Regulatory Guide 4.7
| ML13350A245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1974 |
| From: | US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RG-4.007 | |
| Download: ML13350A245 (41) | |
W /U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Spebr17 REGULATORY
DIRECTORATE OF OIE4ULATORY STANDAROC
GUIDE
REGULATORY GUIDE 4.7 DRAFT
GENERAL SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA
FOR N'UCLEAR POWER STATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 places on the U.S. Atouic Energy Comm'issiou the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of private nuclear facilitic.
from the standpoint of public health and safety. Paragraphs 100.10(b) and (c)
of 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," require that the population 0ensitv, use of the site environs, and the physical characteristics uf the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology, be taken into account in det'ter- mining the acceptability of a site for a nuclear power reactor. Seismic aind geologic site criteria for nuclear power plants are provided in Apmlidi A ti, 10
CFR Part 100. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 establishes the minimt= requirements for the principal design criteria for water-cooled nuclear power plants; a num- ber of these 'criteria are .directly related to site characteristics as well ;as to events and conditions outside the nuclear power unit.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852), implemented by Executive order 11.514 and the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines of August 1, 1973 (38 FR 20550), requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare detailed environmental statements on proposed major Federal actions which can significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A principal objective of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
is to "--quire the agency to consider, in itu decision-making process, the environmental Impacts of each proposed major action and the available alter- native actions.
Pa*rt 51. "Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, sets forth the Atomic USAEC REGULATORY GUIDES COV44 ofat Wo.b 0-d ,,. to Ob*b**d bV -.. ,' a .-. o ,.*f*dV
,t..*t ,o C-0 US Am,,.K. * " Co,,'*.,o,.s D.C. 2MA4, Rgvatomv Gutf are ft...d to ~fc.tws bft ,yo OWWW in 1R D.4*"c Ar?*w.o. D**.,w of RotA SLw~t,14%E. 4ftlw. u4V '
f""hoft scoe~tobe to Cfe AEC "equisto', &Is"of rWr,0n~aowt .V9000
w Dartso *1 T940'0' 'ftu g4w&Ad ;'.o..a
- ..,.-o t. w- Mo'iV
1i1* commmm'ot.eto . I* l',ýtoswi ~.., 6V & tete ,t so of it"nC.an..o Ur`1 heo *-V
c vCsoe Wmnýonae
.- xWspolep teobk a'ot09utsted Kcftta. a, t o 000-& v ej to Ivde 'CIO ea,..edS.,.Sc
4 Wihm OKnol euud. Method* ad Wt~fto.' dl. f~ts '.o. I%" -. -SI - The toa 0,4~
a 'o 0 t) olft-V A-n ba'Of&*
imfuuente at cofftwn... Of a 0""M. *I horýtbv rf,.Co'nu"- I poo ROatowto"~*
Energy Commission's policy and procedures for the preparation and processing of environmental impact statements and related documents pursuant to section i02(2)(C) of the NEPA. The limitations on the Commission's authority and responsibility pursuant to the NEPA imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 916) are addressed in an Interim Policy Statement pub- lished in the Federal Register on January 29, 1973 (38 FR 2679).
This guide discusses the major site characteristlcs related to safety, public health, and envir:onmental issues which the Regulatory staff considers in determining the suitability of sites for nuclear power stations. The guidelines should be used in a screening process to identify suitable candidate sites for nuclear power stations. The decision that a plant may be built on a specific candidate site is based on a detailed evaluation of the p-oposed site-plant combination and a cost-benefit analysis comparing it with alttrna- tive site-plant combinations as discussed in Regulatory Guide 4.2.*
A site having characteristics that are acceptable according to the guidelines set forth in this guide would be compatible with nuclear power station** designs that meet public health and safety and environmental re- quirements current at the time of review.
The safety issues discussed include geologic/selsamc, hydrologic, and atmospheric characteristics of proposed sites; potential effects on the plant from accidents associated with nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; and population distribution and densities in the site environs as they relate to protecting tOe general public from the potential radiation ha:tards of postulated serious accidents. The environmental issues discussed concern potential impacts from the construction and operation of nuclear stations on biota and ecological systems, land use, the atmosphere, aesthetics, and socloeconomics. This guide does not discuss details of the engineering designs required to assure the compatibility of the nuclear station and the site or the detailed information required for the preparation of the safety analysis and environmental reports. This guide does not address power reactor site suitability as it may be affected by the Commission's materials safe- guards and plant protection requirements for nuclear power plants.
- Regulatory Guide 4.2, "Preparation of Environmental Reports foc Nuclear Power Plants," March 1973.
- Nuclear power station refers to the nuclear steam supply, electric gener- ating units, auxiliary systems, including the cooling system, structures such as docks that are located on a given site, and any new transmission lines erected in connection with the facility.
4.7-2
An extensive commitment of time and resources may be required to select a site for a nuclear power station, including safety and environmental consider- ations, and to develop a design for that site. Site selection involves con- siderations of public health and safety, engineering and d,.tiign, economic6, institutiotna. requirements, and environmental. impacts. The potential Impactu of the construction and operation of nuclear power station-; on the physical and biological environment and on social, cultural, and economic features* are similar for the site of any major Industrial facility, but nuclear power stations are unique In the degree to which potential impacts of the environ- ment on t-heir safety must be considered. The safety consirerations have been primary determinanto of the suitability of a site for nuclear power stations, but considerations of environmental impacts and pub].ic acceptance have become increasingly important.
Chapter 9 of Regulatory Guide 4.2 presents the basis for the choice of a site frcm among alternative sites. Although it recognizes that planning
-mothods will differ among applicants, it states that the applicant should present its site-plant selection process as the consequence of an analysis of alternatives whose environtmental, costs and benefits were evaluated and com- pared and then weighed against those of the proposed facility.
An acceptable evaluation of the site characteristics discussed in this guide can generally be based on existing information and on information de- rived from site reconnaissance by specialists knowledgeable of the local region of interest.
- Biological and phrysical environment includes geology (underground and surficial), geomorphology (landform and topography), hydrology (surface and subsurface), climatoiogy, air quality, limnology, water quality, fisheries, wildlife (large mammals, small mammals, birds), and vegetation.
Social and cultural features include scenic resources, recreation re- sources, archeological/historical resources, and community retiources (land use patterns, economic base, housing, transportation, sewer, water, police, fire, educational). From "Development and the Environment:
Legal Reforms to Facilitate Industrial Site Selection." Final. report by the Committee on Environmental Law, American Bar Association, February 1974.
- Site selection methodologies that have been used by the nuclear power industry are described in "Nuclear Power Plant Siting, A Generalized Process," Atomic Industrial Forum, August 1.974, National Environmental Studies Project, R-1578.
4.7-3
B. DISCUSSION
Geology/Seismology Nuclear power plants tust be designed to prevent the loss of safety- related functions. Generally, the most restrictive 5afety-related site characteristics considered in determining the suitability of i site are sur- face faulting, potential ground motion and foundaticn conditions* (including liquefaction, subsidence, and landslide potential), and seismically induced floods. Criteria that describe the nature of the investigations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to determine site suitability are provided by Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100. Safety-related site characteristics are identi- fied In Regulatory Guide 1.70, Section 2.5** and Regulatory Guide 1.59.*.*
In addition to geologic and seismic evaluation for assessing seismically in- duced flooding potential, Section 2.4 of Regul~tory Guide 1.70 and Regulatory Guide 1.59 describe hydrologic criteria, including coincident flood events that should be considered,.
Meteorology The potential effect of atmospheric extremes (for example, tornadoes and exceptional icing conditions #) on the safety-relate& structures of a nuclear station must be considered; however, the atmospheric extremes that may occur at a site are not critical in determining the suitability of a site because safety-related structures, systems, and compenents can be designed to with- stand atmospheric extremes.
The atmospheric characteristics at a site are an important consideration in evaluating the dispersion of radioactive effluents both from postulated
"Classification, Engineering Properties and Field Exploration of Soils, Intact Rock and In Situ Rock Masses," WASH-1301, March 1974. outlines some of the procedures used to evaluate site foundation properties.
- Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," October 1972.
- Regulatory Guide 1.59, "Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants."
August 1973,
0 Itw itory COO WK~I n "00010 44010 MOWIs fo~n~tiir Nuvla eiP'owor WOOts,"
April 1.014.
- Reg*tuotory G*ide 1,70. 1, "Additional Infor tIon--Hlydrologtcal Constd- erations for Nuclear Power Plants," December 1973.
4.7-4
accidentG and from routine releases in gaseous effl.uents.* ].n additi.n to meeting the AEC requirements for the dispersion of airuorne radioactivi:
materi al, the station must meet the requirements of th!e (l.an Air ARIindmiL'ts of 1970 (PL 91-694); this is unlikely to be an Important: eonsi.derat.oit for nuclear power stat.ions** unless (1) a proposed site is in ;in arra where c::ist- ing air quality is near or exceeds the limits Set, tndu,.r tLke Cltvan Air Amitnd- mieit5s or' (2) there i:. a potent .1L for i nter,'c on of hite ctooling ,ystLom plume with a plure' coiltaininlg noDXIous or toxic substanceLC from a nearby facility.
