ML20140F568
| ML20140F568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007G200 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD93-1-035, AD93-1-35, PR-92-152, NUDOCS 9705050062 | |
| Download: ML20140F568 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,\
*h e9 3 - 1 7PR 4'
i
/.- ~ %i UNITED STATES i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
((.'hg/ lf, Office of Public Affairs , . , l. . + Washington, D.C. 20555 No. 92-152 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel. 301-504-2240 (Tuesday, October 20, 1992) NRC PROPOSES REVISIONS TO REACTOR SITING REGULATIONS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its requirements governing the siting of nuclear power plants to decouple siting issues from those associated with reactor design and to take into account advancements in the earth sciences and earthquake engineering as they apply to the siting of nuclear power plants. As proposed, the revisions would: (a) for future nuclear power plants, eliminate the requirements to postulate accident source terms (calculations on the amount of radioactivity that would be available for release to the environment in the event of an accident) and for the use of dose calculations (potential radiation exposures to members of the public); these requirements would be retained for existing nuclear power plants and non-power reactors; (b) require a minimum exclusion area (the area surrounding a nuclear power plant where the licensee has complete control over any and all activities and usually there are'no residents) of 0.4 miles; (c) establish population density criteria for use in assessing the suitability of future nuclear power plant sites; as proposed, the population density at the time of initial site approval should not exceed 500 people per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles and 40 years after initial site approval should not exceed 1000 people per square mile out to a radial distance of 30 miles; if these population densities were exceeded, consideration of alternative sites would be required, but they would not constitute upper limits of acceptability because severe accident risk considerations show that low risk can be achieved for sites having significantly higher population densities. (d) require that reviews of applications for early site approvals take into account important factors such as population distribution, topography and transportation routes in order to determine where there are any site characteristics that could pose a significant impediment to the development of an offsite 9705050062 970422 PDR PR 50 57FR47802 PDR i
)
emergency plan such as limitations of access or egress in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site; and (e) update the seismic siting and engineering criteria for new nuclear power plants to benefit from the rapid advancement in the state of the art of earth sciences and the experience gained in the application of the procedures and methods used in the current regulation. The criteria which govern the siting of existing nuclear power plants were issued in 1962 and require an exclusion area, a low-population zone where protective actions can be taken and that the size of the exclusion area be determined by postulating the accidental release into the reactor containment of a large amount of radioactive materials and that the resulting doses to ' hypothetical individuals--one at the closest point to the nuclear power plant of the exclusion area boundary and the other at the outer radius of the low population zone--be within specified limits. In 1976, the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to establish minimum exclusion area and low population zone distances and population density limits. The following year, Free Environment, Inc., and others filed a petition for rulemaking requesting, among other things, that the Commission require that the central Iowa nuclear project and other reactors be sited at least 40 miles from major population centers. In response, the Commission, in 1978, direct ' its staff to develop a policy statement on nuclear power plant sating and a resulting report " Report of the Siting Policy Task Force" was issued in 1979 and provided the staff's recommendations. In July 1980, the Commission issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the staff's recommendat' ions and seeking public comments on the matter. The proposed rulemaking was deferred the following year, however, to await development of the Safety Goal and improved research on accident source term. Public comments on these proposed amendments to Parts 50, 52 Gnd 100 of the Commission's regulations shculd be received by February 18, 1993. They should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 OFFICIAL BUS! NESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 US NRC-RES DIV OF ENGINEERING ML-007 WASHINGTON DC 20555 I h,!,iii, .),i,,i,iqi,i ,,!!,) em.w on =vce p== g u __ .-.4. .
l AM 3 -I j P P A. i, Feder:1 R:gi:t:r / Vol. 57, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 1992 / Notices 55601
=
l Letter 91-08. " Removal of Component the TS in order to implement these Seismic Sources. Deterministic Source 1 lats from Technical Specifications / changes. Earthquakes. and Ground Motion," is j Date ofissuonce: October 29,1992 Date ofissuance: November 5,1992 being developed to provide guidance
- Effective date: October 29,1992 Effective date: Ncvember 5,1992 acceptable to the NRC staff on l AmendmentNo. 44 Amendment No. 140 Possession Only procedures to identify and characterize
! Facility Operating License No. NPF. License No. DPR-3: Amendment revised seismic sources, to determine
- 58. This amendment revised the the Technical Specifications. deterministic source earthquakes and
{ Technical Specifications. Dole ofinitialnotice in Federal controlling earthquakes, and to compare i Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: September 18,1992, (57 FR the seismic hazard level to that at 1 Register: August 19,1992 (57 FR 37500) 42780). The Commission's related operating plants. 8 The Commissinn'a related evaluation of evaluation of the amendment is Draft Regulatory Guide DC-101n, the i the amendment is contained in a safety contained in a Safety Evaluation dated second Proposed Revision 2 to ( Evaluation dated October 28,1992. No November 5,1992. No sigmficant Regulatory Guide 1.12. "Nudear Power i significant hazards consideration hazards consideration comments Plant Instrumentation for Earthquakes," ! comments received: No received: No is being developed to describe seismic I LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room f location: Perry Public Library,3753 Main location: Greenfield Community staff. College,. instrumentation acceptab Street, Perry, Ohio 44001 1 College Drive, Greenfield. Draft Regulatory Guide DG--1017, } Massachusetts 01301. " Pre-Earthquake Planning and Wisconsin Electric Power Company, { Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Deted at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day immediate Nuclear Power Plant of November 1992. ** Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, For the Nuclear Regulttory Con mission a ak Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc e pmv de gu
}sck W. Roe, County, Wisconsin acceptable to the NRC staff for a timely Director. Division ofReactorPwiects - fil/ evaluation altet an earthquake of the Date of application for amendments: IWV OfficeofNuclear teactorRegulation r, recorded instrumentation data and ior
- , September 10,1992 (Doc.92-28456 Filed 11a92: 8:45 am] determining yhether plant shutdown i Brief description of amendments: The sa m cootree m would be required. .
h amendments revised Technical Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1018. p Specificath,a Section 15.4.6, " Emergency " Restart of a Nuclear Power Plant Shut il Power System Periodic Tests." Draft Flegulatory Guides and Standard Down by a Seismic Event"is being g Specification A.3 requires that each w % lsmance, ha4% developed to provide guidance g - diesel generator be given an inspection, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acceptable te the NRC staff for , at least annually. For the current has issued for public comment drafts of performing inspections and tests of
- inspection only, this amendment five regulatory guides for its Regulatory nuclear power plant equipment and
[ authorized 18-month interval since the Guide Series and a related section of the - structures prior to restart of a plant that
- last inspection of dieselgenerator GO2. standard review plan (SRP).The has been shut down by a seismic event.
; Date ofissuance: November 3,1992 Regulatory Guide Series has been Draft Regulatory Guide DC-4003, the ; Effective date: November 3,1992 developed to describe and make Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Amendment Nos.:135 and 139 available to the public such information Guide 4.7, " General Site Suitability facility Opemting License Nos. DpR- as methods acceptable to the NRC staff Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations," is 24 and DPR-27. Amendments revised the for implementing specific parts of the being developed to provide guidance on 4 Technical Specifications. Commission's regulations, techniques the major site characteristin related m ) 9 ate ofinitialnotice in Federal used by the r'ff in evalue'ing specific public health and safety and ' Register: September 30,1992 (57 FR problems or postulated accidents, and environmental issues that the NRC staff j 45091)%e Commissioc/s related data needed by the staff in its review of considers in determining the suitability y evaluation of the amendments is applications for permits and licenses. of sites for light-water-cooled nuclear , contained in a Safety Evaluation dated nese draft regulatory guides are power stations.
November 3,1992.No significant hazards being developed to provide guidance on %e draft standard review plan i consideration comments received: No. meeting proposed regulations that deal section is section 2.5.2 " Vibratory [o LocalPublic Document Room with nuclear power reactor siting, Ground Motion." The draft describes location: Joseph P. Mann Library,1518 including geologic, seismic, and procedures for assessing the ground Sixteenth Street.Two Rivers, earthquake engineering considerations motion potential of seismic sources at a Wisconsin. for future nuclear power plants.These nuclear power plant site and for pmposed regulations include assessing the adequacy of the safe Yankee Atomic Electric Company, amendments 1010 CFR Part 100, shutdown earthquake.
~
; Docket No. 50-029, Yankee Nuclear
,, Reactor Site Criteria," and to CFR Part These draft guides and the draft SRP
, PowerStation, Franklin County, assachusetts 50," Domestic Licensing of Production section are bei issued to involve the and Utilization Facilities"; a proposed public in the en y stages of the Date o[opplicatien for amendn.ent: new appandix to 10 CFR Part 50, development of regulatory positions in i August 27,1992 Appendix S. " Earthquake Engineering these areas.They have not received Briefdescription of amendment: Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants"; and complete staff review and do not I
Permits the licensee to move the a proposed new appt.ndix to 10 CFR Part represent official NRC staff positions. l Radiological Technical Specifications 100. Appendix B. " Criteria for the Public comments are being solicited ('IT) from the Facility TS to the Offsite Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear on the guides and SRP section, and Dose Calculation Manual or the Process Power Plants on or after (Effective Date comments should be accompanied by Control Program. In addition, - of this Regulation]"(see 57 FR 47802).- supporting data. Comments on the draft l programmatic controls will be added to 4 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015, guides and SRP section may be the Administrative Controls section of "Identif% tion and Characterization of combined and integrated with comments i l i
- -i t
j 55002 Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 57, No. 228 / Wzdnzaday, Novemb:r 25, 1992 / Notices t 1, I i . on the proposed regulations. Written implementation by the volunteering POSTAL SERVICE i i comments may be submitted to the . lead-plant hcensees and placed copies , Rrgulatory Publications Branch, in the NRC public document room. Privacy Act of 1374;9ystem of , l Division of Freedom of Information and The STS for each NSSS vendor are as Recorde j ' Publications Services, Office of foHows: , 1 Com iss ,$as'hi N c.e o a tered system of o 55. s se a w records. i Copies of comments received may be Plante" 3 examined at the NRC Public Document NURF&t431. " Standard Technical NWMe purpose of this document ;
- Room 2120 L Street NW., Washington, specifications. Westinghouse Plants. is to publish notice of alterations to ;
DC. Comments will be mnat helpfulil NURIL1432." standard Technical Speufications, Combustion Engineering i l j received by March 24.1993. Plants" existing Statistical sy(stem of records USPS 170.010, Cost) Systems-Workload . Although a time limit is given for . Reporting Records, heseln renamed j comments on these drafts, comments NUREC-1438," Standard Tecimicat Specificati ns. General Electric Wats, USPS 170.010, Operations Data . g
, cnd suggestions in connection with (1) Collection Systeme--Workload / *
- items for inclusion in guides currently BWR/4" NURAG-1434. " Standard Technical Productivity C at Records. *-
i being develo d or (2)im ta i . ations. Gesaml Electric Plants. Some of the workload reporting systems f cil published guides are e cour at 6 that prompted establishment of USPS ' cny time, 170.010 have been integrated or replaced ' Regulatory guides and SRps are W NRC staff has established an 3 electronic bulletin board system (BBS) with enhanced systems that provide i evrlhble for inspection at the management with additional tools to Coni-ilania='s Public Document Room, as a public service for anyone v6 ho ( j wishes to obtain copies of electronic ensure maximum prodectivity 1
- 2130 L Street NW., Washington, DC.
R: quests for single copies of draft files of the STS.%e NRC developed the performance and use of postal i i
- j resources.N changes to the system guides (which may be mproduced) or for STS with Wordperfect, version 5.1, software and placed the Iteviska 0 of description reflect those enhancements.
plicement on an automatic gistnostion paves:This
- I will become.
i list for single copies of future draft the improved STS on the BBS in guides m specific divisions should be compressed form using " ZIP" data effective wi furtbar notice 80 days ,- rr.ade in writing to tL U.S. Nuclea? compression software to reduce 'ha time froen the date of this blication ' Rigulatory Commission Washington, required to download the files.The NRC (January 25,1998) na-mants are - BBS may be reached by telephone at received on se before that data which ! DC 20555, Attention: Distribution and 4 Mall Services Section. Telephone (301) 506-1778. Access to the BBS is result in a contrary deterndnation. ; i j requ:sts cannot be = _=- _-sated. available using a personal computer and mooneesse:Conuments may be mailed . i Regulatory guides are not w,.j d modem with any standard to the RECORDS OpFICE, U.S. POSTAL (
- and Commission oppsovalis not communication software package.W SERVICE,475 L' ENFANT PLAZA SW., I i required to repsoduce them. BBS operates at bours a day at up to RM 8141 WASDENCM)N DC 2DB00- L l' Dated at Radstus, Maryland, this 6th day 9000 baud wie camsunicatica 5010, or delivesed to team 9141 et the of November met, parameters set at a bita, no parity, and 1 above address between 8
- 15 a.m. and I
- For the Nuclear Repslotory Commisolon.
stop bit (8-N-1).b system operators 4:45 p.m. wbese try will be svallable ! I4weemne C. ghu, are Tom Dunning and Chris lioxle.WY for inspecties datag hose been. I- , ] can be reached by talephmie (voice) at Dinicior. Division ofEngineering, Office of a mpensafseu m l. ! i
'" "* SheM. ReowMee (202) 266- j
) hk r el if a Copiesof theSTSkension0are lso needed. ec a 0 a lis t co C ) (FR Doc. 92-20041 Filed 11-24-92: 8:45 am) automated and manual data collected to ( the Gelman Buildme-room UA(Lower schedule workloads and staffing, and 1o
""""'**"'"*" 1Avel) 2120 L Street NW., Wathington l j track time spent by an employee to ,
DC,20555. Raquests for copies may be complete a particular project so that ! made by writing to the NRC Public 06ew StanderalTechnical management could determine project Document Room er by fecaimile at SpecteestoneW Oh (202)434-3343, w by telephone (202)- . cuts b W cusWnen fw seh -! Avagebety With improved technology and the i 634-3273.%se requating copies aoency: Nuclear Regulatory should identify the STS by NUREG passage of time, some systems collecting 3 that data have been replaced, combined, y , Commission. number and title as noted above. new j acteose: Notice of availabdity, con pustruen sponssavitas contract: M, e[P
- susmaany: %e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mark Reinhart. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory changed the general character of USPS -
Corandesion Washington.DC 20565. 170.010, the categories of records have Commisslan (NRC) previously noticed Telephone (301) 506-1185.
' the availability of five sets ofimproved been expanded to include additional i 1
StIndard Technical Specifications (STS) Deted at Keckville. Maryland. this 19th day employee data and the puspese has thit were issued for proof and review in i November test. been expanded albeit along the same i j july 31.1982157 FR 33979] Cubsequently For the Nuclear Regulatcry Coumission- lines. More speciScally, the revised
- the NRC revised the improved STS to Christopher L Grimes, system crSects leava. lunch time, and incorporate additional comments. Chief, Technica/ Specifications Brai i, overtime nata about osaployees as well
; received from the Nuclear Steam Supply Division of Operating aeactorsuppois. Office as mail volume, egalpment availabihty, System (NSSS) owners groups, and ofNucieorReactorRegulation. and other non-personal data about editorial corrections. %e NRC lasued [FR Doc. 92-28839 Filed 11-24-92: B:45 am) operations. His data is latograted and Improved STS. Revision O for =in =aa coonresse>-a used for various production control 4.
d k 1 1
' JV40,8/Y;h OCT 2 31992 hP 9 3 -1 - PPA ALL STATE LIAIS0N OFFICERS ALL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONTACTS ALL STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS REACTOR SITE CRITERIA; INCLUDING SEISMIC AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND PROPOSED DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM FREE ENVIRONMENT, INC. ET AL (SP-92-153)
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the subject Federal Register Notice dated October 20, 1992. The proposed rule would allow the U.S. Nuclear
- Regulatory Commission (NRC) to benefit from experience gained in the application of the procedures and methods set forth in the current regulation and to incorporate the rapid advancements in the earth sciences and earthquaks, engineering. The proposed rule primarily consists of two separate changes, namely, the source term and dose considerations, and the seismic and earthquake engineering considerations of reactor siting. The NRC is also proposing to deny the remaining issue in the petition filed by Free Environment, Inc. et al (PRM-50-20).
I Note that the comment period expires February 17, 1993. For further ' information you may contact Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research at 301/492-3860 concerning the seismic and earthquake engineering aspects and Mr. Leonard Soffer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research at 301/492-3916 concerning other siting aspects. oQin:1 signed by Carlton Kammeret Carlton Kammerer, Director l Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
i
- As stated 1
I Distribution: DIR RF CKammerer SLO File Rulemaking File SASchwartz RVirgilio VMiller SLIR Staff (4) RSL0s (5) DZannoni ^
'AJMurphy RES2 LSoffer, RES ,
1 PDR SA RF
. 0,F,C , SP:SLIR ,5 - ,S, , , , ,,,,, ,__ ,,,,,,, _ ,,,,,,__ , ,,,______,,_.
__NM(4,R, Virgil,i gjp_d,_ _S c _ w a_r_t L,4,C_Q,mm_e,r_er,4_,,,,,,,,,_4,,,,,,,_ _,4_,,,,,,,,,4______,,,,,,,
, DTE ! 10/22/92 ! l /}Yf2 ! 10/$792 '
G:\ SITING. ROV i 9 t/tcfon5 7lpp. .
4700E Proposed Rules rd-d 'e ' Vol 5'7, No. 283 Tuesday. October m.1992 This sectica of the FEDERAL REGISTER Delhor seensnents to H555RockviDe the NRCincorporate minimum exclusion contams nonces to the putdic of the proposed issuemco of mies ami Pika. Rockville, henryland. between 7:45 area and low population zone distances ! mguesson The purpose of those neces' a.m. and 4:15 p.m.. Federal workdeye, and population density limits into the Copies of the re ! is to gne MM porous an environomental a==gulatory analysis, regulations. the On Apnl 28,1p7, Free ' a===nemi and findtag Environment. Inc. et al., filed a petition g,,g of no significant impaeA and coensnente for rulemaking (PRM-50-20). The ndes. received usay be esamthsed at the NRC remainingissue of this petition requests Public Decisment Room at 212e L Street that theeentrallowa nuclear preject NW. (Lower Level), Washington.DC, and other reactors be sited at least 40 NUCLEAR REGULAT00tY Pon runTHen peronesAftoW coNTACn COMWSS6M miles imm mafor population centers. In Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Office of Nuclear Augustir8. the Commission directed 10 CFR Parts 50,52,and 100 Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear the NRC staff to develop a general Regulatory Commission. Washington, policy statement on nuclear power RIN 3t5S-ADee DC 20555, telephone (30f} 492-3800, reactor siting. The
- Report of the Siting concerning the seismic and earthquake Policy Task Force"(NUREG-0625) was Reacher See Cetteets, trie6#seng tail ==ma* engineering aspecta and Mr.Leomard issued in August 1979 and provided and Earthquake Engineering Cat 6erter Soffer. Office of Nuclear Regulatnry recommendations regardmg siting of for Nuclear Power Plants and Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory future nuclear power reactors. In the Proposed Dental of Petition for Commisalon. Washington. DC 2055s, 1980 Authorization Act for the NRC, the Rulemaking From Free Emdronnient, telephone (301) 492-3916annestning Congress directed the NRC to decouple Inc.etaL other siting aspects. siting from design and to specify Aouct !*aclearRepletos7 sueruinneserAny isspenasAftest. demographic criteria for siting. On July Commissiomm L Background 29,1980 (45 FR 50050), the NRC issued an Advanca Notica of Proposed ACT>ow: Proposed rule and pmposed denial of petition for rulemaking fmm kO Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding Free Environment, hac.et al IV. Altema1ives. revision of the reactor site criteria.
V. Major claimana, which discussed the recommendations suasesAny:The Nejm Replatory A. Reactor Sutng Cruaria (Nansemmucl. of the Siting Policy Task Force and Commission (NRC)is proposing ta D. Seismac and Earthquaka Enguisedng sought pubhc comments. The proposed Cnteria. rulemaking was deferred by the amend its regulatJons to update the VL Siting Policy Task Farew criteria used in decisions regarding Commission in December 1981 to await Recommendations. power reactor ef tmg, including geologic. VII. Related Reguietory Guides and Standard development of a Safety Goal and seismic, arrd earthquake engineering Review Men Sectum improved research on accident source terms On August 4.1986 (51 FR 23044), p ants.' opose e would a * '" Y # NRC to benefit froas experience gained X. Subnuss on of Comments in Electressa C t sta ed quantita in the apphcation ohhe pmcedams med methods set forth in the curvent XL Questions. prompt and latent cancer fatality risks. regulation arad to incorporate the rapW A. Raactor Sitinct Criteria (Nonseismic). On December 14.1988 (53 FR 50232) the B. Seismic and Earthquake Engineering NRC denied PRM-100-2 on the basis advancements in the earth sciences and Cnterts. earthquake engineering. The proposed XIL Finding of No Sigmficant h that it would smnecessarily restrict aal rule primarily consists of two separatur impact: Availability, NRC's regulatory siting policies and changes, namely, the source term and XBL Paperwork Iteducten Act Stoseeient. would not result in a substantial dose considerations, and the seismic XIV. Repleeury Analyms, increase in the overal1 protection of the end earthquke m XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certificatism. public health and safety.Because of considerataous of reactor astm' g The XVL Bacinfia Analyens, posalble renewed interest in power Commission is also proposing to deny 1. Backgreemd reactor siting, the NRCis pmceeding the remaining issue in petstion (PRM-ah w th a rulemaking la this area. Because
- 20) filed by Free Environment. Inc. et al. ,Ihe present regulation regardme the proposed regulations woodd include reactor sina critaria (1.0 CFR pait 1006 populatha density criteria for future CATES: Comment period expires was promulgated April 12.1962(27 FR February 17,19e3. Cesarments reselved nuclear power reactor sites, the 3509). Staff guidance on exclesion asse Commission concludes that the after this data will be casundered liit is r and low populaties zone aimes as well as remaining issua in PRM-50-20 is being Practical to da so but the >=--= le population deamaty was loseed isi shaiaspart of this ruleanaMag eble to assurg consideration onh fee Regulatory Guide 4.7 "GeneselSite action.
comments received on ce hata= this Suitahihts Cnteria fes Nocheme Powne date. Appendix A to 10 CFR port 70eL Statians." phi aied tur samment in " Seismic and Geologic Sfting Criterfa for AD seassas: Mail wdtten comments to: September 1974. Revision 1 to this guide Nuclear Power Plants," was originally Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory issued as a proposed regulation on was issued in November 1975. On June Commias;on. Washington. DC 206&5. 1.1976, the Public interat Research November 25,1971 (36 FR 22601), Attention: Docketmg and Service Group (PIRG) filed a petition for ' published as a final regulation on Branch. rulernaking (PRM-100-2} requesting that November 13,1973 (38 FR 31279), and
l Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 203 / Tuesd:y, Octo6er so,1902 / Prw Rules 47383 became effective.on December 13,1973. Because the revised criteria presented regulatory impleasantauon (both
%ere have been two amendments to to in the rW regulation would not be technical and legal). fewer intarpreuve . CFR part 100, appendix A. he first appifed to existing plants, the licensing debates, and increased regulatory amendment. Issued November 27,1973 bases for existing nuclear power plants (36 FR 32575), corrected the final flexibility. Applicants will derive the most remain part of the regulations. aame benefits in addition to avoiding regulation by adding the legend under herefore, the p the disgram.The second amendment revised reactor licensing delays caused by smetaar siting criteria d be added as regulatory requirements.
resulted from a petition for ruleraaking subpart B in 18 CFR part 100 and would (PRM 100-1) requesting that an opinion apply to sits applications received on or V. @ Change be issued that would interpret and after the effective date of the final clarify appendix A with respect to the regnistions.%e criteria on seismic and A. Reactor Sitistg Cridersr (Nanseismic) determination of the Safe Shotdown geologic siting would be added as a new Sina promulgation of the reactor site . Earthquake. A notice of filing of the appendix B to 10 CFR part 100.%e dose criteria in 1962, the Commission bas petition was published on May 14,1975 calculations and the earthquake approved more than 75 sites for nuclear (40 FR 20983).De substance of the engineering criteria wiD be located in 10 power reactam and has had an petitioner's proposal was accepted and CFR part 50 (i 50.34(a) and appendix S, opportunity to review a number of published as an immediately effective respectively). Because appendix S is not others. As a result of these reviews, a ' final regulation on January 10,1977 (42 self executing. applicable sections of great deal of experience has been FR 2052). part 50 (i 50.34 and I 50.54) are revised gelned regarding the site factors that II. Objecta.ves to reference appendix S.%e proposed influence risk and their range of regulation would also make conforming acceptability.Much of the experience
%e objectives of this proposed amendments to 10 CFR parts 52 and 2006 gained by the NRC staffin these reviews regulatory action are to- Sections 52.17(a)(1)(vi), and 100.2D(c)(1) has been reflected in the issuance of
- 1. State the criteria for future sites would be amended to note appendix B Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site that, based upon experience and to part 100. Suitability Criteria for Nuclear power importance to risk, have been shown as gy, Alearmatives Stations," which was issued for key to protecting public health and ccamment in 1974, and revir,ed in 1975. It safety: %e first alternative considered by the also reflects the Commission's policy of
- 2. Provide a stable regulatory basis for Conunlulon was to enunw usin8 keeping reactors away from densely seismic and geologic siting and current regulabons for site suitability populated centers. A review of the applicable earthquake engineering detenninations. nis is not ensidered Regulatory Guidelines implementation design of future nuclear powerplants an acceptable alternative. Accident .
