,. M

- -- - -.4l/, r-_

f,tt ' *i

\\

N~

t' /d

/

4 i,/

,L u

}f,

-j

, '.. t

}-

%,3k i__a w - a 4

s

\\

t

~"

s

=.

T y\\

~~%.

Fig. 2.4.

Nearshore site. Source:

[R, Supplement 6, Fiq. 3.1-1.

2.3.2 Inshore site, once-throgh coolina Figure 2.5 presents a conceptual drawing of an excavated inshore two-plant FhP installation utilizing once-through cooling. The basin is excavated back from the shoreline to provide a protec ted area for two FNI's The basin shown is roughly 20 acres in surface area and 45 ft deep at mean low water conditions. The size of the basin is based on the dimensions of the FhP, the mooring requirements, and the slope of the basin walls. The height of the basin walls would be determined by site-specific tidal cc.nditions and storm surges. Roughly 50 acres would be required for a typical inshore FNP installation utilizing once-through cooling, and approxi-mately 100 acres with cooling towers, as compared to 35-220 acres required for a ccmparable land-based sta tion. (The offshore Station requires approximately 50 acres.)

i Cooling water is drawn into the basin by the FNP.

The discharge water flows from the FNP

)

catchment into outfall piping located below grade under the breakwater or basin wall. The discharge configuration is designed to minimize impact on a site-specific basis.

l A typical mooring system would consist of two nooring towers for each FNP unit, located on each of two adjacent sides of the plant. Each tower is connected underwater to the plant by two hinged struts This configuration allows vertical plant movement with tidal and storm water elevation stages while restricting horizontal movement to prevent plant contact with site structures.

At inshore sites, power can be transmitted via consentional overhead conductors to the switch-ya rd. The switchyard is elevated above the tidal and storm levels to protect switchyard equip-ment during high tide and storm conditions.

2-12 L $ 4911

__,.,.s.----

y -- --

- ~., -

c-

^

= *- ~;;;.~.: ( }

z :.

,.x,

~

L'

-~'"L*-

}<

.q

., y 5

y lw

-:~,

3

~' N -

• .,6 x.^

h

(

Q:=~,,,,,

~,

$) MN

.M2 Rc K < /%*%?k'? M I d a

%~

h-

/

e,.

%,w s

< C.s' N:s\\(y

/ s

' Lo ' ",

'T

\\

4.Q v -

,1, m.'

-M f ;;7~%_ -., -

2,.

e.

gs.

(

.q

+

N

> w,_

s Fig. 2. 0 Excavated irshora site utilizing ante-Mrough cooling. Saurte:

LR, Supplement. 6, Fig. 3.3-1, 2.3.3 Alongshore site, once-thrnugh conling figure 2.6 presents a concEstual drawing of an alongshore FNP installation using once-through cooling. The internal dimensions of the basin would be similar to the inshore once-through configuration. The basin would be formed by construction of a peninsular-type landfill sur-rounding the FNP. Dimen:lons and design of the basin wall and of the external breakwater would be determined by site-specific tidal amplitude and storm conditions. The basin would be closed and an intake structure could be constructed flush with the outer peninsula shoreline or sub-merged offshore. Similarly, a variety of discharge configuration options are available at a particular site.

2.3.4 Inshore site, closed-cycle cooling Figures 2.7 and 2.8 present conceptual drawings of excavated insnore FNP installations as tFey might be situated for use with mechanical-draft cooling towers. (To.ver banks are not shown in Fig. 2.8.)

Many of the features of this inshore, excavated closed-cycle cooling design are similar or identical to the once-through inshore design. The nocring system, transmission facilities, and basin wall construction would be similar for both open-and closed-cycle designs, The necessity of incorporating a large intake structure on the basin wall face or submerged i

offshore would be eliminated in this closed-cycle facility due to the limited need for water to meet makeup requirements. A simplified screening device could be used to effectively screen the

mall vulumes needed for makeup of the internal basin water volume, in the example presented in figs. 2,7 and 2.8, wet mechanical-draf t cooling towers are used for cooling. Circulating water is discharged f rom the plant into the catchment and flows f rom the catchment into a header box outside the basin. Dooster pumps take suction on the header tm and punp the water to the top of the tower. The water then flows by gravity through the tower bac k to the basin in concrete canals and then enters the basin tnrough a weir system.

The towers are oriented broad-ide to the prevailing wind (based on the annual wind rose) and located such that the switchyard, transmission towers, and plants will be generally upwind of the vapor plume. The towers are also staggered to minimize recirculation and air intale shadow-ing effects lhe bate at each tooling tower is at an elevation higher than the basin wall to permit gravity flow back to the t asin during operating conditions.

2-13 n ea

~

~

-.,i,_~.

~

,/

. _ jpM-%,.g

_, 3

_. ~

./--- "

-~-.Q_ f

~ ~ ~ ^

L

,,.y_d p:-(

Q 'Q

}'_ _ ':..'_~

- C.

,Alef^ g,-,...

--- - 22. q %~v s.

.

. e [ ' ".,>W,,..

- g%.(.f"?a.

~

.-<~'*:

4,

3.* '

x e

.';w- -,.,

S.

m,#

• ,f n

.:v'n

,,- #=e

_ _.~'

' -~ w, a.y 9 :.\\

,f ,5d 3

-:~'e.% ;....,.

- ({,y,M +~,.c R

f,[(* ? T.tu3,,..,f }n'(.

}d

~'.&.

w Q-Q. Q,s,...., Y,~g r g e

1"

-. w s.~q= ~m,,,..

,,gp L. w ~ w r, y%. m g k. y,. y [ %l

,, c y

f/

3,.,g'

' /,

" :~

4y

_ ;C.? 33.~.

. Q _, '.'..

a.'.B w & s..f.[,.s.~p.n,f,7,, : q,&. y+'t w~ w .~_. ::= -- ~ . i ' / ,y - ~ ' y , f L _ w%R.,,. c' f. f s.)'f,..g[y*w,'A_f.,-9' w,, b <y. ;- /' , - nw 3k.~.y /,'q' /, y _9,/ , w.. ~~ t.; // 'y . is ...@..l*). $ &b)f >,.,ff?,f '$f, -- -" % v ;-~./ s "" (, /' A - " " ~ ~ . - r

W.

n._ <- L. w - x-.. ~.; gy,cg/ va., y y. - = -i 3,y,.,:.x "/,,:/ &.c / s / / f i ci. 2* Lackt illed alon';shcre si te utilizir 1 on &-trrouch coolin:1 Ecurn: ER, Lupplev:r t 6. f it: 3.3 ' eun .,. _.~ ~ ,. ~~ E:daiFrDMF* sfa~h31255 7-- p h'; ' ~ -. 'f gL :> m:>.

,....~,

2.,,,, Gi w %e. erraaw J ~ AQ: s* *V %&~ z. a M_ u/j - ,sN:q'y~y% D $ - - - y,u.

• ' WY 7

x M n. 4,7.% _ se +- g:

n./

,g 6,. ' j y[. %4GA L ( N,.. N. y 's s. s s ~ ~~ ~ 1 Fig. 7 [ uavated inshore si te stilizin;; r echanical-draf t ca91 ira tov,ers Spj, r_M : EP, l Su;.pleren t 6. Fi . 3-3.

2-14 E5 4071 3 c. ,.54.. "rsg__ _.. ~ -_ - -w-- z=w

5 "-

, ' L*,mme- - < C.'~w.rw* w.s - - 7 a __ _ _ ~. _ -..x== m m W..,^ i ,x -d.. ~__ mf js ' W,% p w g I

,_ - agngn2rm U

"i ,g ~u=:= = -,_g.. _ 5%ra - % w ___, # se %.s ~ Fig. 2.6. Excavated inshore site..Sourc e: Offshore Power Systems, If,r Mxa 2, Rev. I Novenber 1976. 2.3.5 Alongshore site, closed-cvele cooling figure 2.9 presents a conceptsal drawing of an alongshore site utilizing natural-draf t cooling towert The general configuration of the back filled peninsula would be similar to tnat prcposed for alon;; shore once-through cooling with the exception that additional backfilled dres would be previded for placerent of up to two hyperbolic natural-draf t coolirg towers and the recessary surge ponds and pumping egalpment The estimated size of such a peninsula etaploying natural-draf t cooling towers is approximately 100 acres. Other design features such as internal basin size, nooring systems, and transmissier facilities would be strilar to those described for the other proposed inshcre fhP installations. l f 5 O20 r- ? .- ~..

• ?(['h

- 1 - = g 7-s. Y _ d,( . sf ,-,'.f y, sQ-," ~ ~ ' ' n - -. :. V p -v.- j >.Tg 7 -d 4';f y[ G-

-p

--q e 'Q: %( gf,c#"- ..p' # -#4.,; i--- I. o s

• . ~

7 wQ,3::wmg&p-3 ~TT1n. t,. .P. -1 4 w ' h,- y,s \\ y #. p *1* % . /s > p 1!A /,x y" 5 ... -w, ;f ,h x~ ~.,..we /, e,+ > g K r.<t ... o,, q. m y% .y-.., ., v s isk.,fL. 7 _g > n a .,. q. g/ q, , e/p*',, A.. s~ ~sy . :p n n ^%" M ~, g, ,) , ;J g ya aw .:; u itt m p 3,.. s -,. qv p cv..,ap ,,/, u,w-yJ.,p.

~.,.2.:x I1

./. /,e,s / g, / /;:/ ' / j -

• 4
• in Fi9 2.9.

Cackfilled alongstore site utilizing natural-draf t cooling' towers. Source: [R, Supplement 6, fig. 3.3 4

2-15 Water is discharged from the FNP's into catchments built up from the basin bottom. From there it is routed into surge ponds near the cooling towers. Pumps take water from the ponds and pump it to distribution headers o" the cooling towers. The water flows, by gravity, through the towers and back to the basin. Makeup water would be drawn from the adjacent water body. Cooling tower blowdown would be discharged in accordance with effluent limitations set by the states and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FNP STATIONS AT SHORELINE SITES 2.4.1 Hydrological effects Hydrologic effects of the construction of FNP stations are discussed in Sect. 5.2.1 of the FES, Part II. Construction of floating nuclear power stations at the shoreline dif fers f rom of fshore construction and construction of land-based plants in the requirement for dredging a large access channel to the site for delivery of the FNP units. Access would require a channel approximately 150 m (500 ft) wide and 12 m (40 ft) deep. ln addition, such channels would requin maintenance dredging af ter emplacement of the first FNP units in preparation for delivery of a second unit. This period could extend over several years. While each proposed site must be carefully evaluated to preclude sensitive areas as discussed in the FES, Part 11, it was concluded that the operations would not differ significantly from those routinely carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers. Once the units are in plate, construction impacts would be similar to those for other coastal ~ estuarine-sited plants. 2.4.2 Terrestrial ecolon 2.4.2.1 Dreging The placement of an FNP at the shoreline will require considerable dredging, which will result in increased turbidity and release of toxic substances contained in the dredged sediments r (Sect. 2.5.3). The photosydthetic prowth rate of plants on the seaward edge of salt marshes is i typically limited ey light penetratton during periods of inundation. Increased turbidity due to 1 extended dredging could, therefore, result in a decline in salt marsh productivity. Crannels dredged near and parallel to shorelines may increase coastal erosion by destroying the natural slope of the shoreline. This increased erosion could destroy vegetated tidelands. l Sediments deposited at the mouths of rivers frequently contain high concentrations of pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, and other toxic materials. Dredging remobilizes these materials so that they enter marine food chains (Sect. 2.5.3). Piscivorcus birds, including bald eagles, osprey, pelicans, grebes, herons, and terns, have suffered population declines due to uptake of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in their food. Harbor seals nay be similarly af fected. Dredging may also result in a temporary decline in the density of fish, crustaceans, and mol-lusks upon which sea and shore birds feed. This decline in food resource density is not likely to be large or extensive relative to the foraging range of the birds. Seagrass beds, which can serve as food for geese and ducks, might also be destroyed by dredging. Although salt marshes have historically served as handy disposal sites for dredge spoils, this practice should be avoided during FNP construction except as part of the plant site preparation. 2 Disposal of all dredging material is governed by Sect. 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which states that the guidelines developed by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers shall be followed in the discharge of dredge or fill material. This law and others which restrict develop-1 ment in coastal areas (Sects. 404 and 103 of the FWPCA. Sect.10 of the River and Harbor Act, and 1 Sect. 5 of the Coastal Zone Management Act) are discussed in Sect. 5. The enlargement of channels may indirectly affect nearby terrestrial systems. Enlarged channels would permit increased flow rates into and out of estuaries; these increased rates might affect the salinity regime and tidal dynamics, which determine the species composition and productivity of tidal marshes. l The amount of dredging necessary for emplacement of an FNP is small relative to the amount of ~ dredging carried out for maintenance of navigable waterways; however, local effects could become potentially significant. Important site-specific variables include the area and depth of dredging, the physical and chemical properties of the spoil, hydrology of the area, and the presence of sensitive species.

- =. 2-16 2.4.2.2 Barrier islands Breatnes would have to cut through barrier islands to allow passage of the plant through an island or for the emplacement of cooling water pipelines. A channel 500 ft wide would be recuired for passage of an FNP. Pipeline emplacement would disturb a corridor approximately 100 f t wide. FNP's might be emplaced within barrier islands by dredging a channel into the island ard toen j dredging a basin behind the foredune (fig. 2.8). The basin would require 20 acres, and an ) additione! 30 to 80 acres mignt be required at the site for cooling towers, a switchyard, and other structures. Barrier islands range f rom narrow strips of sand, which ar e regJlarly overwashed during storms, to islands a few miles wide with high foredunes. The smallest islands support only grasses and i forbs. Larger islands may support shrublands, f resnwater narshes (sloughs), and woodlands in the island center and typically salt marshes or mangrove swamps on the leeward side. Dune 1 l grasses, because they are adapted to unstable, nutrient-poor substrates, can. af ter disturbance, ) typically be restored to their original state within a few years.M 6 # Salt marshes have been shown to be restorable by replanting. ' Shrublands could probably be restored over a period of q several years after the reestablishment of grasses. Island woodlands, by accumulating nutrients from salt spray, might require 200 to 300 years to develop on nutrient-poor sands.30 Arti ficial recovery of the woodlands might be possible if replanting is combined with mulching and fertiliza-tion. Freshwater marshes can be restored if the original topography and freshwater acuifer are i restored. Mangrove restoration would have to occur naturally over a period of nany years. If a breach is filled but not restored to its original contour and revegetated, the nodified corridor would serve as a path for overwash, which 4 ould destroy vegetation. Many barrier islands have been subjected to dune building and stabilization programs that have resulted in steepened beach fronts and increased risk of damage to sensitive tegetation.31 The native grasses are adapted to overwash and recover quickly, but shrublands and woodlands require some protec tion f rom overwash, if breaches are lef t as channels, they cculd serve as passages for s t o rm-dr i t en waves which would damage vegetation on the island and on the mainland coast behind the island. The change in hydrology associated with a new channel (or breakwater) would also rodify the pattern of erosion and depositico associated with sediment transport and would change the form and size of the island. Division of a barrier island by a channel Could also disrupt 4 I freshwater lenses that serve as water sources for all island vegetation except the salt marshes. i A wide variety of animals utilire the barrier islands and would be af fected by construction. The nyriad invertebrates of the beach tone, which support the shore birds, would recover within a few years if the beach was restored. Destruction of nesting areas for terns, skimmers, and other dune-resting species would seriously af fect the local populaticn, and therefore they should t:e protected. Sea turtle nesting beaches snould also te protected from destruction. I barrier islands, particularly those with woodlands, serve as important resting sites for a large number of migratcry birds. Stephenson listed 251 species of birds that utilize St. George Islanc, florida. The number of resident species depends en the diversity of island vegetation. The isolation and severe ervironment of barrier islands has led to the evolution of a large numt er of island enderic species and subspecies (Table 2.4). These taxa require special con-sideration because of ineir iimited ranges. I Construction of pipelines througn barrier islands can be accomplished if the corridor,is restor d e a u' if areas of particular importance to wildlife are avoiced. The experience with natural gas j pipelines is relevant. The credging of a channel large enough to allcw the passage of an ffG 1 would t1e likely tu lead to unacceptably large Impacts encert when very narrow, low islands are l involned. Although certain barrier islands mi ;ht af ford a combination of site parameters that could territ constructicn of floating nuclear peacr stations within interior basir.s the staf f i ccmiders the prAability of adverse ecciogical impsct to be high; disrgtion of such islands i shualc be avoided if at all possible. i i f [ , 3 etatedt,IdQands iep tatt d twelancs (oMist of, -dominated marshts in est Of the Atlantic and Gulf con', 5;t ir. Southern Florida these areas are dwinated ty nangroves These highly preductive se7et atish cantribute at tritus to estuarine f aca tocin>, p-tec t upland areas f rom storr flads, ri;dJ:e the tediment dnd dissDlycd mineral IU3d of water enterica estuarie3, and gregide { habitat 'GF a larg N@er cf anicals, including ' illiL's of wa terf owl (ib, fart II, Sgt. 1 d, hfM ( : oi. L t' e ,1 Ji h! ih frLUt Of tated tideldSds in afi ar$if ic ial altb9s%re EeniFsuld, vs N u a Js' aithin t' e s eWu tM t idelan i, m in an ubland t asin behind the ve ntated ti klands. [ y l a [ W i h t

v. i f. '

6 t'r gt ytatE i (idela'.fi WUJ1d resuI*. in direct CcatrJctiof; of bb*lO) acres Of 9 vtd dtle An 3 31! 2rd l ia rKr o rt-a ccuId be a f IL CI( J by erC',iG, d i s N l i cn O f d J i r d ? 5 m . -,... ~.. ._,..u-___ m

. - ~. l 6 2-17 patterns, and leaching of acidic soil and other toxic materials from the fill. In most areas, sucn impacts would be unacceptable. Construction of an alongshore peninsula in front of a vegetated tideland would not be practical in most cases because of the need to fill the tidelands to protect the basin on the landward side. Unless the vegetated tidelands are extremely narrow, the impact of this siting node is likely to be unacceptable. Tatwe 2A species and subspeces of man.mais from the Emplacement of an FNP in an upland basin would Atlantic and Gulf coasts whose distnbuteon is either require that a 500-ft-wide channel be dredged entsrely or in large measure restricted to islands through the tidelands. Salt marshes could be restored by replanting if suitable fill is Numner

Numbe, used to reclose the channel.23 The time Common name of spees of of between filling and successful revegetation soucies sutmomes may depend on the rate of establishment of the typical oxidation-reduction profile in the short taaed shrew 2

soil. 3 3 The staff knows of no established Eastern mole 1 procedures for restoration of mangroves. E as tern cottontad 1 Natural regeneration of a 500-f t-wide corridor Grav sauerrei I through mangroves could require more than a Texas nicker gopher i decade. The impact of vegetation loss due to l Cumterland island pocket gopher' 1 emplacement of an fhP in upland vegetation Rece tat I would be less than that of emplacement in Deer mouse 9 tideland vegetation. Upland vegetation is Didheld mouse 1 typically much less productive., more abundant, wn te footed mouse 2 and less important to the maintenance of the -Corton mouse 2 coastal environment. Cotton rat 2 Eastern woomat 1 filling of small areas of tidal vegetation for b Bexh vole 1 transmission lines or access roads may have Gull kland voted I acceptable environmental impacts. filled %ccoon 1 areas have been shown to support a less produc-sea mmk' 1 tive but more diverse vegetation than the i wn:te taaed dee, 5 marshlands.26 These areas may supply refuges ws .s 28 from ficod tides and nesting areas for a variety of animals. b filling programs should %2" be designed so as to minimize erosion ana prevent disrur cion of drainage patterns. %me recent tawnom.sts danute the vand tv of th s as a date sperws Drainage maintenance is articularly im ortant on the Gulf Coast where high evaporation rates Souwe H N Neuhausn, "The WadMe nemure of Bwier and infrequent flooding Can lead to soil Islands." m Barne' / slam /s and Beadnes. J Cwk, Ed unervation salinization. Foundation. Washmgton, D C.,1976 2.4.2.4 Other environments Leach and dune systems similar to those on barrier islands are less corrion on the rainland. There they are typically smaller than barrier island systems but support the same fauna and flora and have the same sensitivity to disturbance (Sect. 2.4.2.2). Because of its geological youtn, the coast of Maine is typically steep and rocky. Alongshore siting might be possible on such steep shores with minimal loss of terrestrial productivity, because this area would satisfy the FNP design envelope without extensive construction dredging impacts; however, seabird rockeries should be avoided. i While nest of the coastal Zone is dominated by the maritime ecosystems described above, in some areas the dominance of crosional over depositional processes, protection from stoms, or other f actors have led to the establishment of very narrow 2ones of coastal vegetation. Upland vege-i tations may extend nearly to the shoreline. Inshore siting could be possible in these areas without significant loss of sensitive and highly productive ecosystens. Mxh of the Atlentic and Gulf coasts has been subject to dredging and filling operations which have destroyed many uousands of acres of coastal ecosystems. Those permanently damaged areas should be the first sites considered for inshore FNP emplacement. 1 2.4.2.5 Synma_ry E!ecause of the abundance of sensitive and nighly productive ecosystens in the Atlantic o c Gulf r of Mexico coastal Zones, the ef fects on terrestrial ecology of inshore and nearshcre emlar e snt of FNP's is potentially large, l'nacceptable levels of impact will only be avcided by rareful site r ~ . ~

I _.. _. _ ~. - - - - f 3 I i t i i r i 2-1B l l e sele: tion and by appropriate construction processes and operating procedures. Acceptable sites i (in ter s of terrestrial effects} will typically comprise areas where little disturbance of wetlands and other coastal vegetation is necessary or where exte9sive disturbance from ongoing j 1 cred;1r.g caists, t I i ] 2.4.3 A watic ecoloy,g, l 1 l Abatic mpacts are addressed within the assurpticn that the plants will te placed in healthy j i f unctioning environments. Tne conclusions therefore are conservative tonard protecting these erviro w ts. The staff realices, however, that potential sites r.ay include permanently dis-taroed areas as well. Siting in perranently disturted areas could result in in; acts of a much 1 lesser Ngritude than siting in undisturbed environments. 2.4.3.1 _5%rt-term ef fects of dreccing l Seagrass connunities are r'epresentative of estuarine co v' unities because (1) they are ir.portant to the tro;nic function and dynarics of estuaries (2) they occar along a wide geographical area of the East and Gulf coasts, and (3) they are vulnerable to perturb 3tions such as dredging. i J Censideration of seagrass as a component of an ecological comunity illustrates how perturbations df fecting corrWnity dyn&%ics shCuld, if Possible, be assessed fr0:n a c:rtNnity or system View-l peint and r,at only on an individ;al species basis. snere infcr~ation on comunity structure is i lacking, analysis should te directed as tigh in the system as possible, sucn as at pcpulaticq or j functional group level. j $cagrasses occur along ccth tne Atlantic and Gulf c;asts. Eelgrass (L u.m ur N ) is the drinar.t seagrass en the East Coast from Greenland to Cape fear, North Carolina, where it is replactd ty turtle grass W. zc R N4r:.n .) in the suttr;pical areas af the East Coast fro-scutt E brica to tee south Teias coast. Areas where seagrasses are typically found are in l cretected tays or lagcans such as the ccastal salt pctd ccGleses Cf Enode Island, Lehind the carrier beacvs cf Mrth Carolira, in the sounds cf south Florida, and the Lagra Madre of Texas. f The ir <rtance of seagrass comunities to the structure ar.c 17ctigning of estuarine areas has f M en discussed in Sect. 5.1,.1,3 of the FES, Part II, and in Sect. 2.2 of this Addende. Some of t9e major eccicgical facticos of seagrasses are (1) nursery areas (habitat and food) for rany l sccies of invertebrates anc jaenile fiskes, Nny Of which are econ 7ically irMrtant;M l (2) ncjor contribstor to the detritus food chain of estuaries; (3) high crimary prodxtivity rates vf 3 3 600 g m< year-1 (dry weight); (f.) sedi7ent trap and stabilicer of bottom sedinents; ent :> ;1ospterus pump fron the sedinents to the water, resulting in an active sulfur cycle. The effects of dredging cn seagrasses have teen noted by several irustiyators. OdA reported i that, d; ring dredgir; activities near %nO beds, light penetrati;n was ruch redxed and the predstivity and chloronyll content of the crasses diminished. Cod " found that, after the ~ re n al of 2 c%. tctto? sedments become caidiced, and the recovery of celgrass was impaired. OW eiso noted that - m. nas killed wnen buried teeath 33 cr of dredge spoil. kall areas cleared by nand, h>ever, recovered completely within one seascn.H Eriggs and j O'Lomer ' fourd that areas of Long Island Soed wnich had been used for dredge spoil depositi n i laned vegetation, especially seagrasses, tMugh vegetation wrs aWdaat at nearby sites wr.ere tre bcttom was undisturted. Thayer anc Stuart": repcrted that corrercial dredging and trawling i nerat' ns fer scallcts ad fist in shallen estuaries disrupt vegetation, Mich ray irpede the regr% ;n of grass to which larval bay scallops attach. j Tc deterrine erd evaluate the ef fects of dredging on a seagrass comur.ity, a rathe".atical rodel i of the trophic dyriatics of the major biotic components on an eelgrass comunity nas de>elo;e: by i Ferguson and Adams.'l The potential ef fects of increased turbidity, such as would result from l dredging, were simulated on the growtn rate of celgrass. The grcwth of grass in the credging j { egeriments was decreased by varying rates at dif ferent times of the year. Because actual l drsd;1rg operaticns in a particular area are usually tegcrary aN r.dy occur during any season, j the egerirets consisted cf a series of annual 5%lations in eich grcoth rates.ere reduced j f;r threeanth intervals at dif f erent tires of the year. The rate of grass gmwth.as redxed j by 250 during one cuarter cf the year and remaired rcrral during the other trree cuarters. This a was dsne in tarn for ech cuarter, and in a final s kulation the growth rate.as redxed by 2D } 4cr int: entire gar. Tatle 2.5 scrurices the results of these five simulation experirents in l tems of the principal dyna ~ic features of te mdei The largest redztions in the varicus l tietic parameters in Table 2.5 took place ir: the first parter (January-March). This is the 1 tire of the initial and rost rapid vegetative greuth enase of the grass. Ferturtations during i the remainter of the year, in gereral, cause only a 0-M chance in all parameters. Ibe effects j of perturbatiers seemed to be the s allest in the fourth cuarter when the grass was experiencir.; j seasonal cie-off. The actual effect of dredging, n u ever, during the lavt G arter, on tne ( ,_,,,.m_ . _, -.. -. _ _,.,~ t

.m m_. 2-19 Table 2.5. Decreases in sew *nivariables due to growth of celgrass the following year (such as smudated dredgm effece production of underground rhizomes), may be Percent of decrease for mson ot growth reduction, peduCtion of eelgrass growth in the model, which Dyndent var able 1 2 3 4 All simulates increased turbidity, had a large ef fect on the production of epifauna and fish E gnfauna but little effect on the production / consumption Consumption 12 2 5 1 49 (P/C) ratio. When production decreased, con-Rapiration 10 2 5 1 47 sumption also decreased. During the year-long. Production 16 3 5 2 53 25% reduction experiment, the ecological ef fi-P/C6 o 0 o o o ciency (P/C) of the carnivorous fish had a much larger decrease than that of the omnivorous fish. omnivorovs fish When grass and animal matter became scarce, Consumption 26 5 3 ? 03 omnivorous fish switched their consumption Respvation 28 6 4 1 63 mainly to detritus to compensate their diet. Animdation 27 5 3 1 65 Carnivores, however, did not and continued to I E migr a tion 30 5 2 1 70 respire but not to assimulate energy (i.e., no Production 26 5 3 7 66 growth was occurring). P!C o o o o 7 The P/C ratio is an important indicator of the Carnivorcus fish efficiency with which organisms utilize con-comumption 27 3 0 0 52 sumed energy for growth. A high ratio indicates anuvation 22 2 o o 38 that a relatively high proportion of consumed Assimdation 27 3 o o 52 energy is used for growth while a low ratio Production 33 5 1 0 68 indicates that a relatively large amount of P:C 9 o o o 33 energy is either not assimilated or that most i of the assimilated energy is used for mainte-nance functions. Slobodkind has stated that

• # 'au y e raw m ieduced by 25%.each quarter.