The meteorological d&aJTlrcossary for adequa.t. aest.-ssmeiit of tLhet potentiil dispersion of tadloact.ive matfurial. from dos l.gn 1,as-is actcidentL3 ate descr.ihbed .il Regu., .latoryCu ide 1.23.k** Models and asuult'..it,*C: used for Cv.3i atlt, I ng the pot eltial rod iologic-al conse;quen'ces* of cc rtai,*. ,',.idetlls
a. re iprov bled iin
- Rout ina rel.t:asv o. ai. rborine radloactiv e ;n .ri]. muist be kept "as low -o;
practicable." (See 10 CFH Part 20, r 20.1(,(,).
Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 sets forth the requl.rements tor desý,In objectives 1.tor *quipment. to control. rolcaste:s of radtivact.lvI., mater il iill effluents frow'. nuclear power reactors.
Sect ion 50.36U further l-.rovides that, in ordet to ketop power I'acieor effluent relleasets as ,low its practicable (AMAP), each l icvniue authorizing operation of such a facility wil]I include technital spe.c:fca.t lolls roegardIlg the OS tab i5hMeC1Lt of operating proc(odurte-, for effluent control, insto.U.!altion and ma intenance of cfflucnL control equipment, and repurtl.ng of iCtual r el c ase6.
Proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 would provide numerical, guidance for design objective.-I and t-chnical, specift£c*.ttion requirements for limiting conditions of operation tor Light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
The Commission hrld oral arguments on proposed Appendix 1 on June 6, 1974.
The matter is now pending before the Commission for decision.
The following draft. Regulatory Cuides have been prepared to assist in application of the numerical. guidance In proposed Appendix I: Attachment to Concludin., Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff, Public Rule- making Hearing on: Numerical Guides for Design Objdti:Lves alld Limiting Conditir.on3 for Operation to Meet the Criterion "t,\s Low As P'racticable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Draft Regulatory Guides for Implementation. February 20, 1974. Docket No. RM-50-2.
1.AA, "Calculation of Annual, Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpoine of implementIng Appendix I."
I.13B, "Calculations of Relu.tanes of Rad ioactive Materials fit Liquid atid Ganeou*i f ffitenta fronm Pre*tjirirzed Water Reaci:orv (f'WIMs)O,
C*c "cal vk) .o *ll 1t lu Iit5 oi!b u"II' t li Ioal II. IVe Mi
)ol 1, l .I1.1l In Liqui.d o $ll
( j l *kr)*I
t (! l 1j
! .(i l f l)l M4 1 f i' , 4l I1 01 1 11 Wi l ~ill.
i [ l M! 11 I M !I' l l 0 1144 ' 10 . -)"
1
- DD, "Mot hod f or Eit imatIn g Atmonaphe rl t 1) tiju'pr vion of 1l1ttliotn I.n Iff1 Ulant f r(m Rou t t no Ieil eln "
- Station capacity is anuumed to be 5000 MWe or Jenn. S, atilonn of larger size may have climatic impacts that are not considered in thin guide.
- kegulatory Guide 1.23, "On-Site Meteorological Programs." Feb. 1972.
4.7-5
Regulatory Guides 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.24, and 1.25;* however, the meteorological assumptions in the guides may not be appropriate for sites with unusual meteorological conditions.
In the evaluation of potential sttes within an area, onsite meteoro- logical reconnaissance can be made to determine if the meteorological conditions at the site are representative of the area. Canyons or deep valleys frequently have atmospheric variables that are substantially different from those in the area a: a whole. Other topographical features such as hi-I's, mountain ranges, and lake or ocean shorelines can affect the local meteorology at a site and may make the dispersion characteristics less favorable than those in the general area or region. More stringent design or effluent liAIts or a larger exclusion area may be required in such cases.
While it is the concentration of radioactivity in the atrospbere at any distance from the point of release, X(C/m3 ), that must be concrolled, the ratio x/Q, where Q(Ci/sec) Is the raLe of release of radioactivity from the source, has become a commonly evaluated term because it depends only on atmospheric variables and distance from the source.
If the meteorology is unfavorable with respect to dippersion character- istics at a proposed site, the exclusion area may have to be unusually large to. satisfy the done criteria of 10 CFR Part .100. If under assumed unfavorable meteorological conditions (see Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4) the disperslon of radioactivity released following a design-basis accident is insufficient at the boundary of the exclusion area (see the following section, "Population Density") and the outer boundary of the low population zone, the proposed site would not satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 and would require that the design of the station include appropriate and adequate compensating engineered safety features.
- Regulatory Guide 1.3, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," Revised June 1974.
Regulatory Guide 1.4, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radio- logical Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," Revised June 1974.
Regulatory Guide 1.5, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radio- logical Consequences of a Steam Line Break Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," March 1971.
Regulatory Guide 1.24, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radio- logical Consequences of a Pressurized Water Reactor Radioactive Gas Storage Tank Failure," March 1972.
Regulatory Guide 1.25, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors," March 1972.
4.7-6
Local togginp and icing can result fron plunme,- from cooling Lowers, ,lat's, canals, or spray ponds but can generally be acceptably mitigated by station design and operational practices. However, some sites hrave the potential for unusual fogging or icing due to local meteorological. conditions. For example, areas of utusua.lly high moisture content that are protected from r large-scalc airflow pat terns are especll lly likely to experihence the.;e cundit ions. The impact s are generally of greatest potential JImportatc, relatLiv, to Lransport-t ion or electrica.l transmi.ssion corridors in the vic.ittl'.y of a site.
Thu sensitivity of the natural veg.tat Ion or the crops. in the vicnivity of the site nay requlre.:*1cCoo'lig system wIth little or no nalt drift. Thk- vuilner- ability of existing :induttries or other facilities In the vicin It:y of the site to corros ion from coolinig tower drift should also be corsIdered, Nou:ti of these considerations is criticaL I.n evtiltiaLing the suitabIlJty of a site, but they could rcsi.t in spvcial cooling syst.em design requ~irements or in the tived for a
.larger site to confine theO effects of salt drift within the si.te boundary. Tht, environtiental cl i~ccts of salt drift from evvaporative cooling -3ystetms are, mogetn severe whet-c' sal intc ,,kat.er or waLers with high mineri.il contenL are, used for cool ing.
PCopulat ion Density As set forth In 10 CFR Part 100, a nuclear power plant site must have a low population zone (IAYZ) immediately surrounding the exclusion area i.n which the population is sufficiently limited :in. number and distributed in such a way that there is a .eanonable probability that appropriate measures could 'e taken' in their hehalf in the event of a serlous accident. A proposed site will also Itavu a "population center distance," dt-fined as tihe distance from the nuclear reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center containing more than about
25,000 residents. The population center distance must he at l]east: 1-1/3 times the distance to the outer boundary of the LI'Z; however, 10 CFR Part 1.00 requ1ires that the L1'Z boundary be sufficientl.y remote that a release of fission products (calculated as a consequence of a postulated accident) will not result in ridi- ation doses to individual. on the outer boundary of the LP;.' greater than certain specified values.
A reactor licensee is required by 10 CFR Part 100 to designate an exclusion area and to have authority to determine all activities within the designated area, including removal of personnel and property. In selecting a site for a nuclear power plant, it is necessary to provide for an exclusion area in which
4.7-7
the applicant has such authority. The exclusion area must be of sach size that doses to individuals at any point on its boundary for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> immediately following the onset of a postulated fission product release are less than certain prescribed values.
Hydrology Flooding. Criteria for evaluation of seismically Induced floods are provided in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. Regulatory Guide 1.59* describes an acceptable method of determining the design basis floods for sites along streams or rivers and discusses the phenumena produzing comparable design basis floods for coastal, estuary, and Great Lakes sites. The effect of a probable maximum flood, as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.59, seiche, surge, or seismically induced flood such as might be caused by dam failures or tsunami on plant safety functions can generally be controlled by engineering desl3n or protection of the safety-related strucrurer, systems, a:*d components which are identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29.** For some river valleys, flood plains, or areas along coastlines, there may not be sufficient infor- mation 'o make the evaluations needed to satisfy the criteria for seismically induced flooding. In such cases, extensive study of the potential for dam failure, river blockage, or diversion in the river system or distantly and locally generated "sea-waves" may be needed to establish Chl suitability of a site. In lieu of detailed investigations, Regulatory Guides 1.70***
(Sec. 2.4) and 1.59* present acceptable analytical techniques for evaluating seismically xiduced flooding.
