ML20083Q561
| ML20083Q561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1983 |
| From: | Galleher G, Hager S, Hendricks J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083Q427 | List: |
| References | |
| 4.7, NUDOCS 8302250440 | |
| Download: ML20083Q561 (34) | |
Text
- - - - -
a '
FORM NG-1 REV 0
/ A1 i
\ -
DUKE POWER COMPANY j Page 1 of Nuclear Guide 4.7 ,,
NUCLEAR GUIDE ~ Effective Date 1/6/83 Revision 1 :
l :
2
Title:
General site suitability criteria for Nuclear Fem stations i
i 3 Reference NRC Regulatory Guide Number 4.7 Revision 1 l
4 Disposition = of Current Disposition of Previous RG Revisions l Plants Affected This RG Revision Revision Number Disposition
- O Oconee O McGuire
! O Catawba O Project 81
[ E Future Plants (Post-Project 81) Adopted
- Disposition is either " Adopted", " Partial Compliance", or "Not Applicable".
If " Partial Compliance" is indicated, attached From NG-1A.
5 iginat d C natpn,fith: 6 Revi ed By:
Name eor A. Galleher / R Hendricks S B Haq l Dept Desion Enqineerino Deslon Engineerino Deslan Enoineerino Date 8/23/82 8/23/82 8/23/82 7
l Approval Action:
l l
Jihlaived O Waived OApproved -
% roved A /
.[ [O'27 &
gg / Construction -
Date Design Engineerin F Date ved O Waived
- OApproved Ei sd(nJb alnk- J5KApproved
) . ta h anw kg Nuclear Production Bat 6 % 11ty W shrance Date ma.a I-8
FORM NG-1A REV 0
( 1 DUKE POWER COMPANY Page 2 of ! uclear N Guide 4.7 .
NUCLEAR SUIDE Revision 1 2
Summary of Alternatives taken to Reculatory Guide l
l 3
Alternatives (Rewrite the affected Regulatory Guide Section below. Continue on additional sheets as necessary. Position statements should directly correspond to the affected Reg Guide section or be a continuation of the Reg Gufde format.)
(
4 Justification (Must be sufficiently detailed to permit evaluation by Department
, heads and NRC)
I-9
, . _ _ - . - - ,-. - w, - - , - - + r-w. v , ----e - - - - --e9----- - -- - - - - -
- 7. . .. . - . - - - - .. ... . , .,
nevision 1 November 1975 U.S. NUCLEAR P.EGULATORY COMMISSIOro
(
~
REGULATORY GUIDE .
OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT i
REGULATORY GU8DE 4.7' GENERAL SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS h
t l
l i
- This cuide was initially pubhshed as a dratt in Septernber 1974.
ee. .. me sw.m*, c_ v s ==
c - . e
= c = -- a--.-. --
USNRC REGULAT0RY GulOES
. .. e. . .. - a,.,.. ;,,c;---~ ~~~-
- e. . . .
- -. .. ..~.ec.. ... .e .,wae-
. m....n . ,% ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,
c . . , c . .. u .v. e o .
. e.cs e..
e.,s c,c .c .e.e..
... n.cse .,#c.. . e.m.w.
e.
i .
.. . ..we .. s ..e.n.
e.
( me, . n.. m . . . ..n..... . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
... u . . . . ec.4 w .. . . . a ,
isco.,
. . . . . w , en . . ., sw e .
t e..
cso . e .
.....c..........s,....we. u . .... . ... .... .....
.e t.e...u....e.........
- e. a.. us c e. e-, c. .... w. .... o s;
.: . . .: o . om. . .e s.eu.e. o..
. ... .. . sesee a.
^
TABLE OF CONTSNTS (o -
Pass A. INTRODUCTION ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 1 B. DISCUSSION ..................................4.72
- 1. Geology /Seismolop ..............................4.72
- 2. Atmospheric Extremes and Dispersion .......................4.72
- 3. Population Considerations ............................4.74 4 Hydrology ............................
. .. . . 4.74 4.1 Flooding ....................... . . . . . . . . . 4 .7 4 4.2 Water Availability ......................... . . . 4.7 4 4.3 Water Quality ....................... .. . .. . . . 4.7 5 Frological Systems and ble ................. . . . .. . . 4.7 5
- 5. .
- 6. land Use and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . 4.74
- 7. Industrial. Military, and Transportation Fadlities ........... .. . .. . . . 4.7 7
- 8. Socioeconomics ........................ .. . .. . . 4.74
- 9. Noise .........'...........................4.74 C. REGULATORY POSITION ....................... ... . . 4.74
- 1. Geology / Seismology ..... ... ........... . .. . . 4.74
................ . .. . 4.79
- 2. Atmospheric Extremes and Dispersion
.. . . . . . 4.79
- 3. Population Considerations ...................
- 4. Hydrology ..................................4.79 e ,
1 4.7 9 4.1 Flooding ........................ ... ..
4.2 Water Availability ..... ..................... . 4.79 4.3 Water Quality ..................... .. .. ... . . 4.7 9 Ecological Systems and bta ........................ . . 4.7 10 5.
4.7 11
- 6. Land Use and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
. 4.7 11
- 7. Industrial. Military.and Transportation Facilities .. ...... .. . . . .
........... . 4.7 11
- 8. Socioeconomics .......'.......... 4.7 11
- 9. Noise .................................. .
4.7 1 1 D. IMPLEMENT ATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: Safety.Related Site ConWderstless for Asseming Site Suitability for Nuclear Power Stations . 4.7 13 APPENDIX 8: Environmental Considerations for Assessing Ste Suitability for Nucien Power Stations . . 4.719 e
(.
. . . . : . _. ..: _ .Q , ,]^ , , , ] , , , ,
= .
A. INie40 DUCTION decision that a station may be built on a specific -
C.. x - candidate site is based on a detailed evaluation of the The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 places on the -
Proposed site plant cominnation and a cost benefit Nusles Regulatory Corunitut.n (NRC) the responsi- analysis comparing it with altemative site plant combina-twhty for the tscenung and seyulation of private nuclear tions as discussed in Regulatory Guide 4,2. "Pieparation
'acihties from the standi .omt of public health and of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.
safety. Paragraphs l'il16iN and te) of 10 CFR Part 100."Reutne Site t'nteriaf'sequire that the population Chapter 9 of Regulatory Guide 4.2 discusses the density une .,f tire site r1,visons. and the phM telection of a site from among allemative sites. Although charactenstics _ot the sit- mcluding seisen2 logy, 4: is recopized th t planning eiwthodsb will differ meteorology. pulogy. asid ' hydrology, be taken into amcng applicants, Chapter 9 states that the appbcant accoun in deterniming the &ccepsabslity of a site for a should paesent its site plant selection process as the nuclear power reactor. Seiseme and pologic site criteria consequence of an analysis of alternatives whose for nuclear power plants are provided in Appendix A to environmental costs and benefits were evaluated and 10CFR Part 100. A.ppendis A to 10 CFR Part 50 compared and then weighed against those of the establishes the* minimum requirements for the principal proposed facility.
desip critens for water cooled nuclear power planta,a number of the:e ciiteria are directly related to site This guide is intended to assist applicants in the mittal characteristics as well as to events and conditions outside stay of selecting potential sites for a nuclear power the nuclear powei unit. station. Each site that appears to be compatible wi'h the pneral criteria discussed in this guide will have to be The National Ensinonmental Policy Act of 1969 examined in yester detail before it can be considered to (NEPA) (83 Stat 852). irnplemented by Executive be a " candidate" site,i.e., one of the poup of sites that
. Order 11514 and the Council on Environmental Qual- are to be ecsdered in selecting a " proposed" or sty's Guidelines of August I, 1973 (38 FR 20550), re- " preferred" site.'
quires that all agencies of the Federal Government pre-pare detailed environmental statements on proposed This guide should be used only in the initial stage of maior Federal act.ons which can significantly affect the site selection because it does not provide detailed quahty of the human environment. A principal objective (g.>
of NEPA is to reqmre the Federal agency to consider.in its decision making process.'the environmental impacts su dance on the various relevant factors and format for ranlung the relative suitability or desirability of possible sites. This guide provides a pneral set of safety and of each proposed major action and the available alterna- environmental criteria which the NRC staff has found to uve scuons. be valuable in assessing candidate site identification in specWic hcensing cases.
Part $1. "lacensing and Regulatory Policy and
- Procedures for Environmental Protection," of Title 10, Nih m WmMe pdma Code of Federal Regulations, sets forth the Nuclear this initial stage of site selection is assumed to be limited Regulatory Commission s pohey and procedures for the - to that information which may be obtained from preparation and processing of environmental impact published reports. public records, public and private statements and relate. documents pursuant to Section agencies, and individuals knowledgable about the IC2(2)(C)on the NEPA. txalty of a potential site. Altt.ough m some cases the applicants may have conducted on the spot mvestip-The limitations on the Commission's authority and lions. it is assumed here that these investiptions would responsibility pursuant to the NEPA imposed by the be limited to reconnaissance type surveys at t!us stage m
. Federal Wates Po!!ution Control Act (86 Stat. 9161 are the site selection process.
addressed m an Intenm Pohey Statement published in the Federal Regester on January 29.1o73 (38 FR 2679). The safety issues tbscussed include geolopc'seismie.