has shown that its application is that will update and clarify regulatory a urce terms and dose calculations expected to result in low risk to the requirements and provide a flexible currently influence plant design j public while allowing a good selection structure to pennit consideration of new, $9h'*bfe ot s te y si g techm, cal understandings; and th*"*t "'
- 3. Relocate the requirements that criteria which, through importance to ne site criteria presented in the apply to plant design into 10 CFR part 50 risk, have been shown to be key to assaring public health and safety. propo, sed regulation are based on those thereby effectively decoupling sitin8 Further, significant advances in the contamed primanly in Regulatory Guide from plant design.
earth sciences and in earthquake 4.7, and represent current NRC practice. III. Genesis engineering have taken place since the in addition, numerous risk studies on The proposed regulatory action promulgation of the present regulation radi active material releases to the envir nment under severe accident reflects changes that are intended to: (1) and deserve to be reflected in the regulations Benefit from the experience gained in conditions have all confirmed that the The second alternative considered present siting practice is expected to applying the existing regulation and was replacement of the existing effectively limit risk to the public. nese from research: (2) resolve interpretive studies include the early " Reactor questions: (3) provide needed regulatory regulation with an entirely new Safety Study" (WASH-1400), published flexibility to incorporate state-of-the art regulation.This is not an acceptable improvements in the geosciences and alternative because the provisions of the in 1975, many Probabilistic Risk existing regulations form part of the Assessment (PRA) studies conducted on earthquake engineering: and (4) simplify licensing bases for many of the individual plants as well as several the language to a more " plain English" specialized studies, and the recent text operating nuclear power plants and ne proposed regulatory action would others that are in various stages of " Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment obtaining operating licenses. nerefore, for Five U.S. Nuclear Power plants," apply to applicants who apply for a these provisions must remain in force (NUREG-1150), issued in 1990. construction permit, operating license, and effect. prehminary design approval, final He proposed criteria basically ne approach of establishing the decouple siting from accident source design approv al. manufacturing license, revised requirements in new sections term and dose calculations. Experience early site permit, design certification, or and an appendix to 10 CFR part 100 and has shown that these factors have combined license on or after the relocating plant design requirements to effective date of the final regulations. tended to influence plant design aspects to CFR part 50 while retaining the rather than alting. Accident source term Criteria not essociated with the existing regulation was chosen as the and oose considerations are proposed to selection of the site or establishment of best alternative. ne public will benefit be applied to plant design aspects and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground from a clearer, more uniform, and more r Motion (SSE) have been placed into 10 would be relocated to part 50. The consistent licensing process that Commission considers it appropriate. CFR part 50 This action is consistant incorporstes updated information and is based on the extensive experience and with the location of other design subfect to fewer interpretations. He confirmatory studies noted above, to requirements in to CPR part 50. NRC staff will benefit from improved state directly those site criteria that
/
9 47804 Federal Register / Vol. 57 N2, 203 / Tu sd:y, October 20, 1992 / Prop:s:d Ruhs _ have been shown to be key to protecting use of a postulated source term, protective actions were contemplated la . public health and safety.nese reactor assumptions regarding mitigation the event of a serious accident.The site criteria are expected to be systems and dispersion factors, and the regulations In 10 CFR 50.47 now requires independent of plant design and, as calculation of radiological consequences plume exposure Emergency Planning such, are independent of the plant type to determine the sizes of the exclusion Zones (EPZ) of about 10 miles for each to be built at the site. The Commission area and low population zone. it would plant. considers this appropriate because it instead require a minimum exclusion The LPZ also places restrictions ,n expects that future reactors licensed area distance of o.4 miles (640 meters) the proximity of the nearest densels under part 50 or part 52 will reflect, for power reactors. populated center of 25.000 or mor a through their design, construction, and This distance, together with typical residents. However, without nun trical operation, risk characteristics that are engineered safety features previously requirements for the outer radius of the equal to or better than existing planta, reviewed by the staff, has been found to LPZ, this requirement has little practical Therefore, there would be an extremely satisfy the dose guidelines in the present effect. Typical LPZs for existing power low probability for accidents that could regulation. An exclusion area of this size reactors have several thousand result in release of significant quantities or larger is fairly common for most residents. If Regulatory Guide 4.7 were of radioactive fission products. In power reactors in the U.S. It has not followed and a distance of 3 miles were addition, the recommendations of the been unduly difficult for most selected as the LPZ outer radius, a Siting Policy Task Force were prospective applicants to find and maximum population within the LPZ at considered in making these changes as obtain a suitable site. the time of site approval would be about discussed in Section XII of this proposed Finally, this distance has also been 14,000 residents. Finally, the staff has rule. found to readily satisfy the prompt sometimes experienced difficulty in j
' P P Rationaleforindividual Criteria efmmlssi a ety ards li
- when coupled with plant designs as
{* sio con e tha th functions intended for the LPZ, namely,
- 1. Exclusion Area reflected by those in NUREG-1150, and a low density of residents and the An exclusion area surrounding the ' feasibility of taking pratective actions, immediate vicinity of the plant has been g[,ga7a ts t erm 1) ere o ,the have been accomplished by other a requirement for siting power reactors minimum exclusion area distance from the very beginning.This area regulations or can be accomplished by ,
provides a high degree of protection t proposed would assure a very low level other means. Pmtective scuon, J of risk to individuals, even for those the public from a variety of potential requirements are defined via tne use of located very close to the plant. the EPZ, while restrictions on population ' plant accidents and also affords Although an exclusion area size of protection to the plant from potential cl se to the plant can be assured via about 0.4 miles is considered , proposed population density cr(ten,a. For man.related hazards. appropriate for reactor power levels of The present regulation has no these reasons, the Comrmssion is current design, the Commission is also p oposing to eliminate the requirement numerical size requirement, in terms of considering whether or not this size distance, for the exclusion area. 'Ite of au LPZ for future power reactor sites present regulations assesses the unduly penalizes potential reactors that for purposes of determining site 1 have significantly lower power levels consequences of a postulated suitability. and is therefore requesting comments on radioactive fission product release this subject. 3. Population Density Cnteria within containment, coupled with assumptions regarding containment 2. Low Population Zor.c The present regulation contains no leakage, performance of certain fission The present regulation requires that a population density requirements other l product mitigation systems, and low population zone (LPZ) be defined than the requirement, noted above, that l atmospheric dispersion factors for a immediately beyond the exclusion area. the distance to the nearest population hypotheticalindividuallocated at any Residents are permitted in this area, but center containing more than about point on the exclusion area boundary. the number and density must be such 25,000 residents must be no closer than The plant and site combination is that there is a reasonable probability one and one. third times the outer radius considered to be acceptable if the that appropriate protective measures of the LPZ.This was recognized as a calculated consequences do not exceed could be taken in their belief in the Potential concern when the present the dose values given in the present event of a serious accident. in addition, regulation was promulgated. As the regulation. Regulatory Guide 4.7 the nearest densely populatd center Commission noted in its Statement of suggests an exclusion area distance of containing more than about 25.000 Considerations on April 12,1%2 (27 FR O.4 miles (two meters).This distance has residents must be located no closer than 3509), accompanying the issuance of the been found. in conjunctian with typical one and one-third times the outer radiuh regulation, a * *
- in some cases where engineered safety features, to meet the of the LPZ. Finally, the dose to a very large cities are involved, the dose values in the existing regulation. hypothetical individual located at the population center distance may have to Future reactors would be expected to be outer radius of the LPZ over the entire be greater than those suggested by these as good or better in meeting the dose course of the accident must not be in guides."
criteria at this distance. excess of the dose values given in the As a result of the significant The Commission considers an regulation. Regulatory Guide 4.7 experience gained in the siting of power exclusion area to be an essential feature suggests that an outer radius of about 3 reactors, the staff issued Regulatory of a reactor site and is retaining this Guide 4.7 in 1974. With respect to miles (4.8 km) for the LPZ has been
- requirement for future reactors. found to satisfy the dose values in the population density this guide states as However,in keeping with the present regulation. follows
recommendation of the Siting Policy Several practical problems have Areas oflow population density are "ask Force to decouple site arisen in connection with the ISZ. preferred for nuclear power station sites. requirements from reactor design, the . Before 1980, the LPZ generally defined Hish population densities protected for any proposed regulation would eliminate the the distance over which public time during the lifetime of a station are
Federal Register / Vd. 57, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20ae02 / Proposed a-&a= 6 906 considered during both the NRC staff review bealth objective in regard to latant
- is expected to easws a low level of risk, cnd the public bearing phases of the beansing cancer fatality states that, within a inchading the risk of latant renner process. If the population density at the fatahty as well as bong.larm land distanca of ten udles (16 km) from the p t I requ to give reactor, the risk to the population of caratamination. Pksally, the Commussion cttention to alternative antes with lower latent cancer fatality from nuclear comrh that granting of the population densiues. Powee plant operation, including petitioner's request to specify population tf the population density,inchuhng accidents, should not exceed one tenth criteria out to 40 milaa rather than 30 weighted transient population. projected at of one percent of the hkehbood of latent miles would not substantially reduce the the time of initial operation of a nuclear cancer fatalities from all other causes. In risks to the public, but could power stanon exceeds 500 persons per square addition to the risks of latent cancer significantly increase the drfficulty of mile averaged over any radial dretance out to fatalities, the Commission has also obtaining suitable reactor vites in some 30 nr.iles (aumulative population at e distance investigated the likelihood and extent of regions of the nation. For these reasons,
<livided by the area at that distance). or the lana contamination arising from the 6e Commission is proposing rtot to e fac ye e pe release of long-lived radioactive species, adopt the proposal by Free such as cesium 437,in the event of a Environment, Incorporated.
square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles. special attention severe reactor accident. An important point regarding should be given to the consideration of b results of these analyses indu ate population projections and their citernahve sites with lower population that the latent cancer fatality appl cation should be made. Because the densities.- quantitative health objective noted validity and reliability of population The basis for this guide was that it above is met for current plant designs. projections, particularly for relatively From analysts done in support of this small regions, decreases markedly as provided for reasonable separation of mp eed change in regulation, the reactor sites from large population [ikelihood ofland co tamination from a the projection time period increases, centers while also assuring an adequate population projections for the purpose of selection of sites in all regions of the snere accident suffictent to require im8 assessing site suitability are to be tenn c ndemnatie ofland beyed 30 limited to 40 years. Population nation. However, no coinparisons with miles (50 ken)is very low. Other expbcit nsk criteria were provided at projections beyond this time period ana te that population become unreliable and speculative.The that time On Apnl 28,177. Free Environrnent, density restrictions out to 40 miles could 40 year period for population projections Inc. et. al., filed a petition for rulemaking * * * "" * ** # ac or s e some r g on of e m te plantlifetime. (pRM-50-20) requesting. among other nation things, that "the centrallows nuclear Because the population density values Because analps have shown that project and other reactors be sited at of Regulatory Guide 4.7 have been in use current plan, designs can meet the least 40 miles from ma}or population since 1975, and these values afford an Commissim a Safety Goals and eat centers.""Ihe petitioner also stated that adequate sapply of potential reactor o6er nsks can be kept at a very low
" locating reactors in sparsely. populated sites in every region of the nation while level at sites that have sq.puficantly areas * *
- has been endorsed in non- providing assurance of low risk of latent higher population densities than those bindmg NRC guidelines for reactor being proposed, the Commission wishes cancer fatality as well as land siting " However, the petitioner did not contamination, the Commission i emphasize that these population specify what constituted a major considers it prudent to maintain these density levels do not indicate the upper population center. The only NRC population density values for future limits of acceptability. These levels guidehnes conceming population power reactor sites. The Commission represent preferred values, tha t, if density in regard to reactor siting are in wishes to emphasize, however, that exceeded, require that an appbcant Regulatory Guide 4.7. issued in 1974, and nuclear power plants meeting current provide justibcation or not locatmg a revised in 1975 prior to the date of the safety standards could be safely located reactor at an ahernative site havmg a petition. This guide provides population at sites magnibcantly more dense than lower population density. Therefore, the density criteria out of a distance of 30 500 people per square mile. Population density limits proposed in miin from the reactor, not 40 miles. For these reasons, the Commission is the regulation are intended to be used An illustration of tne degree of proposing that, at the time of initial site only in the aiting decisam pmcess to be separation distance provided for in this approval or early site permit renewal, applied at the time of initial site guide from population centers of various population density values of no more approval or early site permit renewal to sizes may be useful. Under this guide, a than 500 people per square mile detarmine whether attemative rites that population center of about 25,000 or averaged over any radial distance out to have lower population densities should more residents should be no closer than 30 miles be used for judging the be considered.The r %=n%n does 4 miles (6 4 km) from a reactor because acceptability of future nuclear power not intend to consider beense mnditions a density of 500 persons per square mile plant sites. Similarly, in keeping with or operating restrictions upon an within this distarce would yield a total Regulatory Guide 4.7. the projected operating reactor solely upa the basis population of about 25.000 persons. population density 40 years after initial that the population density around it Simi.arly, a city of 100.000 or more site approval abould not exceed 1000 may reach or exceed the proposed siting residents should be no closer than about people per square mile. decision values given above during the 10 miles (16 km). a city of 500.00g or With regard to the petition by Free plant Idetime. Because of the possibihty more persons should be no closer than Envirnnnwn'. inc. (pRM-50-20), the for confusion resultmg from ausnerical about 20 miles [32 km) and a city of Commission concludes that the criteria values being dted in the rershh the 1.000,000 or more persons should be no in Regulatory Guide 4.7 provide a Commission is also requestmg closer than about 30 miles (50 km) from reasonable degree of separation for a comments on w6 ether ansmerical the reactor. range of population centers, including population density valaes abound be The Commission has exarnined these " major" popula. tion centers, dependmg cited in the regulation or whether theee ruidelines with regard to the Safety upon their size. Further, mdifying the should be stated in a regalatoey guide Cal The Safety Coal quantitative population density critoria of this guide only. The Commission is also requestmg
I 4780s Federal Register / Vrl. 57. No. 203 / Tuesd:y, Oct:ber 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules comments on whether the values of 500 5. Hydrological Factors highways,large pipelines, major
- and 1000 persons per square mile are airports, etc. Relatively minor changes Dese factors are important in appropriate, and whether population in industrial activity have been shown density criteria need be cified out to establishing the magnitude of external l 30 miles, or whether ano er distance is hazards from ground-water to be oh concem contamination, such as by containment The Commission is considering I more appropriate. whether periodic reporting of significant '
basemat melt through, which could i 4. Meteorological Factors contaminate aquifers and thereby affect offsite activities should be required and Radiological doses that incorporate larBe Populations.The proposed is requesting comments on whether site meteorological da ta need no longer regulation adds or modifies existing significant offsite facilities within five be calculated for the purpose of requirements for obtaining information miles of the reactor should be i determining site suitability. to characterize hydrological factors at a periodically updated every five years. I Meteorological data will still be needed site important to risk. This information Interim Change to 10 CFR Part 50 for safety analysis and for assessing the will be reviewed by the staff and used adequacy of certain plant features, as as interface criteria in matching a The proposed change to to CFR part well as to determine plant adequacy in proposed design to the site. 50 would simply relocate from 10 CFR regard to meteorological extremes, such 6. Nearby Industrial and Transportation part 100 the requirements for each as tornados and maximum probable Facilities apphcant to calculate a whole body and precipitation. Therefore, the proposed a thyroid dose at specified distances. regulation maintains the requirement to This area of review would be. Because these requirements affect collect and characterize meteorological incorporated into the regulations for reactor design rather then siting, they I data representative of the site, determining site suitability. This area of are more appropriately located m 10 The Commission has examined the revie:w has,in fact, been a part of the CFR part 50. For this proposed revision. l I variations in site meteorology that have NRC review for many years.The the source term and methodology for influenced dose calculations in past proposed regulation involves no performing the dose calculations would i licensing reviews. Individal site substantive changes in this area and remain unchanged from the current meteorology characteristics have been merely codifies what has been NRC' requirements. used primarily to determine atmospheric practice for a number of years. These requirements would continue to dispersion or dilution factors in order to' 7. Feasibility of Carrying out Protective apply to future applicants for a evaluate does to hypothetical Actions construction permit. design certification, individuals at the exclusion area and or an operating license, but are intended 1.PZ outer radius. ne degree of dilution . The proposed regulation would require that important site factors such to be interim requirements until such increases with increasing distance time as more specific requirements are between the release point and any as population distribution, topography, hypothetically exposed Individual, but it and transportation routes be considered developed regarding revised accident source terms and severe accident also is affected by other factors, and examined in order to determine insights' including the time of day. In this regard, whether there are any site
~
the dispersion factor could vary characteristics that could pose a B. Seismic and EarthquoAe Engineering significantly at a given site and show a significant impediment to the Criteria pronounced diurnal variation. However, development of ah emergency plan. when the time-averaged dispersion Planning for emergencies is part of the The following major changes in the factor of a given site is compare with Commission's defense-in-depth proposed revision to appendix A, that of other sites, the variation between approach. The Comm!ssion has Seismic and Geologic one site and another is much less, Nuclear Power Plants,, Siting to part 100, are Criten,a for concluded that site characteristics that Analyses reported in NUREG/CR-2239, may represent an impediment to the associated with the proposed seismic
" Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria development of adequate emergency and earthquake engineering critena Development." dated December 1982, for plans, such as limitations of access or rulemaking:
example, show that calculated average egress in the immediate vicinity of a 1. Separate Siting from Design individual consequences for an identical nuclear power plant, should be postulated release of radioactivity to the identified at the site approval phase. Criteria not associated with site environment using data from weather This is consistent with the approach the suitability or establishment of the Safe stations throughcut the United States Commission has taken in early site Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion yielded results that varied only by about reviews under 10 CFR part 52. (SSE) have been placed into 10 CFR part a factor of two. Based upon these 50. nis action is consistent with the considerations, the Commission has 8. Periodic Reporting of Man-Related location of other design requirements in determined that the average Activities to CFR part 50. Because the revised meteorological characteristics between Conditions around a site may change criteria presented in the proposed one site and another are sufficiently and significant changes in the nature of regulation will not be applied to existing similar that characterization of the industrial, military, and plants, the licensing basis for existing individual site meteorology is not a transportation facilities may occur, nuclear power plants must remain part significant discriminator in determining Early identification of activities or of the regulations.ne criteria on site suitability when compared to the facilities that are potentially hazardous seismic and geologic siting would be uncertainties in other areas of the could permit timely changes in the designated as a new appendix B. determination of risk to the health and procedures or plant features to minimise " Criteria for the Seismic and Geologic safety to the public. However, site the change in the risk to the health and Siting of Nuclear Power Plants on or meteorological characteri. tics are safety of the public. Man-related After[ Effective Date of this needed in safety analysis and for activities potentially hazardous to a Regulation)." to to CFR part 100. Criteria assessing the adequacy of certain plant plant are typically major industrial or on earthquake engineering would be design features. transpost facilities such as major designated as a new appendix S,
\
Federal Register / Vcl. 57. Nr. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Ruhs 47807
** Earthquake Engineering Criteria for approach. Using this deterministic together and compare the results of each . Nuclear Power Plants " to CFR part 50. approach, an applicant develops a single to provide insights unavailable if either set of earthquake sources, develops for method were used alone. He principal
- 2. Remove Detailed Guidance from the each sourm a postulated earthquake to Reguladon limitations of the deterministic be used as the source of ground motion evaluation--its ability to incorporate The current regulation contains both that can affect the site, locates the only one model and one date set at a requirements and guidance on how to postulcted earthquake according to time and its inability to allow weighted astisfy the requirements. For example, prescribed rules, and then calculates incorporation of numerous models-can section IV, " Required Investigations," of ground motions at the site. Although this be assessed by comparing its results appendix A, states that investigations approach has worked reasonably well with the results of a probabilistic are required %r viu.eW stround . for the past two decades,in the sense evaluation accomplished in parallel.
motion, se f ace faultmg. ano eeisnucally that SSEs for plants sited with this Similarly, the principallimitation of the induced i.oods and water waves. approach are judged to be suitably Appendix A then provides detailed probabilistic evaluation-its tendency to conservative, the approach has not allow its results to be dominated by the guidance on what constitutes an exptcitly recogmzed uncertainty in ccceptable investigation. A similar tails rather than the central tendency of geoscience parameter. Because so little situation exists in Section V, 'Seisnuc distributions of uncertain knowledge or is known about earthquake phenomena end Geologic Design Bases, of expert opinion-can be assessed by cppendix A. (especially in the eastern United States), comparing its results with the results of there have always been differences of Geoscience assessments require one or more deterministic evaluations. opinion among experts as to how the considera ble la titude in judgment. His %e NRC believes that taken together, latitude in judgment is needed because hrescribed carded out.process Expertsinoften Appendix A is tothis approach can allow more informed delineate of limitations in data and the state-of- very different estimates of the largest ludgments as to what the appropriate the-art of geologic and seismic analyses earthquakes to be considered and Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground and because of the rapid evolution different ground-motion models. Motion should be for a given site. Both tiking place in the geosciences in terms Over the past decade, analysis the applicant's judgments and those of of accumulating knowledge and in methods for encompassing these the NRC will be improved. Therefore, modifying concepts. This need appears differences have been developed and the NRC believes that this approach is to have been recognized when the used.nese "probabilistic" methods the best way to accomplish the objective existing regulation was developei De have been designed to allow explicit of this aspect of the revised regulation existing regulation states that it is based incorporation of different models for and arrive, through analysis, at a site-on limited geophysical and geological zonation, earthquake size, ground specific ground motion that information and will be revised as motion, and other parameters. De appropriately captures what is known necessary when more complete advantage of using these probabilistic about the seismic regime. Using both information becomes available. methods is their ability to not only pivbabilistic and deterministic liowever, having geoscience incorporate different models and evaluations to complement each other Essessments detailed and cast in a different data sets, but also to weight should lead to a more stable and regulation has created difficulty for them using judgments as to the validity predictable licensing process than in the applicants and the staff in terms of of the different models and data sets, past. inhibiting the use of needed latitude !n and thereby to provide an explicit ~1n order to implement this approach. Judgment. Also,it has inhibited expression for the overall uncertainty in the NRC has proposed a requirement flexibility in applying basic principles to the ground motion estimates and a that the annual probability of exceeding new situations and the use of evolving means of assessing sensitivity to various the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground methods of analyses (for instance, input parameters. Motion at a site be lower than the probabilistic) in the licensing process. Probabilistic methods have been used median annual probability of he level of detail presented in the by many groups, not only in the seismic- exceedance computed for the current proposed regulation would be reduced hazerd area but in many other areas. In considerably. ne proposed regulation population of the operating plants. nis the seismic-hazard area, many of the requirement assures that the design would identify and establish basic practitioners participated in either the levels at new sites will be comparable to requirements. Detailed guidance, that is. NRC-Lawrence Livermore National the procedures acceptable to the NRC those at many existing sites, particularly for meeting the requirements, would be Laboratory (11NL) or the Electric Power more recently licensed sites. This Research Institute (EPRI) seismic-hazard criterion is also used to identify contained in a draft regulatory guide to projects over the past decade. be issued for public comment as Draft ne advantages of these probahilistic significant seismic sources, in terms of Regulatory Guide. D41015. methods are manifest. However, their magnitude and distance, affecting the
" Identification and Che:cterization of estimates of ground motions at a site.
limitations are important too. in the Sairme Sources. Deterministic Source seismic-hazard area, the most important %e Commiss.ion le specifically Earthquakes. and Ground Motion." limitation is that the " bottom-line" requesting comments on the questions results from these analyses tend to be contained in section XI.B pertaining to
- 3. Us< of Both Deterministic and the use of probabilistic seismic hazard dominated by the tails rather than the Probabihstic Evaluations central tendencies of the distributions of analysis and the balance between the De proposed reculation would knowledge and expert opinion. deterministic and probabilistic require the use of tbth prohabilistic and For these reasons, the proposed evaluations.ne position (s) stated in the daterministic evaluations %e existing revision of appendix Ato10 CFR part final regulation, supporting regulatory approach for dete r.ining a Safe 100 has adopted an approach using both guide and Standard Review Plan Section Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion probabilistic and deterministic will be based on Commission (SSE) for a nuclest reactor site, evaluations.ne staff proposes to use consideration of responses to these embodied in appendN A to 10 CFR part both the detertainistic (currently being questions and comments on all aspects 100, relies on a " deterministic" used) and the probabilistic evaluations of this rulemoung.