Nuclear power stations require reliable sources of water for steam condensation, service water, and the emergency core cooling. system. in regions where water is in short supply, the recirculation of the hot codling water through cooling towers or manmade lakes or ponds has been practiced.
The essential water requirements for nuclear power plants are that sufficient water be available for cooling during plant operation and normal shutdown, for the ultimate heat sink,# and for fire protection. The limita- tions imposed by existing laws or allocation policies govern the use of
- Regulatory Guide 1.59, "Design Basis Floods fur Nuclear Power Plants,"
August 1973.
- Regulatory Guide 1.29, "Seismic Design Classification," Revision 1, August 1973.
S** Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," October 1972.
- Regulatory Guide 127, "Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants,"
provides guidance on water supply for the ultimate heat sink, March
1974.
4.7-8
W cooling water at potential sites* for normal operation.. Regulatory Guide
1.27 discusses safety requirements. Consumptive use. of water may necessitate an evaluation of existing and future water uses in the area to ensure adequate water supply during droughts both for plant operation and the highest watei use (i.e., nuclear power station requirement vs. public water supply).
Regulatory ageiicies should be consulted to ensure acceptable use.
Whet,. required by applicable law, demonstratiun of a request for certifi- cation of the rights to withdraw or consume water and an indication that the request is consistent with appropriate State and regional programs and policies should be Irovi"ed as part of the application for a construction Iermi.t or operating license.
The availability of required water during periods of low flow or low water level is an important first consideration for potential s itet; on rivers, or small shallow lakes, or along coastlines. Both the frequency aod duration of periods of .low flow or levet should be determined from the Ihstorical.
record and, if the cooling water is to be drawn from impoundments, from projected operational practices.
O Wacer tuali.y. Cooling water discharges to waters are governed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA, PL 92-500). It will be necessary to de.ermine regulations current at the time sites are under consideraition.
Section 401 (a)(1) of that Act. requires, in part, that any applicant Lor an AEC construction permit for a nuclear power station provide to the AEC certifi- cation from the State that any discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and other water pollution control requirements. In the absence of such certification, no construction permit can be issued by the AEC unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable period of time. A permit pursuant to section 402 of that Act may be required for a nuclear power station to operate in compliance with the Act, but is not a prerequisite to an AEC license or permit.
Conservative calculations of the dispersion and dilution capabilities and poteitial contamination pathways of the groundwater environment under operating and accident conditions with respect to present and future users
- To the extent that site selection is dependent on water diversions for con- sumptive use, allocation of water supply is a function of state statutory and administrative procedures.
A discussion of the establishment of state regulation of water use is set forth in "Indastrial Developments and the Environment, Legal Reforms to Improve the Decision-Making Process in Industrial Site Selection," Special Counittee on Environmental Law of the American Bar Association, August
1973.
4.7-9
REQUEST FOR RECORDSDISPOSITON AUTHORITY ]LEAVE BLANK(NARA nUs Ontrt)] U. S. Nuclear Rqertary Commbiimr OPERATIONS CENTER INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (OCIMS)
TO NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDSADMINISTRATION JOBNWJBAO
WASHINGTOA, OC2048
1 FROM CATE
OSERECESED OPERATIONS CENTER INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IOCIMS'
2. MAJOR
U.S.NuCIar Regulastry Commttate SIJ*oE*IOR*OJSPRAM
O frsrN"
NeSye
s. risyaed Iere
.
R.r-e(NSItt IIa)s RNOIFCAIOh ai..
TOAGENCY
assc A;'-' The NRC Opeations Cenr leIermatiol Manaerneet System (OCIMS) auppfl the NRC Operations Center during daily activiires, regularly scheduled exercise. and repoeted emergemcies by providing eosmmo acress to darn for the =aIT locatedir the NRC HeatquanIre Opemions Center (HOC) and NRC
3 MaNOROFARS R Tto-
'is U4 cA aq Regioeal Incident Respone Center (IRC). OCIMS is a suitc of interactive info*enatlig systems in five fictiornal new listed helow NAME OFPERSON .15 W~OeTOCRE IELEP?5... a) I. Headqur Opeeons Officer dtnabases(HOOdb) collects infermnatioain Usefolloucing DRGRSN.AANWHItRRC" 301-50-72
'SM
JLfrW14~ Q(sdr~ subsystems:
a. Events b. Radiactive Maerials of leteee a. uaE- I D4a 5 d asvnflspte.aadpimearsesiatý $4, d,--Headquartes Opeentiase Offices Log (HOO Leg)
nv--C.udlLisfrpo f
2. Ra .an., nk4.. I.Jt E r icde Mjc cnt Evler fil ceces prreen..OTaafaad a' Mame a Vtatws has mTAe (seersdral
3. Automated Notification System (ANS)
DATE ISGNTRIE OFA-NY REPSESETTV TL 4. Operations Ceater Telephone System
5. Protected Web Server (PWS4.
RussellNiehos NRC...t O.
The OCIMS system provide eorkbigaccess to the infsetation colletead andcreated duritg operation oa the OpeeaisnaCenter.
7 9.R~ 505.5nAca
- 8 DESCRPm0OI ONMENANDPROPOSED BDISOSmON Smesad TStumNARA
A. Subsvtem litna. Master Fts. medOnirrts I, Hesdaurners Osveratians Omllnerdaribpaes IlHOOdbI
Information rec*ived by the Headqauartr Operntites Cmcer tlated aoEvems jMr.Shiprnest of Tdlle:
Radioactive Mateeisoflnteeeet, S *--_-J.. -
OperStions C~rier Informaaton Ateag.nant Systam S . .- = . M.I for i rst fuefailities. end matenials ectadin (OCMS) those OnAuem l ,AdditiSnatly. HOOdbis uned io emoed daily meutne Opeations Ccnter activities.
a. Inrteru.lSaa nr Rccerd s Roaie infnetstisn and tigificaat opeuaital deatrtecivle byUseOperations Center are esteed by the Headquarters Operatios; Center sltff from eletphone. Iau. or whbe infomattion ot ino the appopriate Odb data.
P TiMPORARY. Cat oatwmen data envy is vr-ilied. Demay/dleteu seae h. IlOOdb Master Frl Informatiot s nmaintainedin ive Primarydatabases:
Program PMDA Director Date i. , -- Ctrmnoaoical inforiation slated teO a t us oemcrgcnay Na licesetd nuclearpoure plant or faciliry Information maintained in the database may include:
- Licenuse identification (Nate. Plant muse. Docket numbet, Coaster numbers)
- Eear o, Enrgency Description (Equipmeet involved.- Initial Santeevahttio Individual repmrintg be evewnetc.)
Officeof General Couariel Date Times ofEem Notirutime and Closeus
_._ Siniifia actions eporw. icudig times .' rsm Vet a
n. ao me n ennvva
tV
14eea C waanti.~atdt t .7"ko "a.. Al * fFfllt:f .
I AN. ~ .rrl. D :l-1 .C r :
III
11FfTrIP
IFC lI---C-------
E Radoieite Miteni. Shitnit (RAM 00 - lafoeetaioa dearihbinigthe slhpment -
ofradioetive moreniodsofheeem, inluding the following:
- Liceinsee Identificationt
- owlas, nd Acuaity to be Shibpped 0-td c-
- Mdte Aitipated S Dotes(depatmreand
,ppig dlf=.*rrt"
oe.3
-rivall, ddinveweead2.
H-Dlitirea t d.te
1211 .....=.L==JI.
Anticipated Shipping Route - . id -ildi enenaireade
- Shbptret Completel Date.
fholjl: TEMPORARY. Retania acopyof theinforuisioncooncetting the Hh- 2!flt, TDIPOPZR{
sidipocit endcetoff'when shiptment a oipltds eoylk4g~. ti~~eaa ynthe endcodeKthe fiscolye hinwhich. theshuipmientteceomplet~ed.I dnbia~bO
iii.
All HOOdbsubsystems how thi abily to print cthcronic or paper epMe ofthe date containedin the sysme. Thes tepoe ore used to ausable informationi c**tay to
- denidoolsifiona" perfolr he actoviaicsof the Opterations Cteta and NRC.
DPisl-.li: TEMPORARY. et off aind desloy/delete whe no longer needed for btssess palats.
r09dr044i r--'
at;..:C: I-::::: art: l_/*inteidrat Rese~nite flalna~elleni l hottste (lRMSi L-
aa;.msi-- &.-'t.h,.-Jm.-vo-e:oo
- _**.:: - . .-. todoaitieoaare~ materials thtatare
.;."%
roletod toaillowr iaorittetaee accs duinge enesett oretrimmeett, Thesewtacitreals maey he sootyloun ltfstaailoo and]aalolye,caronloglogis reportsa roawdara, brlellagiasueaa, fatnet, or iv. ROOjlo - Chnoological log of Operatios Centeractivilies inelodinp p. ,tmiea,.tl netes d dctsria*a, sr*h anp .ess .*elraa
- StaffShillCharige (perscoitolmidKities&) ' --- - - tetshtaates
- Lloaseet Notificaions Routie Shift Acivities. a. IuiaoaaSoorer Retiords- .fni)C b Copieseftdemuno*t s created r re*eived by NRC stalt det'ig en evestor em1egee*cy =tt Ieitflu Diosition: TEMPORARY. Csmoff inrfooLion ae:ionlated dorh theywat placed iniil&RMS ll- cind WbhiO* fotasehy the Centeerstaffdurilg Ihe
1hkiod oft1kfscal ycn. Dcstmy/delot- T.*n O*h r*h -so fL-rcooff. "W eventlor ellnct'ey.