This guide discusses the maio: site charactenstics hydrologic and atmospheri6 characterist.es of proposed related to pubhc health and safety and environmental sites; potential effects im the statiot; itotn JeCidents issues which the NRC staff considers in determining the assocuted mith neaib> mdustinal. transporattien. and
.intabhty of sites for hght water cooled il WR) and hipi 8
tempetatute p.ivumled tillL.R nusicar power stations bs.,, ,,i,,,,g, ,,,, hminiosses shot hJsr hern uwd b} the
' The guidehnes may be used by applicants m identitying " d'it'ed m "% clear Pomer Plant
" " ' ' '
- P" "d"'")
Suitable (andidate sites fos nutleJr lhtwer stations The Sitmir.'A Generaiusd Prus es Atomic ladustnal Forum, August 1914. N.itumal Fnvironmental Studies Proiest. R 157tl di ne the t w ruscs at thw y. ink nusicar pomer s:ath ,
refers to 'he ni.)can rentor umits). nuticar secam s4pls. 'Sce r'hapter 9 of Recul.cors (.usJe 4 ' for a dissumon of enestns renesatme umts. auutuey e stems. msludant the (whr._ site wiectmn proerdures The "propn<d" sue submitted by an
- % applagant tot a construs-tune pernut n Ifut =ste nt a number of
(, setem and situstures wsh as ilosk. that are Imated en 413sen "sandidatc** sites t hish the appinant Preless and on which the
. safe, and am nem tin shal e transn.ew.e n sumers and bne rected en ennn h 2 mitt' tii la.shtm . aps.Inan t pror=,ws r" .. n tem t a nia lvas pourr staty.n t*i
. - _ . - - . , _ n _ ., _ . _ . . _ _ __
. _. u _ 2 - - _ , ,
..e- . - . . , . . . ,
7 ,
(u, .for assessms the site suitability of nuclest power sta.
military lecihtws, and population distribuuon and tions, densities in the site envirorts as they relate to protecting the peeral public from the potential radastion hasards B. Dl8CUS$1086 of postulated s rious accidents The environnwntalimues discussed con,cem potential impacts from the con. g j struction and operation of nuclear power stations on Nuclear. power statens must be designed to prevent ecological systems, water use, land use, the atmosphere, the loss of safety.related functions. GeneraDy, the most aesthetics, and socioeconomics.
restdctive safety.related site charactedstica consideved h This guide does not discuss details of the enp.neennS determining th~s suitability of a site are surfeos faultin desips required ta ensure the compstability of the potential pound motion and foundation conditi nuclear station and the site or the detailed information (including liquefaction, subsidence, and landsde required for the preparation of the safety analysis and potential), and seismicaHy induced Goods. Criteria that addition, nuclear power describe the nature of the investigations requSJ to environmental reactor site suitability reports.
as i In,t may be affected byobtain the the geologic and seismic data neceawry tc Commission's materials safeguards and plant protection determine site suitability are provided by Appendix A.
requirements for nuclear power plants is not addressed " Seismic and Geolope Criter'.a for Nucisar Power in this guide. . Plants," to 10CFR Part 100. Safety < elated site chanch am &n#wd la Section 2J of %
Guidance concerning the siting of offshore rauclear ulatory Guide 1.70. " Standard Format and Content of stations, liquid metal fast breeder reactose (LMFBR), Safety Analyas Reprts for Nuclear Power Plants," and and advanced siting concepts such as underpound sites Regulamry Guide 14 " Deep Emis Floods for Nu.
and nuclear energy centers is not included in this pide. clear Power Plante." la addition to pologic and sesmide evahsatica for assessing asiandcally induced Soodhus A sipificsat commitment of time and msources snay potential, Section 2.4 of Esplatory Guide 1.70 and be required to select a suitable site for a nuclear power Regulatory Guide 1.59 describe hydrologic critsda, station, including safety and environmental con. including coincident flood events that should be can.
siderations, and to develop an acceptable desip for that ,, ,
sidered.
site. Site selection involves considerations of pubbe '
g, health and safety, engineering and desip, economics. 2. A:- "
'i Extresses and Dispersion institutional requirements, environmental impacts, and The potential effect of natural s'=- ,'-k extresse other factors. The potential impacts of the construction (e.g., tomadoes' and exceptional icing conditions ) on d
and operation of nuclear power stations on the physical the safety related structures of a nuclear station must be
- and biological environment and on social, cultural, and considered. However, the atmospheric extamos that economic featuress are usually similar to the potential may occur at a site are not normany critical in impacts of any major industrial facility, but nuclear deternunmg the suitabGity of a site because safety.
power stations are unique in the degree to which related structums, systems, and components can be potential impacts of the environment on their safety desiped to withstand most atmospheric extremes.
must be considered. The safety requirements are primary determinants of the suitability of a site for. nuclear The atmospheric characteristics at a site are an power stations, but considerations of environmental important consideration in evaluating the dispersion of impacts and pubbe acceptance of nuclear power stations radioactive effluents both from postulated acddents and are also important and need to be evaluated. from routine releases in gaseous effluents.' la addition to meeting the NRC require:nsnts for the dispension of
- In the alte misction process, coordination between applicants for nuclear power stations and various ""Cl* incetion. Engineering Properties and Field Emplose-
- Federal, State, and local agencies will be useful in en of seas, tatact Rock and in sieu uness," wisci, identifying potential problem areas. March 1974, outlines some of the psocedures used to evehisse 8iw fou"dehn pMpenia.
Appendices A and B of this guide summarize theim. *"'""'8"*Y Cd* I 78 ~D'"8" "'M"*d' I
portant safety related and environmental considerations Nociner Power Plants" dRefer to Section 2.4.7 of Regulatory Guide I.70.
' Routine releases of airborne radioective metenal must be
' Biological and phyucal environment inciudes geology geo. kept "as low as practicable." 15ec 10 CFR Part 20. 520.l(et]
morphology. marface and groundwater hydrilogy. chmatology,' De Comnusanon has pubbshed a proposed rule for public com-air quality hmnology. e ater quality. fishenes wddbfe. and vege. ment (40 FR J3029) that substitutes "as low as is reasonably tation. Social and cultural features include scenic resources. acheetable" for the older, less pr6cise term "as low as practic.
recreation resources, archeological /hastencal resources, and com.
muruty resources including land une patterns. From " Develop.
able" where it appearsin NRC regulations and regulatory guidas r
, Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 sets forth the requee-ment and the Environment. Lesal Reforsns to Facabrate Indus. ments for dessen objectives for equipment to controi releases of
( inal $ste Selection." final repart t-y the Committee on Ernston. radioactive materialin einuents from nuclear power reactors.
men,al1.aw. Amerman Bar Association. February 1974.
tContinueds 472 1
m_ _ __ er._m._.m_..,m_J. ..._.J a___ __.6 . ,; _ , , . , , , , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , , . , y.---, - - - . . _ _ . ,
-%- I airborne radioactive material, the station must meet by the available atmospheric data for the area. Canyosu
(#' State and Federal requirements of the Clean Air or deep valleys frequently have atmospheric variables that am substantially different ftom those variables I
Amendments of 1970 (PL 91604). This is unlikely to be '
an important consideration for nuclear power station measund for the pneral agion. Other topographical siting unless (1)a site is in an area where existing air features such as hills, mountain ranys, and lake or ocean quabty is near or exceeds the hmits set under the Clean shorelines can affect the local atmospheric conditions at Air Amendments,(2)them is a potential for interaction ' a site sad may cause the dispersion characteristics at the
' of the cooling system plume with a plume containing - site to be less favo able than those is the pneral area or noxious or toxic substances from a nearby facility, or region. More strinynt desip or effluent objectives or a (3) the auxiliary pnerators are operating. larger exclusion area may be required in such cases.
i The atrnospheric data necessary for adequate sesess- Whus it is the concentration of radioactivity in the ment of the potential dispersion of radioactive material atmosphere at any distance from the point of release, from design basis accidents are described in Regulatory x(Ci/m 3), that must be controued, the ratio x/Q,where
' Guide 1.23. "Onsite Meteorological Programs." Model Q(Ci/sec)is the rate of release of radioactivity from the and assumptions used for evaluating the potential source, has become a commonly evaluated term because radiological consequences of certain postulatad accidents it depends only on atmospheric variables .nd distance are provided in Regulatory Guides 1.3, "Amumptions from the source.
L'aed for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Can-sequences of a Lessof Coolant Accident for Bouing If the atmospheric conditions are unfavorable with Water Reactors;" 1.4," Assumptions Used for Evaluating respect to ^ # characteristics at a proposed site, the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Less of- the exclumen area may have to be unusuaDy lary to Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactoss;" 1.5 satisfy the done criteria of 10 CFR Part 100. If inder
" Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radio- assunwd unfavorable atmospheric conditions (see i logical Consequences of a Steam IJne Break Accident Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4) the dispersion of for Boiling Water Reactors;" 1.24, Assumptions Used radianctivity released foBowing a design basis accident is for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences insufficient at the boundary of the exclusion area (see of a Pressurized Water Reactor Radianctive Gas Storap the foDowing section," Population Considerations")and 4s'"% the outer boundary of the low population zone,the site Tank Failure; and 1.25. " Assumptions Used for Eval-
.{
. unting the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel would not satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100.
'Ihus, the desip of the station would be required to Handling Accident in the Fuel Handung and Storay.
Facility for Bouing and Pressurized Water Reactors." include appropriate and adequate compensating en-However, the atmospheric assumptions in the guides gineered safety features.
may not be appropriate for sites with unusual at-mospheric conditions. Local fogging and icing can result from plumes discharyd into the atmosphere from cooliag towers, in the evaluation of potential sites, onsite at- takes, canals, or spray ponds, but can pnerally be mospheric reconnaissance can determine if the am acceptably mitipted by station desip and operational spheric conditions at a site are adequately spresented practices However, some sites have the potential for severe fogging or icing due to local atmospheric con-l (Continued ditions. For example, areas of unusually high moisture section 50.36a funher provides that, in osder to keer f**er content that are protected from large-scale airft:w reactor efnuent releases as low as practicable, each useme pattems are most likely to experience these conditions.
authoriaang operation of such 's facihty wEl include tschescal h impacts am pnusHy of yestest pWnti,g h specincations regarding the establishment of effluent contiel equipment and reporting of actuai releases.
portance relative to transportation or ehetrical trans-Appendia I to 10 CFR Part 50. pro elested May 5,1975 mission corridors in the st:inity of a site.
l (40 Fit 19439) provules numerical guidance for desipi objec-
"9" " A cooling system desiped with special consideration iNoNa a Elisht eter for reducing drift may be required due to the sensitivity h followeg reputat:ry guides are beins prepared to assist la enbesinon of the numencal guidance in Appendas I:
of the natural vegetation or the crops in the vicinity of I. Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from the site to damage from airbome salt particles. The Routine' Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of imple- vulnerabuity of existing industries or other facihties in the vicinity of the site to corrosion by drift from cooling 2 le t ns of Reisenes of' Radioactive Maserials si tower or spray system drift should be cc;asidered.Not Liquid and Gaseous Ernuents from Pressunted Water Reactors (pwAO. caly are the amount, direction,and distance of the irift
- 3. calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in liquid from the cooling system impcetant, but the salt con-and Caseous Einvents from Boihng Water Reettors (BWRs), centration above the natural background salt deposition at the site is alto important in assessing dnft effects.
4 Methods for Estimating Atmosphenc Disperson or None of these considerations att critical in evaluating Gaseous Ernuents from Routme Releases ,
473
.m .1___ _. _; __
l .. .. ^ . * -
. ~,- .