9 one of the mast important factors in assessing FP/C = ecologcal ethciency, that is, production /consump t e flow of energy through a trophic level is the ecological efficiency. The P/C ratio can be used as a measure of ecological efficiency assuming that all of the production is utilized by predators."3 Predictive outputs of this model such as those presented in Table 2.5 are reasonable responses in that they satisfy criteria for a valid model. Ferguson and Adams"l have discussed three 1 criteria by which the model is judged to be valid: (1) the compartmental behavior of the model ) lies within realistic ranges of measured initial states, and temporal sequences are reasonable; (2) the postulated internal organization of the model is consistent as evidenced by the ability of the model to generate reasonable output dynamics not expressly incorporated into the model; j j and (3) the model produces believable responses to small perturbations. The model predicts that a 25; reduction in grass growth can have a significant effect on community productivity. Corliss and Trent"" have shown that net phytoplankton productivity in one area of l West Bay, Texas, was about 50t of the productivity in a less turbid area {24 Jtu (Jackson turbidity units) compared to 9.0 Jtu in the less turbid areas]. Claffey found that the phyto-4 i plankton volume in clear ponds during a growing season was eight times that produced in ponds of intermediate turbidity and about 13 times that produced in muddy ponds. Copeland46 showed that lowering the input of sunlight from 1500 to 200 footcandles, as might happen from a dredging ( operation, resulted in a turtle grass dominated comunity being replaced by blue-green algae. l Even though the blue-greens were as productive, they could not be utilized by many species. These studies support the inference that conditions resulting temporarily in at least a 25% reduction in primary productivity will result in clearly evident community effects. 2.4.3.2 . Heavy metal contamination i j The role of estuarine sediments as a nutrient trap was discussed above in Sect. 2.2. These sediments also contain organically complexed and adsorbed metals such as mercury.47*48 This incorporation results from the adsorption of metals by montmorillonite and kaolin in estuarine clays, affinity of metals such as mercury to organic matter, and inorganic iron-phosphate com-plexes in the sedimentary environment.49 In addition, incorporation of metal-contaminated particles into the sediment may be hastened by suspension feeders which remove large amounts of suspended material, ircluding algae, which may concentrate metals by as much as 30,000 times.50 Metals are slowly released from the sediments by changes in pH and dissolved oxygen and rapidly released by physical disturbance. Even though the mercury, remobilized by mechanical distur-bance of dredge spoils has been shown to be only 0.5% of that found in some marine sediments,SI

1 . _ _ _ _ _. -. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ ~.. _ _ _ _. l 2-20 e dredging in sediment with a high organic content can result in high dissolved mercury concentra-t2 showed, in simulated dredging experiments, that mercury is trans. l tions. Lindberg and Harriss ferred from the sediment to the water column in two successive pulses that can increase the concentration of dissolved mercury by almost one order of magnitude. Sediment was tested from a dredge spoil, salt marsh, estuarine river, and estuary. The estuary sediment contained the j largest amounts of dissolved mercury. This sediment also had the highest organic load. There-1 fore, continuous dredging could result in potentially harmful doses of heavy metals by way of direct exposure to dissolved mercury or ingestion of mercury concentrated through the food chain. Areas of lowest organic load and the lowest mercury level were in spoil banks of pre-viously dredged areas, such as in a ship channel in Mobile Bay, Alabama.52 Maintenance dredging l at FNP sites to keep the access channel to the first unit open for placement of the second unit i probably would not result in the suspension of large amounts of metals as would result from 1 dredging undis turbed sediments. However, this would depend on sediment origin and organic j content. U Complex interactions of metals in an estuary has been proposed by Windom and expressed by the ecuation k.i = Kd + Kp = Ks + Kf, 1 where Ki is the rate of total metal input of the rivers, Kd and Lp are the rates of dissolved and particulate metal inputs of the river, respectively, Ks is the rate of metal lost to sediments, and Kf is the net flux of metals in the estuarine system. Flux of the metals through the estuary can be calculated if the total input and loss is known. l l Information needed to satisfy the above equation has been obtained from salt marshes in estuaries j covering 950,000 acres in the southeastern United States. The sediments accumulate particulate cadmium and copper in amounts equal to the input. Rates of input are also proportional to rates of flux, suggesting that these metals do not remain in the system. The net flux of mercury was greater than the input, which suggests that nercury is desorbed from the sediment. t j In addition to heavy metals being released by the mechanical action of dredging, metals can also i be released during the decomposition of plant material. Se in ? acts as a nutrient pump, stores heavy metals,t'* ' and makes those metals available upon decomposition. In mangr3ve i estuaries Lindberg et al. ~ ' showed that detritus contained 3.2 to 10.4 times more mercury than j the undecomposed ieaves. Tnese mercury levels were shown by Lindberg and Harriss % to be 3 to 30 times greater than mercury levels repo-ted for marine phytoplankton." l j Dredging in estuaries, tnerefore, can release potentially harmful levels of heavy metals. However, areas previously dredged, such as ship channels, may contain substantially lower levels, resulting in minimal impact. 2.4.3.3 resticides The characteristics of most estuaries to accumulate particulate matter results in a t'uildup of pesticides in the sedirents. Estuaries having historically received damage from heavily culti-l vated areas probably have the highest concentrations of pesticides. In Santa Barbara Casin, I California, DDT first appeared in 1952 and rapidly increased through 1967, the last year of measurement. Deposition rates in 1967 were estimated to be 1.9 x 10-g/m (ref. 58)~ 2 kcause the key organisms in the food chain in many estuaries are detrital users (see Sect. -.2), pesticides can be quickly concentrated and have a good possibility of reaching toxic 1esels in organisms such as bivalves and forage fishes. M Mechanical action such as dredging brings pesticide-laden sediments into suspension, thus making them available for re-entry into the C od chain, insecticides are of ten slow to degrade because of their resistance to attack by enzymes. f Therefore, DDT degradation in estuarine sediments results only in DDD (ref. 61) and is bio-l accumulated when resuspended sediments are ingested by filter feeders. Therefore, levels of pesticides in the sediments should be considered in the specific site selection process. 2.4.3.4 Substrate removal Coastal anaerobic muds and tidal current transport system that flushes the marshes (Sect. 2.2) are key elements in the normal functioning of global cycles of nitrogen and sulphur, while serving as a phosphorous buffering system. Nitrogen of biological origin and sulfates are adsorbed, changed to simpler forms, and released. Nitrogen is oxidized to nitrate in the oxidizing zone, diffuses to the reducing layer, is converted to nitrogen gas, and escapes to the atmosphere. Sulfates are converted to sulfur and sulfides in the reducing layer with 0 3 as

~ 2-21 a biproduct, phosphates are adsorbed on the sediments and are raloased slowly as water condi-Lions change. i Renoval or displacement of substrate can markedly affect the character and function of the dis-turbed sediment. Salt marshes, for instance, are well known for their ability to process wastes, mainly in the form of nitrates and phosphates, Gosselink et al. R state that an acre of salt marsh can handle 8.8 kg/B00 per day. Removal of marsh by dredging would obviously destroy this function. Waste assimulation by five mid-Atlantic estuaries (Table 2.6) show two of these, the James and Hudson rivers, to be overloaded. Overloading may result in anaerobic conditions as i well as comunity changes. Nutrients left in the water column become available for use by plankton, which can result in blooms of micro-olgae such as those that occurred in Great South Bay, Long Island. " These algae could not be utilized by filter feeders such as oysters; thus a decline in the fishery occurred. Excess nutrients can result from addition of nutrients or removal of the marshes' capability to process the nutrients already present. The latter can result from extensive dredging in estuaries that are already nutrient burdened. Table 2.6. Present waste loadmg of mid Atlantic estuaries Estuary Area Pounds BOD discharged Average 800 load (acres) per day af ter treatment (ger acre day) Delaware 70.500 1,030,000 14 6 Potomac 17.000 140.000 8.2 Jarnes 5.120 225.000 44.0 East R'ver 18.800 339.000 18.o Hudson 5.25o 525.000 loo.o Mean (we*gh tedi 19 4 source D. C. sweet. The Economic.md Social importance of Estvanes, Enmonmental Protect.on Agency, Water Quahty Othce, Washmgfon, D C,197}. Overloading or removal of these systems, therefore, can result in local changes such as a fishery decline as well as contribute to changes in nutrient levels of the coastal zone in general. 2.4.3.5 Summa ry In summary, construction impacts are confined to those associated with dredging. Dredging for FNP emplacement in estuaries does not appear to pose significantly different effects than those experienced with other major dredging operations in estuarine locations. The estuarine systems can be affected through sediment suspension, heavy metal and pesticide contamination, and destruc-tion of seagrasses and marshes that serve as sources of detritus and dissolved nutrients as well as processors of anthropogenic wastes. The greatest potential damage is in areas with abundant seagrasses, high levels of organic material in the sediment, a past history as receivers l Of pollutants, or a present problem with pollution. Dredging in already maintenance dredged areas could substantially avoid these impacts. The crigin and characteristics of the sediments dredged would determine the potential for impact. These characteristics should play an important role in the determination of the acceptability of a site for floating nuclear power stations. l 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE OPERATION OF FNP STATIONS AT SHORELINE SITES Section 2.3 described a variety of station configuration options that have been designated by the applicant as feasible for shoreline floating nuclear power plants. These aggregations are conceptually the types of stations that electrical utility companies might select as design models for specific power stations, although the actual design of any future station for which a purchaser of FNP's may file a construction permit application with the Coctnission may differ in detail of combination of components. In view of this fact, specific operational effects of such stations at the shoreline are inappropriate as applied to any given combination of components, because even one specific combination would produce quite different effects at each of the numerous specific sites that might be designated in the future as possible locations for FNP power stations. There are, however, certain major differences in environmental impacts that would result from operation of FNP's near the shoreline in comparison to similarly sized land-based nuclear power stations located behind the shoreline. These impacts dif fer, particularly with respect to effects on aquatic ecosystems, among four general types of estuarine systems discussed in this section.

. - - - - = ~_ I 2-22 l l 2.5.1 Prysical effects of the breakwater Frysical ef fects of tre FNP station will result f rom the presence of the breakwater and f rom the heat dissication system (Sect. 2.5.4). One primary breakwater function is to protect tre barges from the action of waves, that is, to prevent excessive wave forces cn the barges and to prevent l excessive motion of the barges. It should be understcod that the breakwater is not designed for the purpose of inJndation protection, because the barges float and the breakwater will protably l be permea 1e. In a:dition, the presence of the breakwater effords protection of the station f rom ship collisions. I L The breakwater is designed to protect the barges tron raximua wave action during the occurrence of high water resulting from the design flood event at the site (which may be a river flood, surge, seiche, or a combination thereof). For further details see the Safety Evaluation Report. l The characteristicr of a particular breatwater are, therefore, dependent on its specific location, I but some generalizations can be made in terns of estuary vs open ocean coastal sites and in terms ( of location: cf fshore, nearshore, alcngshore, or inshore. A i 2.5.1.1 Breakwater characteristics The water levels resulting fecm tides, surges, and floods, as well as the height of waves, are dependent on the site where a treakwater is located. Variations in water levels and surface wave heights at offshore locations in the ocean are discussed in Sect. 4.4 c f the FES, Fart II. Characteristics of ocean sites Surge heicnts increase as a n;rricane approactes a snoreline; so tne height of a surge will be nigner at a nearsnore site than at an of fshore site an0 nigner at a storelire site than at a nearshore site. j I i I 'n' ave neights, which are controlled by water depth, wind velocity, and fetch and which can be very large at an offshore site as discussed in Sect. 4.4 of the FES, Part II, will tenc to I dirinish in height because of depth limitations as they apprcach tne sn0 reline. Inerefore, tre wases would have a lesser height at a nearshore location and would have the least heignt at a shoreline location. However, because tne still water heignt (and thus the water deptn) can i increase by as much as about 30 f t during the design flood event, large naves are possible even i at shoreline sites. Therefore, the breakwater for a snoreline site nay have to be designed for I alrost as great a naximum wave (nigh still water level plus waves) as at an cf fshore locatien. I Cnaracteristics of estuary sites l In nost estuaries, the surge height generally decreases from its cpen coast value as one noves j ao the estuary. At a scecific point along the estsary, the surge height at offshore, nearstore, and shoreline sites nay be the same. A lower surge height wo;1d generally te expected at a point furtner up tne estuary, altncugn in some estuaries tne surge is amplified as a result of con-verging shorelines. Scre variation in water depth may occur because of river ficod ficws, and would be greater at points same distance up the estuary whe e the width of the estuarj becores constricted. Wave neights will be limited by the water depth ard, in the estuary, by the fet;h length. Wrere the estuary connects to tne acean, the wave heigh *.s are limited by the storr wind field ratner than fetch, and the water depth at this point is typically tre deepest in the estuary; thus tre aave heights at this point are the highest in the estuary. At points furtter up the estua ry, tne natural water depth typically is less, an0 the estuary limits tre fetch cistance so that wase neigtts at these points are substantially less than wave neights at the cetrance to the j estuary, that is, where it connects to the ocean. r l Wave beichts in the estuary are detenticed by the water deptn and fetch length f o r s to rm-ccincident wind directions at any specific site. have neights at offshore, nearshcre, er shore-lire sites may be the sare, or ray be different, depending en the water depths, fetch lengths, wind direction, and wind speeds for particular sites. Therefore, it is aoparent that, as a general rule, the height of a breaiwater Iccated well into an estuary will be less than that of one located near tre entrance of the estuary or at an ocean site. honeser, the height of the protective breakwater will have to be deterrined on a site-specific basis. l 1 ) 4 l

I 2-23 I 2.5.1.2 Effects on circulation and wave energy Coastal circulation patterns and the effects of the breakwater on circulation are discussed in Sects. 4.4 and 6.11.1, respectively, of the FES, Part II. Currents flowing past a breakwater at an of fshore or nearshore ocean site will divide around the breakwater, giving higher velocities along the sides of the breakwater parallel to the flow and reduced velocities on the upstream and downstream face of the breakwater. If a causeway is constructed between the nearshore site and the shoreline or if the breakwater is located in an alongshore site, then the current will be accelerated along the offshore side of the breakwater and substantially reduced on the other sides of the breakwater, particularly along the shoreline. An inshore site would not be physically present in the ocean, but tides flowing into and out of the area within the breakwater may increase current velocities at any opening in the breakwater. These tidal currents would also be present at other sites. The currents di atly along an ocean coastline are caused mainly by wave action, except near an estuary entrance where strong tidal current may be present. A nearshore ocean site would shadow a portion of the coastline, and reduce wave energy between the site and the shoreline. An alongshore ocean site would reduce wave energy at the shoreline upstream or downstream fr an the breakwater, depending on the direction of o ve travel. An offshore or inshore ocean site would not affect the wave energy at the coastline. In eastern and Gulf Coast estuaries, the currents, and therefore the circulation, are produ.;ed mainly by the tides flowing in and out. These tidal currents vary in speed and direction over the tidal cycle. Because the tides cause substantial variaticns in current speeds and directions within the estuary as a function of time, the circulation within an estJary f s much more complex than along an open coast. River inflow in eastern and Gulf Coast estuaries has a minor ef fect on the currents and circulation in comparison to the tide. Because an estuary has a fixed cross section, an of fshore, nearshore, or alongshore site in an estuary could restrict the cross section and accelerate the tidal currents flowing past the site, in addition, the effects noted at ocean sites would also occur in estuaries because of flow division. In the case of a nearshore site in an estuary, the rise and fall of the tide would cause water j I to flow into and out of the area between the breakwater and the shoreline, causing the current speeds and directions and the resulting circulation to be altered in that location. This altered flow into and out of the area between the breakwater and the shore would change the current pattern in front of the breakwater. The magnitude of such changes would vary from site to site because of the irregularities of estuary geometries, and would need to be investigated separately from each specific site. A bridge or causeway to shore supported on piers could be designed so as not to restrict substantially the water movement and, therefore, not alter the circulation pattern except for minor flow accelerations and vortex shedding around the piers. A solid causeway connecting the nearshore FNP to the shoreline would further alter the circulation pattern. The tidal flow into and out of the area inside the breakwater lagoon of an inshore FNP in an estuary would not significantly alter the circulation. The effect would be limited to causing peak currents at the locatio1 of any op6ning in the breakwater. This would cause some variation in the current pattern in front of the site. Similar tidal flow, into and out of the area inside the breakwater, would occur for offshore, nearshore, and alongshore sites in an estuary and would cause additional alterations to the circulation in those cases. A nearshore or alongshare FhP in an estuary would reduce wave energy at the shoreline in the same manner as at a nearshore or alongshore ocean site discussed above. The discussion above describes, in a general manner, the effects of an FNP breakwater on circula-tion patterns and wave energy for the various siting options considered. A more complete assess-ment will be made for each aroposed site, 2.5.1.3 Effects on erosion and deposition patterns Sedimentation and depositicn patterns for an offshore ocean site are discussed in Sect. 6.11.2 of the FES, Part II. At a neershore ocean site, deposition will occur in the wave shadow zone be-tween the breakwater and the shoreline, interrupting the normal Inogshore movement of littoral material. Longshore transport along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts has been estimated at various sites. Average annual transport rates estimated from measurements at 13 locations between Long Island, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, ranged from 29,500 yd3 per year at Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, to 493,000 yd3 per year at Sandy Hook, New Jersey (prior to 1933).D Interruption of littoral processes by a nearshore breakwater would typically cause the formation of a tombolo, that is, an area of accretion, which would build out from the shoreline towards the breakwater. At an alongshore ocean sita, the longshore transport of material will cause deposition on the updrift side of the breakwster. Downdrift from the breakwater, wave energy will cause erosion of the shoreline, for both the nearshore and alongshore sites, because of the interruption of the longshore transport with its supply of littoral material.

-- - -~- ~_- t 2-24 I Both the nearshore and alongshore ocean sites will be subject to the action of breaking waves. The energy f rom the breaking and reflected waves may cause scour of material along the seaward face of the breakwater and some alongshore or offshore movement of material in this area. At a nearshore site or a shoreline site with an opening (for boat access) in the breakwater the tidal currents flowing through the opening would carry material back and forth on an axis parallel to the currents. This process may cause sedimentation within the breakwater lagoon and may carry material off shore. Also, material may be carried through the breakwater opening by wave action, causing further sedimentation in the breakwater lagoon. Where channels have been dredged from deep water to the breakwater opening, the channels will tend to act as sediment traps and interrupt the movement of material, with sediment deposited in the channels until they are filled. If a completely closed breakwater is used at a nearshore or shoreline site (e.g., there is no boat access to the area near the FNP within the breakwater), then no significant sedimentation will take place within the breakwater lagoon. Only negligible amounts of seJiment would enter this area from wind-blown or other sources. The amount of radiment passing through the creakwater structure would be insignificant. Erosion and dqxLsit_ ion _ patterns in an estuary Erosion and deposition patterns within an estuary are much more complex than in the ocean because of the more complex cui rent patterns. Different processes occur in the estuary than in the ocean. The alongshore, wave-induced transport of material, observed along the shorelines of open seacoasts, may not be significant in an estuary. Although some shoreline erosion or deposition may occur, it is usually minor compared to bottom erosion and deposition throughout the estuary. The rate of erosion or deposition at anj location in the estuary will depeno on the nature of the bottom sediments, the acceleration or deceleration of currents, and the exposure of the area to wave action. Where currents are accelerated along the side of a breakwater, erosion of bottom material and a I gradial deepening of the water depth would be expected if tM bottom material is susceptible to erosion. Where hard bot tom material it, present, s ignificant et osion mt y not occur. In general, where currents are accelerated by the installation of an FNP at a particular site, erodible material would be carried away, resulting in deeper water. Where currents are decelerated, sediments carried in suspension in the water may be deposited on the bottom of the estuary so that the water becomes shallower. Where a nearshore breakwater is located on erodible material and the currents normally carry [ suspended sediment, the accelerated currents caused by tidal flow in and out of the area between the FNP site and the shoreline may cause deep eroded channels in the estuary bottom. However, wave energy may be reduced and currents decelerated in the area between the FNP site and the shoreline; therefore, if sediment is carried into this area by the flood tide, it may be deposited, creating shallow areas. The changes in the erosional and depositional characteristics caused by a nearby breakwater are htghly site-dependent and must, therefore, be evaluated on a site-specific basis. For any (NP site in an estuary, tidal flow through an opening into the breakwater lagoon will carry suspended sediment into the lagoon if sediment is present in the water. The dominant current through the opening may also carry in eroded bottom material. Wave action may also bring sediment into the breakwater which can be deposited inside the lagoon near the barges. For a completely closed breakwater, no significant "in-basin" sedimentation would occur. Where channels have been dredged to the FNP site, the channels would act as sediment traps. Sediment carried across thc;e channels, by bottom currents, would be deposited, gradually filling up the channels. 1 2.5.l.4 !.f fect of shoreline recession or accretion on a shoreline FNP 3 An FNP located on a natural shoreline can be affected by recession or accretion of the shoreline, Where an FNP site is on a rapidly eroding shoreline, the FNP may become exposed, requiring addi-i tional maintenance and/or construc tion to provide a breakwater adequate to protect the FNP. Where a shoreline is slowly eroding, that is, the recession is small during the projected life of the FNP, there may be no significant effects on the FNP. 4 If an FNP is located on a rapidly accreting shoreline, the FNP can become landlocked by the deposition cf material seaward of the site. Where the accretion is small dJring the life of { the FNP, there may be no significant effects on the FNP. l

=. -.. -._-.-_.-. 2-25 1 2.5.1.5 Maintenance dredging and sand bypassing An FNP located in deeper water at an ocean site could have a sill at any opening in the breakwater to keep most sediment from moving into the breakwater lagoon. At a site in shallower water, a sand trap, which can be dredged immediately outside any opening in the breakwater, would substan-tially reduce the amount of sediment entering the breakwater lagoon; the sand trap may be periodically redredged using conver.tional dredging equipment. Deposited sediment in the break-water lagoon at ocean sites can be removed through dredge pipes by hydraulic means. Ope ra tion of equipment under the moored barges can, if necessary, be accomplished by using divers. The quantity of sediment to be removed will vary from site to site depending upon the rate of sediment deposition. Where nearshore or alongshore ocean sites interrupt the alongshore movement of littoral material and where navigation channels into the breakwater lagoons at inshore or alongshore sites would becone filled by tne alongshore movement of material, sand bypass'ing can be used. Sand bypassing is presently used at a large number of inlets and openings through existing breakwaters. Sand bypassing can be accomplished by fixed or floating dredges or by the use of sand traps, that is, updrif t areas dredged to deeper depths with the periodic removal of sand from the sand trap. Sand removed from a sandtrap is placed on the downdrift shore. Additional maintenance dredging may be requirdd, where sand bypassing is used, to remove sand which escapes the bypassing system and enters the FNP lagoon. Examples of the kind of continually operating, fixed sand bypassing plants that can be used at an oceanic FNP site are those at Lake Worth inlet and South Lake Worth Inlet in Florida. The plant 3 at Lake Worth inlet bypasses 100,000 yd per year, and the South Lake Worth Inlet plant bypasses I 3 75,000 yd per year. An example of a floating sand bypassing plant in continual operation is the one at Santa Barbara, California, which has a capacity of 200 yd3 per hour. Sand bypassing plants are generally designed for a normal flow of sand. Large storms can deposit material rapidly, resulting in some shoaling that may require supplemental dredging. Examnles of sand traps may be found at Ventura Marina, California, and Channel Islands Harbor. California. At both locations the direction of alongshore movement is from north to south. At Channel Islands Harbor, the sand trap encompasses the area behind an offshore breakwater extending 2300 f t f rom a point north of the harbor entrance channel to a point opposite the south jetty of the entrance channel. The sand trap is dredged to a depth of 35 f t,15 f t deeper than the 20-ft-deep entrance channel. It is estimated that 1,000,000 yd3 of sand per year will be dredged from this sand trap. At Ventura Marina, the sand trap encompasses part of the area behind an of fshore breakwater. It extends approximately 1000 ft from a point behind the north end of the breakwater to a point opposite the end of the north jetty of the marina entrance. The sand trap is dredged to a depth of 40 f t for a 20-ft entrance channel and is supplemented by a small sand trap at the ocean end of the entrance channel. Maintenance dredging associated with an FNP site in an estuary will vary from point to point depending on the rate of deposition and the necessity of maintaining minimum water depths at any i point. However, the volume of material and the channel lengths involved should be within the bounds of dredging operations routinely performed in estuaries. Navigation channels currently maintained in the lower Chesapeake Gay area, for example, include Thimble Shoals Channel into Hampton Roads, Virginia, and the channel to Newport News, Virginia, in the lower James River estuary. The Thimble Shoals Channel, completed in May 1970, has a width of 1000 f t and a length j of 12 miles. Between June 1970 and January 1971, 418,579 yd3 of material were removed from Thimble Shoals Channel, and 1,129,143 yd3 were removed between October 1974 and December 1974. i l The channel to Newport News, completed in December 1969, is 800 f t wide and 4.5 miles long. In ] l October 1970, 295,100 yd3 " material were removed from this channel and 207,800 yd3 in March 1973. 1 I Disposal of dredged mar al from an FNP site is discussed in Sect. 5.2.1 of the FES, Part II. l As discussed above, + amount of material involved is similar to that now handled on a routine basis for other nears sore dredging and disposal operations. Because of its highly site-dependent nature, an evaluation of maintenance dredging and sand bypassing will be performed for each proposed FNP site. 2.5.2 Terrestrial Impacts on terrestrial ecosystems could result from transmission line operation, cooling tower operation, and cooling water intake and discharge. Effects of transmission line operation are discussed in the FES, Part II, Vol. I, Sect. 6.10. Cooling towers utilized at shoreline land-based plants, as well as FNP's, would typically release large amounts of salt in their drift. An EPA study at Turkey Point, Florida, was unable to demonttrate any effect on indi enous plants, soils, or freshwater due to the operation of a spray pond or mechanical-draC cooling towers." The study did show foliar damage and elevated wr- ---ww- ,,_--r-y-,-r-em-g -m p

i(ll I 'l {, iadet ap K wc ns i 2 aniic n - cF 2 w: ; ar isdafcauaO F 2 t ct a' s mc #at s at nB rp sats nnes rbaeens t n s o n - ueeer lf ffeshe rrhl n r fo ooh r p ioir rt l rie ar i dia p ta ity tamre 5 s r s fra n o 5 i f f n oseea t ie u E cii l r rt ct lt ss t au s re c t r als l eg og oeat eg ; y ecaol s oeu nlt e rtes omn c rl ep nas iedoae ne 3 caou es oe 3 nht n lgia e a ra s h 3 r i e ia i u u ri ra v ep nt rnD t t lau bert v edrct r fc rg i l r x r eoa c t ecci

nlwc eeet cne et nedacuat s

eneeic e n iy o y no t s e 2 a e t c f s t 1 e r r fe wa t t - s a ig fe s i; v, drce t ddno r n r )nie ss tC o r t e fee x tO at e h iiesi g set ag t t A c fn n s; i eg r p n aag ft o. nroat el if v esas g i etne fs r p np c f cy c r r caalsosey o as ht cc cc e fy erere lc r f tt i flu B da r e t l Gl e ts rc;we a;acr a ost a ep = u nB nb sil nn rs r. f s aaoie cooo hes ia a r t flt a n n en mf fCe rt orr r wk aioet ina t wu a - it s fidy t ocs i teini aelt eo uit itanet e a a t ee.*irc d nr;loe t nt as oi air ii c toenit ed r f e iak t ch l s s et c ams n nss ss ha bdei ecf hat itks c nl isr c s tL mr h b p irr vstt doreccg t n la ng a s