.m
47338 Fedesel Regio 6er 1 Vol 57 Na 203 / Teesday, October 20,1992 / Proposed Rules
- 4. Safe Shutdown Earthepeake Review t'aanttee " Vol 5. Apriheek applicable stress and deforrnation limits ne existing regulation (to CF1t part (Table 1061) ranked a f+1 , N of the when subjected to the effe,;ta of the OBE 100, appendix A, section V(a)(1)(fv)) OBE and SSE as third out of six high in combination with normal operating atates "He maximurs vibretory priorsty changes. la SECV-40-Ote, loads, accelerations of the Sale Shutdown " Evolutionary Light Water Reector As stated above, subject to further Earthquake et sach of the various (IMR) Certscation lunas and no6r confirmation, it is determined that if an foundation locations of the nuclear Relationship to Cervent Regulatory OBE of one-third of the SSE is used, the power plant structures at a given site Requirements," the NRC staff states that requirements of the OBE can be shall be detennined * * '". De location it agmes that the OBE should not control satisfied without the applicant of the seissaic input motion control point the % of safety systemas. For the performing any explicit response as atsted in the existing regulation has evolutionary reactors, the NRC will analyses (some minimal design checks led to confrontations with many consider requests to decouple the OBE and the apphcability of this position to applicants that believe this stipulation is fr m the SSE on a det Mc basia. seismic base isolation of buildings are inconsistent with good engineering Activities equivaleet to OBE SSE , discussed below).There is high fundamentals. decoupling sie also being done la confidence that, at this ground-motion The proposed regulation would move foreign countries. For instance, in level with other postulated concurrent the location of the seismic input motien Gersaany their new design standard loads, most critical structures, systema, control point from the foundation-leveg requires only one design basis and components will not exceed to free-field, at the free ground surface earthquake (equivalent to the SSE). currently used design limits. In this case, or hypothetical rock outcrop, as They require an inspection-level the OBE serves the function of an appropriate. The 1975 version of b earthquake (for shutdown) of o.4 SSE. inspection and shutdown earthquake.
Standard Review Plan placed the his level was set eo that the vibratory There are situations associated with control motion in the free-field. The ground motion should not induce current analyses where on!y OBE is proposed regulation is also consisteng stresses exceeding the allowable stress associated with the design rcquirements, with the resolution of Unresolved Safety limits original}y required for the OBE for example, the ultimate heat sink (see Issue (USI) A-40 " Seismic Design design. Regulatory Guide 1.27. " Ultimate Heat ! Criteria" (August 1969). that resulted in The proposed regulation would allow Sink for Nuclear Power Plants"). In ! the revision of Standard Review Plan the value of the OBE to be set at:(i) these situations, a value expressed as a sections 2.5.2, 3.7.1. 3.7.2, and 3.7.3. One-third or less of the SSE, where OBE fraction of the SSE response would be However, the proposed regulation requirements are satisfied without an used in the analyses. Section Vill of this requires that at a minimum, the explicit response or design analyses Proposed rcle identifies existing guides horizontal Safe Shutdown Earthquake being performed. or (ii) a value greater that would be revised technically to Ground Motion at the foundation level than one-third of the SSE, where maintain the existing design philosophy, of the structures must be an appropriate analysis and design are required.nere With regard to piping analyses, response spectrum with a peak ground are two issues the applicant should positions on fatigue ratcheting and acceleration of at least 0.1g. consider in selecting the value of the seismic anchor motion are being
- 5. Value of the Opersting Ba'". OBE: first, plant shutdown is required if developed and will be issued for public Earthquake Ground Motion (OBE) and vibratory ground motion exceeding that comment in a draft regulatory guide Required OBE Analynea of the OBE occurs (discussed below in separate from this rulemaking. More item 6 Required Plant Shutdown), and than one earthquake response analysis The existing regulation (10 CFR, second, the amount of analyses for a seismic base isolated nuclear appendrx A, section V(a)(2)) states that associated with the OBE. An applicant power plant design may be necessary to the maximum vibratory ground motion may determine that at ore-third of the ensure adequate performance at all of the CBE is one-half the maximurn SSE level, the probability of exceeding earthquake levels. Decisions pertaining sibratory ground motion of the Safe the OBE vibratory ground motion is too to the response analyses associated Shutdown Earthquake ground motion. high, and the cost associated with plant with base isolated facilities will be l
i Also, the existing regulation (10 CFR. shutdown for inspections and testing of handled on a case by case basis. appendix A, section VI(a)(2)) states that equipment and structures prior to the engmeerms me: hod used to insure restarting the plant is unacceptable. B. Required Plant Shutdown that structures, systems, and nerefore, the applicant may voluntarily The current regulation (Section components are capable of withstanding select an OBE value at some higher V(all2)) states that if vibratory ground the effects of the OBE shallinvolve the fraction of the SSE to avoid plant motion exceeding that of the OBE use of either a suitable dynamic analysis shutdowns. However,if an applicant occurs, shutdown of the nuclear power or a suitable qualification test. In some cases, for instance piping, these multi- selects an OBE value at a fraction of the plant is required. The supplemer.tary SSE higher than one third, a suitable information to the final regulation facets of the OBE in the existing analysis shall be performed to (published November 13,1973. 38 FR regulation made it possible for the OBE demonstrate that the requirements to have more design significance than 31279. Item 6e) includes the following associated with the OBE are satisfied. statement:"A footnote has been added the SSE. A decoupling of the OBE and The design shall take into account soil, SSE has been suggested in several to i 50.36(c)(2) of to CFR part 50 to structure interaction effects and the assure that each power plant is cware of documents. For instance, the NRC stag . expected duration of the vibratory the limiting condition of operation which SECW79-300, suggented that design for ground motign. The requirement is imposed under section V(2) of a single limiting event and inspection associated with the OBE is that all and evaluation for earthquakes in appendix A to to CFR part 100. This structures, systema, and components of limitation requires that if vibrrtory excess of some specified limit may be the nuclear power plant necassary for ground motion exceedmg that of the the most sound regulatory approach. continued operation without undee risk OBE occurs, shutdown of the nuclear NUREG-1061. " Report of the U.S. to the health and of the public power plant will be required. Prior to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping shalh===M f== ' and wishin resuming operations, the bcensee will be
Federal Register / V:1. 57, No. 20; / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rul:s 47809 required to demonstrate to the perturbations resulting from the seismic Policy Task Force." August 1979. %e . Commission that no functional damage event. ne guidance being developed in individual recommendations and the has occurred to those features necessary Draft Regulatory Guide DC-1017 la for continued operation without undue proposed disposition and actions being based on two assumptions, first, that the taken in tegard to each of these are risk to the health and safety of the nuclear power plant has operable public." At that time,it was the discuned below. seismic instrumentation, including the intention of the Commission to treat the equipment and software required to Rewnnendotion 1 Operating Basis Earthquake as a process the data within four hours after limiting condition of operation. From the an earthquake, and second, that the Revise part 100 to change the way statement in the Supplementary protectan is provided for accidents by operator walkdown inspections can be incorporatiftg a fixed exclusien area and information, the Commission directed performed in approximately four to eight protection action distance and cpplicants to specifically review 10 CFR hours depending on the number of population density and distribution part 100 to be aware of this intention in personnel conducting the inspection. If complying with the requirements of 10 criteria. vibratory ground motion exceeding that 1. Specify a fixed minimum exclusion CFR 50.36. Thus. the requirement to shut of the Operating Basis Earthquake distance based on limiting the individual down if an OBE occurs was expected to Ground Motion or if significant plant risk from design basis accidents. be implemented by being included damage occurs, the licensee must shut cmong the technical specifications Furthermore, the regulations should down the nuclear power plant. If the submitted by applicants after the licensee detennines that plant shutdown clarify the required control by the utility adoption of appendix A. In fact, is required by the Commission's over activities taking place in land and epplicants did not include OBE regulations, but the licensee does not water portions of the exclusion area. shutdown requirements in their think it prudent to do so, the licensee 2. Specify a fixed minimum emergency technical specifications. plannirig distance of to miles.The may ask for an emergency exemption physical characteristics of the The proposed regulation would treat from the requirements of the regulation plant shutdown associated with Pursuant to i 50.12 to 10 CFR part 50 so emergency planning zone should that the plant need not shut down if the provide reasonable assurance that vibratory ground motion exceeding the OBE or significant plant damage as a exemption is granted. evacuation of persons, including condition in every operating license.The transients, would be feasible if needed shutdown requirement would be a R art o to mmgate se consequencu of
. uc ear wr la t Shut accidents.
condition of the license (10 CFR 50.54) D wn by a Seismic Event,"is being rather than a hmiting condition of developed to provide guidelines that are 3. Incorporate specific population operation (10 CFR 50.36), because the acceptable io the NRC staff for density and distribution hmits outside necessary judgments associated with Performing inspections and tests of the exclusion area that are dependent exceedance of the vibratory ground
- we 1 ant on the aversge population of the region.
motion or sigmficant plant damage can ,g, pg],, pla) 4. Remove the requirement to not be adequately charactenzed in a guidance is also based on EPRI reports. calculete radiation doses as a means of technical specification. A new Pri i"8 P ' h establishing minimum exclusion dt licen mu$ demon e to the distances and low population zones. he r gu$ation equIre an Commissien that no functional damage Disposition and Action shutdown for licensees of nuclear puwer has occuned to those features necessary plants that comply with the earthquake I Recommendation i has been or is - engineering criteria in paragraph rlk o b a$th ansa ty t largely pmposed to be adopted by the I
,V(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S, public. De results of post. shutdown Commission. With regard to item 1. a Earthquake Engineering Cnteria for inspections, operability checks, and fixed minimum exclusion area distance Nuclear Power Piants,, to 10 CFR part surveillance tests shall be documented of 0.4 mile, commensurate with past 5a in written reports and submitted to the NRC experience in the review of design Draft Regulatory Culde DG-1017, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor basis accidents, is being proposed. The " Pre-Earthquake Planning and Regulation. The licensee shall not Commission believes that the existing Immediate Nuclear Power Plant resume operation until authorized to do requirements regarding contml om any Operator Post. Earthquake Actions."is so by the Director, Office of Nuclear land portion of the exclusion area being developed to provide guidance Reactor Regulation. together with current emergency acceptable to the NRC staff for 7. Clarify Interpretations planning requirements make any new requirements on excluslan area control determining whether or not vibratory gruund motion exceeding the OBE In appendix B to 10 CFR part 100, unnecessary. The recommendations in changes have been made to resolve item 2 were adopted by the Commission ground motion or significant plant damage had occurred and nuclear questions ofinterpretation. As an shortly after the niee Mile Island example, definitions and required accident and are contained in to CFR power plant shutdown is required. The investigations stated in the proposed 50.47. De recommendations in item 3 guidance is based on criteria developed regulation would be nignificantly by the ESctric Power Research Institute are proposed to be adopted except that changed to eliminate or modify phrases the population density and distribution (EPRI). He decision to shut dawn the plant should be made within eight hours that were more applicable to only the limits are proposed to be applicable western part of the United States. nationwide. ne recommendation of citer the earthquake. The data from the seismic instrumentation. coupled with VI. Siting Policy Task Force Item 4 is proposed to be adopted.
information obtained from a plant Recommendations & commendation 2 - w:lkdown, are used to make the ne Siting Policy Task Force made determination of whether the plant Revise 10 CFR part 100 to require nine recommendations with regard to consideration of the potential hazards should be shut down, if it has not revision of the reactor siting critaria in posed by man-made activities and clready been shut down by operational NUREG4625. " Report of the Siting natural characterhtics of sites by em ene eu*.=
_ - . ~ 41818 Fedesel ReWater / Vol 57. No. aos / 'Desaday. Oct:bar ath teeg / Proposed Rulee establishing seinimuss ana= daft 1.N NRC staff shnu leform local Disposition andAction distanese for: authorities (planning -naata=
- 1. heajor or comusercial country camssiasions, etc.) that contral h Conesission considers that the
- 2. Liquid Natural Gas ( ) terminals, activities withis the emergsacy planning early site permit provisions of 10 CFR
- 3. Large propane pipelines, part 82 accomplish this sone (EPZ) of the basis for de ===amany a
- 4. Large natural gas pipelines, the acceptabihty of a site, wamdsHm.
- 5. large quantities of explosive or Recommendefian #
toxic matedala. 2.De NRC staff shnu notify these Federal agencies as in item 1 above that Revise 10 CFR part 51 to provide that f Pa gg"Q"d may ressenably initiate a future Federal a final decision disapproving a proposed action that mey influenes the meclear site by a state agency whose approval is Disposition andAction power plant. fundamental to the project would be a Recommendation 2 is proposed to be 3. N NRC staff shall mquire sufficient basis for NRC to terminate adopted in part and rejected in part.10 *pPhcants to morde and sport mysew.N krainaum of a m*w CFR part 100 is to be revised to include potentially adverse o5 site would then be reviewed by the considerstion of man-related hasards, developments. Comedesion. However, establishing minimum 4. If. in spite of the actions described Disposition andAction atandoff distances by regulation for the in items 1 through 3. there cre offsite hazards cited is not feasible. NRC developments that have the potential for h Commission is not proposing to review has found the acceptable significantly increasing the risk to b adopt this recommendation because it is separation distances are not readily public, the NRC staff wiu conside, considered inappropriate. This quantified and can depend upon many restrictions on a case-by. case baals. recommendation would give a State the Dispositiore andAction ire, an operat onal as const tion i f nuc ear facilities,in addition to the distance his recommendation is already is faciMidy se Fem, al Cmmnent from the reactor. Accordingly, the effect or is proposed to be adopted. item has this authority. States do have en proposed regulation will require that the l is already covered by existing independent right to deny site op royal hazards be identified and evaluated so emergency planning .r ' t items as Img as it is not a radiological ealth that they can be adequately considered 2 is being accomplishecl by inseance of a and saMy mamm defense, w Wty in the design of the reactor to be located Significant Hazard Consideration concern. on the site. Present NRC review criteria. statement by the NRC staff. & Recommendation 9 as given in the Standard Review Plan Commission is requesting =====ts on (SRP). Section 2.2.3 are considered item 3. With regard to item 4. the op muuna baan fw comparks adequate. Commission retains the right to order se Maka fw au external mata. Rem =~hlion 3 restrictions on a case-by. case basia. Disposition andAction Revise 10 CFR part 100 by requirter a Recommendation # The Siting puhey Task Force's primary reasonable assurance that interdlettve Continue the current approech measures are possible to limit ry i ort Id be relative to site selection from a safety undertake- with the objective of [nhwjer , a m ting viewpoint but select sites so that there developing quanutative risk immediate vicinity of the she. are no unfavorable characteristim comparisons of all external events and requiring unique or unusual desip to natural phenossena.& Commission Disposition andAction compensete for site inadequacies. considers this to be a dairable The Comuussion is not proposing to Dispositias and Action objective but notes that the Siting policy adopt this recommendation. However. Task Force ==t* no specific requirements on future reactor desipe e Consdssion is not proposing to recommendations with regard to siting will address the ased to consider and adopt this recommendation. In the criteria or rulemaking. & Commission nuan== contamawat fathere under curmnt and proposed pan 100 themfm cosiders this severe saident osachtions.Feture "88Iabes, op cants may provide
. acommendation inapplicable in the reactor dessens will need to address the 8Pec1Sc plant sign festes to present context of examination of siting poteadal for ground water compensate for site inadequaedes. As criteria, bet notes that recent costaannatiam as part of their long as these design features adsgestely developments in probabilistic risk envira====*=l sertrw under to CPR part account for the conditions at the site. analysis (pRA) have considered 5L Public health and safe will be examination of the risk frasa external protected.Dese a c design features events in dothiL Recosumendation f may involve added costs. However, the Io bet the be to in assessing seismic hasards. the applicant. N NRC is developing the followisg WW Disparidort andActlary Receumum==dah== 1 *
,p g,,,,cy,, p, ,
% e Cassenssies is to adept Revise 100 to specify that site prospective licensees with the r+- -r this recommendation in this approval estehnshed et to eseuses guidance for implementing thc proposed Recommendcum s decialon point in the teetow and to . regulation.De motice el availabihty ice provide ariterie that would have to be thees anatorials is pWM elsewhere Revise to GR part ses toinclude setiaRed far this appseech to be )
consideretten of post-hommeing changes in tais Assas of the Fedsami Radster. subesgesmely seepened in the hosesing 1.DG 1015JIdentiScotion and in offsite sattuttles. process. rh =ama sE== of Seismus Soussee.
i , l l Fedssel Engishr / vel ar. No aos / Tomaday. Ostober an, tsat / hoposed Reiss ceti 1 Deterudaistic Soems LP ;% and L1AF,'DoolemIJedes and Ianding Bemartes Weathstam,DC3Dets-7 set. i Ground Motion."N drelt sidde ra=hl==tions for Metal Primary Rosebar Copiessee alas araudeWe Grees the l pmvides genomi guidanos and ContainmentSystemF - --"" National hdadeel talmemation Servloe, recommendations, deeribes acceptable 1.1.ag, Design Beals Floods for 8385 Port Reyellland, bring 6 eld, VA j pmcederes and provides a het of Nuclear PowerPlaats " 22181. A anpy le alas ovellebie for i references that present ecomptable 3.1.ett " Design n ==pa=== Spectre for n==p- Ha= end eoPring for a ise in the i methodologies to identifyand Seismic Des'pn ofNeclearPower NRC Public rh====# Raesa,213D L i characterize capable tectonic sources Plants." Street, NW. (Imwer Imeel), Waalungton, and seimmagenic sources. *.183,"InseMee Inspection of DC. ) 2. DG-1918. Second Proposed Fressurized Wa.e:heactor Steam ofleeued reguleeory guides
- Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12, Generator Tubes."
I may purdased from b Government .
" Nuclear Power Plant instrumentetion 5.1.e2," Combining Modal .ag - Z Printing Othoe (GPO) at the current i for Earthquakes." h draft guide and Spatial Capm GPO prios. laformation as current GPO
] describes seismic instrumentation type Response Analysis ;ots in Seismic
- cnd location, operability, 6.1.102," Flood Protection for Nuclear prices may be obtained by contacting the Supertatandant of Drw====ts, U.S.
j characteristics, installa tion, actuation. Power Mants-Government Prtating OfRce. P.O. Box l and maintenance that am acceptable to 7.1.121. " Bases fw ,D, egraded 37082. Wesbiegton, DC 20013-2171. the NRC staff PWR Steem Gemstor Tu lessed guides also be purchased and' e ae ca * " wer Plan Servi on a a l Operator Post-Earthquake Actions."h W Details on this sentos may be obtained i draft guide provides guidelines bt ere fb foflowing regulatory guides wil! * " I*' ' cceeptable to b NRC staff for a thnely bs revloed to update the design or p 22181. i evaluation of the recorded solemic analysis phHosophy, for example, to m M 6,and instrumentetion data and to determine change OBE to a fisction of the SSE: ASH-tm am evausbie ice inspecHe whether or not plant shutdown is and copying for a fee at the required. 1.1.27 " Ultimate He Nuclear Power Plc.ata .at Sink for m's Pu emnant Rwn, s 4. DG-1018. " Restart of a Nuclear 2.1.100, " Seismic Ouelifiestion of 21201, Strat, NW. (lowerIAv80 Power Plant Shot Down by a Seismic Electric and Mechanical Equipment for I'8b'880"' E" Event." The draft guide provides Nuclear Power Plants." goldelines that are acceptable to the X. Subsolados of f'm=====ts in
- 3.1.124, "Sewice Limits and Imeding Electremic Fennst NRC etaff for performing inspections Combinations for Claes 11Jnear-Type l end tests of nuclear power plant Component Supports." h comment process wiU be i eqC,T.ent and sWetures prior to restart 4.1.13D, "Servloe IJmits and Imeding improved if each comment is identified j of a plant that has been shut down with the document title, section heading.
Combinations for Class 1 Plate-and-becaure of a seismic event. Shell Type Consponent Supports." and paragraph number addressed.
- 5. Draft Standard Review Plan Section 6.1.132 " Site Investigations for Commenters are encouraged to submit, 2.5.2. Proposed Revision 3 " Vibratory Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants.- in addition to the original paper copy, a Ground Motion." W draft describes 6.1.135, " laboratory investigations of any af theiettyr in electronic format on procedures to assess the ground motion Soils fw Engineering Analysis and M M M N C"P8W O k N potential of seismic sources at the site Design of Nuclear Power Plants." N/ DOC w MS/ DOS format. ' Data files and to assess the adequacy of the SSE.
- 8. Draft Regulatory Guide 4.7, g
1 g g h W [ rf IBM Revision L dated December 1991, (Other than Rector Veseals and Document Content Architecture /
" General Site Suitabih;ty Criteria for Containments)" Revisable Form-Text (DCA/RfT). or Nuclear Power Plants. This guide 8.1.143, " Design Guidance for unformatted ASCII code.b format Radioactive Waste Management and version should be identdied on the r sted ub c heal h and safet and Systems, Structums, and Compants N6 N8N environmentalissues that the NRC staff Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear xg, p, considers in determining the suitability Po P1 of sites. _
ohr Reguletory Guides and standard all aspects of this rulemaking, the VIIL Future Regulatory Acelee review plan sections as a resnit of Commission specificaDy requests Several existing regulatory guides wiu proposed changes in the nonseismic comments on the foHowing questions. be revised to incorporate editorial criteria are also plannad.lf substantive A. Reocsoe String Criterio (Nonseismic/ changes are esade denng the revisions, changes or maintain the existing design 1. Should the Commission grandfather the applicable guides will be issued for or analysis philosophy. These guides public casement as draft guides existing reactor sites having an tvill be issued to coincide with the exclusion ares distance less than 0 4 publication of the final regulations that IX. Referenced Documents miles (640 meters) for the possible would implement this proposed action. An intwested person may e=amane or Pl acessent of odditional units. If those
'Ihe following regulatory guides wiu obtain copies for the da===nts sites are found suitable from safety be revised to incorporate editorial referenced in this peoposed rule as set mamidaretion?
changes, for example io reference new out below. 2. Should the aclusion eroe distance paragraphs in appendix B to part 100 or Copies of NUREG 4425, NUREG-u50, be assauer than 4.4 mile (440 meters) for appendix S to part 50. No technical and NUREG/CR-4tas spay be purchased plants having reactor power levels changes will be made in these froan the Superinten&nt af na===nts, signi8caatly less them anDD Megawatts regulatory guides. U.S. Government Prim 6s OdBas, P.O. (thennal) and abould the exclusion area
US12 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday. October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules distance be allowed to vary according to B. Seismic and Earthquake Engineering use in the development and evaluation power level with a minunum value (for Criteria of the Safe Shutdown E:dhquke example. 0.25 miles or 400 meters)? Ground Motion should remain pa The proposed guide, DC-1015, 3.%e Comraiselon proposes to codify outlines concepts and procedures to be important aspect of the sitmg the population density guidelines in used in conjunction with the regulations for nuclear power plants for Regulatory Guide 4.7 which states that probabilistic/ deterministic seismic the foreseeable future.The NRC staff the population density should not hazard evaluations. Rationale for the also feels that probabilistic seismic exceed 500 people per square mile out to approach is discussed in section V.B(3) hazard assessment methodologies have of this Proposed Rule. reached a level of maturity to warrant a a distance of 30 miles at the time of site The staffis currently perfonning , specific role in siting regulations-) approval and 1000 people per square mile 40 years thereafter. Comments are confirmatory studies to evaluate and 2. In making use of the probabilistic specifically requested on questions 3A. refine these proposed procedures. A and deterministic evaluations as limited study has been completed proposed in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3B, and 3C given below. demonstrating the feasibility of 1015,is the proposed procedures in A. Should numerical values of appendix C to DG-1015. adequate to procedures and the validity of the 1 d determine controlling earthquakes from concepts. However, the staff would like regu at n or sh d he e tion to s licit comments on the concepts the probabilistic analysis? provide mereIy general guidance, with outlined in the proposed guide at this 3. In determining the controlling numerical values provided in a time.To facilitate the review, results of earthquakes, should be median value: ef regulatory guldet the application of the proposed the seismic hazard analysis, as B. Assuming numerical values are to procedure to four test sites are described in appendix C to Draft i be codified, are the values of 500 published separately (Letter report from Regulatory Guide DG-1015. be used to l persons per square mile at the time of D. Bernreuter of Lt.NL to A. Murphy of the exclusion of other statistical site approval and 1000 persons per NRC dated September 24,1992, measures, such as mean or 85th square mile 40 years thereafter available in the NRC Public Document percentile? (The staff has selected appropriate? If not, what other Room at 2120 L Street NW., (Lower probability of exceedance levels numerical values should be codified and level), Washington. DC.). associated with the median hazard what is the basis for these values? %ere are divergent views on the role analysis estimates as they provide more C. Should population density criteria probabilistic seismic hazard analysis stable estimates of controlling be specified out to a distance other than should play in the licensing arena. There earthquakes.) 30 miles (50 km), for example,20 miles is a general consensus within the NRC 4.The propored Appendix B to 10 CFR staff that the revised seismic and part 100 has included in Paragraph V(c) (32 km)? If a different distance is recommended. what is its basist geological siting criteria should allow a criterion that states:"The annual
- 4. Should the Commission approve consideration for a probabilistic hazard probability of exceeding the Safe analysis.%em is also a general belief Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion is sites that exceed the proposed considered acceptably low if it is less j that the outcome of a probabilistic
'h d analysis should be compared with the than the median annual probability ffso der w at c nditi results of past practices for siting and computed from the current (EFFECTIVE
- 5. Should holders of early site permits, licensing the current generation of DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] population construction permits, and operating nuclear power plants. nere is a general of nuclear power plants." This is a license permits be required to consensus that ground motions should relative criteilon without any specific periodically report changes in potential be calculated using deterministic numericalvalue of the annual offsite hazards (for example, every 5 methods once the controlling probability of exceedance because of years within 5 miles)? !f so, what earthquakes are determined. With the curmnt status of the probabilistic regulatory purpose would such reporting regard to the role of the probabillede seismic hazard analysis. However. this requirements servet analysis, views range from an advocacy requirement assures that the design
- 6. What continuing regulatory of a predominandy probabilistic levels at new sites will be comparable to significance should the safety analysis to the probabilistic/ those et many existing sites, particularly requirements in to CFH part 100 have deterministic proposed here to a more recently licensed sites. Method after granting the initial operating predominantly deterministic approach dependent annual probabilities or target license or combined operating license as used currently. Given these divergent levels (e.g.1FA for LLNL or 3E-5 for under to CFR part 527 views, the NRC staff would like to invita EPRI) are identified in the proposed comments regarding the use of regulatory guide. Sensitivity studies
- 7. Are there certain site addressing the effects of different target meteorological conditions that should probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the balance between the probabilities are discussed in the preclude the siting of a nuclear power Bernreuter to Murphy letter report.
plant? If so, what are the conditions that deterministic and probabilistic evaluati ns.This and other associated Comments are solicited as to:(a) an not be adequateIy compensated for whether the ebove criterion. as stated. issues are itemized below. (As the Y "I 8" II"'**I detailed technical studies are completed needs to be included in the regulation?