., s.x. . . -
. ~ , .
l
(
l I useful in comparing population distributions at alterna-(C the suitability of a site but they could result in special tive sites.
I
.e-. ling syuem deugn sequirements or se. the need for :-
immer ute to ennfine the effects of drift within the ute 4. Hydrology i+ue.asr> 1hc environmental effects of salt drift are mmi seveie where sahne water or water with hidi ~
iruneral content is used for condenser cooling. 4.1 Floodhis Criteria for evaluauon of seismicauy mduced floods a vohng towers produce cloudlike plumes which vary m provided in Appendix A to 10CFR Part 100.
in stae and altitude depending on the ' atmospheric Regulatory Guide 1.59 describes an acceptable method cnnditions he plumes are often a few miles in length of determining the desip basis floods for sites along
! before becuirung dasapated, but the plumes themselves streams or rivers and discusses the phenomena producing i,r their shadows could have aesthetic impacts. Visible comparable design basis Goods for coastal, estuary, and plumes emitted from cooling towers in the vicinity or Great Lakes sites. The effects of a probable maximum aarports could cause a hazard to aviation. flood (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.59), seiche,
! sury, or seismically induced flood such as might be i .t Population Comaderations ' caused by dam failures or tsunami on station safety l functions can pnerally be controUed by engineering A scactor hsensee is required by 10 CFR Part 100 to design a prmecuon d me safstruland suudum, Jengnate an exclusion area and to have authority to sysums, and components which are identined m, Reg-Asernune a!! activities within that area, including ulam Guide 1.29, %M Mun Mca@n. N removal of personnel and property, in selecting a site for some tiver valleys, flood plair.4, or areas along coastlines, a nuclear power station,it is necessary to provide for an them may am be sufncient infamadon to taake the exclusion area in which the applicant has such authonty, evaluations needed to saas'y the criteria for seismicaHv the exclunon area must be of such size that doses to induced flooding. un such cases, study of the potential mdnaduals 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 /> for dam failure, riwi blockap, or diversion in the river sysum m distanhand locaHy gemrated ma wam may r, immediately following the onset of a postulated fission product release are less than certain prescribed values.be needed to determee the suitability of a site. In lieu
, of detailed investiptions. Regulatnry Guide 1.59 and Transportation corndors, such as highways, railroads,
( Section 2.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 present acc7 table and waterways. are pernatted to traverse the exclusicti area provided (1) these are not so close to the facility is . analytical techniques for evaluating seismi to interfere with normal operation of the facility ani flooding.
(2)appropnate and effective arrangementa am made ta 4.2 Watee AvailabEity control tra'fic on the highway, railroad, or waterway in the case of emergency to protect the public healt!' and Nuclear power stations require reliable sources of safety. water for steam condensation, service water, emergency As set forth in 10 CFR Part 100, a nuclear power core cochng system, and cther functions. In regions station site must have a low population zone (LPZ) where water is in short suppty, the recirculation of the cooling water theough cooling towers, artificial inwnedaately surroundmg the exclusion area in which thehot ponds,or impoundments has been practiced.
population is (a)sufficiently limited in number and (b) distributed in such a way that there is a reasonable Essential water requirements for nuclear power plants probability that appropriate measures could be taken in are that sufficient water be available for cooling during their behalf in the event of a serious accident. A plant operation an4 normal shutdown, for the ultimate proposed site will also haw a " population center heat sink,8 and for Gre protection. The limitations distance," defined as the distance from the nuclear seactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated imposed by existing laws or allocation policies govem the use and consumption of cooling water at potential center containing more than about 25.000 residents.The
, gash for normal operation. Regulatory Guide 1.27 population center distance snust be at least one and one. third times the distance to the outer boundary of the LPZ. However,10 CFR Part 100 requires that the . mau w se for usi LPZ boundary be sufficiently remote that a release of power plants," provides guidance on weier supply for the stu.
mate heat ung.
fusion products (calculated as a consequence of a ho the euens'that sne wiection a dependent on .nier di-postulated accident) will not result in radiation doses to vernons for sonsumpuve uw. allocanon of water supply is a mthviduals on the outer boundary of the LPZ greater funcuen of state statutort and admenstraun proedures.
than certain specified salues. A docussion of the estabinhment of state regulat on of water 8
uw 8s Provided in "Induttnal Developments and the Environ-WASH.1235. "The Site Population Factor A Tech. ment. Lasal Reforms to !mpro*e ite Ikesson-Makmg Process an
( nique for Consideration of Populat on in Site Com-Industnal Sue 5clocuen." Sgwent Commmer on Environmenta!
- 12. or the Amenan nas Asi.aaimon. August le73.
parison." October 1974 discusses a methodology that is J
4.7.4
(
i descusses the safety sequirements. Consumptive use of - industrial water supplies or for irrigation water can only L water may necessitate an evaluation of existing and be determined after reliable assessments have been made future water uses in the area to ensuae adequate water of the potential impacts of the reactor plants on the f
i supply dunns droughts both for station operation and_ pound water.
other mater users (i.e.. nucitar. power station require-ments versus'public water supply). Regulatory apacies Although manapment of the quality of surface shuuld be consulted tu avuid potential conflicts, waters is inmortant, water quality per se is not a determining factor in saaessing the suitability of a site Where r, quired by applicable law, demonstration of a since adequate design alternatives can generally be request for certification of the rights to withdraw or developed to sneet the requirements of the Federal consume water and an in6 cation that the request is Water Pollution Control Act and the Comerussion's conastent with appropriate State and regional propams regulations implementing NEPA. However, the and policies should be provided as part of the applica. environmental characteristics or the complexity of the non for a construccon permit or operatinglicense. erivironment at a site and l'.s vicinity may be such that it would be efficuh to obtain or develop sufficient information to establish, in L timely meiner, that the The availability of essential water dun.ng penods of . potential environmental impacts on veter quality would .
Iow flow or low water level is an important initial be acceptable. Examples of situations that could pose consideration for identifying potential sites on rivers, unusual impact assessment or design problems are areas small shallow lakes, or along coastlines. Both the of existing marginal water quality, small bays, estuaries, frequency und duration of low flow or low level periods stratified watets, and shes that would require intake should be determined from the histoncai record and. if from and discherp tu waters of markedly efferent the cooling water is to be drawn from impmdments, quality, such as intake of marine water and discharp to from projected operating practices. an estuary.
4.3 Water Quality The following are examples of potential enviros-mental effects of station construction and operation that Thermal and chemical effbents discharyd to must be assessed: physical and chemical environmental alterations in habitats of important species, including f navigable strearr.s are govemed by the Federal Water Pollution Cont'rol Act (FWPCA, PL 92 500), 40 CFR plant. induced rapid changes in environmental con-l Part 122,40CFR Part 423, and' State water quality 4tions; chanys in normal current drection or velocity standards. The applicant should also deterrnine other . of the cooling water source and receivingwater;scoming
! and siltation resulting from construction and cooling l
regulations that are current at the time sites are under consideration. Section 401(a)(1) of the FWPCA requires, water ir.take and discharge; dterations resulting from l
in part, that any applicant fo an NRC construction dredging and spoil disposal; and interference with shoreline processes.
permit for a nuclear power station provide to the NRC certificatibn from the State that any escharp will
- 5. Ecological Systema and Blots comply with applicable effluent limitations and other water pollution control requirements. In the absence of such certification, no construction perridt can be issued Areas of great importance to the local aquatic ;
by the NRC un:ess the requirement is waived by the ecosystem may present major 6fficulties in assessing State or the State fails to act within a reasonable period potential impacts on populations o(important species or ecolopcal syste,ms. Such areas include those used for of time. A National Pollution Discha se Elimination breeding (e.g., nesting and spawning), wintering, and System - (NPDES) permit to discharp effluents to l feeding, as well as areas where there may be seasonally navipble streams pursuant to Section 402 of the FWPCA may be required for a nuclear power station to high concentrations ofindividuals ofimportant species.a operate in compliance with the Act, but is not a Where the ecological sensitivity of a site under con-sideration cannot be established from existing informa-prerequisite to an NRC construction permit or operating tion, more detailed studes, as discussed in Regulatory license.
Evaluations of the dispersion and dilution capabilities *A speens whether animal or plant is important tror the purpose of this guade)if a specific causallink can be idenafied and potential contanunation pathways of the ground ' ' " ' " " " ' '
water environment under operating and accident con-ditions with respect to present and future users are
[, ""[w'"r r er h" ein if the species is commerciauy or raiesinonany valuable,
- 12) tr the species is endangered or threatened.
required. Potential radiological and nonradiological m If ik spaws arrais tw well-bang of wnw important l contaminants of ground water should be evaluated.The
"'n
- Hun enuna m or (2i or d a n enucat to the suuctun W
f suitability of sites m areas with a complex Iround water and function of a ratuable ecological system or as a beological indicator or radionuct, des in the environment I
- hydrology or of sia.es located over aquifers that are or
- irontinuedi may be uwd by large populations.for domestic or I
(
l 4.75
. - . - ~ , ,
l
. , )
I l
Guide 4.2. may be necessary. Impacts of station con- Construction and operation of nuclest power stations
- (. ) a. structions and operation on the biota and ecological can create barriers to mipation, occurring mainly in the systems'may be mitigated by design and operstional aquatic environment.Nartow tones of passay for mips- , !
practices if justifiable relative to costs and benefits. In tory animals in some rivers and estuaries may be restric-pneral, the important' considerations in the balancing of ted or blocked by station operation. Partial or complete ,
costs and benefits are (a) the uniqueneas df a habitat or blockap of a zone of passay may result from th; dis ecolopcal system within the agion under consideration charp of heat or chemicals to receiving water bodies or and (b) the amount of habitat or ecological system that the construction and placement of power station struc- ;
would be destroyed or disrupted relative to the total tures in the water body. Strong 4wimming sod- I amount of the habitat or ecological system present in animals of. ten avoid waters of adverse quality,but larvan the region or the vulnerabibty of the reproductive and imniature forns are usually moved and dispersed by capacity of important species populations to the effects water currents. It is therefore important in site selection of construction and operation of the plant and ancillary that the routes and times of movement of the immatum facilities. stays be considered in relation to potential effects.