• ridc st s aye ui hn t r es a

r l ia h iit es u c e v e Lt ee res r,nin;uoct nc nds s t cnn oraer rg r. r ct ri l r cees u t i n l t(eaec it o e nt c t t icaa eri oet l ic uN e iaeneo dl i it nt t n h s fluootg t p ot a I mooaa nfs rj hes rs v e r d oeeu t t neor lt bs vncdcu v o n u" s a a n ncol rt r ra; e. iv fate s - rg h rinne o n f r a eecotcinfTr ts ncrv iibs eaeesorea,sde a sgg a(el t c s hae r t ap odee al n dsauulsu he t lcu i n nes ev o w s s i i c r aneoee t h i id nbreintea haar* i t qias rp in tt n n e t. l e,s e,. d edena a mt s k t leabbi t eti nac lt du t s ae ooauld c rs ty eoei aes r ieg h lui wocopp ce i ar s aei ic s s. n ntg c el n np e t l one x eaie id e o a aAdSg o r s lddofn r iea r; nl r UTcd l rra h acw l n ay nt rnt f r a s rn e p s ebsil

i cnt s t oee m

y; s h d Pisaze i t e r dfie ievt, u r r t ra oty l r i r r c nr unt eo b aSt i eift ult na i reildt ulong st : y soe s cv inc. ; ac n (as r eia ace ec e fp ant lcai ntaso; it eq ou es if s e( zct u E n sooriay otrg dihv ao eu;ep ec rws n*iw t eog o r n - fsd a ns e ld c.norih p a al al nnaesp nl l)s ?l et t dt s iret ret:ct lr dt br r 7;g i t s tls u t t eho stibdrty pl p eou l t o a.2 s i a h n n e.i f e o e . ee mot ; omons( u < n e h t u wes es nef f t c n eb%rt nild 1 tedob d cr + ead aet rrr2a eg e t J rnt i r rgi i l2st cl ch tiit r0 esp c d fAedoiit r ulaei)r s cs teis st eF 5t cn a. heoxet l g 5 n fe is neeno m ik a r c e,. y x Ph at r 5gi o anfi r nshe roesuo t nh dt leae n i s n t. e e orne nl w r e. nf n m1eg iea r nira nr otcFeep ont no n es io s r s doy cccc h c s' a l arhr ragi lt w srnn ss an y S. r uol t o 4i iita9 o t) l ilan t ?,s mt n e

t Tuct o owe eel n ia i a-aou i. ii a

ee3ces or o d fa dke cd w)ff csnt 7srnle, csot f it cp ea s ora w hs ee r uic x dnn n r ie s ws reaaana t ft k oep st nl Itp egg ccr mc t cs lp s t w n aosden u nt t r a t t a na ls ns ie e lt. raaiterlrs ds u eu ea t g nr eac. eu ulepe n ah - o rylatew ia sf rc d ee rft l ed Cr dtc nhoit nt t oit p deuadsci lt r inwd es nr rr6 aifi rad cr v o: c r erad rto u rffeb t rane ocsah i g do ait n e. ik eeoIat eei eoldu ft ac1 nl oha fsh. s o antc sohp t r ce tdu tst st( nlire e h uaroht ls 4 n n' r c n t t i r a n n g t h ep rerex v s wll; nene iu. Oact w s,e o a s t ei;l tilo9oosg el t i t h nvusS t ned aiu7 rg t r T g y 2 hewdoia u a d0ds es fl2it e c" e o rt cnsdl eu os fsst et nedt ie er e a; tlt n4eiracd eonE b Og htctp awc t tp o ly t cup or x f v se 2 duatu hiii l nla eeoeu i f e.r aehu ha o b e t. en oo wy foachaa a seaa C celt sat z fta s dl raef a s nl r da t e faflty s f sta nln ig d o nie frs i tesdt ar tn r ts lut cea h nes rni inrd nrs eei a t e eedst y e tte rs ol u tt hl ts rr t fag e, eas teenoe - r g s hnAe s ee 2 tehn seKrlLcraa eic has eiet dxp t bersdd. iret ro aoenlc ncd. uefeod aes c et ie a s. l f r ra nnp a sr r l es )r oios e fnt lii2 d i c isl mk nsd o Aiar s at eeg dandtol ac l a lErtt er ne)auc2 liel uu sg i tv 0 l a. at i i Fppst a fs u s edl a cotoied 2 o t t s iI tiocna it d r oi;i; la r ly tft e fna t u Tere a iinto: rt u asg l lscsrEty en i nhtoso h rr t t n sse l a r,S O t d n s,e c c,t lel rde bont rt t iies2 ncay d f ar ipg en n 4l ow is t io s n l ng ieeineds. d h l a tt ieie g t 6 fs i hf ~lcecrs u hicees cii diPe a dnas e s a r g tto! e r ctt i p r p ce s vu uuea eg u sel nmi tp r fo it irti. T g nd enes nf. lta o na ri narOcls g t wd rae ren saa nt c lo l ah a erp l nrr s h ro ap roa.ot hita apt rcg r eda a c o l inw enn k t enidr

• ais i e

r f r re u n stsriari t e t r v a;u i o e n itce tt s n - eyt tee ceg cona e 't d sg Is htont ivg E s re laiv e n A nar dl ol ehtat rns iy a,s r nt np "a o i a bg t eessp te y rcerd r t s es oy reu ; cut i: n ac t cnts " g c irs nt , e I. n csl l. ii neth rg t ni se w G p l d,e t ig oat s hmf u r eit aep s iu te i e mctea uy uu h n n a m c s I,t o arearva y t n a0p - p aerwas

le e

re d ruu ioo lacnn acy s nielr; na nc s del aeu r itt sacn a et dlcs r f i ig a 0t; l Sileaari t a c t r s. e t a,s in lt ic ut f r h s ey thtm ne t dei noets re s rt re er s ncctcnt s ~aeayp ace ip ed in ng ; e eea rco erw. v cfsd 'e o f e i a ca en w r.s ero aee t s hu iv etev st rl tdwa ner ott cers l 'r frr n alt v a o v at rt ir hre irsp ides

caw ns hery tc sy d s ar r

olteb nl i e esuu p eteT a eclc s l h it ca n eirnay r c, sorb is iut O r srb e h ig bn;ao t acu ahr not ecs t y r a s sdeire g e0ft w t nia l Fy o h ea cnsenei u nl fay ,s i t e r ho r r tcrd e f e,s r(ard tuu hi emn u Oae ay e c oss oe - i rnrdl s sa fnil n t l reontt se sei od nef eNd;ti ehes lr l,d a n s o d i a rs al nn al t rde ute l i a l enn tt eTree c h s c t,n fucto t n e ondeg Fn l a f g; ss ss rt ce;dhianaea; a 's dic i lt r c h eii aueec de nd id n p p oit t x Fad P rs toie cf s o, uc2ot trede iee fd ldt n nht r cFhfeo eo os ns bt ir rr2l lt o l f

o en tfnaa mos ieus hegg st cs p

e aii ce +o p eSpfs finct i eis o rat 1 l 2er n nsbar ec o: P ei nteadtta oe nei: a iiw h acts t emret iu isrs cih in dna s ng - lbsg ta c i ea s' w c g n t krl ned k tt aedu hrs it n ~ has i seod es dhdiiir fez cec l a rt 2de tueda: ey e eie i r,e t ccient s b atrt roal: a unot h w h i o a r r s a u g,n er)er o op s rs nt sns ts ny nc. nen nt tseit i t e 'oi n - ay dnt iar mt n hv a c o na i oednas ieiir;ce - t rr f g nr g f s s ig ud u - ee at r tr u t, v gl Too g as nla ls h iis nfr a e e s a ef a0 e n a abl a t nptt eoeee f n d e t ons l1 yg ye tni y hnu nO t in iia no t ot c d n t,n t rc aa o t at n ndl e s n sd znng n re t d or i e-ra e a ns e e s s f o l t n l 1 4 ] j !e i. 't il 'ij[ i i i If; i, t !i !l { l

2-27 Dissolved nutrient and detritus retention time are important for maintaining estuarine functions (Sec t. 2.2.2.3). An open access channel would increase water exchange within the estuary, thus decreasing the retention time of these materials. Suspension feeders in the esteary (e.g., clams, mussels, mud shrimp, and scallops), which are dependent on the availability of detritus and plankton for food, would decrease if flushing of this food out of the estuary is increased. Because these types of animals fom a large part of the lower trophic level, any effect on tham would have the poter.tial to af fect estuarine trophic dynamics in general (Fig. 2.2). Estuarine circulation is also critical to life-cycle patterns of estuarine dependent organisms. On the Gulf of Mexico coast these organisms comprise 901; of the dollar value of the comercial fishery.69 The generalized life cycles are seen in the FES, Part 11 Fig. 6.3.2, and are dis-cussed in Sect. 2.2.2.3. A strong salinity gradient is important to larval transport mechanisms. The importance of a two-layer salinity system of circulation to successful larval transport in the estuary is discussed in Sect. 2.2.2.3 and in the FES, Part II, Sect. 6.3. CroninM showed that enlargement of the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal af fected the physical hydrography, chemical 4 environment, and biotic populations of the canal. The major adverse biological effect was the transport of fish eggs and larvae out of the estuary. Because an access channel would allow higher salinity water to enter the estuary, salinity gradients could be affected. Additionally, the life cycle of many estuarine-dependent organisms are linked to the estuary's function of a protective nursery grounds, free from large predators. An open channel would allow large schooling pelage fish such as jacks and mackerels to carry out frequent feeding forays into the inshore areas. 2.5.3.3 Mangrote slstems Mangrove estuari:s are characterized by a wide range of salinities that shape the ecological makeup of the ty; tem (Sect. 2.2.2.3, Figs. 2.1 and 2.3). The retention of detrites is 03ecially important to the food webs (Fig. 2.2). Both of these characteristics can be affected by FNF opera tion. Increased salinity due to inshore or nearshore once-through cooling could change the species composition, alter the relative proportions of species present, or affect the functional character of mangrove communities. Nutrients and detritus which would be drawn out of the mangroves in the plant cooling water could be transported offshore (assuming offshore dischar9e of cooling water) and thus be unavailable for supporting the trophic structure of the mangrove system. The importance of detritus to the food web of a mangrove system is described in Sect. 2.2 and Fig. 2.2. Mangrove systems are also nursery grounds for species such as peneid shrimp, mullet, and snapper. The mangroves of ten occur in areas of limited nursery habitat, thus concentrating certain life stages. Therefore impingement and entrainment in these systems could be of major concern to these types of mangrove-dependent organisms. In goneral the mangrove system is a delicate system which depends on a strong salinity gradient and retentien of nutrients and detritus for its integrity. The existence of an open access channel penetrating a mangrove system could cause unacceptable ecological damage due to loss of nutrients, detritus, and increased salinity. Revegetation of mangroves affected by FNP con-struction would require nany years to accomplish. It is the staff's opinion, therefore, that man-grove systems are the least suited areas for siting floating nuclear power stations. 2.5.3.4 Suma ry The ecological integrity of estuaries is closely related to their physical characteristics. Siting and operation can strongly affect the physical processes, which in tura affect the bio-logical processes. The staff believes that once-through inshore intake designs will have the greatest potential for ecological damage and warrant concern (Table 2.7). However, with the exception of mangrove-sited plants, the impact will probably fall within the range experienced at existing operating coastal plants. Siting within mangrove estuaries will probably prove to be unacceptable. The staff believes that open access channels from the estuary to the deeper offshore water that would not rather rapidly be filled by littoral zone sediment transport would have the potential to cause unacceptable ecological damage to the estuary. Thus the staff recomends that such channels, formed for delivery of FNP's to their operating sites, be filled to the original bathymetry and restored as close to the original physical and ecological condi-tions as possible. In addition. the staff believes any disturbance of coastal circulation should be minimized. Ecological considerations, therefore. Suggest that inshore-sited plants, such as those discussed in Sect. 2.3, are to be preferred over alongshore-sited plants and nearshore plants. I .~

~. - - -...-.- ,. - ~ _ - _ - 2-28 Table 2.7. Summary of potential ecological impacts due to station operation, given three intake desegns and three estuarme systems Glaciated coasts Bar-budt coastal plam Mangro<e .--- ~ inshore nearsho<e. Because these estuanes d'e oceanic Greatest potential for impact. because Great potent.al for impact. Once through m character. the effects to the merea*,ed exchange rete af fects estu-mcraased eschange rate nearshore mtake estuanne system would not be es atone character as a nursery ground would destroy sabr.g dramatic as those on low sahraly and processor of nutnents. Greater gradient as well as mcrease estuaries However. entramment oceanic character caused by net export of r utnents. god impmyment are of potenhal milux of offshore Water mag aHect corwern-species compos +1, ort impsriyernent and entramment of potential concern Inshore-neannore. Impacts would be restncted prr Basically same potential emoact as Large potent:a; for rmpact l Once-thr ough mardy to entramment and OHshore plant af access charmet ts smcv it is doubtful rf sys o"shere intak e imprngement if eccess channel closed if channel remains opan, tem wou d ever revegetate were closed An open access change's m estuary due to mcreased atter dredgeg Nutnent channel would resdt m loss of euchange rate may be expected toss and mcreased excharge e d ssolved nutnents. similar to insbore mtake design but rate would contmue i not as drastic Inshore nearshore. Least potenteaf for impact m this Least potential for impact m ints Large potent 41 for impact closed cycle system if access channei s system 4f access channel es closed. smce it is doubtful if i neshore mtake esosed Design shoWd avoid impmgement and entra.nment are system woed ever recover emp.ngemeri of small schoolmg stdf an area of potential concern. If from diedg'ng ope' 8 tion fish and entramment of clam access chantwt is lef t open irapact Nutnent loss and rcreased and lobster frvae on estuary would be s.milar to off echange 9te would shore mtake des'gn above. coltmue _~ 7 2.5.4 heat dissipation at shoreline sites Inshore-and alongshore-sited FNP's are expected to use the same types of heat dissipation systems, meeting the same environmental requirerrents, as would land-based coastal plants in I similar locations. I 2.5.4.1 Heat dissipation systems for coastal _p_o_wer plants Coastal plants larger than 500 ML currently operating with saltwater cooling systems are listed in Table 2.3. Typically, these present-generation plants use once-thiough cooling, are located on estuaries, and, with only few exceptions, use shoreline intake and discharge systems. Tnese older hcat dissipation systems have the environmental disadvantages of shoreline disturb-ance and of using water from relatively shallcw estuarine areas where aquatic life tends to be concentrated. While these disadvantages may be tolerable for the relatively small number of plants now operating, many large new plants are planned and methods are being ',ought tb reduce the impacts, individual and cumulative, of new plants. The next generation of coastal plants, scheduled for cperation by 1987 (Table 2.9), will use heat dissipation systems designed to minimize aquatic impacts. Most of these stations are a located on open sounds or open ocean, where once-through cooling can be used without disturbing sensitive areas. In the opinion of the staff, the best of these once-through designs, using subrerged intake and discharge systems located offshore, will have minimal inpact cn the aquatic environment and would be suitcle for FNP's located at similar sites. Several other plants are located on estuaries and will use closed-cycle cooling systems, thus greatly reducing the volume of water circulated from the relatively shallovv er'tuarine waters. Systems such as these, using land-based closed-cycle cociing systems, are also considered suit-aDie for FhP's at similar locat' in addition to heat dissip4 tion syste~s similar to those already designed for coastal plants, other types of cooling systems might be four.d to be environcentally acceptable at certain spe-cific sites For example, cooling lagoons or spray lagoons (analogous to freshwater cooling lakes or spray porids) Bight be suitable for certain sites. Ihe staff emphasizes that any beat dissipation systen proposed for an onshore cr alongshore f'iP would receive the Sme type of site-specific environmental anMysis as for a land-based plant at a similar location. i b w .-.--na -.w- -n .. +, w-,- a r- -. ~, . e -.,w~

_m _= _ _ _ _. -_ 2-29 1 Table 2.8. Atlantic and Gulf Coast therrral pc*er plants usmg saltwater coohng, operational in 1976 '"Y hng a'er tab Outfan State i Locatron Plant type (MWe) system body (distancel (distancel i Maine Yankee Ba ley Point, ME 855 P OT E stuary Shorchne Dif f user Salem HarDor Sale % M A 775 0 OT E stuar y Shor@ne Shorehne Mysuc E verett, M A 1220 0 OT E stuar y Shorehne Shor ehtie Pdgrim Plymouth, M A 655 0 OT Bay Shorehne Shor ehne Canal Cape Cod Canal, M A 112o O OT Canal EorAne Shor ehne Bravton Po nt Somerset, MA 1590 0 OT,SC Estuary Shor chne Shor ehne M,Ilstone Waterford CT 1480 B, P OT Sound Snorehne Shorenne indian Point Hudson River, NY 2120 P OT Estuary She'eh'4e Shor ahne Nor thpor t Long island, NY 1160 O OT Sound Shorchne Shorehne Astoria fuw ork, N Y 1625 0 OT Estuary Shorebne Shor enne Oyster Creek Forked River, NJ 67o B OT Estuary Shl 'ana' Shlcanal E dgeM oor Winmington, OE 790 0 OT Estuary Sho'ehne shorenne Cabrert Chffs Calvert Cbffs, MD 1690 P OT Estuary Shl channel Shw ehne (4700 f t) Sorry James River, V A 1580 P OT E stuar y Sho'eiine shorehne 3runswick Cape Fear River, NC 1640 B OT F s tuary Shlcanal Shicanal (3 moes) 16 maes) Wrihams Cooper River, SC 600 O OT,MDCT Estuary Shl canal Shorehne (1000 fil Turkey Po.nr Bncayne Bay, F L 2320 O,P OT.CC Sound Shorehne Shl canal Crystal Hwer Citrus County, f L 1780 0, P OT Gulf Shi chantiet Std channel and canaf Cedar Bavou "ouston, TX 2250 0 OT E stuary Shorchne Shicanal Davrs Corrm Christi, TX 650 O. G OT E stuar y Shl canal Shlcanal and Sound (3500 f tl " Key to altarev.ations used m table ^ d Prant tvpp intake and outf all Pressunted water reactar P Canal to shorehne ShlCanal Baihng water reactor B Channel dred <pd to shorehne ShiChannel ) 0.bfwed O Submerged d<ffuser D f fuser j Gas bred G Cochng system Once th,ough OT i Mecharuabdraf t coobog tower s MDCT Spray canai SC Coohng canal CC 2.5.4.2 Influence of shoreline site characteristics on the selection of FNP heat dissipation systems The selection of the heat dissipation system for an FNP at a ghen sitt will be influenced mainly by the station configuration selected, the depth and dispersion.haracteristics of the water body, and the ecological sensitivity of the immediate equatic anc terrestrial environment. i Heat dissipation systems for power piants fall into two major classes: once-through and closed-cycle. Wherever environmentally acceptable, once-through cooling would be preferred for FNP's. l l Once-through cuoling af fords a significant conservation advantage in that higher thermal effi-ciencies are obtained, that is, the lower the heat rejection (condenser) temperature, the higher the ef ficiucy. The dif ferences in ef ficiency ar? greatest in hot summer weather, when many utilities encounter peak loads due to air conditioning demands. The condenser temperature in closed-cycle systems increases when the ambient air temperature and humidity increase, while the condenser temperature in ance-through systems on large bodies of water remains more nearly con-stant. Because of this difference in efficiency, the electrical output of once-through cooled systems can be t"pically 2% greater under summer peak conditions. This f requently overlooked i environmental advantige implies that where once-through cooling can be used extensively, fewer i I power plants need be built. In particular, this advantage would usually mean that fewer oil-fired peaking units would be required. j The FNP standard design wn optimized for once-through cooling. The site envelope for the FNP requires that the basin water temperature not exceed 95'F. The applicant has estimated that to meet this requirement, closed-cycle systems would havt: to be 15 to 20; larger than for typical land-based p'. ants that would be designed for a somewhat higher cooling water temperature. The economic penalty of closed-cycle cooling as therefore somewhat greater for FNP's than for typical )

_._...-m-. _.~. . _...~. _. -_________.__,____m _.m. _m a i 2-33 s a j 1 Tabie 2.9. Atfantic and Gulf Coast nuclear power plants scheduled to 1987' i i nta = e Out vt i 1

Station, stat t o' Capacty Plant Cwung Water 04tance D. stave g

oration RfAe) t y pe system tioW T yDe d mth T y pe dep'h i heFl tit) (ftl (ft) ifd i Sea br w>< SeatycA SH 2400 P OT Ocean Oneore 30 3000 D44wr 40 4000

81. 83 l

New England Ch arle po*n, R I 2300 P OT Ocean Omhore 30 2000 Dafuser 30 3000 l B4.86 l Shoveham Brock hawn. NY 820 B OT Sound

Att, 12 600 Datuser 12-31 5400

] j 79 { Jawsport Jamesmrt. NY 2300 P OT Sound Jeur 12 8CO Dd f mer 20- 50 6800 l 83.85 Seem Setem. NJ 2200 P OT E stuart Secte At 25 500 79 me Hopc Creek Seem, NJ 2130 8 NDCT E stuar y Shore At 15 200 l 84.86 brie Douglas Pome Potomac oves, MD 2360 B NDCT Estaary Sm e-D ettuser 70 2700 l j 87 hne j St L oc w F t Pterce F L 1600 P OT Ocean Ombore 18 1200 At 18 1200 i 0

6.,83 l

7 D st%we 25 2800 3 l % to atheoatom wd e tabte 3 j Nt 'yN trine a^d ovef ah l l P ewud wr" <earter P Submered Ch Dh l Bu l q we'e teertor B S.itwryd jet M l Submeged Mfshme intse O*f eo<e i r3qup 5mre c chhme - roe..a g ety sty l l Unce tNo ? '1T twu eet ce9 w s NDCT I I i i I land-based plants, while the loss in afficiency and capacity is screwhat less. (It would be I possible to modify tne F W design for the higher cooling water temperatures usually found optinum l l for cicsed-cycle systers, and nothing would preclude the applicant f rom applying later fer a } license to ranufacture such a rodified design. However, the current licersing action is limited i f to the single FNP design presented by the applicant.) l l Orce-through cooling has the disadvantages that large voluws of water must be circulated and that essentially all of the tternal load appears as sensible heat in tne water bcdy. For once-through cooling to t;e environretally acceptable, the water body must be large enougn and/Or i have sufficient circulation to absorb the heat with a reasonable temperature increase, and the cistribution of agatic life must be such that the effects cf entraine ent and inpingemer.t are acceptable, in general, the ceeper and more open the water body at the intake and discharge ?f the coolirg systeta, the more li6ely are these requirerets to be net. The suitability of each site rust be deterrined cn a site.soecific basis; in general, h0 wever, sites on the open ocean and on relatively deep and large sounds, bays, and estuaries would be suitable for once-through cooling systeTS. j i Sites or' or benind barrier islancs may also be suitable for once-throug*1 cooling. Hundreds of i miles of tne Atlantic and Gulf coasts are protected by barrier islands. The sound behind a Larrier island or the island itself might be selected for an FV site to take advantage of this natural protection from stores. Howen e, sack sounds are usually shallow and nct well suited l for heat dissipation. Water conduits passirg beneath the island cculd te used to transport j cooling water to and from the open ocean, with no nore t%in a temporary disturbance of the littoral zone. The possibilities for dane erosion and storm-breeching of barrier islands have teen discussed in connection with cable excavation (FES. Part II, Sect. 5.4.2.3). Aoy cisturb-ante of dunes or beaches would require adequate restcraticr. as described in Sect. 2.4.2.2. 2.5.4.3 Onc e-tn rcasys ters The FNP condenser is designed for a coolirg water ficw of aD0ut 2000 cfs at a terperature rise Of about 17'F. The standard M P includes an intake that craws water from the basin and a discharge that delivers the manned water to a catchment. The remainder of the heat dissi;atico

~ 2-31 system design (whether once-through or closed-cycle) is at the option of the utility and is site-specific. For once-through systems, the optional designs would consist of an intake system for bringing water into the basin and a discharge system to return the warmed water from the catchment to the water body. Althouch these designs will be site-specific, for the purposes of this generic analysis, intake and discharge designs which the staff would consider suitable for various site conditions have been hypothesized, based on designs which have been used or proposed for use in coastal plants (Sect. 2.5.4.1). For offshore siting, the design proposed for the Atlantic Generating Station has been used as an example (FES, Part II, Sect. 6.2). In this design, the intake consists of two openinos in the breakwater, and the discharge is a near-surface jet from the shcreward breakwater. This rela-tively simple design was found to be acceptable for a site nearly 3 miles offshore. A simple intake opening could serve sites closer to shcre as long as the water was reasonably deep (>20 f t) and large concentrations of aquatic life were not prevalent. A simple jet discharge could also serve sites closer to shore as long as the water was deep (>30 f t) and the jet directed in the seaward direction. A recent ERDA study indicates that a thermal discharge about a mile off a straight shoreline would have little interaction with the shore area.71 For shoreline sites, water conduits to intake and discharge structures some distance offshore would probably be required to avoid impacting sensitive inshore areas. Sites with access to deep water (>SO f t) are much to be preferred. Good dilution of the thermal plume can be nbtained with single jets or a small dif fuser in deep water; in shallower water an elaborate diffuser may be required. A number of diffuser designs were discussed by Adams and Stolzenbach.72 Several types of water conduit appear to be practical. For sites underlain by competent rock, the boring of water tunnels appears to be economic. A system of this type has been designed for the Seabrock Power Station.73 Tunneling offers an important environmental advantage in that the impacts of construction are very low. Tunnels can be extended bEneath sensitive areas (such as beaches or shellfish beds) without disturbance. For sites urderlain by unconsolidated sediments, tunneling is much more expf.nsive and probably uneconomic.7 For such areas, buried pipelines could be used. In some cases, the construction of water conduits could be coordinated with the channel dredging required for delivery of the FNP. 2.5.4.4 Closed-cycle systems Closed-cycle cooling systems are 1Ikely to be used at FNP sites on shallow sounds, bays, and estuaries where the impacts of once-through cooling would not be acceptable. A closed-cycle system would typically be land-based, although construction on an artificial peninsula (Fig. 2.9) or island is also a possibility. The system would almost certainly use salt water, because freshwater is not generally available at coastal sites. The major types of closed-cycle systems are natural-draf t cooling towers (NDCT), mechanical-draf t cooling towers (MDCT), spray canals (or ponds), and cooling canals (or ponds). Each of l these systerrs has been used for land-based plants, and any could be adapted for use with FNP's. The environmental impacts of closed-cycle systems have been studied extensively and include fog, drif t, salt deposition, visibility restriction, shadowing, obstruction to bird and insect migra-tion, noise, aesthetic impact, meteorological effects, and intake and blowdown effects on the i l water body. At a given site most of these ef fects are found to be small and closed-cycle l systems are usually found to be environmentally acceptable. Two of these effects, salt drif t and aesthetic impact, are particularly relevant to shoreline sites. The use of salt water in closed-cycle systems is relatively recent; until about 1976 nearly all coastal plants used once-through cooling. Natural vegetation near seacoasts is fairly salt tolerant; however, it is known that salt can damage sensitive crops such as tobacco and soybeans. The State of Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, with several sponsors, is conducting the ( Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project to study the effects of salt drif t from natural-draf t cooling towers at Chalk Point, Maryland. Recently reported results from this program indicate that the salt emission fraction is low, less than 0.001%, and that the salt deposition and airborne salt concentrations downwind of the tower are small compared with the ambient (hatural) salt levels.75-77 Another study indicates that both NDCT and MDCT with modern drif t eliminators can achieve drift fractions of 0.001%.78 Therefore, drift from salt-water cooling towers can be controlled successfully, and these systems will be acceptable for use with FNP's. Salt drif t also occurs with spray canal systems; however, the source in this case is close to the ground and the drif t particles are relatively large. Consequently the drif t from spray canals is localizec, and the effects generally would not extend beyond the plant boundary. The aesthetic impact of cooling systems for FNP's is likely to be espeially important because the coasts are heavily used for recreation. Many sections of the coast are especially valued ~.