- 8. In the description of the dispoettiou ee of the staff positions may be and. (b) if not, should it be included in of the recommendations of the Siting confinned, but specific comments would the regulation in a different form (e.g., a Policy Task Force report (NUREG-0625). be helpful at this time.) specific numerical value, a level other it was noted that the Commission was 1. In making use of both detenninistic than the median annual probability not adopting every element of each and probabilistic evaluations, how computed for the current plants)?
recommendation. Are there compelling should they be combired or weighted, 5. For the probabilistic analysis. how reasons to reconalder any that is, should one dominate over the many controlling earthquakes should be recommendation not adopted and. lf so. other? (%e NRC staff feels strongly that generated to cover the faquency band what are the bases for reconsideration? deterministic investigations and their of concern for nuclear power plants?
Fedess! Register / Vol sr. No. 203 / Tuesday, October so,1992 / Proposed Rules m13 i (For the four trial plants used to develop he eneirousmental assessment and the criteria presented in Draft J. Murphy, Office of Nuclear Reguletory finding of no signincent impect on Research, U.S. Noc'mer Regulatory Regulatory Guide DC-1015, the average which this determination is based are Commixion Wee 5ington, DC 20555, of results for the 5 Hz and to Hz spectral available for inspection at the NRC telephone (21492-3860. velocities was used to establish the j Public Document Room 2130 L Street The Commission requests public probability of exceedance level. NW. (Lower level) Washington, DC. comment on the draft regulatory Controlling earthquakes were evaluated Single copies of the environmental analysis. Comments on the draft for this frequency band, for the average assessment and finding of no siytificant analysis may be submitted to the NRC of 1 and 2 5 Hz apectral responses, and impact are available from Mr. Leonard l for peak ground acceleration.) as indicated under the "an-mass" Soffer, Office of Nudear Regulatory heading. l XII. Finding of No Significant " ' '8* q EnvironmentalImpact: Availability C on, Was onDC IY' , ' M mulMury Castification telephone (301) 492-3916, or Dr. Andrew in accordance with the Regulatory The Commission has determined ' Murphy Office of Nuclear Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980(5 U.S.C co6(b)), under the National Environmental Pr41cy Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the Comunission certifies that this Act of1%9. as amended, and the Commission Weshington.DC20555, i proposeJ regulation will not,if ' Commission's regulations in subpert A telephone (301) 492-3a80 promulgated, have a significant of 10 CFR part 51, that this proposed economic impact on a substantial regulation. if adopted, would not be a XIll. Paperwork Reduction Ad Statement number of small entitles. This proposed major Federal action significantly , regulation affects only the licensing and affecting the quality of the human This proposed regulation amends i operation of nuclear power plants, ' environment and therefore en information collection requirements that Nuclear power plant site applicants do envirnnmental impact statement is not are subject to the P,aperwork Reduction required. not fall within the definition of small Act of 1980 M4 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This businesses as defined in Section 3 of the The- isions associated with the proposed regulation has been submitted Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 832), the s ..t ng criteria in to Cm part 100 to tne Office of Management and Budget Small Business Size Standards of the I
..id . .. rs 'ocation of the plant design f r review and appmal of the requirements fmm 10 CFR part 100 to 10 Paperwork requirements. Small Business Administrator (13 Cm part 121), or the Commission's Size CFR part 50 ha ve been evaluated There la no public reporting burden Standards (56 FR 50671; November 6.
l against the current requirements.%e *k "" #* "E "" 1 Pubhc reportin burden for the 1991)- Commission has concluded that collection of information related XVI.Backfit to the Analysis al on rt ad ing re seismic and earthquake engineerin8 i a b eskad k amage M.M backfH %e NRC has determined that the I specific site enteria to part 100 does not mie,10 Cm M109, does ut decrease the protection of the public h uf* P " " 8P "68 IDClu D8 58 apply to this proposed regulation, and i health and safety over the current r mviewing instmetims, m c. therefore, a backfit analysis is not do not ffe t nonrad ca pia n the ta ne ded an becau C mpleting and miming the collectim ese amendme is d n t effluents and have no other involve any provisions that would environmental impact, nd co ents regarding this burden j The addition of appendix B to 10 CIR estimate or any other aspect of this 50 a J part 100, and the addition of appendix S collection of information, including would apply only to applicants for I to 10 CFR part 50. will not change the suggestions for reducing this burden, to I"'"""
- Power Pl ant constme on radiological environmentalimpact the Information and Records PMs,"pmfimbary dnign pa ,
offsite. Onsite occupational radiation II"*1 d** 8" approval, manulaeturing Management Branch (MNBB 7714), U.S. j exposure associated with inspection and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "g 4 ' maintenance will not change. These Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk es, and b ting
' activities are principally associated with Officer, Office ofinformation and O'*""**'
base line inspections of structures. Regulatory Affairs.NEOB-3019,(3150 IJet of Subjects equipment, and piping. and with Pm snd 3150-0093), Office of 1 , maintenance of seismic instrumentation. Management and Budget, Washington, MCm M0 2 Base hne inspections are needed to DC 20503, Antitrust, Classified information, differentiate between pm-existing Criminal penalty Fire protection, ! conditions at the nuclear power plant XIV. Regulatory Analysts incorporation by reference, i and earthquake related dan age. The %e Commission has prepared a draft Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear i structures, equipment and piping regulatory analysis an this proposed power plants and reactors, Radiation selected for these inspections are those regulation. The analysis examines the protection, Reactor siting criteria, routinely examined by plant operators costs and benefits of the alternatives 4 during normal plant walkdowns and Reporting and recordkeeping ' considered by the Commission.%e requirements. inspections. Routine maintenance of draft analysis is availebte for inspection seismic instrumenta tion ensures its in the NRC Public Docent Roosa,2130 gggg 1 operability durmg earthquakes, %e L Street NW. (Iower Level), Administrative prachoe and location of the seismic instrumentation Washington, P 1 Single copies of J a procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, is similar to that in the existing nuclear analysis are a,silable frora Mr. Imonard Combined licens( Early site permit, power plants. The proposed Soffer. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Emergency plannlag, Fees, inspection, amendments do not affect Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Limited work authorization, Nuclear l ' nonradiological plant efDuents and have Commwion. Washington, DC 30565, power plaats and reactors, Probabilistic no other environmentalimp set. . telephase (ael) des-aels, er Dr. Andrew elsk assessesnt, Prototype, Reector l
l l C814 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Ruhs siting criteria. Redress of site, Reporting population zone, and population center 50.61, 50.63, 2 64. 50.65. 50.71. 50.72. J and recordkeeping requirements, distance to read to read as follows: 50.80, 50.82, 50.90. 50.91, and Appendices Standard design. Standard design A. B. E. G. H, I, J. K. M, N, O. Q. R. and certification. 3 K2 Immona. 3,
. As used in this part. . . . . .
10 CFR Port M , , , , ,
- 4. In l 50.34, footnotes 6,7, and 8 are Nuclear power plants and reactors, Exclusion area means that area redesignated as footnotes 8,9 and 10.
Reactor siting criteria. surrounding the reactor, in which the paragraph (a)(1)is revised and For the reasons set out in the reactor licensee has the authority to paragraphs (a)(12) and (b)(10) are added ; preamble and under the authority of the determine all activities includin8 to read as follows: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, exclusion oi removal of personnel and the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, property from the area." Ibis area may 1 50.34 Contents of C'- 7:w tectmical as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC be t/aversed by a highway, railroad. or infonnamon. is proposing to adopt ti.c following m.terway, provided these are not so (a) * *
- amendments to 10 CFR parts 50,52 and close to the facility as to interfere with (1) A description and safety 100. normal operations of the facility and assessment of the site and a safety provided npropriate and effective assessment of the facility. Site PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENS4NG OF arrangemene are made to control traffic characteristics must comply with part j !
PRODUCTION AND UTIUZATION on the highway railroad, or waterway, 100 of this chapter. Special attention FACILITIES in case of emergecy, to protect the must be directed to plant design features 1.The authority citation for part 50 public health and safety. Residence intended to mitigate the radiclogical continues to read as follows: within the exclusion area shall normally consequences of accidents. In be prohibited. In any event, residents performing this assessment an 183 1 . tat 9 937 951 shall be subject to ready removalin applicant shall assume a fission product 954.955,956,as amended. sec. 234. 83 Stat' case of necessity. Activities unrelated to release 8 from the core into the 1244. as amended (42 U.S C 21312133. 2134, operation of the reactor may be containment assuming that the facility is . 2135, 2201, 2232. 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); seca, permitted in an exclusion area under operated at the ultimate power level 1 201, ae amended. 202. 208. 88 Stat.1241 as appropriate limitations, provided that no contemplated.The applicant shall amended. 1244.1246. (42 U.S.C 5841,5842. significant hazards to the public health perform an evaluation and analysis of Se tion 50 7 also issued under Pub L 95- + + + * . using the expected demonstrable 601. sec.10. 92 Sta t. 2951 (42 US.C 5a51). Section 50.10 also issued under secs.101,185, l'oWPopulation zone means the area containment leak rate and any fission 68 Stat. 936,955 as amended (42 US.C 2131, immediately surrounding the exclusion product cleanup systems intended to 2235). sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 area which contain residents, the total mitigate the consequences of the U S C 4332). Sections 5013,50.54(dd) and number and density of which are such accidents, together with applicable site 50.103 also issued under sec.108,68 Stat. 939. characteristics, including site that there is a reasonable probability
" that appropriate protective measures meteorology, to evaluate the offsite 35 55 and 50 56 a so ed de sec' radiological consequences. The 185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C 2235). Sections could be taken in their behalf in the 50.33a. 50 55a and Appendix Q also issued event of a serious accident.These evaluation must determine that:
under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 guides do not specify a permissible (i) An individuallocated at any point U.S C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50 54 also population density of total population on the boundary of the exclusion area issued under sec. 204, as Stat.1245 (42 US.C within this zone because the situation for two hours immediately following the 5844). Sections 50 58. 50.91 and 50.92 also may vary from case to case. Whether a onset of the postulated fission product ijsged und r Pub. L 97-415. 96 Stat. 2073 (42
, specific number of people can, for release would not receive a total SectiIn 50.78 also issued under sec.122. 68 example, be evacuated from a specific radiation dose to the whole body in Stat 939 (42 US.C 2152). Sections 50.8o-50.81 area, or instructed to take shelter, on a excess of 25 rem ' or a total radiation also issued under sec.184, es Stat. 954. as timely basis will depend on many amended (42 U SS 2234). Appendix F also factors such as location, number and
- h fission product edesse assumed for iE, issued unde: uc.137, es Stat. 955 (42 U.S<C size of highways, scope and extent of "*1 8on should be based upon a maroo;.cident.
2237) advance planning, and actual hypothesized or determined from coe;.derations of for the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958 as distribution of residents within the area. Possible accidental events. that we ad result in amended (42 U.S C 2273). Il 25. 50 4e (a) potential hazards not exceeded tv thou from any and (b). and 50.54(c) are issued under sec. accident consdered en&ble. Stch accidents have 161b. 66 Stat. 948 as amended (42 US.C Population center distance means the senesarban naumed to not in substenual 2201(b)); il 50.5. 5a7(a),5ato(aHel. Sa34 (a) distance from the reactor to the nearest "fe$,d[nCMje7,"s"l,$,'f h $sIon and le) 50.44(sHel. 50 46 (a) and (b). boundary of a densely populated center products. 50 47(b). 50 46(a). (c) (d), and let 50.494k containing more then 25,000 residents. ' W whole body dou of 24 rem nferred to 50 54(a)(i). (i)(1). (1)4n). (p) (q). (t). (v) and . . . . . above has been stated to correspond numence!!y to (y). M55(f). 50.55a(s). (cHel. (s), and (h). the once in a hfetime accidenial or emusency dose 50 59(cl. 50.00(a). 50.82(b). 50.04(b). 50.65 and 3. In l 50.8, paragraph (b)is revised to for neation workus which. eccordins to NCRP 50.80 (a) and (b) are issued under sec.1611. es read as follows: recommendations may be disresarded m the Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(i)); and determmanon of their re&ation exposure status ll 50 49(d). [h). and [j). 50.54(w). (2). (bb). I SOA informeleon aan-awi (we NBS handbook as dated lune s.1959). More (cc), and (dd). 50.55(ej. SG 59(b). 50 61(bh requirements: 0805 approval neendy. this whole body dose value has also been e e e e Provided as suidance for radiauon workers 50.62(b). 50.70(a). 50.71(aHe) and (e). 50.72(a), e 50.73 (a) and (b). 50.74, sa78. and Saso are P"f nams =*rsency wmca inv Ivins hfe arms inued under sec.1sto es Stat.950. as (b)ctionT.h* 'Ned ***" *cWUM = Pmmebon d larse popdauons whm c mquimments contained in this kww doen an not pnchcaWue EPA. Manual M emended (42 U.S'C 4201(o))' part appear in Il 50.30. 50.33. 50.33a~ Pmuctive Acuan Guida and Protective Actions for
- 2. In I 50.2. add in alphabetical ordar Nucteer incidents. Dr.ft. septemba 1sool However, sa34, sa34a. Sa35,50.36, sa36a sa4a, "*' " " ' " " " " # **
the definitions for exclusion area, low 50.4e. 5a54. Sass. Sassa. 50.50, saa0, "" "'" $' %
1 Federal Regineer / Vol. 57, No. 303 / *Aseed:y, October 20, 1982 / Proposed Rudes C815 l
, dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid this chapter. as partial conforumance to II Aospe j from lodir.e exposure. General Design CHiedon 2 of oppandix N evahsettons described in % sppendix I
'li) An individuallocated at any point A to this part, shall consply with the are within b ocope ofinvestigations j en the outer radius of a low population earthquake engineering critena of parmitted by I so.to(c)tt) of this chapter. ,
zone who is exposed to the radioactive appendix S to this part. However,if the cloud resulting from the postulated EE afssutaans l construction permit was issued prior to fission product release (during the entire itzm.mVE DATE OF DIE FINAL period ofits passage) would not receive RULE), the applicant shall comply with
^
)
- a ecmbined construction permit and oper' sting license ci total radiation dose to the whole body the earthquake engineering criteria in with conditiou for a nuclear power facility in excess of 25 rem or a total radiation Section VI of Appendix A to part 100 of luued pursuant to abpart C of part 52 of this dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid this chapter, chapter.
from lodine exposure. For purposes of . . . . . Design certgIopuan means a Comminion this evaluation, a low population zone appr val,luned pursuant to subpart B of part i boundary of 3.0 miles (measured from 5 in i 50 54 paragreph (ee)is added 52 of this chapter of a standard design for a the reactor center point) is assumed. I F*8d 88 I II W8- nuclear power facility. A danign so approved (iii) With respect to operation at the j 00.64 Cesumtions of Boonees, may be,,refermd to as a "cartiSed standards projected initial power level, the epplicant is required to submit d"g MEoMeM information rescribed in paragraphs (ee) For licensees of nuclear power Modon /OBE/is b vibratory ground motion (a)(2) throug (a)(8) of this section, as plants that have implemented the for which those featurn of the nuctur power earthquake engineering criteria in plant necessary for continued operation well as the information required by this piragraph,in support of the application Appendix S of this part, plant shutdown wuh theutpublic
-neewiu nskremain to thefunctional heale and neufety d for a construction permit. is red Me crneda in Pgaph Operating Buis Earthquake Ground Motion IV(a)(3) of Appendix S are exceeded.
Note. Referena is made to Technical h only ===~uted with plant abetdown and Prior to resuming operations, the inspection unlen specifically selected by the Information Document (UD)14M4 dated licensee shall demonstrate to the M1rch 23.1962, which contams a fission appucant as a design input. roduct release into containment which has Commission that no functional damage A response spemusv is a plot of the een used in past evaluations. ne finion has occurred to those features necessary maximum responsu (ameteration. veiccty, product release given in TID-14844 may be . for continued operation without undue or despis, aat) of a family ofidealmed used as a pomt of depanure upon risk to the health and safety of the single-degrw d.fredom oecillators as a consideration of severe accident research public. functico of the natural fmquncus of the insights available smce its issuance, upon ' ' " * "8 consideration of plant design features
- 6. na endix S to pad 50 is added to resPonee spectrum is calculated for a miended to mitigate the consequences of read ae '91ows: apecif ed vibratory anot>oninput et the accidents or upon charactenstics of a #CW86 n' eupPwts.
p:.rticular reactor. Copies of Technical Appaalx S to Part 5o-Earthquaks Information Document 14844 may be Cntada for Wlmar Power D' 8"/' 80"'d'"" #"N" A' C' ""# pgg Madon (SSE) is the vibretary ground motion obtained from the Commission's Public for which certain structures, systems, and Document Room. 2120 L Street. NW. (lower Generalinformation components mest be desiped to rs=nain level). Washington. DC, or by writing the functional Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. U.S. %is appendix applies to applicants who
,, ,3 Nuclear Reguistory Commission, apply for a design certification or combined Washington. DC ::o555 bcense pursuant to part 52 of this chapter or a Mo had d>e @2 of die Sofe
. . . . . construction permit or operating 11cenas Shutdown Earthuo&s GrrmadMouon or pursuant to part 50 of this chapter on or after surface deformadon are thoes necessary to (12) On or after (EFFECI1VE DATE """'.
[ EFFECTIVE DATE OF TIE FLNAL RULE]' OF THE FINAL RULE), appbcants who However,if the construction permit wu III
- I"8#Y I O' "**' ' " I""'
spply for a construction permit pursuant issued prior to [EFFECITVE DATE OF TIE "" to this part, or a design certification or N bi ty to abut down the reactor FINAL RULE). the operating license applicant and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, combined bcense pursuant to part 52 of shall comply with the earthquake engineering of this chapter, as partial conformance to criteria in Section VI of Appendix A to to (3) W capability to prevent or mitigate the General Design Criterion 2 of Appendix CFR part 100. consequenan of eccidents that could result A to this part, shall comply with ihe 1. Introduction in Potential offsite exposures comparable to carthquake engmeering criteria in the guideltne exposures of i Bo.s4(s)(1) of this Appendix S of this part. Each appbcant for a construction permit, chapter. (b) * *
- Operating licensa, design certification, or combtned license is required by Surface deformouon is distortion of soils or (10) On or after [EFFECITVE DATE I rocks at or near the ground surface by the OF THE FINAL RULE]' applicants who 'N**b I " '" * "' Processes of foldmg. faultmg. compmssion. M appj 3 yor an operating hcense pursuant Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to this part extension as a result of various earth forces.
to design nuclear power plant structures. to this part. or a design certification or Tectonic surface deformation is associated combined license pursuant to part 52 of systema, and components important to safety with earthquake proween. to withstand the effects of notaral phenomena, such as earthquakes, without IV Applicadon To Engineenng Design thyroid emposure es set forth an tius sectiam are loss of capability to perform their safety The following are pursuant to the seismic m' ended to unp!) that these numbers constitute functions. Also, e condition of all operating and geolot6c design basis requirements of ecceptable hmits for emergency doses to the public licenses for nuclear power plante, as paragraphs V (e) through (f) of appendix B to under accident conditions Ra'her. th a 25 rem specified in l 80.54(ee). is plant shutdown lf part 100 of this chapter: vnole body value and the 300 rem thyro.d enke the criteria in Paragraph IV(s)(3) of this hne been set fortt: in the sechan a reference (e) Vibratory GrouAd Motion. appendix are exceeded. (1) Safe 56utdown Earthquake Ground gn f a wt te pe t t et ad roe tor %ue cMeria impkment Gneral Duign Mo6on N Safe huMown Earequake a mdents. m order to assure that such designs Criterloo 2 insofar as it requires structures, Ground Mot >om must be characterized by provide assurance of low nak of pubbc exposure to systema, and components important to safety free fkeld ground motion response spectre et
, redishon, m the event of such occadena to withstand the effects of earthquakes the free ground surface ce hypothetical rock f ,m
+
c t 47318 Federal Register / Vd. 87. No. 20s / Tuesday, Octtber 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules outcrop as appropriate. In view of the limited continued operation without undue risk to the 9 Sg.1y Centants of appseettene.