- -
v.
CiM E - Coaeds in'afosoalon far NRC, State, andother FederalAgency bIinoshlgn: TEMPORARY. CtoffeTwhm the doaotta bom bera ito Rn S
dend OperoasigCeotersupperl individuals including:
p a " .... --------- --------------- --
IatltedoteO.e l STeleph*ne nuben and e-mail addir h. tO~lit-i-R Muer Pile tt Wm'*m a Fuction or Tream osagtents.
- woi' t.- .C
f. l
... i. --... fTEM tORARY
O no. Soreewhena CGo 1.sueded. aihel .nevv~tv ita miveoritte en .derhabsof-a:
a Ev-n Nar- and Licemco Date Created o'IvO~trvj....rna.,ed Fort]8 Mtvitt Do M
a .e: v-"dd IC:-_-"itt'-5 (A]
(-n-*=11.'tl-
(1I! 1 1. - - - ........ -
I
are required. The suitability of sites in areas with a complex groundwater hydrology or of sites located over aquifers that are or may be used by large populations for domestic or industrial water supplies or for irrigation water can only be determined after reliable assessments have been made of the potential impacts of the reactor plant on the groundwater.
Although the management of the quality of surface waters is important, water quality per se is not a major consideration in assessing the suitabllity of a site because adequate design alternatives can generally be developed to meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Commission's regulations implementing NEPA; however, the environmental charactez- istics or the complexity of the environment at a site and its vicinity may be such that it would be difficult to obtain or develop sufficient information to establish, in a timely manner, that the potential environmental impacts on water quality will be acceptable. Examples of situations that could pose unusual impact assessment or design problems are areas of existing marginal water quality, small bays, estuorles, stratified waters, and sites that would require intake from and discharge to waters of markedly different quality, such as intake of marine water and discharge to an estuary. Examples of potential environmental effects of plant construction and operation that must be assessed are physical and chemical environmental alterations in habitats of important species, including plant-induced rapid changes in environmental conditions that result in injurious shock to the biota, change in normal current direction or velocity of the cooling water source and receiving water, scouring and siltation resulting from construction or cooling water discharge, alterations resulting from dredging and spoil disposal, and inter- ference with shorellne processes.
Biota and Ecological Systems The impacts of plant construction and operation on the biota and ecological systems can generally be mitigated by design and by construction* and opera- tional practices if justifiable relative to costs and benefits; however, certain conditions or situations present major difficulties in assessing potential impacts on populations of important species or ecological systems.
The lack of sufficient information about the population dynamics of an important commercial or sports fishery, for example, could be a major cause of delay in
- A compilation of construction practices is provided in "General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating and Reporting the Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Site Preparation, Plant and Transmission Facilities Construction," Atomic Industrial Forum, February 1974.
4.7-1.0
licensing because of the time period required to study the fishery in adequate detail and scope and could result in a requirement for exceptionally con- servative design of the station. Of potential. major importance are breeding areas (e.g., nc.ting and spawning areas), nursery, feeding, resting, and wintering areas, or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of Individ- uals of important species.*
In general, the uniqueness of a habitat or ecological system within the region under consideration and the amount of habitat or ecological system destroyui or disrupted relative to the total amount in the region or the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity of important species populations to the effects of construction and operation of the plant and ancillary facilities are the important considerations in the balancing of costs and benefits.
The alteration of one or more of the existing environmental conditions may render a habitat unsuitable as a breeding or nursery area. In some cases, organisms utilize identical breeding and nursery areas each year and if the characteristics of the areas are changed, breeding success may be substantially reduced or enhanced. Destruction of part or all of a breeding or nursery area may cause population shifts that result in increased competition for the re- maining suitable areas. Such population shifts cannot compensate for reduced size of the breeding or nursery areas if the remaining suitable area is already occupied by the species. Some species will desert a breeding area because of
- A species, whether animal or plant, is important (for the purpose of this guide):
(1) if it is commercially or recreationally valuable,
(2) if it is endangered or threatened,
(3) if the species or the specific population has important or unique esthetic or scientific value, or
(4) if it affects the well-being of some important species within criteria
(1), (2), (3) or if it is critical to the structure and function of a valuable ecological system. Endangered and threatened species are de- fined by PL 93-205, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as follows:
"The term 'endangered species' means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary tu constitute a pent whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man." "The term
'threatened species' means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Lists of enL:lngered species are published periodically in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior.
4.7-11
mants activities in proximity to the area even in the absence of physical disturbance of the area.
Feeding areas of special concern relative to site selection are those that are unique or especially rich feeding areas that might be destroyed, degraded, or made inaccessible to important species by plant construction or operation. Evaluation of feeding areas in relation to potential constructiun or operational impacts includes consideration of size of the feeding area onsite in relation to the total feeding area offsite, food density, time of use, location in relation to other habitats, topography relative to access routes, and other facturs including nan's activities. Site modification may reduce the quality of feeding areas by destruction of a portion of the food base, destruction of cover, or both.
Construction and operation of nuclear power plants can create barriers to migration. These apply mainly to the aquatic environment. Narrow zones of passage of migratory animals in some rivers and estuaries may be restricted or blocked by plant operation. Partial or complete blockage of a waterway may result from the discharge of heat or chemicals or the construction and placement of power station structures.
Strong-swimming aquatic animals often avoid waters of.adverse quality, but larval and immature forms are usually moved and dispersed by water currents.
It is therefore important in site selection that the routes and times of movement of the immature stages be considered In relation to potential plant effects.
Sites where placement of intake 4,r discharge structures could markedly disrupt normal current patterns in migraLion paths of important species would require a detailed assessment of potential impact on the species population.
The orientation to current flow and water depth of some aquatic animals is largely controlled by current direction and strength. The potentials for im- pingement of organisms on cooling water intake structures and entrainment of organisms through the cooling system are related to the placement of the structures at a site.
Site characteristics should be considered relative to design and placement of cooling system features and their potential to hold fish in an area past their normal period of migration or to entrap resident populations in areas where they would be adversely affected by limited food supply or adverse temperatures. Cooling water effluent mixing zones -:r discharge canals may hold fish under "summer" temperatures and inhibit their movement out of the area that would normally be triggered by a natural drop in temperatur
e. The
4.7-12
cessation of plant operation during winter can be lethal to these populations because of an abrupt drop in temperature.
When early site inspections and evaluations indicate that critical or exceptionally complex ecologican. systems will have to be studied in detail to determine the appropriate plant designs, proposals to use such sites should be deferred unless .sites with less complex characteristics are not available.
Land Use and Esthetics
.Many impacts of construction and operation of the plant, transmission line, and the. transportation spur on land use at the site and in the site neighborhood can he mitigated .by appropriate designs and practices. Esthetic impacts can be reduced by selecting sites where existing topography and forests can be utilized for screening station structures from nearby scenic, historical, or recreational resources. Restoration of natural vegetation, creative landscaping,* and the use of architectural colors that ark integrated with the envIronment can mitigate adverse visual. impacts.
Preconstruction archeological excavations can eliminate archeological losses.
Proposed alternative uses of some lands may render a site unsuitable for a nuclear power station. One general class of such lands is that specified by a comnunity as planned for other uses or as restricted to compatible uses vis-a-vis other lands. Official land use plans developed by governments at any level and by regional agencies must be consulted for possible conflicts with power plant siting. A list of Federal agencies that have jurisdiction or expertise in land use plann.ing, regulation, or management has been published by the Council on Environmental Quality.**
Another class of impacts involves the preempting of existing land use at the site itself. For example, nuclear power plant siting where specialty crops (e.g., cranberries or artichokes) are grown may be considered a type of land conversion involving unacceptable economic dislocation.
Sites adjacent to some lands devoted to public use may be considered unsuitable. in particular, the use of some sites or transmission line or transportation corridors close to special areas administered by Federal, State, or local agencies for scenic or recreational use may cause unacceptable
- Station protection requirements for nuclear safeguards may influence land- scape design and clearing of vegetation.
- U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, "Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines," 38 FR 20549, 8/1/73.