-. ~ 2-32 f2r tneir scenic beauty and/or historic significance. The closed-cycle systems and treir visible plumes generally have a tign visual i.npa c t. The fiDCT, which is generally ranked environ.9(ntally as the most f avorable of the closta-cycle systems, is a very large structsre, typically 500 f t rign and about 300 f t in diameter at the base. Although many pecDie find the hypertolic srape pleasing, many others find tne bulk of the structure obtrusive and tre plure highly visible, particularly wnen tne structures are near scenic er historic areas. The MDCT is less visible, i generally standing 53 to 10J ft high, but reavires consideratle land area and produ;es a nederate level of noise [ typically about 53 dE( A) at 1 mile]. In corparing views of FNP stations with and witbost MDCT systems, Figs. 2.6 and 2.7, the visible "Ind;strialized" area is about three i times larger nith the cicsed-cycle system. Spray canals and cooling canals are relatively ] unattrusive. However, these syste s recuire a larger land area wntch may be difficult to Octain j along *ce coast 1 i .I i 2.5.4.5 _S_wr;a_r v i

r. the judgmert cf the staff. FNC sites that are suitable for once-tnrcago cooling are to be l

Ere' erred over sites whicn would rea; ire closed-cycle cooling. Tre advantages of once-tnrou';h coolirg are conservation (higner thernal ef ficiency and higher capacity), smaller land area l rea;1rement, and nin1ru visual impact For nar.y shcreline sites, tne a;uatic impa:ts of orce-inrosan cooling can be notigated by the use of intake and discharge conduits to relatively deep aster.

1. ere cicsed-cycle cooling is preferred, the same tst somewhat larger systems can be used as fcr land-tase plants, with essentially the same irpacts. Tne ;se of salt water in

'csed-

jcle systers, wnile a relatively recent development, is within tne state-of-the-art and

{ is oct exrected to result in ur.acce; table impacts. i -.:.5 Padielec tal Lecesse tre arplicant nas cercluded taat riverine sites cannct te censidered as viable for s1tirg f*F's, the staf f nas race ro atter-t to evaluate potential radiciogical irracts for P.P's i lc:ated at riierire sites. To c3* pare tne gereric radiological intact assessrent of siting l I ticat*rc natiear plants of f srere with siting in estsar me areas, tre staf f evalsated the radio-l logical

".ts dse t-routine c;erati;n of sin estaarir.e-sited land-based FWR's witn designs an.,amr;e terrs si,ilar ic tre Fr.F Tre plants selected are stewn in Table 2.10.

All t 4se

1a is utili

e ence-ttros;h cocitrg. The sta'f mtilized infarrati;n presented in the res;e:tive tr c1m

• s ial stateient. fcr eacn of ine plants listed in Table 2.10 to evaivate the radiological t ;auts

_( te rest:ne o:.raticr of an F4; as compare: witn a lardctised p! ant. \\ Twe ? 10 t eno bai.d Po m Gn enww enmon=nto The ta:iclogi;al iga:t 'cr a ex. lear tNer clant at any given site is dependent on'y ce ~ U+~1 m we r e the s0,rt.e terr; ard OispcrsiOn after release. [ p t. 'OM I"erefgre, there will te ro significar t Ot f fer-en;e tet een a lard tased ros 1ctatee at an rss'c't ~ c44 4 4 E M, estuary (with design ADO s0urce terr $ COipar-FL e Go * : - 2544 able 10 an fh?) and an fi? sited at tre sd~C D.sa r i n. d.. 34?5 19;3tj (eitner rg3rsecre, alJng5nOre, or r -ru<,,%,

440 jnSe;ce),

cs a result, Each Ihn0-bEsed Plant ,-va .~ P v'

• 2 i # l "d.

34s0 lis *e; in Table 2,10 ;ar be th.os;tt of as a1 we 8 'd' '.Nf" "w d a h {r{ ejj g j.} (( Cf hp }}*( hj ( pitn anCF-!trDL.F cLol;r;. L g, p.., y i 2.5.5.1 D_:s_e_.e s t ra..t e s w e d e a e e hk b table 2.12 re:restnt a br;3d spe;truS O l coalatson 39 tru sti:ns, r<teorcio;i:al .tir _ter ' t i t and &.;rcit-ita', narCtE"istiss "at a!) a f fe;* l% dcse cTr i tr ert to ic;;I a-I s .wev:r, thc c 3 t s 1 r.d 5 3 r j a t q c s i r-c31cg j a tt j p;pgla t'Cn 0;ses nere b er) 5trl'ar f r C 'i a n0 F' ' s 'Ca ted f ee r 5 f ; re C r J riies Cffs*:re. FCr gasecus relt3%es, f i : 'r

• - 'Eed 4

r39 Idl tijy. ;l 3 * + # d;te ;r" t ent ;alCJidled fGr cIf5h0re N was aM st Qt Sr, 'il.e d s!clice ;lant incate; rear srmrt, cr f;r tect na**er, / i ar d, ressl t< C

• r m.

in -tt ' tar ;u r

tren, Tre (p pa r 3 t l e 3 g l,es fi r

• he *J y rCi: rd sI a t h Ose cQ*rit-o "e!*. wt t ; d 'i d II ".

+ft-vtSt fLF tee ef t ;F; rc g s r 03 r sn;re TNO site. Of f 5' c re f'J 's i . " : n t' s i t c' ilf ' i;rer :alts;atej ro;aiati:n 0:ses than c: pa rat l e P.' ' 3 10 dted e 6

>- re, ar ;

rcrg, te 3rd-Odit' p d,, ant It 5 f r;t Jbl 0 tr d t "

C t"is

• Jr ci'4ere m e

ti te U ust.; f ;- ,rttrW Ziervatic a, W; t i..r 3 gr y t(3rcl;g af.d :. "tr 4 e id ristic,

• • +"r t

, ce ssr e ' ,r0'OetC*e l3r*s

se Lf si;t-spe;;#it p3rdne tt r; f; r j

+ 'd ' c l' D?4L re r ,ld .d. r eily. ee;ecttj 1 :. reds;e tot ;a;;ala;Ej

glatigt i;;ts f

p f i i

~_- - - _~ -~ - - =_.- ~ -. - - 4 1 4 2 33 Only in the case of naxirally exposed individuals was there a larse difference between calculated doses for the estearine-sited plant (hP or land-based) and offshore FNP plants. Naever, inis is to be espected since land-based sites permit cffsite po;ulations to lii,e n :n cicser fo tre o site than is permitted ty an ef#sh;re plant located sore 3 miles frer; the shoreline. Ite average total bcdy dose comitmert from gaseous releases for these estuarine-located land-based plants or for an F?P sited insnore was n.) elllirers/ year as cotmared to the of fshore FNP e' 0.26 millfrem/ year. The average thyroid cose comitments were 4.9 and 0.71 mil trens/ year respectively. l Similarly, for liquid releases, the avera;e cal:clated tctal body ::se tomritnent for raximally exposed individuals for both the inshcre TV and land-tased ;1 ants nas 0.32 rillirem/ year while the average dose corritrent for effshore FNP's was less than 0.01 rillirem/ year. Tne average inyroid dose comitments viere 1.1 and less nan 0.01 nillirem/ year resrectively. t re tne case.here an FNP is sited insncre or fcr a shoreline land-tased plant, both utilizing c.cciing towers, the calculated dose ccrriitreets to noximally expcsed individ.ais from licaid cf fluents w:uld te expected to increase ty as r-xh as tao orders of ragnitude over that of the coce-tnres;n type plant since tne initial radionuclide concentraticn in the blowdown fron cooling tcwers is nuch nigner. Fo.ever, g00d rixir.g of the liqsid effluents in an estvary would be expected to result in atcat the same calculated population dose conHtrents as on;e-ttrosgh cooling, since the quantities of radioactivity released are the sare. f i 2.5.5.2 .D _i r_ec t ra d i a t ion 1 As indicated in the FES, Part II, Sect. 6.9.2.4 tte estinate for direct radiation cose fror an cf fshore FNP to corrercial and charter boat 0;erators is aporoMately 1 millire fycar. Fcr the case of the insnore-sited FhP tre corparable dose to an individsal near the plant w:ald also approximate 1 millirem / year. f 2.5.5.3 Evaluation of radiolecical inpact l .be population d0se calculated for an FNP sited nearshcre in an estuarine envircreent is cor43r-able to that deterr:1ned for land-base: plants, of sirilar design to an FNP, located near estuaries and could be ato;t a factor of 2 to 3 lower than :nat of the generically sited effstcre Fhr. Althougn the calculated d;ses to taxirally exposed indiwicsals f0r insnore ThP's ard land-tcsed PWR piants is righer than that of an of fshore FNP, such doses are teloa any leiels stip lated t,y the MC cr the EFA and would cc te e ne:ted to prodsce any etservable effects. I i i 2.6 EFFwEhT MD ENVIROWENTAL MEASWEENT MD MONITORPG N0GuvS Section 6 of the FE5, part II, noted that the proposed action to rv u'acture eight F4P's ) does not include tne reesireser-t for the applicant (CM to evabate specifi; sites for l establis ment of nuclear power statiom. Ho ever, a;;11 cants e o propese to construct power j stations at designated locations will be reagired to initiate progra?s to evaluate pectable i effects that will result from the estatlistnent of these staticas." ice staf f crci):ed guice-j imes for de.elopnent of snn ronitcring progra-s fcr ;re perational (TES, Sect. 7.1) and c: era-tional stages (FES, Sect. 7.2). Tne co r+nts provided in Sect. 7 generally apply eLally to offsnore and sncreline sites. However, with respect to radiological ~cnit rirg, wten FN?'s are sited at or ury near t*e snoreline, offsite ronitoring Ic atier.s for radiological data a:cals' tion will generally be located closer to the plants than woald te pcssible for offscore sites. i Ir. other respects, tr.ere snould be no significact difference in nrters of ser@les takea, j l freq;ercy of sanslings, or detection capabilities. l l i 2.7 EFFECTS OF 00STULATED ACCIDENTS t i l Section 8.1 of the FES, Part II, presented the radiclogical consecsences for a spe:tre of l postulated credible accidents based on realistic fission procat release assertions and trans-l port to nan via the airborne pathway. It was concluded that tN emironrental rish s due to postulated acticental releases to the atrcschere fron credtble accidents are exceedirgly srall. The nodel used in %e evaluation cf these airborne releases of radica;;ivity and the res hant consequences are considered by the staff to te acceptable to all of the prcposed types of F% p sites including shoreline and estuartne sites. l Ine staff has assessed (as given in the Lj;uid Fathway Generic 5tudy, NJEG-044") the c0rparable risis for accidental releases of radioactivity to the hydrosphere for both ater-based and lend-based nuclear poner plants. This study in conjunction with tre evaivation of cverall risk (air-j barne plus liqJid) to be presented in Fart III of the FES will discuss the censesences c' su:b t ) - - -.. - - - - - - - -. -.. - -~ -

_ - ~ , ~ - - - .~ 2-34 liquid pathway releases for a variety of proposed sites, including shoreline and estuarine sites and is therefore not described in this Addendum. l 2.8 SEhEFIT-COST COMPARISON Section,11.4 of the FES, Part II, sunmarized the impacts that would be expected to result from siting eight FNP's along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines. Deployment of any or all of these units in oceans or estuaries at offshore anc shore zone locations would result in costs and benefits that are variable and are directly related to individual site-specific characteristics. j Considerations by the staf f of the numerous factors that bear on gereric assessment of the envi-rormental impact that weuld result from manufacture of eight floating nuclear power plants for even6ual siting and operation in the U.S. coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico have led to the following major conclusions that pertain to all siting options for FNP's: 1. The eight FNP units are expected to contribute only a smell portion of the additional electric power needs within the defined region. 2. Site-related construction and operation of eight FNP units can be urdertaken in the coastal zone in a manner that satisfies reasonable criteria for minimum environmental degradation. i l 3. The economic cost of the eight FNP units is competitive with land-based stations in much of the defined coastal zone, whether at nffshore or inshore locations. 4 Siting of FNP units requires careful consideration with respect to the biological sensitivity of specific areas, with particular emphasis on avoiding or minimizing influence on estuaries, fish nurseries, and avian breeding grounds, as well as unique areas of vegetation. The site selection process for an FNP must be of such scope that unsuitable sites with regard to envirormental resilience can be readily identified and avoided. 5, In the case of estuarine siting of FNP's, dredging and disposal of dredged material related to the construction of access char.nels and the protective basin or lagcon, and maintenance of these basins, will present the potential for adverse environmental impacts unless siting is given special attention. This is particularly true in the case of disposal of large quantities of polluted material from areas dredged in and near industrial regions. The staff's previous analysis, as augmented in this Addendum, shows that sites near existing and continuously disturbed areas may be suitable as locations for floating nuclear power stations. From consideration of the environmental effects identified by this generic environmental statement (FES, Part 11, Sects. 5 and 6; Addendum, Sect. 2) and the relatively small affected area compared to the large area available for siting, the staf f infa s that acceptable sites will be available for the preposed eight FNP units in two-unit installa ions in offshore locations as well as in i carefully selected shoreline locations. Shore zone siting of FNP's will require a scrutinized site selection process to minimize impacts. It is believed that identification and mitigation of such impacts can be performed to allow for the placement of such plants in the shore zone area of ocean and estuarine waters. A final balance of the costs and benefits can be struck only after the staff has factored into its review the results of the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440) which compares accidental releases of radioactivity through licuid cathwavt fnr a snectrhis liquidr ts atpathway im of eve several types of land-based and water-bcsed plant siting environments, t study is an integral part of the staff licensing review for this application and provides the basis for Part III of this Environmental Statement. Exclusive of those conclusions, and after investigating the need for these units, analyzing the 1 investment costs, and weighing the potential impacts and corresponding economic losses, the staf f 1 concludes that the proposed action is acceptable and recommends that a manufacturing license be a issued to the appliccnt for production of eight floating nuclear power plants as concluded in Part I (NUREG-75/091, October 1975) and Part 11 (NUREG-0056, Septemtier 1976) of the Final Environmental Statement related to the proposed manufacturing activity, i 1 4 i I

i 2-35 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1. D. W. Pritchard, "What is an Estuary: Physical Viewpoint, pp. 3-5 in Esta2 ries, G. H. Lauff, Ed., AAAS Publication No. 83, Washington, D.C.,1967, 2. M. Carriker, " Ecology of Estuarine Benthic Invertebrates: A Perspective," pp. 442-487 in Estuarice, G. H. Lauff, Ed., AAAS Publication No. 83, Washington, D.C., 1967. 3. P. Korringa, " Estuarine Fisheries in Europe as Affected by Man's Multiple Activities," pp. 658-663 in Estaarics, G. H. Lauf f, Ed., AAAS Publication No, 83, Washington, D.C.,1967. 4. K. M. F. Scott, A. D. Harrison, and W. Macnae, "The Ecology of South African Estuaries. Part 11: The Klein River Estuary, Hemanus," Trano. R. 50.. Afr. 33: 283 331 (1952). 5. J. H. Day, "The Biology of Langbaan Lagoon: A Study of the Effect of Shelter from Wave 1 Action," Trans. R. Sco, s. Afr. 35: 475-547(1959). e 6. R. M. Darnell, " Organic Detritus in Relation to the Estuarine Ecosystem," pp. 376-382 in recuarics, G. H. Lauf f, Ed., AAAS Pablication No. 83 Washington, D.C.,1967. 7. W. E. Odum, " Utilization of the Direct Grazing in Plant Detritus Food Chains by the Striped Mullet tagit ecphalas," pp. 222-240 in Marine Food chains, J. H. Steele, Ed., University of California Press, Berkeley,1970. 8. W. E. Odun and E. J. Heald, "The Detritus-Based Food Web of an Estuarine Mangrove Conununity," pp. 265-286 in Ectuarine Peccarch: Proceedings of the Seacrd International retuarine Ecquired "onference, L. Eugene Cronin Ed., Academic Press, New York, October 1973. 9. J. L. McHugh, " Management of Estuarine Fisheries," pp. 133-154 in A Symrcsium on Estaarine Fiskeries, American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 3, Washington, D.C.,1966. 10. J. L. Hobbie, 8. S. Copeland, and W. G. Harrison, " Sources and Fates of Nutrients of the Pamlico River Estuary, North Carolina," pp. 287-302 in Estuarir.c Ecccarch, vol.1. L. E. Cronin, Ed.. Academic Press, New York, 1975. 11. L. R. Pomeroy, E. P. Odum, R. E. Johannes, and B. Roffman, " Flux of 32P and 552n Through a Sait-Marsh Ecosystem," pp. 177-183 in Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into Scao, Coeane, asi Sarfue Watcre, International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 1966. i 12 C. P. McRoy and R. J. Barsdate, " Phosphate Adsorption in Eelgrass," L1' nv. Oceanoyr. 15: 6-13 (1970). a 13. C. P. McPoy, R. J. Barsdate, and M. Nebert, " Phosphorous Cycling in an Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) Ecosystem " LimnoZ. Oceanogr. 17: 58-67 (1972) 14 R. J. Reinmold "The Movement of Phosphorous Through the Salt Marsh Cord Grass Spartina aZecrniflora Loisel," Lie.ol. Oceanogr. 17: 606-611 (1972). 15 H. T. Odum and B. J. Copeland, "A Functional Classification of the Coastal Systems of the United States," pp. 5-84 in coastal roosystems of the United States, vol. 1. H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahan, Eds., Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.,1974 1 16. H. L. Sanders, " Benthic Studies in Buzzards Bay. I: Animal Sediment Relationships," Lim:al. Oceanogr. 3: 245-258 (1958). 17. J. C. Ayers, " Population Dynamics of the Marine Clam @a arenaria," Linno2. Oceanogr. 4(4): 448-462 (1950). 18. T. J. Smayda, "A Survey of Phytoplankton Dynamics in the Coastal Waters from Cape Hatteras -) to Nantucket," pp. 3-1-3-100 in coastaI and Offshore Environmenta2 Inventory, Cape !iatterae to Nantucket Ehoals, S. B. Saila, Ed., Marine Publication Series No. 2. University of Rhode Island Press, Kingston, 1973. l 19. H. L. Sanders, " Oceanography of Long Island Sound. X: The Biology of Marine Bottom Communities " SwIt. Bingham Oceanogr. Co!!.15: 345-415 (1956). 20. A. P. Stickney and L. Stringer, "A Study of the Invertebrate Bottom Fauna of Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island," Esotogy 38(1): 111-122 (1957). I i 21. J. K. McNulty, R. C. Work, and H. B. Moore " Level Sea Bottom Communities in Biscayne Bay I and Neighboring Areas." sa22. Mar. Sci. CaZf carib.12(2): 204-233 (1962). l

1 4 1 1 2-16 ra : ' c 22. C. E. Brett, u b: 4: n.u s 's:rk ~:c::n m ee

• ei An-at

.c::,.Y. c., Fn. D. Tresis, University cf trtn Carolina, (g e.n c mS u ' > _ 1 s ee 1 Chapel Mill, 1963. 4 23. L. E. Cronin and A. J. Mansueti, "The Eioicgy cf the Estuary," or 14-39 in

i. :

> >< r:v.. %'-;. 'c - Frr<a e, F. A. Ocuglas and F. H. Strca:, Eds., Srcet i Fishing Insti tute,1971. 24 E. J. (sen21a, ?angrove Swa n Systerra." p. 346-371 in 2 m*~. 14 a. c. c _:2: c, vol. 1, H. T. Cd.r. E. J. Copeland, and E A. M?ahan Eds., Com.ervation Fcec3-tico, nasnington, D.C., 1974 25. U.5. Departnent of the Intericr. " Endangered anc breatened Species, Plants,' ~ ca. 41: 117 (1976). 26. C. A. Willingham, L. W. Cornaty, and ? G. Engstren. A _ n ~ :< 7 - -- ~ I i ..r. c :. -

. l \\iL in Q::x :- >20 ~'

b. i a,

~ > Battelle Colu m s Lateratories, Colu t s, Onio, 1975. 1 27. D. S. ;anwell, .s

12.

• R e c. e ma - we, Cra:can and Hall, Lcndon, IP2.

r 2! J. A. Jagschitz and R. 5. Sell, h r N : N A:rcu .n 1. cW : rc .2 wJ E211etin 3!3, Agricultural Enerinent Stction, University of Mc4e Island, ringster., [ June 1966. i 29. E. C. Seneca, 5. W. Ercre, A W. Wocanoase, and i. M. Cannen, " Establishing ' ? im :

• i -: Marsn in Mrth Carolina," pp. 165-185 in

e:m 4

a.c

- >., vel :.

1976. ( 30 i. d. Ar t, m:27h ic..::c in s - >im.

• :.~; ~

- T n. e, k.' inesis, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1971. 31. r J. Gc4f rey, "Cce arative Ecology of East Ccast Barriec Islarcs: bdrology, Scil, Veget ai'.r,"

p. 5-34 in E:rr e 2 ?.x t

a, J. Clark, Ed., Conse rvat i on For t3 tir, i i Washingtan, D.C., 1976. I Ju ::..:.. 2>. W/ .?. c :-. 32.

n. M. Stevenson, ' Avifauna, in _* a

... :, e, R. J. Livingsten, Ed., hard of C:missivers, Frar.ilic Ccety, t ..n:-: ficrida, un ablisned re;crt. l i l 33.

x. L. Windy and E ; Stic6ney, w c~~

a-J ', s w .w n 2~, ya g, v :crt ac.7 p m, e ~ '., prepared 0y 5kidecy Institute of Oceanography ' r tce U.E. Am Ccrps cf Er;ineers, :D A. Pc ras and M. Feiras, ' Terrestrial Study,' in ^ a;w - - - 34. V. a ~ -rs: ::: e !: s h: x.. ~ :r c: :2 .' el - 'v, L s e N.,,, ? - l% v 2 th ? *.'.

2.

• 7,w*. ';-:

prepared ty kntnyclogical Associates,'"Inc., for Oblic Service Electri-

c

<V.- r and was me, ,,.A.. i i M

5. M. Adrs. "Tre E colo';r c' Ee h;ra ss,

n.., -d t; (L. ), Fi sh C rrs,i ties.

• Stru i

2 Analysis,", e

^ 22: 2 M-291 fl97f).

36. H. T. Ce, Fredscti, ty "canremerts in Teos Grass and "e E ffects cf DredciM on I r.

• r b ceastal Pannel,'

Im. T-7c. 9: 4d-58 (1963). 1 i 37. E. J. f. W:od 5re Ea st At.s trali aa Sea 2ra ss Cymnities," _ + ~ - ;J. ; 54(2): 213-226 (liS9 ~ 4 1 35. N. 84rshall and f. LJ as, "Frelimirary Ctser<atims M ine Prope rties o' to"c, Se.d%nts N rich - - 60: "A-I l ) Witr and Witncut Eelgrass, :nn rm, Co,er, (197J}. i I ( 39. c T 3 rig;s and ;

5. CeContor, " Ccn a ri s c>n of 5 cre 2 pr.e r i s te s o ve r *,a t a ra l l y '. e :e t a te d i

and Sand-Filled httrs in Great Scath Ea,,,' 56 lS(li: 15-41, i i i 43 6. W. Tha,er and H. H. staart, The Bay Stallo: } w kes its Eed of Seagrass," a i

m., w e.

~ 9. - 35: 27-33 (1974). l 41. F. L. Ferpson an: 5. W. Ada s, E: L:-. n.7

hic r:y >

'a-f ' ^ :- . w, W.: ^m c c w. l-h ..x. . : c t me, , rc ; ' 'r' r <?; in cress. i Q q

~ -.. 2-37 42. L. B. Slobodkin, " Ecological Energy Relationships at the Population Level," A. 10 94: 213-236 (1960). 43. K. H. Mann, " Energy Transformations by a Population of Fish in the River Thames,". Anir. sol. 34: 253-275 (1965). 44 J. Corliss and L. Trent, " Comparisons of Phytoplankton Production Between Natural and Altered Areas in West Bay, Texas," Fish. luZZ 69(4): 829-832 (1971). 45. F. J. C1af fey, The Pruhaticity of Oklakm vaters ein ~ pena Feferen x to. w ~ neige between Turbiaitica from coil ::ight renetratien and % u;a: + cn of P:a + ten, Ph.D. Thesis, Oklahoma A&M College, 1955. 46. B. J. Copeland, " Evidence for Regulation of Community Metabolism in a Marine Ecosystem," laatojp 46(4): 563-564 (1963). 47. R. Thomas, "The Distribution of Sediments of Lake Ontario," cm, a r2rci. r 9: 636 (1972). 48. S. E. Lindberg and R. C. Harriss, " Mercury-Organic Matter Associations in Estuarine Sediments and Their Interstitial Water," En9 iron. cei. Tc 4 col. 8: 459 (1974;. t 49. J. P. Vernet and R. Thomas, "The Occurrence and Destribution of Mercury in Sediments of Detil-Lac.." n :ogae d !!e l e. 65; 307 (1972).