- data available on vibretory ground motions health and safety of the public must remain of strong es.t- % It usually will be - (a)(1) The application must contain t functional and within applicable stress and apprope M h duip empctre hfwm m the information required by 50.33(a)-{d). ,
be smoothed spectro developed from an (3) Required plant Shutdown.' if vibratory the information required by I 50.34 ensemble of response spectre related to the ground motion exceeding that of b (a)(12) and (b)(10), and, to the extent 1 vibratory motions caused by more than one Operating Basia Earthquake Ground Motion approval of emergency plans is sought earthquake. At a minha the horisantal or if significant plant damage occurs. the under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
- Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion at licensee must shut down the nuclear power the information required by I 50.33 (g) the foundation level of the structures must be olent. prior to resuming operations, the and (j). and i 50.34(b)(6)(v).%e en appropriate response spectrum with a licensee must demonstrets to the Commission application must also contain a !
pe on a 3 uyacce that no functional damage has occurred to description and safety assessment of the so that,if the Safe Shutdown Earthquake those features necessary for continued site on which the facility is to be Ground Motion occurs, certain structures, operation without undue risk to the health located, with appropriate attention to , systems, and components will remain and safety of the public. features affecting facility design.The functional and within applicable stress and (4) Required Seismic Instrumentation. assessment must contain an analysis deformation limits. In addition to seismic Suitable instrumentation must be provided so and evaluation of the major structures, loads, applicable concurrent normal that the seismic response of nuclear pour Pl ant features important to safety can be systems, and components of the facility i opereting, functional, and accident. induced loads must be taken into account in the evaluated promptly after an earthquake. tg gat signi7icantIy on the I l design of these safety-related structures. (b) Surface Deformation. 'the potential for acceptability of the site under the, ; systems, and components. N design of the surface deformation must be taken into radiological consequence evaluation nuclear power plant must also take into account in the design of the nuclear power factors identified in i 50.34(a)(1) of this i account the possible effects of the Safe plant by providing reasonable assurance that chapter. Site characteristics must ! Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion on the in the event of deformation, certain comply with part 100 of this chapter. In facility foundations by ground disruption, structures, systems, and components will addition, the application should describe such as fissuring. lateral spreads, differential remain functional. In addition to surface the following: settlemen' liquefaction. and landsliding. as deformation induced loads, the design of - required in paragraph V(f) of appendix B to safety features must take into account
~
part 100 of this chapter. seismic loads, including aftershocks, and (vi) The seismic, meteorological. The required safety functions of stnactures, applicable concurrent functional and hydrologic, and geologic characteristics systems, and components must be assured accident. induced loads.The design of the proposed site: dunns and after the vibretory ground motion provisions for surface deformation must be * * * *
- associated with the Safe Shutdown based on its postulated occurrence in any Earthquake Ground Motion through design, direction and azimuth and under any part of
- 9. In 10 CFR part 52, appendix Q.
testing. or qualification methods.- the nuclear power plant. unless evidence Paragraph 8 is added to read as follows: indicates this assumption is not appropriate. struc ute ters tion eff a thee c ed and musMake into account the utimated ra" Appendix Q to Part 52-Pro-Application duration of vibretory motion. It is permissible Early Review of Site Suitability Issues at which the surface defonnation may occur. to design for strain limits ic exceu of yield , , , , , strain m some og these safety-re;sted (c) Seismically Induced Floods and Water Waves and Other Design Conditions. 8. Notwithstanding paragraph 7. any
$$',(,'",'[",d P" thqu ke C Seismically induced floods and water waves application for renewal of an early site ;
Motion and under the postulated concurrent from either locally or distantly generated permit is subject to a full early site permit ! loads, provided the necenary safety seismic activity and other design conditions review. functions are maintained. determined pursuant to paragraphs V (e) and (2) Operating Basis Earthquake Ground (f) of appendia B to Part 100 of this chapter PART 100-REACTO8 SITE CRITERIA , ; must be taken into account in the design of . Motio$n (i)
- e Operating Basis Earthquake Ground the nuclear power plant so as to prevent 10. The authority citation for part 100 l
Motion must be charactertred by response undue risk to the health and safety of the continues to read as follows: spectra.The value of the Operating Basis public. Authority: Secs.103.104.161.182. 68 Stat. Earthquake Ground Motion must be set to 936,397,948,963 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, one of the followiry choices: PART 82-EARLY SITE PERRAITS. 21M. 2201. 2232); sec. 201. as amended. 202. (A) One. third or .ess of the Safe Shutdown STANDARD DESIGN CERTIPICATIONS; as Stat.1242 as amended.1244 (42 U.Sc Earthquake Ground Motion.1he AND CORASWED s erwanese pOR sett 5842). requirements associated with this Operating NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS . Basis Earthquake Ground Motion in 11.The table of contents for Part 100 paragraph (a)(2Ni)(B)(l) can be satisfied 7.The authority citation for part 52 is revised to read as follows: without the applicant perfoaming explicit continues to read as follows: response or design analysu, or PART 100-REACTOR SITE CRITERIA [B) A value greater than one-third of the Authority: Secs.103.104.181.182.183.188 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion. 180. 98 Stat. 93& 948,961964. 968. 900, as Sec. Analysis and design must be performed to anwnded, sec. 234. es Stat.1244, as amended 100.1 Purpose. demonstrate that the requirements mesociated (42 U.SC 2133. 2301. 2232. 2233,2238, 2238, 100.2 Scope. with this Operating Basis Earthquake Ground 2282): secs. act. 202. 20s, se Stat.1242.1244. 100.3 Definitions. Motion in Paragraph (a)(2Ni)(B)(l) are 1248. as amended (42 U.S.C. Sect. 8842, sete). 100.4 Communications. satisfied. 'the design must take into account 100.8 Information collection requirements: soil-structure interaction effects and the 8. In 5 52.17 the introductory text of ogg ,pp,,,,g, expected duration of vibretory ground Paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (e)(1)(vi) motion. are revised to read as follows: Subpart A-Evoluomen Feetore ter ! (/) Wheasubjected to the effects of the Stenenery power Reester the AppResters Operating Basis Earthquake Ground Massen ' a cuadense is botas developed in Draft assulatory and ter Test Roseters in combination with normal operating loads. Cuade DC.telf. " Pro.Barthquake Flemning and all structures, systems, and campan=to of u-h.= Nesleer power Plant Operater Pese. 100.10 Factors to be considered when the nuclear power plant ascessary for Earthquaka Aseena evaluating sites.
l Federal Regleter / Vol. 57. No. 303 / T=ad y, October 20, 1982 / Nosed Rules 47317 100.11 Detenninstion of exclusion area, low population tone, and population center exclusion or removal of anel and 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville. distance. ' property from the area. area may Maryland. be treversed by a highway, railroad, or Subpert 5-Evoluenon Factors for waterway, provided these are not so 16. Section 100.8 la revised to read as 1 N follows:
-r power Reestor Sits AM close to the facility as to interfere with )
on or After (Effective Does of the Final NW8sl. normal operations of the facility and i 1680.8 hformadon oogecton provided appropriate and effective geremense: Otm approval 100.2o Factors to be considered when arrangements are made to control traffic evaluating sites. (a) De Nuclear Regulatory 100.21 Determination of exclusion area and on the highway, railroad, or waterway, Commission has submitted tne Population datnbution. in case of emergency, to protect the information collection requirements 100.22 Evaluation of potential man-related public health and safety. Residence contained in this part to the Office of basards. within the exclusion area shall normally Management and Budget (OMB) for be prohibited. In any event, residents I Appendix A--Seleadc and Geologic Siting shall be subject to ready removalin approval as required by the Paperwork Cdtede for Nuclear Power Plants Reduction Act of1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et case of necessity. Activities unrelated to Appendix E-Criteria for the Ral==6 and seq.). OMB has approved the oPerstion of the macts may be i ' Geologic Sitias of Nuclear Power Plants ce or Permitted in an exclusion area under information collection requirements contained in this part under control After l Effective Date of the Final Rule} appropriate limitations, previded that no number 315 MOB 3
- 12. Section 100.1 is revised to read as significant hazards to the public health
! follows: and safety will result. (b) The approved information Lowpopulation zone means the area collection requirements contained in this i 100.1 purpose l immediately surrounding the exclusion part appear in. appendix A and appendix i (a)This part sets forth standards for area which contains residents, the total B. ' evaluation of the suitability of proposed number and density of which are such 17. A heading for subpart A is added sites for stationary power and testing that there is a reasonable probability directl reactors subject to part 50 or part 52 of that appropriate protective measures g,gy,,,y before i 100.10 to read as this chapter. , (b) This part identifies the factors could be taken in their behalfin the event of a serious accident.These Subpert A -Evehedon Fwtwo for considered by the Commission in the guides do not specify a permissible r a Poww Reactw site evaluation of reactor sites and the population density or total population W8one Befwe (Eftweve Date of standards used in approving or within this zone because the situation the Final Rule] and for Test Reactora. disapproving proposed sites. may vary from case to case.Whether a
- 13. Section 100.2 is revised to read as specific number of people can, for 18. Section 100.101s revised to read as follows: follows:
example, be evacuated from a specific l 100.2 scope. area or instructed to take shelter, on a i 100.10 Factors to he constnered when (a) This part applies to applications timely basis will depend on many waluadas sees. filed under part 50 or part 52 of this factors such as location, number and size of highways, scope and extent of Factors considered in the evaluation chapter for early site permit, of sites include those relating both to the advance planning, and actual construction permit, operating license, distribution of residents within the area. proposed reactor design and the or combined license (construction Population center distance means the characteristics peculiar to the site. It is permit and operating end testmg reactors. license) for power distance from the reactor to the nearest expected that reactors will reflect boundary of a densely populated center through their design, construction and Ib) The site criteria contained in this containing more than about 25.000 operation an extremely low probability part apply primarily to reactors for for accidents that could result in release nsidents. of significant quantities of radioactive which there is significant operating experience. These site criteria can also Powerreoctor means a nuclear fission products. In addition, the site be applied to other reactor types, such reactor of a type described in i 50.21(b) location and the engineerad features or i 50.22 of this chapter designed to included as s Jeguards against the ce for reactors that are novelin design produce electrical or heat energy. and unproven as prototypes or pilot hazardous consequences of an accident, Testing reactor means a testing plants. For plants without significant focility as defined in 5 50.2 of this should one occur. should insure a low operating experience,it is expected that chapter. risk of public exposure. In particular, the these basic criteria will be applied in a Commission will take the following
- 15. Section 100.4 is added to read as manner that takes into account the lack follows: factors into consideration in determining of experience. In the application of these the acceptability of a site for a power or criteria which are deliberately flexible. I * "" .._-" testing reactor:
the safeguards provided, either site Except where otherwise specified in (a) Characteristics of reactor design isolation or engineered features, should this part, all cwnspondence, reports, and proposed operation including-- er ence o n e unicatio$s su t buantto including the proposed maximum power xf4. Section 10b.r$ide~ fotiow,. 3 is revised to rend as 10 CFR 100 should be addressed to the level and the nature and inventory of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, contained radioactive materia s. I 100.3 pefirWtions. ATTN: Document Control Desk, (2) ne extent to,which generally Washington, DC 20555, and copies sent ac6epted engineering standards are As used in this part: to the appropriate Regional Office and applied to the design of the reactor:
&clusion oreo means that area Resident inspector. Communications surrounding the reactor,in which the (3) ne extent to which the reactor and reports may be delivered in person incorporates unique or unusual features reactor licensee has the authority to d2termine all activities including at the Commission's offices at 2120 L having a significant bearing on the Street, NW., Washington, DC, or at probability or consequences of l
l 1
_ = ._ __ _ } l l 47318 Federal Register / Vol. 57, Ns, aos / Tuisday, October 20. 1992 / Proposed Rulzs i accidental release of radioactive the expected demonstrable leak rate reactor would not initiate an accident in l , materiale: from time containment and the another, the size of the exclusion area. ' l (4) The safety features that are to be meteorological conditions pertinent ta low population zone and population ! j engineered into the facility and those his site to derive an exclusion area, a center distance shall be fulfilled with !
- barriers that must be breached as a low population zone and population respect to each reactor individually. De i i result of an accident before a release of center distance. For the purpose of this envelopes of the plan overlay of the i radioactive material to the environassat analysis, which shall set forth the baals areas so calculated shall then be taken can occur, for the numerical values used, the as tlwir respective boundaries.
{ j (b) Population density and use applicant should determine the (2)If the reactors are laterconnected i characteristics of the site envimns, following- to the extent that an accident in one l including the exclusion area, low (1) An exclusion area of such size that reactor could affect the safety of population zone, and the population an individual located at any point on its operation of any other, the size of the center distance, boundary for two houre immediatelY exclusion area, low population zone and (c) Physical characterletics of the site, following onset of the postulated finales population center distance shall be including seismology, meteorology, product release would not receive a based upon the assumption that all geology, and hydrology. total radiation dose to the whole body in interconnected reactors emit their (1) Appendix A to part 100 Seismic excess of 25 rem e or a total radiation postulated fission product releases and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear dose is excess of 300 rem to the thy cid simultaneously. This requirement may l Power Plants." describes the nature of from lodine exposure. be reduced in relation to the degree of l ! investigations required to obtain the (2) A low population zone of such size coupling between reactors, the . geologic and seismic data necessary to that an individual located at any point probability of concomitant accidents determine site suitability and to provide on its outer boundary who is exposed to and the probability that an individual reasonable assurance that a nuclear the radioactive cloud resulting from the would not be exposed to the radiation power plant can be constructed and postulated fission product release effects from simultaneous releases.The j operated at a proposed site without (during the entire period ofits passage) applicant would be expected to justify i undue risk to the health and safety of would not receive a total radiation dosa to the satisfaction of the Commission l l the public. It describes procedures for *to the whole body in excess of 25 rem or the basis for such a reduction in the ' determining the quantitative vibratory a total radiation dose in excess of 300 sourm wrm. ,
- l. ground motion design basis at a site due tem to the tb (d from iodine exposure. (3) he applicant is expected to show to earthquakes and describes (3) A pop ation center distance of at that the simultaneous operation of information needed to determine least one and one-third times the multiple reactors at a site will not result I whether and to what extent a nuclear distance from the reactor to the outer
, in total radioactive effluent releases ! power plant need be designed to boundary of the low population zone. In beyond the allowable limits of 1 1 withstand the effects of surface faulting. applying this guide, the boundary of the applicable reguIauons. l (2) Meteorological conditions at the Population center shall be determined Note: For further guidance in developing site and in the surrounding area should - upon consideration of population l be considered. distribution. Political boundaries are not the exclusion ma. the low population zone. 1 controlling in the application of this and the population center distance, reference
**j, I
(3) Geological and hydrological I* * ! characteristica of the proposed site may guide. Where very large cities are g
,f,j,] , l t have a bearing on the consequences of involved a greater distance may be procedural method and a sample calculation I an escape of radioactive material from necessary because of totalintegrated that result in distences roughly reflecting j the facility. Special precautions abould Population dose consideration. current siting practica of the Comminion.
be planned if a reactor is to be located (b) For sites for multiple reactor The calculetione desenbed in Technical at a site where a significant quantity og facilities consideration should be given information Document 14sa4 may be used as radioactivp effluent mi8ht accidentally to the following: a point of departure for cons 6deretion of flow into nearby streams or rivers or -(1)If the reactors are independent to particular site requirements which may result might find ready access to underground the extent that an accident in one from evolution of the charactertstics of a j Particular reactor. its purpose and method of ] water tables. operetion. Copies of TechnicalInformation (d) Where unfavorable physical accidental meia. thei weend result in poisseet Document 14644 may be obtained from the bessede not exceeded by these frase may asundant characteristics of the site exist. the concedered cseditde. Such occidente beve senerally Commission a Public Document Room. 21 0 L proposed site mey nevertheless be been usumed w resett m embetsstal awtedown of Street.NW.(Lowerlevel). Washington DC -
, found to be acceptable if the design of the core with subsequent reines of apprecieble or by writing the Director of Nuclear Reactor the facility includes appropriate and queanuseafRam a pra h Regulation. U.S. Nuclear Reguletory adequate compensating engineering a m whole body dow of as run refend # Comminion. Wuhington. DC. 20665 abm comepoede numenceh a se one in a safegcards'n 100.11 is revised to read e r.s eccedental ei emmesmer sse ser rediense ufetume 20. Subpart B (ll 100.20-100.22)is
- 19. Sectio wake, which. uom&as m NCRP added to read as follows; follows: recammemetenene mer be awesorded in 6e Subpart B-Evakation Factors for 9100.11 D.eseredneten.of
.e. e.,aan . ea.stu.ssen area, fee'e
.e, . .n sent, newee.r. .sie. ne .es in a es E sesHenImakm emian-y M.pownares"eR.e. Qtor.'"m sne elstanos, esius for erreid ape we se est kriin thsee she a r9a anants On x After [ Effective (a) As an aid in evelesting a proposed 7bes,'E*" '"s"ee",p'es amusy Date of the Final Rule}
site, an applicant should assume a i 100.30 Peekte h be uneidered when desse a the pahenc under enshisms senemmme. 'o fission product release 8 from the oore; Raess.than as see whole bedr entus and es n "'8"a8"8 ,g,,,, vem thyveed venus have hee ut feee in een . s=6dm as esserums esiums which een tw meed la ** ne Commission will take the 8 h Assima peedust seismus asummed ler esse evalesales er senseur esens ett suspose to pseemeal following factors into consideration in calculansmo should he besse toes a meter samldmet senseur essadame of ensmM ise psahehent of boothnetsed for purposee et asu ammirene er . medime utsk af potes anpassa e, determining the acceptability of a alte postulated hem aussedneeses af paesels re6eesm. . for a stationary power reacter:
~
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rul:s 47819 (a) Population density and use overlay of the sum of the exclusion characteristics of the site environs, (b) De effects of offsite hazards must areas for each reactor. If the reactors have a very low probability of affecting including the exclusion area, the are interconnected to the extent that an the safety of the plant. %e likelihood population distribution, and site-related accident in one reactor would initiate an and consequences of offsite hazards characteristics must be evaluated to accident in another, the size of the must be estimated using data and determine whether individual as well as exclusion area for each reactor must be assumptions that are as realistic and societal risk of potential plant accidents determined on a case by case basis. representative of the site as is practical. is low, and that site-related (b)(1)If the offsite population density %e design bases for which the plant is characteristics would not prevent the at the proposed site exceeds the values designed must be specited.. development of a plan to carry out given in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 21 Appendix B to part 100 is added to suitable protective actions for members the site will not be approved by the read as follows: of the public in the event of emergency- Commission unless the applicant (b) The nature and proximity of man- demonstrates either Appendix B to Part les-Criteda for the related hazards (e.g., airports, dams. M-k and Geologic Siting of Nuclear transportation routes, military and (i) nat there are no reasonably available alternative sites with Powee Plants On ce After [ Effective Date chemical facilities) must be evaluated to determine whether the plant design can significantly lower population densities, N"*I M or Gemeenl hiermadoo az ,an whethe e ns other (10 That the proposed site is preferred This appendix apphas to s,phcant. who hazards is very low. over an alternative site with appiy ler ca enny .. vermit or combined (c) Physical characteristics of the site, significantly lower population density license pursuant to part s2 of this chapter, or including seismology, meteorology, on the basis of other considerations. a conatruction permit or operating bcense (2) De population density, including pursuant to part 50 of this chapter on or after geology, and hydrology, (1) Appendix B," Criteria for the weighted transient popujation, projected tr.r t ruu VE DATE OF '11fE FINAL RULE] However,if the construction pe mit was Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear at the time of initial site approval or lasued pnor to (EITTCTIVE DATE OF THE early site permit renewal should not Power Plants on or After [EFFE FINAL RULE). the operating license appbcant exceed 500 people per square mile DATE OF THE FINAL RIJLE)...CTIVE shall comply with the niemic and geologic describes the criteria and nature of averaged over any radial distance out to siting enteria in Appendix A to Part too of investigations required to obtain the 30 InHes (cumulahve population at a this chapter. geologic and seismic data necessary to distance divided by the total circular 7 , determine site su,itabiIity. ama at that distance). The projected (2) Meteorological characteristics of popul,ation density, including weighted GenealDnWrituion 2 of appendix A transient population,40 years after the to part 50 of this chapter requires that nuclear the site that are necessary for safety analysis or that may have an impact time of initial site approval or early site power plant structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed upon plant design (such as maximum pennit renewal should not exceed 1000 to withstand the effects of natural probable wind speed and precipitation) People per square mile averaged over phenornens such as earthquakes, tomadoes, must be identified and characterized. any radial distance out to 30 mues. hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches (3) Factors important to hydrological (3) Transient population must be without lou of capability to perform their
- l radionuclide transport (such as soil, included for those sites where a safety functions. it is the purpose of these sediment, and rock characteristics, significant number of people (other than omnia to ut forth the principal seismic and
- d "'
- adsorption and retention coefficients, those just passing through the area) work, reside part. time, or engage in { ,{,"j, ,,,;,, tion the ground water velocity, and distances to suitabihty of proposed sites for nuclear the nearest surface body of water) must mcreational activities an 1 are not power plants and the suitabihty of the plant be obtained from on. site measurements. Permanent residents of the area.The design bases established in consideration of The maximum probable flood along with transient population should be the seismic and geologic characteristics of the the potential for seismic induced floods considered for siting purposes by proposed sites.'
discussed in Appendix B must be weighting the transient population These. criteria n based on the current estimated using historical data. according to the fraction of the time the geophysical geological, and seismological transients are in the area, information concemma faults and earthquake B 100.21 Determenation of entham ares (c) Physical characteristics of the occurrences and effects.They will be revised and popuiation d6etrit>ution. proposed site, such as egress limitations as necessary when more complete (a) Each reactor facility must have an from the area surrounding the site, that inf rmation becomes available. exclusion area, as def'med in i 100.3(a) could pose a significant impediment to 14 Scope of this part. the development of emeyerty plans. (1) For sites with a single reactor These enteria, which spply to nuclear must be identified. power plants, describe the nature of the facility, the distance to the exclusion investigations required to obtain the geologic area boundary at any point (as I 100.22 Evaluetion of pokntial man- and seismic data necessary to determine site measured from the reactor center point) meated hasanta. suitabibty and provide reasonable assurance shall be at least 0.4 miles (640 meters). (a) Potential hazards to the plant from that a nuclear power plant can be (2) For sites with multiple reactor man related activities associated with constructed and operated at a proposed site facilities, consideration must be given to nearby transportation routes, military, without undue risk to the health and safety of the following:If the reactors are and industrial facilities must be the pubhc. Geologpc and seismic factors independent to the extent that an accident in one reactor would not
- identified and their potential effects yY[$'h',",,A" '7pN[,l'*8 evaluated. Potential hazards to the plant identified.
Initiate an accident in another, the size include such effects as explosions, fires, of each exclusion area must be toxic and/or flammable chemical , , determined with respect to each reactor releases, dams (both upstream and individuall). Th3 exclusion area for the downstream), pipeline accidents, and s n.ed w.miemnd .ddinon.1 a -.an are prms.d in resui.iorr suides and site must then be taken as the plan aircraft crashes and impacts. .tendard review pn.e cuans asi h.
_____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ 47330 Federal Register / Vel 57. No. 203 /.Tuesdry, Oceber so.1992 / Proposed Ruhs 3 N investigations desertbed to this Com6isedlimase means a enesbined directly by fault movement and is disunct appendas are within the scope of construction permit and operating liosase from nontectonic types of ground disruptions. Investigatione permitted by 6 30.10(c)(1) of with conditions for a nuclear power facility such as landslides, fissures and cretere. this chapter. inued pursuant to subpart C of part 52 of this Each applicant for a construction permit, . chapter. IY' A89"If'dtnveerigotiorre operstmg license, early site permit. or A determln/et/c source eenhgucke (DSE/ le De geological, seismological, and
. corabined license shall investigste all solemic the larpet earthquake that ces reasonably be engineering characteristice of a site and its and geologic factore that may effect the expected to occur in a given seismic source in environs must be investigated in sufficient design and operation of the proposed nuclear the curmot tectonic reguns. and le to be osed scope and detail to permit an adequate power plant irrespective of whether each in a determimetic analysia. It is generally . evaluation of the propo6ed site, to provide
! factors are explicitly included in these based oc the maximum histoncal earthquake sufficient information to support both criteria. Both deterministic and probabilistic associated with that seismic source, unless probabilletic and deterministic evaluatione evaluations must be conducted to determine recent geological evidence warrante a larger required by these enteria, and to permit eine suitabdaty and meismic desip earthquake. or where the rate of w...- adequate engmeeting solutions to actual or i requirements for the site. Additional of earthquakes indicates the likelihood of potential geologic and seieinic effects at the investigebons or more conservative larger than the largest historical event. proposed site.na size of the region to be determinettone that those included in these Early Site Arimit means a Co"" investigated and the type of data pertinent to criteria may be required for sites located in . approvalissued pursuant to subpart A of the Investigatione must be determined by the t areas with complex geology, recent tectonic Part 52 of this chapter, for a alte or sitee fo' nature of the region surrounding the proposed
~
deformetion. or in areas of high seismicity. lf one or more nuclear power facilit6es. ette. W investigatione must be camed out an applicant believes that the particular A / buff is a tectonic structure along which by a review of the pertinent literature and seismic and geologic characteristice of a efte dafferential slippage of the adjacent earth indicate that some of these criterta, or field investigatione se identified in parag sph meteriale has occurred parallel to the frecture IV(e)through(e)of thle appendix. portions thereof. need not be satisfied, the Pl ane. A fault may have souge or breccia (a) Vibratory Ground Motion.