4.7-13
impacts regardless of design parameters. Such cases are most apt to arise in areas adjacent to natural-resource oriented areas (e.g., Yellowstone National Park) as oppoRed to recreation-oriented areas (e.g.. Lake Mead National Recre- ation Area). Some historical and archeological sites may also fall into this category. The acceptablility of sites near special areas of public use should he determined by consulting cognizant government agencies.*
It should be recognized that some as yet undesignated areas may be un--
suitable for siting because of public interest in future dedication to public scenic, recreational, or cultural use. Relatively rare land types such as sand dunes and wetlands are prime candidates for such future designation.
- The following Federal agencies should be consulted for the special areas listed:
National Park S.rvice (U.S. Department of the Interior)
National Parks; International Parks; National Memorial Parks; National Battlefield, Battlefield Parks and Battlefield Sites; National Military Parks; Historic Areas and National Historic Sites; National Capital Parks;
National Monuments and Cemeteries; National Seashores and Lakeshores;
National Rivers and Scenic Riverways; National Recreation Areas; National Scenic Trails and Scientific Reserves; National Parkways.
National Park Service Preservation Program National Landmarks Program; Historic American Buildings Survey;
National Register of Historic Places; National Historical Land- marks Program; National Park Service Archeological Program.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (U.S. Department of Interior)
National Wildlife Refuges Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
National Forest Wilderness, Primitive Areas, National Forests.
Individual States and local governments administer parks, recreation areas, and other public use and benefit areas. Information on these areas should be obtained from cognizant State agencies such as State departments of natural resources. (See publications such as the "Conservation Directory
1973: A Listing of Organizations, Agencies and Officials Concerned with Natural Resource Use and Management," published by the National Wildlife Federation for state-by-state references.) The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ur the appropriate State historical society should be contacted for informati..'n on historic areas. For areas of archeological interest, the Chief Archeologist of the National Park Service is an information source, as is the State Archeologist and the State Liaison Officer responsible for the National Historic Preservation Act activities for a particular State.
4.7-14
Industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities Potential accidents at present or projected nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities way affect the safety of a nuclear power plant.*
A site should not be selected if, in the event of such an accident, it is not possible to safely shut down a plant at that site or if it is not possible to have nearby facilities alter their mode of operation or incorporate features to reduce to an acceptable level the likelihood and severity of such potential accidents.
In the event of an accident at a nearby industrial facility such as a chemical plant, refinery, mining and quarrying operation, ol. or gas well, or- gas and petroletun product storage installation, it is possible that missiles, shock waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or incendiary fragments may result. These may affect the plant itself or the plant operators In a way that jcopardiZes plant safety.
Regulatory Guide 1.78** describes assumptions acceptable to the Regulatory staff for use in assessing the habitability of Lhe control room during and after a postulated external release of hazardous chemicals and describes criteria that are generally acceptable to the Regulatory staff for the pro- tection of the control room operators.
Nearby military facilities such as munitions storage areas and ordnance test ranges may threaten plant safety. The acceptability of a site depends on establishing, among other things, that the nuclear power plant can be designed so its safety will not be affected by an accident at the military installation. Alternatively, an otherwise unacceptable tite may become accept- able if the cognizant military organization agrees to change the Installation or mode of operation to reduce the likelihood and severity of potential accidents involving the nuclear plant to an acceptable level.
An accident during ti..: transport of hazardous materials (e.g., by air, waterway, railroad, highway, or pipeline) near a nuclear power plant may generate shock waves, missiles, and toxic or corrosive gases which can affect the safe operation of the plant. The consequences of the accident will depend on the proximity of the transportntion facility to the site and the nature and maximum quantity of the hazardous material per shipmen
t. Unless a
- Section 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 lists these safety considerations.
- Regulatory Guide 1.78, "Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," June 1974.
4.7-15
Industrial, Militaryg and Transportation Facilities Potential accidents at present or projected nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities way affect the safety of a nuclear power plant.*
A site should not be selected if, in the event of such an accident, it is not possible to safely shut down a plant at that site or if it is not possible to have nearby facilities alter their mode of operation or incorporate features to reduce to an acceptable level the likelihood and severity of such potential accidents.
In the event of an accident at a nearby industrial facility such as a chemical plant, refinery, mining and quarrying operation, oil or gas well, or gas and petroluum product storage installation, it is possible that missiles, shock waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or incendiary fragments may result.. These may aff ect the plant its*cIf or the planlt opecatotrs; In -'i way that. jeoupardizes planl safety.
Regulatory Guide 1.78** describes assumptions acceptable to the Regulatory staff for use in assessing the habitability of the control room during and after a postulated external release of hazardous chemicals and describes criteria that are generally acceptable to the Regulatory staff for the pro- tection of the control room operators.
.Nearby military facilities such as munitions storage areas and ordnance test ranges may threaten plant safety. The acceptability of a site depends on establishing, among other things, that the nuclear power plant can be designed no its safety will not be affected by an accident at the military installation. Alternatively, an otherwise unacceptable Hite may become acceept- able if the cognizant military organization agrees to change the installation or mode of operation to reduce the likelihood and severity of potential accidents Involving the nuclear plant to an acceptable level.
An accident during tl,. transport of hazardous materials (e.g., by air, waterway, railroad, highway, or pipeline) near a nuclear power plant may generate shock waves, missiles, and toxic or corrosive ga,,es which can .- iffect the safe operation of the plant. The consequences of the accident will depend on the proximity of the tranaportation facility to the site and the nature and maximum quantity of the hazardous material per shipmen
t. Unless a
- Section 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 lists these safety considerations.
- Regulatory Guide 1.78, "Assumptions for Evaluating the Hlabitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," June 1974.
4.7-15
firm and enforceable agreement can be reached to limit the transport of hazardous materials or unless the transportation link can be. relocated. the proposed site may not be acceptable.
Airports are transportation facilities that pose specialized hazards to nearby nuclear power plants. Potential threats to plants from aircraft result from the aircraft itself as a missile and from secondary effects of a crash such as fire.
Socioeconomics Social and economic issues are important determinants of siting policy.
It is difficult both to assess the nature of the impacts involved and to determine value schemes for predicting the level or the acceptability of potential Impacts.
The siting and construction of a nuclear power station may have signif- icant impacts on the socioeconomic structure of a community and may place severe stresses on local labor supply, transportation facilities, and community services in general. There may be changes in tax bases and in community expenditures, and problems may occur in determining equitable levels of compensation for persons relocated as a result of the siting. It is usually possible to resolve such difficulties by proper coordination with impacted communities; however, some impacts may be both locally unacceptable and too costly to avoid by any reasonable program for mitigation of impacts. Evalu- ation of the suitability of a site should therefore inc~lude consideration of purpose and probable adequacy of socioeconomic impact mitigation plans for such economic impacts on any community where local acceptance problems can be reasonably foreseen.
Certain communities in a site neighborhood may be subject to unusual impacts that would be excessively costly to mitigate. Amonog such communities are towns that possess a markedly distinctive cultural character; i.e., towns that have preserved or restored numerous places of historic interest, have sp ecialized in an industry or avocational activity of an unusual kind, or have otherwise markedly distinguished themselves from other communities.
Such communities may provide an important cultural amenity and concomitant economic service industries.
C. REGULATORY POSITION
1. Geology/Seismology Sites that include capable faults, as defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, are not suitable for nuiclear power station
s. The state of the art
4.7-16
has not progressed to the point at which it is possible to design a nuclear power plant for surface or near-surface displacement with a sufficiently high level of confidence to ensure that the integrity of the safety-related features of the plant will reain intact.
Sites within about 5 miles of a surface capable fault greater than 1000
feet in length are generally not suitable for a nuclear power station. In any caje, extensive and detailed geologic and seismic field studies and analyses will be required for such a proposed site.
Sites located near geologic structures for which an adequate data bas;e to determine "capabi.Lity" does not exist at the time of application are likely to be subject to a longer licensing process i.1 view of the Ueed fUr extensive and detailed geologic and seismic investigations of the site and surrounding region and for rigorous analyses of the site-plant combination.
Sitets with unfractured bedrock for foundations generally have ,;uJtabit.
foundation conditions. In regions where there are few or no such sites, ili is prudent to select sites in areas known to have low liquefaction potential.
Investigations will be required to determine the static and dynamic, engineering properties of the material underlying the site in accordance with Sections IV(A)(4) and V(d) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
2. Meteorology As noted in the "Discussion" section, site meteorology is a site suit- ability characteristic principally with respect. to the calculation of radiation doses resulting from the release of fission products as a consequence of a postulated accident and the establisshment of exclusion area boundary, low population zone boundary, and distance to a population center. Accordingly.
the Regulatory position on this issue is incorporated into the section "Populn- tion Density."
3. Population Density Areas of low population density are preferred for nuclear power station sites. High population densities projected for any time during the lifetime of a station have been a source of contention during both the Regulatory staff review and the public hearing phases of the Licensing process, If the population density at a proposed site is not acceptably low, then the applicant will be required to give special attention to alternative sites with lower population densities.
