eia casestudy

8/17/2019 EIA Casestudy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eia-casestudy 1/47

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Environmental Impact

Assessment

Case study from Finland:

Extension of the Olkiluoto nuclear

plant (OL 3)




Project/action identification

Electricity demand on the increase in Finland

• The growth of the total consumption of energy is

estimated to slow down in Finland in the future• However, an increasing share of energy will be consumed

as electricity

• In the past 10 years, the consumption of electricity hasincreased in Finland by more than 25%

• Industry - more than 50% of the consumption of electricity& it will increase (despite efficiency increase)

• Consumption in residential sector will also increase



Project/action identificationElectricity demand on the increase in Finland• By 2010, the consumption of electricity is estimated to increase by an

average of 1.5% a year

• and after 2010 by 1% a year

• At the same time, old power plants fired with fossil fuels are beingdecommissioned

• According to the investigation carried out by Professor Mikko Kara from theVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, the demand for electricitygeneration capacity will increaseto ca. 7000 MW by the year 2020.




Project/action identification

Extension of the Olkiluoto

nuclear plant by a third unit




Project screening• Does the project require an

EIA ?(Annex 1 Projects)

• Annex 2 - developmentprojects which would be

subject to an EIA shouldthey be likely to havesignificant environmentaleffects – Agriculture and forestry

– Oil refineries

– Large coal gasification andliquefication plants

– Large power stations – Radioactive waste disposal

sites

– Integrated steel works

– Asbestos plants – Integrated chemical plants

– Motorways

– Railways

– Large airports – Ports

– Canals

– Toxic waste disposal facilities




Project screening• Does the project

require an EIA ?

• All nuclear power

stations require EIA(except small

research stations)

• EIA programme of the

project – completed in

May 1998




Permit procedures

to follow the EIA• The building of a nuclear plant requires permit decisions in accordance

with several different acts:

– Publication of EIA - reviewed & accepted by the Ministry of Trade &Industry

– Preliminary safety assessment from STUK (the Radiationa ndNuclear Safety Authority of Finland), opinions from Ministry ofEnvironment, the municipality of construction and neighbouringmunicipalities

– Decision by the Council of State – approved by the parliament

– Building and operating permits (according to the Nuclear Energy Act) – Building permit, environmental permit, permits in accordance with the

water legislation

• Various permit authorities use the EIA Report and the co-ordinationauthority statement on it as a basic material for their decision-making

• But many, more detailed reports on the project and its impacts need tobe compiled and attached to the permit applications during the planningstage




ScopingWhich alternatives to investigate/which are

reasonable - crucial!!(always at least 2 alternatives, including zero

alternative)

Electricity supply to a newly developed suburb (each separately or amixture of):

1. Construction of new generating capacity

Alternatives regarding generator type, fuel used, location, sitelayout and design)2. Import of electricity from another region3. Stringent energy conservation measures




Scoping - alternatives

• Main alternative – nuclear power plant unit of

~1000-1500MW at Olkiluoto

(BWR or PWR, 2 alternative locations at Olkiluoto,

4 alternative sites for cooling water discharge)

• Zero option: non-implementation of the project.

– acquiring the electricity needed from other suppliers either in Finland

or abroad, – Implementation of projects requiring electricity - abroad

• Alternative 1: production of the equivalent amount of

electricity by coal, natural gas, peat, wood fuel, hydro

power, wind power or solar panels

• Alternative 2: saving of the energy which has been planned

to be produced



Scoping -

alternatives

Alternativelocations A

& B for thenew plantunit, newcoolingwater inlet

andalternativecoolingwater outletlocations 1-4




Scoping• Who is involved?

(developer, experts, authorities, public)

• Consultation & participation methods

– Questionnaires & surveys

– Advertisements

– Leafleting

– Use of media – Displays exhibitions

– Telephone ”hotlines”

– Open houses

– Community advisory committees

– Group presentations

– Workshops

– Public meeting

– Public inquiries

• Involvement of localcommunity (they are to beexposed to eventual risk)

• EIA programme of the project – completed in May 1998

• Presented on a number ofoccasions

• On display in Sweden andFinland for 2 months

• Resident questionnaire andinterviews, meetings

• In the resident survey, 65% ofrespondents supported theconstruction of OL3




Project/action description

• Construction of a 1600MWe

nuclear power plant

• European Pressurized Water

Reactor (EPR)

French-German Consortium(Framatome ANP and Siemens)

has the total responsibility forthe construction of the Olkiluoto3 plant unitFramatome ANP - in charge ofthe reactor plant

Siemens - of the turbine plant




Project/action description• 4 main circulation circuits in the plant unit.

The reactor core - 241 fuel assemblies with a

total of appr. 128 tons of uranium.

• The plant unit - one turbine-generator combination:

– 1 high-pressure turbine

– 3 low-pressure turbines, which rotate at a speedof 1500 RPM.




