ML19221A742
| ML19221A742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-555, SRP-NUREG-0555, SRP-NUREG-555, NUDOCS 7907090016 | |
| Download: ML19221A742 (780) | |
Text
NU R EG-0555 G
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS MAY 1979 107 117 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
790709 c oltri e
O Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $24.00; Microfiche $3.00 The price of this document for requesters outside of the North American Continent can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service.
9
- ()
10, 3i to
/
NUREG-0555 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 0F CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLFAP POWER PLANTS MAY 1979 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 107 1
9
February 1979 INTRODUCTION These ei,<ironmental standard review plans (ESRPs) constitute a series of instructions developed for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's envi-ronmental review of applications for nuclear power plant construction permits.
The ESRPs were issued for draft review and public comment as Parts I, II, and III of NUREG-0158; Part I in January 1977, Part II in April 1977, and Part III in November 1977.
Comments were received from Federal and State agencies, industry and utility organizations, private and university organizations, and private citizens.
The draf t ESRPs have been revised and updated to consider these comments.
Additional revisions have been made to reflect Commission policies and procedures issued subsequent to publication of the draft ESRPs.
Mr. Richard W. Froelich is the NRC Pro' ject Manager for ESRPs.
Should there be any questions regarding the content of any plan, Mr. Froelich may be contacted by calling 301-49N442 or writing to the following address:
Divi:,ien of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Offio_ of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Additional copies of these plans may be obtained as indicated on the inside front cover of this document.
The ESRPs (1) provide specific instructions to the NRC staff responsible for conducting environmental reviews, (2) provide detailed descriptions of the manner in which the NRC reaches judgments on the kinds of environmental impacts caused by construction end operation of nuclear power plants, and (3) specify means for determining tile significance of these impacts.
Use of ESRPs by the NRC staff in the environmental review process will ensure that:
A.
Data essential to a specific environmental review and subsequent decisionmaking process will be supplied and reviewed; 107 100 1
February 1979 B.
Appropriate consideration, including coordination and consultation, is given to other Federal and State requirements applicable to a particular envi-ronmental review; C.
The analysis and evaluation procedures for review of a given tech-nical area are standardized, thus achieving uniformity of approach; D.
Each impact assessment will concentrate on review of those potential environmental impacts of significance, and analysis of irrelevant data or of insignificant impacts will be minimized; and E.
The methods to be used for analysis and staff judgments are objective and based on sound analytical procedures.
The ESRPs have been prepared for an environmental statement outline that will embrace the range of environmental factors and site-specific environmental conditions expected for the majority of nuclear power plant applications.
It is recognized that conditions will occur from time to time that do not fall within the ESRP outline. The plans have been prepared to permit the inclusion of such conditions in the environmental review.
'.ach ESRF' has been prepared with due regard for the NRC's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and any applicable interpretations of that Act, including, for example, the Calvert Cliffs decision and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines.
Each plan includes applicable refer-ences to related Federal agency regulations, guidelines, or acts that will affect the staf f's environmental review. In such cases, the reviewer is provided instruc-tions as to how the NRC environmental review will consider requirements of the related Federal regulation, guidelines, or act.
Provisions have been made for periodic updating of these plans to respond to future regulations, guidelines, or acts (e.g., CEQ Regulations) affecting NRC'", environmental review procedures.
Each EERP includes a section describing the required data or information needed to complete the environmental review specified by that plan.
Since the ESRPs have been prepared by individuals knowledgeable of the content of appli-cant's environmental reports, the required data and information section of each
\\
2
February 1979 ESRP was prepared with this knowledge in mind.
The contents of Regulatory Guide 4.2, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,"
were considered in the preparation of each ESRP, but were not a constraint in developing the data or information requirements.
Thus, the overall data and information requirements of these ESRPs are not necessarily consistent with the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 4.2.
In most instances, however, the scope of the data required is similar.
The NRC staff will next prepare a revised version of Regulatory Guide 4.2 that will accurately reflect the ESRP requirements for data and information to be supplied in an applicant's environmental report.
During the interim period to preparation of this revision, the review procedures outlined in each ESRP will be followed.
Some latitude in the form of data information requirements will be allowed, reflecting the.NRC under:t ading of the need for a transition period.
The following instructions, applicable to most of the ESRPs, are provided 9
here to avoid repetition in each plan:
A.
As an initial step in each individual environmental review, the reviewer is expected to develop an understanding of the entire project as proposed by the applicant.
The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that reviewers put their individual reviews in perspective to the overall project and concen-trate their efforts on issues of substance.
This general project review is to be conducted as the first step (acceptance review phase) of the overall environ-mental review process and is to be completed prior to developing requests foi additional information.
B.
With very few exceptions, the reviews on a given project are conducted in parallel, thus completed " outputs" of related plans may not be available to reviewers before their own environmental review is initiated.