The alteration of one or more of the existing environ- ,
mental conditions may render a habitat unsuitable as a A detailed assessment of potential impact on the species population would be required for sites where breeding or nuncry area. In some cases, orpnisms use Pl acement of intake or discharge structuses would ,
' identical breeding and nursery areas each year;if the markedly disrupt nonnal current patterns in mipation chuacteristics of the areas are changed, breeding success Paths of imputant species. The potatials for imping-may be substantially reduced or enhanced. Destruction nunt d agonims on cociing water intake stsuctums
! of part or all of a breeding o nursery area may cause and entrainment d organies thro @ time cookas population ahifts that result in increased competition for system are detennined by a number of variables includ-the remaining suir2ble areas. Such population shifts ing site characteristics, intake structure deaip, and cannot compensate for the reduced size of the breeding placement of the stmetures at the die, or nursery areas if the remaining suitable sea is already occupied by the species. Some species ws! desert a Site characteristics should be considered stative to breeding area because of man's activities a the proxhn-ity to the area, even in the absence of physical dis-design and placement of cooling system featums and the e '
i '
PotuM d b Mg system to M M h an ama
. turbance of the actual breeding area.
i lonpr than the normal period of miyation or to entrap Of special concern relative to die selection are those
\ reddet populah in um h by mW be unique or especiaUy rich feeding areas that might be adversely affected, either directly or indirectly, by destroyed, degraded, or made inaccessible to im t limited food supply or adverse temperatums. Canals or species by station construction or operation.Ev uation g ,y of feeding areas in relation to potential construction or operation impoets includes the foBowing considerations:
Mm h m m% wM h. &
cessation of station operation during winter can be lethal size of the feeding a en onsite in relation to the total to these fish because of an t'arupt drop in water- temper-feeding area offsite, food density, time of use, location ,,,,*
in relation to other habitats, topography plative to I access routes, and other factors (including man's activi- g w % ,g m ties). Site modifkation may reduce the quality of feed.
ing areas by destruction of a portion of the food base, Many impacts on land use at the site and in the site destruction of cover, or both.
neighborhood due to construction and operation of the (co,,,,,,e plant, transmission lines, and transportation corridot*
Endansered and threatened species are defined by PL 93 205, can be rnitigated by appropriate desips and practices.
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as foBows: "the tenn Aesthetic impacts can be reduced by selecting sites
'endanseied species' meen any spectee which is in dangst of whcre existing topography and fosests can be utilized for estinction throughout an or a sigraficant portion of its mage screening station structures from nearby scenic, histoi-othet than a species of the Ones Insecte determined by the ical, or recreational resources. Restoration of natural Secretary to consetute a past whose protection under the pavi-vassons of tius Act would present an overwlietrang and over. veptation, creative landscaping,b and the integration of riding nok to man." "The term
- threatened species'sneens any structures with the environment can mitigate advene species which is likely to become an endaagsved species within visualimpacts.
the foreseeable future throughout all or a menincent portion of l its ange." t.ists of endangered and threstened species are publishet penedicaur in the Fedeel Aegister by the Secretary Preconstruction archeolopcal excavations can usuaBy of the latener. reduce losses. Short term salway archeology may not be sA compilation of construction practices is provided in l " General Eweronsnental Guidelhwe for Eveheating and Report. /"
, ing the Effects of Nucient Power Flant $6te Preparetion. Plant bStauen protection r*tuarements for nuclear safeguards mer (s end Transenesson Facthties Construction." Atomic ladustnal Forum. February 1974. anthsence Isadmape denen and clearms of vegetation.
4.74 i
l
- b. National Park Service Prescrvation Program O{; sufficient if exte'nsive or valuable archeological sites are found on the potential site for a nuclear station. For areas of archeologicalconcem,the Chief Archeologist of National Landmarks Program; Historic Amencan the National Park Service is an information snutce, as are Buildings Survey: National Register of Historic Places; the State Archeologist and the State I.laison Officer National Histoncal Landmarks Program National ' ark Service ArcheologicalProgram responsible fo'r the National llistoric Preservation Act activities for a particular state.
- c. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (U.S.
Proposed alternative land use may render a site un- Department orlaterir r) suitable for a nuclear power station. For example, lands speciGed by a community (1)as planned for other unrs National Wildlife Refuges
. or (2)as restricted to compatible uses.vis a vis other I i
lands may be unsuitable. Therefore, official land use d. Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) plans developed by governments at any level and by l
regional agencies should be consulted for posible con-National Forest Wilderness, Primitive Areas,
[
i Dicts with power station siting. A list of Federal agencies National Forests. ,
that have jurisdiction or expertise in land use planning, regulation, or management has been published by the Individual States and local govemments administer Council on Environmental Quality.* parks, recreation areas, and other public use ed benefit areas. Information on these areas should be obtained
' Another class of impacts involves the preempting of from cognizant State agencies such as State departmenta existing land use at the site itself. Fn: example, nucleu of natural resources. (See publications such as the ' Con-power station siting in areas uniquely suited for growing servation Directory 1973: A !.isting of Orpnizations, specialty crops may be considered a type ofland con- Agencies and Officials Concerned with Natural Resource version involving unacceptable' economic dislocation. Use and Management," published by the Nadonal Wild-life Federation for state by-state references.) The Ad-
! Sites adjacent to lands devoted to public use may be visory Counca on Historic Preservation or the appro-considered unsuitable. In particular, the use of some priate State historical society should be contacted for A
pr site or transmission line or transportation corridors information on historic areas.
. f. close tu special areas admir.istered by Federal, State, or i it should be recogni:ed that some areas, as yet un.
local agencies for scenic or recreational use may cause unacceptable impacts regardless of design parameters.
designated, may be unsuitable for siting because of Such cases are most apt to arise in areas adjacent to - public interest in. future dedication to public scenic, recreational, or cultural use. Relatively rare land types natural resource oriented areas (e.g., YeDowstone National Park) as opposed to recreation oriented areas such as sand dunes and wetlands are prime candidates for such future designation. However, the acceptability (e.g., l.ake Mead Nrtional Recreation Area). Some his-of sites for nuclear power stations at some future time in toncal and archeological sites may also fall into this category. The acceptability of sites near special areas of these areas will depend on the existing impacts from industrial, commercial, and other developments.
public use should be determined by' consulting cognizant govemment agencies. 7. ladustrial, Military,and Transportation Facilities The foDowing Federal agencies should be conauhed Potential accidents at present or projected nearbyin-for the special areas listed:
dustrial, military, and transportation facilities may affect the safety of a nuclear power station.8 A site should not
- a. National Park Service (U.S. Department of the In.
be selected if,in the event of such an accident,it is not l terior) . possible to safely shut down a plant at that site or ifit is National Park:; international Parks; National not possible to have nearby facilities alter their mode of Memorial Parks; National Battlefields, Battlefield Parks operation or incorporate features to reduce to an accept-able level the likelihood and severity of such potential and llattlefield Sites; National Military Parks; Historic Areas and National Histone Sites; National Capital accidents.
Parks; National Monuments and Cemeteries; National Seashores and Lakeshores; National Rivers and Scenic in the event of an accident at a nearby industrial Riverways; National Recreation Areas; National Scenic facility such as a chemical plant, refinery, mining and Trails and Scientific Reserves; National Parkways quarrying operation, oil or gas well, or gas and petro-l leum product storage installation, it is possible that asse U.S. Couaril on Envuonmental Quahty. " Preparation of bSecuon 2.2 of Resulatory Guide t.70 hits these safety con-g Environmental Imact Staternents. Guidehnes." 38 FR 20349.
August I,1973 sederations.
\
1 -
4 7.7 l
[
i o .
. es= .
S h/ -
uuu o. snuck waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chenucals, or incendiary fragments may result. Thsee severe strouse on the locallabos supply, transportation factilties, and tommunity servlees in pneral.There may be changse in the tax basis and la community expendi may affect the station itself or the station operators in a tures, and problems snay occur in determining equitable way that jeopardines the safety of the station.
levels of compensation for persons selocated as a result of the station siting,it is usually possible to resolve such ihaulatory Guide 178,"Amumptions for Evolusting the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room difnculties by proper coordination wrth impacted communities; however, some impsets mey be locally During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," des-cribes assumptions acceptable to the NRC staff for use unacceptable and too costly to avoid by any reasonable in assening the habitability of the control room during propam for their nutiption. Evaluauon of the suit.
and after a postulated external telease of hazardous abdity of a site should therefore include consideration of chemicals and describes criteria that are pnerally accept- purpose and probable adequacy of socioeconomic im-able to the staff for the protection of the controlroom pact initiption plans for such economic impacts on any community where local acceptance problems can be operators. .
reasonably foreemen.
Nearby rntitary facilities, such as munitions storap Certdst communities in a site neidiborhood may be areas and ordnance test ranps, may threaten station safety. The acceptability of a aits depends on establish- subject to unusual impacts that would be excesively ing, among other thing, that the nuclear power station costly to snitipts. Among andi communities are towns can be demaned so iu safety will not be affected by an that possess a notably distinctive cultural character.l.e.,
accident at tne military installation. Alternatively, an towns that have preserved or motored numerous places otiwrwue unacceptable site may become acceptable if of historic interest, have _ ' 'd in an unussal in-the copuzant military organization agrees to cheny the dustry or svocational activity, or have otherwise mark-installation or mode of operation to reduce the likeli- edy hesag=hhaa8 themselves from other communities.
hood or seventy of potential accidents involving the nuclear station to an acceptable level. 9. Moise Noise levels at nuclear stations occur during both the e
An accident during the transport of hazardous materi.
construction and operation phases and could have un-ah (e g., by air, ivaterway, railroed. highway, or pipeline) acceptable impacts. Cooling towers, turbines, and trans-k' near a nuclear power plant may pnerate missiles, and toxic or corrosbe gases which can affectshock waves, , formers contribute to the noise levels durin operation.
the safe operation of the station. The consequences of the accident will depend on the proximity of the C. REGULATORY P0glTION transportation facility to the site, the nature and max-i imum quantity of the hazardous material per shipment, and the layout of the nuclear station.Unless the station 1. Gesingp/Esismalogy nn be deugned to operate safely in the event of a pos-Sites that include capable faults, as defined in Appen-tulated accident or an enforceable speement can be i ex A to 10CFR Part 100, are not suitable for nuclear teached to hmit the trrnsport of hazardous materials or the transportation link can be relocated, the proposed power stations. The state of the art has not progressed to sie may not be acceptable. the point at which it is possible to design a nuclear power station for surface or near surface displacement Algotts are transportation facilities that pose special- with a sufHciently hinh level of confidence to ensure ized hazards to nearby nuclear power stations. Potential that the intspity of the safety related features of the threats to stations from aircraft result from the aircraft plant will rernain intact.
itself as a missue and from.the secondary effects of a Sites within about 5 mass of a surface capable fault crash, e.g., fire.
yester than 1000 feet la length are usually not suitable for a nuclear power station. In any case, extensive and
- 4. Socioeconomies detaued pologic and seismic field studies and analyses Social and economic issues are important deter- should be conducted for such a proposed site.
