Final Environmental Statement Related to the Forked River Nuclear
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
~,~~afjF~M flV~~3 ~ '*-'a- qi'4a' 0.nv,.-.tn, WSie related to the FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR STATION UNIT I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET No. 50-363 February 1973 UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING i SUM~MARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. 1. This action is administrative. 2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the Jersey Central Power and Light Company (hereafter the Applicant) for the construction of the Forked River Nuclear Station Unit 1 (hereafter the Station), a nuclear power reactor to be located a few miles inland from Barnegat Bay near the community of Forked River, Ocean County, New Jersey (Docket No. 50-363). Unit 1 will employ a pressurized water reactor' to produce up to 3390 megawatts thermal (MWt)'. A steam turbine-generator will use this heat to provide 1093 megawatts of electrical power capacity (MWe). A "stretch power level" of 1143 MWe is anticipated at-a future date and is considered in the assessments contained in this statement. The turbine-exhaust steam will be cooled with seawater obtained from a canal connected to Barnegat Bay and circulated through either a counter-flow or cross-flow, natural-draft cooling tower. The interaction of the Forked River Station with the nearby operating Oyster Creek Nuclear Station was considered in this statement in evaluating environmental impacts. The existing environmental conditions with the Oyster Creek Station operating were used as an evaluation baseline. The Staff analysis showed no significant compounding of potential adverse effects attributable to th e addition of the Forked River Station. A separate environmental statement is being prepared for the Oyster Creek Station. 3. Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects: a. Several hundred acres of marginally productive agricultural land will be disturbed by construction activities and preempted for other uses. The associated loss of wild- life habitat will be minimal. Some turbidity may be ii, added to adjacent surface waters during the construction phase due to soil erosion and runoff: and a relatively small and temporary loss of benthic organisms will re- sult from dredging operation in the bay and discharge canal. b. Transmission lines right-of-way construction will result in the alteration of approximately two thousand acres of forest and agricultural land and the displacement of some wildlife presently in this area. In order to minimize impacts, the Applicant has cooperated with the State and local agencies to optimize wildlife values. c. Aquatic organisms entrained in the plant's cooling water system will be killed due to thermal, chemical, and mechanical shock. This loss is not expected to represent a significant fraction of the bay's biomass or to affect the productivity of adjacent waters. d. From 5,000 to 10,000 finfish and crabs will be destroyed each year by impingement and entrapment on water intake screens. This loss represents a very small fraction of Barnegat Bay ecosystem's annual production. e. Chemicals discharged from the Station, particularly chlorine, will be readily diluted to concentrations below those which might adversely affect aquatic resources. f. The cooling tower and issuing vapor plume may constitute a visual impact from surrounding areas and a possible distraction to traffic on the nearby Garden State Parkway. The several additional hours of fogging and/or icing ex- pected each year should be of little consequence. g. Use of fresh and salt water at the Station will not measurably deplete supply sources nor impair the quality of return flows for other uses. h. The deposition of salt resulting from the operation of the cooling tower within present design criteria will have no significant adverse impact on adjacent surfaces and vegetation. .i. Normal operation of the Station will introduce a very small radiation dose to the environment which will not constitute a meaningful risk. The estimated dose to the population within 50 miles is about 10 man-rem/yr. iii j. The addition of heat to the discharge canal from Forked River cooling tower blowdown is relatively small and will not adversely affect aquatic life in the canal or Barnegat Bay. k. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low. 4. Principal alternatives considered: a. Abandonment of the site; b. The purchase of power; c. Use of fossil fuels; d. Location of the Station at other sites; e. An ocean outfall, once-through saltwater cooling system, f. Other freshwater sources (surface water and treated sewage effluent) as make-up for the cooling tower, g. The use of treated sewage effluent as make-up for a spray pond or evaporative cooling lake, and h. Transportation of radioactive materials by other than normal procedures. 5. Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement were received from the agencies and organizations listed below and have been con- sidered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Statement. Copies of these comments are included as Appendix D and discussed in Section XII. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission State of New Jersey Ocean County Commissioners. 6. This statement was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to the other specified agencies in February 1973. iv 7. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 is the issuance of a construction permit for the Forked River Nuclear Station Unit 1 subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment: a. Measures will be undertaken to assure good practices to minimize the impacts resulting from the clearing of land, dredging operations, construction equipment oils and lubricants, and cleaning of plant equipment and piping. A separate clarification pond or other suitable means will be provided and used for presettlement of construction drainage waters to minimize the discharge of sediment to the discharge canal. (See Section IV-C.) b. The cooling tower drift and salt deposition investigatory program must be conducted through the prototypical testing stage to provide adequate assurance that the low salt deposition and low drift goal can be achieved and maintained throughout the life of the plant, to expand drift rate in- formation for a wide range of meteorological conditions, and to assure the statistical reliability of the methods used. (See Section V-A.) c. Aquatic forms in the intake will be surveyed in detail. Those adversely affected by the intake and discharge will be monitored by number and species in order to determine the need, if any to install alternate or additional means for the preservation of such forms. (See Section V-C.2.) d. The environmental monitoring program will be expanded to include additional surface water sampling and increased frequency of milk sampling. (See Section V-D.4.) e. The objective of the station design shall be such that the 'release of radioiodines to the environment is controlled so that the Staff's projected annual exposure to the 2-gram thyroid organ of a child will not exceed 5 millirems. (See Section V-D.2) f. The Applicant shall implement a monitoring program to deter- mine environmental effects which may occur as a result of site preparation and Station construction and operation. If harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected by the monitoring program, the Applicant will provide to the staff an analysis of the problem and a plan of action to be taken to eliminate or significantly reduce the detrimnental effects or damage. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page * SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............. i LIST OF FIGURES ................... * xi LIST OF TABLES ...... ............. • xii FOREWORD ........... ................... ........... xiv I. INTRODUCTION ..... .............. A. SITE SELECTION ..... .......... .. 1-2 B. APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS .... .. 1-3 II. THE SITE ...... ................ ............. 11-1 A. LOCATION OF PLANT ............. ............. 11-9 B. REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE. ............. II-1 C. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE .......... ....... 11-9 D. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ......... 11-9 1. Geology ..... ........... ............................ 1II-9 2. Climate .... ............. ......... 11-10 3. Hydrology .... ........... a. Surface Waters ........... 11-12 b. Groundwater ........... ........... 11-17 E. ECOLOGY OF SITE AND ENVIRONS.. ........... 11-17 1. Terrestrial Ecology ....... ............. 1-17 2. Aquatic Ecology ........... ............................ II-20 a. Freshwater Ecosystems . b. Intake and Effluent Canal Ecosystem . 11-22 c. Barnegat Bay Ecosystems ........ 11-23 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page III. THE PLANT A. EXTERNAL APPEARANCE .............. ... 111-4 B. TRANSMISSION LINES. .............. * . 111-6 C. REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM ....... * . 111-6 D. EFFLUENT SYSTEMS ......... ................. *..111-6 1.