C.
Although each ESRP represents a discrete segment of the NRC's overall environmental review, no review can t e completed without some interrela-tion with related reviews as well as with the entire project.
All reviewers are
'^'
0 Id' 3
February 1979 instructed to maintain close intercommunication with other reviewers throughout the review procedure.
The NRC Environmental Project Manager is the central point of contact for all reviewers, will usually initiate contacts with outside groups, and must be informed of all such contacts.
D.
Each reviewer is expected to seek out and be aware of any related technical analyses and assessments in areas of concurrent. jurisdiction, such as air and water quality and aquatic impacts.
Particular attention should be given to those analyses and assessments prepared under provisions of memoranda of understanding between the NRC and other Federal or State agencies.
When so directed by the specifics of the memoranda of understanding, the reviewer will participate with Federal and State officials in the development of the impact assessments directed by these ESRPs.
Working through the Environmental Project Manager, the reviewer will be responsible for resolving any differences of opinion between staf f analyses and analyses of other agencies.
When such resolu-tion is not possible, the reviewer will ensure that all viewpoints are addressed in the Environmental Statement or that the specific provisions of the memoranda of understanding for this contingency have been followed.
E.
To maintain consistency throughout the ESRPs, the terms plant, station, unit, facility, and project will have the following raanings:
STATION:
All facilities (reactors, control buildings, intakes, dischargas, etc.) that are located or are proposed to be located on the applicant's site.
Generally, the station includes everything located on the applicant's property that surrounds the proposed or existing reactors.
In some cases, intakes and discharges may be beyond this property line, but are considered part of the station.
Transmission lines and their associated facilities are not considered part of the station.
Existing or proposed facilities not associated with the production of electricity (e.g., a visitor center or a fish hatchery) are considered as part of the station.
PLANT:
The proposed nuclear reactors, steam electric sys-tems, intakes, discharges, and all other on station facil-ities involved with the production of electricity.
Plant can be more than one reactor steam-electric system, but would not include existing units already in operation.
Transmission lir es and other of f-station facilities are not part of the plant.
4
,n" 1 'n
\\J
February 1979 UNIT:
One reactor steam-electric system.
Generally, unit is used only when the applicant is proposing a multiunit plant.
FACILITY:
Any identifiable part of the station or asso-ciated portions of the applicant's system, both existing and proposed.
Examples:
The visitor center is a facility.
1 substation is a facility.
An intake system could be a
- 1cility (if sepatated from the remainder of the plant).
PROJECT:
Everything the applicant is proposing.
This includes transmission lines, access roads, communications stations, etc.
This usage applies only to the environmental review process, and terms such as plant and station as used in the environmental statement will continue to reflect an applicant's choice of terms to identify the proposed project (e.g.,
Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit 1).
F.
As used in these ESRPs, mitigation and avoidance will have the following meanings:
MITIGATION:
Impact mitigation is the process of modifying a design or practice (either a construction practice or an operating procedure) to lessen its environmental impact.
Successful mitigation will remove an impact from the
' adverse' category.
AVOIDANCE:
Impact avoidance is the process cf using an alternative design or practice that avoids the identified adverse impact.
Note that alternatives may have adverse impacts of their own, and n st be evaluated to ensure that any such impacts can be successfully mitigated.
G.
Where an analysis procedure as outlined in an ESRP has been con-ducted by an applicant and reported in the applicant's environmental report, the reviewer need not repeat the analysis.
However, the applicant's work will bre 107 121 5
February 1979 evaluated in suf ficient depth to permit verification of the analysis and its results.
H.
Each reviewer will maintain documentation, logs, and records to ensure that records of contacts with outside agencies and organizations are maintained.
I.
The analysis procedure for many of the ESRPs directs the reviewer to " consult with the applicant" in certain specified circumstances.
All consulta-tions of this nature will be made through the NRC Environmental Project Manager, using appropriate NRC management procedures.
J.
Those sections of the environmental statement that contain recommendations to the NRC decisionmakers shall in all cases reflect the results of a " consensus" agreement among the reviewers.
This will require input from the reviewer, the Environmental Project Manager, and those other reviewers that would be affected by the recommendation.
9 un m g
6
February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OUTLINE USED FOR PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLANS 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS 2.1 SITE LOCATION 2.2 LAND 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 2.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 2.2.3 The Region 2.3 WATER 2.3.1 Hydrology 2.3.2 Water Use 2.3.3 Water Quality 2.4 ECOLOGY 2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 2.4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Off site Areas 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.4.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 2.4.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 107 126 1
February 1979 O
- 2. 5 SOCI0 ECONOMICS 2.5.1 Demography 2.5.2 Community Characteristics 2.5.3 Historic and Archeological Sites and Natural Landmarks 2.6 GEOLOGY 2.7 METEOR 0 LOGY 2.8 RELATED FEDERAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES 3.
