ML19221A835
| ML19221A835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-05.8.1, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-5.8.1, SRP-05.08.01, SRP-5.08.01, NUDOCS 7907090270 | |
| Download: ML19221A835 (29) | |
Text
Section 5.8.1 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 5.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION - SOCI0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
PHYSICAL REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 5.1 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System 5.3 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges 5.a Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the Transmission Systems 5.6 Other Effects Environmental Reviews 2.1 Site Location 2.2.1 Land Use, the Site and Vicinity 2.5 Socioeconcmics 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 4.4.1 Socioeconomic Impacts of Construction: Physical 5.3.3 Heat Dissipation Systems Impacts 5.5 Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts Standards and Guides Air Quality Act of 1967, Public Law 90-148 Clean Air Amendments of 1970 U.S. Government CFR Title 40, Chapter I, Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards.
U.S. Government CFR Title 29 Chapter XVII, Part 1910, Occupational and Health Standards.
Public Law 92-500, Sections 301 and 306.
Occupational Safety and Health Act, Noise Provision, Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 105, Part II, p. 10518, Dept. of Labor, OSHA, May 29, 1971.
Other Site visit Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections h
5.8.1 Environmental Impacts of Station Operation - Socioeconomic Impacts: Physical GB non[/Y
- 5. 8.1-1 7 9070 gog
February 1979 Other Environmental Reviews 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts (Operation) 9.3 Alternative Plant and Transmission Systems 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts I.
FURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmer.tal standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staff's identification and assessment of the direct physical impacts of plant operation on the community. Amorg these are impacts resulting from noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, any visual intrusion.
The scope of the review directed by this plan will be of sufficient detail to permit the reviewer to predict and assess potential impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer will recommend consideration of alternative locations, designs, and procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts.
O II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site-and station-specific factors and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.
The following information will usually be requi-oJ.
A.
Plant Layout (from ESRP 3.1)
B.
Distribution of people, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities that are vulnerable to impact by plant operatisn (f rom the ER).
C.
Predicted noise levels and nonradiological air pollutant levels at sensitive arcas identified in B. above (from the ER).
D.
Plant visual appearance from sensitive surrounding areas (from ESRP 3.1).
n 5.8.1-2 L'
February 1979 E.
Applicable standards for levels of noise, and gaseous pollutants (from consultation with Federal, State and local agencies).
F.
Applicant's proposed methods to reduce visual impacts and impacts of noise and other pollutants (from the ER).
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The reviewer's analysis of operational impacts to the community will be linked to the environmental reviews directed by ESRPs 2.1, 2. 2.1, 2. 5, 3, 5. 3. 3, and 5.5 to ensure that those environmental factors most likely to be impacted by proposed plant operation are adequately addressed.
The reviewer will ensure that information presented in the applicant's environmental report is complete and accurate.
For any particular impact the reviewer will first determine the peop'e, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities that could be af fected. This will include determination of sensitive use patterns (e.g., hospitals, residences, recreational arecs, viewsheds) and, where available, the allowable limits of impacts.
Impacts to be considered for the most part will be those from noise, air pollution, and visual intrusion. The reviewer will then identify the poten-tial operational impacts to these elements and will predict the extent and magnitude of impacts.
Impacts may be described in qualitative terms where the effect on the community is expected to be small. Where adverse impacts can be predicted, the reviewer will conduct a more detailed analysis and will, where oractical, make quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the impacts.
The reviewer will consult with the reviewer for ES Section 4.1.1 to identify those construction features that are expected to have operational impacts (e.g., access roads).
Where operational impacts will be no more than temporal extensions of the construction impact, this may be noted and no further analysis will be needed.
The reviewer will consult with the reviewers of both ES Sections 3.7 and 4.4.1 to complete the analysis of visual impacts, with emphasis on the identification of measures and controls (e.g., screening) to mitigate those impacts determined to be adverse.
08 Tqn Lv 5.8.1-3
February 1979 The reviewer will identify those prcooced design features and operating procedures which can be expected to mitigate the physical impacts.
C 'ft and noise eliminators, air polluton control devices and landscaping for visual screening are some of the means available for mitigation.
The reviewer must become familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements pertinent to the operational impac',s of nuclear power stations.
The reviewer will consult with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies to verify that current, applicable regulations and guides are available. This will include, for example, consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency for ambient air quality standards and air pollutant levels and Office of Noise Abate-ment and Controls guidelines and standards applicable to facility operation.
IV.
EVALUATION Evaluation of each identified impact will r esult in one of the following determinations:
The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recommend operation as proposed.
The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by design or procedure modi-fications that the reviewer has identified and determined to De practical.
For these cases, the reviewer will consult with the project manager and the reviewers for ES Section 9.3 for verification that the reviewer's recommended modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. The reviewer will prepare a list of verified modifications and recommended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists will be provided the reviewer for ES Section 5.16.
The impact is adverw. cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer will inform the reviewers for ES Section 9.3 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required.
The reviewer will 9
5.8.1-4
)G0
February 1979 participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical.
If no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing this information to the reviewer for ES Section 10.1.
If the reviewer determines that no situations exist that suggest an adverse impact, no evaluation will be required.
If unusual situations such as exceasive fogging, icing, or drift exist, the reviewer will recommend consideration of imposing mitigating action.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish the following objectives:
(1) public disclosure of physical impacts resulting from plant operation; (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis; and (3) presentation of staf f conclusions, recommendations, and conditions rega: ding physical impacts of station operation to the community.
If the site is remote frcm communities and does not represent a visual intru-sion, and it is found that the applicant can operate in compliance with appropriate guides and standards, these facts should be stated with only a very brief discus-sion noting that under these conditions physical socioeconomic impacts should be minor.
If the foregoing conditions are not met, or if there are no applicable standards, predicted impacts should be described along with conclusions regarding the significance of the effect on the community.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to the following ES sections:
Section 5.10.
.The reviewer will provide the reviewer for ES Section 5.10 with a list of applicant commitments and staff recommendations of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts of operation.
1 F, q 7n7 I ilO JUm 5.8.1-5
February 1979 Section 9.3.
When the reviewer concludes that there are physical impacts of operation that are adverse and should be avoided, the reviewers for ES Section 9.3 will be requested to consider alternative plant designs, locations or operating procedures that would avoid the impacts.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
T. J. Schultz, Noise Assessment Guidelines; Technical Background for Noise Abatement in HUD's Operating Programs, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Report HUD TE/NA 172, 1971.
(Report prenared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. )
2 Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety, PB-239/429, March 1974.
3.
Mitre Corporation, Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, PB-213/498 (Environmental Protection Agency), July 1972.
4.
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA Doc. No.10-239, March 1974.
m'J o
5.8.1-6