50. Water Gaa? ity criteria, Report of the National Academy of Engineering on Water Quality Criteria, 1972.

51. S. E. Lindberg, A. W. Andren, and R. C. Harriss, " Geochemistry of Mercury in the Estuarine Environment," pp. 64-107 in retaarne Ecscarch, vol.1. L. E. Cronin, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1975. 52. S. Lindberg and R. C. Harriss, " Release of Dissolved Mercury and Organic Matter from Resuspended Nearshore Sediments," J. Water Tbtlat, contral Fca. 49: 2479-S8 (1977). 53. H. L. Windom, " Heavy Metal Fluxes Through Salt-Marsh Estuaries," pp. 137-152 in ia:aaria nucarch, vol.1 L. E. Cronin, Ed., Academic Press, New York,1975. 54. R. B. Williams and M. Murdock, "The Potential Importance of Fpurtina alternifim in Conveying Zinc, Manganese, and Iron into Estuarine Food Chains," pp. 431-439 Pawefing of the Second Nat;iena.' Sym;weten on Radioccology, 1969. 55. H. L. Windom. " Mercury Distribution in the Estuarine-Nearshore Environment,"., su cre., !!arkra, coasta: Eng. Dir., Am Soc. Civil En,1. 99: 257-264 (1973). 56. S. E. Lindberg and R. C. Harriss, " Mercury Enrichment in Estuarine Plant Detritus," uw. Fol?ation au M. 5: 93-95 (1974). t 57. G. A. Knauer and J. Martin, " Mercury in a Marine Pelagic Food Chain," Linno! Da omgr 17: 860-876 (1972). l. W. Hom, R. W. Risebrough, A. Soutar, and D. R. Young, " Deposition of DDE and PCB in Dated 58. ( Sediments of the Santa Barbara Basin " Science 184: 1197-1199 (1974). 59. D. E. Ferguson, " Characteristics and Significance of Resistance to Insecticides in Fishes," pp. 531-536 in Rescr?oir Fishery Sy"rfiosian, Southern Division American Fishery Society, Washington, D.C.,1967. 60. P. A. Butler, "The Problem of Pesticides in Estuaries," pp. 110-115 in A cy73e&c: en l Estaarine richeries, American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 3, Washington, D. C., 1966. 61. E. S. Albone, G. Eglinton, N.. Evans, J. Hunter,. and M. Rhead, " Fate of DDT in Seven Estuary Sediments " Environ. sei. Tech. 6(10): 914-919 (1972). E2. J. G. Gosselink, E. P. Odum, and R. M. Pope, The Valar of cha "'idal Mweh, Work Paper No. 3, Urban and Regional Development Center, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, 1974. 63. J. H. kyther, "The Ecology of Phytoplankton Blooms in Moriches Bay and Great South Bay, Long Is~iand, New York," Bic!. 3272. 106: 198-209 (1954).

2-38 64. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, acre Ircte ' Hen N:ta!, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Washington, D.C., 1973. 65.

1. J. Hindawi, L. C. Raniere, and J. A. Rea, En b p a Effcerc of Arcec; !"ift From a s stem, Report EPA-600/3-76-078, Corvallis Environmental Research c ;teau r cc. m a

c Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon,1976. 66. M. E. Gillham, " Coastal Vegetation of Mull and Jona in Relation to Salinity and Soil Reaction," < D: 45: 757-778 (1957). 67. R. E. Williams, W. B. Jackson, and W. A. Peterman, a maa: ?<;ert,. Bird..aaara le-!;cccc c/ e, u.a2rj & e, Bowling Green State University, i&: t;ri> ; m >:f raa t, t Bowling Green, Ohio. .a ar.u . " Limu !. Cacangr. 68. C. Ayers, " Population Dynamics of the Marine Clam, 4(4): 448-462 (1956). i 69. J. L. McHugh, " Management of Estuarine Fisheries," pp. 133-154 in A sy rceim c>. recua"% riencria, American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 3. Washington, D.C.,1966. 70. L. E. Cronin, D. W. Pritchard, T. S. Y. Koo, and U. Letrich, "Ef fects of Enlargement of the ChesaDeake and Delaware Canal," pp. 18-32, in Estuac h Pruceses, Martin Wiley, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1976. 71. EG&G,. cec.uctu we f ant rff,.9 cn *he coac o T a u, EGf.G Final Report Number B-4441, s C00-2394-1, 1976. 72. E. E. Adams and K. D. Stoirenbach, " Comparison of Alternative Diffuser Designs for the Discharge of Heated Water into Shallow Receiving Water," p. 2C-171, in !rcecciinyc cf ti.e q tf. c< v a. A A L xar f n yc ,.>r ani stin.. ti.n, S. S. Lee and S. Sengupta, Eds., University of Miami, Coral Gables. Fla., May 1977. 73. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, fina: a irmer.t a; m a t c% n t ! Ne1. _ w,.:, Doc ke t Nos. 50-44 3 and 50-444,1974. + - o cf V1:ce ax < s e :;.cteme,"cv i:Acar Encrp Centere, 14 Peter H. Meier, ( :hi Report BNL 50563, Brucknaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 1976. 75. R. O. Webb, G. O. Schrecker, and D. A. Guild, "Drif t from the Chalk Point Natural Draf t Brackish Water Cooling Tower: Source Definition, Downwind Measurements. Transport Modeling," p. 8A-25 in Jrc sj.. -f the 2nfermn on va N !!aat Mwage ent nd . -.... a, S. 5, Lee and S. Sengupta, Eds., University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla., May 1977. 76. [SC, aw T. nt in T' vr ir ge n, vuir x entu: :nte :.7: ration 's co Trehene w Trw : t cir.a :.o v : v: f:r ecoud w a ce 1, :nt -;me K,1 W, Rcport PPSP-CPCTP-12, Maryland Power Pl ant Siting Program,1977.

77. George J. Wof finden, Paul R. Harrison, and Jerry A. Anderson, Ch:.. Toint Celin. b. x v 2rJ.4

? g av JM Cw 9, Report PPSP-CPCIP-15, Meteorology Research, Inc.,

19/6. 78. S. M. Laskowski and K. Woodard, " Comparison of Environmental Effects Due to Operation of Brackish and/or Salt Water Natural-and Mechanical-Draf t Cooling Towers," p. 25-41 in Tr a edin,c of t he cc :ferenx on Wu u !iu t !:anapen t w. i :. ' iz u w, S. S. L ee and S. Sengupta, Eds., University of Miami Coral Gables, Fla., May 1977. .....i

.m i 3. PROTECTION AGAINST SAB0TAGE j l As part of its review of floating nuclear plants the staff has compared the potential for sabo-1 tage and, in particular, for radiological sabotage at an FNP and at a land-based nuclear power 1 plant (LBP). Radiological sabotage is defined in 10 CFR Part 73.2 to mean any deliberate act directed against a plant which could directly or indirectly endanger the public health and safety by exposure to radiation other than such acts by an enemy of the United States whether foreign government or other person. The criteria for an adequate physical protection system have been defined by the Conunission in Ic CFR Part 73.55 and have been used by the staff as the basis for regulations needed to reduce d < risk of potential sabotage at both an LBP and an FNP to an acceptable level. It should t a noted that the requirements set forth in Part 73.55 are applicable to all types of re vtor designs and sites including those postulated for an FNP. Under the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 73.55 the owner / operator of an FNP as with a LBP shall be required to maintain an onsite physical protection system and security organization i which will provide high assurance against successful radiological sabotage either (1) after intrusion of the plant by a determined violent external assault, attack by stealth, or deceptive l actions, or (2) by an insider, including an employee in any position. This level of protection must be developed through a program that is adequate in the following areas: (1) physical security organization, (2) physical barriers, (3) access control, (4) detection aids, (5) communications, and (6) response force. The degree to which each of these components must be implemented will be a function the specific plant layout and site (i.e., FNP or LBP). Inasmuch as the security program required by 10 CFR Part 73.55 is considered by the Cocunission to be adequate for all potential acts of radiological sabotage at any nuclear power plant, the implementation of such a program, with regard for unique characteristics of each plant, will suffice at land-based or at offshore, nearshore, and inshore FNP sites. Consequently, the i criteria in this regulation will be used as points of reference in this comparison to identify 1 any unique or possible vulnerable characteristics of an FNP or its site that would require modifi-cation to meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 73.55 with regard to the protection of vital plant equipment. 4 3.1 PHYSICAL BARRIERS Vital equipment is defined in 10 CFR Part 73.2 as "any equipment, system, devices, or material, i l the failure, destruction, or release of which could directly or indirectly endanger the public l I heilth and safety to exposure by radiation. Equipment or systems which would be required to j function to protect public health and safety following such failure, destruction, or release are also considered to be vital." Protection of vital equipment, in part, consists of defeating potential saboteurs through a 7 defense-in-depth concept. To thwart adversaries from the outside, this concept requires the j installation of vital equipment within a " vital area" that is located within a " protected area" so that vital equipment is protected by two physical barriers with associated surveillance and alarm systems. t 3.1.1 Protected area The control of access to a nuclear power plant starts at the boundary of a protected area as defined t'y a barrier that is adequate both to deter casual trespassers and to provide an obstacle to determined intruders such that detection and the initiation of responsive action by the i licensee's security force can be taken. This barrier should not be readily defeated; consequently. methods of construction will vary depending on whether the obstruction spans solid ground, marshes, or water. l Typically at an LBP, this barrier would consist of a fence. An FNP located offshore or near the j shore would most probably be surrounced by a breakwater that in itself would act as an impediment j to potential intruders. Additional appropriate structures could be located on or below the breakwater 50 as to prevent unauthorized entry into the protected area by surface or underwater means while still providing for normal ship traffic to and from the FNP. Systems normally used 3-1

m__ 3-2 for illumination, surveellance, and detection at LBP sites would be eaually ef fective at an FNP site where the stretch of open water (i.e., between the breakwater and the FNP platform) is less than about 91 m wide. The space between the perimeter barrier and the inner barrier to vital areas, that is, the pro-tected area, is considered a vulnerable zone because a successful intruder of the perimeter barrier could use this area to elude a response force prior to reaching the vital area barrier. Consequently, this area must be illuminated to the extent that it can be easily inspected. At an LOP the protected area may vary in width from a minimum of 20 yd to several hundred yards and contain various types of structures that might limit visibility. Consequently, this area must be i illuminated to the extent that it can be easily inspected. Most likely all FNP sites, whether l nearshore or offshore, will have water surrounding the FNP on all sides although there may be components of the mooring system that span a section of the water body. In general, the pro-tected area at an FNP site, that is, the distante between the perimeter and vital barrier, is a relatively open area and is fixed by the distance between the breakwater and the floating plat-form itself. As such, Illumination and/or electronic surveillance methods could be standarized to a greater extent than at an LEP. 3 j The area outside the perimeter of the protected area may te owned or otherwise controlled by the owner of the plant to varying distances. In the case of an LBP, except for a cleared zone adjacent to the perimeter barrier these environs are protected only to the extent of providing patrols or other theans of surveillance to rrinimize unauthorized activities in the vicinity of the plant. The topography of the environs is the principal factor used to determine the need or frequency of this type of surveillance. When an FNP is sited offshore or 50 far from shore that access by road is not possible, the " owner-controlled area" will be a marine environment where j boats would provide the normal method of movement. An FNP located in such areas would tend to provide a natural " hostile" environment that could tend to impede the actions of a potential 3 intruder. In addition, because of the remoteness and planar topography of the FNP site, survell-lance of such area would be simplified in comparison to a LBP site. It should be noted that, if l the environs of the breakwater become att' active for fishing, the type or level of surveillance may have to be modified to ensure adequate protection tf station related equipment. 1 3.1.2 Vital area 1 The second barrier type of defence for vital equipment is the physical barrier of the vital area itself. For an LEP this barrier is ust. ally a fence, a building, or a compartment within a build-ing where all entrances are locked and alarmed and access is positively controlled. An FNP has ) an advantage oser that of the LSP in that essentially all vital components of the nuclear steam j supply system, electrical generating componentc. and especially, the engineered safety design systems are compartmentalized within a single structure that has only two accessiole entrances, 4 j This design provides increased defense against radiological releases from both accidental hazards ] and delibert'e damage to vital equipment and utilizes both the exterior of the FNP as well as interior compartments as vital area barriers. 4 1 4 3.2 ACCESS CONTPOL An additional major criterion for nreventing sabotage at a nuclear power plant is the control and/or restriction of entry of personnel and materials into the protected and vital areas. Regardless of whether the plant is located on land or at sea, this control 4s effected by the use } of controlled entry points, loded portals, and u;e of security personnel. 3.2.1 Protected area l At an LLP. normal access to the site is through a personnel and vehicle control station or stations at or near the protective barrier. Surveillance of this barrier would also be conducted j by plant security forces to ensure its integrity. At offshcre FhP's the initial access control 7 station would most probably be at the shore support station where pers(nnel and material are j loaded on boats or helicopters for transport to the FNP. If this option is selected, the journey nf the boat or helicopter must also be controlled to avoid violating the protection established at the embarcation point. Traffic between shore and INP site is not expected to be heavy, and thus the licensee nuy alternatively wish to control entry at the breakwater porte and the ] helicopter pad. For the case of an TND located at an inshore or neershore site, access control point wnuld closely resemble that of the LEP. In either case, control of peo;)le and l naterial into the protected areas of an TNP site can be readily established. Furthermore, the j INP site characteristics themselves would tend to restrict access to the protected area. 1 I

_ _. ~ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - __- 33 l 3.2.2 [ ital area The limited number of portals into the hull of an FNP greatly facilitates access control into vital plant areas as compared to that of a LBP. It is recognized that at an of f shore FNP, oper. ating personnel would probably be stationed on board for an extended period of time. Thus i l adequate consideration must be given to controlling the movement of personnel who are working and 1 living on the FNP. The extent and scope of programs for protection against an " insider" at an FNP thus might be different from that for a LBP. However, one shoJld not infer from the differ-ences in such programs that there would necessarily be a difference in potential from sabotage by i an " insider" at an FNP vs that for an LBP. 3.3 DETECTION AIDS Entry into the protected and vital areas of a nuclear power plant whether an LLP or FNP would be nonitored by security and operational personnel as well as by instrumentation that employs both audible and visible annunciation. Much of the commercial equipment available for monitoring exterior barriers at LBP's would also be applicable to an FNP. In addition, an FNP may require special detection systems to monitor underwater activities. These systems would be state-of-the-art design and could be purchased commercially or made available to an owner of an FNP through the government. Monitors, alarms, locks, and access control systems that are presently used at LBP's for interior control would also be readily applicable for use on or within the FNP hull. I j 3.4 COMMUNICAT20NS In addition to the connunication systems normally established for the operation of a nuclear plant, an effective security plan requires specialized capabilities. These include two separate, nearly redundant alarm or control stations that are continually nanned to link plant security forces with offsite enforcement agencies. For offsite communication reliability the use of both wire and wireless systems at nuclear power plant sites is recommended. Such redundant offsite communication systems could be installed for both the offshore and nearshore FNP siting options. In the case of the of f shore site, the wired system would most probably be integrated with the underwater / underground transmission line system while the nearshore siting option could incor-porate a design similar to that of a typical LBP. Communication systems for onsite use at an 1 LBP or FNP facility could be identical. I 3.5 RESPONSE FORCE Security personnel at a nuclear power plant are employed for surveillance and access control 8 during plant operation. All armed guards, in conjunction with available law enforcement agencies, constitute the plant's response force. The size of the security force at an LBP or an FNP is determined by the extent to which tne reaminder of the security plan needs to be supplemented to ] meet the " General Performance Criteria" of 10 CFR Part 73.55. Because of some of the unique i features of an FNP (i.e., relative isolation and crew residency), a security force at an FNP may have different responsibilities than one at an LBP. Generally, the integration of land-based law enforcement agencies to reinforce the security force at an FNP will probably become more dif-ficult as the FNP is sited farther from shore. It is anticipated that an FNP owner / operator would make the necessary arrangements with appropriate shore-based enforcement agencies and/or the U.S. Coast Guard such that the specific FNP security plan would meet Commission requirements. 1 3.6 EVALUATION OF SABOTAGE POTENTIAL The criteria for an adequate protection system have been defined by the Commission in 10 CFR Part 73.55 and have been used as the basis for comparing and evaluating measures that might be imple-mented at an LBP or an FNP to reduce the risk of potential sabotage to an acceptable level. Ulth respect to shoreline siting of FNP's, the staf f generally believes that the components of a physical security program, especially those that protect against " outsiders," at on LBP and FNP will increase in similarity in proportion to the nearness of the FNP site to land. For offshore FNP's several unique characteristics (i.e., the use of onshore support facilities, the need for a boat or helicopter for transportation, the existence of open water in the protected area perimeter and within the protected area itself, and the control of people who live and work on the FNP) may require implementation of a security plan that could dif fer f rom that developed for an LBP. Although it is dif ficult to prejudge the relative advantages or disadvantages of a generalized FNP or LBP site in terms of sabotage potential, it appears that unique FNP characteristics such es remoteness of site and relative hostile en,ironment, restricted transportation modes, limited access portals, and compartmentalization of vital equipment would be beneficial to the control of i personnel to a degree not available at an LBP and would tend to reduce the potential for sabotage. 'v0 staff believes that the FNP, when sited at shore tone and offshore locations, will meet the .teria of 10 CFR Part 73.55 and thus will provide adequate protection against potential acts of

subotage,

,~~ - - _ - - i 4. ALTERNATIVES In its comments on Part II of the FES, the Council on Environmental Quality (Appendix A) expressed the view that insufficient consideration had been given to such alternatives as increased coal 3 utilization, solar heating and cooling, biomass conversion, wind energy, and other sources which are likely to be available within the period when FNP's will be licensed and operating. The Council also expressed the view that the Els ".. virtually ignores energy conservation [as an alternative to the manufacture of floating nuclear plants] and the relationship of conservation to electricity demand and the needs for the facility." The Commission, in correspondence (letter from B. C. Rusche to J. A. Busterud, Feo. 17, 1977; Appendix B) referring to interagency discussions of the Council's concerns (Appendix C), noted that the position of the NRC is that " the discussion of these alternative energy sources given in the f[5 is consistent with the manner and extent in which the subject is presented in all of our environmental statements for nuclear power plant construction and operation." The Commission nonetheless committed itself to the further discussion of the alternatives that CEQ suggested were not adequately treated previously. Accordingly, consideration of these alterna-tives is expanded in this section. The staff concurs with the viewpoint that current efforts to develop new sources or innovative methods for obtaining large amounts of energy in the future may be fruitful by the time several l FNP's are designated for use at specific power stations. As a matter of national policy, a major increase in reliance on coal may also occur during this time frame. In fact, technological developments in the future might effect w'idespread use of solar heating and cooling, energy from biomass conversion, and wind energy, as well as other sources not currently regarded as having i great potential for being employed during this century. Section 2.2 of the FES, Part II, concluded that the eight FNP's proposed for construction could supply 2.5 to 3.41 o' the new capacity required to satisfy peak-load growth in the 300-mile-wide coastal zone in the ten-year period 1983 to 1993. Widespread adoption of one or more of the alternatives cited above would possibly reduce the fraction of demand filled by nuclear-or fossil-fueled generation of electricity. The staff, nowever, cannot find any technical justifi-cation for the inference that any one or more of such possible means for supplying large amounts a i of electricity will be so viable an alternative in that period as to warrant denial of the manu-f acturing license for eight floating nuclear power plants. t i Naclear generating capacity by 1987 is expected to be about 178,000 MWe and 225,000 MWe by 1990.8 Because oil-fired and natural gas generating capacity in 1975 were only about 76,000 MWe and 1 73,000 MWe, respectively, and because both are expected to decrease' under federal guidelines, j nuclear enprgy will displace both fuels as the second most-used energy source for production of electricity. Based on current electrical industry plans and extrapolation of trends, the nation's electrical generating capacity may be almost 25% nuclear by 1990.' Alternatives to the commit-ments that have been made in accord with these projections are unlikely to be adopted unless (l) economic factors affecting the decisions are altered significantly, (2) Federal constraints force 4 J the projections to become erroneous, or (3) sharp change 5 in the availability of fossil fuels are effected in either domestic or foreign supply. Section 10 of the FES, Part II, considered alternative methods of furnishing electricity equiva-lent to tnat which could be provided by eight floating nuclear power plants. The evaluation i compared capital costs of FNP's and land-based nuclear stations, existing and potential alterna-tive energy sources, the relative impact of floating nuclear power plants and land-based plants i on the environment, station design alternatives, and alternatives to normal transportation pro- ] cedures for nuclear fuels. In the FES, Part I, Sect. 8, consideration was given to alternative i uses of the Blount Island manufacturing facility, abandonment of the Blount Island facility with i no startup of manufacturing operations, discontinuance of the use of the manufacturing facility, e I and alternative manufacture and assembly operations. The primary function of floating nuclear power plants is to provide otherwise nonexistent alter-native siting options for nuclear power stations. Because the role of the floating nuclear power plants is envisioned as providing a broader option of siting potential than would exist if they j were not available, the only equivalent alternative to the manufacture of eight FNP's is the l production (construction) of nucle'.:r-or fossil-fueled power plants capable of providing an 4-1

,. ~~ ~. - - _ ~ - ~. 4-2 equivalent amount of electricity at land-based sites. The alternative does exist, however, of not producing the foreseeably needed electrical generating facilities. It is noteworthy to restate that the proposed action to license the manufacture of ficating nuclear power plants doe; not include approval for any specific sites, either at of fshore or at shoreline locations, and that for each proposed specific FNP site an entirely new environmental impact statement will be developed, which will include a discussion of relevant options, including selection of alternate sites. The staff has considered alternative energy sources that would be capable of providing electrical energy equivalent to that available from the eight floating nuclear power plants that are the subject of this licensing action, although such alternatives, except for discontinuance of the f proposed action, are not alternatives that might be adopted by the applicant. The applicant's manufacturing facility was not designed for manufacture of any alternative energy-producing products other than floating nuclear power plants. l 4.1 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRlhG NEW GENERATlhG CAPACITY I If floating nuclear power plants were not available for use in the perioo from 1985 to 1995, only land-based nuclear or coal-fired power plants could be expected to produce the amounts of 2 base-load power equivalent to the capacity of the eight FNP's. No other types of large power-generating units are likely, in the staff's judgment, to be available during the period when the applicant's schedule projects that FNP's would be available. These alternatives were discussed in the FES, Part II, Sect.10.1.3, including assessment of the use of coal and solar energy rather than nuclear power in the future. In the interim since the Commission published Part II of the FES, the staff has updated its j assessments of the rotential application of these power sources and the possible effectiveness i of conservation of power usage to supplant the need for the energy that could be produced by i j eight FNP's. In the following paragraphs, these assessments are recapitulated with consideration j given to current projections of the potential application of these technologies. ) i 4.1.1 Increased coal utilization _ 1 The National Energy Plan 3 has established national goals for energy use which include the substitution of abundant energy sources for those in short supply - that is, coal for natural l gas and oil. At present coal comprises some 90% of all U.S fossil fuel reserves while providing i only 18t of the domestic energy requirements. Oil and natural gas supply some 75% of the national energy needs yet represent only 8; of U.S. fossil fuel reserves. If the Plan is implemented, coal production in the United States could increase by two-thirds in 1985 to more i than 1 billion tons per year. With respect to electrical generation the Plan provides the { following perspective: 1 l Table 41. Projected demand (mdhons of barrels of oil equwalerit per day) Satm 1970 1985 mthout plan 1985 mih pic Oil 16 20 1.3 ) Naturai gas 15 09 03 Coal (9 82 83 f i Nucim 10 36 38 l 0+e < 15 16 1.6 Tots to 5 16.3 15 5 i As shown, with the Plan implemented, both oil and natural gas usage in 1985 would decrease some 191 and 661, respectively, over the 1976 levels while coal consumption for electrical generation i would increase sune 707, it is important to note that at the same time that the Plan calls for increased use of cual, the use of nuclear energy to provide electricity would also increase some 28%. Furthermore, the level of coal and nuclear energy use in 1935 would have increased indepen-i dent of the implementation of the Plan. With respect to the potential economic impact of coal conversion, the Plan indicates that some i additional $45 billion in capital investment would be necessary together with an additional 14 billion for coal mining. Implementation of conservation goals of the Plan could redace new capacity requirements for electric utilitics by as much as 040 billion, thus reducing the net additional investment.

4-3 It appears therefore that full implementation of the Plan, which would include conservation and substitution of coal and nuclear power for electrical generation, could result in less dependence upon oil and natural gas for electricity in 1985. Air pollution has become a matter of major concern, and the availability and cost of low-sulfur coal are of prime importance to the electric utility industries. The bulk of the coai currently consumed by electric utilities is bituminous, but nearly 70s of the total reserves of all types of coal is located west of the Mississippi River. ' According to the Bureau of Mines, 4fn (720.060 million tons) of the nation's total known coal reserves under less than 3000 f t of cover contain 0.7% sulfur or less, and 934 of this low-sulfur-content coal is located in the states west of the Mississippi River.* The subbituminous deposits of the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming are likely to be the largest future source of western coal for the electric utility market. The Powder River Basin contains the largest deposits of strippable reserves, and mining costs in the basin are currently the lowest in the country.9 The heating value of the subbitu-minous coal in the basin ranges from 7800 to 9800 Btu /lb, and the sulfur content varies from 0.2 to 1.0; by weight. " Recent and detailed assessments of the health ef fects of the coal fuel cycle, performed by the Brookhaven and Argonne National Laboratoriesibh show that as an energy source, nuclear eneray is at least as safe as coal. The staff has also evaluated the uranium and coal cycles and con-curs with the finding of these two laboratories (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). i7 Table 4.2. Summary of current energy source encess morbidety and mjury per o 8 CWy(e) power plant Occupatonal Gew al pubhc i f uM cycle "O t al s Mor bid,ty injur y Morb d ty injury Nuclem (U s Populaban Au nuclear o 84 12" o 7& ol 14 d W.th lo0% at mectnoty 1.7-41' 13 14 1.3-53' 0 558 17 24 6 med by the fuel cvcie pusts< ed by coal power Coal itemonal populataod ?o-7tf 17-34' 10-1uo' lod 67-210 1 Rabo of coal to nur tem trangeh 4.1 - 10 (all nuclear ) 3 4 -8 8 Iwrth coal power V

• Pome dv noniatal cancers and thye md nodales b Poma dy noMaf al marms anoaated with accidents m uramum mmes, such a, rnc k fans or nplosion.

" Ir art dr ey notif ataf canceFs. thyf Oid riOdales Qmetscaby r elatmi dinf aws, ard i e nonf atal ihnmas such as rad ation thyroid ta, tw odrornal vonut.ng. and tempo.m y stet Stv - fohawag bgh radiation d(nes.

1. T,mwommonmat d oitunn hom Table S-4.10 CF H Pvt 51

'P.. mar % nontatar c sca>es auociated with coal eteing such as CWP, tir onth.tu and emphoema

1. Pnm.e c, r es p+ rame, d:seases anumg adults and thJde en caowff by sui t w emwons hom coal f. red power plants and waste cnal bank f aes Dr iff iar 'ly no6I3t al ertprbes gmurv{g meml)ers of the (general gx M W t gtn tol,,5,Ot4 w+th coai traits at taaf nad crowry..

"C.nal et fects ave beed on a seqonal gxstuapon of 3 8 m than people withm 60 6 m of the todi piant 'Pomani, mur es to com mmers from cave ms, heeh uplosinm, etc 'W.th 1004 of el electnotv cesunw by the nuciem tos cyc+ omo.ic d by taal mwe' amou% to os MWe per o B GWvte). Increased use of coal will accelerate, it is believed, the so-called " greenhouse ef fect, a phenomenon expected to occur sometime early in the next century as a result of the present and future anticipated production rates of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because each 1000-MWe coal plant produces about 6.8 to 9.5 million metric tons (7.5 to 10.5 rillion short tons) of carbon dioxide per year, ' these missions from hundreds of fossil-fueled power plants mey result in greater releases of carbon dioxide than the atmosphere and oceans can cycle. As a result, tne canon dioxide concentrations would be expected to increase in the atmosphere. Eecause carton dioxide strongly absorbs radiation in the inf rared spectrum, it is postulated that the mean atmospheric temperature will rise several degrees, resulting in the onset of najor clim.stological chames and other ef fects.