Impact assessment

baseline environmental conditions




Identification of impacts – Ecosystem destruction

during construction – Pollution due to the

transportation of

materials – Thermal pollution

– Possible radioactive

pollution – Uncertainty of local

inhabitants

No or minimal air

pollution duringoperation

Carbon dioxide “free”

Limited pollution due tofuel transport




The impact of

the cooling water

• Cooling water warms up at the NPP by

~10-14C

• Impact investigated with the aid of a

mathematical dispersion model• Apart from temperature increase no other

changes in the cooling water quality



The impact of a new 1500MW plant unit on sea water

surface temperatures during typical weather conditions, cooling water discharge alternative 2

• Area of surface water that warms up above 1C

~doubled



The impact of a new 1500MW plant unit on ice

conditions during typical weather conditions,cooling water discharge alternative 2

• The area of unfrozen sea or weakened ice ~doubled




The impact of

the cooling water • The eventual eutrophication of aquatic vegetation in a

wider area than at present

• No harmful changes to the species or stocks of fish or

fishing

• Possibilities to utilise the cooling water were

investigated but – no technically, economically or

environmetally justifiable alternatives for a significant

reduction of the thermal load – only aiming at the

highest efficiency of the system



Visual impact




Traffic to Olkiluoto• During the construction period (4-5yrs)

passenger and heavy traffic from theRauma-Pori highway to Olkiluoto will

increase (double)

• During the operation of OL3 the commuter

traffic will increase by 1/3, the amount of

heavy traffic will be the same as at present




The impacts on human health• A person in the population group that is most

exposed to radioactive releases during theoperation of OL3 will receive no more than0.0003 mSv of radiation dose/year – thesame as the total dose from the existingOlkilouoto units

• Upper allowable dose – 0.1mSv

• Average exposure in Finland ~4mSv(background radiation and the medical use ofradiation)




Employment• Estimates: the OP3 unit - a direct employment

effect of 11000 - 13500 man-years in Finland• The effect of the chain of domestic acquisitions

connected with the construction project in termsof employment - 16500 - 20250 man-years

• OL3 unit will provide permanent employment to150 - 200 people

• During the annual outages, about a thousandpeople will be employed



Safety of OL3• OL3 meets all Finnish and European safety requirements for nuclear powerplants.

• OL3 will be equipped with four-fold protection and safety systems, located inseparate facilities and buildings physically isolated from each other.

• The reactor containment is a double reinforced concrete structure, with apressure resistant and gas-tight inner shell.

• The management of severe reactor accidents, i.e. accidents that will lead to

the melting of the reactor core, has been taken into consideration already inthe initial design of Olkiluoto 3. The probability of this type of accidents isextremely low.




Safety of OL3Safety and quality culture

• TVO and the project organisation for OL3 are committed to a high safetyand quality culture. The construction project of OL3 and the plant itself

shall meet – the requirements laid down in Finnish laws and decrees and issued by

authorities

– TVO's own objectives

– the safety and quality recommendations of the International Atomic Energy

Agency IAEA.• The quality management system of the OL3 project has been

granted the ISO 9001 certificate

Zero accidents objective

• In terms of occupational safety, the objective of the project is zeroaccidents. Another objective of active occupational safety efforts is toensure the job satisfaction of the personnel involved in the project and toprovide them with good and safe working conditions and knowledgeabout proper operating procedures




The impacts of accident

situations• The likelihood of an occurence of the examined accident

is smaller than once in 100 000 years

• The release would not cause a direct health hazard evento the nearest residents in the environment

• During the first 24h, without any protection measures,the radiation dose of a person living at a distance of 10

km would be about 5 times as much as an annualaverage radiation dose in Finland

• In the course of 50 yrs following the accident, theresulting extra dose would be in the same class as the

average radiation dose of a Finnish citizen during thistime




Waste management• The management of nuclear waste generated in OL3 will berealised applying the existing methods and procedures

• The financing for the nuclear waste management is collectedin the form of a nuclear waste management fee included inthe price of the electricity produced by the new unit

• The fees will cover the costs caused by the disposal of spentnuclear fuel and operating waste as well as by themanagement of the decommissioning waste

• The funds are collected in the State Nuclear WasteManagement Fund and returned to the power company ascosts are incurred during the various stages of wastemanagement




Waste management• Low and intermediate level operating waste - packed andplaced in final disposal repositories excavated in bedrock. – The existing repository facilities can be expanded for the waste

generated in the new plant unit.• OL3 will generate a total of 32 tons of spent nuclear fuelevery year.

• The spent fuel is initially stored in underwater repositoriesbuilt in Olkiluoto for the needs of the existing plant units. – The repositories can be expanded to meet the needs of the new plant

unit.

– The spent fuel is stored in these repositories for at least 20 years,during which the radioactivity of the fuel will decrease significantly.

• After the repository stage, the spent fuel is placed in thick-walled iron/copper capsules and transferred into a finaldisposal facility deep inside the bedrock, where it ispermanently isolated from the living nature.