~
minants of siting policy. It is difficult both to assess the Sites located near geologic structures for wiuch an nature of the impacts involved and to determine value schemes for predicting the level or the acceptabuity of adequate data base to determine " capability" does not exist at the time of application are likely 1o be subject to potentialimpacts. /"-
a longer licensing process in view of the need for exten-sive and detaued pologic and seismic investigations of The siting, construction, and operation of a nuclear
, the dte and sunounding region and for the ngorous anal-power station may have significant impacts on the
( socioeconomic structure of a community and may place yses of the site plant combination.
' 4.73
2
.. . i.use.t hedio6k fue foundauuns gen- those just pasung through the area) work reside part '
(. ,
- e. ally lian untable foundation conditions in repons where there ase fem or no such sites,it is prudent to time, or engage m recreauonal activities and are not permanent residents of the area. The transient popula-
- tion should be taken into account by we:ghting the tran-wie. uses in aien with competent and stable solid soils, suel. as dense sands and glacial tills. Other matenals may sient population according to the fraction of time the transients are in the area.
.l.. proved utniactorv foundation conditions. but in as., saw . Jetailed pelope and protechnical investiga-ti.n mi'i t. vi.lu.
. sed to determine static and dynamic Based on past experience, the NRC staff has found ei.pe.cremic po.pcisiest ti.e matenal underlying the site that a minimum exclusion distance of 0.4 mile, even with unfavorable design basis atmospheric dispession
. . 4.asJame weh Sections IV(al(41 and V(d) of
' A,penJat A t.,10 Cl-k Part 100. characteristics. usually provides assurance that ensi neered safety features can be designed to bring the cal-culated dose from a ponulated accident within the 2 Atmospheric Extremes and rt _a guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100. If the minimum exclu-
- s on distance is less than 0.4 mh.it may be necessary to As noted in Section B.2 of this guide. site atmo-P *** W "" " " ' " *"" 8" I"I*
l sphenc conditions are ute suitability characteristics prin- a d ewM sa% katurd W k 5m ments of 10 CFR Part 100 are met. Also, based on past cipally with respect to the calculation of t.adiation doses resultmg from the release of fission products as a con. experience, the staff has found that a distance of 3 miles sequence of a postulated accident and the establishment to the outer boundary of the low population zone.is of exclusion area boundary. low population zone bound- ,,,gg y , q ,,,,,
ary. and Ibstance to a population center. Accordingly, tie, segulatory position on atmospheric dispersion of 4. Hydrology sodiological et0uents is incorporated into the following section. " Population Considerations."
4.1 Floodmg Nonradiv!opeal stmosphene considerations such as
, To evaluate sites located in river valleys, on flood local tower plume foggi.:g lengths andandicing.
cooling tower plume interactions between drift, cooling . plains, or along coastlines where ther ovimp tower plumes, and plumes from nearby in- flooding. the site suitability studies describedin Regula-
{ dustnal facihtics should be considered in evaluatmg the tory Guide I.59 "Desgn Basis Floods for Nuclear suitabihty of potentialsites. . Power Plants."should be made.
- 3. Population Conddevotions 4.2 Watee Availability
[. '
l Areas of low population density are preferred fo' A highly dependable system of water supply sources
' nuclear powet station sites. High population dendties must be shown to be available under postulated occur.
projected for any time during the lifetime of a station rences of natural and site.related accidental phenomena are considered during both the NRC staff seview and the or-combinations of such phenomena as discussed in public hearing phases of the !icensing process. If the pop - Regulatory Guide I.59.
ulation density at the proposed site is not acceptably low. then the applicant will be required to give special To evaluate the suitabihty of sites, there should be attention to alternative sites with lower population den- reasonable assurance that permits for consump:ive use of water in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant sities-of the stated approximate capacity and type of cooling If the population density, includmg weidited tran- system can be obtained by the applicant from the appro-i
. sient population. projected at the time ofinitial opera- priate State. local, or regional bodies.
tion of a nuclear power station exceeds 500 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 4.3 Watee Quality miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the area st' that distancel. or the projected population The potential impacts of nuclear power stations on denuty over the lifetime of the facility exceeds I.000 water quality are likely to be acceptable if effluent limi-persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance fations, water quality critena for receiving waters. and out to 30 miles, special attention should be pren to the other requirements promulgated pursuant to the Federal tonudesation of alternaine utes with fewer population Water Pollution Control Act are applicable and satisfied.
denuties.
The criteria provided in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 will 1:anuent population should be included for thow
[ be used by the NRC staff for determining permissible
- uses where a sipuficant number of people (other than i
- 41.4a
_x_ . . - , ... -a. . . -
I 1
~t concentretions of radioactive materials dischatpd to sur- It should be determined 'vhether there are any imror-
{C , face water or to ground water a tant ecoloWcal systems at a site or in its environs. If so, determination should be made as to whether the eco.
Aquifers that are or me) be used by larp populations logical systems are especially vulnerable to chany or if for domestic, municipal, industrial, or irrigation water they contain irepertant species habitats, such ae beeding supplies preside potential pathways for the transport of areas (e.g.. nesting and spawning areas), nursery, feeding l' nesting. and wintering steas, or other areas of seasordly radioactive material to man in the event of an accident To evaluate the suitability of propossd ates located over high concentrations o(individuals ofimportant speciri.
such aquifers, detailed studies of factors identified in Section 2.4.13 of Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard The 'important considerations in the balanm a Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for costs and benefits include the following: the uniqueness Nuclear Power Plants." should be completed.
- of a habitat or ecological system within the region under l consideration, the amount of the habitat or ecological i . 5. Ecological Systems and piota system destroyed or disrupted relative to the total, amount in the region, and the vulnerability of the repro-The ecological systems and biota at potential !tes ductive capacity of important species populations to the and their environs should be sufficiently well known to effects of construction and operaion of the station and l ancillary facihties.
allow reasonably certain predictions that there would be no unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts on populations of important species or on ecological If sites contain, are adjacent to, or may impact on systems with which they are associated from the con- important ecological systems or habitats that are unique, struction or operation of a nuclear power station at the limited in extent, or necessary to .the productivity of site, populations of important species (e.g., wetlands and estuaries), they cannot be evaluated as to suitsbsity for When early site inspections and evaluations indicste a nuclear power station until adequate assesments for that critical or exceptionally complex ecological systems the reliable prediction.of impacts have been completed will have to be studied in detail to determine the appro- and the facility desigr. chnacteristics that would satisfac-priate plant designs, proposah to use such sites should be torily mitigate the potential ecological imonets have c deferred unless sites with less complex characteristics are been defined in areas where reliable and sufficient data are not available, the collection and evaluation of appro-( not available.
' priate seasonal data may be required.
It should be deter nined whether any important spe- .
cies (as defined in Section B.5 of this guide) inhabit or Migrations of important species and migration routes use the proposed site or its environs; and the relative that pass through the site or its environs should be iden-abundance and distribution of their populations should tified. Generally, the most critical migratory routes rela-be considered. Potential adverse impacts on impor*. ant tive to nuclear power station siting are those of aquatic species should be identified and assessed. The relative species in water bodies associated with the cooling sys-abur!d ance of individuals of an important species in- tems. Site conditions that should be identified and evalu-habiting a potential site should be compared to available sted in assessing potential impsets on important aquatic information in the literature concernmg the total'esti- migratory species include (1) narrow tones of passage.
mated local population. Any predicted impacts on the (2) mipation periods that are coincident with manimum species should be evaluated relative to effects on the ambient temperatures,(3) patential for major modifica-local population and the total population of the species tion of currents by station structures,(4) potential for The destruction of, or sublethal effects on, a number of increased turbidity during construction and (5) poten-individuals which would not ad .wly affect the repro- tial for entrapment, entrainment, or inpinyment by or ductive capacity and vitality of a population or the crop in the cooling water system,or blocking of migration by of an economically important harvestable population or facility structures or effluents.
recreationally important population should generally be acceptable, except in the case of certain endangered The potentist blockage of movements of important s pecies. If there are endangered or threatened species at terrestrial animal populations due to the use of the site a site, the potential effects should be evaluated relative for a nuclear power station and the availability of after-to the impact on the local population and the total native routes that would provide for maintenance of the estimated population over the entire range of the species species' breeding population should be assemed.
as noted in the literature.
If justifiable relative to costs and benefits, potential impacts of plant construction and operation on the biota 8 Appendn I to in CHt !'ari 50 provides numemal guidance and ecological systems can generally be mitigated by for design ot9ecieven and technical specification reimrements to, kmmns condiuons et cperanon for hght water. cooled nuclear adequate engineering design and site planning and by
{- powr stations proper cor struction and operation practice when there is 4.7 10 i
- * - - - 7 y - - - - - a
i l
O adequate information about al.e vulnerability of the rumerical values to the probabdity of occurrence of the types of potential hazards gener Hy considered in deter-l t unportant species and ecological systems.
(w. '
A summary of environmental considerations, para-mining the weeptibility of sites for nuclear stations.
Judgment n.ust be used as to the acceptabEity of tl meters. and regulatory pnsitions for use in evaluating the overall risk presented by an event.
I suitabilit) ofisites for nuclear power stations is provided in ' Appendim B to this ituide. A discussion of ecological in view of the low probability events under considera-
' systems and habitats, the level of detail that should be tion, the probabuity of occonence of the initiating addressed m the site seleernm process. and the survey, events leading a potential consequences in excess of l
morutonng. and analytisal techr. ques for assessing im- 10 CFR Part 100 enposure guidelines should be based on pacts on important spceses and ec Apesi systems will be assumptions that are as realistic as is practicable. In addi-summarized in subsequent appendien to this pide. tion, because of the low probability events under con-j
. sideration, valid statistical data are often not available to
{ g g g gg ,
permit accurate quantitative calculation of probabuities.
i .