Based on past experience, the Regulatory staff has found that a minimum exclusion distance of 0.4 mile, even with unfavorable design basis atmospheric dispersion characteristics, usually provides assurance that engineered safety
4.7-1.7
features can be designed to bring the calculated dose from a postulated accident within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100. If the minimum~ exclusion distance is less than 0.4 mile, It may be necessary to place special con- ditions on station design (e.g., added engineered safety features) before the site can be considered acceptable. Also, based on past experience, the Regulatory staff has found that a distance of 3 miles to the outer boundary of the LPZ is usually adequate.
4. Hydrology Sites located in river valleys, on flood plains, or along coastlines where there is a potential for flooding will not be evaluated for site suitability until the studies described in Regulatory Guide 1.59 have been made.
A highly dependable system of water supply sources must be shown to be available under postulated occurrences of natural and site-related accidental phenome na or combinations of such phenomena as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.
There must be reasonable assurance that permits for consumiptive use of water in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant of stated approximate capacity and type of cooling system can be obtained by the applicant from the appropriate State, local, or regional bodies before the Regulatory st~aff will evaluate the suitability of a proposed site.
The potential impacta of nuclear power stationsa on water quality are likely to be acceptable if effluent limitations or other requirements pro- mulgated pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are applicable and satisfied.
.The criteria provided In 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 will be used by the Regulatory staff for determining permissible concentrations of radioactive materials discharged to surface water or to groundwater.*
Aquifers that are or may be used by large populations for domestic, municipal, industrial, or Irrigation water supplies provide potential pathways for radioactive material to man in the event of an accident. The suitability of sites located over such aquifers cannot be evaluated until detailed studies of factors identified in Section 2.4.13 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 have been completed.
5. Biota and Ecological Systems The biota and ecological systems at proposed sites and their environs should be sufficiently well known to allow- reasonably certain predictions of
- Proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 would provide numerical guidance for design objectives and technical specification requirements for limiting con- ditions of operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
4.7-18
whether there would be unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts on populations of important species or on ecological systems with which they are associate.d from the construction or operation of a nuclear power station at the site.
It should be determined whether any important species (as defined in
"Biota and Ecological Systems" in the Discussion) inhabit or use the proposed site or its envirorin, and the size and distribution of their populations should be estimated. Potential adverse impacts onl Important species should be identified and assessed. Tile estimated ,number of individuals of an important species inhabiting a potential site should be compared to the total estimated local population and any predicted impacts on tile species should be evaluated relative to effects on the total estimated local population. The destruction of, or sublethal. effects on, a number of individuals whicih would not adversely affect the reproductive capacity and vitality of a population or the crop of an economically important harvestable population should generally be acceptable except in the case of certain endangered species. If there are endangered or threatened species at a site, the potential effects should be evaluated relative to the impact on the local population and the total estimated population in the entire rangc of the species.
It should be determined whether any important ecological, systems are included at a site or in its environs and whether they are especially vulner- able to change or whether they contain important species habitats such as breeding areas (e.g., nesting and spawning .areas), nursery, feeding, resting, and wintering areas, or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of in- dividuals of important species.
In general, the uniqueness of a habitat or ecological system within the region under consideration, the amount of the habitat or ecological system destroyed or disrupted relative to the total amount in tile region, and the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity of important species populations to the effects of construction and operation of the plant and ancillary facilities are the important considerations in the balancing of costs and benefits.
If sites contain, are adjacent to, or may impact on important ecological systems or habitats that are unique, limited in extent, or necessary to the productivity of populations of important species (e.g., wetlands and estuaries),
they cannot be evaluated as to suitability for a nuclear power station until adequate assessments for the reliable prediction of Impacts have been completed and the facility design characteristics that would satisfactorily mitigate the potential ecological imp4cts have been defined. In areas where reliable and
4.7-19
sufficent data are not available, at least one year of data collection may be required.
Migrations of important species and migration routes that pass through the site or its environs should be identified.
Generally the most critical migratory routes relative to nuclear power station siting are those of aquatic species in water bodies associated with the cooling systems. Site conditions that should be identified and evaluated in assessing potential impacts on important aquatic migratory species include (1)
narrow zones of passage, (2) migration periods that are coincident with maximum ambient temperatures, (3) potential for major modification of currents by plant structures, (4) potential for increased turbidity during construction, and (5)
potential for entrapment, entrainment, or impingement by or in the coooling water system or blocking of migration by faciltiy structures or effluents.
The potential blockage of movements of populations of important. terrestrIal animals by use of the site for a nuclear power station and the availability of alternative routes that would provide for mainreiance of the species' breeding population should be assessed.
If justifiable relative to cosrts and benefits, potential impacts of plant construction and operation on the biota and ecological syste=s can generally be mitigated by adequate engineering design and site planning and by proper construction and operation practice when there is adequate Information about the vulnerability of the important species and ccologica-i systems.
A summary of considerations, parameters, and regulatory positions for use in evaluating the suitability of sites for nuclear power plants is provided in Appendix B to this guide. A discussion of ecological systems and habitats, the level of detail that should be addressed in the site selection process, and the survey, monitoring, and analytical techniques for assessing impacts on important species and ecological systems will be summarized in subsequent appendices to this guide.
6. Land Use Land use plans adopted by Federal, State, regional, or local governmental entities must be examined, and any conflict between these plans and use of a proposed site must be resolved by consultation with the appropriate govern- mental entity.
Potential sites on land devoted to specialty crop production where change in land use might result in severe market dislocations will require detailed investigation to demonstrate that potential problems have been identified and resolved.
4.7-20
The potential visual impact of nuclear power stations at sites near
"natural-resource oriented" public use areas is of particular concern and evaluation of the suitability of such sites is dependent on consideration il specific plant design and station layout.
7. Industrial. Mil._tary, and Transportation Facilities Potentially hazardous facilities and activities within 5 miles of a proposed site should be identified. If a preliminary evaluation Ol potunIt.1i l accidents at these facili.ties indicates that the potential. haz:ards from shock waves and missiles approach or exceed those of the design-basis tornado for Hli region (the design basis torniado 16 described in Regulatory Guide 1.76) or potential hazards such as f'.mmable vapor clouds, roxlc chemicals, or in- cendiary fragments exist, the suitability of th A.Lte can only be deterrmined by detailed evaluation of the potential hazard.
A specific analysis of such factors as freqluency and type,, of aircial t movement, flight patterns, local meteorology, and topography should be per- formed for (1) sites located within 5 miles of an exitLing or projectud commercial or military airport, (2) sites located between 5 and .10 miles from an existing or projected commercial or military airport with more than approxi- mately 500 x d^ (where d is in miles) aircraft movements per year, and (3) slttee located at distances greater than 10 miles from an airport with more than approximately 1000 x d' aircraft movements per year. The analysis should demonstrate that the probability of any potential aircraft affecting the plant in such a way as to cautie the release of radioactivity in vxcetts of the guide-
-7 lines of 10 CFTR Part 10. is less than about 10 per year. if the probability iL on the order of 10-7 per year or greater, aircraft impact should be con- sidered in the design of the facility.
8. Socioeconomics The Regulatory staff considers that the suitability of nuclear power plant sites near distinctive communities is contingent on demonstration that the construction and operation of the nuclear station, including transmission and transportation corridors, will not adversely affect the distinctive character of the community or cause a disruption of tourist trade. A preliminary in-
- vestigation should be made to determine and analyze problems ariting from the proximity of a distinctive community to a proposed site.
4.7-21
D). IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of this section is to provide information to applicants and licensees regarding the Regulatory staff's plans for usino this regulatory guide. Since this guide generally reflects recognized Regulatory staff practice with regard to the implementation of existing regulations concern- Ing site suitability, it will be uaed immediately to indicate considerations that are addressed in evaluating site suitability.
4.7-22
APPENDIX A
SAFETY-RELATED SITE CONSIDERATIONS
FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY
FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
This appendix has been prepared to provide a checklist of safety-related site characteristics, relevant regulations and regulntory guides, and regulatory experience and position for assessing site suitability for nuclear power stations.
4.7-23
Relevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.1 Geology and Seismology Geologic and seismic character- 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, Sites that include capable faults are
"Seismic and Geologic Siting not suitable for a nuclear power istics of a site, such as surface Criteria for Nuclear Power station.
faulting, ground motion, and foundation conditions (including P lants."
Sites within about 5 miles of a sur- liquefaction, subsidence, and Regulatory Guide 1.70, Chapter face capable fault (greater than 1000
landslide potential), may affect
2 (identifies safety-related feet in length) are generally not the safety of a nuclear power site characteristics), October suitable for a nuclear power station.
station.
1972.