-n ~ l i 4-4 i Table 43 Summary of cuerent energy sourca excess mortahty per year per o 8 GWyte) I Occupational Genera' pubbe F ue! cvete Tofaf I Accu 1ent Orsease Accdent D sease Nuclear IV.S. populaten) All nuclear o.22* o.14" o 05' o 06* o di With 100% o etectocity o 24-o 25' # o.14-046 ' o tod o 64 -4 6 1.i-54. 8 r used m ttw fuel cycte swoduced tu coal power i Coaf (reg.onal popuistion) 0 35-o t:5 o-7* 12 13-1108 15-120 Ratio of coa' to nuclear irangd 32-260 (all nucWad 5 14-22 (With Coal pD*ed

• Pnmardy fate nonrad.ologscal accioents, such as f alls or esposions
• Pr mardy fatal rad.ogeme cancers are teukemias from no, mat overatom at meres mdis, power f

plants and repeacessing sdants. o ' Pomas dy fatal transportation accidents (Table S-4 Io CFR Part bli and serious nuclear acodets

1. PrimarJy fatal merung accioents, such as cave ms, fires, and espdos ons

'Pomedy coef workers sceumoconmis (CWP) and related respratory diseases had ng to resperatory f cture 'Premar<ay members of the generat pubic kdied at ra.1 ceosungs try coal trains 8Primardy resperatory f ahre among the s,ck and elderty from combustron products from power plants, but +ncludes ovaths from waste coai benk fires j " W rth 100% of all electricrty cor sumed by the nuttear fuel cycle podxed by cuni power, anmunts to 45 MWe per o.B GWytel ' Coal effects are based on a reg onal populat2on of 3.8 mwon peopie woun 80 km of the coat pl an t, 1 4.1.2 Solar thermal conversion Solar themal conversion systems to generate electricity in central stations will possibly be comprised of solar collectors and concentrators, receivers, a means of transferring the heat to a thermal storage facility or to the turbo-generator, and a turbo-generator to produce elec-tricity. As for all approaches involving the use of direct solar radiation, the basic problems associated with central station electric power generation through solar themal conversion are r related to the variability of solar radiation, necessitating either energy stcrage or backup power, and the low density of solar radiation, requiring large land areas devoted to energy collection. An area of approximately 10 sq miles would be needed for the beat collectors required to operate a 1000-MWe plant in the southwestern part of the United States at an average of 70% of capaci tys Although the fuel itself is free, the capital investment for collecting, storing, 4 and transforming solar radiation into electricity in thermal conversion power plants with pro-jected efficiencies of 20 to 3Ct will be high. The National Science foundation recomriended a 15-year research and development program with an estinated cost of $1130 million in 1972 that was intended to make a solar themal conversion power plant comercially available by 1993.a C The ERDA solar electric conversion prograr includes research and development on solar themal energy conversion power plants with preliminary efforts i directed toward central receiver and collector systems.21 A key goal of the program is cost reduced.'q Such systems cannot become economical unless capital cost projections are markedly l reductior t l Hot water heating and the heating and cooling of individual buildings appear to be the most l promising near-term applications of solar thermal conversion that might provide a substantial saving in fuel costs for both individual consuners and electric utilities by the middle or late 1980s. Solar heating and cooling systems could represent 21 of the total U.S. energy use or about 101 of the anticipated heating and cooling energy demand in the year 2000.22 Economic anaiyses of soiar heating and cooling applications throughout the united states indicate that heat pumps and heat exchangers (vapor compression cooling) are generally more cost competitive with electricity than absorption systems. for solar space heating only, the range of solar ef fectiveness (fractional energy use from solar) for the mst cost competitive systems is 50 to 85% in the southwestern United States, and the homeowner's capital cost for a single-family residence would be from $2000 to $6000. Solar hot-water heating system energy costs are esti - mated to be less than for electric hot-water heating in most of the United States, and the solar effectiveness in optimum-cost systems is from 80 to 90'. The system capital cost to the user will range from $100 to $2500 for a single-family residence with an approf mate 1/2-day storage i capacity." i

- - ~_- l i r P i I P 4-5 I t. i t j Significant reds tiers in the rigt initial cost Of these 5:la-systers, 00ssibly terev;" l a ry-t scale proLction, would :e rewired to nahe t'ee cerve*f the with ele:tric systees. One a;;-cach l teing investigatec to alleviate the ri;*, f r.itial c0st to t*e corsu er in*0hes entry of utility j organtes tr.*o the distritstion rarket for mass-prod.,ced solar f eatf e; and coolie; systers withir 6 five to ter years.M rowever, favorable 00st-0;tirizativ analyses asste trat solar renting and ( cooling syster s involved =%I3 be eM; ped.rith iatisp so.-ces Of elec*ri; erergy t*at weald te avaflatle **en rewired at a c0st emeal to current residential rat:s. Ever. t*.cu;h electri: l utt11 ties rigrt egeriente #sel-cst savings as a res.,lt of the use cf 501ar systers in tJvid,a1 buildings, installed generatin; ca;,atity adewa*e

• .0 reet peak-1:ad ce ards a*: transrissi0n ard j

distritcticr4 netw0rts capa;le of carrying ttese 10 ads wm,ld te re:vice:. T*e load fatter for tacia po.er =%1d be b.,er than if there.ere no irdivid;al s0lar sys*ers in tre service area,

• • ich =0;1d resalt in prep 0r*icca*ely ti;*er costs fcr t*e s ta*.cty capacity, j

J l 'f all c' tre afcrerentioned solar-ener;j-related reseaan and de.eb; cert mgrars ere to te e dertaten row or in tne f. ear fuhre, c7rerct al a vailatility cf t*e f:-s Of solar energy a;;li:- able to central-station p>er generation prOtatly wwld te de cestrate: cc s ceer t*at IE. b i s tra ry, the staff Concludes that s314e energy is riot a relistle alter-attve as a raj:r s%rce of energy ':r ener;f decard relative te tre pctectial po.er ;r:4, ticri ca;a:1*y cf ei;** N 's. t 4 I l i .'.3 Eicmss cor>,ersice 4 i 1 hotosyntne* t:sily ;rch:ed tr;aroc Paterial (gr:.e 5 e:ifically #:r i,tilization as fuel reteriali rd cr;ani; solid mastes (anird maates and se= ace) can eitrer te t;rred nrectly t: ;e0dxe j stea* in ROA;ce't siflar 10 that used f 0r 0:al CTCustiCn Or sMe:ted 10 Arder bic fereeta-f ti;n.

• 70 te t rned directly, trese 'vels ust first te dried fcr creastics to te self-l s ;sta 'r k;.

Gro f r; plants 'cr energy generation is relati,ely ine'f f;ier* tecause t*e 501sr 00nrers10M e#ficier:y Of tre P010syT.!*Eti process is seldo Over 37 Orir; t*-e growng seas 0N f P eref:re.

• • .e eT /t Of land req; ired f r a givte f*er;y 06,tOJ' is very higt.

Eased C'* a 9eattn; value Of 7M0 EN/lb Of Cry plant tissVe and yields Of 10 to 30 t#$ cf Oi:rass ?er a:Fe l Cer year, the lard rew irs; for a lG' We tr;ani: fired ;7mer plant evnic te tetmeen 2i and ) A O ac etles.;

• l 1

Tre tectnital 'easittlitj c' tio mersi n cf or;a-f c raterial t: ret *are *as Men estatlis*+: fOr rey years althL;*, corrercial e;0nOcy has n0! yet tee 9 achiesed. Arae ctic ferr e tat he 10 l Dr:dre rettane 'r0n tre er. tire a" Cue! Of 0"ganit solid wastes Lelie)ed 10 te eWOritelly re:Oner3 le sould es; resent a reCO,ery Of 3.6 10 7J x IF* EL' year Or a :rcainately 2 ts 3?, cf i t5e yearlf c7sc: tion cf retrace in ite Cra ted Mates. Fifteee year resear r. a" ce, e l e m *. 70; rats are f0reseen as recgire tef0re t*e pr: cesses #0- tctM dire:t c0 t s*ien a-d :; eve rs ir t3 "Tt*4te Of 05000sy*;tnetically prOi,Ced NterUl ah! sd id Or3P.k wastes 002 te e:0M 7itally I ard te;*mically feasid e On a c7rercial basis, i l .R.4 u nrd ereegy 1 6* e n N i.ir:-f %""ed ele;* rical :enera Ors w t* p wr ratir.;s c 10 u few ail N at's car te O tSired l

DTe r i a l Iy. !.Br;er ;e* era *0rs :etiTS: # r N li ?"'ner ;r:d A

?*? Pave bee

• tufli 1" seieral Cu"tries. alt % ;*: "est c' **ege are r0 ' yce r in ::eratite.

In the l ait #ew ye3r5 tre letresSed 07 :er9 ttat fossii #sels M y frCre *: t+ less availaile N 5 Ne Or: Ole 7 re ated t cere'Oye't Of large-j led 10 re*ened *r*erest i" wird-;0 er ':eaer3tiOq. W logy are ass 00 ated wit

• deve70 feg rtliad e, lon g est mird i

sta' e. Wird-?>ered wnera t0r te: t*e i r t e i* t e*' y a"d n a *ia M l i ty Cf d r ! O pot r its afd with *ne des i;" a"d K v ra *.0 #s, wi t h e larce ret,"Wa C "ererating stiti. Lit *le este; sti:* is giver

• r3*

5 ;

• r O Dee r i

t ". ICfW

• Cf Vits ni!' ;rcee t0 te capa;le O' su;;ly r.; lar*e Somee ti ds electrical evergy [ ' : art N-d lac'y 'n * $e 50stece Of stcrage #acilities.! C i

5'%e mind C Fr'erts Ca*Ty lop eM rgy per Vrit a'e!. mind-DO*e red gereratcrs 7%st ;q ar.e a'd mst M des Wed tt Ose" ate ef#t tie

• tly Ove r a nide raMe Of ;a rb*e t?"!.

II.r** erICre. t' e se

1. its Nst *;e 5Me0*ed 10 va#iOA types O eitr&#'eOys ISadi";s so:? as ;yro 'Or es, t'adt

• a la". e, mird n ee r, Wd s hif
• s, wi*d n s ts, Tratity (Ortes, ar.: *0wer stad5.

i l kCelera! M Of t%e Frelt;reat and ut?ii aticr C wit 0 ererg ;0raers?O* syst M +3s teee j a ':ti-4 f j { a*P0 *Petu M a ter-year re sea @ ard Oe ve10?*e* t prOgra* 00' eive0 ry tre Nati nal hieNe 4 reamir son Erery %;ra-m Im" t; peexe se,eral me,a!.-4 s t e% e wi t* e'ee;y s tora ~e a*4 celivery s is}e*s. he Cepa rtre* t Of Erergy 'E

• a s t r;Iei ga ted I ge e

rts , s r3*itral stiar-elettrtC-00reersi * ;reara, n**cr tecl M s rese y:P a*d '* e g e lMy* 0 8 in i three remeral si:es of mind-e'ergy de h s. %t se a re sr. ail "acn t ts 10" f am s e. ;a* >-st e h e & finental ud ts [Cier I N W), atd % Iti d t fatilitiEs (Clssters 4 to W sC3't). Nf r { IM f row F) 5?OrstesH;, W A ces1ga.ef and 0:4 rated a ICMee ncet;;ctal-aris pir ! W ire 4 I

_ _. - - - ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ 4-6 i generator at its Plum Brook Station at Sandusky, Ohio. The capital cost of this first-of-a-kind test model with its 125-f t-diam twin-bladed rotor was $5500/6We.'? The Departnent of Energy is now building two nere wind-turbine aenerators that will tave 125-f t, two-bladed rotors, each with a power generating capacity of 200 kWe. The output of the nenerator will be 60-cycle ac power that can be synchronized with power-grid requirements of existing power distribution systems.28 The first of these will be located at Clayton, New Mexico, the second at a site that has as yet not been desinnated. The agency has contracted for the desion of much larger units, with 1.5 MWe capacity and more, for tests that will be in pronress af ter 1980. These examples illustrate that wind-powered, large-scale electrical ceneration facilities are only now in the stane of desion, development, and testing experimental prototypes. Because of the limited amount of experience with large-scale, wind energy conversion systems it is difficult to predict the future capital costs, cost of energy, or the environmental impacts prodJCed by such systems. It is clear, however, that development of laroe-scale, wind energy conversion systems is not sufficiently advanced at the present time to assure that they will be a reliable and economic source of electrical energy in the early 1980s. The staff concludes that, considering the present state of wind-power electric generation tech-nology, wind power is not a foreseeable viable alternative for the production of large amounts 4 of electricity during the period when the FNP's subject to the proposed action would be capable of generating electrical power. i i 4.2 ALTERNATIVES FOR PEDUCTION OF ENER5Y DEMAND i l Conservation of electrical energy is an alternative to building some of the power plants that would otherwise be required to maintain electrical supply and demand in balance. Conservation l is not directly an alternative to the ccnstruction of FNP's or nuclear power plants but rather to the construction of power plants of any type. Conservation affects the demand side of the balance and is therefore logically discussed under "Need for the Power Generating Capacity," as has indeed been done in the FES, Sect. 2, and further in Sects. 12.7.3.1 and 12.9.1.2. 4.2.1 _ Current status of enerny demand In response to comments, the staf f in mid-1976 reviewed its assessment of power demand (fES, l Part II, Sect. 12.9.1.2). Eased on FEA projections that power demand would grow at a rate of 5.91 per year for the period 1975-1985 and thereafter at 3.91 (assuming conservation effects predominate) or 6.91 (assuming electrical substitution effects predominate), the staff, using the lower growth rate, estimated a need for new capacity in the coastal zone from 1975 to 1993 of 200 GWe. Of this, about 80 GWe would be required in the interval 1983-1988, in which eight fhP's (9.2 GWe) might be brought on line, representing a maximum of 12: of the required crowth. The staf f has no reason to alter the above analysis; however, in the interim, additional load data has become available and the latest trends in load growth are of interest. Historically, tne annual rate of increase in power generation has ranged around 71 for many years. The l growth rate for the period 1960 to 1973 was 7.11 The growth rates for recent years (Edison Electric Institute data) are tabulated as follows: l Increase in power generation over previous year, i 1977 5.0 1976 6.3 1975 1.9 1974 0.0 j 1973 7.0 1 i Althouoh the Edison Electric Institute had predicted a growth rate of 74 for electricity ceneration for 1977, slow economic growth and drought conditions in the West and Southwest held it down to 5% (Excluding the West Coast, the 1977 growth rate nationally was 6t.) for 1978, the Institute j is predicting an overall growth rate of 5% for electricity generation. It is evident that, following the abrupt halt to power growth in the recession of 1974, growth rates have returned j l to close to the historic rate. The post-1973 data include the newly important effects of energy conservation measures and of an increased pace of substitution of electric power for oil and cas, instituted following the 1973 oil embargo. The full force and potential of these factors has not yet t.een felt, and it is too soon to observe that a new long-terw growth rate may be emergina; however, the latest data indicate that a substantial rate of electrical power growth will likely continue in the future. 4 1

4-7 4.2.2 Conservation as a national policy In its most simple terms, the nation's growing energy crisis can be characterized as an increasing discrepancy between the supply of and demand for energy. Among the many possible responses offered as at least a partial solution to this problem, energy conservation has received by far the most attention. This fact is due, in part, to the belief that conservation is less costly j than the production of new supplies, is an effective means for protection of the environment, and is compatible with economic growth. In any event, the current National Energy Plan proposed by the President and now under consie ration by Congress contains conservation and fuel efficiency i as its cornerstone M One of the overall goals of the Plan is to reduce the annual growth of total energy demand to below 2%, and elements of the Plan that will particularly affect the i growth of demand for electricity include improved energy efficiency of buildings and appliances, improved fuel efficiency in industry, elimination of waste through adoption of cogeneration and district heating, and utility reform. For each of the above elements, several specific policy actions are proposed. For example, to reduce the waste of energy in existing t'uildinos, the National Energy plan proposes a wide array of actions including tax credits, utility-provided insulation services, conservation loans, weatherization programs, etc." The National Energy plan articulates a goal for reducing annual growth demand for electricity such that between 1976 and 1935, with the Plan in effect, growth in electrical demand for the residen-tial and come cial sectors would exhibit an annual increase of not more than 3.31, and for the industrial settor, growth would not exceed 6.1% per year. Without the Plan in effect the growth rates are expected to be 4.2% for the residential sector and 6.2% for the industrial sector. Other elements of the Plan are designed to selectively impact the use of certain fuels. For example, to reduce the United States' vulnerability to supply disruptions and to ensure that energy prices reflect the true replacement cost of energy, the Plan contains several proposals designed to affect the prices of oil and gas. To the extent that such policies result in increases in the prices of these fuels relative to the price of electricity, then the demand for electricity will increase as consumers substitute toward electricity (see Sect. 1.2.3).

Thus, While implementation of the Plan may reduce the annual growth of total energy demand to below 21, i

this does not imply that the growth of electricity demand will necessarily be reduced to that i

level, i

At present, forecasting the impact of the National Energy Flan on the growth of demand for elec-tricity in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coastal zone is not oossible. Nevertheless, the I staff recognizes that conservation has potential for reducing the demand for electricity, that some mandatory conservation programs are already in effect, and that the likely impact of conser-j vation must be taken into account when forecasting the denand for electricity. For purposes of analysis, it is possible to define three types of conservation: (1} voluntary conservation undertaken in response to higher prices, (2) involuntary conservation resulting from mandated government programs, ard (3) altruistic conservation voluntarily undertaken in response to specific appeals. The staff considers conservation primarily a price rasponse with substantial additional savings attainable through mandated programs. Although evidence suggests that altrustic conservation in response to appeal accounted for part of the reduction in demand during the oil embargo crisis, such ef fects were of limited duration and should not be counted on as a source of permanent impact.91 i While several factors underlying the growth in demand have changed, the principal event wnich has occurred is the reversal in the trend in real prices of electricity from decreasirig to increasing, i Assuming similar reductions occurred in the forecasts of electricity consumption, thed a rough check on whether this reduced rate of growth is of suf ficient magnitude to encompass the lHely impacts of energy conservation can be made by comparing this result to that of Hirst.'~ Using a i detailed engineering / economic model of residential energy consumption, Hrst reports that a I combination of rising real prices plus mandatory energy conservation measures serves to reduce { the rate of growth of residential electricity consumption 25.67 compared to an assumed scenario encompassing constant real prices and no mandatory conservation. Assuming similar results are attainable in the cocrnercial and industrial sectors, these results show good agreement. Barnes has suggested that the projected energy sayings from conservation be viewed in three categories, which we here paraphrase as the technological potential, the economic potential, and expected attainable potential. The technological potential is the energy that could be saved l if all the advanced technological measures were employed (e.g., replacement of an existing I process by a more efficient process). The economic potential is the energy that could be saved ( if the technological measures are taken to the extent and at the rate at which tney are eConnmic. l And finally, the expected attainable potential is the energy that could be saved if conservation neasures are adopted as rapidly as can be expected considering all factors, including human resistance to change. Barnes estimated the tecnnological potential for energy saving in U.S. ) industry is such that in 2010, the energy use per unit output could be 50% of the present use, I whereas the attainable potential could be 751 per unit output. This saving would be substar-tial, however, if the growth in cross national product continues at a normal rate during this period, the overall use of energy by industry would continue to grow. Barnes also pointed out j i

l 4-8 that the fraction of industrial energy used in the form of electricity has increased from about li in 1947 to 9% in 1972; this trend is expected to continue, implying a substantial growth in the use of electrical energy by industry. A new study of the residential use of energy predicts that, to the year 2000, the use of gas and oil will remain nearly constant, but that the use of electricity will increase by a factor of 2 to 3."M For the decade in which FhP's will be introduced, without a conservation program, the residential use of electrical energy is forecast to increase f rom 9,3 quad / year (quad = 1015 Blu) in 1980 to 13.3 quad / year in 1990. With a conservation program for the same period, electrical energy use is forecast to increase from 8.8 quad / year in 1980 to 11.8 quad / year in 1990, which is a crowth rate of 3.41 per year. Based on this projecion, the generating capacity of eight TNP's would satisfy about 17T of the increase in demand for electrical energy for residential use on the East Coast for the decade, lhe above study assumed that the real price of electricity would increase by 33T in the interval 1975 to 1990, thus providing a cost incentive for energy conservation, lhe real cost factors that are increasing stem from improvements in coal mine health and safety, strip mine reclamation, I stack emission controls, and nuclear plant safety. However, the largest U.S. utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, forecasts that the real cost of electricity on their system will l level cf f and actually decline by 0.14 per year during the interval 1980 4 6. The TVA expects to be placinq new nuclear plants on line at the rate of about one per year during this interval." It anticipates that the change in their base-load generating plant mix from predominantly coal-fired toward lower-cost nuclear-powered plants will enable them to hold electricity rates con-stant in the face of rising real costs for labor and fuel. If the real cost of electricity does level off, the demand for electricity may continue to expand at close to the historic rate for the foreseeable future. In summary, while considerable uncertainty exists regarding the likely future impacts of conserva-tion on elec tricity consumption, it is the staff's opinion that recognition of conservation as primarily a price response is reasonable and that, through the assumption of risinq real elec-tric1tj prices, the potential impact of conservation is appropriately considered in the staff's forecast. 4.2.3 Substitution of fuels As the supply of natural gas is curtailed, many industrial and cornercial users substitute elec-tricity or oil for space heating and process heating. For many processes requiring clean fuel, electricity is the only practical substitute. Over the long term, the price of oil and qas is expected to increase relative to the price of electricity, encouraging further substitution. The price of cas in the foreseeable future may well be limited by the cost of producing pip /eline gas from coal; the American Gas Association estimates this cost at $4.4b per million Dtu.1 In addition, there are plans to import natural gas from Mexico and Canada as well as LNG from over-seas; these factors will tend to limit substitution. On balance, it appears that the substitution of electricity for oil and gas will bl a significant factor in electricity demand in the decade 1980-1990. About one-third of U.S. energy consumption is for transportation, nearly all of this as oil. In this sector, the substitutinn of electricity for oil is being considered for two applications: 4 electrification of railroads and the use of electric battery vehicles f or urban and commuter service. However, the lead times on tnese applicatiorm are long, and little ef fect on electricity demand is expected before 1990. 4.?.4 Load manacement toad management consists of various measures to even the demand for electricity over time. The success of load management is measured by the annual load factor, the ratio of average load to peak load. The reduction of peak Icad is important for petroleum conservation t.ecause oil-fired (ombustion turbines are widely used to meet peak loads. It is sometimes argued that ) improving the load factor can reduce the need for new generating capacity because capacity addition is based on the rate of growth in peak load. This argument is true for total capacity, but it does not apply to the need for FNP's and other base-load plants. Improving the load factor may actually 4 crease the need for base-load plants by shif ting part of the total load from prating and intermediate-load plants to base-load plants. The FEA has estimated that the annual rate of new capacity addition could be reduced f rom 4.9 to 3.9t in 1985 throuqh improvement in the load factor. This improvement is much to be desired on economic and conservation arounds, but it would not reduce the need for FNP's or other base-load plants

m 49 4.2.5 Cooeneration Cogeneration is the technical name for processes wherein electrical power and useful heat flows are produced together in dual-purpose plants. Such processes can generate a given heat and electricity output with substantially less total fuel than would be required to cotain the same heat and electricity flows independently. Conversely, if a plant is producing either heat (such as industrial process heat) or electricity alone (such as in a central utility station) and that plant is modified to cogenerate the other energy flow, the by-product energy stre am will require only a relatively small increment of additional fuel input. The benefits of cogeneration are dependent upon the existence of a user market for both the electricity and the heat outputs and also upon operational conditions wherein the economic value of each delivered energy flow is large enough to offset the additional cost of generation and distribution. This factor is significant because the cost of transporting heat (as steam or hot water) increases rapidly as the distance increases. Also, cogeneration plants are difficult to operate satisfactorily when the heat and electricity loads are large, uncoordinated in their fluctuations, and subject to signifhant fluctuations over time, Notwithstanding the above coments, several investigators"2 have examined various cogeneration a alternatives and have projected a significant U.S. potential for energy conservation from increased cogeneration activity. Cogeneration can have an effect upon floating nuclear power plants in two ways. First, the 1 practice of cogeneration by private industrial plants to produce additional electricity might reduce the load growth for utility-produced electricity. Second, it is conceivahle that FNP's might be designed and built in the future to cogenerate a useful by-product heat flow in addH% i to the expected electricity production. 4.2.5.1 The technical basis for cogeneration There exists in the U.S. economy two major " markets" for heat flows that might be supplied from cogeneration installations. One market is that for industrial process heat, which to a large extent utilizes self-produced steam (from single-purpose boiler plants). The other market is that for residential / commercial space heating, which at present is largely self+roduced from a variety of single-pupose hot air, hot water, steam, and electrical systems. The application of cogeneration to both of these markets is discussed below. Industria1J rocess steam from cogeneration The present use of industrial steam in the United States represents approximatelp 8 quadrillion 13tu's (quads) of heat per year.'*2 Only about 10% of this steam is produced in cageneration r installations." Thus there appears to be a substantial potential for increasina the cogenera-tion of electricity and industrial process steam. Two approaches have been used to accomplish this type of cogeneration. In one approach industrial steam producers have insthlled aenerators to " top" their steam energy for electricity. In the other approach, central utility electrical plants have extracted low-pressure steam (" bottoming") from their turbines for sa le to industry. Although each of these forms of cogeneration supply the same end uses, they each have unique constraints and future potential. Each is briefly discussed below. Industrial cogeneration of by-product electricity. If we consider proven technology only, there ' ate three waysWoi!M to "tof industrial stea'm for electricity production. Cne can use either steam turbines, gas turbines, or diesel engines coupled with electricity generators. The i latter two modes require specialized steam boilers that utilize the exhaust heat from the turbine or engine. It is necessary to consider these alternatives because for a given steam requirement, j each mode generates a different amount of electricity, Also, each has different operational and i fuel requirements. Steam turbine cogeneration will produce 0.1-0.2 units (thermal equivalent) of electricity for l each unit of steam produced. Gas turbines will produce three or four times as much electricity for each unit of steam, and diesel engines will produce six to eight times es much electricity. These relationships arise not because gas turbines and diesel engines are efficient electricity producers, but mainly because they are inefficient steam producers. Also, at the present time, both gas turbines and diesel engines are dependent upon types of fuel which are becoming less available and more subject to restrictions on their use. Itisevidentthatthepotentialforindustrialby-productelectricitz"fromcogenerationcanvary several-fold depending on the mode that might be employed. One study has examined three major U.S. Industries (chemicals, petroleum refining, and paper) in depth and estimates that the full technological potential for electricity from cogeneration in these three industries, could vary j from 165 billion kwhr per year up to 1270 billion kwhr depending on the mode. Another study"2