Accordingly, a conservative calculation showing that the Land use plans adopt'ed by Federal, State, regional, or pn,babuity d occunence d potential exposures in ex-l Incal governmental entities could be examined, ar Iany i con 06ct between these plans and use of a potential site ' cess,of the 10 CFR Part 100 guidel,nes ss approximately I 10' per year is acceptable if, when combined with rea-l should he resolved by consultation with the' appropriate sonable qualitative arguments, the realistic probabgity
! gnvemmentai entity. can be shown to be lower.
l . _
For potential sites on land devoted to specialty crop Tlw effects d hsip basis events have been appro-
,- ' production where changes in land use might result in Priately considered if analyses of the effects d those market dislocations, a detailed investigation should be acci&nts on the saf 9ty.related features of the proposed provided to demonstrate that potential problems have nuclear station have been performed and ar,propriate been identified and resolved. measures (e.g., hardening, fire protection) to mitigste -
i the consequences of such events have been tal en.
The potential aesthetic impact of nuclear power sta, tions at utes near natural. resource oriented public use g g ,
areas is of particular concem, and evaluation of the i suitabdity of such sites is dependent on consideration of at nearby industrial, maitary, and uansponation facui-specific station design layout.However,existingaesthet- ties, the studies Asenbed in Section 2.2 d Regulatory ic impacts at potential sites should be taken into account , Guide 1.70 should be made.
- as mitigating any requirements for further special design.
- 8. Socioeconomics
- 7. Industrial, Military,and Transportation Facilities The NRC staff considers that an evaluation of the suitability of nucelar power station sites near distinctive Potentially harardous facilities and activities within 5 communities should demonstrate that the construction miles of a proposed site should be identified. If a pre.
and operation of the nuclear station, including trans-liminary evaluation of potential accidents at these facili.
nussion and transportation comdors, and potential prob-
' ties indicates that the potential hazards from shock lems relating to community services, such as schools, waves and missues approach or exceed those of the police and fire protection, water and sewage, and health design basis tornado for the region" or potential hazards faculties, will not adversely affect the distinctive charac-such as flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or in-ter of the community. A preliminary investigation cendiary fragments exist, the suitabuity of the site should be made to identify and analyze problems that should be determined by & tailed evaluation of the
- may arise due to the proximity of a distinctive degree of risk imposed by the potential hazard.
community to a proposed site.
The identification of desip basis events sesuking from the presence of hazardous materials or activities in 9. Noise the vicinity of a nuclear power station is acceptable if Noise levels at proposed sites must comply with appli.
the design basis events include each postulated type of cable Federal. State, and local noise regulations.
accident for which a realistic estimate of the probabaity of occunence of pntential exposures in excess of the 10 CW.Part 100 guidelines exceeds approximately 10" D. IMPLEMENTATION per year. Because of the difficulty of assigning precise p The purpose of 'his section is to provide information F .
- The desen tissa tornado a doentml 6n Itseulsiory Guuse to apphcants and hcensees regarding the NRC staff's 176.-Denen sein rinoet for Nuclear Powet Plants plans for usmg this regulatory guide
.(.
471I i
9 ww- ---weM- i.-, - + - -ww--++--+-*=iaW e+m-e-%eweere-w ,, e- es4 -. -e- ow-m -,e-- .- 4--eee --G- 8+ .. - , - - e -- G eb- -.r------ , - - + , + = w --r
. . r . , . . ... . ,. . .- . .
( ,~' Since tius guide rebets cwrent NRC staff practice atel.s in indicate wnsiderations that shcmid be addressed in the mitial st,qte of the site selection process to iden-
- with regard to the impienentatbn of existing regula. -
tions concerning site suitsWity,it can be used immedi. tify rotential sites for nuclear power stations
(-
~.
[
l
(
4.71
)
4 i+-g - - - -
en v- + w - - ______ - -_-- - - - -
2 v. . .
APPENDIX A SAFETY.RELATED SITE CONSIDERATIONS
- FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS Ib appes.Ja. prouds, s a checkhst of safety related site characteri: tics. relevant regulations and regu regulator) ex perweia ar.J postion for assessing ste antability for nuclear power stations.
f 1 .
i I
I fs
( .
4.713
..~e.' - . = . ,. -- ,. . _.
Relevant Regulations and ReguletorY Emporiene Coneiderations Regulatory Guides and position .
A.1 Geology /SeismoiogY Geolope and seismic character- 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, Sites that include capable faults are isti:s of a site, such as surface " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria not suitable for a nuclear power faulting, ground - motion. sad for Nuclear Power Plants." station.
foundation conditions (including liquefaction. subsidence, and land- Regulatory Guide 1.70, Chapter 2 Sites within about 5 miles of a sur-slide potential). may affect the (identifies safety related site charac. face capable fault (greater than 1000 Anfety of a nuclear power station, teristics). feet in length) are generally not suit.
- able for a nuclear pour cation.
Regulatory Guide 1.29 (discusses plant safeif features which should be Sites should be selected in aceas for controued by engineering design). which an adequate geologe dets base
. exists to determine " capability."
Delay in licensing can result from a need for extensive geolope and seismic investigations. Conseivative design of safety related structures wSI be required when pologic, seismic, and foundation information is questionable.
Sites with competent bedrock yn- e etally have suitable foundation con-ditions.
(
If bedrock sites are not available.it is prudent to select sites in areas known to have a low subsidence and lique-faction potential. Investigations wiu be required to determine the static and dynamic engineering peqperties I
of the material underlying the site as stated in 10 CFR Part 100. Sec.
IV(a)l4) snd Sec. V(d) of Appendix A.
l l
l l
4.7 14 l
L . ..
--,m
_ ,.- -_ , . , -- , , ,. m -e- - ---- - -- -
Relevant Repletiens and Repletory Emporienes
^ ***b*#Y *****'*** . ,
i A.2 Atmospherie C - .'s -
'The atmosphenc conditions at a 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Unfavorable asfety-related desigre site should provide sumcient es- Criteria." basis atmcspheric dispersion charac-persion of redloactive materials . teristics can be compensated for by released during a postulated acci. Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite an adequate exclusion distance and dent to reduce the radiation expo- Meteorological Propams." engineersd ,asfety features. Accord.
sures of individuals at the ingly, the regulatory position on exclusion area andlow population Regulatory Guide 1.3 " Assumptions s'mospheri, espersion of radiological zone boundaries to the values pre. Used for Evaluadas the Potential emuents is incorporated into the sec-t scribed in 10 CFR Part 100. Radiolopcal Consequences of a Loss tion " Population Considerationr" l
of Coolant Accident for Boeing (see A.3 of this appendix).
Water Reacrors."
Regulatory Guide 1.4," Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Poesntial Radiological Consequeness tsf a Loss
, of Coolant Acddent for Pressudasd Water Reactors."
Regulatory Guide 1.5," Assumptions Uerd for Evaluating the Poerntial i
Radiological Consequences of a Steam 1.ane Break Ar.ddent for Bou.
O lag Water Reactors."
Regulatory Guide 1.24, "Assurnp.
tions Used for Evaluating the Poesn-tial Radiological C{-- ; _ -- = of a Pressudasd Water Reactor Raeo-sedve Gas Storage Tank Fagum."
Regulatory Guide 1.25, "Aammp-tions Used for Evalussfag the Poesn-tial Radiological Consequences of a l Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel
! Handling and Storage Fadlity for Bouing and Pressudsed Water Reac-tors."
t f
(
4.7 15
-- - _..--e,., -,,-g---.m., -
g ,-. -
b , -+
-t'-r ."
- m w w ws g , _ ' "
s Relevent Repletions and Reguietory Esperienee
" Considsth Repletory Guides ,
and Position .
A 3 Population Ceneiderations
- If the population density, including In the event of a sedous accident 10 CFR Part 100. " Reactor Site weighted transient population, pro-at a puclear power station,effee. Criteria," requires the foBowing:
jected at the time ofinitial operation tive action must be taken to mini- .
o An "excludon area" surrounding of a nuclear power station exceeds ndse exposure ofindividuals out- 500 persons per square mile averaged side the station to any rcdioactive the reactor in which the reactor over any radial distance out to 30 licensee has the authority to deter-matedals which may be released miles (cumulative population at a mine all activities, including exclu-
- during the accident. To ensure distance divided by the area at that sion or removal of personnel and that exposure to populations will distance), or the projected popula-in erJnimised in the event of an property; tion density over the lifetime of the accident, the nuclear power sta- facility exceeds 1,000 persons per e A " low population tone" (LPZ) tion should not be located in a which imanediately surrounds the square mue averaged over any radial densely populated area.
exclusion area in which the popula-distance out to 30 miles, special attention should be given to the con-tion. nuseber and distribution is such that."there is a reasonable sideration of shernadve sites Mth the lower population densities, probability that appropriate mes-suas could be takenin their behilf Transient popvlation should be'in-in the event of a sedous accident;"
' ciuded for those sites where a signifi-cant number of people (other than
- At any point on the exclusion area those just passing through the area) boundary and on the outer bound- e work, reside part time, or engage in any of the I.FZ the exposure ofin-recreational activities, and are not dividuals to a postulated release of
[-' ihalon products (as.a consequence permanent residents of the area.The transient population should be taken
,'
- of an accident) be less than certain into account by weighting the tran.
prescribed values, stent population according to the o That the " population center fraction of time the transients are in distance," defined as the distance the area.
from the nuclear esactor to the Based on past experience, the NRC nearest boundary of a densely popolated centet having more than staff has found that a minimum ex-l- 25,000 residents, be at least one clusion distance of 3.4 mile
- even with the most unfavora' ole design and one third the distance from the basis atmospheric dispersion charac-reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ. tedstics, provides assurance that en-gineered safety features can be added that wiu being the calculated doses Regulatory Guides 1.3, 1.4. 1.5, 1.24, and 1.25 ive calculational from a postulated accident within methods (see A.2 of thh appendix.) the guidelines of 10 CFR Pan 100. If the sninimum exclusion distance is less thin 0.4 mile,it may be neces-f 'sary to place special conditions on station design (e.g.,added engneered safety features) before the site can be cun;idered acceptable. Also based on pe:,t experience, the NRC staff has found that a distance of 3 miles to the outer boundary of the LPZ is usually adequate.*
4
- . aThe ruidelines numbers for esclusion area and t.PZ are teased on historical satsas espenence of instances different dimentions have been estabhshed for high temperature ss& cooled ress tors 4.7 16
( , , _ . .