Waste management• Responsibility for the planning and implementation of thefinal disposal of spent nuclear fuel rests with Posiva Oy, acompany owned by Teollisuuden Voima and Fortum Power

and Heat Oy.• The Finnish Parliament ratified in May 2001 the

Government's decision in principle on the construction of thefinal disposal facility in Olkiluoto.

• In connection with the decision in principle on the new plantunit Olkiluoto 3 the Government also issued a separatedecision in principle, by which the spent fuel from the newplant unit can also be embedded in the bedrock in Olkiluoto.




Nuclear power and climate• Electricity production - 20-30% of the total emissions of GHG in Finland

• If the amount of nuclear power is not increased, CO2

emissions fromelectricity generation are estimated to grow by more than 10 million tons

• The volume of growth will depend on how the increase in the demand ofelectricity is supplied

• The higher the share of non-emission production, such as hydropower and nuclear power, the smaller the increase in carbon dioxide

• If the volume of condensing production were increased using coal, peat

or natural gas, Finnish carbon dioxide emissions would increase




EIA programme evaluation

• The Ministry of Trade & Industry (MTI) in Finland (co-

ordination authority of the OL3 project) gave its own

statement on the EIA programme – October 1998

• EIA Report submitted to MTI in August 1999




Decision• The Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry

issued statements on the EIA reports in 2000, inwhich it considered both reports to be sufficientlycomprehensive and compliant with therequirements of the EIA Law and EIA Decree, as

well as with the objectives specified in the EIAprogramme of the project and in the statementissued by the Ministry on this programme




Decision• November 2000 - Teollisuuden Voima Oy filed an applicationwith the Finnish Government for a decision on a new nuclear power plant unit

• January 2002 - the government made the decision in favourof the new unit and considered the construction of a newplant unit to serve the overall interests of the society

• May 2002 - the Finnish Parliament ratified this decision

• a bidding competition that took over a year




Decision• October 2003 - Olkiluoto was selected as the site for the newunit on technical and financial grounds

• December 2003 - TVO selected the pressurised waterreactor of the consortium formed by Framatome ANP andSiemens from the solutions offered in the biddingcompetition

• January 2004 - TVO filed an application with the governmentfor the construction license of the Olkiluoto 3 unit

• February 2004 – quarrying at the building site in Olkiluotobegan




Time schedule for the OL3

project




OL3 site in June and October 2004




OL3 site 2005




OL3 site December 2006




Current Status May 2008

The Olkiluoto 3 project employs a little over 1900 subcontractorsfrom 28 different countries, and about 40% of them are Finnishcompanies.

So far about 127000 cubic metres of concrete has been poured. Thefirst pool frame that will be lined with stainless steel has been liftedin place in the reactor plant.

The second pouring section of the external containment wall hasbeen finished and the installation of reinforcement for the nextsection has started.

All the major components for the reactor island are in fabrication.

The reactor pressure vessel will be shipped to Finland from Japantoward the end of autumn.

2011 – expected commissioning and commercial use

Teollisuuden Voima Oy




OL3 site September 2008




OL3 reactor main data

2 mContainment wall thickness

49 mContainment width

63 mContainment height

89Number of control rods

128 tons UO2 Amount of uranium in reactor

241Number of fuel assemblies

4,2 mReactor core height

13 mPressure vessel height

290°CMain steam temperature

154 bar Reactor operating pressure

approx. 1 600 MWNet electric output

4 300 MWReactor thermal output



Technical data of the OL3 plant unit

• Net electric output approx. 1 600 MW• Reactor thermal output 4 300 MW

• Total efficiency over 37 %

• Fuel uranium oxide UO2

• Annual fuel consumption approx. 32 t

• Average fuel enrichment level 3 - 5 % U-235

• Amount of uranium in reactor approx. 128 t

• Annual electric generation approx. 13 TWh

• Cooling water flow 57 m3/s

• Turbine speed 1 500 rpm• Number of turbines 1 high-pressure + 3 low-pressure

• Main steam temperature 290°C




Monitoring & audit

• After decision is made and

project realised – there

must be constant

monitoring and auditing of

real effects

• Preferably the results of

monitoring and auditshould be publicly

available

Time, years

Environmentalparameter Actual

effect

Predicted

effect

Actualbaseline

Predictedbaseline

Costs & benefits of




Costs & benefits of

the EIA systems

• Costs (0.1-1% of totalproject cost)

– Document preparation,review, circulation, andadministration of the lawcosts

– Delay (inflation &foregone opportunity)costs

– Uncertainty costs (dueto risk of failure)

– Mitigation costs (whichincrease or may bedecreased)

• Benefits

– There so far has been no

reliable quantif ication ofthe effectiveness of the

EIA, and it may be that it

can only be measured

subjectively &qualitatively by

examining the attitudes

and opinions of those

involved.




References

• TVO, 1999, Extension of the Olkiluoto nuclear

power plant by a third unit, environmental impact

assessment, Teollisuuden Voima Oy, Olkiluoto,Finland

• Teollisuuden Voima Oy, http://www.tvo.fi/

eia casestudy

Documents