1 4-10 indicates that these three industries represent about 50% of industrial steam use. Consequently, if one assumes an eqaivalent cogeneration from all other industrial activity, the total tech-nological potential for electricity from industrial togeneration is between 330 a d 2500 billion kwhr per year. The full technological potential for industrial cogeneration is, ho o r, unattainable. It has been estimated that, due to economies of scale, less than 45% of the industrial steam demand is economically amenable to cogeneration (for new capacity only)." Another study estimates that strong governmental subsidies might increase the economic feasibility to 80i or more. "' In addition to the economic constraints, there are substantial institutional constraints on industrial coaeneration. In practice, industrial plants have self-produced a steadily decreasing portion of their electrical power needs over the past 30 years or so. The reasons for this decrease include the high cost of small scale private power production, the higher reliability of utility central station power supply, the limited availabilite af personnel skilled in steam / electricity cogeneration operations, the dif ficulty in baln :ng dynamic steam and electricity demands for optimal cogeneration operations, the p-% ' selling surplus by-product electricity, and the possibility of becoming subject to Federa' and tate utility regulation through the sale of industrial electricity. It has been estimated that when all of these constraints are con-sidered, even a vigorous program of government encouragement and financial incentives will bring industrial cogeneration only to 401 of the full technological potential by the year 2010." For the next ten or fifteen years it is not likely that industrial cogeneration will mabe a substantial additional contribution to the U.S. supply of electricity. Utility central station cogeneration of by-product steam. Approximately 85% of U.S. utility. ceneratmTectFFcW~is generated in steamiTants. Conventional practice is to produce steam at high pressure (e.g., 900 psia)., pass the steam through a power turbine, and exhaust the steam from the turbine into condensers at very low pressure (e.g., 0.1 psia). Under these conditions, the heat released from the condensing steam is at a temperature too low for industrial use and is usually rejected to a cooling water system. If the steam from the turbine exits at a higher pressure, there is a decrease in electrical power generation; however, the exhaust steam will have greater potential for industrial use. Although an exhaust pressure of 165 psia would be adequate for more than one-half of industrial needs, at this pressure there is a decrease in electricity output of about 50t unless larger boilers and I' turbines are installed to compensate for the higher exhaust pressure. Thus a retrofit of present steam-electric placts for cogeneration would generally result in decreased electrical power generation unless najor replacement of existing facilities is also accomplished. Economic analysis indicates that cogeneration of by-product steam is a viable option primarily for new central stationgeneratinggBlants and then only where there is a large industrial steam requirement in j the close vicinity. l The economics of steam distribution have been studied," and it appears that the maximum econom-icai distance for pipeline transport is 8 to 10 miles, and this is only for very large quantities (e.g., 4 million lb per hour or more) of steam. (Steam flows in the range of 1 to 4 million lb per hour are large for private industrial plants but small for major central station electrical power plants.) As the quantity decreases, the feasible transport distance also decreases and is about two miles maximum for a flow of 0.5 million Ib per hour. Obviously, this factor restricts the number of feasible locations for central station togeneration of by-product steam. } Space neating from cogeneration ] For several decades, many of the large U.S. cities, such as New York, Detroit, and Cleveland. have had central city steam distribution systems, supplied by local utilities (district heating). While much of this steam is produced in single-purpose boiler systems, much has also been cogen-4 erated with electricity. In theory, if the steam and electrical loads are balanced, most of this steam could be cogenerated. l In a stean turbine cogeneration system, the efficiency of electricity generation is increased if the output heat flow is in the form of hot water rather than steam. Such hot water can be used effectively for space heating. Very little (if any) of this type of district heating has been 5 installed in the United States; however, in Europe and particularly Sweden, such systems are in Studies have been made ' of the potential for hot water district heating in the United use. States, and the economics appear to be favorable for many of the larger cities if a high per-centage of the potential users would become initial users in each location. piecemeal acceptance 4 would not generate enough revenue to amortize the distribution system investment. I I

m. 4-11 4.2.5.2 The potential for cogeneration in nuclear power plants At the present time there are no commercial-size dual-purpose nuclear steam-electric plants operating in the United States. One plant is under construction in Midland, Michigan. It is expected to begin operation 'n 1982 and will supply by-product steam to an adjacent chemical plant. No other nuclear central station togeneration ventures have been announced. There are at least four reosons for the lack of interest in nuclear central station cogeneration: siting problems, project lead time problems, stecm supply reliability problems, and public acceptance problems. Siting problems Economics favor large size nuclear plants (e.g., 1000 to 1500 MW), Such plants will have steam flows of several millions of pounds per hour. Modification of the ' team turbines to extract (or exhaust) industrial process steam is prohibitively expensive unless accomplished on a large scale. Cogeneration of industrial steam from such units is feasible only for a demand in the range of 2 million lb per hour or more. " Thus there are limited locations in the United States where sufficient concentration of steam use exists to justify nuclear cogeneration. One study identifies a total of 43 locations in the United States with an industrial steam use of 2 million 1b per hour or more within a radius of 5 miles. " Many of these sites are located close (witnin 10 miles) to major population centers. This reduces further the likelihood of siting a nuclear plant to meet industrial steam needs. Because of this size (scale) and siting problem, the Energy Research and Development Administra-tion is studying the potential for smaller, specialized nuclear plants to produce industrial steam. It should be noted that coal-and oil-fired power plants also have significant economies of scale and the larger more economical units will have similar siting problems if used for cogeneration. Project _ lead time problems c New nuclear power plants are requiring an increasingly longer time from project inception to commercial operation. A ten-year period is not uncommon. During this length of time, many relevant factors can change, and the economic basis on which a project was initially justified may cease to be valid. Under such conditions it is difficult or impossible for an industrial l company to commit to a cogeneration venture, Steam supply reliability problem For many (if not most) industrial plants, uninterrupted steam supply is essential to production operations. A recent study shows typical internal steam boiler plants in two large industries (chemicals and petroleum) operating without interruption 92 to 98% of the time." Conversely, the same study summarizes the Comission's nuclear power plant availability data to show typical forced outages about 91 of the time and scheduled outages approximately 20% of the time (primarily for refueling). These data indicate that single unit nuclear power plants would be unable to provide by-product steam at the level of availability required by many industrial plants. Coin-cident unplanned outages for two-unit stations would occur so infrequently, however, that in the 4 ] judgment of the staff, reliability of supply from a two-unit station could be expected to be high and, thus, cause multiple unit stations to be candidates as cogeneration centers. 1 l Public acceptance problem l Those industrial companies which produce products purchased by the general public are concerned 1 with public perceptions of their operations and product characteristics. Whether valid or not, I some consumers have expressed fears of radioactivity from nuclear-generated steam affecting j industrial operations and products. " In view of the foregoing considerations it may be expected that the fraction of total by-product steam (from all power plants) represented by nuclear units will be much less than the fraction of total electricity generation represented by nuclear units. 4.2.5.3 The potential for cogeneration in floating nuclear plants As discussed above, many unresolved problems are limiting tne potential for coceneration of by-product steam from nuclear power plants. The potential for cogeneration from FNP's will be even =

l 4-12 a l more restricted. The FNP is limited to shoreline locations, which reduces the runber cf potential by-product heat users. Offshore location would increase the cost of pipelines for steam or hot 1 water transrcrt, possibly to the point of economic infeasibility. Also, much of the tenefit of l tre offshore (and shorelire) siting for the FNP lies in the ready availability of cooling water ]. for condensing turbine operation. Cogeneration would sacrifice this benefit. I I It is concluded that cogeneration is a desirable means for energy conservation and will te pursued I in specific locations where circumstances are favorable. However, progress will be slow and will tase little impact in the need for centrally generated electricity over the next ten or fifteen years. Also the circumstances wnich favor cogeneration are not the safne circumstances wnich favor floatin'2 naclear plants. There is therefore little likelihood that the need for nodifica-tion of the FNF design to achieve cogeneration during the r. ext one er two decades will arise or trat cogeneration at lard-based f acilities will provide energy conservatien eauivalent to a i significant fraction of the power gererating capacity of eight Fh?'s during that period of titre. i 4 2 1 I h l f I t I i i i ) i l i

i 4-13 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 1. "27th Annual Electrical Industry Forecast," Electr. kirld 182(6): 43-58 (Sept. 15, 1976). 2, J. A. Lane, Ccncencue Ferenet c'f U.G, Electricity Supply and lkmand to the Year 2000, Report ORNL/Til-5370, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., llay 1977. 1 3. Executive Of fice of the President, The nationa2 nwrgy Plan, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D C., April 1977. 4. National Petroleum Council, U.S. Energy Outicck, Coa! Aa2ild i! sty, U.S. Department of the Interior,1973, p.13. 5. Ref. 4, p. 1. 6. "FEA Compiles a Mountain of Testimony," E?socr. Abeld 182(6): 23-25 (Sept. 15, 1974). 7. Federal Power Commission, The 1P70 Naticnal roaer Curvey, furt 1, A Report by the Federal Pccer Comiceion, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,1971, p.1-4 O, Ref. 4, pp. 51-52, 9. J. G. Asbury and K. W. Costel10, Price and Avalikility of Weetcyn Coal in the Miduestern E cetrie utility Market, 1P74-20ff, ERDA report ANL/ES-38, Argonne National Laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems Division, Argonne, Ill., October 1974,

10. Re f. 9, pp. 16-18.

11. L. D. Hamilton, Ed,, The Health and Dwiromental Effects of Electricity Generation - A Preliminary Eeport, Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 1974. 12. L. D. Hamilton and S. C. Morris, " Health Effects of Fossil Fuel Power Plants," in repulcum E.r; czec, Proxedings of the Eighth Midyear Topical Symposium of the Hea:th Physica soeicty, October 1974. 13. L. D. Hamilton, [nergy and Health," in Proacadings of the Connecticut Conferenx on Energy, December 1975. I 14. S. C. Morris and K. fi. Novak, Hnibook for the Quantification of Eaalth Effecto from Coal Energy Systeme, Draf t Report, Brookhaven National Laboratory,15 December 1976. i 15. A. J. Dvorak et al., "~he Ewinnmental Effecte of Using Coat for Generative Electricity, l Report NUREG-0252, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 1977. i

16. An Acuvement of the Health and Dwiromental lapa2te of Fluidined-Ped Combustion Coal ao Ay;' lied to Elcatrical Utility systems, Draf t Report Argonne National Laboratory, 25 January 1977.

17. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, reaft Ewirom.ntal Statement f

Felated to Construction of Erie Kuale2r Plant Unito 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-l80 and 50-581, November 1977.

18. "Bradshaw Sees Crude Prices Holding at $10-12/ bbl," cis Gas J. 72(33): 32-34 (Aug.19, 1974).

19. " Conservation, High Prices Will Cut U.S. Demand for Oil 2% This Year," vil sas J. 72(30):

125-132 (July 29,1974). t

20. National Science Foundation / National Aeronautic and Space Administration Solar Energy Panel, An Acccarment of dol 1r Energ.u as a Nat.Lonal D:ergy Recource, Report No. NSF/RANN-73-001, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Washington, D.C., December 1972, pp. 48-65.

21. " Solar-Energy Plan Published," Electr. World 184(6): 28 (Sept.15,1975).

22. D. F. Spencer, " Solar Energy: A View From an Electric Utility Standpoint," paper presented f at American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Apr. 21-23, 1975.

4-14 1 I 23. A. McFeatters, " Solar Energy Units fiay Be Offered fer Rent in 5 to 10 Years," W Ana:vi7'e Xce-Gntir.el, liay 4,1975, p. C-7. 24 Ref. 20, pp. 31-30. 25. " Wind Studied as Possible Energy Source," The D::cci!!e i n c-r e ine., May 22, 1974. 26. Ref. 20, pp. 65-68. l 27. T. W. Black, "fiegawatts from the Wind," Pxcr - 00(3): 64-68 (tiarch 1976). 28. " Wind Turbine Slated to Produce 60 kW," Thr, a- .a 185(5): 32 (fiar. 1,1976). F

29. Ref. 3, p. X.

i

30. Ref. 3, pp. XV-XVI.

31. Federal Power Comission, taff b Q aic ;f : arri2 a. : 9 Tr. era S p, is M er 'S~t o t h + ::eccler 4, Washington 0.C., June 1975. I 32. E. Hirst and J. Carney, -eeticr. tid mrA t u ts 9w Year C.L. eracevati o seaEverin, Report ORNL/ CON-13, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Septerrber 1977. 4 33. R. W. Barnes, " Industrial Energy Conservation," paper presented at Energy Seminar August 11 1977, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Pidge Tenn.,1977. l 34 Eric Hirst and Janet Carney, " Federal Residential Energy Conservation Programs: An Analysis," rna 7, Sumer 1977. 35. Eric H1rst, inilentia: Encr., Uce to O.a Year

2.,

Dneirvat.s n cd =rin, Report ORNL/ CON-)3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Tenn., September 1977 36. Tennessee Valley Authority, Ikc RA M;. :F77 W; rarecaer, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tenn., 1977. 37. "How to Use Coal: Gas Judged Superior All Round to Electricity " ne Enery.bf p, May 4, 1977, p. 2 1 I l 38. R. 5. Spencer et al., r era, ind stria: Center St4, prepared for the National Science Foundation by Dow Chemical Company, Midland, fiith., June 1975. t 39 S. Nydick et a1., A.~uis :l nt: ant T:utri: % r M erativ: in t k s e~i=', re:rs :c.c, Ecfinin;7, and Tc;er cni 15 p Mi ctries, prepared by the Federal Energy Adrinistration by e Thermo Electron Corporation, Waltham, flass., July 1976. I 1 L 40. Larkheck, Powell, and Beardsworth,

• Prospects for District Heating in the United States,"

i 2 j . icnu, vol.195, itarch 11, 1977, f 41. M. H. Ross and R. H. Williams, "The potential for Fuel Conservation," Td:'t ~ Fn., i February 1977. i 42. R. W. Barnes, A &; r :i;c Exh,2:icn at ?m:: Sc rre c : the Ener;; Cemere :icr: *bten:;al fem ccgence;.'on, prepared for the Energy Research and Development Administration by Dow Chenical Company, August 1977 (preliminary draft). 43. Private comunication from R. W. Barnes, Oow Chemical Company, to 0. H. Klepper, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, dated April 26, 1977. ) 44 AtZeci fcr En.mgi De ad

• d ccncerx fon, prepared for the Comittee on Nuclear and Alternate Energy Systems (CONAES) of the National Research Council by the Demand / Conservation j

Panel. Preliminary draft dated April 1977. i I l 45. T. D. Anderson et al., An Asseurent cf Encre Ortia:s 5: sed cn 7x: :>d.M w C;,s tes, Report ORNL-4995, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., July 1975. 46. Private evaluations made by the Consumer Power Company in connection with the flidland. Michigan, dual-purpose nuclear steam electric plant. k 1 i -m

~.. . - ~... .~ 4 15 47. R. W. Barnes, The Fotential Inhatrial blarket for Frocese liaat from Malear ?cantcre, Report ORNL/TM-5516, prepared for Oak Ridge National Laboratory by Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Mich., July 1976. 48. M. G. Sullivan et a)., Relifility Eatination pr ?hatismit Nntear and Fcsen Fired in.k-tria 9.cegs Qetems, Report ORNL/TM-5837, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., August 1977. 49. " Letters to the Editor," Afid ce:d sai!y lims, Midland, Mich., Aug. 5,1977. l J l 4 4 I i l i I l { I l l i

5. FEDERAL LAWS FOR PROTECTION OF THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT Discussions with the CEQ (Appendix C) identified the Council's interest in highlighting signifi-cant Federal laws that focus on maintaining and protecting ecological values on and near the coastal and estuarine waters as well as a discussion of their significance to possible FNP siting. Relevant portions of Sect. 9.4 of the FES, Part II, are repeated and augmented here in response to that suggestion. National actions on 50 large a scale of importance as that encompassed by the projected uses of the continental shelf must be regulated by numerous constraints for the protection of the health and welfare of the public. Fortunately, there already exists a sizable body of legislation, both Federal and state, that regulates uses of the shelf. The laws defined by that legislation serve to regulate the uses of the offshore waters and to protect the public from injudicious uses of the coastal zone. The authority vested by these Acts is extensive. Their relation to regulation of the alternative uses of the continental shelf and offthore waters is described briefly in the following paragraphs, which focus on the implementation of the authority vested by these laws. Under the Executive Order on Wetlands (40 CFR Part 30), policy was created that requires that particular cognizance and consideration be given any project that has potential to damage or M troy wetlands. Selected project actions should be shown to be most practicable c' all pun w alternate actions and should provide the least impacts, or preferably no impacts, to I w W ands. M wetlands are to be affectcd by project actions, the applicant should provide substantive aaluation of all proposed and alternate actions regarding their potential to impact these sensitive areas and of all mitigative measures to minimize the impacts. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for implementing the r0gulations of Sect. 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of March 3,1899 (30 Stat.1151, 33 U.S.C. 403), which prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The con-struction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United Statos, the excavation f rom or depositing of material in such waters, or th'a accomplishment of any other work af fect!ng the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army. The instru-ment of authorization is designated a permit, general permit, or letter of permission. The authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent obstructions to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States was extended to artificial islands and fixed structures located on the outer continental shelf by Sect. 4(f) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 [67 Stat. 463, 43 U.S.C. 1333(f)). See also 33 CFR Part 322. Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C.1344) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the i discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States at specified disposal sites; see 33 CFR Part 323. The selection and use of disposal sites will be in accordance with guidelines developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in con-junction with the Secretary of the Army, published in 40 CFR Part 230. If these guidelines prohibit the selection or use of a disposal site, the Chief of Engineers may consider the economic impact on navigation of such prohibition in reaching his decision. Furthermore, the Administrator can prohibit or restrict the use of any defined area as a disposal site whenever he determines, ^i af ter notice and opportunity for public hearings and af ter consultation with the Secretary of the Army, that the discharge of such materials into such areas will have an unacceptable adserse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas l Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92-532, 86 Stat.1052, 33 U.S.C.1413) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, af ter notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean waters whn e it is determined that the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environrtnt, ecological system, or economic potentialities. The selection of disposal sites will be in accordance with criteria, developed by the Administrator 51

5-2 of the EPA in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, published in 40 CFR Parts 220-229. ) however, similar to the EPA Administrator's limiting authority, the Administrator can prevent l the issuance of a permit under this author'ty if he finds that the dumping of the material will ) result in an unacceptable adverse impact on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, wilolife, fisheries or recreational areas; see also 33 CFR Part 324. In decision-making on these permits, the Corps of Engineers employs general policies in each of the following areas (see 33 CFE Part 320.4):

• irpact cn the public interest.

effect of wetlands.

• effect on fish and wildlife,
• ef fect on water quality, ef fect on historic, scenic, and recreational values.

ef fect on limits of the territorial sea, interference with adjacent properties or water resource projects. e ef fects on coalstal zones, ef fects en marine sanctuaries, uniformity witn other Federal, state, or local requirements. safety of impoundment structures, and ef fect of floodplairs. Tre Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,16 U.S.C.1451-1464, authorizes the Secretary of Con-rerce to assist the states in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone. The coastal zone is defined in the Act as meaning the coastal waters and the adjacent shorelities, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and teaches. Once the Secretary of Cemrerce approves a state program, no Federal license or permit r ay be granted for any activity which affects the state coastal zone without state concurrence or unless the Secretary of Connerce finds that the activity is consistent with the objectives of the Act or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. In addition, under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434, the Secretary of Comerce may designate as marine sanctuaries areas of ocean waters as far seaward as the outer edge of the continental snelf, coastal waters where tne tide ebos and flows, or waters of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values, lhe Secretary is authcrized to issue regulations to control any activities permitted within the desir;nated sanctuaries ho perrit or license for an activity, including FNF's, within a desig-nated sanctuary would be valid unless the Secretary certified that the activity is consistent with the Act. The Act also vests the EPA with permit authority over transportation of material f rom the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters (defined as the territorial sea or the continguous zone if the territorial sea right be affected). Overlap with the pro-visions cf other statutes is avoided by the provision in the Act that the tert "dJmping" does net include discharges of ef fluent f rom any outf all structure to the extent that such discharges dFe regulated under the provisions of the federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or Sect. 13 of the Rivers and harbors Act of 1899. Nor does the term "d sping" include construction of any fixed structure or artificial island or intentional placement of any device in ocean waters for purposes other than disposal where such r.atters are regulated by other Federal law. Tre Act also imposes an atsolute prohibition against discharges of high-level radicactive waste. The Federal Water f ollution Control Act 33 U.S.C.1251-1376, vests EPA witn regulatory authority over discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas, and discharges of pollutants into the waters vf the continguous zone or ocean from a point In general, no person Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States may discharge a source. pollutant into these waters without first obtaining a pe mit from either the EPA or (in the case of the territorial seas) the state. In addition, the Act requires a Federal agency, t.cfore issuing a license or permit fcr an activity that may result in the discharge of a pollutdnt, to tbtain certification f rom the state or the [FA that the discharge will be in compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

.- ~,.. 5-1 Under the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act 43 U.S.C.1331 et seq., the Department of the Interior has authurity to issue mineral leases on the outer continental shelf and to issue permits for any actions which might affect lands and mineral leases which it admin-isters. However, the Department would have no general licensing authority over offshore nuclear power plants as such. Under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, the applicant will be required to provide and maintain aids to navigation (such as lights and horns) on the breakwater and plants as required for fixed objects. Under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-726) and Department of Transportation Act I of 1966 (Public Law 89-670), the FAA is required to review and endorse plans relative to poten-tial obstructions affecting navigable air space. Because the presence of a nuclear power plant ) limits the freedom of aircraf t traf fic in its vicinity, the FAA will review proposals for siting i FNP's in the coastal zone. Any plan to operate helicopters on either the breakwater or the l floating plant itself is also subject to FAA endorsement. Control and regulation of activities involving the continental shelf and of fshore waters thus is delegated at this time to a number of responsible public agencies, which are by law responsible for minimizing potential conflicts in use. Recent attention to alternative energy sources and technologies has brought into focus the potential use of the coastal zone and outer continental shelf for possible recovery of energy-related resources. One evaluation of the uses of these zones for extraction of resources, per-formed by the Council on Environmental Quality, was completed in 1974.1 The major conflict of these uses and offshore floating nuclear power plants is viewed as arising from the challenge that accidental events associated with these uses might present to the safe operation of FNP's. a Other potential conflicts from siting some large floating power stations on the continental shelf are those that might arise if station construction and operation inpinges on expanded or projected uses. The Department of the Interior in its Environmental Statement related to deep-water ports,- categorizes the major uses of the coastal zones as follows: (1) waste disposal (municipal sewage, industrial wastes), (2) shoreline development (industry, housing, parks, etc.), (3) exploitation of living resources (fishing), (4) recreation (swimming, boating, sport fishing, etc.), (5) water resources (municipal and industrial supplies), (6) transportation (shipping, waterways, harbors), and (7) exploitation of nonliving resources (oil, gas, gravel, sand,etc.). More specifically, these major activities and resource uses include the of fshore drilling for gas and oil, construction of deepwater unloading facilities to handle crude oil and petroleum products from very large crude carriers, sulfur production, salt recovery, commercial and sport fishing, and recreation. Such activities and enterprises can precipitate conflicts in allocation of the resources of the continental shelf and adjacent coast independent of FNP siting. Minimization of conflict can result only if regional (and national) planning provides an appro-1 priate perspective on the effective utilization of our air, land, fuel, and water resources. 4 Commercial, military, and institutional activities account for a large fraction of current use. Shipping industries utilize the sea lanes heavily. Some areas of the coastal zone are designated 3 j as Defense Warning Areas by branches of the armed forces and are reserved for military purposes. Other military activities include missile testing, ordnance testing, drone recovery operations, electronic counter-measure activities, and training of military personnel. Among the institu-tional uses of the coastal zone, some 27 colleges, universities, and research institutions utilize the Gulf of Mexico for research and educational purposes. From the uses identified here, it is evident that potential conflicts of the offshore waters can arise which may not fall within the regulated purview described above. Such conflicts, for example, those that might arise in recreational activities, are most likely to derive from unanticipated indirect effects due in part to the public perception of nuclear power. I p.egarding recreation (see also FES, Part II, Sect. 4.12), the Land and Water Conservation Fund was established in Public Law 88-578, for the acquisition and development of our outdoor recrea-i tional resources. Under the fund program, federal funds are appropriated for the acquisition of i areas to be added to the national system of parks, forest, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and scenic and recreation trails. Although large land areas and water resources in the coastal zone have been set aside for recreation and other public uses, action has not yet pro-ceeded on a national scale ", to set aside those land and water resources needed to supply even the next generation of our citizens with the electric power we project will be needed, let alone generations to come."2 1 The staff recognizes that deployment of several floating nuclear power stations along the conti-nental shelf could initiate recognizable conflicts in shelf use. The significance of these and other potential conflicts will vary from one candidate site to another. Minimization of the { potential conflicts that may be caused by proposals to site offshore nuclear power stations on I the continental shelf is achievable by early identification of potential conflicts and development of site selection criteria that will obviate potential conflicts. Generically, the effects of i I I

.m .m._ ...m_ i A 5-4 3 j potential conflicts in use of the continental shelf are judged by the staff to be of minor significance, or avoidable, and insufficient therefore to warrant denial of the applicant's request for a license to manufacture eight floating nuclear power plants, j t i j REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 ) 1. Council on Environmental Quality, cc of. md cas - au 9mierced Aesecencnt, April 1974. 1 t 2.. J. J. DiNunno and R. J. Davis, " Land Requirements of Alternate Electric Generating Systems, presented at Atomic Industrial Forum. Inc.. Conference on Land Use and Nuclear facility l Siting. Denver. Colorado July 18-21, 1976; to be published in the proceedings. I I ] P l I J l I l l i i i l l 1 I i a l l 1 l m..

