Environmental Impact

Assessment
Case study from Finland:
Extension of the Olkiluoto nuclear
plant (OL 3)

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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 has
increased 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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Project/action identification
Electricity 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 being
decommissioned
According to the investigation carried out by Professor Mikko Kara from the
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, the demand for electricity
generation capacity will increase
to ca. 7000 MW by the year 2020.

Project/action identification
Extension of the Olkiluoto
nuclear plant by a third unit

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Project screening
Does the project require an
EIA ?
(Annex 1 Projects)
Annex 2 - development
projects which would be
subject to an EIA should
they be likely to have
significant environmental
effects
Agriculture and forestry

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Oil refineries
Large coal gasification and
liquefication 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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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 nd
Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland), opinions from Ministry of
Environment, the municipality of construction and neighbouring
municipalities
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-ordination
authority statement on it as a basic material for their decision-making
But many, more detailed reports on the project and its impacts need to
be compiled and attached to the permit applications during the planning
stage

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Scoping
Which 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 a
mixture of):
1. Construction of new generating capacity
Alternatives regarding generator type, fuel used, location, site
layout and design)
2. Import of electricity from another region
3. Stringent energy conservation measures

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Scoping alternatives
Alternative
locations A
& B for the
new plant
unit, new
cooling
water inlet
and
alternative
cooling
water outlet
locations 14

Scoping
Who is involved?

Involvement of local
community (they are to be
exposed to eventual risk)

EIA programme of the project

completed in May 1998
Presented on a number of
occasions
On display in Sweden and
Finland for 2 months

(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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Resident questionnaire and

interviews, meetings
In the resident survey, 65% of
respondents supported the
construction of OL3

Project/action description

French-German Consortium
(Framatome ANP and Siemens)
has the total responsibility for
the construction of the Olkiluoto
3 plant unit
Framatome ANP - in charge of
the reactor plant
Siemens - of the turbine plant
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Construction of a 1600MWe
nuclear power plant
European Pressurized Water
Reactor (EPR)

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 speed
of 1500 RPM.

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Impact assessment
baseline environmental conditions

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Identification of impacts
Ecosystem destruction
during construction
Pollution due to the
transportation of
materials
Thermal pollution
Possible radioactive
pollution
Uncertainty of local
inhabitants
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

9 No or minimal air
pollution during
operation
9 Carbon dioxide free
9 Limited pollution due to
fuel 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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

The impact of
the wastewater
NPP produces fairly small quantity of
wastewater which is treated before the release
no detrimental impacts on the quality of water
in the Olkiluoto sea area

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Visual impact

Traffic to Olkiluoto
During the construction period (4-5yrs)
passenger and heavy traffic from the
Rauma-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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

The impacts on human health

A person in the population group that is most
exposed to radioactive releases during the
operation of OL3 will receive no more than
0.0003 mSv of radiation dose/year the
same as the total dose from the existing
Olkilouoto units
Upper allowable dose 0.1mSv
Average exposure in Finland ~4mSv
(background radiation and the medical use of
radiation)
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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 terms
of employment - 16500 - 20250 man-years
OL3 unit will provide permanent employment to
150 - 200 people
During the annual outages, about a thousand
people will be employed
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Safety of OL3

OL3 meets all Finnish and European safety requirements for nuclear power
plants.

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

The reactor containment is a double reinforced concrete structure, with a

pressure 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 in
the initial design of Olkiluoto 3. The probability of this type of accidents is
extremely low.

Safety of OL3
Safety and quality culture

TVO and the project organisation for OL3 are committed to a high safety
and 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 zero
accidents. Another objective of active occupational safety efforts is to
ensure the job satisfaction of the personnel involved in the project and to
provide them with good and safe working conditions and knowledge
about proper operating procedures
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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 even
to 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 annual
average radiation dose in Finland
In the course of 50 yrs following the accident, the
resulting extra dose would be in the same class as the
average radiation dose of a Finnish citizen during this
time

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Waste management
The management of nuclear waste generated in OL3 will be
realised applying the existing methods and procedures
The financing for the nuclear waste management is collected
in the form of a nuclear waste management fee included in
the price of the electricity produced by the new unit
The fees will cover the costs caused by the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and operating waste as well as by the
management of the decommissioning waste
The funds are collected in the State Nuclear Waste
Management Fund and returned to the power company as
costs are incurred during the various stages of waste
management

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Waste management
Low and intermediate level operating waste - packed and
placed 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 fuel

every year.
The spent fuel is initially stored in underwater repositories
built 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 thickwalled iron/copper capsules and transferred into a final
disposal facility deep inside the bedrock, where it is
permanently isolated from the living nature.
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Waste management
Responsibility for the planning and implementation of the
final disposal of spent nuclear fuel rests with Posiva Oy, a
company 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 the
final disposal facility in Olkiluoto.
In connection with the decision in principle on the new plant
unit Olkiluoto 3 the Government also issued a separate
decision in principle, by which the spent fuel from the new
plant unit can also be embedded in the bedrock in Olkiluoto.