..~+..=..+..~..v.,.-s..
m - :,.. ..
. . . , : +.
.,u...-..,.
r n
, . . . , . . ;.u. . .
= *. wm v
+
i-Relevant Regulations and Regulatory Experienac
. . g,,,;,g ,,,,,,,, Repletory Guidos and position
- A 4 ktninlogi 10 CFR Part 100. Appendix A, Tu evaluate sites located in nver * !.
" Seismic and Geologic Sidng Criteria leys, on Good r'ains or along toe:
lit.es where there is a potentaal f..:
A4e hsw for Nuclear Power Plants."
Gooding. the studies desenbed z.
Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Rcgulatory Guide 1.59 should h
. . c . . . . . . . .. J , 3, m..iaally made.
ind..ced Axdis.r. tc g resulting . Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Imm dant fai!use 1:0m river Plants." -
t,lockap or diversion, or from dis-
. tantly and Iccally generated sea Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard woras) can affect the safety of a - Format and Content of Safety Anal.
nuclear power station. yes Reports for Nuclear Power
' Plants,"(Section 2.4).
10 CFli Part 50, Appendix A,'Qn.
eral Desigs. Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants;" C:iterion 2 " Design Bases for Protection Against Natural
~ Phenonsena."
r 10 CFR Part 100 Appendix A, A highly dependable system of water A 4 2 Woese Supply
" Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria supply sources sfiould be shown to be available under postulated occur.
A salely related water supply is for Nuclear Power Plants." -
renws of natural phenomena and sequired for normal or emeryncy site related accidental phenomens or shutdown and cooldown. . Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design
, combinations of such phenomena as Basis Floods for Nuclear Power
-(' discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.
Plants."
To evaluate the suitability of a site, Regulatory Guide 1.27, "Ultirnate Heat Sink for Nuc! ear Power Plants." there must be reasonable assurance that permits for water use and for water consumption in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant of the stated 7.pproximate capacity and
- type of ecosms system can be ob-tained by the applicant from the appropriate State, local, or regional bodies.
A 4.3 Weier Quality The criteria proyided in 10 CFR Contammation os ground water 10 CFR Part 20." Standards For Pro.
tection Against Radiation." Parts 20 and 50 will be used by the and surface water t y radioactive NRC staff for deternunmg permmi.
.ua:en.! dc *.a.pd 6 m nuclear 10 CFR Pnt 50." Licensing of Pro- ble cortcentrations of radionuclides stations n..hl ou,e punsit health discharged to surface wates and h.. ., J , duction and Utilization Facilities."
ground water.
\
(
4717 e
,- ,e -r .
, l l
l Relevant Repletions and Regulatory Esseriones i J Coneedereuens Regulatory Guides and position .
A.5 indotrial, Military, and Trane- 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A," Gen- Potentially hazardous facGities and portesion 8tesilities Near the eral Design Criteria for Nuclear activities within 5 miles of a pro-site Power Plants," Critedon 4," Environ- posed site must be identified. If a mental and Missile Dodgn Bases." preliminary evaluation of potential Accidents at present or projected accidents of these facGities indicates nearby industrial, mE!tary, and Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard that the potential hazards from transportation facilities may Format and Content of Safety shock waves and missiles approach or affect the safety of the nuclear Analysis Reports," Section 2.2 (lists exceed those of the design basis tor-
. power station. types of facilities and potential acci- nado for the region (the design basis dents). tomado is described in Regulatory Guide I.76), or potential hazards Regulatory Guide 1.78, "Assu np- such as Sanunsbie vapor clouds, tions for Evaluating the Habitability toxic chemicals, or incendiary frag.
of a Nuclear Power Plant Control ments exist, the suitability of the site Room Dudng a Postulated Hazard- should be determined by detaued ous Chemical Release." svduation of the potential hasard.
The identificatfort of design basis events resulting from the presence of nearby hazardous materials or activi-ties in the vicinity of a r.uclear power station is acceptable if the design basis events include each postulated f type of accident for which a realistic estimate of the probabO! y of occur-k.' sence of potential exposures in ex-
. com of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines exceeds approximately 10 " per year.
To evaluate the suitabuity os sitesin detail for pctential accident situs-tions involving hazardous meterials and activities from nurby industrial, rnilitary, and transportation facdities, the studies described in Section 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 should be made.
i I
O e
l 4.7 18
~
l APPENDIX B I
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING l SITE SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS .
This aopendix summarizes environmental considers- fraction of water that can be diverted in certaan stua. l tions related to ute characteristics that should be - tions without adveruly affecting the local populations addresad in the early site wiection process.The relative of importent species. Although simplistic because impor-importance of the different factors to be consi& red tant factors such as the distribution ofimportant species varies with the region or State in which the potential in the water body are not taken into account. such limits sites are located, can be usefulin a screening process for site selection.
A discussion of performance chameuristics ofisht-Site selection processes can be facilitated by establish- water cooled reactor stations which may affect the en-ing limits for various paran.eters based on the best judg- vironnwnt is given in WASH 1355, " Nuclear Power ment of specialists knowledgeabh of the region under Facility Performance Characteristics for Making Enviro +
consideration.' For example, limits can be chosen for the mentalImpact Assessments," December 1974.
t L
I l .p.
T e
4.7 19 s
e -+ w , -
tr'e'"' -"-
w-- - - - - * -
l t
[', _
'*- Considerosions Paramesers Reguietory Position t
5.1 Pr._ i - of important .
Habitoes important habitats are those that The proportion of an important habi- In yneral. a detailed justification are essential to maintaining the re- tat that would be destroyed er sig- should be provided when the destrue.
productive capacity and vitality of nificandy altered in relation to the tion or significant alteration of more important species populations
- or total habitat within the region in than a few percent of important tN harvestable crop of econom- which the proposed ste is to be habitat types is proposed.
ically or recreationauy important located is a useful parameter for esti-species. Such habitats include mating potential impacts of the con- The reproductive capacity of popula-beeeding areas (e.g., nesting and struction or operation of a nuclear tions of important species and the spawning areas), nursery, feeding, power station. The value of the pro- harvestable crop of economically or resting, and wintering areas or portion varies among species and recreationally important popula'. ions other areas of seasonaDy high con- among habitats. The region consi- must be maintained unless justifica.
. centrations of individuals of im- .dered in determining proportions is tion for proposed or probable portant species. the normal yographic rany of the changes can be provided.
specine population in question.
The construction and operation of nuclear powc; stations (including If endanpred or threatened species new transmission lines and access occur at a site, the potential effects corridm constructed in conjunc. of the construction med operation of tion with the station) can result in a nuclear power station should be the destruction or alteration of evaluated relative to the potential tre,- r haeitats ofimportant species lead- pact on the local population and die ing .to chanys in the abundance total estimated population over the
[ . of a species or in the species corn- entire rany of the species s _
position of a community. .
See also Chapter 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.2, "Freparation of Environ-rnental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations."
aAs denned for this pside in Section 3.
e 9
4 4
i-( ..
4.7 20 f
__a.--.,. . , - - . . _ _ - - - - . . . . . . , , . , . . - , _ _ _
l
~ .
Peremeews Reguistory Position
-[ .
Cannederatione k- 3.2 RAiyetery Routes ef Imper-seat seemes Seasonal or' daily migrations are 'the width or crosectional area of a Narrow maches of water bodies water body at a proposed site relative should usually be avoided as sites for
+ essential to maintaining the repro-to the pneral width or cross- locating intake or discharge struc- l ductive capacity of some impor-sectional area in the portion of the tures. ,
tant species populations. l water body used by migrating species should be estimated. A zone of passage that ws! permit Disruption of mipatory patterns normal movement ofimportant spe- l can result from partial or com-Sugpsted minimum zones of passage cies populations and maintenance of l piete blockage of migratory routes rany from 1/3 to 3/4 of the width the harvestable crop of economically by suuctures, discharge plumes, environmental alterations, or or cross-sectional areas of actrow important populations should be pro-man's activities (e.g., transporta- water bodies.e,b vided.
tion or transenission corridor clearing and site preparation). Some specics migrate in contral, deeper areas while others use mer-ginal, shallow areas. Rivers, streams.
and estuaries are seldom horno-pneous in thei lateral dimension with respect to depth l current veloc-ity, and habitat type. Thus, the use of width or cross. sectional ares cri-teria for determining adequate zones of passage should be combined with a imowledge of isnportant species and their migrats ry requirements.
t' .
shhrer (>sality Direrds 1972, Nat6onal Acadany of Saraces-National Academy of Engineering. Washington, D C.,1972 blhadhook of Enevoamenanf Coneol. VohmeI# Weser Supply sad Dartment. ft.C. Bond and C.F. Straub (Editors). CK3 Fres.
O p.&ned,Oluo,1973.
l l
O l
O 1
l ( d.7 21 l
l l
l
peremetere P.eguletory Position
'- Consideredens B.3 Entrennmern end impings-ment of Aquette Orsenisme i De depth of the water body at the The die should have characteristics Plankton, including eggs, larvas. that allow placement oflatake struc-and juvenile flah, can be id!!sd or point ofintake relative to the pneral depth of the water body in the vicial- tures where the relative abundance of injured by entrainment through important species k smaR and where power station cooling systems or ty of the site, "
Iow approach velocities can be
- in discharp plur-;s. .
attained. (Deep maions are pnerally The proportion of r>ater withdrawn relative to the net new available less productive than shaHow areas. it The reproductive capacity of is not impiled that tenthic intakes important species popidations water at the site is an indirect measum of the destruction of plank- am necessary.)
may be impaired by lethat stresses or by sublethal stresses that affect ton which in tum is indicative of possible effects on populations of important habitats (see B.I) should reproduction .of individuals or be avoided as locations for intake
' result in increased predation on important species. It has been sus-structums, the affected species population, pated that the fraction of avaHable new water that can be diverted is in Fish and other aquatic organisms the rany of 10% to 20% of Gow.b.c can be killed or injured by im-pingement on cooling water his simp!Istic parameter (proportion intake screense or by entrainment of water withdrawal) is suitable for in discharp plumes. use in a screening process for site selection. However, other factors such as distribution of important e
species should be considered and in sit eenes the advice of experts on the local fisheries thould be consulted to I ensum that proposed withdrawals wSIno be exceedvs.
aApproach velocity and screen face velocity ase doden cdteria that may affect the impegement of larger organkrns, prin fish, on intake screena. Acceptable approach and sesses> fees velocities are based on fish setsu speede which wiB very with the s ste and season, bThe werer's Edre Ofrical boNems of the Cosessi fene. B.H. Koechem (Editor), MIT Press. Camb Idee, Mass.,1972.