, applicant shall identify the specific sections between its two walle and laciudes any
& purpose of these investigations is to of these criteria la the license application and masociated monochnal flemure or other obtain infunnation needed to assess the Safe present supporting data to clearly leetify such similar geologic structural featwo. Shutdown Earthquake ground motion. The departurve. N Director, Office of Nuclear ne eggnitude of an earthquake is a setendc sources (capable tectonic sources Reactor Regulation approves any deviations, measure of the size of an earthquake and is and seismogenic sources)in the site region g related to the energy released in the form of setemic waves. Magnitude means the must be identified and evaluated. &
As used in these criteria: deterministic source earth 9uakes must be numerical value ce a standardised scale ouds A capable fecionic source le a tectonic as, but not limited to. Moment Magnitode, evaluated for each seismic source. structure that can generate both earthquakes Surfem Wave Mapitade, Body Wave **""I*8"#I*** *** d I and tectonic surfem deformation each as PufPue d em inmugan"one is m Magniende, or Richter Magnitode scales. faulting or folding at or near the surface la A response spectam to a plot of the asene the pownHal fw tectonic surface the present seismotectonic regirne. It le maximum raag-aaa [ acceleration, velocity, mahn near 6e sim and. d any, to e cherectertzed by at least one ofihe following or displacement)of a family ofidealised extent the nuclear power plant needs to be characteristics: single. degree-of-freedom oscillatore se a deen (= eene occurences (1) ne presence of surface ce near-surface function of the natural frequencies of the ICW"d****IC M"*d" > deformation of landforms or geologic dnesite oscillatore for a given damping value. The De purpose of these investigations le to of recurring nature within the last response spectrun le calculated for a aseese the potential for surface deformatione approximately man nnn y,are or at least one specified vibratory motion input at the not directly attributable to tactonice such as in the last approximately SOADO years. oscillators'supporte, those associated with subsidence or collapes (2) A reasonable associatica with one se ne Sofe Shuidown Korthqua&e CM as in karet terrain. glacially induced offsets. more large earthquakes or sustained Motion (SSE/ is the vibratory ground enden and powth faulttre Paragraph IV(b) earthquake activity that le somally for which certain structures, systeens, and conceme investigatione required for tectonic , accompanied by significant surfees components.must be designed to remain surface defwmation est can occur deformation. functional. coseisencally. Nontectonic phenomena can (3) A structoral aseadation with a capable A seismic source le a general term referring topmeent significant surface displacement tectonic source having characteristice in to both seismogenic sources and capable hasards to a site, but can in many caen be paragraph 111(1) of thle definittom so that tectonic sourose, monitored, controlled, or mangeted by movement on one could be reasonably A seisecyenic socitw le a portion of the engineering, or it can be demonstrated that expected to be - n d by movesneat on earth that has uniform earthquake potential conditions that were the cause of the the other. (unw deterdamsource se and ' , ' - - to no longer exist. Geological and in some casse. the geologic eyklence of fregaeacy of recurrence) distinct the geophysical lovestigatione must be carried poet activity at or amar the poemd surface surrounding area. A r"- _: source will out to identify and define montactonic elong a particular capable tectonic source not cause surface displaces'enta. deformation features and, where poonble, may be obscured at a particular ette. nie Setemosenic sources cover a wide range of distinguish them from tectonic surface might occur, for example, et a site haetag a poselbihties from a wellalefined tectonic displacements. If such distinction le not deep overburden For these enees, evidence structure to simply a large region of diffese possible, the questionable features must be may exist elsewhere along the structore frees 'seiendcity (seismotectonic province) y- t treated as tectonic deformation. which an ovelnettaa of he characterlettoe la to be characterised by tlw name g (d) SeismicaDy Induced Floods and Water the vicinity of the site can be reasonably recurrence model A seismogenic source le Weves, based. his evidence meet be used in also characterteed by its levolvement ha the De perPoes of these investigetiene le to determinius whether the structure le a current tectonic sugime se reseated in the aseems the potential for nearby and distant capeble teceonic seures within this defineteen. Que (approidentely the last 3 udh== he and other wevos that could affect NotwiW- ' . paragraph (1). (2) and (3) years) history. coastal ettee. la6.aded in this essessment le of this deflaition. structurelassociat6en of a Surface defbreedios le distortion of seile er the determinettom of the potential for slides otractee with geologic stsecoural festesse rocks ator near the poemd surface by the of earth material that could generate waves. that are geolog6cally old (at leest pse. pmcassee of folding, fealting, compreselen, or Inferonation regardmg distaat and locally Quaternary) such as many of those found in es tonolon as a result of verloes earth forose. generated waves or tsunamie that have the Eastern reglon of the United States must, Tectonic earface defbrastian le asenciated effected the site, and evallable evidence of la the abecame of consisting evh with earthquake pressesse, rumsp and drewdown assochted with these d a= that the strecame is met a SupposeJieeftig is difterential yound esenta, shall be snelysed. Imc.alisatures of capable n-e* seasse enthis thle detenien. *=r&---* et er anae to usadese eenese anastal er undernes topeyephy which could T *%,,--c.r- *'M'g *9 34 h- -g,g ag th-pg.,s.mmr-W"* " F-
- 4*
Federal Register / Vol 87. No. aos / 'Desedey. October 3D,19e2 / Proposed Rules 47321 modify wave runup or drewdown snest be essent and assure of surfees esforunneens (I) Opereesig Basis Earthquake Cesund ceneidered. For sites laceaed meerlakse or ummst be abesentensed. Modee(O E). rivers, tnelysee amet include the potential for le) Deterasiandon of Design Bases fee - (3) Regatised Plant Sheldown. seismically induced floods or weter weves, Seismically laduesd Floods and Water (4) Regelred Seismic Instrumsetation. I as, f:r exemple, from h failure during en Weves. earthquake of a dem upstroom or fram alides (b) Surface Deformation i %e eine of esinencelly induced Doods and (c) 8eissaiselly Indeoed Floods and Weter of c:rth or debne into a s.earby lake. water weves that osuld eNoct e site from Weves and Other Design Canditione. (2) Volcanic Activity, either locally or distantly generated seismic , The purpose of these investigations is to activity samst be deserusined, taking lato Deted at Rockville. Maryland, this 13th day l castes the potential volcanic hasards he consideration that results of the investigation of October test I would cdversely affect the site. required byperegraphIV(d)of this For the Nuclear Reguletary Comminion. l eppendix. . Samuel J. Unlik, V, Seismic and Geologic Design Bases (f) Determination of Other Design Secretary of the Commission. (sj Detenninetion of Deterinimistic Source Conditions. i Earthquakes. (1) Soil Stability. Vibestory ground motione {FR Doc. es-25240 Filed 10-14Ht2; 4.45 am) l For each seismogenic and capable tectonic detsemined in peregraph V(b) can oevee soll emes caos sue.ew source identified in paragraph IV(a). the instability frase ground disruption such as deterministic source earthquake must be fissunng, la teral spreeds, differential evslutted. At a minimum, the deterministic setdement, and liquefaction. w' hich is not source serthquake must be the largest directly related to surface faulting. Geological C00ft000fTY FLffUfES TURAD000G historiest earthquake in each source. The feetures that could affect the foundations of C0000AIS80004 uncsttanty in determining the deterministic the proposed nuclear wer plant structures source earthquakes must be scoounted for in must be evaluated, t into account the 17 CFR Port 4 the probabihetic anslysii information conceming physical F--" hh b Determmation of the Ground Motion at {d ff oft vibre nd Cerisin Otherwise Regulated The gmund motion at the site must de motion determined in paragraph V(b). Persons From Wie Definition of the estimated from all earthquakes. includmg the (2) Slope stability. Stebility of all slopea, both astural and artificial, must be Term t - - Mi ool P Operator" k wi scY ,Yh could h "n ly considered, the failure of wh;ch could Aseleev: Commodity Futures Treding < l cffect the site using both probabilistic and adversely affect the nuclear power plant. An Commission. deterministic approaches in the determmistic essessment must be made of the potential approach. the deterministic source effects of erosion er deposition and of ACTsose: Proposed Rulamalmne earthquake associated with each source must '",') "g," be assumed to occur at the part of the source 3 [" "O guessaAftV:'!11e Commodity Futures whkh is closest to the site. Appropriate information concerning the physical Trading Commission (" Commission" or
* " properties of the matenals underlying the site "CFIU")is proposing to amend e to acc n fo in and the effects of the vibratory ground Regulation 4.5 which excludes certain estimatmg the ground motion for the site. The motion determined in paragraph V(b). Otherwise regulated persons from the ground motien is defined by both honzontal (3) Cooling water supply. Aasurance of an definition of the term " commodity pool and vertaal free-field ground motion ad uste coohng water supply for emergency response spectra the free ground surface or and ong-term shutdown decay heat removal operator" ("CPO"), The rule currently cons n ' permits such persons to maintain this hypothetical rock outcrop, as appropriate. *ha] po ),d (c) Deterrmnation of Safe Shutdown
,9 t a exclusion to the extent that,inte,r olia, Earthquake Grounti Mouon. information conmming the physical (1) the commodity futures or optiot.
The Safe Shutdown Earthquake Geound properties of the materials underlying the Positions which they assume are either Motion is charactenzed by free-field ground site, the effects of the Safe Shutdown bona fide hedging positions or long
*'" ' ' g nd Earthquake Ground Motion, and the design positions which are " incidental to a urfa e p5 hen n c'k out rop basis for tectonic and nontectonic surface qualifying entity's activities in the apprepnate. Dese spectra are developed deformat, ion. Consideration of river blockage underlying cash market" and (2) the from or cornpared to the ground motions " ' k fh f ng a r coast plb aggregate initial margins and premiums
) determ ned in paragraph V(b) Deterministic for all such positions does not exceed l and pnmaubstic seismic hazerd evaluations subsidence, tsunami runup and drawdown, l rnust be used to assess the adequacy of the and the failure of dams and intake structures five percent of the fair market,value of l S.fe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Mouon. must be included in the evaluation where the entity's assets. The Commission appropriate. proposes to permit the assumption of The anm! probabsLt> of exceedmg the Safe Shi,tdowr Earthquake Ground Motion is (4) Distant structures Those etnr:tures that commodity futures and option positions considered ac:eptabh low if it is less than are not located in the immediate vicinity of that are neither hedging nor " incidental" the site but are safety-related mest be the tr+d.an annual probabibty computed to the extent that the market exposure from the current [EEFECTIVE DATE OF THE designed to withstand the effect of the Safe attained through such positions Shutdown Earthquake Grotmd Motion. ne FIN AL. Rl:11] pop' lation of nuclear power design basis for surface faulting must be Predominate a qualifying eentity,does overall not p:ents. determined on a basis comparable to that of market exposure. The Commission also At a mm' mum. the horizontal Safe the nuclear power plant, taking into account Proposes to (1) remove the current Shutdwn Ecrthquake Ground Motion at the the material underlying the structures and the restriction that permits assumption of foundaten lesel of the structures must be an different locatsoes with respect to that of the only long non. hedging positions and (2) appropnate response spectrum with a peak site. g*ound acce!cration of at least 0.1g modify the five percent margin / premium i (d) Determmation of Need To Design for W APP /icofion To Engineering Design limitation to exclude margins on bona . l Surface Tectose and Nxtectonic Pursusnt to the seismic and geologic design fide hedging positions from computation
- Deformations. basis requirements of peregraphs V(*) of the five percent, j Sufficient geological seismologir.A and through tf). opplications to engineering design OAtss
- Comments must be received by geophysical data must be provid u to clearly are contained in Appendix S to part 80 of this December 4.1992.
I estabbah that surfste deformation need not chapter for the fotlowing areas: be taken into secount in the design of a (a) Vibratory ground motion. maam****** Comments should be sent nuclear power plant. When surface [1] Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground to the Commodity Futures Tradmg deformation is likely, an assessment of the M hson (SSE). Commission. KG3 K Street. NW., l l I l C ._. _ _ _ i
AP9 3 -1 PPR
/r. ag'o,, ^
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 1992 8 o 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Division 1 m E E Draft DG-4003 , e,
! DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE i
i s, * " * * /
Contact:
L. Soffer (301)492-3916 l l 9 l DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-4003 (Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 4.7) % /k}D a GENERAL SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
\<fA W4Q.,
%g s Y N
w
+4
[k ?q I % l d $??lQ $% O d s f Ad
~
*kT# I b
4Ver, e This regulatory guide is being issued in draft form to involve the public in the early stages of the develop-ment of a regulatory position in this area. It has not received contplete staff review and does not represent an official NRC staff position. Public comments are being solicited on the draft guide (including any implementation schedule) and its associ. ated regulatory analysis or value/ impact statement. Comnents should be accompanied by appropriate supporting d a ta . Written comments may be submitted to the Regulatory Publications Branch, DFIPS, Office of Administra-tion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Comments will be most helpful if received
}by March 24,1993.
Requests for single copies of draft guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distri. bution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Se: tion. 430ygo egg
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 1. Geology / Seismology ...................... 4
- 2. Atmospheric Extremes and Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 3. Popul ation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 4. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 Fl ood i ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
)
4.2 Water Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 4.3 Water Quality ...................... 11
- 5. Ecological Systems and Biota ................. 12
- 6. Land Use and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1 National Park Service ..................16 6.2 National Park Service Preservation Program . . . . . . . . 16 6.3 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.4 Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
- 7. Industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities . . . . . . 17 ;
- 8. Socioeconomics ........................ 18 i
- 9. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. REGULATORY POSITION ........................ 19
- 1. Geology / Seismology ...................... 19
- 2. Atmospheric Extremes and Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
- 3. Population Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
- 4. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.1 Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2 Water Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3 Water Quality ...................... 22 4.4 Fission Product Retention and Transport ......... 22
- 5. Ecological Systems and Biota ................. 23
- 6. Land Use and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
- 7. Industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities . . . . . . 25
- 8. Socioeconomics ........................ 27
- 9. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
- 10. Emergency Planning ...................... 27 D. IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX A - SAFETY-RELATED SITE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ........ A-1 APPENDIX B - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING SITE l SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 l REGULATORY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RA-1 iii
A. INTRODUCTION The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 places on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of pri- I vate nuclear facilities from the standpoint of public health and safety. Title 10, Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," of the Code of Federal Regula-tions requires that the population density; use of the site environs, includ- I ing proximity to man-made hazards; and the physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology, be taken into account in determining the acceptability of a site for a nuclear power reac-tor. Seismic and geologic site criteria for nuclear power plants are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 establishes the minimum requirements for the principal design criteria for water-cooled nuclear power plants; a number of these criteria are directly related to site characteristics as well as to events and conditions outside the nuclear power unit. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852), implemented by Executive Order 11514 ar.d the Council on Environmental Qual-ity's Guidelines of August 1,1973 (38 FR 20550), requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare detailed environmental statements on pro-posed major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require the Federal agency to consider, in its decision-making process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major action and the available alternative actions, including alternative sites. Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, sets forth the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policy and procedures for the prepa-ration and processing of environmental impact statements and related documents pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA. The limitations on the Commission's authority and responsibility pursuant to the NEPA imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 916) are addressed in an Interim Policy Statement published in the Federal Reaister on January 29, 1973 (38 FR 2679). l This guide discusses the major site characteristics related to public hm in f..ty and environmental issues that the NRC staff considers in determining the suitability of sites for light-water-cooled (LWR) nuclear 1
e l power stations.* The guidelines may be used by applicants in identifying suitable candidate sites for nuclear power stations. The decision that a I station may be built on a specific candidate site is based on a detailed evaluation of the proposed site and a cost-benefit analysis comparing it with alternative sites as discussed in Regulatory Guide 4.2, " Preparation of l Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations." Chapter 9 of Regulatory Guide 4.2 discusses the selection of a site from among alternative sites. Although it is recognized that planning methods ** will differ among applicants, Chapter 9 states that the applicant should pre-sent its site selection process as the consequence of an analysis of alter-natives whose environmental costs and benefits were evaluated and compared and then weighed against those of the proposed site. This guide is intended to assist applicants in the initial stage of selecting potential sites for a nuclear power station. Each site that appears to be compatible with the general criteria discussed in this guide will have to be examined in greater detail before it can be considered to be a "candi-date" site, i.e., one of the group of sites that are to be considered in selecting a " proposed" or " preferred" site.*** This guide should be used only in the initial stage of site selection because it does not provide detailed guidance on the various relevant factors and format for ranking the relative suitability or desirability of possible sites. This guide provides a general set of safety and environmental critaria which the NRC staff has found to be valuable in assessing candidate site identification in specific licensing cases.
*For the purposes of this guide, nuclear power station refers to the nuclear reactor unit (s), nuclear steam supply, electric generating units, auxiliary systems, including the cooling system and structures such as docks that are located on a given site, and any new electrical transmission towers and lines erected in connection with the facilities. ** Site selection methodologies that have been used by the nuclear power industry are described in " Nuclear Power Plant Siting, A Generalized Process," Atomic Industrial Forum, August 1974, National Environmental Studies Project, R-1578. ***See Chapter 9 of Regulatory Guide 4.2 for a discussion of site selection procedures. The " proposed" site submitted by an applicant for a construc-tion permit is that site chosen from a number of " candidate" sites that the applicant prefers and on which the applicant proposes to construct a nuclear power station.
2
The informaticn needed to evaluate potential sites at this initial stage of site selection is assumed to be limited to that information which may be obtained from published reports, public records, public and private agen-cies, and individuals knowledgeable about the locality of a potential site. Although in some cases the applicants may have conducted on-the-spot inves-tigations, it is assumed here that these investigations would be limited to reconnaissance-type surveys at this stage in the site selection process. The safety issues discussed include geologic / seismic, hydrologic, and meteorological characteristics of proposed sites; potential effects on a sta-tion from accidents associated with nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities; and population densities in the site environs as they relate to protecting the general public from the potential radiation hazards of postulated serious accidents. The environmental issues discussed concern potential impacts from the construction and operation of nuclear power stations on ecological systems, water use, land use, the atmosphere, aesthetics, and socioeconomics. This guide does not discuss details of the engineering designs required
)
to ensure the compatibility of the nuclear station and the site or the i 's detail d information required for the preparation of the safety analysis and environmental reports. In addition, nuclear power reactor site suitability ar it may be affected by the Commission's materials safeguards and plant pro-tection requirements for nuclear power plants is not addressed in this guide. Guidance concerning the siting of offshore nuclear stations, high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR), liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR), test reactors, and advanced siting concepts such as underground sites and nuclear energy centers is not included in this guide. A significant commitment of time and resources may be required to select a suitable site for a nuclear power station, including safety and environ-mental considerations. Site selection involves considerations of public health and safety, engineering and design, economics, institutional require-ments, environmental impacts, and other factors. The potential impacts of the construction and operation of nuclear power stations on the physical and wl 3
l l l l l biological environment and on social, cultural, and economic features
- are usually similar to the potential impacts of any major industrial facility. The safety requirements are primary determinants of the suitability of a site for l
nuclear power stations, but considerations of environmental impacts and public l acceptance of nuclear power stations are also important and need to be evaluated. l In the site selection process, coordination between applicants for nuclear power stations and various Federal, State, and local agencies will be useful in identifying potential problem areas. Appendices A and B of this guide summarize the important safety-related and environmental considerations for assessing the site suitability of nuclear ! power stations. B. DISCUSSION l l l
- 1. GE0 LOGY / SEISM 0 LOGY Nuclear power stations must be designed to prevent the loss of safety-related functions. Generally, the most restrictive safety-related site char- !
acteristics considered in determining the suitability of a site are surface faulting, potential ground motion and foundation conditions (including lique-faction, subsidence, and landslide potential), and seismically induced floods. Criteria that describe the nature of the investigations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to determine site suitability are provided j by Appendix B, " Criteria for the Seismic and Geological Siting of Nuclear Power Plants on or after [ EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REGULATION]" to 10 CFR Part 100. Safety-related site characteristics are identified in Section 2.5 of Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition)," and Regulatory Guide 1.59,
" Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants." In addition to geologic and
- Biological and physical environment includes geology, geomorphology, surface I and ground-water hydrology, climatology, air quality, limnology, water qual '
ity, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation. Social and cultural features include scenic resources, recreation resources, archeological / historical resources, and community resources including land use patterns. From
" Development and the Environment: Legal Reforms to Facilitate Industrial i Site Selection," final report by the Committee on Environmental Law, l American Bar Association, February 1974.
4 L
l l seismic evaluation for assessing seismically induced flooding potential, Sec-I tion 2.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 and Regulatory Guide 1.59 describe hydro-logic criteria, including coincident flood events that should be considered.
- 2. ATMOSPHERIC EXTREMES AND DISPERSION The potential effect of natural atmospheric extremes (e.g., tornadoes
- and exceptional icing conditions **) on the safety-related structures of a nuclear station must be considered. However, the atmospheric extremes that may occur at a site are nct normally critical in determining the suitability of a site because safety-related structures, systems, and components can be designed to tthstand most atmospheric extremes.
The atmospheric characteristics at a site are an important consideration in evaluating the dispersion of radioactive effluents both from postulated
,)
e'~N
- Refer to Regulatory Guide 1.76, " Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power l Pl ant s . "
a
** Refer to Section 2.4.7 of Regulatory Guide 1.70.
5
i accidents and from routine releases in gaseous effluents.* In addition to meeting the NRC requirements for the dispersion of airborne radioactive mate-rial, the station must meet State and Federal requirements of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (PL 91-604). This is unlikely to be an important consid- l eration for nuclear power station siting unless (1) a site is in an area where I existing air quality is near or exceeds the limits set under the Clean Air Amendments, (2) there is a potential for interaction of the cooling system l plume with a plume containing noxious or toxic substances from a nearby facility, or (3) the auxiliary generators are operating. l The atmospheric data necessary for adequate assessment of the potential I dispersion of radioactive material from design basis accidents are described l in Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs." Models and ) assumptions used for evaluating the potential radiological consequences of l certain postulated accidents are provided in Regulatory Guides 1.3, "Assump-tions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors"; 1.4, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Acci-dent for Pressurized Water Reactors"; 1.5, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Steam Line Break Accident for
- Routine releases of airborne rac.oactive material must be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable." [See 10 CFR 20.1101.]
The proposed Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 would set forth the requirements for design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents from nuclear power reactors. Section 50.36a further provides that, in order to keep power reactor 1 effluent releases as low as practicable, each license authorizing operation of I such a facility will include technical specifications regarding the establish-ment of effluent control equipment and reporting of actual releases. Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50, promulgated May 5, 1975 (40 FR 19439), provides numerical guidance for design objectives and technical specification requirements for limiting conditions of operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. The following regulatory guides were prepared to assist in application of the numerical guidance in Appendix I: 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reac-tor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I"; 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors"; 1.112, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors"; 1.113, " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and > Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I." 6
I Boiling Water Reactors"; 1.24, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential I Radiological Consequences of a Pressurized Water Reactor Radioactive Gas Stor-age Tank Failure"; and 1.25, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential i Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors." However, the atmospheric assumptions in the guides may not be appropriate for sites with 1 unusual atmospheric conditions. In the evaluation of potential sites, onsite atmospheric reconnaissance can determine if the atmospheric conditions at a site are adequately repre-sented by the available atmospheric data for the area. Canyons or deep val-leys frequently have atmospheric variables that are substantially different from those variables measured for the general region. Other topographical features such as hills, mountain ranges, and lake or ocean shorelines can affect the local atmospheric conditions at a site and may cause the dispersion characteristics at the site to be less favorable than those in the general area or region. More stringent design or effluent objectives way be required in such cases. While it is the concentration of radioactivity in the atmosphere at any
) distance from the point of release, x(Ci/m'), that must be controlled, the ratio y/Q, where Q(Ci/sec) is the rate of release of radioactivity from the source, has become a commonly evaluated term because it depends only on atmospheric variables and distance from the source.
If under assumed unfavorable atmospheric conditions (see Regulatory Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants") the dispersion of radioactivity released following a design basis accident is insufficient at the boundary of the exclusion area (see the following section, " Population Considerations") and the outer boundary of the low population zone, the plant design would not satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34(a)(1). Thus, the design of the station would be required to include appropriate and adequate compensating engineered safety features. In addition, meteorological conditions are to be determined for use in the environmental report required in 10 CFR Part 51 and for comparison to the meteorology assumed in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for a certified plant design (if such a design is to located at the site) or used in the site-specific PRA for a custom plant at the site. G 7
1 Local fogging and icing can result from plumes discharged into the atmosphere from cooling towers, lakes, canals, or spray ponds, but can gen-erally be acceptably mitigated by station design and operational practices. However, some sites have the potential for severe fogging or icing because of local atmospheric conditions. For example, areas of unusually high moisture content that are protected from large-scale airflow patterns are most likely to experience these conditions. The impacts are generally of greatest poten-tial importance relative to transportation or electrical transmission corridors in the vicinity of a site. A cooling system designed with special consideration for reducing drift may be required because of the sensitivity of the natural vegetation or the crops in the vicinity of the site to damage from airborne salt particles. The vulnerability of existing industries or other facilities in the vicinity of the site to corrosion by drift from cooling tower or spray system drift should be considered. Not only are the amount, direction, and distance of the drift from the cooling system important, but the salt concentration above the natural background salt deposition at the site is also important in assessing drift effects. None of these considerations are critical in evaluating the suitability of a site, but they could result in special cooling system design requirements or in the need for a larger site to confine the effects of drift l within the site boundary. The environmental effects of salt drift are most severe where saline water or water with high mineral content is used for j condenser cooling. I Cooling towers produce cloudlike plumes that vary in size and altitude ; depending on the atmospheric conditions. The plumes are often a few miles in length before becoming dissipated, but the plumes themselves or their shadows l could have aesthetic impacts. Visible plumes emitted from cooling towers in the vicinity of airports could cause a hazard to aviation. 1
- 3. POPULATION CONSIDERATIONS A reactor licensee is required by 10 CFR Part 100 to designate an exclusion area and to have authority to determine all activities within that l area, including removal of personnel and property. In selecting a site for a l
nuclear power station, it is necessary to provide for an exclusion area in - which the applicant has such authority. Transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, and waterways are permitted to traverse the exclusion 8 1
area provided (1) these are not so close to the facility as to interfere with normal operation of the facility and (2) appropriate and effective arrange-ments are made to control traffic on the highway, railroad, or waterway in the case of emergency to protect the public health and safety. As set forth in 10 CFR Part 100, nuclear power station sites should be located in areas with low population density. If the population density of a proposed site (1) exceeds 500 people per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles or (2) is projected to exceed 1000 people per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (50 kilometers) 40 years after the time of site approval, the applicant should give special attention to alternative sites.