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

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 from

electricity generation are estimated to grow by more than 10 million tons

The volume of growth will depend on how the increase in the demand of
electricity 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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

EIA programme evaluation

The Ministry of Trade & Industry (MTI) in Finland (coordination authority of the OL3 project) gave its own
statement on the EIA programme October 1998
EIA Report submitted to MTI in August 1999

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Decision
The Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry
issued statements on the EIA reports in 2000, in
which it considered both reports to be sufficiently
comprehensive and compliant with the
requirements of the EIA Law and EIA Decree, as
well as with the objectives specified in the EIA
programme of the project and in the statement
issued by the Ministry on this programme

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Decision
November 2000 - Teollisuuden Voima Oy filed an application
with the Finnish Government for a decision on a new nuclear
power plant unit
January 2002 - the government made the decision in favour
of the new unit and considered the construction of a new
plant 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

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Decision
October 2003 - Olkiluoto was selected as the site for the new
unit on technical and financial grounds
December 2003 - TVO selected the pressurised water
reactor of the consortium formed by Framatome ANP and
Siemens from the solutions offered in the bidding
competition
January 2004 - TVO filed an application with the government
for the construction license of the Olkiluoto 3 unit
February 2004 quarrying at the building site in Olkiluoto
began

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Time schedule for the OL3

project

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Time schedule for the OL3

project

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

OL3 site in June and October 2004

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

OL3 site 2005

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

OL3 site December 2006

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Current Status May 2008

The Olkiluoto 3 project employs a little over 1900 subcontractors
from 28 different countries, and about 40% of them are Finnish
companies.
So far about 127000 cubic metres of concrete has been poured. The
first pool frame that will be lined with stainless steel has been lifted
in place in the reactor plant.
The second pouring section of the external containment wall has
been finished and the installation of reinforcement for the next
section has started.
All the major components for the reactor island are in fabrication.
The reactor pressure vessel will be shipped to Finland from Japan
toward the end of autumn.
2011 expected commissioning and commercial use
Teollisuuden Voima Oy

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

OL3 site September 2008

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

OL3 reactor main data

Reactor thermal output

4 300 MW

Net electric output

approx. 1 600 MW

Reactor operating pressure

154 bar

Main steam temperature

290C

Pressure vessel height

13 m

Reactor core height

4,2 m

Number of fuel assemblies

241

Amount of uranium in reactor

128 tons UO2

Number of control rods

89

Containment height

63 m

Containment width

49 m

Containment wall thickness

2m

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Technical data of the OL3 plant unit

Net electric output

Reactor thermal output
Total efficiency
Fuel
Annual fuel consumption
Average fuel enrichment level
Amount of uranium in reactor
Annual electric generation
Cooling water flow
Turbine speed
Number of turbines
Main steam temperature

approx. 1 600 MW
4 300 MW
over 37 %
uranium oxide UO2
approx. 32 t
3 - 5 % U-235
approx. 128 t
approx. 13 TWh
57 m3/s
1 500 rpm
1 high-pressure + 3 low-pressure
290C

Monitoring & audit

After decision is made and Environmental

parameter
project realised there
must be constant
monitoring and auditing of
real effects
Preferably the results of
monitoring and audit
should be publicly
available

Actual
effect

Predicted
effect
Predicted
baseline
Actual
baseline

Time, years
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Costs & benefits of

the EIA systems
Costs (0.1-1% of total
project cost)
Document preparation,
review, circulation, and
administration of the law
costs
Delay (inflation &
foregone opportunity)
costs
Uncertainty costs (due
to risk of failure)
Mitigation costs (which
increase or may be
decreased)
Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr

Benefits
There so far has been no
reliable quantification of
the 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/

Paulina Bohdanowicz, TeknDr