Sites should be selected in areas Regulatory Guide 1.29 (dls- for which an adequate geologic data cusses plant safety features base exists to determine "capability."
which should be controlled by Delays in licemsing can result from a
"4 engineering design), August need for extensive geologic and t
1973. seismic investigations. Conservative t*
&',
design of safety-related structures will be required when geologic and seismic information is questionable.
Sitea with unfractured bedrock generally have suitable foundation conditions.
If bedrock sites are not available, it is prudent to select sites in areas known to have a low liqueffaction potential. In- vestigations will be required to determine the static and dynamic engineering propertiev of the material underlying the site as stated In 10 CFR Part 100, Sec.
IV(A) (4) and Sec. V(d),
Relevant Ruat~ions and Considerations Re~gulatory Gudes Regulatory Experience and Position A.2 Atmospheric Dispersion The meteorological conditions 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site U"nfavorahle safety-related design at a site should provide Criteria." b asis atmospher ic dispersion sufficient dispersion of radio- haracteristics can be compensated active materials released during Regulatory Guide 1.23, "On-Site Meteorological Programs," or by an adequate exclusion dis- a postulated accident to reduce the radiation exposures of in- February 1972. ( ance and engineered safety features see A.3 of this appendix).
dividuals at the exclusion area Regulatory Guide 1.3, "Assumptions and low population zone Used for Evaluating the Potential boundaries to the values pre- Radiological Consequences of a scribed in 10 CFR Part 100. Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," June 1974.
Regulatory Guide 1.4, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," June 1974.
'. Regulatory Guide 1.5, "Assumptions U' Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Steam Line Break Accident for Boil- ing Water Reactors," March 1971.
Regulatory Guide 1.24, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Pressurized Water Reactor Radio- active Gas Storage Tank Failure,"
March 1972.
Regulatory Guide 1.25, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors,"
March 1972.
Relevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.3 Population Density in the Site Environs
10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Based on past experience, the In the event of a serious has found that a Criteria." Requires: Regulatory staff accident at a nuclear power minimum exclusion of 0.4 mile, even station, it must be possible " An exclusion area" surrounding the with the moe- .ýifavorable design to take effective action to reactor, in which the reactor basis atmonher-i.: dispersion minimize exposure of in- licensee has the authority to de- characteristics, provides assurance dividuals outside the station termine all activities, including that engineered safety features can to any radioactive materials removal of personnel and property; 1-e added that will bring the cal- which may be released during culated doses from a postulated the accident. To provide
- A "low population zone" (LPZ) which immediately surrounds the L*:lusion accident within the guidelines of this assurance, the nuclear 10 CFR Port 100. If the minimum power station must not be area and in which the population number and distribution is such that exclusion distance is less than located in a densely "there is a reasonable probability 0.4 mile, it may be necessary to populated area.
that appropriate measures could be place special conditions on station taken in their behalf in the event design (e.g., added engineered safety of a serious accident;" features) before the site can be con- sidered acceptable. Also, based on
" That at any point-on the exclusion past experience, the Regulatory stdff
-.1 area Iboundary and on the outer has found that a distance of 3 miles bounO~ary of the LPZ the exposure to the outer boundary of the LPZ is of individuals to a postulated re- usually adequate.
lease of fission products (as a con- sequence of an accidceit) be less than certain prescribed values;
That the "population center distance,"
defined as the distance from the nuclear reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center having more than 25,000 residents, be at least 1-1/3 times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ.
Regulatory Guides 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.24, and 1.25 give calculational methods (see A.2 of this appendix).
- The transient population must be taken into account by wei3hti.ng the transient population according to the fraction of the time the transients are in the area.
Relevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.4 Hydrology a. Flooding Precipitation, wind, or seismi- 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, Sites located in river valleys, on cally induced flooding (e.g., "Seismic and Geologic Siting flood plains, or along coastlines resulting from dam failure, from Criteria for Nuclear Power where thore is a potential for river blockage or diversion, or Plants." flooding will not be evaluated for from distantly and locally site suitability until the studies generated sea waves) can Reguilatory Guide 1.59, "Design described in Regulatory Guide 1.59 affect the safety of a nuclear basis Floods for Nuclear Power Planes," August 1973. have been r-ade.
power station.
A highly dependable system of water Regulatory Guide 1.70,
b. Water Supply "Standard Format and Content. supply sources must be shown to be of Safety Analysis Reports -. ailable under postulated occurrences A safety-related water supply for Nuclear Pc,,: r Plants," of site-related accldental phenomena is required for normal or October 1972 (Sec. 2.4). or combinations of such phenomena as emergency shutdown and cool- discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.
down. There must be r-asonable assurance
"General Design Criteria for
-J Nuclear Power Plants." that permits for consumptive use of
-.5 Criterion 2, "Design Bases water in the quantities needed for a for Protection Against nuclear power plant of stated Natural Phenomena." approximate capacity and type of cooling system can be obtained by
10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, the applicant from the appropriate
"Seiomic and Geologic Siting State, local,or regional bodies Criteria for Nuclear Power before the Regulatory staff will Plants." evaluate the suitability of a proposed site.
Regulatory Guide 1.59, "Designi Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants," August I1 ,3.
Regulatory Guide 1.27, "Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants," March 1974.
Relevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.5 Industrial, Military and Transportation Facilities Near the Site Accidents at present or pro- 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Potentially hazardous facilities and activities jected nearby industrial, "General Design Criteria for within 5 miles of a proposed site must be military, and transportation Nuclear Power Plants," identified. If a preliminary evaluation of facilities may affect the Criterion 4, "Environmental potential accidents of these facilities in- safety of the nuclear power and Missile Design Basis." dicates that the potential hazards from shock station. waves and missiles approach or exceed those Regulatory Guide 1.70, of the design-basis tornado for the region
"Standard Format and Content (the design basis tornado is described in of Safety Analysis Reports," Regulatory Guide 1.76), or potential hazards Section 2.2 (lists types of such as flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals facilities and potential or incendiary fragments exist, the suitability accidents) October 1972. of the site can only be determined by detailed evaluation of the potential hazard.
"Assumptions for Evaluating A specific analysis of such factors as fre- the Habitability of a Nuclear quency and type of aircraft movement, flight Power Plant Control Room patterns, local meteorology, and topography
-J
0,
During a Postulated Hazardous should be performed for (I) sites located Chemical Release," June 1974. within 5 miles of any existing or projected commercial or military airport, (2) sites located between 5 and 10 miles from an existing or projected commercial or military
2 airport with more than approximately 500 d (where d is in miles) aircraft movements per year, and (3) sites located at distances greater than 10 miles from an airport with more than approximately 1000 d2 aircraft movements per year. The analysis should demonstrate that the probability of any potential aircraft affecting the plant in such a way as to cause the release of radioactive materials in excess of the guidelines of 10 CFR
Port 100 Is less than about .10-7 per zear. if the probability is on the order of 10 ' per year or greater, aircraft impact should be considered in the design of the facility.
APPENDIX B
ENVIROWENTAL CONS I.DERATI ON ', REC ULATO RY CR ITERLA ANDJ
PARAMETERS FOR ASSESSING SITE SUiTAJ1LITTY FOR NUCLEAR POWER PIANTS
This appendix stumarizes site characteristi.cs related to environmental considerations that should be .resed Ito the early sit'r selectI.on pro--
cess, The relative importance of the different factors to be consideretd varies with the region or State in which the potential sites aret locatted.
Siti, selection processes can be facilitated by establishing limits for various parameters based on the best Judgement of speci.alists knowledgeable of the region under consideration. For example, limlts can be chosen for the fraction of water that can be diverted in certain si.tuationtu without adversely affecting the local populations of important specle.s. Although simplistic because important factors such as the distribution of important species in the watier body are not taken into aecount, such limits caan be useful in a screening process for site selection.
4.7-29
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.1 Preservation of Important Habitats Important habitats are those that The proportion of an important in general, the Regulatory s taff will are essential to maintaining the habitat that would be destroyed require detailed justificatiion when reproductive capacity and vitality or significantly altered in re- the destruction or significatnt of populations of important lation to the total habitat alteration of more than a feiw per- species* or the harvestable crop of within the region in which the cent of important habitat tyi pes economically important species. proposed zite is to be located is proposed.
Such habitats include breeding is a useful parameter for areas (e.g., nesting and spawning estimating potential impacts of The reproductive capacity of areas), nursery, feeding, resting the construction or operation of populations of important species and wintering areas or other areas a nuclear power station. The and the harvestable crop of of seasonally high concentrations value of the proportion varies economically important populations of individuals of important species. among species and among must be maintained unless habitats. The region considered justification for proposed The construction and operation of in determining proportions is or probable changes can be nuclear power stations (including the normal geographic range of provided.
new transmission lines and access the specific population in t.1
0 corridors constructed in con- question.
junction with the station) can result in the destruction or If endangered or threatened alteration of habitats of important species occur at a site. the species leading to changes in the potential effects of the con- abundance of a species or in the struction and operation of a species composition of a community. nuclear pcwer station should be evaluated relative to the potential impact on the local population and the total estimated population in the entire range o: the species.