- 4. HYDROLOGY 4.1 Floodina Criteria for evaluation of seismically induced floods are provided in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100. Regulatory Guide 1.59 describes an acceptable
' / method of determining the design basis floods for sites along streams or rivers and discusses the phenomena producing comparable design basis floods for coastal, estuary, and Great Lakes sites. The effects of a probable maxi-mum flood (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.59), seiche, surge, or seismically induced flood such as might be caused by dam failures or tsunami on station safety functions can generally be controlled by engineering design or protec-tion of the safety-related structures, systems, and components that are identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification." For some river valleys, flood plains, or areas along coastlines, there may not be sufficient information to make the evaluations needed to satisfy the criteria for seismically induced flooding. In such cases, study of the potential for dam failure, river blockage, or diversion in the river system or distantly and locally generated sea waves may be needed to determine the suitability of a site. In lieu of detailed investigations, Regulatory Guide 1.59 and Section 2.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 present acceptable analytical techniques for evaluating seismically induced flooding. Lj 9
4.2 Water Availability Nuclear power stations require reliable sources of water for steam condensation, service water, emergency core cooling system, and other func-tions. In regions where water is in short supply, the recirculation of the hot cooling water through cooling towers, artificial ponds, or impoundments has been practiced. Essential water requirements for nuclear power plants are that sufficient water be available for cooling during plant operation and normal shutdown, for the ultimate heat sink,* and for fire protection. The limitations imposed by existing laws or allocation policies govern the use and consumption of cooling water at potential sites ** for normal operation. Regulatory Guide 1.27 dis-cusses the safety requirements. Consumptive use of water may necessitate an evaluation of existing and future water uses in the area to ensure adequate water supply during droughts both for station operation and other water users (i.e., nuclear power station requirements versus public water supply). Regulatory agencies should be consulted to avoid potential conflicts. Where required by applicable law, demonstration of a request for certification of the rights to withdraw or consume water and an indication that the request is consistent with appropriate State and regional programs and policies should be provided as part of the application for a construction permit or operating license. The availability of essential water during periods of low flow or low water level is an important initial consideration for identifying potential sites on rivers, small shallow lakes, or along coastlines. Both the frequency and duration of low flow or low-level periods should be determined from the historical record and, if the cooling water is to be drawn from impoundments, from projected operating practices.
- Regulatory Guide 1.27, " Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants," provides guidance on water supply for the ultimate heat sink.
- To the extent that site selection is dependent on water diversions for consump-tive use, allocation of water supply is a function of State statutory and administrative procedures.
10
4.3 Water Ouality
)
Thermal and chemical effluents discharged to navigable streams are governed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA, PL 92-500), 40 CFR Part 122, 40 CFR Part 423, and State water quality standards. The applicant should also determine other regulations that are current at the time sites are under consideration. Section 401(a)(1) of the FWPCA requires, in part, that any applicant for an NRC construction permit or combined license (combined construction permit and operating license) for a nuclear power station provide to the NRC certification from the State that any discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and other water pollution control require-ments. In the absence of such certification, no construction permit or com-bined license can be issued by NRC unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable period of time. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge effluents to navigable streams pursuant to Section 402 of the FWPCA may be required for a nuclear power station to operate in compliance with the Act,
')
but is not a prerequisite to an NRC construction permit or operating license. 'd Evaluations of the dispersion and dilution capabilities and potential contamination pathways of the ground-water environment under operating and accident conditions with respect to present and future users are required. Potential radiological and nonradiological contaminants of ground water should be evaluated. The suitability of sites for a specific plant design in areas with a complex ground-water hydrology or of sites located over aquifers that are or may be used by large populations for domestic or industrial water sup-plies or for irrigation water can only be determined after reliable assess-ments have been made of the potential impacts of the reactor plants on the ground water. Accordingly, in 10 CFR Part 100, Subpart B requires that site environmental characteristics, which include hydrological and meteorological characteristics, be characterized and used in or compared to those characteristics used in the plant PRA and environmental analysis. Although management of the quality of surface waters is important, water quality per se is not a determining factor in assessing the suitability of a site since adequate design alternatives can generally be developed to meet the (p
"j requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Commission's regulations implementing NEPA. However, the environmental characteristics or the complexity of the environment at a site and its vicinity may be such that 11
it would be difficult to obtain or develop sufficient information to establish, in a timely manner, that the potential environmental impacts on water quality would be acceptable. Examples of situations that could pose unusual impact assessment or design problems arc dreas of existing marginal water quality, small bays, estuaries, stratified water:, and sites that would require intake from and discharge to waters of markedly different quality, such as intake of marine water and discharge to an estuary. The following are examples of potential environmental effects of station construction and operation that must be assessed: physical and chemical environmental alterations in habitats of important species, including plant-induced rapid changes in environmental conditions; changes in normal current direction or velocity of the cooling water source and receiving water; scour-ing and siltation resulting from construction and cooling water intake and discharge; alterations resulting from dredging and spoil disposal; and interference with shoreline processes.
- 5. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND BIOTA Areas of great importance to the local aquatic ecosystem may present major difficulties in assessing potential impacts on populations of important species or ecological systems. Such areas include those used for breeding (e.g., nesting and spawning), wintering, and feedina, as well as areas where there may be seasonally high concentrations :;f individuals of important O
12
species.* Where the ecological sensitivity of a site under consideration cannot be established from existing information, more detailed studies, as discussed in Regulatory Guide 4.2, may be necessary. Impacts of station con-struction and operation on the biota and ecological systems may be mitigated by design and operational practices if justifiable relative to costs and bene-fits. In general, the important considerations in the balancing of costs and benefits are (1) the uniqueness of a habitat or ecological system within the region under consideration and (2) the amount of habitat or ecological system that would be destroyed or disrupted relative to the total amount of the habitat or ecological system present in the region or the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity of important species populations to the effects of construction and operation of the plant and ancillary facilities. The alteration of one or more of the existing environmental conditions may render a habitat unsuitable as a breeding or nursery area. In some cases, organisms use identical breeding and nursery areas each year; if the charac-teristics of the areas are changed, breeding success may be substantially reduced or enhanced. Destruction of part or all of a breeding or nursery area may cause population shifts that result in increased competition for the remaining suitable areas. Such population shifts cannot compensate for the reduced size of the breeding or nursery areas if the remaining suitable area is already occupied by the species. Some species will desert a breeding area
*A species, whether animal or plant, is important (for the purpose of this guide) if a specific causal link can be identified between the nuclear power station and the species and if one or more of the following criteria applies:
(1) If the species in commercially or recreationally valuable, (2) If the species is endangered or threatened, (3) If the species affects the well-being of some important species within criteria (1) or (2) or if it is critical to the structure and function of a valuable ecological system or is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment. Endangered and threatened species are defined by P'L 93-205, the Endangt. Species Act of 1973, as follows: "The term ' endangered species' means any s,. cies which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secre-tary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man." "The term ' threat-ened species' means any species which is likely to become an endangered species G withi . the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Lists of endangered and threatened species are published periodically in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior. 13
because of man's activities in the proximity to the area, even in the absence of physical disturbance of the actual breeding area. Of special concern relative to site selection are those unique or espe-cially rich feeding areas that might be destroyed, degraded, or made inacces-sible to important species by station construction or operation. Evaluation of feeding areas in relation to potential construction or operation impacts includes the following considerations: size of the feeding area onsite in relation to the total feeding area offsite, food density, time of use, loca-tion in relation to other habitats, topography relative to access routes, and other factors (including human activities). Site modification may reduce the quality of feeding areas by destruction of a portion of the food base, destruction of cover, or both. Construction and operation of nuclear power stations can create barriers to migration, occurring mainly in the aquatic environment. Narrow zones of passage for migratory animals in some rivers and estuaries may be restricted or blocked by station operation. Partial or complete blockage of a zone of passage may result from the discharge of heat or chemicals to receiving water bodies or the construction and placement of power station structures in the water body. Strong-swimming aquatic animals often avoid waters of adverse quality, but larval and immature forms are usually moved and dispersed by water currents; it is therefore important in site selection that the routes and times of movement of the immature stages be considered in relation to potential effects. A detailed assessment of potential impact on the species population would be required for sites where placement of intake or discharge structures would markedly disrupt normal current patterns in migration paths of important species. The potentials for impingement of organisms on cooling water intake structures and entrainment of organisms through the cooling system are deter-mined by a number of variables, including site characteristics, intake struc-ture design, and placement of the structures at the site. Site characteristics should be considered relative to design and placement of cooling system features and the potential of the cooling system to hold fish in an area longer than the normal period of migration or to entrap resident populations in areas where they would be adversely affected, either directly or indirectly, by limited food supply or adverse temperatures. Canals or areas where cooling waters are discharged may induce fish to remain in an unnaturally warmed habitat. The cessation of station operation during 14
winter can be lethal to these fish because of an abrupt drop in water i temperature. ( l
- 6. LAND USE AND AESTHETICS Many impacts on land use at the site and in the site neighborhood from construction and operation of the plant, transmission lines, and transporta-tion corridors can be mitigated by appropriate designs and practices. Aesthe-tic impact; can be reduced by selecting sites where existing topography and forests can be utilized for screening station structures from nearby scenic, historical, or recreational resources. Restoration of natural vegetation, creative landscaping,* and the integration of structures with the environment can mitigate adverse visual impacts.
Preconstruction archeological excavations can usually reduce losses. Short-term salvage archeology may not be sufficient if extensive or valuable archeological sites are found on the potential site for a nuclear station. For areas of archeological concern, the Chief Archeologist of the National Park Service is an information source, as are the State Archeologist and the State Liaison Officer responsible for the National Historic preservation Act activities for a particular state. Proposed alternative land use may render a site unsuitable for a nuclear power station. For example, lands specified by a community (1) as planned for other uses or (2) as restricted to compatible uses vis-a-vis other lands may be unsuitable. Therefore, official land use plans developed by governments at any level and by regional agencies should be consulted for possible conflicts with power station siting. Another class of impacts involves the preempting of existing land use at the site itself. For example, nuclear power station siting in areas uniquely suited for growing specia'ty crops may be considered a type of land conversion involving unacceptable economic dislocation. Sites adjacent to lands devoted to public use may be considered unsuit-able. In particular, the use of some sites or the use of transmission line or transportation corridors close to special areas administered by Federal, State, or local agencies for scenic or recreational use may cause unacceptable
- Station protection requirements for nuclear safeguards may influence landscape design and clearing of vegetation.
15
l impacts regardless of design parameters. Such cases are most apt to arise in areas adjacent to natural resource oriented areas (e.g., Yellowstoi e National Park) as oppored to recreation-oriented areas (e.g., Lake Mead Natio, al Recreation Area). Some historical and archeological sites may also fall into this category. The acceptability of sites near special areas of public use should be determined by consulting cognizant government agencies. The following Federal agencies should be consulted for the special areas listed: 6.1 National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior) National Parks; International Parks; National Memorial Parks; National Battlefields, Battlefield Parks and Battlefield Sites; National Military Parks; Historic Areas and National Historic Sites; National Capital Parks; National Monuments and Cemeteries; National Seashores and Lakeshores; National Rivers and Scenic Riverways; National Recreation Areas; National Scenic Trails and Scientific Reserves; National Parkways 6.2 National Park Service Preservation Proaram National Landmarks Program; Historic American Buildings Survey; National Register of Historic Places; National Historical Landmarks Program; National Park Service Archeological Program l l l 6.3 Bureau of Soort Fisheries and Wildlife (U.S. Department of Interior) National Wildlife Refuges 6.4 Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) ; National Forest Wilderness, Primitive Areas, National Forests. l l Individual States and local governments administer parks, recreation areas, and other public use and benefit areas. Information on these areas should be obtai'ied from cognizant State agencies such as State departments of l natural resources. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or the l 16 l l l
appropriate State historical society should be contacted for information on historic areas. It should be recognized that some areas, as yet ur. designated, may be unsuitable for siting because of public interest in future dedication to public scenic, recreational, or cultural use. Relatively rare land types such as sand dunes and wetlands are prime candidates for such future designation. However, the acceptability of sites for nuclear power stations at some future time in these areas will depend on the existing impacts from industrial, commercial, and other developments.
- 7. INDUSTRIAL. MILITARY. AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Potential accidents at present or projected nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities may affect the safety of a nuclear power sta-tion.* A site should not be selected if, in the event of such an accident, it is not possible to afely shut down a plant at that site or if it is not possible to have nearby facilities alter their mode of oparation or incor-pnrate features to reduce to an acceptable level the likelihood and severity of such potential accidents.
In the event of an accident at a nearby industrial facility such as a chemical plant, rJinery, mining and quarrying operation, oil or gas well, or gas and petroleum product storage installation, it is possible that missiles, shock waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or incendiary fragments may result. These may affect the station itself or the station operators in a way that jeopardizes the safety of the station. Regulatory Guide 1.78, " Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," describes assumptions acceptable to the NRC staff for use in assess-ing the habitability of the control room during and after a postulated exter-nal release of hazardous chemicals and describes criteria that are generally acceptable to the staff for the protection of the control room operators. Nearby military facilities, such as munitions storage areas and ordnance test ranges, may threaten station safety. Regulatory Guide 1.91, " Evaluations I of Explosions Postulated To Occur on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants," describes assumptions acceptable to the NRC staff for use in
*Section 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 lists these safety considerations.
17
1 l assessing potential explosions on nearby transportation routes. The ' acceptability of a site depends on establishing, amor.g other things, that the ; nuclear power station can be designed so its safety will not be affected by an 1 accident at the military installation. Alternatively, an otherwise unaccept-able site may become acceptable if the cognizant military organization agrees to change the installation or mode of aration to reduce the likelihood or sevecity of potential accidents involving the nuclear station to an acceptable level. An accident during the transport of hazardous materials (e.g., by air, waterway, railroad, highway, or pipeline) near a nuclear power plant may gen-erate shock waves, missiles, and toxic or corrosive gases that can affect the safe operation of the station. The consequences of the accident will depend on the proximity of the transportation facility to the site, the nature and maximum quantity of the hazardous material per shipment, and the layout of the nuclear station. Unless a station can be designed to operate safely in the event of a postulated accident or an enforceable agreement can be reached to I limit the transport of hazardous materials or the transportation link can be relocated, the proposed site may not be acceptable. Airports are transportation facilities that pose specialized hazards to nearby nuclear power stations. Potential threats to stations from aircraft l result from the aircraft itself as a missile and from the secondary effects of l a crash, e.g., fire.
- 8. SOCL0 ECONOMICS Social and economic issues are important determinants of siting policy.
It is difficult both to assess the nature of the impacts involved and to l determine value schemes for predicting the level or the acceptability of potential impacts. The siting, construction, and operation of a nuclear power station may have significant impacts on the socioeconomic structure of a community and may place severe stresses on the local labor supply, transportation facilities, and community services in general. There may be changes in the tax basis and in community expenditures, and problems may occur in determining equitable levels of compensation for persons relocated as a result of the station siting. It is usually possible to resolve such difficulties by proper ' coordination with impacted communities; however, some impacts may be locally i 18
unacceptable and too costly to avoid by any reasonable program for their mitigation. Evaluation of the suitability of a site should therefore include consideration of purpose and probable adequacy of socioeconomic impact mitigation plans for such economic impacts on any community where local acceptance problems can be reasonably foreseen. Certain communities near the site may be subject to unusual impacts that would be excessively costly to mitigate. Among such communities are towns that possess notably distinctive cultural character, i.e., towns that have preserved or restored numerous places of historic interest, have specialized in an unusual industry or avocational activity, or have otherwise markedly distinguished themselves from other communities.
- 9. NOISE High noise levels at nuclear stations occur during both the construction and operation phases and could have unacceptable impacts. Cooling tower ,
turbines, and transformers contribute to the noise levels during station operation. C. REGULATORY POSITION
- 1. GEOLOGY / SEISM 0 LOGY Preferred sites are those where there is a minimum likelihood of surface or near surface deformation, or the occurrence of earthquakes on faults in the site vicinity (within a radius of 8 kilometers (5 miles)). Because of the uncertainties and difficulties in mitigating the effects of permanent ground displacement phenomena such as surface faulting or folding, fault creep, sub-sidence or collapse, the NRC staff considers it prudent to select an alter-native site when the potential for permanent ground displacement exists at the site.
Sites located near geologic structures for which there is an inadequate data base at the time of application to determine their potential for causing sur face deformation are likely to be subject to a longer licensing process in view of the need for extensive and detailed geologic and seismic investiga-tions of the site and surrounding region and for the rigorous analyses of the site-plant combination. 19
Sites with competent bedrock for foundations generally have suitable foundation conditions. In regions where there are few or no such sites, it is pt ' dent to select sites in areas with competent and stable solid soils, such as dense sands and glacial tills. Other materials may also provide satisfactory foundation conditions, but in any case, a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation will be required to determine static and dynamic engineering properties of the material underlying the site in accordance. with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100.
- 2. ATMOSPHERIC EXTREMES AND DISPERSION As noted in the Discussion of this guide, site atmospheric conditions are site characteristics principally with respect to the calculation of radiatien doses resulting from the release of fission products as a consequence o r a postulated accident. Accordingly, each applicant for site approval must collect meteorological and hydrological information for at least 1 year that !
is representative of the site conditions, including wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and atmospheric stability. Nonradiological atmospheric considerations such as local fogging and icing, cooling tower drift, cooling tower plume lengths, plume interactions between cooling tower plumes, and plumes from nearby industrial facilities should be considered in evaluating the suitability of potential sites. j
- 3. POPULATION CONSIDERATIONS Areas of low population density are preferred for nuclear power station sites. High population densities projected for any time during the lifetime of a station are considered during both the NRC staff review and the public hearing phases of the licensing process. If the population density at the proposed site is not acceptably low, the applicant will be required to give special attention to alternative sites with icwer population densities.
If the population density, including weighted transient population, projected at the time of site approval exceeds 500 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (50 kilometers) (cumulative population at a' distance divided by the area at that distance), or the pro-jected population density for 40 years after site approval exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles 20
(50 km), special attention should be given to the consideration of alternative I sites with lower population densities. Transient population should be included for those sites where a signifi-cant number of people (other than those just passing through the area) work, reside part-time, or engage in recreational activities and are not permanent residents of the area. The transient population should be taken into account by weighting the transient population according to the fraction of time the transients are in the area. Based on past experience, the NRC staff has found that a minimum exclu-sion distance of 0.4 mile (640 meters), even with unfavorable design basis atmospheric dispersion characteristics, usually provides assurance that engi-neered safety features can be designed to bring the calculated dose from a postulated accident within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1). Also, based on past experience, the NRC staff has found that a distance of 3 miles (5 km) to the outer boundary of the low population zone is usually adequate. Subpart 3 of 10 CFR Part 100 specifies the exclusion area distance. Section 50.34 specifies an LPZ for stationary power reactor applications. I 4. HYDROLOGY 4.1 Floodina To evaluate sites located in river valleys, on flood plains, or along coastlines where there is a potential for flooding, the site suitability studies described in Regulatory 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants," should be made. 4.2 Water Availability A highly dependable system of water supply sourc.es must be shown to be available under postulated occurrences of natural and site-related accidental phenomena or combinations of such phenomena as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59. To evaluate the suitability of sites, there should be reasonable assurance that permits for consumptive use of water in the quantities needed I for a nuclear power plant of the stated approximate capacity and type of 21 l
cooling system can be obtained by the applicant from the appropriate State, local, or regional bodies. 4.3 Water Quality i The potential impacts of nuclear power stations on water quality are likely to be acceptable if effluent limitations, water quality criteria for receiving waters, and other requirements promulgated pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are applicable and satisfied. The criteria provided in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 will be used by the NRC j staff for determining permissible concentrations of radioactive materials i discharged to surface water or to ground water.* 4.4 Fission Product Retention and Transport To be able to assess fission product retention and transportation via ground water, the following information should be determined for the site:
- Soil, sediment, and rock characteristics (e.g., volcanic ash, fractured limestone),
- Absorption and retention coefficients for fission product materials,
- Ground-water velocity, and
- Distance to nearest body of surface water.
This information should be used in the environmental report required in 10 CFR Part 51 and compared to the hydrological information used in the PRA for a certified design (if such a design is to be located at the site) or used in the site specific PRA for a custom plant located at the site. Aquifers that are or may be used by large populations for domestic, municipal, industrial, or irrigation water supplies provide potential pathways
- Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance for design objectives and technical specification requirements for limiting conditions of operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power stations.
22
l 1 l for the transport of radioactive material to humans in the event of an acci-dent. To evaluate the suitability of proposed sites located over such aqui-fers, detailed studies of factors identified in Section 2.4.13 of Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," should be completed.
- 5. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND BIOTA The ecological systems and biota at potential sites and their environs should be sufficiently well known to allow reasonably certain predictions that there would be no unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts on popula-tions of important species or on ecological systems with which they are asso-ciated from the construction or operation of a nuclear power station at the site.
When early site inspections and evaluations indicate that critical or exceptionally complex ecological systems will have to be studied in detail to determine the appropriate plant designs, proposals to use such sites should be deferred unless sites with less complex characteristics are not available. It should be determined whether any important species (as defined in Section B.5 of this guide) inhabit or use the proposed site or its envirms; and the relative abundance and distribution of their populations should be considered. Potential adverse impacts on important species should be iden-tified and assessed. The relative abundance of individuals of an important species inhabiting a potential site should be compared to available informa-tion in the literature concerning the total estimated local population. Any predicted impacts on the species should be evaluated relative to effects on the local population and the total population of the species. The destruction of, or sublethal effects on, a number of individuals that would not adversely affect the reproductive capacity and vitality of a population or the crop of an economically important harvestable population or recreationally important population should generally be acceptable, except in the case of certain endangered species. If there are endangered or threatened species at a site, the potential effects should be evaluated relative to the impact on the local population and the total estimated population over the entire range of the species as noted in the literature. G It should be determined whether there are any important ecological If so, determination should be made as systems at a site or in its environs. 23 l
to whether the ecological systems are especially vulnerable to change or if they contain important species habitats, such as breeding areas (e.g., nesting and spawning areas), nursery, feeding, resting, and wintering areas, or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of individuals of important species. The important considerations in the balancing of costs and benefits include the uniqueness of a habitat or ecological system within the region under consideration, the amount of the habitat or ecological system destroyed or disrupted relative to the total amount in the region, and the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity of important species populations to the effects of construction and operation of the station and ancillary facilities. If sites contain, are adjacent to, or may impact on important ecological systems or habitats that are unique, limited in extent, or necessary to the productivity of populations of important species (e.g., wetlands and estua-ries), they cannot be evaluated as to suitability for a nuclear power station until adequate assessments for the reliable prediction of impacts have been completed and the facility design characteristics that would satisfactorily mitigate the potential ecological impacts have been defined. In areas where reliable and sufficient data are not available, the collection and evaluation of appropriate seasonal data may be required. Migrations of important species and migration routes that pass through the site or its environs should be identified. Generally, the most critical migratory routes relative to nuclear power station siting are those of aquatic species in water bodies associated with the cooling systems. Site conditions that should be identified and evaluated in assessing potential impacts on important aquatic migratory species include (1) narrow zones of passage, (2) migration periods that are coincident with maximum ambient temperatures, (3) potential for major modification of currents by station structures, (4) potential for increased turbidity during construction, and (5) potential for entrapment, entrainment, or impingement by or in the cooling water system, or blocking of migration by facility structures of effluents. The potential blockage of movements of important terrestrial animal populations from the use of the site for a nuclear power station and the availability of alternative routes that would provide for maintenance of the species' breeding population should be assessed. If justifi'able relative to costs and benefits, potential impacts of plant construction and operation on the biota and ecological systems can generally be mitigated by adequate engineering design and site planning and by proper 24
construction and operation practice when there is adequate information about I the vulnerability of the important species and ecological systems. A summary of environmental considerations, parameters, and regulatory positions for use in evaluating the suitability of sites for nuclear power stations is provided in Appendix B to this guide. A discussion of ecological systems and habitats, the level of detail that should be addressed in the site selection process, and the survey, monitoring, and analytical techniques for assessing impacts on important species and ecological systems will be sum-marized in subsequent appendices to this guide.
- 6. LAND USE AND AESTHETICS Land use plans adopted by Federal, State, regional, or local governmental entities should be examined, and any conflict between these plans and use of a potential site should be resolved by consultation with the appropriate governmental entity.
For a potential site on land devoted to specialty crop production where o changes in land use might result in market dislocations, a detailed investi-gation should be provided to demonstrate that potential problems have been identified and resolved. The potential aesthetic impact of nuclear power stations at sites near natural resource oriented public use areas is of particular concern, and evaluation of the suitability of such sites is dependent on consideration of specific station design layout. However, existing aesthetic impacts at poten-tial sites should be taken into account as mitigating any requirements for further special design.
- 7. INDUSTRIAL, MILITARY AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Potentially hazardous facilities and activities within 5 miles of a proposed site should be identified. If a preliminary evaluation of potential accidents at these facilities indicates that the potential hazards from shock waves and missiles approach or exceed those of the design basis tornado for the region
- or if potential hazards such as flammable vapor clouds, toxic 9 *The design basis tornado is described in Regulatory Guide 1.76, " Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants."