PLANT DESCRIPTION 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND PLANT LAYOUT 3.2 REACTOR STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM
- 3. 3 PLANT WATER USE 3.3.1 Water Consumption 3.3.2 Water Treatment 3.4 COOLING SYSTEM 3.4.1 System Description and Operational Modes 3.4.2 Component Descriptions 3.5 RADI0 ACTIVE-WASTE-MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 3.6 NONRADI0 ACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS 3.6.1 Wasted Containing Chemicals or Biocides 3.6.2 Sanitary System Wastes 3.6.3 Other Wastes 107 127
February 1979 3.7 POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS 3.8 TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION 4.1 LAND-USE IMPACTS 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 4.1.3 Historic / Archeological Sites 4.1.3.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.1.3.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 4.2 HYDROLOGICAL ALTERATIONS AND WATER-USE IMPACTS 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts 4.3 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 4.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems 4.3.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.3.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 4.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystems 4.3.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.3.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 4.4 SOCI0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 4.4.1 Physical 4.4.2 Social and Economic 4.5 RADIATION EXPOSURE TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS 4.6 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION 107 123 3
February 1979 9 4.6.1 Applicant's Commitments 4.6.2 Staf f Evaluation and Reconnendations 5.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION 5.1 LAND-USE IMPACTS 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 5.1. 2 Transmisr, ion Corridors and Offsite Areas 5.1.3 Historic / Archeological Sites 5.2 HYDROLOGICAL ALTERATIONS, PLANT WATER SUPPLY AND WATER-USE IMPACTS 5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations and Plant Water Supply 5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts
- 5. 3 COOLING-SYSTEM IMPACTS 5.3.1 Intake System
- 5. 3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Descriptions and Physical Impacts 5.3.1.2 Aquatic Impacts 5.3.2 Discharge System 5.3.2.1 Thermal Description and Physical Impacts 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts 5.3.3 Heat Dissipation System 5.3.3.1 Heat Dissipation to the Atmosphere 5.3.3.2 Impacts to Terrestrial Ecosystems 5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF NORMAL OPERATION 5.4.1 Exposure Pathways 5.4.2 Dose Commitments 5.4.3 Impact to Man 5.4.4 Impact to Biota Other than Man 107 129 4
February 1979 5.5 NONRADI0 ACTIVE-WASTE-SYSTEM IMPACTS 5.6 TRANSMISSION-SYSTEM IMPACTS 5.6.1 Terrestrial 5.6.2 Aquatic 5.6.3 Impacts to Man 5.7 URANIUM-FUEL-CYCLE IMPACTS 5.8 SOCI0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 5.8.1 Physical 5.8.2 Social ard Economic 5.9 DECOMMISSIONING 5.10 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE IMPACTS DURING OPERATION 5.10.1 Applicant's Commitments 5.10.2 Staff Evaluation and Recommendations 6.
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 THERMAL 6.2 RADIOLOGICAL 6.3 HYDROLOGICAL 6.4 METEOROLOGICAL
- 6. 5 BIOLOGICAL 6.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Land Use 6.5.2 Aquatic Ecology 6.6 CHEMICAL 6.7 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 6.7.1 Site Preparation and Construction Monitoring 6.7.2 Preoperational Monitoring 107 130 5
February 1979 7.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS 7.1 Plant Accidents 7.2 Transportation Accidents 8.
THE NEED FOR THE PLANT
8.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE POWER SYSTEM 8.1.1 Service Area 8.1. 2 Regional Relationships 8.2 ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND PEAKLOAD DEMAND 8.2.1 Power and Energy Requirements 8.2.2 Factors Affecting Growth of Demand 8.3 POWER SUPPLY 8.3.1 Existing and Planned Generating Capacity 8.3.2 Purchases and Sales 8.4 STAFF ASSESSMENT OF NEED 9.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 9.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SYSTEMS 9.1.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 9.1. 2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity 9.1. 3 Staff Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems 9.2 ALTERNATIVE SITES 9.3 ALTERNATIVE PLANT AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS 9.3.1 Heat Dissipation Systems 9.3.2 Circulating Water Systems jQJ })}
6
February 1979 9.3.2.1 Intake Systems 9.3.2.2 Discharge Systems 9.3.2.3 Water Supply 9.3.2.4 Water Treatment 9.3.3 Nonradioactive-Waste-Treatment Systems 9.3.4 Transmission Systems 9.3.4.1 Alternative Routes 9.3.4.2 Alternative Design, Construction, and Maintenance 10.
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPALTS 10.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 10.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT 10.4 BENEFIT-COST BALANCE 10.4.1 Benefits 10.4.2 Costs 10.4.3 Summary 107 132 7