- As defined for the purposes of this guide In Sectien. B, "Discussion."
V.WA*M
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Posit ion B.2 Higratory Routes of Important Species Seasonal or daily migrations are The width or cross-sectional area Narrow reaches of water bodies essential to maintaining the re- of a vater body at a proposed should be avoided as sites for productive capacity of some site relative to the general width locating intake or discharge important species populations. or cross-sectlonal area in the structurev.
portion of the water body used Disruption of migratory patterns by migrating species should be A zone of passage that will permit can result from partial or complete estimated. normal movement of populations of blockage of migratory routes by important species and maintenance structures, by discharge plumes, Suggested minimum zones of of the harvestable crop of by environmental alterations, or passage range from 1/4 to 3/4 econcmically important populations by man's activities (e.g., trans- of.the width or cross-sectional should be provided.
portation or transmission areas of narrow water bodies.*
corridor clearing, site pre- L'- paration). Some species migrate in central, I deeper areas while others use marginal, shallow areas. Rivers, streams, and estuaries are seldom homogeneous in their lateral dimension with respect to depth, current velocity,and habitat type.
Thus, the use of width or cross- sectional area criteria for determining adequate zones of passage should be combined with a knowledge of important species and their migratory requirements.
- The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zon_2e B. H. Ketchumn (ed) . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
1972.
Engineering for Resolution of the FEnergy-Envirorment Diler-ma. National Academy of Engineering. Washington, D.C., 1972.
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.3 Entrainment and Impingement of Aquatic Organisms Plankton, including eggs, larvae and The depth of the water body at The site should have characteristics juvenile fish, can be killed or in- the point of intake relative to that allow placement of intake jured by entrainment through power the general depth of the water structures where the relative station cooling systems or in dis- body in the vicinity of the site. abundance of important species is charge plumes. small and where low approach The proportion of water withdrawn velocities can be attained.
The reproductive capacity of relative to the net new avail- (Deep regions are generally less important species populations may be able water at the site is an in- productive than shallow areas.
impaired by lethal stresses or by direct measure of the destruction It is not implied that benthic sub-lethal stresses that affect re- of plankton which in turn is in- intakes are necessary.)
production of individuals or result dicative of possible effects on in increased predation upon the populations of important species. Important habitats (see B.1) should affected species population. It has been suggested that the be avoided as locations for intake fraction of available new water structures.
Fish and other aquatic organisms that can be diverted is in the can be killed or injured by impinge- range of 10% to 20% of flow.**
ment on cooling water intake screens*
or by entrainment in discharge plumes. This simplistic parameter is suitable for use in a screening process for site selection. How- ever, the other factors such as distribution of important species should be considered and in all cases the advice of experts on the local fisheries should be consulted to assure that pro- posed withdrawals will not be excessive.
- Approach velocity and screen face velocity are the principal design criteria for controlling the impingement of larger organisms, principally fish, on intake screens. Acceptable approach and screen-face velocities are based on fish swim speeds and will thus vary with the species, site and season. Maximum acceptable approach velocities are on the order of 0.5 fps.
The WattCritical Problems of the Coastal Zone B. H. Ketchum (ed). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
1972.
Engineering for Resolution of the Energy-Environment Dilemma. National Academy of Engineering..
Washington, D.C., 1972.
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.4 Entrapment of Aquatic Organisms Cooling water intake and discharge Site characteristics that will Sites where the constuction of system features such as canals and accommodate design features intake or discharge canals would thermal plumes can attract and en- that mitigate or prevent be necessary should be avalded un- trap organisms, principally fish. entrapment. less the site and important species The resulting concentratlon of characteristics are such that entry important fish species near the. of important species to the canal plant site can result in higher can be prevented or limited by mortalities from plant related screening.
causes such as impingement, cold shockor gas bubble disease than Sites should be selected where would otherwise occur. rapid mixing of thermal effluents with the receiving water will Entrapment can also interrupt minimize or avoid entrapment.
normal migratory patterns.
-!
Consideration Parameters Regulatory Position B.5 Water Quality Steam electric power plant dis- Applicable EPA approved State Pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of charges are governed by the Standards. the Act, certification from the Federal Water Pollution Control State that any discharge will comply Act (PL 92-500). witn applicable effluent limitations and other water pollution control requirements is necessary before the AEC can issue a construction permit unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable length of time.
Issuance of a permit pursuant to section 402 of the Act is not a prerequisite to an AEC license or permit.
Cons iderat ion Parameters Regulatory Position B.6 Consumptive Water Use The consumptive use of water for Statutory requirements. Water use must comply with cooling may be restricted by Compatability with water use statutory requirements and be statute, may be inconsistent plan of cognizant water resource coVpatible with water use plan with water use planning and may planning agency. of cognizant water resources lead to an unacceptable impact planning agency.
to the water resource. In the absence of a water use plan, the effect on other water Consumptive use should be re- users is evaluated considering stricted such that the supply flaw or volume reduction and of other users is not impaired the resultant ability of all and that applicable surface water users to obtain adequate supply quality standards could be met and to meet applicable water assuming normal plant operational quality standards (see B.5, Water discharges and extreme low flow
-a Quality). conditions defined by generally accepted engineering practices.
For lakes and reservoirs, con- sumptive use should be restricted such that the magnitude and fre- quency of drawdown will not destroy important habitats (see B.1) or be inconsistent with the management goals for the water body.
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.7 Established Public Amenity Areas Areas dedicated by Federal, State, Proximity to public amenity Siting in the vicinity of or local governments to scenic, area. Viewability (see designated public amenity areas recreational, or cultural pur- B.10, Visual Amenities). will generally require extensive poses are generally prohibited evaluation and justification.
areas for siting power stations.
The evaluation of the suitability Siting nuclear power stations in of sites in the vicinity of public the vicinity of established public amenity areas is dependent on con- amenity areas Could result in the sideration of a specific plant loss or deterioration of important design and station layout in re- public amenities. lation to potential impacts on the public amenity area.
B.8 Prospective Designated Amenity Areas Areas containing important Comparison of possible amenity Public amenity areas that are resources for scenic, recre- areas in number and extent distinctive, unique, or rare in ational, or cultural use may with other similar areas a region should be avoided as not current!y be designated as available on a local, zegional, sites for nuclear power stations.
such by public agencies but may or national basi-, a5 Involve a not loss to the public appropriate.
if converted to power generation.
These areas may include locally rare land types such as sand dunes, wetlands, or coastal cliffs.
INPIPONOm1 Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B. 9 Public Planning Land use for a nuclear pover Officially adopted land use Land use plans adopted by Federal, station should be compatible plans. State, regional, or local govern- with established land use or mental entities must be examined, zoning plans of governmental and any conflict betvten these entities. plans and use of a proposed site m*st be resolved by consultation with the appropriate governmental entity.
Q
3.10 Visual Amenities I
t*
The presence of power plant The solid angle subtended by The visual intrusion of nuclear structures may introduce plant structures at critical power station structures as viewed adverse visual impacts to vieaing points. from nearby residential, recreational, residential, recreational, scenic, or c-lturai areas should be con- scenic, or cultural areas or trolled by selecting sites where ex- other areas with significant isting topography and forests can be dependence on desirable view- utilized for screening station ing characteristics. structures.
Considerat Ions Par~irwters B. 11 Local Foggtn__iand icing Water and water vapor release.d to ;~t~I.,Lroid qb.tr1ýII! p Lha t.f~ J
the atmosphere from recirculating , n~er-A'ei~n kit hi FW .111
11C
cooling syatems can lead to fog I c-i tlLlicýI% pe-Ui~~hould bv and Lee resulting In tralnsporLttion hazards and diunage to elcctr:ic include e-tt inatk'i of 1ui'vo transmission systems.
Ca B.12 Economic Impact of cxD P etmptIv I ;eL714e Nuclear power stations can pre- The level of 1tnca' V1.0fiviic if a prcli~rtorý' eviluation of.
empt large land areas, especially ne localI l:nc.iv.a?$c'. of.
when large cooling lakes are con- 11"ee-Me, Jo bs,* and p.roduct ion, the one iýfI pruduc:t le land f-or The land requirement cauiued by prc~iImptive untL 4)1A a~ nu i.var pouwr s tat.ion In- structed.
is likely to be an important praduct lye lard. ditaten a Potential fo~r lar~e'
issue when a proposed site is CLW"i d jsloca't.Ioi, the on productive land, such as pqegulatc'ýy st;E4ý f will! r-cqoirt'
agricultural land, that is adeta.iledc ev.41uritlun of the tetla 'PPalct. !nd Jstit j.,iiCat ion locally limited in availability and is important to the local f.or !hl-e use of the. Site.
economy.