25
chemicals, or incendiary fragments exist, the suitability of the site should be detcrmined by detailed evaluation of the degree of risk imposed by the potential hazard. The identification of design basis events resulting from the presence of hazardous materials or activities in the vicinity of a nut: ear power station is acceptable if the design basis events include each postulated type of accident for which a realistic estimate of the probability of occurrence of potential exposures in excess of the proposed Section 50.34(a)(1) guidelines exceeds approximately 10 4 per year. Because of the difficulty of assigning precise numerical values to the probability of occurrence of the types of potential hazards generally considered in determining the acceptability of sites for nuclear stations, judgment must be used as to the acceptability of the overall risk presented by an event. In view of the low probability events under consitration, the probabil-ity of occurrence of the initiating events leading to potential consequences in excess of the proposed Section 50.34(a)(1) exposure guidelines should be based on assumptions that are 6s realistic as is practicable. In addition, because of the low probability of events under consideration, valid statisti-cal data are often not available to permit accurate quantitative calculation of probabilities. Accordingly, a conservative calculation showing that the probability of occurrence of potential exposures in excess of the proposed Section 50.34(a)(1) guidelines is approximately 104 per year is acceptable if, when combined with reasonable qualitative arguments, the realistic probability can be shown to be lower. The effects of design basis events have been appropriately considered if analyses of the effects of those accidents on the safety-related features of a proposed nuclear station have been performed and appropriate measures (e.g., hardening fire protection) to mitigate the consequences of such events have been taken. To evaluate in detail the suitability of sites for potential accidents involving hazardous materials and activities at nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities, the studies described in Section 2.2 of Regu-latory Guide 1.70 should be made. O 26 s -
- 8. SOCI0 ECONOMICS The NRC staff considers that an evaluation of the suitability of nuclear I power station sites near distinctive communities should demonstrate that the l construction and operation of the nuclear station, including transmission and l transportation corridors, and potential problems relating to community ser-vices such as schools, police and fire protection, water and sewage, and !
health facilities, will not adversely affect the distinctive character of the community. A preliminary investigation should be made to identify and analyze problems that may arise from the proximity of a distinctive community to a proposed site.
- 9. NOISE Noise levels at proposed sites must comply with applicable Federal, State, and local noise regulations.
- 10. EMERG1NCY PLANNING G As a minimum, each applicant for site approval should provide a I description of the area within a 10-mile (16 km) radius of the plant emergency planning zone, including:
e population distribution (current and projected for the next 40 years),
- residential, industrial, public, and commercial facilities and structures,
- transportation routes, including any egress limitations, and
- topography. l In addition, the applicant should provide a description of any contacts, evaluations by, and assessments with local, State, and Federal government agencies with emergency planning responsibilities. An evaluation of the above information with respect to its impact on the development of an emergency plan 27
I that can assure adequate protective measures for the populace should be ! provided. l D. IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide. This proposed revision has been released to encourage public participa-tion in its development. Except in those cases in which the applicant pro-poses an acceptable alternative method for complying with the specified por-tions of the Commission's regulations, the method to be described in the l active guide reflecting public comments will be used in the evaluation of l applications for construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses, or design certification submitted after the implementation date to be speci-fied in the active guide. This guide would not be used in the evaluation of an application for an operating license submitted after the implementation date to be specified in the active guide if the construction permit was issued prior to that date. 1 0 28
APPENDIX A SAFETY-RELATED SITE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS This appendix provides a checklist of safety-related site characteris-tics, relevant regulations and regulatory guides, and regulatory experience and positions for assessing site suitability for nuclear power stations. l l l l l lN l A-I
Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience and Regulatory Guides and Position A.1 Geology / Seismology Geologic and seismic 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix B, Where the potential for characteristics of a " Criteria for the Seismic and permanent ground deforma-site, such as surface Geologic Siting of Nuclear tion such as faulting, faulting, ground Power Plants on or after folding, subsidence or col-motion, and founda- [ Effective Date of this lapse exists at a site, the tion conditions Regulation]." NRC staff considers it (including liquefac- prudent to select an tion, subsidence, and Regulatory Guide 1.70, Chapter alternative site. landslide potential), 2 (identifies safety-related may affect the safety site characteristics). Sites should be selected in of a nuclear power areas for which an adequate station. Regulatory Gt.ide 1.29 (dis- geologic data base exists cusses plant safety features to determine " capability." which should be controlled by Delay in licensing can engineering design). result from a need for extensive geologic and seismic investigations. Conservative design of safety-related structures will be required when geo-logic, seismic, and founda- l tion information is ques-t ionable. Sites with competent bed-rock generally have suit-able foundation conditions. If bedrock sites are not available, it is prudent to l select sites in areas known to have a low subsidence and liquefaction potential. Investigations will be required to determine the static and dynamic engi-neering properties of the material underlying the site as stated in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A and Appendix B. O A-2
Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience and Regulatory Guides and Position A.2 Atmospheric I Dispersion The atmospheric con- 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Unfavorable safety-related ditions at a site Licensing of Production and design basis atmospheric should provide suffi- Utilization Facilities." dispersion characteristics cient dispersion of can be compensated for by radioactive materials Regulatory Guide 1.23, "0nsite engineered safety features. released during a Meteorological Programs." Accordingly, the regulatory postulated accident position on atmospheric to reduce the radia- Regulatory Guide 1.5, "Assump- dispersion of radiological tion exposures of tions Used for Evaluating the effluents is incorporated individuals at the Potential Radiological Conse- into the section "Popula-exclusion area and quences of a Steam Line Break tion Considerations" (see low population zone Accident for Boiling Water A.3 of this appendix). boundaries to the Reactors." values prescribed in the proposed 10 CFR Regulatory Guide 1.24, "As-50.34. sumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Pressurized m Water Reactor Radioactive Gas j Storage Tank Failure." Regulatory Guide 1.25, "As-sumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handl-ing Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors." Regulatory Guide 1.145,
" Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Con-sequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants" O
A-3
l 4 Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience I and Regulatory Guides and Position l A.3 Population Considerations i l In the event of a 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site If the population density, serious accident at a Criteria," requires the including weighted tran- l nuclear power sta- following: sient population, projected tion, effective ac- at the time of initial site tion must be taken to e An " exclusion area" approval exceeds 500 per-minimize exposure of surrounding the reactor in sons per square mile individuals outside which the reactor licensee averaged over any radial l the station to any has the authority to deter- distance out to 30 miles ; radioactive materials mine all activities, includ- (cumulative population at a which may be released ing exclusion or removal of distance divided by the during the accident. personnel and property; area at that distance), or To ensure that expo- the projected population sure to populations e 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic density for 40 years after will be minimized in Licensing of Production and site approval exceeds 1,000 the event of an acci- Utilization Facilities." persons per square mile dent, the nuclear averaged over any radial power station should
- A " low population zone" distance out to 30 miles, not be located in a (LPZ) which immediately special attention should be densely populated surrounds the exclusion given to the consideration area. area, of alternative sites with lower population densities. l e At any point on the exclu- '
sion area boundary and on Transient population should the outer boundary of the be included for those sites LPZ the exposure of indivi- where a significant number duals to a postulated of people (other than those release of fission products just passing through the (as a consequence of an area) work, reside part-accident) be less than time, or engage in recrea-certain prescribed values, tional activities, and are not permanent residents of the area. The transient l Regulatory Guides 1.5, 1.24, population should be taken 1.25, and 1.145 give cal- into account by weighting culational methods (see A.2 of the transient population l this appendix). according to the fraction I of time the transients are ! in the area. l Based on past experience, l the NRC staff has found that a minimum exclusion ' distance of 0.4 mile (640 , meters), even with the most unfavorable design basis atmospheric dispersion ! characteristics, provides A-4
~ Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience and Regulatory Guides and' Position I
assurance that engineered safety features can be added that will bring the l calculated doses from a , postulated accident within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.34. Also based on past ; experience, the NRC staff has found that a distance of 3 miles (5 km) to the outer boundary of the LPZ : is usually adequate. : A.4 Hydrology 1 A.4.1 Flooding l Precipitation, wind, 10 CFR Part 100, Proposed To evaluate sites located or seismically in- Appendix B, " Criteria for the in river valleys, on flood-l duced flooding (e.g. , Seismic and Geologic Siting of plains, or along coastlines ! resulting from dam Nuclear Power Plants on or where there is a potential i ~ failure, from river after [ Effective Date of this for flooding, the studies blockage or diver- Regulation]." described in Regulatory sion, or from dis- Guide 1.59 should be made. ; tantly and locally Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design i generated sea waves) Basis Floods for Nuclear Power
- can affect the safety Pl ant s . " l of a nuclear power i i
station. Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Stan- l l dard Format and Content of I l Safety Analysis Reports for l Nuclear Power Plants (LWR ! Edition)" (Section 2.4). 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A,
" General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants;" Cri-terion 2, " Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena."
l i y A-5
I
- Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience and Regulatory Guides and Position '
A.4.2 Water Supply A safety-related 10 CFR Part 100, Proposed A highly dependable system water supply is Appendix B, " Criteria for the of water supply sources l required for normal Seismic and Geologic Siting of should be shown to be or emergency shutdown Nuclear Power Plants on or available under postulated l and cooldown, after [ Effective Date of this occurrences of natural Regulation]." phenomena and site-related accidental phenomena or l Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design combinations of such Basis Floods for Nuclear Power phenomena as discussed in Pl ant s . " Regulatory Guide 1.59. Regulatory Guide 1.27, "Ulti- To evaluate the suitability mate Heat Sink for Nuclear of a site, there must a Power Plants." reasonable assurance that permits for water use and for water consumption in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant of the stated approximate capacity and type of cooling system can be obtained by the ap-plicant from the appropri-ate State, local, or regional bodies. A.4.3 Water Quality Contamination of 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards For The criteria provided in ground water and sur- Protection Against Radiation." 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 will face water by radio- be used by the NRC staff active materials dis- 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic for determining permissible charged from nuclear Licensing of Production and concentrations of radionu-stations could cause Utilization Facilities." clides discharged to sur-public health face water and ground hazards. water. O A-6
) Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience and Regulatory Guides and Position A.5 Industrial, Mili-tary, and Transporta-tion Facilities Hear th3 Site.
Accidents at present 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Potentially hazardous or projected nearby Criteria," Subpart B, Proposed facilities and activities industrial, military, Section 100.22. within 5 miles (8 km) of a and transportation proposed site must be iden-facilities may affect 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, tified. If a preliminary the safety of the " General Design Criteria for evaluation of potential nuclear power Nuclear Power Plants," Criter- accidents of these facili-station, ion 4, " Environmental and ties indicates that the Dynamic Effects Design Bases." potential hazards from shock waves and missiles Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Stan- approach or exceed those of dard Format and Content of the design basis tornado Safety Analysis Reports (LWR for the region (the design Edition)," Section 2.2 (lists basis tornado is described l types of facilities and in Regulatory Guide 1.76), potential accidents). or potential hazards such l as flammable vapor clouds, , I ] / Regulatory Guide 1.78,
" Assumptions for Evaluating toxic chemicals, or incendiary fragments exist, the Habitability of a Nuclear the suitability of the site Power Plant Control Room Dur- should be determined by ing a Postulated Hazardous detailed evaluation of the Chemical Release." potential hazard.
The identification of design basis events result-ing from the presence of nearby hazardous materials or activities in the vicin-ity of a nuclear power sta-tion is acceptable if the design basis events include each postulated type of accident for which a real-istic estimate of the pro-bability of occurrence of potential exposures in excess of 10 CFR 50.34 guidelines exceeds approxi-mately 107 per year. To evaluate the suitability of sites in detail for s
]"y potential accident situations involving A-7 ]
l
l Considerations Relevant Regulations Regulatory Experience l and Regulatory Guides and Position hazardous materials and I activities from nearby ) industrial, military, and transportation facilities, the studies described in Section 2.2 of Regulatory l 4 Guide 1.70 should be made. l 4 O l i 1 l l 0 A-8
- APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS i This appendix summarizes environmental considerations related to site characteristics that should be addressed in the early site selection process.
The relative importance of the different factors to be considered varies with 4 the region or State in which the potential sites are located. ' Siteselectionprocessedcanbefacilitatedbyestablishinglimitsfor various parameters based on the best judgment of specialists knowledgeable of the region under consideration. For example, limits can be chosen for the fraction of water that can be diverted in certain situations without adversely affecting the local populations of important species. Although simplistic because important factors such as the distribution of important species in the water body are not taken into account, such limits can be useful in a screening process for site selection. i l B-1
1 Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.1 Preservation of Important Habitats ; i Important habitats are The proportion of an impor- In general, a detailed those that are essential tant habitat that would be justification should be to maintaining the destroyed or significantly provided when the destruc-reproductive capacity altered in relation to the tion or significant altera-and vitality of impor- total habitat within the tion of more than a few tant species popula- region in which the pro- percent of important tions* or the harvest- posed site is to be located habitat types is propt, sed. able crop of economi- is a useful parameter for cally or recreationally estimating potential The reproductive capacity important species. Such impacts of the construction of populations of important habitats include breed- or operation of a nuclear species and the harvestable ing areas (e.g., nesting power station. The value crop of economically or re-and spawning areas), of the proportion varies creationally important pop-nursery, feeding, rest- among species and among ulations must be maintained i ing, and wintering areas habitats. The region con- unless justification for or other areas of sea- sidered in determining pro- proposed or probable sonally high concentra- portions is the normal geo- changes can be provided. tions of individuals of graphic range of the speci- ) important species. fic population in question. ; The construction and If endangered or threatened operation of nuclear species occur at a site, l power stations (includ- the potential effects of ing new transmission the construction and opera-lines and access corri- tion of a nuclear power i dors constructed in con- station should be evaluated ' junction with the sta- elative to the potential tion) can result in the impact on the local pop-destruction or altera- ulation and the total esti-tion of habitats of mated population over the important species lead- entire range of species. ing to changes in the abundance of a species See also Chapter 2 of Regu-or in the species compo- latory Guide 4.2, "Prepara-sition of a community. tion of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations."
*As defined for this guide in Section B.5.
O B-2
I Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.2 Migratory Routes of Irportant Species Seasonal or daily migra- The width or cross- Narrow reaches of water tions are essential to sectional area of a water bodies should be avoided as maintaining the repro- body at a proposed site sites for locating intake ductive capacity of some relative to the general or discharge structures, important species width or cross-sectional populations. area in the portion of the A zone of passage that will water used by migrating permit normal movement of Disruption of migratory species should be important species popula-patterns can result from estimated. tions and maintenance of partial or complete the harvestable crop of blockage of migratory suggested minimum zones of economically important routes by structures, passage range from 1/3 to populations should be discharge plumes, envi- 3/4 of the width or cross- provided. ronmental alterations, sectional areas of narrow or human activities water bodies.*,** I (e.g., transportation or transmission corridor Some species migrate in d earing and site central, deeper areas while others use marginal, lG preparition). shallow areas. Rivers, streams, and estuaries are
) seldom homogeneous in their lateral dimension with respect to depth, current velocity, and habitat type.
Thus, the use of width or cross-sectional area cri-teria for determining ade-quate zones of passage should be combined with a knowledge of important species and their migratory requirements.
- Water Quality Criteria.1972, National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, 1972.
** Handbook of Environmental Control . Volume III: Water Supply and Treatment, R.G.
Bond and C.P. Straub (Editors), CRS Press, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973. l l B-3
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position
-1 B.3 Entrainment and Impingement of Aquatic Organisms Plankton, including The depth of the water body The site should have char-eggs, larvae, and juve- at the point of intake acteristics that allow nile fish, can be killed relative to the general placement of intake struc- .
or injured by entrain- depth of the water body in tures where the relative I ment through power sta- the vicinity of the site. abundance of important tion cooling systems or species is small and where in discharge plumes. The proportion of water low approach velocities can withdrawn relative to the be attained. (Deep regions The reproductive net new available water at are generally less produc-capacity of important the site is an indirect tive than shallow areas. species populations may measure of the destruction It is not implied that be impaired by lethal of plankton, which in turn benthic intakes are stresses or by sublethal is indicative of possible necessary.) stresses that affect effects on populations of reproduction of indivi- important species. It has Important habitats (see duals or result in been suggested that the B.1) should be avoided as increased predation on fraction of available new locations for intake the affected species water that can be diverted structures. population. is in the range of 10% to 20% of flow.** Fish and other aquatic l organisms can be killed The simplistic parameter or injured by impinge- (proportion of water with-ment on cooling water drawal) is suitable for use intake screens
- or by in a screening process or entrainment in discharge site selection. However, plumes, other factors such as dis-tribution of important species should be consid-ered and in all cases the advice of experts on the local fisheries should be consulted to ensure that proposed withdrawals will not be excessive.
- Approach velocity and screen-face velocity are design criteria that may affect the impingement of larger organisms, principally fish, on intake screens. Acept-able approach and screen-face velocities are based on fish swim speeds that w m vary with the species, site, and season.
- The Water's Edoe: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone, B.H. Ketchum (Editor),
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,1972; and Enaineerina for Resolution of the Eneray-Environment Dilemma, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, 1972. B-4
l Considerations: Parameters Regulatory Position Bo4 Entrapment of Aquatic Organisms Cooling water intake and Site characteristics that Sites where the construc-discharge system fes- will accommodate design tion of intake or discharge tures, such as canais features that mitigate or canals would be necessar" and thermal plumes, can prevent entrapment. should be avoided unless attract and entrap the site and important organisms, principally species characteristics are fish The resulting such that entry of impor-concentration of impor- tant species to the canal tant fish species near can be prevented or limited the station site can by screening. result in higher mor-talities from station-related causes, such as impingement, cold shock, or gas bubble disease, than would otherwise
' occur.
Entrapment can also interrupt normal ! migratory patterns. I l l l I O B-5
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position I B.5 Water Quality Effluents discharged Applicable EPA-approved Pursuant to Section from nuclear power State water quality 401(a)(1) of the FWPCA, plants are governed standards. certification from the under the authority of State that any discharge the Federal Water Pol- For states without EPA- will comply with applicable lution Control Act approved water quality effluent limitations and (FWPCA)--(PL 92-500). standards, the water qual- other water pollution con-ity criteria listed in trol requirements is neces-Water Ou_a]ity Criteria, sary before the NRC can 19R,* will be used for issue a construction permit evaluation, unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable length of time. Issuance of a permit pur-suant to Section 402 of the Act is not a prerequisite to an NRC license or permit. Where station construction or operation has the poten-tial to degrade water qual-ity to the possible detri-ment of other users, more detailed analyses and evaluation of water quality may be necessary.
- Water Quality Criteria.1972, National Academy of Sciences--National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, 1972.
O B-6
} Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.6 Water Availability The consumptive use of Applicable Federal, State, Water use and consumption water for cooling may be and local statutory must comply with statutory restricted by statute, requirements. requirements and be com-may be inconsistent with patible with water use water use planning, or Compatability with water plans of cognizant water may lead to an unaccept- use plan of cognizant water resources planning able impact to the water resource planning agency. agencies. resource. In the absence of a water Consumptive use should be use plan, the effect on restricted such that the other water users is evalu- supply of other users is ated considering flow or not impaired and that volume reduction and the applicable surface water resultant ability of all quality standi.rds could be users to obtain adequate met, assuming normal sta-supply and to meet appli- t. ion operational discharges cable water quality stan- and extreme low flow condi-dards (see B.5, Water tions defined by generally Qual ity) . accepted engineering practices. For multipurpose impounded I lakes and reservoirs, con-sumptive use should be restricted such that the magnitude and frequency of drawdown will not result in unacceptable damage to important habitats (see 8.1, Preservation of Impor-tant Habitats) or be incon-sistent with the management goals for the water body. I B-7
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.7 Established Public Amenity Areas Areas dedicated by Proximity to public amenity Siting in the vicinity of Federal, State, or local area. Viewability (see designated public amenity governments to scenic, B.10, Visual Amenities). areas will generally recreational, or cul- require extensive evalu-tural purposes are gen- ation and justification. erally prohibited areas for siting power The evaluation of the suit-stations. ability 01 sites in the vicinity of public amenity Siting nuclear power areas is dependent on con-stations in the vicinity sideration of a specific of established public plant design and station amenity areas could layout in relation to result in the loss or potential impacts on the deterioration of impor- public amenity area. tant public amenities. B.8 Prospective l Designated Amenity Areas ' Areas containing impor- Comparison of possible Public amenity areas that tant resources for sce- amenity areas in number and are distinctive, unique, or nic, recreational, or extent with other similar rare in a region should be cultural use may not areas available on a local, avoided as sites for currently be designated regional, or national nuclear power stations, as such by public agen- basis, as appropriate. cies but may involve a , net loss to the public l if converted to power ' generation. These areas may include locally rare land types, such as sand dunes, wetlands, or coastal cliffs. B.9 Public Planning Land use for a nuclear Officially adopted land use Land use plans adopted by power station should be plans. Federal, State, regional, l compatible with estab- or local government enti-lished land use or zon- ties must be examined, and ing plans of govern- any conflict between these mental entities. plans and use of a proposed site must be resolved by consultation with the appropriate governmental entity. B-8
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.10 Visual Amenities The presence of power The solid angle subtended The visual intrusion of station structures may by station structures at nuclear power station introduce adverse visual critical viewing points. structures as viewed from impacts to residential, nearby residential, recrea-recreational, scenic, or tional, scenic, or cultural cultural areas or other n u. . 'iould be controlled areas with significant t'y select 1rg sites where dependence on desirable isting topography and viewing characteristics. Isrests can be utilized for streening station struc-tures from those areas in which visual impacts would otherwise be unacceptable. B.11 Local Fogging and Icing Increase in number of hours The hazards on transporta-Water and water vapor of fogging or icing caused tion routes from fog or ice released to the atmo- by operation of the that result from station sphere from recirculat- station. operation should be evalu-7 ing cooling systems can ated. The evaluation
) lead to ground fog and should include estimates of > ice resulting in trans- frequency of occurrence of portation hazards and station-induced fogging and damage to electric icing and their impact on transmission systems. transportation, electrical transmission, and other activities and functions.
B.12 Cooling Tower Drift Concentrations of chemi- The percent drift loss from The potential loss of cals, dissolved solids, recirculating condenser important terrestrial and suspended solids in cooling water, particle species and other resources cooling tower drift size distribution, salt should be considered. could affect terrestrial deposition rate, local biota and result in atmospheric conditions, and unacceptable damage to loss of sensitive terres-vegetation and other trial biota affected by resources. salt deposition from cool-ing tower drift. O l B-9 1
i Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.13 Cooling Tower Plume I Lengths Natural draft cooling The number of hours per The visibility of cooling towers produce cloud- year the plume is visible tower plumes as a function like plumes that vary in as a function of direction of direction and distance I size and altitude and distance from the from cooling towers should I depending on the atmos- cooling towers, be considered. The evalu-pheric conditions. The ation should include esti-plumes are usually a few mates of frequency of ' miles in length before occurrence for plumes as becoming dissipated, well as potential hazards although plume lengths to aviation in the vicinity 1 of 20 to 30 miles have of commercial and military l been reported from cool- airports. ing towers. Visible plumes emitted from cooling towers could . l cause a hazard to com- ' mercial and military aviation in the vicinity of commercial and mili-tary airports. The plumes themselves or their shadows could have aesthetic impacts. B.14 Plume Interaction Water vapor from cooling The degree to which impacts The hazards to public tower plumes may inter- may occur will vary depend- health, structures, and act with industrial ing on the distance between cther resources from poten-emissions from nearby the nuclear and fossil- tial plume interaction facilities to form fueled sites, the hours per between cooling tower noxious or toxic sub- year of plume interaction, plumes and plumes from stances which could the type and concentration fossil-fueled sites and cause adverse public of chemical reaction pro- industrial emissions from health impacts, or ducts, the area of chemical nearby facilities should be result in unacceptable fallout, and the local considered. levels of damage to atmospheric conditions. biota, structures, an other resources. O B-10
Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position B.15 Hoise Undesirable noise levels Applicable Federal, Noise levels at proposed at nuclear power sta- State, and local noise sites must comply with tions could occur during regulations, statutory requirements, both the construction and operation phases and have unacceptable impacts near the plant. B.16 Economic Impact of Preemptive Land Use Nuclear power stations The level of local economic If a preliminary evaluation can preempt large areas, dislocation, such as loss of net local economic especially when large of income, jobs, and pro- impact of the use of pro-cooling lakes are con- duction, caused by preemp- ductive land for a nuclear structed. The land tive use of productive land power station indicates a requirement is likely to and its effect on meeting potential for large eco-be an important issue foreseeable national nomic dislocation, the NRC when a proposed site is demands for agriculture staff will require a on productive land products. detailed evaluation of the (e.g., agricultural potential impact and justi-fication for the use of the Bland)thatislocalb limited in availability site based on a cost-and is important to the effectiveness comparison of ! local economy, or which alternative station designs ' may be needed to meet and site-station combina-foreseeable national tions. To complete its demands for agricultural evaluation, the staff will i products. also need information on whether and to what extent ! the land use affects l national requirements for l agricultural products. l l I B-11
l l l REGULATORY ANALYSIS A separate analysis was not prepared for this regulatory guide. The l draft regulatory analysis, " Proposed Revisions of 10 CFR Part 100 and 10 CFR Part 50," provides the regulatory basis for this guide and examines the costs and benefits of the rule as implemented by the guide. A copy of the draft regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the l NRC Public Document Room, 2121 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, as Enclosure 2 to Secy 92-215. j l l i i RA-1
D l
- 1 l
i 1 i l 1 D i ! Printed l on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program
I, UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL i NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORARAISSION POSTAGE AND FEES PAID l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 USNRC g PERMIT NO. G-67 l OFFICIAL BUSINESS i PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 4 ( 1
-i i
i. N 4 i: i t i 9 : k a 4 1 1-i i ? 8
.s,_-,.m.,_.._-..._,_.-,-....-.._ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ , - . . . . . _ . . _ .- . - - - - - - _ . .}}