'Engineeing for Jtesensaton of #An Knegy.Eastonment Diemnie, National Academy of Engineenas, Washington, D.C,19 l
9 9
e" 4.7 22
Poemsters Reguietory Position Considerations B.4 Enessment of Agustic Organish Cooling water intake and as- Site characteristics that will accom. Sites where the cons +ruction of modate design features that mitipte intake or discharge canais would be charp system features, such as or prevent entrapment. necessary Aould be avoided unless canals and thermal plumes, can the site and importtat species charac-attract and entrap organisms, pdn.
- teristics are such that entry of irn-cipaDy fish. The resulting concen-tration of important fish species portant species to the canal ua be prevented or limited by screening.
near the station site can result in hiper mortalities from statica-related causes, such as impinge-ment, cold shock, or gas hubble disease, than would otherwise -
occur.
Entr::pment can also interrupt normal migratory patteins.
r .
t
(
4.7 23
Peremetere Reeviatory Position t Considerations S.5 Weser Queitty Effluents discharged from nuclear Applicable ' EPA approved " State Pursuant to Section 401(aXI) of the '
FWPCA, certification from the State power plants are governed under water quality standstds.
that any discharge will comply with the authodty of the FederalWater .
For states without EPA approved applicable effluent limitations and PoUution Centrol Act (FWPCA)- other water pollution control re (PL 92 $00). water quality standards, the water r uality criteria listed in Water qu'remenu is necessary before the NRC ran issue a cor.struction permit Q!ality Chrena,1p72a will be used for evaluation, unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable length of time.
Issur.::ce of a permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act is not a pre.
requisita to an NRC license or permit.
Where station construction or opera-tion has the potential to degrade water quality to the possible detri-ment of other users, more detailed analyses end evaluation of water quality may be necessary. r l slWerer Query Chrerw.1972. National Academy of Scienus-National Academy of Emineenng. Washington. D.C.1972.
(
4.7 24
D Pseemsters Reevistory Position Considwettens 3.6 Woese Availainalty i
Water use and consumption must lhe consumpthe use.of water for Applicable Federal, State, and local statutory requirements. comply with statutory requirements cooling may be restricted by and be compatible with water use statute, may be inconsistent with Compatabdity with water um plan of plans of cognizant water resources water um planning,or may lead to cognizant water resource planning planning agencies.
an unacceptable impact to the water resource. agency.-
l Consumptive use should be restricted In the abance of a water use plan, such that the supply of other users is l
l the effect on other water uurs is not impaired and that applicable evaluated considering flow or volume surface water quality standards could reduction and the resultant ability of be met, assuming normal station op-all users to obtain adequate supply erstional discharges and extreme low flow conditions defined by generally l
and to meet applicable water quality standards (see B.S. Water Quality), accepted engineering practices.
For multipurpose impounded takes
'and reservoirs, consumptive use should be restricted such that the r
magnitude and frequency of draw-l down will not result in unacceptable j damage to important habitats (see j B.1, Preservation of Important Habi-l tats) or be inconsistant with the man-i l
f asement goals for the water body.
(
l i
l 4.7 25 fx-
Peremeters Regulatory Position r Conalderosions B.7 gstablished Public Amenity Areas i Proximity to public amenity area. Siting ni the vicinity of designated Areas dedicated by Federal, State, Viewsbility (see B.10, Visual public amenity areas will geners!!y or local governments to scenic, Amenities). require extensive evaluation and just-recreational, or cultual purposes ification.
are generally prohibited areas for siting power stations. The evaluation of the suitability of sites in the vicinity of public amenity Siting nuclear power stations in areas is dependent on consideration the vicinity of established public of a specific plant design and station amenity arou could result in the loss or deterioration of important layout in relation to pote'ntial impacts on the public amenity area.
public amenf+1es. .
5.3 Prospectke Desipisted Amo-nity Areas containing important Companson of possible amenity Public amenity areas that are dis-Areas resources for scenic, recreational, areas in number and extent with tinctive, unique, or rare in a region "
or cultural use may not currently other similar areas available on a should be avoided as sites for nuclear power stations.
(\ be designated.ss such by public agencies but may isolve a set local, regional, or national basis, as appropriate.
loss to the public it converted to ,
power generation. These areas may include locally rare land types, such as sand dunes, wetlands, or coastal cDff 1-4.7 26 4
o 1._._____
m
.? Pwometers Reguietoryposition y Consideratione B.9 Public Planning land use for a nuclear power Officiauy adopted land um plans. Land use plans adopted by Federal, station s%.14 be compatible with State, regional, or local govemrnent entities must be examined, and any estabithed land use or zoning conSict between these plans and use plans of governmental entitles.
- of a proposed site must be resolved by consultation with the appropriate govemmental entity.
3.10 Visual Arnemtses he solid ande subtended by station De visualintrusion of nuclear power The presence of power station structures may introduce adverse structures at critical viewing points. station structures as viewed from nearby residential, recreational, visual impacts to residential, recre-scenic, or cultural areas should be ational, scenic, or cultural aren or .
contro5ed by selecting sites where othei areas with significant depen.
dence on desirabic viewing chare. existing topography and forests can be utaized for screening station teristics.
structures from those areas in which
.f i,
visual impacts would otherwise be unaccep*able.
t l
l l
.(
4.7 27 h * ,
- ~ v r- - . -. . , , _ _ _ _ _ , _ __ ' ' ~ ' ' -m - - -- -- ,.. . ,,,
l
\ .
\
,. )
Reguistory Position Conadorations Pommeters h.. )
I 5.11 Loest Fogging and leing .
incwase in number of hours of fog- Tha hazards on transportation routes Water and water vapor released to from fog,or ice that result from the at:nosphere from mcirculating gns or icing caused by operation, of station operation should be evalu.
cooling systems can lead to the station.
sted. The evaluation should include yound fog and ice resulting in ~ estimates of frequency of occurrence transportation hazards and
' of station induced fogging and icing damage to electric transmission and their impact on transportation, systems. electrical transmission, and other act.
ivities and function:.
l E12 CoahngTower Drift The percent ddft less from Tin potential loss of important ter-Concentrations of chemscals, dis- restrial species and other msources recirculating condenser cooling solved solids, and suspended solids water, particle size distribution, salt should be considered.
. In cooling tour drift could affect terrestrial biota and usult in deposition rate, local atmospheric .e conditions, and loss of sensitive unacceptable damage to vegeta.
_ terrestrial biota affected by salt
> . . tion and other resources.
- .l deposition from cooling tour drift.
I L
4 l
,~
4.7 23 g
r w
'I
- w. '
Parameters Regi;letory Position . .
Capesisse en.us=
i , -
B.13 Cootents . Tower m ene .
Lse w he l The nuenber of hours per year the The visibility of ' cooling tower kusal uselt , mai -, i wars pro- plumes as a function of direction and doce cimidlike pine.we which vary l plume ip visible as a function of distance from cooling towers should in mae and aliiiidi depending on #rection and distance from the cooling towers. be considered. The evaluation should the at.moph<ne e mduons. The include estimates of frequency of pit.mes are usually a few miles in occurrence for plumes as well as length before becornsng dissipa- potential hazards to aviation in the ted, although plume lengths of 20 vicinity of commercial and military to 30* miles have been reported from cooling towers. Visible mai m ts.
planes emitted from cooling tr wers could cause a hazard to commercial and rnditary aviation in the vkinity of commercial and nulitas) airpoits. The plumes -
themselves or their shadowscould '
have aestheticimpacts.
f .
k B.14 Plume insorsation 4 The degree to which impacts may The hazards to public health.
Water vapor from cooling tower structures, and other resources from plumes may interact with industri-occer will vary depending on the distance between the nucleu and potential plurne interaction between si emissions from nearby facilities fossil-fueled stes, the hours per year . cooling tower plumes and plumes to form noxious or toxic sub- from foss8. fueled siteg and industrial stances which could cause advene -
of plume interaction, the type and emissions from nearby facilities public health impacts, or result in concentration of cheraical reaction products, the area of chemical faE- should be considered.
unacceptable levels of damage to biota, structures, and other re- out, ~ and the local atinospheric sources conditions.
9 e
,/
- s 4e7 29 1
e t~-,e.ypr~,.-myyy,-,s-w,,,v-g ,,$w,ci,,-,
9.-,w.,,- .,,8 .n_,,.w _.,gc.f ,w ,._wg-.,.e., ,,,,ee eww-w-,aw m- e e-w-** -e,-*ev- *----+M-ee-- www-'r-r-- e
w s*
(}. . . Considerations parameters Reguletory Peeltion 3.15 Noien i
. Applicable Federal, State, and local Noise levels at proposed sites must Underitable noise levels at nuclear comply with statutory requirements.
power stations could occur during noise regulations.
both the construction and opera-tion phases and have unacceptable impacts near the plant. .
?*
! i 3.18 Economic Impact of Pre- -
1 emee= i.a.d um l If a preliminary evaluation of net (j Nuclear power stations can pre-empt large land areas, especially The level of local economic dhloca-tion, such as loss of income, jobs, local economic hnpact of ths.use of when large cooling takes are con- and production, caused by pre- productive land for a nuclear power -
structed. The land requirement is smptive use of productive land and station indicates a potential for large i
its effect on meeting foreseeable economic dislocation, the NRC staff I likely to be an important lasue national demands for agriculture pro- will require a detaged evaluation of when a proposed site is on pro-ductive land (e.g., agricultural ducts. the potential knpact and justification land) that is locally limited in for the use of the site based on a cost effectiveness comparison of r
'evallability and is important to attemative station designs and site.
the local economy, or which may station cesnbinations. To complete
( be needed to meet foreseeable its evaluation, the staff will also need national demands for agricultural Information on whether and to what products.
extent the land use s#ec'.s national requirements for nicultural pro-dues.
l p UNITao eTATa8 ]
f NucLaAR RaouLAToRY coasteteoloM
[
wAa.eewovoN. o. c. asses e eva.e ene c v.s.=ve6 san os.ene pai.
wi.avene ,
oppiciAL eveiness ce==.es ea PENALTY con PntVATe Use, eage l
- 8
/~
\
4.7 30 l
_