Appendix A CEQ LETTER TO NRC, NOVEMBER 23, 1976 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT c3 g COUNCIL ON ENVIRON MENTAL QU ALITY 722 jackson PLACE. PL W. g WASHINGTON. o C. 20006 g>*8* HOV 2 3I370 p gb 7 6.c p-9 k"" / (- us g

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Council on Environmental Quality has reviewed the final environmantal impact statement related to the manufacture of Floating Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0056) which was filed with,the Council on September 30, 1976. On the basis of the review we believe that thia final environmental impact state =ent is not adequate to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Our primary criticism is that the statement inadequately analyzes the environ-mental impact of riverine and estuarine siting of DG's. In addition, NRC has f ailed to respond adequately in the final EIS to coc: ents, raised by Federal agencies and the public on the draft IIS, A number of serious deficiencies raised by com=entors are di nissed by NRC staff responses in Volume 2, rather than addressed by modifying the body of the EIS (Volume 1) prior to release in final form. Riverine and Estuarine Siting As you know, the FNP concept was intended, in part, to ameliorate i the siting and ther=al discharge probic=s of land-based power plants. Indeed the analysis of environ = ental effects in the draf t EIS (Part II) was based en offshore siting. I!owever, the scope of the action in the draf t statement was orpanded in response to en amendment by the applicant to include riverine and estuarine sites without corresponding change j in the envirocrental analysis. At a meeting on June 8, 1976 with your staff, CEQ staff strongly objected to the NRC positten that "FNP's as nuclear generating stations in lagoons or basics along river; of the coastline and in bays or other estuarine locations present few unique environmental consideraticas 1 not already covered in the offshore case of siting." Furthermore, we understood that as a result of our objections, the final EIS would consider only offshore ocean sites and that analysis of riverine and estuarine sites would be the subject of a separate EIS. The final EIS recently filed with the Council, however, fails to follow through on that understanding. Instead, it simply restates the position taken in the draft EIS without including a careful analysis of the specific environmental impacts of FNP's on estuarine and riverine ecosystems. A-1

m ..m_. A-2 i l 1 q l There is a clear difference in the respective environments and, consequently, in the possible impacts. For exampic: the productivity, stability, functions and biological diversity of offshore coastal ecocystems vary greatly from those of rivers and estuaries; tecperature, j salinity, and physical and chemical processes are substantially different; and the-impacts of extreme events (hurricanes and other violent storms) differ dramatically in the coastal and riverine waters. These differences should be discussed and analyzed. 1 of equal concern, the EIS does not provide an analysis in support of the assertion that the impacts of an FNP site on a river or estuary are basically no different from those of a land-based plant. In particular: o There i's no comparison of the range of environ = ental and other costs and benefits of siting a floating nuclear power plant in estuaries or rivers with the costs and benefits of siting conventional plants en land. j e There is no discussion of the impacts of siting and operating a plant directly in an estuarine, river, or wetland ecosystes. 4 There is insufficient evaluation of the impact of o extreme natural events (floods, storms, etc.) on the operation and caintenance of ficating nuclear power plants in riverire and/or estuarine ecosyste=s. o There is no coeparative analysis of the impacts of major plant system failures (explosion, radiation leakage, etc.) on the off 6hore riverine / estuarine and onshore environ =ents. I In our view, the EIS is not sufficient to support the environmentally acceptable siting of FNF's in estuarine or riverine ecosystems. The Council believes that in order to license the siting of FKP's in riverine or estuarine ecosystems, the NRC cust undertake a thorough scalysis of the resulting environ = ental impacts, and cempare those with the impacts of offshore and land-based nuclear power generating facilities. Alternatives The discussion of alternatives, particularly those related to 4 energy, is seriously inadequate. First, the EIS fails to assess the a alternative of not licensing floating nuclear power plants. NEPA clearly requires that an agency fully consider not proceeding with a proposed action. a The presentation of energy alternatives is also deficient. Volume 1 i of the EIS fails to discuss such alternativen as increased coal utilization, i s ) h d a 6 ..m.

m _._m ~ _. _ ~ . _ _ _ _ ~ A-3 1 solar heating and cooling, biomass conversion, wind energy, and other sources which are likely to be available within the period when FNP's vill be licensed and operating. In some combination, it is possible that these sources could substitute for the power to be supplied by the proposed facilitics. There is no substantive discussion of these alternatives and their environmental implications. We are also concerned that the E' 3 virtually ignores energy con-I servation and the relationship of conservation to electricity demand and the need for the facility. The statement on page 12-56 (18) that " energy consumers are tending to return to their former patterne of energy consumption" is not accurate. The national trend is moving toward significantly lower rates of energy demand growth (see 1976 CEQ Annual Report, page 104). Several recent studies by independent and government analysts show that electrical demand may be much lower than those levels considered in the EIS. Yet the EIS ignores ceasures to induce conservation, including higher prices, which are either in place or might be put in effect. And the EIS fails to cention the likely effects of new Federal conservation legislation establishing energy efficiency standards and guidelines for automobiles, appliances, buildings, l and industrial processes. l Further: ore, the lack of consideration of enerEy conservation appears to be inconsistent with the recent decisi:n in Sarinas Valley f;eclear i Study Group v. Igji (No. 73-1867 D.C. Cir. 1976) requiring the NRC to include a detailed discussien of energy conservation in its impact statements. We believe that this decision requires a new look at the question of conservatien, its possible effect on energy demand, and the ultimate need for generating f acilities. Plant Security Mensures i Nuclear power plants sited offshore appear to present different, 1 perhaps higher risks of sabotage and thus catastrophic accidents than a onshore nuclear facilities. The final EIS fails to discuss the assoc-1ated risks and cecurity measures. In Volume 2 the NPO staf f simply 4 1 points to what it considers to be an adequate, existing safeguards program. The EIS should contain a thorough exposition of the potential for sabotage and associated accidents and the measures which may be required to protect these facilities. l EIS Length On February 10, 1976, the Council sent a memorandum to the heads of Federal agencies expressing our concern with trends in the length j of environmental i= pact statements and. their focun and emphasis. To restate our concern, we believe that EIS's should present factual information as concisely as possible, and give emphasis to analysis of impacts, alternatives, and mitigating measures. Nearly 300 pages e a 0 l l _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _~ __,

I t A-4 ) of the final EIS - well over one-half the document - are devcted to e detailed description of the offshore environment. This should be drastically reduced. On the other hand, there are only 31 pages of discussian of the impacts of alternatives and only one page of analysis of the impact of radiation on biota other than man. For these reasons we believe NRC should prepare a revised final EIS, incorporating the necessary changes in the body of the EIS and not in a document such as Volume 2 which 1s, in essence, an appendix. In addition, we believe that it would be appropriate to incorporate the results of the Draft Liquid Fathways Study into a single, revised Fart II rather than handling it as a separate document. This will l greatly facilitate review and understanding of the proposed action. i i We would be pleased to meet further with you to discuss our comments. Sincerely, l / YY ek J hn A. Busterud etinE Chairman Honorable Marcus Rowden Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 U Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555

l 1 1 l l i Appendix B i NRC LETTER TO CEQ, FEBRUARY 17, 1977 i / \\, UNiTEo si AT(s / '- / '; NUCLE AR MGULATOilY COMMISSION { ,~. i W ASHINGTON. O c. ;rm4s o f +... / s., FEB I ? 1977 Docket No. 50-437 Dr.-John A. Busterud acting Chairman Council on Environmental Quality i 722 Jackson Place, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006

Dear Dr. Busterud:

This letter is i.n response' to your letter of November 23, 1976 addressed to Chairman Rowden setting fortH concerns of the Council on the NRC staf f's final environmental statement related to the manu-facture of floating nuclear plants (FNP's'). As you know, the appli-cation of Offshore Power Systems for a license to manufacture FNP's is i now pending before an Atomic Safety.and L'icensing Ecard. Since the decisions and rulings promulgated by the Board are subject to review by the Chairc.an and the Commissioneys, it would be inappropriate for Chairman Rowder to respond to inquiries regarding matters pertinent to i the record of that. proceeding. Accordingly, I have been asked to respond to your letter. ~ The primary criticism of our statement by the Council centered on the staff's evaluation of the environmental parameters peculiar to riverine and estuarine siting of FNP's. Based on discussions between members of our staf f s at the Council's of fices en December 22,1976, i t appears that the corpents relative to the scope and tranner of presenting the results of our environmental review of riverine and estuarine siting, including the exclusion of this option of siting from the final statement, were based on a mis..derstanding. We are, nevertheless, new preparing an i expansion of the final statement based on our conversations which considers further the environmental aspects of riverine and estuarine siting of j FNP's. It is expected that the scope and extent of this expanded part i of the FES will be formulated in a week or two, at which time we plan to arrange a meeting with your staff to present the details of the planned FES augmentation. i B-1 l \\ l

i B-2 1 9 a ( Dr. John A. Busterud 4 The CEQ conrient concerning tne need to consider the alternative of not licensing the floating nuclear plants is covered in the staff's final environmental statement Part I, issued in October 1975. This portion of the FES considered the alternative of abandonment of r,anufacture or failure to start manufacture. As discussed in the meeting with your staff, the NRC Staf f believes the discussion of those alternative energy sou' ces given in the FES is consistent with the manner and extent in r . which the subjc:t is presented in all of our environmental statements for nuclear pcwer plant construction and operation. Dur exoanded FES will discuss those alternatives you have suggested were not treated previously. Plant security measures we're also highlighted in your letter as being a point of deficiency relative to the requirements of hEPA. The staff's view of this matter, as discussed in Section 12 of the FES and as stated r in the December. 22 meettag, is that implementation of the physical protection requirements for nuclear power plants is evaluated in conjunction with tne overall safety review of the application ratner than as part of the environmental review. Certain ?lements of plant security measures for FNP's have already been brought.before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in a public hearing. The FES presentation provides a brief sunnary of tnis issue for the benefit of the reader; in the expanded FES, we will consider the difference in potential for sabotage in the case of the open ocean sited FNP relative to its land-based counterpart. The,connent by CEQ concerning the length of the statement appears to be directed to the fact that the FES (and prior CE5) section which characterizes the overall coastal environment consists of nearly 3D0 pages. The statement covers the entire coastal region from the Gulf of 4 Maine, down the entire Atlantic Coast, as,d through the coastal reaches of the Gulf of Mexico, and it includes not only the ocean environment, but a characterization of land environment of the coastal zone. This is, in essence, a detailed characterization of five majcr bio-geographical zones (six zones for the radiological assessment) including substantive discussion of major oceanographic parameters pertinent to tne siting of FNP's. As discussed in the Deceiber meeting, it would not te practicable to significantly reduce the content of this important section. In addition, P.any of the comments we have received suggested an even further lengthening of this section (See Appendix A of the FES). l j j

b-3 i Dr. John A. Busterud Finally, in our view, the remaining comnents concerning the manner of presenting staf f responses to comments in the FES and the integration of the Liquid Pathway Study as a part of the Part 11 documentation relate to methodology and procedures established by NRC in preparing relevant . licensing documents, rather than compliance with the provisions of NEPA. The method of preparation of Chapter 12 of the FES is consistent with wstablished practices for the preparation of final statements in NRC and allows the reader to readily see the material which was contairied in the DES and permits a meaningful correlation of (1) original analysis and assessment (2) comment on that material, and (3) staff responses thereto. Over the past years. Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have found this procedure to be helpful in carrying out their functions of ascertaining sufficiency 9af the FES, along with the Safety Evaluation Report, in meeting the requirements of NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act of i 1954, as amended. This point was also elaborated upon at the meeting i between members of our staf fs in December. On this basis, we believe that the slight inconvenience to the general reader and reviewer is justified by achieving a more expeditious and effective hearing process. We thank you for your comments and should there be furtner concern, we will be happy to discuss the mattet at the forthcoming meeting. Sincerely, /1 )

)

hl%4 44 its j Ben C. Rusche. Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation n i I l l i e - - +

Apper i

SUMMARY

OF NRC-CEQ MEETING ON APRIL 15, 1977 lidt E7 97 Portet !!o. - ST:1 00-437 l i!DLPRILU:l TOR: 1:arold P.. Dcnten, Director, Division of Site Safety and Environt.: ental Analysis i f.iOM: Fred J. Clark, Project Mana;er, Environnental Projects Cranch 1, DSE TZU: Voss A. I' core, As.sistant rirector for Environuntal frojects DSE %$ JECT: l'EETI';C 141TH C Q - ESTLAPIt:E SITI?r. Of H;P't Cn April 15, 1977, Vess Moore, Gecrge Kni e ton an: I, accorp,anied by l CCt.D attorneys $. So.hinii and 't. Staenherg, cet uith "essrs. Crubaker j ced Steever of the Ecuncil on D.vironn:ntal Quality (CEC) to ciscuss the general scope and extent of our fort'iconing envirer,r' ental statenent addendun which will cover, en a generic basis, the estuarine siting cf floating nuclear plants (F::P), additioul inforrution en alteraative cnergy sources, and t t rief discussion of plant security rutters relative to the FNP. Yoa vill recall that we had cerr,itted to the rieeting in our Fel,ruary 17, 1;77 response to a CEQ letter in which Dr. Jvin Custerud (then acting Chiirman of tne Council) expresse I concern over certain deficiencies in the cea?ric ris ("KC ')C5Fe) for the F !P r.cnufacturing license roplication of Offshcre Power Sysurr,s (nrS). Tre rea.ior concern of CCQ centered about thee raattar of,iting FDP's in riverine and estuarine i locations. Accordingly, our discussion with CEO stcff tas essentially limited to that topic. i 51rce M C had, en i' arch 18,1977, formally set forth a ret;,iireunt to l CPS for the J: velo rent of a su >plemnt to their ir.vironmental TM;crt coverinn the environmental considerattens of ins:: ore siting of F::P's and had'ir.cluded, in some detail, the specific clerents of additional inforratien nexed, the presentation to C[Q was therefore a reiteration of the significant aspects of the regaest to '.)rl, The C:Q st.aff expressed agreewnt with the approach to were takinr, in sccpina the nN statenent and concurred in the various :wironr ental factors to he consi:'ered as well as the plamed e@stis to be given to ti.e topics. E9. ring the course of disc issinn, sevaral suc<!estions _ ty 7 7 t' te 4+i*. n+.c '. c 4md. "

• " '8 8 *

~ Sejen. A u g 5 eser p eres A1.C.3 8 k tree. 9 $3J /J CN New

• /, a sowr e ms-e e e =tmo e resc ia e s se *** ***

C-1

C4 llarold R. Ocnton 2 i l an essment. II.c 1C staff aproed uith the CEQ renaris and indicited t!!at the statnnt uculd consider the sug &stcd additic.cs, prir.cipal i I 1 among the CEQ uggestions were: 1. Enphasis en sodiment trae:pcrt amJ rotatial 511tation t ir: pacts resulting from storm actier.s tidal dif fereaces, l etc. Consideration of largo-scale naintenar.ca drcdging I bet.cces very ir;;ortant. l l 2. A hii.slightir.g of the several significar,t federal laws that focus On r.iintaf ol'q and protecting ecological valu.ts on an r*ar tre ccast:.1 wl es;wrian t;at rs end a trief discussion of each concernimj its significar.cc tc possi' ale F ;P siting should l'c included in the statorent. 3. In those cases of FHP siting in estuarine water; whnre the environrvntal fcctors and reletad e"ciluations are similar to or even the same as for the case of the nearby land-Lased pouer plant, the discussion shcold clearly provice support for t':e statament of similarity. A clear diccession of si:.ilit :das is inportar.t to tha value of tne 1: pact state.'+nt. Al terr.atively, thare rwst te a technical Lasis and Larrcrt for discussion of di/ferences. { t 4. ic th? extent possible, the sigr.lficance of t:.ese [ eierents of the f':P site desi:n envelope - particularly cint.,um. and r:uirm t.ater depths, to estuarine and coastal in:Scre sitin;; cf rn?'s :hould bc givan, i Although th adder.dua should not in any way bc constru?d as Loing a site-sorcific dccument, such a discussion my crve to highlicht other i. mets. 111ustr3tive of tr.is point 1: t. Sat construction dredning, acceptable or un2ccepteble, nay te a required effnrt due to water depths at a proposed site Leing outside of the site en nloa: (Se CER Lunplentnt ::o. 2, cated Octc' er 8, l')75 - #Er.-00M). 5. Emphasis s'wald be qiven to establishir.q an analytical Lasis for all ele.mnts of environt.mntal assem.cnt. Cescription alone is insufficient. In addition to tha srecific re.arrs identified a:cve, FM sur.gtsted that the t0 staff arrar.ge ta neet with epa and, sirilar to t!-c we:irn with f.EQ, discuts EP.5 concerrs on riveri e and astuari9 d ting of FM's as s?t f arth in their review of the <;eneric FES. L'e et,rced to do 50 end ere currently arrangin; such a necting. '"8# k -4 ..m . u., s,, m... e,..._....... 1 l ) -9 m >-..p, --+w-, a e- ,ww.,

i C-3 l l l J l l l 4 Harold,R.- Ocu ton 3 I i A last issue brounht forth at the rectinr; related to the raattcr of cir'culating the adder r'un as a draft statc~nt or i:; suing it c.; en FES edJendun without circulation to federal and state acancies ar.d no ters cf the public. Resolution of this r:atter centers on whetM/ the natcrial J presented is "ne.s" inforriation,' or rhether it is rerely an exec.sion of c:aterial r:reviously incl.ided in the generic FES. Er. Cru!aker will discuss this aspect of her.dling the addendua with CEQ I? gal staff who in turn will contact CELD (Schinki and Ste.enberg) for resolution of the issue. I As indicated above, EP plens to meet with EPA representatives as soon as possible. Me will then meet with the applicant to discuts the additional considerations that will be required to be incorporated into the OPS Supplerent to their Enviroreental Report. g;',-}d W{L - A y 3 1.t'au,- Fred J. Clark, Jr., f roject ilanener Envircnraental Projects Branch 1 Division of Sita Safety and Environmental Inalysis a \\ 1 i l l l l s

-. - =. _ ~, I 1 Appendix D EPA LETTER TO NRC COMMENTING ON THE ADDENDUM, FEBRUARY 8, 1978 i f i 0 i 1 1 i D-1

gee are ~ d% y (QJ UNITED STATES ENVlHONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY g%,[ W ASH e'aG TON OC 204 % gN siting issue is a key factor to the success of the project, f/ d therefore we feel avery considerat ion should be given to f ....r....s this new document. w,w

• u F.B 1978

~ R t v We would like to recommend some specific language changes y~^,,m~*b s for sections of the Addendum which we feel are misleading to Mr. Voss A. Moore potential applicants. We have attached our dgtailed ecmments "i "* Assistant Director for Environmental with the indicated suggestions as well as copies of laws Projects applicable to the Addendum section, entitled Federal Laws Division of Site Safety and for Protection of the Coastal Environment. This new enumeration Environmental Analysis . t ',,# of laws and permit requirements should clarify some procedural tL S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission questions that might occur to an applicant conteeplating an Washington, D. C. 20$55 action in the cosstal zone.

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this document. If you have any questions or would like to discuss As agreed upon at the meeting held on January 19, 1978 with this matter further, please contact Mr. William Dickerson or your staff, we are providing our comments on the preliminary Ms. Florence Munter of my staff at (202) 755-0770 Addendum to the FES on Manufacture of Flcating Nuclear Power Plants (Part II). Sincerely yo* e, As stated at that meeting, EPA does not agree with the ~ M conclusions of this study concerning siting in estuartne / areas (designated as inshore, alongshore, and nearshore Joseph M. McCabe areas). As you know, estuarine areas are very productive Acting Director ecosystems and are highly senaltive to physical changes. Office of Federal Activities EPA's regional offices have voiced their strong concern reg a r ding siting a FMP in an estuarine area. In particular. Enclosure their concern arises from recent larval entrainment mortality studies at nxisting coastal plants [ Crystal River (FL), Cape Canaveral (FL). Indian River (FL). Dr.dnswick (MC), liudson 111ver System (NY), and Seabrook (NH)l. For these reasons and in view of Section 404 and Section 316(a) and (b) criteria (used to evaluate the impacts on water quality and marin* biota), we think the fundamental technical and procedural problems associated with siting FNP's in entuaries would be very difficult to overcome. We also believe the Addendum should be circulated for public camment as your analynis (leading to the conclusion that siting of FMP's in estuarine areas is acceptable) was not readily available before to the public or to EPA. The D.?

t DETAII.ED CCMMENTS TO ADDENDt M ON FES ON FNP's

p. V 4th Paragraph Suggest the next to last line read:

Once througn cooling: Construction of transmission facilities would cause-p. iii Item 2 adverse alteration of the ecological balance in these areas.

p. vi 2nd Paragraph p.

2-31 Delete the following sentence (same reason).

p. 2-32

p. 1-2 5th Paragraph we think it is premature to advocate a specific cooling system for estuary siting (inshore, alongshore, and

p. 2-15 and le nearshore). An analysis of both once-through cooling and closed-cycle coosing should be presented without reconmendations as the selection of a cooling system Cur experience with barrier islands su99ests that anY should be made according to the site specific criteria.

construction on or through them would cause irreparable damage to them. Suggest changing the word "could" in

p. iv Item 4~

Paragraph 5 ghe first, sentence to "would" and the next sentence to Barrier islands should be avoided if at all possible." " Sediment contaminant... would affect..." Delete next p. 1-2 Paragraphs 3 and 5 sentence and substitute: Because estuaries are important ecosystems and sensitive areas, it can be expected that I The information presented in the Addendum does not m ted se e ion n app dx justify the conclusion that siting of FNP's in estuarine areas is basically no different from siting of land-It is suggested that the last two sentences be eliminated based plants in the same general area." A number of as the recommendation for previocaly disturbed sites (land-based) nuclear power plants situated in coastal violates the principles of NEPA. areas are cited as naving comparabla environmental impacts to the anticipated FMP siting, however, there are n detailed comparisions of environmental effects

p. v 3rd Paragraph at the plants named in either the Addendum or Section p.

1-2 Delete the following sentences as routine construction 12.1.3 Part II, Vol. 2 of the FEIS as referenced. does not occur in wetlands: The impacts from dredging alone,5uggest a greater "The effects, however, are expected to be similiar to impact accruing from FNP's than has been the case with those resulting from other large structures built in land-based or shore located plants. estuaries.

p. 2-15 Section 2.4

• The dredging should be similiar to dredging operations routinely performed in estuaries, The d edging impacts from construction of FNP's would be larger than is indicated on page 2-15.

The access channel (from the figures provided) initially could involve 7,840,800 cubic feet of dredge material. In addition, it is stated in the Addendum that maintenance I D-3 t .- ~ r

t a

p. 2-15 and 16 Section 2.4.2.2 - Barrier islands dredging could extend over a two year period, however, limited analysis is provided on the cumulative impacts

p. 2-15

" Breaches would have to..." 9 "9*

p. 2-16 Paragraph 5 - Again, the impacts, as presented, In the 2nd paragraph, the conclusion that " ope rations support the no-build conclusion for barrier would not dif fer significantly from those routinely islands.

carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers" is not justified. We suggest eliminating this comment and the p. 2-30 2nd Paragraph (Same comment) comment one

p. 2-16 2nd Paragraph j

p. 2-25 6th Paragraph The conclusions on mangrove restoration are questionable "As discussed above...=

as areas that have been destroyed have not returned to their natural state.. l p. 2-15 6th Paragraph j

p. 2-17 We suggest striking the paragraph:

We suggest eliminating the sixth paragraph - "Much of "Although salt marshes have historically served as the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts...* (reinforcing present handy disposal sites for dredge spoils, this practice pollution). should be avoided during FNP construction...." and i i substituting: " Disposal of all dredging material would Last paragr:ph - last line -- eliminate the followings have to be in compliance with Section 404 of the Federal "where extensive disturbance has already occurred." Water Pollution Control Act which states the guidelines developed by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers shall

p. 2-21 3rd Paragraph be followed in the discharge of dredge or fill material.

This law and others which restrict development in The summary is confusing as there seems to be two coastal areas (Section 404 and section 103 of the recommendations as to potential areas where dredging FWPCA, Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act, and might be acceptable. Suggest eltminating " Dredging in already disturbed areas could Section 5 of the Coastal Zone Management Act) are discussed in the appendix. 7th Patagraph f Suggest striking the last seratence "This effect is likely to be evident only in small estuaries." I 9th Paragraph suggest striking: "The amount of dredging necessary for emplacement of a FNP is small relative to the amount of dredging carried out for maintenance of navigable waterways *... for the reasons cited above. i r D-4 , ~

(2) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Federal Laws for Protection of the Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 Coastal Environment 33 U.S.C. IJ44) (hereinafter referred to as Section 404) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, (Eliminate 4th paragraph and add the following:) after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States at specified Executive Order on Wetlands: (11990) 40 CFR Part 30 i disposal sites. See 33 CFR 323. The selection + and use of disposal sites will be in accordance The wetland policy requires that particular cognizance, with guidelines developed by the Administrator of and consideration be given any project that has potential the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in to damage or destroy wetlands. Selected project actions conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, published should be shown to be most practicable of all possible in 40 CFR Part 230. If these guidelines prohibit alternate actions 'and should provide the least, or the selection or use of a disposal site, the Chief preferably, no impacts to wetlands. If wetlands are to of Engineers may consider the economic tmpact on l be affected by project actions, the applicant should navigation of such a prohibition in reaching his l provide substantive evaluation of all proposed and decision. Fu r the rmore, the Administrator can alternate actions regarding their potential to impact prohibit or restrict the use of any defined area these sensitive areas and of all mitigative measures to as 'a disposal site whenever he determines, af ter minimize the impacts, notice and opportunity for public hearings and after consultation with the Secretary of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers Permits (for a detailed explanation, that the discharge of such materials into such l see 33 CFR Parts 320-329) areas will have an unacceptable adverse ef fect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and (1) Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act approved fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. March 3,'1899 (30 Stat. 1151: 33 USC 403) (hereinafter referred to as Section 10) prohibits the unauthorized (3) Section 103 of the Marine Protection. Research and obstruction or alteration of any navigable water Sanctuararies Act of 1972, as amended (P.L. 92-of the United States. The construction of anY 532, 86 Stat. 1052, 33 U.S.C. 1413) (hereinafter structure in or over any naviyable water of the referred to as Section 103) authorizes the Secretary United States, the excavation from or depositin9 of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, of material in such waters, or the accomplishment to issue permits, sfter notice and opportunity for of any other work af fecting,the course, location

• public hearings, for the transportation of dredged condition, or capacity of such waters is unlawful material for the purpose of[ damping it in ocean anless the work has been recommended by the Chief waters where it is determined that the dumping of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human the Army + The instrument of authorization is health, welfare, or amenities, or the materine designated a permit, general permit, or letter of environment, ecological system or economic potentialities.

permission. The authority of the Secretary of the The selection of disposal sites will be in accordance Army to prevent obstructions to navigation in the with criteria, developed by the Administrator of navigable waters of the United States was extended the EPA in consultation with the Secretary of the to artificial islands and fixed structures located Army, published in 40 CFR Parts 220-229.

However, on the outer continental shelf by Section 4 ( f) of similar to the CPA Administrator's limiting authority the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (67 cited in subparagraph (g) above, the Administrator Stat. 463: 43 USC 1333(f)). See also 33 CFR Part 322.

D.5 i

r I i h can prevent the issuance of a permit under this e authority if he finds that the damping of the material will result in an unacceptable adverse impact on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, wildlife, fisheries or recreational areas. See also 33 CFR Part 324. In decision making on these permits, the corps of Engineers employs general policies in each of the following areas (See 33 CFR Part 320.4): Impact on the public interest Ef fect on wetlands Effect on fish and wildlife ( Effect on water quality Effect on historic, scenic and recreational l values j Effect on limits of the territorial sea j Interference with adjacent properties or water [ resource projects Effects on coastal zones Effects on marine sanctuaries Uniformity with other Fedecsl, State or local requirements Safety of impoundment structures Effect on floodplains i D-6 -s. ,w-e w ---=, +u m,--r.wvrr ,m-> - - = _ -,. "a r--- a

t I f Appendix E NRC LETTER TO EPA, MARCH 6, 1978 l r 'l l l f I l l I l I E-1

[ um T E D tT AYES { f - MocLE AM REGULATORY COMMISSION Pr. Joseph M. McCabe 3 nwowc roes o. c m=4 .\\,*..../ yAR 6 12 Docket No. 50 437 May we once again empnasize that a separate environmental impact statment will be prepared by the NRC in conjunction with any application to site FNP's at specific sites. This will further insure that all relevant I impacts asscciated with actual FMP sites will be properly evaluated and Mr. Joseph M. M:Cabe weighed. i Acting Director We appreciate the EPA views on these matters as well as your efforts in Office of Federal Activities U. 5. Environnental Protection Agency reviewing and comenting on this document. Washington. D. C. 20460 Ref: Addendum to the FES-Part 11 related to the manufacture of %g/ ,7* p/ &#8 L, f g& J - 4 l F1cating Nuclear Powar Plants (F4P) Yoss A. Moore, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects f

Dear Mr. McCabe:

Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis l During meetings on Ja uary 4 and 19,1978 between our respective staff i manbers, the NRC in implementing the Second Memorandum of Understanding between our agencies requested EPA review of the referenced Addendum I prior to its issuance by the NRC. Based upon our evaluation of your corvnents provided in your letter of February

• and attached thereto, the NRC has modified the content of the Addendum. Specifically, Section 5 has been revised to reflect the material provided by the EPA regarding Federal laws for the protection of the coastal environment. Furthermore, other discussion material, including that on barrier island impacts, hve been appropriately revised to reflect some of your expressed concerns.

iiith regard to your general coment on the conclusions reached in the Addendum, we find our respective staffs are in basic agreement regarding the ecological productivity and sensitivity of estuarine areas. Ikmever, based upon our generic environmc9tal evaluation related to FMP manufacture and operatiore, of which this Addendum forms a part, the NRC, contrary to the EPA, does not believe that the existence of sensitive areas alone provides a technical justification for foreclosing the siting of FNP's in such environs. As you are aware, the purpose of the NRC generic environmental evalua-tion is to provide the dc ision maker with objective information such that a finding can be made as to the environmental acceptability of manufacturing and potentially siting up to eight FNP's at generalized unspecified areas in the off shore and shore zone waters of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Based upon our findings to date, we believe that absent the identification and evaluation of each and every potential FNP estuarine site, a conclusion which excludes such sites in toto for FMP emplacement is both premature and technically indefensible. E-2 .}}